Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper
RECENT POSTS
- Will It Get Ugly? Both Sides Prepared for Start of Sotomayor Hearings Monday
- Obama in Africa
- Out of Africa
- Kenyan President should be “squirming”, says country’s political analyst
- An Emotional President Obama Tours Former Slave Port with Family
- O Baby! The Obamas Visit Maternity Clinic in Ghana
- In Ghana, President Obama Gives Tough Love
- 2 Prez Obama: Questions Sent in Via Text, Email from Africa & the World
- Obama Campaign Plane Emergency: Report Shows it Could Have Been Catastrophic
- Give it Some Time, Obama Says in Defending the Recovery Act
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Obama v Obama?
May 29, 2008 9:06 AM
In today's New York Times, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, seeks to clarify his views on meeting with hostile foreign dictators.
“I didn’t say that I would meet unconditionally as John McCain maintained, because that would suggest whether it was useful or not, whether it was advancing our interests or not, I would just do it for the sake of doing it,” Obama said. “That’s not a change in position, that’s simply responding to distortions of my position.”
Okay, let's go to the videotape. You can watch the question and answer HERE and read the transcript HERE.
At last Summer's Youtube/CNN debate here's exactly what Obama said.
He was asked the following: "In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since. In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?"
Okay, so let's review:
* A willingness.
* For meetings.
* Anywhere.
* Without preconditions.
* During the first 12 months of the Obama administration.
* With the leaders of Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea.
* And the goal: bridging the gap that divides the countries.
And Obama's answer?
"I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous. Now, Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire. And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward. And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them. We’ve been talking about Iraq -- one of the first things that I would do in terms of moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria because they’re going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses."
**
One point of confusion seems to come from this: Obama is distinguishing between holding these meetings without "preconditions" -- as Obama said he would be willing to do during that debate, meaning that the U.S. would not require Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment program before agreeing to a meeting -- and holding them "unconditionally," meaning there without any "preparations," which he now says he would not do.
Obama spoke more about this in our interview with him last week.
Can voters be forgiven for not fully understanding Obama's views on this all?
Yesterday, Obama told reporters, "I want to initiate direct talks, starting at a low level, with Iran, exploring the possibilities of seeing a change in behavior in Iran. And hopefully over time, changing the nature of the relationship."
But the dispute isn't over low-level talks, it's over presidential-level meetings.
The initial Youtube question was about whether Obama would meet with the "leaders" of those hostile countries, not specifically Ahmadinejad.
And Obama yesterday told reporters "there is no reason why we would necessarily meet with Ahmadinejad before we know that he is actually in power. He is not the most powerful person in Iran.”
But in a press conference last September, during the controversy over Ahmadinejad being invited to speak at Columbia University, Obama gave the distinct impression that he would specifically meet with Ahmadinejad, in this exchange:
QUESTION: “Senator, you’ve said before that you’d meet with President Ahmadinejad, would you still meet with him today?”
OBAMA: “Nothing’s changed with respect to my belief that strong countries and strong presidents talk to their enemies and talk to their adversaries. I find many of President Ahmadinejad’s statements odious and I’ve said that repeatedly. And I think that we have to recognize that there are a lot of rogue nations in the world that don’t have American interests at heart. But what I also believe is that, as John F. Kennedy said, we should never negotiate out of fear but we should never fear to negotiate. And by us listening to the views even of those who we violently disagree with – that sends a signal to the world that we are going to turn the page on the failed diplomacy that the Bush Administration has practiced for so long.”
-- jpt
May 29, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (108)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
"What I took out of those statements was this, He would be willing once he has the facts, to sit down without "demands" to try and find a peaceful solution, which actually makes sense, if you go into a situation as a "moderator" which is what he is suggesting, you cant go in saying I will moderate for you IF you do this and this and this, that takes you from the position of moderator to a dictator, we cannot dictate to these countries if we expect them to sit down and find a peaceful resolution."
Huh?? Do you even know the defination of moderator? How the hell can we be moderators when the disputes are between us and other countries? LOL
Posted by: Joe | May 30, 2008 11:41:50 AM
Actually I think this little bit of "foreign policy" was born in a debate where Obama actually had to answer the first question. Then he decided that he could sell the American people anything so he began to use it on his webpage as a great new idea in how to solve problesm with hostile nations.
Finally someone must have told Obama that if he meets without "preconditions" he has no negotiating power and he has given away the promise of a meeting with the prsident as leverage. That's why he is trying to have it both ways.
In this campaign he has been able to get everything both ways. It's OK to belong to a Black racist church but no one should use the word "White" in almost any context...
McCain would be a better president. Obama will change America...and some of us love this country in a way that is not "hyperbole" We would like to change America for the Bette...not something that the Obama campaign is capable of...this guy is a "star" not a change agent. I prefer Democracy to Marxism and
would like to see a candidate win instead of watch a movement sweep in with no plan and no real policies.
Obama is a "fly by night" kind of guy.Bush always flew at night....John McCain reminds me less of Bush than Obama does.
e
Posted by: Jackie | May 30, 2008 6:06:34 AM
Evie, no, no, no.
"Preconditions are conditions that must be satisfied before the meeting takes place. Obama is saying no preconditions are necessary. Those dictators get to meet with Obama without having to agree to any preconditions."
You've got that bit pretty much right.
"Prepare as much as you want, but the dictators worldwide now know that they does not have to agree to anything before getting a meeting with President Obama."
And you've got that just plain wrong. They don't have to meet any preconditions. That doesn't mean they don't have to agree to anything! Preconditions are not everything! They will certainly have to agree to certain conditions, and certain general conditions would have to be in place before a meeting took place.
Am I really the only person who understands the difference between preconditions and conditions?
Posted by: Aengil | May 30, 2008 5:10:42 AM
This guy will say anything to get out of what he ACTUALLY said in the beginning. He is a typical pol and the media should be catching on to that by now instead of thinking he is superman
Posted by: harley | May 30, 2008 5:09:02 AM
bho appears to have an "ad lib" candidacy. problem is he cannot remember what he "libbed."
Posted by: pp | May 29, 2008 9:59:50 PM
I "hope" they don't know the truth because then I will have to "change " my story again.
Posted by: unstoppable 08 | May 29, 2008 9:40:49 PM
The problem with Obama is that he cannot admit to a mistake here. His inexperience in foreign policy led him to rashly promise to meet with raging dictators without preconditions.
Preconditions are conditions that must be satisfied before the meeting takes place. Obama is saying no preconditions are necessary. Those dictators get to meet with Obama without having to agree to any preconditions.
Prepare as much as you want, but the dictators worldwide now know that they does not have to agree to anything before getting a meeting with President Obama.
Posted by: Evie | May 29, 2008 8:23:06 PM
Through out Obama's campaign he has many times reputed what he has said. He would state one thing and the statement caught by his campaign to be false, he states then that's not what I meant. Can you just image , President of the United States repeating continuously , 'that's not what I meant'.
Posted by: jp,michigan | May 29, 2008 7:22:12 PM
Obama doesn't have a position and has no knowledge of foreign policy and just says what the Obamakins want to hear.
Posted by: Anders Scooper | May 29, 2008 6:43:56 PM
Has Obama lied again after his uncle's liberation of the Jewish people?
Posted by: Anders Scooper | May 29, 2008 6:40:25 PM
What I took out of those statements was this, He would be willing once he has the facts, to sit down without "demands" to try and find a peaceful solution, which actually makes sense, if you go into a situation as a "moderator" which is what he is suggesting, you cant go in saying I will moderate for you IF you do this and this and this, that takes you from the position of moderator to a dictator, we cannot dictate to these countries if we expect them to sit down and find a peaceful resolution.
Posted by: Common Sense | May 29, 2008 3:28:45 PM
"he is changing his position"
No he isn't. If you think that, you evidently don't understand what his position actually was, and still is.
Posted by: Aengil | May 29, 2008 3:23:03 PM
Has Obama had a single policy stand on anything that hasn't changed his mind on?
Posted by: Just Curious | May 29, 2008 2:49:47 PM
The next most important thing that needs to happen is if Hillary does not run as an independant is for Hillary supporters to vote for McCain. McCain may be a republican but he is a moderate republican and has shown that he has ethics. He will also make sure that our men and women in uniform are supported and will never let them down. We cannot have the liberal Obama who will make a mess of our country like GWB.
Posted by: Voter | May 29, 2008 1:26:15 PM
Now that he is the self-annointed heir apparent, he is changing his position. It's as simple as that. He is conning the American people by pretending to be something he isn't. His house of cards will come down before the general election.
Posted by: Susan | May 29, 2008 1:26:05 PM
West Texas,
The agreement was that the candidate would not:
"campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008." The pledge excepts New Hampshire, Iowa, Nevada and South Carolina, states which were placed ahead of all others by the Democratic National Committee."
"participate" the candidates took off their names to follow the RULES. But HRC used that as a legal loophole and let her name stay.
There was quite a dust up about it. While "legal", it was sleazy. She played dirty politics, while the others were following the intent of the agreement.
Posted by: jmc663 | May 29, 2008 1:18:13 PM
Please present proof that HRC ever agredd to take her name off MI ballot, jjc.
She never even considered such and nowhere is it written that she did.
Please stick to facts.
Posted by: West Texas | May 29, 2008 1:03:11 PM
Any fool can see that "preconditions" are not "preparations." Any person can also see that preparations are needed for any level of diplomacy. Obama is no fool. This is a deliberate revision of his original statement, which was made in a cavalier, off-the-cuff manner. Now he is paying for his arrogance, and attempting to revise with more condescension to the public.
This is lawyerly, not-too-clever, obfuscation. See through it.
Posted by: Wade | May 29, 2008 12:51:43 PM
West Texas,
The MI DNC mailed out a Voter's Guide to the 2008 Primary to all registered voters. They specifically stated to vote "Uncommited" for Biden, Edwards, Obama and Richardson. None of their names were on the ballot.
While it is impossible to tell the voters intent and who they were voting for, Biden and Richarson were not polling high here. Most likely the votes were between Edwards and Obama.
None of these guys forfeited MI, they can to an agreement last year to pull their names off the ballot to show support for the DNC sanctions. Clinton originally agreed, then changed her mind and allowed her name to remain. Dodd and that little guy who looks like an elf never pledged either way.
Posted by: jmc663 | May 29, 2008 12:45:07 PM
Senator Obama talks out of both sides of his mouth and does not think through his policies and agenda. He flip-flops and distorts. He is not presidential material and should go back to his corrupt Chicago political machine. The citizens there are still waiting for him to fulfill his promises made 12 years ago. All talk and no action is his resume. He is an inept politician.
Posted by: Mary | May 29, 2008 12:34:13 PM
Post a comment
