Obama Camp Denies Backtracking on "Undivided" Jerusalem

La in Indiana,

On the recent news, The NY Senates have welcome her to come back to the senate soon.

this is yet further proof of his amateur status in foreign policy.

Sounds like the Rev Wright was correct...he is a true politician and will say whatever it takes to be elected.

I would feel more comftable if Obama would have attacked Carters maverick diplomacy at the time....seems to me that Obama's policy was originally built around a debate gaffe and taken forward by his greatest ally Jimmy Carter.

Why didn't Obama have the principles to strongly denounced Carter at the time...IF Obama's feelings and policies actually differ from Farrakan and Wright and the hate rhetoric that his long time church preached that's great.

I think he is going to have to at some point start to speak out quickly if this is the case.

McCains promise of an end to the "permanent campaign" is a lot more compelling an believable than Obama's promise that he doesn't not believe the views that his church teaches.

The confusion with Obama is not about Republican memos about his religion....the confusion is the obvious links (sanitized by the media) between Farrakan's radical Islam and Hamas quotes in the "Trumpet" in November 2007 and Wright"s constant embrace of these views and Trinity teachings and 20 years of church attendence that Obama did not hear.

Hey, ECG; ask Neville Chamberlain how well *that* strategy worked for him.
Or 3000 or so the innocents working at the WTC...
If you wait for evil to come to your door, you'll be fighting on his terms in your house not on your terms in his house. Ideally, fighting shouldn't be necessary, but if it comes to that, it is best if its the other guy who buys the farm, not you or yours.

Sad that folks have already forgotten the two seminal lessons of the 20th century:
1- The best way to avoid fighting a war is to be prepared to fight it *and* let the other guy know it. (I.e., Cold War).
2- The Surest way to end up fighting a war is to be un-willing to fight at all and make sure *everybody* knows it.

Well, Obama sure has made it clear to all comers he is not going to fight for *anything* because in his book nothing is worth fighting over. That's just the kinda guy he is. Jimmy Carter is proud of him.

"Now, of course, that means that if preventing genocide is not enough to trigger US intervention, obviously, *nothing* is. Obama is 100% isolationist and he's made it very clear. No draft will be needed if he is not going to use the military for anything..."

How about using the military for DEFENSE, and not mucking about in other people's countries?

I am now pretty disappointed with Obama's middle east statements after all the rhetoric about fairness and fresh starts..

The conflict will not end without US pressure, and it seems like none will come from Obama if he personally believes that Arab East Jerusalem should just be gifted to Israel.

This is one of the main issues, and these statements show either his inexperience, or his willingness to trade principles for votes.

I think that Mr. Wexler's comment should end this rather ridiculous criticism of a non-controversy in Senator Obama's position. If the media paid attention to substance, rather than to the dumbed down summary of a complex matter, we would all be better off.

As for a commentator above who mentioned Senator Obama's position that genocide is not "in and of itself" a rationale for a U.S. military intervention -- this too does not seem to be much of an issue -- unless the commenter really thinks that U.S. military forces should be used in this fashion. After 7 years of overreaching by an Administration seemingly bent on the destruction of readiness, morale, and the supremacy of the U.S. military position -- I find it refreshing that soon to be President Obama is not in favor of blank check applications of U.S. military power without proper planning and an answer to the following question: what would happen the day "after" the U.S. intervenes militarily into a conflict where the international community is either divided, or actively opposed, to an external actor invading a sovereign country? Or has the lesson of Iraq been lost on democrats who want to expend the lives of American soldiers for causes less than vital to our national interests?

As a Obama supporter, I think I can honestly say the undivided Jersulem issue is a backtrack in positions.

He made it seem like the Middle East was open for negotiations. He also made it seem like he understood what was at the heart of the matter. One issue is Israel. If he is going to hold firm with the current obvious politics, then I don't see how he is going to get any movement there.

If he comes into the negotiation with one firm position like undivided Jerusalem as a precondition, how does he expect anyone to be willing to talk to him? No one wants to talk just to talk, they want a settlement of some kind.

Barack Obama: The candidate for every position .... stick around. You'll hear the one you want ... and then the next day, you'll hear the opposite. He makes John Kerry sound Bushlike, doesn't he?

fjtorres: Obama says lots of things. he makes it up as he goes. One day the threat from Iran is "tiny." The next day it is "grave." (I happen to think it's somewhat in-between-y, but I am not informed by Divine Revelation.)

Obama should smile, read his teleprompter, and not open his mouth otherwise. He has a good chance of blowing a guanteed election for the Democrates.

Mesquito: You do realize that Obama is on record as stating that "the prevention of genocide is not sufficient justification" for deployment of US forces, right? May, 2007. Do a web search on Obama and Genocide. Now, of course, that means that if preventing genocide is not enough to trigger US intervention, obviously, *nothing* is. Obama is 100% isolationist and he's made it very clear. No draft will be needed if he is not going to use the military for anything...

If his adviser to the middle east says no progress wll be made unless jerusalem is on the table then Obama is the one who is disconnecting with reality when he says that Jerusalem is not to be divided, while still making noise and expending resources towards solution. Either his advisor is wrong or Obama is wrong. Which one is it? Obama, do you believe in and agree with your advisor? Or not?

la in INDIANA,
how do you figure sen clinton will lose her senate seat?

IF mccain wins, hillary will lose her senate seat....guaranteed!

Obama: "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided."

Obama (the next day): "Why are you distracting me with these snippets? How does this help my children?"

For now ,college age voters are motivated by Obamas' commitment to rereat in Iraq. However,under Obama, U.S. military power would ultimately be neccesary in Pakistan,Sudan,Rwanda, Kenya,Sierra Leone & Zimbabwe to prevent genocide, due in part, by tribalism spanning centuries.What a surprise his young flock will have when they receive DRAFT notices from their New Age Leader!

What would Obama do If Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons?
**************************************

Why of course he would sit down with Ahmadinajad, like any good little Empty Suit" would do and tea a cookies with the madman while they discuss the situation.

Why does the USofA have such a strong interest in Israel while ignoring other Countries .. i Mean i don’t get It but it seems as if The candidates are running for President of USA + Israel …. Is Israel the 51st State in America ? .. Why not Consider the Interests of other Nations in the World Instead of Playing (..what others may see as ) Favoritism to a Particular Country..