Mr. Obama and his campaign have stressed that while the Democrat would depart from the Bush administration’s policy of refusing to meet with certain nations that fail to meet preconditions, he would not necessarily engage in presidential-level talks with them.Of course, that is not what Barack Obama said during the CNN YouTube Debate last year:
Here is the transcript:
QUESTION: In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since.But, that fact didn't stop The New York Times from lying today to prop up Obama.
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?
OBAMA: 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.
And, funny this wasn't the first time that The New York Times tried this...
Back on May 10th The New York Times wrote a similar article:
Mr. McCain and his surrogates have repeatedly stated that Mr. Obama would be willing to meet “unconditionally” with Mr. Ahmadinejad. But Dr. Rice said that this was not the case for Iran or any other so-called “rogue” state. Mr. Obama believes “that engagement at the presidential level, at the appropriate time and with the appropriate preparation, can be used to leverage the change we need,” Dr. Rice said. “But nobody said he would initiate contacts at the presidential level; that requires due preparation and advance work.”Of course, this wasn't true back then, either.
Someone should let Barack Obama know that diplomatic engagements have been repeatedly disastrous for the US in regards to Iran.
Previously:
BUSTED!... Obama Can't Rewrite History When It's Still Posted On His Website!
UPDATE: The New York Times corrected one of its lies.
If Baraq "What I ment when I said" Obama has such great communication skills, I wonder why he has to spend so much time clarifying what he actually said. That's what I would as the New "This is really what Obama ment" York Times.
ReplyDeleteGP,
ReplyDelete"Willing" to meet with foreign leaders does not equate to "pledging" to meet with them. In frequenting this blog and commenting every so often, I do not expect you to make such a distinction in your writing, regardless of whether you see it. However, I feel oddly compelled to point out such nonsense lest a reader take it at face value.
Thank goodness Canadian Tar heel is here to cull the through the supreme and nuanced rhetorical rhapsody that is Obamaspeak! ("Willing" does not equate to "pledge"). First, that distinction doesn't even pass the laugh test when applied in the context of the subject matter; and secondly, ObamaMessiah's videotaped admission (relevant portions transcribed above for your convenience) unequivocally states he "would" meet with Iranian leaders without precondition. It is of particular import to note that the words "willing" and "pledge", as propounded by Tar Heel, do not even enter into the equation. Hopefully Tar Heel is still working on his reading comprehension at UNC while he plies away at clarifying the truth for the rest of us...
ReplyDeleteYeah, thankfully the canadian tar heel is well versed in LIBTARD speak, otherwise we could never figure out what the Boy Blunder is really trying to say...ROFLMAO!
ReplyDeleteGee, I wonder how the ole gray slag will spin the following?
Mind you there is an upside here...
Biggest Losers Under Obama's Plan to Remove the Current $102k Wage Ceiling for Social Security Taxes
Here are the ten states that would be hardest hit by Obama's proposal (along with the percentage of the state's workers who would see their taxes increase under the Obama plan):
New Jersey (10.7%)
Maryland (9.6%)
Connecticut (9.5%)
Virginia (9.0%)
Massachusetts (8.9%)
California (8.8%)
New York (8.0%)
Illinois (7.02%)
Colorado (6.96%)
New Hampshire (6.8%)
Yes sir, all blue states and states that'll probably vote Obama in November...
Ahhh, the irony of it all...
Canadien Tar Heel, maybe what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad really meant by wiping Isreal off the face of the earth was, "I don't like matzah ball soup". Semantic distinction, right!
ReplyDeleteWell I should mention that the, "Newspaper Correction of the Day" was caught by No Oil For Pacifists...
ReplyDeleteFrom the ole gray slag: A Fiery Theology Under Fire
Correction: June 1, 2008
"An article on May 4 about black liberation theology and the debate surrounding the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr, Senator Barack Obama’s former minister, erroneously confirmed a statement by Mr. Wright that the United States has used biological weapons against other countries. There is no evidence that the United States ever did so"...
Makes one wonder if it is the New York Times that the Boy Blunder gets his ideas for his numerous verbal gaffes?
Sadat was assassinated in 1981. I don't think he was making any trips to Israel in 1982.
ReplyDeleteCanadian Tar Heel,
ReplyDeleteYour just upset Obama didn't say, "Yes we can." LOL, there are good responses to your OBama-logic. You must "feel oddly" about distorting the truth. From Obama's website:
"Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions."
Note these current distinctions? "only" "direct" "without preconditions" on Obama's website? To any non-worshipping Obama-ite, it is obvious thru Obama's words during the CNN debate and his website exactly what he means. He "would" meet with the nutjob "without preconditions."
In terms of a lawyer, its like agreeing to a plea bargin for a murderer without any preset terms for a reduced sentence. Or like walking into court, informing the Judge that prosecution has reached a pre-arranged agreement to set a murderer free, but without any "pre-arranged" conditions for parole or failure that would return the murderer back to jail.
This is all to often close to being true for ultra-liberals today.
Such a prosecutor "should" be thrown out of court and lose their job. What does the word "tough" mean? Tough as in Columbia's President? Ooooh that truly scared the Iranian nutjob in his speech on Columbian campus.
The question was clear, the answer clear. And GP followed up with Web Site evidence from Obama's Presedential campaign site. You "oddly" refuse to see the truth. You cannot get away from what Obama stated, or how he has since waffled and said he "meant preparations" first.
This is a Harvard lawyer trained in the art of verbal hijinx to sidestep absolute truth thru oratory language skills yet he is floundering in the light of day.
As Ankchank stated, "communication skills" are where? Maybe it is the fact that he's been given easy jobs by William Ayers Daddy? And he served as a psuedo professor of law in Chi-town? As a lecturer? Instead of actually practicing law in a professional firm where he must try court cases?
This guy is a major failure all the way around. He would be an incompetent trial lawyer or constitutional lawyer as he is trained. He's to inexperienced, over his head and to arrogant to understand his own faults. He's yet to truly reflect on the idiocy of Wright, Pfleger and 20 years sufficiently to understand how wrong he was in believing their racist theology.
He's been pushed into the Presidential campaign by powers above him far to fast after doing essentially nothing in his life. He's been a Community Organizer in a clan of Communist rejects and Marxist black theologist haters. This was enough to get him elected in Chi-town politics where he voted "present" 130 times and doled out $200,000 to Pfleger.
From William Ayers to Wright, Farrakhan to Pfleger he was their annointed Chi-town savior. They believed it would translate into the Presidency. But it does not translate into Commander In Chief during a time of war. Let alone during peace time as Presidential material.
The King Makers of the Left strike out this time. Let him get another 10 years under his belt actually putting forth legislation and fighting for principles he believes in where he votes yay or nay on issues of meaning to the public. Get him truly bloodied about a bit as any true savior's sacrifice and lets see how the fasle messiah comes out of it all the worse for wear. This false knight in tainted armor thrown upon the public by people like David Axelrod is a tinpot stooge so far. No experience, unexceptional word and oratory skills when actually challenged, average at best and a record of appeasement, corruption in Chi-town, paybacks, kickbacks, and seedy friends.
If this is the best the left can do then expect its split and demise. With the ultra uber-liberals following Obama and the less-leftist losers of Hillary splitting along identity politics.
He continually goofs and gaffes from 20 years in a church of hatred to not knowing the first thing in regards to negotiating with enemy nations. He cites history incorrectly to back up his incorrect youthful naivety. Because his handlers cannot be with him all the time, he bunggles his answers in real situations.
He is a neophyte Senator from the Southside of Chicago where bravado, loud oratory without challenge, racism and corrupt politics gets you elected against "whitey." That's all. Nothing else. He's got squat.
And he will be shredded during the general election as the weak, uninformed, rube that he is.
Kabal32 and cymbalta,
ReplyDeleteIt would seem that you two failed to watch the video or to read the transcript of the question and answer provided in the post above. To recap: "would you be willing to meet" with unsavory leaders? "[Yes,] I would." No where in the question or the answer does anyone imply "necessarily engag[ing] in presidential-level talks with them".
This is simply a question of actually reading the transcript or watching the video for what they are without imputing what you wish they had said.
Joshua,
ReplyDeletePlease point out in either the quote you provided or the one in the post above, where it says that Obama would necessarily/definitely meet with a foreign leader. And please explain how willing to meet with a foreign leader or supporting the notion of diplomacy equates to necessarily speaking with a given foreign leader.
Actually, perhaps I should be asking, do you understand the foreign policy of preconditions to negotiation? Is it reasonable to think that all countries and all leaders, especially those who disagree, would be willing to concede key points simply for the privilege of having the US listen to them?
Barry to Mahmoud:Will you stop using oil revenue to develop nuclear weapons?
ReplyDeleteMahmoud to Barry:No!
Barry to Mahmoud:Will you stop threatening Israel with annihilation, and recognize their righ to exist?
Mahmoud to Barry:No!
Barry to Mahmoud:Will you stop sponsoring terrorism in Iraq and Lebanon?
Mahmoud to Barry:No!
Barry to Mahmoud:Well then, we'll have to go back to the UN for more sanctions!
Mahmoud to Barry:Go ahead!
Canadian Tar Heel,
ReplyDeleteYou err - perhaps wilfully.
GP's post simply points out the incongruity between the NYT's revisionist meme that Obama is willing to meet, but only should certain conditions be met, with what he actually said. Nowhere in GP's post does he use the term pledge - this can only be an invention on your part to divert attention from the salient point being made. That point would be the deliberate inaccuracy of the NYT in reporting that what Obama really meant was that he would be willing to meet under certain conditions when this is clearly not the case.
If you would like to, you can try and find some way to "equate" and/or "distinguish" "willing" with "pledge" and "with" and "without" preconditions within the following direct quotation cited by GP:
Q: "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?"
A (Obama): I would.
Unfortunately, his quite definitive and very clear response leaves little room for doubt that he did indeed state that he would meet any and all without any preconditions. Moreover, the use of "you" (meaning Obama) in the question and the comparison to Sadat also leaves little doubt that such a meeting would be at the Presidential level.