Rewriting History, Obama-Style
Posted May 12th, 2008 by Da King
We all remember when Barack Obama said he would meet with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to negotiate, without precondition. Obama said it during a YouTube debate, and has repeated his promise to negotiate with our enemies as well as our friends many times. It has even become part of his stump speech. Hillary Clinton used it as an example of Obama's inexperience and naivete on foreign policy. Nevertheless, Barack stuck to his guns, saying that his view represented a break from the politics of the past, was the hope and change that americans want, and probably a few other airy Obamanian catchphrases as well.
Until now.
Maybe it was the way the terrorist group Hamas turned Jimmy Carter into a "useful idiot" and used his meeting to legitimize themselves and propagandize the Israel/Palestine issue, or maybe it was the fact that Hamas endorsed Barack Obama for president of the USA, leading to some back and forth contention between Obama and John McCain. Whatever it was, the Obama camp sensed a shift in the political winds, and is now backing away from the idea of negotiating with our enemies, to the point that they are even saying Obama didn't say what we all so clearly heard him say before. The liberal's best friend, the New York Times, is rushing to aid the Obama campaign in changing history. Here's an excerpt from the relevant Times article:
…But important nuances appear to have been lost in the partisan salvos, particularly on Mr. McCain’s side. An examination of Mr. Obama’s numerous public statements on the subjects indicates that he has consistently condemned Hamas as a “terrorist organization,” has not sought the group’s support and does not advocate immediate, direct or unconditional negotiations with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president
Note how the Times says the McCain side has "lost" "important nuances" (love that phraseology), even as the Times is TELLING A BLATANT FALSEHOOD REGARDING WHAT OBAMA SAID ABOUT IRAN. Classic, typical, and hilarious.
Susan E. Rice, an Obama foreign policy advisor, further added this, according to the same Times article:
“for political purposes, Senator Obama’s opponents on the right have distorted and reframed” his views. 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.”
The problem with the statements of Dr. Rice and the New York Times, as I said, is that they they are patently false. They are attempting a little mid-campaign spin, because they have been caught with their pants down. Obama DID say he would personally meet with Iran, without preconditions, and he not only said it in front of the whole nation during the YouTube debate, he also SAID IT IN A NEW YORK TIMES INTERVIEW, which the Times has conveniently forgotten. Here's a little from THAT interview, from november 2007 (the misty "beforetimes" which have been erased from the Times memory banks):
Senator Barack Obama said he would “engage in aggressive personal diplomacy” with Iran if elected president…Making clear that he planned to talk to Iran without preconditions, Mr. Obama emphasized further that “changes in behavior” by Iran could possibly be rewarded with membership in the World Trade Organization, other economic benefits and security guarantees…“We are willing to talk about certain assurances in the context of them showing some good faith,” [Obama] said in the interview at his campaign headquarters here. “I think it is important for us to send a signal that we are not hellbent on regime change, just for the sake of regime change…"
Oops. Blatant lie exposed. When first we practice to deceive….
Here's another interesting part of that 2007 Times interview:
Mr. Obama has also talked about keeping a limited force in Iraq after withdrawing American combat units at the rate of one or two per month. But Mr. Obama insisted in the interview that the mission of his residual force would be more limited than that posited by Mrs. Clinton.
Excuse me, but would that residual military force in Iraq be the same residual military force that has become one of the Democrats big phony talking points against McCain, stirred up by distorting McCain's "we might stay in Iraq for 100 years" comment ? Why, yes, I believe it would. Lie times two.
They say Barack Obama represents a new kind of politics, but to me, this sounds exactly like the old kind. Just a bunch of politically expedient BS. No character, no truth, just spin, spin, spin.
May 12th, 2008 at 6:13 am
"Hamas endorsed Barack Obama for president of the USA, … "
That is a fact the Dims try to bury.
But of course, a radical, hate-the-West group of Muslim would endorse B. Hussein Obama for president of the U.S. What else would you expect?
May 12th, 2008 at 6:52 am
Bush' allies in the mideast include Saudi Arabia and Egypt neither of whom recognize Israel !Oh, and didn't our handpicked leader in Iraq meet and embrace Ahmadinejad?By the way anybody notice that we have switched sides in Iraq?
May 12th, 2008 at 7:40 am
Nothing more than politics as usual. To the blind sheep, his talk of unconditional diplomacy and battlefield surrenders play well. However, when it comes to winning over those without fleece, his message is conveniently changed. This might be the "change" we keep hearing about, but isn't it also called waffling?
It'll be delightful watching him debate McCain, on the 100 year quote taken out of context. McCain can simply post the You-Tube clip and let the voters decide who is more legitimate. Osama talks about wanting to debate the issues, but he may want to reconsider this plan and stick with the "age" card. It'll justify his shortcomings when he gets "schooled" by an elder.
On a more positive note, Hill is 30 points+, in the W.Virginia battle. While it may not net an enormous amount of pledged delegates, the super-delegates will have to follow the will of the voters and the same will apply in Kentucky. Isn't this what the BO camp argued? We'll have to see how this one pans out. Also, Chris Mathews was nearly in tears discussing the Puerto Rico primary. He feels that the popular vote should not be applied to the process because it does not represent the continental US. What about Hawaii then? More "unbiased" assessments from the "responsible" media. One can only sense more disenfranchisement, as we have witnessed in Florida and Michigan.
***King said: Excuse me, but would that residual military force in Iraq be the same residual military force that has become one of the Democrats big phony talking points against McCain, stirred up by distorting McCain's "we might stay in Iraq for 100 years" comment ?***
I think he referred to it as a strikeforce and it leaves a vague impression that a handful of individuals will suffice. Maybe Steven Seagal, VanDamme, and Lorenzo Lamas can form such a unit and allow troops to withdraw, but Osama might want to consider laying off the "B" movies and focus on what he knows best: sipping Chablis, nibbling brie, and belittlling mainstream Americans.
May 12th, 2008 at 7:42 am
Beware Obama Bin Liar…
" I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction "
Be Afraid !!!
Be Very Afraid !!!
May 12th, 2008 at 8:23 am
[...] All Da King's Men wrote an interesting post today on Rewriting History, Obama-StyleHere's a quick excerpt … cCain, stirred up by distorting McCain's "we might stay in Iraq for 100 years" comment ? Why, yes, I believe it would. Lie times two….Excuse me, but would that residual military force in Iraq be the same residual military force that has become one of the Democrats big phony talking points against M…Mr. Obama has also talked about keeping a limited force in Iraq after withdrawing American combat units at the rate of one or two per month…. [...]
May 12th, 2008 at 8:38 am
Straining at gnats while swallowing camels.
The point Obama has made….and made consistently….is that Bush, the Younger's, stupid refusal to engage specific foreign leaders is childish and……ignorant. It is.
Obama's way is neither naive or deceitful.
You pose the idea that Obama is either flip-flopping or making it up as he goes along. That may satisfy wingers but reality based folks understand the rationale Obama is using.
The guy is a very good candidate and so I understand how hard it is to attack him with anything substantive. I sympathize with your dilemma. Do you suppose that's why the GOP slime merchants and the McCain teevee servicers insist on trivialities and race baiting in going after Obama?
May 12th, 2008 at 9:10 am
Rev Red, I will agree with you that Obama is a very good candidate. He has managed to time and again tell people what they want to hear and switch to something different for the next group and still the young ladies and older Oprah worshipping, older white women manage to swoon at the very sound of his words. I think that there is a possibility that few of them hear a word that he says. That they just swoon at the sound of his voice. He is indeed a very old fashioned politician with a new message of hope and change. I am beginning to hope that he doesn't change too rapidly for the swooners to keep up with him.
Rev do you really want to say that what King has said about Obama changing his message with the aid of the al Times is not true. I didn't see you saying that but I did see you trying to change the topic, in left handed style, and trying to say that he is being attacked by the GOP for things he didn't do. You don't really believe what King said is untrue, do you? I think you do believe that but then you believe that leftspin is the only direction to go so spin away, preacher.
May 12th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Poor Reverend has to be disappointed. He's spent countless hours defending Jeremiah Wright, etc., but then his candidate does a reversal and he has to start all over again.
Any reality based individual can understand the rationale behind it all, which has to be a little humiliating for the poor Reverend. I just pray he's not taking it out grilling on his neice or the new baby.
May 12th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
How I love it when the Reverend describes himself as "reality-based" in the same sentence in which he is denying the plain facts.
And Rev, this IS a policy issue, unless the insanity of the Obamites has reached such a fever pitch that ANY criticism of the messiah is now considered race-baiting and a distraction. You are sounding more and more like an apostle, and less and less in touch with that mythical "reality" of yours. When does the plane leave for Jonestown ?
May 12th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
And check it out, Larry D.
The new pastor at Jeremiah Wright's church of hate in Chicago — another screaming clown named Moss — is just as much a radical as Wright is [was].
Poor BO. He can't catch a break.
May 12th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Didn't Obama manage to change what he wanted to say over the Jeremiah Wright thing? He said that Wright never did say those things but when he could no longer defend it he just said he didn't like it and finally said he didn't like it but kept his mouth shut. He just can't keep things straight and his supporters will say that he is just tired. I wonder why Hillary can't get tired when she is nearly 15 years older than he is.
I can't wait for someone to ask him to tell McCain where the other 10 states are so he can campaign in them too.
May 13th, 2008 at 12:31 am
Rev, you try and minimialize every thing he does wrong.
Either he is or is not going to meet with Iran, Cuba etc.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:56 am
Roy,
Obama love this country so much that he's campaigning in states nobody else has even discovered yet. Now, that is a patriot.
Obama's different statements about Jeremiah Wright are laugh out loud funny if you put them all side by side. From what I can gather, Obama didn't hear Wright say those vile things, but he condemns the vile things he did hear, and they were taken out of context, until Wright repeated them in context, and then they were even worse than they were to begin with. Rev. Wright was and then wasn't Obama's advisor and mentor, and now Obama never even knew the man he knew for 20 years, who married him, baptized his kids, and was on his presidential campaign staff. Like I said, laugh out loud funny. And as Vince pointed out, the new church pastor is the same as the old pastor, because that's what the church is all about in the first place, black liberation theology (which Obama didn't know either, lol).
May 13th, 2008 at 7:08 am
[quote Da King]
And Rev, this IS a policy issue, unless the insanity of the Obamites has reached such a fever pitch that ANY criticism of the messiah is now considered race-baiting and a distraction. [/quote]
The Rev did not say that this criticism of Obama was race-baiting.
Think before you type.
May 13th, 2008 at 7:42 am
roy: Did old ladies "swoon" over Ronnie Reagan? To swoon means to enter a state of hysterical rapture. Is that really what's going on with Obama voters?
What you call swooning is really excitement, hope and relief after the madmen Bush/Cheney.
Guilt by association is not going to cut it this cycle. So King….you might as well save the constant Wright issue ressurrection.
And I really think it is straining for gnats with the "meeting with foreign leaders" issue. Obama will do what George W. Bush has REFUSED to do. That's really why the usual suspects are making so much noise. Bush, the Younger will be defended to the bitter end….and even Obama's point about meeting with leaders can't go by unpunished.
Ben: I'm no minimalist. Obama said he would meet with foreign leaders…..something Junior refused to do….how Obama goes about doing that is really not the point. He WILL do it….that's what's important…..and it's also a break with the sorry and failed policy of the Bush/Cheney junta.
larry: I hope you are proud of yourself…..picking on a man of the cloth, like me……the dishcloth.
May 13th, 2008 at 8:39 am
Rev Red, I recently read an article that pointed out that Muslims who convert to Christianity are to be killed for the crime of apostasy. Two countries in the Middle East like to enforce that order they take from the Koran. Those countries are Saudi Arabia and Iran. At least we know that Obama's chances of meeting with the heads of those states in their nations is slim and probably none. He won't be able to meet with Ahmedinejad in Iran because he did convert, according to his own words. Some sly Iranian may try to cut his head off if he goes to Iran.
Oh well maybe Assad will still be in control and he can sit down with Imajihad in Syria or even Lebanon. These are two countries that Iran supports in their battle against Israel and Obama isn't really an Israeli supporter.
I have been wondering about those 10 new states that Obama found out in Oregon and if any of them could be Syria and/or Iran. Do you know any of his additions? I want McCain to be able to campaign in them on an equal footing with Obama to make it a fair battle.
May 13th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Tom;
[quote The Rev]
Do you suppose that's why the GOP slime merchants and the McCain teevee servicers insist on trivialities and race baiting in going after Obama?
[/quote]
You need to do some reading before you type. See the words race baiting?
So, in the rev's mind, foreign policy is a triviality or it's race baiting. Given the rev's mental capacity and general worship of B. Hussein Obama he could be trying to argue both.
May 13th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Here's what I said:
"The guy is a very good candidate and so I understand how hard it is to attack him with anything substantive. I sympathize with your dilemma. Do you suppose that's why the GOP slime merchants and the McCain teevee servicers insist on trivialities and race baiting in going after Obama?"
Only a person who is living in Antarctica (and even they get satellite teevee) could come to a conclusion that the teevee media hasn't been playing the race card. Of course they have. Three straight weeks of poring over exit polling comparing whites to blacks. Why? To race-bait whites even more. Hoping that whites would begin to think there was something wrong with Obama because he was black. You know, unelectable. Just wait until this evening as media whores start their 7 day race-bait game over West Virginia.
The trivialities I was refering to were lapel flagpins, bowling, hand on heart during National Anthem (I've never done that), not black enough, too black, elitist…..and many more moronic distractions for the sake of the two other full-establishment candidates.
Tom was correct in his comment. The "meeting with a foreign leader" criticism of Obama is not about race and I didn't say it was.
May 14th, 2008 at 9:19 am
Tom,
I suggest that YOU think before you type, because this statement of mine:
"And Rev, this IS a policy issue, unless the insanity of the Obamites has reached such a fever pitch that ANY criticism of the messiah is now considered race-baiting and a distraction"
was a response to this statement from the Reverend.
"The guy is a very good candidate and so I understand how hard it is to attack him with anything substantive. I sympathize with your dilemma. Do you suppose that's why the GOP slime merchants and the McCain teevee servicers insist on trivialities and race baiting in going after Obama?"
The point is that I WAS talking about a substantive issue, and Reverend Falsehood pretended that I wasn't. Btw, the Rev also offered NOTHING substantive to counter the factual statements I made, and HE was the one who turned the discussion toward race-baiting and trivialities.
Nice try.
May 14th, 2008 at 10:23 am
What happened to B. Hussein Obama in West Virginia yesterday does not bode well for the Dims in the Fall.
BO lost by a staggering 41 percentage points against the most detestable woman in America. Amazing.
Do you dim Dimocrats have any expalination for this rejection of poor BO? I do, but let's hear yours first.
May 14th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Check out the high school education numbers. That's the answer to WVA. 62% voting agreed with the "gas tax holiday".
That's all you need to know.
King: "No preconditions". That means that Iran doesn't have to shut down their entire nuclear energy program before talks can go on. Riidiculous, impossible preconditions like the Bush/Cheney junta imposed because they want regime change.
Then Obama said…"does not advocate immediate, direct or unconditional negotiations"…..the "no preconditions", as I explained, has not been nullified here.
I mean, yeah, you can try to make a huge deal about flip-flopping, unjustly I believe, but the point is still that Bush/Cheney refuse to meet, and there's no argument about that, and Obama will meet. Just as simple as that.
May 14th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
You haven't explained how one statement doesn't nullify the other, Reverend. You have just said it's so. There's a difference.
May 14th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
No sir, Larry, Rev doesn't think like you and I do. He just jumps up with his stories about lies coming from the neo-cons, whatever that is, he just rants and rails and goes on his merry way. He doesn't see that he needs substantive information to make his words true and those of others who don't agree with him false. I have been reading his crap too many years not to know him and how he operates.
May 15th, 2008 at 7:38 am
roy: "reading his crap"? I'm crushed. roy, I know that you know what I've been writing over the years has mostly all been true or has come true. You know that.
larry and roy: The "substantive information" is that Obama has specifically said he will meet with foreign leaders. And specifically with foreign leaders whom Commander Guy wouldn't meet with. That's "substantive".
Now I'll admit that if you want to parse Obama's two comments, you can….I know I could….but that's not the point really, is it? Simple gotcha stuff like Russert uses?
However, I see this "discrepancy" in his answers as similar to his San Francisco words about why working class voters vote against their own interests in elections. He was trying to make a significant, and accurate, point on both occasions….and the media blew it up into a gotcha.
The fact is our president should be willing to talk to any foreign country's leader. And the fact is that many frustrated voters do vote for candidates and measures that run contrary to those people's own personal financial, educational and liberty interests.
May 15th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Oh Rev,
Obama SPECIFICALLY said he would NOT meet with Hamas (who was elected by the Palestinians). How is that not a contradiction of Obama's own previously stated polcy of meeting with our enemies with no preconditions ? You keep dancing around the facts here, but as larry pointed out, just because YOU say it doesn't make it true. There are still facts out there that totally refute you. You may be correct in your own (???) mind, but you sound pretty silly to the rest of us.
May 15th, 2008 at 11:13 am
Vince,
I give it a go about why Obama got trounced in WVA, a state that is no enemy to Democrats (think Byrd and Rockefeller). These are not in any particular order.
1) Jeremiah Wright/Obama's radical church.
2) Elitism from Obama/Bittergate. If there's one thing WVA isn't, it's elitist.
3) Mrs. Obama denigrating america and americans. This ties in with #2.
4) Low black population in WVA.
5) Hillary is more strongly backed by unions, and WVA is a union state.
Did I leave anything out ? I'm sure I did.
May 17th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
***And specifically with foreign leaders whom Commander Guy wouldn't meet with. That's "substantive".***
That is pandering and nothing more. The problem is that he is pandering to Americans who don't know the difference so they think his promises of hope and change mean talking to those people who want us dead.
May 17th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
King I think that Obama thinks he can fool Jewish voters into believing that he doesn't want to dispense with Israel. That is probably why he says he won't meet with Hamas leaders. Surely his campaign knows how silly this sounds but somehow they want to fool Jews into voting for him/
May 18th, 2008 at 10:12 am
Roy, I think you are exactly right about why Obama says he won't meet with Hamas. It's all about the Jewish voters. Obama said "they [the GOP] are trying to fool you" about Obama's foreign policy, but Obama is the one attempting the fooling. The GOP is just pointing out Obama's stated positions. Obama is in full spin mode, and he sounded very foolish during that foreign policy speech and the following press conference. The dummy even condemned Bush for endorsing democracy in Palestine and Iraq. How does an American running for president condemn DEMOCRATIC REFORMS ??? Holy moly. Looks like Obama is going to reverse a 230 year old policy of America promoting democracy if you take him at his word. He's a rookie politician, literally making it up as he goes along. I just hope somebody notices before it's too late. All this unexaminded messiah hero worship jazz has gone on for far too long.
But I guess to a liberal, I'm a racist for mentioning it.