You have GOT to be kidding me.
Thats Obama trying to make amends with those bitter, gun clinging, bible thumping, xenophobe rural voters in Watertown, South Dakota.
Apparently Obama chose to hold his rally in a “livestock arena” where, according to the Times, there were “wood chips and even cow chips scattered on the floor.” I assume the Obama campaign chose the venue with the idea that these rustic visuals would enhance his populist credentials, but it would have been easy to find a more comfortable venue–Watertown Stadium, say, or the Watertown Civic Arena.
As for the speech itself Obama was spinning away:
Mr. Obama drew a distinction, saying his administration would start negotiations with Iran “without preconditions” and being directly involved himself. For that to occur, he added, Iran would have to meet benchmarks or conditions.
That reiterates remarks he has made numerous times in the past year, though not in a YouTube debate last July that the McCain campaign has repeatedly cited.
Agreeing to begin talks without preconditions “does not mean we would not have preparations,” Mr. Obama said.
“Those preparations would involve starting with low-level diplomatic contacts” like National Security Council or State Department emissaries, he said.
Oh, so you would still meet with them without preconditions BUT now you would “prepare” for the meeting? Prepare? What would those lower level emissaries do exactly to prepare the meeting? Extract preconditions? That can’t be because your website says you will meet with them without those preconditions:
Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure andpolitical isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.
Screenshot in case it “suddenly changes”
McCain called the speech a hysterical diatribe:
Mr. McCain’s campaign answered quickly and sharply on Friday. A spokesman, Tucker Bounds, called the remarks a “hysterical diatribe in response to a speech in which his name wasn’t even mentioned.”
The LA Times gets into the act with this winner:
The Bush administration has been little different, refusing for years to talk to North Korea or Iran about their nuclear programs because it wanted to defeat evil, not talk to it. The result was that Pyongyang tested a nuclear weapon and Iran’s uranium program continued unfettered. (By contrast, when the administration negotiated with Libya — an act that its chief arms controller, John Bolton, had previously derided as, yes, “appeasement” — it succeeded in eliminating Tripoli’s nuclear program.)
Puhlease. We do WANT to talk too them…..but with preconditions. Not to hard to understand. But the left continues in their idiotic defense of Obama’s position, even going so far as labeling Hitlers demands as reasonable way back when.
This is how they think. And how much of the left thought in 1938 also…..look where that got us.
Wolf Howling gets it right:
Japan used diplomatic relations in WWII to buy time for the Pearl Harbor attack. Had Britain and France taken a much stronger line against Germany in 1938 instead of holding talks, even irrespective of trying to find a middle ground with Hitler, then WWII may have been averted. No need to believe me – you can look at the writings of Germany’s General Alfred Jodl. The trick is knowing when talks will be counterproductive and only buy time an intransigent enemy needs to gain strength and positioning. The failure to recognize that time in 1938 as regards Germany cost the lives of near 60 million people.
Its simple really. You want direct President to President talks? There must be preconditions. Simple as that. Negotiations without those preconditions have always led to disaster, and will again if Obama gets his way.
Book dissects Obama’s problem perfectly:
The one thing that no sane government would ever do, in front of the whole world, is put the prestige of the President on the line regarding matters that aren’t yet really hammered out. Otherwise, the government places in the hands of some tin-pot tyrant the beautiful, and propagandistic, opportunity to snub the leader of the most powerful nation in the world.
In case Obama hasn’t figured it out, Clinton has never recovered from the snub Arafat dealt him when Clinton put the weight of his leadership into the negotiating room before having it pre-established that Arafat would bend. Likewise, Carter has been getting a free ride (not to mention a Nobel Peace prize) for putting his imprimatur on what was already a fait accompli worked out, first behind the scenes, and then in public, by Begin and Sadat.
Only someone either naive or stupid would have the President walk into a room with someone whose demands exceed any bounds of an ordinary civilized nation, and give that someone the absolute freedom to place his thumb to his nose, waggle his fingers, and say Nyah, nyah, nyah-nyah, nyah before the cameras. Obama’s willingness to do this, and his belief that absolutely no talking has been going on if he hasn’t personally seen it on TV, shows a remarkable inability to understand the nature of power, the nature of prestige, and the nature of government negotiations since the beginning of recorded time (and, I’m sure, before then too).
So while Obama spins away saying he would talk to them Presidentially without preconditions, but would PREPARE for the talks instead the rest of the world can be mesmerized by his greatness for reaching out to those bitter rural folks by standing on some cow chips.