Obama attended the AIPAC conference today and tried to sell the fact that even though he wants to sit down with Iran with NO preconditions (but with preparations tho…whatever that means) he is still a friend to those who Iran wants to see annihilated:
“We will also use all elements of American power to pressure Iran,” Obama said. “I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. That starts with aggressive, principled diplomacy without self-defeating preconditions, but with a clear-eyed understanding of our interests. We have no time to waste. We cannot unconditionally rule out an approach that could prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. We have tried limited, piecemeal talks while we outsource the sustained work to our European allies. It is time for the United States to lead.”
On Iraq, he attacked McCain: “Sen. McCain offers a false choice: stay the course in Iraq, or cede the region to Iran. I reject this logic because there is a better way. Keeping all of our troops tied down indefinitely in Iraq is not the way to weaken Iran. It is precisely what has strengthened it. It is a policy for staying, not a plan for victory. I have proposed a responsible, phased redeployment of our troops from Iraq. We will get out as carefully as we were careless getting in. We will finally pressure Iraq’s leaders to take meaningful responsibility for their own future.”
What tough talk from the man who went to the left of Dick Durbin on the resolution to call the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization:
TODAY, SENATOR BARACK OBAMA will speak before the annual conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), where he will execute a maneuver likely to become familiar to the American people in the months ahead: the pander pivot. That is, a sharp turn to the right to satisfy a vital Democratic constituency whose support he now needs.
The story begins nine months ago, when the Senate took up debate on the so-called Kyl-Lieberman amendment–a bipartisan measure that urged the U.S. government to designate Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a Foreign Terrorist Organization and a Specially Designated Global Terrorist.
These designations are more than just rhetorical; labeling the IRGC as a terrorist organization brings to bear a range of powerful sanctions that crack down on its ability to work in the global financial system.
The proximate cause of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment was a growing dossier of evidence from General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, documenting the IRGC’s role in financing, training, arming, and directing extremists in Iraq responsible for the murder of hundreds of American and Iraqi soldiers and civilians.
Of course, that’s not the full extent of the IRGC’s malign influence. The group is an acknowledged supporter of terror (a fact even Senator Obama concedes), training, financing and arming Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and most recently, the Taliban. At home in Iran, the IRGC now dominates the regime, with 9 out of 21 seats in the Ahmadinejad cabinet held by former IRGC and IRGC-affiliated officials. The IRGC is also a vital player in Iran’s licit and illicit economies, and dominates important sectors like construction.
Needless to say, the Kyl-Lieberman amendment won broad support in the Senate, passing 76-22. Senator Hillary Clinton voted for it, as did Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Senator Chuck Schumer, and Senator Dick Durbin.
Senator Obama, however, was one of a handful of senators who opposed the amendment–which had aroused the ire of the left-wing blogosphere. In the frenzied minds of DailyKos and Moveon.org, Kyl-Lieberman–or “Lieberman-Kyl,” as they preferred to call it–was nothing less than a stealth declaration of war on Iran.
The offending clause (a non-binding Sense of the Senate) suggests that the U.S. military presence in Iraq “will have critical long-term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf.” It emphatically does not suggest either that we “use our military presence in Iraq to counter the threat from Iran,” as Senator Obama’s website falsely claims, or that “we should maintain our forces in Iraq with an eye toward blunting Iranian influence,” as Senator Obama frets.
That reading of the amendment is incomprehensible to most, including Durbin, the senior senator from Illinois and one of Obama’s chief supporters. “It’s rare that Barack and I disagree on an issue of this magnitude,” Durbin told Bloomberg Television at the time. “I have the same concerns that Barack Obama does about this administration and what they might do with the power that they have. But I don’t think this resolution gives them a green light to do anything.”
Nonetheless, Senator Obama (who perceived the issue as a key wedge against the warmongering Senator Clinton) seized on the amendment–and proceeded to spend the next nine months boasting to every anti-war audience he could find about his brave opposition to it.
In subsequent debates, speeches, and interviews, Senator Obama kept up the attack. On his website, he offers only three points about his Iran policy; opposition to Kyl-Lieberman is one of them.
This week, in a speech before AIPAC, Senator John McCain condemned Senator Obama for his opposition to Kyl-Lieberman. “Over three quarters of the Senate supported this obvious step, but not Senator Obama,” McCain said on Monday. “He opposed this resolution because its support for countering Iranian influence in Iraq was, he said, a ‘wrong message not only to the world, but also to the region.'”
To acknowledge the fact that Iran is a big sponsor of terror is not a bad thing, as Obama apparently thinks it is. Its the truth. This was just a resolution to deem them sponsors of terror, no calls for military force or anything like that…but still he opposed it.
So now he tells AIPAC that hey, I will oppose Iran from getting a nuke by just sitting down with them over tea.
Here comes the era of Jimmy Carter II.
UPDATE
Hillary backing Obama on Iran….interesting:
In a sign that Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, is beginning to make peace with the notion that Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, will be the Democratic presidential nominee, the former First Lady just vouched for her primary opponent to a group he has had some troubles wooing, Jews.
“I know Senator Obama will be a good friend to Israel,” she told the pro-Israel group AIPAC, saying that she knows Obama understands the issue.
“And let me underscore that I believe we need a Democratic president in the White House,” Clinton said.
See author page
CONGRATULATIONS to Barak Obama. Against all odds spouted by self appointed prejudiced opinionated political analysts so called emanating from the kitchen strategy mass production theorist factory of the old school politics,who punched and crunched inflated and suspected polls to “authenticate” their predictions of a win by anyone else other than Barak Obama.
The Obama 08 political machine went into overdrive and there you are , Obama raced across the finish line whilst the broken down kitchen sink strategy truck was pushed and shoved by half committed supporters tired of a long long race that had already been decided along time ago.
Now there is talk about this and that and the VP spot. Let the dust settle first. And then look at the vitriol spouted by the kitchen sink strategy unit.
The Clinton camp could have called the shots under different circumstances. Right now the Obama Camp should look to it’s own ranks and appoint it’s own VP without no hidden agendas and no unvetted baggage.
The media eye has brought things to this and they know that convention states that the winning Presidential nominee is allowed to choose his own VP.
President Jimmy Carter should be commended for his VP comments.
The Obama camp can pick their own VP. They earned their right to do so. They have a prove track record on how to run a winning campaign.They don’t need those individuals that devised a mstrategy on how to lose a campaign big time soiled with spin and meud slinging rhetoric spouted by self appointed disgruntled political analysts to dictate strategy to the Obama camp. Peace to all.Errol Smythe.
Errol,
On this thread you seem to be praising Obie (again) but yet in another thread you speak kindly of the nation of Israel.
This is the same Obie who was not in any way pro-Israel until it was politically expedient to claim that position.
This is the same Obie who referred to Israel as an “open wound” and an “open sore”.
Quite a paradox you’ve got going there, eh?
According to a new gallop poll 67% of Americans support “appeasement”:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/107617/Americans-Favor-President-Meeting-US-Enemies.aspx
What’s really ‘interesting’ about Clinton’s comment are the preceding sentences: “I know Senator Obama understands what is at stake here. It has been an honor to contest primaries with him. It is an honor to call him my friend.”
Then she says, “And let me be very clear: I know that Senator Obama will be a good friend to Israel.”
She’s telling them, he’s won the race and you can trust him.
Mr. Chihuahua,
Senator Obama in fact said that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was an “open wound’, not the nation of Israel.
Assuming for the sake of argument that the Senator really felt that way about Israel, why would he say such a politically inexpedient thing.
We need to stop having the “who is more ‘pro-Israel’ contest”, which is in fact an exercise in political expedience. We ought rather to talk about what is the most rational and pragmatic policy toward Israel as informed by our national interests.
Because he has a tin ear and when he goes off the TelePrompter he cannot help himself.
Wow, seems Obama wants to go all cowboy and bypass all our allies. Hmm I wonder how his buddies that think Bush went in all alone in Iraq, even though we have more allies than the first Gulf War.
Man, another reincarnation of the Obamassih, this time he is the cowboythat will go afterour enemies, while sipping tea with them. I am sure this will persuade Iran from getting nukes. He just getsbetterand better for the General Election. He wll be easly taken apart by the 527s and McCain might actually have a chance to win.
Ah yes, Errol… “earned”… More like awarded. Or would that be anointed?
Since neither candidate had enough pledged delegates to cross the finish line at the primaries end, the supers have made the decision for the DNC voter. Depending on how you’d like to count the votes, Hillary is ahead over 286K, or Obama is leading by – at most – 4/10th of a percent. But only if you give him uncommitted MI votes that may have been meant for John Edwards, and an estimate of what the caucus popular vote numbers were in four states – the genunine number which has not been provided. Lots of “fuzzy math” there.
Only in the DNC world of “every vote must count” can Hillary win a popular election in Texas, and walk away with less delegates than Obama because a caucus combo. Only in the DNC world can a guy claim a victory – posturing like he’s an overwhelming mandate personified – that was handed to him by the majority of 793.5 super delegates.
Don’t know about you, but this kind of “democracy” I can live without. And I sure wouldn’t apply the word “earned” to Obama’campaign. Operation Chaos is a success. The DNC has shown it’s not-so-democractic-after-all head by allowing it’s privilege elitists to speak for all.
Now, now Mata.
Don’t go injecting reality into Errol’s fantasy.
We all know how it feels to be awakened from a really good dream.
Come on, now, Aye Chi. I thought I gave him a not-so-rude awakening… :0)
Face it… the GOP is in trouble this year as evident that supporters are talking about Obama and those that don’t support him are talking about him. But no one is talking the praises of McCain. In fact, he made a serious mistake by trying grab some attention last night but contrasting himself with Obama and separating himself from Bush, but it only served to show just how uninspiring he is.
And the part that you overlook is that just 50 years ago, this country was in strife with the idea of black people voting in an election. It’s an historic event and for that I am very proud of Obama because I didn’t think he had it in him and I would have never believed he could defeat the Clinton machine.
The organization and money that Barak has along with the excitement from the Democratic Party to finally have the opportunity to vanquish Bush et al, will go a long way in the race. If McCain can’t make a compelling reason for his presidency outside of ‘I’m not Obama’ (translation: don’t vote for the scary negro) then he is going to lose in November.
It wasn’t all that long before that 50 years that woman were granted the right to vote, James Manning. In fact, after the Civil War, the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution, adopted in 1868 and 1870 respectively, granted citizenship and suffrage to blacks but not to women. Equal pay and discrimination protection for women in the work force didn’t happen until 1963 and ’64. In America’s early history, women were considered “owned” by husbands, and could not possess property and had no rights of survivorship for their husbands’ assets.
The point? Cultures and attitudes towards many groups – from blacks to women and immigrants – made significant gains in the 20th century in this country. And those born after these gains do not harbor the old attitudes. It’s just “history” to the young. Any resentment they possess is passed along to them, being taught so by the older generations. But blacks do not hold the monopoly on unfair treatment in history.
And because I’ve watched this metamorphisis over my life, I don’t find myself in any particular awe for either an Obama or Hillary run. To me, that is still thinking in “divisive” terms…. i.e. he’s black (sorta), and she’s female. I think of them both as people and politicians… just that. Nothing more, nothing less.
However I’d rein in some of that “pride” you have. Obama did not defeat the “Clinton machine”. The super delegates handed it to him as a gift.
Why is it that an articulate, obviously intelligent poster such as yourself feels it necessary to insert race into a debate where race is not an issue?
Wish I knew the html code for striking out a phrase and “fixing” it….
“don’t vote for the scary marxist” would do the trick…
Suek, you open the HTML of words you want to strike out with the word strike inbetween (the “greater than” and “less than”) brackets , no spaces. Close with slash…i.e. /strike … in between the same brackets. Should come out like this – “don’t vote for the
scary…”I can’t actually use the greater than/less than brackets to show you because they just blank out. The site is looking for the HTML command inbetween. Give it a whirl.
suek,
words you want to strike out
You can use the little right arrow below the word comment above the comment box where you are typing. There is one there that says “Strike”. Put one tag at the beginning and one at the end.
words you want to strike outWow… never “expanded” the auto commands in the comment section. I see they got blockquotes, links, bold and strike. Is the “LI” bullets? And what’s the “OL”?
Dang… been doing HTML the old way so long, who knew somebody made it
easyconvenient! LOLBTW, it’s really easy, Suek. Just highlight the text you want to strike, then click on the strike command in the menu.
LI is italicsNot sure what OL is.
Let’s see.
Nevermind.
Neither one does anything for me.
Mata, you taught me about highlighting. Cool.
LI is bulleted text, Aye Chi. i.e.
If Barack is a better orator
and who talks up the best game wins,
how come Kerry lost to Dubya?
uh uh…. didn’t work. But I see in the HTML code that it is an open li and close li, which is the code for bulleted text. Dunno. But glad that highlighting trip was of use, Aye Chi.
I posted this this morning after I heard the irritating speeches of Obama/Hillary:
Obama/Clinton Assert U.S. Presence in Iraq Empowers Iran Despite Contrary Evidence
*GEN Petraeus said recently that U.S. presence in Iraq contains Iran, not enflame it
**an Iraqi government spokesman declared that Democracy in Iraq is an earthquake in the Arab world
***Libyan leader Mu’ammar Al-Qadhafi, at the Arab League summit in Syria expressed that U.S. involvement in Iraq acts as a checks and balance system because Arab countries are intimidated by American military power and they are less likely to operate outside of international law.
Democrats point to Iranian involvement in Iraq but Iran had already been involved in state sponsored terrorism throughout the Middle East long before the United States took down Saddam. Now, Iranian activity has drawn scrutiny by Arab countries in the region, not the least of which is Iraq, and Iran is actually more contained and under a bigger microscope than before.
Comedic relief my friend.
Matt: The point is that at the beginning of this race I didn’t think the guy had a chance because of a myriad of reasons… one being his race. And for that I am glad he won. However, the superdelegates did not give Hillary this race. Hillary lost because she didn’t compete in the caucus states after Super Tuesday. She was broke and did not have a strategy. That is what lost the race for her. It was all about the delegate count and Hillary ran a bad race – which I find surprising considering she had a built-in advantage.
McCain has a lot of work to do because he has neither the money nor the organization to mount a 50-state campaign which he will need to compete with Obama. The Democrats are not going to concede any state to the GOP. The benefit of having a long primary season is that Obama was forced to build an organization in almost every state. Those supporters will be even more energized and he will have only a few states to really start in.
There is nothing partisan about the things I’m saying, but while you guys debate flowery speeches and Rev Wright, there is a ground war going on and McCain is getting smashed.
Dang, James… the boy hasn’t even been the presumptive anointed one for 24 hours yet. A tad early to call the ground war in favor of BHO, don’t you think?
It’s in the townhalls and debates that the oratory skills will equalize, and perhaps more focus will be on the responses. BHO’s not good without written speeches. And if he can’t incorporate his stock speech talking points into the answers, he’s going to be struggling. He’s history deficient, and seriously gaffe prone. He morphs his positions very slowly to accommodate to reality… as in the “talking to Iran” version today verses the debates last year.
And yup, Obama’s got his grassroots in place because of the primaries. But because of the DNC primary press, there is no lack of exposure to BHO and his baggage. Then again, he’s got his hands full. Forget conceding to GOP. He’s got to win over the DNC disgruntled.
As is usual with a Presidential election, it will come down to voting “against” a candidate as opposed to voting “for” the other. Yet another year of deplorable choices, IMHO.
Good.
I’m glad that’s what it was. Sometimes it’s hard to tell a person’s meaning or emphasis when reading the words on the screen.
As an aside, I want to tell you that I am enjoying reading your blog. I spent some time there yesterday.
Actually, they did.
HRC had more popular votes and neither candidate had enough pledged delegates to get where they needed to be.
The DNC created the supers to do precisely what they are doing. The DNC wanted the party elite to have the ability to choose the nominee.
In the process of using the supers as designed, the will of the voters is being subverted.
At this moment the Dem party is fractured at best.
You have Obama supporters on one side and HRC supporters on the other. If the early indicators mean anything, there are HRC voters who absolutely will not cross over to Obama due to the behavior of the DNC.
There are voters in FL and MI who are beyond angry at being disenfranchised and, frankly, I cannot blame them one bit.
Even before the debacle of those two states was decided last weekend you had a minimum of 20% of voters who said that they would migrate to McCain instead of voting for the ultimate nominee.
Who knows how many will sit it out all together?
When it comes to McCain, no, he is not the candidate that I would have liked to have seen run this year but, due to a myriad of issues, Obama is infinitely beatable in November.
Mr. Chihuahua,
Clever quip and a legitimate response to a rhetorical question. Of course, you get to define reality here. Obama has a tin ear because you say he has a tin ear. QED –but only in the blogosphere.
However, if we return to the real world, Senator Obama did not say that Israel is an open wound.
I stand corrected.
He used the terms “constant wound” and “constant sore”.
Virtually the same. Now entirely accurate.
Thank you for prompting me to actually look up the quote.
No, Obie has a tin ear because he has a tin ear.
He’s young, inexperienced, and untested. He is largely unvetted because of the way he managed to get into the Senate.
Obie is clearly not ready for prime time hence all of his pastor issues, his endorsements from terror groups, and his personal long-term associations with radicals of myriad types.
He doesn’t appear to have the ability to see or hear himself the way others see and hear him.
After Hillary backed him, did you hear the audible throat clear? I think she threw up a little in her mouth.
Mr. Chihuahua,
Here’s the full quote:
“No, no, no. But what I think is that this constant wound, that this constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy. The lack of a resolution to this problem provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions, and so we have a national-security interest in solving this, and I also believe that Israel has a security interest in solving this because I believe that the status quo is unsustainable. I am absolutely convinced of that, and some of the tensions that might arise between me and some of the more hawkish elements in the Jewish community in the United States might stem from the fact that I’m not going to blindly adhere to whatever the most hawkish position is just because that’s the safest ground politically.”
The “constant wound, the constant sore” is “this problem” that both the United States and Israel have a “security interest” in solving. How could the United States and Israel have a security interest in solving “Israel”? Language is malleable and open to interpretation but only in Wonderland can words mean whatever we want them to mean.
Your further discussion of “Obie’s” tin ear continues your line of conclusory thinking:
“Obama has a tin ear because you say he has a tin ear.”
“No, Obie has a tin ear because he has a tin ear.”
The world is flat because you say it’s flat
No, the world is flat because it’s flat.
You’ve mistaken an opinion for a fact, and a tautology for an argument.
I just can’t get past what Errol said above:
“Obama raced across the finish line”
Looks to me like he sort of limped across Errol. How many hundreds of thousands of votes did Hillary win over Obama in the last month or so?
And as much as James Manning wants to paint McCain as a weak candidate ( I wouldn’t totally disagree) I’d still point out that McCain has had months now to work on fundraising and organization.
Now, if McCain can only practice reading a teleprompter and hiring a larger hall that holds more than a handful of supporters when he gives a major speech he might do better.
It is common knowledge that there are standard conventions to choose running mates. So it is in election 2008. The alleged friction between the Clinton and Obama camp could have reached vitriolic levels that could have endangered the Democratic Party,but it did not. Guess what,it attracted and invigorated uncommitted voters in the history to stand up and be counted and make history. Where to now with all this talk about the Clinton camp not supporting the Obama camp? It’s all talk. It’s all politics.To be more accurate it’s politricks. The truth is the Clinton camp like the Obama camp are both democrats and like all good families have a little squabble then make up and go on , so what else is new.
Most people know that what is most likely to happen is that there will be a shifting of primary voting position by the majority of voters that were in the Clinton camp moving to the next level of commitment, to Presidential voting position , that is from individual level to party level, from a primary election 2008 polling statement to a declaration of party loyalty rallying around the Democratic Party Presidential Nominee for November 2008.
The polls made it appear that there was going to be a Clinton Administration in Election 2008.It never happened. It would appear that most of the polls polled a small section of a carefully chosen community to present a carefully cardiographed miniscule representation of so called voting trends
in Election 2008 to what would appear to be to scientifically engineer and manipulate poll figures to bolster previous statements of support for one candidate against the other.
True or false? You tell me, did the polls get it right 80% of the time or 65% of the time or maybe 43% of the time? Ask the pollsters, no one is really sure what the self ordained priests posing as self appointed political analysts sitting on their tripods in their temples of media spin were spouting when they made wild predictions of this and that and were wrong most of the time. Why?They relied on cooked up figures that were souped up to make one candidate look better than the other candidate in election 2008.
When things went contrary to the cited polling figures, then media spin kicked and kitchen sink strategy and mudslinging politics. But that is history now. It will be swept under the carpet or placed in a hired skip to dump all the vitriolic garbage in the dumping site graveyard of failed election campaigns.
The Democratic party is on the road to November 2008. One camp lost another camp won. So what? Both camps are democrats and everyone knows the party interests take precedence over individual interest.
The Obama camp has earned the right to choose their own VP. Convention rules in American politics have always been that way. Their choice must be respected because it will be the choice of Obama camp and Barak Obama.Errol Smythe.
Yes and I am Santa Claus. You really think that Hillary’s supporters are going to vote for Obama??? Yeah right. Have you read what they are saying on her Website????
Sorry I am still not awake yet. I changed it to Santa
Thank you Snata!