Lying in Plain Sight

Rick Klein of ABC news has done a superior job of tracing Barack Obama's lies about what he said regarding meeting with the Iranians "without preconditions."

We all recall his answer to the question about meeting leaders from rogue states:

Barack Obama's original answer seemed crystal clear: last July, asked whether he would meet with the "leaders" of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea "without precondition," during his first year as president, he quickly answered yes.

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., has come under fire from Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., over whether and how to engage rogue nations.(Susan Walsh/AP Photo)
More Photos
"I would," Obama, D-Ill., said at the CNN/YouTube debate. "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."

Obama has not renounced his commitment to meet directly with the leaders of rogue nations, including Iran. But in recent weeks, his top aides and advisers have sought to add caveats to his promise, as Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., has made Obama's debate answer a central campaign issue.

Then came the backtracking by aides until this is what the candidate told ABC news this week:

Obama told ABC News' Jake Tapper in an interview Tuesday that he sees no contradiction in the statements, explaining that he has always said that lower-level diplomatic contacts would lay the groundwork for a presidential meeting.

"I have to say I completely disagree that people have been walking back from anything," Obama said. "They may be correcting the characterizations or distortions of John McCain or others of what I said. What I said was I would meet with our adversaries, including Iran, including Venezuela, including Cuba, including North Korea, without preconditions, but that does not mean without preparation."

On CNN, Tuesday, Obama echoed Rice, saying he may not meet with Ahmadinejad.

"I think this obsession with Ahmadinejad is an example of us losing track of what's important," he said. "I would be willing to meet with Iranian leaders if we had done sufficient preparations for that meeting.

Blaming John McCain for simply quoting his own words? And then the baldfaced lie trying to convince people that "of course" he meant something totally different than what he said in the first place.

This isn't quite the flip flop that occurred just this past week when on Saturday in Oregon, Obama said that Iran posed little threat to the US. After McCain pounced, Obama said in another speech that Iran was a "grave threat" and he's been saying it for years.

Pretty soon, we're going to need a scorecard just to keep track of the dizzying pace with which the candidate lies through his teeth.
Rick Klein of ABC news has done a superior job of tracing Barack Obama's lies about what he said regarding meeting with the Iranians "without preconditions."

We all recall his answer to the question about meeting leaders from rogue states:

Barack Obama's original answer seemed crystal clear: last July, asked whether he would meet with the "leaders" of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea "without precondition," during his first year as president, he quickly answered yes.

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., has come under fire from Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., over whether and how to engage rogue nations.(Susan Walsh/AP Photo)
More Photos
"I would," Obama, D-Ill., said at the CNN/YouTube debate. "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."

Obama has not renounced his commitment to meet directly with the leaders of rogue nations, including Iran. But in recent weeks, his top aides and advisers have sought to add caveats to his promise, as Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., has made Obama's debate answer a central campaign issue.

Then came the backtracking by aides until this is what the candidate told ABC news this week:

Obama told ABC News' Jake Tapper in an interview Tuesday that he sees no contradiction in the statements, explaining that he has always said that lower-level diplomatic contacts would lay the groundwork for a presidential meeting.

"I have to say I completely disagree that people have been walking back from anything," Obama said. "They may be correcting the characterizations or distortions of John McCain or others of what I said. What I said was I would meet with our adversaries, including Iran, including Venezuela, including Cuba, including North Korea, without preconditions, but that does not mean without preparation."

On CNN, Tuesday, Obama echoed Rice, saying he may not meet with Ahmadinejad.

"I think this obsession with Ahmadinejad is an example of us losing track of what's important," he said. "I would be willing to meet with Iranian leaders if we had done sufficient preparations for that meeting.

Blaming John McCain for simply quoting his own words? And then the baldfaced lie trying to convince people that "of course" he meant something totally different than what he said in the first place.

This isn't quite the flip flop that occurred just this past week when on Saturday in Oregon, Obama said that Iran posed little threat to the US. After McCain pounced, Obama said in another speech that Iran was a "grave threat" and he's been saying it for years.

Pretty soon, we're going to need a scorecard just to keep track of the dizzying pace with which the candidate lies through his teeth.