« The trial lawyers and the Democrats |
Blog Home Page
| Staying put despite deadly rockets »
May 22, 2008
Yet more Obama positions on Iran
Ed Lasky
Barack Obama has a growing number of positions on how to deal with Iran. Yesterday, James Taranto in his Best of the Web column noted that blogger Lance Adams reported on Barack Obama expressing a different perspective toward Iran in a 2004 Chicago Tribune interview than he has expressed on the campaign trail.
Here was Obama in 2004:
"In light of the fact that we're now in Iraq, with all the problems in terms of perceptions about America that have been created, us launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in," he said.
"On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran.... And I hope it doesn't get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I'd be surprised if Iran blinked at this point." [....]
Obama said that violent Islamic extremists are a vastly different brand of foe than was the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and they must be treated differently.
"With the Soviet Union, you did get the sense that they were operating on a model that we could comprehend in terms of, they don't want to be blown up, we don't want to be blown up, so you do game theory and calculate ways to contain," Obama said. "I think there are certain elements within the Islamic world right now that don't make those same calculations.... "
Last week Obama said this:
"Iran, Cuba, Venezuela-these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying we're going to wipe you off the planet."
In fact, Barack Obama has been backtracking from that 2004 Tribune interview for quite some time. In an interview with Obama supporter and New York Times columnist, Nicholas Kristof from early last year he was already disavowing his previous somewhat relaistic views towards Iran. . A matter of fact, he went into reverse.
Even when at one poin he seemed to indicate an openness to looking at military options to deal with Iran's nuclear program, he quickly eviscerated that option by stating that it did not even exist. He unilaterally has taken off the table an important bargaining chip. What a negotiator! He is quoted,
"And I think the exact quote at the time was, you know, If there was a way of disabling a nuclear facility without any collateral damage, then that would certainly be an option we'd want to take into account. You know, I don't think that's a particularly controversial statement. But the - but those options don't exist."
Now you see it now you don't. The endless shell game that is Barack Obama. Excerpt from Kristof's Q and A:
A. Yeah. You know, they - I have to say they got painted as much more hawkish than they were intended. I mean essentially what is said, which I think would be incontrovertible, is that, you know, Iran's a developing country. A nuclear weapon is a problem for the future. And that we should preserve our military options. And I think the exact quote at the time was, you know, If there was a way of disabling a nuclear facility without any collateral damage, then that would certainly be an option we'd want to take into account. You know, I don't think that's a particularly controversial statement. But the - but those options don't exist. And I said in the very same article that every assessment that I've seen suggests that even if you are predisposed to military action, those options are extraordinarily dangerous..... More to the point, in light of what's happening in Iraq, I would hope that the administration has learned its lesson. I certainly hope Congress has learned its lesson - that being trigger happy or having a quick trigger finger when it comes to military actions without having exhausted our diplomatic options, and without, you know, I think, having a very clear sense of what outcomes we're looking for is a recipe for disaster. So I've been consistent throughout this process in saying we should talk to Iran. I think we should talk to Iran without conditions....
Q. I think it was the same article - maybe a different one - where you also sounded a little hawkish on Pakistan....[The Tribune paraphrased him on Sept. 25, 2004: "Obama said that if President Pervez Musharraf were to lose power in a coup, the United States similarly might have to consider military action in that country to destroy nuclear weapons it already possesses."]
A. It's a situation where I was simply saying things that I think, in Washingtonspeak, you use code for....What I said with respect to Pakistan was that, given that they've got a proven nuclear arsenal and that there's been a history of their military not being as cautious as we would like them to be with respect to nuclear proliferation issues, and given the history of A.Q. Khan and what's happened there, that you know if you had a coup in which Islamic extremists took over the Pakistani government, that would be a significant threat to U.S. security and we would want, again, to keep all our military options open. Now my hope is that we prevent that from happening or that we do everything we can to strengthen the forces of democracy and maintain good relations with Pakistan. Now, it's a difficult thing because we have a genuine ally in Musharraf. It's an imperfect partner. And. . . there are aspects of the Pakistani government and its relationship to its own people as well as its approach to dealing with al Qaeda and the Taliban that are real problems. And you know I guess I would probably like to see the administration send clearer signals to Pakistan that we want to work with them, we want to cooperate with them, we want to help them build their economy. We're willing to put resources into Pakistan to improve the daily life of Pakistanis, which I think will in the long term strengthen Musharraf's power. But in exchange, we have to be attentive to human rights, women's rights. And we have to ask them to take issues like terrorism, nuclear proliferation, more seriously than they....
|
|
|
Comments
I think that Obama as a president is a very scary thing. From his statements above he is such a weak individual on the military. It appears that he won't use the military for anything and wouldn't have the guts to do any type of strike.
I think it is ridiculous to think that we went into Iraq in a hurried fashion. What about all of the months of diplomatic talks with Saddam. Has everyone on the left forgotten those months?
Obama as a president will not be respected by other heads of state and will view the U.S. as a weak country.
I hope Americans will do their due diligence and think before they vote.
Posted by: Johnny | May 22, 2008 12:57 PM
Barack Obama announced today that all words ever written and spoken about him, including his own, are merely distractions, and shall henceforth be ignored. The senator insists that the general public should vote for him in November, because he just... is.
Posted by: magicarb | May 22, 2008 01:07 PM
Look at the stumbling, mumbling way this man answers direct questions. He contradicts himself again and again. And this inspires hope? For what? we should be asking ourselves. And when contradictions are pointed out, the grand orator refers to "out of context, misinterpretation or painted in a way not intended.
This is a preview of what we're in for if Barack Obama is elected. This candidacy is the biggest fraud perpetrated on the American electorate. If it's not stopped, we're in for a whole lot of trouble and pain.
Posted by: Peggy Sue | May 22, 2008 01:08 PM
What is interesting to me is why do we have to pay foreign governments to treat their own people decently? What business do we have sticking our noses into the internal affairs of other soverign nations? We have problems at home and I think we need to focus on those FIRST before changing the world.
Willi Schumacher
Posted by: Willi Schumacher | May 22, 2008 03:13 PM
@ Johnny
"I think that Obama as a president is a very scary thing. From his statements above he is such a weak individual on the military. It appears that he won't use the military for anything and wouldn't have the guts to do any type of strike."
It's worse than you think, my friend. Obama doesn't understand what the military can and can't do, nor does he understand what situations call for a military responce versus what situations call for a diplomatice responce.
He lacks experience in the foreign policy arena and further, he lacks credibility as the leader of the greatest nation on earth.
I don't begrudge Obama his change of opinion and position on many things. He's a guy like you or me, and his views do evolve over time. That's not what bothers me. What I find more concerning is his lack of understanding of history and the processes that got us into the leadership role in the free world. That's scary.
Take his desire, repeated above in this article, to meet with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without any preconditions. This is such a violation of international protocols and common sense that it speaks to an individual who clearly doesn't know what he's doing. It has long been accepted that the face-to-face meeting is a carrot that a leader uses strategically to extract some forward movement from whomever he/she is negotiating with, and that the face-to-face meeting is generally held only when it can provide a strong political "win" for the leader back at home. However romantic the notion may be, history has shown time and time again that true leaders don't put their reputation and political viability on the line with just the hope that they might achieve something. It's political suicide.
We need an adult with a sense of history and strong grasp of reality in the office of President, not a quasi-adolescent idealist who wants to experiment with all the ideas he learned in college.
Posted by: Geoff Gale | May 22, 2008 04:05 PM
"What is interesting to me is why do we have to pay foreign governments to treat their own people decently? What business do we have sticking our noses into the internal affairs of other soverign nations? We have problems at home and I think we need to focus on those FIRST before changing the world.
Willi Schumacher
Posted by: Willi Schumacher | May 22, 2008 03:13 PM"
Gee Will, there we were sitting and minding our own business when a bunch of fanatics crashed our civilian airplanes into two of our WTC towers and another into the Pentagon and a third heading for the Capitol. Of course if Bill Clinton had taken bin Laden seriously when he declared war on us in 1998, just maybe they wouldn't have got this far. It's pretty difficult to get ears on the ground - something we have always had to pay for, so we pay Musharraf to buy his help. Are you under the impression he would help us out of good will? If so, you are nominated to be an Obama adviser.
Posted by: FRS | May 22, 2008 10:04 PM