Presidential Meetings

The Times runs an op-ed panning the Kennedy-Kruschev meeting to which Obama glowingly refers as one of his inspirations for wanting to meet with the leaders of Iran.  Jack Kelly had made the same point a couple of weeks back.

And Joe Klein continues his passion for Presidential fiction on the campaign trail, but this time writing under his own name:

Which raises the question: Who are the bad guys rooting for in 2008? John McCain would have you believe the answer is clear. Barack Obama wants to meet with the leaders of enemy states, especially Iran, "which would increase their prestige," McCain says, and convey the impression of American weakness. To punctuate the point, McCain persistently barks that Obama wants to meet with the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a flagrant anti-Semite but a relatively powerless figurehead. Obama did say during a debate last summer that he would meet with foreign leaders without preconditions. "He shorthanded the answer," Senator Joe Biden recently said. Ever since, Obama has been creatively fuzzy when asked directly if he would meet with Ahmadinejad — and he has begun to point out that the real leaders of Iran are the clerics led by the Supreme Leader Ayatullah Ali Khamenei, who controls Iran's foreign policy and its nuclear program. Obama has also been explicit about the need to start with lower-level talks, a presidential summit coming only if there were progress in those negotiations. In his previous, straight-talking incarnation, McCain would have allowed Obama the modifications to his shorthand answer and debated the issue on the merits. Not this year.

Robert Novak debunked the "creatively fuzzy" line:

After asserting that "I've done some research" and "also checked with the Obama campaign," Klein said that Obama "never mentioned Ahmadinejad directly by name. He did say he would negotiate with the leaders."

In fact, Obama has repeatedly been questioned specifically about Ahmadinejad. At a news conference in New York last September, Obama was asked whether he would still meet with Ahmadinejad. He replied: "Yeah . . . I find many of President Ahmadinejad's statements odious. . . . But we should never fear to negotiate." On NBC's "Meet the Press" in November, he defended "a conversation with somebody like Ahmadinejad."

If Joe Klein is still having trouble with his research, more assistance is available at Politifact of the St. Petersburg Times:

But has Obama said specifically that he’d meet with Ahmadinejad?

We could find no public statements where Obama neatly says “I will meet with Ahmadinejad.” But we believe there are some instances where that was the substance of Obama’s words.

One example came in a press conference in New York City on Sept. 24, 2007 [also cited by Novak].

Question: “Senator, you’ve said before that you’d meet with President Ahmadinejad …Would you still meet with him today?”

“Nothing’s changed with respect to my belief that strong countries and strong presidents talk to their enemies and talk to their adversaries,” Obama responded. “I find many of President Ahmadinejad’s statements odious and I’ve said that repeatedly. And I think that we have to recognize that there are a lot of rogue nations in the world that don’t have American interests at heart. But what I also believe is that, as John F. Kennedy said, we should never negotiate out of fear but we should never fear to negotiate. And by us listening to the views even of those who we violently disagree with – that sends a signal to the world that we are going to turn the page on the failed diplomacy that the Bush Administration has practiced for so long.”

The McCain campaign provided snippets of news accounts of that press conference that left little doubt how the press interpreted Obama’s comments at the time. Check out these headlines: “Obama Stood His Ground Monday On His Controversial Remarks Earlier This Year That He Would Meet With Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad” (from CNN); and “Obama: I Would Still Meet With Ahmadinejad” (from CBS News).

... In those contexts, Obama clearly counts Ahmadinejad among those with whom he would meet. We rate McCain’s statement True.

Klein also describes Ahmadinejad as "a relatively powerless figurehead".  Really?  I hope he alerted the Obama team, which last fall described Ahmadinejad as a dictator.  And the Brits could have used this news, since it was Ahmadinejad who led the way and led the release when fifteen British sailors were captured by Iran last spring.

Rather than following Klein's lead and just making stuff up, the AP tries to explain Obama by taking a different tack, arguing that he has just been making stuff up:

THE OLD SPIN:

In a Democratic presidential debate last summer, Obama was asked if he'd meet the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea without precondition and during his first year in office.

"I would," Obama said.

Since then he has frequently reiterated his belief that no preconditions should be set.

"When you say preconditions, what you're really saying is, 'I'm not going to talk to you until you agree to do exactly what I want you to do,'" Obama said. "Well, that's not how negotiations take place."

Challenged by Clinton in multiple debates, Obama allowed that while he would not set preconditions, he would have "preparations" and would not rush to see certain leaders right away.

The precise difference between preconditions and preparations has not been spelled out. What's clear is that low-level talks would precede any summit, as happens now.

Clinton called him naive. She said she would not risk the prestige of the presidency by negotiating directly with countries such as Iran until they had agreed to change their ways.

Obama called that a case of old Washington thinking.

The new thinking, however, appears not to have been thought all the way through.

Look, Obama is making this up as he goes along.  That is not a great practice for a Presidential candidate, and would be a terrible idea for a sitting President.  Imagine if Obama had said at a Presidential press conference, rather than a candidate's debate, that he would meet with the leader of Iran without pre-conditions within one year, and then started waffling about the distinction between preparations and pre-conditions and tried to hand-pick the Iranian leader with whom he would meet.  It would be comical and embarrassing, like his current performance.

Comments

[kim]

I repeat, he's holding out for his perceived equal, the imam in the well.
=======

[kim]

McCain's had tens of years to come up with answers, Obama, almost ten weeks.
======================

[clarice]

Sprinkle some sand on the floor as I tap dance (to "Lets Call the Whole Thing Off"):
You say pre-conditions,
I say preparations.........
You say pre-emptive,
I say preventive....

[kim]

You say Iraq, I say Iran,
Let's call the whole thing East.
================

[Neo]

This is going to leave a mark.

WASHINGTON - The House overwhelmingly rejected President Bush's veto Wednesday of a $290 billion farm bill, but what should have been a stinging defeat for the president became an embarrassment for Democrats.

Only hours before the House's 316-108 vote, Bush had vetoed the five-year measure, saying it was too expensive and gave too much money to wealthy farmers when farm incomes are high. The Senate then was expected to follow suit quickly.

Action stalled, however, after the discovery that Congress had omitted a 34-page section of the bill when lawmakers sent the massive measure to the White House.

And the Speaker is blaming the White House for this screw up. LOL

[Neo]

Perhaps we missed the memo declaring Obama the 12th imam.

[kim]

Maybe that's why he wants to talk to Ahmadi-Nejad, Neo, to clue him in. Not something you'd really trust to underlings, you know.
==================

[kim]

I mean he's capable of believing himself the messiah of America, why not the world? Si, se puede. To Infinity, and Beyond.
=======================

[Anne]

The Presidency is NOT on-the-job-training!! Does Kerry - FLIP FLOPPING sound familiar?

[MikeS]

Secretary Rice pointed out today that the diplomatic approach to Iran is a collaborative effort agreed upon by several countries, including China and Russia. The countries involved in this multilateral approach agreed that it was the best way to convince Iran to give up its nuclear weapons ambitions.

The more Obama defends his diplomatic initiative to have unilateral, President to 'Leader', without pre-conditions, meetings with hostile countries, the scarier he gets!

[MikeS]

Secretary Rice pointed out today that the diplomatic approach to Iran is a collaborative effort agreed upon by several countries, including China and Russia. The countries involved in this multilateral approach agreed that it was the best way to convince Iran to give up its nuclear weapons ambitions.

The more Obama defends his diplomatic initiative to have unilateral, President to 'Leader', without pre-conditions, meetings with hostile countries, the scarier he gets!

[clarice]

This is a very good issue to hit O with and he's responded in the worst possible way-- digging himself further and further into the merde.
And it's the best time, too,after he's collected all those delegates, and the Dems for all practical purposes are absolutely stuck with this lightweight poseur.

[MikeS]

This has gone far beyond just misspeaking during a debate. Obama has had a lot of time to think about this. Presumably he has met with his campaign and foreign policy advisors on this subject, and they had a vote (Obama's vote representing 99%).

It is a great example of Obama's judgment. Without consulting with our allies, he made a radical proposal that will affect relations with all our allies as well as our adversaries. It is widely disagreed with, but Obama sticking with it.

[Cecil Turner]

Yep. He doesn't have a clue on national defense, and the more he talks about it, the more apparent that is. Prediction: if the election revolves around that issue, his shaky claim to a "judgment" advantage isn't going to hold up.

[MayBee]

This is good, too.

None of this seems to matter to Obamaniacs, but it should to the rest us. It certainly makes it hard to conduct a real debate. Tuesday, for example, Obama chided McCain for misrepresenting his Cuba policy. "His charges aren't serious," Obama said. "That's the problem. I have never said that I was prepared to immediately normalize relations with Cuba."

But this is how Obama replied to a question on whether he supported normalization in a 2003 candidate's questionnaire: "Our longstanding policies toward Cuba have been a miserable failure."

It's starting to appear that a naive eagerness to talk with U.S. enemies without preconditions is only part of Barack Obama's problem.

[Jane]

MayBee,

He's a complete echo of Deval Patrick. No specifics, and people swoon.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

If you're a Dem and even the NY Times isn't swallowing your BS, you're in trouble.

Mark Steyn also does a number on him:

What’s worse than the painting-by-numbers demagoguery are some of the accidental glimpses of the Senator’s world view. For example: “The drug companies, they’re not going to give up their profits easily when it comes to health care.”

Well, gee, how unreasonable of them. But demanding they give up their profits “easily” comes easy to him. Until he wrote his recent bestseller, the concept of “profits” was entirely theoretical to Senator Obama’s life. As his wife put it, the Obamas “left corporate America, which is a lot of what we’re asking young people to do. Don’t go into corporate America.” So Barack didn’t. Instead, he became a “community organizer”, whatever that is. At any rate, it’s a job most functioning communities seem able to do without. It would make no difference to life in this great republic if every “community organizer” in the lower 48 were to be deposited on an atoll in the Antarctic. On the other hand, if America’s drug companies were no longer profitable, it might make rather a lot of difference.

In print, Barack Obama comes as close as any major party nominee ever has to sounding like the kookiest college Marxist. But, as I say, that’s when you read his words, on the page. When you hear him, in that smooth baritone that would make “Would you like fries with that?” sound like change you can believe in, everything is terribly reasonable, moderate, evenly modulated.

[MayBee]

He's a complete echo of Deval Patrick. No specifics, and people swoon.

You called it back before I was ready to believe it.
He is making it up as he goes along, and people DEFEND him. People AGREE with him.
Tens of thousands cheer for him.

I can only hope that someone like Biden would be Sec of State in the Obama administration. He can be a jerk, but he has some backbone and some sense.

[MikeS]

No question that Obama will try to change the subject soon, to "the worst economy in 40 years."

[nkj]

Obama the Imam in the well? Who isn't it okay for people to talk to? Enemy?

[RichatUF]

Maybe he can dig something out of the Clinton playbook and get everyone's attention focused on something else for a while. He could ramp up a "Peak Oil-PANIC!!!" campaign using the devious astroturfing tacts that made Axelrod famous.

Stunning that BHO has tied himself in knots regarding this and some take it as BHO "winning" the argument. How long has this been going on-almost 2 weeks-and I still can't figure out what he's saying.

[Jane]

That's because he's not saying a damn thing, Rich.

[Danube of Thought]

His continued digging-in on this particular issue is a very troubling characteristic of this guy, among many, many others.

It's astonishing how deeply the media have dived into the tank for him. Try to imagine if any Republican had referred to the "57 states." How about "Iran is no threat to us," and "I've always said Iran was a grave threat," 48 hours apart?

This is genuine amateur hour. Scary.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Karl Rove piles on:

I recommend that he read Henry Kissinger's book, "The White House Years." Mr. Obama would learn it took 134 private meetings between U.S. and Chinese diplomats before a breakthrough at a Jan. 20, 1970 meeting in Warsaw. It took 18 months of behind-the-scenes discussions before Mr. Kissinger secretly visited Beijing. And it took seven more months of hard work before Nixon went to China. The result was a new relationship, announced in a communiqué worked out over months of careful diplomacy.

The Chinese didn't change because of a presidential visit. In another book, "Diplomacy," Mr. Kissinger writes that "China was induced to rejoin the community of nations less by the prospect of dialogue with the United States than by fear of being attacked by its ostensible ally, the Soviet Union." Change came because the U.S. convinced Beijing it was in its interest to change. Then the president visited.

[MayBee]

That's because he's not saying a damn thing, Rich.

Imagine his poor Farsi translator.

[dking70]

"Obama allowed that while he would not set preconditions, he would have "preparations""

I promise the American people that we will study real hard, pulling many all-nighters, before meeting with the various dictators and tyrants of the world. We will ace our future global tests just like Kennedy/Krushchev and Chamberlain/Hitler did.

[RichatUF]

Jane-

Indeed. I was thinking it might also be a conscious mental evasion. He feels that radical progressive policies are the prescription (a "Come Home America" foreign policy); however, if he were to state them clearly, he knows he would lose, so he is stuck with word games (and he is very bad at them).

[Pofarmer]

that sends a signal to the world that we are going to turn the page on the failed diplomacy that the Bush Administration has practiced for so long.”

Ya know, I'm sick of this meme, too.

Failed diplomacy.

Saddam gone.

Failed diplomacy.

Khaddafi's nukes gone.

Failed diplomacy.

AQ Kahn out of business.

Failed diplomacy.

Major uranium smuggling ring in Africa busted.

Failed diplomacy.

Russians putting conditions on Uranium shipments to Iran.

Failed diplomacy my ass. None of that would have happened without the invasion of Iraq.

[bio mom]

And I predict that should his "negotiations" fail, he would claim it was not HIS fault. It was the fault of his staff!!

[MayBee]

Indeed. I was thinking it might also be a conscious mental evasion. He feels that radical progressive policies are the prescription (a "Come Home America" foreign policy); however, if he were to state them clearly, he knows he would lose, so he is stuck with word games (and he is very bad at them).

Ding ding ding!

[Danube of Thought]

I strongly recommend going to Powerline and reading McCain's rather lengthy statement about Obama's screwball "negotiating" stance. It's maybe the best thing I have seen come out of the McCain camp since the campaign began. He's got Obama very much on the defensive here, and I hope he keeps it up.

And I strongly recommend that Jane go to tinfoilonmyhead.com. It is time to acknowledge the ineredicable stain of spygate. Shame! Shame! Specter for President!

[Pofarmer]

Whooops

Forgot.

Failed diplomacy.

No more terrorrist attacks on American soil, or on American interests over seas.

Failed diplomacy.

Rolling up most of the leadership of Al Quaeda.

Failed diplomacy.

Actively working with a govt that at one time supported the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Failed diplomacy.

Using the Northern Alliance to oust the Taliban with less than 10,000 U.S. troops.

The man gets no credit. If he were a Dimocrap the list of accomplishments would be a mile long.

[Pofarmer]

It's maybe the best thing I have seen come out of the McCain camp since the campaign began.

That advisor dude leaving was probably not a bad thing.

[Jane]

Indeed. I was thinking it might also be a conscious mental evasion.

I think it's a tactic. Deval Patrick, another of Axelrod's mentee's did the exact same thing for the entire campaign. He refused to get specific about anything - except that we needed "hope and change" and he won in a landslide.

DOT,

I browsed. How ridiculous does it get?

[Jane]

I strongly recommend going to Powerline and reading McCain's rather lengthy statement about Obama's screwball "negotiating" stance.

I know I'm an idiot, but I couldn't find it.

[Danube of Thought]

Jane, on closer inspection I discover that it was posted yesterday. You have to scroll down quite a way to find "The Salvos Continue."

[Danube of Thought]

You do understand, Jane, that the Sunday Night Football game on October 12th is Pats at Bolts. Stand by...

[Sweetie]

Every time BO makes a kookie college maxist suggestion on McCain should jump on him. Also, anything that BO says is a "distraction" or "off limits" is prime fodder.

BO's campaign theme is "Who are you going to believe, me or your own lying eyes?"

[Hoosierhoops]

Presumably he has met with his campaign and foreign policy advisors on this subject, and they had a vote (Obama's vote representing 99%).
____________________________
Obama's policy advisors meeting
May 21st 1300 hours
David Axelrod: Ok let's get this meeting Started..
O: this joint keeps going out..
Staffer: here try my lighter sir..
Ax: Look we've got to do some damage control about meeting with Iran..
O: you're right.. get the kook on the Sat phone..
AX: no no you can't do that!
O: why the hell not? hey! my scotch glass is empty..
staffer: here you go sir..
O: (under his breathe)..bitch
AX: forget it..what about our stance on poverty?
O: I'm against it..
AX: our stance..
O: mmm no..poverty in general.
Staffer: groans and holds head in hands
O: let's go back to my roots..as a community organizer in Chicago..
AX: uh..Chicago is already organized..if you know what i mean.
O: you throwing my friends in my face? (Voice rising )
AX: umm.no sir..i just meant..
O: Could somebody please keep this joint lit? jesus christ!!
Staffer: sir let me help you..
O: Scotch and no water? scotch and no water?
what the hell is going on here?
AX: Calm down Barack..
O: Barry..call me Barry
Staffer: I think your wife is on line 2..
O: What is it bitch? don't you know i'm in an important meeting
HRC: Ummm. It's Hillary, ahh Barry?
O: It's Barack you dumb bitch...
HRC: I was wondering if you had room on the ticket you sexist pig..
O: Hold on..could somebody please keep the joint lit..for gawds sake!
You want on my ticket? did michelle put you up to this? why you want on my tik?
HRC: together we could lead america oh chosen one..
O: I'll bet Bill wants a copy of the booze cabinet key doesn't he? 109 million and you won't buy your own beer?
what's up with that? ( yelling ) Where the hell is the water for my scotch?
Staffer: Sorry sir..here you go..
O: You're fired cracker bitch!
HRC: What did you say? I'm taking this to the floor..a floor fight!
O: I wasn't talking to you bitch..
HRC: I have never been so insulted!
O: Even when your man pumped on monica? Maybe we can get together later..you know what i mean?
Click..
Laughter in the room
AX: You told her sir..
O: yea.. I've been wanted to nick that bitch..
OK now..we got all the important stuff covered?
Great! AX.. roll another one would ja.. I got an old tape of Soul Train i want to watch..
Staffer: Sir.. I think it's Michelle..
O: SH*T! Woman..tell her i'm BUSY..

The rest of the meeting notes were blacked out..along with the advisors..

[Jane]

You do understand, Jane, that the Sunday Night Football game on October 12th is Pats at Bolts. Stand by...

After the debacle of last winter, I may have to go back to being a fair weather fan (particularly if there is now a team called the "Bolts". I am so out of the loop.)

But you are right about one thing - the McCain response to Obama was great.

[MikeS]

What's up at the NYT? First they print an actual news story about the progress being made in Iraq, then they run an fact based op-ed.
Its almost as if they're trying to be a newspaper.

[Danube of Thought]

Sorry, Jane--I know what a rabid Sox fan you are (me too), and wrongly assumed you felt the same about the Pats. The "Bolts" are the S.D. Chargers, so nicknamed because of the lightning bolts on their helmets.

[Jane]

Ahhhh - I see.

DOT, I'm truly a fair weather fan. I got interested in the PAts about 5 games into their winning streak last year. And they broke my heart. But I'll get excited for the "Bolts" game. Just don't invite Spector.

[Neo]

diplomatic initiative to have unilateral, President to 'Leader', without pre-conditions, meetings with hostile countries

Could this be called ..

pre-emptive diplomacy

[JM Hanes]

"Look, Obama is making this up as he goes along."

If you've read Joe Klein over time, it's impossible to believe he's not knowingly colluding in the rehabilitation of Obama's credibility-busting errors and false starts.

Then you've remarks like the one Maybee pointed out in the Jack Tapper interview, where Obama's flagrantly false version of history goes utterly unchallenged:

The one area we saw progress, North Korea, and that is in direct proportion to the Bush administration's reversing itself and participating in the six-party talks when early on they refused and (North Korea) developed nuclear weapons they didn't have when George Bush took office.

One day, we're journalists 'splainin' the news, the next day we're just journeymen reporting what the candidate says.

Topping off this profoundly depressing week in media obscurantism, we've got coverage of the Karsenty decision. We wouldn't want to frontpage one of the biggest international, history changing, media scandals evah, when we're in the middle of a full court press for shield laws, now would we?

Obama makes stuff up because he can. What enrages me most about politics today, though, and what degrades debate beyond all hope of redemption is not confined to his campaign. Politicians freely lie about their opponents' positions, and the only institution with the wherewithal and the public presence to challenge them effectively -- and whose privileges derive from their putative willingness to do so --- defaults. This isn't just depressing, it's dangerous.

Chickens and eggs are plentiful here, but the polarization of the Fourth Estate is more disturbing than the ostensible polarization of the populace. The Weekly Standard, for example, can offer up a corrective, but it will be loudly, and widely, dismissed out of hand as right wing propaganda. Unfortunately, such charges are not always unwarranted; killing the messenger is not exclusive to the left. While the New York Times has never been as free of bias as one might have liked, its downhill trajectory is, in truth, a tragedy. The old adage about being entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts has become a debatable proposition, and we are in desperate need of recognizably reliable sources.

Battling cynicism is always the toughest fight in almost any sphere, and I've begun to feel like I'm losing the internal part of that battle lately. Cynicism is ultimately an embrace of helplessness in the face of what are presumed to be insurmountable odds, and there's nothing more debilitating. In a truly perverse irony, Obama's campaign is built on the comforting illusion of idealism, like a mirage in a desert. Making the world a better place means confronting hard choices, and daunting challenges; Obama tells a nation of thirsty people that all you have to do is believe. He makes idealism sound as easy as cynicism, but it's not.

[MikeS]

Could this be called .. pre-emptive diplomacy

Seems to meet all the pre-quirements.

[clarice]

JMH, I wish you'd submit that to AT (editor@americanthinker.com) Tell the editor I sent you.
It's a wonderful blog item.

[nlk]

Come home foreign policy? Look at his legislation. home is his cult and he's right and your wrong. He's committed hislife to his cult and got paid. He wants more and that is why he's losing. His deal was for a Congressman in Chicago where he's 'understood.'

We can't afford a cult nut in the White House and Obama is classic case #1. Maybe running with the dems got him freed, but it's difficult to re program and it's dems because they believe in the cult commune system. Lucifer works that way. I passed on the dem vote shit.

[Danube of Thought]

"The one area we saw progress, North Korea..."

In 1973 my best buddy was in law school at the U. of Michigan. The law school forum had as its guest speaker one day none other than Jane Fonda. When she had finished whatever she had to say and agreed to take questions, one student said "Miss Fonda, you have told us that we should re-think our aversion to communisim, and consider some of its successes. What communist nation would you point to as a successful one?"

Without an instant's hesitation, Miss Fonda responded "North Korea."

Plus ca change...

[Danube of Thought]

Another student said--I swear I'm not making this up, and I promise to God that I'm not endorsing it--"Would you lift up your sweater and show us your tits?"