Another classic correction from the Times:
National
An article on Saturday about Senator John McCain’s criticism of Senator Barack Obama’s Middle East policy incompletely described Mr. Obama’s position on negotiating with the leaders of countries, including Iran, with which the United States currently has little contact. While Mr. Obama and his aides have indeed described various conditions and limitations on such negotiations, Mr. Obama himself, in a Democratic debate in July 2007, also said he would be willing "to meet separately, without precondition" with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea. (Go to Article)
Dean Barnett blasted the Times last Saturday; I was AWOL until Sunday.
The Times correction is especially timely (even if it took a week) since Obama has re-affirmed the commitment the Times could not discern last week:
The senator repeated his belief in engaging Iran in the way that past president like John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan engaged foes and laid a framework for what he believes Iran must do.
"I understand George Bush’s secretary of defense suggests we talk directly to Iran, so I don’t know if George Bush is calling his own secretary of defense an appeaser,” he said. “"It’s time to present Iran with a clear choice. If it abandons its nuclear program, support for terror, and threats to Israel, then Iran can rejoin the community of nations. If not, Iran will face deeper isolation and steeper sanctions.”
Gates' comments have been clarified under duress but his original comments were hardly an endorsement of a 2009 Presidential meeting with no preconditions:
WASHINGTON: U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates called for more visits to Iran by U.S. citizens on Wednesday, saying private contacts might help bridge differences between the two countries.
Talking at the American Academy of Diplomacy, Mr. Gates said: “We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage with the Iranians and then sit down and talk with them. There are actually many Iranians who visit the U.S. We ought to increase the flow going the other way, not of Iranians but of Americans, and that may be one way of creating some space perhaps over some period of time.”
Gee - Obama pretty much making stuff up. Who knew that the new politics was so like the old politics? Should make adjusting easy!
The AllahPundit has lots more.
FYI
Scary Larry blogs about a video of Michele Obama at Trinity church railing against whitey
Posted by: windansea | May 16, 2008 at 05:43 PM
What is it with Bush's cabinet? Are they always at cross purposes with his policies? that how we got where we are in Iraq. I read Gates' original comments - that was bad. Clarify? phe.
BHO stepped in it, Gates helped him, IMO.
Posted by: SunnyDay | May 16, 2008 at 05:55 PM
Problem is, there are many voters today who have no recollection at all of the oaf Carter. It's much easier to grasp "I'm so open-minded I'll talk to anyone" than to understand "If an American president were to agree to talk without preconditions to Ahmdinejad, it would provide an enormous boost to Ahmadinejad's prestige within his own country at a time when we are encouraging his countryment to get rid of him." Who has the better sound bite?
Posted by: Danube of Thought | May 16, 2008 at 05:57 PM
It shouldn't take recollection, though. I know Carter's a jackass, and the only thing I remember about his Presidency - I was 6 when it ended - was I wondered what coin he would get. (Washington was President, he got the quarter, next came Lincoln and the penny, so I figured James Earl was the third President and once he left office he'd get a coin too.)
Posted by: bgates | May 16, 2008 at 06:38 PM
Re Scary Larry's item about the Michelle video, I posted on an earlier thread an account of Larry's sending me a personal e-mail attesting to the fact that he had "three independent authorities" confirming to him that Karl Rove had been indicted on May 13, 2006. The same three also confirmed that a plea deal had been negotiated with Rove at his lawyer's offices after the secret service had ordered the entire floor vacated before the meeting took place. Someone who has not been banned at his site should ask him if these are the same three.
Not for nothing do we call the man crazy.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | May 16, 2008 at 07:00 PM
RE Scary
Wind
You should know that if Larry is typing or his lips are moving he's you know what'ing. Truckloads of SALT needed.
I'm just hoping his bloviating claims finally tick the Obama supporters in the media off so much they start coming clean on him.
No one in the media (of the left, oxymoron I know) called him to the carpet on his 22 indictments and his sealed vs. sealed BS claims, yet called on him as a reliable anti-bush expert when needed.
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | May 16, 2008 at 08:13 PM
Gee - Obama pretty much making stuff up. Who knew that the new politics was so like the old politics? Should make adjusting easy!
bgates made it clear in another thread. If everything that has already been revealed about the Messiah doesn't stop his ascent, these little missteps will be like stepping over tumbleweeds on a dusty prairie.
Posted by: Sue | May 16, 2008 at 08:20 PM
I can't post at Scary's. He doesn't like me, for some reason. ::grin::
Posted by: Sue | May 16, 2008 at 08:21 PM
"Mr. Obama himself, in a Democratic debate in July 2007, also said he would be willing "to meet separately, without precondition" with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea. "
Doesn't he know any nice respectable people?
Posted by: PeterUK | May 16, 2008 at 08:26 PM
"Doesn't he know any nice respectable people?"
Yeah, but they don't like him and won't give him an endorsement.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | May 16, 2008 at 08:36 PM
Gee - Obama pretty much making stuff up. Who knew that the new politics was so like the old politics? Should make adjusting easy!
*Sigh* Must be nice being a Messiah--it relieves one of any responsibility for what they say or do.
Great hustle, if you can get it.
Posted by: MarkJ | May 16, 2008 at 09:36 PM
Gee - Obama pretty much making stuff up. Who knew that the new politics was so like the old politics? Should make adjusting easy!
*Sigh* Must be nice being a Messiah--it relieves one of any responsibility for what they say or do.
Great hustle, if you can get it.
Posted by: MarkJ | May 16, 2008 at 09:37 PM
Oh, puhleeeease! Why are you whitewashing SecDef Gates's appeasing tendencies while (rightly) calling Obama on his? In my view, rather than encouraging citizen-to-citizen "diplomacy," Gates should AT THE VERY LEAST be calling for strikes on the plants (in Iran) manufacturing the EFPs that have been being used in Iraq to maim/kill our troops in Iraq since at least Summer 2007. I have personally seen the results at Walter Reed and Gates should be ashamed of himself. The guy is simply not made of the right stuff.
Posted by: gunjam | May 17, 2008 at 02:03 AM
In my view, rather than encouraging citizen-to-citizen "diplomacy," Gates should...
The last thing that the Islamic governement of Iran wants are Westerners INFLUENCING its captive population. Gates' idea is brilliant. While it sounds very reasonable, peaceful and friendly, he's really describing an effective way to undermine the control the Iranian regime has over its citizens.
Posted by: liontooth | May 17, 2008 at 03:39 AM
The elephant in this room is that in a move equivalent to saying that "Some wife-beaters go on the beat their wife's for years", Obama jumps up and says "I stopped beating my wife a long time ago". Then he goes on the say that under Shi'i law he is supposed to.
Posted by: Neo | May 17, 2008 at 08:39 AM
This is a rather obtuse way to talk around the "appeasement" issue ..
.. and allow use to give our unending loyalty to the Queen.
.. or it it the other way around ?
Posted by: Neo | May 17, 2008 at 09:52 AM
Meet the new policy
Same as the old policy
Posted by: drjohn | May 17, 2008 at 10:03 AM
"Not for nothing do we call the man crazy."
Yup.
Vintage Larry. Love to have him be right in this case, but don't let's hold our collective breath.
Posted by: drjohn | May 17, 2008 at 10:05 AM
' Credulous Times reporter Larry Rohter bought the Obama campaign's spin that the McCain campaign had distorted Obama's ambitious summiting plans and instead “reported” that Obama “does not advocate immediate, direct or unconditional negotiations with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president.”'
How exactly does Rohter know what Obama thinks and why is he parsing for Obama?
Asked rhetorically, of course.
Posted by: drjohn | May 17, 2008 at 10:13 AM
"In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?
OBAMA: I would."
OK, I got it.
The "first year" does not mean "immediate."
Posted by: drjohn | May 17, 2008 at 10:18 AM
Posted by: Barry | May 17, 2008 at 11:59 AM
dang Dang fixed?
Posted by: Barry | May 17, 2008 at 12:00 PM
Posted by: Barry | May 17, 2008 at 12:01 PM
Hmm, doesn't work the normal way.
One more try...
Posted by: Barry | May 17, 2008 at 12:03 PM
I think Obama is a good and decent person. But he has some reckless and radically liberal ideas and some reckless and radically liberal friends that give me pause.
Worse it doesn't seem in any case, Ayers and Wright for example, that association with Obama has caused his friends to moderate their views.
In fact, rather than change their views, in some cases Obama is so close to his friends that he seems to feel that he shares ownership of their thoughts, even using Deval Patrick's thoughts without attribution as if they belonged to him.
Still, I believe that Obama is a good and decent person who can't fathom.
Posted by: MikeS | May 17, 2008 at 12:37 PM
Has Kennedy died and they just haven't released it yet? The anchors and pundits on Fox are speaking of him in the past tense.
Posted by: Sue | May 17, 2008 at 12:39 PM
I think Obama is a good and decent person. But he has some reckless and radically liberal ideas and some reckless and radically liberal friends that give me pause.
Worse it doesn't seem in any case, Ayers and Wright for example, that association with Obama has caused his friends to moderate their views.
In fact, rather than change their views, in some cases Obama is so close to his friends that he seems to feel that he shares ownership of their thoughts, even using Deval Patrick's thoughts without attribution as if they belonged to him.
Still, I believe that Obama is a good and decent person who can't fathom.
Posted by: MikeS | May 17, 2008 at 12:56 PM
I can't fathom how that happened.
Posted by: MikeS | May 17, 2008 at 01:00 PM
"Has Kennedy died and they just haven't released it yet? The anchors and pundits on Fox are speaking of him in the past tense."
Now that would bring some interesting revelations.
Kennedy hospitalised
Posted by: PeterUK | May 17, 2008 at 01:22 PM
Withdrawal seizure, stroke, aneurysmyl leak, old injury, or metastasis. Maybe it was syncope, not seizure.
===================================
Posted by: kim | May 17, 2008 at 04:39 PM
Sue...are you out there? didn't Scary say, in order to trump up his bona fides as a legitimate Bush hater he voted for Bush in 2000?
If so, then why is he saying this:
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | May 17, 2008 at 04:59 PM
Yep, I he did
Lying then or now, take yer pick...
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/072205E.shtml
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | May 17, 2008 at 05:00 PM
I suspect Larry has moved significantly left in his ideology over the last eight years. Whether it is from loyalty to Val, or what, I don't know, but part of why we like to characterize him as crazed is his internal dissonance. Twenty years ago, this was a different Larry. Same ol' Val, though. Ain't life grand?
=======================
Posted by: kim | May 17, 2008 at 06:45 PM
Peace in out time
Posted by: Neo | May 17, 2008 at 10:04 PM
Top,
Yes, Scary said he voted for Bush in 2000 and only turned against him when he took us to war in Iraq. Or something like that. He was a registered republican until Bush showed up. Doesn't explain why he keeps supporting democrats when Bush is going to be gone in January, but there you are. Scary's explanation as to why he can call Bush the names he now uses on Obama. He's a tool. Plain and simple.
Posted by: Sue | May 17, 2008 at 10:17 PM
You know, the last line of Joe in his Hillary ad with Val keeps coming back to me. "She'll get the job done".
He mumbled it out of the corner of his mouth. He didn't look at the camera. This is a subtle and powerful line, and his body belied it.
===================================
Posted by: kim | May 18, 2008 at 09:05 AM
So now Venezuela is a state sponsor of terrorism. Read all about it in today's WaPo.
=======================
Posted by: kim | May 18, 2008 at 10:19 AM