Obama's Clarification On Meetings - Clear As Mud

The mystery continues to swirl around Obama's "foreign policy by gaffe" lauded by Matt Yglesias - what in the world could he have really meant when he gave a seemingly straightforward answer to a clear question during the You-Tube debate:

“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?” asked Stephen Sixta, a video producer who submitted the question for the CNN/YouTube Democratic debate.

Mr. Obama, the first candidate to respond, answered, “I would.”

Times reporters tried to sort through the latest Obamafuscations:

In the interview Wednesday, Mr. Obama conceded that he might need to do a better job explaining his policy.

“It’s not like this is something that I’ve hid from,” Mr. Obama said. “But there’s no doubt that in a general election, I want the American people to understand exactly what my position is, which has not changed.”

What has changed, he said, is that he now has to rebut accusations by the McCain campaign.

“I didn’t say that I would meet unconditionally as John McCain maintained, because that would suggest whether it was useful or not, whether it was advancing our interests or not, I would just do it for the sake of doing it,” he said. “That’s not a change in position, that’s simply responding to distortions of my position.”

He added: “I think if we lay out repeatedly and clearly my position, ultimately I think I’ve got the majority of the American people on my side on this issue.”

The McCain campaign, which did not respond to requests for comment, has said Mr. Obama’s approach would elevate the stature of leaders with ill intentions.

Susan E. Rice, a senior foreign policy adviser to Mr. Obama, said Mr. Obama had conveyed similarly nuanced policy positions on meetings with foreign leaders of enemy nations months before the YouTube debate.

For instance, in an interview with the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz in May 2007, he said that he believed talks with Iran should begin at a low governmental level even if enrichment continued. But, he said, higher-level talks “will not be appropriate without some sense of progress.” The newspaper also quoted him as saying “we need to check” whether there were leaders with a “more sensible attitude” than that of Mr. Ahmadinejad.

Some supporters of Mr. Obama’s position say he nonetheless offered a less-complete answer at the debate that gave fodder to his critics.

Former Senator Gary Hart, an Obama supporter and a former presidential candidate, said he believed Mr. Obama had learned an important lesson from the experience: “Don’t use that shorthand, particularly when you’re facing a national election and an opposition that’s going to take advantage of everything that can be misconstrued — you’ve got to almost bend over backwards to be explicit.”

I guess that once he "explains" his position to the American people we will understand that his "shorthand" answer of "I would" actually concealed a tremendous amount of detail and nuance.  Silly us for misunderstanding.

And if Obama lapses into similar shorthand while President and raises unrealistic expectations all around the world, well, silly world.

I think it is fair to say that the NY Times has not yet cleared the fog.  Karl at Team Protein is a skeptic; Jake Tapper of ABC News remains baffled.  Allow me to offer a helpful photo of the Obama decision process in action.

Comments

[Thomas Jackson]

If you take a dullard, educate him as a Marxist, put him through the Chicago school of political intgrity, get affirmative action at the Ivy Leagues to make him a lawyer you get Obama.

Which brings us to the main point, what the difference between Obama ad a catfish?

-Ones a slime sucking, grabage eating, slimy creature and the other is just a fish.

[Cecil Turner]

You saying Henry Kissinger could have figured out what that child had on his mind?

I think the point was, rather, that a thinking person might've extrapolated from the fact that he couldn't tell what a 10-year old was thinking, that perhaps the up side to a meeting with a foreign dignitary might be dependent on goodwill. (And hence, not an unmitigated "good thing.") Apparently he gets that.

Considering the obvious downside to such meetings, the correct answer to the question he was asked (whether he would "be willing to meet separately, without precondition" various leaders of totalitarian regimes) was "I would not." Instead of admitting that, he's trying to shine it on with Obamafuscation, "explaining" what he meant wasn't actually what he said. So he's going to see some more of these . . . and he should.

[battery]

I think the point was, rather, that a thinking person might've extrapolated from the fact that he couldn't tell what a 10-year old was thinking, that perhaps the up side to a meeting with a foreign dignitary might be dependent on goodwill. (And hence, not an unmitigated "good thing.") Apparently he gets that.