Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Obama LIED


  • Please log in to reply
195 replies to this topic

#1    supercar

supercar

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,116 posts
  • Joined:22 Feb 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

Posted 23 June 2008 - 07:51 AM

During a Democratic presidential debate in July 2007 Obama was asked "would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?"  To which Obama replied "I would."

Then,three weeks ago,he said he would meet with Iranian leaders "only if it can advance the interest of the United States"

So Obama lied when he said he would meet Iranian leaders without precondition.


Obama's Evolving Position on Iran
Hawkish Stand More Like the Bush Administration's Position
By JONATHAN KARL
June 4, 2008

Don't call Barack Obama an appeaser.

In his speech Wednesday before the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, Obama sounded a bit like the more hawkish officials in the Bush administration.

He said the military option is "on the table" for dealing with Iran's nuclear program, and in stark contrast to earlier statements, he said he would meet with Iranian leaders "if and only if it can advance the interest of the United States."

Obama's tone was strikingly different from it has been in the past.

During a debate last summer, he said he would be willing to meet with Iranian leaders and other American adversaries "without preconditions" during the first year of his presidency. Today, he made it clear that we should not expect a President Obama to be sitting down with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad any time soon:

"[A]s president of the United States, I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leaders at a time and place of my choosing if and only if it can advance the interest of the United States. That is my position. I want to be absolutely clear."

Obama campaign officials insist the presumptive Democratic nominee has not changed his position.

"It's not a precondition to say he'll only do it to advance our interests," said Obama foreign policy adviser Denis McDonough.

McDonough said Obama has never promised to meet with Iran's leaders. He's simply said that he is willing to meet with Iran's leaders. "And the key word there is willing. The idea that some have suggested is that he has promised a meeting. That is not the case and never was the case. He argued then as he argued today that he is willing to meet as it advances our interests."

But take another look at what Obama said during last July's Democratic debate sponsored by CNN and Youtube. The question is clear, and so is his response:

QUESTION: "Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?"

OBAMA: "I would. And the reason is this: The notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous. Ronald Reagan constantly spoke to the Soviet Union at a time when he called them an evil empire. He understood that we may not trust them, and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward. And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them."

Obama's position on talking to Iran has been evolving for some time.

Since the CNN/Youtube debate, he has been saying that he would only meet with Iranian leaders after "preparation" by lower-level officials.

Most recently, talking to reporters in South Dakota last month, he explained, "The preparation would involve starting with low-level, lower-level diplomatic contacts, having our diplomatic corps work with their Iranian counterparts, an agenda. But what I have said is that at some point, I would be willing to meet."

Now with his speech before AIPAC he said he will meet with Iranian leaders "if and only if it can advance the interest of the United States."

This isn't all that different from the Bush administration's position.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=4999088&page=1

Edited by supercar, 23 June 2008 - 07:59 AM.


#2    Otto von Pickelhaube

Otto von Pickelhaube

    A complete moral vacuum

  • Member
  • 30,126 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Garmisch-Partenkirchen

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 23 June 2008 - 08:33 AM

Politician lies.


#1 on the list of news headlines that surprise you least.

Actually, seriously, you yourself say (or the news report says), Obama's Evolving Position on Iran.  

Statement #1 was July 2007.
Statement #2 was June 2008.

So why was he lying? He's adjusted his position.  Frankly, give me any leader, or aspiring leader, who is willing to change his position on a matter over time to one who sticks stubbornly to a single preconceived position, however impractical it may prove to be, like, say the present incumbent of the White House.

Edited by 747400, 23 June 2008 - 08:34 AM.

If, as it seems, we are in the process of becoming a totalitarian society in which the state apparatus is all-powerful, the ethics most important for the survival of the true, free, human individual would be: cheat, lie, evade, fake it, be elsewhere, forge documents, build improved electronic gadgets in your garage that’ll outwit the gadgets used by the authorities.

- Philip K. Dick.


#3    Dusty Digital

Dusty Digital

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 332 posts
  • Joined:29 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Europe

  • I threw a rock and I ran

Posted 23 June 2008 - 09:02 AM

supercar on Jun 23 2008, 10:51 AM, said:

During a Democratic presidential debate in July 2007 Obama was asked "would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?"  To which Obama replied "I would."

Then,three weeks ago,he said he would meet with Iranian leaders "only if it can advance the interest of the United States"

So Obama lied when he said he would meet Iranian leaders without precondition.


I would assume that the bolded part was clear without saying, the reason Obama would be willing to meet with these dictators is that he thinks it can advance the interest of the United States".

Otherwise there would be no point now would there?

.

Living life within a labyrinth of nonsense

.


#4    itsnotoutthere

itsnotoutthere

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,170 posts
  • Joined:03 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Royston Vasey

Posted 23 June 2008 - 10:19 AM

NEWS FLASH...NEWS FLASH....it has been discovered today that politicians lie.....more on that story later as details come in.

Edited by itsnotoutthere, 23 June 2008 - 10:19 AM.

“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.”
― Groucho Marx

#5    Fluffybunny

Fluffybunny

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,136 posts
  • Joined:24 Oct 2003
  • Gender:Male

  • "Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst."
    Thomas Paine

Posted 23 June 2008 - 01:06 PM

How come when bushs' reason for going into Iraq "evolved" from "WMD's" and "saddams terrorist links to al queda" to freeing the iraqi people, you didnt start a "Bush Lied" thread? And for that matter, as I recall you were rather defensive of him and his actions...

Is it OK for a republican to lie/evolve? Is there some kind of double standard there?

If Obama gets to become the president are you going to be so unconditionally supportive of him as you are of bush?

Too many people on both sides of the spectrum have fallen into this mentality that a full one half of the country are the enemy for having different beliefs...in a country based on freedom of expression. It is this infighting that allows the focus to be taken away from "we the people" being able to watch, and have control over government corruption and ineptitude that is running rampant in our leadership.

People should be working towards fixing problems, not creating them.

#6    bathory

bathory

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,302 posts
  • Joined:20 Nov 2003
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 23 June 2008 - 02:05 PM

Quote

How come when bushs' reason for going into Iraq "evolved" from "WMD's" and "saddams terrorist links to al queda" to freeing the iraqi people, you didnt start a "Bush Lied" thread?


because only people who are incapable of reading any of the pre-war transcripts of Bush's speeches and documents regarding White House Policy would argue that Bush's reasons changed, ignoring the fact that all the reasons were put forward from the very beginning....

I don't normally have a problem with a politician who's stance evolves, though its kind of sketchy when it happens during election season tongue.gif


#7    graylady2

graylady2

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 702 posts
  • Joined:10 Oct 2006

Posted 23 June 2008 - 02:14 PM

supercar on Jun 23 2008, 02:51 AM, said:

Obama LIED


You've got to be joking... You should be embarrassed bringing this article to *anyone's* attention. The Bush regime has lied to the US citizenry and murdered the youths of America by sending them to war on terrorism, which really wasn't, all for personal gain.

And you have the audacity to *crow* about Obama and his supposed "lie"? Ludicrous -- to the nth degree.



#8    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 39,719 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 23 June 2008 - 02:23 PM

Just as a little note to the OP.... if you want to make propaganda, you still have a lot to learn. This one is way to transparent.



A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#9    Fluffybunny

Fluffybunny

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,136 posts
  • Joined:24 Oct 2003
  • Gender:Male

  • "Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst."
    Thomas Paine

Posted 23 June 2008 - 02:27 PM

bathory, I think that you are pretty much in a tiny group in that belief...even his own partymembers arent finding him being forthright on the matter regarding reasons for going into iraq.

Regardless, you cant be pointing at the time critical, news headlines of prewar transcripts and speeches that took you to war one day as the cause, and then shortly thereafter be pointing to the boilerplate BS said about every world leader we dislike as the cause the next day; it is too big a matter to make that big of a mistake. You just cant shrug that kind of thing away. What bush did then was far worse than what obama did; yet there is a double standard.



Too many people on both sides of the spectrum have fallen into this mentality that a full one half of the country are the enemy for having different beliefs...in a country based on freedom of expression. It is this infighting that allows the focus to be taken away from "we the people" being able to watch, and have control over government corruption and ineptitude that is running rampant in our leadership.

People should be working towards fixing problems, not creating them.

#10    sear

sear

    Astral Projection

  • Closed
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 626 posts
  • Joined:04 Jun 2008

Posted 23 June 2008 - 02:28 PM

Obama flip-flops:

- negotiating with terrorist States
- an undivided Jerusalem
- NAFTA
- public presidential campaign financing

source: Monica Crowley

---------------------------- --- -- --

I don't know who I'll vote for. I haven't heard Libertarian Bob Barr's campaign stump speech yet.
But frankly, I don't think honesty is the issue in this campaign.

In Y2K Bush said he didn't want to get involved in nation building.
But he's been spending hundreds of $Billions on it.

Bush said:

Quote

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt, that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
U.S. President Bush (the younger) televised address to the U.S. March 17th, 2003

"No doubt"; Bush's exact words.

He lied.

I don't care much for liars. But since we've got to have a President anyway, I'd rather have a President that lies on the letter of campaign finance reform, while adhering to the spirit of it, causing the death of a total of ZERO; than a President that lies about his casus belli, and sends thousands of U.S. citizens, and 10's of thousands of innocent Iraqis to needless, senseless death.

I realize that's hardly a ringing endorsement of Obama. But I suspect President Obama would be substantially better for America and the world than President Bush has been.


#11    zitro1987

zitro1987

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Hampshire

Posted 23 June 2008 - 02:38 PM

Quote

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt, that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
U.S. President Bush (the younger) televised address to the U.S. March 17th, 2003


I got that exact quote when I was compiling soundclips of lies for the video of a song of mine (i put it in 0:53): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZy6nNum_iw

EDIT: anyways. McCain supporters, when it compares to flipflopping, don't start. McCain's flipflopping in the last 2 years puts Kerry to shame. Based on his voting record before 2006, he would actually be someone I could vote for. Now I'm terrified of him that I could even vote someone like Kerry or a Carter clone instead of him. I'm lazy to start listing it all, but I'm sure someone here will.

Not that it will nullify Obama's few changes of positions. Especially the Jerusalem makes him sound too much like a typical politician.

Edited by zitro1987, 23 June 2008 - 02:43 PM.


#12    Mr Honeybadger

Mr Honeybadger

    Poltergeist

  • Closed
  • 2,838 posts
  • Joined:29 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 23 June 2008 - 02:49 PM

Obama is also coming close to flip-flopping on a wire-tapping survelience bill. Move-on.org is trying to hold his feet to the fire on this one.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Move-On calls on Obama to keep his word
Posted June 22, 2008 10 :13 PM

MoveOn.org is taking a firm stand on a campaign promise that Barack Obama made to filibuster any wiretapping bill that had retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that let the feds listen in.


Last Friday Obama announced his support for the intelligence surveillance law that is highly unpopular with most left activists; the money, momentum and votes that help make him the presumptive nominee.



http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburgh...tyfourthestate/








#13    bathory

bathory

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,302 posts
  • Joined:20 Nov 2003
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 23 June 2008 - 03:23 PM

Fluffybunny on Jun 23 2008, 02:27 PM, said:

bathory, I think that you are pretty much in a tiny group in that belief...even his own partymembers arent finding him being forthright on the matter regarding reasons for going into iraq.

Regardless, you cant be pointing at the time critical, news headlines of prewar transcripts and speeches that took you to war one day as the cause, and then shortly thereafter be pointing to the boilerplate BS said about every world leader we dislike as the cause the next day; it is too big a matter to make that big of a mistake. You just cant shrug that kind of thing away. What bush did then was far worse than what obama did; yet there is a double standard.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20020912-1.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20030317-7.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...0030226-11.html

but wait, the reasons changed! I don't care if i'm in a tiny group with that belief, it just means I didn't buy into some repeated to the point where it became a mainstream truth

Edited by bathory, 23 June 2008 - 03:24 PM.


#14    Fluffybunny

Fluffybunny

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,136 posts
  • Joined:24 Oct 2003
  • Gender:Male

  • "Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst."
    Thomas Paine

Posted 23 June 2008 - 03:29 PM

Yes, WMD.s and Terrorists...

Too many people on both sides of the spectrum have fallen into this mentality that a full one half of the country are the enemy for having different beliefs...in a country based on freedom of expression. It is this infighting that allows the focus to be taken away from "we the people" being able to watch, and have control over government corruption and ineptitude that is running rampant in our leadership.

People should be working towards fixing problems, not creating them.

#15    AROCES

AROCES

    Forum Divinity

  • Banned
  • 16,312 posts
  • Joined:07 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 23 June 2008 - 03:47 PM

ohio traveler on Jun 23 2008, 03:49 PM, said:

Obama is also coming close to flip-flopping on a wire-tapping survelience bill. Move-on.org is trying to hold his feet to the fire on this one.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Move-On calls on Obama to keep his word
Posted June 22, 2008 10 :13 PM
MoveOn.org is taking a firm stand on a campaign promise that Barack Obama made to filibuster any wiretapping bill that had retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that let the feds listen in.
Last Friday Obama announced his support for the intelligence surveillance law that is highly unpopular with most left activists; the money, momentum and votes that help make him the presumptive nominee.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburgh...tyfourthestate/

If Obama becomes President what are the chances we will hear him say, As much as I want to get out of Iraq right away I can't just pull our troops out that soon because of the the things I know now and didn't know then.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users