Obama LIED

[supercar]

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 June 23, 2008 by supercar

[Space Commander Travis]

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 June 23, 2008 by 747400

[Dusty Digital]

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?

[itsnotoutthere]

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

Edited June 23, 2008 by itsnotoutthere

[Fluffybunny]

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?

[bathory]

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

[graylady2]

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.

[questionmark]

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.

[Fluffybunny]

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.

[sear]

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:

"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.

[zitro1987]

"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 June 23, 2008 by zitro1987

[Mr Honeybadger]

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/

[bathory]

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 June 23, 2008 by bathory

[Fluffybunny]

Yes, WMD.s and Terrorists...

[AROCES]

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.

[Homer]

Obama flip-flops:

- negotiating with terrorist States

- an undivided Jerusalem

- NAFTA

- public presidential campaign financing

Most of Obama’s flip-flops are foreign policy related, and he has essentially no foreign policy experience, so it is to be expected that his views will change as he becomes more and more involved with his foreign policy team. I will give him a pass for his learning curve.

What bothers me the most is his recent campaign financing flip-flop. This has nothing to do with experience, and although it probably has no effect on how well he can be Commander in Chief, it does say something about his character. No longer can he be considered as this non-political crusader or revolutionary set to change the way Washington works, when he himself has just demonstrated that he is ‘politics as usual’ just like the rest of them.

[Homer]

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.

That's a good point(sort of...), except that Obama doesn't plan on getting troops out right away. Like Billary before him, he plans on talking with Joint Chiefs/Sec. of Defense/Security Advisors to come up with a plan to end the war.

[AROCES]

Most of Obama’s flip-flops are foreign policy related, and he has essentially no foreign policy experience, so it is to be expected that his views will change as he becomes more and more involved with his foreign policy team. I will give him a pass for his learning curve.

What bothers me the most is his recent campaign financing flip-flop. This has nothing to do with experience, and although it probably has no effect on how well he can be Commander in Chief, it does say something about his character. No longer can he be considered as this non-political crusader or revolutionary set to change the way Washington works, when he himself has just demonstrated that he is ‘politics as usual’ just like the rest of them.

Political parties are like a fraternity somehow, either you play along or you be an Island.

Edited June 23, 2008 by AROCES

[Dr. D]

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

I remember that Bush's evolving included a promise to bring OBL to justice and then he "evolved" into saying that he just "doesn't think much about Bin Laden anymore."

I needn't go into his hours of rhetoric about the absolute existence of WMDs and how that situation "evolved."

And, of course, we have seen him evolve into his refusals to give evidence to his actions and decisions by using executive privilege to hide documents from members of Congress.

Yes, Bush has done a lot of "evolving."

[SJB]

They all lie...That's what Politicians do. They say what you want to hear!

[Space Commander Travis]

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.

Would you approve if he did do that, or would you say he was backtracking on what he'd said previously, and was therefore a hypocrite? It seems that as far as some are concerned, he's unlikely to be able to win anyway: if he does adapt his policies according to information he receives, or things he learns after talking with the experts, he's accused of flip-flopping; if he doesn't, he's giving in to terrorists, and so on.

[questionmark]

Would you approve if he did do that, or would you say he was backtracking on what he'd said previously, and was therefore a hypocrite? It seems that as far as some are concerned, he's unlikely to be able to win anyway: if he does adapt his policies according to information he receives, or things he learns after talking with the experts, he's accused of flip-flopping; if he doesn't, he's giving in to terrorists, and so on.

... attitude that will continue after he is elected, and at the same time those who criticize Dubya are called unpatriotic...

[itsnotoutthere]

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.

Yea you're right. Bush has got us into one hell of a pickle that is gonna be very difficult to get out of.

[AROCES]

Would you approve if he did do that, or would you say he was backtracking on what he'd said previously, and was therefore a hypocrite? It seems that as far as some are concerned, he's unlikely to be able to win anyway: if he does adapt his policies according to information he receives, or things he learns after talking with the experts, he's accused of flip-flopping; if he doesn't, he's giving in to terrorists, and so on.

Yes, I'll be for that, would I say he was back tracking? Nope, for I am quite certain that is what will happen, he is saying things now to pamper the extremem left. Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat did it on the last election and no difference this time.

The extreme left still thinks to pull out of Iraq is the smart move, but those who have to make decisions that will impact not only the country but the world will not do just to keep a promise.

Edited June 23, 2008 by AROCES

[AROCES]

That's a good point(sort of...), except that Obama doesn't plan on getting troops out right away. Like Billary before him, he plans on talking with Joint Chiefs/Sec. of Defense/Security Advisors to come up with a plan to end the war.

YUP, same thing that Bush has been doing since day one.

Any President can end it really, just a matter of when and how, right?