Slick Obama is Really a Liar

[Yurt]

Documented lie #45

Barack Clinton Obama
What's “change” is old again.

By Peter Wehner

Barack Obama is increasingly embodying the “old politics” he says he will overturn.

The most recent example is his campaign’s effort to distance Obama from comments he made last July. When asked if he would be willing to meet with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea “without precondition” during the first year of his administration, Obama famously answered, “I would.” It’s a commitment he repeated throughout the Democratic primary.

But now Obama’s top advisers like Tom Daschle are saying, “I would not say that we would meet unconditionally. Of course, there are conditions that we [would] involve in preparation in getting ready for the diplomacy. . . . ‘Without precondition’ simply means we wouldn’t put obstacles in the way of discussing the differences between us. That’s really what they’re saying, what Barack is saying.” And Obama himself insisted that he didn’t necessarily have President Ahmadinejad in mind when he said he’d meet with the leader of Iran — and, anyway, “this obsession with Ahmadinejad is an example of us losing track of what’s important.”

This explanation is Clintonian. As Robert Novak helpfully pointed out in his column on Thursday, last September Obama was asked at a press conference whether he still would meet with Ahmadinejad. Obama replied, “Yeah . . . I find many of President Ahmadinejad’s statements odious. . . . But we should never fear to negotiate.” And in November, on NBC’s Meet the Press, Obama defended “a conversation with somebody like Ahmadinejad.”

Rather than admit he made a mistake, however, Obama now blames us for our “obsession” with Ahmadinejad. And as is so often the case, any criticism of Obama, on any grounds, is causing us to “lose track of what’s important.” One senses that Obama and his supporters, while happy to pound his opponents, believe criticism of him is indecorous and even illegitimate.

Obama WTF: Lie #45 Obama said he'd meet unconditionally with Leader of Iran: now claims he "didn't have Ahmadinejad in mind"

 

[jillian]

I think I'd concern myself more with McCain's radical shift of positions on almost any subject.

 

[dilloduck]

I think I'd concern myself more with McCain's radical shift of positions on almost any subject.

Why?---He's not going to be president.

 

[BrianH]

What's strange to me is that if you don't agree with him, you're losing focus.

 

[Ravi]

This idiocy almost makes me want to vote for Obama.

 

[Glori.B]

This idiocy almost makes me want to vote for Obama.

oh geeez! now don't go gettin' all e-motional!

ALMOST?

 

[Swamp Fox]

Documented lie #45

Barack Clinton Obama
What's “change” is old again.

By Peter Wehner

Barack Obama is increasingly embodying the “old politics” he says he will overturn.

The most recent example is his campaign’s effort to distance Obama from comments he made last July. When asked if he would be willing to meet with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea “without precondition” during the first year of his administration, Obama famously answered, “I would.” It’s a commitment he repeated throughout the Democratic primary.

But now Obama’s top advisers like Tom Daschle are saying, “I would not say that we would meet unconditionally. Of course, there are conditions that we [would] involve in preparation in getting ready for the diplomacy. . . . ‘Without precondition’ simply means we wouldn’t put obstacles in the way of discussing the differences between us. That’s really what they’re saying, what Barack is saying.” And Obama himself insisted that he didn’t necessarily have President Ahmadinejad in mind when he said he’d meet with the leader of Iran — and, anyway, “this obsession with Ahmadinejad is an example of us losing track of what’s important.”

This explanation is Clintonian. As Robert Novak helpfully pointed out in his column on Thursday, last September Obama was asked at a press conference whether he still would meet with Ahmadinejad. Obama replied, “Yeah . . . I find many of President Ahmadinejad’s statements odious. . . . But we should never fear to negotiate.” And in November, on NBC’s Meet the Press, Obama defended “a conversation with somebody like Ahmadinejad.”

Rather than admit he made a mistake, however, Obama now blames us for our “obsession” with Ahmadinejad. And as is so often the case, any criticism of Obama, on any grounds, is causing us to “lose track of what’s important.” One senses that Obama and his supporters, while happy to pound his opponents, believe criticism of him is indecorous and even illegitimate.

Obama WTF: Lie #45 Obama said he'd meet unconditionally with Leader of Iran: now claims he "didn't have Ahmadinejad in mind"

Now we have proof positive of Obama's inexperience. If he's only had 45 documented lies, he can't have been in politics too long.

 

[Gunny]

I think I'd concern myself more with McCain's radical shift of positions on almost any subject.

Deflection alert. This thread isn't about McCain.

 

[Gunny]

Now we have proof positive of Obama's inexperience. If he's only had 45 documented lies, he can't have been in politics too long.

 

[Yurt]

This idiocy almost makes me want to vote for Obama.

what idiocy? and why have the dems here not defended obama one tiny bit, merely deflected and said that showing obama's lies is idiocy...how moronic

 

[jillian]

Deflection alert. This thread isn't about McCain.

That's pretty bogus. They're running against each other. Better make sure if something's said about one, that it doesn't apply even more to the other. Probably should make sure they stick to the issues. Oh wait, the repubs can't do that... b/c then they have to talk about continuing failed policies and pandering to the religious right.

 

[ReillyT]

Perhaps he is backtracking or perhaps it is a clarification, but Obama has since said that what he meant by no preconditions is that he would not set as the basis for discussion the object of the negotiations. He won't make suspension of uranium enrichment a precondition to negotiate with Iran about suspending uranium enrichment.

They also have made the distinction between "preconditions" on presidential talks with Iran and "preparations" for such talks. In saying he would not impose preconditions on discussions, Obama said he was referring to a Bush administration policy of making high-level meetings contingent upon Iran's agreement to suspend its uranium enrichment program. Obama said he viewed its suspension as a goal of any talks, not a starting point for them.

But, he said, he would order lower-level preparatory talks to determine Iran's motives before he agreed to higher-level meetings.

Obama shows nuances of stance on diplomacy - International Herald Tribune

Whatever his previous remarks, this seems like a reasonable approach.

 

[jillian]

Perhaps he is backtracking or perhaps it is a clarification, but Obama has since said that what he meant by no preconditions is that he would not set as the basis for discussion the object of the negotiations. He won't make suspension of uranium enrichment a precondition to negotiate with Iran about suspending uranium enrichment.


Obama shows nuances of stance on diplomacy - International Herald Tribune

Whatever his previous remarks, this seems like a reasonable approach.

I suspect it's the only approach that's not designed to keep the drum beat going. I never did understand the insanity of setting advance agreement to the ultimate goal as a precondition of discussing the ultimate goal.

 

[editec]

So the man answered a question imprudently, thus overstating his actual position.

When called upon repeatedly to correct his position, he does so.

After a while, having corrected himself repeatedly, he begin to resent being asked to respond to the same question, one he's answered many times, already.

And so this is a lie how, exactly?

Now, as a reasonably politically engaged American, one who has been paying attention to the current administration for eight years, I am very familiar with the various ways that politicians lie to us.

This isn't one of those ways.

Liars, you see set out to purposefully mislead the listener.

Examples of the multiple ways one can lie can easily be found in every speech given by every denizen of the Bush Administration leading up to the invasion of Iraq, in case anyone's really interested in studying lieing techniques.

 

[ReillyT]

I suspect it's the only approach that's not designed to keep the drum beat going. I never did understand the insanity of setting advance agreement to the ultimate goal as a precondition of discussing the ultimate goal.

I suspect you (and I) don't understand the "ultimate goal" approach because it is fucking stupid. On the other hand, it has worked so brilliantly thus far.

 

[jillian]

I suspect you (and I) don't understand the "ultimate goal" approach because it is fucking stupid. On the other hand, it has worked so brilliantly thus far.

And, of course, anyone who points that out is a danger to our security.

 

[midcan5]

Yurt can only post the negativity of a site that reads like the 'bitter old fools drunk on stupidity team.' Have you ever sat in a bar next to an old drunk whose mind is shot but his hatreds are still clear, that is what this site is like. Hatred must be a powerful evolutionary force. If you read too deeply into anyone's words with the mind of a cynical partisan you can find anything, as it is in you, and not in the person.



"I have been fascinated by the issue of race in the current presidential campaign. If race is an issue why are we not talking about John McCain's race? Anyone over seven years old knows the horrors the white race has perpetuated on the world. Most dictators, mass murderers, robber barons, and other assorted crazies are white. Do you really think it is a good idea to elect another white man?" MC5

 

[Yurt]

Rather than admit he made a mistake, however, Obama now blames us for our “obsession” with Ahmadinejad. And as is so often the case, any criticism of Obama, on any grounds, is causing us to “lose track of what’s important.” One senses that Obama and his supporters, while happy to pound his opponents, believe criticism of him is indecorous and even illegitimate.


the guy changed his stance and won't admit he was wrong....he did not misspeak, he was very clear in his stance and when that stance was not politically viable (like his church) he threw it under the bus.

but those with cult love for obama will never admit he has a fault and if somone points them out, they are a racist -- see midcan's stupid post above, trying to inject race into this thread...but midcan's a racist so to be expected

 

[Ravi]

I don't have a cult love for Obama, in fact I really don't like him much at all. But this is a very dishonest argument you are making. Pre-conditions for meeting isn't the same thing as unconditional negotiations. Not even in the same ball park.

And it might interest you to know that most Americans think we should talk to enemies.

 

[editec]

Rather than admit he made a mistake,

But he has admitted it by repeatedly correcting his position.

So what's all this blather about his refusal to admit his mistake?

however, Obama now blames us for our “obsession” with Ahmadinejad.

If one corrects his position repeatedly, and the question continues to come up, then the inquisitor is obsessed, not the person who objects to the pointless questioning.