Before Spat, Obama Backed Conditions for Talks

[journalist3072]

Source: ABC News

Before Spat, Obama Backed Conditions for Talks

July 27, 2007 8:04 PM

ABC News’ Teddy Davis Reports: It turns out that Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was for pre-conditions before he was against them.

In a pre-debate interview with a columnist for the Miami Herald, Obama said that he would meet with Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez but he stipulated that he would only do so "under certain conditions."

"Under certain conditions, I always believe in talking," Obama told the Miami Herald’s Andres Oppenheimer. "Sometimes it’s more important to talk to your enemies than to your friends."

But once he reached the Democratic presidential debate, his position seemed to change.

Asked if he would be willing to meet separately "without precondition" during the first year of his administration with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea, Obama said, "I would."






Read more: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/07/before-spat-oba.html

---

Another example of why Obama is not ready for prime-time, and not ready to lead.

He attacked Sen. Clinton as being "Bush/Cheney Lite" for saying during the debate that she would not promise to meet with leaders of certain rogue states, before first learning the intent and the way forward.

By his very own standard then, I guess he is "Bush/Cheney Lite" as well.

I guess he couldn't even remember his very own comments about setting conditions for such meetings.

[MannyGoldstein]

1. To You People, Demanding A Bathroom In The Building Is A Pre-Condition

Face it - Mrs. Clinton blew herself up on this one. Better luck next time.

[journalist3072]

4. And just how did she "blow herself up" on this one?

I actually think it's very wise that we don't allow our President to be used for propoganda, and so before meeting with the heads of certain rogue states, making sure we know their intent, and possibly send an envoy first.

Obama's answer during the debate showed that he is not ready to be President on January 20, 2009.

[MannyGoldstein]

7. Two Ways

First off, most Americans agree with Obama, e.g., http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3408921

Second, Obama now has the opportunity to lump her in with Bush/Cheney. Ouch!

It was a bad, bad mistake on her part. She's not in the same league as her husband when it comes to these kinds of games.

[msongs]

17. Your statement here is false. only 42% agree. that is NOT most

the others either did not agree or were not sure

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[MannyGoldstein]

21. Yes

If you forced people to choose "for" or "against", she'd very likely get less than half. But you're right, I said the wrong thing. It still doesn't help Mrs. Clinton's case.

[Zueda]

19. Absolutely...

It's hilarius (no pun intended)that she threw the first jab with the "naive" comment and he clobbers her. He socked her with a- whats "naive" is her asking how we get out of Iraq 4 years later. Then he slaps a Bush-Cheney Lite sticker on her back...My god people...She has Mitt, McCain and Lieberman backing her...Think about it!...please,

[wellst0nev0ter]

31. Clinton'S Eye-Rack Vote Shows That She's Not Ready To Become President

eom :eyes:

[emilyg]

24. To You People????

wht does that mean.

[Mass]

2. May be we can start debating the issues, and not the ",".

Can the candidate have a debate on foreign policy, where they expose their philosophy honestly? I am sure Obama would come out winning, as Hillary seems anxious to keep the existing frame.

BTW, which columnist and which preconditions?

[rodeodance]

3. seems he was too eager to blurt it out the night of the debate.

[journalist3072]

6. Sounds to me like he was unprepared and not well versed in the issues

And that's exactly the kind of thing we don't need to see in a President. He's just not ready.

The fact that he clearly responded to that question the other night without thinking first, makes me wonder: is that the type of leader he would be on the international stage? One who just says things without thinking first?

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

8. Oh, please. I'd vote for Senator Obama in heartbeat, as I would for any of our other candidates.

Find something of substance to critique, not this BS "blurt out" argument. MKJ

[journalist3072]

13. I'm questioning his readiness and his ability to lead, and I sure think that's a valid question

Things are at such "critical mass" in our country that we need someone who doesn't really require much "on the job training" and will be ready to lead this country at 12 Noon on Janaury 20, 2009.

And I'm saying that I don't believe Barack Obama is that person. I'm saying that I believe he clearly showed the other night that he spoke without thinking, and that's not the type of trait we need in a President.

And I believe that's a valid concern.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

14. We'll see how quickly he learns during the rigors of campaigning for President while serving in the

Senate.

I'm not writing him off for his choice of words during a debate. And, I really like what he said about the idiocy of refusing to talk to countries with whom one disagrees.

You seem to be easily "concerned". MKJ

[Honeycombe8]

5. He didn't say there would not be conditions before talking diplomacy.

The way I remember it, during the debate Obama said he'd (meaning his administration, which is always what Presidents saying "I" mean) talk with foreign leaders during his first year. He didn't mention pre-conditions, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't require SOME conditions before talking to other leaders. Anyone with common sense would know there would be some conditions, of course, and his talking with them would depend on circumstances at the time.

For instance, I don't think Obama meant he'd fly on over and talk to Iran, if Iran had just bombed Israel out of the blue. Of COURSE there would be pre-conditions. There are always pre-conditions. Always. You don't even have to say it, because it's a given.

That's what I thought, anyway. Obama's only mistake, the way I see it, is he failed to mention that he'd talk to foreign leaders "under certain conditions," or "depending on world events at the time."

This is really a non-issue. Both Clinton and Obama gave basically the same answer, except that Clinton, in striving to make her answer appear different, mentioned that there would be pre-conditions.

I'm neither for nor against either of them. But to someone who doesn't have a dog in this race yet, this "issue" of how they answered that question just doesn't exist. But that's politics for you.

[nevergiveup]

10. Good response

This is really much ado about nothing.

[journalist3072]

12. Sorry, that was not a good response at all

The person who submitted that question during the debate the other night, specifically asked the candidates would they meet with certain foreign leaders WITHOUT CONDITION during their first year in office.

The questioner was the one who raised the issue of pre-conditions. So Sen. Obama's answer was inconsistent with his previous statement.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

15. If only the Repub candidates were nitpicked like this.

:eyes: MKJ

[Zueda]

22. What I heard from the actual question

Was "Precondition" as found in the Bush/Cheney diplomacy. Such as "we refuse to talk to Iran unless they stop their programs".

[journalist3072]

11. Well that means he wasn't listening to the question posed to him

The person who asked the question the other night during the debate, specifically asked the candidates would they promise to meet with certain leaders WITHOUT CONDITION during their first year of office. The questioner raised the issue of meeting with certain leaders without condition.

And Obama said that yes, he would. Which means his answer the other night was INCONSISTENT with a prior statement he made.

And I think it's disengenuous of you to say "except that Clinton, in striving to make her answer appear different, mentioned there that there would be pre-conditions."

She was asked a very specific question about would she promise to meet with certain leaders WITHOUT CONDITION her first year. And she responded that no, she would not make that promise, without knowing the way forward and possibly sending an envoy first. That's her policy position on that. What makes you think she was just trying to be different in her answer?

[killbotfactory]

28. This is the heart of the dispute.

The question was "Would you be willing to meet with these leaders without precondition in your first year in office".

How do you define pre-conditions? The way it was stated in the question, I thought was referring to Bush's habit of making our enemies jump certain hurdles before we even agree to meet with them. "Sure we'll talk to Iran, as soon as they stop doing everything we dislike and prostrate themselves before us". That's the way I took the question, and that's the way Obama took the question.

Clinton spun the question into "would you promise to meet these leaders without any groundwork or planning whatsoever". Which is a bit different in meaning, I think.

[sandnsea]

9. ABC actually wrote this??

They're as bad as Fux.

[Chomskyite]

16. Here was his mistake:

He made a big issue of it. Whether or not there are conditions for talks is a false choice. There are ALWAYS preconditions for EVERY communication. Even between allies.

Obama should instead highlight MEANINGFUL differences with Hillary. Is his healthcare plan different? Will his economic priorities be different? How would HE get us out of Iraq that's different from how she would?

I'm just not impressed with Obama as a national campaigner or a debater. He's made some stupid choices.

[onewholaughsatfools]

18. well clinton showed her true colors

i watched the debate, I heard and I saw the response from the debaters , all this hoop la over obama is just silly, but saying this what hillary's group did with it got my support for obama, blessings

[lyonn]

20. I think both were too absolute with their answer

Both should have clarified what kind of pre-conditions. For instance, bush won't talk to Iran's pres. until he agrees to stop making material for nukes. Of course you are not going to call up Fidel and say, hey let's talk sometime next week, does that work for you. I doubt that is what Obama meant. And Hillary didn't intend to put "bush like" restrictions on any agreement to talk to foreign leaders. Were they looking for a fight? I believe Richardson or Biden would have answered more appropriately.

[emilyg]

23. K&R

[guruoo]

25. zzzzzz

:boring: :boring: :boring: :boring:

[jayfish]

26. This Is F'ing Ridiculous

At this point in the race I haven't decided on a candidate to support. I'll tell ya this though; If the media spent half as much time scrutinizing the statements of the current administration as they do executive hopefuls (particularly Democratic ones) we might not be in the sorry f'ing state of affairs we are in today. Simply reprehensible.

Jay

[killbotfactory]

27. Pre-conditions were not defined in the question that started this

But the way the question was phrased, I took it, and Obama took it, to mean what the Bush administration is doing. Which is "comply with our demands or there will be no negotiations" which is a sure-fire way of making diplomacy fail. That's what pre-conditions meant, I thought, and I'm pretty sure that's what Obama meant.

It didn't mean that he would meet enemy leaders under any circumstances whatsoever, which is the way Clinton spun it.

[Voltaire99]

29. I'd rather we had one Chavez than all the Hillaries, Obamas, Dodds, etc.

Oh, for a real choice in our leadership!

[David__77]

33. That Clinton lumped Chavez in with Kim Jong-il is ridiculous.

It's contrary to her stated policy of respecting democratic choice.

[acmavm]

30. Like I always say, look at how Barrie's speaking to at any particular time

and you'll know what he stands for. Until he's talking to some othe group that is.

[David__77]

32. If anyone should be having conditions, it's not the US.

Iran should perhaps demand compensation for the suffering the country endured under the US-imposed shah. North Korea should perhaps demand an apology for US intervention in the early 50's that resulted in the killing of so many civilians. Venezuela maybe deserves that the US officials who supported the 2002 fascist coup be extradited so they can face Venezuelan justice. How could the US possibly morally deserve to set "conditions" to talk to these sovereign countries? I know no Democratic nominee is going to agree with me, but I support the leading candidate most likely to treat sovereign countries with respect and cease the current policy of aggression.