Fact-Checking Obama: Meeting Ahmadinejad Without Pre-Conditions
Obama and Meeting Ahmadinejad
Debate: Not for Meeting without Pre-Conditions
Obama’s Website: For Meeting without Pre-Conditions
Is Barack Obama for or against meeting Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, without pre-conditions?
Depends on when Obama’s asked the question.
During the first presidential debate, Obama certainly sounded like it was preposterous for John McCain to even suggest that Obama would meet the man who’s vowed to “wipe Israel off the map” without pre-conditions.
From Marc Ambinder: In July of 2007, Barack Obama was asked by a video questioner: “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?…..”“I would,” he answered.
When Senator Hillary Clinton attacked Obama over that stance, Obama operative, David Axelrod started the backing and filling.
“What he meant was, as a government, he’d be willing and eager to initiate those kinds of talks, just as during the Cold War there were low-level discussions and mid-level discussions between us and the Soviet Union and so on. So he was not promising summits with all of those leaders.”
A visit to barrackobama.com says the exact opposite, however.
“Obama supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions.”
From Yes, Obama supports direct presidential talks with Ahmadinejad:
In friday’s debate, Obama continuously denied that he supported direct talks with president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions. According to Obama’s own website:
Diplomacy: Obama supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama and Biden would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.
It’s no wonder that Obama runs from positions he took when he was trying to win the Democrat nomination–he had to appeal to the DailyKOS/Code Pink wing of the party. During the national election, he has to appeal to a much broader electorate.
But according to his own website, Obama would meet with Ahmadinejad without pre-conditions.
Ahmadinejad has repeatedly stated that he will “wipe Israel off the map” the moment Iran possesses the nuclear capability to do so. Some on the Left has said that Ahmadinejad did not really say that–that he was merely quoting the Ayatollah Khomeini. Google “myth of wiping Israel off the map” and over 57,000 results are returned.
At the same appearance in Tehran, Ahmadinejad also spoke of the “fairy tale of the Holocaust”.
“Now in the West insulting the prophet is allowed, but questioning the Holocaust is considered a crime,” he said, accusing Europaeans of not allowing “neutral scholars” to investigate “the truth about the fairy tale of Holocaust.”
Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad today echoed his earlier threats to “wipe Israel off the map” by telling a mass demonstration in Tehran, commemorating the 27th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution, that Palestinians and “other nations” will remove Israel from the region…
Meanwhile, the crowd chanted, “Death to America,” “Death of Israel,” “Death to Denmark.”
Ahmadinejad doesn’t want to annihilate Israel; John McCain “mischaracterized” Obama’s position.
Ahmadinejad did say he would “remove” Israel from the region–as many maps in the Arab world have already done.
It little wonder the Mainstream Media doesn’t fact-check Barack Obama: first, he’s their chosen candidate; second, pinning down a lawyer on exactly what he stands for or against is no easy task–even when you’re trying.
Obama has said–more than once– he would meet Ahmadinejad “without pre-conditions”.
Regardless of what Obama said in the first presidential debate–on national TV, trying to appeal to a national audience–he’s still insisting on his own website, that a no pre-conditions meeting is his position.
by Mondo
hat tip: rizzuto
image: Alex Wong; CNN
You know, I have to tell you, I really enjoy this blog and the insight from everyone who participates. I find it to be refreshing and very informative. I wish there were more blogs like it. Anyway, I felt it was about time I posted, I’ve spent most of my time here just lurking and reading, but today for some reason I just felt compelled to say this.
Reply
At the WWII war museum in Tokyo I discovered the answer to one of the political questions of this election: whether we should dialog with our enemies. It is often argued by the United States that the war on the Pacific started with the bombing of Pearl Harbor. The Japanese perspective differs: as an island economy with limited access to natural resources, the first act of war was the US embargo on imports of oil by the asian empire. Ultimately, what lead to the bloodshed was a series of unsuccessful meetings between the Japanese ambassador and the US Secretary of War.
In these kinds of conversations, the key is to be open to creating the possibility of peaceful relations: the current lack of presidential dialog between the US and Iran hinges on Iran accepting 20-year-old preconditions, and so the countries continue to drift without giving each other their word to a mutual future. At play is how each side interprets the other’s expectations: not distinguishing a nuclear energy plan from a N-bomb plan, and blending democratization with zionist expansion.
Wether our perceived enemy is a foreign nation, investor, or co-founder, there are many things we should do to get to the best outcome. In my personal case, I have identified the sensation “there is something wrong hereâ€, I feel it my abdominal area, and it can be triggered by things big and small. What kicks in immediately is the desire to fix what’s wrong, whether you like it or not. Instead, I have taken on the practice to extend my behavior in those situations to be more compassionate, accepting, and fully self expressed.
Reply
Pablo,
Nice, thoughtful comment.
If you were running Iran, I don’t see how there would be any problems at all!
Thanks for stopping by, reading and taking the time to comment.
Reply
[...] But, it’s right there on barrackobama.com: [...]
Apparently Ahmadinejad doesn’t want talks without preconditions. He said just recently he won’t hold presidential talks without HIS conditions being met. His conditions are a complete US withdrawal from the Middle East, and for our government to stop supporting the “Zionist regime” of Israel. We should at least be as tough as Ahmadinejad.
The point about Japan in WWII is a good one. There are definitely countries we can and should negotiate with before the misunderstandings become too great. Russia comes to mind. However, if we are going to draw comparisons to WWII, I would probably say Iran is closer to Germany. They have demands of their own. They are not demands of territory or trade. They are demands against an entire people. I suspect that underestimating them would be like Neville Chamberlain’s “negotiations” with Hitler, where he ended up giving away Czechoslovakia.
That doesn’t mean we don’t negotiate, it just means you send diplomats first. Henry Kissinger said, responding to Obama’s misinterpretation of his views on diplomacy, that if you hold presidential talks, and they fail, you are left with no recourse, and your relations end up worse than before. Nixon didn’t just go to China – he sent Henry Kissinger first. Reagan didn’t just meet with Gorbachev – he built on years of talks and economic developments. The great achievements of diplomacy in the past have always been the result of many people’s hard work. The president can’t do it alone.
Reply
[...] foreign policy record is troubling to anyone concerned that there may still be some Muslim terrorists out there with a hard-on for the U.S. As [...]