Replies

Please forgive duplication with my other recent posts on other threads, but I want to bring these 3 points together in one post with some links. Obama's electoral prospects are finished if/when people understand what a hash he has made of these 3 issues. Here are THREE critical foreign policy & security issues on which I believe Obama has made himself (and potentially our nation) extremely vulnerable. We need to get word out everywhere that he has bungled these 3 issues:

(1) MISSILE DEFENSE: Obama lied (or flip-flopped without admitting it) on his position re missile defense. Tonight he claimed he supports it, when he is on video giving a left-wing rant calling for termination of funding for "unproven" missile defense:

Obama pledges to terminate funding for "unproven" missile defense and to slash other vital defense programs such as the "Future Combat Systems" program and space systems and nuclear weapons and.......

(2) RUSSIA-GEORGIA CONFLICT: Mis-Represents his own position on Russia-Georgia as it "evolved".... he did NOT take the position on Russia-Georgia on the FIRST day of the conflict that he eventually took by day 3.

(3) PRESIDENTIAL SUMMIT WITH IRANIAN LEADERS, NO PRE-CONDITIONS: Obama mis-represents Henry Kissinger's position on Iran in order to pretend that Kissing agrees with the Obamanation. If a Republican candidate in a Presidential debate had just grossly mis-represented the position of the most famous living diplomat on an issue of such vital importance, in order to claim non-existent support for his own position (which position itself is in the midst of major flip-flops), the media would flay that candidate alive and the election is over. It is a measure of the depth and breadth of media bias that this will not even be a blip on the screen, or if they do feel any need to address it they will do so as apologists for the Obamanation.

BREAKING: KISSINGER REPUDIATES OBAMA'S MIS-CHARACTERIZATION OF HIS VIEWS ON IRAN AND DIPLOMACY!!!!! OBAMA HAS STEPPED IN IT BIG TIME

"Henry Kissinger believes Barack Obama misstated his views on diplomacy with US adversaries and is not happy about being mischaracterized. He says: "Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality.""

Posted by Stephen F. Hayes on September 26, 2008 10:55 PM | Permalink

(3a) PRESIDENTIAL SUMMIT MEETINGS: re: follow-up to (3) above, not only is Obama mis-representing Kissinger's position, but he is LYING (or flip-flopping without ackknowledgement) about his own pledge to hold direct meetings with leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, etc..... (now says he does expect "preparations" etc. - trying to backpeddle on what he actually did say in Democrat debate in July 2007).

Obambi Said YES that HE as President would meet with "leaders of Syria, Iran, Venezuela...." during his first year in office ... no preconditions

Here's the beginning of the blowout if only the MSM could be forced to report it - Obama is LYING about his previous position on meeting with leaders of Iran, etc.:

"Asked if the candidates would be willing to meet “with leaders of Syria, Iran, Venezuela" during their first year in office, Obama immediately said yes and added, “the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration — is ridiculous.” These are 3 different vitally important foreign policy issues on which Obambi stumbled, crumbled, fumbled, and/or LIED about his past positions/stands.

This election would be OVER if we actually had a professional, unbiased, competent media.

More on original context for Obama's position on Presidential direct negotiations with the world's worst regimes:

Obama on Meeting With leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, etc.

"The question was a simple one but it elicited one of the few differences between Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama so far in the race for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination: "Would you be willing to meet separately during the first year of your administration, with leaders of Syria, Iran, Venezuela and others to bridge the gap between our countries?"

"Obama said he would be willing to have such meetings." "The notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration — is ridiculous," explained Obama."

Very well stated.

Let's see if Rush, Hannity, Ingraham, Levin, et al (who all seem to surf FR for some of their topic selection) will make note of it.

Cheers!

I had an argument with some 0bamatron on a left-wing blog about Kissinger and the four dwarfs just the other day, and I fully expected this to come up. At two round tables one in March, 2008 the other last week, five previous Secretaries of State have been saying "we ought to talk to Iran."

The Lefty was trying to make this out to be some huge thing, to which I replied: 1) We are talking to Iran ALL the time, not just via proxy, but also through interest sections and other means, and 2) Kissinger's position on this HAS NOT CHANGED. The thing these idiots do not understand -- and that this unspeakably unqualified tyro named Barack Obama does not understand -- is that to my knowledge, not only does Kissinger not support direct talks at the Presidential level without preconditions, but no other living Secretary of State does either.

On this point alone he betrays how vanishingly small his diplomatic experience is.