Will Obama call Biden and Hart cowboys, or will he wise up and listen?

[2rth2pwr]

Here’s Gary Hart:

I don’t think Barack Obama or any other president is going to meet with a head of state without lower-level discussions preceding that . . . What you do is send diplomats and negotiators to explore areas of mutual interest. And if it does seem profitable, then you go to the heads of state. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0805/18/le.01.html

Here’s Joe Biden:

What we’re talking about here is that he has repeatedly since then said he would not negotiate unconditionally, meaning him sitting down, alone, right off the bat with these leaders.

This is a fellow who I think shorthanded an answer that in fact was the wrong answer, in my view, saying I would within my first year, it implied he’d personally sit down with anybody who wanted to sit down with him. That’s not what he meant. That’s not what he has said since then for the last year or thereabout. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2IRYCHy3y4

Barack Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/



Hillary knew the moment he said that the first time that he was way off base, she is the one we need to bring the world together.

[MrSlayer]

1. Biden defends Obama in that clip.

What is your point?

[Swamp Rat]

2. Hillary has what plants crave.

She has electrolytes! :9

[crimsonblue]

73. I was gonna say...

horse manure?

[PBS Poll-435]

83. Haha....

:-)

[Swamp Rat]

85. hee hee!

Thus, the OP changed his avatar to no longer make Hillary look like an 'idiocrat'. :evilgrin:

[2rth2pwr]

5. He was trying to, but Obama so far has stuck to his guns and basically said "yeah, let's

meet, no preconditions"

[Boz]

11. What is the point, A president shouldnt talk to people diplomatically?

Please explain why is it a bad thing?

[2rth2pwr]

35. Shouldn't meet without some type of preconditions, such as stop sponsoring terror then we can meet.

Something like that, use your imagination. But to just meet with an adversary because he is trouble elevates the status of the group or

regime in the world community. Ah-ha they will say, you can get the President of the United Staes to sit down and negotiate, to offer

concessions if we threaten to wipe Israel off the map and try to acquire nuclear weapons. Other interested parties will take the hint

that the President wouldn't be there offering financial and technological assistance unless they did those things, maybe we should try

it, it seems to work.

[Boz]

44. Heads of state, Name one Head of State that by definition is a terrorist

[2rth2pwr]

46. Why?

[Boz]

53. Because it is the basis for your whole argument,Obama is talking on state level,You are not and cant

Name one.

By the way there is only one in the whole world.

A UN panel described terrorism as any act "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act."

And there has only been one State that meets this definition AND has had more incidence of State sponsored terrorism in the last 63 years than any other.

Obama will change that Terrorist state by talking to them, unlike the current and in some cases previous presidents, that will be world changing.

[2rth2pwr]

55. How did terrorism or terrorist get thrown in this?

[Boz]

64. You brought it in, within your own argument

Shouldn't meet without some type of preconditions, such as stop sponsoring terror then we can meet.

Ah-ha they will say, you can get the President of the United Staes to sit down and negotiate, to offer
concessions if we threaten to wipe Israel off the map and try to acquire nuclear weapons.

And its just like everything that you Obama contrarians can do, imply by misdirect and allusion and linking.

You cant find anything on the man directly, so you have to imply that he will sit down with terrorist even though that is not what he says. Iran is not guilty of State sponsored terrorism and does not have a Terrorist Head of state, fact anything else is supposition and smoke by implication.

[2rth2pwr]

68. Terror, terrorism, terrorist, appease, appeaser, appeasement are not words that I have

used in this OP or subsequent posts. So I don't know what you are defensive about.

[Boz]

72. You might want to edit, those were your own words, look at your post at #35

You cant even keep track of your own bullshit.

And nice passive aggressive phrase, I am not defensive just by the action of showing you facts and asking you to answer and be responsible for your own statements, you show you are now on th defensive by your "victimization" to this "defensive" attacking on my part.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6037993&mesg_id=6038250

[2rth2pwr]

74. ok, you got me on terror. Iran is a major sponsor of Hamas and Hezbollah,

Iran uses them as proxies.

True or False?

[Boz]

76. False, there is a huge difference between suspected and is

They are blamed and people believe but there is no direct tie that has EVER been confirmed

There is one that has been confirmed and has admitted it is and has a known history of state sponsored terrorism

So I ask again, Name the one Head of State that is a terrorist and whos country has a proven track record of decades of admitted terrorism.

A UN panel described terrorism as any act "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act."

And there has only been one State that meets this definition AND has had more incidence of State sponsored terrorism in the last 63 years than any other.

Care to name them?

Obama will change that Terrorist state by talking to them, unlike the current and in some cases previous presidents, that will be world changing.

[2rth2pwr]

89. Well, then you are calling Obama a liar.

"Iran is a grave threat. It has an illicit nuclear program. It supports terrorism across the region and militias in Iraq. It threatens Israel's existence. It denies the Holocaust..."

http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2008/05/obama_counters_mccain_on_appea.html

How can you support such an unrepentant liar?

[MrSlayer]

12. I don't believe that he has.

Show me where he says what you say he says and not what Biden says Obama says and has said.

[2rth2pwr]

14. Well first the link to his website is in the OP, and second here is Obama at debate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3Oj7Jn9rv4

[MrSlayer]

20. Ok. I linked to the site and what you say is NOT there.

And the video is of the debate statement that Biden is defending Obama on in your other link.

You are reaching for something that isn't there. Your OP is a flat-out fraud and you should take it down. You're just lying here man.

[2rth2pwr]

24. Another one. Jeezus. Go to Obama's site through the link provided and then scroll

down until you see this section on Iran, I have provided a screen shot for your benefit.



Biden clearly is saying that Obama must not really mean what he says because it is really idiotic.

[cliffordu]

26. Are these the pointers the pantsuited panderbear got from Rove??

[still_one]

27. Read the Hamilton/Baker report, they called on a dialog with Iran and Syria /nt

[MrSlayer]

34. I stand corrected.

It does in fact say exactly that.

But I'm not sure what is wrong with getting them to sit down and talk. Now that you have proven that he is saying "talk without preconditions", tell me why you think it's a bad idea and what we should do instead. Clearly the Bush way is not the way and if direct talks are not the way, what is? I'm sincere in asking.

[2rth2pwr]

39. Biden and Hart disagree with Obama on this. The office of the Presidency

has value, if the President goes and meets with whomever is threatening around the world without a framework of what the expectations

are, things that are worked out in advance, preconditions, then the President is just responding to the most threatening groups or

regimes based on how dangerous they are acting. Other groups get the hint and realize that if they want something from us, all they have

to do is start acting belligerent.

[MrSlayer]

48. But I don't believe Obama means he'd just hop on a plane to Iran

and sit down and have tea with Ahmadinejad without any previous arrangements, lower level talks or whatnot. I think there would have to be a way to work up to that point. The old sticks and carrots routine through the State department. I think Hart reads it right in his comments. Perhaps Senator Obama needs to be a littler clearer on this and spell it out so this sort of conjecture can be put to rest.

[2rth2pwr]

49. That was the point of my OP, which way will he go.

[Boz]

65. The old Carrrot and Stick hasnt worked anymore than the top down political process has.

You got a hornets nest you dont go around talking to all the hornets in your back yard, you go straight to the source.

Welcome to the new REAL WORLD.

[2rth2pwr]

69. Interesting analogy, got anymore Ross Perot?

[Boz]

71. Its from post 48 which you responded to here, do you have any more McCain?

[MrSlayer]

78. Well I think it's clear that he's going the diplomacy route.

And it will go the way Biden, Hart, Clark and others have expanded on because really, it can go no other way. It's kind of picking nits to imply that Obama's wording (presidential, pre-conditions)suggests some radical departure from the basic diplomatic process. Seriously, he is neither foolish nor stupid. He knows how it works.

It might be good for him to fend off that sort of attack now because it allows him to frame the issue the way he wants. It allows him to put the light on the Republicans as the foolish, weak and scared party. Whatever happened to "Speak softly but carry a big stick"? Diplomacy is not cowardice, especially with the might we have behind us. We can afford to be gracious. I think we win this issue against the Republicans.

We'll see how it plays out.

[flpoljunkie]

90. It goes w/o saying that any high level meeting would require thorough and prior groundwork

Those trying to make something out of Obama saying there would be no 'preconditions' to a meeting with a head of state know full well that he did not mean no diplomatic preparations beforehand to insure a successful outcome.

Joe Biden understands this.

[scheming daemons]

3. Will you continue doing McCain's work for him.... or will you wise up and listen?

[2rth2pwr]

8. Do you support the Biden/Hart way or the Obama way? Simple question really.

[iconicgnom]

42. Will you continue doing McCain's work for him? Simple question, really.

[2rth2pwr]

56. Obama's done this all on his own.

[scheming daemons]

81. If you're really a Democrat, then your OP is supporting McCain.....

[2rth2pwr]

86. The hell are you talking about? Does Hillary support Obama's wack policy

of flying around the world in her first year and meeting with Iran and North Korea w/o preconditions?

[FredScuttle]

92. No....she's rather blow Iran off the face of the earth

preferably riding the missile that does the deed

[2rth2pwr]

93. She never said she would rather blow Iran off the face of the earth.

Fuck, the outright lying that goes on around here is just sick.

[FredScuttle]

95. Obama never said he'd "fly around the world meeting Iran and N. Korea

without pre-conditions"

But Hillary did say she'd nuke the shit out of Iran:

Clinton further displayed tough talk in an interview airing on "Good Morning America" Tuesday. ABC News' Chris Cuomo asked Clinton what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons.

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton said. "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Vote2008/story?id=4698059&page=1

[iconicgnom]

94. correct. OP takes talking point as-is from Bush/McCain playbook

does not filter, does not analyze, does not pass go.

[Diane R]

4. Another anti-Obama thread today?

[2rth2pwr]

6. Another reason that we need Hillary in the White House. Any comment on the OP?

[funflower]

7. HRC has tons of experience negotiating peace treaties.

In between dodging bullets at the Tuzla airport.

[cliffordu]

23. No comment needed, really, you're not interested in dialogue.

Won't be long now, though, one or two days at the max, then a week's grace period....

[2rth2pwr]

28. Excuse me? I always respond on my posts, your posts are the same thing over

and over, usually with the little rotfl guy in there somewhere.

[cliffordu]

33. The constant "questions" you ask are little more than flamebait.

For the work you obviously put into each, what with the cutting and pasting, you could have a real job.

How's Karl??

[2rth2pwr]

40. How's Karl? is a serious question? C'mon now.

[cliffordu]

41. I understand Rove and your girl are all warm and runny with each other now...

I just figured you were in the loop.

[still_one]

31. Obviously you must disagree with the Baker/Hamilton Iraq study group /nt

[americanstranger]

9. You really have a reading comprehension problem, don't you?

You're batting .000 when it comes to the articles you post proving any sort of anti-Obama point.

You do, however, seem to have an uncanny knack for fail.

(I'd try explaining what 'without preconditions' actually means to you, but I really don't think you'd get it.)

- as

[2rth2pwr]

10. You may have to explain it to Biden and Hart also.

[still_one]

36. Funny how everyone ignores the recommendations of the Iraq Study group

which said we MUST engage in a dialog with ALL parties in the region, INCLUDING IRAN and IRAQ

This is just another reason why Hillary IS NOT QUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT

She voted for the IWR, and never admitted it was a mistake, which implies she doesn't agree with the War Powers Act

She voted for the Kyle/Lieberman ammendment, which calls for a permanent prescence in Iraq as long as Iran is perceived a threat

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it

[2rth2pwr]

52. Baker said that he wanted to make sure "everyone understands . . . the limited nature of what we are

proposing with respect to Iran and Syria." He said the administration should find out whether Iran is willing to do what it did several years ago to help stabilize Afghanistan. He also said Syria would be required to meet several key obligations, including cooperating in the investigation of political assassinations in Lebanon and persuading Hamas to recognize Israel's right to exist. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/10/AR2006121000553.html

[still_one]

60. See my response, number 58. /nt

[Honeycombe8]

13. #1-Biden and Obama are agreeing. #2-you lie in your post in important point.

You state that Obama says he personally would meet with foreign leaders w/o preconditions, and you cite his website page for that "quote." There is no such statement on the site.

This is pitiful.

I have never seen an Obama supporter stoop this low. Now do you see why Obama supporters are having an issue w/Hillary's supporters? It boggles the mind why her supporters have become so irrational and rabid about Obama and his supporters, when it is her camp that is undermining the entire process. It's as if Rove were personally orchestrating her camp's movements and statements. Verbatim.

[2rth2pwr]

19. You sounded so sure that I double checked.

Yo must scroll down a little bit on Obama's page.

here- scroll:
Moving up or down within a document in your screen. Use scroll bar at right. Click on arrow down or arrow up. Drag the scroll button down or up. Or click on the page up or page down icons at the bottom of the bar. If you need to scroll left or right, use the scroll bar at the bottom.

From his web page here- (you need to click on these blue underlined words, they are links (look for paragraph header- Diplomacy))- http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/

Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama 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.

And for further evidence of his stand, here are Obama's own words in a debate- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3Oj7Jn9rv4
------------------------------------------------------------

As to your first point, I am really not sure where to start, how about these words from Biden in the video- This is a fellow who I think shorthanded an answer that in fact was the wrong answer, in my view, saying I would within my first year, it implied he’d personally sit down with anybody who wanted to sit down with him.

again here is a link to Biden's video.- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2IRYCHy3y4

Let me know if you still have problems understanding.

[anonymous171]

15. I always knew you were a republican.

[boppers]

16. Pop quiz:

Who is the Head of State of Iran?

[hokies4ever]

17. "that's not what he meant"

your selective bolding is distorting Biden's comments

[anonymous171]

18. He doesn't care. He loves setting democrats against eachother.

He's an anti-Obama guy.

[emilyg]

38. Which means you have

no intelligent response to the op.

[cliffordu]

45. Or maybe he/she just caught on to the true nature of the OP....

Like a lot of other people......

[2rth2pwr]

21. It's all there including the video, he was trying to give Obama cover, to say that's not what he

meant, but obviously if you read his own web site or watch him at the debate, Obama says no preconditions.

[hokies4ever]

30. Are you saying that Obama is in a rush to meet with Ahmadinejad?

Spell it out you Lieberman wannabe! Your advocacy for Hillary is pathetic because it has nothing to do with lifting her up and everything to do with tearing Obama down.

[cliffordu]

37. Is the OP even a Dem?? Don't really act like any I know...

And I know some nasty Democrats.

[iconicgnom]

66. I think it's impossible that the OP is a Dem.

The OP writes like a straight down the line Bush/McCain/Lieberman Republican.

[2rth2pwr]

43. If by rush you mean within the first year of Obama's Presidency, then yes.

Obama's own words- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3Oj7Jn9rv4

[hokies4ever]

77. I'm rushing to the grocery store right now

hopefully I won't starve within the next year. :rofl:

[cliffordu]

22. Do you really care or are you just tossing crap at the wall again??

[still_one]

25. Did you ever hear of the Hamilton/Baker report on Iraq? Both Clinton and mccain supported that

It called on a dialog with ALL parties in the region, especially Iran and Syria, WITHOUT PRECONDITIONS

Funny how people seem to have convient memories

A dialog IS NOT APPEASEMENT.

[2rth2pwr]

57. See post #54. Your argument doesn't work, stop spamming.

It calls for the Secretary of State to do this starting with foreign minister or above. Yes, they also say it would be good if it was the President, but that is not a requirement.

[still_one]

61. I am not spamming, no one is responding, until now. Baker said talking is not appeasment

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_steven_l_080519_james_baker_hammers_.htm

[casus belli]

29. "Bring the world together"?!

You're kidding right? Have you seen our PARTY? Given the fractures in our own party, I find your theory that she would somehow do better at uniting the world behind her laughable.

[anonymous171]

32. Clintonian Triangulation is the problem.

[iconicgnom]

47. Yes, you dumb f&*k, Hart and Biden understand it correctly. Obviously.

[2rth2pwr]

50. Yes, they understand the best way for Presidential meetings to go.

Obama disagrees, see his web site and his own words at the debate.

You may still end up angry, just at somebody else.

[iconicgnom]

62. I've read and heard his own words.

I'm not angry, I just think you're a dumb f&*k who'd stretch truth into a pretzel so long as you think it'd help your candidate McCain. And no, McCain won't win on this BS talking point.

[still_one]

51. Recommendation #5 and #6 from the Iraq Study Group

RECOMMENDATION 5: The Support Group should consist of Iraq and all the states bordering Iraq, including Iran and Syria; the key regional states, including Egypt and the GUlf States; the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council; The European Union; and, of course, Iraq itself.

RECOMMENDATION 6: The New Diplomatic Offensive and the work of the Support Group should be carried out with urgency, and should be conducted by and organized at the level of foreign minister or above. The Secretary of State, if not the President, should lead the U.S. effot. THat effort should be both bilateral and multilateral, as circumstances require.


Incidently, BILATERAL MEANS JUST WHAT IT SAYS

[2rth2pwr]

54. Secretary of State.

Baker said that he wanted to make sure "everyone understands . . . the limited nature of what we are proposing with respect to Iran and Syria." He said the administration should find out whether Iran is willing to do what it did several years ago to help stabilize Afghanistan. He also said Syria would be required to meet several key obligations, including cooperating in the investigation of political assassinations in Lebanon and persuading Hamas to recognize Israel's right to exist.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/10/AR2006121000553.html

[still_one]

58. Baker said, "Talking to an enemy is not, in my view, appeasement."

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_steven_l_080519_james_baker_hammers_.htm

Dialog is dialog, NOT appeasement

Playing that kind of game almost destroyed the world over the Cuban Missle Crisis

[2rth2pwr]

59. Why are you bringing up appeasement? Also, there are posters here on this thread that

disagree with both of us. They say that Obama really means that he will have preconditions, what do you think?

[still_one]

63. Of course there are posters who disagree with both of us, this is DU

What I think is that we should have learned the lessons of the cold war, but it seems we didn't

[Boz]

75. I have said he doesnt but you have ignored that, because it doesnt fit your rhetoric

[anigbrowl]

67. It's just too complex for you to understand. I'm sorry.

[2rth2pwr]

70. Simple, Barack=meet in first year w/o preconditions. Biden/Hart=no fuckin' way.

[cali]

79. bzzzt. fail.

both Biden and particularly Hart were defending Obama. YOUR post is complete and utter bullshit. Great repuke game you're playing with your selective quoting.

[bowens43]

80. Obama is right .

HIllary is a pandering fool.

[NeedleCast]

82. Good for Obama

A president should support diplomacy, and be willing to talk to the leaders of other countries, even those hostile to the US. Hillary and her "tough talk" is nothing but an extention of the failed dipolomacy of Bush.

[dchill]

84. Are you just playing dumb...

about what Obama meant by "preconditions" or are you really in total agreement with John McCrud? If Hillary "knew" that Obama was "way off base," then she is not too bright, either, which automatically disqualifies her for the job of "bringing the world together."

[2rth2pwr]

87. The only explanation that is used in his defense is that "no preconditions" actually

means "some preconditions". That's what you are saying, right?

[dchill]

97. OK, so you're NOT just playing dumb?

:shrug:

[americanstranger]

96. Nah. He ain't playin'. n/t

- as

[dchill]

98. I've realized that.

Actually, I realized it some time ago.

[Vinca]

88. Why don't you parrot McCain's talking points directly?

Obama previously said he would have the underlings negotiate prior to high level meetings. Pre-conditions means you don't give them what they want before you talk.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

91. What, exactly, are you hoping for with a McCain presidency?

I'm wondering why you people keep voting against your own economic interests.

[Swamp Rat]

99. A salary raise

[haymakeragain]

100. God forbid we talk to a dirty muslim, against the wishes of our

zionist masters. Save all the whinings about "he denied the holocaust" and "he wants to wipe Isreal off the map", I don't care what he said. Mostly because when I read neutral-party translations in context, it doesn't come across quite as hysterical as it is made out to be.

[uberllama42]

101. Quit your whining.