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

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.

ABC News has an interesting piece out today detailing Barack Obama's "evolving" foreign policy stances, where he said one thing, then he changed it, then he changed it again.

Lets put some context to the article with relevant video interspersed of Obama's words, stated BY Obama himself.

ABC News:

Barack Obama's original answer seemed crystal clear: last July, asked whether he would meet with the "leaders" of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea "without precondition," during his first year as president, he quickly answered yes.

"I would," Obama, D-Ill., said at the CNN/YouTube debate. "And the reason is this: that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous."

You can see Obama's answers yourself, via YouTube, from the Democratic debate where he answered that question.



The question and answer is in the transcript itself:

QUESTION: In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since.

In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, 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, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

COOPER: I should also point out that Stephen is in the crowd tonight.

Senator Obama?

OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous.

John McCain has called that approached of meeting with state leaders that sponsor terror and terrorists groups, "reckless".

"I have some news for Senator Obama," McCain began, "Talking, not even with soaring rhetoric, in unconditional meetings with the man who calls Israel a stinking corpse, and arms terrorists who kill Americans will not convince Iran to give up its nuclear program."

"It is reckless to suggest that unconditional meetings will advance our interests," McCain said, to a round of applause at the NRA conference. "You know it would be a wonderful thing if we lived in a world where we don't have enemies. But that's not the world we live in. And until senator Obama understands that reality, the American people have every reason to doubt whether he has the strength, judgment and determination to keep us safe."

Barack Obama, in an interview has tried to back away from his stated position, and claims McCain has "misstated" Obama's own words, by saying:

TAPPER: In recent days, it has seemed that some of your staffers and supporters have walked back from your statement that you would be willing to meet with the leaders of rogue nations, countries hostile to the U.S., without preconditions. Your foreign policy adviser Susan Rice said you wouldn't necessarily meet with Ahmadinejad, Sen. Daschle said of course there would be conditions -- (Obama interrupts)

OBAMA: You know, Jake, I have to say I completely disagree that people have been walking back from anything. They may be correcting the characterizations or distortions of John McCain or others of what I said. What I said was I would meet with our adversaries including Iran, including Venezula, including Cuba, including North Korea, without preconditions but that does not mean without preparation.

I refer you to the video above, once again to see for yourself if Obama's past words, match his attempt to "back away" from his previously stated position.

From ABC we see Obama supporters also attempting to change the definition of "precondition":

Asked about Obama's original statement Tuesday morning on CNN, former Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., a top Obama adviser and supporter, said top-level meetings would not be immediate -- and would not happen without preliminary extensive diplomatic work.

"I would not say that we would meet unconditionally," said Daschle. "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."

Then you have his top foreign policy adviser:

Susan Rice, a top Obama foreign policy adviser, said Monday that Obama's meetings with Iranian leaders might not include Ahmadinejad.

"He said he'd meet with the appropriate Iranian leaders. He hasn't named who that leader will be," Rice said on CNN. "It would be the appropriate Iranian leadership at the appropriate time -- not necessarily Ahmadinejad."

Back to the video above!!!!

But, if the video above is getting too "old" for you, then let us look at yet another video (hat tip Weekly Standard) where Obama says....thats right, He would meet with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as well as Ali Khamenei, the man with the real power in Tehran. (Via YouTube)



So, "preparation" now means "preconditions" because the word "condition" cannot be used because Barack Obama already said he would meet with those leaders without preconditions.

Still on the same page in Obamaworld?

Let us not forget the medias help to Obama on this issue, via Joe Klein and the "crack team of researchers" at Time Magazine, who couldn't find either of those two YouTube clips, obviously.

On Friday, I promised to check into whether Obama had ever said that he would negotiate--specifically, by name -- with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Indeed, according to the crack Time Magazine research department and the Obama campaign, he never has.

Perhaps someone needs to email those two video clips to Mr. Klein and Time Magazine, since they are so hard for them to find for themselves.

Amazing what a person can miss when they do not bother to look, huh?

Back to ABC, where they point out that Obama, knowing he has been busted on his deliberate attempt to rewrite his own words, caught on video, told a crowd in South Dakota:

"Preconditions, as it applies to a country like Iran, for example, was a term of art because this administration has been very clear that it will not have direct negotiations with Iran until Iran has met preconditions that are, essentially, what Iran views and many other observers would view as the subject of the negotiations," Obama told reporters.

"The point is that I would not refuse to meet until they agree to every position that we want, but that doesn't mean that we would not have preparation," he continued. "The preparation would involve starting with low level, lower-level diplomatic contacts, having our diplomatic core work through with Iranian counterparts -- an agenda. But what I have said is that, at some point, I would be willing to meet."

Again, I refer you back to the first video in this post.

Of course other Democrats are seeking to "explain" Obama's evolving position as evidenced by Joe Biden:

"This is a fellow who, I think, shorthanded an answer that, in fact, was the wrong answer, in my view, saying, 'I would, within the first year' -- it implied he'd personally sit down with anybody who wanted to sit down with him," Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., a former presidential candidate, who is now neutral in the race, said on ABC's "This Week" on Sunday.

"That's not what he meant," Biden continued. "That's not what he has said, since then, for the last year, or thereabouts. And so, I think, that he's fully capable of understanding what's going on."

So, the answer from video one, from Obama's own mouth, should be ignored because his answers since then have changed and he has "evolved"?

**********************************************************************************


There is yet more in the Obama oeuvre of old politics.

See Lie # 28 In October 2007, Obama and not his critics made the American flag pin on his lapel an issue by saying it had become a “substitute” for “true patriotism.” He proudly declared, ”I won’t wear that pin on my chest.” That pledge has apparently become inoperative. Obama has been wearing the American flag pin on his lapel at campaign events. Apparently it’s no longer a substitute for “true patriotism.”

In his speech on race, Obama said “I can no more disown [the Reverend Jeremiah Wright] than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother.” But after Wright’s comments a few weeks later at the National Press Club, the Reverend Wright found himself not only disowned but tossed under the bus — not so much because of Wright’s critical comments about America but because of his critical comments about Obama.

Senator Obama has claimed as president he’ll be able to rise above partisan politics — yet he has done very little to work with Republicans on major, controversial issues. Obama is not only the most liberal person in the Senate but also one of the most reliable Democratic votes. He has voted against such outstanding Supreme Court nominees as John Roberts and Samuel Alito. No person who is serious about acting in a “post-partisan” manner would have cast those votes or acted the way Obama has during his Senate career.

Obama repeatedly speaks about the corrupting influence lobbyists have on politicians — yet he seems rather less vocal about his close association with Antoin “Tony” Rezko, who is on trial on 24 counts of corruption. Rezko was among the first people to support Obama’s maiden campaign, was a key fundraiser for all of Obama’s campaigns, and Rezko and his wife helped the Obamas buy their house by purchasing the lot next door.

According to the Chicago Sun-Times, in June 2005 Obama and Rezko purchased adjoining parcels. Obama paid $1.65 million for a home while Rezko paid $625,000 for the adjacent, undeveloped lot. Both closed on their properties on the same day (the Obama’s were able to purchase their parcel for $300,000 less than the asking price while Rita Rezko, the wife of Tony Rezko, paid the full price). And in January 2006, Obama paid Rezko $104,500 for portions of his land. The transaction occurred at a time when it was widely known that Rezko was under investigation. And according to ABC News, Rezko contributed more than $120,000 to Obama’s 2004 Senate campaign — much of it at a time when Rezko was the target of an FBI investigation. “It surprised me that late in the game [Obama] continued to take contributions from somebody who was under a rather dark cloud in the state,” according to Cynthia Canary of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, a group that has worked closely with Obama and supported his legislative efforts.

* * * *

Is Barack Obama’s record on these matters unprecedented for a politician? No. Has he acted in ways that are dishonorable or that call into question his basic integrity? Not in my judgment. But they matter because they go to the core of his campaign, which is to present Obama as a figure who is different, and better, than those who have come before him. He is a man who will bring “change” to Washington, cast aside the “old politics,” and heal deep divisions. We are led to believe that he is a transcendent figure, more high-minded and unstained than, well, just about anyone in American politics.

But reality is now shattering the myth. Obama turns out to be a Chicago politician — highly ambitious, extremely talented, and neither untainted nor uncompromised. Maybe it’s time for the national media, many of whom (like Newsweek and MSNBC, for starters) are enraptured by Obama, to acquaint themselves with the real man. Is that too much to ask when selecting our next president?

— Peter Wehner, former deputy assistant to the president, is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.