Pull his string and he'll do a little dance. Obama damn near breaks his neck reversing position on off shore drilling:
This was Obama on June 20, 2008:
At a stop in Jacksonville today, Sen. Barack Obama plans to tell reporters that he continues to support the federal ban on off-shore drilling. His Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, said this week he would like to lift the ban and let states decide whether to drill.
“And when I am President, I will keep the moratorium in place and prevent oil companies from drilling off Florida’s coasts,” Obama says. “That’s how we can protect our coasts and still make the investments that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and bring down gas prices for good.”
And this is Obama today:
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Friday he would be willing to support limited additional offshore oil drilling if that's what it takes to enact a comprehensive policy to foster fuel-efficient autos and develop alternate energy sources.
"My interest is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices," Obama said in an interview with The Palm Beach Post.
"If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage — I don't want to be so rigid that we can't get something done."
That's all code for..."Damn!...The polls favor off shore drilling 75% to 25%!?!?".
Let's not give any politician credit for what will soon be the reality of off shore drilling. The American people deserve all the credit for this one.
Obama is going to vote for the FISA bill he previously swore to filibuster.
The Senate is finally expected to wrap up the bill updating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act today, which includes the controversial provision of retroactive immunity for telecom companies facing lawsuit. While the bill splits Democrats, it's expected to pass with united Republican support.
Obama will be back for today's vote and has said he'll support final passage.
Strickland also notes Obama's seeming reversal on FISA: In December of last year, Obama's office said in a written statement, "Senator Obama unequivocally opposes giving retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies... granting such immunity undermines the constitutional protections Americans trust the Congress to protect. Senator Obama supports a filibuster [blocking] of this bill, and strongly urges others to do the same."
This Obama two-step has the freakshows at the Daily Kos hopping mad.
F*** the Democrats! by CT yanqui Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:30:27 AM PDT F*** Reid, F*** Pelosi, F*** Hoyer, F***Rockefeller, and , yes, F*** Obama. F*** ‘em all!
CT yanqui's diary :: :: After 2 years, the Dems have given Bush everything he wanted, from a trillion dollars for Iraq, to the destruction of the Constitution. Now Bush walks away. He gets away with murder, war crimes, and treason. Things will be worse under McCain? They won’t, because they already are. If this FISA vote goes through, I am closing my checkbook and resigning from the Democratic Party after 45 years. I had high hopes in 2006, and after Obama’s nomination, but it is now clear that the Democrats are congenital cowards. Nothing is going to change.
Nothing is going to change"? But but Obama...He's different...No...Not really...But he really had y'all going there for a while.
In three different appearances over the last two days, David Axelrod, Susan Rice, and Claire McCaskill all offered competing visions of Obama’s policy on Iraq. First, we have Axelrod, Obama’s chief strategist, insisting that his January 2007 plan was still operative yesterday:
David Axelrod: John, with all due respect, on this, your knowledge doesn’t extend far enough. The fact is that, Senator Obama introduced a plan in the United States Senate in January of 2007 that called for a phased withdrawal, with benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet, that called for strategic pauses, based on the progress on these benchmarks, and advice on the commanders on the ground and he’s always said that he would listen to the advice of commanders on the ground, that that would factor into his thinking. He’s also said we have to be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. So he’s been very consistent on this point.
However, on the same day, Senator Claire McCaskill — Obama’s campaign co-chair — told MS-NBC that advice on the ground wouldn’t deflect Obama from his commitment to withdraw troops or change his plans at all:
Monica Novotny: In this week’s New Yorker, George Packer writes about Obama’s original withdrawal plan in the context of what we’re now seeing as a relative stabilization in parts of Iraq. He writes about Obama, ‘He doubtless realizes that his original plan, if implemented now, could revive the badly wounded al Qaeda in Iraq, re-energize the Sunni insurgency, embolden Moqtada al-Sadr to recoup his militia’s recent losses to the Iraqi Army, and return the central government to a state of collapse. The question is whether Obama will publicly change course before November.’ Will he?
Sen. McCaskill: No. He will not.
The day before, Obama’s foreign-policy adviser Susan Rice insisted that Obama will be flexible and change direction if conditions on the ground warrant it:
He has said that the best military advice he’s received leads us to believe that we can safely withdraw our forces at the pace of one to two combat brigades per month, and depending on the number of combat brigades he inherits, our best estimate is that that could be accomplished in roughly 16 months. That’s not a deadline. That’s a timetable, and obviously if Senator Obama has said on numerous occasions, he will listen to his commanders on the ground, he will follow and heed their advice as he decides how at the strategic level we must proceed. So he will do this very carefully and responsibly as he always said but he will do it.
These whackjobs can spot a bullshitter, but at least half of American can't.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad-Ali Hosseini on Thursday ruled out "unrealistic" claim of a US presidential candidate that Iran's nuclear program is threatening in nature.
"Peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program is undeniable," said Hosseini.
He added, "This (the US presidential candidate's claim) is a fully one-sided and unreal assessment, is in open contradiction with realities concerning peaceful nature of Iran's peaceful nuclear program and is unjustified." He regretted over such "opportunistic attitudes" and said the claim stems from Zionists' insinuations and the candidate's wrong concept.
The candidate's stances are contrary to his campaign promises to counter lobbyism in the US and the Americans and the US elite are concerned over the fact that the US' independent position is getting undermined, he added.
Not my desire to be all Obama all the time. But damn! The guy never stops providing material. Ad the truth must be told.
Expect the big story coming out of AIPAC to be Obama's declaration that he thinks the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps ought to be designated a a terrorist organization... and how this balances with his vote against that exact designation less than a year ago.
In September, 76 senators, including Sens. Reid, Schumer, Durbin and Clinton voted for it.
The RNC notes:
In October 2007, Obama Described Kyl-Lieberman As A Justification For Attacking Iran. OBAMA: "[The] Bush administration could use the language in Lieberman-Kyl to justify an attack on Iran as a part of the ongoing war in Iraq." (Sen. Barack Obama, "Five Years After Iraq War Vote, We're Still Foolishly Rattling Our Sabers," Manchester Union-Leader, 10/11/07)
Senator Joe Lieberman, on a conference call that ended a few moments ago: "First I should congratulate him on securing the Democratic nomination. I hope it will be a civil and constructive campaign debate...
"I appreciate many of the very good intentions toward Israel that Senator Obama expressed today. But I also thought, respectfully, that there was a disconnect between what he said today, particulary in regard to Iran, and things he has said and done earlier in campaign and in Senate."
"I was troubled earlier this year when he compared Iran and other rogue and terrorist states to the Soviet Union and minimized the threat. Today he said he thought Iran represented a grave threat. Today he was right."
You read it here. You might read it in a few other places. But you won't hear about it again I'm betting. This is nothing other than shameless jew pandering. Someone is pulling Obama's strings, and they have no idea what the hell they stand for.
This might be a first in U.S. presidential politics. Barak Obama is flip flopping on a flip flop. Last week, we posted about Obama's claim (via his political adviser) that he never stated he would talk unconditionally with Iran on a direct presidential level. What we learned, in summary, was the following (bear with me---writing about a flip flop of a flip flop isn't easy):
May 10, 2008 Barak Obama's political adviser, as quoted in The New York Times stated the following:
Susan E. Rice, a former State Department and National Security Council official who is a foreign policy adviser to the Democratic candidate, said that “for political purposes, Senator Obama’s opponents on the right have distorted and reframed” his views. Mr. McCain and his surrogates have repeatedly stated that Mr. Obama would be willing to meet “unconditionally” with Mr. Ahmadinejad. But Dr. Rice said that this was not the case for Iran or any other so-called “rogue” state. Mr. Obama believes “that engagement at the presidential level, at the appropriate time and with the appropriate preparation, can be used to leverage the change we need,” Dr. Rice said. “But nobody said he would initiate contacts at the presidential level; that requires due preparation and advance work.”
Which in response to Ms. Rice's misstatement, we reminded Ms. Rice, The New York Times and our readers of The New York Times' own previous article about Obama's stance on negotiating with Iran which read, in pertinent part:
Senator Barack Obama said he would “engage in aggressive personal diplomacy” with Iran if elected president, and would offer economic inducements and a possible promise not to seek “regime change” if Iran stopped meddling in Iraq and cooperated on terrorism and nuclear issues…
Making clear that he planned to talk to Iran without preconditions, Mr. Obama emphasized further that “changes in behavior” by Iran could possibly be rewarded with membership in the World Trade Organization, other economic benefits and security guarantees…
Mr. Obama’s willingness to conduct talks at the highest level with Iran … differs significantly from the Bush administration.
We even offered a video documenting Obama's then stance on negotiating with Iran
And to further illustrate Obama's then stance on negotiation without precondition with Iran, we provided the following screenshot taken from Obama's own campaign website:
(Click to enlarge)
His websitestill says he will negotiate with Iran without preconditions. I imagine that will disappear soon in light of what Obama is now saying.
So what is Obama now saying? Just a week later, and while his website still says he will negotiate with Iran on a presidential level without preconditions? Obama now claims the following is his foreign policy towards Iran:
“It’s time to present Iran with a clear choice,” Mr. Obama said. “If it abandons its nuclear program, support for terror and threats to Israel, then Iran can rejoin the community of nations. If not, Iran will face deeper isolation and steeper sanctions.”
And in a remarkable demonstration of sobriety, The New York Times, of all entities, notes the drastic change in Obama's stance on Iran in just a week:
On Friday, Mr. Obama tried, not for the first time, to deflect and counter the criticisms by articulating his view of foreign relations, one in which military might is accompanied by diplomatic engagement with all countries, including enemies. His most specific example was a significantly changed policy toward Iran, one that would be equal parts carrot and stick.
This "carrot and stick" approach certainly sounds like negotiation with preconditions to me. Even more significant, it sounds exactly like the Bush administration's policy towards Iran for the last 5 plus years. The same foreign policy Obama loudly criticized just Yesterday.
So there you have it. In the span of 9 days, Obama has gone from negotiating without conditions with Iran, to denying he would negotiate without conditions with Iran, to stating he would negotiate with Iran with conditions, to criticizing negotiation with Iran with conditions.
Barak Obama has been running on nothing but a platform of hope and change. I hope he quits changing. *
Posts
