KNOW YOUR OBAMA: VOL. 4

OBAMA DELEGATE FORCED OUT FOR CALLING BLACK CHILDREN "MONKEYS"

WHERE THE WHITE PEOPLE AT?: OBAMA CAMP CAUGHT SHOOING AWAY MINORITIES FOR PHOTO OP

OBAMA'S POLICY ON GAYS IN THE MILITARY: THE "YOU CAN'T BUT YOU CAN" POLICY

REPORT: OBAMA CODDLES EVIL

THE ANATOMY OF A FLIP FLOP: OBAMA SQUIRMS LIKE A WORM ON IRAQ WAR POLICY

WHAT DOES OBAMA THINK ABOUT IRAQ?: HIS OWN PEOPLE DON'T EVEN KNOW

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.

h/t Hot Air

IRAN FINDS FLIP FLOP IN OBAMA'S FOREIGN POLICY

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.

Wake up America! Iran has!

h/t Gateway Pundit
*

JOHN BOLTON RIPS OBAMA'S FOREIGN POLICY

Let's just say they don't see eye to eye:

Barack Obama's willingness to meet with the leaders of rogue states such as Iran and North Korea "without preconditions" is a naive and dangerous approach to dealing with the hard men who run pariah states. It will be an important and legitimate issue for policy debate during the remainder of the presidential campaign.

Consider his facile observations about President Kennedy's first meeting with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev, in Vienna in 1961. Obama saw it as a meeting that helped win the Cold War, when in fact it was an embarrassment for the American side. The inexperienced Kennedy performed so poorly that Khrushchev may well have been encouraged to position Soviet missiles in Cuba in 1962, thus precipitating one of the Cold War's most dangerous crises.

Such realities should cause Obama to become more circumspect, minimizing his off-the-cuff observations about history, grand strategy and diplomacy. In fact, he has done exactly the opposite, exhibiting so many gaps in his knowledge and understanding of world affairs that they have not yet received the attention they deserve. He consistently reveals failings in foreign policy that are far more serious than even his critics had previously imagined.

Consider the following statement, which was lost in the controversy over his comments about negotiations: "Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. ... Iran, they spend 1/100th of what we spend on the military. If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance."

Let's dissect this comment. Obama is correct that the rogue states he names do not present the same magnitude of threat as that posed by the Soviet Union through the possibility of nuclear war. Fortunately for us all, general nuclear war never took place. Nonetheless, serious surrogate struggles between the superpowers abounded because the Soviet Union's threat to the West was broader and more complex than simply the risk of nuclear war. Subversion, guerrilla warfare, sabotage and propaganda were several of the means by which this struggle was waged, and the stakes were high, even, or perhaps especially, in "tiny" countries.

What is implicit in Obama's reference to "tiny" threats is that they are sufficiently insignificant that negotiations alone can resolve them. Indeed, he has gone even further, arguing that the lack of negotiations with Iran caused the threats: "And the fact that we have not talked to them means that they have been developing nuclear weapons, funding Hamas, funding Hezbollah."

This is perhaps the most breathtakingly naive statement of all, implying as it does that it is actually U.S. policy that motivates Iran rather than Iran's own perceived ambitions and interests. That would be news to the mullahs in Tehran, not to mention the leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah.

This guy knows so much more about global affairs than Obama it's scary. Obama couldn't even quell the violence in his own congressional district. Yet we are to believe he is going to bring abut world peace? Blogger please.

UK FREAKS OUT OVER OBAMA'S IRAN POLICY, WHICH, BY THE WAY, BREAKS THREE UN RESOLUTIONS

It seems the rest of the world sees this man's significant flaws much better than many Americans.

David Miliband has raised questions over Barack Obama’s policy on Iran, which officials in Washington and Europe fear threatens to undermine the tough stance adopted by the West towards Tehran over recent years.

The Foreign Secretary, on his visit to the US this week, has held talks with all three presidential campaigns, including those of Hillary Clinton and John McCain.

But when he met Mr Obama’s team of foreign policy advisers on Wednesday, Mr Miliband is understood to have queried the presumptive Democratic nominee’s declared willingness to meet leaders from rogue states such as Iran.

British intelligence chiefs are understood to have identified Iranian nuclear proliferation as the second greatest security threat, behind Islamic terrorism but ahead of renewed aggression from Russia.

Exact accounts of the conversation with Mr Obama differ and there is certainly acute anxiety on the part of the British not to be seen as stoking political controversy in America’s presidential elections. In the past week Mr McCain has repeatedly hammered Mr Obama for what he claims is a “naive” commitment to hold direct talks with foreign dictators.

In a televised debate last summer, Mr Obama was asked if he would be willing to meet the leaders of countries such as Iran and Cuba without preconditions during his first year in office. He replied: “I would.” But this week he appeared to pull back, saying he would still be willing to meet Iranian leaders but not before what he described as “preparations” — and not necessarily with President Ahmadinejad.

Nevertheless, Mr Obama says that “tough but engaged diplomacy” — of the type carried out by President Kennedy or President Reagan with the Soviet Union — would represent “a different approach, a different philosophy” to the “failed Iran policy” of the current administration.

And oh, by the way...

Before starting his unconditional talks with Ahmadinejad, would Obama present a new resolution at the Security Council to cancel the three that he Islamic Republic president does not like? Or, would Obama act in defiance of the UN, thus further weakening the authority of the Security Council?

The preconditions that Ahmadinejad does not like and Obama promises to ignore were not set by President George W Bush.

They were decided after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported the Islamic Republic to be in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and, acting in accordance with its charter, referred the issue to the Security Council.

Dismissing the preconditions as irrelevant would mean snubbing America's European allies plus Russia and China, all of whom participated in drafting and approving the resolutions that Ahmadinejad does not like.

Obama responded to the above criticism by stating "Hope...Change...yada yada yada".

THE AUDACITY OF EVEN MORE BULLSHIT: OBAMA FLIP FLOPS ON HIS OWN FLIP FLOP -- AND THEN CRITICIZES HIS OWN FLIP FLOPPED FLIP FLOP

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 website still 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.
*

OBAMA'S POLICY ON GAYS IN THE MILITARY: THE "YOU CAN'T BUT YOU CAN" POLICY

Obama gives a mixed message regarding gays in the military. Which clearly shows his lack of knowledge with respect to the inner workings of the military. He advocates a repeal of the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy of Bill Clinton. But, at the same time, states that homosexuality should not be a litmus test for entry into the military.

Barack Obama says if elected president he won't require that his appointees to the Joint Chiefs of Staff support allowing gays to serve openly in the military.

The Democratic presidential front-runner favors repealing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays, which was instituted during the Clinton administration. He said his priority for the Joint Chiefs will be that they make decisions to strengthen the military and keep the country safe, not their position on the policy.

"I would never make this a litmus test for the Joint Chiefs of Staff," Obama said in an interview with The Advocate, a gay newsmagazine.

"But I think there's increasing recognition within the Armed Forces that this is a counterproductive strategy," he said. "We're spending large sums of money to kick highly qualified gays or lesbians out of our military, some of whom possess specialties like Arab-language capabilities that we desperately need. That doesn't make us more safe."

Obama wants to repeal "Don't Ask Don't Tell"

Obama's contradictory position, of course, ignores the reason the policy was wrongly imposed in the first place. Which is, that military members are overwhelming against homosexuals being allowed to serve in the military, and that without such a policy, gays would not be allowed to serve. In other words, without their acceptance being forced, there would be no acceptance at all. And Obama citing a few examples of where homosexuals can be useful in military service ignores the overall distraction they create and defies the will of our military institutions and the people who serve in them. The armed forces, more than any institution in America, require unity. Forcing service members to serve with people whom they find morally corrupt does not foster unity. And it does not make us more safe. Obama is wrong again.