Re: obarmy radically changes his stance on iran to get closer to the bush position.....

On Mon, 19 May 2008 05:28:54 -0400,  in uk.politics.misc,  Governor Swill
<governor.swill@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, wrote 

>FACE <AFaceInTheCrowd@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> used a stick in the sand to babble
>>http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/article/29896_Obama_Changes_His_Unconditional_Position
>>Obama Changes His 'Unconditional' Position - Update: Video Added
>>
>>Sat, May 10, 2008 at 12:02:40 pm PST
>>
>>In yet another New York Times advocacy piece for Barack Obama, we
discover
>>that the Obama campaign is trying to rewrite history again.
>>
>>    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.”
>>
>>The problem is, Barack Obama did say he’d meet with Iran
unconditionally, in
>>front of a lot of people, at the CNN/YouTube Democratic debate last
July.
>

Cut from my message:
"He was specifically and directly asked if he would meet with the leader
of Iran (and the leaders of several other "so-called rogue states")
without preconditions, in the first year of his presidency, and his answer
was, "I would".

I think I may have explained this, but he was roundly castigated by the
other Democratic candidates of last july and so the next week he comes
back and overcompensates and says he will bomb pakistan, permission or
not, if he thinks Bin Laden is there.  


>But the real problem is that this is being twisted to appeasement.
>

No, it was his political immaturity and stupidity in trying to play to the
prevailing winds........  Didn't he tell us that "words meant things"
before he decided that they were "just words"?

You can spin that however you like, which I imagine you will..........

FACE

>Swill