Jim Geraghty on Obama's Ahmadinejad condemnation

They say Wednesdays are long, and being midweek, it just makes you long for the weekend even more. Au contraire, we love Wednesdays. The juiciest news comes out on Wednesdays whereas the weekend offers little in the way of news unless something relly big and bad happens unexpectedly. (Remember Reagan's passing? That happened on a Saturday, I believe.) Geraghty the Indispensable takes a look at Obama's condemnation of Ahmadinejad's UN statement:

Via Hot Air, we see a statement from Barack Obama, responding to Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s Remarks:

“I strongly condemn President Ahmadinejad’s outrageous remarks at the United Nations, and am disappointed that he had a platform to air his hateful and anti-Semitic views. The threat from Iran’s nuclear program is grave. Now is the time for Americans to unite on behalf of the strong sanctions that are needed to increase pressure on the Iranian regime.

“Once again, I call upon Senator McCain to join me in supporting a bipartisan bill to increase pressure on the Iranian regime by allowing states and private companies to divest from companies doing business in Iran. The security of our ally Israel is too important to play partisan politics, and it is deeply disappointing that Senator McCain and a few of his allies in Congress feel otherwise,” said Senator Barack Obama.

Gee, if we're worried about Ahmadinejad getting a platform to air hateful and anti-Semitic views, I hope no future president promises to hold a face-to-face summit with him without preconditions within the first year of taking office...

I realize that our friends on the left feel like McCain will say and do anything to get elected, but we can point to actual cases in which Obama is completely ignoring previous campaign promises, and completely reversing himself in order to get in line with public opinion....

First, let's recall what he said in the CNN/YouTube debates:

QUESTION: "Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?"

OBAMA: "I would. And the reason is this: The notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous. Ronald Reagan constantly spoke to the Soviet Union at a time when he called them an evil empire. He understood that we may not trust them, and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward. And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them."

This is also the position still stated on his official campaign website:

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

Um, pot, meet kettle.

Next, let's look at what Obama first said about Iran:

"Strong countries and strong Presidents talk to their adversaries. That's what Kennedy did with Khrushchev. That's what Reagan did with Gorbachev. That's what Nixon did with Mao. I mean think about it. 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."

So, he's chastising the UN for giving Ahmadinejad a platform to spew even though he still believes in face-to-face negotiations, without preconditions, with nations like Iran. And he now thinks that Iran is a threat when back in May, he didn't think they were such a threat. On Israel when he addressed AIPAC back on 4 June he sounded incredibly hawkish in his support of Israel, and even proclaimed that he would support Israeli control of Jerusalem. But on the 5th -- the very next day after Hamas raised a stink about his position -- he waffled on that position:

On Wednesday morning, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, told the pro-Israel lobby the American Israel Public Affairs Committee that he would be a strong ally of the Jewish state. As such, he repeated one of the talking points AIPAC likes to hear, that "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided."

As we covered last night, that proclamation resulted in harsh words from Hamas, as well as more moderate Palestinian voices such as Mahmoud Abbas and Saeb Erakat who specifically took issue with the "undivided" Jerusalem comments.

"We reject these words," Abbas said. "Jerusalem is one of the files under negotiation. The entire world knows perfectly well that we will never accept a state without Jerusalem. That should be clear."

In an interview today with CNN's Candy Crowley, Obama said of Jerusalem, "obviously, it's going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations."

Jim Geraghty is correct. He's reneging on previous promises, and trying to play both sides of these issues. In the case of Israel, he seems to be playing partisan politics, which is exactly what he accused McCain of doing. The candidate of "hope" and "change" isn't new. He's the same old type of pandering politico. His statements yesterday sounded hawkish, but in the end, he's not fooling any of us. We know what he's about, and we know he'd be a foreign policy disaster for this nation.

Nice try, Barry, but no one's buying the bull you're shoveling.

Publius II