More Reasons Obama’s ‘Without Preconditions’ View So Pinheaded

In July of 2007, Barack Obama was asked by a video questioner: “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?…..”

“I would,” he answered.

No preconditions.  Or preparations.  Or anything.  Just one leader sitting down with rogue terrorist dictators who would love to see the world painted red with American blood.  And then the endless lawyerly parsings and outright disinformation began.  Barack Obama was all over the board without ever once acknowledging that he was all over the board.

Joe Biden went from saying that Obama gave the “‘wrong answer’ on negotiating unconditionally with hostile foreign leaders” as a candidate opposing Obama to denying that he ever even said he would negotiate with Iran without preconditions in the first place in his debate with Sarah Palin as Obama’s running mate.  Biden is either lying, ignorant, or just plain pinheaded.  My choice: all of the above.

It wasn’t just Joe Biden who said negotiating with rogue leaders without preconditions was stupid during the primaries.  Everybody said it was stupid – except for Barack Obama.  Hillary Clinton said that Obama was “naive on foreign policy.”  And, as pointed out even by the very left-oriented MSNBC, that “older politicians of both parties questioned the wisdom of such a course.”

In short, it was, is, and always will be pinheaded in its pretension and naivity.

But we may not have to worry: Iran is coming to the rescue and saving us from the dangerous and naive foreign policy folly of Barack Obama:

Even though Senator Obama has said he would meet with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and other dictators within a year of taking office, there is no reason to think those meetings will go ahead.

Why? Because Ahmadinejad doesn’t want to do it.

The vice president for Iranian media affairs says Iran has preconditions of its own. He tells the Islamic Republic News Agency Americans are in dire need of re-establishing ties with the Iranian people and that Iran will only hold talks if “the U.S. moves out of the Middle East and the U.S. government gives up its widespread support for the Zionist regime.”

Which is another way of saying that Iran has come out and informed the world as to just how profoundly stupid and incompetent Barack Obama is for making such an incredibly boneheaded foreign policy statement in the first place.  You can’t just show up and talk to people who despise everything you stand for and who want you dead.

Mind you, from what Jesse Jackson is saying about Barack Obama’s REAL (i.e., not spun into pablum for public consumption) position is via Israel, Obama may actually YIELD to Ahmadinejab’s demands:

PREPARE for a new America: That’s the message that the Rev. Jesse Jackson conveyed to participants in the first World Policy Forum, held at this French lakeside resort last week.

He promised “fundamental changes” in US foreign policy – saying America must “heal wounds” it has caused to other nations, revive its alliances and apologize for the “arrogance of the Bush administration.”

The most important change would occur in the Middle East, where “decades of putting Israel’s interests first” would end.

Jackson believes that, although “Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades” remain strong, they’ll lose a great deal of their clout when Barack Obama enters the White House.

“Obama is about change,” Jackson told me in a wide-ranging conversation. “And the change that Obama promises is not limited to what we do in America itself. It is a change of the way America looks at the world and its place in it.”

In other words, Barack Obama may be preparing to comply with Ahmadinejad’s “preconditions.”  Ahmadinejab’s said that he would negotiate with the U.S. only if it “moves out of the Middle East and the U.S. government gives up its widespread support for the Zionist regime.”  And Jesse Jackson is seriously contending that Obama would do precisely that.

Which would be even more of a pinheaded position than Obama’s extremely pinheaded “I would” answer at the July 2007 debate that set all this into motion in the first place.

The Obama campaign has attempted to distance itself from Jackson’s remarks, but you can’t know what a guy who said that Jerusalem should be the undivided capital of Israel to an audience of Jews, and that Jerusalem should be fully subject to negotiation to an audience of Arabs.  How can you know what he really believes?  And you certainly have to wonder about how fervent commitment to Israel is, given his longterm relationship with PLO terrorist Rasheed Khalidi (or how opposed to terrorism he actually is, given his partnering with a leader of a domestic terrorist group that bombed over a dozen American sites (including the Pentagon and NYPD headquarters) and killed seven people).

And how should Islamic Arab and Persian terrorists feel if Obama shuns them when he was so willing to partner with a white terrorist bomber who bombed the Pentagon and the Capital?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2 Responses to “More Reasons Obama’s ‘Without Preconditions’ View So Pinheaded”

  1. NoBama Says:

    Obama is an egghead empty suit loud mouth junior Chicago Politician. Iran made a fool out of Jimmy Carter and sank his presidency whilst making America look silly. It took a Republican President the Great Ronald Reagan to restore American pride. Iran released the hostages almost immediately after President Reagan was elected and they were on their way home before the inauguration because the Iranian cowards knew what President Reagan was going to do to them if they did not comply. Then Silly Willy came in 1992 and the terro’s ran circles around him planning that 911 horror right under his nose while he spent his time chasing skirt and getting the sodomites into the army and into public office. We all know what Iran will do with Obama. He will either obey when they tell him what they want or they will laugh in his face. Duh!

  2. Michael Eden Says:

    You’re completely right. Democrats are weak on national defense and terror and they always will be. They have been weak since Lyndon Johnson rolled over and died when liberals turned against him over Vietnam. Ever since, they’ve been Neville Chamberlain style appeasers.

    A vote for Obama is a vote for a nuclear Iran. Only the assurance of force – assurance powerful enough that Iran believes it – will prevent Iran from fulfilling an ambition that they are incredibly close to fulfilling now. Iran briefly halted its nuclear program after Bush invaded Iraq because they didn’t want to be next. They started it up again when they realized how gutless and pathetic American Democrats were.

    Democrats voted for the war before they voted against it. They are the very worst kind of cowards. The word “traitor” applies to the people you can read about:

    Senate Majority leader Harry Reid saying, “This war is lost.” Rep. Jack Murtha treasonously saying that innocent Marines were guilty of war crimes. Barack Obama voting against the surge when the surge saved the whole war effort. The whole liberal Bush lied, people died crowd.

    Yeah, lets put these traitorous cowards in charge of our national defense.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: