I think Obama just screwed up

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: StormRider
I never understood the reasons to require "preconditions" just to talk. To me talking is a first step. Using "preconditions" before talking is an excuse not to talk and just fight instead.

Of course your talking. Your aides, your diplomats are talking constantly. Hillary doesn't want to stop talks, unlike the Bush Administration. She wants to keep talking, but at a lower level. Just agreeing, without actually setting preconditions can lead to propaganda stunts by forgein leaders. Look at the recent metting with Putin. Putin pulled a stunt by suggesting to use decades old Russian radar, instead of American radar to monitor Iran.

Just look at the "debate" between JFK and Khrushchev during a diplomatic meeting. Those are the kinds of scenarios you want to avoid.

 

[Moonbeam]

On the other side of the coin I guess you wouldn't want to walk into a situation the only purpose of which is to see if other can play you for a fool. One always has to be heads up for cunning people who are not sincere.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: PingSpike
Doesn't matter. The only people that watch youtube don't vote anyway.

Uh...the questions were from posted to the candidates via YouTube.

The debate was shown on CNN.

:rollwow)

 

[JEDIYoda]

So why did OBama just screw up??

Seems to me to get past the enemy stage you need to have some sort of dialogue first...
Oh...wait..I am so sorry...we must have military action first...my bad...I forgot about military action always comes first...lolol

If OBama is the democratic candidate then he gets my vote!!

I am sorry to say-- Hiullary`s answer on this question was calculated...and worst cowardly!!

Peace!!

 

[RichardE]

I think this might become a deciding points between the two.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: StormRider
I never understood the reasons to require "preconditions" just to talk. To me talking is a first step. Using "preconditions" before talking is an excuse not to talk and just fight instead.

Of course your talking. Your aides, your diplomats are talking constantly. Hillary doesn't want to stop talks, unlike the Bush Administration. She wants to keep talking, but at a lower level. Just agreeing, without actually setting preconditions can lead to propaganda stunts by forgein leaders. Look at the recent metting with Putin. Putin pulled a stunt by suggesting to use decades old Russian radar, instead of American radar to monitor Iran.

Just look at the "debate" between JFK and Khrushchev during a diplomatic meeting. Those are the kinds of scenarios you want to avoid.

Yeah--I see your reasoning now--- We could always use that to our advantage...after all we as a nation are what makes the world go round!!
We can`t have some two bit country going around saying they had talks with the united States and ther were NO preset conditions!!
Can`t have that now can we? What would the world think...hmmmm

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: StormRider
I never understood the reasons to require "preconditions" just to talk. To me talking is a first step. Using "preconditions" before talking is an excuse not to talk and just fight instead.

Of course your talking. Your aides, your diplomats are talking constantly. Hillary doesn't want to stop talks, unlike the Bush Administration. She wants to keep talking, but at a lower level. Just agreeing, without actually setting preconditions can lead to propaganda stunts by forgein leaders. Look at the recent metting with Putin. Putin pulled a stunt by suggesting to use decades old Russian radar, instead of American radar to monitor Iran.

Just look at the "debate" between JFK and Khrushchev during a diplomatic meeting. Those are the kinds of scenarios you want to avoid.

Yeah--I see your reasoning now--- We could always use that to our advantage...after all we as a nation are what makes the world go round!!
We can`t have some two bit country going around saying they had talks with the united States and ther were NO preset conditions!!
Can`t have that now can we? What would the world think...hmmmm

You usually have diplomatic talks before the leaders go in. No one's saying that you shouldn't have dialogue.

 

[AnitaPeterson]

I am a journalist.

The best interviews I had were with people that posed no preconditions. You touch upon something sensitive, they tell me right then and there. It's up to my conscience and professionalism to insist or leave it.

Most, if not all, of the interviews with preconditions were simple attempts to manipulate me and the rest of the media, and ultimately the the public. It's usually in moments like these that the gloves go off, as far as I'm concerned.

When you have legal and PR departments running ALL of your communications, you're screwed.

If Obama does this right, and a few big names raise to the challenge, the guy will really get a chance to shine.

Really, what's with the double standard? First you bemoan the lack of honesty and transparency in politicians, then when someone tries to do just what you're claiming you wish they did, you 're criticizing them for recklessness???

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
I am a journalist.

The best interviews I had were with people that posed no preconditions. You touch upon something sensitive, they tell me right then and there. It's up to my conscience and professionalism to insist or leave it.

Most, if not all, of the interviews with preconditions were simple attempts to manipulate me and the rest of the media, and ultimately the the public. It's usually in moments like these that the gloves go off, as far as I'm concerned.

When you have legal and PR departments running ALL of your communications, you're screwed.

If Obama does this right, and a few big names raise to the challenge, the guy will really get a chance to shine.

Really, what's with the double standard? First you bemoan the lack of honesty and transparency in politicians, then when someone tries to do just what you're claiming you wish they did, you 're criticizing them for recklessness???

How is setting yourself up for political sabotage a good thing?

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
I am a journalist.

The best interviews I had were with people that posed no preconditions. You touch upon something sensitive, they tell me right then and there. It's up to my conscience and professionalism to insist or leave it.

Most, if not all, of the interviews with preconditions were simple attempts to manipulate me and the rest of the media, and ultimately the the public. It's usually in moments like these that the gloves go off, as far as I'm concerned.

When you have legal and PR departments running ALL of your communications, you're screwed.

If Obama does this right, and a few big names raise to the challenge, the guy will really get a chance to shine.

Really, what's with the double standard? First you bemoan the lack of honesty and transparency in politicians, then when someone tries to do just what you're claiming you wish they did, you 're criticizing them for recklessness???

How is setting yourself up for political sabotage a good thing?

That could happen with either pre-conditions or not.

What pre-conditions could you insists on that would ensure that your not used for propaganda purposes? Or how are they being set up for political sabotage?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
I think Obama just hi-lited his political inexperience and naivety...

Nice job of quoting of Hillary's talking point. Too bad it's all bullshit.

Obama's a very intelligent guy. There's no way he doesn't know that any direct talks with hostile nations would happen without a lot of diplomatic groundwork.

In saying he'd be willing to pursue such talks, Obama didn't get into the details of how, or under what conditions, such talks could happen. Neither did he promise to be naive, inexperienced or just plain stupid about it.

Hillary and her crew are trying to score points on a triviality by saying she wouldn't promise to talk with them in her first year in office as President. In other words, she said nothing significant, and wasted far too many words to say it. Furthermore, as a Senator, she has previously chided the Idiot In Chief for not being willing to talk with those same hostile nations. :roll:

This is a non-issue. It relates to about 15 seconds of dialog in a two hour discussion, blown all out of proportion by those desparate for anything to fill their lack of anything to say.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
I am a journalist.

The best interviews I had were with people that posed no preconditions. You touch upon something sensitive, they tell me right then and there. It's up to my conscience and professionalism to insist or leave it.

Most, if not all, of the interviews with preconditions were simple attempts to manipulate me and the rest of the media, and ultimately the the public. It's usually in moments like these that the gloves go off, as far as I'm concerned.

When you have legal and PR departments running ALL of your communications, you're screwed.

If Obama does this right, and a few big names raise to the challenge, the guy will really get a chance to shine.

Really, what's with the double standard? First you bemoan the lack of honesty and transparency in politicians, then when someone tries to do just what you're claiming you wish they did, you 're criticizing them for recklessness???

How is setting yourself up for political sabotage a good thing?

That could happen with either pre-conditions or not.

What pre-conditions could you insists on that would ensure that your not used for propaganda purposes? Or how are they being set up for political sabotage?

I don't know, but setting up the groundwork for talks certainly helps to keep on subject when two leaders actually meet.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
I am a journalist.

The best interviews I had were with people that posed no preconditions. You touch upon something sensitive, they tell me right then and there. It's up to my conscience and professionalism to insist or leave it.

Most, if not all, of the interviews with preconditions were simple attempts to manipulate me and the rest of the media, and ultimately the the public. It's usually in moments like these that the gloves go off, as far as I'm concerned.

When you have legal and PR departments running ALL of your communications, you're screwed.

If Obama does this right, and a few big names raise to the challenge, the guy will really get a chance to shine.

Really, what's with the double standard? First you bemoan the lack of honesty and transparency in politicians, then when someone tries to do just what you're claiming you wish they did, you 're criticizing them for recklessness???

You are so right on the mark....
But as you stated--If Obama does this right, and a few big names raise to the challenge, the guy will really get a chance to shine.
IMO thats the key!!
Also IMO a relatively noname OBama because he has not been entrenched in Washington Polititcs for decades has a real good shot at accomplishing things that others would say cannot be done!!

very nice post Anita!!

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
I am a journalist.

The best interviews I had were with people that posed no preconditions. You touch upon something sensitive, they tell me right then and there. It's up to my conscience and professionalism to insist or leave it.

Most, if not all, of the interviews with preconditions were simple attempts to manipulate me and the rest of the media, and ultimately the the public. It's usually in moments like these that the gloves go off, as far as I'm concerned.

When you have legal and PR departments running ALL of your communications, you're screwed.

If Obama does this right, and a few big names raise to the challenge, the guy will really get a chance to shine.

Really, what's with the double standard? First you bemoan the lack of honesty and transparency in politicians, then when someone tries to do just what you're claiming you wish they did, you 're criticizing them for recklessness???

You, as a journalist, and Kim as the nutball leader of a rogue totalitarian state are 2 completly different things.

I don't see the double standard you refer to? Most of us are questioning the wisdom of his proposed approach, particularly with types like Ahmadinijad (sp?) and Kim.

But personally this one thing wouldn't be a deciding factor in my voting decision. He's a smart guy, if he tries it and gets burned I'll expect him to learn from the experience.

Fern

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
I think Obama just hi-lited his political inexperience and naivety...

Nice job of quoting of Hillary's talking point. Too bad it's all bullshit.

Obama's a very intelligent guy. There's no way he doesn't know that any direct talks with hostile nations would happen without a lot of diplomatic groundwork.

In saying he'd be willing to pursue such talks, Obama didn't get into the details of how, or under what conditions, such talks could happen. Neither did he promise to be naive, inexperienced or just plain stupid about it.

Hillary and her crew are trying to score points on a triviality by saying she wouldn't promise to talk with them in her first year in office as President. In other words, she said nothing significant, and wasted far too many words to say it. Furthermore, as a Senator, she has previously chided the Idiot In Chief for not being willing to talk with those same hostile nations. :roll:

This is a non-issue. It relates to about 15 seconds of dialog in a two hour discussion, blown all out of proportion by those desparate for anything to fill their lack of anything to say.

She won't promise to talk, but that doesn't mean that she won't talk. There are no promises in life. If she sees an opportunity, I doubt that she'll pass.

Also, Obama's Campaign started it first. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07...bate.html?ref=politics

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
I think Obama just hi-lited his political inexperience and naivety when he said in the youtube debate that he would meet face to face with the leaders of NK, Syria, Iran, etc with no preconditions. I'm sure this sounds great to equally naive young people who dont understand the dance of international politics, but I'm sure most veteran politicians in Washington know that what he said was a big no no. I think it also hilited one of the main things Hillary has over her main rival, and that is political know-how. Aside from Hillary's domestic agenda, which I dont care for, I'm fully confident that she knows how to conduct herself on the international stage, and she would probably be a much better ambassador for America's image than Bush. The leaders of our enemies, who also know a thing or two about international politics and how to play the media, would be able to make Obama look like a chump.

Discuss

All I see is the "old stick" being beaten by the "new switch".

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Hacp
I don't know, but setting up the groundwork for talks certainly helps to keep on subject when two leaders actually meet.

Yes, and aside from the possibility of being used in some PR stunt, having some preconditions helps to make sure you're just not wasting time.

I don't meet with people in everyday business unless we have some "preconditions". And I know as President he'll be a lot busier than me. And the logistics etc of these type meetings takes a lot of effort and resources.

But again, I don't think this any real big deal. And I think we're missing the forest for trees and the real story here is the sniping between the two candidates. From what I've heard from analyists, Obama came out a big winner over HRC in the "YouTube" debates. Her reaction is interesting, even if expected. She's throwing some pretty heavy leather ("calling him ?irresponsible and frankly naïve? ...) in that NYT article Hacp linked.

Fern

 

[1prophet]

I thought Senator Clinton was experienced enough not to throw rocks while living in a glass house. Those shards must hurt, ouch.

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/">During a stakeout outside his senate office, Obama said in part:

"I think what is irresponsible and naive is to have authorized a war without asking how we were going to get out -- and you know I think Senator Clinton hasn?t fully answered that issue.

"The general principle that I was laying out is that we should not be afraid as America to meet with anybody."
</a>

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Hacp
She won't promise to talk, but that doesn't mean that she won't talk. There are no promises in life. If she sees an opportunity, I doubt that she'll pass.

Exactly, and I don't think Obama's answer means he would do any different, which is why this is more hyped media bullshit than any real difference between them on the point.

The talking heads were grasping at straws for anything from this event to fill their alloted airtime with the slightest hint of a combative stance, and this was the best they could find. :roll:

And speaking of naivety and Obama raised a good counterpoint that he was publicly opposed to the war before Bushwhacko started it while Hillary still hasn't admitted she was wrong to support it at the time, regardless of how badly she and the rest of Congress were mislead by the administration's endless stream of lies and stovepiped bogus "intelligence."

 

[Hacp]

"In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, 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, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?"

That was the question. If he promises to meet with the leaders during his first year, without pre-condition, the leaders of the other countries can take advantage of it. They will meet under their terms, no matter what, or else he breaks his promise. Think of it that way.

And speaking of naivety and Obama raised a good counterpoint that he was publicly opposed to the war before Bushwhacko started it while Hillary still hasn't admitted she was wrong to support it at the time, regardless of how badly she and the rest of Congress were mislead by the administration's endless stream of lies and stovepiped bogus "intelligence."

Congress was not misled by bad intelligence. It assumed a false sense of good-will from Bush. I know you remember the events that led to Congress' authorization of war. Saddam kicked out UN inspectors. Congress wanted to get the inspectors back him. Bush asked congress for some ammo, in order to pressure Saddam into readmitting the inspection program. Congress had to choose, let Saddam reign free, or pressure him, so they can inspect his palaces and see, with their own eyes, if there were or were not WMD. They voted for the responsible path, and voted for authority to go to war. The inspectors were led back in, and all was going well until Bush decided to go gun-ho, and start the war anyways.

I think Barrack has to answer this. What would he have done, to pressure Saddam to let the inspectors back into Iraq.

 

[Jhhnn]

Please- The Bush Admin's use of preconditions is simply a different way of not negotiating. If countries like Iran agreed to the Bush team's preconditions, there wouldn't be anything to talk about, anyway...

Dubya probably thinks they "negotiated" with the Japanese on the deck of the USS Missouri, when that's far from the truth.

The neocon policy of regime change disallows meaningful negotiation entirely with the target govts. To actually negotiate in good faith would be to grant them legitimacy, something the Bush faction is simply not prepared to do.

And, of course, all one has to do to understand why citizens of those countries would support their existing govt is take a look at what we've done for the people of Iraq...

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Please- The Bush Admin's use of preconditions is simply a different way of not negotiating. If countries like Iran agreed to the Bush team's preconditions, there wouldn't be anything to talk about, anyway...

Dubya probably thinks they "negotiated" with the Japanese on the deck of the USS Missouri, when that's far from the truth.

The neocon policy of regime change disallows meaningful negotiation entirely with the target govts. To actually negotiate in good faith would be to grant them legitimacy, something the Bush faction is simply not prepared to do.

And, of course, all one has to do to understand why citizens of those countries would support their existing govt is take a look at what we've done for the people of Iraq...

Preconditions are needed. It wasn't just the Bush Administration. Clinton too. You can't just go into a country, and start debating everything under the sun. You need to go there with a set agenda, have the other country agree to talk about your agenda, and negotiate. If Obama went into Iran, without preconditions, he would be greeted with hours upon hours of debate on trivial issues.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Congress was not misled by bad intelligence. It assumed a false sense of good-will from Bush.

Umm...

Bush said:

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.?

State of the Union Address ? 1/28/2003

Reality check:

Zero Chemical Weapons Found. Not a drop of any chemical weapons has been found anywhere in Iraq.

Bush said:

?U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents.?

State of the Union Address ? 1/28/2003

Reality check:

Zero Munitions Found. Not a single chemical weapon?s munition has been found anywhere in Iraq.

Bush said:

?We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas."

State of the Union Address ? 1/28/2003

Reality check:

Zero Aerial Vehicles Found. Not a single aerial vehicle capable of dispersing chemical or biological weapons, has been found anywhere in Iraq.

Bush said:

"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida."

State of the Union Address ? 1/28/2003

Reality check:

Zero Al Qaeda Connection. To date, not a shred of evidence connecting Hussein with Al Qaida or any other known terrorist organizations have been revealed.

Bush said:

"Our intelligence sources tell us that he (Saddam) has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."

State of the Union Address ? 1/28/2003

Reality check:

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as well as dozens of leading scientists declared said tubes unsuitable for nuclear weapons production -- months before the war.

Bush said:

"Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at [past nuclear] sites."

Bush speech to the nation ? 10/7/2002

Reality check:

Two months of inspections at these former Iraqi nuclear sites found zero evidence of prohibited nuclear activities there.

IAEA report to UN Security Council ? 1/27/2003

Cheney said:

"We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

VP Dick Cheney ? ?Meet the Press? 3/16/2003

Reality check:

?The IAEA had found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq."

IAEA report to UN Security Council ? 3/7/2003

Bush said:

"We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."

Bush Press Conference 7/14/2003

Reality check:

UN inspectors went into Iraq to search for possible weapons violations from December 2002 into March 2003.

Of course, the worst intelligence failure is that blob of useless cells between George Bush's ears. :roll:

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Hacp

Congress was not misled by bad intelligence. It assumed a false sense of good-will from Bush.

Umm...

Bush said:

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.?

State of the Union Address ? 1/28/2003

Reality check:

Zero Chemical Weapons Found. Not a drop of any chemical weapons has been found anywhere in Iraq.

Bush said:

?U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents.?

State of the Union Address ? 1/28/2003

Reality check:

Zero Munitions Found. Not a single chemical weapon?s munition has been found anywhere in Iraq.

Bush said:

?We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas."

State of the Union Address ? 1/28/2003

Reality check:

Zero Aerial Vehicles Found. Not a single aerial vehicle capable of dispersing chemical or biological weapons, has been found anywhere in Iraq.

Bush said:

"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida."

State of the Union Address ? 1/28/2003

Reality check:

Zero Al Qaeda Connection. To date, not a shred of evidence connecting Hussein with Al Qaida or any other known terrorist organizations have been revealed.

Bush said:

"Our intelligence sources tell us that he (Saddam) has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."

State of the Union Address ? 1/28/2003

Reality check:

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as well as dozens of leading scientists declared said tubes unsuitable for nuclear weapons production -- months before the war.

Bush said:

"Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at [past nuclear] sites."

Bush speech to the nation ? 10/7/2002

Reality check:

Two months of inspections at these former Iraqi nuclear sites found zero evidence of prohibited nuclear activities there.

IAEA report to UN Security Council ? 1/27/2003

Cheney said:

"We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

VP Dick Cheney ? ?Meet the Press? 3/16/2003

Reality check:

?The IAEA had found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq."

IAEA report to UN Security Council ? 3/7/2003

Bush said:

"We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."

Bush Press Conference 7/14/2003

Reality check:

UN inspectors went into Iraq to search for possible weapons violations from December 2002 into March 2003.

Of course, the worst intelligence failure is that blob of useless cells between George Bush's ears. :roll:

Did you even read? The decision wasn't made on intelligence alone. Congress voted for authority to put pressure on Saddam, so he would let inspectors in. All of your quotes are from 2003. The authority was given in 2002. Bush just used faulty intelligence to mislead the public, and give a phoney excuse to go to war.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: HacpDid you even read? The decision wasn't made on intelligence alone. Congress voted for authority to put pressure on Saddam, so he would let inspectors in. All of your quotes are from 2003. The authority was given in 2002. Bush just used faulty intelligence to mislead the public, and give a phoney excuse to go to war.

Yes, I read, and yes, I know. I also know that members of the Intelligence committees and others sworn to secrecy about details and charged with guiding the decisions made by the rest of Congress have nevertheless reported that the intelligence info they were given was later proven to be as phony as everything the Bushwhackos told the American people.

I also know they only gave the Bushwhackos the authority to start their war of lies to pressure Saddam, and obviously, it worked about as well as everything else the Bushwhackos have done with just as much honesty about their motives.

As of 7/25/07 6:31 pm EDT, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and their criminal cabal are guilty of the murders of 3,640 (and rising) American troops in Iraq, with tens of thousands more wounded, scarred and disabled for life, and they are guilty of treason for shredding the rights guaranteed to every American citizen under the U.S. Constitution, the same Constitution they promised to uphold and defend under the oaths of their offices.

They should all be impeached by Congress and tried and convicted in the criminal courts of the United States of America.

THIS MUST NOT STAND!