You knew Barack Obama couldn't just take the hit. After weathering yesterday's opportunistic punch, where he was called "irresponsible and naive," and was direct from Hillary Clinton herself, Obama defends what he said and hits back in an NBC interview:
"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.
"Now, they may not like what we want to hear -- so if I'm talking to the President of Iran, I'm going to inform him that Israel is our stalwart ally, and we are going to do what's necessary to protect them -- that we will not accept a nuclear bomb in Iran, but that doesn't mean we can't say that face to face. And obviously, the diplomatic spadework has to be done ahead of time.
The last part sounds to me like a little bit of a climb down from what he said earlier.
From the transcript:
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?
...
OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous.
You be the judge, but it sounds to me like Obama was true to form and saying "yes" to every question. The consummate politician. And calling Hillary irresponsible and naive for the war vote doesn't ring true but it might play well with the Democratic base.
They will buy that she was irresponsible, but not naive when she voted to authorize the war. She knew what she was doing. And that was making the best vote to preserve her ability to run for president.
That's not naive, that's dishonest. But Obama can't really call her that can he? Well maybe not yet, it's too early in the campaign.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 1)
1. I used to be an Obama fan, but this has really turned me off. The question was clear, it said without preconditions and he answered yes. Then to come back and say he didn't say that is a lie. He knows he made a huge mistake & is now trying to correct it, but anyone who watched the debate could see that Obama meant what he said and Hillary obviously didn't feel that way. He was irresponsible in his answer and if Obama is all about the future, why does he have to keep harping on the past to keep his campaign alive.
Hillary voted the best way she could under the given circumstances. She, and the country for that matter, had no reason not to trust Bush. Colin Powell backed up Bush's claims of WMDs and Iraqi involvement in 9/11. Powell was respected and trusted by both parties. It is not irresponsible or naive to vote to authorize war if Iraq really was as bad as Bush claimed, he lied. It wasn't her fault she voted, it was Bush's. He lied and sent us into war. But enough about the past. Obama also brought up how the time to ask how we would get out of Iraq was before we got in, not now. So tell me Obama why was it Clinton and not you who asked the pentagon. Sure its a fair assessment that we should have asked before we got in, but isn't it better to ask later than never. If Obama was truly commited to getting out troops home, why wasn't he the one who asked the pentagon. I think Obama is looking ridiculous and is hurting his campaign. He has really lost a great deal of respect of me by firing back at Clinton when she did nothing wrong and now he's trying to lie to fix his mistake.
Yet the bottom line still is that Obama does not have the experience needed to be president. This country is in a very difficult position right now and we need someone who is going to help, not harm our safety and standing in the world. Vote 4 Hillary!!!
Patrick at 11:46AM on Jul 26th 2007
2. "one of the first things that I would do in terms of moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria because they're going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses." that is what Senator Obama said. WHAT DOES SEND A SIGNAL MEAN TO YOU? Billary directly attacked him becaused she knew she didn't perform well and wanted to keep people's attention away from the real issue wich was: How can you claim to have experience and then authorize a war that led to the death of so many people. Till now she has not answered....
G at 12:04PM on Jul 26th 2007
3. She didn't perform well??? She freakin won the debate hands down. Thats not just me talking either, ask anyone.
Patrick at 2:31PM on Jul 26th 2007
4. Patrick first of all stop lying.
you were never an Obama supporter and stop pretending to be one in other to justify your false pretence.
everything you have just repeated is exactly what the Hillary camp says about Obama so evidently you are heavily vested in Hillary
secondly Obama never lied and the proof is below.
Hillary was the one trying to reframe what Obama said by suggesting that Obama will just invite leaders over for a cup of coffee and have a free love chat when he never for once suggested anything close to that.
good question.
WHAT DOES SEND A SIGNAL MEAN TO YOU?
i bet you missed that.
and thirdly Hillary never won no debate.
all the polls from CNN who conducted the debate, msnbc, ABC and even FOX news voting research panel gave the debate to Obama hands down so please stop lying again.
the only people who said Hillary won are the reporters who have crowned Hillary as the inevitable nominee and obviously her supporters such as yourself who ignore the facts of what the voters are saying.
in the times news poll just after the debate and with over 3000 votes casted, Obama won over 60% of the vote while Hillary got less than 30% of the vote. how can you see that evidence and still claim Hillary won. please take you head out of the mud:)
Finally back to the question that was asked and I noticed how you and the reporters never quote the full question. you always paraphrase it in other to distort it. this episode reminds me of "I never had a sexual relationship with that woman, Monica Lewinsky" not the mention the numerous dubious pardons.
The clintons always distorting the truth. "i smoked but i did not inhale"
here is the full quesion that was asked.
QUESTION: In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since.
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?
OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire. And the reason is because they 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. We've been talking about Iraq -- one of the first things that I would do in terms of moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria because they're going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses.
They have been acting irresponsibly up until this point. But if we tell them that we are not going to be a permanent occupying force, we are in a position to say that they are going to have to carry some weight, in terms of stabilizing the region.
-----------------------------------------
from this full transcript you can see Obama mentioned send a signal in terms of diplomatic efforts to Iran and Syria.
PATRICK CAN YOU PLEASE TELL ME HOW IT IS POSSIBLE FOR THE UNITED STATES PRESIDENT TO SEND A DIPLOMATIC SIGNAL without initiating the so called ground level diplomatic work?
also the question also suggest in the spirit of the lasting peace that has lasted ever since the seventies. This means the intention of such a meeting would be to achieve lasting peace and the questioner also recognises the bold move as well which created the peace and which was critizied at the time by people like yourselves but has resulted in lasting peace till today.
so my second question is why would a US president shy away from an opportunity to achieve long and lasting peace with so called hostile regimes and use fear of loosing the PR war as an excuse.
that shows lack of courage and leadership from Hillary Clinton.
what a shame.
Hillary looks even more stupid arguing this point and she is loosing hands down
wake up from you slumber patrick and pay attention because it is time to turn the page.
Thank you
Vote Barack Obama
Wiseman at 8:17PM on Jul 26th 2007
5. Wow, ok, i kinda lost what you were saying, but i'll try to address the points i think you were trying to make.
1) The polls i looked at had Sen. Clinton winning the debate: CNN's poll with 49%, an AOL poll, and more. Hey take a look at this
poll: http://news.aol.com/elections/story/_a/gloves-come-off-between-obama-clinton/20070725093509990001. Seems like people overwhelmingly agree with Hillary's positions. I really don't know what "send a signal means". Is he going to send a traffic signal, a flare signal, a what exactly??? Signal doesn't equal conditions. The question was would you meet with these leaders with no conditions. He said YES. Which means to no conditions. Is it that hard to understand?
And Obama did basically say he would invite leaders over for some coffee. What exactly do conditions mean to you? If he would meet with them with no conditions, he is irresponsible. And how exactly is Hillary shying away from peace? How is initiating the proper diplomatic process not peaceful? Its funny how Obama mentions Reagan, yet Reagan did exactly what Clinton said she would do. Losing the PR war? No, its about losing respect for the U.S. Maybe you don't understand the job of the presidency. Maybe you don't realize that there is a reason why there is a position called Secretary of State. hey, maybe Obama doesn't get this either.
But enough about that, answer me this. Where, since becoming a U.S. Senator, has Obama shown leadership on this war?
a) did he ask the pentagon for withdrawal plans? Nope, that was Hillary.
b) on the armed services committee? Nope, Hillary again.
O, but wait, i just can't help but go back to the fact that Obama is on the foreign relations committee. Yet he's obviously learned nothing. In interviews asking who had the right idea on the question, Boxer, Dodd, Biden, & Webb have said that Clinton had the only way talks with those countries could be conducted. Boxer even went as far as to say you don't even meet with friendly countries without some conditions. So maybe I should listen to a bunch of Hillary haters, or maybe i'll listen to those that actually have an idea of what it takes to carry on talks with other countries.
And don't tell me i didn't support Obama, because i did. I was always a Hillary supported 1st and foremost, but i liked Obama and had no problem with him what so ever.
So next time, before you go off on a tryraid on me, check some of the facts. Obama never once suggested he would have pre-conditions and answered a clear, emphatic yes to the question. Hillary had the knowledge and experience to know that that is not how you conduct diplomacy. There is a series of steps you have to go through. No doubt Obama would have never have talked to any of those leaders without conditions as none of his advisors would allow it. It would be un-heard of. But the point is Obama didn't know that & Hillary called him out on it!!! So now tell me what you've got to say.
Patrick at 10:37PM on Jul 26th 2007
6. Wow, ok, i kinda lost what you were saying, but i'll try to address the points i think you were trying to make.
1) The polls i looked at had Sen. Clinton winning the debate: CNN's poll with 49%, an AOL poll, and more. Hey take a look at this
poll: http://news.aol.com/elections/story/_a/gloves-come-off-between-obama-clinton/20070725093509990001. Seems like people overwhelmingly agree with Hillary's positions. I really don't know what "send a signal means". Is he going to send a traffic signal, a flare signal, a what exactly??? Signal doesn't equal conditions. The question was would you meet with these leaders with no conditions. He said YES. Which means to no conditions. Is it that hard to understand?
And Obama did basically say he would invite leaders over for some coffee. What exactly do conditions mean to you? If he would meet with them with no conditions, he is irresponsible. And how exactly is Hillary shying away from peace? How is initiating the proper diplomatic process not peaceful? Its funny how Obama mentions Reagan, yet Reagan did exactly what Clinton said she would do. Losing the PR war? No, its about losing respect for the U.S. Maybe you don't understand the job of the presidency. Maybe you don't realize that there is a reason why there is a position called Secretary of State. hey, maybe Obama doesn't get this either.
But enough about that, answer me this. Where, since becoming a U.S. Senator, has Obama shown leadership on this war?
a) did he ask the pentagon for withdrawal plans? Nope, that was Hillary.
b) on the armed services committee? Nope, Hillary again.
O, but wait, i just can't help but go back to the fact that Obama is on the foreign relations committee. Yet he's obviously learned nothing. In interviews asking who had the right idea on the question, Boxer, Dodd, Biden, & Webb have said that Clinton had the only way talks with those countries could be conducted. Boxer even went as far as to say you don't even meet with friendly countries without some conditions. So maybe I should listen to a bunch of Hillary haters, or maybe i'll listen to those that actually have an idea of what it takes to carry on talks with other countries.
And don't tell me i didn't support Obama, because i did. I was always a Hillary supported 1st and foremost, but i liked Obama and had no problem with him what so ever.
So next time, before you go off on a tryraid on me, check some of the facts. Obama never once suggested he would have pre-conditions and answered a clear, emphatic yes to the question. Hillary had the knowledge and experience to know that that is not how you conduct diplomacy. There is a series of steps you have to go through. No doubt Obama would have never have talked to any of those leaders without conditions as none of his advisors would allow it. It would be un-heard of. But the point is Obama didn't know that & Hillary called him out on it!!! So now tell me what you've got to say.
Patrick at 10:38PM on Jul 26th 2007
7. If it can be established that there is something positive to talk about, why not talk?
Steve Bonomo at 6:33PM on Jul 27th 2007