reply hazy

Good to know that I’m not the only one who is still confused about Obama’s potential talks with Iran. Marc Ambinder has a few additional questions for the senator, like what the difference is between preparation and pre-conditions. He points out that Barack Obama’s own website clearly says that he “supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions” and that his own advisors don’t always follow the same script when discussing his position on Iran. Hunter at the Daily Kos assures us that no President would unconditionally meet with leaders like Ahmadinejad. It’s just a Republican talking point. Right.  Then those evil Rovian conspirators must have gotten to and changed some text around in that Iran section.

If Obama really believes that there should be strings attached to talks with Iran, he might want to change his website to reflect that and make sure that his advisors get that message out there.  There can’t be any confusion where he stands on this issue going into November against John McCain.  Right now, there is.

3 thoughts on “reply hazy

  1. There’s no more confusion with Obama’s stance than there is with John McCain, who obviously only comes out against talks with terrorist supporting states after George Bush does.

    Meeting with Iran without preconditions means with nothing off the table. Which also means that the military option is still on the table.

  2. That’s an interesting definition, and one I haven’t heard before. Sure…if you define it like that, no one should object to that strategy. But I don’t think that’s what Obama meant. That doesn’t even sound like what he’s been saying and what his website says.

    Let’s say that I accept your definition as Obama’s definition. How likely is it, then, that Barack Obama would decide that the point of no return had been reached with Iran, and that further talks would not succeed in stopping Iran’s nuclear program? What criteria would he use in determining when military action is needed there or in other hot spots? I guess I just want to know that Barack does have a backup plan in case his attempts at tough presidential diplomacy don’t work out. I am resigned to the fact that he could win this election, and I want to prepare myself for what could happen after January.

  3. Without preconditions could only mean everything is on the table. At what point would it take for Obama to break off talks and decide military action is the only resort? I have no idea. I quit war cheer leading in 2003, so I assume that war with Iran would be a last resort– just like Bolton says it should be.

    Now do I think Obama should be more upfront about using the military option? Absolutely. I don’t think he should go around singing songs about bombing Iran, but he should let it be known that the worlds greatest military is always ready. That’s a little bit of my hawk side coming out, though I also know that even if he did do the tough guy macho warrior talk the right wing is wanting, it still wouldn’t be enough for the war hungry chickenhawks.

Comments are closed.