Obama says he would go "toe to toe" in talks with renegade nations

DES MOINES, Iowa: Democrat Barack Obama cast himself Saturday as the leader the United States needs for it to stand up to and engage renegade nations such as North Korea.

'We need a president who'll have the strength and courage to go toe to toe with the leaders of rogue nations, because that's what it takes to protect our security," the Illinois senator told Democrats at a rally. "That's what I'll do as your next commander in chief."


On Saturday, Obama said he would be willing to meet — without conditions — in the first year of his presidency with the leaders of those nations, contrary to "the chattering class" in the nation's capital who "want to focus, like they always do, on who's up and who's down."

Defending his position, Obama cited Kennedy's 1961 inaugural address saying that the nation must never negotiate out of fear, but also never fear to negotiate.

"I was called irresponsible and naive because I believe that there is nobody we can't talk to," said Obama, drawing loud cheers. "We've got nothing to fear as long as we know who we are and what we stand for and our values."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/28/AR2007072800693.html



Bold, fundamental change! Go Barack!:bounce:

So as president he will be having a confrontation with himself?

and see who wins?

In fairness. "Rogue nations" is a catch-all term for nations with beligerent leaders of one sort or other, used by everybody.

So he will be going toe-to-toe with himself?

So far I see no spark of awareness in any of the annointed front runners that the number one cause of strife in the world, the premier rogue nation, would the USA. We really are, as it turns out, USA #1 in this category.

from serious contention?

We need to break clean from the Krauthammer, neocon foreign policy of the last six years. When you have someone like Krauthammer cheering a Democratic candidate (hint: not Obama), something is wrong.

Forum Name Latest Breaking News
Topic subject Before Spat, Obama Backed Conditions for Talks
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2932644#2932644
2932644, Before Spat, Obama Backed Conditions for Talks
Posted by journalist3072 on Fri Jul-27-07 09:48 PM

Source: ABC News

Before Spat, Obama Backed Conditions for Talks

July 27, 2007 8:04 PM

ABC News’ Teddy Davis Reports: It turns out that Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was for pre-conditions before he was against them.

In a pre-debate interview with a columnist for the Miami Herald, Obama said that he would meet with Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez but he stipulated that he would only do so "under certain conditions."

"Under certain conditions, I always believe in talking," Obama told the Miami Herald’s Andres Oppenheimer. "Sometimes it’s more important to talk to your enemies than to your friends."

But once he reached the Democratic presidential debate, his position seemed to change.

Asked if he would be willing to meet separately "without precondition" during the first year of his administration with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea, Obama said, "I would."






Read more: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/07/before-spat-oba.html


Another example of why Obama is not ready for prime-time, and not ready to lead.

He attacked Sen. Clinton as being "Bush/Cheney Lite" for saying during the debate that she would not promise to meet with leaders of certain rogue states, before first learning the intent and the way forward.

By his very own standard then, I guess he is "Bush/Cheney Lite" as well.

I guess he couldn't even remember his very own comments about setting conditions for such meetings.

If Bush and Saddam would have sat down together over a couple of beers, without their staffers and the State Dept, and conversed together one on one (with translators if needed) like two normal people....who knows what would have happened? My opinion is we could have avoided this tragic fiasco of a war.

We don't need the same ole continued posturing of politicians that Hillary has proposed.

The same goes for Castro, Iran and North Korea....let's talk to them one on one.

The problem is twofold......
1/ The USA comes across as arrogant and even imperialistic, and these dictators enjoy stirring the pot to the best of their ability. We'd do far better to be conciliatory.
2/ There are outside influences such as the Cuban Americans, Israel and others that don't want the USA to become buddy buddy with certain governments.

Obama is playing the correct angle here. And if Hillary (and others) want to keep construing the terms "conditions" and "pre-conditions" to mean laying necessary diplomatic groundwork and preparations before meetings, instead of demands for specific action by these leaders (which I believe is how Obama meant it), then let her--she's the one who decided to make a mountain out of a molehill.

but where was that kind of language in the debate?

...

Oh yeah.