Reagan/Carter -- McCain/Obama -- Nuance As A Default Position Is A Losing Position!

"Russia should immediately and unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgian territory,” McCain said in a statement to reporters shortly after his campaign plane landed in Iowa.

“The consequences of Euro Atlantic stability and security are grave,” he added.

He also called for “a truly independent” international peacekeeping force for South Ossetia, and said the United States should work with the European Union and the OSCE to pressure Russia to halt its military efforts.

McCain has been a sharp critic of the policies of the Russian government headed by Vladimir Putin.

In a statement sent to reporters, Barack Obama called for an end to the violence, but stopped short of assigning blame, or making strong demands on Moscow. “I strongly condemn the outbreak of violence in Georgia, and urge an immediate end to armed conflict," he said.

"Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint, and to avoid an escalation to full scale war. Georgia’s territorial integrity must be respected. All sides should enter into direct talks on behalf of stability in Georgia, and the United States, the United Nations Security Council, and the international community should fully support a peaceful resolution to this crisis.”

Russia sent troops into the region Friday to defend South Ossetia from Georgian troops battling separatist forces there.

DKK
CNN

If Obama Meets With Iranian Leaders Would It Cause A Singularity?

Libya's Gaddafi is warning Iran that they are arrogant and that it can only end badly for them.

Strange that even he gets it but Obama still plans on sitting down with them!

I am concerned about the physics of such a meeting -- is it possible that the combining of the arrogance of, "The One," and the Iranians could rip apart time and space itself?

Another reason to vote for McCain -- you could be saving the very fabric of the universe itself!
DKK

While Obama Shuns Preconditions Prior To Meeting With Iran, They Make It Clear That Their Preconditions Be Met Before Meeting

Recent interviews I've held with three authoritative Iranians suggest that Tehran will have preconditions of its own. Before coming to the table, these Iranians say, the United States would first have to end its "hostile policies" toward their country. The most important step pushed by all three is one already promised by Obama: setting a timetable for the complete withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq. Other moves, however—like ending economic sanctions—would conflict with Obama's campaign pledges and be even more controversial in Washington.

DKK
Newsweek

About that Iraqi Demanded Timeline -- No Such Beast Exists

The prime minister was widely quoted as saying that in the negotiations with the Americans on a Status of Forces Agreement to regulate the US troop presence from next year, “the direction is towards either a memorandum of understanding on their evacuation, or a memorandum of understanding on a timetable for their withdrawal”.
That was the version of Mr Maliki’s remarks put out in writing by his office in Baghdad.
It was widely circulated by the news media, and caught much attention, including that of Mr Obama.
There is only one problem. It is not what Mr Maliki actually said. … What he actually said was: “The direction is towards either a memorandum of understanding on their evacuation, or a memorandum of understanding on programming their presence.”

Ooww, Sorry Barack -- Your NYTimes editorial was based on thing but poor reporting.  Nothing new there, your entire candidacy is based on poor reporting.
DKK
BBC 

Obama, Afghanistan, And Another Failed History Lesson

I really can't believe we have to go through this again but here we go.

History does not support Barack Obama and the Democrats criticism of Bush's handling of the Afghan front in the War on Terror.

Obama's plan of redeploying tens of thousands of additional troops from Iraq to Afghanistan to find one man and to quell an insurgent Taliban has been tried and failed miserably for the two Empires that tired that same strategy in the last couple of centuries. As a matter of fact the Soviet Afghan policy helped defeat the Soviet Union and the British Empire could never get a handle on the nation.

That is why the Bush administration's handling of the War on Terror has been so novel and successful so far -- they have managed to do what couldn't be done.

I have yet to see a single policy proposal by Senator Obama, whether it be domestic policy, foreign policy, or the conduct of the War on Terror that hasn't been tried and shown to be historically unworkable. But somehow Obama clings to them as if he can magically transform historically failed (and in some cases disastrously so) policies into modern day successes.

That is a common thread of the modern Democrat. The messianic belief that the same policies that have never worked anyplace and every time they have been tired can somehow be made to work now just because this time Barack Obama is the one implementing them.

Well, it is the policies that are flawed it doesn't matter who carries them out. Trumpeting them as change is either a fraud or a fundamental misunderstanding of history.

Is there no Democrat in politics today with a fundamental knowledge of history that can lend a hand to their standard bearer, for his and all of our sakes?
DKK

Not Only Are Democrats Pushing Up Gas Prices, They Prove Selfish Uncaring Citizens of The World!

Tens of thousands of Spanish lorry drivers have begun an indefinite strike over the soaring price of diesel, which has risen by 20% this year.

After stopping work at midnight, many disrupted traffic at one of the border crossings between Spain and France.

A number of lorries crossing the picket lines had their windscreens broken, lights ripped out and tyres slashed.

The government is preparing a package to assist the sector, with emergency loans and more flexible contracts.

It would also offer cash payments to older lorry drivers who are willing to retire.

French fishermen from Mediterranean ports have, meanwhile, joined fleets from other French ports in suspending their action pending an EU summit in Brussels later this month.

This is becoming an ongoing event in Europe! There will come a time and a price per barrel when the world looks at the US and wonders why we let the Democrats drive the world into recession for political gains. And they won't be able to blame George Bush, this one is all on them and their enviro-wacko allies.

DKK

BBC News

For an Educated Man Obama Sure Does Gets History Wrong Alot!

John Bolton rips into Obama's understanding of history in the LA Times prompting this from Drew at Ace of Spades:

Allow me to offer some unsolicited advice to the McCain campaign…I know you want to do the whole Maverick thing and Democrats really hate Bolton but the thing is, conservatives love him. Announce he will be a part of your administration and I guarantee a lot more conservatives will swallow hard and support you.

Consider it a threefer….you’ll get a lot of wavering conservatives to support you with some degree of enthusiasm, this appointment will enable you to pull a lot more Maverick shit in other areas while keeping conservative support and oh yeah, it’ll be good for the country.

DKK

Drew at Ace Of Spades HQ -- The Moustache Speaks…And It Doesn’t Think Much Of Obama

Confirmed -- Obama Threw Israel Under The Bus In Less Then 24 Hours

Amazingly, it has taken less than 24 hours before Barack Obama started backtracking on one key part of his speech to AIPAC Wednesday -- the part that brought the crowd to its feet cheering - that Jerusalem should remain the undivided capital of Israel.

Obama came to AIPAC Wednesday. Did he conquer? Certainly some in the audience seemed willing to forget everything that had caused them concern about the presumptive Democratic nominee, once he gave a well-delivered speech that backtracked from many of his prior positions on Iraq, Iran , the Israeli Palestinian conflict, and missile defense, to name but a few.

Now the Obama campaign is saying, never mind, we did not really mean that. Jerusalem is a final status issue subject to negotiation between the parties. This severely damages his credibility. Can anyone really believe at this point that Obama stands by everything else he said in the talk?

Why anyone would believe Obama will stick to anything he said longer then a few months is beyond me.
DKK
American Thinker Blog -- Obama and AIPAC: A Delicate Dance

McCain Gives Obama A History Lesson

The Iranians have spent years working toward a nuclear program. And the idea that they now seek nuclear weapons because we refuse to engage in presidential-level talks is a serious misreading of history. In reality, a series of administrations have tried to talk to Iran, and none tried harder than the Clinton administration. In 1998, the secretary of state made a public overture to the Iranians, laid out a roadmap to normal relations, and for two years tried to engage. The Clinton administration even lifted some sanctions, and Secretary Albright apologized for American actions going back to the 1950s. But even under President Khatami – a man by all accounts less radical than the current president – Iran rejected these overtures.

Even so, we hear talk of a meeting with the Iranian leadership offered up as if it were some sudden inspiration, a bold new idea that somehow nobody has ever thought of before. Yet it’s hard to see what such a summit with President Ahmadinejad would actually gain, except an earful of anti-Semitic rants, and a worldwide audience for a man who denies one Holocaust and talks before frenzied crowds about starting another. Such a spectacle would harm Iranian moderates and dissidents, as the radicals and hardliners strengthen their position and suddenly acquire the appearance of respectability.

(...)

Rather than sitting down unconditionally with the Iranian president or supreme leader in the hope that we can talk sense into them, we must create the real-world pressures that will peacefully but decisively change the path they are on.

John McCain discussing the history of Iran that Obama seems to have forgotten.
DKK
Hot Air --McCain on Iran: Obama still doesn’t know the history Update: Full speech added

Who Better?

Liberals view talk as an end in itself. They never think through how these talks will proceed, which is why Chamberlain ended up giving away Czechoslovakia. He didn't leave for Munich planning to do that. It is simply the inevitable result of talking with madmen without a clear and obtainable goal. Without a stick, there's only a carrot.

The only explanation for liberals' hysterical zealotry in favor of Obama's proposed open-ended talks with Ahmadinejad is that they seriously imagine crazy foreign dictators will be as charmed by Obama as cable TV hosts whose legs tingle when they listen to Obama (a condition that used to be known as "sciatica").

Because, really, who better to face down a Holocaust denier with a messianic complex than the guy who is afraid of a debate moderated by Brit Hume?

DKK
Ann Coulter -- YOU CAN'T APPEASE EVERYBODY

Obama -- Brits Fear Obama's Iran Stance That Violates 3 UN Resolution

David Miliband has raised questions over Barack Obama’s policy on Iran, which officials in Washington and Europe fear threatens to undermine the tough stance adopted by the West towards Tehran over recent years.

The Foreign Secretary, on his visit to the US this week, has held talks with all three presidential campaigns, including those of Hillary Clinton and John McCain.

But when he met Mr Obama’s team of foreign policy advisers on Wednesday, Mr Miliband is understood to have queried the presumptive Democratic nominee’s declared willingness to meet leaders from rogue states such as Iran.
(...)
Before starting his unconditional talks with Ahmadinejad, would Obama present a new resolution at the Security Council to cancel the three that he Islamic Republic president does not like? Or, would Obama act in defiance of the UN, thus further weakening the authority of the Security Council?

DKK
Gateway Pundit --Obama's Iran Policy Freaks Out Brits & Breaks 3 UN Resolutions

Clueless -- Obama Foreign Idiocy!

On Thursday Obama told the Orlando Sentinel that he would meet with Chavez and "one of the obvious high priorities in my talks with President Hugo Chavez would be the fermentation of anti-American sentiment in Latin America, his support of FARC in Colombia and other issues he would want to talk about."

OK, so a strong declaration that Chavez is supporting FARC, which Obama intends to push him on.

But then on Friday he said any government supporting FARC should be isolated.

"We will shine a light on any support for the FARC that comes from neighboring governments," he said in a speech in Miami. "This behavior must be exposed to international condemnation, regional isolation, and - if need be - strong sanctions. It must not stand."

So he will meet with the leader of a country he simultaneously says should be isolated? Huh?

On Friday in an interview with the Miami Herald, Obama also used language suggesting that he's not as positive that Venezuela is supporting FARC.

"When I asked him what he would do about the estimated 37,000 Interpol-certified Colombian FARC guerrilla computer files that indicate an active support from Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa to the Colombian rebels, Obama went farther than the Bush administration," wrote the Herald's Andres Oppenheimer.

Said Obama: "I think the Organization of American States and the international community should launch an immediate investigation into this situation. We have to hold Venezuela accountable if, in fact, it is trying to ferment terrorist activities in other borders. If Venezuela has violated those rules, we should mobilize all the countries to sanction Venezuela and let them know that that's not acceptable behavior."

"If" Venezuela "is trying to ferment terrorist activities in other borders"? Just one day before Obama had asserted that Chavez was supporting FARC in Colombia.

DKK

Political Punch

Bottom Line -- Iran And Negotiations

Barack Obama keeps comparing negotiating with Iran to negotiating with the Soviet Union but this is absolutely NOT an accurate comparison.

During the majority of the Cold War our goal was not regime change, at least until Reagan came along and said that it ends, "we win, they loose!" However that is our policy toward Iran.

Iran committed an act of war against the United States when they overran our embassy and held Americans hostage for 444 days (thank you Jimmy Carter). Iran has been a belligerent in the region and in the world ever since.

Our policy toward Iran for years was known as Dual Containment. It was an attempt to keep their influence and revolutionary ideas inside Iran. Iran has long been considered a rogue nation by the U.S. but not by many in Europe, that was until 2005 when it was discovered that Iran had lied to the UN and the world for nearly 2 decades about their nuclear program. At that point many in the world realized we were correct and that something had to be done.

The solution was to isolate Iran until they cooperated. This isolation is an attempt to have the population or some reasonable elements of the government say to themselves, "we have become the pariah's of the world, the whole world is against us, while nuclear power sound good, this Ahmadinejad is making life harder with no end in sight and for no good reason, we are isolated."

Barack Obama would end that all in one meeting!

In one meeting Obama would bolster Ahmadinejad at home. He would be able to tell his people that his plan was working and they were no longer isolated.

In one meeting Obama would undermine the work the United Nations has done, together as one, (you know, that diplomacy thing the left is always screaming about) to pressure the Iranian government.

In one meeting Obama would reinforce Iranian belief that killing U.S. servicemen in Iraq was an effective tool.

In one meeting Obama would tell every nation in the world that we would not stand up to anything they wanted to do -- we didn't have the will to oppose anyone for very long.

In one meeting Obama would let the world know that blackmail was the way to get direct Presidential attention.

In one meeting Obama would tell every one of our allies that have backed us up on Iran that they were fools and they should never make that mistake again.

In one meeting Obama could do more harm to U.S. Foreign Policy then anyone since Jimmy Carter.

If Obama honestly believes regime change or getting Iran to cooperate with World demands and their treaty obligations by halting their nuclear ambitions then he needs tell us that because that is exactly what would happen.
DKK

Obama Capitulates -- Agrees Bush Foreign Policy Is Correct

Today in a stunning turn of events Barack Obama gave the nod to President Bush's foreign policy and agreed, almost completely, with his stance on Iran.

“Let’s not confuse precondition with preparation,” said Gibbs of any talks with Iran. “Obviously these meetings would be full of preparation. But we’re not going to sit down and engage Iran, unless or until they give up their nuclear weapons program.[”]
Obama Communications Director Robert Gibbs

It has been pointed out repeatedly that Obama's original position (yep, there is video AND text from his own website both at Hot Air) Captain Ed points out at Hot Air:

Without preconditions. That means without Iran guaranteeing anything, let alone the big prize of their nuclear program. Gibbs’ statement makes absolutely no sense in context of Bush’s remarks or Obama’s previous statements. If Iran gave up its nuclear weapons program today, Bush would open diplomatic contacts with Iran and might even consider a summit. He’s made that very clear over the last few years, holding out WTO sponsorship and normalized relations in exchange for just that concession.If Obama now says he won’t meet with Iran until they surrender their nuclear-weapons program, how exactly does that differ from Bush? And how does that fit with his previous statements about having talks “without preconditions”?

He concluded with:

If Gibbs wants to eliminate the confusion on these points, then he needs to start with Barack Obama, who apparently has no clue what preconditions mean. Maybe he should have learned that before running for President.

DKK