OK,,before i get slammed,yes i know the source is the RNC,but the facts are still facts.. obama is just another puppet on a string saying whatever he is told to say.. he has no platform of his own,only that of those whom control him.. http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/rnc-obama--foreign-policy-flip-flops/ FLIP-FLOP #1: In His Remarks To The Annual AIPAC Policy Conference, Obama Said That Jerusalem Should Be The Undivided Capital Of Israel, But Later Said The City's Future Should Be Negotiated By Israel And The Palestinians: On Wednesday, Obama Said Jerusalem Would Be The Undivided Capital Of Israel. Obama: "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At The Annual AIPAC Policy Conference, Arlington, VA, 6/4/08) One Day Later, Obama Said The Future Of Jerusalem Would Have To Be Negotiated By Israel And The Palestinians. CNN's Candy Crowley: "I want to ask you about something you said in AIPAC yesterday. You said that Jerusalem must remain undivided. Do Palestinians have no claim to Jerusalem in the future?" Obama: "Well, obviously, it's going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues." (CNN's "The Situation Room," 6/5/08) "Facing Criticism From Palestinians, Sen. Barack Obama Acknowledged Today That The Status Of Jerusalem Will Need To Be Negotiated In Future Peace Talks, Amending A Statement Earlier In The Week That Jerusalem 'Must Remain Undivided.'" (Glenn Kessler, "Obama Clarifies Remarks On Jerusalem," The Washington Post's "The Trail," Blog, www.washingtonpost.com, 6/5/08) FLIP-FLOP #2: Obama Now Claims That He Will Only Meet With Foreign Leaders At A Time Of His Choosing If It Will Advance U.S. Interests, But Previously Said He Would Meet With Rogue Leaders His First Year In Office Without Preconditions: In His Remarks To The AIPAC Conference, Obama Claimed That He Would Only Meet With The "Appropriate Iranian Leaders At A Time And Place" Of His Choosing. Obama: "Contrary to the claims of some, I have no interest in sitting down with our adversaries just for the sake of talking. But as President of the United States, I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leaders at a time and place of my choosing - if, and only if - it can advance the interests of the United States." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At The Annual AIPAC Policy Conference, Arlington, VA, 6/4/08) But At A July 2007 Debate, Obama Said He Would Meet With Hostile Leaders During His First Year In Office. Question: "[W]ould 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." (CNN/YouTube Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Charleston, SC, 7/23/07) At A September 2007 Press Conference, Obama Confirmed That He Would Meet Specifically With Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Question: "Senator, you've said before that you'd meet with President Ahmadinejad ..." Obama: "Uh huh." Question: "Would you still meet with him today?" Obama: "Yeah, nothing's changed with respect to my belief that strong countries and strong presidents talk to their enemies and talk to their adversaries. I find many of President Ahmadinejad's statements odious and I've said that repeatedly. And I think that we have to recognize that there are a lot of rogue nations in the world that don't have American interests at heart. But what I also believe is that, as John F. Kennedy said, we should never negotiate out of fear but we should never fear to negotiate." (Sen. Barack Obama, Press Conference, New York, NY, 9/24/07) FLIP-FLOP #3: Obama Has Pivoted In His Opposition To Legislation Labeling Iran's Revolutionary Guard A Terrorist Organization: Obama Has Been Inconsistent In His Views On Labeling Iran's Revolutionary Guard A Terrorist Organization. "Obama's campaign suddenly discovered that their man -despite having spent the last nine months campaigning on his opposition to Kyl-Lieberman - 'has consistently urged that Iran's Revolutionary Guard be labeled what it is: a terrorist organization.' Well, not that consistently. Senator Obama has been scrupulously careful not to call explicitly for designation of the IRGC as a terrorist organization. Now, however, with the Democratic nomination almost in hand, Obama feels comfortable telling a pro-Israel audience what it wants to hear."(Danielle Pletka, "Obama's Pander Pivot," Weekly Standard, 6/4/08) "[T]he Audience At AIPAC Might Ask Why Senator Obama Has Pivoted From Opposition To 'Lieberman-Kyl' To Support For The IRGC Designation His Audience Demands. Is This Really Change They Can Believe In?" (Danielle Pletka, "Obama's Pander Pivot," Weekly Standard, 6/4/08) "Which Barack Obama Will Be The Democratic Standard-Bearer: The One Who Vowed To 'Eliminate' The Iranian Nuclear Threat Two Days Ago, Or The One Who Opposed Designating The Revolutionary Guards A Terrorist Organization?" (Editorial, "Obama And Iran," The Washington Times, 6/6/08) FLIP-FLOP #4: Obama Now Claims That He Opposed Palestinian Elections In 2006, But He Supported Them At That Time: Obama Says That He Opposed Palestinian Elections In 2006. Obama: "There is no room at the negotiating table for terrorist organizations. That is why I opposed holding elections in 2006 with Hamas on the ballot. The Israelis and the Palestinian Authority warned us at the time against holding these elections, but this administration pressed ahead. And the result is a Gaza controlled by Hamas, with rockets raining down on Israel." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At The Annual AIPAC Policy Conference, Arlington, VA, 6/4/08) But During His 2006 Trip To The Middle East, Obama Met With Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas And Said The Election Represented An "Opportunity...To Consolidate Behind A Single Government." "Illinois Senator Barack Obama's journey to the Middle East took him to the West Bank Thursday for a meeting with the man elected to replace Yasser Arafat. ... For a time Thursday in the West Bank there was only the clatter of cameras as the newly elected president of the Palestinian authority, Mahmoud Abbas, met with Illinois Senator Barack Obama. At a meeting with Palestinian students Thursday, Obama said the U.S. will never recognize winning Hamas candidates unless the group renounces its fundamental mission to eliminate Israel, and Obama told ABC7 he delivered that message to the Palestinian president. 'Part of the opportunity here with this upcoming election is to consolidate behind a single government with a single authority that can then negotiate as a reliable partner with Israel,' said Obama." (Chuck Goudie, "Obama Meets With Arafat's Successor," ABC 7 News, http://obama.senate.gov, 1/12/06) The Palestinian News Agency WAFA Reported That Obama Was Supportive Of The Palestinian Elections Being Held At Their Scheduled Time. "President Mahmoud Abbas met Thursday with the U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL), in the Presidential HQ in Ramallah...President briefed the U.S. Senator about the latest developments in the Palestinian territories including the preparations for the legislative elections.... Abbas and Obama discussed the means of underpinning the American-Palestinian economic relations...Obama asserted the US supports and eager that the Palestinian legislative elections on its proposed time (January 25)."
In other words, Obama changes his mind sometimes. Oh the horror! Besides, these are very minor - before he said he would talk to Iran, now he says he will talk to Iran if x, y, z... who cares?
i would prefer the politician representing me is sure enough in his own train of thought that he would stand by what he says and not "change his mind" in mid stream.. its not a pattern i care to see in someone i could possibly elect (not that i have plans to vote for him). whats stopping him from getting into office and completely "changing his mind"(which i believe he will do anyway) and go against everything that he said was his political platform while running for election? if you fail to see where a politician altering his stance on the issues mid stream of a election cycle is a issue then ,, well,, i just dont know what to say,,except for im sure politicians would like to see many more voters just like you.....
"i would prefer the politician representing me is sure enough in his own train of thought that he would stand by what he says" Not me. I'd rather my president be a thinker, someone who will adapt to changing circumstances, events, and conditions. One who constantly collects more data, and who strives to better interpret it.
I think we should be equal opportunity when pointing out flip flops: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9111.html I find it extremely hard to buy into his flip flop on torture. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/16/mccain_drops_the_torture_ball/ After the McClellan revelations just recently I find this comment: I wouldn't want a person like that in the White House. (bolding added by me for clarity).
Perhaps Obama will come around on the Bush tax cuts soon. He does have an election to win. He can stop pandering to the Howard Dean - Ned LaMont bloc now.
im sorry im tierd but pleas explain to me how any of his statements are flip flopping? i dont have a tv so i never heard his words, did he actualy use the words "rouge" or "hostile" ?? or is this all spin? i truly want to know! peace!!
Ehhhh, the changes you're talking about aren't in too short of a time span. If he changed his mind after a week, I'd be concerned for his (potential) reliability, however, I doubt I could find someone who stayed on the same stance for everything for even a year. If he completely goes against something he's said he would do, picket for him not properly representing you.
