Just Words.  Just a “Tiny Country.”

1. The ad completely takes Obama’s words and twists them to mean, roughly, the opposite of what Obama actually said:

   On May 18, in Pendelton, Ore., Obama said that “strong countries and strong presidents talk to their adversaries. That’s what Kennedy did with Khrushchev. That’s what Reagan did with Gorbachev. That’s what Nixon did with Mao. I mean, think about it. Iran, Cuba, Venezuela—these countries are tiny, compared to the Soviet Union. They don’t pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet, we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying, ‘We’re going to wipe you off the planet.’

   “And ultimately, that direct engagement led to a series of measures that helped prevent nuclear war, and over time, allowed the kind of opening that brought down the Berlin Wall,” Obama continued. “Now, that has to be the kind of approach that we take. You know, Iran, they spend one-one hundredth of what we spend on the military. If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn’t stand a chance. And we should use that position of strength that we have, to be bold enough to go ahead and listen. That doesn’t mean we agree with them on everything. We might not compromise on any issues, but at least we should find out other areas of potential common interest, and we can reduce some of the tensions that has caused us so many problems around the world.”

   Clearly, Obama is not suggesting that we can or should ignore Iran, contrary to what this ad implies.  The ad is an outright lie.  I hope you change your tune from praise to denunciation.

   Posted by folkbum on August 27, 2008 at 1821 hrs




2. This ad is complete bullshit.  Furthermore, I think it incumbent upon you, Owen, to admit it, seeing as you’re distributing it via your blog.

   Posted by scott on August 28, 2008 at 0815 hrs




3. “If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn’t stand a chance. And we should use that position of strength.”

   Huh. Now Obama sounds almost like Dick Cheney. See what you can do with a little selective editing? Just words, indeed.

   Context is everything. This ad completeley strips Obama’s words of context, so that the uninformed viewer gets the impression he’s saying pretty much the opposite of what he means.

   Posted by on August 28, 2008 at 0838 hrs




4. Come on.  Is there no McCain supporter here who can man up and admit that this ad is totally misleading?  Do you all want to stand there and say that this is a fair and accurate portrayal of our candidate?

   Posted by scott on August 28, 2008 at 1147 hrs




5. Why would they? Are you insinuating that “principles” like honesty and ethics apply to politics?

   Posted by on August 28, 2008 at 1912 hrs




6. Me thinks thou dost protest too much.

   Comeon - how many hack ads is the “O” going to run on McCain?

   And the premise of the ad still holds - Obama has no foreign policy experience and very little experience at the federal level.

   Posted by on August 28, 2008 at 2029 hrs




7. Bill, there’s a difference in saying that Obama has little foreign policy experience and claiming that Obama will sit idly by as Iran nukes Israel back to Biblical times.  One is a rational argument and the other is a lie.

   In related news, John McCain today told Time Magazine, “My record shows that I have always stood up for pork-barrel spending.”

   Posted by folkbum on August 28, 2008 at 2106 hrs




8. Bill, that’s weak.  Look, I’m not asking you to vote for Obama.  I’m asking you to admit that this ad is misleading.  Nobody who purports to be a fair-minded person could possibly defend its veracity. 

   Owen?  I seriously do think you should chime in here to admit the truth.  Seeing as you’re, you know, participating in disseminating this lie by putting it on your blog.

   Posted by scott on August 28, 2008 at 2113 hrs




9. The ad has not twisted Obama’s words even in the slightest.  He specifically stated Iran is not a serious threat.

   Obama’s extended position is intentionally unclear, which is good in an election, but dangerous as a foreign policy.  Given his lack of clarity, he could simply clarify his position, but in doing so he would have to either anger the pacifist left by declaring Iran a threat, or further validate the ad by restating that Iran is not a threat and in doing so alienate the independent voters he seeks to win over.

   Posted by on August 28, 2008 at 2214 hrs




10. I don’t think the issue whether Owen agrees with the characterization of this ad as a lie, or chooses to aknowledge it if he does is really that important.

    What I think is important is that anytime one gets an opportunity to hear or read about what Obama has to say on a foreign policy issue you get an opportunity to hear a detailed and nuanced response.

    I know one of the central planks in the campaign against Obama (and let us be honest that’s what it is, not a campaign for McCain, but a campaign against Obama) is to paint him as an inexperienced, wet behind the ears, shallow newcomer not ready to handle the big boy problems of the White House.  And when used in sound bytes, when spoken to an audience that doesn’t have the time, or the desire, to listen to Obama articulate his positions in detail, that type of campaign is effective.

    But agree with him or not on strategy and policy, anyone who has seriously paid attention over the last 18 months has to be impressed with the depth of Obama on foreign policy.  Even the quote clipped by scott above shows someone who understands how the leaders of our country have engaged with our advesaries in the past, and how to build upon those lessons for the future.

    Posted by on August 28, 2008 at 2222 hrs




11. The ad has not twisted Obama’s words even in the slightest.  He specifically stated Iran is not a serious threat.

    No.  Obama stated that Iran is not as serious a threat as the Soviet Union, and then asked why if we could talk with the Soviets we can’t talk with Iran.  To crop his words as you and McCain do is to remove the context and lie about what Obama said.

    It is not hard to understand.

    Posted by folkbum on August 28, 2008 at 2235 hrs




12. Even the quote clipped by scott above shows someone who understands how the leaders of our country have engaged with our advesaries in the past, and how to build upon those lessons for the future.

    Yeah, except that Kennedy-Khrushchev summit that BHO keeps going on about didn’t exactly wind up being a model of diplomatic strategy. 

    Of course, recognizing that would involve some understanding of history with the ability of relating it to the job of a chief executive.  Perhaps too much to expect of a first-term senator, in all fairness.

    Posted by on August 28, 2008 at 2241 hrs




13. Folkbum, your interpretation would make the context even worse given the actual capabilities of the Soviet Union at various times implied in his statement.  Second, talking with Iran would be the policy of an imbecile unless one thinks Iran is a nation solely comprised of nutjobs like Ahmadinejad. 

    I give credit to Obama for intentionally crafting the vague statement, big idea style campaign.  It’s probably the only campaign strategy that could have got him the nomination.  The downside is that a vague campaign strategy puts you in the position of constantly playing defense in order to clarify your positions.  If Obama truly believes some of the nonsense he says then we may be in deep trouble.

    Posted by on August 28, 2008 at 2252 hrs




14. Yeah, except that Kennedy-Khrushchev summit that BHO keeps going on about didn’t exactly wind up being a model of diplomatic strategy. 

    Of course, recognizing that would involve some understanding of history with the ability of relating it to the job of a chief executive.  Perhaps too much to expect of a first-term senator, in all fairness.

    Yes the Thrall/Wilkins critique would be relevant were it not for the fact that it entirely misses the point.  Kennedy’s dismay at his performance at the summit, and speculation as to the degree over which it may or may not have embolden Khruschev is not a ground breaking bit of op/ed journalism, and certainly not a bit of historical information one needs to spend decades as a member of congress in order to attain and understand.

    The simple reminder Obama is offering to the American people is that when faced with adversarial stances from rival nations in the past Presidents as diverse as Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan went with diplomacy first against enemies that posed a far greater threat to the future of our democracy and the balance of power in the world than Iran does today, and to suggest that this is a sign of weakness is foolish.

    Posted by on August 28, 2008 at 2307 hrs




15. 1.  What policy has been pursued by the current administration with Iran other than diplomacy?

    2.  Against the Soviet Union Kennedy and Reagan went with massive military expansion first.  Kennedy campaigned on a massive nuclear weapons expansion and then proceeded to implement one even though he already possessed an overwhelming advantage in such weapons.

    3.  Has it occurred to anyone on the left that both Kriuschev’s “we will bury you speech” and the statements of Iran’s current administration were intended for domestic consumption?

    Posted by on August 28, 2008 at 2345 hrs




16. B. Hussein Obama is a marxist and would destroy the American way of life.  I don’t care what tactic anyone uses against him, as long as he is defeated.  While he may not actually be a Muslim he has made many statements sympathetic to the Islamist cause.  That, coupled with his friendship and close association with American terrorist Bill Ayres, tells all of us that Obama represents a great danger to the security of our nation.

    Posted by on August 29, 2008 at 0427 hrs




17. What policy has been pursued by the current administration with Iran other than diplomacy?

    Obama was speaking in response to criticism that he himself was somehow weak by suggesting diplomacy, not criticizing the current administration.

    Against the Soviet Union Kennedy and Reagan went with massive military expansion first.

    How much more do we need to expand our military to achieve a similar dominance over Iran or North Korea?

    I don’t even know how to respond to 45acp, except perhaps for him/her to maybe spend some time to learn what “Marxist” really means.  That would be a start.

    Posted by folkbum on August 29, 2008 at 0550 hrs




18. The simple reminder Obama is offering to the American people is that when faced with adversarial stances from rival nations in the past Presidents as diverse as Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan went with diplomacy first against enemies that posed a far greater threat to the future of our democracy and the balance of power in the world than Iran does today, and to suggest that this is a sign of weakness is foolish.

    When you seek leader-to-leader talks without preconditions as BOH does, it is weak and foolish.  The examples that even he cites did not use this approach, for good reason, and if he had a better command of history he wouldn’t make such statements. 

    The man is simply not ready, which is what the ad points out.

    Posted by on August 29, 2008 at 0607 hrs




19. So Obama support’s the current actions of the administration regarding Iran then, folkbum? 

    We do not need to expand our military.

    Posted by on August 29, 2008 at 0722 hrs




20. Hell, I kind of support the actual administration efforts in Iran.  The last 2-3 years, with the Cheneyites out of power, the White House has done a much better job of engaging instead of antagonizing.

    A lot of my colleagues on the left think McCain is running for Bush’s third term.  I think he’s running to be Bush’s first term, over again.

    Posted by folkbum on August 29, 2008 at 0756 hrs




21. Scott demanding that someone else admit his guy is lying?  If I had known the hypocrisy would be so deep, I’d have brought boots.

    Posted by Calvin Freiburger on August 29, 2008 at 0804 hrs