Organizing for America

Obama Has Been Consistent In Wanting To Use All Elements Of Our National Power, Including Diplomacy, To Address The Threats Facing America. Has Consistently Said The Bush Policy Of Not Talking Is Not Working

OBAMA HAS BEEN CONSISTENT THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "PRECONDITIONS" AND PREPARATION, THAT HE WOULD NOT SIT DOWN AS PRESIDENT WITH HOSTILE LEADERS WITHOUT HAVING DONE "THE APPROPRIATE GROUNDWORK"

Obama: Initial Meetings With Hostile Nations Would Start With Lower Level Aides; Bush Admin "Preconditions" Are Exactly What Need to Be Negotiated In These Meetings. Asked whether his idea of meeting with hostile nations consisted of "from the get-go of the President of the United States" or lower level aides, Obama said, "The latter. Understand what the question was. The question was a very specific question. Would you meet without preconditions? Preconditions as it applies to a country like Iran for example was a term of art. Because this administration has been very clear that it will not have direct negotiations with Iran until Iran has meet preconditions that are essentially negotiations with Iran until Iran has met preconditions that are essentially what Iran used and many other observers would view as the subject of the negotiations. For example, their nuclear program. The point is that I would not refuse to meet until they agree to every position that we want. But that doesn't mean that we would not have preparation, and the preparation would involve starting with low level-lower level diplomatic contacts, having our diplomatic corps work through with Iranian counterparts, an agenda. But what I have said is that at some point I would be willing to meet. And that is a position, I mean, what's puzzling is that we view this as in any way controversial, when this has been the history of U.S. diplomacy, until very recently. This whole notion of not talking to people, it didn't hold in the ‘60s, it didn’'t hold in the '70s, it didn'’t hold in the '80s, it didn'’t hold in the '90s, against much more powerful adversaries; much more dangerous adversaries. I mean, when Kennedy met with Khrushchev, we were on the brink of nuclear war. When Nixon met with Mao, that was with the knowledge that Mao had exterminated millions of people. And yet we understood that we could advance our national security interests by at least opening up lines of communication. And this was bipartisan. And it's a signal of how badly our foreign policy has drifted over the last eight years; how much it has been skewed by the rhetoric of the Bush Administration that this should even be a controversial proposition." [Obama Press Avail, 5/15/08]

Obama: "Obviously There's a Difference Between Pre-Conditions and Preparation." Asked if he were still willing to meet without pre-condition during your first year with Fidel Castro, Kim Jung Il, Hugo Chavez, Obama said, "I do. Now, I did not say that I would be meeting with all of them. I said I'd be willing to. Obviously, there is a difference between pre-conditions and preparation. Pre-conditions, which was what the question was in that debate, means that we won't meet with people unless they've already agreed to the very things that we expect to be meeting with them about. And obviously, when we say to Iran, 'We won't meet with you until you've agreed to all the terms that we've laid out,'" from their perspective that's not a negotiation, that's not a meeting." [Meet the Press, 11/11/07]

Obama Said There Was A Difference Between Preparation And Preconditions. The Kansas City Star reported, "'The argument was that I would invite Hugo Chavez over to my house, and we'd pop open a beer and we'd start talking...That's the lack of preparation. There's no one that would meet another head of state without preparation. Preconditions refer to something specific. We've refused to talk to Iran until they meet preconditions.' Obama admitted that his willingness to try a new approach to foreign policy was his way of rocking the political boat. 'I've been trying to challenge some conventional wisdom.'" [Kansas City Star, 8/20/07]

Obama: Nobody Expects You Would Meet with Hostile Leaders Without Having Done the Appropriate Groundwork. Obama said, "Nobody expects that you would suddenly just sit down with them for coffee without having done the appropriate groundwork," he said. "But the question was: Would you meet them without preconditions? And part of the Bush doctrine has been to say no." [Washington Post, 7/27/07]

OBAMA HAS BEEN CONSISTENT THAT HE WOULD MEET DIRECTLY WITH HOSTILE NATIONS JUST AS PRESIDENTS KENNEDY AND NIXON DID

Obama: "We Would Engage In A Level Of Aggressive Personal Diplomacy In Which A Whole Host Of Issues Are On The Table." "I've already said, I would meet directly with Iranian leaders. I would meet directly with Syrian leaders. We would engage in a level of aggressive personal diplomacy in which a whole host of issues are on the table. We're not looking at Iraq, just in isolation. Iran and Syria would start changing their behavior if they started seeing that they had some incentives to do so, but right now the only incentive that exists is our president suggesting that if you do what we tell you, we may not blow you up." [New York Times, 11/1/07]

Obama: "If We Take The Attitude That The President Just Parachutes In For A Photo-Op After An Agreement Has Already Been Reached, Then We're Only Going To Reach Agreements With Our Friends." "This will require a new era of American diplomacy. To signal the dawn of that era, we need a President who is willing to talk to all nations, friend and foe. I'm not afraid that America will lose a propaganda battle with a petty tyrant - we need to go before the world and win those battles. If we take the attitude that the President just parachutes in for a photo-op after an agreement has already been reached, then we're only going to reach agreements with our friends. That's not the way to protect the American people. That's not the way to advance our interests. Just look at our history. Kennedy had a direct line to Khrushchev. Nixon met with Mao. Carter did the hard work of negotiating the Camp David Accords. Reagan was negotiating arms agreements with Gorbachev even as he called on him to "tear down this wall." [Obama Speech, 10/2/07]

Obama: "As President...I Won't Outsource Our Diplomacy In Tehran To The Europeans, Or Our Diplomacy In Pyongyang To The Chinese. I Will Do The Careful Preparation Needed, And Let These Countries Know Where America Stands." "And I won't hesitate to use the power of American diplomacy to stop countries from obtaining these weapons or sponsoring terror. The lesson of the Bush years is that not talking does not work. Go down the list of countries we've ignored and see how successful that strategy has been. We haven't talked to Iran, and they continue to build their nuclear program. We haven't talked to Syria, and they continue support for terror. We tried not talking to North Korea, and they now have enough material for 6 to 8 more nuclear weapons. It's time to turn the page on the diplomacy of tough talk and no action. It's time to turn the page on Washington's conventional wisdom that agreement must be reached before you meet, that talking to other countries is some kind of reward, and that Presidents can only meet with people who will tell them what they want to hear. President Kennedy said it best: 'Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate.' Only by knowing your adversary can you defeat them or drive wedges between them. As President, I will work with our friend and allies, but I won't outsource our diplomacy in Tehran to the Europeans, or our diplomacy in Pyongyang to the Chinese. I will do the careful preparation needed, and let these countries know where America stands. They will no longer have the excuse of American intransigence. They will have our terms: no support for terror and no nuclear weapons." [Obama Speech, 8/1/07]

Obama: Bush Preconditions on Iranian Talks Counterproductive. In an interview with David Ignatius, "Obama said he would talk to Iranian leaders about stabilizing Iraq, where he says they have a common interest; about halting Iranian terrorist activities in Iraq; and about the Iranian nuclear program. He said he would make suspension of nuclear enrichment by Iran a topic for discussions rather than a condition for talks, as it is for the Bush administration." [Washington Post, 8/22/07]

Obama: "When We Engage Directly, We Will Be In A Stronger Position To Rally Real International Support For Increased Pressure. We Will Also Engender More Goodwill From The Iranian People." "I also know that meeting these new threats will require a President who deploys the power of tough, principled diplomacy. It is time to present a country like Iran with a clear choice. If it abandons its nuclear program, support for terror, and threats to Israel, then Iran can rejoin the community of nations - with all the benefits that entails. If not, Iran will face deeper isolation and steeper sanctions. When we engage directly, we will be in a stronger position to rally real international support for increased pressure. We will also engender more goodwill from the Iranian people. And make no mistake - if and when we ever have to use military force against any country, we must exert the power of American diplomacy first. Once again, Senator Clinton, Senator McCain, and President Bush have made the same arguments against my position on diplomacy, as if reading from the same political playbook. They say I'll be penciling the world's dictators on to my social calendar. But just as they are misrepresenting my position, they are mistaken in standing up for a policy of not talking that is not working. What I've said is that we cannot seize opportunities to resolve our problems unless we create them. That is what Kennedy did with Khrushchev; what Nixon did with Mao; what Reagan did with Gorbachev. And that is what I will do as President of the United States." [Obama Speech, 3/19/08]

REPUBLICANS AGREE WITH DIRECT TALKS WITH IRAN

Defense Secretary Gates: We Need To "Sit Down And Talk" With Iran. "The United States should construct a combination of incentives and pressure to engage Iran, and may have missed earlier opportunities to begin a useful dialogue with Tehran, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said yesterday. ‘We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage . . . and then sit down and talk with them," Gates said. "If there is going to be a discussion, then they need something, too. We can't go to a discussion and be completely the demander, with them not feeling that they need anything from us.'" [Washington Post, 5/15/08]

Kissinger: The U.S. Should Negotiate Directly With Iran. "Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said the U.S. should negotiate directly with Iran over its nuclear program and other bilateral issues. ‘One should be prepared to negotiate, and I think we should be prepared to negotiate about Iran,' Kissinger, who brokered the end of the 1973 Yom Kippur war and peace talks with the North Vietnamese, said yesterday in an interview with Bloomberg Television. Asked whether he meant the U.S. should hold direct talks, Kissinger, 84, responded: ‘Yes, I think we should.'" [Bloomberg, 3/14/08]

Powell Said That Talks With Iran Might Not Always Be Pleasant "But You've Go To Do It." "Powell compared potential talks [with Iran] to difficult visits he made to Syria while he served as America's chief diplomat. ‘They are not always pleasant visits,' he said. ‘But you've got to do it.'" [AP, 3/28/08]

Hagel: The United States Should Actively Pursue Direct, Unconditional, And Comprehensive Talks With Iran. Hagel said, "Now is the time for the United States to actively pursue an offer of direct, unconditional, and comprehensive talks with Iran. We cannot afford to refuse to consider this strategic choice any longer. We should make clear that everything is on the table, our issues and Iran's issues." [CNN, 11/8/07]

Lugar: Direct Talks With Iran "Would Be Useful." "The United States needs to pursue direct talks and other diplomatic avenues with Iran about its disputed nuclear program before considering a military option, lawmakers from both parties said yesterday. ‘I think that would be useful,' said Richard Lugar, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, when asked on ABC's ‘This Week' about having direct talks. ‘The Iranians are a part of the energy picture,' said Lugar, a Republican from Indiana. ‘We need to talk about that.'" [AP, 4/17/06]

OBAMA HAS BEEN CONSISTENT THAT HE WON'T MEET WITH HAMAS BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT HEADS OF STATE

APRIL: Obama "Held Steady In His Criticism Of Carter, Saying That The Former President Should Not Have Met With A Terrorist Organization." "On the issue of Hamas, Obama held steady in his criticism of Carter, saying that the former president should not have met with a terrorist organization. 'Given that they are not heads of state, to sit down with them, I think gave them a legitimacy that was unnecessary. And in fact, what we're seeing now is even as President Carter suggests there was a breakthrough, you have some of the same old rhetoric coming out of Hamas representatives with regard to Israel.' He continued, 'So I think it's very important for the United States to actively engage in helping bring about negotiations between the Palestinians and the Israelis. And President Abbas has indicated his willingness to make every effort to sit down with Prime Minister Olmert. That's where our energies should go.'" [MSNBC, 4/22/08]

APRIL: Obama: I've Consistently Said I Would Not Meet With Hamas. Obama said, "I'm not going to comment on former President Carter. He's a private citizen. It's not my place to discuss who he shouldn't meet with. I know that I've said consistently that I would not meet with Hamas...It is not a state and until Hamas clearly recognizes Israel, renounces terrorism and abides by, or believes that the Palestinians should abide by previous agreements ... I don't think conversations with them would be fruitful" [Reuters, 4/11/08]

APRIL: An Obama Spokesperson Said Obama Does Not Agree With Carter's Meeting With Hamas And Would Not Negotiate With Them Until They Renounce Terrorism, Recognize Israel's Right To Exist, And Abide By Past Agreements. An Obama spokesperson said, "Senator Obama does not agree with President Carter's decision to go forward with this meeting because he does not support negotiations with Hamas until they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist and abide by past agreements. As president, Obama will negotiate directly with the head of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas." [JTA, 4/10/08]

MARCH: Obama Said He Would Not Talk To Hamas. "Barack Obama - who has said repeatedly that America must meet with its enemies, including the tyrants who lead Iran, North Korea and Cuba - drew the line yesterday in refusing to talk with Hamas. 'They're not heads of state. They don't recognize Israel,' Obama told reporters. 'You can't negotiate with somebody who doesn't recognize the right of a country to exist.'" [New York Post, 3/4/08]

FEBRUARY: Obama Made Clear He Would Not Negotiate With Hamas. "Mr. Obama made clear in his Ohio remarks that he would not negotiate with Hamas. 'You can't have a conversation with somebody who doesn't think you should be on the other side of the table,' he said. 'There is a hard core of jihadist fundamentalists who we can't negotiate with. We have to hunt them down and knock them out. Incapacitate them. That's the military aspects of dealing with this phenomenon.' He mocked the idea of softness against the terrorists. 'It's not like we're a bunch of folks asking to hold hands and sing Kumbaya,' he said." [New York Sun, 2/26/08]

FEBRUARY: Obama Stated That He Would Not Have Presidential Level Talks With Hamas. "Mr. Obama's stance in favor of presidential-level talks with the leaders of Iran, Cuba, and North Korea led one participant at Sunday's meeting in Cleveland to ask whether the senator favors direct discussions with Hamas. 'The answer is no,' Mr. Obama replied, according to a partial transcript made available by his campaign. 'The distinction would be that Hamas is represented in the Palestinian legislature, or it was before the current rift, but they're not the head of state? The point is that, with respect to Hamas, you can't have a conversation with somebody who doesn't think you should be on the other side of the table. At the point where they recognize Israel and its right to exist, at the point where they recognize that they are not going to be able to shove their world view down the throats of others but are going to have to sit down and negotiate without resort to violence, then I think that will be a different circumstance.'" [New York Sun, 2/26/08]

JANUARY: National Post: Obama Has "Drawn The Line At Hamas" In Presidential- Level Talks. "Overall, Mr. Obama has stressed a greater willingness to advocate diplomacy over force. He has said he would meet anti-U.S. dictators without preconditions in his first year in office...He has however drawn the line at Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic organization that seized control of the Gaza Strip in June. Israel, the United States and the European Union classify Hamas, which refuses to recognize Israel and opposes peace talks, as a terrorist organization." [National Post, 1/9/08]

NOVEMBER: Advisor Tony Lake Said Obama Would Not Agree To Talk With Hamas Since Hamas Is Not A Recognized Government And Does Not Recognize The State Of Israel Or Previous Peace Agreements. "Lake said Obama agrees with the exclusion of Hamas from such a meeting, since Hamas does not recognize the state of Israel or previous peace agreements. In an interview, Lake explained that Hamas is different from politicians such as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whom Obama has said he would meet without preconditions, because Hamas is not a recognized government. 'He did not say he would talk to Osama bin Laden, he did not say he'd talk to anybody under any conditions,' Lake said. 'This is a particular case in which the world community has laid down certain conditions . . . to say therefore you'd talk to Hamas without Hamas at least agreeing to the conditions the quartet has laid out. . . . There is a big difference between Hamas and, say, the government of Iran.'" [Concord Monitor, 11/28/07]