Organizing for America

A recent email forward allegedly quotes passages from Senator Obama's books related to race and religion. The majority of these are alterations, deliberate manipulations, and in one case, an outright fabrication, of Obama's words.

EMAIL
From Dreams of My Father: 'I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mothers race.'

FULL QUOTE
Nothing close to this quote appears in Dreams from My Father

EMAIL
From Dreams of My Father: 'There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white.'

FULL QUOTE
"He offered to start me off at ten thousand dollars the first year, with a two-thousand-dollar travel allowance to buy a car; the salary would go up if things worked out. After he was gone, I took the long way home, along the East River promenade, and tried to figure out what to make of the man. He was smart, I decided. He seemed committed to his work. Still, there was something about him that made me wary. A little too sure of himself, maybe. And white--he'd said himself that that was a problem." [Page 142]

EMAIL
From Dream s of My Father: 'I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa, that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.'

FULL QUOTE
"All my life, I had carried a single image of my father, one that I had sometimes rebelled against but had never questioned, one that I had later tried to take as my own. The brilliant scholar, the generous friend, the upstanding leader--my father had been all those things. All those things and more, because except for that one brief visit in Hawaii, he had never been present to foil the image, because I hadn't seen what perhaps most men see at some point in their lives: their father's body shrinking, their father's best hopes dashed, their father's face lined with grief and regret.
Yes, I'd seen weakness in other men--Gramps and his disappointments, Lolo and his compromise. But these men had become object lessons for me, men I might love but never emulate, white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa, that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela. And if later I saw that the black men I knew--Frank or Ray or Will or Rafiq--fell short of such lofty standards; if I had learned to respect these men for the struggles they went through, recognizing them as my own--my father's voice had nevertheless remained untainted, inspiring, rebuking, granting or withholding approval. You do not work hard enough, Barry. You must help in your people's struggle. Wake up, black man!
Now, as I sat in the glow of a single light bulb, rocking slightly on a hard-backed chair, that image had suddenly vanished. Replaced by...what? A bitter drunk? An abusive husband? A defeated, lonely bureaucrat? To think that all my life I had been wrestling with nothing more than a ghost!" [Page 220]

EMAIL
From Audacity of Hope: 'I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.'

FULL QUOTE
"Whenever I appear before immigrant audiences, I can count on some good-natured ribbing from my staff after my speech; according to them, my remarks always follow a three-part structure: "I am your friend," "[Fill in the home country] has been a cradle of civilization," and "You embody the American dream." They're right, my message is simple, for what I've come to understand is that my mere presence before these newly minted Americans serves notice that they matter, that they are voters critical to my success and full-fledged citizens deserving of respect.
Of course, not all my conversations in immigrant communities follow this easy pattern. In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific assurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction." [Page 260-261]

12:56 PM | Permalink

RHETORIC: Obama hasn't been clear about his policy regarding diplomacy with Iran.

REALITY: Obama has consistently said he is willing to meet, without preconditions but with preparation, the leaders of Iran. This could include, but is not limited to, Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad is not the most powerful person in Iran, and his status is uncertain as there will be Presidential elections in Iran in 2009.

OBAMA HAS SAID HE WOULD BE WILLING TO MEET WITH THE LEADERS OF IRAN

Obama Said He Would Be Willing To Meet Without Precondition With The Leaders Of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, And North Korea. Obama was asked "Would 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 responded, "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 Debate, 7/24/07]

Obama Said He'd Be Willing To Meet Without Precondition The Leaders Of Iran. 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 That He Would Be Willing To Meet With Iranian Leaders After Sufficient Preparation. Obama said, "I would be willing to meet with Iranian leaders if we had done sufficient preparations for that meeting." [CNN, 5/20/08]

Obama Said He'd Be Willing To Meet At Some Point With The Leaders Of Iran. Obama said, "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." [Watertown, SD Press Avail, 5/16/08]

Obama Said The Approach He's Suggesting Is Tough But Engaged Diplomacy Like What Was Carried Out By Kennedy, Nixon, And Reagan. Obama said, "The approach I am suggesting, the tough but engaged diplomacy that I am suggesting is the kind that was carried out by John Kennedy, it was carried out by Richard Nixon, and it was carried out by Ronald Reagan. There is a strong bipartisan tradition of engaging in that kind of diplomacy. You mirror military strength with aggressive, effective, tough diplomacy. That's what's been lacking." [Watertown, SD Press Avail, 5/16/08]

OBAMA IS WILLING TO MEET WITH AHMADINEJAD BUT AHMADINEJAD MAY NOT BE THE RIGHT PERSON SINCE HE'S NOT THE MOST POWERFUL PERSON IN IRAN AND MAY BE OUT OF POWER SHORTLY AFTER OBAMA TAKES OFFICE

Obama Said That He Would Be Willing To Meet With Iranian Leaders After Sufficient Preparation Had Been Done But Ahmadinejad Might Not Be The Right Person. "Obama said Tuesday that 'this obsession with Ahmadinejad is an example of us losing track of what's important.' 'I would be willing to meet with Iranian leaders if we had done sufficient preparations for that meeting,' Obama said. 'Whether Ahmadinejad is the right person to meet with right now, we don't even know how much power he is going to have a year from now. He is not the most powerful person in Iran.'" [CNN, 5/20/08]

Obama Said There Was No Reason Why He Would Necessarily Meet With Ahmadinejad Before We Know That He's Actually In Power. Obama said, "There's no reason why we would necessarily meet with Ahmadinejad before we know that he was actually in power. He's not the most powerful person in Iran." [Reuters, 5/27/08]

Obama Said That Ahmadinejad Is Not The Most Powerful Leader In Iran So He Might Not Be The Person That We Would Meet With. MS. KELLY: Senator, do you assume too much about men like Ahmadinejad? In other words, that you could reason with someone as irrational as he is? SEN. OBAMA: First of all, he's not the most powerful leader in Iran, so he might not be the person that we would need to meet with. But more importantly, the reason that you have discussions and diplomacy is not because you assume reason or good motives on the other side. That would be naive. What you assume is that if you are very clear about the need to stand down on nuclear weapons, that you are very clear about the need to stop funding Hezbollah and Hamas and to stop threatening Israel, and you have engaged in those direct talks, and you're listening about what their interests are, number one, we get a better sense of what their true interests are, number two, you have sent a message to the world that we are not the impediment of making progress, that they're the ones who are holding up progress, which allows us then to strengthen our alliances to impose the kinds of tough sanctions that may be necessary to change their behavior. [Fox News, 5/20/08]

Obama Said He Would Not Restrict Meetings To Ahmadinejad But Would Also Seek To Meet With Clerics Who Are The Ultimate Authority. "Obama's response: 'I would include Ahmadinejad to the extent that he is part of an Iranian government, but I would not restrict my meetings to him. I don't know where he will be a year or year and a half from now.' (Ahmadinejad could lose in 2009.) Obama said he would also seek to meet 'with negotiators who may have more power than (Ahmadinejad), including the clerics who are the ultimate authority.'" [Philadelphia Inquirer, 4/17/08]

Obama Said Iran's President Is Kind Of "Nutty" But He's Not The Most Powerful Person In Iran. "Obama in response to a question from a Sioux City voter about how he would negotiate with extremists in the Mideast, said, 'When I talk to Iran, the president is kinda nutty, but he's not the most powerful person.' If the clerics who run Iran were willing to work with the U.S. against terrorists, stop funding terrorist organizations and not seek nuclear weapons Obama said he would consider easing sanctions." [Chicago Sun Times, 1/2/08]

THE IRAQ STUDY GROUP RECOMMENDED MEETING WITH THE IRAN WITHOUT PRECONDITIONS, AT THE LEVEL OF SECRETARY OF STATE OR PRESIDENT

The Bi-Partisan Iraq Study Group Report Recommended That The U.S. Engage In Direct Diplomacy With Iran And Syria Without Preconditions. "Dealing with Iran and Syria is controversial. Nevertheless, it is our view that in diplomacy, a nation can and should engage its adversaries and enemies to try to resolve conflicts and differences consistent with its own interests. Accordingly, the Support Group should actively engage Iran and Syria in its diplomatic dialogue, without preconditions." [Iraq Study Group Report]

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRECONDITIONS AND PREPARATION

Obama Has Been Explicit About The Need For Low Level Talks With A Presidential Summit Coming Only If There Were Progress In Those Negotiations. "Obama has also been explicit about the need to start with lower-level talks, a presidential summit coming only if there were progress in those negotiations." [Time, 5/22/08]

Obama Said That He Would Not Refuse To Meet Iran Until They Have Agreed To Every Position That We Want But He Would Have Preparation Starting With Lower Level Diplomatic Contacts. "Preconditions, as 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 met preconditions that are essentially what Iran views and many other observers would view as the subject of the negotiations. For example, their nuclear program. The point is, is that I would not refuse to meet until they agreed to every position that we want, but that doesn't mean that we would not have preparation. And the preparation would involve starting with lower-level diplomatic contacts, having our diplomat core work through with Iranian counterparts an agenda." [Watertown, SD Press Avail, 5/16/08]

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,' Obama said. 'And the purveyors of conventional wisdom have gotten uncomfortable. I don't mind that discomfort. I think our foreign policy is all messed up.'" [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]

10:45 AM | Permalink

VETS FOR FREEDOM LED BY TOP MCCAIN CAMPAIGN ALLIES

Top McCain Officials Senator Lindsey Graham and Senator Joe Lieberman Are on the Board of Vets For Freedom, In Violation of McCain Campaign Policy. "Two of Sen. John McCain's top campaign chairmen are serving on the board of an independent organization that is behind a new attack ad against Sen. Barack Obama, an apparent violation of the Arizona Republican's new conflict of interest policy. Sens. Joseph Lieberman and Lindsey Graham both hold chairs for the McCain camp as well as positions on the board of advisers of Vets for Freedom, an advocacy group that supports the Iraq war. A week ago these titles may not have been a political issue. But under McCain's newly-implemented ethics policy, Lieberman and Graham's role with Vets for Freedom is now proving problematic. According to the policy: 'No person with a McCain Campaign title or position may participate in a 527 or other independent entity that makes public communications that support or oppose any presidential candidate.'" [Huffington Post, 5/23/08]

McCain Advisors Also Linked to Vets For Freedom. McCain's foreign policy adviser Max Boot also sits on the group's board. Captain Wade Zirkle, who is a member of McCain's Virginia Leadership Team, is listed on McCain's website as both a member of the leadership team and Founder of Vets for Freedom. [Huffington Post, 5/23/08; http://www.exploremccain.com/Informing/News/PressReleases/4b329cfe-d02d-4ed1-91d6-9a0315c0dbbf.htm]

SCRIPT: "The last time Barack Obama visited Iraq was in January 2006. Since then, much has changed. Attacks throughout Iraq are down 70 percent."

REALITY: Violence In Iraq Is Still At Unacceptably High Levels

2007 Was The Deadliest Yet For American Troops In Iraq. 901 Americans were killed in Iraq in 2007, the most of any year of the war. [Iraq Coalition Casualty Count]

National Intelligence Estimate: "The Level Of Overall Violence, Including Attacks On And Casualties Among Civilians, Remains High." "The level of overall violence, including attacks on and casualties among civilians, remains high; Iraq's sectarian groups remain unreconciled; AQI retains the ability to conduct high-profile attacks; and to date, Iraqi political leaders remain unable to govern effectively. There have been modest improvements in economic output, budget execution, and government finances but fundamental structural problems continue to prevent sustained progress in economic growth and living conditions." [National Intelligence Estimate, 8/23/07]

While Violence Has Dropped From Its Peak, The 2008 Level Is Still Unacceptable And Because Of Intra-Shi'a Violence Has Risen To Its Highest Level Since August 2007. According to the Department of Defense, attacks have risen over the past few months, returning to mid-2005 levels of roughly 500 attacks per week. Meanwhile, according to Iraq's interior, defense and health ministries, 923 civilians were killed in March 2008, making it the most violent month since August 2007. [DOD, 3/7/08; Reuters, 4/1/08]

Civilian Casualties Appear To Be Well Over 200,000 – Roughly One Percent Of Iraq's Population. The World Health Organization (WHO) concludes that 150,000 Iraqi civilians were killed between April 2003 and the summer of 2006. Trend lines from other data suggest that today's casualty figure is well over 200,000 people and more than one percent of Iraq's total pre-war population. [New England Journal of Medicine, 1/31/08; Financial Times, 1/10/08; Brookings Institution, 4/21/08]

SCRIPT: "The civil war in Iraq, over."

REALITY: Civil War Is Not Over In Iraq

National Intelligence Estimate: Iraq Is Still Mired In Multiple Civil Wars. "Political and security trajectories in Iraq continue to be driven primarily by Shi'a insecurity about retaining political dominance, widespread Sunni unwillingness to accept a diminished political status, factional rivalries within the sectarian communities resulting in armed conflict, and the actions of extremists such as AQI and elements of the Sadrist Jaysh al-Mahdi (JAM) militia that try to fuel sectarian violence." [National Intelligence Estimate, 8/23/07]

National Intelligence Estimate: The Shi'a Are Fighting Amongst Each Other In The South. "Intra-Shi'a conflict involving factions competing for power and resources probably will intensify as Iraqis assume control of provincial security. In Basrah, violence has escalated with the drawdown of Coalition forces there. Local militias show few signs of reducing their competition for control of valuable oil resources and territory." [National Intelligence Estimate, 8/23/07]

SCRIPT: "The Iraqi government has come together to make political progress."

REALITY: There Has Been Little Political Progress In Iraq

CAP: There Has Been Little Substantive Political Progress in Iraq. "Iraq's political transition remains stuck where it was in 2005, with no real advances on constitutional reform and worrisome unanswered questions on the implementation of three recently passed laws. The laws cited by supporters of keeping U.S. troops in Iraq indefinitely as remarkable legislative achievements—de-Baathification reform, a provincial powers law, and an amnesty law for detainees—do not by themselves represent a major step forward. As we know from the experience of our own country, the passage of legislation does not guarantee implementation." [Center for American Progress, 4/08]

Provincial Elections Remain Mired in "Squabbling" In The Iraqi Parliament, Which Keeps Power From Being Shared More Equally. "Iraqi politicians squabbled Monday over a provincial elections law and warned that differences over the bill are likely to delay for at least a month the crucial vote planned for this fall that could rearrange Iraq's political map. The elections, which choose councils for Iraq's 18 provinces, are seen as a key step in repairing the country's sectarian rifts, particularly by opening the door for greater Sunni Arab political representation...The vote, which is supposed to be held by Oct. 1, could also shift the balance of power among Shiite factions. Followers of anti-U.S. cleric Muqtada al-Sadr are hoping to make large gains in southern provinces, where many of the councils are dominated by rival Shiite parties in the ruling government coalition. A delay in passing the law would mark a setback for U.S. efforts to get Iraqi politicians to overcome differences and hold the election… Iraq's Independent Election Commission has said the law must be passed by June 1 for it to have time to organize the vote before the Oct. 1 deadline. A delay will mean parliament will have to pass a separate law pushing back the election to November or December. 'We were promised that the law would finish on April 15, and that didn't happen, then promised May 15, and that didn't happen. Now we're promised June 1. This is an embarrassing delay, and we hope it will be passed this week,' said Qassim al-Aboudi, the commission's executive director." [AP, 5/27/08]

Baghdad Is Getting Only 9.7 Hours Of Electricity Per Day – A Fraction Of What It Was Getting Before The War. Without a steady supply of power businesses have suffered. The original goal was to increase nationwide electrical output to 6,000 megawatts per day by mid-2004. Instead electricity is currently at 4,100. "Last July and August, massive blackouts stretched across parts of Baghdad. This summer could be worse because drought has cut in half power generated by hydroelectric plants. Add war, attacks on transmission lines, antiquated equipment, overdue maintenance and local corruption or bureaucracy and reliable electricity remains out of reach for most Iraqis." [Brookings Institution, 4/21/08; USA Today, 4/27/08]

Iraq Is Experiencing A Windfall In Oil Revenue, But Iraq's Leaders Fail To Spend On Reconstruction. Special Inspector General for Iraq Stuart Bowen estimated that Iraqi oil revenues for 2007 would likely rise to about $60 billion, yet the Iraqi government has failed to draw on these soaring revenues for reconstruction. Meanwhile, the United States spent $8.6 billion on Iraq's reconstruction in 2007. [AP, 3/11/08; NY Times, 1/16/08; Congressional Research Service, 11/07/07]

NIE: The Iraqi Government Is Going In The Wrong Direction, But There Is No Viable Alternative To Prime Minister Maliki. The IC assesses that the Iraqi Government will become more precarious over the next six to 12 months because of criticism by other members of the major Shi'a coalition (the Unified Iraqi Alliance, UIA), Grand Ayatollah Sistani, and other Sunni and Kurdish parties. Divisions between Maliki and the Sadrists have increased, and Shi'a factions have explored alternative coalitions aimed at constraining Maliki. The strains of the security situation and absence of key leaders have stalled internal political debates, slowed national decision-making, and increased Maliki's vulnerability to alternative coalitions. We judge that Maliki will continue to benefit from recognition among Shi'a leaders that searching for a replacement could paralyze the government. [National Intelligence Estimate, 8/23/07]

NIE: The Current Course Is Unlikely To Lead To Major Changes In Either The Political Or Security Situation. "Broadly accepted political compromises required for sustained security, long-term political progress, and economic development are unlikely to emerge unless there is a fundamental shift in the factors driving Iraqi political and security developments." [National Intelligence Estimate, 8/23/07]

NIE: Sunnis Are Incapable Of Delivering On National Reconciliation. The Sunni Arab community remains politically fragmented, and we see no prospective leaders that might engage in meaningful dialogue and deliver on national agreements. [National Intelligence Estimate, 8/23/07]

Kurdish Actions May Make Agreement On An Oil Law Impossible, And The Administration Cannot Agree On Its Response. The Kurdish Regional Government has signed a flurry of oil contracts without consulting Baghdad, and Iraqi Oil Minister Hussein Shahristani has responded by stating that, "[A]ny company that has signed contracts without the approval of the federal authority of Iraq will not have any chance of working with the government of Iraq." The Kurdish Oil Minister retorted, "We don't need his approval... Every time we hear the word 'illegal,' we sign two more contracts." But among those signing oil contracts in Kurdistan, against the expressed wishes of the State Department, were Bush advisor Ray L. Hunt. [AFP, 11/15/07; Washington Post, 11/28/07]

The Constitutional Review Has Been Delayed For The Fourth Time And Is Now Running A Year Behind Schedule. "Another major issue, the rewriting of Iraq's constitution, is also unlikely to be completed by a Dec. 31 deadline. The head of the parliament's constitutional review committee said yesterday he would request a three-month delay - the fourth time the target date for revision of the document, approved in a referendum in 2005, has been deferred as lawmakers haggle over such issues as provincial powers and religious and cultural freedoms. The constitutional revision delay could hinder progress on other issues the United States has cited as keys to Iraqi national reconciliation. Those include legislation to manage Iraq's oil industry and scheduling of provincial elections to ensure better distribution of power among Shia Muslims and Sunnis. Both these are tied to constitutional revisions that would spell out the powers of regional governments and establish power of provinces to manage their own affairs." [LA Times, 12/27/07]

SCRIPT: "Al Qaeda in Iraq has been decimated. And the Iraqi army is taking on rogue militias throughout the country."

REALITY: Al Qaeda In Iraq Is Still A Tremendous Threat To American Forces

Annual Threat Assessment: Al Qaeda In Iraq "Probably Will Continue To Devote Some Effort Towards Honoring Bin Ladin's Request In 2005 That AQI Attempt To Strike The United States." "Although the ongoing conflict in Iraq will likely absorb most of AQI's resources over the next year, AQI has leveraged its broad external networks—including some reaching into Europe—in support of external operations. It probably will continue to devote some effort towards honoring Bin Ladin's request in 2005 that AQI attempt to strike the United States, affirmed publicly by current AQI leader Abu Ayyub al-Masri in a November 2006 threat against the White House." [Annual Threat Assessment of the Intelligence Community for the Senate Armed Services Committee, 2/27/08]

Annual Threat Assessment: Al Qaeda In Iraq Capable of "Spectacular Attacks," Remains "The Most Active And Capable Of The Sunni Extremist Groups Fighting Coalition And Iraqi Government Forces In Iraq." "AQI remains capable of conducting destabilizing operations and spectacular attacks despite disruptions of its networks. AQI remains a potent force and the most active and capable of the Sunni extremist groups fighting Coalition and Iraqi Government forces in Iraq." [Annual Threat Assessment of the Intelligence Community for the Senate Armed Services Committee, 2/27/08]

SCRIPT: "The surge worked. But Barack Obama wouldn't know that. Because he hasn't been there in over two years. Senator Obama, when will you go back to Iraq to see the progress firsthand."

REALITY: Obama Has Said That While The Surge Could Help To Reduce Violence In Iraq, But Did Not Change The Political Dynamic In Iraq

Obama: Since the Surge "The Level Of Violence In Iraq Has Been Reduced...[Yet] The Iraqis Are Not Achieving The Political Progress Needed To End Their Civil War." Obama said in a speech, "In the year since President Bush announced the surge - the bloodiest year of the war for America - the level of violence in Iraq has been reduced. Our troops - including so many from Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base - have done a brilliant job under difficult circumstances. Yet while we have a General who has used improved tactics to reduce violence, we still have the wrong strategy. As General Petraeus has himself acknowledged, the Iraqis are not achieving the political progress needed to end their civil war. Beyond Iraq, our military is badly overstretched, and we have neither the strategy nor resources to deal with nearly every other national security challenge we face." [Obama Speech, 3/19/08]

Obama: "The Stated Purpose Of The Surge Was To Enable Iraq's Leaders To Reconcile...Violence Is Contained In Some Parts Of Baghdad. That's No Surprise. Our Troops Have Cleared These Neighborhoods At Great Costs." Obama said in a speech, "The stated purpose of the surge was to enable Iraq's leaders to reconcile. But as the recent report from the Government Accountability Office confirms, the Iraqis are not reconciling. Our troops fight and die in the 120 degree heat to give Iraq's leaders space to agree, but they aren't filling it. They are not moving beyond their centuries-old sectarian conflicts, they are falling further back into them. We hear a lot about how violence is down in parts of Anbar province. But this has little to do with the surge - it's because Sunni tribal leaders made a political decision to turn against al Qaeda in Iraq. This only underscores the point - the solution in Iraq is political, it is not military. Violence is contained in some parts of Baghdad. That's no surprise. Our troops have cleared these neighborhoods at great costs. But our troops cannot police Baghdad indefinitely - only Iraqis can. Rather than use our presence to make progress, the Iraqi government has put off taking responsibility - that's the finding of a Commission headed by General Jim Jones. And our troop presence cannot be sustained without crippling our military's ability to respond to other contingencies." [Obama Speech, 9/12/07]

Obama Said That The Surge Was A "Tactical Victory Imposed Upon A Huge Strategic Blunder," Said It Was a "Credit to Our Brave Men and Women in Uniform." Campbell Brown asked, "Senator Obama, in the same vein, you were also opposed to the surge from the beginning. Were you wrong?" Obama said, "Well, I think it is indisputable that we've seen violence reduced in Iraq. And that's a credit to our brave men and women in uniform. In fact, you know, the 1st Cavalry, out of Fort Hood, played an enormous role in pushing back Al Qaida out of Baghdad. And, you know, we honor their service. But this is a tactical victory imposed upon a huge strategic blunder. And I think that, when we're having a debate with John McCain, it is going to be much easier for the candidate who was opposed to the concept of invading Iraq in the first place to have a debate about the wisdom of that decision than having to argue about the tactics subsequent to the decision. [Debate, 2/21/08]

SCRIPT: "And when will you finally decide to meet one on one, unconditionally, with General Petraeus. This Iraqi veteran, along with thousands of others, would like to know. I am specialist Kate Norley and I served 16 months in Iraq as a combat medic."

REALITY: Obama Has Questioned Petraeus On Iraq, Praised Petraeus

01:59 PM | Permalink

McCain Campaign: "In Senator Obama's world, lobbyists can raise money..." [McCain release, 5/21/08]

FACT: Obama's Campaign Does Not Allow Lobbyists To Bundle Donations. "Among some of the leading Democratic and Republican candidates, the plans for disclosure are still unformed even as the bundlers are being recruited. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) will provide that information on his campaign Web site; he's also not taking checks, or bundles, from lobbyists." [Washington Post, 2/5/07]

03:37 PM | Permalink

MSNBC, 5/19/08
DAVID SHUSTER: Nancy, why is it that just in the last couple of days some of these lobbyists have been shown the door?

NANCY PFOTENHAUER: Well, you know, I think-It's fascinating to me-and I'm sorry not to answer you directly, David, I'll get to it- but it's fascinating to me that Senator Obama's getting away with this. He hasn't even released his list of advisers. It's a total double-standard. Even though he admits that he's got paid lobbyists, you know, on the rolls, if you will. And we know he's got some problems, because I can name at least one: Greg Craig, who's a partner at Williams & Connelly, who is a senior foreign policy adviser who has pledged to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for him at the same time that he's representing clients like the president of --

FACT: Greg Craig Has Never Been a Lobbyist. [Senate Office of Public Records]

FACT: Greg Craig Is Not On the Staff of the Obama Campaign [Federal Elections Commission]

04:59 PM | Permalink

RHETORIC: Michelle Obama Made An Unpatriotic Remarks That She Recently Grew Proud Of America

REALITY: Michelle Obama Was Expressing Pride In The Political Process, Has "Absolutely" Always Been Proud Of America

Michelle Obama Explained Her Remarks, Saying That Her Pride Was In The Political Process And That She Was "Absolutely" Always Proud Of America. The New York Times reported, "Asked today to clarify the remark by a local news station in Rhode Island, which holds its primary during the next round, on March 4, she said, 'What I was clearly talking about was that I'm proud in how Americans are engaging in the political process,' according to the Associated Press. 'For the first time in my lifetime, I'm seeing people rolling up their sleeves in a way that I haven't seen and really trying to figure this out -- and that's the source of pride that I was talking about.' She added that she has 'absolutely' always felt proud of her country and that she and her husband owed where they are today to America's possibilities." [New York Times, 2/21/08]

FULL QUOTE: Michelle Obama said, "What we have learned over this year is that hope is making a comeback. It is making a comeback. And let me tell you something--for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change. And I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction and just not feeling so alone in my frustration and disappointment. I've seen people who are hungry to be unified around some basic common issues, and it's made me proud." [New York Times, 2/19/08]

Obama Said His Wife Was Saying She Was "Proud Of The Politics Of America." The AP reported, "Barack Obama, interviewed on WOAI radio in San Antonio, Texas, expressed frustration that his wife's comments became political fodder. 'Statements like this are made and people try to take it out of context and make a great big deal out of it, and that isn't at all what she meant,' Obama said. 'What she meant was, this is the first time that she's been proud of the politics of America,' he said. 'Because she's pretty cynical about the political process, and with good reason, and she's not alone. But she has seen large numbers of people get involved in the process, and she's encouraged.'" [AP, 2/20/08]

Obamas Take Pride In America Because In No Other Country Is Their Story Possible. Bill Burton, an Obama campaign spokesman, reiterated a statement issued yesterday, saying Mrs. Obama's words were taken out of context. "Of course Michelle is proud of her country, which is why she and Barack talk constantly about how their story wouldn't be possible in any other nation on Earth. What she meant is that she's really proud at this moment because for the first time in a long time, thousands of Americans who've never participated in politics before are coming out in record numbers to build a grassroots movement for change." [New York Times, 2/19/08]

RHETORIC: Michelle Obama's Princeton Thesis Is Restricted until After the Election

REALITY: Michelle Obama's Thesis Is Public

Obama Campaign "Quickly" Responded To A Request For Michelle Obama's Thesis. Politico reported, "The Obama campaign, however, quickly responded to a request for the thesis by Politico." [Politico, 2/22/08]

RHETORIC: Michelle Obama's Thesis Relies on "Separationism" Terminology Stokely Carmichael and Charles Hamilton Introduced

REALITY: Michelle Obama Did Not Say She Was "Much Influenced" By The Definition Of Separationism Offered By Carmichael And Hamilton But That She Was Using Their Definition In Her Study

The Thesis Used Carmichael And Hamilton's Definition Of Black Separationism In Her Study But Did Not Suggest She Was "Influenced" By It. Michelle Obama wrote in her thesis, "Stokely Carmichael and Charles Hamilton's (1967) developed definitions of separationism in their discussion of Black Power which guided me in the formulation and use of this concept in the study…Thus, Carmichael and Hamilton define separationism as a necessary stage for the development of the Black community before this group integrates into the "open society". The idea of creating separate social structure and cultural structures as suggested by these authors serves to clarify definitions of separationism/pluralism as they function in the dependent variable which tries to measure the 26 respondents' ideologies concerning political and economic relations between the Black and White communities." [Michelle Obama's Thesis]

RHETORIC: The Obamas Still Have Outstanding College Loans

REALITY: The Obamas Have Paid Off Their Student Loans

2008: Barack Obama Said They Paid Off Their Student Debt Five Years Ago. Obama said, "Five years ago we had just finished paying off our student loans...we hadn't been able to set up a college fund for our kids, we had some credit-card [debt] outstanding, we were living in a condo too small for our two kids, I was going grocery shopping, and she was going to Target. She still goes to Target." [Salon, 1/1/08]

06:15 PM | Permalink

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]

02:51 PM | Permalink

Detroit News: "Obama Was Greeted With A Standing Ovation As He Began His Speech, But He Received Only Polite Applause During The 35-Minute Lecture." "Obama was greeted with a standing ovation as he began his speech, but he received only polite applause during the 35-minute lecture. He acknowledged that he picked a difficult venue to deliver his opinions on fuel efficiency, but he said he wants to be consistent - not telling his Detroit crowd what it might have wanted to hear." [The Detroit News, 5/8/07]

Newsweek: After Obama's "Scalding Speech" the Audience Was "Stunned Into Silence After Greeting Him With a Standing Ovation." "This week, Sen. Barack Obama attempted to fuel his presidential run with a scalding speech to the Detroit Economic Club, castigating Motown's big wheels for driving our dependence on foreign oil. 'For years, while foreign competitors were investing in more fuel-efficient technology for their vehicles, American automakers were spending their time investing in bigger, faster cars," Obama told an audience stunned into silence after greeting him with a standing ovation."Whenever an attempt was made to raise our fuel efficiency standards, the auto companies would lobby furiously against it, spending millions to prevent the very reform that could've saved their industry. Even as they've shed thousands of jobs and billions in profits over the last few years, they've continued to reward failure with lucrative bonuses for CEOs.' What played as an act of courage in the rest of the country, is being seen as political suicide here in Detroit." [Newsweek, 5/11/07]

Chicago Tribune: "The Applause Was Light At Times, But [Obama] Pressed On." The Chicago Tribune reported, "Obama billed his visit to Detroit as tough love. The applause was light at times, but the candidate pressed on, saying the nation's 'oil addiction' is a threat to national security because it helps fund terrorism. 'For the sake of our security, our economy, our jobs and our planet, the age of oil must end in our time,' he said." [Chicago Tribune, 5/8/07]

Chicago Sun Times: "The Audience Was Cordial And Offered Polite Applause, Nothing More." "Obama's speech was a step toward putting some more substance on his energy and economic policies. Considering the crowd, he didn't draw cheers or bring anyone to their feet as his stump speeches often do. The audience was cordial and offered polite applause, nothing more." [Chicago Sun Times, 5/8/07]

Detroit Political Consultant: Obama's Speech In Detroit "Didn't Get A Great Reception." Eric Foster, a political consultant with the Detroit-based Urban Consulting Group, said, "It may have been uncomfortable for some people to hear that speech and Obama didn't get a great reception…But it took a lot of guts for him to say it." [Detroit Free Press, 5/8/07]

11:45 AM | Permalink

"In his dishonest and ridiculous distortion, John Boehner has shown us the new depths that a truly desperate Republican leadership will sink to in its attempt to smear Barack Obama's strong and unshakeable record of support for Israel. This absurd parsing would be laughable if it wasn't so sad to see the U.S.-Israel relationship used as a political wedge instead of a cause to unite all Americans around a common purpose." --Rep. Robert Wexler, D-FL

OBAMA WAS CLEARLY REFERRING TO THE "LACK OF A RESOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM"

Goldberg: Do you think that Israel is a drag on America’s reputation overseas?

Obama: No, no, no. But what I think is that this constant wound, that this constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy. The lack of a resolution to this problem provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions, and so we have a national-security interest in solving this, and I also believe that Israel has a security interest in solving this because I believe that the status quo is unsustainable. I am absolutely convinced of that, and some of the tensions that might arise between me and some of the more hawkish elements in the Jewish community in the United States might stem from the fact that I’m not going to blindly adhere to whatever the most hawkish position is just because that’s the safest ground politically.

I want to solve the problem, and so my job in being a friend to Israel is partly to hold up a mirror and tell the truth and say if Israel is building settlements without any regard to the effects that this has on the peace process, then we’re going to be stuck in the same status quo that we’ve been stuck in for decades now, and that won’t lift that existential dread that David Grossman described in your article.

The notion that a vibrant, successful society with incredible economic growth and incredible cultural vitality is still plagued by this notion that this could all end at any moment -- you know, I don’t know what that feels like, but I can use my imagination to understand it. I would not want to raise my children in those circumstances. I want to make sure that the people of Israel, when they kiss their kids and put them on that bus, feel at least no more existential dread than any parent does whenever their kids leave their sight. So that then becomes the question: is settlement policy conducive to relieving that over the long term, or is it just making the situation worse? That’s the question that has to be asked.

OBAMA IS "PRO-ISRAEL. PERIOD."

Haaretz Columnist: "Obama Passed Any Test Anyone Might Have Wanted Him To Pass. So, He Is Pro-Israel. Period." Schmuel Rosner wrote, "Barack Obama's big speech on Israel is now over, and as expected, the candidate made no secret of his support and dedication to the special relationship between the U.S. and Israel. "My view is that the United States' special relationship with Israel obligates us to be helpful to them in the search for credible partners with whom they can make peace, while also supporting Israel in defending itself against enemies sworn to its destruction," were Obama's words to Haaretz last week. Today, he sounded as strong as Clinton, as supportive as Bush, as friendly as Giuliani. At least rhetorically, Obama passed any test anyone might have wanted him to pass. So, he is pro-Israel. Period." [Haaretz, 3/07]

New York Sun: Obama's "Commitment To Israel...Is Quite Moving" Which "Israel's Friends In America...Can Warmly Welcome." The New York Sun wrote in an editorial, "At least by our lights, Mr. Obama's commitment to Israel, as he has articulated it so far in his campaign, is quite moving and a tribute to the broad, bipartisan support that the Jewish state has in America...But as a candidate, he has chosen to put himself on the record in terms that Israel's friends in America, at least those not motivated by pure political partisanship, can warmly welcome." [New York Sun, 1/9/08]

Friedman: All The Candidates "Have Demonstrated Their Support For A Strong US-Israel Relationship." The New York Sun reported, "On just the question of Mr. Obama's support for Israel, however, the president of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Howard Friedman, minimized any differences between the candidates. 'All of the leading candidates, Senators Clinton, Obama, and McCain, and Governor Huckabee, have demonstrated their support for a strong U.S.-Israel relationship,' Mr. Friedman said." [New York Sun, 2/21/08]

Wexler: Obama Has "An A-Plus" On Israel. The Cleveland Plain-Dealer reported, "As he did in Iowa and Maryland, U.S. Rep. Robert Wexler, an Obama adviser, addressed the Jewish community here Sunday afternoon at Anshe Chesed Fairmount Temple. 'Look at his record,' the Florida congressman told a crowd of about 500, a handful of whom wore yarmulkes stamped with "Obama '08." 'If you gave it a grade, it would be an A-plus.'" [Cleveland Plain-Dealer, 2/26/08]

Schorer: Obama Or Clinton Would "Offer A Sympathetic Ear And A Helping Hand To Israel." Sheldon Schorer wrote, "What does this mean for Israel? The good news is that both in Hillary Clinton and in Barack Obama, the Democrats are proposing candidates who are good for Israel. Both candidates understand the importance of Israel as a strong and reliable ally in this volatile region, Israel's need for security and the need for a Palestinian partner who earnestly desires peace and is capable of carrying out its commitments. Either candidate, if elected president, will offer a sympathetic ear and a helping hand to Israel. The excitement generated in the Democratic race thus far augurs well for a Democratic victory in November." [Jerusalem Post, 2/11/08]

Cohen: Obama "Feels Israel In His Kishkas." Roger Cohen wrote, "Foreign policy will roar back once this is a straight Republican-Democrat fight. A Democrat who's going to win has be strong on core American defense principles, which include Israel's security. Obama feels Israel in his kishkas, all right. Equally, he feels dialogue, which has been his way of getting things done since he became a Chicago community organizer in the 1980s. There would be no six-year time-outs on Israel-Palestine under an Obama presidency. "He'd be actively involved from day one," said Axelrod. Jews should get over the scaremongering: Obama is no Manchurian. Nor is he blind to the fact that backing Israel is not enough if such U.S. backing provides carte blanche for the subjugation of another people." [New York Times, 2/11/08]

Pinkas: "If Barack Obama Is Not 'Pro-Israel,' Then Neither Are Most Israelis." Alon Pinkas wrote, "Trying to refute the ridiculous allegations on their merits is relatively easy: Obama's voting record on issues pertaining to Israel is impeccable. Amongst his supporters and contributors are prominent Chicago and New York Jewish community and civic leaders, and I assume there are many more in Los Angeles, Miami and elsewhere. He has never outlined a policy that Israelis may find incompatible with what they believe a pro-Israeli Mid-East policy should be. In fact, Sen. Obama's essay in Foreign Affairs is balanced and contains absolutely no policy prescriptions anyone in their right mind can define as 'anti-Israeli'...The point is, an American president is 'Pro-Israel' when he profoundly appreciates the basic friendship with Israel, when he respects Israel as a democracy, when he truly believes in Israel as an idea and an enterprise. When his core value system and strategic outlook is similar to that of Israelis. In this respect, if Barack Obama is not 'pro-Israel', then neither are most Israelis." [Jerusalem Post, Alon Pinkas, 1/16/08]

Rabbi Arnold Jacob Wolf: Obama "Offers What America, Israel, And The Jewish Community Need." Rabbi Arnold Jacob Wolf, a rabbi emeritus at Chicago's KAM Isaiah Israel said, "I've worked with Obama for more than a decade, as has my son, a lawyer who represents children and people with disabilities. He has admired Obama's dedication and skill as he worked on issues affecting our most vulnerable citizens. Obama is no anti-Semite. He is not anti-Israel. He is one of our own, the one figure on the political scene who remembers our past, and has a real vision for repairing our present. Barack Obama is brilliant and open-hearted; he is wiser and more thoughtful than his former minister. He offers what America, Israel, and the Jewish community need: a US President willing to ask hard questions, and grapple with difficult answers. I am very proud to be his neighbor. I hope someday to visit him in the White House." [The Jewish Week, 3/19/08]

OBAMA HAS A LONG HISTORY OF SUPPORT FOR ISRAEL

2000: Obama Said That The US Must Be Israel's Ally In Her Quest For Peace And That "Israel Can Take Risks For Peace Only Because Of Unwavering American Support." A CityPAC questionnaire read in part, "Throughout its history, Israel has been anxious to make peace with its Arab neighbors. If successful, the current peace process is a potential opportunity for Israel to increase its security, normalize relations with its neighbors, and create a more stable and prosperous Middle East. Resolution of the conflict depends on direct negotiations between the parties based on mutual respect and recognition. The United States' commitment to Israel must continue so Israel can negotiate with its former and current adversaries from a position of strength. Senator Obama believes that Israel can take risks for peace only because of unwavering American support." [CityPAC Questionnaire, 2000 Congressional Primary]

2002: Obama Passed A Resolution That Condemned Terrorist Attacks Against Israel; Called On Arafat To Put An End To Terrorist Attacks "Which Emanate From Areas Under His Jurisdiction." Obama sponsored and passed a resolution that stated that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has entered a new phase of terrorism against Israeli civilians; and whereas The United States of America is committed to the safety and security of its citizens everywhere; and whereas the United States of America has made it a national priority to put an end to the scourge of such barbaric terror attacks; therefore, be it resolved that the Members of the Illinois State Senate wish a speedy recovery to the above-mentioned citizens as well as the others wounded in the recent barbaric attack; and be it further resolved that we express our collective outrage at the encouragement, support, and praise given to such terrorists and terror attacks; and be it further resolved that we call upon Palestinian Authority Chairman, Yassar Arafat, to put an end to all such encouragement, support, and praise for these terror attacks, which emanate from areas under his direct jurisdiction; and be it further resolved that the Members of the Illinois State Senate support the policy of the United States government in resisting terrorism throughout the world, and in seeking peace for Israel and its neighboring nations seeking a permanent peace accord; and be it further. [92nd GA, SR 346, Adopted 4/18/02]

2002: Obama Voted To Allow The State Of Illinois To Invest In Israeli Bonds. Obama voted to amend the Deposit of State Moneys Act to provide that the State Treasurer may invest in bonds, notes, debentures, or other similar obligations of a foreign government that are guaranteed by the full faith and credit of that government as to principal and interest, but only if the foreign government has not defaulted and has met its payment obligations in a timely manner on all similar obligations for a period of at least 25 years immediately before the time of acquiring those obligations. HB4159 gives the state treasurer increased flexibility in the investment of money in the state treasury that is not needed for current expenditures. According to a press release, "HB4159 provides more stringent requirements for foreign investments than domestic government investments, providing additional guides to the state treasurer while increasing the opportunity for the development of international economic partnerships. While the language of HB4159 allows investments in all foreign governments who meet the specified criteria, HB4159 was designed to provide the constitutional authority for the treasurer to invest in Israeli bonds. [92nd GA, HB 4159, 3R P 49-1-4, 5/8/02; PA 92-0546, 6/13/02; Press Release, 6/13/02]

2004: Obama Said "Our First And Immutable Commitment Must Be To The Security Of Israel." The Chicago Daily Herald reported, "'Our first and immutable commitment must be to the security of Israel, our only true ally in the Middle East and the only democracy,' Obama said in a July speech to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations." [Chicago Daily Herald, 10/18/04]

2006: Obama Cosponsored And Passed A Resolution Endorsing Israel's Right To Self-Defense And Condemning Hamas And Hezbollah. In 2006, Obama cosponsored a resolution condemning Hezbollah and Hamas and their state sponsors and supporting Israel's exercise of its right to self-defense. The resolution (1) reaffirmed steadfast support for Israel, (2) supports Israel's right of self-defense and its right to take appropriate action to deter aggression by terrorist groups and their state sponsors, (3) urges the President to continue to fully support Israel in exercising its right of self-defense in Lebanon and Gaza, (4) calls for the immediate and unconditional release of Israeli soldiers held captive by Hezbollah or Hamas, (5) condemns the governments of Iran and Syria for their continued support for Hezbollah and Hamas and holds these governments responsible for the acts of aggression carried out by Hezbollah and Hamas against Israel. [S. Res 534, Passed/agreed to in Senate, 7/18/06]

2006: Obama Cosponsored And Passed The Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act Which Would Discourage International Aid To Hamas Unless It Recognizes Israel, Disarms And Renounces Violence. In 2006, Obama cosponsored the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006, which: (1) States that it shall be U.S. policy to support a peaceful, two-state solution to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians in accordance with the Performance-Based Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (Roadmap), and oppose those organizations, individuals, and countries that support terrorism and violently reject such two-state solution; (2) provides assistance to the Hamas-controlled PA only during a period for which a presidential certification has determined that no PA ministry, agency, or instrumentality is controlled by Hamas unless the Hamas-controlled PA has publicly acknowledged the Jewish state of Israel's right to exist and the Hamas-controlled PA has made demonstrable progress toward purging from its security services individuals with ties to terrorism. [S. 2370, Became Public Law No: 109-446, 12/21/06]

2007: Obama Spoke With Prime Minister Olmert As Annapolis Talks Began, Reiterated His Commitment To Israel's Security As The Basis For Peace Negotiations. Obama said in a release, "Annapolis is a hopeful development because Israelis and Palestinians are engaged in serious discussions again and the countries of the region are involved, and I commend Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbas for making the effort. I spoke with Prime Minister Olmert today, and assured him of my strong support for this effort and my unshakeable commitment to Israel's security as a core principle as negotiations move forward. The Administration deserves credit for finally trying to use presidential diplomacy to bring the parties together. It's a big change from the last six and a half years, when President Bush badly neglected this conflict. Recognizing the complexity of the issues under discussion and the importance of the conflict, it is my hope that this conference is just the start of a sustained push by the United States, the Israelis and the Palestinians to achieve the goal of two states living side-by-side in peace and security." [Press Release, 11/27/07]

2008: Obama Said Israel Was Among America's "Most Important Allies And Their Security Is Sacrosanct." The Jerusalem Post reported, "While discussing issues of anti-Semitism, Obama said: 'One of the reasons why so many of my supporters come from the Jewish community...is that I have been a stalwart friend of Israel and supported the special relationship we enjoy with it... They are among our most important allies and their security is sacrosanct.'" [Jerusalem Post, 2/27/08]

07:04 PM | Permalink