One way to build a lead in the polls is to tell people what they want to hear. But eventually, people begin to notice the inconsistencies. You can only flip-flop so many times.
Perhaps Obama’s contradictory words will soon catch up with him. He has a history of clashing statements on Iran and Israel. Following are examples, using his own words. See for yourself.
His conflicting statements on each issue are grouped under the moniker “Obama Veering Left” and “Obama Veering Right”. Some personal commentary is included as well.
I. ON THE IRANIAN THREAT:
OBAMA VEERING LEFT:
“Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don’t pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. You know, Iran, they spend one one-hundredth of what we spend on the military. If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn’t stand a chance.”
-campaign speech in Pendleton, Oregon, May 18, 2008
“Here’s the truth: the Soviet Union had thousands of nuclear weapons and Iran doesn’t have a single one.”
-campaign speech in Billings, Montana, May 19, 2008
OBAMA VEERING RIGHT:
“Iran poses the greatest strategic challenge to the United States and Israel in the Middle East in a generation…The Iranian regime supports violent extremists and challenges us across the region. It pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race and raise the prospect of a transfer of nuclear know-how to terrorists. Its president denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.”
-speech in Washington DC to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (“AIPAC”), June 4, 2008
Author’s note: Obama, in his first statements, seems to have forgotten the destruction that can be caused by a small faction of radical terrorists, even if the group does not possess a nuclear weapon. The September 11 attacks were masterminded by a few people living in desert camps and caves, who did not use a single conventional explosive device. If Osama bin Laden could mastermind the 9/11 attacks, what damage could an equally fanatic Iranian leadership with vast oil revenue and a nuclear weapon do?
Furthermore, the relationship between the US and Soviet Union was governed by the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction. The leadership of the Soviet Union considered the death of millions of their own citizens in a nuclear exchange with the United States to be a terrible outcome. This fear served to keep the peace. The Iranian leadership does not have the same concerns for their people, especially if their citizens’ deaths are a result of waging war against perceived infidels. Thus, the Iranian leadership is not deterred by the threat of retaliatory military action which did deter the Soviet leadership.
II. ON DESIGNATING THE IRANIAN REVOLUTIONARY GUARDS AS A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION:
Author’s note: Senate Amendment 3017 sponsored by Senators Jon Kyl and Joe Lieberman, with the purpose “To express the sense of the Senate regarding Iran” was passed by the Senate by a 76 – 22 vote on September 26, 2007. The Amendment’s two key provisions were a) to state as official US policy the goal to roll back the destabilizing influence of Iran within Iraq, and b) to urge the President to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization. The full text of Senate Amendment 3017 is at the end of this article.
OBAMA VEERING LEFT:
“Senator Obama does not agree with the President that the best way to counter that threat (of Iran) is to keep large numbers of troops in Iraq, and he does not think that now is the time for saber-rattling towards Iran…He would have opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment had he been able to vote today.”
-Official campaign statement, Sept 26, 2007
OBAMA VEERING RIGHT:
“We should work with Europe, Japan and the Gulf states to find every avenue outside the U.N. to isolate the Iranian regime – from cutting off loan guarantees and expanding financial sanctions, to banning the export of refined petroleum to Iran, to boycotting firms associated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, whose Quds force has rightly been labeled a terrorist organization.”
-Speech in Washington DC to AIPAC, June 4, 2008
Author’s note: The Quds Force is a special forces branch of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. According to GlobalSecurity.org, “a primary focus for the Quds Force is training Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups”. After the vote, Obama repeatedly criticized the other major presidential candidates for their votes or statements in favor of the amendment.
III. ON SPEAKING WITH IRANIAN PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD AND LEADERS OF OTHER HOSTILE NATIONS:
OBAMA VEERING LEFT:
Question to Obama:
“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?”
Answer from Obama: “I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration - is ridiculous... It is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them.”
-(CNN/YouTube Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Charleston, SC, July 23, 2007)
“I have been absolutely clear on this. I will meet not just with our friends but with our enemies. I will meet without preconditions.”
-CNN’s “The Situation Room,” February 4, 2008
OBAMA VEERING RIGHT:
“There will be careful preparation. We will open up lines of communication, build an agenda, coordinate closely with our allies, and evaluate the potential for progress…. I have no interest in sitting down with our adversaries just for the sake of talking. But as president of the United States, I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leader at a time and place of my choosing – if, and only if, it can advance the interests of the United States.”
-speech in Washington DC to AIPAC, June 4, 2008
Author’s note: Obama was widely criticized for “naivete” as a result of his answer in the debate. Hillary Clinton pointedly remarked that Obama’s actions would legitimize dictators and tyrants, provide those dictators with PR victories, and likely gain nothing in return for the US. After the July 2007 debate statement, Obama was given numerous opportunities to “clarify” the statement, but as seen by the quote on February, 4, 2008, Obama chose to stick – at least for a while - with the original statement.
IV. ON JERUSALEM’S STATUS AS THE CAPITAL OF ISRAEL
OBAMA VEERING RIGHT:
“Any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel’s identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.”
-Speech in Washington DC to AIPAC, June 4, 2008
OBAMA VEERING LEFT:
Question to Obama, based on his statement the day before:
"Do the Palestinians have no claim to Jerusalem in the future?"
Answer from Obama: “Well, obviously, it's going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations,"
-interview with CNN, June 5, 2008
Author’s note: After making the first statement, Obama was widely criticized in the Arab press. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said Obama’s first Jerusalem statement was “totally rejected” as “we will not accept a Palestinian state without having Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state” (quoted in Middle East Times, June 5, 2008). The Middle East Times further reported that day: “Some Palestinian officials privately said they hoped that Obama’s campaign promise was just a way to win over the pro-Israeli lobby”. Obama was well aware of the Palestinian leadership’s response to his first statement at the time of his conflicting statement the following day.
So if Barack Obama becomes President, which Barack Obama do we get? Obama Veering Left, who thinks a) Iran is not a serious threat, b) labeling the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization is too provocative, c) he can talk our enemies into changing their ways at summits held without preconditions, and d) sovereignty over Jerusalem is to be negotiated?
Or do we get Obama Veering Right, who thinks a) Iran is a grave threat, b) labeling the Quds force as a terrorist organization the right move, c) talking to our enemies makes sense only after extensive groundwork has been completed, and d) Jerusalem is Israel’s eternal, undivided capital?
The short answer is, we don’t know which candidate we will get. That’s scary.
It is interesting to note that all of the Obama Veering Right quotes came from Obama’s speech to AIPAC. AIPAC’s members are staunch pro-Israel activists. Obama knew his audience, and said what his audience wanted to hear. Unfortunately, when speaking to other audiences, Obama’s statements differed in substance and nuance.
The next President is likely to be focused on the Middle East. The physical safety and economic security of our citizens and our allies’ citizens depends on a beneficial US Middle East policy. And what we’ve seen of Barack Obama – his continuous flip-flops and naivete – does not offer much comfort. This is no time for someone to be learning on the job.
Obama has changed his Middle East positions too many times. I’d gladly vote to send Obama and his flip-flops to the beach. And last time I checked, there’s no beach in Washington DC.
Text of Senate Amendment 3017:
Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate--
(1) that the manner in which the United States transitions and structures its military presence in Iraq will have critical long-term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard to the capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security of the region, the prospects for democracy for the people of the region, and the health of the global economy;
(2) that it is a vital national interest of the United States to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning Shi'a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force that could serve its interests inside Iraq, including by overwhelming, subverting, or co-opting institutions of the legitimate Government of Iraq;
(3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies;
(4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies;
(5) that the United States should designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists, as established under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and initiated under Executive Order 13224; and
(6) that the Department of the Treasury should act with all possible expediency to complete the listing of those entities targeted under United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1737 and 1747 adopted unanimously on December 23, 2006 and March 24, 2007, respectively.