In the debate, Joe said Obama never said it.
Who are you going to believe? Joe Biden, or your own lying eyes?
Hat tip LGF
Cross Posted at Proof Positive
Tags: Uncategorized
Q: In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since. In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, 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?
H,
It’s good of you to post this quote. First it demonstrates just how in the tank for the Democrats and Obama the mainstream press really is. I mean, if ever there was a true slow-pitch, softball question asked of a major party candidate for president, this is it.
That unctuous First Amendment, freedom of the press stuff that gets hurled about by the media is all well and good… when journalists are actually behaving as objective, fair and balanced journalists reporting on events. But when they are instead seen by one and all as cheerleaders for a particular candidate and a propaganda arm of one particular party, all that Fourth Estate crap starts to wear a little thin.
Second, is Obama’s answer and his paradoxical references to JFK and Ronald Reagan. Its understandable that young Mr. Obama, with no substantive experience to offer voters, would want to wrap himself in the cloak of other, more accomplished presidents… appearance and expediency being everything to those on the Left. But JFK’s Vienna meeting with Nikita Khrushchev was an unmitigated disaster for the US. As the Soviet premier’s diary and other contemporary Kremlin documents pointed out, Khrushchev took the measure of the young, inexperienced American president and found him horribly lacking and immature in the area of foreign affairs. The result was a series of escalating confrontations which brought the world to the brink of nuclear war on several occasions, including the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Ronald Reagan, on the other hand, was convinced of the sheer evil of Soviet communism and totally committed to triumphing over that evil. He certainly met with and negotiated with the Soviet leaders, but it was always from a position of strength, never wavering in his determination to win… despite the shrill bleating on those on the Left who now, ironically, support the same Mr. Obama who would hijack Reagan’s mantle of victory. With the assistance of a few close aides like Bill Casey and Gen. Vernon Walters, and that funny little Polish priest in Rome, he was working to undermine the Soviet empire even as he listened to its leaders babble on about their “peaceful” intentions.
Barack Obama has demonstrated no such commitment to defeating the US’ current enemies. Only his opponents in the Republican party.
sc
Hannitized: AP article by Beth Fouhy 9/24/07:
By Beth Fouhy, Associated Press Writer
NEW YORK — Democrat Barack Obama says he probably wouldn’t have invited Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia University but would be willing as president to meet with the Iranian leader as a way to protect U.S. interests.
“The hateful lies that he may utter about Israel, the Holocaust — the answer is for us to promote the truth and show the world the values and ideals that we hold dear,” Obama said Monday. “One of the values we believe in is the value of academic freedom. He has a right to speak.”
HG
Poor, poor H. You should have taken my advice. It would have been better for you to be thought a fool then to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
Oh well.
HG
H, You clearly have an understanding of a fool, but projecting is a slight disorder you might want to get checked. Every other candidate knew exactly the context, that is evident by the answers given and no amount of lying will change the obvious.
Even a fool who holds his tongue is counted wise on occasion. My advice to you is to shut up.
Further, the question says “LEADERS of Iran”, not “Leader”, not “Ahmadinejad”. -H
Yes. Plural “leaders” of plural countries.
would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition… with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea
Your “point”, H, if I may laughingly call it one, is nonsense.
sc
Hannitized: From Brian Montopli CBS NEWS 9/24/07 Now we have two reporters that heard it. Should I go for 10 or do you surrender?
Obama was asked if his statements about Ahmadinejad were contradictory — why would he meet with the Iranian leader as U.S. president but not invite to speak if he were the Columbia University president? “There are two different functions, as president of the United States, my job is to look out for the national security interests of this country,” Obama said. “In the same way that Nixon met with Mao and that past presidents met with people that we don’t like.”
Bat One
H,
Just a friendly reminder: Disparaging those with whom you disagree is not what most of us would consider a “debate based on fact” which what you have said prefer to engage in.
It is an irrefutable fact, however, that on nearly every thread on which you comment, your first remark is to label the poster a liar. I have no idea if you have any sort of religious convictions, and if so what they might be. Nor do I care. But your behavior does bring to mind that old maxim to practice what you preach.
If all you’re interested in is an exchange of personal and partisan insults, why not at least be man enough to own up to the fact? Who knows. A little respect from others here might do wonders for your self-esteem. As it is…
Hannitized
Leaders plural. The question was about countries- plural. (That means more than one!) For you to childishly argue that it was “LEADERS” not “leader”, is based on an incomplete quote or an infantile understanding of English.
Hey Proof,
If I wanted to ask Obama if he would be willing to meet the leaders of Iran, how would I word it? Think about it, then have a cup of shut the fuck up.
If I wanted to ask Obama if he would be willing to meet the leaders of Iran, how would I word it?
Nice try, troll, but the question in its context was not you asking about leaders plural of a country singular. It was what it was–leaders plural of countries plural–your one troll circle jerk notwithstanding!
And you can take your cup and suck it!
Hannitized
As even Hillary Clinton has acknowledged, agreeing to meet with leader of a major adversary, with no preconditions or prior agreement, is naive and dangerous.
She did. But Hillary Clinton also supported the Iraq War initially. It is why I didn’t vote for her. She is simply wrong.
Arguing about which particular leader is merely an attempt to cover Obama’s young ass, while deliberately missing the point.
Well, I really don’t care what “you think he said”. We know the answer, because we heard the question. The question did not ask if he would meet with Ahmadinejad. The question was specific to it’s leaders.
Having Biden and Obama explain again and again only proves it further.
You can spin, and stomp your feet all day if you want. It still won’t change the facts or the reality.
Hannitized
Your “point”, H, if I may laughingly call it one, is nonsense.
It’s not just my argument, indignant Gilligan. It is political trackers, Obama’s, Biden’s and anyone else who understands the english language.
Remember, you can’t even use the word vindicated in a correct sentence. You can’t use the word camp as you claim it is supposed to be used in a sentence written by professional journalists. I wouldn’t expect you to have any ability to determine how a question could be written to to ask a specific question about meeting individually with Ahamdinijad.
Hannitized
HG,
I know you take great pride in your ability to pat yourself on your own back, but I recommend you actually use your head, instead of your emotions.
Look at Obama’s answer, word for word. He is clearly answering vaguely about the idea of talking to countries we have not been talking to.
Q: In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since. In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, 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?
Anderson Cooper: I should also point out that Steven is in the crowd tonight. Senator Obama?
BO: 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. Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to the Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire, and the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them, they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we have the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward. And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them. We have been talking about Iraq. One of the first things that I would do in terms of moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria, because they’re going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses. They have been acting irresponsibly up until this point, but if we tell them that we are not going to be a permanent occupying force, we are in a position to say that they are going to have to carry some weight in terms of stabilizing the region.
He answered the question as it was asked and his answers could not be taken specifically to refer to one person. His response clearly shows he was speaking in generates about the country and the leaders.
Again, you are no critical thinker HG.
Hannitized
Ha.
OK HG, bury your head. I really don’t care if you want to look like an idiot. Find one fact check website that claims this was a mistake on Biden’s part. And I am not talking about some right-wing rag that gives their opinion. I am talking about a factcheck site.
You won’t find it because factually, you are wrong.
Hannitized
Further, the question says “LEADERS of Iran”, not “Leader”, not “Ahmadinejad”.
You are just being a little fool who must be right, despite the reality. And by ignoring the question that was asked.
Hannitized
Bat,
Just a friendly reminder: Disparaging those with whom you disagree is not what most of us would consider a “debate based on fact” which what you have said prefer to engage in.
You are absolutely right. Thanks for the reminder. I have an reason, not an excuse, for my behavior.
It is an irrefutable fact, however, that on nearly every thread on which you comment, your first remark is to label the poster a liar. I have no idea if you have any sort of religious convictions, and if so what they might be. Nor do I care. But your behavior does bring to mind that old maxim to practice what you preach.
It was HG that started with the use of the word “idiot” and that started the name-calling.
Calling someone a liar is also name calling and I did that on my own. I retract that if someone truly made an argument based on what they believed.
On this site, I find it increasingly difficult to believe that people make their argument/mistake honestly.
I retract my comment as it relates to you and your argument Bat. My apologies.
2Hotel9
Watch sanni spin! Spin, sanni, spin!!
HG
Because a picture of Ahmadinejad was flashed does not change the question that was asked.
What an idiot.
2Hotel9
sanni? just to make sure your stupid ass grasped the situation. You are a lying piece of shit. Lied about Obamoid. Lied about Obiden. Lied about you life. Now, go drive your cab, and be sure to collect your 1% from the whores.
Hannitized
y Beth Fouhy, Associated Press Writer
NEW YORK — Democrat Barack Obama says he probably wouldn’t have invited Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia University but would be willing as president to meet with the Iranian leader as a way to protect U.S. interests.
Just so you know. That is somebody quoting what they think he said. It is not an actual quote. As you can see, we have several people here who are incorrectly quoting what Obama said during the debates.
Please provide a quote from Obama.
sc
This is a quote of Joe Biden on Obama’s meeting with world leaders on ABC This Week on Sunday last summer:
“This is a fellow who, I think, shorthanded an answer that, in fact, was the wrong answer, in my view, saying, ‘I would, within the first year’ — it implied he’d personally sit down with anybody who wanted to sit down with him,” Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., a former presidential candidate, who is now neutral in the race, said on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday.
“That’s not what he meant,” Biden continued. “That’s not what he has said, since then, for the last year, or thereabouts. And so, I think, that he’s fully capable of understanding what’s going on.”
ABC News’ Sunlen Miller and Bret Hovell contributed to
Bat One
Did Biden Lie, Misspeak or Forget?
Depends on who catches him and how badly he’s cornered.
Hannitized
The Statement:
Gov. Sarah Palin said at the Oct. 2 vice presidential debate that Sen. Barack Obama “would be willing to meet with” Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad “without preconditions being met first.”
The Facts:
Palin stated an assertion made repeatedly by Republican running mate Sen. John McCain. Sen. Joe Biden said at the debate “it is simply not true” that Obama said he would “sit down” with Ahmadinejad.
Obama has talked about meeting with Iranian leaders if necessary, but not Ahmadinejad specifically.
Obama addressed the issue in a July 23, 2007, Democratic debate, when candidates were asked if they would 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?”
“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,” Obama answered.
The Obama-Biden Web site at present calls for “tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. ”
“Ahmadinejad is not the most powerful person in Iran. He may not be the right person to talk to. But I reserve the right, as president of the United States to meet with anybody at a time and place of my choosing if I think it’s going to keep America safe,” Obama said at the Sept. 26 debate.
Verdict: Misleading. While Obama has said he wouldn’t rule out meeting with any foreign leader, he never specifically said he’d meet with the Iranian president.
So, you’re saying Biden lied about the peanut butter, misspoke about the jelly AND forgot about the mayonnaise?
Hannitized: You’re crackers! Heh.
Eneils Bailey
Did Biden Lie, Misspeak or Forget?
Yeah.
He went three for three; he should be playing baseball.
Hannitized
HG,
You are a fool. If I asked you if you liked Peanut Butter and Jelly, then flashed a bunch of pictures of different types of Peanut Butter and jellies, and one Mayonnaise picture. You would just answer the question as you heard it.
This is just stupid partisan Politics.
Not even FactCheck.org will support your idiotic position. you are a fool.
Hannitized
The question is whether a US president and leader of the free world should open-endedly agree to meet with any sworn adversary leader, with no preconditions or prior agreements. Hillary had it right. Your inexperienced boy candidate has it wrong.
Bat, please…..nobody cares about your view of foreign policy. The post is about did Biden lie. And based on the question that was asked that answer is unquestionably NO.
You are trying to change the subject by making this an issue about which candidate has the right stance. It ain’t about that old man.
So remember. Nobody cares about your opinion of what you think was the right answer. Nobody cares that the audience cheered for Obama’s response to it either.
Stay focused. Drink some coffee.
Bat One
But Hillary Clinton also supported the Iraq War initially. It is why I didn’t vote for her. She is simply wrong.
H,
Puh-lease! Nobody asked, or cares, who you voted for. The question is whether a US president and leader of the free world should open-endedly agree to meet with any sworn adversary leader, with no preconditions or prior agreements. Hillary had it right. Your inexperienced boy candidate has it wrong. And your repeated attempts to obfuscate by raising questions of partisan loyalties, the Iraq War, or whether or not the original question was specific to Ahmadinejad only proves the point.
Face it… you aren’t nearly good enough to redeem Mr. Obama from his own inexperienced misstatements, and the only one who thinks otherwise is you.
sc
Biden, in the democratic debates took Obama to task on many fronts, that now he defends him on. He (Biden) is the best of the best. Another democrat lawyer at his best. Twisting and turning. Why do the dems think lawyers are the best at running the country? Remember in court, they lose 1/2 the time.
Hungry Bear
Joe Biden deliberately lied…about 10 times.
http://ndgoon.blogspot.com/ goon
Joe Biden deliberately lied…about 10 times.
Remember the left are not held to the same standards as the right, the lefties can lie all they want.
Bat One
More witless quibbling from those on the “progressive” left. As even Hillary Clinton has acknowledged, agreeing to meet with leader of a major adversary, with no preconditions or prior agreement, is naive and dangerous. Arguing about which particular leader is merely an attempt to cover Obama’s young ass, while deliberately missing the point.
Eddie_the_Hated
They both misspoke, and maybe they both lied. We can only logically critique logical fallacies in their arguments, not their motive.
Go run a fact check on the debate. There were quite a few key talking points that were obfuscated by dodgy statistics, tenuous connections and comments in stark contradiction to reality, on both sides of the debate.
The funny thing is, that it doesn’t matter one bit if they both totally obscured every fact in the debate. Debates are about presence. They always have, and always will be. It has been suggested that Nixon’s loss in the 1960 presidential race was in part due to his lackluster appearance in debate. He was nervous, he was sweaty, he refused to wear makeup, and that reflected in his stage performance.
If there is any unified set of events that determines the outcome of a public election, it’s a closed-question debate, and sadly, the most important element in debates of this nature is appearance… not standpoint.
Palin appeared rushed, and on the defensive. Many of her sentences ran on into incoherence, though not as poorly as her Couric interviews. My advice to her is to sit down with a speech, or debate coach, and practice poise and delivery, along with her (relatively) solid-minded talking points.
In Palin’s defense, she nailed Biden on his voting record, though it did little to help her. She was trying to bring Biden down, by stating that he voted alongside her party on occasion, which on the surface was a victory, but in the long run, it’s a dead-even break. She won the battle, but drew the war to a stalemate.
Biden, on the other hand, was cool, composed, calculating and fluent in his delivery. I think he connected far better than Palin did. His success can be attributed to him having been in the beltway foreeever.
However you cut it, he provided arguments on the offensive, and had sources (correct or not) to bolster his argument, and I feel that the act of “sourcing” his arguments holds more weight with the American people than if the arguments actually held weight in the first place.
2Hotel9
sanni, he said it, he meant it as stated, and you can not change that simple fact. Period.
As for Obiden, every other word out of his mouth is a lie. He is a lawyer and a Democrat.
Hannitized
This is more right wing lies and distortions.
The question was if they would meet with the Leaders of Iran. Joe Biden argued, as I have, that this does not single out Ahmadinejad, but the leaders who Biden clearly identified as those who have the power and authority.
Because a picture of Ahmadinejad was flashed does not change the question that was asked.
More distortions from those who can not tell the truth.
2Hotel9
Long story short, Joe Biden lied. He lied out his fucking ass. Period. Full stop. Fuck him and fuck you.
No, but the crap you posted here was! Your argument (in all caps)was:
Further, the question says “LEADERS of Iran”, not “Leader”, not “Ahmadinejad”.
Leaders plural. The question was about countries- plural. (That means more than one!) For you to childishly argue that it was “LEADERS” not “leader”, is based on an incomplete quote or an infantile understanding of English.
Trying to make the distinction between “Ahmadinejad” and the “leader of Iran” is pure sophistry. That dog won’t hunt!
But, I don’t blame you for wanting to distance yourself from that piece of crap argument any way you can!
Nap time now, Hannie, before you get any crankier!
Blog Advice and Support Installs and Upgrades Theme Modifications Custom Plugins Theme Design Conversions and Relocations Hacked Site Recovery Mobile Apps Development
