That's from LIE FACE Tim Shorrock's garbage entitled "Hawks Behind the Dove: Who Makes Obama’s Foreign Policy?" -- and when you have lies where do you sell it? He sold it to The Progressive. (They hate Ralph Nader too which makes the made-in-hell match just perfect.)
And here's the fat-boy sexist on Hillary:
Clinton, asked during a debate if she would be willing to sit down with Raul Castro, Fidel's successor, replied in similar language. Not "without some evidence that [Cuba] will demonstrate the kind of progress that is in our interest," she said, pointing out later through a spokesperson that she "supports the embargo and our current policy toward Cuba."
"Similar language" refers to Bully Boy and John McCain, Tinker Timmy isn't saying Hillary spoke with language similar to Barack.
Why is he writing about Hillary? Because there's nothing impressive about Barack Obama so, in order to build him up, you need to tear down someone.
Cuba's always red meat to the fringe radical crowd* so Tinker Timmy tosses out the debate in Texas last February. He also (as he is so prone to do) selectively edits. "Without preconditions" is a Barack talking point and we need to go back where it started because his is not a human rights position.
He was asked in the CNN-YouTube debate (July 2007, the question came from a man named Stephen), "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?"
His response was, "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."
Barack Obama's reply was "ridiculous." You do not meet without preconditions. That is ludicrous. The president of the United States brings with him or her an international press corps on any visit. Countries (not just poor ones, true of England as well) spend money preparing for the visit in terms that go far beyond "security." They send out crews to clean the physical appearance up. The visit can lift a local economy in some very poor countries. In her disagreement, Hillary Clinton noted she didn't "want to be used for propaganda purposes." And she was exactly right. Too many dictators in the world have the support of the US and the UK due to their 'efforts' in the 'War on Terror.' It's great propaganda for them. "Look, the world leaders endorse me!" And the US embassy staff looks the other way, ignoring human rights abuses taking place.
When you say "without preconditions," you're tossing human rights out the window. A US presidential visit is valued and, for example, one to China could be leverage (with conditions) to ease the suffering (however briefly) in Tibet or to release political prisoners. Amnesty International has an Appeals for Action page. Look over that page and grasp what Barack's "without preconditions" would actually translate as. They've most recently called for the government of Turkey to respect the country's LGBT community. Barack ends up president and visits Turkey, he could use that as a precondition for his visit.
Iran was a country listed and one Barack agreed to visit without precondition (in his first year) if he were to become president. An Amnesty alert in February of this year opened with: "The Iranian authorities are continuing to harass activists working to defend women’s rights. Ronak Safarzadeh and Hana Abdi -- two Kurdish Iranian activists -- currently remain detained without charge or trial. They were arrested in October and November 2007 for peacefully exercising their rights." "Without preconditions" means a President Barack couldn't say, "I'll meet with you provided you release the two Kurdish women being held political prisoner." It was a huge, huge blunder.
Hillary Clinton stated, "I don't want to make a situation even worse. But I certainly agree that we need to get back to diplomacy, which has been turned into a bad word by this administration. And I will purse very vigorous diplomacy." That first sentence ("I don't want to make a situation even worse") was what a president should be thinking of from a human rights point of view.
A visit to Iran "without preconditions" does nothing for the people but elevates the Iranian government in the eyes of the world. It also says to them, "We can imprison these two women for as long as we want. It's not an issue with the US, they came over and visited us." Take Syria. In January of this year, an Amnesty alert opened with: "Being a Syrian political or human rights activist requires courage -- the government is intolerant of dissent. The 45-year-old state of emergency gives the security police wide powers of arrest and detention, which they use against those who dare to speak out for human rights or in opposition to the authorities."
Nobody is guaranteed a presidential visit. Even Americans who might like to meet with the president may never get a face-to-face. In terms of other countries, the ceremonial event carries weight and imprint. As such, US presidents can use it to alleviate (even just temporarily) some of the suffering.
"Without precondition" means Barack's going to go skipping off to countries to have, what we're sure the drugged out among the 'internationalist' set see as, a rap session. Let's talk. Just talk.
It was a huge mistake. It was such a mistake that even Barack Obama realized it was a mistake. Which brings us to the February and the CNN debate that Tinker Timmy is quoting from. Campbell Brown asked Barack, "Senator Obama, just to follow up, you had said in a previous CNN debate that you would meet with the leaders of Cuban, Iran, North Korea, among others, so presumably you would be willing to meet with the new leader of Cuba?"
This time Barack tried to back peddle (while opening with "That's correct") by mentioning "the liberty of the Cuban people" as "the starting point" and going on to declare, "I would meet without preconditions, although Senator Clinton is right that there has to be preparation. It is very important for us to make sure that there was an agenda, and on that agenda was human rights, releasing of political prisoners, opening up the press. And that preparation might take some time."
He tried to clean up his previous mess -- which was a slap in the face to human rights work around the world -- by suddenly acknowledging the power of a presidential visit but by insisting that such things as "releasing of political prisoners, opening up the press" were "preparation". They are not "preparation," they are conditions.
After flaunting an outrageous level of ignorance and being called on it privately (you know the groupies can't call him out publicly), Barack attempted to walk it back. If you are asking someone to release political prisoners for a meeting to take place, that is not a "preparation," it is a pre-condition. As it should be.
As for Hillary Clinton in that February debate, Tinker Tommy leaves out a lot. Like what debate it was. Makes it easier to avoid a fact check? Barack mentioned "political prisoners" in his response and did so only after Clinton had noted them already.
Barack's response then and before gave no real indication that he grasps human rights, the power of the presidency or what actual diplomacy entails.
Because Panhandle Media was too busy breast feeding Barack (Rothschild was down for two a.m. feedings), they never bothered to call him out on it. Instead they all acted like the vapid airheads (there was one exception but he later recanted) taking up too much time on daytime television, insisting that just talking, just face-to-face talking, it's a good thing! It's a wanted thing! They might want to consider what 'just talking' led to in the meet-up arranged by Jenny Jones in the 90s. (A guest was murdered by another guest.) They might want to consider that Bully Boy, so happy in his bubble, may have done many countries a favor by not meeting with them since the least thing tends to set him off. Who know what imagined sleight during a face-to-face might have led to yet another war?
Equally true is that the President of the United States is the president . . . of the United States.
Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea. The US also has allies who expect to be met with including (but not limited to) France, Germany and England. The US has neighbors on both sides of borders: Canada and Mexico. Russia is obviously an area that the next president will have to spend a huge amount of time on. Add in that the next president will inherit at least two ongoing wars (Afghanistan and Iraq). Good to know with all that and more, Barack's committed to for-show trips to Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea. For-show is all they are because asking for the release of political prisoners is a "condition." It is not a "preparation." And his Cult may cover for him in the US (we hear John Nichols' nipples have become tender as Barack has developed teeth and Katrina vanden Heuvel snapped at Nichols, "Toughen up!"), there's no reason for the leaders of those five countries not to take the issue to the international press and point out, "He said a meeting would be without pre-conditions and now he is making demands." Yeah, that will make the US look real good to the world. If elected, in his first year, Barack could be portrayed as a hypocrite by the international press. Call it "Change you can snort at."
--------
*"Fringe radical crowd" refers not to all leftists. It is not even based on beliefs -- many of their positions have large popularity. It refers to the incestuous nature of the small number not interested in change but instead focused on the circle-jerk which creates an inability to speak to others. We're not talking "debate" (real or faux), we're referring to their desire to have indoctrination and all speak as one. On Cuba, that's most noted in the US by the many Cuban-Americans on the left who are left out of the discussions of Cuba because they will not declare Fidel Castro is a saint and 100% pure. If you will not accept that talking point, you will be shut out by the fringe radical crowd. They're more interested in canonizing Fidel than they are in discussing Cuba. (And we neither canonize nor demonize Fidel Castro at this site.)
