Analyzing Obama, The Wayward Teenage Presidential Candidate

Submitted by Sofa Sogood (United States), May 26, 2008 at 03:48

A very odd relationship with the truth, and with taking responsibility for his words before they come pouring out of his mouth. Immature, like a child whose thoughts flow easily from imagination to tongue, always assuming that he will get a second chance to explain after he has told a lie, or made a big mistake in judgment.

I was never a Muslim. Soon we'll hear, Well, I was considered a Muslim by my family, so I guess I was, but I didn't FEEL like a Muslim.

I never heard any of Rev.Wright's invective during my 20 years in his Church -- but I totally disagree with him.

I would bomb Pakistan. A week later -- Well, no, really, I wouldn't.

Tiny Iran is very little danger to us. -- The next day -- Uh, well, really, it is a very great danger to us.

I didn't mean .... er ... Well, never mind.... How about ....?

Off-handed remarks or contents of speeches that roll off the tongue, then, after criticized, finally receive some thought and then re-evaluation.

One gets the feeling that Obama has come up with his ideological statements over a beer at the pub, saying whatever sounds good to impress his pals while he is sittin' around with the guys, and criticizing the government. "Hey, that Bush. He ought to talk to those Iranians without preconditions! Yeah! I could do a better job than him and those Republicans! Yeah! You want another beer?"

He doesn't seem to have gotten the idea -- the enormous responsibility -- the weight his words carry -- as a front-runner Presidential Candidate.

Does he even bother to ask his staff to get him the necessary background information before he makes outrageous statements of proposed policy? It's no wonder that he could believe it an acceptable revision to change the word preconditions to preparations, as if the idea of making preparations before talks was a novel idea!

IT IS UNACCEPTABLE, FOR ONE, THAT HE DIDN'T KNOW THAT THE PRINCIPAL OF PRECONDITIONS REGARDING TALKS WITH IRAN WAS NOT SET BY PRESIDENT BUSH BUT BY THE EU AND UN. IT'S HIS RESPONSIBILITY TO KNOW BEFORE MAKING MAJOR POLICY ANNOUNCEMENTS. THAT'S CALLED NORMAL PREPARATION.

This cavalier attitude towards facts and information, while somewhat excusable in a college freshman, is obscenly dangerous in a man running for President.

Even the EU leftists he admires and his beloved UN are beginning to feel shook up about him and his lack of evaluating the consequences of his words before he blurts them out.

1. OBAMA'S IRAN POLICY FREAKS OUT BRITS & BREAKS 3 UN RESOLUTIONS

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/05/obamas-iran-policy-is-freaking-out.html

The Times Online reported:

[Quote] David Miliband has raised questions over Barack Obama's policy on Iran, which officials in Washington and Europe fear threatens to undermine the tough stance adopted by the West towards Tehran over recent years.

Barack's chats with the Iranian leadership without preconditions also breaks 3 UN Security Council resolutions.

Amir Taheri asks:

Before starting his unconditional talks with Ahmadinejad, would Obama present a new resolution at the Security Council to cancel the three that the Islamic Republic president does not like? Or, would Obama act in defiance of the UN, thus further weakening the authority of the Security Council? The preconditions that Ahmadinejad does not like and Obama promises to ignore were not set by President George W Bush.

They were decided after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported the Islamic Republic to be in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and, acting in accordance with its charter, referred the issue to the Security Council.

Dismissing the preconditions as irrelevant would mean snubbing America's European allies plus Russia and China, all of whom participated in drafting and approving the resolutions that Ahmadinejad does not like. [End of Quotation.]

2. AN OPEN LETTER TO OBAMA FROM AMERICAN IRANIANS.

A particularly heart rending letter from a group of American-Iranians, asking him why he changed his mind, and pleading with him to consider the consquences of his words for the people of Iran's democracy movement who are desperate to unseat the Mullahs.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/an-open-letter-to-senator-obama-on-iran/

An Open Letter to Senator Obama on Iran

Iranian human rights activists in exile find a policy of unconditional dialogue hard to fathom.

May 24, 2008 by Manda Zand - Ervin & Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi (Alliance of Iranian Women)

[Some excerpts - emphasis mine -- It's well worth reading the whole letter -- also, gives brief history of the futility of the West's attempts at negotiating with Iran's Mullahs.]

It is important that a decision to dialogue with the Islamic Republic of Iran not be made in haste, for the purpose of winning the election.

On September 24, 2004, while a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate from Illinois, you suggested that surgical missile strikes on Iran may become necessary. "Launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in" given the ongoing war in Iraq, you told the Chicago Tribune. You continued: On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse.

Your change in approach is now stunning for many Iranians.

Senator, since 1979 the Mullahs of Iran have killed upwards of one million Iranians, not to mention the nearly one million sacrificed to the 8-year-long Iran/Iraq war. And what the Iranian people have withstood in terms of outrageous human rights violations is shocking; public hangings, stoning, flogging, cutting off limbs, tongues and plucking out eyeballs are an everyday occurrence across Iran. All are meant to strike fear of the ruling Mullahs into people's hearts.

Since you began talking about unconditionally dialoguing with the Islamic regime of Iran, you too have struck absolute fear in the hearts of the Iranian people, both inside and outside Iran.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".