The Best of the Web (h/t Andy McCarthy) points out that in 2004 Barack Obama sounded a far different note on Iran, declaring:
“[H]aving a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. . . . And I hope it doesn’t get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I’d be surprised if Iran blinked at this point.” . . .Obama said that violent Islamic extremists are a vastly different brand of foe than was the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and they must be treated differently. “With the Soviet Union, you did get the sense that they were operating on a model that we could comprehend in terms of, they don’t want to be blown up, we don’t want to be blown up, so you do game theory and calculate ways to contain,” Obama said. “I think there are certain elements within the Islamic world right now that don’t make those same calculations.”
It is stories like this (and the most recent episode of flip-floppery on meeting with rogue state leaders, which the mainstream media has finally recognized) that leave you scratching your head. Is Obama a savvy realist just trying to navigate through a Democratic primary? Is he a Leftist dove trying to reassure conservatives by tossing about tough rhetoric now and then? Or is he an utterly unprincipled Zelig-like character who tries out whatever the market will bear and never acknowledges that Statement A contradicts Statement B.
If the first, I’m reassured. If the second, I’m petrified. If the third, Hillary Clinton got a bum rap. But what do his devoted fans think?
As for McCain, he might be well advised to follow Karl Rove’s advice and press Obama on exactly what he’s up to with all these proposed get-togethers. Rove explains:
If Mr. Obama believes he can change the behavior of these nations by meeting without preconditions, he owes it to the voters to explain, in specific terms, what he can say that will lead these states to abandon their hostility. He also needs to explain why unconditional, unilateral meetings with Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or North Korea’s Kim Jong Il will not deeply unsettle our allies.
But this is much like Obama’s vaunted “strike force.” (That’s his favorite deux ex machina; it allows him to evacuate Iraq now but offer the prospect of returning if Al Qaeda ever, you know, really becomes a problem in Iraq.) It’s a meaningless concept, arguably at odds with other positions he takes and designed to stymie the opposition. But if not pressed by McCain and forced to explain what he is really talking about and what he is going to accomplish, the public will simply assume he knows what he talking about. It is increasingly clear on a number of fronts that this is a faulty assumption.
