Centerfield

Well, Jon, where does one begin? Under Lieberman's mentorship, or shortly thereafter, Obama suggested the possibility of nuking Iran's nuclear weapons program (see Hillary comments in the Senate record link I provided below in another thread). Hillary brought up Barak's head of a Senate Sub Committee on Europe and NATO and he explained he's been running for President and hasn't held a meeting. I believe that would place his running for President about two years ago, but it is an extremely important topic concerning Russia, missile defense, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Ukraine etc. So not only has he not held a meeting, but has few opinions. Your thread mentions Obama's call for more NATO support in Afghanistan, but that is not the main thrust of Obama's stumping. Instead of asking, "how many troops and materials should we send to Afghanistan and what beside limited preadator strikes can we do about the Taliban and AQ in Pakistan, he pushes the Iraq War excuse and nothing really on Pakistan. When questioned, Obama refuses to call for bombing Pakistan v his August remarks (remember we did hit Pakistan with predator before Obama's August remarks so what more was he calling for?).

The question is not whether Obama made centrist declarations years ago, but the flip-flopping he has done now while calling Hillary a flip-flopper. The line now is talking, but talking has actually emboldened the Taliban. Talking has emboldened the militants in Pakistan. Talking has brought more absurd statements from Iran. Talking in the JFK sense always had a framework in which we received some gain. Pelosi and Reid talked to Assad and we know what followed. I actually was pro-Obama following his 2004 convention speech. I noted his Iraq comments then were much like Kerry's. Then I did some research and like Nader found some troubling links to very anti-Israel connections. I watched what advisors Obama brought on board. I read closely his changing security meme and noticed some strange oratory. I checked out Malley and Rice, Powers and Zbig. I waited for Obama's campaign declarations on Kosovo, missile defense, Hamas, Hizb'Allah, Iran, Syria, Chavez etc. and saw little of the positions you link above. Then after his speech to AIPAC, he failed to vote on sanctions for Iran while blasting Hillary for doing so. It seems the thrust of his foreign policy is directed at Bush. Now France pushes for sanctions. Do we really want a candidate who appeases the Left to win a primary? Would McCain or Hillary survive the connections to Rezko, Obama's minister, Khadili, Malley, Powers, Zbig, Volker? And Obama's claim he is not very liberal is supported by the endorsements he gets?

Last, this is a smart article. A number of newspapers have traced the speeches given by Patrick and then regurgitated by Obama. Now if we get a different Obama than the one your article paints AND we get Obama-Patrick on the domestic front, how is that better than Hillary or McCain? Maybe Brian can explain why Patrick and Obama are really very different, or that people in his state love Patrick.

No sanctions on Iran/No talk now of any force ever (when and what point)

No rejection of talks with Hamas or Hizb'Allah

No plan other than more troops for Afghanistan

No plan for Pakistan

No mention of all the programs supported through his planned cuts in defense spending (non Iraqi ones at that).

No talk about missile defense or what ifs in Eastern Europe.

So, you can see Obama has come a long way from those policy posaitions you list. Had he remained steadfast, consistent and focused on color-blind details of making hope a function of clear policy, I would be voting for him today.

France, Israel, perhaps Britan and others think the NIE was wrong and was floated more as a political document that has damaged containment of Iran. Not only has Obama failed to address these concerns, but has failed to support sanctions. When pressed, he turns his wrath at Bush instead of addressing the issues. The silence on Kenya, Darfur and Somalia is astounding, but Hillary will get no traction from the Left. The Democrats plan to run against Bush with Obama leading the charge with the Iraq is Lost meme. In this real context, your article either shows orginalist pandering to the crowd taht elevated Obama back in 2003, or the present pandering to win at all costs. Both options are rather sad, don't you think? I haven't decided who I vote for yet, should Hillary lose, but it will be based in large part on the consistency of policy and the character of Independence. Something, Obama has not shown me yet, from his oratory to his policies. What he has shown me is the ability to charm and excite, side-step and play both sides of the Liberal divide. Let's see how that works nationally in the general.

Russia might support sanctions.

Why? If Putin actually thinks Iran has programs geared towards making a bomb, what does that say about Obama's position and the clarity of the NIE? I mean, come on people this is getting absurd.

I add this to simply respond to the orginal article and ask, "What do former policy positions mean when America wants a leader that can look objectively at the present situation and facts and support sound NSS thinking?" Please make the real time case that Obama does this.

Russert failed to ask Obama what he would do if evidence shows that Iran is attempting to make nuclear weapons, supports terror or promotes war against Israel. Is that the case at the moment? Russert could have asked many tough questions from Darfur to Lebanon, to Imad to missle defense. He chose not to nor did Williams. Maybe Centerfield can send a list to Obama and Hillary and ask for their detailed response.

Reality

I add this, because "Independent thinking" requires us to reasonably fill in the blanks. The NIE does not explain at what point the Iranians were at in 2003-2204, nor do they explain where the contents of these sites were taken. The NIE also does not state it knows with high probabilty the existence of ALL Iranian facilites. This might be an arguement against striking (though disabling known sites would slow the Iranians down), but it certainly supports sanctions. Perhaps with more knowledge, the Russians are aware of secret programs and are worried that with a year or so, they will be blasted by the allies for enabling Iran. The question is whether present candidates will ne blasted as well and their "judgment" questioned in a far worse "mistake" than Iraq. McCain today blasted Obama's remarks about re-invading Iraq should AQ set up a bigger shop than they have now. Just bombing would kill many innocents. The logic here seems flawed and runs counter to the logic expressed in the original article Jon posted. In addition, as JFK well knew, signals are important and Russert never questioned why Obama would telegraph such an explict signal to Pakistanis, especially in light of the fact the US had already attacked AQ with Predators before Obama's August policy statement. Some call this parsing, but it is not. We know from past experiance, the devil's in the details and perception plays a big role, expectation even bigger. Perhaps this sheds some light on the Obama phenomenon v policy record/present reality

My last post on this thread until another takes aim.

I saw 3 comments before clicking in, and quite sincerely, my very first thought was "I hope they're not 3 comments from Max." No joke.

SIGH. But they were. I hestitated to even follow your link and read it and try to comment, for fear of getting trolled into Max's net. I did go ahead and read it, but what I didn't do was read Max's posts. He's utterly convinced Obama will be a foreign policy disaster, and is determined respond to any positives about Obama on ANY topic with lengthy condemnations of what he imagines Obama's foreign policy will look like.

And that's his right. I just don't want to get drawn into it anymore.

Annnnnnnyway...I did read it. It doesn't go into much depth. I think it's a pretty general audience starter article for folks just getting familiar. As such, the inclusion of the statement of his grounds for not supporting the Iraq venture is a good place to start, and it sounds solid to me, especially given the little bit of extra added context.

It just about matches my feelings at the time. I went on to support the war and occupation after it began, because that's what you do, you support and you hope for the best.

I don't think the outcome in Iraq is determined one way or the other, but I do believe the time is drawing nigh when we'll want to begin to get out of the way and let the native folks steer the ship. McCain has as much as sent this signal if you ask me, by saying that the war is overwhile the insurgency will continue. And Obama has been clear he thinks it's time to begin drawing down. I continue to believe that the choice of our next president is going to have less impact on our foreign policy than many folks are prone to believing.

I think we're going to start drawing down, quite possibly before Bush leaves office. Our troops need rest and refreshment, and we may be looking at redeployment elsewhere, too. The speed and volume of the drawdown will be sensitively dependent upon what happens as we do the drawing down. It's so much easier to stick in a jagged knife than it is to pull it out. Pray for the best, right?