July 30, 2018

"Pres. Trump says he's 'ready to meet' with Iran 'anytime they want to' and says there would be 'no preconditions.'"


I'm seeing lots of reactions like this:


But I'd just like to say:

1. Trump is like Obama in many ways. Not in all ways, obviously, but click my "Trump is like Obama" tag for more examples of this phenomenon.

2. I remember when Obama made his statement that he'd meet "without preconditions" with Iran (and  Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea). It wasn't when Obama was vying with the GOP candidate. It was in July 2007, when he was fighting to distinguish himself in the field of Democratic candidates in this debate:



It wasn't Republicans that got on his case! It was Hillary Clinton and her supporters. Here's what I wrote at the time which makes it crushingly clear the opposition to Obama was about Hillary:

I think in these last two days it's become clear that Hillary Clinton is the Democrats' best candidate. In the most significant moment of the debate, the candidates were asked "[W]ould 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?"

Obama immediately says "I would," not really noticing the detail to the question. He'd meet "without preconditions"? He goes on to plug in some material, which he will use in the after-debate period about how wrong Bush has been to think that "not talking to countries is punishment to them."

Clinton gets a lucky break when the questioner, who's in the audience, is given a chance at a follow up and throws the question to Clinton. I think Clinton had seen her opportunity the instant Obama said "I would," and here, with the chance to speak next, she deftly takes full advantage:
Well...
A disarming "well," as if this isn't going to be word-for-word perfect...
I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year. I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort because I think it is not that you promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are.

I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes. 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 pursue very vigorous diplomacy.

And I will use a lot of high-level presidential envoys to test the waters, to feel the way. But certainly, we're not going to just have our president meet with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez and, you know, the president of North Korea, Iran and Syria until we know better what the way forward would be.
Live-blogging, I say "this is the precise point in the debate where I conclude... that Clinton is the superior candidate." But as impressive as this is, her campaign also deserves credit for forefronting this interchange the day after the debate, and Obama must take a second downgrade for the way he handled the after-debate.

Listen to him struggle through this interview with Iowa's Quad-City Times. Now, let's look at the coverage in today's newspapers.

The Boston Globe
:
Yesterday, Obama's campaign tried to clarify his remarks by saying that he wouldn't agree to meet with such leaders before lower-level diplomatic work was done. But Clinton's campaign seized on their divergent answers, arguing that it exposes both her command of world affairs and Obama's greenness. "Senator Clinton is committed to vigorous diplomacy but understands that it is a mistake to commit the power and prestige of America's presidency years ahead of time by making such a blanket commitment," her campaign wrote in a memo.

Obama's campaign put out its own memo yesterday saying his is the approach that would keep America safe.

"Obama's tough but smart approach to America's diplomacy is exactly the kind of change and new thinking that excites voters about an Obama presidency," the memo said. His campaign also pointed to a remark Clinton made this spring in which she said, "I think it is a terrible mistake for our president to say he will not talk with bad people."

Clinton's campaign yesterday also employed former secretary of state Madeleine Albright to speak to reporters about Clinton's knowledge of diplomacy and the appropriate use of American power. "When all is said and done she knows that being president is about protecting the country and advancing national security interests," Albright said, adding that Clinton shows "a very sophisticated understanding of the whole process."
So Obama falls back on his mantra "change," showing his dreadful tendency to rely on abstractions and generic hope messages. He's gotten on a long way with such material, when speaking to admiring crowds of people who are just getting to know him. But it's horribly inadequate to fight off a formidable opponent on a specific issue.

And his attempt to catch Clinton in a contradiction could only work if we lacked the most basic powers of discernment. So Clinton said it's "a terrible mistake for our president to say he will not talk with bad people"? It can be wrong both to say "I won't talk" and to say "I will talk." The position Clinton took at the debate was that talks had to be planned and developed through a diplomatic process. She's rejecting both hardcore positions: promises to talk "without preconditions" and intransigent refusals to talk.

The Daily News:
Political observers said they expected Clinton to waste no time using Obama's comment to shore up her standing among key voter blocs, such as Cuban-Americans in bellwether Florida and Jewish voters who may find the idea of a sitdown with the Holocaust-denying president of Iran disturbing.

Team Clinton plans "to use these issues in outreach in the states [and nationally] with Jewish leadership and Jewish grass-roots voters," a Democratic operative familiar with the Clinton campaign told the Daily News.

Obama's camp said that approach wouldn't impress anybody. "There is a smallness to such misleading attacks that voters reject," said Obama spokesman Bill Burton....

In a race where Obama has presented himself as the fresher face, the exchange handed Clinton the perfect opening to "prove she's more experienced and would provide a steadier hand at the helm of the ship of state," said Democratic consultant Hank Sheinkopf.

To push that message, the Clinton campaign swiftly arranged a morning press call with former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who didn't attack Obama directly but called the New York senator "a person who understands how the American presidency works."

The Obama campaign quickly trotted out its own stable of surrogates, including former Clinton administration national security adviser Anthony Lake, who argued, "A great nation and its President should never fear negotiating with anyone and Sen. Obama rightly said he would be willing to do so."
So, Lake pretends Obama said what he should have said -- that is, what Clinton said.

Lynn Sweet in the Chicago-Sun Times:
During the day Tuesday, the Clinton and Obama campaigns issued dueling critical memos while advisers sparred over who appeared more presidential. The candidates each gave interviews to the Quad City Times in Iowa, the state with the crucial lead-off presidential vote, where they escalated the rhetoric.

"I thought that was irresponsible and frankly naive," Clinton told the paper. Obama, she said, gave an answer "I think he is regretting today."

Obama told the paper that Clinton's camp was trying to score "political points."
Yes, she's not just demonstrating that she's right on the issue, she's demonstrating how to be a strong candidate, which is actually more important as the Democrats decide who they want to be the candidate.
He stood by his response and that Clinton's position was not that different from the Bush administration policy, so she "can't claim the mantle of change."
"The mantle of change." I wonder what people picture when they hear the word "mantle." Really, think about it for a while: The Mantle of Change, The Mantle of Change, The Mantle of Change. Doesn't it sound like something you win at a stage of a video game?

The Obama rhetoric is getting stale and repetitious -- just as Hillary is trouncing him in the after-debate!
Obama's campaign was trying to regain its footing after walking into a potential political minefield. The debate story in the Miami Herald, another early primary state where Cuban Americans make up a voting bloc, said Obama and Edwards "suggested Monday that they would meet with two leaders who top South Florida's most-hated list: Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez."

If he met with Chavez, Obama told the Iowa paper, it would be to tell him "what I don't like" while finding areas to "potentially work together."

"I didn't say these guys were going to come over for a cup of coffee some afternoon," Obama said.
That coffee line tries to brush off the controversy as lightweight and meaningless, but it is his biggest showdown with Clinton thus far.

He barely shows up for the showdown.

62 comments:

Matt Sablan said...

"So, Lake pretends Obama said what he should have said -- that is, what Clinton said."

-- The most annoying thing of both Obama and Trump's presidency is the constant "redoing" of interview answers, etc., instead of just having to deal with the stupid things the two of them said.

Big Mike said...

So Obama falls back on his mantra "change,"

But it has taken ten years, and the election of Donald Trump, to give us”change we can believe in.”

Sebastian said...

"Republicans, at one point, attacked President Obama for saying he would meet with the president of Iran without preconditions"

"It wasn't Republicans that got on his case"

Ah, surprise, MSM prog abuses history of Dem disagreement to tar the GOP.

Anyway, glad to see Dems argue that Trump is following in O's footsteps, which will translate into strong Dem support--correct?

buwaya said...

The Clintonian take is fussy, process-bound, and non-macho.
Bureaucratic, not leadership. Weak. Uncertain.

No duende.

Obama's walkback is almost as bad. Trump sometimes walks back. He should not.

buwaya said...

Obama would not have said it, but he should not have walked back.

Something along the lines of

"We can land Air Force One in any capital and dictate our terms. And I will."

He should have accused Clinton of cowardice, of a lack of self-confidence.
Trump would have found a way of saying that.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Good catch.

Bay Area Guy said...

We are post "Cold War."

We are also post- "Neocon, let's invade Muslim countries and create Democracies there" Wars.

So, we should be meeting with anyone and everyone. Why not? The goal is the continued push for prosperity at home and peace abroad.

Henry said...

Yes, she's not just demonstrating that she's right on the issue...

And the issue was what? Who's the best at paying attention in class?

No one with a brain who heard President Obama say he would meet President Evil without preconditions was worried in the slightest that he actually would do that. The Clinton campaign, trying to convince us, OMG, he's on his way to the airport right now! Someone stop him! was the one that ended up looking ham handed and irresponsible.

Likewise with Trump. So I guess Trump and Obama are alike.

The Vault Dweller said...

The media and democrats tend to misremember other things like this. Like blaming Republicans for accusing Obama of really being from Kenya. Now certainly some Republicans did do that, very notably Donald Trump, but the story started in 2008 during the democrat primary and some reporters at the time indicated they first saw it being pushed from e-mails associated with the Hillary Campaign, during the democratic primary.

Drago said...

I doubt anyone is busy scavenging for excess pallets upon which hundreds of millions of dollars and other small currencies can be loaded for delivery to the Mullahs.

Thats why I don't worry about Trump meeting with these guys.

Plus, he can always point to Bolton, Pompeo and Mattis and then....not have to say a thing....

Drago said...

VD: "...but the story started in 2008 during the democrat primary and some reporters at the time indicated they first saw it being pushed from e-mails associated with the Hillary Campaign, during the democratic primary."

It was Willie Horton all over again.

Hagar said...

With Trump there is always Reagan's precondition: "We win, you lose."

For the guys listed anyway. For more reasonable people, maybe we can work out a win-win.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Pre-conditions. By all means leftists - name some.

WisRich said...

No pre-conditions except for tearing up the Iranian nuclear agreement, their currency devalued by 50% in the last three months, new sanctions about to be activated in a week, Israel joining forces with Arab States to oppose Iran, and internal demonstrations is opposition to the Mullahs.

I guess everyone's idea of a pre-condition is different.

Hagar said...

The "pallets of cash" were for 400 million dollars.
Then Obama added 1.4 billion dollars inn wire transfers (which he had just stated he could not legally do).
Then he "unfroze" 150 billion dollars in Iranian assets while the media all had their attention on the "pallets of cash" pocket change admitted to.
All in all, a very slick operation.

mccullough said...

W had his stupid war with Iraq and Hillary voted for it. Obama’s biggest foreign policy mistake was appointing Hillary as Secretary of State.

FDR cut deals with Stalin. He was right to do so. Realism must be the foundation of our foreign policy.

W was the most idiotic foreign policy idealist. Obama was a very distant second. As dumb as Obama was, invading Iraq was the dumbest foreign policy decision since Viet Nam. Monumentally fucking stupid. Hillary voted for it. So did Ryan and McConnell and McCain. Lot of fucking idiots in DC. Don’t blame Trump for saying these people are fucking idiots. They are.

BarrySanders20 said...

Althouse cracks the whip.

Hillary said she would be doing very vigorous diplomacy, and guess what? She did! As Obama's SOS. With a homebrew server in the bathroom. All the better to keep prying eyes away from the vigorish, er, the vigorousness.

It was a foolproof plan after the inevitable general election win became a sadly evitable primary loss.

But just wait until 2016, she thought. After reaping the rewards of the SOS, why, she'll be 50 points ahead. And once again, inevitable!

The Vault Dweller said...

"I guess everyone's idea of a pre-condition is different."

There is nothing magical about pre-conditions in themselves. All a pre-condition that a party meets indicates is relative bargaining power of the two sides. So really what people want is, with certain countries only bargain if you can bargain from a position of strength. We can do that in Iran. What's more we can do that in Russia. We hold the overwhelming leverage in both those situations.

Honestly I trust Trump to bargain with foreign leaders more than any other president or administration in recent memory. At least going as far back as George H.W. Bush.

Earnest Prole said...

Trump is the white Obama, an empty vessel into which we pour our hopes and fears.

Jim at said...

If and/or when Trump delivers a pallet full of cash to the Mullahs, then I'll pay attention to any Obama comparisons.

Jim at said...

W was the most idiotic foreign policy idealist.

You don't like Bush. We get it already.

Real American said...

The difference is that Trump is looking out for America's best interests. People like Clinton or Obama are always keeping one eye on their "legacy" and pushing to get deals done that don't put America's interest first. Trump has made it clear - America First.

And there's a big difference between a leftist Democrat meeting with commie or terror-supporting leaders because they're perceived (right or wrongly - mostly rightly) as being soft on those ideologies. Obama couldn't wait to give away pallets of cash to the Iranians. Why? We got no obvious benefit from the deal other than a piece of paper everyone knew the Iranians wouldn't honor.

"Only Nixon can go to China" because you know he's not soft on the commies. Trump can meet with Kim b/c we know he's not soft on the NorKs. Putin may be different...

Trump has already ripped the Iran deal up. He's no softy on the Mullahs, so he has more leeway to be brash like this. Of course, there would be diplomacy ahead of time. That's a given regardless of what Trump says. It's not like Trump is just going to run into the Iranian leader on some tarmac somewhere and talk about their grandchildren.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
rehajm said...

Given what we now know about MSM is there any reason not to believe Hillary! wasn’t given the debate questions beforehand? It wasn’t like Obama had been chosen at this point in the campaign.

‘Because it was a random audience member’ doesn’t count- no such thing.

Inga...Allie Oop said...

"One of the most disturbing displays of Obama's lack of foreign policy expertise came during last year's YouTube debate. The junior senator from Illinois gave what many called a naive answer for a question from the audience about whether he would meet with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba or North Korea without preconditions."

Sean Hannity, 2008

Hagar said...

Come to think of it, shouldn't the unfreezing of Iranian assets also have had Congressional approval first?

Anyway, this deal was so big and so slick that I wonder if it may not have been the Clinton Global Initiative that set it up. It's what they do.

langford peel said...

The Mullahs are not going to meet with him. It was just a passing reference in a throwaway news conference.

He is more likely to meet with the "Shahs of Sunset."

traditionalguy said...

I pity the Mullahs trying to take a stand against Trump's offer, which they cannot refuse without looking like the reason the Iranian people are being starved. And then the Trump's buddy ruling Russia starts acting like "what you me we paleface."

Next thing will probably be Trump asking the Mullah's Koranic interpretation of the " Rod of God" kinetic energy weapon.

Then, the Mullahs may decide to flip and give up their records on who shared in the billions of cash and gold bars that Obama shipped to someone.

Sebastian said...

I appreciate your fisking, but also have a strong sense of wasted effort here. In retrospect, doesn’t it look like a lot of BS about BS?

“I think in these last two days it's become clear that Hillary Clinton is the Democrats' best candidate.” She had no accomplishments. She was a humorless scold even then. Etc. Her superiority was anything but clear, a single answer couldn't prove it, and events showed that O had real strengths.

“In the most significant moment of the debate” Dems found it interesting (did Republicans?) Of course, if you wanted a tough person with foreign policy chops, because the issue is so “significant,” you’d have wanted McCain—at least until it wasn’t significant anymore.

"I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year . . ." So she starts with weasel words, and Althouse says: "this is the precise point in the debate where I conclude... that Clinton is the superior candidate." "Conclude," no less. Did Clinton’s actual record as SoS change your judgment of her?

"arguing that it exposes both her command of world affairs" Wasn't that brilliant campaign team work. We now know the kind of Potemkin village they erected in 2016. What was it like in 2008?

"When all is said and done she knows that being president is about protecting the country . . . ," Albright said, adding that Clinton shows "a very sophisticated understanding . . ." And these vapid vapors showed her campaign's superiority?

"So Obama falls back on his mantra "change," showing his dreadful tendency to rely on abstractions and generic hope messages. He's gotten on a long way . . . " Ah, yes, well, all the way to victory. Dreadful indeed, horribly inadequate.

"they expected Clinton to waste no time using Obama's comment to shore up her standing among . . . Jewish voters who may find the idea of a sitdown with the Holocaust-denying president of Iran disturbing." That was then, this is now. How many Dems still oppose O's deal?

"The Obama campaign quickly trotted out its own stable of surrogates, including . . . Anthony Lake, who argued, "A great nation and its President should never fear negotiating with anyone and Sen. Obama rightly said he would be willing to do so." So, Lake pretends Obama said . . . " OK, the bullshitters bullshit about bullshit. I guess it didn't start with Trump.

"Yes, she's not just demonstrating that she's right on the issue, she's demonstrating how to be a strong candidate, which is actually more important . . . " How to be a strong candidate! It is to laugh, still, after all these years. And by the way, would such a "strong" candidate be at all viable among Dems today?

"The Obama rhetoric is getting stale and repetitious" By contrast, HiIl's rhetoric, though perhaps a tad "repetitious," was exciting.

"If he met with Chavez . . . it would be to tell him "what I don't like" while finding areas to "potentially work together."" He was an unusually good liar, though fairly transparent for people familiar with his fabricated "autobiography." When he met with Chavez, he was humiliated. But the problem was not "greenness."

"He barely shows up for the showdown." What you missed was that, for the Magic Negro, showing up is enough.

As we revisit the highlights of campaigns past, all phony posturing, you'd almost, almost find Trump refreshing in his directness, in dispensing with the old bullshit even as he creates some of his own. (Apologies for length!)

buwaya said...

"Then, the Mullahs may decide to flip and give up their records on who shared in the billions of cash and gold bars that Obama shipped to someone."

I think the US intelligence agencies (and any other state actor with an interest in it) know this already.

Michael K said...

Much of this goes back to Kennedy's disastrous summit with Khrushchev. He was green and wavered, giving Khrushchev an incentive to test him on Cuba.

Trump has demolished Obama's Iran deal and now can say, "What do you want, now?"

Also, this is not Trump's first year, and he is riding a wave.

The Democrats will, of course, have hysterics but that is what they do.

Michael K said...


"Then, the Mullahs may decide to flip and give up their records on who shared in the billions of cash and gold bars that Obama shipped to someone."

I think the US intelligence agencies (and any other state actor with an interest in it) know this already.


And they may have a substantial share of it squirreled away.

mccullough said...

No, Jim, I don’t. He was a fucking moron who got a lot of good people killed for nothing. W was a fucking loser drunk until his 40th birthday and never had a job that his Dad didn’t get him. He would be nobody without his Dad. Hilary at least married her way into power. That as at least some achievement. W was born a Bush. That’s it.

As bad as Obama’s was, he was a self made guy and didn’t get as many Americans killed. He wasn’t as bad a president as W. Not as arrogant and not as incompetent. Sending Iran pallets of cash was stupid. Invading Iraq was a colossal case of arrogance and stupidity. People who criticize Obama but defend (or ignore W) are deluded. It’s religion at that pointunless you get paid to pretend to be that stupid.

I know a lot of people here, including me, trash Obama. But a lot of people are silent about W. No one likes to admit they were wrong. Easy to trash Obama but hard to trash W because W was their guy. They voted for him. They still defend him. It’s nuts. His 8 years were a disaster.

W was a colossal fuck-up his whole life. Obama never would have been elected president if not for W. After W’s 8 years of idiocy, Obama seemed like a very viable option. Obama is W’s legacy.

tim in vermont said...

The difference is that I trust Trump not to sell us out. It’s like Nixon and China. Teddy Kennedy and China? No fucking way.

tim in vermont said...

Not as arrogant and not as incompetent. Sending Iran pallets of cash was stupid. Invading Iraq was a colossal case of arrogance and stupidity.

Was repeating Bush’s mistakes in Syria after we had a huge election about it stupid? Was invading Libya stupid? These actions together greatly contributed to Brexit and the destabilization of the European Union due to the millions of refugees they created.

Was that stupid? Was that ham fisted war mongering? Was that incompetent? But yeah, suffering the incompetence of Obama was payback for W, no question.

tim in vermont said...

Trump is the white Obama, an empty vessel into which we pour our hopes and fears.

That’s how liberals view the president. A parental figure, a leader in all things, etc, etc. Republicans view the president more as the CEO and we the American People are the board of directors. I haven’t vested any hopes in Trump. I hope he succeeds, that’s a different thing.

bagoh20 said...

A.) A young man with virtually no experience negotiating big things.

B.) An older woman with some experience but no success at it, and a long series of failures.

C.) An older man with an entire lifetime of negotiating experience, who is best known for exactly that kind of success. It could be said that he wrote the book on it, which he did.

I can see what would be dangerous about the first two people meeting with foreign leaders, even with preconditions.

Trump may be the most qualified and experienced negotiator in American Presidential history. No guarantee of success, but the odds are a hell of a lot better with that skill set and experience.

Rabel said...

When that debate took place the Tweeter you quoted would have been a 21 year old college boy more concerned with his latest boyfriend than with Hill and Barry yapping on the TV.

Now he's a producer on Lawrence O'Donnell's MSNBC show.

They call him The Hammer, I think.

The Vault Dweller said...

Blogger Rabel said...
Now he's a producer on Lawrence O'Donnell's MSNBC show.

They call him The Hammer, I think.



He must be a powerful man to affect Lawrence O'Donnell that way. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRSWpZiDquk

Jim said...

It's amusing to read the anti obama and anti bush threads. who cares? If you have't noticed, trump is NOT like either of them. He is experienced, gets results, and takes a long view. so yeah, Reagan gave us Bush 1. Who gave us Clinton etc etc.. That's how it works. We have Trump now, and, so far, he is very different from any previous President.
I believe that Trump has Americas best interests at heart. What he has done so far proves that. At least to me.

The Godfather said...

I love it when folks who worship Obama and hate GW Bush forget that in the 2012 election Obama took credit for restoring freedom to Iraq.

The Godfather said...

As for the 2008 debate, the objective was to win the Democratic nomination, not to impress a lawprof in Wisconsin. Obama won. Hillary lost.

If you're looking for nuance, think President Kasich.

Drago said...

Inga is now quoting Sean Hannity.

I assume positively.

Otherwise she is in agreement with Trump.

What a quandary!

I can't wait for the Parrot to explain which side she is on: Hannity's or Trump's.

Lets all pay close attention now as we are sure to witness Inga attempting to square the circle so as to be in disagreement with both!

Hilarity to follow....

Kate said...

"I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes."

World leaders meet kicking and screaming with Trump. None of them, from the civilized to the whackadoodle, consider Trump a coup. He's medicine taken with nose plugs.

And that's why we don't care about preconditions when it comes to Trump.

Drago said...

Godfather: "If you're looking for nuance, think President Kasich"

Ouch!

LLR Chuck hardest hit.

To Kasich's credit, of all the republican surrender monkey's the GOPe put forward, he would have been the most gracious and praising of Hillary and whining about conservatives in his inevitable defeat.

Michael K said...

As bad as Obama’s was, he was a self made guy and didn’t get as many Americans killed.

You're kidding, right ?

Nobody yet knows who made Obama but it sure as hell wasn't the Choom boy.

I looked up his record in 2008. Want to see what I found ?

Several months before Obama announced his U.S. Senate bid, Jones called his old friend Cliff Kelley, a former Chicago alderman who now hosts the city’s most popular black call-in radio ­program.

I called Kelley last week and he recollected the private conversation as follows:

“He said, ‘Cliff, I’m gonna make me a U.S. Senator.'”

“Oh, you are? Who might that be?”

“Barack Obama.”

Jones appointed Obama sponsor of virtually every high-profile piece of legislation, angering many rank-and-file state legislators who had more seniority than Obama and had spent years championing the bills.


Yup, self made. If he sucked Emil Jones dick, that is.


Have you looked at the casualty figures since 2008 ? Most are in Afghanistan.

Bush was to blame for a lot of mistakes before 2009 but he has been gone for 9 years.




Big Mike said...

I gotta precondition. We get to send a delegation to put a wreath on the grave of Ned’s Agha-Soltan.

Big Mike said...

NEDA Agha-Soltan. Damned autocorrect.

Sebastian said...

Lemme translate for the prog journalists:

"I'll negotiate with Iran without preconditions" means "We'll keep squeezing them while we talk."

A little different form O begging for a deal and shipping pallets of cash under cover of night.

Of course, if Trump lifts sanctions entirely, as one of the non-preconditions, I reserve the right to revise my remarks.

MeatPopscicle1234 said...

The difference is that we know that when Trump say's he'll meet with a world-leader, that his intentions and goals are to ultimately make America stronger and fight for a solution that is to our benefit... Everything he does is pragmatic based on that desired outcome... When Obama met with foreign leaders, his motive and goal was to abase himself and apologize for America's sins in an effort to weaken and reduce America's standing around the world...

Huge difference, and anyone who supports Trump understands that...

Leland said...

Hillary's camp were the original birthers.

dreams said...

"Trump is like Obama in many ways. Not in all ways, obviously, but click my "Trump is like Obama" tag for more examples of this phenomenon."

I can't tell them apart, well, except one is an anti-American and the other is making America great again. Yeah.

mikee said...

The difference between Trump and Obama/Hillary is that the former would meet without preconditions and negotiate for the success of US ideals and policy, while Obama/Hillary would meet without preconditions, and send pallets of cash to Iran, ignore North Korea's nuke program, destroy Libya without a reason, enable Syria to open a Russian military base in the Med, and so on.

M Jordan said...

Trump.

chickelit said...

Lots of “derangement syndromes” on display here. Come on people, extend it back to Reagan Derrangement syndrome. Maybe even some Carter Derrangement Syndrome.

Howard said...

The obvious conclusion from rendering these intestate comments is Hillary Clinton is a republican deep state mole.

Molly said...

(eaglebeak)

Honestly, don't think Obama and Trump are much alike -- the former was trying to restore the glory of -- what? -- Andalusia?
-- certainly not America -- and Trump is more interested in America. To put it mildly.

narciso said...

That would be the caliphate, aka Islamic state.

narciso said...

Late into Silva's black widow, after he browbeats us over 'breaking Iraq's he lets us in a little known fact, the terrorist mastermind is exactly the kind of monster that worked with Hamas and abu nidal

Big Mike said...

@Chickelit, you didn’t have to be deranged to hate Jimmy Carter. You just had to be fed up with waiting in gas lines. Or being unable to buy a home because of 16% merrgage rates (yes, sixteen per cent). Or working in an industry like real estate or construction, or anything else where people had to borrow money, like car sales. Or perhaps you were proud of a 10% raise, only to lose ground to inflation. The truly deranged were the people who voted to re-elect him in 1980.

Oh, hi, Professor.

And, yes, I read Cyrillic.

stlcdr said...

At this point, however, trump has the upper hand. Based on recent international meetings (and tweets) I’m sure any foreign leader would be scrabbling to figure out how to get any kind of consession from Trump, or at least retain some kind domestic credibility in such a meeting.

It would be like a cage match with an angry grizzly bear, badger, and a seriously pissed off skunk.

JackOfClubs said...

"Trump is like Obama in many ways. Not in all ways..." The differences are easy to understand when you realize that Trump is Obama for white people. This isn't about principle it's about equal time.