Dr. Susan Rice, one of Sen. Obama’s top foreign policy advisers, got caught telling a whopper today. LGF gets credit for catching this whopper:

Susan E. Rice, a former State Department and National Security Council official who is a foreign policy adviser to the Democratic candidate, said that “for political purposes, Senator Obama’s opponents on the right have distorted and reframed” his views. Mr. McCain and his surrogates have repeatedly stated that Mr. Obama would be willing to meet “unconditionally” with Mr. Ahmadinejad. But Dr. Rice said that this was not the case for Iran or any other so-called “rogue” state. Mr. Obama believes “that engagement at the presidential level, at the appropriate time and with the appropriate preparation, can be used to leverage the change we need,” Dr. Rice said. “But nobody said he would initiate contacts at the presidential level; that requires due preparation and advance work.”

Sen. Obama will want to distance himself from Dr. Rice’s comments. In most instances, Obama could say that Dr. Rice didn’t speak for him on this issue. This time, he can’t because Dr. Rice isn’t just another dime-a-dozen adviser. Dr. Rice served as Sen. Kerry’s foreign policy adviser during the 2004 campaign.

This transcript utterly refutes Dr. Rice’s statements:

QUESTION: In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since. In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, 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?

COOPER: I should also point out that Stephen is in the crowd tonight.

CLINTON: Senator Obama?

OBAMA: 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.

(APPLAUSE)

Now, Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to the Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire. And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward.

And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them. We’ve been talking about Iraq, one of the first things that I would do in terms of moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria because they’re going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses.

Look at the defeatism in Sen. Obama’s answer:

“…we need to talk to Iran and Syria because they’re going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses.”

Doesn’t it sound from that transcript that Sen. Obama had already written Iraq off? It’s important to put this in historical context. This debate was held a month after the start of Operation Arrowhead Ripper, aka the Surge. Positive reports were already appearing. Shouldn’t the Commander-in-Chief have a can-do attitude as long as there’s proof that progress is being made? Why Sen. Obama sound like he thought that defeat in Iraq was an option? We shouldn’t have contingency plans in case we lose.

Secondly, why would we give Syria or Iran responsibilities if Iraq fell? That’s foolishness of the highest order. That’s like putting China in charge of the UN Human Rights Commission. Only someone who’s totally inexperienced and naive would propose that policy.

This is a major embarassment for the Obama campaign. How does he explain this big a fib? In most instances, Obama could say that Dr. Rice didn’t speak for him on this issue. This time, he can’t because Dr. Rice isn’t just another adviser. Dr. Rice served as Sen. Kerry’s foreign policy adviser during the 2004 campaign.

I’d also note that Obama is making this stuff up as he’s talking. Let’s hope that he isn’t that stupid. I’m sure that Reagan had conversations with his Soviet counterpart but his first summit with the Soviets didn’t happen until November, 1985, almost a full year into his second term. Sen. Obama was then 24 years old, certainly old enough to have lived through that era.

Reagan’s definition of winning was simple: We win. They lose. Obama’s definition of winning, if such a definition exists, likely would be so nuanced that sane people couldn’t tell the difference between Obama’s view of winning and losing.

As scary as that line of thinking is, it isn’t the scariest thinking in Obama’s response. This is:

they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward.

There isn’t a negotiated “potential way forward” with Iran. The only way forward is if they stop interfering in Iraq and Lebanon and they end their nuclear program.

Sen. Edwards actually takes a jab at Obama with this answer to the same question:

COOPER: Senator Edwards, would you meet with Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Kim Jong Il?

EDWARDS: Yes, and I think actually Senator Clinton’s right though. Before that meeting takes place, we need to do the work, the diplomacy, to make sure that that meeting’s not going to be used for propaganda purposes, will not be used to just beat down the United States of America in the world community.

Once in awhile, John Edwards gets it. This is one of those times. The meeting with Ahmadinejad shouldn’t happen if there’s the slightest possibility of it becoming a propaganda tool in Iran’s hands.

It’s incidents like this that will doom Obama’s campaign. As bad as Dr. Rice’s reply is, it’s dwarfed by (a) Obama’s inability to not twist history and (b) Obama’s defeatism. Talking with Syria and Iran to establish a plan of action if Iraq fails isn’t the type of contingency FDR, JFK or Harry Truman would plan for.

Technorati Tags: Obama, Iran, Diplomacy, Iraq, Syria, FDR, Harry S. Truman, JFK, Ronald Reagan, Appeasement, Defeatism, Foreign Policy

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog