Back to The Future-War in Iraq-What they Said

We hear our leaders from both parties being critical..want to take a look back at what they really thought? This is a thinker..for all parties.
It’s a look back at the War in Iraq from the future in 2 parts…Makes you really think. I wish McCain would use it

Part 1

PART 2

Advertisements

Update on Clinton Praise of McCain-Palin

Diplomacy or Wisdom

Do we really believe the Clintons think NObama is experienced enough to lead this country? Do they really believe the hype put out by the DNC? Or do you think as I that they are secretly hoping McCain wins? Hard to tell for sure..You be the judge.

Go to former post with update on latest happenings.

Clinton Praises Sarah Palin, Calls McCain a Great Man

Clinton Praises Sarah Palin, Calls McCain a Great Man

UPDATE:

 For a moment the former president almost sounded like a surrogate for the Republican presidential nominee Thursday morning.

Appearing on ABC’s Good Morning America, Clinton said McCain’s move to suspend his campaign and request a delay in the first presidential debate was a move done in “good faith,” rather than as a stunt to halt falling poll numbers as several Democrats have alleged.

“I presume he did that in good faith since I know he wanted — I remember he asked for more debates to go all around the country and so I don’t think we ought to overly parse that,” Clinton said, sounding a familiar McCain Campaign talking point.

A few hours later Clinton lavished praise on McCain as he introduced him at the Clinton Global Initiative forum, saying Republican presidential nominee had taken the lead in his party when it comes to climate change.

“When most people in his party were thinking that global warming was overstated and maybe even a myth — he decided to look into it,” he said.

Bill Clinton: McCain ‘A Great Man’; Praises Wife’s, Not Obama’s Economic Plan

 

UPDATE: BC has taken a lot of heat over this. In later interviews, he has been a tad positive on the Nobamamania. Overall, he has used diplomacy in discussing McCain and Palin.

However in a rare television interview tonight, the former president called Republican presidential candidate John McCain “a great man” and praised GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin as an “instinctively effective candidate.”

On a day when Obama sought to convince voters that he’s best able to handle the economic crisis, the former president said it was his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., who gave today “the most detailed position” on what to do about the financial crisis.

In an interview with CNBC’s Maria Bartiromo, Clinton, who has tried to put to rest rumors of tensions between himself and Obama said, “I’ve never concealed my admiration and affection for Sen. McCain. I think he’s a great man.

But if tonight’s interview is any indication, Bill Clinton will not be lavishing praise on his wife’s former primary rival.

Read the story below: Hattip GoodTimePolitics

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/bill-clinton-pr.html

Don’t sound like a very good endorsement for Obama does it! Sounds like he is campaigning for John McCain and Sarah Palin! from GoodTimePolitics

I could not have said it better myself GoodTime!

I think he is being truthful about his admiration for both McCain and Palin. However it is also pretty obvious that he knows how the NObama campaign smear tactics work from his recent experience on the campaign trail for Hillary. Betcha he remembers how they played the race card against him

and a whole lot of other things. They are doing what they have to do publicly..whatever the NObama campaign wants..or Hill would be dead meat should she run again. Gotta stick together, ya know. Overall, quite a telling interview to read between the lines.

Obama Dissed West Virginia..Clinton a Mountain Mama?

 

Interviews with West Virginians leaving their polling places suggested Clinton’s victory could be as overwhelming as any she has gained to date, delivered by an overwhelmingly white electorate comprised of the kinds of voters who favored her in past primaries. Nearly a quarter were 60 or older, and a similar number had no education beyond high school. More than half were in families with incomes of $50,000 or less, and the former first lady was wining a whopping 69 percent of their votes.

 

 Beautiful country if you like mountains,streams, hills and valleys. 

The real problem with Obama with the so called ‘Blue Collar’ working class (that built this country btw) as I see it, is that he is perceived as an ‘Eliteist’..yes, we have heard that before..Clinton of course wants their votes, anybodys votes..She did go there to work for their vote and while she could possibly feel the same way..she does not make them ‘feel’ less than. While I am not from WV. I am a Mountain Mama so to speak although I prefer Mountain darlin’..I know these people…I know pretty much how they think..takes one to know one if you get my drift. Did I ever tell ya I am a Coal Miners Daughter? Even so, most of us trace our roots back to the American Revolution. So roots run deep on their side of the American front..Most of them have Military backgrounds and/or they have or had a family member in the military in nearly every war this country has fought. So they feel they have invested in this country with their blood sweat and tears not to mention hard tough work. 

 
 

Not a lot of Polo here… 

 

 

 

 

 Pretty regularhard working loving families that take sacrifice for loved ones as normal.

Most did not have the privilege of a Harvard or Ivy League Education but they worked hard to see that their children had as good an education as they could possibly afford and they did not expect nor want handouts. Some of them are well qualified for government help..they just think differently..They actually believe if a man won’t work..well, he does not need to eat. So they will work for very little if need be to take care of their families..guess it’s a pride thing. Whatever it is…I admire and respect them.

 

clinging to our guns…whoo hoo!

 

Clinging to religion…no…clinging to faith? yes!

To many of these families Obama comes across as arrogant and just a little superior to them. Remember, he is on the record for seeing them as clinging to their religion and guns. Did he see WV worthy of campaigning there? Hardly. Not much of a fighter is he? Kentucky? Look for him to have the same attitude. No. He does not seem to respect or value the so called ‘working class’. Better to go on to Oregon,Obama.  Remember this…as you dismiss these states..you are dismissing people with what I would now call ‘Politically Incorrect Traditional American Values’ and very long memories. 

 Race? it matters very little to most of them…heck they just want somebody to hear..to listen…to respect their values and as people who count..and quite frankly do something about preserving their heritage. Will they support him in November..probably but with a lot of reservation and anxiety about him as their President. After all, Obama and his staff did ‘diss them’.

“A morsel of genuine history is a thing so rare as to be always valuable.” —Thomas Jefferson

Oh my, Obama..a little history lesson is required.

“In his victory speech after the North Carolina primary, Sen. Barack Obama…[defended] his stated intent to meet with America’s enemies without preconditions…: ‘I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies, like Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did.’ That he made this statement, and that it passed without comment by the journalists covering his speech indicates either breathtaking ignorance of history on the part of both, or deceit. I assume the Roosevelt to whom Sen. Obama referred is Franklin D. Roosevelt. Our enemies in World War II were Nazi Germany, headed by Adolf Hitler; fascist Italy, headed by Benito Mussolini, and militarist Japan, headed by Hideki Tojo. FDR talked directly with none of them before the outbreak of hostilities, and his policy once war began was unconditional surrender. FDR died before victory was achieved, and was succeeded by Harry Truman. Truman did not modify the policy of unconditional surrender. He ended that war not with negotiation, but with the atomic bomb. Harry Truman also was president when North Korea invaded South Korea in June, 1950. President Truman’s response was not to call up North Korean dictator Kim Il Sung for a chat. It was to send troops… Sen. Obama is on both sounder and softer ground with regard to John F. Kennedy. The new president held a summit meeting with Soviet leader Nikita Khruschev in Vienna in June, 1961. Elie Abel, who wrote a history of the Cuban missile crisis (The Missiles of October), said the crisis had its genesis in that summit… Mr. Abel wrote, ‘There is no evidence to support the belief that Khrushchev ever questioned America’s power. He questioned only the president’s readiness to use it.’… It’s worth noting that Kennedy then was vastly more experienced than Sen. Obama is now. A combat veteran of World War II, Jack Kennedy served 14 years in Congress before becoming president. Sen. Obama has no military and little work experience, and has been in Congress for less than four years… History is an elective few liberals choose to take these days… The lack of historical knowledge among journalists is merely appalling. But in a presidential candidate it’s dangerous. As Sir Winston Churchill said: ‘Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it’.” —Jack Kelly

Source & photo: patriot post

The Plan to Silence Conservatives

 

HowardBeale.Net

                                                     Howard Beale (1976)

“So, I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now and go to the window, open it, and stick your head out and yell”…

“I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore!!”

Special Report: The Plan To Silence Conservatives
Progressivism item by Cliff Kincaid

In January 2007

Memphis, Tennessee: Media reform sounds like a good cause. But the gathering here of more than 2,000 activists turned out to be an effort to push the Democratic Party further to the left and get more “progressive” voices in the media, while proposing to use the power of the federal government to silence conservatives. 

In short, triumphant liberals now want to consolidate and expand their power.

Several speakers, including Senator Bernie Sanders and Rep. Maurice Hinchey, declared that they think Congress should use a new federal “fairness doctrine” to target conservative speech on television and radio.

But while conservatives are not ashamed to be conservatives, because of the popularity of their ideas about freedom, a strong military, economic growth and traditional values, the liberals at this conference wanted desperately to avoid the use of the term “liberal,” apparently because of its association with failed domestic, social and foreign policies. They described themselves and their causes as “progressive.”

If this conference has an impact, and the participants were called upon to put pressure on the media and Congress, we should expect increasing references to the term “progressive” in coverage of controversial liberal initiatives, including the proposed agenda for “media reform.” The only question is when congressional liberals get enough nerve to aggressively push this authoritarian attempt to muzzle their political opponents.

                                                 

   

The Soros Connection

Sponsored by Free Press, a Massachusetts-based organization that is generously subsidized by pro-Democratic Party billionaire George Soros, the “National Conference on Media Reform” featured Bill Moyers and Jesse Jackson and Hollywood celebrities such as Danny Glover, Geena Davis and Jane Fonda.

        

             

  

Soros, portrayed by the major media and “progressives” funded by him as a humanitarian and philanthropist, has made billions of dollars through international financial manipulations conducted through secretive off-shore hedge funds. He was convicted of insider trading in Franceone of many countries to have borne the brunt of his global financial schemes.

But Soros has also poured money into groups like the Center for Investigative Reporting, the Fund for Investigative Journalism, and Investigative Reporters & Editors.immigrants, homosexuals, felons, and prostitutes. An atheist, Soros is promoting the complete breakdown of traditional values and morality in America.

One obvious purpose of such grants is to steer the media away from investigating Soros himself. However, during one media appearance, on the CBS 60 Minutes program, Soros acknowledged that as a 14-year-old Jewish boy in Hungary, his identity was protected and that he actually assisted in confiscating property from Jews as they were being shipped off to death camps. As an adult, he shuns pro-Israel causes and believes in accommodating the Iranian regime.

The Free Press co-founder, John Nichols, has edited such books as Against the Beast, a critique of the “American Empire,” and shares Soros’s opposition to a U.S. foreign policy that targets emerging threats in the Arab/Muslim world.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pulleeessseeee I don’t want a burga….do you?

In addition to the creation of what he calls a “New World Order” 

 under U.N. auspices,under U.N. auspices, Soros’s causes include abortion, drug legalization, and special rights for illegals.

                    

 

 

 

In the official conference program, however, there was no mention of the Soros role in funding Free Press. However, thanks were extended to the Nathan Cummings Foundation, the Overbrook Foundation, Quixote Foundation, Glaser Progress Foundation, and the Haas Trusts.

We are grateful also for the generosity and support of many other public charities, private foundations and individual donors,” the conference program said, carefully concealing their identities.

Publications and organizations given credit for promoting the event included The American Prospect magazine, The Washington Monthly, The Nation, and MoveOn.org

 

 

Reds Not Under Bed

The Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP), which opposes the Chinese communist government as too capitalist, was one of the official exhibitors. Also on hand, displaying banners calling for the impeachment of President Bush, was the so-called 9/11 truth movement, which holds that Muslims were blamed for the 2001 terrorist attacks on New York City and the Pentagon when U.S. officials actually carried them out.

Other exhibitors included the Newspaper Guild, Consumers Union, Mother Jones magazine, Pacifica Radio, and Amy Goodman, host of “Democracy Now.”

While the Democratic Party and its political leaders were embraced by most of the participants and usually met with standing ovations, the official conference bookstore didn’t offer any books by or about Hillary Clinton. I was told by the bookstore owner that that she was perceived as too conservative by this crowd and that those books wouldn’t sell.

 

 

 

 

On the other hand, books by Senator Barack Obama and Al Gore were prominently featured. Books by Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Mikhail Gorbachev, former White House reporter Helen Thomas, and Webster Tarpley, a former associate of Lyndon LaRouche, were also available. Tarpley, an “expert” on how 9/11 was a U.S. plot, was a featured guest for two hours on Air America, the liberal radio network now in bankruptcy because of bad management and dismal ratings.

A special screening of the film “Reel Bad Arabs” was held, in order to argue that Arabs and Muslims deserve more favorable coverage from the media and Hollywood. The film is narrated by Jack Shaheen, who recently appeared on Al-Jazeera English making charges of anti-Arab media bias.

    

 

 stop your killing and trying to take over every country you migrate to…and you will see favorable press…Assimilate.I believe it is called..but I know..its in your book to jihad all us infidels….convert or die!!!! Sharia Law..

. 

Yep, a lot of people want to shut down a free press…free talk radio….blogging…free speech…The Media..yep, afraid it”s true..But we ain’t going down without a fight!

 

Very little was said during various panels about the Islamic terrorists who killed almost 3,000 Americans on 9/11 and are currently killing American soldiers and innocent civilians, most of them Muslims, in Iraq. Instead, Bush was blamed for the violence there.

  

         We will Not Forget!

Showing where conference participants stood on the matter of maintaining a U.S. military to defend America against the global Jihad, one of the books on sale at the official conference bookstore was titled, 10 Excellent Reasons Not To Join The Military.

 

 

 

 

Former conservative David Brock, of another Soros-funded group, Media Matters, labeled the Bush foreign policy of liberating Arab lands as “criminally insane.” On the same panel with Brock, Norman Solomon of the Institute for Public Accuracy suggested that U.S. foreign policy was immoral and that the media were working hand-in-glove with the Bush Administration to prepare a military attack on Iran, just as they had done with Iraq.

Reaching new levels of hysteria, Rep. Maurice Hinchey said the survival of America was itself at stake because “neo-fascist” and “neo-con” talk-show hosts led by Rush Limbaugh had facilitated the “illegal” war in Iraq and were complicit in President Bush’s repeated violations of the Constitution, such as by detaining terrorists. He warned that the “right-wing oriented media” were now preparing the way for Bush to wage war on Iran and Syria.

His answer, a bill titled the “Media Ownership Reform Act,” would reinstate the federal fairness doctrine and authorize bureaucrats at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to monitor and alter the content of radio and television programs.       

        

                                                    

Hinchey, chairman of the “Future of American Media Caucus” in the House, was introduced as the new chairman of a subcommittee with jurisdiction over the FCC. For Hinchey and the vast majority at the conference, there was a pressing need for more, not less, regulation of what they call the “corporate media.”

With passage of his bill, Hinchey said that “progressives” would be able to demand and get “equal access” to programs hosted by conservatives and rebut the “baloney” of people like Limbaugh. “All of that stuff will end,” Hinchey said about the influence of conservative media. By name, he also denounced Fox News and Sinclair Broadcasting.

Hinchey praised Democratic FCC commissioners Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein, who appeared at the conference, and indicated that with the election of a Democratic President in 2008, the FCC could be openly used to frustrate the growing popularity of conservative ideas, perhaps under the cover of resisting “media consolidation.”

Later, Hinchey was seen preparing for an appearance on Air America, which had a make-shift studio set up on the premises of the conference.

Protecting Public Broadcasting

Democratic Rep. Steve Cohen, who was just elected to Congress from Memphis, assured the audience that Democrats would protect and possibly increase funding for public broadcasting, which he noted is on the “left hand side of the dial” but has been having problems generating listeners and viewers.

One of the cries of some participants was to “put the public back into public broadcasting,” apparently a plea for even more “public” money from Congress.

Public broadcasting’s Bill Moyers, who spoke to the conference about the “ravenous” nature of “Big Media,” was obviously not referring to public TV or radio’s appetite for U.S. tax dollars, even though AIM has documented how these entities have received over $8 billion from the taxpayers since their creation. The far-left Pacifica Radio, another taxpayer-supported network, had a heavy presence at the “media reform” conference.

The appearance of Moyers, who served as White House press secretary in the Lyndon Johnson Administration before he worked for CBS News and public TV, was curious, at least at this conference in Memphis, because he had been aware at the time of his service to LBJ of secret surveillance of Martin Luther King, Jr.

King was assassinated in Memphis in 1968 and his birthday celebration on January 15 was mentioned by several speakers, most notably Jesse Jackson, a former King aide.

One 9/11 truth movement booth featured a poster claiming that King was murdered as the result of a U.S. Government conspiracy, even though James Earl Ray was convicted of the crime and sentenced to prison. Ray died in 1998.

Continuing this fascination with conspiracy theories about the deaths of prominent people, a book for sale at the conference bookstore, titled, American Assassination: The Strange Death of Paul Wellstone, claims that the airplane accident that took the life of the liberal Senator from Minnesota was actually deliberate murder. The book claims Wellstone’s “progressive” stands made him a target.

Senator Sanders, the only open socialist in Congress, accused the media of covering up King’s opposition to the Vietnam War. He did not mention that King took that approach because he had come under the influence of identified top members of the Soviet-funded Communist Party USA, who had become his close advisers. This is one of the reasons why the Johnson Administration—and then Attorney General Bobby Kennedy—approved FBI surveillance of him. 

King’s radical turn to the left, which detracts from the good work that he did, should not be a taboo topic but it is one of many issues that “progressives” want censored from the media. Another King controversy that is off the table for “progressives” is his well-documented plagiarism.

Socialist Urges One-Sided Coverage

 

Sanders, who votes with the Democrats in the Senate despite his official status as an independent socialist, claimed conservatives were 99 percent in control of talk radio and that it was time “to open the question of the fairness doctrine again” to restrict what they say and how they say it.

He faulted the media for covering two sides of the global warming debate “when there is no debate in the scientific community.”

Clearly, therefore, the purpose in proposing a “fairness doctrine” is not to offer different points of view but to silence viewpoints liberals regard as unsound or unpopular.

Sanders indicated he would introduce a Senate version of the Hinchey bill.

A similar bill, the “Fairness in Broadcasting Act,” was sponsored by Democratic Rep. Louise Slaughter, the chairman of the House Rules Committee that has enormous influence over what bills are brought up for votes. 

The Rev. Jesse Jackson, the object of fawning media coverage despite the scandal of producing a child from an extramarital affair, argued before the conference for “the right to be heard” and insisted that the major media were not telling the real story of pain and suffering in George Bush’s America.

 

Despite claiming to be for open debate and discussion, he recently urged consumers to boycott DVDs of the Seinfeld comedy show because the actor who plays one of the characters had been caught making racist comments in a night club. Jackson had the actor, Michael Richards, on his radio show to apologize for the remarks.

Suggesting the real agenda behind “media reform,” Jackson said that the key to Democrats winning “is more access to the media.”

That may depend, however, on how the “progressives” market their unpopular ideas, especially when they actively begin their congressional campaign of suppressing viewpoints in opposition to their own. 

Making himself out to be a victim, Jackson said that he should be called by the media for comments on foreign policy issues like Iraq, rather than just racial controversies like the Duke rape case.

Clearly staking out a position on the far-left fringe, Jackson accused Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of taking “baby steps” legislatively when she should be exercising “bold leadership.” On Iraq, he said, “you can’t be against the war and for the war budget.” Rather than just raise the minimum wage, he said Pelosi should introduce a massive new jobs program. He concluded his remarks by asking people to watch his TV program on the Word television network and to tune into his “Keep Hope Alive” radio show on 50 stations. 

Republicans as Thieves  

At a panel moderated by Paul Waldman of Media Matters, Steve Freeman of the University of Pennsylvania argued that the 2004 presidential election was stolen on behalf of George W. Bush. His associate, Jonathan Simon of the Election Defense Alliance, took to the microphone during the question-and-answer period to argue that the 2006 elections were rigged as well and that the Republicans are preparing to steal the 2008 presidential election. Waldman, who claimed to be dedicated to factual accuracy in covering current events, didn’t dispute any of this. In fact, he stated his belief that Al Gore had won the 2000 election and that the media knew it.

Another panelist, Cornell Belcher, the official pollster for the Democratic National Committee, seemed to be taken aback by the conspiracy theories and pointed out that the Democrats had, in fact, made substantial gains on the federal and state levels in 2006.

However, during a conversation over breakfast, Freeman reiterated his belief that the Democrats had won far more seats than they were given credit for in 2006. Asked why they wouldn’t protest the stealing of votes, he said, “Democrats are in on it.” He described Republicans and Democrats as the A team and B team, and that when one team makes too many mistakes, the other goes in for relief. Asked for his opinion on the 9/11 truth movement, he said, “Nothing would surprise me.”

A panel on “Media, War, and Impeachment” featured Jeff Cohen, founder of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, whose December 2006 magazine features Hugo Chavez of Venezuela on the cover as he addressed the U.N. holding up a copy of Noam Chomsky’s book on the dangers of American “hegemony.” That was the appearance in which Chavez labeled Bush the devil.

                                                                        

The article inside the magazine by FAIR’s Steve Rendall accused the American media of unfairly criticizing Chavez for “challenging the U.S.,” not because he makes absurd charges, chums around with people such as the anti-Semitic and anti-American Iranian president, and threatens press freedom in his own country. Promising “Socialism or death,” Chavez was just sworn in for another presidential term.

On Saturday night, as participants prepared for an event featuring Jane Fonda, they were given copies of a four-page flier advertising Bob Avakian’s book, From Ike to Mao and Beyond. The flier said that Avakian, the leader of the Revolutionary Communist Party, has been described by Cornell West of Princeton University as “a long distance runner in the freedom struggle against imperialism, racism and capitalism.”

Scott Lee, an RCP “helper” passing out the fliers, told me that he thought the conference was worthwhile but too heavily titled in favor of the Democratic Party. He said he wasn’t aware that global capitalist George Soros had funded the left-wing conference organizers but that the money had gone for a good cause.

This is what passes for “progressivism” these days. It is a clear danger to freedom at home and abroad.

Cliff Kincaid is Editor of Accuracy in Media.

Just a sampling of lies below from Soros MoveOn.org

click above to enlarge:

After the audio was released this weekend of Hillary Clinton slamming the Far Left Obama-supporting MoveOn.org for not “even wanting us to go into Afghanistan,” the Executive Director of MoveOn.org responded:

In a statement to The Huffington Post, MoveOn’s Executive Director Eli Pariser reacted strongly to Clinton’s remarks: “Senator Clinton has her facts wrong again. MoveOn never opposed the war in Afghanistan, and we set the record straight years ago when Karl Rove made the same claim. Senator Clinton’s attack on our members is divisive at a time when Democrats will soon need to unify to beat Senator McCain. MoveOn is 3.2 million reliable voters and volunteers who are an important part of any winning Democratic coalition in November. They deserve better than to be dismissed using Republican talking points.”

But, unfortunately for the Move-On nuts, Tom Maguire at Just One Minute , via Instapundit, found the actual MoveOn.org petition against the Afghanistan War, via the Wayback machine:

click above to enlarge:

Only days after 9-11- after 2,998 Americans were murdered by Islamic radicals, MoveOn.org was already equating the US with the terrorists:

“To combat terrorism, we must act in accordance with a high standard that does not disregard the lives of people in other countries. If we retaliate by bombing Kabul and kill people oppressed by the Taliban dictatorship who have no part in deciding whether terrorists are harbored, we become like the terrorists we oppose. We perpetuate the cycle of retribution and recruit more terrorists by creating martyrs.”

Today, this deranged group is a huge block of support for America’s most liberal senator.
Surprised?

Obama would meet with Castro

Obama would meet with Castro

By: Mike Allen Source Politico

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) said at the CNN debate in Austin that he would be willing to meet immediately with Cuba’s new leader, Raul Castro. But Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) said she would not.

In fact, Obama broadly extended his policy of being willing to meet with dictators without preconditions, while Clinton holds the more traditional position that a U.S. president should hold such negotiations only after extensive groundwork has been done.

“Not just in Cuba, but I think this principle applies generally,” Obama said. “I recall what John F. Kennedy once said: We should never negotiate out of fear, but we should never fear to negotiate.

“And this moment, this opportunity when Fidel Castro has finally stepped down, I think is one that we should try to take advantage of.”

Clinton said: “I agree absolutely that we should be willing to have diplomatic negotiations and processes with anyone. … But there has been this difference between us over when and whether the president should offer a meeting without preconditions with those with whom we do not have diplomatic relations. And it should be part of a process. But I don’t think it should be offered in the beginning, because I think that undermines the capacity for us to actually take the measure of someone like Raul Castro.”

Then Clinton offered her own Kennedy paraphrase: “As President Kennedy said, he wouldn’t be afraid to negotiate, but he would expect there to be a lot of preparatory work done to find out exactly what he would get out of it.”

The moderator had barely begun the next question when the Republican National Committee blasted out a sheet of Obama’s quotes over the years that was headed “Obama’s Stance On Cuba Is Completely Inconsistent & Incoherent.”

And the Clinton campaign issued: “Obama flip-flop on Cuba.”

Wonder how many other flip flops there will be.