Did you catch this? When, back in April, Jimmy Carter made his ill-advised foray to the Middle East to meet with Hamas, Barack Obama's campaign issued the following statement:
""Senator Obama does not agree with President Carter's decision to go forward with this meeting because he does not support negotiations with Hamas until they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist, and abide by past agreements."--Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki, April 10, 2008"
But as Matthew Continetti of the Weekly Standard went on to say:
"Reread the above quotation from the Obama campaign. The Democratic frontrunner objects to meeting with Hamas because it supports terrorism, disavows Israel's right to exist, and has violated past treaties. Sound familiar? That is an exact description of the Iran ruled by the Ayatollah Khamenei and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Yet Obama has said that as president he would meet with Ahmadinejad without conditions. He'd pull a Carter. And the result of such desperate eagerness to "negotiate with our enemies" would be the same: empty words and emboldened adversaries."
Precisely. In the past few weeks, we've see the Obama campaign backtrack from its we'll-gladly-negotiate-with-our-enemies position slightly. But only slightly. It has not fundamentally changed its position. And in this world of continued Iranian threats against Israel, coupled with its drive to achieve nuclear weapons, that's very worrisome indeed.
