McCain Campaign Conference Call On The Anniversary Of Barack Obama's "Without Precondition" Policy

"What Senator Obama talked about was not having negotiations with these countries, but having presidential negotiations unilaterally with the leaders of each one of these countries, and also saying he would do it with Cuba and Venezuela. He has set himself up for a policy direction that undercuts our allies, undercuts those that are working with this to try and restrain the activities of these countries, and basically has set himself up for a performance measurement that he cannot meet." -- Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI)

Today, U.S. Senator John McCain's presidential campaign held a press conference call with U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI), Randy Scheunemann, McCain senior foreign policy adviser, and Kori Schake, McCain senior foreign policy adviser, to discuss Barack Obama's Iran policy:

Rep. Pete Hoekstra: "I think it's important to put Senator Obama's comments in context and give a little bit of an understanding as to what was going on in Iran, Syria and North Korea when he made these statements a year ago, and reiterated them in September of 2007. In Iran, we knew that Iran was continuing its enrichment program. We knew that Iran was still involved in developing and evolving its missile technology, probably getting some of the capabilities and some of the information on how to do this and enhance their program from the North Koreans. We knew at that point in time, only on a limited basis or limited need-to-know basis here in Congress on the Intelligence Committee, but by September, the world knew that Syria at the time was building a nuclear plant, clearly part of a nuclear weapons program, that it was a North Korea design, and it was uncertain exactly as to where the funding was coming from. But we do know that neit her Syria nor North Korea probably had the resources to fund the kind of nuclear building program that was going on in Syria at that time.

"So, what we see is when Senator Obama made those comments, there was a lot of activity that was going on, and a lot of the activity that the strategy to negate or to limit the activities of North Korea, Syria and Iran was a multilateral approach -- working on Iran with our European allies, with Russia, with China trying to develop a strategy to make sure that Iran did not become a nuclear power. Obviously in North Korea, you've got the six-party talks, and with Syria we were clearly working closely with the Israelis in terms of trying to identify the best strategy and the best course of action in how to deal with the emerging threat that was coming out of Syria at that time.

"What Senator Obama talked about was not having negotiations with these countries, but having presidential negotiations unilaterally with the leaders of each one of these countries, and also saying he would do it with Cuba and Venezuela. He has set himself up for a policy direction that undercuts our allies, undercuts those that are working with this to try and restrain the activities of these countries, and basically has set himself up for a performance measurement that he cannot meet.

"He has said that he would meet with all five of these countries within the first year of assuming office and that credibility will be tested immediately if he were to be elected president. You can bet that on January 21st in the afternoon, if it were a President Obama, that Iran, North Korea, Syria, Cuba, and Venezuela would all invite then-President Obama to visit. That would be an untenable position for the President of the United States to be put in, especially after he's made the commitment in his campaign that he would meet with these leaders unconditionally, and it would be -- like I said -- it would undercut our allies. It would undercut American foreign-policy, and would from day one put a Senator Obama or a President Obama in a very weakened position as to how we were going to deal with these current and continuing emerging threats to American national security."

...

Kori Schake: "The assumption in Senator Obama's approach is that all it will take is his presence to get Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong-Il to recant their dedication to acquire nuclear weapons, long range missiles, and threatening their neighbors. What a pretty high estimation. What precisely does Senator Obama want to offer? He should explain what concessions he wants to give to these dictators. The international community is united in the belief that Iran must halt the production of reprocessing nuclear material. Senator Obama plans to unilaterally relax that condition thereby undercutting the very multilateral approach he claims his policies are designed to produce. It is one more example, as was the surge in Iraq, of Senator Obama not understanding the consequences of his policy choices.

"Even worse Senator Obama actually described efforts by America's closest allies as outsourcing American foreign policy, it is not outsourcing to conduct multilateral diplomacy and it is revealing that Senator Obama just doesn't understand this."

...

Randy Scheunemann: "I think it's important to highlight what Senator Obama said a year ago and what he said just about an hour ago at a press conference in Israel. He was asked July 23, 2007 at the presidential debate in South Carolina, '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 country?' Senator Obama's answer was 'I would.'

"Today, Senator Obama was asked, 'A year ago ... you said you would meet in your first year as president ... is there anything you have heard today in discussions with Israeli leaders that has made you rethink that pledge, or are you still standing by that?' Today, Senator Obama said, 'I think you have to [take a] look [at] what the question was' -- I just read the question for everybody -- 'and how I responded' -- I just read his response. Senator Obama said, 'But I think what I said in response was that I would, at my time and choosing, be willing to meet with any leader if I thought it would promote the national security interests of the United States ... and that continues to be my position.' There you have it what he said a year ago and what he said today. This is revealing about Senator Obama in several respects.

"First, it shows his inexperience in making such an uncategorical statement a year ago in a presidential debate. Second, it shows his stubbornness in adhering to such a position for so long. Third, what we see more recently it shows his malleability in trying to rewrite history and refusal to admit a mistake in what he originally said. He takes a position calculated to appeal to the extreme left in the primaries. He refused to admit it was a mistake. Then he changes his position and hopes the media won't call him on it. Hopes that they won't notice what he said. I guess for Senator Obama words matter except when they pose an inconvenient truth. With that, let me open it up to questions."

Listen To The Full Conference Call.