McCain: Kissinger NEVER said that we should have direct negotiations with Iran. McCain: Wrong on Kissinger
fact check on the fact check:
Strait from Kissenger's mouth after the debate:
quote:
Henry Kissinger believes Barack Obama misstated his views on diplomacy with US adversaries and is not happy about being mischaracterized. He says: "Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality."
Either Obama lied, or he’s too inexperienced to understand what Kissinger said and actually meant.
Q5echo
quote:
Originally said by Barak Obama
The question, I think, that we have to ask ourselves is, how did we get into this situation in the first place?
you don't know?
MisterOpus1
quote:
Originally posted by The17sss
fact check on the fact check:
Strait from Kissenger's mouth after the debate:
Either Obama lied, or he’s too inexperienced to understand what Kissinger said and actually meant.
Obama lied?:
quote:
Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said the U.S. should negotiate directly with Iran over its nuclear program and other bilateral issues.
"One should be prepared to negotiate, and I think we should be prepared to negotiate about Iran," Kissinger, who brokered the end of the 1973 Yom Kippur war and peace talks with the North Vietnamese, said in an interview with Bloomberg Television. Asked whether he meant the U.S. should hold direct talks, Kissinger, 84, responded: "Yes, I think we should."
There has been no response so far from Iran, he said.
"I've been in semi-private, totally private talks with Iranians," he said. "They've had put before them approaches that with a little flexibility on their part would, in my view, surely lead to negotiations." He didn't elaborate on who was engaged in the talks.
While the Bush administration pursues a policy of diplomatic pressure on Iran at the United Nations and unilateral sanctions to weaken its access to the international banking system, the U.S. hasn't ruled out military action to halt Iran's nuclear work. There has been no direct contact between the U.S. and Iran since the 1979 Iranian revolution, except for talks in Baghdad on Iraqi security between their ambassadors or technical experts.
Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said March 9 that Iran wouldn't engage with the U.S. until President Bush's successor is elected.
Democratic presidential contender Sen. Barack Obama has said he would meet with U.S. adversaries such as the leaders of Iran without conditions, positions his primary opponent, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, called "irresponsible and frankly naive."
Kissinger Backs Direct Talks 'Without Conditions' with Iran
ABC News' Rachel Martin Reports: Former U.S.Secretary of State Henry Kissinger today told an audience in Washington, DC that the U.S. should negotiate with Iran "without conditions" and that the next President should begin such negotiations at a high level.
The former Nixon and Ford U.S. Secretary of State early in the year indicated his belief that the U.S. should hold direct talks with Iran when speaking to Bloomberg Television.
"Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality," Kissinger said in statement issued by the McCain campaign.
During the debate, Obama pointed to Kissinger to defend his position because the former secretary of state supports direct talks with high-level Iranians without preconditions. Kissinger does not, however, support the U.S. president personally engaging in those talks, a point which McCain sought to drive home during the debate.
While it appears Kissinger and Senator Barack Obama disagree on what level those talks should occur, they do agree talks should begin, in Kissinger's words, “at a very high level” and without preconditions.
During the debate, McCain said that Kissinger would not endorse Obama's position that he would meet on a presidential level with leaders of enemy countries. "I guarantee you he would not say that," McCain said of Kissinger.
Obama took issue with McCain's characterization of the former top diplomat's position, but just last week Kissinger said that, while he broadly agrees on the need to negotiate with Iran, he "preferred doing it at the secretary of state level."
When asked if high level talks with Iran should begin right out of the box, Kissinger replied "Initially, yes."
According to Obama's official website he supports "direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions."
On preconditions the two appear to agree. Last week Kissinger also said that "I do not believe that we can make conditions for the opening of negotiations."
If McCain wants to push the point about what level of staff should meet with Iran, then that is most certainly a point of he shares with Kissinger and differs with Obama. But there's nothing in Kissinger's statement as of yet that demonstrates that he disagrees with Obama's point about meeting with Iran without preconditions if necessary.
And that latter question was, in fact, the one being asked, and not the former. So not only was Obama correct, but his memory seemed to be working a bit better than your old man's memory.......
jerZ07002
quote:
Originally posted by The17sss
Either Obama lied, or he’s too inexperienced to understand what Kissinger said and actually meant.
tell me exactly how someone can be too inexperience to understand what someone "said and actually meant?" that makes no sense. If the person didn't mean what he said then it isn't the listener who has the problem.
to add to Laz's earlier point: McCain sounded a little too condescending with his "obama doesn't understand" remarks. He should use a different strategy next time. By saying obama doesn't understand McCain brings intelligence into the equation (at least it does for me). I don't think anyone would argue that McCain is anywhere near as intelligent as Obama. In the same respect, Obama likely has a greater capacity to understand than McCain.
Arbiter
It was a pretty boring and predictable debate. Unsurprisingly they pandered to the lowest common denominator by providing platitutdes and generalities backed up by very little substance or rationale (though admittedly that is somewhat a product of the debate format.) And they often quibbled over facts or trivialties such as a mere $18 billion out of the entire federal budget, or whether the issue regarding unconditional talks is the lack of conditions or the particular official(s) participating. That said...
McCain did better than I expected; although he should do away with whoever was responsible for his wardrobe. He also missed an opportunity by not following up more on the prudence of Obama's spending proposals under the circumstances. The current economic conditions do, or at least should, bear on what sort of expenditures are justified in the immediate future, and thus far Obama does not seem to have adjusted his policies accordingly.
Obama said more or less what I expected, although I was disappointed by his inexplicably bellicose positions on foreign policy... particularly though not exclusively in regards to cases where we have little or no material interest (e.g. Russia/Georgia.) He may have been trying to show a willingness to be decisive or stand up to potential adversaries -- in that respect, I think he was somewhat successful, but not without a cost.
Q5echo
quote:
Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Obama lied?:
probably not, but he's definately being fed the wrong if he honestly thought Kissinger would have Presidential talks without conditions.
you know whats funny is i'm looking at both your examples, the ABCNews blog and the Deseret News, and the one that references the "without conditions" blurb references back to your first example (Deseret News) without any proof that he actually said "without conditions" other than the integrity of some obscure blogger.
furthermore, it goes directly against what he said 5 days after that ABCNews blog asserted he said "without conditions". he was talking to that morbidly attractive Christianne Ahmanpour:
quote:
KISSINGER: Well, I am in favor of negotiating with Iran. And one utility of negotiation is to put before Iran our vision of a Middle East, of a stable Middle East, and our notion on nuclear proliferation at a high enough level so that they have to study it. And, therefore, I actually have preferred doing it at the secretary of state level so that we -- we know we're dealing with authentic...
that obviously demonstrates that he disagrees with Obama's point about meeting with Iran without preconditions if necessary.
quote:
And that latter question was, in fact, the one being asked, and not the former. So not only was Obama correct, but his memory seemed to be working a bit better than your old man's memory.......
not so.
Q5echo
quote:
Originally posted by jerZ07002
I don't think anyone would argue that McCain is anywhere near as intelligent as Obama. In the same respect, Obama likely has a greater capacity to understand than McCain.
i think there is a big difference between sounding smart and actually functioning smart, day to day, making the decisions, timing ect.
being able gather precise thoughts quickly and vocalize them as quickly is a very narrow standard for cognitive ability IMO. it says nothing about judgement.
...and im not saying Obama is not smart.
LazFX
quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
i think there is a big difference between sounding smart and actually functioning smart, day to day, making the decisions, timing ect.
you just described allot of posters here at PDD ;)
LazFX
The one thing that pisses me off about McCain's debate e he was slinging was how he stated he cares for the Vets returning from the war.
LIAR!!
quote:
..... McCain missed 10 of the past 14 votes on Iraq. However, here is a summary of a dozen votes (two that he missed and ten that he voted against) with respect to Iraq, funding for veterans or for troops, including equipment and armor. I have also included other snippets related to the time period when the vote occurred.
September 2007: McCain voted against the Webb amendment calling for adequate troop rest between deployments. At the time, nearly 65% of people polled in a CNN poll indicted that "things are going either moderately badly or very badly in Iraq.
July 2007: McCain voted against a plan to drawdown troop levels in Iraq. At the time, an ABC poll found that 63% thought the invasion was not worth it, and a CBS News poll found that 72% of respondents wanted troops out within 2 years.
March 2007: McCain was too busy to vote on a bill that would require the start of a drawdown in troop levels within 120 days with a goal of withdrawing nearly all combat troops within one year. Around this time, an NBC News poll found that 55% of respondents indicated that the US goal of achieving victory in Iraq is not possible. This number has not moved significantly since then.
February 2007: For such a strong supporter of the escalation, McCain didn’t even bother to show up and vote against a resolution condemning it. However, at the time a CNN poll found that only 16% of respondents wanted to send more troops to Iraq (that number has since declined to around 10%), while 60% said that some or all should be withdrawn. This number has since gone up to around 70%.
June 2006: McCain voted against a resolution that Bush start withdrawing troops but with no timeline to do so.
May 2006: McCain voted against an amendment that would provide $20 million to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for health care facilities.
April 2006: McCain was one of only 13 Senators to vote against $430,000,000 for the Department of Veteran Affairs for Medical Services for outpatient care and treatment for veterans.
March 2006: McCain voted against increasing Veterans medical services funding by $1.5 billion in FY 2007 to be paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes.
March 2004: McCain once again voted for abusive tax loopholes over veterans when he voted against creating a reserve fund to allow for an increase in Veterans' medical care by $1.8 billion by eliminating abusive tax loopholes. Jeez, McCain really loves those tax loopholes for corporations, since he voted for them over our veterans' needs.
October 2003: McCain voted to table an amendment by Senator Dodd that called for an additional $322,000,000 for safety equipment for United States forces in Iraq and to reduce the amount provided for reconstruction in Iraq by $322,000,000.
April 2003: McCain urged other Senate members to table a vote (which never passed) to provide more than $1 billion for National Guard and Reserve equipment in Iraq related to a shortage of helmets, tents, bullet-proof inserts, and tactical vests.
August 2001: McCain voted against increasing the amount available for medical care for veterans by $650,000,000. To his credit, he also voted against the 2001 Bush tax cuts, which he now supports making permanent, despite the dire financial condition this country is in, and despite the fact that he indicated in 2001 that these tax cuts unfairly benefited the very wealthy at the expense of the middle class.
So there it is. John McCain is yet another republican former military veteran who likes to talk a big game when it comes to having the support of the military. Yet, time and time again, he has gone out of his way to vote against the needs of those who are serving in our military. If he can’t even see his way to actually doing what the troops want, or what the veterans need, and he doesn’t have the support of veterans, then how can he be a credible commander in chief?
PUBLISHED: August 14, 2008
"Why do the troops hate the troops?"
Honestly, after years of hearing that if you don't support the Bush military policy, you don't support the troops, you have to wonder what the neo-cons will do now. Today, a study by the Center for Responsive Politics reported that members of the military are giving more donations to Senator Obama than Senator McCain, and when you just examine those troops who are deployed, Obama attracts more donations by a 6 to 1 factor.
Troops, of course, aren't much different than most Americans, who overwhelmingly oppose the Bush military policy that John McCain would continue (the latest AP-Ipsos poll had 62 percent disapproving of the Bush policy). It's just that troops have a lot more personal experience on this particular issue. We know that those who served believe Iraq has overstreched the military, and for years that those who have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan are solidly against the current policy.
Now, members of the military are speaking with their checkbooks, and reiterating just how strongly they believe we need to begin to redeploy from Iraq, and go on the offense against al Qaeda, which is making huge gains in Afghanistan.
And, yes, things are getting much worse in Afghanistan. The New York Times reports today, from Saydebad:
"Not far from here, just off the highway that was once the showpiece of the United States reconstruction effort in Afghanistan, three American soldiers and their Afghan interpreter were ambushed and killed seven weeks ago... The soldiers -- two of them members of the National Guard from New York -- died as their vehicles were hit by mines and rocket-propelled grenades. At least one was dragged off and chopped to pieces, according to Afghan and Western officials. The body was so badly mutilated that at first the military announced that it had found the remains of two men, not one, in a nearby field."
That's just one report of many coming from Afghanistan, which has been allowed to devolve into chaos.
Troops know it. News from the field makes its way through chow halls, and our men and women read it during the rare moments they get to check the internet. They know that the current course our military is on is not sustainable, and they're looking for a dramatic change. They've felt it for a long time, whether the media wants to acknowledge that or not.
I don't think this has as much to do with Obama and McCain as it does with continuing the current Bush course, or changing it. And our troops, who don't have a whole lot of money to give, are voting right now with their wallets.
So, do our troops hate the troops? No, of course not. Our troops love America, and that's the point.
This is the main thing that gets me as a vet, yeah I served between the wars but you know what, people need to know that this sucker cares not for the our troops returning... PLAIN AND SIMPLE..
LazFX
interesting...
quote:
Here's the CNN poll, conducted among debate-watchers:
Regardless of which candidate you happen to support, who do you think did the best job in the debate -- Barack Obama or John McCain? Obama 51% McCain 38%
Did _______ do a better or worse job than you expected?
Obama: Better 57%, Worse 20%, Same 23%
McCain: Better 60%, Worse 20%, Same 18%
Next, regardless of which presidential candidate you support, please tell me if you think Barack Obama or John McCain would better handle each of the following issues:
• The war in Iraq: Obama 52%, McCain 47%
• Terrorism: McCain 49%, Obama 45%
• The economy: Obama 58%, McCain 37%
• The current financial crisis: Obama 54%, McCain 36%
Thinking about the following characteristics and qualities, please say whether you think each one better described Barack Obama or John McCain during tonight's debate:
• Was more intelligent: Obama 55%, McCain 30%
• Expressed his views more clearly: Obama 53%, McCain 36%
• Spent more time attacking his opponent: McCain 60%, Obama 23%
• Was more sincere and authentic: Obama 46%, McCain 38%
• Seemed to be the stronger leader: Obama 49%, McCain 43%
• Was more likeable: Obama 61%, McCain 26%
• Was more in touch with the needs and problems of people like you: Obama 62%, McCain 32%
Based on what _______ said and did in tonight's debate, do you think he would be able to handle the job of president if he is elected?
Obama 69%-29%
McCain 68%-30%
And the numbers released so far from the CBS poll of undecided debate-watchers: 39% said Obama won, 25% said McCain won, and 36% said it was a draw. Forty-six percent said their opinions of Obama went up, compared to only 31% who said the same about McCain. On the economy, 66% said Obama would make the right decisions, compared to 44% who said the same for McCain.
Originally posted by Q5echo
probably not, but he's definately being fed the wrong if he honestly thought Kissinger would have Presidential talks without conditions.
you know whats funny is i'm looking at both your examples, the ABCNews blog and the Deseret News, and the one that references the "without conditions" blurb references back to your first example (Deseret News) without any proof that he actually said "without conditions" other than the integrity of some obscure blogger.
Well, I was there, and I don't think there was any revisionism about what the implication of what he said at the time.
You can parse and parse and parse all you want, but McCain stands more or less alone on this one.
edit: well, he's got Palin on his side, and I'm sure that's a great comfort to you.
Q5echo
quote:
Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Well, I was there, and I don't think there was any revisionism about what the implication of what he said at the time.
you were GWU when you heard Henry Kissenger say as President we should sit down with Ahmedinejad "without conditions"?
if there is a transcript, i'll find it.
quote:
You can parse and parse and parse all you want, but McCain stands more or less alone on this one.
obviously not. Kissengerf came out 2 minutes after the debate ended stating Obama was full of . i'm just stating the facts. are you saying Kissenger is parsing?
