Cillizza uncritically reported false claim that Obama misrepresented Kissinger's comments on talks with Iran
SUMMARY: On washingtonpost.com, Chris Cillizza uncritically reported Sen. John McCain's false claim that Sen. Barack Obama had misrepresented comments former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had made about negotiating with Iran, writing that "McCain was able to turn a single question about meeting with rogue leaders into an extended colloquy that ended with him hitting Obama for misunderstanding Henry Kissinger." In fact, Obama accurately represented Kissinger's comments about negotiations with Iran.
Following the September 26 presidential debate, in a post on his washingtonpost.com blog, staff writer Chris Cillizza uncritically reported Sen. John McCain's false claim that Sen. Barack Obama had misrepresented comments former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had made about negotiating with Iran. Cillizza wrote: "McCain absolutely hammered Obama over his pledge to meet with rogue foreign leaders without preconditions," and later added, "McCain was able to turn a single question about meeting with rogue leaders into an extended colloquy that ended with him hitting Obama for misunderstanding Henry Kissinger. A very good moment for McCain." In fact, as Media Matters for America noted, Obama accurately represented Kissinger's comments about negotiations with Iran.
During the debate Obama said, "Senator McCain mentioned Henry Kissinger, who's one of his advisers, who, along with five recent secretaries of state, just said that we should meet with Iran -- guess what -- without precondition. This is one of your own advisers," and, "When we talk about preconditions -- and Henry Kissinger did say we should have contacts without preconditions -- the idea is that we do not expect to solve every problem before we initiate talks." During the debate, McCain repeatedly purported to correct Obama by saying Kissinger would not support presidential-level talks with Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Each time, Obama made clear that was not his contention -- that, instead, he was accurately saying Kissinger supported talks between the United States and Iran at levels below the president.
Obama's comments during the debate accurately reflected Kissinger's comments during a September 15 forum. Kissinger said, "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 preferred doing it at the secretary of state level so that we -- we know we're dealing with authentic -- with authentic proposals." Asked by CNN's Frank Sesno, "To put at a very high level right out of the box?" Kissinger responded:
Initially, yes. And I always believed that the best way to begin a negotiation is to tell the other side exactly what you have in mind and what you are -- what the outcome is that you're trying to achieve so that they have something that they can react to.
Now, the permanent members of the Security Council, plus Japan and Germany, have all said nuclear weapons in Iran are unacceptable. They've never explained what they mean by this. So if we go into a negotiation, we ought to have a clear understanding of what is it we're trying to prevent. What is it going to do if we can't achieve what we're talking about?
But I do not believe that we can make conditions for the opening of negotiations. We ought, however, to be very clear about the content of negotiations and work it out with other countries and with our own government.
In contrast to Cillizza's post, in a September 27 Los Angeles Times fact check, staff writers Paul Richter and Julian E. Barnes reported that "Obama was right when he said that Kissinger, in a recent appearance with other secretaries of State in Washington, said U.S. officials should talk to Iranian officials without preconditions." Furthermore, they noted that "McCain, in response, mischaracterized what Obama had just said. He implied that Obama had said Kissinger approved of presidential level contacts with Iran. The Democrat did not say that."
From Cillizza's blog post:
McCain's strongest moment of the debate also happened to be Obama's weakest. McCain absolutely hammered Obama over his pledge to meet with rogue foreign leaders without preconditions and Obama had no ready answer -- odd since he had to know this attack was coming. McCain was able to turn a single question about meeting with rogue leaders into an extended colloquy that ended with him hitting Obama for misunderstanding Henry Kissinger. A very good moment for McCain.
From CNN's transcript of the September 26 presidential debate:
JIM LEHRER (moderator): Senator, what about talking?
McCAIN: Senator Obama twice said in debates he would sit down with Ahmadinejad, Chavez and Raul Castro without precondition. Without precondition. Here is Ahmadinenene [sic], Ahmadinejad, who is, Ahmadinejad, who is now in New York, talking about the extermination of the State of Israel, of wiping Israel off the map, and we're going to sit down, without precondition, across the table, to legitimize and give a propaganda platform to a person that is espousing the extermination of the state of Israel, and therefore then giving them more credence in the world arena and therefore saying, they've probably been doing the right thing, because you will sit down across the table from them and that will legitimize their illegal behavior.
The point is that throughout history, whether it be Ronald Reagan, who wouldn't sit down with Brezhnev, Andropov or Chernenko until Gorbachev was ready with glasnost and perestroika.
Or whether it be Nixon's trip to China, which was preceded by Henry Kissinger, many times before he went. Look, I'll sit down with anybody, but there's got to be pre-conditions. Those pre-conditions would apply that we wouldn't legitimize with a face to face meeting, a person like Ahmadinejad. Now, Senator Obama said, without preconditions.
OBAMA: So let's talk about this. First of all, Ahmadinejad is not the most powerful person in Iran. So he may not be the right person to talk to. But I reserve the right, as president of the United States to meet with anybody at a time and place of my choosing if I think it's going to keep America safe.
And I'm glad that Senator McCain brought up the history, the bipartisan history of us engaging in direct diplomacy.
Senator McCain mentioned Henry Kissinger, who's one of his advisers, who, along with five recent secretaries of state, just said that we should meet with Iran -- guess what -- without precondition. This is one of your own advisers.
Now, understand what this means "without preconditions." It doesn't mean that you invite them over for tea one day. What it means is that we don't do what we've been doing, which is to say, "Until you agree to do exactly what we say, we won't have direct contacts with you."
There's a difference between preconditions and preparation. Of course we've got to do preparations, starting with low-level diplomatic talks, and it may not work, because Iran is a rogue regime.
But I will point out that I was called naive when I suggested that we need to look at exploring contacts with Iran. And you know what? President Bush recently sent a senior ambassador, Bill Burns, to participate in talks with the Europeans around the issue of nuclear weapons.
Again, it may not work, but if it doesn't work, then we have strengthened our ability to form alliances to impose the tough sanctions that Senator McCain just mentioned.
And when we haven't done it, as in North Korea -- let me just take one more example -- in North Korea, we cut off talks. They're a member of the axis of evil. We can't deal with them.
And you know what happened? They went -- they quadrupled their nuclear capacity. They tested a nuke. They tested missiles. They pulled out of the nonproliferation agreement. And they sent nuclear secrets, potentially, to countries like Syria.
When we re-engaged -- because, again, the Bush administration reversed course on this -- then we have at least made some progress, although right now, because of the problems in North Korea, we are seeing it on shaky ground.
And -- and I just -- so I just have to make this general point that the Bush administration, some of Senator McCain's own advisers all think this is important, and Senator McCain appears resistant.
He even said the other day that he would not meet potentially with the prime minister of Spain, because he -- you know, he wasn't sure whether they were aligned with us. I mean, Spain? Spain is a NATO ally.
McCAIN: Of course.
OBAMA: If we can't meet with our friends, I don't know how we're going to lead the world in terms of dealing with critical issues like terrorism.
McCAIN: I'm not going to set the White House visitors schedule before I'm president of the United States. I don't even have a seal yet.
Look, Dr. Kissinger did not say that he would approve of face-to- face meetings between the president of the United States and the president -- and Ahmadinejad. He did not say that.
OBAMA: Of course not.
McCAIN: He said that there could be secretary-level and lower level meetings. I've always encouraged them. The Iranians have met with Ambassador Crocker in Baghdad.
What Senator Obama doesn't seem to understand that if without precondition you sit down across the table from someone who has called Israel a "stinking corpse," and wants to destroy that country and wipe it off the map, you legitimize those comments.
This is dangerous. It isn't just naive; it's dangerous. And so we just have a fundamental difference of opinion.
As far as North Korea is concerned, our secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, went to North Korea. By the way, North Korea, most repressive and brutal regime probably on Earth. The average South Korean is three inches taller than the average North Korean, a huge gulag.
We don't know what the status of the dear leader's health is today, but we know this, that the North Koreans have broken every agreement that they've entered into.
And we ought to go back to a little bit of Ronald Reagan's "trust, but verify," and certainly not sit down across the table from -- without precondition, as Senator Obama said he did twice, I mean, it's just dangerous.
OBAMA: Look, I mean, Senator McCain keeps on using this example that suddenly the president would just meet with somebody without doing any preparation, without having low-level talks. Nobody's been talking about that, and Senator McCain knows it. This is a mischaracterization of my position.
When we talk about preconditions -- and Henry Kissinger did say we should have contacts without preconditions -- the idea is that we do not expect to solve every problem before we initiate talks.
And, you know, the Bush administration has come to recognize that it hasn't worked, this notion that we are simply silent when it comes to our enemies. And the notion that we would sit with Ahmadinejad and not say anything while he's spewing his nonsense and his vile comments is ridiculous. Nobody is even talking about that.
McCAIN: So let me get this right. We sit down with Ahmadinejad, and he says, "We're going to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth," and we say, "No, you're not"? Oh, please.
OBAMA: No, let me tell...
McCAIN: By the way, my friend, Dr. Kissinger, who's been my friend for 35 years, would be interested to hear this conversation and Senator Obama's depiction of his -- of his positions on the issue. I've known him for 35 years.
OBAMA: We will take a look.
McCAIN: And I guarantee you he would not -- he would not say that presidential top level.
OBAMA: Nobody's talking about that.
McCAIN: Of course he encourages and other people encourage contacts, and negotiations, and all other things. We do that all the time.
LEHRER: We're going to go to a new...
McCAIN: And Senator Obama is parsing words when he says precondition means preparation.
OBAMA: I am not parsing words.
McCAIN: He's parsing words, my friends.
OBAMA: I'm using the same words that your advisers use.
Please, go ahead.















I sometimes wonder if I saw the same debates as these pundits. I know we all view them through our own filter, which colors our perception. But come on. McCain looked confused and blustered over and over again. He also looked pinched and angry whenever he was critisized(sp?). he couldn't pronounce names, and said some out right lies.
I believe that falls into the "ah..... duh" category :)
Peebs,
Barack "I've been to all 57 states" Obama called McCain "Tom" and "Jim" at points during the debate. Live TV, both candidates and anyone human up there will mix up their words a bit.
Your comments are totally off point. The point is, Obama was wrong about Kissinger, and Kissinger released a statment saying so. Obama can give a speech, but he is not ready for prime time. His views and desired policies put our nation at risk!!
Kissinger said we should meet with Iran without prconditions; Obama said we should meet with Iran without preconditions. There is no difference between the positions. Towards the end of the exchange, McCain and Obama agreed as to what Kissinger said and meant.
Kissinger may have released a statement saying so but he ALSO "said something" else a few days earlier. Is he lying to protect his candidate? Is this the kind of "genius" you want advising the President? OR>>>>do you just like to write foolish comments? Reading is fundamental. Comprehension of that reading is more important. Shame on you POV for being soooo McBushish.
As opposed to shutting out our NATO allies, like Spain?
Obama can give a speech, but he is not ready for prime time. His views and desired policies put our nation at risk!!---POV
And we're just hummin along right now!
We all know that McCain was not totally honest in his rebuff of Obama. Tomorrow on the talk shows, the truth will come out and McCain will look like the oaf that he really has become. But other than distortions by McCain, what the hell does the average South Korean being three inches taller have to do with anything? Now that is PRESIDENTIAL behavior.
The PrincessofWheels has informed me that McCain was trying to use the 3" taller as a fact and asks all of us to use gulag...a/k/a google to look it up. Quite far fetched but what a rumor. And everyone knows who wears the Crown in this family.
Brutal starvation over there. South Korea and China doesn't want to upset the apple cart though and have millions of refugees to deal with.
This is typical of McCain. He gets very uptight over a word, trying to twist it into something it's not. Then he accuses Obama of "parsing" words.
I heard Kissinger and the other 5 secretaries of state say that negotiations should be held with Iran. McCain is stuck with the same lie he kept trying to stick on Obama during the primary. 'Precondition" was the word then, the word used by the 5 secretaries of state, in actual support of what McCain has called for months, "Obama's dangerous and naive" ideas about negotiating with enemies.
McCain is wrong about Kissinger, about Obama's use of the word, and clearly parsing words.
After the debate, Kissinger got on FoxNews and tried to back-up McCain by parsing words in kind, but the damage is already done. We all heard what Kissinger had clearly said before, so it won't stick. Clearly, McCain lost this round, and Obama retains his superior moral position on nearly all the issues.
McCain's lies sound just as good as Bush's lies...actually they're all the same ones that got Bush elected twice. These soundbytes comfort the ears of core partisans who shall always remain in denial about the administration they have to admit has done evil things but believe their character is still fundamentally sound and good. The question is, will Americans be fooled the 3rd term?
Check this out:
http://paulvolle.com/cillizza.html
DOGG, That is a true Arsetrich, the mascot of "some" Republicans
Now there are the Bloods,Crips.MS13,Latin Kings and so forth so what do we call these guys that even though we see with our "lying"eyes and ears,whats going on they still tell us different.
YOU KNOW THE MEMO WENT OUT RIGHT AFTER THE DEBATE TO THE NEWS MEDIA "OBAMA DID A GOOD JOB" SO LET GET OUT THE KNIVES AGAIN SO HE CAN LOOK BAD.
Is Fox News actually getting worse? Why would a Fox News report say this?
No. You're wrong and your missing the point. McCain and Kissinger constructed a strawman. Obama (in the debate) said "WE (meaing the U.S.) should meet them w/o preconditions." This IS what Kissinger said and his statement aftereards doesn't change that. His statement afterwards clarifies that he would not make it a PRESIDENTIAL level meeting. Well IN THE DEBATE, Obama didn't suggest a presidential level meeting either. (McCain kept trying to put those words into Obama's mouth, and Obama wouldn't have it!)
NOW - Obama has in the past said that HE (not WE) would meet with them. And McCain missed an oppurtunity here to point out that Obama may have backed down a little from his former position. But the ket distinction between the two - NO PRECONDITIONS BEFORE ANY NEGOTIATION COMMENCES - remains. And that IS what Kissinger called for.
Obama played this one very well. McCain did not. (Big surprise.)
"So let's talk about this. First of all, Ahmadinejad is not the most powerful person in Iran. So he may not be the right person to talk to. But I reserve the right, as president of the United States to meet with anybody at a time and place of my choosing if I think it's going to keep America safe...And I'm glad that Senator McCain brought up the history, the bipartisan history of us engaging in direct diplomacy...Senator McCain mentioned Henry Kissinger, who's one of his advisers, who, along with five recent secretaries of state, just said that we should meet with Iran -- guess what -- without precondition. This is one of your own advisers."
Obama clearly suggested a presidential-level meeting during the debate, and also suggested that Kissinger approved of that. Context is important.
However, as you say here, the key is that there should be no preconditions before negotiations commence. That's Obama's point. If McCain agrees up to the point of cabinet-level meetings, then it's pretty disingenuous for him to bring it up as some huge concern. And otherwise, Obama was right to invoke Kissinger's name since he supported the general principle.
I don't see the major distinction between Secretary-of-State level meetings and Presidential-level meetings. As if we're not giving them "legitimacy" with either? It seems to me that if that's really what the dispute is over, then Obama can't be blamed for ignoring Kissinger's "preference" for cabinet-level discussions for the sake of the larger point.
There is still a conflation going on between Obama's position and Kissinger's. (And to be fair, both sides are probably doing it a little, to serve their own points.) But Obama's position is still closer to Kissinger's.
"Preconditions" is another way of saying "concessions." Which is something you get when you negotiate. Saying you want "preconditions" is like saying that you want them to pre-concede on everything before you even start negotiating! So nothing happens and you get nothing. If you negotiate, you may get something, even if it's just a better justification for military eaction. (Which both Vietnam and Iraq has taught us is extremely valuable!)
In the end "preconditions" is just an excuse to do nothing. To risk nothing. And to gain nothing. They are the last refuge of a coward. (Which is why Kissinger wants them done away with!)
I agree completely. I've just heard the "Obama didn't say that" argument before and it doesn't hold up. Either McCain agrees with Kissinger, in which case he's making a big deal over Obama's "preference" to negotiate at a Presidential level as opposed to cabinet level, or he disagrees with him, meaning Obama's citation of Kissinger was completely relevant. I think focusing on that is a much more tenable position.