McCain Pulls a Woody Allen

The transcript on this page also includes this exchange:

MCCAIN: 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.

KS2 Problema,

The problem here is that Obama is both right and wrong with what he said about Kissinger. That is because Obama claims two different and contradictory stands on this issue at the same time, and so as long as that’s allowed to go on, his critics are also both right and wrong when they criticize him. On Obama’s own web site, on a page entitled, “ABC's Inaccurate Report of Obama's Position on Meeting With Foreign Leaders,” this is given as the bottom-line: “REALITY: Obama has consistently said he is willing to meet, without preconditions but with preparation, the leaders of Iran. This could include, but is not limited to, Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad is not the most powerful person in Iran, and his status is uncertain as there will be Presidential elections in Iran in 2009.” But during the debate, this was the exchange (from the Factcheck page you cite):

Obama: 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.

McCain rejected Obama's claim:

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.

“Nobody’s talking about that.” Now, tell me that Obama’s own web site doesn’t say that. If you look at the page, they offer quote after quote saying what McCain said he did. Obama has tried to distort the original question and answer, which was all very clear, by bringing into it later on the red herring of “preparation not preconditions” and to attach preconditions by calling them other things. He’s tried to have it all ways. Here’s the definition for “precondition”: “something that must come before or is necessary to a subsequent result; condition.” Here is also what Obama’s page says: “Obama has also been explicit about the need to start with lower-level talks, a presidential summit coming only if there were progress in those negotiations.” So there are conditions/preconditions.

I will retract something I said here, though - that his position evolved over time, in that he said months after the initial comment “that he didn’t mean (meeting with) ALL the heads of those 5 countries.” What he said was, “Now, I did not say that I would be meeting with all of them. I said I'd be willing to.” He might have been trying to say what I thought he did, but that’s hard to say. But he clearly meant that he didn’t say he WOULD be meeting with all of them - just that he was willing to. Yet, his position has changed in that he added a second position in contradiction to the first and evidently takes either depending on the circumstances.

Looks like this comment thread got 'mobbed' by McCain operatives.

HERE are the facts from Factcheck.org -- the truth-in-campaigning group which Sen. McCain's own adverts have quoted -- and, rather infamously MIS-quoted:

"Obama said McCain adviser Henry Kissinger backs talks with Iran “without preconditions,” but McCain disputed that. In fact, Kissinger did recently call for “high level” talks with Iran starting at the secretary of state level and said, “I do not believe that we can make conditions.” After the debate the McCain campaign issued a statement quoting Kissinger as saying he didn’t favor presidential talks with Iran."

Obama was correct. Kissenger said one thing before the debate and then contradicted it after.

From Obama’s site (“ABC's Inaccurate Report of Obama's Position on Meeting With Foreign Leaders”):

“Obama Said He Would Be Willing To Meet Without Precondition With The Leaders Of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, And North Korea. Obama was asked ‘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 countries?" Obama responded, ‘I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous.’ [CNN, Democratic Debate, 7/24/07]"

Obama’s website does its best to muddy the waters on this controversy with a lot of malarkey. As I said, Obama goes from saying that he’d meet with the Iranian president and other rogue leaders without precondition to saying something entirely different a year later, (“Obama has also been explicit about the need to start with lower-level talks, a presidential summit coming only if there were progress in those negotiations," according to his own site - that’s not meeting president to president without preconditions), through a series of small changes over that time (like saying months later that he didn’t mean ALL the heads of those 5 countries, which again isn’t true either). But, he says, his position hasn’t changed. “Obama has consistently said he is willing to meet, without preconditions but with preparation, the leaders of Iran.” So? The original question and his answer mentioned nothing about “preparation,” because you’d never have two leaders of anything meet without *preparation*, I’m sure, on both sides. That’s a no-brainer. But using the word here seems to be a way of confusing the issue and retracting his statement while trying not to seem to.

At a democratic debate last year (7/24/07), Obama answered that he'd meet with Iran's president (among with the leaders of Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea) without precondition. He's gone back on that while insisting he hasn't (saying now that lower-level negotiations would have to come first, which is absolutely changing his position). All of this is easily verified and well-known among those who follow politics, which is why McCain said what he did

Kravitz: you said "By the way, McCain said Pakistan is a 'failed state?' I'm not sure Pakistan would agree." You misunderstood McCain's point because you are using an incorrect verb tense (or maybe you understand him fine but are deliberately misrepresenting what he said). McCain did not say Pakstan is CURRENTLY a failed state, he was saying that prior to Musharraf's coup, it WAS a failed state. And I don't think there are a lot of Pakistanis who would disagree.

Then you went on to say:
The ladies I watched with noted that if McCain can't control his contempt for Obama, Not Even Respectfully Acknowledging His Debate Partner On Stage Eight Feet Away, he probably would anger a foreign leader not to his liking either. Four more years of that, we simply don't need.

You really thought McCain was the one with a "contempt" problem? I know this has been a Dem talking point since the debate, but I'm not buying. If we are going anecdotal, I was shocked to hear my father, die-hard Dem who never agrees with me on anything politically, tell me today that he thought McCain was much calmer and in control at the debate. he didn't agree with McCain's positions on much of anything, but he thought that stylistically, McCain won the evening. I was pleasantly surprised that for once we agreed on something. I think it was Obama who was borderline disrespectful, although I would not use the stronger term contemptuous necessarily, throughout the debate. He interrupted McCain repeatedly, which is a good debate tactic if you want to seem in control but I found it offputting, and he constantly addressed McCain as "John," while McCain used the formal address of "SEnator Obama" even when he was launching a zinger. m

McCain didn't look at Obama because he was speaking to the American people. Lehrer wanted a mud pit where the two candidates went at each other. McCain wanted to simply discuss the issues. The fact that this strategy got under Obama's skin and caused him to become angry is just icing on the cake.

The "bracelet" wrapped up Obama for many people. From the high schoolish "I gotta bracelet too" to the incomprehensible fact that he's so concerned about a young man who gave his life for his country that he couldn't even remember his name. I bet he couldn't get that bracelet off his wrist fast enough after the debate. Michelle probably had to sanitize his arm for him.

I think Obama was very insalting in last nights debate by talking down to us like as if we were idiots.And addresing senator McCain: hey John. This guy have no class at all, McCain can only respond by not looking at this idiot fool.I will never wach this no class jerk again.

Geevil,
I can't disagree with you. The press periodically runs these stories about "closet racist Democrats", to the tune of 33% of Democrats. This is totally a disinformation ploy coming right out of the pits of the Obama campaign, to try to make Democrats that don't support Obama to question their personal morality. I find this campaign ploy extremely offensive and unbecoming of a Democratic campaign, I think it gives us a bad name. I'm voting for Obama to get Supreme Court choices by a Democrat, but I'm not going to feel badly if McCain wins. Personally, I like him a lot better than Obama, Obama is effete and arrogant, and McCain has grit, the kind of thing I like to see in a President.

While I wasn't impressed with either of the candidate's performances, Obumbler was definitely the loser.

McCain was bad.

Obama was worse.

Anybody But Obama/Biden...

McCain should be required to remember the names of all soldiers killed in Iraq, considering it is his policies that caused their deaths.

The reason McCain can rememmber the name of the soldier on his bracelet is that he tells that story at every meeting or rally he goes to.

"his followers adore him like they are the "Lost Boys"."
-----
Just say "Neigh!" ...

"his followers adore him like they are the "Lost Boys"."
-----
The Happy Gas turned 'em into non-humans. Hmm. Not bad.

Mr. America community organizer said several times he agreed with McCain, so he obviously recognized that McCain was right and telling the truth.

We do not need a TV puppet liar like Nobama at the White House:

- no executive experience at all.

- no real knowledge of economy or foreign policy.

- no reform bill or law passed.

- no achievement at all; 130 times voting ´present´at the Senate.

- dangerous connections with people like Reszko, Ayers or Rev. Wright.

His only record is a 2 years campaign running for president.

Since we're on to Hollywood comparisons of the candidates, Barack Obama always reminds me of the "Rufio" character form the movie "Hook". He's very combative, ignorant, argumentative, and arrogant. He always has to get the last word in and acts like a wise butt, and his followers adore him like they are the "Lost Boys".

Sue wrote: "...instead he (Sen. Obama) seemed angry when he wasn't speaking..." Could it be that Sen. Obama was frustrated and upset--make that angry--that Sen. McCain wouldn't look at him?

Debates are more than just oratory. Humor, gamesmanship, facial expressions and body language are also important. Sen. Obama lost on all five counts.

The DNC threw thousands of new American flags in the trash after obama's speech in Denver. Obama looked like he couldn't wait to whip off that bracelet and throw it in the trash.

Fran.
As always, if everything goes well everyone wants to take credit, if it fails we blame each other.

But in this case it's the Bush administration that is really to blame. We keep overspending the budget and lending the money from China. And the financial crisis was in the air for almost a year. The question was then, will it be a soft of a hard landing.
It's a hard landing.

"Obama did not look at McCain"

I don't blame Mccain. How does an elephant swat a fly? He just ignores it!!