Henry Kissinger Says that Obama Lied About His Views on Iran

I know that this has been raised in the media quite a bit, but I just wanted to comment briefly on this.  During the debate, the following exchange took place (transcript courtesy of CNN) (bolded areas are the parts that relate directly to Dr. Henry Kissinger (Fmr. Secretary of State), but I always put things in context, so here’s the whole segment:

LEHRER: Two minutes on Iran, Senator Obama.

OBAMA: Well, let me just correct something very quickly. I believe the Republican Guard of Iran is a terrorist organization. I’ve consistently said so. What Senator McCain refers to is a measure in the Senate that would try to broaden the mandate inside of Iraq. To deal with Iran.

And ironically, the single thing that has strengthened Iran over the last several years has been the war in Iraq. Iraq was Iran’s mortal enemy. That was cleared away. And what we’ve seen over the last several years is Iran’s influence grow. They have funded Hezbollah, they have funded Hamas, they have gone from zero centrifuges to 4,000 centrifuges to develop a nuclear weapon.

So obviously, our policy over the last eight years has not worked. Senator McCain is absolutely right, we cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran. It would be a game changer. Not only would it threaten Israel, a country that is our stalwart ally, but it would also create an environment in which you could set off an arms race in this Middle East.

Now here’s what we need to do. We do need tougher sanctions. I do not agree with Senator McCain that we’re going to be able to execute the kind of sanctions we need without some cooperation with some countries like Russia and China that are, I think Senator McCain would agree, not democracies, but have extensive trade with Iran but potentially have an interest in making sure Iran doesn’t have a nuclear weapon.

But we are also going to have to, I believe, engage in tough direct diplomacy with Iran and this is a major difference I have with Senator McCain, this notion by not talking to people we are punishing them has not worked. It has not worked in Iran, it has not worked in North Korea. In each instance, our efforts of isolation have actually accelerated their efforts to get nuclear weapons. That will change when I’m president of the United States.

LEHRER: 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 [mispronunciation], 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.

Alright, so again, I bolded the parts relevant to Dr. Kissinger.

Obama is arguing that Kissinger said that we should meet with Iran without preconditions.  McCain has taken this to say that Obama is saying that we should have the President meet with President Ahmadinejad without preconditions.  Personally, I didn’t get that strong of a statement from this debate; HOWEVER, he did say (back in the Youtube primary debate) that HE would meet with Iran (and other nations) without preconditions in his first year of office.  He also said (in this debate), “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.” So although Obama may only be arguing for lower-level negotiations now, he HAS in the past said HE HIMSELF would meet without preconditions.  To me, it seems like McCain is making Obama’s statements from this debate seem a little more extreme than they necessarily are, but Obama is clearly changing his stance on the issues.

But we have one other thing:

Dr. Kissinger released the following statement:

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 Sen. John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality.

So, although McCain may have stretched Obama’s statements a bit, Obama took Dr. Kissinger’s comments farther than Dr. Kissinger intended, and Obama has flip-flopped on the issue.  The greater fault definitely lies with Obama here, who is just being completely dishonest.

Kissinger did say that “I do not believe that we can make conditions for the opening of negotiations.”  Personally, I disagree with that – I will note that we have NEVER successfully met with a hostile country without preconditions at the Presidential level.  Nixon and Mao met with preconditions after years of other lower-level talks.  The same with Gorbachev and Reagan.  And the one time we did meet without preconditions, was when Kennedy met with Khrushchev and Kennedy admits that “He just beat the hell out of me.  I’ve got a terrible problem if he thinks I’m inexperienced and have no guts.  Until we remove those ideas we won’t get anywhere with him.”

That, my friends, would be Barack Obama.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

15 Responses to “Henry Kissinger Says that Obama Lied About His Views on Iran”

  1. Skip Says:

    A fact check Saturday showed that Kissinger is a liar. He did say what Obama claimed. Kissinger is no friend of the GOP.

    Gob bless America!

  2. stugots Says:


  3. inkslwc Says:

    Skip, do you have a link or a quote from Kissinger?

    stugots – get a life.

  4. Sources Says:

    Here’s a link:
    And another:

    And another:

    Everywhere, Kissinger says he favors high-level negotiations (Secy of State level, not Prez-to-Prez) without preconditions. Obama has also said negotiations should begin with preparations, which means with the Secy of State beginning negotiations – without preconditions. Face it, it’s silly to state you won’t negotiate with someone until they complete the task you’re supposed to negotiate over.

    You’re ignoring an inconvenient truth: Iran is stronger than it was when Bush/Cheney took office, thanks to our unwarranted attack of Iraq – and Bin Ladin is happily making videos, damn it, while we suffer the most military casualties since the war started in Afghanistan, where we should’ve put our forces.

  5. inkslwc Says:

    I found the source and added it to the blog post. But still, back in the primary debate, Obama said he’d meet with the top leaders of these countries, and he even said in the debate that as President, he’ll decide who to meet with.

  6. Sources Says:

    In case you want Kissinger’s full statement, including the question, which he answers, btw, in agreement w/James Baker.

  7. Sources Says:

    That’s true, Obama said he will decide who to meet with, as every President does. The dispute is about the preconditions. Even Kissinger said he’d meet at high levels with Iran, and Obama clarified his simple response to a simple question about whether he would meet with enemies: after the standard diplomatic preparations.

    I’ve personally met and am friends with many Republicans for Obama. They’re business owners, investors, fiscal conservatives who’ve voted Republican loyally since Reagan. Bush ruined your party. Feel free to admit it, I admit Clinton ruined mine until now – and I’m not convinced he’s not still trying to ruin it for Obama. Don’t you like a Democratic candidate who gets no love from the Big C?

    Obama’s a Christian, no bones about it – his first job after an International Relations Columbia U degree was with Chicago’s churches, various denominations, and was baptized in a church he chose for its works in the community. When Wright lost his mind and became a raving lunatic, he left that church, but not the faith. Obama favors government support of faith-based community services, naturally.

    He’s happily married and devoted to Michelle – what a relief and welcome change! She’s a devoted mother and totally uninterested in becoming 2nd in command.

    Investment in education and science, in alternative energy, are fiscally responsible decisions. Obama supports merit pay for teachers and charter schools. He even supports Clean Coal, whatever that is – never seen it, but I’ll give technology a chance to make it happen.

    For the country’s sake, can’t you contemplate a great candidate just because of his party label? I certainly seriously considered McCain in 2000 (though I can hardly compare him to the 08 version), and prefer moderate Republicans to Dixiecrats any day.

  8. inkslwc Says:

    But that is talking about refugees going from Iraq into Iran. I really don’t see that as an issue here. Look, I’m not saying that McCain is being 100% honest in the way that he’s characterizing Obama’s statements.

    Frankly, the dishonesty throughout this whole campaign angers me; however, Obama is stretching what Kissinger said more than McCain is stretching what Obama said.

  9. inkslwc Says:

    Trust me, I’m not voting for McCain because of party. I supported Chuck Hagel in the primaries (and led the Michigan for Hagel movement). If Obama changed his stance on a few issues (abortion, health care, and immigration – I could deal with his tax policies if I HAD to), and said he’d make Hagel his Secretary of Defense, I would have to debate between McCain and Obama.

  10. Sources Says:

    Charlie Hagel digs Obama too, check him out on Charlie Rose, where he said Obama is the best candidate to unite the country:

  11. inkslwc Says:

    I’ve heard pretty much every interview Hagel’s done in the past 2 years. I know what he’s said, but I still am not convinced that he will vote for Obama.

  12. Sources Says:

    So what’s so great about McCain/Palin? That’s a valid ticket?

  13. inkslwc Says:

    I agree with McCain on the abortion issue – that’s an important issue to me.
    Gay marriage – it’s a state’s rights issue. Obama wants it to be a federal issue – I don’t see why the fed needs to get involved.

    Iraq – I don’t like either of their stances on Iraq. I say, like Hagel said, move our troops to the border; have the Iraqis deal with the civil unrest. But I see the principles of McCain’s plan as better – get the Iraqis trained, and then leave ASAP. But stay until the job is done.

    Taxes – I like McCain

    Immigration – lesser of 2 evils – McCain.

    Economics – hey – I supported Mitt Romney in the primary (after Hagel dropped out), if that clues you into anything. I would’ve loved a McCain/Romney ticket.

  14. Sources Says:

    Abortion – laws never stopped it, never will.
    Gay marriage – that’s between people and God or whomever in either direction; laws never stopped gay sex either.
    Iraq – Obama’s closer to Hagel than McCain, by a longshot
    Taxes – If you make at least a million bucks, McCain makes a big diff for you, if not, not much of a diff between them; tax breaks for investors remain, if you dare invest anymore. If you have to save many houses in a bankruptcy, McCain’s your man, if you need to save your one home from bankruptcy in case of tragedy, Obama’s your man.
    Immigration – laws, fences, rivers haven’t stopped illegal immigration, but NAFTA – which McCain adores – sure amped-up illegal immigration. Keep letting Repubs “drown govt”, and you’ll never get legal immigration smoothed out, and continue to export high-tech jobs because we don’t teach worth a damn.
    Economics – if McCain’s lobbyists run it all, and he appoints Gramm for Treasury Secy, you’d better have at least a cool five million – McC thinks anyone making less than $5 million is middle class, and he has no love for giving the middle class any breaks. Also the $10 billion/month for Iraq is ruining our economy – it’s borrowed from China.

  15. inkslwc Says:

    Laws limited it a lot. Laws against anything never completely stop it – that’s not a reason not to outlaw something.

    I agree – but the federal government has no right to step in for gay marriage unless they will regulate all marriages (it just needs to be consistent is my point).

    I know Obama’s closer to Hagel, but I have a different principle behind my backing of Hagel. And that principle is closer to McCain than Obama. But like I said, Iraq became a less-important issue to me when Hagel chose to retire.

    Obama would raise the capital gains tax. The last time that was raised, the economy suffered. Each 3 times that it was lowered, it did great things for the economy (especially when Clinton did it – probably his best economic move during his Presidency).

    NAFTA needs to be reformed. Again, it’s a lesser of 2 evils here.

    Like I said, in terms of economics, it’s again a lesser of 2 evils. I was opposed to the Economic Stimulus Package (as were Hagel and Ron Paul), while McCain AND Obama supported it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: