The debate’s Kissinger flap: Who was right?
By Jimmy Orr | 09.28.08
Just like the campaign commercials, there were elements of truth in Friday night’s presidential debate (which is always a good thing). And both campaigns had their communications staff sending emails throughout the evening clarifying what their bosses said and how the other guy was completely wrong.
The McCain communications staff got the evening started with an email sent out at 8:32 p.m. It was like tailgating with the McCains. The email let us know that spokesman Brian Rogers would be the point man for fact checking and responses. It also boasted that another staffer would be hurling “insults” from the McCain website.
There’s no doubt that the wasteland known as “The Spin Room” offers nothing but hot air, but for a presidential campaign to showcase that they’re paying someone to offer “assorted insults” provides a clear indicator to the health of US campaigning.
First strike
Regardless, the first clarification came just 13 minutes into the debate with the McCain team stating, “Despite Barack Obama’s claims, John McCain has a strong record of promoting reform and oversight of Wall Street.”
Obama spokesman Nick Shapiro got into the act 10 minutes later offering a “debate reality check” on the topic of deregulation. Shapiro said, “McCain has been in favor of more deregulation for 26 years and his VP nominee couldn’t name a specific example of reform he had fought for.”
No one can dispute the second part of Shapiro’s email unless Sarah Palin has gotten back to Katie Couric.
Kissinger
One of the sharper exchanges of the evening - in an evening full of butter knives - came when the two disputed what former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger’s position was on meeting with rogue leaders.
McCain criticized Obama for saying in earlier debates that he would meet with with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Cuban President Raúl Castro “without precondition.”
He said in the past US presidents such as Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon would not meet with certain leaders until sufficient groundwork had been done by lower-level personnel.
“Look, I’ll sit down with anybody, but there’s got to be pre-conditions,” McCain said. “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 didn’t dispute McCain’s characterization, stating, “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.”
What Would Kissinger Do?
The two got into an argument over what Kissinger, a McCain adviser, had said the prior week at a conference in Washington, D.C.
“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,” Obama said. “This is one of your own advisers.”
McCain disputed that.
“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,” McCain stated.
Obama concurred. Then McCain began, as some pundits have called it, lecturing the Democratic nominee.
“What Senator Obama doesn’t seem to understand is 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,” he said.
Not what I said
Obama protested, stating that McCain was mischaracterizing his position.
“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,” he said. “Nobody’s been talking about that, and Senator McCain knows it.”
Mix it up
Then, the two, much to moderator Jim Lehrer’s seeming enjoyment, finally engaged each other.
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.
After the fire
It didn’t end there of course. The Obama camp sent out a helpful email at 10:25 p.m., referencing an ABC News article stating that Kissinger “told an audience in Washington, DC … that the US should negotiate with Iran ‘without preconditions’ and that the next President should begin such negotiations at a high level.”
The McCain team responded, as you knew they would, with a comment from Dr. Kissinger himself through the Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes.
“Henry Kissinger believes Barack Obama misstated his views on diplomacy with US adversaries and is not happy about being mischaracterized,” the email reads. “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.”
More to come
All clear now? If you think this exchange was interesting, just wait and see if Joe Biden and Sarah Palin broach the subject on Thursday night.
Here’s betting this will be the most watched debate in the history of presidential politics.
<< No fireworks in Round One of Obama-McCain clash | MainComments
2. DNC + RNC = ROT | 09.28.08
Spoil what? Waste what? Steal what?
Barack Obama we do not doubt your intelligence. To be an effective leader one must display honesty, compassion, & guts. Stand with Ralph Nader, Ron Paul, & Cynthia McKinney. NOT John McCain. Your choice - your move.
3. David Edwards | 09.28.08
Obama is very fast to critize an advisor, perhaps the real question should have been more focused on Obama’s advisor, ie pastor Wright!!
4. brady | 09.28.08
Reverend Wright is not one of Obama’s advisors. He is a preacher not a political or administrative consultant. Besides, Obama denounced Wright months ago.
5. Kara | 09.28.08
I find it interesting that anyone would still mention Rev. Wright this late in the game especially after the scary info that has been revealed regarding Sarah Palin’s lifelong church and Pastor. Yes, they believe in the rapture. They truly believe that God will rapture them up to heaven while the rest of us, especially Jews, will stick around for another 7 years of ****. Not one legitimate Church leader or theologian supports this view.
6. midwestmidwife | 09.28.08
Anyone catch Katie Couric following the debate?- she made a point to say after the Palin interview (with the same subject debated b/t Palin-Couric) she called Dr. Kissinger and asked him directly, and he said that was what he intonated. A high level discussion without pre-conditions. Who you gonna believe?? Obama was not criticiziing Dr. K, and I believe BO has more advisors than the good pastor; if he is even one.
7. Craig | 09.28.08
>> Obama is very fast to critize an advisor, perhaps the real question should have been more focused on Obama’s advisor, ie pastor Wright!!
You should be careful about throwing stones there, David Edwards- Palin has some scary ‘advisors’ too:
8. lucy | 09.28.08
Mr. Edwards,
You lose the sane members of the audience when you suggest that (pastor) Wright is an advisor; even if you stretch your comment into the long past he was nothing close to a political advisor—–
9. frank | 09.28.08
david edwards you should remind yourself of some of the things you say sir.i can admit to some,can you.
10. Fred | 09.28.08
McCain KNOWS he was wrong about the Kissinger quote, was PROVEN wrong by transcripts, so what does he do?
attempts to change the rules of the game by
calling up his “Friend” Kissinger and begging (paying?) him
to make a statement saying HE was right.
McCain is nothing but a lying *********.
11. Kristin | 09.28.08
Obama clearly defined preconditions (demanding that a country do “xyz” before any U.S. official talks to them) vs. preparation (get a fairly certain understanding between the countries before presidential-level talks by methods such as having lower-level U.S. personnel speak to the other country’s lower-level personnel; this does not mean that other country have to give into demands “xyz” before talks will occur.) Kissinger himself said that he thought the U.S. should talk with Iran without preconditions at the Secretary of State level. Kissinger’s response after the debate only said that he does not agree with “presidential-level” talks. He did not mention anything about “preconditions” because he supports talks without preconditions! I think that Obama’s definition of “preparation” then becomes compatible with Kissinger’s own position as Obama would likely have his Secretary of State speak to any country before he goes and has direct talks with them as President. After all, that is the normal course of things.
12. Paul Stewart | 09.28.08
Yea, this whole thing is parsing by McCain. This all started because Obama answered a question quickly and simply. Maybe because he was being criticized for being too nuanced. Now, of course, not having nuanced the reply, it is a small blip that the McCainites want to build a mountain out of. Everyone with half a brain that is thinking objectively knows no one is just going to sit down with the President of Iran or the leader of North Korea or even the leader of Canada without an agenda, a reason and a position. Everyone knows no one is going their to legitimize an idiot comment(s) made. They are there to further the interests of the USA and the free world. Anyone who thinks Obama would go and have tea with these leaders and bring them into the world community, is a McCainite looking to do damage to Obama in the election. They don’t think that themselves, they want to perpetuate the myth that Obama is naive. I believe it is McCain who is naive to think people will by his twisted parsing and thinking. Get off the point John, you look like a fool spouting such things and lecturing Obama. You need to get another point, preferably one that has some substance.
13. Sean | 09.28.08
How many people do you think actually watched the debates–and I mean, sat down and watched the entire debate– as opposed to simply watched or read the pundits spin the debates the next day?
It’s the not the debates that decide the election, it’s the post debate spin. John McCain will win the election because he is a better spin master, ie lier, than Obama.
Obama would clearly be a better President, but that, unfortunately, is not what drives voters.
14. Jamie | 09.29.08
Here is Kissinger, providing the last word on the subject:
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.
15. Jon | 09.29.08
That is not so much the “last word” as the “latest word.” Dr. Kissinger has changed his position after it became clear that a stance he previously took rendered one of J-Mac’s major barbs against Obama moot. This is simply a matter of political expediency; what was true a few weeks ago during a forum with other Secretaries of State is now conveniently not true anymore. Unfortunately this kind of “doublethink” has become a central facet in our political discourse. (Let’s not forget Dr. Kissinger is a proponent of genocide and dictatorial regimes…)
16. TheSteelGeneral | 09.29.08
It is of course INCONCEIVABLE that Kissinger would lie, spin or stuff to get one over on the Democrats.
The portrayal of him and Palin as Jabba the Hutt with Princess Leia, while visually most accurate, is still an insult to Jabba the Hutt.
17. Jim | 10.01.08
One main problem with a lot of the topics here: Obama is running for President, and Palin is not. Her advisors or religious beliefs matter not as much as his. No one can argue this point, so please don’t try.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
Jimmy Orr has worked in politics for the majority of his professional career working for two U.S. Senators, two Governors and one President. Most recently, Orr served as White House Spokesman and Internet Director for President George W. Bush and Special Advisor to Governor Schwarzenegger for Internet Communications.
David Cook is Washington bureau chief of The Christian Science Monitor and host of the Monitor's newsmaker breakfasts. He was the Monitor's editor from 1994 to 2001. Cook is a graduate of Principia College, served in the U.S. Army, was a Bagehot Fellow at Columbia University, and is a member of the Gridiron Club, Washington's oldest journalistic organization.
1. Kali | 09.28.08
I wish you would have added Kissinger’s interview with CNNs Frank Sesno on 9/20 that corroborated Obama’s statement as Obama made it.
McCain tried his twisty word-wrestler tactic to change Obama’s meaning to suit McCain’s purpose, which is simply not what Obama said.
Kissinger willing to weasel around the wording to support his guy John? Impossible!