Did Obama Say He Would Meet with Ahmedinejad? Absolutely
John on October 4, 2008 at 10:15 am
The weekly standard blog has a post noting that CNN’s factcheckers got one wrong. According to CNN:
Palin stated an assertion made repeatedly by Republican running mate Sen. John McCain. Sen. Joe Biden said at the debate “it is simply not true” that Obama said he would “sit down” with Ahmadinejad.
Obama has talked about meeting with Iranian leaders if necessary, but not Ahmadinejad specifically.
Verdict: Misleading. While Obama has said he wouldn’t rule out meeting with any foreign leader, he never specifically said he’d meet with the Iranian president.
I’m sick of this getting a pass. Let’s settle it once and for all.
First, as the Weekly Standard blog post linked above notes, Obama was specifically asked if he’s still meet with Ahmedinejad in a September 2007 press conference. Click over there for video. He clearly says nothing has changed.
But this isn’t the strongest evidence. Take a look at these screen grabs from the July 2007 You Tube debate. Here’s the stage, candidates on the right. They’re all watching the big screen as a question is asked about meeting with the leaders of four countries:
Notice that in addition to the big video screen there’s also a smaller monitor on each candidate’s podium. And as the questioner asks if candidates would be willing to meet with leaders of Iran, take a look at the photo that was put up there:
That’s right. It’s Mahmoud Ahmedinejad. In fact, here’s the exact picture they used:
So when asked if he would meet with the leaders of Iran without preconditions, this is the photo that was on that 20′ screen and on Obama’s personal monitor. Obama’s reply was a clear and unapologetic “Yes.” If he didn’t mean Ahmedinejad, he should have said so then. That’s clearly who the questioner meant.
Finally, it’s worth noting that Factcheck.org has also failed to correct this one as well. I wrote them about it and here’s the response I got:
We’re unable to read people’s real intentions, so we can’t really say what Obama may or may not have really meant. We can only clarify what he actually says.
That sounds great, only when it came to the VP debate, that’s not what they did. Palin’s statement that John McCain had co-sponsored a bill to add oversight to Fannie and Freddie was accurate. He did. Factcheck however decided to dock Palin by saying that in 2006 the collapse was inevitable, therefore McCain’s sponsorship didn’t matter.
Seems to me they’ve gone beyond what was said to an interpretation of what it meant in that case. But not in this case. Obama gets to skate away from this because the word “Ahmedinejad” never passed his lips.
Verdict: Obama has been trying to weasel out of his answer since at least May, but there’s no doubt about it. Shown a picture of Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, he said he would meet with him without preconditions. CNN’s fact checkers and Factcheck.org have it wrong and both are misleading their readers about the facts in this situation.
Category: News |
I wonder what they’ll discuss – boyhood in the madrassa? Ahmadinejad will undoubtedly talk about his brand of twelver shi’ism and try to get Obama on board, just like he did when the Russians visited. Remember that? It caused the Russians to go home early and re-think their take on Iran. I think Obama’s meeting could turn into a good thing.
October 4, 2008 @ 1:37 pmPR,
Yeah, if he was dumb enough to go through with it. I think he’d never do it. He’s been trying to distance himself from this for over a year.
Obama isn’t stupid, he’s just eager to say whatever his audience wants to hear. If he gets on the national stage, that could be a costly indulgence.
October 4, 2008 @ 3:51 pmBeside the nuclear issue concerning Iran and North Korea, whcih isn’t actually a “terrorist” issue, I think this “war on terrorism” is way overblown and is a scare tactic.
The 9/11 attack was carried out with 8 box cutters and 19 men who openly took suspicious flight lessons and attended strip clubs. Not much real sophistication there, only a revealing of American smugness expressed in carelessness.
America has substantially increased domestic protection, and if they could the terrorists would have attacked us again by now. No one will be able to protect against a lone suicide attacker, especially an American Moslem, so those scenarios are still possible.
We continue to seriously inflate the expanse and power and sophistication of Islamic terrorists worldwide. Israel will soon take care of Iran’s nuclear program, but Bin Ladin was successful due to western indifference and lack of foresighted leadership.
As a matter of fact, after the highjackings to Cuba in the 1960s the so called leadership in America should have upgraded the pilot cabin doors. I would suggest watching what Israel does and copy it to some extent. I still am not convinced that the terrorists have any substantial material that can be carried through our ports, however we should be doing more to make them technologically protective.
Meeting with Ahmadinejad? Sure, why not? He appears on interviews in America so waht’s the big deal? The silent treatment is medieval, it’s time to accomplish what we desire through much more nuanced, sophisticated, and observable data including face to face meetings with the objective being a collection of information, not appeasement.
October 5, 2008 @ 6:59 am[...] using the Big Lie strategy to deal with Biden’s anti-Israel record. But there’s actual video and photographic proof that Obama promised to meet with Ahmadinejad. That’s why Richardson – among others – [...]
October 20, 2008 @ 9:11 am[...] using the Big Lie strategy to deal with Biden’s anti-Israel record. But there’s actual video and photographic proof that Obama promised to meet with Ahmadinejad. That’s why Richardson – among others – [...]
October 20, 2008 @ 1:46 pm