Organizing for America

Fact Check on Clinton's Claims About Obama and Foreign Leaders

CLINTON ATTACKED, MISREPRESENTED OBAMA'S POSITION ON MEETING WITH FOREIGN LEADERS

Clinton Attacked Obama's Position on Meeting WIth Foreign Leaders, Said He Committed To Meeting at High Level Without Groundwork Laid. Clinton said on This Week, "Senator Obama consistently misstates what I had said and really tries to gloss over his answer to a question in an early debate. The question was very specific. Would you without preconditions meet with 5 of the worst dictators including Ahmadinejad from Iran and others without preconditions personally as President. He said yes, I said no. That has nothing to do with whether or not we would have diplomatic efforts with all of the countries. I've been a long time advocate of having diplomatic processes with Iran." Stephanopolous asked, "You're open to direct contact with all those countries?" Clinton responded, "Absolutely with Iran and Syria, most certainly, I have said that. But it would be at low level diplomatic efforts, between our ambassadors and between our diplomats. Because I don't think a president should put the prestige of the united states on the line to meet with these people unless you have some idea of what's going to happen. And I'm always a little amused when Senator Obama goes around quoting president Kennedy when he was running for the presidency about how you should never be afraid to negotiate. But then if you look at the transcript of what President Kennedy said in the debates with vice president Nixon, he said he would not meet with Khrushchev unless there had been a lot of groundwork laid." [ABC This Week, 2/3/08]

Obama Said He Would Meet With Hostile Leaders, Just As Reagan and Kennedy Did. In response to the question, "In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since. In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, 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 answered, "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. Now, Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire. And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward. And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them. We've been talking about Iraq -- one of the first things that I would do in terms of moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria because they're going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses. They have been acting irresponsibly up until this point. But if we tell them that we are not going to be a permanent occupying force, we are in a position to say that they are going to have to carry some weight, in terms of stabilizing the region." [Democratic Debate, 7/24/07]

Obama: Nobody Expects You Would Meet with Hostile Leaders Without Having Done the Appropriate Groundwork. Obama said, "Nobody expects that you would suddenly just sit down with them for coffee without having done the appropriate groundwork," he said. "But the question was: Would you meet them without preconditions? And part of the Bush doctrine has been to say no." [Washington Post, 7/27/07]

DIPLOMACY MEANS TALKING TO EVERYONE

Obama Said Current Foreign Policy Suffered From A "Disdain For Diplomacy." Obama said, "At every stage of this war, we have suffered because of disdain for diplomacy. We have not brought our allies to the table. We have refused to talk to people we don't like. And we've failed to build a consensus in the region. As a result, Iraq is more violent; the region is less stable; and America is less secure. We need to launch the most aggressive diplomatic effort in recent history, to reach a new compact in the region. This effort should include all of Iraq's neighbors. And we should also bring in the United States Security Council." [Speech, 9/13/07]

Obama Said That His Diplomacy Would Involve Talking To Everyone. Obama said, "That's not just inside Iraq...We also have to generate much more effective diplomacy outside of Iraq and that means talking to everyone, including the Iranians and Syrians." [Iowa Independent, 9/12/07]

THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PREPARATION AND PRECONDITIONS...

The Bi-Partisan Iraq Study Group Report Recommended That The U.S. Engage In Direct Diplomacy With Iran And Syria Without Preconditions. "Dealing with Iran and Syria is controversial. Nevertheless, it is our view that in diplomacy, a nation can and should engage its adversaries and enemies to try to resolve conflicts and differences consistent with its own interests. Accordingly, the Support Group should actively engage Iran and Syria in its diplomatic dialogue, without preconditions." [http://www.usip.org/isg/iraq_study_group_report/report/1206/iraq_study_group_report.pdf]

The Iraq Study Group Included Leon Panetta (Bill Clinton's Chief Of Staff), William Perry (Bill Clinton's Secretary Of Defense), And Vernon Jordan, (Clinton's Personal Advisor And The Chairman Of His 1992 Transition Team). The Iraq Study Group's membership included Leon Panetta (Bill Clinton's White House Chief of Staff, 1994-1997), William Perry (Bill Clinton's Secretary of Defense from 1994-1997, and Vernon Jordan (Bill Clinton's personal advisor and friend, and the Chairman of his 1992 transition team). [http://www.usip.org/isg/iraq_study_group_report/report/1206/iraq_study_group_report.pdf]

Obama Said There Was A Difference Between Preparation And Preconditions. The Kansas City Star reported, "'The argument was that I would invite Hugo Chavez over to my house, and we'd pop open a beer and we'd start talking…That's the lack of preparation. There's no one that would meet another head of state without preparation. Preconditions refer to something specific. We've refused to talk to Iran until they meet preconditions.' Obama admitted that his willingness to try a new approach to foreign policy was his way of rocking the political boat. 'I've been trying to challenge some conventional wisdom,' Obama said. 'And the purveyors of conventional wisdom have gotten uncomfortable. I don't mind that discomfort. I think our foreign policy is all messed up.'" [Kansas City Star, 8/20/07]

Obama Said That Not Talking With World Leaders Reinforced American Arrogance. Obama said, "Senator Clinton apparently disagrees with me on this issue of preconditions…I think she's wrong on that because if we continue to set preconditions for discussions that are hostile to us, I think that's what loses the PR battle worldwide because it implies the United States is the superior power and other states have to give in to our demands before we even deign to meet with them. And that reinforces the sense of the arrogance of U.S. power around the world, which is a source of great damage -- and makes us less safe." [Washington Post, 8/15/07]

NEWSPAPERS AGREE: "OBAMA IS RIGHT"

Thomas: "Obama Is Right" About Meeting With World Leaders. Helen Thomas wrote, "It is disturbing for Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., to ridicule Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. - her main rival for the Democratic presidential nomination - for saying he would be willing to meet with the reviled leaders of Cuba, Venezuela, Syria and North Korea, if he's elected president. And why not? What's wrong with diplomacy? It may shock Clinton, but we often deal with dictators and others who espouse policies that are distinctly at odds with U.S. goals. Clinton is wrong and Obama is right. Both should be emphasizing the need for a more peaceful world and an end to the daily slaughter in Iraq that has shamed this country's world image. The first order of business for the new president in 2009 should be to repair the damage inflicted by President Bush's disastrous unilateralism." [Hearst, Helen Thomas, 8/3/07]

Zorn: Obama's Position "In Line With Common Sense," Meeting With Only Those Who Capitulate To Demands Is The Bush Policy. Zorn wrote that Obama's "answer was perfectly in line with common sense and everyday experience. In the neighborhood, on the job, at school or in the home, talking to those with whom we're at odds is the way we seek common ground and understanding about our differences. Dialogue often shatters stereotypes. Conversational give-and-take tends to lead to workable compromises. It's why we have peace talks, not an exchange of peace memos. It's why the United Nations is a place, not just a Web site. Personal interaction doesn't always work, of course. Sometimes sitting across a table from someone makes you hate him all the more. But talking beats heck out of the silent treatment, particularly the punitive silent treatment -- a generally aggravating tactic used primarily in junior high school and in the stylized world of international diplomacy…The idea of high-level conversation as a plum we grant only to those leaders who satisfy our demands and sanity tests has the virtue of being standard U.S. diplomatic practice. This is true not just in the current administration, as Obama said, but in Democratic and Republican administrations going way back. It's a tradition, not just a notion, to see meeting and talking with our enemies not as a necessity or opportunity, as it is in real life, but as a form of capitulation, an atta-boy prize, a show of respect and even affection gilded by approving pomp. And how's that been working for us lately? It's certainly a question worth talking about." [Chicago Tribune, 7/31/07]

Navarrette: Obama Right To Propose Talking To World Leaders With Whom He Disagrees. Ruben Navarrette wrote, "I'm talking about the worldview of the junior senator from Illinois. What seemed like a rookie mistake — i.e., suggesting that, as president, he'd meet with dictators from countries such as Cuba, Iran or North Korea — may actually wind up serving Obama well…But the idea of talking to rogue states such as Iran and Syria has been suggested before, most recently by the Iraq Study Group. Obama's critics insist that there's a difference between diplomatic envoys and a presidential visit. But that distinction may be lost on many Americans, who will embrace the larger point that Obama is making — that presidents shouldn't just meet with people who always agree with them and tell them what they want to hear." [Ruben Navarrette, 8/9/07]

Hunt: "Obama Wins" Foreign Policy Debate. Al Hunt wrote, "The first major dustup between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton - whether the next president should unconditionally meet with leaders hostile to the United States - is still simmering after two weeks. How the issue will play in the Democratic presidential campaign remains uncertain. How the rest of the world is reacting is not. Obama wins." [International Herald Tribune, 8/6/07]

Power: Obama Had Right Judgment On Speaking To Enemies, Would Engage In Smart Diplomacy. Samantha Power wrote, "Conventional wisdom would have us continue this policy; Barack Obama would turn the page. He knows that not talking has made us look weak and stubborn in the world; that skillful diplomacy can drive wedges between your adversaries; that the only way to know your enemy is to take his measure; and that tough talk is of little use if you're not willing to do it directly to your adversary. Barack Obama is not afraid of losing a PR battle to a dictator - he's ready to tell them what they don't want to hear because that's how tough, smart diplomacy works, and that's how American leaders have scored some of the greatest strategic successes in US history. Barack Obama's judgment is right; the conventional wisdom is wrong. We need a new era of tough, principled and engaged American diplomacy to deal with 21st century challenges." [Washington Post, Samantha Power Memo, 8/3/07]