Ooops.

GaryPDX: Ooops.

Earlier :

Couric (in the news broadcast at the end of the airing of the interview): Incidentally, we confirmed Henry Kissinger's position following our interview. He told us he supports talks, if not with Ahmadinejad, then with high level Iranian officials, without preconditions.

Oooops indeed.

GaryPDX: Ooops.

Oops indeed. Especially when he said exactly the opposite before the debate.

Funny thing that debates are.

You can accuse your opponent of dressing up as the Queen of England when he is alone in his hotel room each evening. You don't need any proof beyond the most scant fact of statements supporting a constitutional monarchy if the viewing public buys it and MSM will fact check that statement directly after the debate.

After that time all anyone worries about is "who won the debate?'

So now McCain has his advisors flip-flopping too?

Kissinger is a Republican.
Kissinger is John McCain's friend.

Would you expect anything other than for him to lie and deny, to protect his buddy and help him get elected?

Psychotropic: Kissinger is a Republican.
Kissinger is John McCain's friend.

Would you expect anything other than for him to lie and deny, to protect his buddy and help him get elected?

Nope. Thankfully us elitists have the interwebs to counter this, but the general public will eat it up.

Psychotropic: Kissinger is a Republican.
Kissinger is John McCain's friend.

Would you expect anything other than for him to lie and deny, to protect his buddy and help him get elected?

I think a better question might be "why would Obama think he could get away with claiming that one of McCain's own advisers really agrees more with him?"

BravadoGT: Psychotropic: Kissinger is a Republican.
Kissinger is John McCain's friend.

Would you expect anything other than for him to lie and deny, to protect his buddy and help him get elected?

I think a better question might be "why would Obama think he could get away with claiming that one of McCain's own advisers really agrees more with him?"

Because it was true until today?

Just a thought.

BravadoGT: I think a better question might be "why would Obama think he could get away with claiming that one of McCain's own advisers really agrees more with him?"

Because Katie Couric had reported that it was literally days before.

ElQue: BravadoGT: Psychotropic: Kissinger is a Republican.
Kissinger is John McCain's friend.

Would you expect anything other than for him to lie and deny, to protect his buddy and help him get elected?

I think a better question might be "why would Obama think he could get away with claiming that one of McCain's own advisers really agrees more with him?"

Because it was true until today?

Just a thought.

Whether it was or not--it's certainly not politically savvy. He should have known better than to play that particular card...

I would never expect a former National Security Advisor to lie, especially a man who helped prolong a war just to get his soon to be boss elected.

It sucks for Kissinger that he was on record saying the exact opposite THE DAY BEFORE.

It's hardly credible. (Especially since he's endorsing McCain's campaign. I don't think a genuine realist would. So much in McCain's platform is geared to ideology rather than the actual security and economic well-being of the United States.)

I think Kissinger has shifted completely out of realist national-security politics into dogmatic neoconservatism. I suppose everyone has to comprehend the post-9/11 international political environment in their own way, but it seems like neoconservatism is a failed response.

BravadoGT: ElQue: BravadoGT: Psychotropic: Kissinger is a Republican.
Kissinger is John McCain's friend.

Would you expect anything other than for him to lie and deny, to protect his buddy and help him get elected?

I think a better question might be "why would Obama think he could get away with claiming that one of McCain's own advisers really agrees more with him?"

Because it was true until today?

Just a thought.

Whether it was or not--it's certainly not politically savvy. He should have known better than to play that particular card...

It was. And why wouldn't he bring it up? Kissinger is only denying this to defend McCain today. The debate was yesterday, when Kissinger's previous assertion was true.

ElQue: BravadoGT: ElQue: BravadoGT: Psychotropic: Kissinger is a Republican.
Kissinger is John McCain's friend.

Would you expect anything other than for him to lie and deny, to protect his buddy and help him get elected?

I think a better question might be "why would Obama think he could get away with claiming that one of McCain's own advisers really agrees more with him?"

Because it was true until today?

Just a thought.

Whether it was or not--it's certainly not politically savvy. He should have known better than to play that particular card...

It was. And why wouldn't he bring it up? Kissinger is only denying this to defend McCain today. The debate was yesterday, when Kissinger's previous assertion was true.

Because now, every time Kissinger appears somewhere and is asked about this by the press, he'll do exactly what he did with CNN-say that Obama is wrong, and he agrees with McCain. They're not going to be lugging around archived Katie Couric footage to play "Gotcha!" with him. So that will be the story. Oh sure, Keith Olbermann and Daily Kos will be all over it--but they're preaching to the converted.

It's all very predictable--and that's why it wasn't savvy for Obama to go there.

BravadoGT: I think a better question might be "why would Obama think he could get away with claiming that one of McCain's own advisers really agrees more with him?"

Because it was true

Whether it was or not--it's certainly not politically savvy. He should have known better than to play that particular card...

Yeah, I can't understand why saying "I'm right and your advisors say I'm right" is politically savvy.

BravadoGT: It's all very predictable--and that's why it wasn't savvy for Obama to go there.

CNN had already spent time talking about those issues right after the debate.

And, if the topic is continually brought up, then people will continue to discuss the change in Kissinger's statements.

BravadoGT:
Because now, every time Kissinger appears somewhere and is asked about this by the press, he'll do exactly what he did with CNN-say that Obama is wrong, and he agrees with McCain. They're not going to be lugging around archived Katie Couric footage to play "Gotcha!" with him. So that will be the story. Oh sure, Keith Olbermann and Daily Kos will be all over it--but they're preaching to the converted.

It's all very predictable--and that's why it wasn't savvy for Obama to go there.

OK, I see your point. The MSM won't bring up the fact that it was true. Damn liberal media.

Kissinger is as real as a three dollar bill.

When Henry's brother was asked why he spoke without the heavy German accent (for which his sibling, Henry,was well-known), he replied "It's because Henry never listens".

What did you expect?

Sorry Henry, we can only go by what you say. For the future, just let us know which version of the truth you want us to stick to in advance. Kthx!

BravadoGT: I think a better question might be "why would Obama think he could get away with claiming that one of McCain's own advisers really agrees more with him?"

Uh, just a guess, but maybe that's because he actually did and we have the internet to figure that out?

They're playing the, "The sky is blue," "No, you're wrong. The grass is obviously green," game.

Obama: Meet with no preconditions.
McCain: Meeting at a presidential level with no preconditions is wrong.
Obama: I didn't say that. I said meet with no preconditions. Kissinger agrees.
McCain: No, he doesn't.
Kissinger: Meeting at a presidential level with no preconditions is wrong.
Obama: *facepalm*

This isn't rocket surgery, people.

Can I just say this whole thing about preconditions is stupid?

just another political relic who doesn't understand that we write things down and even have video tape of most things these days.

burndtdan: just another political relic who doesn't understand that we write things down and even have video tape of most things these days.

I think that the age of instant information is wreaking havoc on the GOP's strategy. And I like it.

hb0mb: Can I just say this whole thing about preconditions is stupid?

Not without preconditions you can't.

ElQue: I think that the age of instant information is wreaking havoc on the GOP's strategy. And I like it.

And they're fighting it tooth and nail. Push polling, The Big Lie, circlejerk sourcing, replacing traditional outlets of disseminating information with pure punditry... even with cheap, readily available access to fact, they're still spinning as hard and fast as ever.

It's telling when you invent new ways to lie instead of telling the truth.

Occam's Chainsaw: ElQue: I think that the age of instant information is wreaking havoc on the GOP's strategy. And I like it.

And they're fighting it tooth and nail. Push polling, The Big Lie, circlejerk sourcing, replacing traditional outlets of disseminating information with pure punditry... even with cheap, readily available access to fact, they're still spinning as hard and fast as ever.

It's telling when you invent new ways to lie instead of telling the truth.

The fact that it works on a large sector of our populace is disturbing. We're not quite in our glorious "information age" yet, but we're getting there.

Kissinger's a goddamned war criminal. I think it is to both Obama and McCain's extreme discredit that either of them should consider this man's position to hold any favor.

Occam's Chainsaw: They're playing the, "The sky is blue," "No, you're wrong. The grass is obviously green," game.

Obama: Meet with no preconditions.
McCain: Meeting at a presidential level with no preconditions is wrong.
Obama: I didn't say that. I said meet with no preconditions. Kissinger agrees.
McCain: No, he doesn't.
Kissinger: Meeting at a presidential level with no preconditions is wrong.
Obama: *facepalm*

This isn't rocket surgery, people.

Exactly. Here's the transcript:

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.

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.

........

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.

.....

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.

Like I said in another thread, thank goodness McCain veered off topic for ten minutes to pursue this crap while, in the real world, Rome continues to burn.

/I'm suspending further posts until the crisis is averted.
//Which means I'll be posting something somewhere.

Ooops...too bad Kissinger's a backtracking liar.

HomoHabilis: Like I said in another thread, thank goodness McCain veered off topic for ten minutes to pursue this crap while, in the real world, Rome continues to burn.

/I'm suspending further posts until the crisis is averted.
//Which means I'll be posting something somewhere.

Your slashies. I applaud them.

robsul82: Ooops...too bad Kissinger's a backtracking liar.

He's not lying. Look at what he originally said, and then the McCain press release. Nobody's lying. Obama and McCain/Kissinger are just talking about two different farking things altogether.

That's the beauty of the situation. It's all manufactured, from the ground up.

Occam's Chainsaw: Nobody's lying. Obama and McCain/Kissinger are just talking about two different farking things altogether.

This.

THE FACTS:

- Obama was right that Kissinger called for meetings without preconditions.

- McCain was right that Kissinger did not call for such meetings to be between the two presidents.

Obama is smoking reality. The ultimate high.

Bomb Cambodia!

Occam's Chainsaw: robsul82: Ooops...too bad Kissinger's a backtracking liar.

He's not lying. Look at what he originally said, and then the McCain press release. Nobody's lying. Obama and McCain/Kissinger are just talking about two different farking things altogether.

That's the beauty of the situation. It's all manufactured, from the ground up.

Only if you accept that Kissinger thinks Obama said what McCain said he said (wheeeeeeew), and I sincerely doubt someone like him didn't read the farking transcript. He's being a disingenuous cocksmoker...that wily Hank.

robsul82: Only if you accept that Kissinger thinks Obama said what McCain said he said (wheeeeeeew), and I sincerely doubt someone like him didn't read the farking transcript. He's being a disingenuous cocksmoker...that wily Hank.

How the fark did Kissinger ever get the Nobel Peace Prize for ending Vietnam?

meant to post this here

McCain tripped up on one of his signature issues - special appropriation "earmarks." He said they had "tripled in the last five years," when in fact they have decreased sharply.

andrewagill: robsul82: Only if you accept that Kissinger thinks Obama said what McCain said he said (wheeeeeeew), and I sincerely doubt someone like him didn't read the farking transcript. He's being a disingenuous cocksmoker...that wily Hank.

How the fark did Kissinger ever get the Nobel Peace Prize for ending Vietnam?

Because he read the transcript, you can bet on it!

FreakPuppet: HomoHabilis: Like I said in another thread, thank goodness McCain veered off topic for ten minutes to pursue this crap while, in the real world, Rome continues to burn.

/I'm suspending further posts until the crisis is averted.
//Which means I'll be posting something somewhere.

Your slashies. I applaud them.

I concur too.
I applaud as well. That, friends, is a perfect post.

Actually I see this as another one of Obama's Rookie mistakes. He stepped in it in the Democratic Primary when he was trying to attack Hillary from the Left. She is a Foriegn Policy Hawk and when given the question "Would *you* meet..." She said not without preconditions. Obama saw his opportunity to woo the base and beat Hilldog from her left flank and said "Yes I would."

He's trying to change his statement now to say "I meant my admnistration" which *would* fall in line with what Kissenger said and deprive McCain of his attack, however Obama didn't feel the need to clarify back in the Primaries and now it's too little too late.

Kissenger said it would be fine for low level people to meet, not the president. In the Democratic Primaries, Obama was pushing for the President and High level talks.

It's silly parsing of words, but McCains got something to chew on here.

Alien Robot: - McCain was right that Kissinger did not call for such meetings to be between the two presidents.

And wrong that it was what Obama was proposing.

CanisNoir: Actually I see this as another one of Obama's Rookie mistakes. He stepped in it in the Democratic Primary when he was trying to attack Hillary from the Left. She is a Foriegn Policy Hawk and when given the question "Would *you* meet..." She said not without preconditions. Obama saw his opportunity to woo the base and beat Hilldog from her left flank and said "Yes I would."

He's trying to change his statement now to say "I meant my admnistration" which *would* fall in line with what Kissenger said and deprive McCain of his attack, however Obama didn't feel the need to clarify back in the Primaries and now it's too little too late.

Kissenger said it would be fine for low level people to meet, not the president. In the Democratic Primaries, Obama was pushing for the President and High level talks.

It's silly parsing of words, but McCains got something to chew on here.

Now, BlackDog, you are simply lying.
Pretty much every post above you understands the scenario.
It's all up there.
Did Obama lie? Not really.
Did McCain lie? Not really.
And then you pop in and lie.
What is your motivation?

This type of shiat has become the modus operandi of the McCain campaign:

1.) Obama states something (clearly enough, but apparently not as clearly as he probably could for the dumbass masses)
2.) McCain takes it out of context and distorts it for his campaign and for releases to the media
3.) The MSM picks it up and runs with it like the "bastions of journalism" they are
4.) The Obama camp refutes McCain's assertions and provides evidence to the contrary (in this case, Obama's follow-up response at the debate and Kissinger's interview with Couric)
5.) By this point, it's too late. The general public has lost interest in following the story around step 3, even though they don't have the whole picture. McCain's camp knows that's all people hear, therefore it's all they care about. As long as they get voters to buy into the misrepresentation in the first place, that's all that matters. The damage has already been done.


Either way, this is bad...FOR OBAMA.

Kissinger: 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.

In other words Kissinger agrees with McCain on this, but otherwise he is a Maverik.

WTF is it with the not talking to our enemies thing anyway. This is not a tradional rule of diplomacy. It is a failed Bush policy.

As Obama said, if we talked to the Russians and the Chinese, then we can talk to Iran.

If we end up making the right choice and elect Obama, we get this guy as our likely Secretary of State. (new window)

McCain doesn't have anyone who can match that expertise. As a matter of fact, outside of the out-of-favor cadre of neoconservatives, the GOP lacks anyone with the expertise to manage American diplomacy and foreign policy.

Mr Logo: Kissinger: 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.

In other words Kissinger agrees with McCain on this, but otherwise he is a Maverik.

WTF is it with the not talking to our enemies thing anyway. This is not a tradional rule of diplomacy. It is a failed Bush policy.

As Obama said, if we talked to the Russians and the Chinese, then we can talk to Iran.

Kissinger is responsible for one of the biggest foreign policy mistakes in this country's history and people look to him for wisdom?