McCain Confronted With New Iran Gaffe, Gets Facts Wrong Again (VIDEO)

Yesterday, Time's Joe Klein noted that he could find no evidence that Sen. Barack Obama had ever specifically said he would negotiate with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:

On Friday, I promised to check into whether Obama had ever said that he would negotiate--specifically, by name -- with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Indeed, according to the crack Time Magazine research department and the Obama campaign, he never has. He did say that he would negotiate with the Iranian leadership -- but, on matters of foreign policy and Iran's nuclear program, the guy in charge is the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. As of today, John McCain was still accusing Obama of wanting to negotiate with Ahmadinejad. Why doesn't the McCain campaign and other assorted Republicans ever accuse Obama of wanting to negotiate with Khamenei? Well, because Khamenei isn't quite the flagrant anti-Semite Ahmadinejad is...and, as we keep hearing, Obama has a Jewish problem.

Later in the day, Klein confronted McCain with this question at a press conference. For a foreign policy "expert," McCain clearly has a pattern of getting the basic facts wrong. McCain insisted that ultimate political authority in Iran rests with Ahmadinejad -- even mocking Klein when he challenged him on it. In fact, according to the CIA's World Factbook, ultimate political authority in Iran rests with Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, not the president.

Here's the exchange:

KLEIN: I've done some research, and um -

MCCAIN: I have too.

KLEIN: Also checked, also checked with the Obama campaign and he never, he's never sai -- mentioned Ahmadinejad directly by name. He did say he would negotiate with the leaders, but as you know - Ayatollah,

MCCAIN: (Laughing) Ahmadinejad is, was the leader.

KLEIN: But if -

MCCAIN: Maybe I'm mistaken.

KLEIN: Maybe you are, because -

MCCAIN: Maybe. I don't think so though.

KLEIN: The Supreme, you know, according to most diplomatic experts, the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is the guy who's in charge of Iranian foreign policy and also in charge of the nuclear program, but you never mention him. Do you, you know, um, why do you always keep talking about Ahmadinejad since he doesn't have power in that, in that realm?

MCCAIN: Oh I thin-Again, I respectfully disagree. When he's the person that comes to the United Nations and declares his country's policy is the extermination of the state of Israel, quote, in his words, wipe them off of the map, then I know that he is speaking for the Iranian government and articulating their policy and he was elected and is running for reelection as the leader of that country. Yes sir, go ahead.

NEW REPORTER: One more quest-

MCCAIN: I mean, the fact is he's the acknowledged leader of that country and you may disagree, but that's a uh, that's your right to do so, but I think if you asked any average American who the leader of Iran is, I think they'd know. Go ahead. Or anyone who's well-versed in the issue.

Ilan Goldenberg of the National Security Network notes:

Let's be clear: Iran has a very complex system of government with varying institutions, but at the top of it sits Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who essentially has only accountable to the Council of Guardians made up of clerics, many of whom are appointed by Khamenei. So, Ahmadinejad is not the leader. And as the Council on Foreign Relations explains, especially in the area of foreign policy, Ahmadinejad has very little influence.

On top of that as Klein points out, the President's job is to educate the public on questions of policy. So if the "average American" thinks that Ahmadinejad is the ultimate leader of Iran, it's up to the President to dissuade them of this notion - not reinforce it. Back in 2002 more then half of Americans thought Saddam was responsible for 9/11 and President Bush did nothing to disprove this assumption (In fact, while never directly claiming that Saddam was responsible for 9/11 the Administration did everything it could to reinforce the notion). That doesn't mean our policy should be based on those false assumptions.

Comments

[NURREDIN]

01:31 AM on 05/24/2008

Mccain just said Obama isn't qualified because he has no military service. When does Cheney resign? Does President Bush's dodging Viet Nam in the Guard count as service? Jeremiah Wright spent 6 years in Viet Nam. Does that qualify him to run for President? I spent six years sitting on my butt at Wright-Patterson AFB 'cause I wear glasses and couldn't fly after four years of R.O.T.C. Does that mean I should run? How long is he going to keep saying this dumb stuff? I supported this man in 2000 because he appeared to have dignity and a backbone, and tried to run a clean campaign against now President Bush. He's fallen into the pig sty with the rest of the professional politicians. Shouldn't he be above this type of garbage?

[mollyjackson]

04:38 PM on 05/23/2008

I wonder if McCain know that we have 57 states?

[AmbivalentGuy]

05:17 PM on 05/23/2008

I wonder if you know we have 50 states, 6 territorial regions and the District of Columbia that participate in the process.

Let's see? What's that total? Oh, 50+6+1=57

Ok, so he should have said 57 states, territories and districts.

I think that explains it. Poorly phrased on his part, but certainly nothing like getting Shia and Sunni mixed up, or having a cascade of "senior moments".

[Dmitriy]

05:37 AM on 05/24/2008

You mean like he should've said "Sioux Falls South Dakota" not "Sioux City South Dakota"?

[lady49]

05:19 PM on 05/23/2008

you want to stay on message.. my little stupid one?

[Dmitriy]

05:38 AM on 05/24/2008

Wow. You are so mature.

[NURREDIN]

03:27 PM on 05/23/2008

Now that the Israelis are talking to the Syrians,this kind of shoots Mccain's argument out of the water. If the Israelis can talk to their most dangerous neighbors, why can't we? And by the way, I happen to be Jewish.

[mamacat]

05:25 AM on 05/23/2008

So, Barack said he would meet with Iranians, and John thinks that that means meeting with Ahmadinejad. Not a perfect understanding of world affairs, but John has the gist of it. More importantly, Barack's understanding of what is important in world affairs for outdistances John's.

Every major country in the world, except the United States, has reestablished diplomatic relations with Iran, after their revolution in the late 1970s. For those who need an explanation, that means that they have embassies in Tehran. Thus, not only is the United States the only major country in the world not talking with the Iranians, but we are the only major country that has not reestablished ambassadorial relations with the Iranians. After 29 years, it may be time to make up, for the sake of both of our peoples, and for the sake of trying to bring peace to the region. Or, do we still think that it is a privilige to talk with us, and only people who already agree with us on every issue are worth our time and effort?
Or, perhaps, there is a segment of our population that does not want peace in that region? We have many, many problems to deal with, almost all of them made worse by the last 7+ years of wrongheadedness.

[Durango]

11:42 AM on 05/23/2008

Hell, we have diplomatic relation with Viet Nam and they killed 58,000 of our people. Why can't we talk to Iran?

Iran was in the middle of a cultural and progressive revolution when the Bush/Cheney bullshit began. Their labeling Iran an Axis of Evil helped defeat the liberalization (yes Republicans, when things get better it is called Liberalization) of Iran by threatening the country.

Iranians are as patriotic as the next folks. And when threatened they will rally to support their government. (see: post 911 America) even when they don't like or disagree with that government. (see post 911 America).

The best policy would be for the West to leave Iran alone so that they can continue their evolution (peacefully) and evolve into a just and free society.

Or we could threaten and attack them and insure that the Conservative elements (yes Republicans, the bad guys are the conservatives) remain in power for at least another generation.

[robokop]

03:44 PM on 05/23/2008

I agree with that, why not have diplotmatic relations with Iran? Over the past 16 years we have seen 2 PresidentsClinton and Bush, maintain the same policy towards Iran. So this of course then is not a political campaign issue, right? There was some contact with Iran while Clinton was in office, but that was for the covert action Clinton and Iran were involved in. During the war in the Balkans, the UN had an arms embargo for the Balkans, prohibiting the sale of any arms to any of the groups involved in the fighting. Clintons, through the CIA, brokered a secret deal with the Iranians in which US would pay for the arms that Iran would supply the Muslim faction that was fighting in the Balkans. If that deal was ok, then why not diplomatic relations?

[condew]

07:30 PM on 05/22/2008

I'm surprised McCain was only rude and ill informed. One of these days he's gonna blow!

Being in a prison camp for many years is no more a reason to elect him president than Hillary's marriage to Bill is "political experience". No wonder she praises him, they are alike; and both very different from Obama.

And not in a good way.

[mollyjackson]

05:40 PM on 05/22/2008

Getting the facts wrong seems to be common. Barack Obama is ambling rather than sprinting across the primary-season finish line. It's not just his failure to connect with blue-collar Democrats. He has added to his problems with ill-informed replies on critical foreign policy questions. On Sunday at a stop in Oregon, Sen. Obama was dismissive of the threats posed by Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba and Syria. By Monday in Montana, Mr. Obama recognized his error. He abruptly changed course, admitting that Iran represents a threat to the region and U.S. interests. Voters need to ask if Sunday's comments, not Monday's correction, aren't the best evidence of his true thinking, or just wrong facts.
Is Mr. Obama's first instinct to dismiss North Korea, the world's worst nuclear proliferator, as an insignificant threat? Is his immediate reaction to treat Venezuela as a wayward child, rather than as an adversary willing to destabilize the hemisphere? Is his memory so short he has forgotten the Castro brothers' willingness to aid revolutionary movements, or does he lack expericenc? Is he so shortsighted as to ignore the threat to Mideast stability that Syria's meddling in Lebanon and support for Hamas and Hezbollah represents?

[elijah311]

07:30 PM on 05/22/2008

You're just a stupid fearmonger.

No one believes your lies anymore.

Your old ways of thinking are DYING.

OBAMA!

[LawrenceL]

09:27 PM on 05/23/2008

"Yeah we gotta be free
And it won't take long
Cause we are rightttt.....
And they are WRONG..."

The Kinks, circa 1972

Seriously, the "old ways" take a lot longer to die than anyone who hasn't lived at least four decades will want to admit. Changing attitudes takes a very long time, because people are vested in why they made their original decision to feel the way they do, and they do not easily abandon that.

Speaking as someone who was a teen during the Sixties, "everyone" under the age of thirty thought the old ways would soon be swept aside. It didn't quite turn-out that way, nor did we correctly assess the ability of people opposed to change (even change for the better) to resist that change.

[rickymd]

09:33 PM on 05/22/2008

Here’s Obama’s remarks in Pendelton, Ore., on May 18, 2008:

“Strong countries and strong presidents talk to their adversaries,” Obama said. “That’s what Kennedy did with Khrushchev. That’s what Reagan did with Gorbachev. That’s what Nixon did with Mao. I mean, think about it. Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don’t pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying we’re going to wipe you off the planet. And ultimately that direct engagement led to a series of measures that helped prevent nuclear war, and over time allowed the kind of opening that brought down the Berlin Wall. Now, that has to be the kind of approach that we take.

“You know, Iran, they spend one-one hundredth of what we spend on the military. If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn’t stand a chance. And we should use that position of strength that we have to be bold enough to go ahead and listen. That doesn’t mean we agree with them on everything. We might not compromise on any issues, but at least we should find out other areas of potential common interest, and we can reduce some of the tensions that have caused us so many problems around the world.”

[tenexe]

01:21 AM on 05/23/2008

It's not going to take much money or time once they have nuclear weapons to smuggle a nuclear device into this country and wipe out a city the size of NY. They wouldn't stand a chance in a fair fight with us but thats the problem, they don't fight fair. If I recall correctly (and I do), Kennedy did with Khrushchev and that little thing called the Cuban Missile Crisis occurred, remember that?? That wasn't talk, that was a direct military threat. And if Kennedy had been successful I guess Reagan wouldn't have had to speak to Gorbachev would he. Reagan didn't speak too him he spoke at him. There was no give or take no matter how much you people want to revise history. Reagan escalated the arms race (against the will of the democrats) and eventually put the country out financially because they couldn't compete. Oh and Nixon in China, Another huge success story. You forgot to mention Carter and Clinton's horrible military blunders and failures at "talk". Something about hostages in Iran for a year. Reagan got them out after Carters repeated failed attempts. And the 7 terrorist attacks against american citizens while Clinton was in office???? One under Bush and then no more. Oh thats right we're not any safer now. That must be that new math. I don't hate Obama or Hillary but you people are nutjobs on here and you completely twist anything to meet your needs.

[urweatherman]

04:42 PM on 05/22/2008

WE ARE WINNING! Notice how we haven't heard any on-the-ground-news out of Iraq lately? All the news is good and the press....especially this website does not want the public to know about it. Casualties are way down, almost non-existent anymore. The Iraqi army is taking charge now. Lets get with it H. POST, report the truth for a once!

[rickymd]

06:44 PM on 05/22/2008

The claims that "we haven't heard any on-the-ground-news out of Iraq lately" and "All the news is good" aren't just contradictory; they are both clearly false, as is the proclamation that casualties are "almost non-existent anymore."

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/080522/world/international_iraq_dc
U.S. AIRSTRIKE KILLS 8 CIVILIANS

'Iraqi police said on Thursday a U.S. helicopter airstrike killed eight civilians, including two children, but U.S. forces said the six adults killed were militants suspected of links to a bombing network...Colonel al-Qaisi, police chief of Baiji, north of the capital, said a U.S. helicopter fired at a group of shepherds in a vehicle in a farming area on Wednesday night...Reuters pictures showed relatives of the dead standing beside corpses covered by white sheets outside a mosque in Baiji, an oil refining town 180 km (110 miles) north of Baghdad. "There were two boys, one was eight and the other was 11," said police Major Ahmed Hussein.United Nations officials have expressed concern at the number of civilians killed in airstrikes in Iraq.'

Not one day ever passes without such reports:

Wednesday 21 May: 46 dead
Tuesday 20 May: 21 dead
Monday 19 May: 25 dead
Sunday 18 May: 24 dead
Saturday 17 May: 34 dead
Friday 16 May: 14 dead
Thursday 15 May: 17 dead...

Children and civilians are murdered in Iraq everyday. Not just some days, but every single day.

[Durango]

06:46 PM on 05/22/2008

It must be nice to be in your own little world.

[kunileml]

03:47 PM on 05/22/2008

He's as big of a fool as these two:

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/77fde4da5e

[Asean4Obama]

01:35 PM on 05/22/2008

Ahmadinejad is just the president with no power. Presidents come and go in Iran but the mullah's control the army, the executive branch, the courts and are still around once the presidents leave.

I lived a few months in Iran during the late 90's

Irwan Shah
http://www.aseannewsnetwork.com/

[torrrep]

07:37 PM on 05/22/2008

Yes but they do not go to the U.N. The president does. And they don't make diplomatic trips to foreign nations on behalf of the country. The president does. Whether Obama is elected or not, the fact of the matter is that it is Ahmadinejad you will be dealing with. Not the Mullahs or the Supreme Leader.

[sanywhere]

12:34 AM on 05/23/2008

i would think obama would have some say with whom he meets.

[colecurtis]

09:16 AM on 05/22/2008

Ahmadinejad is in charge of the decisions in Iran any way that you look at it. All you are doing is splitting hairs and trying to spin this into a positive for Obama when there isn't one. He acts like he is the only one he is representing in attempting these rash actions which reflects on his inexperience and his niavete for that matter. The president of the United States has to think of what the repercussions would be for the American people should the act have a negative conclusion which was the case when Kennedy met Khruchev that Obama keeps referring to that obviously he hasn't read the outcome. Khruchev's assessment of Kennedy..."too intellegent and too weak" and thus he began erecting the Berlin wall two months later and then the following spring the missle crisis in Cuba. This type action from Obama speaks volumes about his immaturety and reckless youth so to speak. He is only thinking of himself and not the consequences of such an action in regards to the American peoples safety should such an action be detrimental rather than productive. This type action will only validate terrorists and should be avoided.

[muckinello]

09:36 AM on 05/22/2008

The notion that you cannot talk from a position of force is ludicrous. I completely disagree with this posting. Enough with the cow-boy polidy, we have seen the results. We talked to the Soviet Union and China when they were our enemies. We talked with Moscow during the missile crisis (which, by the way, was only re-establishing the status-quo after we had positioned missiles in Turkey, roughly the same distance to their capital as Cuba to ours). History will always be looked at with tinted glasses, depending where you are positioned. However it's time to stop the confrontational policy and meet on the issues!

[urweatherman]

04:44 PM on 05/22/2008

I would say that your tinted glassed are darker than colecurtis!

[kevinmcd]

11:53 AM on 05/22/2008

Colecurtis

You make a blankert assertion about who controls Iran that is contrary to the facts, as known by the CIA itself and all world goverments.

I see you read tat bogus NYT op ed about the Kennedy Khruchev meeting. What that piece failed to report was that Kennedy kicked Khruchev's ass in the Cuban Missile crisis. That initial meeting turns out to have helped the US because evidently Khruchev made some erroneous judgments about Kennedy. On top of that, Reagan met with Gorbachev even though he called the USSR the "evil empire." He and Kennedy had the guuts to meet face to face with theese tyrants -it is only George W Bush who is too afraid to meet the enemy. He is probably afraid he would be fooled into thinking they had a n innocent heart, like he saw in Putin.

[lenoirlady]

06:14 PM on 05/22/2008

Don't you just know Putin had fodder for the cocktail party circuit for weeks and weeks after that fool statement? Just too funny! "Look into my eyes" was common phrase for weeks here- - - - Pitiful!

[DonDavis]

08:25 AM on 05/22/2008

McCain’s ‘Compelling Logic’ For Not Talking to Our Enemies
http://satiricalpolitical.com/?p=1844

[jeanrenoir]

10:03 PM on 05/21/2008

In both his physical clumsiness, admittedly as much the result of his torture as his age, and his totally awkward way of speaking, not to mention his pension for showing continuously embarrassing ignorance if not senility, poor McCain is NOT going to wear well in the general election spotlight. He makes Chevy Chase's Gerald Ford, and any SNL version of W look suave by comparison. His "heroism" is history now, I mean it's worn out, it's too old a story to overcome his ineptitude on all fronts, not to mention his hugely unpopular embrace of Bush, the war, tax cuts for the rich, etc. Obama's taken continuous heat for months from Clinton and her Israel Lobby backers. After Hillary's swept into the dustbin of history soon, the focus will rest squarely on Obama beating up on McCain, and McCain won't be able to whine about how "unfair" everything is because he's not a woman.

[Ariesjill]

09:40 PM on 05/21/2008

I am starting to think this man, whose mobo maxes out at 128....even XP can't run normally on that, forget he switches out his CPU every 11 minutes.....will, if we just let him BE .....make Obama's work far less daunting tham nost people now get.

[toby25]

09:31 PM on 05/21/2008

Barack Obama's Gaffes: 1. Obama showed off his knowledge of the war in Afghanistan by homing in on a lack of translators: "We only have a certain number of them, and if they are all in Iraq, then it's harder for us to use them in Afghanistan." The real reason it's "harder for us to use them" in Afghanistan: Iraqis speak Arabic or Kurdish. The Afghanis speak Pashto, Farsi or other non-Arabic languages. WRONG BARACK !! Whoops !!

He claimed he was a product of Selma.Alabama march when his parents hooked up in a movement across the country as a result of this march. He claims he was born as a result. HE WAS BORN IN 1961 AND THE SELMA MARCH WAS IN 1965...Wrong again Barack

[jvill]

10:51 PM on 05/21/2008

Seriously, now?

John McCain habitually confuses who is fighting who in Iraq, has publicly admitted he doesn't know much about economics when the economy is the top domestic priority, and he has shown barely a leaflet worth of policy ideas on the variety of Republican-made crises engulfing this country.

And translators and Selma is all you got?

(By the way, Barack was talking about how the budgets for translators is sucked up by Iraq and thus we don't have enough for Afghanistan, so you can't even smear him coherently...)

If this is all you got, can we just elect Senator Obama president tomorrow and get this show on the road?

[sytgrl]

11:31 PM on 05/21/2008

Just to add, tovy25, you also assume that all translators only speak one language. Professional translators often have several languages under their belts.

[urweatherman]

04:47 PM on 05/22/2008

Yeah, right...and drag down this country the way he has dragged down Illinois? I don't think so!

[ranree]

11:53 PM on 05/21/2008

Toby, it may be amazing to you but professional translators speak MULTIPLE (that means many) languages. So maybe, just maybe they speak Arabic/Kurdish AND Farsi or other non-Arabic languages

My goodness. That was as as uninspiring as those who will move their primary vote for Hillary into a general election vote for McCain just because you don't like Obama... not his views, but his person. (See West Virgina election info for more details)

[jackjava]

06:50 PM on 05/21/2008

John McCain is overwhelmed with running for this office. He won't make it through Nov. Not only does he have a long or short term memory problems, he doesn't understand alot of things period, taht a President should know. He's got PTSD still running through him from unresolved Viet Nam days. His temper is uncontrollable inspite of taking anger mngt courses for 20 years.

He looks sickly and scary at teh same time.

He finshed second to last in his college class. Why would we want another below average intelligent Commander in Chief?

How about a smart President ...like Obama.

[urweatherman]

04:52 PM on 05/22/2008

You call Obama smart? He said that we have 57 states!!! How ignorant is that?