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]

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]

I wonder if McCain know that we have 57 states?

[lady49]

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

[Dmitriy]

Wow. You are so mature.

[AmbivalentGuy]

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]

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

[AmbivalentGuy]

Your point is ...?
Are you selecting a presidential candidate or an atlas?

57 states, territories and districts is correct.
Can you name, oh say 3, territories without
a search engine?

[NURREDIN]

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]

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.

[robokop]

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?

[Durango]

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.

[condew]

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]

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?

[happyblackman]

I think you are an alarmist. Venezuela poses no threat whatsoever to the U.S Chavez can talk tough, but that's it. Check your history, and you will find out that the U.S. is seen as the major advisary willing to destabilize the hemisphere. You know, things like the Monroe Doctrine, Iran-Contra, and all of the banana republics that the U.S. propped up, in the name of fighting communism. Cuba is also in that category. Before Castro, Cuba was a debauched nation run by the CIA, and the mob. Syria is on the road back to getting in the good graces of the U.S. Remember, the CIA had secret prisons in Syria, for all of the captured Taliban. Hamas is a legally elected political party; thanks to W. North Korea is legitimate, but you need China to help with them.

[fitconnection]

Do you seriously believe Iran poses a threat, you mental midget?

Seriously, please explain to the group what Iran can/will do that would bring the US to its knees. While we're on the subject, when has Iran even threatened us?

We have troops on two of their borders as well as aircraft carriers in the gulf - and we're labeling them as "evil" and as "a terrorist nation". These people should rightly be scared out of their minds knowing all this is happening and our president is a complete loose cannon.

And please don't tell me you think Cuba is a huge threat - are you mentally unhinged?

[rickymd]

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]

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.

[fitconnection]

You're exactly right. Also, people don't realize that Iranian leaders have watched the IRONMAN movie and have been developing IRONMAN soldiers that will fly to the US and take over our nation. The Iranians are sooo scary!

Also, Cuba is developing sharks with frickin' laser beams on their heads that will take out our naval fleet. This is very hush-hush. Not many people know about this development. The Bush administration has been developing dolphins enhanced with armor and rocket launchers to fight Cuba's deadly shark menace. Cuba is soooo scary!

You are right to fear these countries. We've got to stand up to these world bullies!

[999theantiantichrist]

Error No. 1
No one in EXCOMM expected the events of this day: the U-2 shootdown over Cuba, a
confusing letter from Khrushchev that seemed to put impossible conditions on any plausible
settlement of the crisis, and a clear indication from Cuban leader Fidel Castro that his forces
would try to shoot down every American plane within their range. No one expected at the
beginning of this fateful day that by evening they would have given the Soviets what some have
called an ultimatum to agree to American terms "or else." No one expected in the morning that
by late in the evening they would believe themselves to be, as White House aide Theodore
Sorensen later wrote, closer to nuclear war than at any other moment in the nuclear age.xii

Error #2
With little more than a month to go before the U.S. election, Republicans and Iranian representatives continued to meet in Washington. Indeed, one of the first public references to secret Republican-Iranian contacts was to a meeting at the L'Enfant Plaza Hotel supposedly in late September or early October.

The Republicans wanted the Iranians to release the hostages only after the Nov. 4 election, Ben-Menashe wrote, with the final details to be arranged in Paris between a delegation of Republicans, led by George H.W. Bush, and a delegation of Iranians, led by cleric Mehdi Karrubi.

and so on and so on

[Durango]

Under what scenario would Iran smuggle a nuclear weapon, which they don't have andtheir official policy states will not develop, into NYC ato destroy it?

Personally I would be more afraid of the Venutians with their death rays. About as likely a scenario.

Talk about nutjobs!

[MrZrule]

Well,...

What about...Iran-Contra? Hawk missile batteries to the Ayatollah in 1986?
Oh and of course the CIA-led overthrow and murder of Allende in 1973. I've heard Mr. Kissinger still must avoid traveling to certain European countries where he's under indictment for war crimes.

[mamacat]

Do you believe this stuff?

[elijah311]

You're just a stupid fearmonger.

No one believes your lies anymore.

Your old ways of thinking are DYING.

OBAMA!

[LawrenceL]

"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.

[urweatherman]

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!

[shadow322]

to urweatherman: Did you even bother to look up the facts before writing this? There is an active war going on and people are dying daily - GET SERIOUS! Winning huh? I thought we had won a long long time ago ("Mission Accomplished!").

[michiganfan]

Right.....

That's why we can't even protect the green zone from daily rocket and mortar attacks, because we're winning...

[sanywhere]

this isn't fixed news. go back to your coma.

[Durango]

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

[rickymd]

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.

[kunileml]

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

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

[Asean4Obama]

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]

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]

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

[michiganfan]

Not to mention that who you meet with isn't nearly as important as who the decision maker is.

THAT is the point of this article. McCain wants to start a war with Iran, and he doesn't even know who their decision makers are. The man is a doddering old fool.

[colecurtis]

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.