Palin Iran and Kissinger Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

In her interview with Katie Couric Sarah Palin essentially called Henry Kissinger naive and also proved that she just hasn't done her homework. 

Couric: You met yesterday with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who is for direct diplomacy with both Iran and Syria. Do you believe the U.S. should negotiate with leaders like President Assad and Ahmadinejad?

Palin: I think, with Ahmadinejad, personally, he is not one to negotiate with. You can't just sit down with him with no preconditions being met. Barack Obama is so off-base in his proclamation that he would meet with some of these leaders around our world who would seek to destroy America and that, and without preconditions being met. That's beyond naïve. And it's beyond bad judgment.

Couric: Are you saying Henry Kissinger …

Palin: It's dangerous.

Couric: … is naïve for supporting that?

Palin: I've never heard Henry Kissinger say, "Yeah, I'll meet with these leaders without preconditions being met." Diplomacy is about doing a lot of background work first and shoring up allies and positions and figuring out what sanctions perhaps could be implemented if things weren't gonna go right. That's part of diplomacy.

Actually.  That's exactly Henry Kissinger's position.  And Couric even went ahead and confirmed it with Kissinger after the interview.  Here is what Kissinger said just last week at a forum of five secretaries of state.

“I’m in favor of negotiating with Iran.  And one – (unintelligible) – of negotiation is to put before Iran our vision of a Middle East – of a stable Middle East and our notion of nuclear proliferation at a high enough level so that they have to study it."

It's not only Kissinger's position.  It is James Baker and Colin Powell's position as well.   Here is what Powell said at the event.

Powell:  “we should start to talk to them. Don’t wait for a letter coming from them. Start discussion. We’ve been talking to them up through 2003.” Asked whether we should “take the initiative?” Powell responded, “Yeah. We shouldn’t we? What are we afraid of? We did."

But who cares what Kissinger, Powell and Baker think.  Sarah Palin is running the country now...

Comments

[Don Bacon]

Since when is disagreeing with Henry Kissinger bad judgment?
Since when is Sara Palin running the country?

[Noam Sane]

Iran doesn't have the capability to "destroy America". That moronic statement alone should disqualify her from holding an executive position in the US gov't. At best, they may be able to launch a few missiles at a neighbor.

They have a purely defensive military capability. Period.

Idiot.

[Matt]

The point, DOn, is not that Henry Kissinger is always right.

The point is that Palin disagrees with foreign policy experts in her own party on this issue, AND she either does not know their positions or she is lying about their positions. Take your pick: is she uninformed, or dishonest? Or maybe a litlle bit of both?

[Joshua Tree]

Why can't Sarah answer a straight question without disparaging Senator Obama? Does she not have enough information or intelligence?

[Passive]

While I'm sure I disagree with Kissinger on *plenty* of things, I just don't have the balls that Sarah Palin apparently does.
She is a woman who for all practical purposes has no foreign policy experience, yet thinks she is ready to be President, blowing off the opinions of a career diplomat.
It doesn't matter whether she is right or wrong, what matters is that she apparently thinks she knows better than someone like Kissinger. That's the *exact* same attitude that typified the excesses of the Bush administration.

She will do what she wants, not what those who know what they are talking about think is right.

[CranialRectalLoopback]

It doesn't help to "look this up" after the interview. It leaves Palin's ignorant position unchallenged, and unexposed, for the ignorance it represents. Couric should have already had the information in hand. She knew what question she would ask, and she could certainly anticipate the answer, and she should have prepped for the follow-up.

It isn't rocket science to trip up STOOPID.

[David Flores]

And let me tell you, buddy... Sarah Palin knows naïve.

[Cattie]

This really stunned me. I'm not even running for Vice President and I watched the forum with the 5 secretaries of state, every one of whom agreed on this issue. I am shocked that the media hasn't made more of it, because I think it's a big deal when several Republican former secretaries of state (including one close to Bush) repudiate Bush's firm policy of no talks without preconditions--which the republicans have been making an issue of to use against Obama in this race.

I'm glad they said what they said though; I hope it encourages Obama to stand firm to his original position (it seemed like he was softening it a little), which was the right position to take.

I just can't believe they didn't prep Palin for her foreign policy debate by making her watch that forum.

[Nicole]

Why are we even listening to Sarah Palin? She has no clue what she is talking about...at all! She's the idiot in the room that people say "Thanks Sarah" and then immediately dismiss. it's time for us to say "Thanks, but no thanks" to Sarah Palin!

[ann linden]

Palin wasn't lying: she probably never did hear Henry Kissinger say, "Yeah, I'll meet with these leaders without preconditions being met" because she's completely incurious and prior to a few weeks ago had, in fact, never heard anything about foreign policy! Her comment to Couric also points out that while her photo op w/ Kissinger "went great," nothing substantive was discussed. Finally, I doubt that Kissinger ever starts a sentence with "Yeah." But I'm not sure so I'll have to get "back to yah."

[Eric Martin]

Why are we even listening to Sarah Palin?

Because she could be the Vice President of the USA? For the oldest candidate ever sworn in, who has already had four bouts with cancer?

[sgwhiteinfla]

I agree with the majority on here who think Palin isn't suited for VP but I think you are missing a bigger point about her. Go back up and look at the exchange again. The exchange starts off with Katie Couric TELLING HER that Kissinger has advocated direct talks with Iran. Whether she had seen it or not she had JUST BEEN TOLD! How dumb do you have to be to stick to your talking points after that knowing you are basically saying the same things about Kissinger that your talking points tell you to say about Barack Obama. I guess she just couldnt help trying to get her punch in. Now its going to come back to haunt her for a long time.

[Tom Heitzenrater]

Yikes. When can we start using the 'B' word (bimbo?)

[Ralf]

Can someone please go get in Colin Powell's ear and get him to endorse Obama?!

If McCain/Palin wins the vote, the Mid-east will be a smoking cinder. Even though Powell still may I.D. as a Republican, he can't really want that, can he?

[John]

The point with Kissinger is that Palin, or someone in the McCain campaign, sought Kissinger out this week, to talk with Palin before Palin met her first World Leader in NYC. Palin nevertheless was ignorant of, or purposely distorting, Kissenger's take on Iran. Couric asked about Kissinger's position flying in the face of the McCain/Palin position BECAUSE PALIN SOUGHT HIS ADVICE.

[Soldiernolongeriniraq]

At the risk of offending so many of the gathered savants, the CNN transcript has Kissinger saying this:

KISSINGER: Well, I am in favor of negotiating with Iran. And one utility of negotiation is to put before Iran our vision of a Middle East, of a stable Middle East, and our notion on nuclear proliferation at a high enough level so that they have to study it. And, therefore, I actually have preferred doing it at the secretary of state level…

SESNO: Put at a very high level right out of the box?

KISSINGER: Initially, yes. And I always believed that the best way to begin a negotiation is to tell the other side exactly what you have in mind and what you are — what the outcome is that you’re trying to achieve so that they have something that they can react to. … So if we go into a negotiation, we ought to have a clear understanding of what is it we’re trying to prevent. What is it going to do if we can’t achieve what we’re talking about? But I do not believe that we can make conditions for the opening of negotiations.

Now, I'm not a diplomat, but it seems to me that when Kissinger suggests the groundwork involves telling one's Iranian counterparts "exactly what you have in mind and what you are — what the outcome is that you’re trying to achieve so that they have something that they can react to," he's not exactly stating the lack of preconditions.

Rather, and I'm no expert, it appears to me that Kissinger is using the moderately high-level discussions (Secretary of State level) to tell Iran what it wants. If not a warning or an alert, it sure seems to me as if it's also not what the "experts" at this blog seem to have wanted him to say.

In other words, Kissinger wants a future Secretary of State to jet to Tehran to tell his/her counterpart, "This is what we want you to do."

It also is a bit much to fail to mention the varying differences in the former Secretaries of State on how these negotiations/discussions should be structured.

Powell believes in a tiny initial effort, at the ranks of scutmen. During his moments, Baker added that it might equally be unlikely that Iran would respond to any sort of discussion/negotiation due to internal politics that have nothing to do with our foreign policy goals.

This blog might have brought some of this context into play. That it didn't perhaps says more about the most misnamed blog on the internet than it does about the hapless governor of Alaska or the august gathering of out-of-work diplomats.

[Mike Adams]

The point is: Dr. Kissinger may be a war criminal and a lot of other disgusting things but he is in no way naive! At worst he is an evil genius.

Palin's statement shows that she is beyond ignorant and that her ignorance is not passive.

[Tom Heitzenrater]

Yikes. When can we start using the 'B' word (bimbo?)

[Michael]

She is an idiot. Couric asked about Kissinger, she responded with Obama.

[Eric Martin]

Now, I'm not a diplomat, but it seems to me that when Kissinger suggests the groundwork involves telling one's Iranian counterparts "exactly what you have in mind and what you are — what the outcome is that you’re trying to achieve so that they have something that they can react to," he's not exactly stating the lack of preconditions.

Perhaps, but when he says this right after the bit you quoted:

But I do not believe that we can make conditions for the opening of negotiations.

He is.

So, the bit you quoted was suggestive of an allowance for a lack of preconditions, whereas the part you left out stated the embrace of this concept defeinitively. He has since reiterated his position that meetings should be without conditions.

[Jeffrey Merritt]

Sarah Palin callin Kissinger naïve on foreign policy is like a baby calling einstien naïve on physics.

[Mike Sullivan]

Actually, Kissenger just backed Palin and McCain at 11:10 tonight after the 1st presidential debate by saying he did not / would not have a president have those discussions. Entire article now erroneous and irrelevant.

[Tracey]

Kissinger actually said pre-diplomacy should be "part of the overall strategy". Both parties maybe parsing words; though the McCain campaign seems to be doing the most parsing on this one particular subject.

In two separate interviews, Kissinger stated the same opinion. He further stated that the US may have expectations of its' own and have a clear deal breaking point, but he never said the Pres should not attempt prediplomacy, and he never stated we should apply conditions to the other guys.

[Daniel]

There is a difference between meeting on the Secretary of State level and meeting on the presidential level. Henry Kissinger was talking about specifically meeting on the Secretary of State level; whereas, Palin was talking about meeting on the presidential level. She therefore wasn't contradicting Kissinger's stance entirely, so it's unfair to say meeting with President Assad and Ahmadinejad is *exactly* Kissinger's stance.

Also, the word "precondition" is not listed in the entire transcript of the source you provide.

[Michael]

There is some really fine splitting of hairs over what was said and how it was directed. While the transcript provided didn't say 'no preconditions', Kissinger did state it later in the interview, and Ms. Couric's followup question stated that it was his position.

As for the level of talks that Ms. Palin meant, does she really think that these interviews relate to her specifically? Or can she not grasp the concept of an administrative policy, where things happen at different levels? Couric specifically stated "Do you believe the U.S. should negotiate...", not "Should Sarah Palin negotiate..." Maybe asking "Do you believe that, at some levels, a future U.S. administration should hypothetically negotiate with peer-specific foreign diplomatic personnel..." would allow Ms. Palin to really shine with a erudite riposte. ("I'll get back ta ya!")

Or maybe Ms. Palin should start answering third person to avoid this mix-up. ‘Sarah Palin wouldn’t negotiate without preconditions. Sarah Palin won’t play that game. And Sarah Palin thinks Sen. Obama is wrong.’

Lastly, claiming the other side is wrong is hardly a foundation for establishing a position. “Beyond naïve and beyond bad judgment” may describe a policy, but it isn’t one, and none was coming from this member of the Straight Talk Express. Will you negotiate or not? Should preconditions be met or not? The response provided no answers. Everyone aware in global affairs should be terrified that these are the best answers Ms. Palin can contrive after three weeks of preparation.