MSNBC's O'Donnell misrepresented Jim Baker's position on talking to Iran "without preconditions"
SUMMARY: MSNBC's Norah O'Donnell falsely asserted that James Baker has taken the position that there must be preconditions before the United States enters into talks with Iran. In fact, at a forum in March, Baker said that he favors the United States negotiating with Iran "without preconditions" over how to handle Iraq, just as the United States had engaged Iran in discussions "about our common interest in a stable Afghanistan" from 2001 to 2003.
On the May 21 edition of MSNBC Live, host Norah O'Donnell falsely asserted that James Baker, former secretary of state under President George H.W. Bush, has taken the position that there must be preconditions before the United States enters into talks with Iran. During a discussion between O'Donnell and former Rep. David Bonior (D-MI) about attacks by Sen. John McCain on Sen. Barack Obama's position in favor of talks with Iran without preconditions, Bonior cited Baker as one of the "top Republicans" who "suggest that we ought to have discussions with Iran," and added that Baker "has really run contrary in his comments to what McCain and Bush have said." O'Donnell then interjected, "But not without precondition. There is a distinction on that very issue. Even Senator [Joseph] Lieberman [I-CT], writing an op-ed today that says ... without preconditions, that this blanket policy is not a good one." In fact, according to a partial transcript of a March 27 forum in Athens, Georgia, Baker said that he favors the United States negotiating with Iran "without preconditions" over how to handle Iraq, just as the United States had engaged Iran in discussions "about our common interest in a stable Afghanistan" from 2001 to 2003. Baker stated: "[T]here's every incentive on their [Iran's] part to help us the same way they did in Afghanistan, if we're willing to approach them without preconditions. Now, they may not do it, but what do you lose by giving it a shot?"
Moreover, by asserting that "[e]ven Senator Lieberman" opposes meeting with Iran "without preconditions," O'Donnell suggested that there was something anomalous in Lieberman's opposition to Obama's position. But Lieberman is an independent who has endorsed McCain and campaigns for him. Indeed, as Media Matters for America has noted, Defense Secretary Robert Gates has also reportedly said of meeting with Iran: "We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage ... and then sit down and talk with them. ... If there is going to be a discussion, then they need something, too. We can't go to a discussion and be completely the demander, with them not feeling that they need anything from us."
From a transcript of an "edited one-hour" video of the March 27 conference titled "The Report of the Secretaries of State: Bipartisan Advice to the Next Administration," sponsored by the Dean Rusk Center at the University of Georgia's School of Law and the Southern Center for International Studies:
TERENCE SMITH (PBS senior producer): Let me turn to Secretary Baker and quote something from the Iraq Study Group which you co-chaired, in which the report read: Of all the neighbors of Iraq, Iran has the most leverage in Iraq and could help bring about stability. The report recommends that Iran be actively engaged without preconditions. So should the new administration approach Iran and how?
BAKER: Our report recommended that we start talking to Iran in the same way we talked to Iran about Afghanistan. [PAPERS SHUFFLING] This administ -- current administration, Colin was probably Secretary of State, talked to Iran about our common interest in a stable Afghanistan after we went in there, and Iran helped us and cooperated a little bit with us. Colin can amplify on it. We need to do the same thing with respect to Iraq. That's what our Iraq Study Group Report suggested. Because a dysfunctional Iraq, chaotic Iraq is not something that is in the interest of Iran. They don't want that. They'll have a ton of refugees, so there's every incentive on their part to help us the same way they did in Afghanistan, if we're willing to approach them without preconditions. Now, they may not do it, but what do you lose by giving it a shot?
SMITH: All right. Does - does anyone disagree with that?
HENRY KISSINGER (former secretary of state): I agree with Jim that one has to talk to adversaries but one should not treat it as a psychiatric problem, so that it's just a question of going into a room and creating goodwill. How well we negotiate with Iran depends in part on the objective balances that exist in the region.
The reason it worked when Colin was secretary is because we had a force in Afghanistan. We were changing the situation, but we recognized that Afghanistan could not be solved without the participation of the neighbors, and in that context, it was possible to get an agreement with Iraq. If Iran considers itself a significant country that wants to be respected, we ought to find a mode of negotiation, because if things get tougher, we have to be able to tell the American people that we have done everything we can to explore a peaceful evolution.
SMITH: Secretary Christopher, you wanted to say something else?
WARREN CHRISTOPHER (former secretary of state): I have a few scars trying to negotiate with Iran over a 14-month period, and one of the lessons I bring back from that is that there are many vectors of power. Too often we think of Iran in terms of President [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad and we fail to take into account the importance of the clerics, leaders like [Ayatollah Ruhollah] Khomeini and long-time leader like [Former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi] Rafsanjani. So I think we need to explore every one of those vectors of power to try to find an opening and over time we need to have a comprehensive dialogue with Iran because if we talk about only those things we want to talk about, that might freeze the negotiations.
SMITH: Secretary Powell.
COLIN POWELL (former secretary of state): I would like to align myself of the position that we should reach out and begin talks with Iran. In the first term of the administration I was talking to the Syrians on a regular basis. I went to Damascus several times. They're not always pleasant visits, but you've got to do it. And sometimes you achieve an objective; sometimes it was just an exchange of views, but you stayed in touch with these folks, and we kept low level conversations going on with the Iranians through 2003, and then subsequently that fell apart and then we stopped talking to the Syrians.
The Syrians and the Iranians live in that neighborhood. They're an essential part of any solution and we have to find ways of talking to them. On Iraq itself, if I may, the United States Army and United States Marine Corps cannot keep up this level of deployment. It is a serious problem. And so my best judgment is that no matter what is being said right now, the drawdowns will have to continue if for no other reason it is not sustainable with the size military that we have.
The other thing that I would like to say is that we have to have a clear understanding of what the problem is. Al Qaeda is in Iraq. It wasn't there before, but it is now. But even if you got rid of Al Qaeda totally you have the basic underlying problem which is not Al Qaeda. There is a conflict taking place between the Shias and the Sunnis and within the Shias for power and survival and for control of the country. And there's just so much we can do with the United States' armed forces to resolve that conflict or even contain it.
The Baker-Hamilton report discussed this in considerable detail and advocated a policy of let's start disengaging somewhat, not go away, not cut and run, and no president will find that to be a acceptable policy. I don't think it's sustainable for 140 or 150,000 American soldiers to just sit there forever fighting Shias one day, fighting Sunnis the next day. It has to be passed off to the Iraqis. Because all the crises we are talking about now are from this administration to the next. I can assure you that there are several crises awaiting the new administration shortly after they take over.
SMITH: Secretary Albright?
MADELEINE ALBRIGHT (former secretary of state): I teach a course and I say to my students that foreign policy is just trying to get some other country to do what you want, and that you basically -- the new president will come in and open the national security toolbox, And then figure out what is the appropriate blend of force and diplomacy.
Because as Secretary Powell was saying, it's very hard for us to stay there. But we also have to figure out what our -- how to use the United Nations on the sanctions, how to find what we have in common with the Iranians because we do. It's a big lesson as how we dig ourselves out of this hole of Iraq and a bad reputation has to do with using all the tools in the toolbox.
From the 11 a.m. ET hour of MSNBC Live on May 21:
O'DONNELL: We have now seen for two straight days an attack by John McCain on Barack Obama on the issues of Iran and Cuba. Foreign policy is clearly going to be one of the top issues in this campaign, I think as well as the economy, since we've seen the exit polls, that's the number one issue. How is the campaign -- the Obama campaign -- going to deal with these attacks from McCain that suggest that Obama is inexperienced?
BONIOR: Well, he's taking him head-on, Senator Obama is, as you can tell from the debate we've had over the last week on these issues. It's very clear that Senator McCain is stuck in the past. He's adopted the McCain-Bush policies with respect to what's happening in Iraq, what's the future is for Cuba. But even if you look at some of the top Republicans, the people who served on the committee to -- judge 9-11 Committee, they suggest that we ought to have discussions with Iran. Jim Baker for instance, the former secretary of state, has really run contrary in his comments to what McCain and Bush have said.
O'DONNELL: But not without precondition. There is a distinction on that very issue. Even Senator Lieberman, writing an op-ed today that says, you know, without preconditions, that this blanket policy is not a good one. So there are some differences on that.
BONIOR: Yes, but what Senator Obama is saying is not that -- we're not going to have -- that we're doing this unconditionally. Of course we're going to have preparations, talks, low-level discussions at the proper place and time with these leaders. But do we want to continue the same policies that have yielded us nothing?
Look at Cuba, for instance. Talk about a failed policy. For 50 years -- I mean, what Senator Obama wants to do is allow families here to go back and visit with their families in Cuba, to allow remittances so we have ambassadors in Cuba that are actually advocating for the change, and then pressure diplomatically the Cuban government, Raul Castro and the people in power there, to open up the democracy process: free more press, let go of political prisoners, and all the things that, you know, our values are demanding that we advocate and do.
O'DONNELL: It is going to be a strong debate moving forward.
I believe firmly there should be pre-conditions before the U.S. State Department (and whatever other Federal Government resources might be included) begins talking to Iran, and it's various representatives of it's people...
The pre-condition I believe is required, is a change of the administration of the U.S. Government.
Once that pre-condition is met, then the ground for a constructive dialogue with the representives of the Iranian people (a dialogue with the singular objective of securing the National Security of the American People, and of promoting peaceful relations in Iran's part of the world, particularly with U.S.-occupied Iraq)... once that pre-condition is met, then those talks can begin.
But such talks would be nothing but a waste of time, under the present administration.
Until and when the Bush administration is dismissed, and the American People are relieved from their governance, is when we can begin to talk to Iran (and with the objective in mind that I cited, of course)...
That's the pre-condition.
Once that pre-condition is met, and we are rid of the Bush administration and all it's people, then we can begin a better diplomatic relationship with Iran, and it's people.
And for those who are sure (and they may know something that I don't) that Iran truly is a National Security threat to the U.S., and a threat to the lives of the American People... even they should desire at least the cautionary pretense of a friendlier relationship with Iran, than we already have... because under such a pretense even, we would better be able to assess Iran's nuclear program or "ambitions" or whatever... because under even just a pretense of a friendlier relationship with Iran, then some of our people would be able to travel to and tour Iran (which is difficult to do presently)... in such a friendlier environment (however phony), we'd have a much better access and insight into the objectives and capabilities of the Iranian government, yes? Of course yes. And we would have more and better access to them and their nation, and we could only be better off for it, in terms of Intelligence and interaction... we might even have access enough to their country and their government, as to collect information they'd otherwise desire no one should have, for their own national security reasons, yes? Of course yes. We might even, from within Iran's own borders, have an influence on their people and their government, if we had a better (even phony) relationship to them... we might be able to play their politics, and promote those political interests in Iran, that are most in line with our own...
Wait a second... isn't this how we got into such a frosty relationship with Iran in the first place?
Dem,
One small point in your precondition that I think needs to be pointed out. The U.S. will not be negotiating with the Iranian people as you suggested.
They will be negotiating with an Islamic fundamentalist regime.
Thanks for that small point.
The names on the place-cards at the negotiating tables will be changed accordingly.
But if anyone thinks the Iranian people would not rally behind the same Islamic Fundamentalist Regime if their nation was attacked, they're delusional.
"Is there a reason?"
Their reason is that it smacks of Neville Chamberlain. Of course, many of them don't know who Neville Chamberlain is or what he did, but they're willing to repeat it over and over again regardless of how incongruous it is.
BINGO! The best example of this phenomenon I've seen lately is when Chris Matthews pinned that Bush Toadie to the wall and demanded to know what Chamberlain had done that was so objectionable. The poor schlub didn't have a clue; he just kept shouting "Appeased and enabled". I guess Karl forgot to include that bit of info in his talking points memo.
After seeing that clip, I almost started liking Matthews again.
I don't know why smackdowns like that don't become more common place in this day and age of talking heads constantly talking out their @$$es.
Not only does it make for great television, but it's a great way for the media to vet these morons publicly for all to see.
DB,
Perhaps the U.S. could enter negotiations. The sticking point is Obama suggesting he'd go talk to them himself as President... without any preconditions.
Heck even Carter didn't go talk directly with the Iranians during the hostage crisis.
This is so stupid. How can you ask for preconditions (IOW - Negotiate for concessions) if you never actually sit down to ASK (NEGOTIATE)?! How the hell do expect a country to give you something, if before you sit down to discuss the matter, they have to have already conceded the matter? WHO THE HELL WOULD DO THAT? That's like agreeing to pay a certain price for a car before they allow you on the lot to see what's available!!!
The right are acting like spoiled childeren in their search for a excuse to justify endless war.
If you are so fired up for Obama to sit down with the Iranians and negotiate, tell me what would Obama negotiate?
"TERENCE SMITH: Let me turn to Secretary Baker and quote something from the Iraq Study Group which you co-chaired, in which the report read: Of all the neighbors of Iraq, Iran has the most leverage in Iraq and could help bring about stability. The report recommends that Iran be actively engaged without preconditions. So should the new administration approach Iran and how? SECRETARY BAKER: Our report recommended that we start talking to Iran in the same way we talked to Iran about Afghanistan. [PAPERS SHUFFLING] This administ -- current administration, Colin was probably Secretary of State, talked to Iran about our common interest in a stable Afghanistan after we went in there, and Iran helped us and cooperated a little bit with us. Colin can amplify on it. We need to do the same thing with respect to Iraq. That's what our Iraq Study Group Report suggested. Because a dysfunctional Iraq, chaotic Iraq is not something that is in the interest of Iran. They don't want that. They'll have a ton of refugees, so there's every incentive on their part to help us the same way they did in Afghanistan, if we're willing to approach them without preconditions. Now, they may not do it, but what do you lose by giving it a shot? "
You tell me. What do YOU want out of Iran? More oil? No nukes? Human rights? Sitting down with Israel? More moderates in the government? Non-interference in Iraq? HELP in Iraq? You name it.
Whatever it is you want, you will never get it by "talking tough" on American television. And if you think war is the answer, then you haven't learned shite from Iraq (or Vietnam for that matter.)
Whatever you want, the first (and easiest) thing to try is to ASK for it. You can't say "You can't negotiate with these people." if YOU'RE the one that refuses to TALK. You may not get everything (or anything) and to get something you'll have to gice something. BUT THAT'S LIFE, NO MATTER WHO YOU'RE DEALING WITH!!!
The last 8 years have proven that ignoring the problem isn't going to make it go away. Iran is more radicalized, most hostile to America and more nukular than it was eight years ago. We have not made progress on ANY front, and the situation has gotten worse on EVERY front. If NOT TALKING has been so disastrous, why the hell shouldn't we try TALKING?
The best way to get them to meet any of these so-called CONDITIONS is to sit down and negotioate for them.
Isn't Norah O'Donnell the one who kept saying last Tuesday evening that Oregon voters for Obama were white working class (the ones that the corporate press keeps saying he has trouble with) but "more liberal" than voters elsewhere? A totally false premise. Now she distorts Baker's comments to make them sound different than Obama's.
Does she have a precondition or something?
Does she have a precondition or something?
I believe she is pregnant...and we all know what the precondition for that it. ;>)