2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumFact checker Glenn Kessler gives Bernie 3 pinocchios
Fact CheckerBernie Sanderss claim that Hillary Clinton objected to meeting with our enemies'
By Glenn Kessler February 12 at 2:56 PM
<...>
The Pinocchio Test
Sanders stated that Clinton in that debate opposed any discussions with our enemies. But, in fact, she objected to any presidential meetings in the first year without preconditions, as she correctly stated. Moreover, as she noted, the approach Clinton outlined in the campaign turned out to be the one used by the Obama administration.
Obama did not meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad after he took office, though he did give U.S. diplomats more freedom to meet with Iranian officials than under the George W. Bush administration. A phone call between Obama and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani did not take place until 2013, when the two sides were deep in negotiations over Irans nuclear program. In other words, preconditions were set and met before a high-level conversation.
Similarly, Obama did not have a substantive meeting with Cuban President Raul Castro (in 2015) until the two countries reached an agreement on normalizing relations, which included the release of an American detainee.
Obama and Rouhani have never met, but that has not stopped opponents of Obamas diplomacy from photoshopping images of an alleged meeting.
Sanders earns Three Pinocchios. Clinton and Obama differed over whether to set preconditions, not about meeting with enemies. And it turns out that once in office, Obama followed the course suggested by Clinton, abandoning his earlier position as unrealistic.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/02/12/bernie-sanderss-claim-that-hillary-clinton-objected-to-meeting-with-our-enemies/
Three Pinocchios
Significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions. This gets into the realm of mostly false. But it could include statements which are technically correct (such as based on official government data) but are so taken out of context as to be very misleading. The line between Two and Three can be bit fuzzy and we do not award half-Pinocchios. So we strive to explain the factors that tipped us toward a Three.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)<iframe width="560" height="315" src="
" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>californiabernin
(421 posts)frazzled
(18,402 posts)He was wrong about the preconditions And he was smart enough to change course. He did not meet with "enemies" in his first year and did so only much later, and not with "no preconditions."
Sanders was misleading (well, let's call it lying) when he made that statement. Clinton never said we don't talk to enemies, she just said he was naive to think you could do it in the first year, without laying the groundwork, and with no preconditions for the talks.
Did you even read the OP? It seems typical that people lash out with unfounded criticisms and slogans and digs without even bothering to know any facts. I don't want a president who does that.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Mention any of it here and you will get swarmed though.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)SheenaR
(2,052 posts)I apologize... But I cannot be the only one that remembers Hillary attacking Obama (during debates) over his wanting to sit down with leaders like that of Iran. I believe he was even called naïve.
Again, no clip here. But I cannot be the only one who remembers that
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)I remember all too well. Weird that some videos are being scrubbed from the internet. I was looking for the one yesterday where she said she and McCain have a lifetime of experience and Obama has a speech. Gone.
Donkees
(31,453 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)californiabernin
(421 posts)This thread is getting good!