AP ignored Gates' support for diplomacy with Iran, reported Obama is “inexperienced in foreign affairs”

Written by Matt Gertz

Published

In an article discussing Sen. Barack Obama's and Sen. John McCain's positions on direct diplomacy with Iran, the AP reported that “Condoleezza Rice, a key player for eight years in the Bush administration's strategy to try to isolate Iran, told AIPAC on Tuesday that there is no point engaging Iran 'while they continue to inch closer to a nuclear weapon under the cover of talks.' ” But, while noting that Madeleine Albright took a different position in a speech two years ago, the article did not note that President Bush's own secretary of defense, Robert Gates, has also reportedly said the United States should “sit down and talk” with Iran.

In a June 5 Associated Press article discussing Sen. Barack Obama's and Sen. John McCain's positions on direct diplomacy with Iran, diplomatic writer Barry Schweid reported that “Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, a key player for eight years in the Bush administration's strategy to try to isolate Iran, told AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee] on Tuesday that there is no point engaging Iran 'while they continue to inch closer to a nuclear weapon under the cover of talks.' ” But, while noting that former Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright took a different position in a speech two years ago, Schweid did not note that President Bush's own secretary of defense, Robert Gates, has also reportedly taken a position different from that reportedly articulated by Rice: According to The Washington Post, Gates 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.”

Schweid also reported: “Obama, by contrast [to McCain], is decades younger and inexperienced in foreign affairs. His political success until now is powered to a large extent by his youthful optimism for 'change.' While that may ignite enthusiasm it also could inspire allegations of naivete.” Schweid offered no support for his characterization of Obama as “inexperienced in foreign affairs.” In fact, as Media Matters for America has documented, Obama has served on the Foreign Relations Committee since his election to the Senate and has visited Eastern Europe and Central Asia, the Middle East, and Africa as a senator. Additionally, Obama has sponsored several pieces of foreign policy legislation, including the Nuclear Weapons Threat Reduction Act of 2007 to eliminate weapons stockpiles and reduce the threat of weapons of mass destruction -- portions of which were enacted as part of the omnibus appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2008 -- and the Democratic Republic of Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act, which was enacted on December 22, 2006.

Further, in contrast with his characterization of Obama as “inexperienced in foreign affairs” and vulnerable to “allegations of naivete,” Schweid wrote that "[e]xperience is a strength [McCain] intends to help carry him into the White House," without noting any of several falsehoods and misstatements by McCain on national security and foreign affairs and without noting that, notwithstanding McCain's purported “strength” on foreign policy, 62 percent of respondents in a recent Quinnipiac University poll asserted that it was the “wrong thing” for United States to go to war in Iraq, which McCain supported and continues to support.

From the June 5 AP article:

McCain is positioning himself as the experienced former U.S. Navy officer and war prisoner who is motivated by hard reasoning. Experience is a strength he intends to help carry him into the White House.

Obama, by contrast, is decades younger and inexperienced in foreign affairs. His political success until now is powered to a large extent by his youthful optimism for “change.” While that may ignite enthusiasm it also could inspire allegations of naivete.

Both candidates, then, would seem to have an incentive for prolonging the debate over talking to Iran.

Would a high-level exchange, one for instance between the American and Iranian presidents, accomplish anything?

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, a key player for eight years in the Bush administration's strategy to try to isolate Iran, told AIPAC on Tuesday that there is no point engaging Iran “while they continue to inch closer to a nuclear weapon under the cover of talks.”

On the other hand, Madeleine Albright, secretary of state in the Clinton administration, said two years ago that the stakes are too high to avoid contact with Iran. “Engagement is not appeasement,” she said in criticizing Bush administration policy. “Diplomacy is a mechanism for the U.S. to send a tough message.”