GET /api/factchecks/?page=1741
HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, HEAD, OPTIONS
Cache-Control: public, max-age=900
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "count": 17783,
    "next": "http://www.politifact.com/api/factchecks/?page=1742",
    "previous": "http://www.politifact.com/api/factchecks/?page=1740",
    "results": [
        {
            "id": 401,
            "slug": "no-mandate-no-universal-care",
            "speaker": {
                "slug": "campaign-defend-america",
                "full_name": "Campaign to Defend America",
                "first_name": "",
                "last_name": "Campaign to Defend America"
            },
            "targets": [],
            "statement": "John McCain and George Bush have \"absolutely no plan for universal health care.\"",
            "ruling_slug": "true",
            "publication_date": "2008-03-17T00:00:00-04:00",
            "ruling_comments": "After attacking Sen. John McCain and President George W. Bush on\n<a href=\"http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/mar/17/mcsame-ad-goes-three-four/\">\n Iraq, taxes and energy,\n</a>\nan ad from the Campaign to Defend America finally turns to health care.\n<p>\n \"Absolutely no plan for universal health care. McSame as Bush.\"\n</p>\n<p>\n Universal health care has been much debated in the Democratic primary campaign, but hardly mentioned on the Republican side. The consensus among health care experts is that to achieve universal health care &mdash; the intention to cover every person with no exceptions &mdash; there must be a legal requirement for care, such as\n <a href=\"http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2007/dec/03/clinton-and-obamas-dueling-health-plans/\">\n  a mandate for individuals to buy insurance\n </a>\n . In the Democratic primary campaign,\n <a href=\"http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/354/\">\n  Sen. Hillary Clinton supports an individual mandate, while Sen. Barack Obama opposes it\n </a>\n on the grounds that its implementation could penalize the working poor.\n</p>\n<p>\n Bush does not support any sort of health care mandate, nor does McCain.\n</p>\n<p>\n \"On health care we trust patients to make decisions, not bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.,\" Bush said on March 13, 2008, at a Republican Congresional Committee dinner.\n</p>\n<p>\n At a health care forum on Oct. 31, 2007, hosted by the Kaiser Family Foundation, McCain said he opposed mandates, even while discussing plans to improve access to health care.\n</p>\n<p>\n \"I don't think that there should be a mandate for every American to have health insurance. I think that one of our goals should be that every American own their own home. But I'm not going to mandate that every American own their own home,\" McCain said.\n</p>\n<p>\n McCain does have a health care plan, but there's no clause for making it apply to everyone and therefore universal. So we find this claim to be True.\n</p>\n<p>\n</p>",
            "sources": "Campaign to Defend America,\n<a href=\"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cN10_6pyshQ\">\n McSame as Bush\n</a>\n, March 5, 2008\n<p>\n The White House,\n <a href=\"http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/03/20080312-12.html\">\n  Remarks by the President at National Republican Congressional Committee Dinner\n </a>\n , March 12, 2008\n</p>\n<p>\n The Kaiser Family Foundation,\n <a href=\"http://www.kaisernetwork.org/health_cast/uploaded_files/103107_presforum_mccain_transcript.pdf\">\n  Presidential Candidate Forum: John McCain\n </a>\n , Oct. 31, 2007\n</p>\n<p>\n John McCain campaign Web site,\n <a href=\"http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/19ba2f1c-c03f-4ac2-8cd5-5cf2edb527cf.htm\">\n  Health care plan\n </a>\n</p>\n<p>\n</p>"
        },
        {
            "id": 399,
            "slug": "both-millionaires-mccain-supports-bushs-cuts",
            "speaker": {
                "slug": "campaign-defend-america",
                "full_name": "Campaign to Defend America",
                "first_name": "",
                "last_name": "Campaign to Defend America"
            },
            "targets": [],
            "statement": "McCain and Bush are millionaires who are \"for tax cuts for millionaires.\"",
            "ruling_slug": "mostly-true",
            "publication_date": "2008-03-17T00:00:00-04:00",
            "ruling_comments": "An ad goes after Sen. John McCain for being just like President George W. Bush, hitting McCain on\n<a href=\"http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/mar/17/mcsame-ad-goes-three-four/\">\n Iraq, oil companies and health care.\n</a>\nIt also criticizes him on tax policy.\n<p>\n \"A millionaire who's for tax cuts for millionaires. McSame as Bush,\" the ad states.\n</p>\n<p>\n It's true that Bush and McCain are both millionaires, with McCain being somewhat wealthier. Bush's net worth in 2006 was between $7.6-million and $20.1-million, based on his personal financial disclosures required by law and analyzed by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.\n</p>\n<p>\n McCain, meanwhile, is worth somewhere between $27.8-million and $45-million. (Sen. Hillary Clinton's net worth is between $10.4-million and $51-million, while Sen. Barack Obama's is between $456,012 and $1.1-million.) So McCain and Bush are both millionaires, and that part of the statement is correct.\n</p>\n<p>\n We couldn't find any proposals John McCain supports that offer new tax cuts for millionaires, so we suspect this is a reference to McCain's support of the Bush tax cuts.\n</p>\n<p>\n Bush's tax cuts lowered rates across the board for those who pay federal income taxes, so they benefited both millionaire and nonmillionaire taxpayers. But data compiled from the Congressional Budget Office indicate that millionaires saw the most sizable drops to their tax rates measured as a share of income. Those tax cuts will expire during the next presidential administration unless Congress acts to keep them in place.\n</p>\n<p>\n McCain actually opposed the Bush tax cuts before changing his mind and supporting them now. He said the reason for his change of heart is that rescinding the tax cuts would be the equivalent of a tax increase after they had been in effect for so long. (Both Obama and Clinton want to roll back the Bush tax cuts for higher incomes.)\n</p>\n<p>\n If you're trying to identify the candidate who supports the Bush tax cuts, McCain is your man. But we're concerned that the ad leaves the impression that McCain advocates new, additional tax cuts for millionaires rather than keeping the present situation in place. For that reason, we knock this claim down one peg on the Truth-O-Meter and find it Mostly True.\n</p>\n<p>\n</p>",
            "sources": "Campaign to Defend America,\n<a href=\"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cN10_6pyshQ\">\n McSame as Bush\n</a>\n, March 5, 2008\n<p>\n Center for Responsive Politics,\n <a href=\"http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/CIDsummary.php?CID=N00008072&amp;year=2006\">\n  George W. Bush personal financial disclosure\n </a>\n , 2006\n</p>\n<p>\n Center for Responsive Politics,\n <a href=\"http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/CIDsummary.php?CID=N00006424&amp;year=2006\">\n  John McCain personal financial disclosure\n </a>\n , 2006\n</p>\n<p>\n Congressional Budget Office,\n <a href=\"http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=8885&amp;type=2\">\n  Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates: 1979 to 2005\n </a>\n , December 2007\n</p>\n<p>\n New York Times,\n <a href=\"http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html\">\n  Tax Cuts Offer Most for Very Rich, Study Says\n </a>\n , Jan. 8, 2007\n</p>\n<p>\n U.S. Senate,\n <a href=\"http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&amp;session=1&amp;vote=00170\">\n  McCain 2001 vote opposing tax cuts\n </a>\n</p>\n<p>\n U.S. Senate,\n <a href=\"http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&amp;session=1&amp;vote=00196\">\n  McCain 2003 vote opposing tax cuts\n </a>\n</p>\n<p>\n U.S. Senate,\n <a href=\"http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&amp;session=2&amp;vote=00010\">\n  McCain 2006 vote favoring tax cuts\n </a>\n</p>\n<p>\n</p>"
        },
        {
            "id": 400,
            "slug": "mccain-voted-against-bushs-energy-bill",
            "speaker": {
                "slug": "campaign-defend-america",
                "full_name": "Campaign to Defend America",
                "first_name": "",
                "last_name": "Campaign to Defend America"
            },
            "targets": [],
            "statement": "Both McCain and Bush favor tax breaks for oil companies. ",
            "ruling_slug": "false",
            "publication_date": "2008-03-17T00:00:00-04:00",
            "ruling_comments": "An ad from the Campaign to Defend America attacks Sen. John McCain as being the same as President George W. Bush on a number of issues, including\n<a href=\"http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/mar/17/mcsame-ad-goes-three-four/\">\n Iraq, taxes and health care\n</a>\n. It also bashes the two on energy policy.\n<p>\n \"Oil companies, they get tax breaks while we pay at the pump. McSame as Bush,\" the ad states.\n</p>\n<p>\n The Bush administration's signature energy initiative was the Energy Policy Act of 2005, a major piece of legislation that included subsidies and incentives for several sectors of the energy industry, including oil companies. It was the first national energy legislation in more than a decade, and the Bush administration worked for several years to get it passed. We ruled previously that\n <a href=\"http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/292/\">\n  the bill contained significant measures to encourage clean energy\n </a>\n .\n</p>\n<p>\n To be sure, the bill still had its detractors. Some people felt it included too many incentives for industry and too little to help consumers.\n</p>\n<p>\n Those detractors included McCain.\n</p>\n<p>\n \"This bill does little to address the immediate energy crisis we face in this country,\" he said in a statement his Senate office issued at the time. \"The handouts to big business and oil companies are irresponsible and will be disastrous for the people of Arizona. I cannot in good conscience vote to pass legislation that does not adequately address issues related to energy efficiency, security, and energy independence.\"\n</p>\n<p>\n The statement noted that McCain liked the plan's reliability standards and incentives for new refinery capacity, but concluded that the bad outweighed the good.\n</p>\n<p>\n McCain also said he opposed it because it might make pump prices higher with its mandates for the increased use of ethanol.\n</p>\n<p>\n On the final vote on the bill, McCain was one of 26 senators who voted against it. (\n <a href=\"http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/397/\">\n  Hillary Clinton also opposed it while Barack Obama voted for it.\n </a>\n )\r\n\r\nThe McSame ad doesn't mention this legislation specifically, but it was a priority of the Bush administration and a notable source of tax breaks for the oil and gas industry. McCain opposed it. You can't call them the \"McSame\" for such a significant difference. For this reason, we find the statement False.\n</p>\n<p>\n</p>",
            "sources": "Campaign to Defend America,\n<a href=\"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cN10_6pyshQ\">\n McSame as Bush\n</a>\n, March 5, 2008\n<p>\n John McCain Senate Web site,\n <a href=\"http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.PressReleases&amp;ContentRecord_id=336b5102-187f-4127-87d8-d721b3fd2769&amp;Region_id=&amp;Issue_id=\">\n  McCain, Kyl say no to flawed energy bill\n </a>\n , June 28, 2005\n</p>\n<p>\n U.S. Senate,\n <a href=\"http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&amp;session=1&amp;vote=00158\">\n  Final roll call vote on Energy Policy Act of 2005\n </a>\n , June 28, 2005\n</p>\n<p>\n U.S. Senate,\n <a href=\"http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&amp;session=1&amp;vote=00213\">\n  Initial roll call vote on Energy Policy Act of 2005\n </a>\n , July 29, 2005\n</p>\n<p>\n Washington Post,\n <a href=\"http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/08/AR2005080800124.html\">\n  Bush Signs Energy Bill, Cheers Steps Toward Self-Sufficiency\n </a>\n , Aug. 9, 2005\n</p>\n<p>\n</p>"
        },
        {
            "id": 398,
            "slug": "bush-and-mccain-agree-on-troops-in-iraq",
            "speaker": {
                "slug": "campaign-defend-america",
                "full_name": "Campaign to Defend America",
                "first_name": "",
                "last_name": "Campaign to Defend America"
            },
            "targets": [],
            "statement": "John McCain and George W. Bush want to spend \"a trillion dollars in Iraq over the next 10 years.\"",
            "ruling_slug": "mostly-true",
            "publication_date": "2008-03-17T00:00:00-04:00",
            "ruling_comments": "An advertisement uses the refrain \"McSame as Bush\" to criticize Sen. John McCain for taking the same positions as President George W. Bush.  It starts with Iraq and then goes on to\n<a href=\"http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/mar/17/mcsame-ad-goes-three-four/\">\n taxes, energy and health care.\n</a>\n<p>\n On Iraq, the ad says, \"A trillion dollars in Iraq over the next 10 years.\r\nMcSame as Bush.\"\n</p>\n<p>\n We have a few issues with this statement, though it gets its larger point correct.\n</p>\n<p>\n The Congressional Budget Office, at the request of Congress, came up with estimates for how much it would cost to keep troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan for the next 10 years. The CBO estimated it would cost from about $480-billion to just over $1-trillion, depending on the number of troops. The analysis makes clear that troop levels in Iraq drive the dollar amount higher. The higher estimate assumes troop levels of at least 75,000 through 2013, with the number decreasing through 2017.\n</p>\n<p>\n But those are troop levels to which neither Bush nor McCain has publicly committed. McCain has said troops should stay as long as needed but that specific troop levels should be dictated by conditions on the ground and the advice of the military. Bush, meanwhile, has declined to speculate on future troop levels, saying it will be up to the next president and leaders of Iraq.\n</p>\n<p>\n Still, Bush and McCain seem to be on the same page on Iraq about not withdrawing troops rapidly. McCain has said troops could remain in Iraq for many years, comparing the situation to continuing U.S. presence in South Korea or Japan. When Bush endorsed McCain, he said, \"The good news about our candidate is he'll be a new president, a man of character and courage, but he's not going to change when it comes to taking on the enemy.\"\n</p>\n<p>\n We find the \"McSame\" ad fudges the cost in Iraq by not taking into account that the $1-trillion CBO estimate includes future spending in Afghanistan as well. But the ad makes a larger point that Bush and McCain agree on their philosophy for handling the Iraq war and the withdrawal of troops. We find the statement to be Mostly True.\n</p>\n<p>\n</p>",
            "sources": "Campaign to Defend America,\n<a href=\"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cN10_6pyshQ\">\n McSame as Bush\n</a>\n, March 5, 2008\n<p>\n CBO Testimony,\n <a href=\"http://www.house.gov/budget_democrats/hearings/2007/7.31Sunshine_testimony.pdf\">\n  Estimated Costs of U.S. Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and of Other Activities Related to the War on Terrorism\n </a>\n , July 31, 2007\n</p>\n<p>\n Meet the Press,\n <a href=\"http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22867407/\">\n  Interview with John McCain\n </a>\n , Jan. 27, 2008\n</p>\n<p>\n Meet the Press,\n <a href=\"http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22487036/\">\n  Interview with John McCain\n </a>\n , Jan. 6, 2008\n</p>\n<p>\n <a href=\"http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060321-4.html\">\n  Press conference of the president\n </a>\n , March 21, 2006\n</p>\n<p>\n</p>"
        },
        {
            "id": 402,
            "slug": "group-not-controversial",
            "speaker": {
                "slug": "tennessee-republican-party",
                "full_name": "Tennessee Republican Party",
                "first_name": "",
                "last_name": "Tennessee Republican Party"
            },
            "targets": [],
            "statement": "\"The board of a nonprofit organization on which Obama served as a paid director ... granted funding to a controversial Arab group.\"",
            "ruling_slug": "barely-true",
            "publication_date": "2008-03-14T00:00:00-04:00",
            "ruling_comments": "A news release from the Tennessee Republican Party titled \"Anti-Semites for Obama\" seeks to cast doubt on Sen. Barack Obama's public pronouncements of support for Israel, in part, by noting Obama's role with the Woods Fund, a Chicago grantmaking foundation whose goal is to \"increase opportunities for disadvantaged people.\"\n<p>\n The release says: \"The board of a nonprofit organization on which Obama served as a paid director ... granted funding to a controversial Arab group that mourns the establishment of Israel as a 'catastrophe.' \"\n</p>\n<p>\n Deborah Harrington, president of the Woods Fund, said Obama was, in fact, a director from 1994 through 2001, when the board approved a $40,000 grant to the Arab American Action Network for \"community organizing.\"\n</p>\n<p>\n The source for the allegations can be traced to a Feb. 24, 2008, article written by Aaron Klein for WorldNetDaily, an Internet publication.\n</p>\n<p>\n The story takes issue with the founder of AAAN, Rashid Khalidi, a Columbia University professor who is \"a harsh critic of Israel and has made statements supportive of Palestinian terror.\" The article also notes that the AAAN co-sponsored an art exhibit that featured \"works related to what some Palestinians call the 'Nakba' or 'catastrophe' of Israel's founding in 1948\" (although the exhibit came years after Obama left the Woods Fund board).\n</p>\n<p>\n Other blogs note that in a July 2006 interview, AAAN's executive director, Hatem Abudayyeh, referred to the \"Israeli government and its military killing machine.\"\n</p>\n<p>\n Abudayyeh has been bombarded with media calls from the likes of\n <i>\n  Time\n </i>\n and\n <i>\n  Newsweek.\n </i>\n In an interview with PolitiFact, he dismissed the WorldNet article and others that have parroted it as misguided attempts by \"marginal right wing, anti-Muslim\" Internet voices to try to discredit Obama.\n</p>\n<p>\n The AAAN has no foreign policy agenda, Abudayyeh said. It is a nonprofit \"community-based organization working to improve the social, economic, and political conditions of Arab immigrants and Arab-Americans in the Chicago metropolitan area.\" The AAAN provides Chicago-based adult education, social services, youth development programs, domestic violence prevention and \"community empowerment\" through community organizing, activism and leadership development, Abudayyeh said.\n</p>\n<p>\n There are hundreds of organizations in the Chicago area that serve many different communities, he said, and \"individuals within those organizations have different political viewpoints on domestic and foreign policy.\" But those viewpoints have no bearing on the services provided by the organization, he said.\n</p>\n<p>\n Louise Cainkar, an associate professor of sociology at Marquette University, formerly served on the AAAN board and specifically remembers the 2001 grant from the Woods Fund.\n</p>\n<p>\n \"It was after the Sept. 11 attacks,\" said Cainkar. \"Many Arab-Americans were being victimized by hate crimes. It was a hostile environment. That was an essential grant to cope with what community members were facing.\"\n</p>\n<p>\n Money was used to educate Arab-Americans about their civil rights, how to report hate crimes to law enforcement and to organize the community.\n</p>\n<p>\n Chicago has the country's largest Palestinian-American community, said Cainkar, who is writing a book about the Arab-American experience after 9/11. Many of them are critical of Israeli government policies, she said.\n</p>\n<p>\n \"Does the organization takes sides? No,\" she said. \"Do individuals? I'm sure they do.\n</p>\n<p>\n \"AAAN is a community organization and they are careful about not getting involved in anything with foreign policy.\"\n</p>\n<p>\n Harrington, president of the Woods Fund, called it \"pretty ridiculous\" to suggest the AAAN promotes anti-Israeli ideas.\n</p>\n<p>\n The Woods Fund's goal is \"to increase opportunities for less advantaged people and communities in the metropolitan area, including the opportunity to shape decisions affecting them.\" The foundation works with a diverse array of nonprofits \"engaging people in civic life, addressing the causes of poverty and other challenges facing the region, promoting more effective public policies, reducing racism and other barriers to equal opportunity, and building a sense of community and common ground.\"\r\nAmong those who have gotten grants in recent years: Protestants for the Common Good, the Black Ensemble Theater Group, the Japanese American Service Committee and the International Latino Cultural Center of Chicago.\n</p>\n<p>\n \"It just seems like, why this one?'' Harrington said of singling out the grant to the AAAN. \"It's a witch hunt.\"\n</p>\n<p>\n So what do we have? Seven years ago, Obama was a director of the Woods Fund when the board approved a grant to the AAAN. And some of the leaders of AAAN have made statements that could be interpreted as anti-Israel. The release implies that Obama's public pro-Israel stance should be questioned based on the opinions of leaders from the AAAN. But there's no evidence the AAAN used any of the Woods Fund money to promote an anti-Israel foreign policy agenda. In fact, the AAAN's focus is on local initiatives, and has no foreign policy. We rate the claim Barely True.\n</p>\n<p>\n</p>\n\n<br/><br/><i>Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.</i>",
            "sources": "Tennesee Republican Party,\n<a href=\"http://www.politifact.com/media/files/tennesseegop.pdf\">\n \"Anti-Semites For Obama,\"\n</a>\npress release, Feb. 27, 2008\n<p>\n <a href=\"http://www.tngop.org/\">\n  Tennessee Republican Party\n </a>\n</p>\n<p>\n WorldNetDaily,\n <a href=\"http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;pageId=57231\">\n  \"Obama worked with terrorist,\"\n </a>\n by Aaron Klein, Feb. 24, 2008\n</p>\n<p>\n BarackObama.com,\n <a href=\"http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/#onisrael\">\n  Position on Israel\n </a>\n</p>\n<p>\n Fight Back News,\n <a href=\"http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:8Kz7a9gJbrYJ:www.fightbacknews.org/2006/03/hateminterview.htm+%22Hatem+Abudayyeh%22&amp;hl=en&amp;gl=us&amp;strip=1\">\n  Interview with Hatem Abudayyeh,\n </a>\n July 2006\n</p>\n<p>\n <a href=\"http://www.aaan.org/\">\n  Arab American Action Network\n </a>\n</p>\n<p>\n <a href=\"http://www.woodsfund.org/\">\n  Woods Fund of Chicago\n </a>\n</p>\n<p>\n Interview with U.S. Rep. Robert Wexler, co-chair of Obama's Florida campaign, Feb. 29, 2008\n</p>\n<p>\n Interview with Hatem Abudayyeh, executive director of the Arab American Action Network, March 3, 2008\n</p>\n<p>\n Interview with Deborah Harrington, president of the Woods Fund of Chicago, March 3, 2008\n</p>\n<p>\n Interview with Louise Cainkar, associate professor of sociology at Marquette University, March 13, 2008\n</p>\n<p>\n</p>"
        },
        {
            "id": 395,
            "slug": "anti-israel-not-even-key-advisers",
            "speaker": {
                "slug": "tennessee-republican-party",
                "full_name": "Tennessee Republican Party",
                "first_name": "",
                "last_name": "Tennessee Republican Party"
            },
            "targets": [],
            "statement": "\"You don't even have to go outside Obama's campaign to find advisers who are anti-Israel.\"",
            "ruling_slug": "false",
            "publication_date": "2008-03-14T00:00:00-04:00",
            "ruling_comments": "A news release from the Tennessee Republican Party titled \"Anti-Semites For Obama\" seeks to cast doubt on Sen. Barack Obama's public pronouncements of support for Israel, alleging that some of the Obama campaign's key Middle East advisers are anti-Israel.\n<p>\n Two names getting the most discussion are Zbigniew Brzezinski, a national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981, and Robert Malley, once a special assistant to President Bill Clinton for Arab-Israeli Affairs. These men ring alarm bells for some pro-Israel people who follow Israeli-Palestinian relations.\n</p>\n<p>\n Whether either is anti-Israel as described is a matter of opinion. More important, the Obama campaign claims neither is a formal adviser.\n</p>\n<p>\n The news release from the Tennessee Republican Party is direct.\n</p>\n<p>\n \"You don't have to go outside Obama's campaign to find advisers who are anti-Israel,\" states Bill Hobbs, communications director for the Tennessee Republican Party, in the release. \"Robert Malley, a principal foreign policy adviser to Obama, has advocated negotiating with the Iranian-funded radical terrorist group Hamas and urged that Hamas &mdash; which sends suicide bombers to kill innocent women and children &mdash; receive international assistance.\"\n</p>\n<p>\n The comments appear to parrot several articles written by Ed Lasky for the\n <i>\n  American Thinker,\n </i>\n a conservative daily Internet publication. In a Jan. 16, 2008, article titled \"Barack Obama and Israel,\" he claims that Obama \"has assembled a body of foreign policy advisers who signal that a President Obama would likely have an approach towards Israel radically at odds with those of previous presidents (both Republican and Democrat).\"\n</p>\n<p>\n Lasky claims that \"Brzezinski is well known for his aggressive dislike of Israel\" and that he \"has been an ardent foe of Israel for over three decades.\"\n</p>\n<p>\n Marc Zell, co-chairman of Republicans Abroad in Israel, stated in an article in the\n <i>\n  Jerusalem Post\n </i>\n that Brzezinski heads up Obama's \"problematic\" Middle East team. Brzezinski is faulted for advocating dialogue with Hamas prior to the November 2007 Middle East peace conference in Annapolis, Md.\n</p>\n<p>\n In a meeting with Cleveland Jewish community leaders on Feb. 24, Obama stated that he does not share Brzezinski's views with respect to Israel. Moreover, Obama said, \"He's not one of my key advisers. I've had lunch with him once. I've exchanged e-mails with him maybe three times. He came to Iowa to introduce (me) ... for a speech on Iraq.\"\n</p>\n<p>\n Brzezinski, a scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, echoed that in an e-mail to the\n <i>\n  St. Petersburg Times.\n </i>\n</p>\n<p>\n \"I am a private supporter of Sen. Obama, and by not being part of the campaign as such I retain the right to continue advocating publicly my own views regarding policy issues &mdash; which I have done for years and on the record,\" Brzezinski wrote. \"My views have been supported by Israelis who desire peace and I have frequently consulted them. The McCarthy-like comments you cite emanate from the fanatical right which for years has opposed any serious effort to end the tragic Middle Eastern conflict.\"\n</p>\n<p>\n Malley's chief offense among many pro-Israel activists is a letter he penned to the\n <i>\n  New York Times\n </i>\n in which he claimed all sides, including Israel and not just the Palestinians, were to blame for the failure of the 2000 Camp David Summit.\n</p>\n<p>\n The furor against Malley reached such a pitch that five former Middle East policy leaders (including Sandy Berger, former national security adviser, and Daniel Kurtzer, former ambassador to Israel) wrote a statement on Malley's behalf. In part, it read, \"Over the past several weeks, a series of vicious, personal attacks have been launched against one of our colleagues, Robert Malley. ... They claim that he harbors an anti-Israeli agenda and has sought to undermine Israel's security. These attacks are unfair, inappropriate and wrong. They are an effort to undermine the credibility of a talented public servant who has worked tirelessly over the years to promote Arab-Israeli peace and U.S. national interests. They must stop.\"\n</p>\n<p>\n Obama's campaign states that while Malley has offered advice and opinions on a couple occasions, he is not a formal adviser either.\n</p>\n<p>\n \"The truth is that Obama did ask for advice from some people who might be considered not the most enthusiastic pro-Israel policy wonks in Washington,\" said Shmuel Rosner, chief U.S. correspondent for\n <i>\n  Haaretz,\n </i>\n a leading Israeli paper, who has written extensively about Obama's Middle East advisers. \"However, these people are not in any way formal advisers that help shape Obama's policy on Israel-related topics.\"\n</p>\n<p>\n The day-to-day Middle East policy advisers with Obama's campaign, as confirmed by U.S. Rep. Robert Wexler, who co-chairs Obama's Florida campaign, and other campaign staffers, are: Dan Shapiro, a member of Bill Clinton's National Security Council; Eric Lynn, a former foreign policy adviser to Rep. Peter Deutsch; Tony Lake, a former national security adviser to Clinton; and Dennis McDonough, foreign policy adviser to former Sen. Tom Daschle.\n</p>\n<p>\n These advisers are considered centrist Middle East policy wonks, Rosner said, and certainly not anti-Israel.\n</p>\n<p>\n \"I don't think their advice would be much different than what Hillary Clinton would get from her advisers, or that (John) McCain would get from his Middle East advisers,\" Rosner said.\n</p>\n<p>\n Consider that in position papers and interviews, Obama has said he does not think the United States should be talking to Hamas.\n</p>\n<p>\n \"Either he (Obama) didn't ask Malley for his advice, or he did ask for his advice and didn't accept it,\" Rosner said.\n</p>\n<p>\n While some would argue that it is problematic for Obama to even talk to people are who are not seen as pro-Israel, Rosner said, \"I think it's all a bit hysterical.\"\n</p>\n<p>\n The allegations that Obama has surrounded himself with advisers who are anti-Israel are largely based on two men who, according to Obama's campaign, are simply not key advisers to Obama. Those who do comprise the heart of Obama's Middle East advisory team are described by most as centrists and pro-Israel. We rate the claim from the Tennessee Republican Party news release False.\n</p>\n<p>\n</p>",
            "sources": "Tennesee Republican Party,\n<a href=\"http://www.politifact.com/media/files/tennesseegop.pdf\">\n \"Anti-Semites For Obama,\"\n</a>\npress release, Feb. 27, 2008\n<p>\n <a href=\"http://www.tngop.org/\">\n  Tennessee Republican Party\n </a>\n</p>\n<p>\n WorldNetDaily,\n <a href=\"http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;pageId=57231\">\n  \"Obama worked with terrorist,\"\n </a>\n by Aaron Klein, Feb. 24, 2008\n</p>\n<p>\n American Thinker,\n <a href=\"http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/barack_obama_and_israel.html\">\n  \"Barack Obama and Israel,\"\n </a>\n by Ed Lasky, Jan. 16, 2008\n</p>\n<p>\n Politico,\n <a href=\"http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0307/3177.html\">\n  \"Obama's Rhetoric Chills Some Supporters of Israel,\"\n </a>\n by Ben Smith, March 19, 2007\n</p>\n<p>\n National Jewish Democratic Council,\n <a href=\"http://njdc.typepad.com/njdcdemsonisrael.pdf\">\n  \"Democratic Candidates Support Israel,\"\n </a>\n an analysis\n</p>\n<p>\n Haaretz,\n <a href=\"http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerBlog.jhtml?itemNo=948960&amp;contrassID=25&amp;subContrassID=0&amp;sbSubContrassID=1&amp;listSrc=Y&amp;art=5#article948960\">\n  \"Obama: Opponents trying to weaken my support in Jewish community,\"\n </a>\n by Shmuel Rosner, chief U.S. correspondent, Jan. 28, 2008\n</p>\n<p>\n Jewish Week,\n <a href=\"http://www.thejewishweek.com/viewArticle/c37_a4485/News/National.html\">\n  \"Sniping Intensifies On Campaign Advisers,\"\n </a>\n by James D. Besser, Feb. 13, 2008\n</p>\n<p>\n Philadelphia Jewish Voice,\n <a href=\"http://www.pjvoice.com/v32/32401lasky.aspx\">\n  \"American Smear-Artist: Ed Lasky attacks Senator Barack Obama,\"\n </a>\n by Ira N. Forman, executive director of the National Jewish Democratic Council, February 2008\n</p>\n<p>\n BarackObama.com,\n <a href=\"http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/#onisrael\">\n  Position on Israel\n </a>\n</p>\n<p>\n New York Times,\n <a href=\"http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F04EFDF1238F93BA35754C0A9679C8B63&amp;scp=4&amp;sq=%22robert+malley%22+fictions+failure\">\n  \"Fictions About the Failure At Camp David,\"\n </a>\n by Robert Malley, July 8, 2001\n</p>\n<p>\n Jerusalem Post,\n <a href=\"http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&amp;cid=1203589810710\">\n  \"Obama and the Jews,\"\n </a>\n by Marc Zell, co-chairman Republicans Abroad in Israel, Feb. 21, 2008\n</p>\n<p>\n Jerusalem Post,\n <a href=\"http://tough-dove-israel.blogspot.com/2008/02/obama-is-strong-friend-of-israel-by.html\">\n  \"Obama is a Strong Friend of Israel,\"\n </a>\n by Congressman Robert Wexler, Feb. 27, 2008\n</p>\n<p>\n Interview with U.S. Rep. Robert Wexler, co-chair of Obama's Florida campaign, Feb. 29, 2008\n</p>\n<p>\n Interview with Shmuel Rosner chief U.S. correspondent for Haaretz, March 5, 2008\n</p>\n<p>\n Interview with Steve Rabin, deputy executive director of National Jewish Democratic Council, Feb. 29, 2008\n</p>\n<p>\n Interview with Joshua Block, spokesman for AIPAC, March 4, 2008\n</p>\n<p>\n</p>"
        },
        {
            "id": 396,
            "slug": "yes-clinton-used-the-bush-administration-line",
            "speaker": {
                "slug": "barack-obama",
                "full_name": "Barack Obama",
                "first_name": "Barack",
                "last_name": "Obama"
            },
            "targets": [],
            "statement": "<p>Obama says Clinton in 2002 suggested there was a connection between al-Qaida and the Iraqi government.</p>\r\n",
            "ruling_slug": "true",
            "publication_date": "2008-03-12T00:00:00-04:00",
            "ruling_comments": "<p>Asked about a new report that found no connection between al-Qaida and the old Iraqi government before the U.S. invasion, Sen. Barack Obama said it shows that Sen. Hillary Clinton had poor judgment in 2002 when she repeated claims from the Bush administration to support its plan to go to war.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>&quot;President Bush and Dick Cheney insisted there was a connection. Senator Clinton on the floor of the Senate suggested that there was such a connection,&quot; Obama said in an interview on MSNBC&#39;s <em> Hardball </em> on March 11, 2008. &quot;I think it was part of a series of misjudgments that have not only cost us dearly in terms of lives lost and people who are injured, has distracted us from Afghanistan and our ability to pin down bin Laden and al-Qaida, but has also cost us hundreds of billions of dollars.&quot;</p>\r\n\r\n<p>Clinton&#39;s support of the war is well-known, but we wondered if Obama was quoting her correctly about al-Qaida. So we checked the transcript of a speech she gave on Oct. 10, 2002, just hours before the Senate voted to approve the war resolution.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>In that speech, Clinton explained her reasoning for supporting the war resolution. She described Saddam Hussein as &quot;a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people&quot; and said that he blocked weapons inspections in 1998.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>&quot;In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaida members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of Sept. 11, 2001.&quot;</p>\r\n\r\n<p>In their book <em> Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton, </em> Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr. note that Clinton was rare among Democrats in citing the al-Qaida link. The book quotes Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware as saying the links were &quot;much exaggerated,&quot; while Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California described them as &quot;tenuous.&quot;</p>\r\n\r\n<p>Gerth and Van Natta point out that Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut came closest to echoing Clinton&#39;s comments, but even he said &quot;the relationship between al-Qaida and Saddam&#39;s regime is a subject of intense debate within the intelligence community.&quot;</p>\r\n\r\n<p>Clinton was asked to explain her al-Qaida remark during an appearance on <em> Meet the Press </em> on Sept. 23, 2007.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>She sidestepped the part about al-Qaida but said, &quot;Well, I cast a sincere vote based on my assessment at the time, and I take responsibility for that vote. I also said on the floor that day that this was not a vote for pre-emptive war. I thought it made sense to put inspectors back in. As you recall, Saddam had driven out the U.N. inspectors in 1998 and the situation in Iraq was opaque, hard to determine, and I thought that it made sense to put inspectors back in.&quot;</p>\r\n\r\n<p>She put the blame on the Bush administration.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>&quot;Now, obviously, if I had known then what I know now about what the president would do with the authority that was given him, I would not have voted the way that I did.&quot;</p>\r\n\r\n<p>Still, Obama has accurately described her statement, so we find his claim True.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>&nbsp;</p>\r\n",
            "sources": "<p>Office of Sen. Hillary Clinton, <a href=\"http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=233783\"> Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, As Delivered </a> , Oct. 10, 2002</p>\r\n\r\n<p>U.S. Senate, <a href=\"http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&amp;session=2&amp;vote=00237\"> Roll call vote on Iraq war resolution </a> , Oct. 11, 2002</p>\r\n\r\n<p>Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr., <em> Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton </em> , <a href=\"http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/29/magazine/03Hillary-t.html?pagewanted=3&amp;_r=2\"> Excerpt in the New York Times Magazine </a> , May 29, 2007</p>\r\n\r\n<p>NBC News, <a href=\"http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20941413/\"> Meet the Press Transcript </a> , Sept. 23, 2007</p>\r\n\r\n<p>NBC News transcript, Hardball with Chris Matthews, March 11, 2008</p>\r\n\r\n<p>&nbsp;</p>\r\n"
        },
        {
            "id": 397,
            "slug": "a-boost-not-an-impediment-to-clean-energy",
            "speaker": {
                "slug": "hillary-clinton",
                "full_name": "Hillary Clinton",
                "first_name": "Hillary",
                "last_name": "Clinton"
            },
            "targets": [],
            "statement": "<p>Obama voted for \"tax subsidies and giveways\" that have slowed oil companies from pursuing clean energy sources.</p>",
            "ruling_slug": "barely-true",
            "publication_date": "2008-03-12T00:00:00-04:00",
            "ruling_comments": "<p>\n At a rally in Harrisburg, Pa., on March 11, 2008, Sen. Hillary Clinton once again took on Sen. Barack Obama for supporting a 2005 energy bill.\n</p>\n<p>\n \"In 2005, when we had a chance to say no to Dick Cheney and his energy bill, my opponent said yes and voted for it with all of those tax subsidies and giveaways that have been used by the oil companies and others to retard the development of clean, renewable energy,\" Clinton said. \"When it counted, I said no, he said yes.\"\n</p>\n<p>\n Clinton, along with 25 other senators, including 19 Democrats, voted against the bill, which generally reflected the Bush administration's priorities. Obama and 73 Senate colleagues, including a total of 25 Democrats, supported the bill.\n</p>\n<p>\n Obama said the energy bill would help Illinois and promote greater energy independence by doubling ethanol use, spurring investment in hybrid and flexible-fuel vehicles and promoting clean-coal technology. But he said bolder action would have to be taken to rein in high energy costs.\n</p>\n<p>\n \"This bill, while far from a solution, is a first step toward decreasing America's dependence on foreign oil,\" Obama said at the time.\n</p>\n<p>\n Clinton has made much of her opposition to the bill in her campaign &mdash; for example, characterizing the legislation during a Jan. 15, 2008, Democratic debate in Las Vegas as \"a big step backward on the path to clean, renewable energy.\"\n <a href=\"http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/292/\" target=\"_blank\">\n  Our examination of that claim found it to be false.\n </a>\n</p>\n<p>\n This time, while Clinton rightly points out that the legislation included tax breaks for oil companies &mdash; $2.6-billion to be exact &mdash; those were largely wiped out by a $3-billion extension of taxes on crude oil to help offset costs associated with oil spills. The bulk of the $14.6-billion in tax incentives included in the legislation actually went to \"renewable\" sources of energy, to accelerate the development of wind, clean-coal and nuclear power, and hybrid vehicles. (Although there is debate over whether coal and nuclear power should be considered renewable.)\n</p>\n<p>\n The bill also included a mandate to produce more alternative fuel, requiring 7.5-billion gallons of ethanol &mdash; instead of petroleum-derived methyl tertiary butyl ether, or MTBE &mdash; to be blended into gasoline by 2012. The industry is on pace to meet that target ahead of schedule, despite Clinton's claims that oil industry tax breaks have been used to retard development of renewable energy.\n</p>\n<p>\n Responding to a PolitiFact inquiry, the Clinton campaign referred to a speech she made on the Senate floor, citing her opposition to the bill because, in part, it ignored pressing energy challenges, including U.S. dependence on foreign oil. \"The bill includes billions in subsidies for mature energy industries, including oil and nuclear,\" Clinton said in her July 29, 2005, remarks.\n</p>\n<p>\n However, this reasoning ignores the fact that tax breaks for oil and gas producers encourage domestic production, which helps reduce reliance on foreign oil.\n</p>\n<p>\n Clinton is right that Obama voted for the bill and she didn't. But because she incorrectly depicts the 2005 energy bill as a setback to renewable energy and a sop to Big Oil, we find her statement to be Barely True.\n</p>\n<p>\n &nbsp;\n</p>\n\n<br/><br/><i>Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.</i>",
            "sources": "<p>\n CQ Almanac, 2005\n</p>\n<p>\n Library of Congress,\n <a href=\"http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/R?cp109:FLD010:@1(hr190\" target=\"_blank\">\n  House Report 109-190,\n </a>\n Energy Policy Act of 2005\n</p>\n<p>\n Congressional Record, p. S9346, July 29, 2005\n</p>\n<p>\n Sen. Obama press release,\n <a href=\"http://obama.senate.gov/press/050729-_obama_says_energy_bill_helps_/\" target=\"_blank\">\n  Obama Says Energy Bill Helps Illinois by Doubling Ethanol Use, Investing in Clean Coal,\n </a>\n June 29, 2005\n</p>\n<p>\n E-mail interview with Mo Elleithee, Clinton campaign spokesman, March 12, 2008\n</p>\n<p>\n &nbsp;\n</p>"
        },
        {
            "id": 393,
            "slug": "a-great-speech-but-what-else",
            "speaker": {
                "slug": "hillary-clinton",
                "full_name": "Hillary Clinton",
                "first_name": "Hillary",
                "last_name": "Clinton"
            },
            "targets": [],
            "statement": "\"I've been standing up against ... the Chinese government over women's rights and standing up for human rights.\" ",
            "ruling_slug": "half-true",
            "publication_date": "2008-03-11T00:00:00-04:00",
            "ruling_comments": "Pointing to her experience confronting a foreign giant on a diplomatically sensitive matter, Sen. Hillary Clinton takes credit for pressuring the Chinese government to recognize women's rights, and for taking the Beijing government to task for its overall human rights record.\n<p>\n In an interview on CNN's\n <i>\n  American Morning\n </i>\n on March 5, 2008, Clinton said, \"I've been standing up against . . . the Chinese government over women's rights and standing up for human rights.\"\n</p>\n<p>\n Clinton has made similar claims in campaign speeches. In a foreign policy address at George Washington University in Washington on Feb. 25, she said, \"I went to Beijing in 1995 and spoke out for women's rights and human rights. The Chinese government wasn't happy; they pulled the plug on the broadcast of my speech. But I took that as a compliment. Because it was important for the United States both to be represented and to make absolutely clear that human rights is an integral part of our foreign policy and that women's rights is key to that. What we have learned is that where women are oppressed and denied their basic rights we are more likely to have regimes that are more adversarial to American interests and values.\"\n</p>\n<p>\n Clinton was referring in her February remarks to a 1995 speech she delivered at the United Nations' Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, in which she called on the world community to  protect women against violence,  improve their access to  health services and education and generally  give them more self-determination.\n</p>\n<p>\n \"It is time for us to say here in Beijing, and the world to hear, that it is no longer acceptable to discuss women's rights as separate from human rights,\" Clinton said. \"It is a violation of human rights when babies are denied food, or drowned, or suffocated, or their spines broken, simply because they are born girls.\"\n</p>\n<p>\n Chinese state radio and television blacked out Clinton's speech. Reports at the time stated the official Chinese press was under instruction to ignore her address until an official reaction was crafted. China experts say such censorship is routine and reflects the government's desire to emphasize consensus and tamp down confrontation.\n</p>\n<p>\n Though Clinton's comments detailed abuses that occurred around the world &mdash; for example, rape in war-torn Bosnia and the burning of Indian brides whose marriage dowries were deemed too small &mdash; they had particularly strong implications in China, which had been the object of global criticism for forcing women to have abortions or undergo sterilization as part of \"one-child-per-family\" population control efforts.\n</p>\n<p>\n Clinton echoed her remarks and stressed the importance of promoting the economic empowerment of women at a separate gathering of the United Nations Development Fund for Women later in the trip. Clinton's campaign says her advocacy helped prompt many nations to make equality among the sexes a reality in the 21st century, and that she helped procure $140-million in small-enterprise loans and other credit to help poor women around the world.\n</p>\n<p>\n Clinton was walking a fine line at the time of her Beijing address because her husband's administration was trying to engage China and tone down U.S. condemnations of human rights abuses.  Human rights groups were concerned her participation in the conference would amount to an implicit endorsement of Chinese policies. Diplomats, meanwhile, were worried her presence would aggravate U.S.-Chinese relations.  The\n <i>\n  New York Times,\n </i>\n in an editorial, said the speech \"may have been her finest moment in public life.\"\n</p>\n<p>\n Experts on U.S.-China relations say Clinton's speech exemplified her ability to go to a foreign capital and deliver a forthright address, but said little about her readiness to confront a real foreign relations crisis. Nor did it have much of a lasting impact on China's legal and political system. Women remain underrepresented in the country's political and business leadership, and the country's population control policies remain in place.\n</p>\n<p>\n \"In no way was this (Clinton's speech) a major confrontation with the Chinese government, or did it in any way resemble a crisis,\" said Thomas Carothers, vice president for studies-international politics and governance at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. \"It was a good speech that set out principles but didn't go outside the bounds of the relatively mild approach to China the U.S. was taking at the time. It was one of many pushes from the outside ... it couldn't be said to change the direction of China's legal reform.\"\n</p>\n<p>\n The Clinton campaign, responding to recent criticism that her speech was not important,\n <a href=\"http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=6465\">\n  cites an Associated Press account\n </a>\n to claim that \"her speech at the conference &mdash; where she famously declared 'women's rights are human rights' spurred real action.\" But that's a bit of sleight-of-hand. We checked the full text of that story, which cited policy changes that helped women in many countries, and found the story attributed those changes to the conference, not specifically to Clinton's speech.\n</p>\n<p>\n Clinton's interest in women's issues in China again was apparent &mdash; albeit in a less confrontational way &mdash; three years later, when she and then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright traveled to a women's legal aid center affiliated with Beijing University's law school during a 1998 state visit by President Bill Clinton. The visit was intended to assess China's efforts to update its legal system. The Clinton administration made U.S. pledges of assistance in that effort a subject of the trip.  The legal aid center dealt with a wide range of women's legal issues, including rape, job discrimination and family planning.\n</p>\n<p>\n Yes, Clinton delivered a tough speech implying Chinese policies were unacceptable at a global gathering in that nation's capital city. But the Clinton campaign has failed to show she has been involved in the long-term commitment for improvements in China that her statement suggests. We find her claim to be Half True.\n</p>\n<p>\n</p>",
            "sources": "New York Times,\n<a href=\"http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CEFDF133DF935A3575AC0A963958260\">\n \"Hillary Clinton, in China, Details Abuses Against Women,\"\n</a>\nby Patrick E. Tyler, Sept. 6, 1995\n<p>\n New York Times,\n <a href=\"http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE7D81539F935A3575AC0A963958260\">\n  \"Mrs. Clinton's Unwavering Words,\"\n </a>\n Sept. 6, 1995\n</p>\n<p>\n New York Times,\n <a href=\"http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C02E5DC123FF93AA15755C0A96E958260\">\n  \"Clinton in China: Women; First Lady Visits Center for Women and the Law,\"\n </a>\n by Elisabeth Rosenthal,  June 29, 1998\n</p>\n<p>\n Associated Press, \"Equality of The Sexes: Year After Beijing, Momentum Is On,\" Aug. 25, 1996\n</p>\n<p>\n Hillary Clinton's \"Fact Hub\" Web site,\n <a href=\"http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=6465\">\n  Obama Campaign Attacks: Just Words,\n </a>\n March 11, 2008\n</p>\n<p>\n Interview with Thomas Carothers, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, March 11, 2008\n</p>\n<p>\n</p>"
        },
        {
            "id": 394,
            "slug": "clinton-visited-kosovo-refugees-but-",
            "speaker": {
                "slug": "hillary-clinton",
                "full_name": "Hillary Clinton",
                "first_name": "Hillary",
                "last_name": "Clinton"
            },
            "targets": [],
            "statement": "\"I negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo.\"",
            "ruling_slug": "barely-true",
            "publication_date": "2008-03-10T00:00:00-04:00",
            "ruling_comments": "As a way of burnishing her credentials to be commander in chief, Sen. Hillary Clinton made a number of claims during an interview with CNN, including, \"I negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo.\"\n<p>\n On May 14, 1999, first lady Clinton visited a refugee camp in Skopje, Macedonia, for ethnic Albanians leaving Kosovo. The trip received extensive press coverage focused on the plight of families trying to escape violence at the hands of Serbian forces.\n</p>\n<p>\n \"I want to send a message to the refugees that we do not intend to let the evil which (Yugoslavia President Slobodan) Milosevic perpetrated against these people keep them away from their homeland and their homes,\" Clinton said on the trip.\n</p>\n<p>\n Hillary Clinton's campaign has put forward statements from former Bill Clinton administration officials about the importance of the trip. Richard C. Holbrooke, who negotiated the 1995 Dayton Accords ending the war in Yugoslavia and is supporting Sen. Clinton's presidential bid, said the first lady pressed officials on her trip to keep borders open and then continued to lobby for refugees when she returned to Washington.\n</p>\n<p>\n \"After visiting refugees and gaining a first-hand assessment of the situation, the first lady had intense talks with President Gligorov and Prime Minister Georgievski,\" Holbrooke said in a written statement. \"In these talks, one in the Presidential Palace, another in the residence of the American Ambassador, Christopher Hill, Mrs. Clinton pressed the Macedonian government to fully open the border so that Kosovar Albanian refugees could flee the war zone to safety.\"\n</p>\n<p>\n The trip seemed more designed to gain media coverage than to conduct substantive diplomacy, however. Clinton visited the area for less than 12 hours, arriving at 9:20 a.m. and leaving at 5:45 p.m.  According to the itinerary provided to news organizations, she arrived at the camp and was briefed on relief efforts at 10 a.m., toured the camp at 11 a.m., and met with nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) at 1:30 p.m.\n</p>\n<p>\n Her meetings with officials appear to have been brief. Holbrooke is correct on some of the details he mentions, but the meetings all took place within the space of a single afternoon. The itinerary shows photo opportunities for the traveling press at 2:20 p.m. with Prime Minister Branko Crvenkovski at the U.S. Ambassador's Residence; at 2:50 p.m. with President Kiro Gligorov at the president's residence; and at 3:30 p.m. with first lady Gligorov at the president's residence.\n</p>\n<p>\n The\n <i>\n  New York Times\n </i>\n reported that her visit to the camp was \"so carefully scripted that administration officials chose which refugees Mrs. Clinton would speak with.\"\n</p>\n<p>\n Macedonia opened its borders before Clinton visited, so it seems unlikely that she personally negotiated for border openings. But the Clinton administration wanted to make sure the borders stayed open amid concern that Macedonian officials were trying to keep refugees out. In this context, her trip suggests a diplomatic visit intended to reinforce U.S. goals in the region. In her biography\n <i>\n  Living History\n </i>\n , she mentions her visit and describes it as supporting the administration's diplomatic agenda around the world, but she does not mention taking part in specific negotiations.\n</p>\n<p>\n We tried and failed to find an independent expert who could speak to her role in negotiating open borders. Janusz Bugajski, an expert on the region with the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C., said via e-mail of her visit, \"No doubt she tried to help the plight of refugees, but whether she was mandated by President Clinton to speak on behalf of the U.S. administration concerning policy in the region one would need to ask the former president.\"\n</p>\n<p>\n Our reading of the record shows a good deal to suggest Clinton was concerned about the plight of the people of Kosovo, but almost nothing to indicate she was a major player in border negotiations. We'll give her the benefit of the doubt for traveling to Macedonia and meeting with officials, but the way her statement is phrased, it makes her sound primarily responsible for the United States' efforts in the region. We don't find evidence to support that aside from her less-than-12-hour visit, and so we find her statement to be Barely True.\n</p>\n<p>\n</p>\n\n<br/><br/><i>Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.</i>",
            "sources": "CQ Newsmaker Transcripts, Sen. Clinton Interviewed on CNN's American Morning, March 5, 2008\n<p>\n Boston Globe, \"Mrs. Clinton brings hope, pledge to dispirited camp,\" May 15, 1999\n</p>\n<p>\n Hillary Clinton campaign,\n <a href=\"http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=6431\">\n  The Facts: Hillary and Kosovo\n </a>\n , March 8, 2008\n</p>\n<p>\n U.S. Newswire, \"Schedule for Trip of First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton to Macedonia,\" May 13, 1999\n</p>\n<p>\n Agence France Presse, \"Hillary Clinton winds up Macedonia visit,\" May 14, 1999\n</p>\n<p>\n New York Times, \"First Lady Pays Visit To a Camp,\" May 15, 1999\n</p>\n<p>\n Agence France Press, \"Kosovar inflow into Macedonia down to a trickle,\" May 11, 1999.\n</p>\n<p>\n <a href=\"http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/52343577\">\n  Living History\n </a>\n , by Hillary Rodham Clinton\n</p>\n<p>\n Interview with Janusz Bugajski of the Center for Strategic and International Studies\n</p>\n<p>\n</p>"
        }
    ]
}