MMFA: During the debate, McCain repeatedly purported to correct Obama by saying Kissinger would not support presidential-level talks with Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Each time, Obama made clear that was not his contention -- that, instead, he was accurately saying Kissenger supported talks between the United States and Iran at levels below the president.

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

Well, I am in favor of negotiating with Iran.---HK

----------------------------

>>>MMFA for President.

The whole "preconditions" thing is so Jr. High girl stuff.One thing Obama did well tonight was to make it clear that our idea that dealing with other countries only after they've agreed to all of our conditions is a ridiculous relic of the Bush era, and a dangerously myopic and self-centered way to approach foreign policy.

What really bothered me is that McCain was probably the least gracious debater I've seen since these things started in 1960. 

Many times Obama said that I agree with John then began to point out some difference on the way he's do things. McCain was just a mean old bastard. 

The McCain campaign has twisted Obama's position on meeting with heads of states with whom he disagrees. To hear McCain say it, Obama would be calling up the Dear Leader at 3 AM and making plans to meet him for lattes at Starbucks without anyone else being in on the planning.

For the life of me I can't understand McCain's appeal. This meeting with unfriendly leaders thing shows just how belligerent he is. Any parent who votes for him has to understand that a vote for McCain is a vote for someone who would refuse to talk during a crisis but wouldn't think twice about sending our kids to their deaths trying to solve the problem with the military.

Careful king...you're close to falling for the trap set by both candidates...allowing them to frame the discussion around silly soundbites.

Obama was very clear when stating that "He" would meet with certain enemies of our country without those darned pre-conditions. If he misspoke...he should just say so and confirm his current stance of lower level talks that could lead to discussions...pre-conditions or not.

I agree with your description of McCain's antics when attacking Obama on negotiating with enemies of the state...it's ridiculous.

Tell me, king, if I heard them correctly. Aside from their partisan bickering...that both support current and future cabinet level talks with certain of our enemies and face to face meetings will be determined by future events?

That's what I get from the exchange at the debate and their simple minded campaign rhetoric...making it much ado about nothing.

 at no point during the debate that night did Obama suggest that Kissinger had previously endorsed presidential-level talks between the United States and Iran.

Oh geese, lets be honest here; of course this is what he was doing .. it's the same as when hs was suggest it way back when Hillary slapped him down for the "no preconditions" thing.

As McCain pointed out, we already have lower level talks with these people, but to legitimize these men with a face to face would be dangerous.

MMFA got it wrong here, and Obama should have just come clean an admitted he was wrong about meeting with these guys without preconditions.

PS. Obama sort of is reversing his position though;  now he calls it preparation  instead of pre conditions. lol

The distinction of preparation vs. precondition is clear.  Preparation meanst that you build up to higher-level meetings so you know they have a purpose, precondition means that you don't talk to them at all unless they conform to a certain behavior.  Is this inconsistent with his original comment?

The distinction of preparation vs. precondition is clear.

I'm afraid it's not. Preparation is itself a precondition

That's interesting, considering that Kissinger says we should meet with Iran without preconditions.  Do you really think that he is advocating meeting with them without any preparation or build-up of any sort whatsoever?

Max

You are 100% correct, and anyone who watched the debate knows exactly that!! 

It's hard to believe that pointy view and dharma bum think this is just so fine:  distort what Obama says to feel justified in not even questioning their own insane position.  They don't have a clue and would rather have McBush running the economy into the ground and continuing their insane no negotiating policies.

It's obvious that Obama is a prudent and thoughtful statesman, and the contrast between him and what we have now is painful. 

In the July, 2007 democrat debate Obama was asked: Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea? Obama answered: I would.

This exchange took place just a few weeks after a May 28, 2007 meeting between US officials and Iranian officials in Baghdad, so the question and answer had nothing to do with whether or not low level talks should take place: they already had. Clearly Obama was saying he would meet with Ahmadinejad. Everyone in the building at that debate knew he was talking about president to president type meetings, and Clinton's and Edwards' subsequent response to the same question confirms this. No matter how Obama wants to spin this today, the record is clear, he naively said he would sit down face to face with Ahmadinejad, without preconditions, in his first year as president.

Now tonight when called on it, Obama quoted Dr. Kissinger as saying "we" should meet with Iran without preconditions, implying Kissinger's support for his previously stated postition which after all was the subject at hand, right? So is it any wonder that Dr. Kissinger would want to set the record straight? Kudos to John King for reading his statement and not letting Obama get away with his usual word games.

Oh shove it buster.  You never want to solve anything.  Word games indeed.  You listen to the Bush/rove/mcBush crowd and want to accuse Obama of word games?!!!

Good definition of insanity:  projecting onto the "other" what you are yourself.

Mary

So let me understand this Mary.  First you claim I distorted Obama's position.  Then EYE posts Obama's EXACT WORDS.  They show I was right, and your response to him is "Oh shove it buster" That is a great defense of your insane and incorrect position. 

Pointy,

This is why our country is so screwed up.  You take his "yes I would" as his unchanging position, when you KNOW that Obama has nuanced views and develops his ideas from study and conversation.  The point was that he didn't accept the current Bush policy of not talking to "enemies"  Can't you understand that?   He's since more clearly articulated the preparations for such meetings and with high level officials.  He's evolved, in other words, to state a clearer explanation of the subject.

The reason for the "shove it" is that you must know this, but still pretend not to.

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

So then, er, Henry, you don't believe in preconditions, which means you don't agree with McCain, eh?

So why do you now say you agree with him? Or is the topic being deliberately shifted in an evasive fashion?

My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain.

OBAMA: So let's talk about this. First of all, Ahmadinejad is not the most powerful person in Iran. So he may not be the right person to talk to. But I reserve the right, as president of the United States to meet with anybody at a time and place of my choosing if I think it's going to keep America safe.

And I'm glad that Senator McCain brought up the history, the bipartisan history of us engaging in direct diplomacy.

Senator McCain mentioned Henry Kissinger, who's one of his advisers, who, along with five recent secretaries of state, just said that we should meet with Iran -- guess what -- without precondition. This is one of your own advisers.

Obama was talking about Kissinger in the context of his own potential talks with Iran.  That does suggest that Kissinger endorsed that action.  MMfA should provide that portion of the transcript.

However, this is not a major distinction.  The point is about "preconditions", which is what McCain repeatedly said in his previous statement.  Kissinger said it was a preference to do this at a secretary of state level, which doesn't refute Obama's point that he should have the right to meet anyone he wants without making them meet conditions beforehand.

If McCain believes that lower-level talks should be held without preconditions, he should have made that clear.  If the Secretary of State can meet with someone, then we're "legitimizing" them that way as well, right?  It seems to be a strange dividing line based largely on symbolism.

Right, Brab. It's funny that some of the same people who mocked certain Dems refusal to legitimize a homegrown propaganda outlet like FoxNooz by appearing there consider it scary for our leaders to take on the less than respectable leaders from other countries one-on-one.

This whole thing is a stupid word game.  Needless to say, the media will be bollixed for the next several months over it.

Another massively difficult distinction is that talking to someone is not the same as giving them stuff.

Iran was sympathetic and there was demonstrations in the streets of Tehran after we were attacked by Al-Queda on 9/11. Iran provided support and helped us in our fight against the Taliban. Soon after this show of support GW Bush included them in his Axis of Evil BS. Some thankyou! Iran made overtures before our invasion of Iraq that they would stop their nuclear energy program if the US would agree not to attack or invade them , the US ignored this overture thus in essence rejecting it which lead to the election of Ahmadinejad(sp)and the present state of affairs. This state is the result of a wrong headed foreign policy that is predicated on not talking to those we disagree with and a simplistic view of the world that is summarized with "you are either with us or against us."Our military is stretched to the breaking point, and our wrong headed approach has left us alone in the world and very few options,while problems continue to grow and the world becomes more and more unstable. "Tough talk" with few options leads us down a dangerous road with consequences we will regret. Small squirmises can quickly spiral out of control leading to a confliguration where the only option we have left is nuclear(which to me is no option). Case in point is the recent Georgia vs. Russia battle, or what is happening in Pakistan;does anyone really think that not talking to those we disagree with could solve these problems? Our economy is on the brink of collaspe, the Chinese and Japanese own us, as we borrow more and more to fund our war in Iraq to the tune of $14 billion a month, while we cut taxes with the most benefit going to the top 1% of the nation while the only thing trickling down is BS for the rest of us. I have a question:In this complex and ever changing dangerous world can we afford to not talk to our enemies and those we disagree with?

 I believe that when John McCain makes the argument against what Obama's view is especially in this case, he should respond, 'that is exactly the George W Bush failed policy.'

Way to spin, John. Did anyone notice that he was the only one who showed McCain with the most points on their little scoreboard last night. I wasn't at all surprised by that either. LOL

In too many instances John McCain like Obama characterized him seems to take a "hatchet where a scapel is needed!" McCain reacts instead of looking at the "big" picture all the cliches apply, "shoot first, ask questions later,kill them all and let God sort em' out, or off my planet by sundown." That's been our foreign policy these last 8yrs, and Mr. "I know how the world works,"McCain who couldn't even look at his opponent (but promises to reach across the aile)during the debate calls Obama dangerous.  Colin Powell dismisses McCain's reckless "we are all Georgians" statement - says we have to be careful in a crisis and act businesslike, not emotional. Asked by CNN's Christiane Amanpour to explain McCain's statement that "'we are all Georgians now.'  What does that mean?" Secretary Powell responded, "One candidate said that, and I'll let the candidate explain it for himself.  (Laughter.)  No, the fact of the matter is that you have to be very careful in a situation like this not just to leap to one side or the other until you've taken a good analysis of the whole situation....So you have to treat Russia...in a straightforward, businesslike, objective way and not emotionally." [CNAS, 9/15/08]Henry Kissinger: Georgia shot first, should not overreact to crisis. "We have to face the fact that the first shot in Georgia was fired on the Georgian side.  Now, Russia reacted in an excessive manner, but we should not make the whole relationship depend on the pictures that - (inaudible) -- to explore the possibilities of cooperation and be very sure before w go the route of cutting off WTO and the other international measures for which cooperation with Russia may be very important." [CNAS, 9/15/08]Henry Kissinger: U.S.-Russia relationship too important to sacrifice over situation in Georgia. "We have a number of common issues that we have to settle, if possible, with Russia.  We need Russia for a solution of the Iranian problem.  We may need Russia if Pakistan evolves in some of the directions that it might.  And it is helpful to cooperate with Russia not just on the [nuclear] question, but on the issues of energy.  It's - (unintelligible) - and it's an effort that should not be decided by what happened in Georgia." [CNAS, 9/15/08]

'Enough with this  childish game.  This phony "cheap steak" toughness, cowboy mentality that only plays in a "B" movie,only this is real life.

If you stop playing with semantics, setting aside what the definition of "is" is, McCain accused Obama of being in favor of president-to-president unconditional talks with rogue regimes.  In fact, Obama did say this during the primaries and was savaged by Hillary Clinton during his debates with her for this position.

Rather than trying to distinguish his primary position (that president-to-president negotiations without pre-conditions was OK) from his general election position (the commonly held view that negotiations at lower levels do not require preconditions), OBama tried to blur the two to make it seem he had never really held the position that Clinton had attacked him for.  Then, through rhetorical slight of hand, Obama pointed out that his position (the new position) was shared by Henry Kissinger.

Nearly everyone, evidently including Kissinger, thought he was defending his old position about president-to-president negotiations which explans the confusion.  It would have been easier had Obama allowed that his position had changed and explained his new view, but that is hard to do in politics.  It seems that trying to blur the distinction, normally a good tactic, ultimately backfired here.

If you don't believe me ask Hillary.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/kissinger-backs.html

Kissinger Backs Direct Talks 'Without Conditions' with Iran

September 15, 2008 6:16 PM

ABC News' Rachel Martin Reports: Former U.S.Secretary of State Henry Kissinger today told an audience in Washington, DC that the U.S. should negotiate with Iran "without conditions" and that the next President should begin such negotiations at a high level."

- oh hell, Kissinger, like McCain, has no idea what he said two days ago much less two weeks ago!

Though,somewhat confusing most understand what Obama said,and what Henry Kissenger said,despite Kissengers spin,after the debate in support of John McCain,at least they did until pointy and max spun the hell out of it with their silly word games

I watched the Secretaries of State on CNN three times (it was captivating!) It was VERY clear that they all supported talks (on varying levels) WITHOUT preconditions. CNN actually had one post-debate discussion where Christiane Amanpour weighed in and said that Obama was correct. The more worrisome thing is that there is widespread (ABC, CBS all reporting "Obama Lied" "Kissinger Angry with Obama") mutilation of the truth here. After the panel, Haaretz.com published the following: Former U.S. secretaries of state say they support talks with Iran

Topic Two of Twisted CNN/King: CNN's John King also really messed up in saying that McCain campaign had "pulled ads for 72 hours" -- that was simply not true. I've heard no retraction on that either. (Not to mention, the campaign took donations on its website, local offices were open & completely unaware of any "suspension" and Palin's team asked the PA press to meet her at the airport to cover her arrival in the battleground state. None of that is suspension, and John King should really try to get some facts straight.

(Afaik, Preconditions are not the same as preparations. Preconditions means that the country must DO something (agree to stop refining uranium, for instance) before we're willing to TALK to them. Preparation simply means that many safeguards have been put into use so that there can be no propagandizing from the talks. Talking to Iran without preconditions happened well into Gen. Powell's tenure as Sec. of State with the current Bush Administration, so McCain is taking a very hard line on this one -- and one that seems ill-conceived except perhaps to court votes from neocons or people afraid and confused.

From Meet the Press. November 11, 2007:

MR. RUSSERT: In July, you were asked if you were willing to meet separately without pre-condition during your first year with Fidel Castro, Kim Jung Il, Hugo Chavez. You said yes. You stand by that?

SEN. OBAMA: I do. The--now, I did not say that I would be meeting with all of them. I said I'd be willing to. Obviously, there is a difference between pre-conditions and preparation. Pre-conditions, which was what the question was in that debate, means that we won't meet with people unless they've already agreed to the very things that we expect to be meeting with them about. And obviously, when we say to Iran, "We won't meet with you until you've agreed to all the terms that we've laid out," from their perspective that's not a negotiation, that's not a meeting. Preparation means that we are sitting down ahead of time, various lower-level diplomats and envoys, are sorting out what's the agenda going to be? Nuclear weapons has to be on the table. The issue of terrorism needs to be on the table. Incursions into Iraq that are affecting the safety of our troops, that needs to be on the table. Joining the World Trade Organization, that needs to be on the table. Once those items are on the table, then, yes, I would be willing to have a meeting to see if we can make progress on these fronts.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/11/sweet_blog_extra_obama_on_meet.html