McCain made a bit of an error...

[Zachstar]

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

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.
The former Nixon and Ford U.S. Secretary of State early in the year indicated his belief that the U.S. should hold direct talks with Iran (http://deseretnews.com/article/content/mobile/1,5620,695261802,00.html?printView=true) when speaking to Bloomberg Television.

Whoops: I bet he is regretting his attack on Obama for that right about now!

[UnderseaLcpl]

Whoops: I bet he is regretting his attack on Obama for that right about now!

Maybe not. I'm betting that most U.S. voters will follow the same process I did;
Click link, see a wall of text, maybe skim it, click "back" button, post some uninformed reply.:D


I'll read it later, I promise. Bedtime for now.

[JHuschke]

They had the debate on absolutley every channel I changed to, so I watched it instead of wasting time flipping through channels...:shifty:

McCain, I hope he wins..but yes it seems he did make an error in the debate tonight! Said some nonsense things..Obama hit back pretty good with "Jim always brings this up", about the funding for the troops & whether yes or no should the troops stay where they are or come back home.

[Zachstar]

They had the debate on absolutley every channel I changed to, so I watched it instead of wasting time flipping through channels...:shifty:

McCain, I hope he wins..but yes it seems he did make an error in the debate tonight! Said some nonsense things..Obama hit back pretty good with "Jim always brings this up", about the funding for the troops & whether yes or no should the troops stay where they are or come back home.

Don't get your hopes up.

A) This was McCain's Territory.. The remaining debates are strongly in Obama's territory (The VP debate is just a mess.)

B) This is being compared to the the Nixon debate. McCain STRONGLY aided this image for no reason by refusing to look at Obama.

C) Fox news focus group poll went to Obama.. Nuff said

[Thomen]

*cough*
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2008/09/27/kissinger-says-obama-wrong-kissingers-position-debate-tonight
*cough

[August]

So who do we believe here?

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. The former Nixon and Ford U.S. Secretary of State early in the year indicated his belief that the U.S. should hold direct talks with Iran (http://deseretnews.com/article/content/mobile/1,5620,695261802,00.html?printView=true) when speaking to Bloomberg Television.

Or
Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard:

Kissinger Unhappy About Obama
Henry Kissinger believes Barack Obama misstated his views on diplomacy with US adversaries and is not happy about being mischaracterized. He says: "Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality."

[1480]

The latter......

[Platapus]

It depends on how you interpret Dr. Kissinger's words of "at very high levels"

Does that mean the President?
Secretary of State?
Second Assistant vice undersecretary for cleaning toilets?

Slick hank is being his usual cryptic self.

What I feel is more important is the fact that Dr. Kissinger agrees with the meeting without preconditions. That is the big difference between Obama and McCain.

Whether it is the President, SecState, or congress, meeting with out restrictive preconditions should be the key question, not what level.

Obama is interpreting "at very high levels" to include, not exclusively, the President.

McCain is interpreting "at very high levels" to exclude the President.

[SteamWake]

kissenger... indeed there is a reputable role model

next thing you know we should be listening to Jimmy Carter :rotfl:

[CCIP]

kissenger... indeed there is a reputable role model

Bingo :doh:

I'd be keeping away from that creep, and honestly I also think Obama could potentially come off worse, both by pissing off the other camp for 'misrepresenting' Kissinger and some of Kissinger non-fans for bringing him up as such a credible model all of a sudden...

[August]

McCain is interpreting "at very high levels" to exclude the President.

A reasonable interpretation given that the Iranian President is little more than a mouthpiece for the Mullahs.

[Platapus]

Oh I agree, there really is no need to talk with the President of Iran as he is not involved in setting national policies.

The Supreme Leader or a representative from the Council of Experts would be more appropriate for the President of the United States to talk to as the power levels are more similar.

To understand what the President of Iran does, try to imagine, in US government terms, a "Governor" of Iran. That's the closest American government analogy that can be made.

And the best news is that Ahmadinejad will be out of office in 2009 and the principle candidates in both the Reform Coalition and the Conservative Alliance are more moderate than he was.

I am looking forward with great interest in the Summer 09 elections in Iran. :know:

[CCIP]

I think McCain's position on this is a real mistake. I really don't see what this "giving legitimacy" thing is all about, but I see the reverse: the refusal to sit down and talk, and the refusal to acknowledge that the other state, however bad, has strategic interests - great way to feed the pet paranoias of regimes like Russia, North Korea and Iran - paranoias which only strengthen the regimes at home and always let them have a 'great satan' to point their finger at and scare kids with. Worse, this actually becomes not just an issue of scaring but really a supportable argument :hmm:

[JoeCorrado]

So who do we believe here?

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. The former Nixon and Ford U.S. Secretary of State early in the year indicated his belief that the U.S. should hold direct talks with Iran (http://deseretnews.com/article/content/mobile/1,5620,695261802,00.html?printView=true) when speaking to Bloomberg Television.

OrStephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard:

Kissinger Unhappy About Obama
Henry Kissinger believes Barack Obama misstated his views on diplomacy with US adversaries and is not happy about being mischaracterized. He says: "Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality."

I believe what I saw with my own eyes, heard with my own ears. Not only did Kissinger "clearly" state that the United Sates should hold "high level" discussions with Iran immediately, but that those talks should begin with "no preconditions" being set.

Not only did Kissinger state that he would begin such high level talks without precondition- he stated that he would send the secretary of state as the "initial" representative.

In fact, all five of the former secretaries of state agreed that their best advice to the incoming president would be to schedule talks immediately and with no preconditions. All five agreed and there was not one who supported McCain's position of no talks unless Iran agreed to concessions first.

In fact, Obama's comments during the debate accurately reflected Kissinger's comments during a September 15 forum. Kissinger said, "Well, I am in favor of negotiating with Iran. And one utility of negotiation is to put before Iran our vision of a Middle East, of a stable Middle East, and our notion on nuclear proliferation at a high enough level so that they have to study it. And, therefore, I actually preferred doing it at the secretary of state level so that we -- we know we're dealing with authentic -- with authentic proposals." Asked by CNN's Frank Sesno, "To put at a very high level right out of the box?" Kissinger responded:
Initially, yes. And I always believed that the best way to begin a negotiation is to tell the other side exactly what you have in mind and what you are -- what the outcome is that you're trying to achieve so that they have something that they can react to.

Now, the permanent members of the Security Council, plus Japan and Germany, have all said nuclear weapons in Iran are unacceptable. They've never explained what they mean by this. So if we go into a negotiation, we ought to have a clear understanding of what is it we're trying to prevent. What is it going to do if we can't achieve what we're talking about?

But I do not believe that we can make conditions for the opening of negotiations. We ought, however, to be very clear about the content of negotiations and work it out with other countries and with our own government.


McCain is on an island and Kissinger cannot change the facts no matter how much he wants to provide cover for McCain's blunder.

[SteamWake]

:doh: The yellow text is very impressive :rotfl:

Fact is you can talk to a post but the post wont listen.

[Sea Demon]

meanwhile Turkey led the talk between Assad and Olmert. Even if Olmert was already as good as dead politically in Israel, fact is that the talks took place without the US at the table and hopefully will resume as soon as Israel gets a new PM & government.
Those talks led to nowhere. I'd prefer my government not participate in exercises of futility.

[AVGWarhawk]

So who do we believe here?

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. The former Nixon and Ford U.S. Secretary of State early in the year indicated his belief that the U.S. should hold direct talks with Iran (http://deseretnews.com/article/content/mobile/1,5620,695261802,00.html?printView=true) when speaking to Bloomberg Television.



OrStephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard:

Kissinger Unhappy About Obama
Henry Kissinger believes Barack Obama misstated his views on diplomacy with US adversaries and is not happy about being mischaracterized. He says: "Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality."



I believe what I saw with my own eyes, heard with my own ears. Not only did Kissinger "clearly" state that the United Sates should hold "high level" discussions with Iran immediately, but that those talks should begin with "no preconditions" being set.

Not only did Kissinger state that he would begin such high level talks without precondition- he stated that he would send the secretary of state as the "initial" representative.

In fact, all five of the former secretaries of state agreed that their best advice to the incoming president would be to schedule talks immediately and with no preconditions. All five agreed and there was not one who supported McCain's position of no talks unless Iran agreed to concessions first.



In fact, Obama's comments during the debate accurately reflected Kissinger's comments during a September 15 forum. Kissinger said, "Well, I am in favor of negotiating with Iran. And one utility of negotiation is to put before Iran our vision of a Middle East, of a stable Middle East, and our notion on nuclear proliferation at a high enough level so that they have to study it. And, therefore, I actually preferred doing it at the secretary of state level so that we -- we know we're dealing with authentic -- with authentic proposals." Asked by CNN's Frank Sesno, "To put at a very high level right out of the box?" Kissinger responded: Initially, yes. And I always believed that the best way to begin a negotiation is to tell the other side exactly what you have in mind and what you are -- what the outcome is that you're trying to achieve so that they have something that they can react to.

Now, the permanent members of the Security Council, plus Japan and Germany, have all said nuclear weapons in Iran are unacceptable. They've never explained what they mean by this. So if we go into a negotiation, we ought to have a clear understanding of what is it we're trying to prevent. What is it going to do if we can't achieve what we're talking about?

But I do not believe that we can make conditions for the opening of negotiations. We ought, however, to be very clear about the content of negotiations and work it out with other countries and with our own government.


McCain is on an island and Kissinger cannot change the facts no matter how much he wants to provide cover for McCain's blunder.


Kissinger said he does not "believe" we can make conditions. He did not emphatically state we should not make conditions. He continues on stating that content of negotiations should be clear thus making this a pre-condition from the start. In other words, we are not going to talk about what we want over a cup of tea. The precondition is the contents of the negotiations to be discussed.