Debate: So apparently McCain doesn't know Jack ...

[Final-Fan]

Kasz216 said:

Final-Fan said:

Kasz216 said:
Also Kissinger said...

"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."

So... apparently Obama is the one that doesn't know jack... since that was the contention of the arguement. The President sitting down with anyone over the world.

You expect his own advisor not to stretch the truth in his favor?  Obama specifically said that the talks would start at lower levels and not necessarily be with President Ahmadinejad, therefore not being "at the Presidential level", and McCain still said there was no way Kissinger agreed.  

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/fact-check-kiss.html

According to this, I would say that perhaps McCain "did not understand" when Obama said that talks would start at lower levels and not necessarily be with President Ahmadinejad.  But his attack on "without preconditions" is totally contradictory to Kissinger's explicit statements. 

And no, that was not "the contention of the argument" solely.  McCain continued to hammer the "without preconditions" line, as I recall, but feel free to prove me wrong -- I haven't reviewed the transcript yet. 

However Obama said "I would meet with anyone without preconditions."

"I'm not going to meet with you until we have lower level meetings" is a precondition.

Obama said HE would meet with anybody without preconditions.

Kissinger said the government should.  It's a big difference.

Obama either misused the word precondition or he's backtracking on what he said pretending he misused the word.

My response in the other thread: 

"On preconditions the two appear to agree. Last week Kissinger also said that 'I do not believe that we can make conditions for the opening of negotiations.'" source

As for the definition of preconditions, here's how the term is used by the U.S. deputy assistant secretary of state: 
U.S. wants Georgia, Abkhazia talks without preconditions
...
Both Georgia and the rebels have set preconditions for sitting down to talks with each other.
...
"We cannot understand why there are no direct negotiations between Sukhumi and Tbilisi. If the parties are serious about reducing tensions, they do not put preconditions," [U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Matthew] Bryza told reporters in Tbilisi.
...
Abkhaz separatists say talks would be impossible unless Georgia withdrew its troops from a disputed gorge cutting deep into Abkhaz territory.

They also demand Georgia sign a formal pledge not to attack the region. Georgia has refused to sign formal pledges not to attack, saying it did not have any such plans anyway.

So I think it's clear that "preconditions" means "do this and this and this, and then we'll talk to you", not "we'll talk to you right now but not at the Presidential level at first". 

So I emphatically disagree with you on whether Obama was incorrectly using the word "precondition".  And if McCain had in mind some other meaning of the word, if such another usage even exists in diplomatic jargon (source plz?), Obama proceeded to define it for him to eliminate any potential misunderstanding and McCain STILL hammered away. 

Obama did NOT misuse the word; at WORST, he used a correct definition of the word instead of the correct definition of the word, and you still have yet to back up your claim of another usage in diplomatic jargon with anything other than pure speculation. 

Obama also said clearly that preliminary talks would be necessary.  I think it's entirely consistent with his statements to suppose that by saying that he would talk to Iran right away he meant his administration and not himself personally, although I am not an expert on Obama's positions and I eagerly await your proof to the contrary. 

preliminary talks =/= precondition