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

[Sqrl]

Final-Fan said:

No, Sqrl, if Kissinger says he wants to open very high level negotiations without conditions, and he intends for low-level talks to take place first, then that is my definition and not yours. [edit: Or at least it seems to clearly be that way to me and thus if I am wrong I am in dire need of correction.]

You also misunderstood my mall analogy. Triviality wasn't the point, it was that of course you would park in the mall parking lot.  Putting gas in the car isn't trivial, either.  Although I can imagine scenarios of going to the mall without parking there, most of the time (unless one uses public transportation most of the time) you would park at the mall and not even think about that as being a necessary condition of going to the mall. Thus I believe it is with Obama and the Iran talks. And if something happens and the mall parking lot is flooded or Iran is completely beyond reason, well then you have a problem, but it's expected that things will proceed.

Kissinger wants talks to begin at a high level without preconditions, but I can find no where that indicates he wants preliminary talks before those high level talks nor that he would consider those not to be preconditions.  But more importantly Kissinger does not think the president should be engaged in those talks at all, while Obama does.

Kissinger quotes from your article:

"When asked if high level talks with Iran should begin right out of the box, Kissinger replied "Initially, yes.""

"I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level."

"he said he "preferred doing it at the secretary of state level.""

So yes he wants talks to begin without preconditions but not at the presidential level, specifically he wants those talks to begin at the secretary of state level.  His "out of the box" comment indicates that when he says no preconditions he means no preliminary talks before the SoState talks.  I see no reason to think that these would be preliminary talks clearing the way for the presidential level negotiations, but even if he did mean that he clearly feels it necessary to point this intermediate step out and clearly thinks it should be a requirement before the presidential talks occur (thus a precondition).  Again I feel like I'm well supported, and yet I know you will disagree =P

On the second point you are using a suppositional argument to infer what he meant.  It is simply not a valid argument.  It is far to sweeping and gives far to much leeway to the words of a man who is in a profession that should be given little leeway or none at all. You may feel as if you know him or trust him enough to suppose this..I do not and even if I did trust him I would consider it a very weak argument to convince others with.

With the week about to begin I likely won't be responding as regularly and honestly I feel like this is at least the second complete circle we've done. Lets just call it and save the energy for the inevitable encounter on the next issue.