Haha. ManusJustus thinks that Kasz isn't independent thinking.... lol. Kasz is perhaps one of the most independently minded people on this site and it confuses the heck out of me at times.

I forgot that Kasz216 said that.  Please explain to me why it's "obvious" because AFAIK McCain's gigantic proposed tax cuts mean enormous deficits according to all experts.  Obama's proposal is also probably inadequate but much MUCH less so. 

How can someone live for 72 years and not learn what a precondition is?

^ made me lol

Obama's position is to meet at the highest level, this is from his own website:

"...direct presidential diplomacy without preconditions..."

I just wanted to solidly establish this point.

As Kasz pointed out McCain corrected Obama's characeterization of Kissinger's position in the debate and Kissinger subsequently squashed it himself.  There is a massive difference between a presidential level talk and a "high level" talk.  I think everyone understands there is a difference here, yes?

If so then you also concede that Obama was twisting his words.  The issue was presidential level talks so for Obama to throw Kissinger's comments about high-level talks at McCain is missleading and I think it was fairly clear he was trying to imply that Kissinger was in favor of the presidential level talks.  But McCain clarified and Obama relented on the point.

Now on to the main point of contention.  Final-fan I really think you are parsing this to death.  A precondition is a precondition...whether that is "do this and this or we won't meet" or "meet with us on this level before we meet with you on this higher level".  They are both preconditions by definition.

Dictionary.com's take: something that must come before or is necessary to a subsequent result;

A precondition is anything that must happen before something else happens.  I'm not aware of any definition, in any frame of reference, which narrows it further like you seem to be doing.

A preliminary talk is not by itself a precondition. But when one side stipulates that those preliminary talks must occur before presidential talks occur it is absolutely a precondition by the very definition of the word.  It is something that must occur for something else to occur.

Edit: Oh and btw I have some serious doubts about the neutrality of factcheck.org, but thats another debate entirely.

Question for Sqrl: Does "Presidential diplomacy" really mean specifically diplomacy conducted personally by the President himself, and nothing else?  I am not very knowledgeable in this.

On to preconditions: When a nation like the US conducts talks like the proposed ones with a nation like Iran, with the level of tension/enmity between them, do you really think any President would just hop on a plane to Tehran without any sort of preliminaries? It's downright silly IMO to suggest that the fact that such opening steps would have to take place count as "preconditions". It's like saying that turning the key for a car ignition is a precondition of driving it. Well, yes it is, but so what? It's not the same kind of "precondition" that having to rent the car first would be. It's a whole other level.

Kissinger said "I do not believe that we can make conditions for the opening of negotiations." Oh, well, I guess he forgot about the precondition of they have to meet before they can open negotiations.

[edit:  Poking around online I ran across this statement:  "The buildup to any high-level diplomatic encounter is carefully prepared and highly orchestrated."  This is what Obama was referring to, unless you feel you have a convincing argument that that's not what he meant by "preparation".]

@ Sqrl regarding Factcheck.org: I'm not asking you for a debate on this time, but do you feel that their alleged non-neutrality is simply in their origin/sponsors (and doesn't creep into their work) or do you feel that what we see in their site is also colored by that non-neutrality?

@Sqrl: McCain was the one parsing it too much if he assumed "no preconditions" means the "hopping on a plane" scenario that Final-Fan just presented.

That's why politics discussions are so fun. Every issue can get turned around. Clearly McCain was the one who either didn't get the point or nitpicked too much.

In the kissinger article you linked he referred to "very high level" meetings as the Secretary of State (ie Rice) (I think it was your link, I've read a lot on this recently so not 100% sure). Given that, among other things I've read, I would say that the term quite clearly indicates diplomacy involving the president directly.  Honestly I would take that as the obvious definition given the meaning of the word "presidential".  Perhaps I've missed something but I honestly don't see how it could mean something else.

Preconditions: I agree with your point that the ideas is fairly ridiculous in curret context, but the comments were originally made around the time that Obama referred to Iran as a tiny country and iirc he also explicitly stated they were not a major threat (which is at least as equally ridiculous).  That would indicate that perhaps he felt as a result it would be OK to meet at the presidential level without preconditions.

Saying "well its so stupid he couldn't have meant it that way" is really not a valid argument. Begging the question comes to mind, although I don't know that it falls into that definition very neatly.  My point is that its not a substantive answer but a suppositional one.  If Obama had prior experience with these sorts of negotiations to point to I would be far more willing to give the benefit of the doubt. But I find it highly plausible that given who he was talking to (ie a very anti-war primary crowd) it makes sense that he would say such a thing and mean it that way.  

As for the Kissinger quote at the end, it is perfectly consistent with what I've said.  Your statement seems to assume that the two types of preconditions are mutually exclusive uses of the word and that only one of them can be a valid definition.  But as I said both preliminary talks and pre-talk "demands" should be considered preconditions because both are things you would or could use as a condition for high level talks and especially the highest level talks.  I re-stress this point because I'm not entirely certaint we are on the same page as far as it is concerned.

You can make a statement but if you don't support it, it means nothing.  You didn't support your statements here and thus they are meaningless.

It's easy to play the "Clearly [my position]" game but this doesn't get us anywhere. So either debate the merits or exit the thread.