Originally posted by Q5echo
you were GWU when you heard Henry Kissenger say as President we should sit down with Ahmedinejad "without conditions"?
Yup, but I don't know why you and McCain insist on using Ahmedinejad's name as a substitute for "leader of Iran" - it really just makes your argument less credible.
quote:
obviously not. Kissengerf came out 2 minutes after the debate ended stating Obama was full of . i'm just stating the facts. are you saying Kissenger is parsing?
He didn't say Obama was full of , and if that's the way you interpreted the statement than either he or you are indeed parsing.
MisterOpus1
quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
probably not, but he's definately being fed the wrong if he honestly thought Kissinger would have Presidential talks without conditions.
you know whats funny is i'm looking at both your examples, the ABCNews blog and the Deseret News, and the one that references the "without conditions" blurb references back to your first example (Deseret News) without any proof that he actually said "without conditions" other than the integrity of some obscure blogger.
Fair enough. I'll discuss the actual reply in the transcript you supplied below.
quote:
furthermore, it goes directly against what he said 5 days after that ABCNews blog asserted he said "without conditions". he was talking to that morbidly attractive Christianne Ahmanpour:
quote:
KISSINGER: 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 have preferred doing it at the secretary of state level so that we -- we know we're dealing with authentic...
that obviously demonstrates that he disagrees with Obama's point about meeting with Iran without preconditions if necessary.
This is the trouble you get into when you cut and paste, Q. Finish the quote in FULL CONTEXT. What does Kissinger say next?:
quote:
Kissinger Sept. 20: 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 have preferred doing it at the secretary of state level so that we -- we know we're dealing with authentic...
CNN's Frank Sesno: Put at a very high level right out of the box?
Kissinger: Initially, yes.But I do not believe that we can make conditions for the opening of negotiations.
What was that?:
quote:
I do not believe that we can make conditions for the opening of negotiations.
"I do not believe we can make conditions......"
Sounds pretty eerily similar to "without conditions", doesn't it? Granted, it's not exact, but anyone attempting to tell us there's a difference between the two is smoking serious banana peels.
Surely you didn't mean to cut that part out of your quote, did you?
Now, I will again reiterate my point that if McCain and Kissinger want to differ on the level of talks between the two countries from what Obama's initial statements were on that (he has qualified his stance a number of occasions since then), fine - there's a very small point won by McCain on that. Otherwise, the larger point of Kissinger agreeing with Obama stands.
quote:
not so.
Again Obama and his staff have qualified his statement on this a number of times, and I feel his answer last night was very appropriate to McCain's charge:
quote:
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.
As he should. As any President of our country should.
quote:
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.
Now, understand what this means "without preconditions." It doesn't mean that you invite them over for tea one day. What it means is that we don't do what we've been doing, which is to say, "Until you agree to do exactly what we say, we won't have direct contacts with you."
Because that's worked so swimmingly with your idiot cowboy diplomat in the White House, hasn't it Q?
quote:
There's a difference between preconditions and preparation. Of course we've got to do preparations, starting with low-level diplomatic talks, and it may not work, because Iran is a rogue regime.
But I will point out that I was called naive when I suggested that we need to look at exploring contacts with Iran. And you know what? President Bush recently sent a senior ambassador, Bill Burns, to participate in talks with the Europeans around the issue of nuclear weapons.
Using this example of Bush sending out Ambassador Burns was good to further clarify his point because Obama is demonstrating that he would send out whoever he feels is appropriate as well in order to have successful diplomacy.
quote:
Again, it may not work, but if it doesn't work, then we have strengthened our ability to form alliances to impose the tough sanctions that Senator McCain just mentioned.
I understand that neocons like yourself are scared and fearful as hell to actually have a reasonably intelligent person running the White House who believes that a good discussion may actually benefit us better than sabre rattling at best, or blowing up and sorting out the details later at the very worst. We've tried it your way for 8 years with this idiot in charge, and it's going to take years, if not decades to restore our integrity and stance with the rest of the world.
I get it. It's scarwy stuff. Having an authoritarian looking over you, comforting us all like a father figure is nice. But when that father is a belligerent drunk who molests the kids and steals money from mommy for his fun, well, it's no longer comforting. I really don't want another abuser of power, thanks. And everything I've seen in McCain, and especially in Palin, demonstrates exactly that.
So thanks, but no thanks. Hopefully the rest of the country agrees. At least at present the majority does.
Q5echo
quote:
Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Yup,
you must have misunderstood him, and no one at ABC can corroberate it so....
as far as Ahmedininajad being the "leader" he's the senior most official (the elected President second only to the Supreme Leader Khameini) that can be talked to because the Supreme Leader talks to no one.
it's a stupid point you're trying to make....and i didn't see the Ali Khameini barfing hate all over the podium at the UN earlier this week either. it was that other Iranian .
quote:
He didn't say Obama was full of , and if that's the way you interpreted the statement than either he or you are indeed parsing.
oh now we're parsing what I said?:rolleyes: sorry my language offends you. Obama was still wrong.
“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.”
"Geared to reality" is State speak for "full of "
Krypton
+1 Obama...on Iraq
Afghanistan is more complicated. While I don't believe we should have occupied the country, we can't simply let Osama bin Laden get away with 9/11. Would have been nice if Rumsfeld would have done his job and not let OBL get a 1 month head-start to flee into Pakistan. It's unfortunate...we're fighting the Taliban, who had nothing to do with 9/11, instead of going after Al-Qaeda, which by now, has faded into the mist, and we gave them all the time in the world.
I don't agree with either candidate on Afghanistan. Right now, we're fighting for the Afghans. Why? For democracy? :stongue: Both candidates would be idiots to believe Afghanistan can be turned into a democracy...:stongue:
LazFX
post debate
if he keeps on this type, he will win over many of the independents and undecided voters out there...
Yes foreign policy experience is a nice thing, but after last night, Obama appears to have won or at least looked really strong in the debates..
When even the Fox News focus group shows McCain getting trounced, you know its bad.
Foreign Policy is supposed to have been McCain's strongest asset but yet Obama has seemed to still come up on top.
McCain's only strong point and he blew it...
Lebezniatnikov
quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
you must have misunderstood him, and no one at ABC can corroberate it so....
ABC? What are you talking about?
quote:
as far as Ahmedininajad being the "leader" he's the senior most official (the elected President second only to the Supreme Leader Khameini) that can be talked to because the Supreme Leader talks to no one.
it's a stupid point you're trying to make....and i didn't see the Ali Khameini barfing hate all over the podium at the UN earlier this week either. it was that other Iranian .
Oh, because it only suits your argument if the official you think Obama wants to meet publicly hates Israel? Who gives a what Ahmedinejad has been doing this week? Obama said he would meet with a leader from Iran, and as he said in the debate, that does not necessarily mean their President (who is really just a figurehead anyway).
quote:
oh now we're parsing what I said?:rolleyes: sorry my language offends you. Obama was still wrong.
Do you know what parsing means? It has nothing to do with being offensive.
quote:
“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.”
"Geared to reality" is State speak for "full of "
Nice to know you speak Statese. However, whatever statements Kissinger puts out through the McCain campaign in support of the candidate he is a surrogate for aside, I'm merely going by what I heard with my own ears come from Kissinger's mouth. Sorry bub.
Lebezniatnikov
quote:
Originally posted by MisterOpus1
I understand that neocons like yourself are scared and fearful as hell to actually have a reasonably intelligent person running the White House who believes that a good discussion may actually benefit us better than sabre rattling at best, or blowing up and sorting out the details later at the very worst. We've tried it your way for 8 years with this idiot in charge, and it's going to take years, if not decades to restore our integrity and stance with the rest of the world.
I get it. It's scarwy stuff. Having an authoritarian looking over you, comforting us all like a father figure is nice. But when that father is a belligerent drunk who molests the kids and steals money from mommy for his fun, well, it's no longer comforting. I really don't want another abuser of power, thanks. And everything I've seen in McCain, and especially in Palin, demonstrates exactly that.
So thanks, but no thanks. Hopefully the rest of the country agrees. At least at present the majority does.
I'm beginning to believe anything Q says is pure partisan spin. I've never seen someone so successfully move the goalposts in a "discussion" since the last time Nancy Pfotenhauer was on the air.
Q5echo
quote:
Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
ABC? What are you talking about?
Oh, because it only suits your argument if the official you think Obama wants to meet publicly hates Israel? Who gives a what Ahmedinejad has been doing this week? Obama said he would meet with a leader from Iran, and as he said in the debate, that does not necessarily mean their President (who is really just a figurehead anyway).
you said "but I don't know why you and McCain insist on using Ahmedinejad's name as a substitute for "leader of Iran" - it really just makes your argument less credible."
what is not getting through your head is that Ahmedinijad would be your senior most point of contact since his boss doesn't talk directly to anyone.
i'm not moving goalposts. you need to get YOUR facts straight and stop making up as you go along. i can provide three transcripts where Kissenger lays out his proposal for talks with Iran. not one of them includes anything about the President of the United States sitting down with the President of Iran without pre-conditions.
this is the f**king stupidest argurment
DJ Eco
The problem with a lot of people is that nobody's fact-checking every sentence within the debate... They can both spew as much bull as they want, and convince the American people it's the god-honest truth... The average American voter isn't fact-checking or talking about their comments on Kissinger like you guys, they're laughing at the clip of Obama struggling to remember the name on his bracelet... It's very very very subjective as to who the winner was last night, but to me, it definitely wasn't Obama... It was a stalemate at best... Agree as much as you want with Obama's message and his replies, but because he won YOU over doesn't mean "he won" the debate...
He needs to shape up, come out stronger next time, because he's not doing enough to secure victory in November... And I can't bear to see McCain in the driver's seat, which he's been in the past month...
MisterOpus1
quote:
Originally posted by DJ Eco
And I can't bear to see McCain in the driver's seat, which he's been in the past month...
Which is why nearly every pundit, including a healthy handful of Republican/Conservative ones, claim that McCain has had the worst 2 weeks ever, and why he and Palin have successfully nosedived themselves in every poll as a consequence to Palin's wonderful interviews and McCain's lovely grasp on the economy......
Jesus, tell me you're kidding? Can you really base your information on anything realistic in the past 2 weeks?
DJ Eco
quote:
Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Which is why nearly every pundit, including a healthy handful of Republican/Conservative ones, claim that McCain has had the worst 2 weeks ever, and why he and Palin have successfully nosedived themselves in every poll as a consequence to Palin's wonderful interviews and McCain's lovely grasp on the economy......
Jesus, tell me you're kidding? Can you really base your information on anything realistic in the past 2 weeks?
Well, I will say the numbers are evening out again (thank god) from the whole month-long hoopla that Palin brought about (for obvious reasons, as you stated), that's not all I'm saying though. Has anyone really been talking about Biden? Been talking about Obama? Even a little bad press is still good press for McCain and Palin... I just hope the polls hold true through November, that Obama is still on top...
However, I do completely backtrack my earlier argument, as I see that polls are saying most people think Obama came out the winner... I guess, everyone has their own perceptions of things, so I'll say I was wrong on my previous post!
Krypton
quote:
Originally posted by DJ Eco
The problem with a lot of people is that nobody's fact-checking every sentence within the debate... They can both spew as much bull as they want, and convince the American people it's the god-honest truth... The average American voter isn't fact-checking or talking about their comments on Kissinger like you guys, they're laughing at the clip of Obama struggling to remember the name on his bracelet... It's very very very subjective as to who the winner was last night, but to me, it definitely wasn't Obama... It was a stalemate at best... Agree as much as you want with Obama's message and his replies, but because he won YOU over doesn't mean "he won" the debate...
He needs to shape up, come out stronger next time, because he's not doing enough to secure victory in November... And I can't bear to see McCain in the driver's seat, which he's been in the past month...
Actually, CNN had an entire post-debate fact checking, analysis segment, which lasted about 2 hours. I have it recorded...The other networks probably did the same thing..
