|
|
Post by Mink on Sept 28, 2008 15:30:23 GMT -5
Yeah, I saw that one, Mink. And following links in it, get back to the ABC page. I want the full transcript so I can see the context of what Dr. K said. As for Barry-boy not having flunkies - there are assisitant sub-under-secretaries up the wazoo in ANY adminstration. And your comment didn't really address the point I was making - that being that "there is a world of difference between "I'll sit down and talk without contitions" and "I'll have my flunkies meet with your flunkies and work something out." Of course, he blamed everyone for mistaking his meaning when he said that the would sit down and talk with no preconditions. So, he didn't change what he had been saying, we just didn't understand this master orator. Yeah, right. His contempt for the American people is amazing. Subdjoe, when I get time, I will do my best, but feel free to find the transcript too. I'm not sure, other than you are knit-picking with what Barry has proposed in regards to talks with Iran. Regardless, it will be done on his watch. When pres. bush said he would find the perpetrators of 9/11, did he himself go into Afghanistan to get Bin Laden? W |
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Sept 28, 2008 15:55:32 GMT -5
Okie doke, here it is and quite lengthy too: transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0809/20/se.01.htmlQuote: "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... (CROSSTALK) SESNO: Put at a very high level right out of the box? KISSINGER: 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. |
|
|
|
Post by harpman1 on Sept 28, 2008 16:11:40 GMT -5
I wonder where's Kissinger now?
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Sept 28, 2008 16:32:35 GMT -5
Mink, thank you for posting that link. And the pertinant part of the transcript.
I did find this interesting: "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."
So, is that or isn't that a condition? Sounds like it to me. And contrary to what Barry had been saying.
I don't think I'm picking at nits. Words are powerful things. Barry had been saying that he would talk with anyone, anywhere, without any conditions. Now he has changed it, said that he was misunderstood, and that he really meant that there would be lower level talks first to set up the conditions of the high level "unconditional" talks. If Pres. Bush were spinning it like this you would be all over him for his lies.
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Sept 28, 2008 16:33:19 GMT -5
I wonder where's Kissinger now? Wanda Hughes-Kissenger? |
|
|
|
Post by harpman1 on Sept 28, 2008 17:06:37 GMT -5
He may wanda all ovah, but he's always home for dinnah.
Oh, Henry!
|
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Sept 28, 2008 19:05:41 GMT -5
Subdjoe, if you reread the question posed to Kissinger, you will see that he agrees for high level talks initially:
quote:
SESNO: Put at a very high level right out of the box?
KISSINGER: 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.
Even if Obama has changed tactics, it shouldn't be miscontrued that he has changed his mind regarding talks.
Edited to add: Mccain, who has been against talks with Iran in the past, had changed his mind at the debate, saying that he had always agreed with talks.
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Sept 28, 2008 20:12:51 GMT -5
Which again is putting conditions, or maybe limitations, on the talks. Simply put, you are choosing to ignore that Barry, when asked if he would meet with the leaders of Iran, N. Korea, Syria, without any conditions said Yes I would. Now he is saying that there would be conditions. And he is trying to twist Dr. Ks words (which are convoluted enough as it is) to fit his own agenda.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Sept 28, 2008 20:13:32 GMT -5
So lets define "high level". Perhaps Dr. Kissinger, a world renowned and widely experienced diplomat who spent three years in secret, mid-level talks with the North Vietnamese, and two years at the undersecretary level in talks with the Chinese before Nixon ever got on the plane to go to China.
Somehow, this is merely an educated guess on my part, I think that "high level" to Dr. Kissinger does not mean "head of state" from the gate.
Which means Mr. Obama is distorting and once again trying to dodge his own record.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Sept 28, 2008 21:57:04 GMT -5
I would say, regardless of what he said in the first place as opposed to what he redefines this to be, there will be talks with Iran. The talks with Iran haven't changed regardless of the way it is proposed.
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Sept 28, 2008 22:34:57 GMT -5
I would say, regardless of what he said in the first place as opposed to what he redefines this to be, there will be talks with Iran. The talks with Iran haven't changed regardless of the way it is proposed. Who is questioning that the next adminstration will need to talk with the rulers of Iran? And likely N. Korea too. What we are saying is that Barry has decided to deny what he had been saying for months, and is now trying to spin it by saying that he really meant something else. Not only is he changing his position, but he is telling lies about changing it. His supporters have made a big deal since he started running about what a great speaker he is, how he never stumbles, never mis-states his position. Sounds as if he is starting to panic now that the pressure is on. If he gets this rattled on the campaign trail, how do you expect him to stay calm in international talks? |
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Sept 29, 2008 0:16:28 GMT -5
I would say, regardless of what he said in the first place as opposed to what he redefines this to be, there will be talks with Iran. The talks with Iran haven't changed regardless of the way it is proposed. Who is questioning that the next adminstration will need to talk with the rulers of Iran? And likely N. Korea too. What we are saying is that Barry has decided to deny what he had been saying for months, and is now trying to spin it by saying that he really meant something else. Not only is he changing his position, but he is telling lies about changing it. His supporters have made a big deal since he started running about what a great speaker he is, how he never stumbles, never mis-states his position. Sounds as if he is starting to panic now that the pressure is on. If he gets this rattled on the campaign trail, how do you expect him to stay calm in international talks? Really? You're not questioning the next pres.'s need to talk to the "axis of evil" countries? I'm shocked! Anyway, what I am saying is "so?", if he re-defines what he has said for months, the plan isn't changed by much. This wouldn't be the first time a politician has altered plans. I doubt he is pannicking or rattled and is well aware of the pressures of dealing with international talks. His supporters will still back him. If anything, this would make for an administration that is willing to be flexible instead of one that only sees things as "black and white" or through "tubular vision". |
|
