Shocking!!!!

he sounds like an idiot on national security....

how stupid not to have pre-conditions to talk with the head of a country that wants to nuke our allies......

And your reason for posting this is to what? How is this going to help either campaign in the G.E. ?

I have concluded he doesn't know what the hell he is talking about .

I have stopped trying to figure it out.

I don't see how anyone running to be president advocating meeting with the holocaust denier as president face to face without preconditions would be elected.

Its just a dumb position , republican or democrat.

I have predicted for sometime now that he would find a way to back away from the position just like the flag pin.

i think expecting a step by step layout of state department affairs in an obama administration would be premature.

i do take some comfort that (unless we are dumb enough to elect mccain) the next POTUS will engage states that have been provoked  and threatened by our current administration.

I think the most important take away is that he rejects the idea that Iran and other countries need to agree to all our most far-reaching demands BEFORE beginning negotiations, which was basically the Bush admin's line for a long time.

I agree with him 100% on this, and as for the details of whether or not to personally sit down with leaders or not, I couldn't care less really. What's the worst that could happen if he does?

The quote you provide answers your question:

"Preparation is not a precondition it is absolutely necessary to the success of any diplomatic effort. You need to build an agenda and open lines of communication, just as we would do with any country, But Barack Obama believes we must be willing to lead, just like Kennedy did, and just like Reagan did. And that's what he will do as president."

Preconditions involve laying out a number of things a country must do before any meeting occurs.  Senator Obama has said he would meet without preconditions.  Preparation involves opening lines of communication and agreeing upon an agenda for the meeting.  This is something Senator Obama has said is necessary.

So even though you claim all of the quotes are different.  They are actually consistent in saying that a President Obama would meet with leaders without preconditions but would obviously engage in the kinds of preparation that takes place before any presidential meeting.

People are confusing preparations with pre-conditions.  

For Bush / McCain, they won't negotiate until the other side meets pre-conditions that amount to all the items being negotiated. Idiots.  How do you get your demands met if you won't open a dialog until all your demands are met?

Obama has been absolutely consistent and wants to bring our diplomacy back to what it used to be, before Bush, the worst president in history, came along.

Way to go out on the limb.  

I sure glad Hillary didn't back down and kept talking bout the issue?

I imagine the bill will signed into law by memorial day.

let us OBLITERATE THEM

..the Bush/McCain policy regarding Iran worked out?...Letsee Iran is more dangerous than it was before we invaded Iraq, Al Qaida has been given a free pass in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Iran is aiding in the killing of our US soldiers, the Middle East is as unstable as it's ever been....Yeah I can see why you want to continue Bush's foreign policy tactics, they,ve worked so well.

Interesting thought piece. Great work as always. Rec'ed. I can see from some of the responses here that you are the perceived problem not Obama's foreign policy stance.  

Ultimately, this whole debate is missing the mark IMO in that it's focusing on something that is more symbolic than anything else. The world isn't going to end if Obama sits down for a photo op with a world leader our country disagrees with, nor will it solve all our problems in one fell swoop.

What this is really about is a more general sense of whether we take a more combative tone, or a more reasonable tone, with countries that we disagree with. Do we take a completely hawkish tone and demand that countries accede to every last one of our demands before we sit down to the table with them? That seems like a stupid position, and that's why even the Bush administration has pretty much abandoned it and has reluctantly pursued negotiations with North Korea.

I'm going to explain this slowly.  Meetings between Heads of States are extremely important things in foreign policy.  From time in memoriam, when heads of state met preparations (discussions on what the terms of the meeting will be, where it will be, when and so on) occurred.  This happends with allies.  Do you think that meetings between the President and the Queen are just thrown together?  There are years of preparation and discussions before them.

Iran and other states listed have had no official contacts in decades.  This would require even further preparation.  You need to discuss whether the nation in question wishes to exchange ambassadors.  If that's not done, it will slow up any discussion of a meeting between the heads of state.

There is a dance done in foreign policy (that has been forgotten under the Bush administration).  And one of the cardinal rules is that you don't demand what you wish to negotiate over.  We want a lot of things from Iran, they want stuff from us.  We can discuss whether we can reach a mutually agreeable settlement, but we won't get anywhere if we follow Bush's course and demand what we wish to negotiate.  Those are the famous "preconditions."

Is that clear?

I get the impression that this diary is simply arguing in circles in order to prove a point that isn't there.

When I hear the word "precondition," I think of a hard ultimatum to which the other party must accede before diplomacy begins.  I.e., saying that Iran would have to give up its nuclear power efforts before diplomacy could even begin.  "Preparation," on the other hand, means to me the background work that would be necessary to make such talks productive.  I.e., brushing up on culture, customs, Iran's internal politics, the country's true power brokers, how to convey ideas for maximum effect, etc.  Therefore, what I believe that Obama is saying is that he would not present such countries with a list of demands before entering into diplomacy with them.

Note that simply engaging in diplomacy does not mean that there would be a substantive change in U.S. foreign policy.  All he's saying is that he would be more willing to talk with such countries than Bush and McCain.  

I think we might want to talk about policy first, post bush era, before we decide to sit down with anyone, and then what "conditions, preconditions, or lack thereof" are determined....

I agree that a lot of this has been somewhat confusing and hasn't come out in a very cogent fashion.

I DO support engaging our so-called "enemies."  Our ridiculous Iran policy has been to pressure EUROPE to engage Iran.  How stupid is that? It's like we're some kid in junior high, having his friend talk to girls for him.

Obama's plan has come off, in its earliest iteration, as almost sit downs on a whim.  I don't think this is what he intended, and that debate answer probably didn't come off as intended.  What we need to do is to set up a very serious agenda, perhaps involving other countries in the talks.  But clearly our lack of engagement and policy of saber rattling with no real diplomacy has failed (except in boosting oil profits).  

Now, our Cuba policy isn't even CLOSE to the same situation.  Unlike Iran, where a nuclear program is the issue, our Cuba policy is nothing more than pandering for a key demographic in a swing state.    The belief that we can change Cuba by ignoring them and broadcasting anti-Castro radio is just silly.  The rest of the world recognizes Cuba.  Let's stop pretending that they're all wrong, and get some work done.