“Here is Ahmadinenene [mispronunciation], Ahmadinejad, who is, Ahmadinejad, who is now in New York, talking about the extermination of the State of Israel, of wiping Israel off the map, and we're going to sit down, without precondition, across the table, to legitimize and give a propaganda platform to a person that is espousing the extermination of the state of Israel, and therefore then giving them more credence in the world arena and therefore saying, they've probably been doing the right thing, because you will sit down across the table from them and that will legitimize their illegal behavior.” John McCain Presidential Debate Sept. 26, 2008 chewing out Barack Obama for suggesting we should talk with Iran .

I like this not talking to someone because it might give them credibility. I think I’ll try it out. There are a lot of people I could not talk to. I have a neighbor whose dog barks day and night. It’s very irritating. I was going to go talk to him about it. But now – thanks to John McCain – I realize that that would be a big mistake.

...

I would just be giving him credibility. Neighbors might see me talking to him and assume that I approve of the dog barking and everything else my neighbor thinks and does. Nope, I will need to set down some pre-conditions. Talking to someone without preconditions is dangerous business. I will write him and tell him that I am willing to talk to him if he agrees that the only thing we will talk about is his barking dog and how irritating it is. That way if he tries to talk about something else – like my not mowing the lawn -or even dispute that the barking is irritating, I can let the whole neighborhood know that I was willing to talk to him but that he violated the pre-conditions. Then I would be able to not talk to him righteously. And, he would continue to lack credibility. The dog would still bark, I suppose; but the dog would be barking without credibility. To be honest I’m not altogether sure what the difference between a credible barking dog and an incredible barking dog is. I’ll write to John McCain and he can explain.

In addition to not giving my neighbor credibility I will be denying him legitimacy. I didn’t know about this, but thanks to John McCain I now do. I had not previously thought of my neighbor as illegitimate, but I have to tell you it gives me a great deal of satisfaction to think of him so. How exactly my talking to him will change that is a little beyond me, but I’ll write to John McCain and he can explain. Meantime I’ll just trust that having an incredible, illegitimate neighbor with a barking dog is much better than having a neighbor with legitimacy, credibility and a barking dog. I never realized the power of not talking to someone.

Now, I don’t want to oversimplify this. Evidently I could send some lower level people to make lower level contacts. John McCain says that’s ok and much better than writing to him myself. These lower level people could, I suppose, be in charge of laying out the preconditions. I don’t have a lot of lower level people at my disposal, but I could send one of my kids. My son or daughter could go over to the neighbor and let him know that I would be willing to talk to him if he agrees that the only thing we would talk about is my irritation at the barking dog. Who knows? He might agree. Sometimes it’s harder to say no to a kid. Kids are always coming to my door fundraising for this, that or the other thing and selling me all kinds of things I don’t really need. (Let me know if you need any Christmas gift wrap.)

So I get it. I understand. If I get John McCain for a President, I will have the comfort of knowing that Iran is neither credible nor legitimate. It will have the power to make nuclear weapons. But they will be incredible and illegitimate nuclear weapons. Who knows? Maybe that means that they won’t work. Wouldn’t that be something. I mean, you talk about the power of not talking. Wow. No wonder John McCain thinks those of us who thought we should probably talk to Iran about the nuclear thing are stupid. What were we thinking? How dumb can you get? Now I understand better why we decided not to talk to Iran back in 2003. It was the preconditions thing. [1]

I have to confess that my own stupidity ran pretty deep. I haven’t begun many conversations with preconditions and have repeatedly run the often realized risk that I would have to hear what was on the other person’s mind and have to endure another point of view. I never thought that the proper way to begin any discussion was to start out arguing about what we could and couldn’t talk about. I’ll have to talk to my wife about that. And I thought the reason John McCain didn’t want to talk to President Ahmadinejad was that he couldn’t pronounce his name. How dumb can you get?

[1] Just after the lightning takeover of Baghdad by U.S. forces three years ago, an unusual two-page document spewed out of a fax machine at the Near East bureau of the State Department. It was a proposal from Iran for a broad dialogue with the United States , and the fax suggested everything was on the table -- including full cooperation on nuclear programs, acceptance of Israel and the termination of Iranian support for Palestinian militant groups. But top Bush administration officials, convinced the Iranian government was on the verge of collapse, belittled the initiative. Instead, they formally complained to the Swiss ambassador who had sent the fax with a cover letter certifying it as a genuine proposal supported by key power centers in Iran , former administration officials said.

"At the time, the Iranians were not spinning centrifuges, they were not enriching uranium," said Flynt Leverett, who was a senior director on the National Security Council staff then and saw the Iranian proposal. He described it as "a serious effort, a respectable effort to lay out a comprehensive agenda for U.S.-Iranian rapprochement."

The document lists a series of Iranian aims for the talks, such as ending sanctions, full access to peaceful nuclear technology and a recognition of its "legitimate security interests." Iran agreed to put a series of U.S. aims on the agenda, including full cooperation on nuclear safeguards, "decisive action" against terrorists, coordination in Iraq, ending "material support" for Palestinian militias and accepting the Saudi initiative for a two-state solution in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The document also laid out an agenda for negotiations, with possible steps to be achieved at a first meeting and the development of negotiating road maps on disarmament, terrorism and economic cooperation.

Just imagine what a fix we would be in if we had agreed to talk to them. Dodged that bullet.