For a guy who supposedly has such vast foreign policy knowledge and experience, he makes some really dumb pronouncements.

Lieberman must have been out of the room for a second and couldn't feed him the correct info.

Keep this up and your one lonely claim to being more qualified to be CiC goes hurtling out the window.

What is the difference between McCain and Obama?

McCain is against earmarks and Obama is against remarks about his ears!

Well, there he goes again....

This McGook character is more than a bit addled.

Goody. Extemperaneous Obama thinks there are 57 states comprising the United States. I suppose he is looking to the future. And what about Obama's declaration that we don't have enough "Arabic speakers" for Afghanistan? Yeah right, Barack. The language of Afghanistan is Arabic? That's news. And supporters of this ignorant misbegotten America-hater criticize McCain?

By the way, who's the jerkwater who thinks he has an inside track to the decision making process in the Iranian governmental/theocratic hierarchy?

Sounds like a queer way of thinking. No facts. So make them up as you go.

Blah blah blah, Ginger. Blah blah blah, Ginger.

God put a fork in Him for He is done as far as credibility is concerned. The average American I HOPE I HOPE I HOPE is smarter this time around not to fall for it. I won't hold My breath though. that would be pointless.

Larry Mohr

Goody. Extemperaneous Obama thinks there are 57 states comprising the United States.of thinking. No facts. So make them up as you go.

Posted by Johnson

Well, clearly Israel is the 51st...

Ok I am going to go out on a limb(Not a real one I'd bust my rump for sure) and ask. How many Teritories are under our control?? Could that be where Obama got the 57 from??

Larry Mohr

Um...

again?

but I think if you asked any average American who the leader of Iran is, I think they'd know.


So what Johnnyboy is saying, is that in spite of his vast experience and expertise, he's no more qualified than anybody else to be President.

At last, an honest politician....

It's an easy mistake to make. Ahmadinejad thinks Bush is our President.

I have no problem with the Hillary continuing to push the nomination process. It is her right and she actually still has a chance to pull it off. What I am pissed off about is, it is the long dem primary process that is cuasing the media to lack focus on this McCain gaffs. He is doing this type of stuff all the time and is not being called on it. Our only hope is that we see ads in the general election referencing these McCain moments. If the media wont do it then Barak has to let the 527's do it.

It's an easy mistake to make. Ahmadinejad thinks Bush is our President.

Posted by BlueInBushland at 2008-05-21 03:46 PM | Reply | Flag

Duss adds, "Focusing on the rants of Iran's mercurial president enables McCain and other war hawks to create the impression that Iran is an implacable enemy, with whom negotiation would be pointless."

* * * *

Umm, if Ahmadinejad is just a figurehead, and the real decisions are made behind the scenes--what WOULD be the point of negotiating with him?

Hey Johnson why don't you go try to convince Americans that Obama doesn't really know how many states there are.

"MCCAIN: I mean, the fact is [Ahmadinejad's] the acknowledged leader of that country and you may disagree, but that's a uh, that's your right to do so, but I think if you asked any average American who the leader of Iran is, I think they'd know."

McCain unknowingly removed Iran from the list of nations run by a dictator if that statement is true. Ahmadinejad is an elected leader, Ayatollah Khamenei is not. Personally, I know Ahmadinijad does not control Iranian foreign policy but I doubt that the average American has any idea who Khamenei is and probably if they heard his name they think it is the, now dead, Ahatollah Khomeinei.

Typical, the mistakes made by Obama are shrugged off but those made by McCain are used to disqualify him to be president. No different than the people who want to say that Obama should be disqualified because of the people he associates with.

Move to the issues. The war on terror. Securing the borders. Lowering Taxes. Fixing Social Security, etc. These are the things that count. Not whether someone mispoke.

Not knowing who runs a country that you advocate bombing is not the same thing as misspeaking.

"Lowering Taxes."

hahahahaha!

Umm, if Ahmadinejad is just a figurehead, and the real decisions are made behind the scenes--what WOULD be the point of negotiating with him?

Posted by rightisright at 2008-05-21 03:54 PM

Careful, the DR Left gets angry when the obvious is so blatantly pointed out to them...

"Typical, the mistakes made by Obama are shrugged off but those made by McCain are used to disqualify him to be president."

No, its a little different. This is not the first time that McCain has made such an error, been corrected, and then done it again. Remember the Lieberman incident recently?

Do you think after Obama made the "57 states" comment that if the interviewer had reminded him that there were only 50 that he would have said...

"I mean, the fact is there are 57 states and you may disagree, but that's a uh, that's your right to do so, but I think if you asked any average American if there were 57 states, I think they'd know."

"Careful, the DR Left gets angry when the obvious is so blatantly pointed out to them...

Posted by Rightocenter"

What would there be to get angry about? Although Ahmadinejad doesn't really have much actual power, he IS the public, civilian face of the government and as such would be the natural point of entre for any discussions.

The war on terror.

Uh, do ya think we might wanna know who we're at war with.

Typical, the mistakes made by Obama are shrugged off but those made by McCain are used to disqualify him to be president.

What has been shrugged off? Absolutely nothing. He misspoke about 57 states and that is yapped about forever. McCain doesn't know who runs foreign policy in the country fueling the insurgency we face and you say move on to "the war on terror."

WTF?

Now if someone had pointed out to Obama that he said 57 states and he proceeded to argue he was correct or that it wasn't important, then there'd be a story

Ahmadinejad doesn't really have much actual power, he IS the public, civilian face of the government and as such would be the natural point of entre for any discussions.

Posted by SanAntonioRogue

Sure, if you're not interested making in any progress, talk with the crazy guy with no authority.

Larry,

i think you should get on your knees in front of obama as much as you worship him. How fucking pathetic.

Now if someone had pointed out to Obama that he said 57 states and he proceeded to argue he was correct or that it wasn't important, then there'd be a story


Honestly, does anybody truly give a shit about the 57 states comment?

I don't.

Umm, if Ahmadinejad is just a figurehead, and the real decisions are made behind the scenes--what WOULD be the point of negotiating with him?

Posted by rightisright at 2008-05-21 03:54 PM

Careful, the DR Left gets angry when the obvious is so blatantly pointed out to them...

Posted by Rightocenter


Really? Who was saying there was a need to specifically negitoate with Ahmadinejad? Can you provide a link?

Who was saying there was a need to specifically negitoate with Ahmadinejad?


When the comment is made that we should negotiate unconditionally with Iran Amadehijad is going to be part of the equation.

Where are you going with your question?

Umm, if Ahmadinejad is just a figurehead, and the real decisions are made behind the scenes--what WOULD be the point of negotiating with him?

Posted by rightisright at 2008-05-21 03:54 PM


I guess, the same point as any foreign leader negotiating with our president since the senate has to approve anything that is negotiated.

whats the difference; they all want us 6 feet under

hey larry

there are 56 democratic primary/caucuses

including
guam
american virgin islands
puerto rico
washington dc
texas has two (caucus and primary)

Who was saying there was a need to specifically negitoate with Ahmadinejad?


When the comment is made that we should negotiate unconditionally with Iran Amadehijad is going to be part of the equation.

Where are you going with your question?

Posted by JeffJ


I think you just blew RiR's attempt at intellectual dishonesty on this issue, and that was what I was going for.

Darth,


OK - I see it now.


Thanks for the clarification.



PS - for old-time's sake: Fuck you!

:-)

There's that experience that Gramps McSame has over Barrack.

The experience of being batshit crazy dementia.

PS - for old-time's sake: Fuck you!

:-)

Posted by JeffJ


Well then... fuck you and the horse you rode in on!

There's that experience that Gramps McSame has over Barrack.


When I watched Obama's keynote speech at the DNC in the build-up to the '04 election I thought, 'this guy is a rising star - he may very well be POTUS one day, and possibly a transformative one at that.'

The whole time I thought he'd build an impressive resume and run as an unstoppable candidate 12 years from now. I never thought he'd throw his hat into the ring so early in his life.

Personally, I'd like to see him prove himself a bit longer on the big stage before vying for POTUS. I'd like to get to know him better via the public spotlight before pulling the lever for him.

As for replies to this post, I will be generous and save some of you some keystrokes:

"JeffJ is nothing but a hate-filled, knuckle-dragging racist."

I don't ride horses, Darth.


I drive the most absurdly-large SUV's I can find.


Horses are too green for me.

But then Jeff, you would never vote for him anyway. You've been posting here a long time and you haven't changed much about anything that I can see. No matter how big the disaster grows in Iraq, no matter how awful the economy gets you guys will still keep on voting for more of the same.

"Umm, if Ahmadinejad is just a figurehead, and the real decisions are made behind the scenes--what WOULD be the point of negotiating with him?"

Probably start a conversation with him and hope that it would be relayed to Khameinei. What is the harm??? McCain just says..."bomb, bomb, bomb, let's bomb Iran"....and some of y'all don't think he is just a bit nuts??? He is running for POTUS and he makes jokes like that about war for other heads of state to misinterpret and he thinks Obama isn't ready for prime time???
McCain is a senile old man going around making crazy comments about killing thousands or even millions of people. Starting WWIII.

1979 marked the first time in modern history where a Middle eastern country was completely taken over buy a radical Muslim regime. Think back to the hostage taking in '79, to the creation of Hezbollah, to the Marine barracks bombing in 1983, to all the suicide bombings and killing since. How can ANYONE not realize the danger posed by these people?

"Before Khomeini, for a Muslim deliberately to be sent to certain death was considered sacrilege within Islam. Suicide bombing the intentional mass murder of civilians and the well-organized suicide of Muslims were not seen in the first 1,360 years of Islam but were invented only 26 years ago.[5] That is the reason why in Soviet occupied Afghanistan not a single suicide attack took place.

The Basij children, honored as martyrs to this day by Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs, were the model for the first Islamically-motivated suicide attack against Israel which took place in southern Lebanon as late as November 1982. The perpetrator was 15-year-old Ahmad Qusayr, a follower of Hezbollah. Khomeini personally consecrated his attack with a fatwa. Later, he had a memorial built for Ahmad Qusayr in Tehran.[6] Following the lead of Hezbollah the Sunni Hamas likewise began to employ suicide bombings but only from April 1993 onwards. Meanwhile, suicide murder has become the calling card of Islamist movements throughout the world."

In 2002, Iran's current Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, enthused: "A man, a youth, a boy, and a girl who are prepared to sacrifice their lives for the sake of the interests of a nation and their religion is the symbol of the greatest pride, courage and bravery."[7]

In 2000 he was the only major candidate I would have voted for but now I can't support McCain. He's been pro-war for years and recently demonstrated he didn't know the difference between Sunnis and Shias in Iraq.

What kind of morality can you be following if you are for sending other people to fight a war you can't be bothered to learn anything about? Don't you owe it to our military to know what the fuck is going on before you vote on issues related to war?

The biggest supporters of the war in our government don't know shit about the people we are fighting/democratizing/ whatever you want to call it today. I don't see how in any other occupation, you could put people in danger so matter of factly without being held criminally negligent.

Justgettin-
re: "1979 marked the first time in modern history where a Middle eastern country was completely taken over buy a radical Muslim regime. Think back to the hostage taking in '79, to the creation of Hezbollah, to the Marine barracks bombing in 1983, to all the suicide bombings and killing since. How can ANYONE not realize the danger posed by these people?"

Where were you when Reagan and Ollie North were illegally selling them weapons?

Regarding this article/video: As far as domestic political campaign is concerned, McCain doesn't care about the facts. There is cheap political hay to be made with the public perception of Ahmadinejad as the new Hitler. This has bugged me for over a year,though: All the little Hannitys running around in frothing circles about Ahmadinejad and they never had the slightest idea of what they were talking about, or any real interest in ever knowing.

whats the difference; they all want us 6 feet under

Posted by mcduff

A non demented president would at least know the players.

Oh what the bother, wouldn't be the first time your part ran a turnip for POTUS.

Turnips are far more easily managed by a few well placed Neocon advisors, George Bush proved that but turnips are still good REpublicans.

Total non issue.

The question was regarding Obama and "direct presidential" negotiations.

I think everyone (average Americans) knows Ahmadinejad is the president.

The Obama camp is trying to spin out of his comments by changing "leader" for "president" just like he's trying to change "preconditions" to "preparations".

Time and National Security Network seems to be happy to carry the water for the Obama camp.

People are so stupid, baghdadbob mccain is just spoutin the words of Israels' wishes, nothin more.

If word got out the amajad didn't control foriegn policies that all Israels crying about what he says doesn't mean shit.

If the queen of england spouted about destroying taiwan people would dismiss it because she doesn't have political power. But Israel sure trys to get you to think so with amadjad.

Mato-
re: "'direct presidential' negotiations"

Where'd you get that quote? Did Obama say it?

Mato-
re: "'direct presidential' negotiations"

Where'd you get that quote? Did Obama say it?

Posted by BetelG

Yes, it's on his website. Look under Issues/Iran.

Mato-
I found no "Issues/Iran". If you could provide a link to the quote, I'd like to see it. I'm truly curious.

Where are the articles on Obama's uphill fight to win over Mato ~ Whatever nationality mutt it is?:>)


sorry for the triple postings....whoops!:>)

Mato-
The way you used it implied "negotiations" with Iran's president, which is not what Obama's site states.

Mato-
After that first sentence, Obama's site goes on to say..."Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress."

(for those who give a shit about context and meaning)

If you give a shit about context why leave out the first sentence?

(for those who give a shit about context and meaning)

Reading the other statements Obama's laid out in that section makes a compelling case for his sanity and competence.

Thanks for the link, Mato. Definitely worth the read.

From the You Tube debate....

In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since. In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

Obama took the question first. He replied,

I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous. Now, Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire. And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward.

From his website...

Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.

What the hell you trying to say mato?

That Obama will talk with the iranian leadership!

Well good for him, that is what should happen.

I bet mato has raised some jail house kids.

I am not talking to my 12 year old child until he changes his behavior........yep, such a nice example for our children.

Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.

Only among very fucked-up people would this be an outrageous position.(the definition of fucked-up in this case is best described as adoration of the last seven years of failure and ineptitude as if it were a prized trophy)

Only among very fucked-up people would this be an outrageous position.(the definition of fucked-up in this case is best described as adoration of the last seven years of failure and ineptitude as if it were a prized trophy)

Posted by BetelG at 2008-05-21 09:46 PM

I never stated it was an outrageous position. Other than legitimizing Ahmadinejad it's exactly the Bush administrations position.

Direct presidential diplomacy with Iran would legitimize Ahmadinejad and that is the problem with Obama's position.

Bush is leegimate? ff

How does it legitimize Ahmadinejad when Obama has never said he would meet with Ahmadinejad?

(BTW, re: "Other than legitimizing Ahmadinejad it's exactly the Bush administrations position."

No, it's not.)

Moreover, it seems that the ones who have most "legitimized" Ahmadinejad are those who routinely attribute power to him which he does not possess:

eg, you, McCain, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and also just about every serious pundit in the "liberal media".

How does it legitimize Ahmadinejad when Obama has never said he would meet with Ahmadinejad?

(BTW, re: "Other than legitimizing Ahmadinejad it's exactly the Bush administrations position."

No, it's not.)

Posted by BetelG at 2008-05-21 10:07 PM

You do know that Ahmadinejad is the president, right?

You do know what direct presidential diplomacy means, right?

sheesh!

Mato-
Yes, it means that the President (probably Obama) will engage in direct diplomacy, as Bush has not.

But then Mato, it's hard to follow on the heels of a successful tenure such as Bush's.

But then Mato, it's hard to follow on the heels of a successful tenure such as Bush's.

Posted by BetelG at 2008-05-21 10:33 PM

So why would Obama have the exact same position as Bush except for legitimizing Ahmadinejad?

Once Obama legitimizes Ahmadinejad he tells the Iranian people and all the people of the region that Ahmadinejad's position is correct and is on the right path.

Ahmadinejad's comments are so outrageous he needs to be isolated. Ahmadinejad took a big hit in the last election and stands a good chance of losing his position in the next election.

MATO-
re: "Ahmadinejad's comments are so outrageous he needs to be isolated. Ahmadinejad took a big hit in the last election and stands a good chance of losing his position in the next election."

But of course, Iranians will look to the pissing match he's winning with Bush and decide not to vote for him...LOL
Sometimes it's not the incompetence or the petty political considerations of the Bush administration that bother me most, but its blind supporters.

NEWSFLASH: Bush has empowered Iran and its little demagogue of a politician with no less success than a trained manchurian candidate could hope to.

MATO-
(Also, you still don't understand that "direct presidential diplomacy" refers to the actions of the US President, and is intended as a rebuke to the fishing and brush-clearing idiot in chief of the moment?). I have a sudden and rare sympathy for those founding fathers who feared giving the vote to just any moron...

Thank you for that, Mato.

MATO-
(Also, you still don't understand that "direct presidential diplomacy" refers to the actions of the US President, and is intended as a rebuke to the fishing and brush-clearing idiot in chief of the moment?). I have a sudden and rare sympathy for those founding fathers who feared giving the vote to just any moron...

Thank you for that, Mato.

Posted by BetelG at 2008-05-21 11:07 PM

Are you daft?

Your the one that is having trouble understanding.

Direct presidential diplomacy refers to one president speaking one on one to another president.

Your comments indicate you are too emotionally involved to look at things objectively. Your hatred for Bush is preventing you from understanding.

It's not about Bush, it's about Obamas' plan to legitimize Ahmadinejad.

It just demonstrates Obamas lack of experience. Your weak attempt to turn it into some code for denouncing Bush is just an indication of desperation.

I know, I know....bush lied soldiers died......

Mato-
I can hear your half-ignorant drivel on the radio, where you got it.

Later.

Mato-
I can hear your half-ignorant drivel on the radio, where you got it.

Later.

Posted by BetelG at 2008-05-22 12:03 AM

That's it? Your done fer?

Weak.

Do yourself a favor and re-read this thread. You just might learn something.

Direct presidential diplomacy with Iran would legitimize Ahmadinejad and that is the problem with Obama's position.



Posted by Mato


Gotta love American arrogance that it would take a meeting with a president to legitimize a foreign leader. It is precisely THIS sort of thinking that is the underlying problem with the rightie point of view.

Maybe if other world leaders felt respected (in terms of their "legitimacy" as leaders, not their policies), rather than "evil" enemies, they would have a different frame of reference from which to engage us and the rest of the world.

Like what? you voted for Bush a few times?

Only Joe (the liberal jew) Klein of the NEW YORK SLIME would come up with this. Keep it up you liberal dirt bags, because it is pay back time. Just remember, you started it seven years ago.

At least he still remembers Iran is dangerous....Obomba seems to have trouble with that one....

you are correct KNOW THINE ENEMY

When John McCain joked "Bomb, bomb, bomb, let's bomb Iran" he gave up the right to criticize what any other presidential candidate had to say about Iran. I'm sorry but any leader that thinks it is funny to joke about dropping bombs on another country, killing thousands of people over a nuclear program that he does not even know they have is just too irresponsible to even consider for the presidency. I will guarantee you that other world leaders have seen that video clip and have concluded...OMG!!! he's even stupider than Bush.
Presidential candidates cannot act that irresponsibly and expect to be respected or elected.

*****...OMG!!! he's even stupider than Bush.
Danni ****

......is that possible ??........

Hmmm diplomacy vs pre-emptive war



Let me think on this one for a while


How did that preemptive thing in Iraq go?



hmm how about that diplomacy in Korea?



Why the fuck would we want our President communicating with nations we dont like, when we can just start a war everytime!?

Other nations love that, and if not...fuggem

We should just bomb the american dream until there is no one left but us!



Iran spends a fraction of a percent that we spend on Military, they are obviously a major threat to US!

What? McCain said there are 57 states, again? Oh, wait, that was Barrack O'Christ. n/m

****Direct presidential diplomacy with Iran would legitimize Ahmadinejad and that is the problem with Obama's position.
Posted by Mato ****

......he was democratically elected by the people of Iran.......

......he is their legitimate President, whether we talk to him or not.......whether we agree with his crazy ramblings or not......

........Lincoln was asked once why he worked so tirelessly to convert his enemies instead of crushing them......he replied " ..is it not the same ?"........

RightISWrong tries to distort the truth again...


"We should never negotiate out of fear but we should never fear to negotiate," Obama said, quoting John F. Kennedy.

"Meeting with somebody is not tantamount to agreeing with them," he later added when taking questions from reporters after announcing an endorsement by the New York City Correctional Officers Benevolent Association in Manhattan.

Obama's toughest Democratic primary competition in the race for the White House, Sen. Hillary Clinton, criticized Obama earlier this year for saying he would meet with Ahmadinejad during a debate, called his comments irresponsible and attacked the Illinois senator for being inexperienced.

Obama also said he would not have invited Ahmadinejad to speak as Columbia University has done.


Obama has never said he would negotiate unconditionally but that we should never fear to negotiate and that he would be willing to talk. But, go ahead and show your FEAR of the Iranians by being afraid to talk... rightie tighies!

Boo!

Please hurry Jan 20th 2009!

Obama has never said he would negotiate unconditionally but that we should never fear to negotiate and that he would be willing to talk. But, go ahead and show your FEAR of the Iranians by being afraid to talk... rightie tighies!

Boo!

Please hurry Jan 20th 2009!
* * * *
Who's afraid of Iranians? They're a bunch of nobodies. If President Obama is in a hurry to fill up his calendar with third-world tinpots, that's his business.
Be nice if he's quit changing his mind about things, though.

God put a fork in Him for He is done as far as credibility is concerned. The average American I HOPE I HOPE I HOPE is smarter this time around not to fall for it. I won't hold My breath though. that would be pointless.

Larry Mohr

Posted by LarryMohr


LARRY LARRY LARRY LARRY LARRY

so you really think that the country will find out that mccain gets confused about these two jokers, that they will vote for barrywayne hussein???
please....
WE DONT GIVE A SHIT if he gets them confused.......so I guess there were several age jokes in the posts after this one, werent they?
more big shit about nothing........

Oh, the well-informed lefties rant on and on, as if Achmad (as he is familiarly known) is not the symbolic political head of Iran. What a pathetic display.

Of course, the male candidate for the Democrat nomination has articulated his belief that the U.S. is comprised of 57 states, something different from what is known to most U.S. educated (not maddrassah educated) third graders. American educated children are aware that the union is comprised of 50 states.

And Obama's knowledge of the world is demonstrated in his belief that the language of Afghanistan is Arabic.

A collection of his gaffes is being assembled. And Obama seems to be a dolt.

Well, McCain bashers, get your understandings straight. Achmed is the head of state of Iran. You remain confused. Oh yes, you folks are libs, and comprehension is difficult for you. Not only do you require new programming, but your hardware is deficient.

Alas.Alack. It is so sad. Minds are terrible things to waste.

Let's see, its' the contention of the intellectual leftists posting here that Achmad does not make foreign policy. Oh? So his statments are meaningless?

But wait, isn't he is so powerless, so under the control of the Islamic leaders that he can't say what they don't want him to say. Very very complicated for a clear thinking lefty. Somewhat contradictary?

Oh, lefties are lefties because they are unable to formulate coherent thoughts. Well, that makes sense. That's why these irrational conclusions issue from them. Indeed. Phew. Got it.

MISTER johnson,


well done, sir...well done.

I think we all know that power in iran is divided in ways that none of us over here understand or know about, but the left will always tell us that they know and we are just too stupid to comprehend.......and , as you pointed out, the never sees it when they misspeak or make a mistake or typo or any of those things........
and my final thought...who gives a shit who does what in iran...the important thing is the destruction of thier nukes that will be pointed at israel or even at us in some way.

I think we all know that power in iran is divided in ways that none of us over here understand or know about, but the left will always tell us that they know and we are just too stupid to comprehend......

Posted by bushlovertwo at 2008-05-23 09:58 AM | Reply | Flag:


FINALLY!! You're finally starting to understand that you're a bunch of retards regarding foreign policy. Just look at your president.

'Sunnis and Shia, I though they were all muslim' -George Bushit

Admitting it is the first step to recovery. Good for you!!