<p>“I’m saying that the President of the United Station should not meet with terrorist leaders or terrorist nations.”</p>
<p>That would rule out the U.S. meeting with itself, the U.S. being the leading sponsor of state-sponsored terrorism in the world.</p>
<p>@mini</p>
<p>Exactly. Terrorism is defined as all acts of violence…except that which the US perpetrates. It’s disgusting.</p>
<p>Well look at all this lovely talking going on. Talking is not negotiating, talking is not appeasement, it is not capitulation, it is not legitimizing anyone or anything (nor do our enemies care about nor require our “legitimizing” them). Talking/discussion is dialogue, diplomacy and an effort to move toward resolution if/when/where possible (and is not mutually exclusive of armed response if that becomes necessary).</p>
<p>To digress one moment, Bush was ENTIRELY wrong in going to a foreign nation (Israel) and on their shores raising this political and partisan issue. No excuse, none (and with his vast knowledge, I’m not certain Bush knows anything about Carter. This was a shot at the current Democrats and Obama in particular. Georgie boy’s been feeling left out of this race and here was his shot).</p>
<p>In any event, I see nothing naive in Obama or any leader creating a dialogue. But, apparently to some, understanding your enemy, considering their position and gathering that “intelligence” is to be faulted and to instead live in ignorance and w/i the Bush vacuum/bubble, employing only the tool of war to address every adversary is the better route. I think that saying goes “An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind”. I’d prefer to know what the enemy has to say rather then send another 4,000+ American kids somewhere to die without reason. But, hey, that’s just me.</p>
<p>And as far as “W’s” golf game sacrifice, well, I guess that speaks for itself.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Mini, I guess you missed the Iranian President’s recent stupid comments about 9/11.
[Iranian</a> Leader Questions 911 Attacks (from The Herald )](<a href=“Iranian leader questions 9/11 attacks | The Herald”>Iranian leader questions 9/11 attacks | The Herald)</p>
<p>“was a shot at the current Democrats and Obama in particular”</p>
<p>Says you.</p>
<p>Achmadinijad is clearly a big-talking idiot. Recently he made remarks to the effect that the West is dying and it is time for Islam to rule the world. More or less.</p>
<p>That being said, talking to enemies is not the same as appeasement. When Nixon went to China he was not accused of being a Neville Chamberlain.</p>
<p>"Achmadinijad is clearly a big-talking idiot. Recently he made remarks to the effect that the West is dying and it is time for Islam to rule the world. More or less.</p>
<p>That being said, talking to enemies is not the same as appeasement. When Nixon went to China he was not accused of being a Neville Chamberlain."</p>
<p>I agree completely. I think we should keep the lines of communication open, but always remember that you can’t negotiate with a party who’s firm position is the destruction of Israel.</p>
<p>It is circulating aroung the net this a.m. that two years ago, in an interview with James Rubin for Sky News, Sen. John McCain expressed a willingness to negotiate with the terrorist group Hamas – the very concept that McCain and his crew is now using to smear Sen. Barack Obama. </p>
<p>Rubin has written an op-ed in today’s Washington Post in this regard.</p>
<p>Oh, and zooermom: “but always remember that you can’t negotiate with a party who’s firm position is the destruction of Israel.” … </p>
<p>Says you (and I guess your buddy McCain, well maybe now but apparently not two years ago before he had to compromise himself to pander to the “right”).</p>
<p>And by the way, it ain’t just me that took Bush’s remarks as being directed to Obama and the current Democrats, try turning on our TV or reading a newspaper.</p>
<p>“Says you (and I guess your buddy McCain, well maybe now but apparently not two years ago before he had to compromise himself to pander to the “right”).”</p>
<p>THat’s right, says me. I was expressing my opinion, not attributing anything to another person. As far as McCain, he’s not my buddy. You have the wrong poster on that. I’ve been chastised on this site for being less than kind to Senator McCain.</p>
<p>You did take the comment to be directed at Obama because Obama did and created news. But not everything is about him and it is by no means clear, outside the feeding frenzy, that Bush was speaking of Obama. The media isn’t particularly creditle on this because they were continuing to respond to Obama’s campaign’s faux outrage.</p>
<p>No, I took it to be directed to Obama because that is how I took the comment. I had not yet heard anyone’s reaction to Bush’s latest idiocy and complete impropriety of speaking on this while he was a guest on foreign soil (regardless of who it was directed to and still believe is was at Obama, not Jimmy Carter or otherwise).</p>
<p>So, I guess you are right, Says me.</p>
<p>
I suspect you apply this standard only to Republicans. I bet you had no problem with the Dixie Chicks in France, or Pelosi in Syria, or Pres. Carter when he visited his friends Hamas.</p>
<p>Well that is pretty razor sharp. Certainly the Dixie Chicks speaking is the same as the (current/standing) President of the United States and “leader of the free world” engaging in such conduct. Give me a break.</p>
<p>And you’ll have to excuse me but I do not recall Ms. Pelosi or former President Carter (or the Dixie Chicks) engaging in similar conduct nor their appearing in the formal government chambers of another country and using that as a platform.</p>
<p>“And you’ll have to excuse me but I do not recall Ms. Pelosi or former President Carter (or the Dixie Chicks) engaging in similar conduct nor their appearing in the formal government chambers of another country and using that as a platform.”</p>
<p>That’s a distinction without a difference after their respective visits to Syria. I think Bush’s comments were appropriate. The problem for the left is that in the context of Israel, they were completely true. Scares the heck out of democrats if we peek behind the curtain.</p>
<p>"Oh, and zooermom: “but always remember that you can’t negotiate with a party who’s firm position is the destruction of Israel.” … </p>
<p>Or a country that blackmails you while its firm resolve and actions represent the deliberate destruction of the Palestinian people.</p>
<p>“Iran’s hard-line president cast doubt yesterday on the US version of the September 11 attacks, calling it a pretext used to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.”</p>
<p>September 11 WAS used as a pretext to invade Iraq. The President made that quite clear - it wasn’t a conspiracy or anything; he was quite public about it. </p>
<p>“Exactly. Terrorism is defined as all acts of violence…except that which the US perpetrates. It’s disgusting.”</p>
<p>No, I am a bit more careful in my use of language. I meant state terror directed at instilling fear in a civilian population.</p>
<p>“Or a country that blackmails you while its firm resolve and actions represent the deliberate destruction of the Palestinian people.”</p>
<p>Yeah, I’m not a fan of Syria or Jordan, either.</p>
<p>“That’s a distinction without a difference”…
so the Dixie Chicks and their conduct is the same as President Bush and his conduct. </p>
<p>Link up with razorsharp, the mothership will be here soon for the two of you.</p>
<p>“Link up with razorsharp, the mothership will be here soon for the two of you”</p>
<p>can’t dispute me with facts, huh? Lordie but these lefties are in rare form today. Hitler, racist, and then this. Gotta love you folks, I guess, but it’s a sad thing that the party of free speech has no tolerance for any of that. How unrelentingly boring you are.</p>
<p>Well said zoosermom. lefties are about emotion, not facts.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Looks like you’re right. Obama getting a little paranoid?</p>
<p>Well people can debate on whether or not Bush wanted his comment directed at Obama (it seems quite clear to me and most others that he did), but regardless he’d have to be totally out of touch with the country if he didn’t think saying what he did would be taken as a direct attack on Obama or Carter. Neither one of those situations is an honorable place for our president to be in.</p>