Bill O'Reilly off air but on camera

Saw that the other day...What a jacka#$...

People like him scare me.
Also scary beyond belief- Michael Savage.
I hope they don't have access to guns.

Saw this the other day too. Two thoughts... I really, really hope no one ever has a camera on me when I pop off and how hilarious is it that the producer just keeps counting it down for him?

All American Winner!

I can't believe he can turn it off/on so quick....rant, rant, curse, curse....slight smirk..... that's is all for today we leave you with Sting......curse, curse...sling jacket...

google top 10 angry on camera meltdowns....that's some funny stuff there...

Reminds me of Bill Clinton's going from laughing and jovial at Ron Brown's funeral -- to deadpan and wiping a tear away as soon as he saw there was a camera where he didn't expect one.

Politicians and TV people can do it with no thought, no remorse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lf8TOGrq8Bo

Oh! Oh! you broke the rules! You're not supposed to talk that way about our exalted former president!

I like Bill....this is an old tape. He was nasty then but love his show. sorry

well... we could go back and forth all night I guess.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqLvBUSJucg

Yeah... it's amazing all the gaffs that one of the candidates in the current race is making -- but, because he's the new democrat messiah, he gets a pass.

If his name were Bush, Quayle, or Cheney, it'd be all over the news about how stupid he is.

That's hilarious! What a jerk.

Dude, I was so about to psot this link! I just saw it on another site. Very candid and revealing....the hairpiece that is

I love the O'Reilly Factor!!!! No Spin Zone!!!!

I don't think many people would call Cheney stupid. He is incredibly clever. Unfortunately, he has only been clever enough to get us into a war and was not clever enough to plan a realistic way out.

As far as Bush is concerned, I think the state of our nation proves that however smart he may be, he has never been smart enough to be president. That's the consequence of so many voting for him not based on his capability but on his charm and religious views and the environment of fear in the U.S. and abroad. I wish we would start looking at these elections as job interviews rather than popularity contests. We choose accountants, lawyers, car repairmen and plumbers by who is the BEST and SMARTEST guy, often ignoring if the guy/gal is a total tool. Why should we expect less from a president?

I am sure Obama will get his day in the hot, hot sun, though I think most reasonable people, even those who vehemently disagree with his policies or political platform, can admit that he is an incredibly intelligent man who is very canny about how he handles language. If you are conservative and are banking on him making career ending gaffes or not having answers to an important question, you'd be underestimating him and you should probably settle in for 8 years of a Democratic presidency and a congressional supermajority as well.The 24 hour news cycle is ruthless, so he will make mistakes, but he is has learned fast and it's doubtful that McCain will be able to make him wobble long enough to cause doubt in the majority of Americans' minds.

As far as Bill O'Reilly is concerned, he is a nice foil against some of the stupidity in the Democratic Party and amongst liberals, but a significant amount of his arguments are not intellectually honest and he is engaged in so much spin of his own. Just because he calls the show "The No Spin" Zone," doesn't mean he and his conservative like-minded thinkers aren't spinning. Just because I call my camera an elephant doesn't mean I bring a shovel with me when I shoot.

I think Fox may want to change their slogan to "Fair (to Conservatives) and BalancING (against a perceived threat from "liberal media".) Just like NPR, Fox News has bias. The difference is that NPR's bias is an unfortunate side-effect of many years of evolution into what it is but it still reluctantly can admit when challenged on the bias. Fox News' bias is a cynically manufactured and it can be hard to figure out which programs are news programs and which are punditry and which are pure entertainment. O'Reilly and Limbaugh have both admitted that they run entertainment shows masquerading as news criticism and often yell and scream to boost ratings. There is no one to hold their feet to the fire and keep them honest. They have the run of the monkeyhouse. Sometimes when you live in the monkey house for a while, you cease to smell the sh*t you are sleeping in.

Hill-freakin-larious..... I am all about respecting my president but that is so funny.... wow some of the stuff he says!

So, he got frustrated and let a couple of "bad words" fly. Who DOESN'T do that sometimes?? He did nothing that any of us hasn't ever done before.

Speak for yourself.

I don't think I've ever flipped out on camera while trying to read a tele-prompter. I also don't recall ever yellling "F*CK! Stupid thing!" about a tele-prompter. But then again I also am not a right-winger. Maybe that's normal behavior for them.

Wow.... somebody should by one of those vibrating massage things for that guy. I think it would really help him mellow out. What's that thing called again? A vibrator? No, no, that's not right. Help me out here.

He's a class act.

I'm in awe of you! You've NEVER lost your temper???? Riiiiight.......

You took what I said very literally. Of course, you must realize I wasn't assuming any of us have been on national tv reading a tele-prompter and yelled some choice words at it. At least, I haven't.... And personally, I have never used the "F" word because I simply don't like it. So, allow me to clarify for you my friend.

What I *meant* was, haven't we all lost our tempers? I think the answer is yes. And haven't we all reacted in a way that probably wasn't tv worthy? Again, yes.

From what I could tell, he wasn't yelling at a person. He was just frustrated with the situation, and the tele-prompter was the recipient of his anger. Now, had he lit into an innocent person, insulting them and calling them names....I would have a different opinion.

So, let's be honest with ourselves....none of us are saints. I guarantee that each one of us has reacted similarly (perhaps not using the same words, but with a similar attitude) in various situations (again, not necessarily in front of a camera with a tele-prompter). And I guarantee that if a camera followed each one of us around it would eventually record a moment that, if seen by others, would make them think, "What an asshole!"

I couldn't care less if he's a right-winger or not; I'm just pointing out that he's human like the rest of us.

It's a war on Terror.

The current front is Iraq (the media is doing a good job of helping us forget the former)

BTW: if the media weren't uber-leftists, and there was a R behind Obama's name instead of a D --we'd all be laughing at him saying there are 57 states.

But, he's not a Republican, so the press won't present his gaffes in a way designed to make him look stupid -- such as they would if he were a Bush, Quayle, Limbaugh etc.

Thank you! Glad I'm not the only one that notices this!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48M_zKWunoE

says it all...

Yes...it's a war on terror. Go get em W! Here is another example of the liberal media casting him in a bad light.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=S1KGwQ1O88Y&feature=related

Troy,
Your argument just doesn't float. First, there is no such thing as a "war on terror". Terrorism is a tactic which has been used for thousands of years and you'll note that American Revolutionaries were referred by the British Crown as "terrorists." The war we are fighting is against dozens of small groups, most of which are fundamentalist Muslims and some of them are state-sponsored, which is a HUGE problem and we haven't dealt with that well.

Now, if we were being intellectually honest, I think we need to say that we are at war with the people who perpetrated the 9/11 massacre. Those people were based in Southern Afghanistan and Northern Pakistan. That, by all accounts, should be the front in the war on terror.

If you are referring to the Iraq War that Bush started in 2003, that would be a side project of sorts that our current President started and has handled so poorly that it has BECOME a breeding ground for those who practice terrorist tactics. It has distracted us from our logical aim of rooting out bin Laden and his own network. And, as a side-note, there has been no indication (as the Pentagon and all other major U.S. and international intelligence bodies admit) that "Al Qaeda in Iraq" has any ties to the groups which bin Laden heads except in spirit. It's a completely separate franchise and shares no operational resources, monetary or informationally.

So, this bungled war in Iraq has cost thousands of American lives, HUNDREDS of thousands of Iraqi lives, inflamed the region into latent sectarian civil war, wasted goodwill toward America, almost tripled gas prices, shut down any hope of communicating with the already hostile
Iranian regime while legitimizing its anti-American sentiment at the same time, severely undercut the operational capacity to react to conflict on the Korean Peninsula and Eastern Europe...god, I could go on...

The point? There was no terrorism in Iraq before we invaded. The terrorism was in Afghanistan and Northern Pakistan and still is. Bush was a dumbass and not only opened a new front, he actually CREATED one which did not exist before.

Some of the media is doing what it is supposed to do and take long, hard critical looks at a consolidated power in our country and attempt to bring it to heel under the United States Constitution. Fox News has been the mouthpiece for an ill-considered, poorly executed war which has killed hundreds of thousands of people and left the entire world much LESS safe, including America. The question you should be asking of FoxNEWS is "Why weren't they asking hard questions of the administration when there was so much at stake?"

Now, the video is a little silly and doesn't really address the stupid decisions Bush and Company made, but it is indicative of the incredible frustration that so many Americans feel toward this foolish war.

Why are people making fun of them like this? Because they have stood in front of the American people and relentlessly mocked those who questioned the wisdom of the war. They have not listened to reason or listened to anything at all for that matter. So, people turn to mockery when faced with obstinance and stonewalling.

I would respectfully ask that Republicans not paint themselves as victims in this. They have had enormous control over our federal government, not to mention state government from 2000-2006 and the current situation we find ourselves in was hatched on Republican's watch and as a result of conservative policies. Republicans need to take responsibility for their actions...and because they aren't, American voters are taking matters into their own hands. We are at war, but that war is at home. We have been at war with Reason and REASON IS WINNING. Finally.

PS-You also forgot that FoxNews has "accidentally" called Obama Osama several times. That and they have poured gasoline on EVERY fire during the Democratic primary. Limbaugh and O'Reilly have relentlessly assaulted the Democrats with the worst kind of smears and irrational fear-mongering.

Let me begin with a disclaimer that I love a good "discussion" -- if anyone wants to go into "can't we all just get along mode" -- that's not what politics is about.

This reply is meant as a lively and spirited discussion of political topics. Ryan is obviously a far leftist, and I'm very conservative. The sparks will fly.



It doesn't float ONLY in the liberal elitist hirarchy to which all war involving the US taking action is evil.

The current form of terrorism is the desired willful destruction of two entire nations (the USA and Isreal) by a set of derranged extreme leftists who are corrupting a major religion to gain personal power. They are willing to destroy themselves en masse -- not win freedom for themselves -- but to cause as much death and destruction to their avowed enemy ("the great satan"). They train their children to strap explosives to their bodies and walk into happy celebrations, such as weddings, and blow themselves and as many infidels as possible into the afterlife.

Sounds just like the US/British Revolutionary war.

There are VAST differences between the "terrorists" in the revolutionary war, and the current lefty Islamofacist Terrorists. Number one: the revolutionary war didn't corrupt a religion. Number two, the Contintental Congress' stated goal was not the utter anihilation of the the British Empire.



Actually, if we are being intellectually honest, we'd be after the two primary funders of the so called "terrorists" who want to destroy our country: the governments of Iran and other middle eastern countries. The war in Iraq has become a proxy war with Iran. Mr. Imacrazzyperson in Iran is still trying to bring the 12 th immam to light, and he's said he'll do it by destroying Isreal.

Of the people you speak - the original perpetrators - 20 are dead by their own hands -- taking approx 3000 innocent souls with them - and one is in US custody. UBL is more than likely D-E-A-D -- either by a Daisy Cutter or because of his own ill health. Many others of those planners have been picked up in Afganistand and Iraq.



See above.

Terrorists who want to kill the icon of their perceived evil go where the war is. Right now its in Iraq. Go there and they can kill US Troops.

As for UBL: D-E-A-D

(Haven't had a real tape from him in almost 3 years... probably at least 6 years.)



Bungled in what way?

Iraqi people have more freedom now than they have at any time under Saddam. Felugia brought about untold cooperation between factions of Iraqis that normally don't normally do well together. They got tired of the insurgants coming in, and started cooperating with each other and with our troops to root out the bad guys.



CNN -- until recently was the "Clinton News Network" (now they're the ObamaNewsNetwork) -- where all things lefty were couched and presented as "Intellectual" and a gift from the "gods" for all good Americans to embrace.

Remember, CNN was founded by noted LIBERAL babe Jane Fonda's husband, Ted Turner. Turner and CNN are NOT exactly a bastion of non-biased journalism. Fox News is actually the ONLY national broadcast news entity that is balancing the issues in a mostly fair and balanced way.

But, becasue they don't Bush Bash and run over to Republicans with quotes from democrates like "Mr. Republican, Senator Liberal just said you like steal candy from babies --- how do you think the babies feel about your larceny?" -- they're the bad guys.

Outside of their commentary programs (O'Reilly, Colmes, Greta), the news they report is not slanted extremely to the right or left as is the case with the four other networks and almost all of the major print media in this country (they lean far left).



Remember, we're a 40-40-20 country.

40 percent Hate BUSH and all things republican.

40 percent dislike the way liberals screwed the country over in the 40+ years they controlled congress (where the laws come from - not the oval office) - but most of them don't "hate" the current presidential candidates. Dislike the policies of said candidates, but in most cases the right doesn't hate the other sides candidates the way the lefties HATE Bush.

The other 20 percent are the undecided in the middle.

We'll always have "so many Americans" on both sides of the aisle that don't like the policies of the other side. Casting an argument in the light of "we hate Bush and what he did" does nothing to carry the argument for your side along.



Hmmm... don't recall Bush or Cheney mocking anyone who disagreed with them. Barbara Streisand, noted Lefty Intellectual, did say that she would move to another country if Bush was elected. Last I checked, she still has her US citizenship and spends just as much time here in the United States of Bush.

Politics is profession of disagreement. The left closed their minds to anything Bush did because he won over Al Gore. therefore he is Evil. Anything Bush says or does will always be EVIL to the left. What you term as "mocking", is our side giving our reasons for what has happened. Real mocking is calling Bush a "dumb frat boy"



OH! 9/11 was a Republican Plan? I missed that in the news. Oops... I don't watch CNN or listen to NPR.

While we're asigning blame... As Bill C why he didn't have the CIA pick up UBL when given numerous chances. A little waterboarding would have gone a long way with that one.


Let's not get into wars about who smeared whom. The lefties has the last forty years of controlling the media and smearing every republican they could get a quote against.

As for Fox and BO - Gee... news anchors spend the last 8 years talking about some dude named OSAMA and the get reamed for a one letter screw up.

CNN did it too... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWP1pz70-is&NR=1

Wait... let me think for a minute ... oh yeah, even Teddy Kennedy called the new democrat messiah "Osama" before. Sounds like an easy mistake to make.

Folks -- remember that Ryan and I will NEVER agree on this issue. I'm having fun with this discussion, and hope Ryan is too.

This country is not run by a dictator....Bush didn't do anything on his own....
things have to be approved by a group of people, whom as I recall, or both
democrats and republicans.......



[quote name='Ryan J' date='May 16 2008, 04:05 PM' post='328256']

As far as Bush is concerned, I think the state of our nation proves that however smart he may be, he has never been smart enough to be president. That's the consequence of so many voting for him not based on his capability but on his charm and religious views and the environment of fear in the U.S. and abroad. I wish we would start looking at these elections as job interviews rather than popularity contests. We choose accountants, lawyers, car repairmen and plumbers by who is the BEST and SMARTEST guy, often ignoring if the guy/gal is a total tool. Why should we expect less from a president?
[quote name='Ryan J' date='May 16 2008, 04:05 PM' post='328256']

Troy,
I am actually not a "far-leftist", thought it's good for everyone to know you self-identify as someone who is on the far right of the Republican Party. I don't think the extremes of either party should be running this nation. I actually have a tendency to strongly criticize the left-wing of the Democratic Party rather harshly. I have lost not a few friends to my left by refusing to support their ridiculous hippie nonsense.

Some have painted the democrats as peaceniks who will never fight a war for any reason. This is fallacious and only takes into account a small portion of the most left-leaning of the DNC. Most Democrats are willing to send combat troops in if there is a real need, a plan and a clear set of achievable goals with an attached exit strategy. So, don't mistake necessary and willful caution for limp foreign policy. Didn’t you ever hear “Coward of the County”?

Let's look at why Iran is sponsoring terrorism. (First noting that the current regime in Iran is not run by "derranged extreme leftists" as you inaccurately noted...it's actually run by radical conservative mullahs...kind of the opposite of left.) Take a look at the country that borders Iran on the west and then look to the east. In the last five years, we have hemmed Iran in on both sides and they are scared sh*tless. Now, this could be a good thing if we had executed the war in Iraq with more foresight and were spending as much in our diplomatic efforts in the region as we are on bullets and bombs. Suicide bombs and roadside bombs are a fiendishly effective device for the insurgents in fighting an occupying force, especially under the harsh light of the 24 hour global news cycle. Again, these are things that a more intelligent, well-executed plan would have taken into account.

Again, by criticizing the current administration's policies and pointing out the effectiveness of the enemy’s tactics in the face of such blundering, I do not support the insurgents or their tactics. I merely point out that the Bush administration did not communicate honestly with the American people in the run-up to the war, have handled the post-invasion reconstruction with unimaginable arrogance and bad planning and have forced those who disagreed to go to ridiculous lengths to be heard above the banging of the war drums.

At the time of the Revolutionary War, the hit and run guerilla tactics which the Americans employed were viewed with the same shock and horror as we see those utilizing suicide bombs are today. There is no moral equivalency. Clearly, suicide bombers' targets are primarily innocent civilians and that is abhorrent. The point was that terrorism is the use of unconventional means by a small, less powerful force to effectively shrug off perceived oppression by a greater power. Terrorism is a tactic and you can't go to war against a tactic. It's a silly phrase because it's a war that can never be won. We need to more clearly define our enemies for the sake of our military families and to instill a sense of honesty in the purpose and aims of a war.

Again, I have no idea where you are getting "LEFTY Islamofascist Terrorists"...their ideology has nothing to do with leftism. If anything, it has more in common with what is commonly known as the radical right. The Revolutionary War was fought over control by a Divinely Righted King. The British certainly viewed the resistance of the Americans as a corruption of Protestant ideals. As Americans we forget this, so you can be forgiven.

If we are being intellectually honest, as you say, and our war is with Iran...why haven't we invaded Iran? Why the hell did we invade Iraq? We know Iran has a latent nuclear weapons program. You also name the nebulous "other Middle Eastern countries". Let's be honest here again. The only known state sponsor of terror other than Iran is Syria. So let's get specific and rename "other Middle Eastern Countries" as "Syria". I think it's incredibly important to be specific. Because not being specific somehow ends up with unilaterally attacking other countries.

Also, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (The President of Iran...I know Bush doesn't hold much stock in pronouncing things properly, but I do) is not the one running Iran. It's the hard-line clerics and mullahs. The President of Iran is the right hand...we should be paying more attention to the left hand because that's the dangerous one and it's the one wielding all of the power. (Yes…Iran is left-handed) The President would be gone in two minutes without their support.

If we are talking about Israel, I might also note that Evangelists seem quite willing to let Israelis burn in hellfire in order to bring about the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. Seriously. I think the Far Right should cringe a little bit when they seem so willing to let Greater Israel be sacrificed in the end and profess horror at Iran’s desire to destroy Israel.

There is no evidence that UBL is D-E-A-D. He is, in fact, A-L-I-V-E. The C-I-A has been doing its J-O-B and thoroughly examining the tapes which have cleverly included references to current events to prove he's still alive. And he just released a tape in the last week if I am correct. I think Daisy Cutters make a big boom as well and that makes my inner 9 year old go "WOW!" but they've not gotten the job done.

Now I see the brilliance of Bush's plan!!!!! He started the war in Iraq as a trap for the terrorists!!! Come on, Troy, that is the most backwards rationale I've ever heard. The terrorists have been able to effectively disembowel any illusion of Democracy in Iraq. The Government is paralyzed. The military is a pale shadow under the wings of our Air Force. And you are still trumpeting some sort of success there?

Your assertion that Iraqis are living in any sort of freedom, compared to Saddam's rule or any other, is based on what? I think it's getting close to 300,000 Iraqis killed in this conflict? Death Squads roaming rival neighborhoods, killing, looting, raping, busting up families with impugnity? More Iraqis have died per annum under our occupation than in any other time during Saddam's reign. Was he a good ruler? NO! He was an autocratic mass murder. And we took him away and replaced him with a country rife with civil war, religious fanaticism and added a few terrorists in for fun. That's how bungled. You need to point to a single battle in a mid-sized city like Fallujah that took pretty much everything the American Army could throw at it to win it and continue to hold it. That’s it? It’s been five years and yay we have Falluja? We took back the entirely of Europe in 3 years during World War 2!

Where the hell are you getting your news? I certainly don’t watch CNN. I am going to offer you a couple of really amazing news sources which you probably won’t look at, but…someone else may:

The Christian Science Monitor, The Associated Press Wire and Reuters. You can read stuff straight off of the wire. Might I remind you that FoxNews IS the mainstream news? You do realize that you sound a little silly claiming to be part of some demonstrable minority in this regard, right? FoxNews is the most popular source of news and punditry in the country. It doesn’t mean it’s accurate. Uh…yeah…so if you bring up Turner, I have to bring up Rupert Murdoch. Dude…seriously…it may make you feel warm and fuzzy to pretend Fox is unbiased. Again, it may be a good foil for left-leaning hypocrisy, but that necessarily means it leans right in order to balance the bias.

Your example about candy-stealing is…I mean….what? That’s just strange and weird.

Wait, wait. So EVERY news organization not run by Rupert Murdoch in this country is part of some vast conspiracy to disenfranchise Republicans? All of the HUNDREDS and THOUSANDS of news organizations which reported on the Lewinsky Scandal and Whitewater, played Howard Dean’s scream over and over, collectively gave a thumbs up to the War in Iraq in 2003, just spent a month sniffing the corpse of Reverend Wright, screamed about Obama’s comments on “bitterness”…those news organizations…ALL of them…they are all leftist rags and networks?

Contrary to your assertions…again, I do hate Bush but I think I’ve laid out exactly why. Very long-windedly. For you to chalk up the resentment of so many Americans to simple “I hate Bush.” Is silly. The phrase is, “I hate Bush BECAUSE…” but you have already stopped listening because admitting he did anything wrong would mean you had to change your mind and actually think for yourself rather than spouting O’Reilly’s talking points.

Who the feck picked Barbara Streisand, Jane Fonda, Rosie O’Donnell, Sean Penn, Michael Moore, Tim Robbins or Susan Sarandon to be the voice of the Left? I certainly didn’t. They represent about ten percent of Liberals and for you to anoint them as the voice of my political party is a manipulation and completely dishonest. I think they are yahoos. You say the left have “closed their minds” and yet you are standing here peddling in lies and malformed truth. The scary thing is…I think you actually believe what you are saying.

I am trying to figure out where I said 9/11 was a Republican plan. The War in Iraq was a Republican plan…or lack of one. Using Abu Ghraib to store, torture and humiliate prisoner’s of War…Republican plans, not financing the war and asking ALL of us to sacrifice to make our country free…Republican plan, systematically stripping our citizens of rights without due process….Republican plan…waiting three days to send aid to the victims of Katrina…Republican lack of plan…it’s just stupid after stupid after stupid.

And for the record, I am not calling Republicans stupid. I am calling the NeoCons stupid.

The difference between you and I Troy is that I don’t find this conversation fun. I find it sad, necessary and ultimately hope-filled because those who peddle in the weak-willed machismo you cling to are about to have their asses booted onto Pennsylvania Avenue and we’ll get a chance to let America be truly free from the tyranny of mismanagement, cowboy politics, fear and the policies of the extreme right or left.

like, totally - this happens to me almost on a daily basis.

I wonder who is gonna use the "Jane -- you ignorant slut" line first.

me.

Hey Ryan,

Since it's not fun for you, I'll let it go.

Just to explain, I went hard right in my post because of the "Intellectual Honesty" = "I'm right, and have already won the argument" way that your argument came across. I've seen this method used many times to steer a debate away from an underlying issue that can be debated, into a losing proposition for the other side, because they already conceded a contentious point that undermines their own argument.

But I am curious... who's your favorite presidential candidate out the four current and viable ones (McCain, Obama, Clinton, Barr)?

Cause I'm swimming in an ocean of doubt about which I prefer. We don't have conservative candidate in the field. Barr is the closest right now -- until we find out how much of the Libertarian platform he adopts.

Yes, and the Democrats DID vote to send troops to war. The difference is that now they like to forget that part.



Ahhh....a better plan...so easy to say in hindsight isn't it? The funny thing is...I don't see Democrats coming up with a better plan other than cut and run. And it is a shame that the media forgets to cover all of the humanitarian efforts that take place.




This is such a tired lie - it really takes away from anything you say.



Extremists, for the most part, are desperate people who have no hope. Countries with super low GDPs are in the mass violence business. The way to fix that is obviously to increase FDI flow. When people have freedom and hope, they tend to get out of the mass violence business. But obviously you can't increase FDI without getting rid of the violence.

Yes, Iraq is in a mess. Regardless of who you blame that on, leaving the country in a mess is not the answer. My husband is in the military. He deploys often. And as much as it sucks, I don't think that leaving Iraq in the current condition will be a good thing for him down the road.



We thought they had WMD remember? Even the Democrats thought so. And regardless of what you think about that...the reason why we didn't know if they did or didn't is b/c they flagrantly and repeatedly violated seventeen (I think that is the number) U.N. sanctions. Why does everyone forget that part?




Sorry...but just like last time...I think Americans are too smart for that. As much as they hate war and as impatient as they are, they ultimately know what is right.

Obama has basically said he would take away everything our country needs to
prevent catastophic attacks while at the same time cut what we would need
to defend ourselves if were were attacked.

Obama's hippie talk sounds great on the surface. But the bottom line is that everybody wants power.

Bad people want it. Good people want it. Someone is always going to have the power.

Do you want the power to be in the hands of the good people or the bad
people?

Obama has said he would:

-cut missle defense systems
-not weaponize space
-slow development of future combat systems
-build a world without nuclear weapons
-not develop nuclear weapons
-acheive deeper cuts in our nuclear arsenal
-take our ICBMs off hair trigger alert

We have sworn enemies that want to destroy us. Obama's plan requires the
rest of the world to have rational, benevolent leaders. Do you trust
leaders such as Kim Il Jong (sp?) and Mahmoud Ahmadinijad to be rational
and benevolent?

I thought the first one to call the other 'Nazi' lost

Ryan, thanks for saying everything I would have liked to but didn't have time...

"Obama has said he would:

-cut missle defense systems
-not weaponize space
-slow development of future combat systems
-build a world without nuclear weapons
-not develop nuclear weapons
-acheive deeper cuts in our nuclear arsenal
-take our ICBMs off hair trigger alert"

...exactly what we need, a rational, intelligent person in the White House...and someone to admit that they aren't always right. The one thing that I hated most about this administration was the astounding arrogance.

-Yes, the American people are much smarter than that...that's why we will hopefully have a sea-change in our government in the next 4-8 years. I want a 180 degree turn from the direction we're going now. And I'm confident that will be a good direction for us.

And Fox News as unbiased??????!!!!! I just about spit up my cereal. Fact is almost all of America's media is biased in one direction or the other. Fox "News" happens to be biased to the right. Even NPR is biased although I hate to admit it. It's all about sensationalism, that which brings in the most advertising dollars.

We need more journalism students who will critically look at what is happening, not how they feel about what's happening (or who is paying their bills). But more importantly, we need to be more critical of our media and our government. Any government that tries to qwell dissent like our current administration (secret prisons in foreign countries, calling anti-war demonstrators anti-American) can't be trusted and must be cleansed.

I support Obama because 1) I'm tired of Bush-Clinton 2) John McCain, although I do respect him far more than I could ever respect Bush II, I think he's too old and out of touch with how America feels. 3) I have HOPE that he can be a positive influence and bring our country back to the greatness that it once was.

The problem with a pro preemptive(sp) strike philosophy is that we might just be wrong. When the president spoke of Iraq attempting to buy enriched uranium from Africa, and then Sec Powell showed very compelling photo evidence from Iraq, I think many Americans thought the threat was real. So we went forward with our strike. It turns out we were wrong and we are left defending the war with statements like " the world is better off". Here is why I think that is wrong. The war has now morphed from the Iraq war to the war on terror. More specifically, this is now a religious war that we will be dealing with for many years . That means we will be sacrificing American lives for many , years to come. Many people like to compare this to WW2. This is flawed. We were at war with governments...not faiths. Who will be the one to sit down with us at the treaty table and surrender? It is much more than a mess. It has marked a brand new direction and role for our country. Jill has correctly pointed to other countries who are seeking power. Do we believe the intel info? There are literally dozens of countries who suffer under dictatorships. Do we invade them all before they strike us or others? These are now legitimate questions.

Not to choose sides here, but listening to Internet political debates on a photography forum is *exactly* the same as Uncle Bob asking you how to "dial down" your flash. Sure he can go home, Google it, and sound like an expert the next time he talks to you. But really, he's just finding a fact ....

I know it's an election year but holy rhetoric people. Obama is going to win no matter what you do. That can be good, bad, ugly or otherwise. He wins. Period. If McCain were smart, REALLY smart, he'd start running for VP on a ticket of TRUE reform for America. When he does, I'll be impressed. Until then, SSDD.

I am sorry if I came across as thinking my argument is unassailable. Sometimes that happens in arguments with a political nature. However, it does not change the facts on the ground that right now that have led to this unfortunate disaster. You say there is "an underlying issue" that I am avoiding after writing "War and Peace" in my last post but I don't see you able to tell me what that is or acknowledge some of the major problems spawned by our leadership. Yes, it has been a difficult time not entirely of our making, but that's what leaders need to be prepared to deal with and this administration simply hasn't been. I am not engaged in some sort of bait and switch. I am trying to approach these issues directly and with a necessary amount of complexity and depth.



I guess it all depends on what you want to achieve. A vote for Bob Barr will split the RNC as did votes for Nader in 08 and for Perot in 92. A vote for McCain will continue the war, though he's now saying he'll pull out by 2013. It will also continue a disastrous course of deregulation that has encouraged fraud, hucksterism and environmental degredation. Was some deregulation good? Had things gotten over-regulated stifled ingenuity and growth? Yep, but the pendulum has swung too far. Clinton is done for and is simply trying to find a graceful exit.

My vote is for Obama. Why? He’s smart and capable. He’s a relatively clean negotiating partner and will reset some of the world’s faith in our desire not to be an imperial military power but as a broker for peace and a leader of free men. There’s a lot more to it, but it comes down to that, even when I disagree with some of his policies.



Yes, the Democrats did. And no, most haven’t forgotten that, but if you would read my whole quote, you’d realize that we assumed a necessary war would be fought with competence and a clear end game. This is the answer to an argument you had for someone else I think.



How about not disbanding the Iraqi military? How about paying them when they were disbanded? How about securing MASSIVE weapons caches? How about SECURING Afghanistan? How about sending our troops in with body armor and more aggressively funding extra body armor and alterations to existing military equipment to make them more resistant to I.E.D.s? What about sending in the necessary number of troops? The Democrats were never given a chance to come up with ANY plan. Even conservative pundits agree that this administration has been insular and have been less than receptive to dissenting points of view, even within the administration. We’ve started to develop some sort of counter-insurgency policy and tactics, but we should have waited 6 months and had a CLEAR plan, better intelligence and a clear exit strategy. It’s a shame that many Republicans have painted all Democrats as peaceniks when many Democrats in support of the war have simply wanted the Bushies to fight it effectively.



It’s uncomfortable to discuss some of the tactics that were used to drum up support for the war. The administration KNEW, unequivocally that Saddam had not been seeking yellow-cake uranium for the production of WMDs, which was one of their most potent cases for invading. They were so angry when someone outed this information that they exposed his wife as a CIA operative which led to an unimaginable jailing of a journalist. Cheney pondered that we would be in Iraq 6 weeks to 6 months. They really thought this war was a good idea, so much so that they either severely underestimated the difficulty of the war or lied to us about it. Either way, through deception or incompetence, they have put us in an unimaginable mess in a time when we need unity, a strong military and the goodwill of as much of the world as possible at our backs. It’s nothing close to a lie…it’s uncomfortably true



I am so sorry to hear your family has been affected so deeply by this war. I have friends and family there as well and I have aggressively studied the region in an attempt to safeguard my family here and abroad. I have come to conclusions partly out of a desire to make sure Americans are fighting over there for a good reason and with proper support both militarily and diplomatically.

I agree that this is an incredibly difficult proposition and I don’t advocate “cutting and running” and to reduce a sensible “non-Bush” policy to this is sad. Even McCain is claiming an exit for most military forces by 2003. Some claims have been made that we are going to have a presence there akin to Okinawa, Germany or South Korea, but we forget that this region is surrounded by many sovereign nations which have factions within them that are extremely hostile in a post-colonial period and America is, partly as a consequence of a botched invasion, viewed has a hostile occupier in the region.

We need to seriously reassess our priorities here. We need to MASSIVELY increase humanitarian aid in Iraq, that is clear. The problem is that we have uncorked about 40 years of suppressed sectarian civil war by invading and removing Saddam who had suppressed all dissent, regardless of the source. This civil war has been going on for well over a thousand years in and between Afghanistan, Pakistan, Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran and just about every Arab nation in the Middle East. It denies the complexity of this issue to assume that we can somehow put this genie back in the bottle. We’ve given ample time for this government to stabilize and it hasn’t and doesn’t appear that it is going to. At some point, there have to be a set of circumstances under which we acknowledge that the invasion was a success and that we have created the best environment for the creation of a democracy that we can given the circumstances but still find a way to take our troops out of harms way and stem the hemorrhaging of soldier’s lives, money and loss of respect for America.



I agree that Saddam flouted U.N. law, but you seem to forget that Bush 41 chose not to occupy Iraq for the very reason that it would be impossible to hold and stabilize after the fact. This conclusion was reached with international consensus. It’s complicated, I agree, but there if it’s that important that we act unilaterally, we MUST make sacrifices at home, possibly reinstitute a draft to send a reasonably sized force and make sure we can do our job. If the stakes are that high, we need to create a proportional response and they screwed it up.



This is a general attempt to smush some facts but I will bite on the bait. Missile defense systems don’t guard against the current and long-running threat of terrorism. It’s a foolish was of taxpayer dollars. That’s a whole other thread, but they don’t work and are easy to circumvent once they do.

There are a small handful of countries that intend on (and are capable of) weaponizing space further than it has already been. We need to proceed VERY cautiously in this regard. Weaponization of space could lead to another arms race which none of us are very keen on. So, we need to pause and reassess and give our enemies a chance to cool down. We have a chance at stabilizing our relationship with China and Russia in the next 8 years and backing off a little in this regard is a calculated risk we must take.

You want more nukes? We can destroy the world like 20 times over and you want more? I am not a proponent of a non-nuclear world right now, but I think destroying the world like maybe 5 times over is sufficient, right? I would call that sufficient redundancy.

Who are you going to attack with your ICBMs?



Just because we are hated by some and at war with others doesn’t justify any action we want to take. Every successful war we have ever taken on has been a military and diplomatic success. We have a new president every 8 years so we can give other leaders an opportunity to negotiate with a fresh face and hopefully leave behind some of the wrongs done by previous leaders. It’s a brilliant system if we let it be. Obama will certainly deal firmly with irrational, authoritarian leaders in a way which fits his state.

Obama is not naïve. He’s not going to meet with Mahmoud and be like, “Oh…sorry…here’s the farm and keys to the back door.” He’s going to listen long and hard to his military and diplomatic advisors. His plans don’t REQUIRE anyone to be rational or benevolent, but it certainly will give a voice to factions within each nation and throughout the world. It will create opportunities for us to rebuild coalitions and create the global strength we need to combat the awful conditions that have spawned terrorism. It will make us stronger.

I don’t have all of the answers, but I know that the answers we’ve been given in many crucial instances in the last 8 years have been insufficient and in some cases bordering on suicidal. We have other options that we need to exercise.

Time to go shoot a wedding. ☺

For those that want to disarm, leave Iraq, pull our borders in tight --

How exactly are we going to defend the democracy that we've helped begin in Iraq?

Obama might be stupid enough to say he's going to pull out of Iraq. But, the last time we pulled out of country engaged in war -- we lost the war.

Even if Obama wins the white house (if he does, it's because the republican votes is split or disenfranchised because we didn't pick McCain) do you REALLY think he'll pull our troops completely out of Iraq? I have visions of helicopter airlifting out Americans, as Iraqis storm the gates frantically trying to get a seat on a chopper as the Iranians roll into Baghdad, and AQ starts a massacre as an example of what happens when you cooperate with the Great Satan!

Do you really think Obama's advisors would allow his naivete to gain him the credit for losing the war?

As for Fox News being biased -- as long as the human element is involved in journalism -- there will always be bias. Fox does the best job of reducing that bias, and presenting news fairly, and with balance of all the major news outlets.

Reuters, AP, CSM, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, The NY Times , et al have a major bias toward the liberal side.

The common mistake people make is assuming that commentary shows, like O'Reilly are news. They are not. O'Reilly is not reporting the news, neither is Geraldo when he's got his magazine show on (when he's in the field, he's usually reporting - I respect him for his hard news reporting, but he does have a liberal bias on his commentaries and fluff pieces). Separate the Commentary shows, and you'll see the hard news reporting on Fox is usually middle of the road. More so than any other news outlet.

NPR has commentary on it -- that's how the conservative side is heard on NPR. Every other story on NPR is either how we're screwing up Iraq, how polar bears and penguins are drowning because of man-made global warming, or how Obama is getting reamed by the conservatives.

Don't count your chickens. Nate, you ignorant slut --- what does Nazi's have to do with this argument?

Hey Ryan,

How exactly are we going to negotiate with Iran? What do we have or can supply that they want?

The only way that I see us getting out of that potential conflict is to let them:

A: wipe Isreal off the map
B: let them develop Nukes -- and I really don't want the crazy jihadist mullahs who want to bring about the 12th Immam (think Revelations style End Times people! -- we're talking crazy religious zealots here!) having access to nukes.

How exactly are we going to negotiate with them? Same way Clinton did? Give them Nuclear Reactors? More Uranium?

Other than the two goals above, what else does Iran want?

I don't think Obama has a prayer.

#1. Don't doubt the Clintons. Hillary is way to smart and sneaky to not win this nomination.

#2. If Obama does get the nomination he will have to get past the comments of his wife and especially ex-pastor, which he claims he was unaware of even though he attended that church for 20 years. (Opera went to the same church and left because of Wrights non-sense. She knew it was bad PR, how didn't he?)

#3. If Obama gets the nom, according to polls some of Hillary's supports will go to McCain. If Hillary gets the nom the same thing will happen, but I think at a greater extent, and I think the Democratic party will loose it's hold on African Americans as they will feel betrayed. (This comment is also backed by polls.)

#4. Once the American people start to hear his policies, they will RUN! This guy is beyond uber-liberal, Hillary is a right-wing nut compared to him.

I use to like Obama, until I started to look at his policies and listen to the people that he trusts the most. Once he doesn't have a 'hope' or 'change' speech in front of him, he falls flat.

Everyone who doesn't think Obama will win - let me just say that by that I mean "whatever Democrat wins the nomination will win." I don't mean Barrack HUSSEIN Obama. I mean the Democrat wins, no matter what.

Let's put it this way - during the general campaign the Dems will steal a line from Reagan. I predict that Obama/Clinton/TheDem nominee says something to the effect of

"Are you better off now than you were 8 years ago?"

That's a very simple question with a very simple answer. No Republican can fight that. When it comes down to it, I am a Republican who will be voting Dem *no matter who the Dem nominee is* because I want things to change from the way they are today. No, I don't particularly care what that change is. Change is good.

8 years of one party is enough/too much. We are about 18 months away from the start of something *really* good in the economy if we get a Dem in office. That's all I need to know. The last time a 2 term Republican won and then another Republican won, things got worse. The last time a 2 term Dem won and then another Dem won, things got worse. Change = good.

When it comes time to pull the lever, it's going to come down to this - quality of life, economy & the war. Americans disagree with the way Republicans have run those 3 things for the last 8 years.

Sooooo if you truly think McCain can/will win....well, I disagree. And I hope he doesn't. There's a time for idealogy to win and a time for common sense & historical sense to win out. If McCain wins, we spend 5 years climbing out of this economic mess. If a Dem wins, we spend 18 months. Choose now please.

If you are right then let's roll out "shock and awe 2"...we have no choice. Let's just be sure that Hallyburton employees are out before we roll in. They are one of several US companies that has found a way around the Clinton embargo that W has left in place. Well almost left in place.

http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=807

By the way - who Obama chooses as VP is likely the most important decision of this race. If he chooses a leading black candidate, he loses to McCain & we get our 5 year rebuild. If he chooses Edwards, he wins a landslide and I pray he makes it 4 years out on the other side.

First, we do need to tighten our borders (and ports and spend a ton of money securing loose nukes in Eastern Europe and elsewhere.)Most Americans viewed creating a Democratic state after Saddam's fall as the next logical step.

The assumption that the Iraqi people would be able to turn their hope and best intentions to drive the plough of representative government was optimistic at best. We seemed to completely disregard the utter exhaustion, cynicism and basic misunderstandings in the minds of the beleagured Iraqi people of their newfound freedom. They had spent 25 years being taught to fear and hate as a tactic for securing the state. We depended on CIA Yahoos like Ahmed Chalabi to be installed as leaders, essentially becoming a de facto Shah...or so it appeared to many in the Middle east.

Democracy is fragile and it depends on certain conditions to be met:

1) A few capable leaders who can effectively delegate responsibility for forming the new government

2) A reasonable promise of domestic security amongst the people during the transition. Occasional flareups are considered the eggs being broken to make an Omelette.

3) An extraordinarily talented leader who can unite enough people to create a movement of free-minded men and women who are willing to sacrifice everything they have.We haven't had it and have lost our way along with the Iraqis in the way we sought it. We can recover, but sending a clear message that we won't be there forever may embolden sectarian mobs, but it will also embolden those who seek democracy for Iraq.The point at which we become the Occupiers who are doing more harm than good, we should already have a plan to withdraw from the country. It's hard to know how to quantify that.



We view the end of Vietnam as a loss and the ending was tragic, ugly and certainly not the one we had hoped for at the time. It was embarrassing and felt like the end of the world at the time. But look how we were able to repair our standing in the world and allow a country to heal itself. Vietnam is now open to tourism, dabbling in greater freedoms and has generally become a more prosperous place. MANY MANY people died as a result of this blunder.

Make no mistake. Now, there are certainly mismatches in this comparison and smarter men than I know how Vietnam has fared, but the end result is this: we came out of the conflict a stronger nation with a sense of limits, perspective and the prospect of not misjudging an enemy in the near future. Many feel that leaving Iraq will make us look weak. Many fear ethnic cleansing. Many fear nuclear annihilation. Let's be very clear that Iraq is not going to be building any nukes any time soon. We need to get our eyes on the prize and our boots on the boats.



Troy, 60 percent of American voters call themselves "Democrats" as per a major poll acouple of days ago. (Zogby's I think...) I am not threatening you with the prospect of him winning. I am saying if you truly fear Obama's ascendency and that it will destroy our country, you had better get active, because he's not been fighting yet. He has pulled his punches on Hillary Clinton. We have not seen the canny fighter in Obama yet. He's been primarily dodging Clinton's blows and feinting in response to keep her on her heels.

He is going to find a way to forgo his earlier pledge to work across the aisle and work within federal funding guidelines and his going to have an enormous advantage. He has one of the largest fundraising base ever seen and (on average) people have donated under $100 which leaves them over $2,000 left to donate to the general election campaign. McCain is going to make a stink, but Obama is going to weather it.

The Republican vote is going to split with Bob Barr taking 7-10 percent of the Conservative vote, possibly more. The Evangelist wing of the RNC doesn't trust this guy, neither does the NRA and neither to economists or National Security hawks given his stance on interrogation.

I don't imagine it's going to be an easy campaign to watch, especially for Republicans, I think it is going to be closer than pundits are assuming but it is likely going to be Obama. There is a good chance someone is going to try and kill him. There is a good chance that we will see terrorist attacks domestically and abroad intending to throw voting into a panic days beforehand. We cannot let a targetted terrorist attack manipulate our vote. That is the worst vulnerability we face in a democratic society.

Obama is likely going to Have Bill Richardson as his running mate, in which case he immediately gains enormous foreign policy credibility and has a dealmaker utilized by the last three presidents as an envoy to any hotspot in the world. Be clear that the fact that won't be as beholden to special interests and will have a freer hand in directing traffic as has Michael Bloomberg in New York (Treasury Secretary maybe?) Right now, Democrats appear to have a clear path to victory even with bumps and you should be preparing to stand behind an elected president in a time of war just as so many demanded of those who have questioned the rationale or tactics in the war. Until then, fight like hell to keep him out of the Oval Office. Try to do it with facts, not smears. Question authority. Demand accuracy even when it hurts.



I don't think Obama will entirely remove troops from the region, but I do think those who remain are going to be under constant siege and will essentially be there to protect the elected government and not much more. The Iranians won't be rolling into Baghdad any time soon. A) They don't have the army to do that and protect their border with Afghanistan where we will still have some control. That and B) you have to remember the Iran-Iraq war...it was one of the bloodiest conflicts the region has ever seen. General sentiment amongst Iraqis is hatred toward Iranians. And Baghdad is primarily Sunni...in the Sunni triangle. They are particularly angry at the Shiite Iranians for a lot of reasons. We are more likely to see a continuation and escalation of the civil war until the Middle East is able to feed enough carrots and use enough sticks to pen in guys like Moqtada al Sadr and the leaders of the so-called al Qaeda in Iraq. (Remember that it is not affiliated with what we know to be the al Qaeda operation in Afghanistan and Northern Pakistan.)It's not going to go down the way most pundits paint it. Miltary, economic and historical experts paint a much different picture.



Do you really think that the majority of Americans will blame Obama for the way the war has turned out? He will be running a platform for exiting Iraq and most Americans are ready for that. He will be doing what the American Public has elected him to do. They won't hold it against him and I daresay he may find a way to smooth things down much more than could a John McCain when exit is necessary. Democrats do know a thing or two about canny use of military. We have to remember that Obama seems to be running his own show right now. That speech on race was written almost entirely by him and was an extraordinary achievement whether you agree with the central tenets. This is a brilliant mind at the peak of it's political power.



Do you see how many papers you are naming? Doesn't it feel a little suspicious that FoxNews would be the ONLY journalistic operation that is doing good reporting on the events in our world? Just a little wobbly? Is it possible that in your desire to be heard as a conservative and find a place where you feel like people can communicate openly about their views that you neglect other valuable sources of news? I read everything from Fox NEWS to al Jazeera. I spend a lot of time comparing the stories which are written and which emphasize certain perspectives on the same news events. Fox News serially emphasizes the successes of those who share a conservative worldview while underplaying the losses or poor decisions. Conversely, Fox News also emphasizes losses of Liberals while consistently burying the appearance of positive stories of liberal success. I can accuse NPR of doing the opposite as well. It's only when I take the time to compare and contrast am I able to separate wheat from chaf and make informed (and hopefully good) decisions about what I do and say.



I think Geraldo's only asset is his stupid moustache as is Colmes' turkey neck. Neither are serious journalists and in no way represent thinking in the mainstream of Democratic politics. They are straw men propped up by Fox News. I do think that Fox News would gain a TON of credibility by allowing one major center left heavyweight to balance out their other talk shows. I know it wouldn't necessarily be a popular show. The New York Times did that will William Safire and my god is that man incredibly smart. He could tear paper arguments to shreds. He kept the NY Times honest during some crucial times. Not always, but often enough.



I agree that it is crucial but do you really think he would pick a black running mate? He's too smart to do that. I honestly don't think Edward wants the VP as he has shut the door pretty hard, though he and Obama are a good match, doesn't give Obama something he needs - foreign policy cred. It'll probably be Bill Richardson, Joe Biden or someone along those lines.

Meeting someone and negotiating with someone are very difference steps. Imagine it is a job interview. You normally meet the person first and assess them and their intentions. Iran's president is playing a game of brinksmanship and may be more reasonable than he admits. He's bullied his way to the pulpit in Iran. If he is unable to keep a new president's attention, he'll be thrown out of office and the clerics will be pushed against a wall. Meeting him without proconditions, including any promise to negotiate can put us in a VERY strong position if we play our cards right.



The Iranian mullahs and clerics in power don't want nuclear war though they may want nuclear weapons. It's a huge problem. It's going to take a leader other than the current president of both countries to remedy this and we have to put ourselves in the position to negotiate if the conditions are right.


Ummm...Clinton didn't give reactors to Iran, China did. Wanna go to war with China?


Most Iranians, believe it or not, LOVE America. They fantasize about our freedoms and many would love to live or visit. I have several Iranian friends who have been shocked to hear that Americans think most Iranians are anti-American. Ahmedinijad's anti-Americanism to most Iranians is regrettable but they don't have a lot of options. Opposition candidates almost cross the board...like 80% and more have not been allowed to run. So, don't mistake a puppet government for the sentiments of a nation of people.

Most Iranians want peace. They want their children to be safe. They want to maintain their sovereignty. They want economic success and military respect. Don't get too lost in the trappings of the islamo facist bullshit. They are people like us and many can be reasoned with if we give them a reason.

But they are not running their country. The crazies are running their country. If they get nukes, where will the bombs go? I'll bet that they won't stay in Iran very long. You've got two directions to watch. Isreal and the USA.

That is the scary part. Combine the crazy president with Mullahs that are looking for their 12th immam and willing to wipe entire countries away to find him, and you've got an unstable country that can explode at any minute -- no matter what treaties are in place. Having good people under a crazy president backed by crazy religious extremists doesn't mean that the country's governement won't do crazy things designed to harm our country.

I'm not in favor of negotiating with terrorists. Mr. Iranian President is a terrorist. Until he goes away, there is no need or reason to negotiate with him. He won't stick by any agreement he makes with the who he calls the "Great Satan". To think otherwise, no matter how many good and nice Iranians are there, is extremely foolish. Do you actually, honestly expect him to honor any agreement he makes with us?

From the 1970s on, he's shown no reason to call him trustworthy. From his time as one of the terrorists who held our embassy workers hostage after the fall of the Shah, he's shown he's got it in for the USA.

If Obama wants to look weak and inexperienced by having a face to face with that guy, he'll do more damage to our reputation as a nation that he will accomplish on the good side.

Why do people insist that we can negotiate our way out of crazy people's delusions? If we enter any agreement with the current head of Iran, Obama and the America liberal public need to beware the poisened knife aimed at our backs in Iran's other hand. As long as the crazies are running the country, the Iranian people have no say.

On the flip side, I find it interesting that the same liberal media that beat down GWB in his first presidential run (and every day since then) is touting all of the weaknesses they found in GWB as strengths for the new Democrat Messiah.

Bush needed gravitas, (cause he's a dumb, rich frat boy) so he got Cheney to be his brain.

Obama is a tad weak in foreign policy experience, so he'll get Bill Richardson.

Bush is a recovering alcoholic who found jesus... let's hope he doesn't make dumb decisions based on his religious belief.

Obama spent twenty years not only listening to a race-baiting hate-mongering preacher, but also allowed said preacher to be a godfather to one of his children -- knowing that he'd have to distance himself from said preacher when he entered the national stage.

What scares me the most about Obama isn't the utter lack of experience he has in almost all areas of government -- it's the utter reversal the media has pulled going from Bush to Obama. Every quality they hated about Bush has a parallel in Obama that is suddenly praised as a strength.

Idiots.

EDITED TO ADD:
PS: The reason I didn't mention any other papers as liberal rags... was that finding the exceptions that are not mouthpieces of the DNC/NYTimes would be too time consuming. Find any major US city, and odds are heavily in favor of that paper having a liberal bias in their news coverage. Heck, even the paper here in Indianapolis has been swinging left since the Quayle/Pulliam family sold it off.

The media establishment in this country is hard left. The few exception like Fox are a blessing -- offsetting the liberal establishment that is training foot soldiers out to save the world in almost every Journalism school in the US.

why?