PDA

View Full Version : McCain Doesn't Know Who Iran's Leader IS!



Gayle in MD
05-20-2008, 10:52 AM
<span style="color: #000066"> Gee, let's see now, he says he's no good with economics, and he obviously doesn't know foreign policy. Maybe we can get him in the White House as an expert on extramarital affairs, or how to go off like a madnam when people disagree with him?</span>

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yesterday, Time's Joe Klein noted that he could find no evidence that Sen. Barack Obama had ever specifically said he would negotiate with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:

On Friday, I promised to check into whether Obama had ever said that he would negotiate--specifically, by name -- with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Indeed, according to the crack Time Magazine research department and the Obama campaign, he never has. He did say that he would negotiate with the Iranian leadership -- but, on matters of foreign policy and Iran's nuclear program, the guy in charge is the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. As of today, John McCain was still accusing Obama of wanting to negotiate with Ahmadinejad. Why doesn't the McCain campaign and other assorted Republicans ever accuse Obama of wanting to negotiate with Khamenei? Well, because Khamenei isn't quite the flagrant anti-Semite Ahmadinejad is...and, as we keep hearing, Obama has a Jewish problem.
Later in the day, Klein confronted McCain with this question at a press conference. For a foreign policy "expert," McCain clearly has a pattern of getting the basic facts wrong. McCain insisted that ultimate political authority in Iran rests with Ahmadinejad -- even mocking Klein when he challenged him on it. In fact, according to the CIA's World Factbook, ultimate political authority in Iran rests with Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, not the president.

Here's the exchange:

KLEIN: I've done some research, and um -

MCCAIN: I have too.

KLEIN: Also checked, also checked with the Obama campaign and he never, he's never sai -- mentioned Ahmadinejad directly by name. He did say he would negotiate with the leaders, but as you know - Ayatollah,

MCCAIN: (Laughing) Ahmadinejad is, was the leader.

KLEIN: But if -

MCCAIN: Maybe I'm mistaken.

KLEIN: Maybe you are, because -

MCCAIN: Maybe. I don't think so though.

KLEIN: The Supreme, you know, according to most diplomatic experts, the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is the guy who's in charge of Iranian foreign policy and also in charge of the nuclear program, but you never mention him. Do you, you know, um, why do you always keep talking about Ahmadinejad since he doesn't have power in that, in that realm?

MCCAIN: Oh I thin-Again, I respectfully disagree. When he's the person that comes to the United Nations and declares his country's policy is the extermination of the state of Israel, quote, in his words, wipe them off of the map, then I know that he is speaking for the Iranian government and articulating their policy and he was elected and is running for reelection as the leader of that country. Yes sir, go ahead.

NEW REPORTER: One more quest-

MCCAIN: I mean, the fact is he'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. Go ahead. Or anyone who's well-versed in the issue.




Ilan Goldenberg of the National Security Network notes:

Let's be clear: Iran has a very complex system of government with varying institutions, but at the top of it sits Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who essentially has only accountable to the Council of Guardians made up of clerics, many of whom are appointed by Khamenei. So, Ahmadinejad is not the leader. And as the Council on Foreign Relations explains, especially in the area of foreign policy, Ahmadinejad has very little influence.

On top of that as Klein points out, the President's job is to educate the public on questions of policy. So if the "average American" thinks that Ahmadinejad is the ultimate leader of Iran, it's up to the President to dissuade them of this notion - not reinforce it. Back in 2002 more then half of Americans thought Saddam was responsible for 9/11 and President Bush did nothing to disprove this assumption (In fact, while never directly claiming that Saddam was responsible for 9/11 the Administration did everything it could to reinforce the notion). That doesn't mean our policy should be based on those false assumptions.

</div></div>

sack316
05-20-2008, 12:01 PM
Just so you know, this is the same Joe Klein who's articles have been the source of several retractions by time magazine and was criticized for several factual errors in his stories about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

He's also recently written such articles as "The Incredibly Shrinking Democrats", and also is attributed with saying that he thinks Bush is an "honorable man" and that he "really likes the guy" (again, referring to GWB).

As to your actual post itself: perhaps I should apply to be a "crack researcher" at Time magazine, as it took me no time at all to find several credible sources that did attribute Obama to saying he would meet with Ahmadinejad-- by name. Just one of the many was CNN. Also worthy of noting would be Hillary Clinton herself attacked Obama for saying it in a debate when she was pointing out his inexperience, saying Obama's comments on the matter were "irresponsible". She also referred to Obama as referring to Ahmadinejad by name.



Sack

eb_in_nc
05-20-2008, 12:09 PM
Just goes to show, some people believe everything they read (especially when it suit their own political interests.

LWW
05-20-2008, 12:14 PM
What difference does that make as long as you can howl B-B-B-BUT B-B-B-BOOOOSH! or B-B-B-BUT M-M-M-McCAIN!

If the author would have done even a cursory examination of the facts he would comprehend that Iran is an Islamic Republic with a secular and a religious leadership.

But, that wouldn't allow for a hatchet job in defencse of the Messiah.

LWW

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/Schema_gvt_iran_en.png

LWW
05-20-2008, 12:15 PM
Yep ... and remember what Gayle says. Sheep are stupid ... and they stink.

LWW

Deeman3
05-20-2008, 12:52 PM
So, unelected religous leaderes are now considered the "real" leaders in power. Does that mean that Rev. Wright would have been the guy in charge of the Obama Presidency if not outted by the media?

sack316
05-20-2008, 01:24 PM
Indeed Ali Khamenei does have more power over military, nuclear programs, and foreign relations than Ahmadinejad does. Those particular things are not really in dispute. My post was an equally right spin on the matter as the original post was intended to be left.

The fact of the matter is (for a true center perspective) either of the two leaders, among a number of other people, would fit the bill for the purposes of this discussion anyway. The left is gonna call McCain stupid for having an interview in which he purports Ahmadinejad as THE head honcho. And in some ways he is, and technically correct and incorrect at the same time. What will be left out is that each of the other candidates would have said roughly the same thing in referring to him. It's also a game of politics, whereas I'm sure each person involved does indeed know the structure of that government and where power lies. But Ahmadinejad is a much easier and more controversial target than say Khamenei is (for example: Ahmadinejad says the Holocaust was a hoax).

My earlier response was to point out where the source came from (ahem, a man who says Bush is honorable) and how the basis of the article (stating off the top that no fact checkers could attribute that exact quote to Obama) was false on pretense.

Sack

LWW
05-20-2008, 02:54 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My earlier response was to point out where the source came from (ahem, a man who says Bush is honorable) and how the basis of the article (stating off the top that no fact checkers could attribute that exact quote to Obama) was false on pretense.

Sack </div></div>
Well, that's not actually what he said when taken in the entirety of the quote which follows:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"Let me say that of all the major politicians I've covered in presidential politics in the last two or three times around, he is the most likely to stick with an issue, even if the polls are bad, and to govern from the gut as you said. I don't always agree with the decisions that he makes, but I think he is an honorable man, and when I've criticized him, I've tried to criticize him on the substance, and certainly not on his personality, because I really like the guy."</div></div>

When taken as a complete quote I agree with it, other than I don't really like they guy.

What I do respect about him is that he follows what he believes to be correct. Although I agreed with a lot of what Clinton did, his presidency was based almost entirely on polling and what he thought was best never seemed to enter into the equation.

My defense of Bush, which many lament here, is the mindless answer of B-B-B-BUT B-B-B-BOOOOSH! to every single issue and without regard to fact.

Nobody is capable of running the USA and doing everything right ot everything wrong ... and only a partisan sheeple will attempt to argue that they do, either way.

LWW

DickLeonard
05-20-2008, 03:08 PM
LWW we all know that the President is only the Titular Head of State, he is in Charge of getting Superior people to help run the Government. That is the major problem. His Favorite Line.

Good Job Brownie.####

Gayle in MD
05-21-2008, 07:16 AM
Sack,
The issue is, McCain did not know which man was the supreme policy leader, as the interview clearly demonstrates. I don't see how your other statements cancel that out.

It is clear to me that Bush's speech in Israel, for example, was inappropriate, and as usual, wrong place, wrong time, and wrong headed. He broke with American principles and traditions, as he usually does.

I don't see how any of your other statements remove the fact that McCain, clearly did not know that Ahmadinejad is not the supreme policy maker in Iran.

Additionally, it is my understanding that Obama has acknowledged that the appropriate preperations for such a meeting would have to be in place in advance.

If you have something to add, with proof, I'd like to see it, but as you can see, McCain was quite clear, and even displayed a desire to argue about which man is the supreme leader and policy maker in Iran.

Additionally, notice the correct take on the matter at the end of my post, by our own government.

Here is a recent statement by a Republican Senator regarding the Bush-McCain recent efforts to demonize statements made by Obama.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Finally, he charged that if the preeminent foreign policy objective is to achieve security in Israel and stability within the broader Middle East, then the Bush track -- which McCain has endorsed -- is ill-advised.

"If you engage a world power or a rival, it doesn't mean you agree with them or subscribe with what they believe or you support them in any way," he said. "What it does tell you is that you've got a problem you need to resolve. And you've got to understand the other side and the other side has got to understand you."

</div></div>

You will find a more complete article about his recent statements in my new post applauding Chuck Hagle for his bi-partisan efforts to speak out against the recent smear tactics used by Bush and McCain.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ilan Goldenberg of the National Security Network notes:

Let's be clear: Iran has a very complex system of government with varying institutions, but at the top of it sits Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who essentially has only accountable to the Council of Guardians made up of clerics, many of whom are appointed by Khamenei. So, Ahmadinejad is not the leader. And as the Council on Foreign Relations explains, especially in the area of foreign policy, Ahmadinejad has very little influence.
</div></div>


I think the Council on Foreign Relations Knows what they're talking about, don't you?
Gayle in Md.

LWW
05-21-2008, 07:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sack,
The issue is, McCain did not know which man was the supreme policy leader, as the interview clearly demonstrates.

Gayle in Md.</div></div>
And you ignore the reality that they are confused on this themselves.

LWW

Gayle in MD
05-21-2008, 09:04 AM
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html#Govt

Sorry, I don't agree Sack. The post was about McCain's not knowing, and trying to argue about who the supreme leader of the country is. On this he stands quite wrong.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

The fact of the matter is (for a true center perspective) either of the two leaders, among a number of other people, would fit the bill for the purposes of this discussion anyway. <span style="color: #000066">No, it would not, IMO, as if you read the post, you'd see, McCain is clearly wrong in his statements. </span> The left is gonna call McCain stupid for having an interview in which he purports Ahmadinejad as THE head honcho. <span style="color: #000066">That is in fact exactly what he did. </span> And in some ways he is, and technically correct and incorrect at the same time. <span style="color: #000066">I don't agree, friend, there is only one supreme leader, and McCain clearly gives that label to the wrong person. </span> What will be left out is that each of the other candidates would have said roughly the same thing in referring to him. <span style="color: #000066">Wow, how do you know that? That is really a reach on your part, don't you think? Neither of the other candidates have ever stated that the supreme leader is Ahmadinejad. </span> It's also a game of politics, whereas I'm sure each person involved does indeed know the structure of that government and where power lies. <span style="color: #000066">The politics were being played by the two men who made the attack, Bush and McCain, politics of fear, to be exact. AMericans have made it clear that they prefer diplomatic talks with our enemies. Gates, also, has lined up with that philosophy. Baker, Hagle, Kean,Powell, the list is long and varried, bi-partisan, diplomatic efforts should and must be made in the Middle East, and do not amount to capitulation, or apeasement, as both Bush, and McCain have thrown at Obama's statements, and as you, also, are attempting to twist, IMO. </span> But Ahmadinejad is a much easier and more controversial target than say Khamenei is (for example: Ahmadinejad says the Holocaust was a hoax). <span style="color: #000066">that isn't the point. the point of the post, as you must know, was that McCain insisted that the supreme leader is someone other than who the supreme leader actually is. I'm sure, that if Hillary, or Obama, made such a statement, everyone on the right, would be bashing them for it. </span>

My earlier response was to point out where the source came from (ahem, a man who says Bush is honorable) <span style="color: #000066">Then shouldn't that make his statements devoid of partisanship? </span> and how the basis of the article (stating off the top that no fact checkers could attribute that exact quote to Obama) was false on pretense. <span style="color: #000066">Please provide your proof for that statement. Preparations made in advance, are one thing. Capitulation to our demands, has not been the foreign policy standard in the past, for having talks with our enemies. REagan, for example, talked with Gorbbie, didn't he? WE've always talked with our enemies. Bush's administration is sending, and have sent, Rice and others, to speak with heads of countries in the "Axis Of Evil" countries which have supported terrorism. McCain's statements were outrageously hypocritical, and they were made in an effort to produce a chasm for Obama, with the Jewish voters. dirty Politics, as usual, accusing others of doing the same thing, but attacking the appeasement lable when it is done by their opposition. Just what they always do.

Not only that, but our own National Security intelligence has stated that the Saudi's were financing the Sunni insurgents who kill our troops in Iraq, and elsewhere. Yet, Bush, dancing and kissing, and talking and holding hands, with the leaders of the country where most of the 9/11 attackers came from, is fine with you?

Quite a slant you have there.</span>

</div></div>

Chopstick
05-21-2008, 12:39 PM
Who cares? Let Allah sort 'em out.

Deeman3
05-21-2008, 12:58 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chopstick</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Who cares? Let Allah sort 'em out. </div></div>


/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

I think he's doing that now. Good to see another moderate on the board again, Chop. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

sack316
05-21-2008, 02:43 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Please provide your proof for that statement.

</div></div>

I thought I did when I said it was not only addressed on CNN, but also by Hillary Clinton as well. If that's not good enough just do a google search and you'll find many many places that do attribure that quote to Obama... you may feel free to pick whichever source you feel is good enough. Beyond that, I seem to actually recall hearing him say something along those lines in one of his speeches anyway. My memory isn't that great, but for some reason it sticks out in my mind

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I don't agree, friend, there is only one supreme leader, and McCain clearly gives that label to the wrong person...

Wow, how do you know that? That is really a reach on your part, don't you think? Neither of the other candidates have ever stated that the supreme leader is Ahmadinejad

</div></div>

Actually, I don't feel it is a great reach on my part. Just because McCain may have been the only one to give an exact quote such as that, doesn't mean the other two haven't given off the sense that they think roughly the same thing via the context of their speeches.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
No, it would not, IMO, as if you read the post, you'd see, McCain is clearly wrong in his statements.

</div></div>

And I don't think I ever said he wasn't technically wrong, anyway. But really what I meant where I said " either of the two leaders, among a number of other people, would fit the bill for the purposes of this discussion anyway" was referring to Iranian leaders, not ours. Supreme leader, Council of Guardians, Tom, Dick, or Harry.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
and as you, also, are attempting to twist, IMO.

</div></div>

I'm not trying to twist anything. I just pointed out that to the best of my knowledge Obama did say that statement, and referred to the man by name, contrary to what the article says. That's not twisting anything. He feels we need diplomacy over there, as do you and many others. I feel we'd probably be wasting our breath--- as do many others--- but I also feel that anytime a peaceful resolution can be brought about it should be done. I personally don't think it can be done in this situation, but I hope I am proved wrong. IF I am "twisting" things by simply stating that Obama said that, then wouldn't Hillary be doing so to by attacking Obama for that very statement in one of her speeches?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Yet, Bush, dancing and kissing, and talking and holding hands, with the leaders of the country where most of the 9/11 attackers came from, is fine with you?

</div></div>

No, no it is not actually. But as supportive of diplomacy and goodwill in the middle east as you seem when a dem talks about it, I would tend to think you may be more inclined to be. Or is it that it would only be OK if Obama or Clinton did something like that? So we can't dance and kiss possible enemies, we can't bomb the hell out of them either... what exactly could a republican administration do that would satisfy you? At least you were right about Klein... he is void of partisanship, IMO. I swear I think if Bush just did a complete 180 and pushed every democratic policy there is, some folks would switch sides just to disagree with whatever he does.

Sack

Gayle in MD
05-22-2008, 11:19 AM
I think that you, and others who post here, cannot admit that George Bush's policies have put us in a trick bag in the Middle East, and that we are facing humiliation all over the world, watching our president go beggin for oil from the Saudis, who turn and say, F-YOU.

To say that his speech, which insulted every country in the Middle East, and bashed the idea of diplomacy, at a time when other countries are engaged in a process to unite against us, and countless foreign policy experts have stated clearly that we MUST engage those surrounding countries which Bush has framed as our enemies, in order to find solutions to our many problems, iscompletely off the mark, and totally absurd.

The war in Iraq has led us to disaster. You may prefer to believe that I'm a negative doomsayer, and a partisan kook, that's fine, but when you start paying five and six dollars for a gallon of gas, maybe then, you righties will finally "Get IT'!

Iran has the greatest underutilized oil reserves, and the greatest gas reserves in the world, and Bush's polices have scuttled opportunities for that oil to be present on the global market.

McCain's foreign policies will worsen our oportunites for engaging with those Middle East countries which must be included in any efforts to bring peace to the region.

And you are wrong about Obama, and I suppose that is why you cannot provide any proof for your accusations. Also, you are wrong to compare McCain's statements to the other candidates, since neither of them has stted that Ahmadinejad is the supreme Leader in Iran.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Actually, I don't feel it is a great reach on my part. Just because McCain may have been the only one to give an exact quote such as that, doesn't mean the other two haven't given off the sense that they think roughly the same thing via the context of their speeches.
</div></div>

Giving off a sense? That is totally different than arguing with a reporter about who calls the shots in Iran, and presumming that two other people, who have never made such a sttement as that, would if given the chance. That is what I call a reach. They didn't say it, McCain did. But regardless of whether he did, or not, and I know he did, and they didn't, McCain in the White HOuse, with the same cowboy diplomacy, replete with the standard Republican war mongering tones which Bush used when he occupied Iraq, without thinking through the likely negative results which were sure to follow, would be the worst thing that could happen to the United sTates right now.

His efforts to bash Obama because Hamas states that they would prefer to see Oboma win, is also absurd, and the same idiotic notions used by Bush when he tries to use the statements of bin Laden, to promote fear among AMericans, a man whose importance we surely should not be advertising to benefit his stature, nor using to terrorize our own citizens.

Gayle in Md.

sack316
05-22-2008, 12:19 PM
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/09/24/obama-stands-ground-on-meeting-with-ahmadinejad/

one of many places a simple google search shows what you seem to think I'm just making up. You still never answered why if Obama never said that the reasons why Hillary even addressed it? She is reaching too?

"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."

(example of the inferences I referred to. Why, then, would Obama not say he would meet with Khamenei? And why, then, would Clinton not correct this in her response? That's an example of what I mean... could be right or wrong, but from that exchange during a debate, I would infer that they are placing the political clout and foreign relations in the hands of Ahmadinejad)


Indeed you are correct that neither of the other candidates have made the statement McCain has, nor did I say they did. All I said was that through the context of their speeches, one could presume they would think roughly the same thing. For the same token I could say "no reporter has ever sat down and tried to grill either Obama or Clinton on that specific issue with those exact same questions... the media is giving them a free pass!" Which is something I could imagine being said were this reversed.

When have you ever really heard me support Bush anytime in recent history? Indeed I did try to for a long time, but over time even I got to realize the problems within this administration. I gave it a chance, maybe I'm just old school in at least trying to support our leaders whether I agree with them or not. But as a whole, even a dumb righty like myself would admit that a bad job has been done over the last 8 years. I'll give credit when credit is due, and also freely admit when I don't agree with something... regardless of what side of the fence someone is on. So to be clear, before you continue to paint me as another Bush sheeple or whatever... no I don't think he's done a good job. At the same time I don't think the alternatives would have fared any better either.

Such as your "trick bag" comments today about middle east relations. Yes, Bush has not helped things over there. But it's not as if it's a new problem. "Trick bag" situations with the middle east have been around since... oh I don't know, like Biblical times? Bush may have added a new coat of paint, but he didn't paint the corner.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The war in Iraq has led us to disaster. You may prefer to believe that I'm a negative doomsayer, and a partisan kook, that's fine, but when you start paying five and six dollars for a gallon of gas, maybe then, you righties will finally "Get IT'!
</div></div>

Last I checked, This admin has been in office for 8 years. This particular problem is something we could see coming for at least 30 years... and did nothing about over that time. Now the stuff has hit the fan, and we are finally starting to react... several days late and millions of dollars short. The current situation cannot be laid on the doorstep of any one individual or particular administration, but rather many many people. I agree the war has led to certain disasters, among many other things. And no I don't think you are a kook... partisan yes... but not a kook /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Iran has the greatest underutilized oil reserves, and the greatest gas reserves in the world, and Bush's polices have scuttled opportunities for that oil to be present on the global market.
</div></div>

And who knows where we may rank in this if only we were allowed to look within our own country. Hell, even Brazil has become energy independent! No offense to Brazil, but shouldn't we just be a little further ahead of the curve than they are?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
McCain's foreign policies will worsen our oportunites for engaging with those Middle East countries which must be included in any efforts to bring peace to the region.
</div></div>

Because over thousands of years, a peaceful way of life has been a normalcy there? As I've said before, I sure hope someone can find a way for that to happen... but I am not optimistic on that. Again, I do hope I can be proven wrong on that.

Sack

eg8r
05-22-2008, 12:34 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The war in Iraq has led us to disaster. You may prefer to believe that I'm a negative doomsayer, and a partisan kook, that's fine, but when you start paying five and six dollars for a gallon of gas, maybe then, you righties will finally "Get IT'!</div></div>Yeah, we don't believe all your BS when gas is $4 a gallon but if it gets to $5 or $6 then somehow it should make you correct? Bull. We have been told by the left for 6 or 7 years that we went into Iraq to steal their oil and now you are posting the W is begging for oil. When will the left ever choose one side of the story and stick with it. Long live the queen sheep.

eg8r

Deeman3
05-22-2008, 02:55 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/09/24/obama-stands-ground-on-meeting-with-ahmadinejad/

"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."


Sack </div></div>

<span style="color: #FFCC66"> Sack,

Tough for anyone to answer that without a glaring double standard for Bush vs. Hillary. ON his part it was a political ploy when he didn't evne mention a name but she can say the same thing and get a pass. And to think a few of us were starting to buy into the spiel that she may not have been treated fairly. Boy, were we wrong. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

I guess we won't mention the "Vote Bro, not Ho" campaign that appeared int he balck churches a while back. </span>

Gayle in MD
05-23-2008, 11:21 AM
Well, there is some progress happening, which I believe resulted from Jimmy Carter's statements that Hamas was ready to have talks with Israel, and Israel has agreed, and they are doing so with the help of Egypt, and also with Syria, with the assistance of Turkey. The United States has been left out of the loop, just as we are being left out of the talks between Russia, and two other countries.

This is the kind of isolation of America from the global arena, which several former National Security experts have stated are results Bush's Cowboy Diplomacy, and other things, like the insults he launched during his speech in Israel, which some think was his best speech, but which infuriated many Saudis, and other statements which infuriated India.

As for the rest, I posted about McCain not knowing who the Supreme Leader was in Iran. I stand by that post. All the rest of this stuff you're bringing into the post, does not have anything to do with either Hillary, nor Obama, not knowing who the Supreme Leader in Iran, is. Niether of them has ever stated that Ahmadinejad called the shots in Iran, which he does not.

As for Bush, I have never considered George Bush to be MY president, since he was appointed by the Supreme Court, and worked to avoid counting every vote. I do not respect him, and never did, but gave him a shot after 9/11, until I read more about his incompetence and lies, and his treatment of our soldiers. Since then he has repulsed me over and over, and I've heard his many disgraceful actions defended over and over, by people who try to slice and dice the actual documented facts regarding this administration.


We should have been the leaders in the world, long ago, who were addressing fuel shortages, and finding renewable fuels, and forming a society which conserved in all ways possible. Both patries are responsible, and again, I must say, the one man who tried to launch just such policies which could have made a great deal of difference, was Jimmy Carter.

As I see it, Republican administrations have been for, above all else, corporate well being, the wealthy, business with no regulatory regulations to protect comsummers, and shady, reckless, interference in the Middle East, much of it hidden, and much of it contrary to our best interests, all the way back to Reagan. The fact that the Middle East has been a volital region for a long time, does not cancel the fact that our leverage in the region has been severely damaged by George Bush, much of the results of that damage, still to come.

Gayle in Md.
BTW, I also think Hillary's latest harsh words about Iran, were not well chosen. I subscribe to the "Walk softly and carry a big stick" philosophy.