Man.. this must have Mac Steamin.. Bush fucked him in 2000, now he screws him in 2008...

I just wish now that he will start talking to Kim Jong Ill...

That is pretty funny.

I think it'd be a riot to see Bush and the pres of Iran trying to talk to each other without looking like idiots.

__________________

I'll bet the Seabees and Army Corp are in the hills of pakistan now running a telephone line to BinLadens cave as we speak....

how can he do this!! this makes us look weak. i mean, reagan's administration never would have negotiated with iran

wait...

__________________
sealybobo thinks im a racist right winger. RGS thinks im a braindead liberal. I wonder which one I am?

the best view is from the middle

“Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber.” Plato

“Politics is the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich by promising to protect each from the other” Oscar Ameringer

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. ... The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home." James Madison

Typical Liberal response. Somebody gives you what you want and you smash them in the face for it. Good job!

I think one fair reading of the development is:

1) there is some sincerity in wishing to avoid armed conflict with Iran.

2) a recognition that the 6 party talks with North Korea yielded some beneficial results. Thus, a similar 6 party negotiation here could yield better results than the diplomacy that has taken place thus far.

3) if you will recall during the 6 party North Korean talks, the US refused to have two party talks with North Korea, I expect that will be the case with Iran.

4) nothing else has worked, at least if this fails, and if war eventually occurs, there would not be much left in the diplomatic bag unlike the insincere effort in the run-up to war with Iraq.

You mean like what the right did with FISA or what they did when Obama said he'd rely on the generals on the ground to help him formulate Iraq policy?


Given the past 7 plus years, I'd discount anything from this white house as being "sincere".

The only recognition is that they need to follow Obama's lead on these issues because this admin has made the repubs look stupid.

On the other hand, they've really hurt McCain. I wonder why they'd do that?

Could it be that Baby Bush is trying to salvage something to keep him from being called the worst president ever?

__________________
"Trust none of what you hear And less of what you see" Springsteen
When the Founding Fathers protected our right to free speech, I think that meant we were supposed to use it.
69 days left http://www.backwardsbush.com/

Bush has changed his postion on global warming, negotiating with North Korea, and now negotiating with Iran. Maybe he has learned something.

My favorite Bush moment was when they asked him what he had learned from his first term in office and he said, "Words have consequences."

Duh!

This matter why? I think Bushes many faults have been well established, but see Bush is not running for office

Yeah.. but Mac was counting on bush not to talk to terrorists... eh.. go figure...

Because when McCain is running as a third Bush term, Bush changing horses kind of embarrasses McCain.

__________________
"Trust none of what you hear And less of what you see" Springsteen
When the Founding Fathers protected our right to free speech, I think that meant we were supposed to use it.
69 days left http://www.backwardsbush.com/

I see you have the Democrat talking points down pat. So you want to play talking point word games? ok then Obama is running for Caters second term.

What was that you were saying about "talking points"? That whole Carter silliness is that. But I guess it's an interesting rebuttal. Irrelevant, though it may be.

Tell me, what policies does Obama support that Carter did and Clinton didn't?

Besides prioritizing energy independence, which, I think we can all agree, was the one thing Carter was right about.

You were the one who asked why it mattered that Bush hung McCain out to dry, not me.

__________________
"Trust none of what you hear And less of what you see" Springsteen
When the Founding Fathers protected our right to free speech, I think that meant we were supposed to use it.
69 days left http://www.backwardsbush.com/

I was just trying to make a point, Just because Democrats say McCain is running to be Bush 3 does not in anyway make it true. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one. However keep in mind I am not Voting for McCain or Obama

Except that he is....

1. Iraq... check
2. oil policy... check
3. economic policy... check
4. g-d, guns and gays domestic policy... check

Sounds like a third Bush term to me. Hence it being noteworthy that Bush left him out in the muck and mire.

And just so you understand, in 2000, I'd have voted for McCain...I might have this time, too, except that now he's stood every position he had in 2000n its ear.

But no worries... we can always agree to disagree on this issue.

__________________
"Trust none of what you hear And less of what you see" Springsteen
When the Founding Fathers protected our right to free speech, I think that meant we were supposed to use it.
69 days left http://www.backwardsbush.com/