President George Bush Kicking A$$

[sirs]

Dangit....that damn Constitution getting in the way again

[hnumpah]

Well, I would have pointed out the President Bush could hardly have met with the Shah of Iran while he was president unless he had a time machine. The Shah died in 1980, well before Bush was even in public office of any sort.

And I would have pointed it out that this discussion does not seem to be restricted to Bush as president.

http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=6228.15

In fact, it appeared to be speculating about Obama meeting with 'terrorists', but then any speculation about Saudi Arabia that came along later was deemed invalid, so I'm not sure if we are still speculating or not. Though the Shah was not speculation; he was a despot, put in place and supported - as long as he was useful, anyway - by our government. As have been others. Ask Noriega what happens when you piss off them what brung ya.

[sirs]

A) It wasn't "speculating" on what Obama might do, it was specific to his advocating what he'd formally do as President of the United States...meeting with leaders of terrorist sponsoring nations & organizations, with zip preconditions

B) Apparently we have no examples of any of our prior presidents meeting with leaders of terrorist sponsoring nations, only the terms of Shah of Iran tossed out to see if it'd stick.  It didn't, nor did the tossing out of nameless despots stick either

[Amianthus]

And I would have pointed it out that this discussion does not seem to be restricted to Bush as president.

http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=6228.15

Actually, the post you linked to was a post about Bush's tax cuts, nothing about terrorism. I think you intended to link to this post:

http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=6228.msg61925#msg61925

[Xavier_Onassis]

I fail to see how just talking with any other national leader without preconditions could be harmful in any way.
McCain came here yesterday to suck up mightily to the ancient Cuban dinosaurs of the CANF. Like the Cuban embargo actually meant something, like the alternate currency of Cuba was not the US dollar.

Old stupid dumbass Republicans.
Same stale crap in the same old sacks.

[sirs]

I fail to see how just talking with any other national leader without preconditions could be harmful in any way.

It's beyond arrogant and poor judgement.  It allows a pathetic little terrorist country to stand across from the greatest, most powerful nation, and for all the world to see, give us the diplomatic finger.  It can't get much more harmful to U.S. foreign policy and credibility, than that

[hnumpah]

...we have no examples of any of our prior presidents meeting with leaders of terrorist sponsoring nations...

Which is not what you said earlier...

Could be worse......could be statements claiming plans to meet with dictator despots and heads of terrorist sponsoring countries, with absolutely no preconditions what-so-ever, and then arrogantly claim it's analogus to Reagan and Gorbachev

[_JS]

To begin with, the Shah of Iran, whom we not only put into power, we also trained his secret police.  Several south and central American despots come to mind.

To end with, the Shah wasn't a dictator, nor was Iran the Terrorist sponsoring nation it is now.  And what "despots" who were dictators and/or running terrorist sponsoring countries did our President formally meet with??

LOLOLOLOL

The Shah wasn't a dictator??? Really? Care to explain that?

As for your question, President Bush has visited China, Saudi Arabia numerous times, and Israel numerous times.

[sirs]

...we have no examples of any of our prior presidents meeting with leaders of terrorist sponsoring nations...

Which is not what you said earlier...

Could be worse......could be statements claiming plans to meet with dictator despots and heads of terrorist sponsoring countries, with absolutely no preconditions what-so-ever, and then arrogantly claim it's analogus to Reagan and Gorbachev

And ironically we have yet to be presented any examples of our President formally meeing with these terrorists & dictators....merely the term being tossed out, like that's all that was needed.  Sorry, it isn't

As for your question, President Bush has visited China, Saudi Arabia numerous times, and Israel numerous times.

Yes, and.....?  None of the above three are Terrorist sponsored nations.  yea, they have terrorist organizations running around, but none of them are sanctioned or supported by the ruling governments.  and FYI, I'm no fan of Saudi Arabia either.  We need to up and leave that place, yesterday

[_JS]

Yes, and.....?  None of the above three are Terrorist sponsored nations.  yea, they have terrorist organizations running around, but none of them are sanctioned or supported by the ruling governments.  and FYI, I'm no fan of Saudi Arabia either.  We need to up and leave that place, yesterday

Hm.

That depends how one defines terrorism.

China forces her citizens to have abortions. You most certainly do not have political freedom in China. And try being a devout Tibetan monk without the government harassing you or even taking members of your family out back for a bullet to the back of their heads.

Israel has targeted Palestinian children with .50 cal sniper rifles. If you aren't familiar with a .50 round, it doesn't put a nice clean wound through you - it removes limbs or when it impacts a skull it is like Gallagher's hammer to the watermelon. I'm not sure how you define terrorism, but murdering children is right up there in my book and I'm not going to even touch the matter of tossing people off their land based on race or religion plus the myriad of other apartheid policies that nation practices.

Saudi Arabia's human rights abuses, as well as their financial support to terrorist organizations AND Sunni insurgents in Iraq is all well-known and documented. Yet, we have a famous picture of W and the Saudi King holding hands, in fact Bush is holding hand on the diminutive side of the Saudi royal to show his status as a subordinate. That is a sign of the utmost respect from the President of the "most powerful country on Earth."

The truth is simple Sirs. Your President has no greater moral authority than Obama or McCain or anyone else as far as dictators and terrorists are concerned. Hell, your boy Ronnie met with Jonas Savimbi (look it up, I dare you) a Maoist, murdering, terrorist, diamond slaver from Angola. They met at the White House!

Bush meets with Israel, Saudi Arabia, and China because of money and power. If Iran, North Korea, or Syria had money or power they could be legitimate states and W, Clinton, Ronnie, and whatever asshole is next would hold their hands and lick their asses like everyone else. Yet, those countries have nothing (well Iran has a little potential), so they get safely made into the "enemies of freedom" while China forces abortions and sterilizations and has their Tiannanmen Square Massacres, Israel murders to keep apartheid alive, and Saudi Arabia does whatever the hell they want as the last vestige of really high quality petroleum.

[sirs]

Yes, and.....?  None of the above three are Terrorist sponsored nations.  yea, they have terrorist organizations running around, but none of them are sanctioned or supported by the ruling governments.  and FYI, I'm no fan of Saudi Arabia either.  We need to up and leave that place, yesterday

Hm.

That depends how one defines terrorism.

No one is denying that China's communist policies prompt some pretty severe stress to the populace, however i'm referring to regimes that advocate, when not directly supporting terrorist activities.  One can broadly define terrorism to include what some college teachers do to their students.  I think it's a common understanding however that the terrorism I'm referring to, is the same type we've all been referring to, that of militant Islam & its off shoots, along with any other entity that targets civlilians to either mame or kill, when not simply being terrorizied.  This also refers to ironfisted dictators & dictator want-to-bes. 

So, as it's been pointed out in Senator Leiberman's piece, no one with a rational mind would envision Reagan meeting with Chavez or Achmedimanutjob.  And for Obama to be making some asanine similarity between what he's pledging as being analgous to U.S. & Russia meeting, is the height of arrogance and poor judgement, and something McCain nor Bush would ever do either

But I think I understand your ploy.  Obama's latest foreign policy comments are so outrageous, so full of lousy judgement from someone who wants to be our president, the idea is to make everyone seem as egregiously arrogant as Obama, then it apparently won't look so bad.

I'm sure that MSM will try to pull that off, and come Nov will see how well it worked

[Xavier_Onassis]

I fail to see how just talking with any other national leader without preconditions could be harmful in any way.

It's beyond arrogant and poor judgement.  It allows a pathetic little terrorist country to stand across from the greatest, most powerful nation, and for all the world to see, give us the diplomatic finger.  It can't get much more harmful to U.S. foreign policy and credibility, than that


------------------------------------
You are totally unconvincing.
It's bad and really bad, because it is not only bad, it is the worst.

But it would be no disadvantage at all. It would make us look like we were trying to abandon the arrogant and ignorant strut of dippy little Juniorbush for actual diplomacy. Agreeing to talk is just that: agreeing to talk. It puits np one at a disadvantage. I am all for it.

Sane countries talk. Insane ones make war.

We have had enough of useless wars.

[Plane]

A terrorist buys his seat at the discussion table with victims .


What would the talking be about?

[Xavier_Onassis]

A terrorist buys his seat at the discussion table with victims .


What would the talking be about?
======================================================
What the Hell are you talking about?

----------------------------------------------------
The US has used terrorism in Afghanistan and many other places through the years and has certainly facilitated it by providing Israelis with bulldozers, weapons and other devices. This does not mean that the US is "a terrorist country" No one uses terrorism for fun. It is a method for getting others to comply with your demands- sometimes the only way. Observe how very soon after the 9-11 attacks the US withdrew all its troops from Saudi Arabia. Observe how Hezbollah, by using stealth, got the Israelis out of Lebanon.

Any country using terrorism has objectives. There are things that the US has that Syria, Lebanon, Iran and other countries want that would not make them a greater threat to the US, just as there are things that the US wants that they have. Talking makes sense, as it will reveal what common grounds exist. It is not necessary to give or accept anything in such talks. It is surely a better source of information than we get from much of our espionage, which is bloody awful.

The US knew very little about Iraq before invading, and Condi Rice was as dumb as a post when she suggested Palestine elections.

Stubborness, bluster, ignorance and imperialism have brought us nothing useful in the past disgraceful years of the boneheaded Juniorbush administration.

[_JS]

Yes, and.....?  None of the above three are Terrorist sponsored nations.  yea, they have terrorist organizations running around, but none of them are sanctioned or supported by the ruling governments.  and FYI, I'm no fan of Saudi Arabia either.  We need to up and leave that place, yesterday

Hm.

That depends how one defines terrorism.

No one is denying that China's communist policies prompt some pretty severe stress to the populace, however i'm referring to regimes that advocate, when not directly supporting terrorist activities.  One can broadly define terrorism to include what some college teachers do to their students.  I think it's a common understanding however that the terrorism I'm referring to, is the same type we've all been referring to, that of militant Islam & its off shoots, along with any other entity that targets civlilians to either mame or kill, when not simply being terrorizied.  This also refers to ironfisted dictators & dictator want-to-bes. 

So, as it's been pointed out in Senator Leiberman's piece, no one with a rational mind would envision Reagan meeting with Chavez or Achmedimanutjob.  And for Obama to be making some asanine similarity between what he's pledging as being analgous to U.S. & Russia meeting, is the height of arrogance and poor judgement, and something McCain nor Bush would ever do either

But I think I understand your ploy.  Obama's latest foreign policy comments are so outrageous, so full of lousy judgement from someone who wants to be our president, the idea is to make everyone seem as egregiously arrogant as Obama, then it apparently won't look so bad.

I'm sure that MSM will try to pull that off, and come Nov will see how well it worked

Yes, I'm part of a grand conspiracy... 

Back to the point.

any other entity that targets civlilians to either mame or kill

Targeting children with sniper rifles? Forcing a pregnant woman to have invasive surgery and killing her child?

Defending the indefensible again Sirs. Once again we see where you stand. As long as the Republican meets with terrorists, everything is wonderful. But have a Democrat do it and Sirs actually shows some outrage.

Just like the Fascists in Europe. Have real Fascists get elected and have real Fascist violence occur and Sirs doesn't have a comment. Hell, his right wing buddies come to their defense like the fire brigades of old. Yet, you throw around "Islamofascism," an absolutely meaningless term as if it is going out of style.

Pure hypocrite.

Truth be told, I could give a damn less what Obama or McCain says. I'm seriously considering not voting at all, especially if Tennessee doesn't have a worthwhile third party candidate. I don't think electoralism is worth the effort when it produces more of the same drivel. What I find interesting is watching folks like you defend the indefensible all because your "team" needs to attack the other "team." You have the convictions of a used car salesman.