President George Bush Kicking A$$

[Rich]

>>It implies that if we ever left Iraq, we would be followed by Iraqi terrorists.

The left likes to put forth the false premise that we're creating more terrorists than we're killing. Since they can't possibly know the actual numbers, they're once again creating a alternate reality. What we do know about terrorists in Iraq is that they are coming, for the most part, from outside Iraq. These people are coming there to kill Americans. What happens if the Americans leave? Why you guessed it. So yes, if we leave Iraq, they are more than likely to come to us. To think otherwise is just more leftist politcal delusion.

[sirs]

Obama's stance of holding talks "without preconditions'' with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "shows weak judgment, and frankly, naivete,'' Kyl, the No. 2 Republican leader in the Senate, said on "Fox News Sunday.'' .......Kyl on Fox asked, "What would Senator Obama be talking to Ahmadinejad about, this man who calls Israel a stinking corpse, who said that Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth?''


full article here

[Christians4LessGvt]

[hnumpah]

...meet with dictator despots...

We not only met with them, we helped create them.

...and heads of terrorist sponsoring countries...

How about directly with terrorists - or has everyone forgotten that many of the leaders of Isreal, at one time or another, were considered terrorists when they were fighting the British, before they proclaimed their independence?

[sirs]

So H, will now show us when our President formally met with these various dictators & terrorists.  She stage is yours, H.  We all wait with baited breath

[Plane]

If the choice is offered to have peace or a fight , then it might be better to choose peace even over a fight in which we have a lot of advantages.

But if there has to be a fight , and the options do not include not fighting , then chooseing the battlefeild is an advantage .

Iraq is a better place to fight Al Quieda than Detroit , or New York or even Manilla or anywhere elese Al Queda might have chosen.

Getting rid of Saddam was just another good thing to do , he might not have been an Al Queda supporter , but he was a supporter of terrorism in  big way.

Al Queda has been been getting exausted in Iraq , the Iraqui resistors are getting exausted too , if it were not for the active participation of Iran the fight might have been over a year ago.

So is Iraq a good battleground for fighting Iran?

[hnumpah]

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.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Al Queda has been been getting exausted in Iraq , the Iraqui resistors are getting exausted too , if it were not for the active participation of Iran the fight might have been over a year ago.

So is Iraq a good battleground for fighting Iran?

===============================================
Al Qaeda has nothing to do with Iran. Al Qaeda is a militant fundamentalist Wahabbi Sunni organization, and considers Shiites to be as despicable as Juniorbush.

Iran is NOT  OUR ENEMY. It is not necessary to fight Iran.

Do you seriously think that Iran poses any threat of invading the US?

As for Israel, it can defend itself. 

[sirs]

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??

[Xavier_Onassis]

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??

========================
The Shah was an unelected, unwanted dictatorial monarch who the CIA and the Brits conspired to put on the throne when they deposed the elected and secular prime minister Mossadegh.

Juniorbush does not "formally" (my what a convenient word) meet with dictators, but he has sent envoys to Uzbekistan and Egypt and sucks up mightily to the government of Israel, that tortures Palestinians, kills Palestinian civilians, bulldozes their houses and holds them without charges or trial for long periods of time, as well as detaining thousands of them each day at border checkpoints for the crime of wanting to work to feed their families.

Besides, Juniorbush was not elected nor desired by a majority of the people of this country.

He is not my president and has never been and when he is gone we will all be better off.

[Amianthus]

To end with, the Shah wasn't a dictator, nor was Iran the Terrorist sponsoring nation it is now.

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.

[Amianthus]

Besides, Juniorbush was not elected nor desired by a majority of the people of this country.

In 2004, Bush received more votes than any other candidate in both popular vote and electoral college vote.

[sirs]

So Xo has no examples either.  Gotcha

[Xavier_Onassis]

In 2004, Bush received more votes than any other candidate in both popular vote and electoral college vote.

In 2000, Gore won, and if Gore had become president in 2000, that would have been the well-deserved ENMD pof the Juniorbush.

[Amianthus]

In 2000, Gore won,

Not really. He got more popular votes, but those are not what is used to elect presidents in this country.