I can tell this election is going to be full of laughter. Bush restates a policy in a speech in Israel the other day, a policy he has had unchanged throughout his entire term in office. I'm talking about the policy of not unconditionally meeting with state sponsors of terror(Iran, Syria, N. Korea). Driving his point home, he mentions how some feel that meeting with these people is a good idea but, as evidenced by Nazi Germany, is entirely fruitless.

The humor comes with Obama getting his panties in a wad and accusing Bush of "Devisive" speech. Whether Bush was referring to Obama or not, is Obama now trying to say he never endorsed the idea of meeting unconditionally with state sponsors of terror? Why would someone saying that is a bad idea, a matter of opinion be considered "Divisive"? Then his cast of clowns comes on cable TV to start adding provisos and addendums to Obama's position. One Obama spokesperson went so far as to say "Obama would meet with Iran, but not Ahmadinejad"! It sounds an awful lot like, "I smoked pot, but I didn't inhale", like anyone is going to buy that load of BS.

This guy needs to put together his positions and stick to them. Be for religion and guns, or against them. Be for negotiating with terrorists, or against it. You can't tell every group of people you meet what you think they want to hear, or you are going to get your *ss handed to you in the general election, and earn the nickname "Clay". That Obama got defensive when Bush restated an existing policy is funny. The idea of Obama calling Bush "Divisive" for disagreeing with his naievity is stupid, and a bit icky. Be a man, stand up and defend your idiocy on it's merits, if it has any. He should tear that idiotic picture of the mass murderer Che off his office wall, and post a picture of G-Dub. Word.

Macain's response was the one I found hilarious. He was getting on Obama, asking how he could meet with someone who was responsible for the deaths of so many young American men. I thought he was talking about Bush.

Now you see, its your response that I also find humorous. It implies Bush is killing young Americans when, in reality, its Iraqi insurgents and Al Queda, funded and trained by Iranians.

Well, I found it rather sad that he was doing the Funky Chicken at his Daughter's wedding, when there are thousands of troops he sent there that haven't seen their families in quite some time. How many have died, and exactly what has been accomplished? Sure, Hussein is dead, but Bin Laden is still free, Egypt and Iran still plays host to the Muslim extremists, and unless you eliminate that entire part of the world, you will still have terrorists. It's just like Viet Nam, a battle that can't be won.

Originally Posted by Capt Quirk

Well, I found it rather sad that he was doing the Funky Chicken at his Daughter's wedding

Sadly, he doesn't know how to play the sax .

Originally Posted by Capt Quirk

It's just like Viet Nam, a battle that can't be won.

I'm not buying, on either count. Vietnam was run by idiots (Kennedy/Johnson). Its like having my dog to build my house. Rummy could have written a book entitled "Invasion on a shoestring" and made a fortune. Unfortunately, Occupation on a shoestring doesn't work. If we had piled the cash into a proper occupation from the git go, we would be a lot farther down the road. In the meantime, our military commanders don't agree that it "can't be won".

I still say we should drill new oil wells in South Dakota, Alaska, and the Gulf of Mexico, then pull out of the middle east entirely and never look back.. If we didn't need their oil we would ignore them like we do Africa and just let them continue to kill each other in centuries old tribal warfare..

I find it sad that what was the arguably the seat of the first civilizations never evolved past the petty war state..

Oil shouldn't be an issue either. Instead of letting the oil execs jack the price so that they can retire with a $40 million pension, take that and invest it into alternative sources. Electric cars have been proven to be a viable means of transportation.

And oil also is not the source of the tension, it's just an excuse.

Here's the deal, oil execs are in the OIL business, why should they invest in anything other than that?? An alternative fuel source will have to come from outside the oil industry.. It's like expecting Microsoft to go out and develop a free open source operating system.. Where is their incentive to do so??

Because that is the way the trend is moving. Petroleum prices are rising, pollution is rising, and people are slowly becoming financially and environmentally aware. What good would it do them to stay in oil if people don't want to buy it?

But from a business perspective, even if they are developing alternatives, why announce and release them before the use of oil is over?? It simply doesn't make economic sense..

Because the sooner you get the new product out, the better your chances of having a better share of the new market.

The U.S. consumes all it's own oil(40% of our consumption), and imports another 60%. The problem is that since 2006, with China's explosive growth and oil consumption, the world no longer produces as much as it consumes, which is why prices are rising. I'm not sure if drilling in ANWAR, the Dakotas, or anywhere else on U.S. soil could increase our oil production by %150 in the next decade.

In the 70s, when gas prices soared, we cut consumption and costs came down. There are ways to cut consumption immediately, if we really cared about lowering costs. LP gas conversion kits cost about 2k to install in your automobile, and claimed to cut your automobile fuel costs in half when gas only cost 2$ a gallon. Ride sharing and public transportation are starting to look extremely attractive at 4$ a gallon, and will be jam packed by the time gas hits 6$ a gallon.

Given the huge profits oil companies are making right now, it would be terrific if the U.S. consumers started a grass roots initiative to start targeting individual companies and putting them out of business. For instance, if everyone decided to stop buying from Amoco, at some point, the gas station owners would drop the franchise and they would have to withdraw from the U.S. market(lovely thought considering the company is basically the U.S. representation of Hugo Chavez). There are always choices, and soon, we will all be forced to make them.

Let's see. Who is buddies with one of the biggest state sponsors of terror and insurgents? That would be Saudi Arabia. You see cbwm, there are Shia and Sunni Muslims who are fighting each other and Americans. McCain even acknowledges it

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20...g/atpowyoepvy8

I guess the Republican pundits don't want to talk to one government that sponsors terrorism but are all for being big buddies with another one who does.

I hate to tell you this, Joder, but Saudi has yet to be put on the state sponsors of terror list yet. McCain wants to keep an eye on them, and for good reason. More and more they are looking like a problem. Trying to put them in the same boat as Iran, N.Korea, or Syria is just silly though. Saudi Arabia has been a U.S. ally for a very long time, as you might note we have a military presence there.

Yeah, it is on the buddy list because of the oil, which is making the oil execs over here $40 mil retirement packages. The oil execs are also the ones who pay off the politicians, also known as Special Interest Groups. This is exactly why there haven't been any serious initiatives to develop alternative power sources. The money Saudi makes is funding terrorist friendly groups.

Oh wait hold the press. Because Bush doesn't put them on a terror list, then they don't support terrorist groups. Doesn't matter if they fund Sunni insurgent groups in Iraq or Hamas. Nice no fact argument there cbwm.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/ar...5/15terror.htm

A republican- someone who twists events so they always agree with their political philosophy.

James Baker
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Baker
who served as the Chief of Staff in President Ronald Reagan's first administration, Secretary of the Treasury from 1985-1988 in the second Reagan administration, and Secretary of State in the administration of President George H. W. Bush. ,


As head of the Iraq Study Group, Baker recommeded
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Study_Group
"Although the final report was not released until December 6, 2006, media reports ahead of that date described some possible recommendations by the panel. Among them were the beginning of a phased withdrawal of US combat forces from Iraq and direct US dialogue with Syria and Iran over Iraq and the Middle East."

You left out a link: Lee Hamilton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_H._Hamilton

Why would you try to make it seem that James Baker directly and individually advocated direct talks with Syria and Iran, or an immediate phased withdrawal from Iraq? As we both know, the ISG was a bi-partisan effort to bring change about in Iraq in 2006. The change they got, was not the withdrawal they recommended, but The Surge. If you read the link you provided, you'll find there was infighting within the ISG along party lines about negotiating directly with Syria and Iran. Syria's part in the assassination of Lebanon's leadership during the same period of time didn't help much.

Hey, if Obama wants to negotiate with Hitler or Amandinijhad, thats his call. I'm not sure how digging up the ISG report makes that any better or worse of an idea. I still don't understand why he gets defensive when reminded of his position on the issue. He should be proud, confident.

An Iraq study group document on James Baker's policy web site by its co-chairs. Notice it says "We" referring to Baker and Hamilton.

Statement by James A. Baker, III and Lee H. Hamilton
Co-Chairs of the Iraq Study Group
before the Committee on Foreign Relations
United States Senate
January 30, 2007
http://www.bakerinstitute.org/public...mony070130.pdf

We believe there are additional specific steps he should take. The President did not endorse a diplomatic effort including all of Iraq’s neighbors. The Study Group took the view that “the United States should engage directly with Iran and Syria in order to try to obtain their commitment to constructive policies toward Iraq and other regional issues.”

I know you are furious that a well-respected republican foreign-policy expert would say this.

Originally Posted by joder

I know you are furious that a well-respected republican foreign-policy expert would say this.

Furious? Why waste the energy? Everyone is entitled to their opinion, if one can legitimately attribute that opinion directly to Baker. Again, the Baker Hamilton commission was a bi-partisan group, meaning members of both parties. It is the responsibility of the chairperson to voice the findings of the committee.

Hamilton is a Democrat. Baker is a Democrat turned Republican whose foreign policy "expertise" comes from serving as Sec. of State for George H.W. Bush. It was probably his screwed up idea to leave Hussein in power after we threw his *ss out of Kuwait during the first gulf war.

Regardless, It matters not if the Pope himself says we should negotiate with state sponsors of terror. 1) He's not running for the presidency of the U.S.A., 2) Pretty much every president including your beloved Bubba has refused to do so and 3) Disagreeing with that stance is not divisive as Obama characterizes it. Next you'll see him saying anyone who doesn't think we should socialize health care is "divisive". Have no doubt the parties concerned will throw at us all the pros and cons of negotiating with Iran until November when us "Foreign Policy Experts" will make our own decision and place our votes accordingly.