This guys really should give up his US passport. Just once I'd like to hear him argue that our mid-east policy was causing more problems than solutions. Then again this idiot was one of the guys who convinced Bush Iraq would take a weekend.

Terrific and succinct analysis. I guessed all along that Obama was making this up and shooting from the hip. I think he simply got a big head from all of hero worship he's received: it's one thing to speak poetically in front of 20,000 adoring college students, and quite another to go toe-to-toe with leaders of rogue nations. As a democrat I am horrified at Obama's gross misunderstanding of this issue. If he doesn't quickly develop a more nuanced approach it will be his undoing in November, and even then I - along with many moderate democrats and independents - will continue to question his judgement.

In the nuclear issue, Iran may be playing it as smart as N. Korea; give up their nuclear program after they get open concessions out of the US that they will not follow the fate of Iraq, a US invasion. Nikita Khrushchev also created the Cuba crisis to get the US to pull out their nuclear missiles from Turkey, aimed at the USSR, not an unreasonable demand.

"Squeeze Israel"? So Israel should never be pressured to stop the illegal settlements and end the 40 year occupation of the Palestinians?

My comment is only in regards to Iran, which is now a player, a force in the Middle East, thanks to Bush. Bush only will talk with their leader if they halt enriching uranium. He's trying to "make" them halt by doing 3 different things: giving demands that they stop halting with incentives to follow; international economic sanctions; and military threats. Ahmadinejad has already proven that he won't stop enriching uranium as he believes the IAEA rules allow Iran to enrich uranium for energy. Economic sanctions aren't working because we've alienated ourselves from a lot of other countries in the world that could be helping us put international pressure on Iran...basically Iran has enough friends to get them by for now. Military threats haven't worked because Ahmadinejad knows we are stretched thin with Iraq and Afghanistan and he's daring us to pull another Iraq (blunder) to further his case that the US is trigger happy to make regime changes around the world with no regards to international input. Basically Bush has gotten nowhere with Iran for the last 6 years. Meanwhile, Iran has moved "x" amount towards building a nuclear bomb.

Charles, I've seen you on TV some but I don't read all your work. I would like to point out to you that there was another democratic candidate for president that said the same thing about talking to Iran with no preconditions. Bill Richardson. Here is the speech that he gave to the Center for National Policy on June 27, 2007 on Engaging Iran. It is a brilliant speech and was probably underrated when it was given...much the same way Richardson is underrated as a politican. Obama would be wise to choose Richardson for Secretary of State after Obama wins in November. Richardson's experience in foreign affairs is long and established. How much was Richardson's speech on engaging Iran criticized last summer? Where was your article then, Charles? If Obama's mistake on engaging Iran with no preconditions is based on inexperienced then you have to say the same thing about Richardson. Have you, Charles, said or implied that Richardson is also wrong about engaging Iran with no preconditions? And if you have, is it the same reason that you give here...that Richardson is absurd to think this way? Did you ever think that Obama's inexperience was more about borrowing another candidate's stance on an issue and making it his own? Could Obama actually have researched Richardson's speech (that was given about 1 month earlier than the democratic debate that you said Obama made a gaffe) or other democrats opinions about engaging Iran without preconditions? Well maybe, but you implied that it was a gaffe. You've made your mind up. I've got my own ideas about Obama doing his homework before he spoke at that debate.

As far as "The debate is over the stupidity of elevating rogue states and their tyrants, easing their isolation and increasing their leverage by granting them unconditional meetings with the president of the world's superpower."

Iran already has been elevated from rogue state to a powerful force in the Middle East and the reason is Iraq (a one time enemy of Iran) has been weakened with the infancy of their forced democracy via the US overthrow of Sadam's regime. Iran's isolation has been eased due to their having more friends due to more and more countries turning on the US for our engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan. I would contest that although we might be a superpower, the "super" part is being seriously challenged both on the domestic and foreign fronts.

And now, having recounted his version of historical events, stupid Charles Krauthammer fails to recognize that BUSH has gone down as the greatest APPEASER in history by helping remove Iran's greatest threat and invading Iraq killing millions of women and children in the name of spreading democracy with the GUN....

But rather stupid Charles Krauthammer suggests we follow this up by killing more women and children in Iran rather than use diplomacy to seek peace around....

Oh Chuck oh sadness

Barack never made a gaffe, that's just what the author wants us to beleive. Barack has, however, said he'd meet with preconditions. What this article fails to advise is that military opression should be a tool of last resort, not the first.

Iran only aggressively pursued nuclear options once Bush got in office.

Another point is that North Korea, Russia and China never used weaponry and war to get to the point we're at today.

Bush/McCain's foreign policies keep progress deadlocked and have not made America safer. Isreal is less protected, al-qaeda is still on the loose, billions of dollars spent, 4,000+ lives gone.

Bush/McCain's foreign policy is a failure. Lives for oil.

Tyranical leaders fool the people with lies, then deceive them once in power. Iran/US leaders need to change.

Civilians in both countries don't want wars. Only extremists want to 'die'. If my religion says to die for religion, I would be dead. What are Iranians waiting for? Maybe not all citizens are nuts, only extremists who listen to their hate-mongering and fear-mongering leaders.

Mr. Krauthammer. Thank you.

Obama may or may not be that man to handle the job, but at least he has a faith in a power of America that goes beyond brute force and strength.

The choice in this election is very simple. Either you believe America is capable of something more or something less. I for one would rather have a president who believes we are capable of more.

You, Mr. Krauthhammer, seems like you would rather have an America that is less.

petraeus, Specter, hagel, Baker and george HW bush all seem to support talking to Iran.

Sadly, history lessons come from Hollywood for most Americans...

Another high school post. These are the Obama supporters: young ignorant and beyond rescue; the product of a deformed public school system that no longer teaches history.


You kiddies need to leave your woman's studies courses and get back to meat and gravy.


nat x Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dear Mr. Krauthammer,
>
> Could you please explain what you are so afraid
> of? Are you afraid that the President of the
> United States would somehow be upstaged or somehow
> outfoxed by leaders of other countries? You
> fault Obama for not having specifics, where are
> yours? What exactly would happen if you sat down
> and talked to these leaders? You have told me
> that it would be the most horrible thing we could
> possibly do, yet you don't tell me what or why?
> What specifically would happen? What exactly
> would we be giving away? What exactly could they
> really do to us?
>
> Either we are a superpower or not. You can't
> have it both ways. You can't go around telling
> the world that you are the world's "only
> superpower", that you are the greatest country on
> god's green earth, yet you are afraid to sit down
> and talk with someone.
>
> As americans we are either for real or we are not.
> Either all of the things we like to brag about:
> our intelligence, our culture, our creativity, and
> our beliefs are real or they are not.
>
> And, when you say we are incapable of talking to
> leaders who you say are inferior to us what does
> that say about YOUR view of America?
>
> It is you that need to provide the specifics. Not
> us.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Do you know how ridiculous that looks?
>
>
> Who is the one who is giving status to enemy
> leaders? Who is the one that has elevated those
> leaders by

More banalities from the Obamabots.

Do you kids actually believe this meaningless crap or is Soros just sliding you dorm room saps some extra play money?



nat x Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Either you believe America is capable of something
> more or something less.

So Iran violates the NPT, which they have signed, they are giving the bird to the UN in spite of sanctions and all the while we are to sit down with Achie and his friends.

Obviously the Obamabots think that going through the UN is waste of time too.

When Iran, Syria and the Pallies recognize Israels right to exist in perpetuity as a Jewish state, all our troubles will seem so far away....don't hold your breath.

Iran has been a threat long before Bush. Let's remember the disastrous decision of Carter to abandon the friendly government of Reza Pahlavi, because of the alleged abuse of human rights by shah's secret police Savak. As a result Khomeini returned gloriously and the mullah regime came into being. Iran is now strong not because of Bush, but due to the EU and UN who are leading world appeasers. Obama is dead wrong on talking with bandit states.
Excellent article by Mr. Krauthammer.

Dan tana Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So Iran violates the NPT, which they have signed,
> they are giving the bird to the UN in spite of
> sanctions and all the while we are to sit down
> with Achie and his friends.
>
> Obviously the Obamabots think that going through
> the UN is waste of time too.

No, most Obamabots think like Bill Richardson when it comes to engaging in Iran. See my comment #8 or better yet, why don't you go read Richardson's speech about how to engage Iran here.

This is not an either or thing, Dan. It's not talk without preconditions and that's it. It requires a bit more. It's actually going to require some diplomatic work and international economic sanctions on many different levels instead of waving our military at Ahmadinejad and if he doesn't stop enriching then that will give us the excuse to go bomb Iran like we did Iraq and create yet another regime change in the Middle East with all kinds of repercussions.

By the way, I love your comment to Charles' article. I also love your comments about your solutions to the problem. Oh wait, your comments are only good at putting down others without even mentioning anything about Charles' article and you don't give solutions. Great. You sound like a Republican. Aggressive to your enemies with no real solutions in your bag.

Yet another good article by Krauthammer! The President of the United States should not squander the prestige of the most powerful country on the planet by having talks with two bit terrorists and dictators. These guys would love the publicity and ultimately use it against us. Of the two Democrats, at least Hillary Clinton said she would make it clear to Iran that they would be "obliterated" if they did anything stupid. Obama is a far left wing pacifist. His policies would weaken our position and ultimately encourage these small time "tough guys" to make some dumb moves. His whole policy would be counterproductive.

Brilliant stuff, great writing. Thanks, Charles for the usual clarity and high level, no-nonsense analysis.

Just because you talk to an adversary doesn't mean you give concessions. Heck, it provides an option to get across a very tough message. Talking in no means appeasement.

Some of these op-ed writers, esp. guys like Krauthammer, really don't have much insight into foreign affairs. Just cause you spew out 1 or 2 articles a week doesn't mean you have a clue. With all due respect to Charles, he's quite often wrong in retrospect, and he's never been involved in policy formation or implementation, and it shows.

Yes while Obama may be a rookie on foreign policy isn't McCain the master of foreign policy or so he claims. Most Republican think that is his ace in the hole????

Why haven't you mentioned his mistakes!!!!!
1. Kick Russia out of the G8
2. Replace Russia with India & Brazil ( actually they should be part of the Economic Club)
3. Not let China join ( So to of the leading economic forces not part of the club)
4. No timetable no bench marks no goals for the Iraq leadership to meet (with that 100 years seems about right 0
5. The Maverick didn't do a good job vetting the BS for the Iraq war then following Bush down the garden path.
6.No game plan for Afganistan the real center terror.
7.A policy which will create more problems with China which last I looked holds substantial portions of US debt.
8. Carrying on a decades old embargo of Cuba that never worked. Rather than talk move the Island slowly to closer ties.
9. The emergence of more anti American feeling in South America no policy so assume will follow Bush's path
10.Ahmadinejad if left alone will lose the next election in Iran.......making him a hero will not.
11.McCain's club of democracies what will he do with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Kuwait etc etc

WOW and that is McCain's strong suit.
Economic issues which will be more important for America's strength and well being in his hands.
The old Republican tactic lower taxes you must wonder why the richest man in the world backs Obama.
The top 2% have been getting breaks for to long as well as the companies that have become nothing more than corporate welfare bums.

Cam

John McCain has already positioned himself as the Christian Fundamentalist version of Mahmud Ahmadinejad by calling Rev Parsley his "spiritual advisor" . Parsley preaches the defeat of Islam.

I guess he could insist that one of the preconditions for talks is that everyone converts to Christianity!

Do we really want to offend countries like our NATO Ally Turkey and Saudi Arabia etc?

I am beginning to enjoy the prolific writings of Mr. Charles K. and his nightly political analysis on Fox News- always citing past factual events to back up his arguments. He can certainly drive some air heads nut as shown in some comments posted.

I am also impressed with comment # 4 by Patrick Blackmon. Mr. All Talk BHO reminds me of the
"pastor" on TV soliciting money from the poor souls, and surprisingly there are tens of millions of them aorund this time. He definitely got a big head as he probably did not anticipate a hollow "yes we can" slogan defeats the old political machine of Clinton. But history did show the general public can be very naive and become blind followers as they hunger for change. The rise of communism in the early part of the last century is a good example.

As the old lady said: where is the beef? "yes we can" - what?

It will be very dis-respectful to compare BHO with the famous Rev. Jim Jones as the former has the intellectual capacity to fool even the elitists. But the outcome can be as fatal if he succeeds.
However, I do not believe he will if John M. stays the course and move to the center. There are enough democrats and independents who are not ready for a radical, or in this case black and inexperienced, president.

It is not healthy to get upset in any argument. Try Charles' approach on TV, calm and organized, and it may help in your next political debate.

Obama's views on things change with the wind. He says something, gets into some heat, and tries to tweak his view by glossing over the facts with speech. Pretty soon, by doing this enough, people are going to get tired of this act.

[hellnobama.com]

What's so funny about a suitcase nuke detonated without the ability to pin it on a state?

What's the potential death of a few hundred thousand people?

You're no Elvis Costello.


what's so
> funny 'bout peace love and understanding?

What's really dumb is looking into Putin's eyes and assuming you can see his soul.

All right, Krauties,

don't talk - obliterate !

Vote for John McAhmadinejad - the pseudo-evangelical Islam eradicator. Back to the Dark Ages..

Hey Jessica High Schooler:

A rogue leader is one who defies UN sanctions, who gives the bird to the international community by VIOLATING REPEATEDLY the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty which Iran SIGNED and defying attempts by the entire international community's attempt to enforce it's mandate.

THAT's a rogue leader and that what Iran's leader is doing.

Now, tell me you now believe that, all of a sudden, it's no longer good enough for the US AND the international community to work multilaterally....now you want the US to go it ALONE?

you're a moron.



eddie23 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JessicaK Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > The issue isn't talking, it's giving other
> rogue
> > leaders (i.e. Ahmadinejad) credibility by
> talking
> > to a U.S. President, with no preconditions,
> face
> > to face.
>
> Talking to President Bush gives you credibility ?
>
> Who defines what a 'rogue' leader is ? This
> depends solely on your own opinion.
> As far as I know, Iranian leaders have been the
> most peaceful of all parties involved so far. So
> what exactly
> justifies the label 'rogue' ?

Iran is a player Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dan Tana Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Bill Richardson? Hahahaha!!!
> >
> > That fat @#$%& couldn't negotiate his way out of
> a
> > sack.
>
> NOW I KNOW WHO I'M DEALING WITH. I GUESS DAN
> DOESN'T CONSIDER RICHARDSON NEGOTIATING ON BEHALF
> OF THE US FOR NORTH KOREA TO ROLL BACK IT'S
> NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM SOMETHING OF AN
> ACCOMPLISHMENT. AFTER ALL HE'S STILL TRYING TO
> NEGOTIATE OUT OF THAT SACK, HUH?
>
> I BET DAN DIDN'T READ RICHARDSON'S SPEECH THAT I
> LINKED AND JUST DECIDED TO CRITICIZED ONE OF THE
> POLITICAL EXPERTS ON FOREIGN POLICY THAT WE HAVE
> HERE IN THE US.

SHOW ME A LINK WHERE RICHARDSON GOT NK TO ROLL BACK IT"S PROGRAM

NK VIOLATED IT"S AGREEMENT WITH THE US AND DEVELOPED IT"S NUKE MISSILES, WHILE MADDIE ALBRIGHT WAS DANCING WITH KIM

IRAN DOES NOT HAVE A MILITARY NUKE CAPABILITY YET, SO IT"S NOT A CASE OF ROLLING ANYTHING BACK>>>IT"S ABOUT STOPPING THEM.


> > Bush already has been carrying on INDIRECT
> > negotiations through 3rd parties....his is the
> > CORRECT way to conduct a mature policy towards
> a
> > belligerent actor violating international
> > agreements and in violating the UN demands.
>
> YOU WOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT I ALREADY KNOW THIS EVEN
> FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT I'VE READ RICHARDSON'S
> SPEECH AND ALL THAT IS IN THERE. THANKS DAN FOR
> TELLING EVERYONE THAT YOU KNOW THIS INFO TOO.
> MAKES YOU LOOK GOOD
>
> BUT DAN, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THESE INDIRECT
> NEGOTIATIONS ARE NOT WORKING? DO WE EVENTUALLY
> BOMB IRAN LIKE IRAQ? IS THAT YOUR ANSWER? OR
> BECAUSE YOU THINK THE ENTIRE WORLD WILL BE BEHIND
> US, THAT THIS TIME AROUND WE DON'T HAVE TO BOMB
> IRAN ALONE. WE'LL ACTUALLY GET EUROPE AND JAPAN
> BEHIND US AND THEN WE AS A WORLD CAN BOMB IRAN AND
> THE WORLD WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR A REGIME CHANGE
> INSTEAD OF JUST THE US ALONE. AND DO YOU REALLY
> THINK NO ONE WILL COME TO IRAN'S AID? THIS IS
> WWIII WAITING TO HAPPEN...BUT YOU SAY THIS IS THE
> CORRECT WAY. I GUESS I'LL WAIT FOR YOUR WAY TO
> WORK EVENTUALLY, WHILE IRAN BUILDS A NUCLEAR BOMB
> OR IF NOT I'LL GET PREPARING FOR WWIII.

GARBAGE. IF MILITARY FORCE, INCLUDING A BLOCKADE IS NECESSARY THEN YES IT SHOULD BE DONE.....BEFORE IRAN HAS THE CAPABILITY.


> "we must remember that no nation has ever been
> forced to renounce nukes -- but many have been
> persuaded to do so with a combination of carrots
> and sticks."

IRAN DOES NOT HAVE NUKES YET, IT"S NOT A CASE OF ROLLING THEM BACK IT"S A CASE OF STOPPING THEM.


> BUSH WOULD BE THE FIRST ONE TO GET IRAN TO
> RENOUNCE NUKES WITH MILITARY THREATS. DO WE
> REALLY WANT TO GO THIS ROUTE?
>
> > Iran has shown no intent to comply in spite of
> the
> > ENTIRE WORLD demanding they do so.
>
> DOES THE ENTIRE WORLD INCLUDE CHINA, RUSSIA AND
> SYRIA?


AHH, DUMMY, THE UN HAS VOTED SANCTIONS...THE UN....THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY.

UNTIL IRAN COMPLIES, NO DIRECT TALKS.

IF THEY DO NOT COMPLY, SANCTIONS, BLOCKADE, AND THEN FORCE.

IRAN USES PROXYS TO DELIVER HER DAMAGE. A NUKE IN IRAN"S HANDS IS UNACCEPTABLE.

UN-ACCEPTABLE.

WHAT DON"T YOU UNDERSTAND ABOUT UN-ACCEPTABLE?

> > We are being multilateral in our
> approach....NOW
> > all of a sudden, unilateralism is in vogue
> because
> > Obama says so?
>

>
> > We now need to go it alone, hat in hand to
> > negotiate what? To talk? BS.
>

YOUR GOD RICHARDSON FAILED, MISERABLY.

HIS WORD IS AS GOOD AS JIMMY CARTERS...FAILURE.

Sec. of Defense Robert Gates, Henry Kissinger, James Baker, Colin Powell and many others have said that we should have direct talks with Iran without preconditions. Hello...can you say diplomacy?! I would much rather put my trust in Obama and these men rather than you, Charles...no offense. As Robert Gates has said, "you can't go into a discussion and be completely the demander, with the other side not feeling that they need anything from us." And Charles, who do you think sold Iran their nuclear technology in the first place? Maybe you should be speaking to your buddies George, Dick and Halliburton about that fact. [www.liveleak.com]

OMG!!


Obama, the empty suit, strikes again, as to his knowledge of history, I get the feeling it's like the rest of his knowledge about things. It's so easy to visualize him in the last debate, with his head back, mouth open and his ah, ah, ah, stammer, stammer, stammer. His sense of history is probably more akin to what a professor was writing in an article, about students in his class, in a college there in Chicago. He said, in his (very diverse class, his emphasis not mine) he asked students to point out Africa, on a globe map of the physical world. Yes, if one has never seen such a thing, it's a glob of the world without names, just land masses and oceans. He said, most, pointed out Australia, you could feel his frustration in the article. Welcome to the South Side of Chicago.

It's a bit foolish to try and spin that BHO does not have a good eduction, but I can tell you, an undergraduate degree, in Political Science, is one of those majors that don't stretch one much. Oh shut up all you poly sci majors, I took two (required) semesters of the stuff, at the Univ of Texas and it was a sleep walk. Six of the easiest units ever (given) to me.

But no one gets the impression of BHO, knowing much about history, he appears "weak" there too, I think these weaknesses, his lack of ability to debate, and his lack of depth on the issues, his poor understanding of history and his one trip of abroad to Africa, does define certain aspects of the kind of man BHO is.

Yes, he is articulate, but he has trouble with putting together and articulating clear coherent thoughts. It seems BHO has used his ability to articulate as a "figurative crutch," that maybe it has made him lazy.... This obvious (over wording) of questions, and somewhat rambling style of answering questions, it seems he has focused more on the "bamboozling" of using words as a mechanism to hide behind.... As opposed to learning real knowledge, and then articulation of clear, concise, coherent message or answer to questions. To quote Krauthammer, he gets fancy....

The problem is when he gets fancy, his need to (over word) his points, really points out how weak and shallow his understanding of the questions asked. Just like the English Prof, or History Prof, or yes even the Political Science Prof, all recognize over inflated paragraphs in writing, as a sure sign, the writer is struggling with the concepts, and is trying to bamboozle, also know as bull @#$%&, one's way through an essay. Once one has a little training, it is very easy to see, and you can tell whether the writer is "dazzling with his brilliance" or "baffling with his bull @#$%&." Usually when the writer starts rambling it's the latter.

It has been clear from the beginning he is not comfortable with debates, just imagine for a second what would happen to BHO, if he were to have met wit Nikita Kruschev, JFK admitted, that Kruschev destroyed him, in their infamous exchange. But just picture, Barack, when khuschev, takes off his shoe and starts pounding the podium with the heal of his shoe as he strikes it making his points.... I think Obama would faint, everybody who does not worship him, thinks he would faint. And most of all, Obama himself, thinks he would faint, of course, if it were Michelle.... but it's not, she's would just be the First Lady....

Anti Reaganess.

Ever since you saw through Senator Obama's 'race' speech, I have eagerly awaited your insights into his latest inane machinations on the stump. This one is a gem. I see that, commenters to this article tend to focus on minutia such as the actual date he first contended Iran wasn't a threat; or whether we should 'squeeze' Israel; or why President Bush is incompetent. But no one actually contests the principal thesis, that is, Senator Obama has no foreign policy experience; instead of admitting he doesn't know what he is talking about he makes things up as he goes along, whetting himself to whatever policy he came up with on the fly; and, for both of these reasons, he is too dangerous to be our Commander in Chief.

marty08 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm tired of this sort of media hackery that uses
> vague expletives such as "absurd" and "ridiculous"
> to obscure the nuances of an important issue to a
> few poorly conceived sound bites.
>
> I think the amount of legitimacy we confer on the
> mullah's by labeling them "one of the greatest
> security threats america faces" (McCain 3 days
> ago) far exceeds any we would grant them by
> offering to negotiate. This doesn't mean we're
> agreeing to the destruction of Israel, but it does
> mean we're not throwing them in the same
> metaphysically evil category we place Al Qaeda.
> And we would hardly be "easing their isolation"
> which has only contributed to Iran's growing
> influence and Ahmedinejad's stoking of middle
> class nationalism.
>
> Finally, saying that Iran is not the threat that
> the USSR was is hardly dismissing it as no threat
> to the US. It is a grave threat, but it's not
> apocalyptic despite the best efforts of the Bush


Huh??? So the president of Iran "misspeaks" when he declares himself one of the nails that is prophecied to bring the apocalypse??? That was actually Bush making him say that? Wow, that is a powerful president! They are not nationalistic in Iran, they are Islamic with all of the bells and whistles self proclaimed by Shia. They are the equivalent of Hagee, the exact same system.

HAGEE and Ahminejab- opposite sides of world-war-three MUST HAPPEN BECAUSE IT IS WHAT GOD WANTS. They both want it so bad, both believe it is the road upwards, and they are both wrong prophetically.

"They are not nationalistic in Iran, they are Islamic with all of the bells and whistles self proclaimed by Shia"

Go to Iran, come back, and tell me that Islam trumps Persian nationalism. It would be a tough case to sell. And there's a difference between rhetoric about bringing the apocalypse and having the means to do so. Plus you misread, I said Bush is trying to present the Iranian regime as capable of bringing the apocalypse, which it certainly is not.

It is such a useless policy that led us to war in Iraq. Americans should use its strength to engage in principled diplomacy to bring about peace in the world. We are too powerful to be petty and this nonsense of not talking to tiny states who we consider enemies is what makes the rest of the world hate us!

Anti Reaganess. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OMG!!
>
>
> Posted by: nat x
> Comment: #13
> May 23, 12:52 AM
>
> Dear Mr. Krauthammer
>
> As americans we are either for real or we are not.
> Either all of the things we like to brag about:
> our intelligence, our culture, our creativity, and
> our beliefs are real or they are not.
> ..................................................
> ..................................................
> .............................
> Mr nat x,
>
> This is no reflection on you, but I can tell you
> as a world traveler, the "rest" of the world does
> not look on Americans as intelligent. I have
> found that most countries like Americans, because
> for the most part they are friendly people. But
> they (do not) think they are smart. That is a
> major major fallacy that is perpetuated by the
> political class here in America. They think
> Americans are stupid, naive and give everything
> away.
>
> I am not being a smart @#$%& here, but I am telling
> you as someone who has traveled a lot and lived
> out of country for 12 years, the perception of
> people in the world about America and it's people
> are far different than the political class tells
> the general population here. Americans are also
> know throughout Europe as people who don't travel
> out of their back yards and their political
> assumptions and ideas about the world, are
> backyardish....
>
> I can also tell you with no bad intent or put down
> in anyway that. Europeans are not weak people,
> they will not be pushed around and the idea of
> America saving them is laughable to them. They are
> very sharp politically and have a more
> sophisticated view of the world in general. They
> respect America's military power, but it is often
> viewed as, or likened to a bully, strong but
> stupid. Having also spent time in the Middle East
> and Asia, I can say they are as a whole @#$%&
> tricky and very manipulative.
>
> But as I said they do like Americans, and they are
> appreciative of the countrie's accomplishments,
> but it is not in anyway held with any reverence.
> Not by a long shot.
>
> Anti Reaganess.

I get you, we are viewed as spoiled rich brats, children with too many toys. We live in the land of milk and honey and spend all our time whining and complaining about what we do not have, like Michelle Obama, for example.

My favorite political commentator is Carlos Mencia. He said this week that we think we are poor, but anyone can go out and beg and expect to receive. You know your country is poor when everyone else is begging from you at the same time. He also said that we are childish to worry so much about recession, the time to start worrying is when the Mexicans refuse to come here. God bless the USA!!!

John Useless Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is such a useless policy that led us to war in
> Iraq. Americans should use its strength to engage
> in principled diplomacy to bring about peace in
> the world. We are too powerful to be petty and
> this nonsense of not talking to tiny states who we
> consider enemies is what makes the rest of the
> world hate us!


What you fail to realize is that "the rest of the world" is going to hate us no matter what we do -- and their hatred is completely irrelevant.

marty08 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "They are not nationalistic in Iran, they are
> Islamic with all of the bells and whistles self
> proclaimed by Shia"
>
> Go to Iran, come back, and tell me that Islam
> trumps Persian nationalism.

I would have no idea what they were saying.

> a difference between rhetoric about bringing the apocalypse and having
> the means to do so.

I do not believe that there ever will be an apocalypse. The Hagee's of the world combined with Islamic Extremism could provide a lot of fuel and fire, starting world war three is the goal of each, because they both think it is the path upwards to God. Both sides are wrong, the prophecies of the Bible do not support the END OF THE WORLD in our current time scenario at all. Do not underestimate the number of Americans that believe and have been taught this. They are passionate in their belief that they know the truth and every one else is wrong. They pay extreme amounts of attention to the middle east watching for a sign of end. Subconsciously wishing for it is incredibly dangerous. I am Orthodox, by the way. I can tell you that only here in America are "Christians" waiting for the end. It has massive impact on presidential elections too.


> Plus you misread, I said Bush is trying to present the Iranian regime as capable
> of bringing the apocalypse, which it certainly is not.

No one would be on their own, it takes two. And then an escalation. There is so much poison in the world and in the minds of men. This cannot be ignored, but I do agree that it is used to gain votes. Much of the public opinion expressed has nothing to do with how we are really governed. I do not even think that the public being told the truth is wise. It would be absurd on any tactical level. So trust is the one issue alone that can determine who one should vote for. If you are sure you can trust a certain administration to be strong and do their best, then all becomes fair to put that man or woman in office. Do you agree?

I cannot believe my ears and in this my eyes of what I read. Not engaging the world political infrastructure has not made the world safer - yet, we continue to posture these policies and critize those who would consider changing our approach. If I were king, I would send people who hide behind their word processors and talk "tuff" to go out and fight the wars, deal with the danger. I am certainly tired of these small-minded men and women that leads this country into ruin. The decline in power and influence is palpable, and we need someone to turn the corner. Is it Obama - perhaps not. But I am quite sure Krauthammer and his ilk are not the solution either. Look around at the results and consequences of this past 8 years. Is the country going in the right direction?

Obama’s campaign promise to deal with the threats posed by Achmadinejad and Chavez by talking with them -- on the grounds that some areas of compromise might be found -- is like a candidate for police commissioner promising to have talks with Al “Scarface” Capone and Bugs Moran, to find areas of compromise with them.

Normally, you’d think such a candidate wouldn’t get anyone’s votes, except from those in the Capone and Moran gangs. But then that would be failing to take into account today’s Democratic Party.

"Oh, yes, here is the standard argument that we dare not oppose our enemies because doing so only makes them stronger at home, it only rallies the people behind their leaders, " stokes middle class nationalism", etc.

But if that were true, then today we'd still be fighting enraged Nazis and Japanese Imperialists because our opposition to their regimes would have created unstoppable and eternal loyalty to their respective causes."

I can't even begin to describe how much of a failed historical analogy that is, and if that's the level of discussion on this forum then I'm out. Japan and Germany in World War II in no way compare to Iran today, and it's a waste of time to outline for you the stark differences between the two situations.

Go back to reading your op-eds by your chummy Podhoretz and come back when you can offer a coherent argument.

James O. Smith Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Look around
> at the results and consequences of this past 8
> years. Is the country going in the right
> direction?


No, it's not going in the right direction because Bush has attempted to govern primarily by LIBERAL principles. He's only a conservative on social issues like abortion.

Even the conduct of the war on terror has been poisoned by terrible liberal ideas. For instance, Bush has followed the liberal, multiculturalist view that all cultures and forms of government are morally equal and all that matters is letting people choose their own form. That view has resulted in the creation of quasi-theocracies in Afghanistan and Iraq and has led to stalemate in both countries.

Bush has also followed the liberal notion that the terrorists should be treated as criminals and hunted down by police-type tactics -- and that's why our military is now functioning as a domestic police force in Iraq.

Fiscally, Bush has spent like our money like liberals can only dream of doing.

And you think that electing a hyper-liberal like Obama is the answer? You are sick because you've eaten a mixture of food and poison -- and you hope to get better by increasing the ratio of poison to food?

I think the author is taking Obama's stump to literally (this is a STUMP SPEECH, mind you.) Perhaps Obama is dumbing this down a bit for the "ordinary American", to give them a sense of what his foreign policy will be modeled upon, in contrast to Bush's calamitous approach. Read this article in the NY Times (notice it was PRE-IRAQ) and see how well you think Bush followed Truman's example.

[query.nytimes.com]

As for Roosevelt, are you sure he means FDR and not Teddy? Isn't the US foreign policy of the 20th century founded on his strong military philosophy? And yes, Kennedy may have walked into a buzzsaw when he first met Khrushchev, but if he and his speechwriter hadn't had intimate knowledge of the man, would they have known to respond to the 1st letter instead of the 2nd during the missile crisis? Sorry, but I don't believe it when people say that Khrushchev did it because he thought Kennedy was weak, he was doing it to gain favor in his own party and country at the time, and would have made a move regardless. He had to, as the political climate in the USSR was that the containment was working, and they needed us to balk at some point. Hello, Tsar bomb, anyone? You people don't seem to understand how nuanced this stuff is, yet its the POLICY as a WHOLE you should be looking at, instead of criticizing something he says to get people cheering. Duh!

Prince Obama and His Magic Carpet Ride to Teheran. What a fairy tale that one is. But then, what can a 47 year old neophyte Senator with NO experience in international or military affairs do when facing a John McCain in the general election? Why, propose the most simplistic solution possible to all of our foreign policy problems, and bluff his way through November, of course. Just talk your adversaries to death, without preconditions. That's a pipe dream right out of 1001 Nights. How sophomoric junior Senator Obama. Would you talk to all of our enemies? Including Osama bin Laden? You do know, don't you, American Presidents traditionally talk to our adversaries only when there are clear gains to be made, and certain preconditions are met? Personally, I doubt that's the case with the Iranians, and I doubt Obama is serious about his proposal to talk to them. First of all, who's gonna go to Teheran? King of Kings Obama? Might wanna check the latest list of fatwas against apostates first. Who else? The State Department? Hell, they don't even want to go to Baghdad where they're surrounded 24/7 by those trigger happy killers employed by Blackwater. Good luck talking the Dips into going to Teheran where I'm pretty sure the Quds Force guys will want to be their guards, just like in the old days. Oh, and by the way, we got any Farsi speakers down at Foggy Bottom? Seems George Bush realized we had a deficit of Middle East linguists about four years after he invaded Iraq. Finally Senator Obama, are you old enough to remember what happened in 1979? If you wanna send State Department diplomats over to Teheran, they won't be able to "talk to our enemies" when they get there because you're gonna have to bind and gag 'em first just to get them on the plane. And in that case, all you're doing is saving the mullas the trouble. Seriously, this is all a feint by Obama, absolving him of the customary requirement for a candidate to put forth realistic and specific solutions to our foreign policy dilemmas, so we can evaluate them before we vote. We should call his bluff. Make Talk-To-Me Obama promise that if he is elected president, he will nominate Hillarity for Secretary of State and come January, ship her off on the Enola Gay to meet with the mullahs. Dress her up in a gray pant suit with fins, give her a beehive hairdo shaped like a nose cone, and stamp: Greetings from the Great Satan on her forehead. That'll get 'em talkin', and we'll be rid of her.

marty08 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Oh, yes, here is the standard argument that we
> dare not oppose our enemies because doing so only
> makes them stronger at home, it only rallies the
> people behind their leaders, " stokes middle class
> nationalism", etc.
>
> But if that were true, then today we'd still be
> fighting enraged Nazis and Japanese Imperialists
> because our opposition to their regimes would have
> created unstoppable and eternal loyalty to their
> respective causes."
>
> I can't even begin to describe how much of a
> failed historical analogy that is, and if that's
> the level of discussion on this forum then I'm
> out. Japan and Germany in World War II in no way
> compare to Iran today, and it's a waste of time to
> outline for you the stark differences between the
> two situations.

Translation: "I can't answer your arguments, so I'm taking my ball and going home. "

Actually the fanaticism of the Nazis in Germany and of the Shintoist in Japan pre-WWII and during WWII is quite analogous to the Islamic jihadists in Iran and elsewhere today in the middle east.

ashley brown Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Krauthammer, consistent with the neo-con notion of
> "shoot first, never ask questions, and never
> engage in any introspection," has once again
> advocated for a course that will inevitably lead
> to conflict. His commitment to war first and
> diplomacy second, if at all, remains steadfast.
> Obama has simply been arguing that a policy of
> non-engagement with one's adversaries is one
> designed to fail or lead to conflict. The logic
> of that position is irrefutable. Krauthammer,
> however, is incapable of distinguishing between
> form and substance. He seems to believe that the
> mere fact that one is talking means that one is
> giving credence to an adversary's position. That
> is demonstrably not true. One can, and Obama will
> undoubtedly do so, be firm and direct in making
> his position clear and making certain that the
> adversary does not misunderstand that firmness.
> Hiding behind a position of non-engagement, is, as
> the Bush Administration has proven will accomplish
> nothing but war and international disapproval.
> Krauthammer may well find that consistent with his
> hostile view of the rest of the world. Most
> Americans prefer a saner, safer, and more
> successful course. If Krauthammer wants
> unnecessary ware, then I suggest that he and his
> children fight it. For me, I prefer to try
> diplomacy and reason before resorting to the types
> of conflicts Karuthammer is so dedicated to
> inciting.



Ashley, did you even read CK's column? He made no such assertion about shooting first. Your guy made a gaff, then compounded it by not immediately backing off, then tried to change his view. Yes, he flip-flopped. Why are you voting for Obama?

ashley brown Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For me, I prefer to try
> diplomacy and reason before resorting to the types
> of conflicts Karuthammer is so dedicated to
> inciting.

You are confused. It isn't Krauthammer that's "inciting" a conflict, and it isn't Krauthammer that is not open to reason. It's Ahmadinejad and his Islamic jihadist fanatics.

What part of their statement do you not understand when they say, "We do not seek to have you give us anything -- we only seek to kill you".

Reading the articles above, I, but thank God there are intelligent Americans still walking the earth!
Why? Are there people who do not know why Kra and the likes of Zionists write these types of articles? These people are the so-called friends of America and will stop at nothing short of seeing America broke, despised and destroyed.
America's demise will certainly be caused by its 'friends' rather than enemies!

Lest anyone forget, or not know.....Just because someone graduated from Harvard law school, doesn't mean that they are intelligent, or might have some understanding of diplomatic techniques, or a grasp of History. Harvard, that bastion of liberal, PC, stupidity, accepts only the folks who have either the money, the family name OR the "compelling story", into its ranks. Sure, there are SOME, really deserving, smart folk ,that get accepted, but the rest are just like Barry....sorry, he was Barack by then......the name Barack alone may have clinched it for him, but when you add in that
Barry was a poor black/white/muslim/christian/Kenyan/American kid from Hawaii, was just too good for them to pass up. He was (and is) definitely, one of them.....

Not to worry. The more Obama speaks extemporaneously the sooner he will talk himself out of the presidency.

The goal of the Obama Doctrine: Being able to say unequivocally, in that smooth baritone, "We have met the enemy, and poured him tea."

sean o Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Guess what, when the
> wall finally fell, it wasn't because America
> dictated it. It happened because the people of
> that region of the world dictacted it.

Contrary to liberal mythology, we did not succeed in negotiating the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics out of existence.

In fact, our willingness to negotiate with them helped prop them up. In the decades right after the USSR was formed, we supplied them with huge amounts of industrial equipment and technology. Later, we negotiated numerous wheat deals to keep them from starving. See the book, "East minus West = Zero" for a complete recounting of all the ways the USSR milked us through the process of negotiation.

The USSR was eventually brought down by two factors: first, they were bankrupted by their efforts to match Reagan's military buildup; second, it eventually became impossible to prevent Soviet citizens from realizing the truth: that communism had produced only mass starvation, while capitalism was producing enormous wealth.

Negotiation only served to prolong the existence of the Soviet Union. It worked AGAINST the demise of communism.

The track record of negotiation and diplomacy is just as abysmal as is the track record of socialism. Yet no amount of failure of either will ever deter liberals from advocating more of both.

sean o Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> THey are worlds ahead in
> their understanding of the politics of engagement.
> Witness the present peace talks in Syria and
> Israel and between Fatah and Hamas. The Bush
> adminstration for all its bluster is standing on
> the sidelines with real leaders are working.

Right, and next you'll be telling us that the Oslo Accords have been a big success.

How many times does diplomacy have to fail with these Islamic fanatics before you'll stop advocating it?

"CK is hardly far right. He's supporting McCain who, as you know, is not far right."

I stand by my original post.

Full of Krap-thammer supports McCain because he has
has enough sense -- of the little he has -- to know the American people would never
accept another wannabe neocon like Cheney or Bush in the White House, after the
last eight horrible years.

Recognizing he has no choice but to support the next best thing, he likes anyway McCain's desire to carry on the FAILED, divisive, terrorism-baiting and war-mongering policies of Bush.

roy12505 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "CK is hardly far right. He's supporting McCain
> who, as you know, is not far right."
>
> I stand by my original post.
>
> Full of Krap-thammer supports McCain because he
> has
> has enough sense -- of the little he has -- to
> know the American people would never
> accept another wannabe neocon like Cheney or Bush
> in the White House, after the
> last eight horrible years.
>
> Recognizing he has no choice but to support the
> next best thing, he likes anyway McCain's desire
> to carry on the FAILED, divisive,
> terrorism-baiting and war-mongering policies of
> Bush.




McCain is no Bush, and you know that, but you have to convince yourself that he is, b/c you unthinkingly want the Big O to win at any cost. Tell me why you are voting for Obama, and please, no attacks on McCain/Bush. Tell me why, specifically, you are voting Obama.

I also suspect Obama is getting a little nervous about the good news out of Iraq . After all his whole Campaign has been based on his good judgement to surrender .

daveinboca wrote : )

Does anyone remember the JFK/Khrushchev Summit in Vienna ?

I remember & the peace at any price crowd keeps telling us what a great President he was . Its the best they have had to offer in my life time . And they still want to know why we are not all Democrates . And now this Fairytale Obama is giving us Change We Can Believe In . Yea Right .

roy12505 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Recognizing he has no choice but to support the
> next best thing, he likes anyway McCain's desire
> to carry on the FAILED, divisive,
> terrorism-baiting and war-mongering policies of
> Bush.

So Bush is a warmonger?

In 2006, when war broke out between Israel and Hizbullah in Lebanon, what did the Bush administration do? In strict accordanc with LIBERAL ideas, Bush sent Condoleeza Rice to the UN to negotiate a cease-fire and establish an additional UN security force in Lebanon that was supposed to keep Hizbullah from rearming.

And what did that solve? Today, Hizbullah has rearmed with more than double the number of rockets it had before, many of which have much greater range. The next war with Israel will result in the deaths of far more civilians than if the last war had been finished.

What did international diplomacy and talking with the enemy accomplish in this case?

What you liberals fail to see is that the Bush administration's failures are directly attributable to the very policies you demand. See my comment in 85 for more examples of this.

Excellent article Charles.

Auntie Bellum Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Charles is exactly correct. One never negotiates
> with a terrorist or a terrorist state.
>
> Whenever you hear someone propose such
> negotiations (e.g., Obama, Madeline Albright or
> Jimmy Carter), you may automatically and
> accurately assume that they have no notion of
> world affairs.
>
> Does anyone on earth believe it would be a wise
> and prudent foreign policy to negotiate with Osama
> bin Laden? Why would that be an act of gross
> stupidity?
>
> The same applies to Iran. To Hamas. etc.


Dear Auntie,
Are you saying that Henry Kissinger, Robert Gates, James Baker and Colin Powell have no knowledge of world affairs as they agree with Obama that direct talks with Iran are necessary?

For the record Obama has never said that he would negotiate with Osama bin Laden or any other known terrorists so let's stop that rumor in its tracks right now.

Ah, stick a sock in it you transparent Republican shill.

Auntie Bellum Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Charles is exactly correct. One never negotiates
> with a terrorist or a terrorist state.
>
> Whenever you hear someone propose such
> negotiations (e.g., Obama, Madeline Albright or
> Jimmy Carter), you may automatically and
> accurately assume that they have no notion of
> world affairs.
>
> Does anyone on earth believe it would be a wise
> and prudent foreign policy to negotiate with Osama
> bin Laden? Why would that be an act of gross
> stupidity?
>
> The same applies to Iran. To Hamas. etc.

So what do you suggest we do, Auntie Bellum?
Negotiation means diplomacy.
Tell us what good
the Bush policies of isolationism and war mongering have done over the last eight
years to suggest negotiation would not produce any better result?

Somewhere in a universe unknown to the neocons, Bushies
and right-wingers, there is a recognition that even our most bitter enemies
are human beings, having the same basic human needs as we do,
and who can be dealt with on that level.

We may have no other choice at a time when most of the world
possesses the capability to blow us all to oblivion within seconds.

chicken hawk Krauthammer appears to be a man of strict black and white views: attack all of our various problems with the same worn out solutions.

Well truth if you can get Obama to shut the He*l up for one day maybe there won't be anything for Charles to write about .


truthfighter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This guy Krauthammer is nothing but an Obama
> basher like Rove - every article he rights is only
> about bashing Obama, and whether you are for Obama
> or not, I just find it suspicious that you
> dedicate @#$%& near every one of your articles to
> bashing the same person like this guy and Rove in
> the WSJ.

Breathtaking--- absolutely breathtaking, the ignorance shown here by my fellow democrats. Charles is right on with his analysis--as always.

It is absurd for any Nation to refrain from having a dialog with another Nation on the ground that their developing interests mutually conflict; as such a policy is just prone to create a permanent adversary.

Systematically omitting to invest diplomatic efforts to keep an adversarial relation from further degrading, eventually turns the one time adversary into a permanent enemy.

Never talking to one ' s enemy (i.e. alienating one 's enemy) eventually leads to war with this enemy and to the massive blood letting consequences of such a war

Those are the spiraling cost of clinging to an incompetent leadership, one which only knows the binary and dangerously oversimplified language of the goods and the bads, friends or enemies, war or peace.

To work well the USA political system requires a minimum of 3 qualities from its leader : (1) brains, (2) courage and (3) integrity.

Alternative is to continue stumbling from bloody disasters to bloody disasters as the USA has sadly experienced over the last 7 years.

Keeping Charles Krautammer in the Washington Post would be equally absurd. Nobody would really understand.

Cool you said 2 things that are well worth repeating .

Kennedy & Nixon did tie in that election & Nixon thought enough of our country to give it to Kennedy as to not create hate . Sorry state of affairs we can't say the same about OWL GORE .
Just look at the hate for Bush . Most of it is because he stole the election from Gore which is part of your 2nd thing "Even If They Have To Make It Up"

You also said : ) and it seems the citizens want
> to repeat and have something bad to complain
> about, even if they have to make it up .

I have discovered that Liberals love to be the VICTIM . God only knows why but they do .


Cool Bobby K Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dandy Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > daveinboca wrote : )
> >
> > Does anyone remember the JFK/Khrushchev Summit
> in
> > Vienna ?
> >
> > I remember & the peace at any price crowd keeps
> > telling us what a great President he was . Its
> the
> > best they have had to offer in my life time .
> And
> > they still want to know why we are not all
> > Democrates . And now this Fairytale Obama is
> > giving us Change We Can Believe In . Yea Right
> .
>
> Dominoes indeed!!! The 60 election was stolen from
> Nixon by of all places- CHICAGO. Domino to JFK
> being assassinated by LBJ (to avoid prison),
> domino to Vietnam and the meltdown of a
> generation, domino to Watergate because of Nixon
> paranoia over having the election stolen in 60,
> domino to Carter being elected and being so
> transparent that are enemies got a real good look,
> domino to Iran. My entire life time has been one
> giant cluster-fk.
>
> We are finally growing out of all that bizarre
> political damage, and it seems the citizens want
> to repeat and have something bad to complain
> about, even if they have to make it up. Iraq is
> not like Vietnam at all!!! The threat of a draft
> by each and every Democrat is insane!!! They are
> the ones who would do it, trust me this is
> absolute truth. The military does not want
> knuckleheads, it took forever to recover from the
> drug use and hatred of the Vietnam era, and now
> you have to be qualified to use technology. No
> Republican would ever force a draft on the
> military. But a Democrat would, because that would
> be an equal playing field, a redistribution of
> wealth.
>
> Suck my N*ts!

Thank you Mr. Krauthammer. I agree with you 100%. This is diplomacy 101. Perhaps Mr. Obama will read your article and get a clue.

Raconteur wrote : )

Kennedy's one summit meeting with Khrushchev in Vienna in 1961 was, according to most historians (and Kennedy himself), a total disaster that led directly to the construction of the Berlin Wall and the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. It's troubling that Obama seems unaware of this in citing it as an example of the merits of face-to-face dialogue

I don't believe Obama went to the schools that taught this stuff .

DAN TANA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> SHOW ME A LINK WHERE RICHARDSON GOT NK TO ROLL
> BACK IT"S PROGRAM

He's been a go between for Rice and Powell with the NK's. They trust him. He's been going there on and off for 10 years.

link

Was he the only reason we had success in NK? No. It takes bipartisan support. It takes more that your flow chart of this, then this, then this. It takes a lot of things going on at the same time.



> NK VIOLATED IT"S AGREEMENT WITH THE US AND
> DEVELOPED IT"S NUKE MISSILES, WHILE MADDIE
> ALBRIGHT WAS DANCING WITH KIM
>
> IRAN DOES NOT HAVE A MILITARY NUKE CAPABILITY YET,
> SO IT"S NOT A CASE OF ROLLING ANYTHING BACK>>>IT"S
> ABOUT STOPPING THEM.



> GARBAGE. IF MILITARY FORCE, INCLUDING A BLOCKADE
> IS NECESSARY THEN YES IT SHOULD BE DONE.....BEFORE
> IRAN HAS THE CAPABILITY.

Should be and can be are two different things. What makes you think China and Russia will go along? Many other countries rely on the exports of Iran as well. Some will oppose our blockade...what do we do with these countries? Especially the ones that try to get around our blockade?


> IRAN DOES NOT HAVE NUKES YET, IT"S NOT A CASE OF
> ROLLING THEM BACK IT"S A CASE OF STOPPING THEM.

Substitute "Capability for nukes" and it's the same @#$%& thing. What country has had the capability of building nukes and has been forced via blockade to stop enriching uranium?


> AHH, DUMMY, THE UN HAS VOTED SANCTIONS...THE
> UN....THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY.

Who wants a blockade? Who wants military force? The world? Sanctions are not working. Iran has outlets right now. What makes you think those outlets won't be there in a blockade? Are we going to shoot down anyone that comes close to giving Iran aid in our blockade? Are we prepared to fight other countries other than Iran when it comes to getting Iran to comply? Or are we ready to join the rest of the world and talk to Iran on many different levels, impose stronger sanctions, get more international support (other than the weak UN) to get what we want?

> UNTIL IRAN COMPLIES, NO DIRECT TALKS.
>
> IF THEY DO NOT COMPLY, SANCTIONS, BLOCKADE, AND
> THEN FORCE.

When will this blockade happen? At what time do you think it's appropriate to start down the road of WWIII? Fire at will against anyone and anything that tries to go through this blockade. Got ya. Sounds great

MichaelSmith Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> In 2006, when war broke out between Israel and
> Hizbullah in Lebanon, what did the Bush
> administration do? In strict accordanc with
> LIBERAL ideas, Bush sent Condoleeza Rice to the UN
> to negotiate a cease-fire and establish an
> additional UN security force in Lebanon that was
> supposed to keep Hizbullah from rearming.
>
> And what did that solve? Today, Hizbullah has
> rearmed with more than double the number of
> rockets it had before, many of which have much
> greater range. The next war with Israel will
> result in the deaths of far more civilians than if
> the last war had been finished.
>
> What did international diplomacy and talking with
> the enemy accomplish in this case?
>
> What you liberals fail to see is that the Bush
> administration's failures are directly
> attributable to the very policies you demand. See
> my comment in 85 for more examples of this.

Israel made a significant strategic blunder going into Lebanon the way they did. By the time the cease-fire was negotiated, support for the war within Israel had plummeted as well. The cease-fire was ultimately their way to make the best out of a really bad situation. There is no reason to believe that Hezbollah would have been harmed significantly more than Israel if operations had continued.

And Bush and Rice actually did a great job of foot-dragging on the negotiations. When the Europeans were calling for an immediate cease-fire, our folks were playing to give Israel more time, in the hope that the military operations might ultimately prove successful. Unfortunately, it didn't play out that way.

IMHO, Our leadership played that hand about as well as they could have. I also believe that a President Obama would have played it about the same way. Recall that Obama co-sponsored a resolution in support of Israel during that conflict.

Obama’s claim he would talk to terrorists is a euphemism for he would not fight terrorism. His claim he would talk to Iran is euphemistic for he would allow a nuclear Iran, and he would not vigorously resist nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.

MichaelSmith Wrote:

>
> Translation: "I can't answer your arguments, so
> I'm taking my ball and going home. "
>
> Actually the fanaticism of the Nazis in Germany
> and of the Shintoist in Japan pre-WWII and during
> WWII is quite analogous to the Islamic jihadists
> in Iran and elsewhere today in the middle east.

Nope--translation: drawing a comparison between Germany and Japan and Iran is a failed historical analogy, and to someone on the level of making that analogy it is a waste of time to show them why.

But since you're so keen on it, I'll draw you some basic differences:
Germany and Japan: Most powerful army and navy prior to the outbreak of war (don't come back with the USSR, after Stalin's purges it was in a sorry state of affairs. And france had antiquated doctrine so don't give me that either), outward aggression, concessions given to them by the UK, etc
Iran: Counterbalance to Israel, but not on the level of the West or the SCC, even in terms of 4GW, responding to western aggression, no opportunity for negotiation with the US, let alone concessions

But I'm interested in hearing the "quite analogous" relationship you describe between Japan and German in WWII and present day Iran. While you're at it, tell me how President Bush is like a modern day Truman and how post war Iraq is going to be just like post war Japan.

Rod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Obama’s claim he would talk to terrorists is a
> euphemism for he would not fight terrorism. His
> claim he would talk to Iran is euphemistic for he
> would allow a nuclear Iran, and he would not
> vigorously resist nuclear proliferation in the
> Middle East.

Uh-huh. And your use of the word "euphemism" is a euphemism for "I really hope I can get people to believe this spin."

And now, back to reality....

maxx Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey Rod, how did those missiles in Cuba work out
> for Khruschev?



Khrushchev found out that Kenned was not weak. Khrushchev would not have tried installing the missiles if Kennedy had, during their face-to-face meeting, given the impression of strength and resolve. I remember it well. Everybody was scared and half expected general nuclear war. By the way, Kennedy almost decided to invade Cuba and if he did, local Soviet commanders had instructions to use tactical nuclear weapons.

dmooney Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It reminds me of that sonnet, you know the
> one...it goes something like
>
> LET ME COUNT THE WAYS...

Unlike you, Shakespeare was able to place emphasis without resorting to all caps.

Obama has said he does not think like Rev Wright. On the other hand, Obama hopes to follow in the steps of Wright, Farrakhan and Carter when he says he would talk to terrorists.

southerncon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If it wasn't for the chaos that we're going to get
> of this Obama character I'd like see him elected
> just for chuckles.
>
> Nobody must remember (or old enough to remember)
> Jimmy Carter - talk is cheap and the world's thugs
> love an easy patsy. The Iranians made Carter
> look like the idiot he was - a nuclear Iran is
> going use Obama like a second rate Elliot Spitzer
> call girl...
>
> Its funny when a lefty makes a speaking mistake no
> one notices...

Iran held the embassy hostages for a year under Carter. Almost the day Reagan took office the hostages were released. Henry Kissinger, who probably has more experience dealing with Arabs and Persians than anybody, says in his book, Years of Renewal, that Middle Easterners respect strength and distain weakness. Obama is weak and inept.

Well Obama also thinks we have 57 states as well. I am starting to get the feeling that Mr. Obama is a wind up doll for Georgie Soros and company. I dont think obama will be able to hide his inexperience and just general incompetence to be our next president for much longer. I think the chickens are going to come home to roost on his correographed parade well before November.

David MacKinnon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Senator Obama may or may not know any history, but
> he is absolutely counting on the fact that most
> Americans don't. If he wins election this
> November, it will be on the backs of an electorate
> profoundly ignorant of their own story.

David,

You have absolutely hit the nail squarely on the head!!

southerncon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If it wasn't for the chaos that we're going to get
> of this Obama character I'd like see him elected
> just for chuckles.


I have an idea , The chuckles would be great , lets get Bush (warmonger that he is) take over Mexico , We can have all the ones that want Obama to move there & we can call it Little America . Obama can be their President . Of course we will have to build a much larger fence so they can't get back in after Obama's talks .

marty08 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> As an American Army officer (with wayyyyy too much
> time on my hands today incidentally) I can say
> that the best way to support the troops is to be
> critical of the government, especially with regard
> to the use of the military, and don't blindly
> follow an administration simply because they say
> it's patriotic or right to do so. Have your own
> opinion and look at the facts. It's easy to talk
> tough on a forum like this, but war is a reality,
> and conflict with Iran would be fun for nobody

ABSOLUTELY!!! I MAY NOT AGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAY, BUT I WILL PUT MY LIFE ON THE LINE TO DEFEND YOUR RIGHT TO SAY IT. ISN'T THAT WHAT THIS COUNTRY IS ABOUT? BTW I STOLE THAT FROM SOME DEAD PATRIOT.

"What concessions does Obama imagine Ahmadinejad will make to him on Iran's nuclear program?"

Ahmadinejad could offer to cease their nuclear program in exchange for control over the thermostats in the United States. Obama would jump at that!

most of the posts attacking the idea of talking have nothing better to resort to than using the tired "liberal", "carter" ... basically talk=weak argument.

Ideologues like Krauthammer like to make you think that they are realists, when in fact they are the ones who ignore the REAL WORLD.

It's a simple question. What have been the results of our foreign policy?

They all talk a good game, but at the end of the day it's all talk. They have nothing real to show for their success, so they just keep talking ideas.

What the author fails to grasp is the anti-Bush, not anti-American feelings throughout the world. Right or wrong that is the scenario America is facing. Our enemies certainly don't owe us a thing and we don't owe them anything either. However, I feel that once there is a change of leadership (either McCain or Obama) the other countries will be more than willing to listen to what we say.

There is no rational argument you can make, nothing you can say or do that will inspire Obama's supporters to even consider what you are saying, despite your argument's basis in historical data. The DNC has groomed, presented (in 2004) and, even at this late date, shoved this candidate down our throats. I say "our" because I am a lifelong Democrat. Voting "against Obama" has been positioned as "racist" in 2008 political marketing. Imagine voting against him in a caucus, where you cannot cast a secret ballot and where your neighbors can readily identify you as a "racist." Now the DNC elders, and I include the seriously ill Ted Kennedy and his ill advised maniacal support of Obama, are telling us that the race is over, and that the other Democratic candidate should depart. (Actually, they want her to disappear and fade from 17 million memories by November.) The other candidate, who has proven herself a seriously serious vote getter in actual elections with secret ballots where all can easily come and vote, must now bow out before the remaining contests are finished, so that the party can get on with its predestined and prearranged coronation. Kennedy even dismissed her (and her 17 million voters) for the position of v.p. (he then back peddled the day after his ill advised remarks ... no pun intended as I wish him well and hope for a miracle cure). The DNC is driving Obama to victory and telling those of us who don't want to get on this bus to swallow it. It's doesn't matter if we replace "cowboy diplomacy" with "buddy diplomacy," nor will it make a difference if the current administration strikes Iran before the election. We have been told by the party elders, the pundits, and almost every media outlet that we must, we must vote for this man. It's even more absurd than meeting the enemy, but there you are.

Krauthammer is a thug and a killer with blood on his hands from cheer leading in Iraq. I'm surprised by the support he has on this site. There are really a lot of fringe kooks who post here, aka Bush death cult 25%ers.

Why should we listen to Krauthammer and neocons? Look at the disaster and drain of money, lives and resources they created in Iraq. @#$%& that guy and all the Bush supporter here with blood on their cowardly hands.

IT'S NOW TIME TO DECONSTRUCT A BASELESS, OFTEN REPEATED BUSHIE TALKING POINT, SEEN AGAIN ON THIS BOARD.

"Just look at the hate for Bush . Most of it is because he stole the election from Gore which is part of your 2nd thing "Even If They Have To Make It Up" "

If it is true most of the hatred of Bush comes from the 2000 election, then explain why Bush's approval rating rose more than 80 percent in the weeks immediately following 9-11?

Did that overwhelming majority include all those who supposingly could not forgive Bush for questionably winning that election?

Here's is the truth. Bush had most of America, Democrats and Republicans alike, on his side, not to mention most of the world, when he vowed to seek revenge for 9-11 by going after those responsible Al Quada.
One major reason the hatred for Bush lingers, and then some, is because he squandered that support and patriotism by opting to attack a country under speculative intelligence and THAT HAD NO INVOLVEMENT WITH 9-11 OR AL QUEDA.

Well, no involvement, that is, until his misguided attack , killing thousands of innocents, directly resulted in bringing Al Queda to Iraq and growing the terrorism group around the planet.


As for all the baseless attacks on Obama, SURPRISE! this is a Krap-uthammer board.
Krap-uthammer is just Ann Coulter in pants.

What would you expect?

I have heard that it would be Biden, Lieberman, Powell and Rice as the main four. Still no word on who VP will be. Someone young, unheard of and brilliant, no doubt. The country is going to be in great shape.

Iran is a player Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My comment is only in regards to Iran, which is
> now a player, a force in the Middle East, thanks
> to Bush. Bush only will talk with their leader if
> they halt enriching uranium. He's trying to
> "make" them halt by doing 3 different things:
> giving demands that they stop halting with
> incentives to follow; international economic
> sanctions; and military threats. Ahmadinejad has
> already proven that he won't stop enriching
> uranium as he believes the IAEA rules allow Iran
> to enrich uranium for energy. Economic sanctions
> aren't working because we've alienated ourselves
> from a lot of other countries in the world that
> could be helping us put international pressure on
> Iran...basically Iran has enough friends to get
> them by for now. Military threats haven't worked
> because Ahmadinejad knows we are stretched thin
> with Iraq and Afghanistan and he's daring us to
> pull another Iraq (blunder) to further his case
> that the US is trigger happy to make regime
> changes around the world with no regards to
> international input. Basically Bush has gotten
> nowhere with Iran for the last 6 years.
> Meanwhile, Iran has moved "x" amount towards
> building a nuclear bomb.
>
> Charles, I've seen you on TV some but I don't read
> all your work. I would like to point out to you
> that there was another democratic candidate for
> president that said the same thing about talking
> to Iran with no preconditions. Bill Richardson.
> Here is the speech that he gave to the Center for
> National Policy on June 27, 2007 on Engaging Iran.
> It is a brilliant speech and was probably
> underrated when it was given...much the same way
> Richardson is underrated as a politican. Obama
> would be wise to choose Richardson for Secretary
> of State after Obama wins in November.
> Richardson's experience in foreign affairs is long
> and established. How much was Richardson's
> speech on engaging Iran criticized last summer?
> Where was your article then, Charles? If Obama's
> mistake on engaging Iran with no preconditions is
> based on inexperienced then you have to say the
> same thing about Richardson. Have you, Charles,
> said or implied that Richardson is also wrong
> about engaging Iran with no preconditions? And if
> you have, is it the same reason that you give
> here...that Richardson is absurd to think this
> way? Did you ever think that Obama's inexperience
> was more about borrowing another candidate's
> stance on an issue and making it his own? Could
> Obama actually have researched Richardson's speech
> (that was given about 1 month earlier than the
> democratic debate that you said Obama made a
> gaffe) or other democrats opinions about engaging
> Iran without preconditions? Well maybe, but you
> implied that it was a gaffe. You've made your
> mind up. I've got my own ideas about Obama doing
> his homework before he spoke at that debate.
>
> As far as "The debate is over the stupidity of
> elevating rogue states and their tyrants, easing
> their isolation and increasing their leverage by
> granting them unconditional meetings with the
> president of the world's superpower."
>
> Iran already has been elevated from rogue state to
> a powerful force in the Middle East and the reason
> is Iraq (a one time enemy of Iran) has been
> weakened with the infancy of their forced
> democracy via the US overthrow of Sadam's regime.
> Iran's isolation has been eased due to their
> having more friends due to more and more countries
> turning on the US for our engagements in Iraq and
> Afghanistan. I would contest that although we
> might be a superpower, the "super" part is being
> seriously challenged both on the domestic and
> foreign fronts.


------------------------------------------------------------------------

Iran has been a player since the peanut boy undercut the Shaw and caused the mes in Iran we still have today. And people like you want a peanut boy 2 in the white house!!! We can trace the current Iran back to peanut boy very easily, the Sainted one only wants to finish the fine job peanut did and totally screw up everything there.

If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it. The law of the land for liberals.

Obama doesn't want to lead America to greatness. He wants to negotiate away U.S. prestige. The Democrats have a real loser for its presumptive nominee.

roy12505 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> IT'S NOW TIME TO DECONSTRUCT A BASELESS, OFTEN
> REPEATED BUSHIE TALKING POINT, SEEN AGAIN ON THIS
> BOARD.
>
> "Just look at the hate for Bush . Most of it is
> because he stole the election from Gore which is
> part of your 2nd thing "Even If They Have To Make
> It Up" "
>
> If it is true most of the hatred of Bush comes
> from the 2000 election, then explain why Bush's
> approval rating rose more than 80 percent in the
> weeks immediately following 9-11?
>
> Did that overwhelming majority include all those
> who supposingly could not forgive Bush for
> questionably winning that election?
>
> Here's is the truth. Bush had most of America,
> Democrats and Republicans alike, on his side, not
> to mention most of the world, when he vowed to
> seek revenge for 9-11 by going after those
> responsible Al Quada.
> One major reason the hatred for Bush lingers, and
> then some, is because he squandered that support
> and patriotism by opting to attack a country under
> speculative intelligence and THAT HAD NO
> INVOLVEMENT WITH 9-11 OR AL QUEDA.
>
> Well, no involvement, that is, until his misguided
> attack , killing thousands of innocents, directly
> resulted in bringing Al Queda to Iraq and growing
> the terrorism group around the planet.
>
>
> As for all the baseless attacks on Obama,
> SURPRISE! this is a Krap-uthammer board.
> Krap-uthammer is just Ann Coulter in pants.
>
> What would you expect?


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, here is the truth. The hate for W from the left from people like you always ends with he stole the election. The fact is everyone was behind W after the attacks until there was a course of action then the dems have led a constant attack on that action almost since day one. Instead of arguing how best to win in Iraq they have been pushing the he lied people died BS. Instead of putting forth any plan for victory they have pushed this is W's war even when most of them voted for it before they voted against it. That is the truth but the dems do not like the truth.

If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it. The law of the land for liberals.

Great Post Mandelay but the DNC are not driving Obama to Victory . They are driving him to defeat in this year that should have been so easy . I don't care much for Hillary myself but she would have a much much better chance than Obama . With each passing day it becomes more comical . I believe Obama may actually lose every single state before it is over . I don't know how many years it will take for the DNC to come back from this . I hope not long as we do need a two party system in this country .

Mandelay Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is no rational argument you can make,
> nothing you can say or do that will inspire
> Obama's supporters to even consider what you are
> saying, despite your argument's basis in
> historical data. The DNC has groomed, presented
> (in 2004) and, even at this late date, shoved this
> candidate down our throats. I say "our" because I
> am a lifelong Democrat. Voting "against Obama"
> has been positioned as "racist" in 2008 political
> marketing. Imagine voting against him in a
> caucus, where you cannot cast a secret ballot and
> where your neighbors can readily identify you as a
> "racist." Now the DNC elders, and I include the
> seriously ill Ted Kennedy and his ill advised
> maniacal support of Obama, are telling us that the
> race is over, and that the other Democratic
> candidate should depart. (Actually, they want her
> to disappear and fade from 17 million memories by
> November.) The other candidate, who has proven
> herself a seriously serious vote getter in actual
> elections with secret ballots where all can easily
> come and vote, must now bow out before the
> remaining contests are finished, so that the party
> can get on with its predestined and prearranged
> coronation. Kennedy even dismissed her (and her
> 17 million voters) for the position of v.p. (he
> then back peddled the day after his ill advised
> remarks ... no pun intended as I wish him well and
> hope for a miracle cure). The DNC is driving
> Obama to victory and telling those of us who don't
> want to get on this bus to swallow it. It's
> doesn't matter if we replace "cowboy diplomacy"
> with "buddy diplomacy," nor will it make a
> difference if the current administration strikes
> Iran before the election. We have been told by
> the party elders, the pundits, and almost every
> media outlet that we must, we must vote for this
> man. It's even more absurd than meeting the
> enemy, but there you are.

Ronald Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Only Chicken S*it's Dont Talk Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Just a fact. if you have any balls
> what-so-ever
> > you're willing to sit down with the enemy.
> >
> > Bush didn't want to because a child could trick
> > him out of a piece of candy, he is so stupid.
> > Obama is different.
>
>
> yup. At least Bush was smart enough to know that
> he isn't smart enough to meet with Our "enemies"
> or world leaders with a radically different
> perspective. He avoided it because there was a
> great potential for humiliation. I agree with you
> completely. This article is mean spirited pulp.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yea just like the elitist JFK met with Krushev and got his clock cleaned which led to the Berlin Wall, the Cuban mess and nearly brink of WWW3 with Russia all because JFK thought he was so smart and Nikita found out JFK was stupid and called him on it. Yea Obama will just have a laying of the hands on Iran and they will see the light and stop trying to build nukes. What a joke!!!

If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it. The law of the land for liberals.

This false argument about Obama gaffing or shifting on this issue is infantile. Obama didn't "slip and fall" into his position on U.S. foreign policy. Since 2006, he has consistently been clear and grounded on how we should deal with rogue nations (see below). I'm sorry pubs and cons that you went to bed with Bush and America woke up with a very nasty rash. There's your gaffe! Your infantile distractions sedated a fearful America in 2000/2004 and she woke up with 9/11, Iraq quagmire, 1000's of killed Americans, lethal gas prices 340% higher and rising, etc. NOT THIS TIME!!!!


Date: 10/22/2006
NBC "MEET THE PRESS"
SENATOR BARACK OBAMA ON DEALING WITH ROGUE NATIONS

SEN. OBAMA: Look, I think that military options have to be on the table when you're dealing with rogue states that have shown constant hostility towards the United States. The point that I would make, though, is we have not explored all of our options, and I'll give you one very good example. James Baker said recently he does not know why we would not talk to our enemies during the entire Cold War, at the peak of the Cold War, when there were nuclear missiles pointed at every major U.S. city, there was a direct line between the White House and the Kremlin.

We have not explored any kind of dialog with either Iran or North Korea, and I think that has been a mistake. As a consequence, we have almost no leverage over them; we end up having to use surrogates in order to try to communicate to them to find out what their interests are, what their bottom lines are, and to send clear messages to them about what we think is acceptable or unacceptable.

So I think military options always have to remain on the table, but I think that when we leave all the other tools in the toolkit, then we are doing a disservice to the American people.

Obama doesn't need to know history, he just needs the majority of the voting public not to know history.
Sadly, he's on safe ground there.

why dont some of you obama supporters ask your messiah just what did he mean when he said in his book, " i will stand with the muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction"....in fact, why doesnt anyone ask him that question. afraid of the answear ? no wonder, the jewish voters are not "standing with him "...........great piece, krauthammer.......obama is a dangerous candidate.

Rod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> mammamia,
> regarding
> Comment: #157
>
> Iran is intent on obtaining nuclear weapons. It is a matter of national pride.
The only way they will be deterred is to make the price too high. Obama does not understand that.

Rod,
Obama is fully aware that it was Halliburton who up until 2005 was selling nuclear technology to Iran. Here's a link to the senate hearings about this. [www.jonesreport.com]

Halliburton Charged with Selling Nuclear Technologies to Iran
in Top 25 Censored Stories for 2007

Source: Global Research.ca, August 5, 2005, Title: “Halliburton Secretly Doing Business With Key Member of Iran’s Nuclear Team,” Author: Jason Leopold

According to journalist Jason Leopold, sources at former Cheney company Halliburton allege that, as recently as January of 2005, Halliburton sold key components for a nuclear reactor to an Iranian oil development company. Leopold says his Halliburton sources have intimate knowledge of the business dealings of both Halliburton and Oriental Oil Kish, one of Iran’s largest private oil companies.

Additionally, throughout 2004 and 2005, Halliburton worked closely with Cyrus Nasseri, the vice chairman of the board of directors of Iran-based Oriental Oil Kish, to develop oil projects in Iran. Nasseri is also a key member of Iran’s nuclear development team. Nasseri was interrogated by Iranian authorities in late July 2005 for allegedly providing Halliburton with Iran’s nuclear secrets. Iranian government officials charged Nasseri with accepting as much as $1 million in bribes from Halliburton for this information... [www.projectcensored.org]

Only Chicken S*it's Dont Talk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just a fact. if you have any balls what-so-ever
> you're willing to sit down with the enemy.
>
> Bush didn't want to because a child could trick
> him out of a piece of candy, he is so stupid.
> Obama is different.

Remember perhaps the stupidest thing Bush has ever said - out of quite a large field to pick from - "I sat down with Putin, looked into his eyes, and then saw his grandmother's mothers crucifix, and I knew he had a good heart."

What I'd like to know is did Putin ever wear it before that meeting, or has he ever worn it since?

Anyways, Krauthammer, isn't about time you and the rest of your delusional neo-con buddies get together and enjoy a nice hot cup of shut the @#$%& up? You are all completely detached from reality - I mean, if anything, Bush would gain credibility by meeting with Chavez or Ahmadinejad. And before you right-wing cry-babies start getting your panties in a twist and shrieking that I "hate America," the previous sentence merely an allusion to how Bush commands no respect from the international community, not an endorsement of any kind of either of those thugs.

Hmm, that makes me think of another one of Bush's many failures - seriously exactly how jam-packed full of drooling, moronic partisan hacks must an administration be to @#$%& up a God @#$%& coup in Latin America? We've been organizing coups and assassinations there since mother-@#$%& Teddy Roosevelt!! Jesus Christ on a stick! This clearly insane, overweight socialist could only be outed for two days?! You'e got to be kidding me.

OK, I give up, seriously. If this country elects another inept, foolish, ideologically-driven Republican to the White House, it deserves to become the personal property of China. Make no mistake either, that would be exactly what would happen under John know-nothing McCain. On the upside, he may not know anything about economics or even who the Supreme Leader of Iran is, but at least he's not some sort of snobby elitist - that would be truly unbearable.

I wish Mr. Krauthammer would actually state the truth about Obama's stance on meeting with foreign leaders who we do not like. If he wants to be credible, at least state the facts. Americans are sick and tired of this kind of rhetoric.

"Conservatives, Independents, Republicans and even some Democrats listen to Krauthammer because he make sense."

False. Conservatives listen to the Crypt-Keeper because he reassures them that someone else shares their shallow opinions. No one else listens to him. He is like a teacher writing "nice try" on a failed test. He is a collective self-esteem boost for the ignorant.

Mr. Krauthammer: You acknowledge that "Iran, for example, has engaged in five years of talks with our closest European allies", and yet you suggest that it would be an "absurdity" for the US to engage in such talks with Iran. Why? It is this type of Bushian arrogance that has not only failed to achieve America's foreign policy objectives, but has actually emboldened our enemies and created resentments that have isolated America in the world community and decreased our influence around the globe. If the Europeans can meet with Iran, why can't we? This idea that meeting with another world nation is a "gift" that we bestow upon them, and that we can punish nations by refusing to meet with them... it's arrogant and counterproductive. No wonder so many people around the world resent us. What we need is a new generation of American leadership prepared to engage the world, communicate our opinions directly and forthrightly, and exercise a muscular diplomacy rather than always rattling our sabres.

I agree with Charles.
I believe that blurring borders with terrorists, talk to them, feel for them is part of the the Right's culture where the nomenee was definitely braught in. It was an unfortunate gaffe in the heat of the debate. The nomenee and his wife are tightly controlling their natural impulses. Only two or three times they made mistakes.
Now we know what new change means in international affairs.

There is no military threat to USA from Iran now.
But what about Israel? Definite threat, military build up, personal insults from the head of the state.
To start building personal relationship, having moments of seeing eye to eye without discussing this new change with our political partner number one in the regeon means only one. It is ok to push Israel aside, to diminish the role of Israel in the regeon. And this tendency will continue in Israel-Palestinian conflict.
Again, Wright is well and alive.

Some of you may wonder why we Hillary supporters are so desperate for her for to stay in the race to the finish line.

It is because we wnt DEMS to WIN in november. Obama is a manufactured candidate that is being propeled by two wings. One is the DEMS who have it in for Clinton, the other being the republicans, starting with Rove, who have it in for Clinton.

Obama will not win in November. Period. The last time I was certain of something was in 2004 when I predicted the election would falter on the heels of the gay marraige innitiatives.

That was a devastating critique.

Notice, not a one of the Obama supporters have refuted any of Krauthammer's factual assertions. Instead, they go to their normal wheelhouse: accusations, threats, and name-calling.

On a different note, Obama's pompous self-assuredness is even more off-putting than McCain's self-righteousness.

McCain's self-aggrandizing obsession with the appearance of "honor" in all things political bugs me, but at least McCain doesn't view himself as everyone's intellectual superior.

How many times do I have to listen to Obama say something supremely stupid, only to have the media chastise me for not understanding the complex intellect of the Great One?

Face it: Obama is neither a towering intellectual, nor is he a "savior." In fact, he's simply an arrogant poseur.

This arrogance is even more disturbing because Barack has done so little to earn it.

Jesus Christ Roy , If Bush went in for the oil , why in the he*l aren't we getting any of it . Talk about stupid , even your friends in washington don't even use that excuss anymore .

roy12505 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "No, here is the truth. The hate for W from the
> left from people like you always ends with he
> stole the election. The fact is everyone was
> behind W after the attacks until there was a
> course of action then the dems have led a constant
> attack on that action almost since day one.
> Instead of arguing how best to win in Iraq they
> have been pushing the he lied people died BS.
> Instead of putting forth any plan for victory they
> have pushed this is W's war even when most of them
> voted for it before they voted against it. That is
> the truth but the dems do not like the truth.
>
> In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is
> king!!"
>
> I am dealing with a blogger with a reading
> comprehension deficit.
>
> I clearly explained, and you do not contradict,
> that Bush had the support even of
> "left-wingers" and "Liberals" and independents
> UNTIL he made the decision to
> MANIPULATE 9-11 for his neo con game plan, clearly
> documented years earlier,
> to takeover Iraq's oil.
>
> Yes that support eroded AFTER he changed focus
> from Al Queda to Iraq.
> Bush in 2002: "Osama Bin Laden. I don't think
> about him very much. I don't know where he is."
>
> Bush is a failure. Iraq is a disaster.
> And that minority, those in the Krap-uthammer
> cult, who fail to acknowledge same are a danger to
> America.

The absolute proof of this articles stupidity is the absolute failure of the Bush foreign policy to accomplish anything. Bush's policy is so clever and well thought out he has us bogged down in a war for 6 years with no end in sight. I would argue that it is he and McCain and rest who are doubling down on an idiotic path not Obama.

TonyPhilly wrote : )

Mr. Krauthammer: You acknowledge that "Iran, for example, has engaged in five years of talks with our closest European allies", and yet you suggest that it would be an "absurdity" for the US to engage in such talks with Iran. Why?

Maybe its because Mr. Krauthammer thinks 5 years is enough talk . I know we have been "Talking" to them for 29 yrs & I think thats about a da*n nuff to .

Also, logically, this article is weak. Mr. K, you start off with a claim that Obama is "doubling down" on a gaffe, but never prove it was a gaffe that he is intentionally trying to reinforce to avoid embrassment. Where has Obama ever hedged or come even close regretting saying this? You have to prove that. But, you don't, so you go on to argue another point - which is that you believe that what he is saying is wrong (which don't prove either - see below). Logically, that is a non-sequitur. Make one point, prove it. Then move on to the other point you have to prove. That's logic and it's amazing.

christine m. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>>
> This article goes on the assumption that what
> Obama said was in fact a political gaffe. That is
> a purely subjective view. Obama didn't make a
> gaffe then "double down" on it. It is a "blunder"
> if you already have a preconceived conviction that
> what a person says is wrong. You have to prove
> that. As a social scientist, you have to give
> more than one example of what Obama suggests doing
> (meeting without preconditions) to prove that it
> is unwise. Just offering one example - JFK and
> the Cuban missile crisis - does not prove the
> point. There were too many other factors that
> created that situation. You have to provide more
> examples of political leaders meeting "enemies"
> without precondition, resulting in a terrifying
> consequence, to narrow down this factor to prove
> that is, indeed, unwise. I am open to that being
> proven, to be honest. I am not open to faulty
> critical thinking.

roy12505 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
"Charles Krauthammer is a far right neocon who
somehow found his way into the mainstream press."

That's right. Whenever anyone in the MSM says anything critical of the Chosen One, he or she is immediately attacked and labeled by diehard Obama supporters. In this case, Mr. Karuthammer is a "far right neocon." So what if he is! He is one of the few members of the MSM who have the guts to analyze and critique Obama's foolish foreign policy positions. If that makes him a "far right neocon," who cares? I am sick of the MSM coddling and protecting Obama and any one who does so has my respect and gratitude. The last time I checked, this is still a democratic nation where all points of view can be aired and presented, especially when the subject is as important as the national security of the United States. Thank you for another insightful article, Mr. Krauthammer. Keep 'em coming.

I'm glad someone is willing to say Obama has no clothes. Coming from Chicago I am amused that people seem to think Obama is a kinder, gentler, smarter politician and are happy to overlook the dubious connections he made to move up in the cesspool that is Chicago politics. Obama is good at getting people knocked off the ballot but that does not mean he's ready to be Commander in Chief.

Iran is a player Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Iran's isolation has been eased due to their
> having more friends due to more and more countries
> turning on the US for our engagements in Iraq and
> Afghanistan. I would contest that although we
> might be a superpower, the "super" part is being
> seriously challenged both on the domestic and
> foreign fronts.

Do yo mean countries like France? Our historically greatest world critic?

French President Sarkozy stated that should Iran attempt to use the bomb, France would obliterate it. Sarkozy has greatly supported America's position in most areas.

Germany? While Germany remains constitutionally pacifist, Merkel greatly supports America.

Do you mean Turkey? Turkey was against the Iraq invasion solely based on the issue with the Kurds. Turkey remains one of our greatest allies in the middle east, esp now that they see the Kurdish issue is suported by America.

Do you mean Saudi Arabia? they were the one's who forced us to invade Iraq?

So, who is it, exactly that dislikes America so much today?

America will always be in the position of being the most loved and admired country in the world, as well as being the most criticized policeman. But, no one wants the US to give up that role. It is always easy to criticize from the cheap seats while the pros muddle through the messes of the world.

Few American's understand the criticisms that America gets.... and, when they listen to our media, the simply do not understand that most of the people in the world HATE our media. TV so many times!

That wasn't Bush!

(Don't believe that... look at their response to the Danish newspapers!)

Finally, take a look at Reagan and Europe to understand nuances.

Europe truly hated Reagan. Why? Because he acted on the issues and did not just talk about them. When he confronted Gorbechev in Berlin and told him to tear down that wall, European's had heart attacks.

Three years later, the wall was gone, and Germany was unified......now tell me how upset they are today?

Remember, we compete with Europe, so there will always be joistling and nipping at each other - ever watch a basketball game between two best friends?

Appeasement will never get anyone anyplace other than STARTING a war. WWII is a great example, but there are many others.

Take care!

There goes Krauthammer again parroting the neo-con stand.
Glad that past presidents like FDR, JFK and Nixon did not
share these strange views--as if talking means reward.

FDR went half way around the world to meet Stalin, who arguably
was similar to Hitler in the total number of people exterminated.
Yet, it was the need of the hour and the alliance with the Soviets helped
shorten the fight against Hitler and saved lives.

Nixon went to Mao--who would hardly pass the test laid down by
the current administration--did they not supply weapons to
N. Vietnam to kill Americans ? Nixon realized the wisdom of driving
a wedge between China and Soviet Union that consideration trumped
whatever Mao had done.

If America does not want to be in a perpetual war, rather than being in a
neo-con mode where every one is either for you or against you, wouldn't
it be better calculate its enemies, look at their motivation, drive a wedge
between them and advance America's stategic interest, rather than being
tied to absolutist positions.

The field commanders in actual battles are more practical understand
these things better than ideologues like Krauthammer. Sunni
insurgents have their hand bloody with American lives--yet they are
now building alliance with them to fight a greater enemy.

Dandy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I
> believe Obama may actually lose every single state
> before it is over . I don't know how many years it
> will take for the DNC to come back from this .


dandy, i think you got the wrong powder this morning, buddy. you're supposed to mix that republican kool-aid fruit punch packet with water, not just snort it. =)

Obama is now going to lose illinios, new york, new england, the northwest, cali?

and the DNC, with his list of hundreds of thousands of new fundraising sources and coattails that already seem to stretch all the way to Louisiana, they're going to tank because....?

you can keep saying obama is a fraud and those who follow him are all starry eyed cultists, but the numbers don't lie -- even if you're right that he's a stuffed suit and an elitist, there's one thing working for him this year. he's not married to pre-emptive wars. people dig that.

oh, yeah, and if he were, as you suggest, president of mexico, you might not have to build that wall after all, except perhaps to keep all those crazed automatons from crossing south!

Obama has the "I will talk to anyone" because he has been convinced by his foolish followers that he can talk anyone into or out of anything. He's not going to be able to talk half the 17 +million people who have voted for Hillary into voting for him but he thinks he can talk a bunch of lunatic dictators into changing their way. It's all part of his magic don't you know.

Here you are again kidding trying to destroy all my fun with the little obamanites ,

BTW ... How Our Kids doing today ?

Crap I forgot to mix it again .


r.u. kidding Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dandy Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I
> > believe Obama may actually lose every single
> state
> > before it is over . I don't know how many years
> it
> > will take for the DNC to come back from this .
>
>
> dandy, i think you got the wrong powder this
> morning, buddy. you're supposed to mix that
> republican kool-aid fruit punch packet with water,
> not just snort it. =)
>
> Obama is now going to lose illinios, new york, new
> england, the northwest, cali?
>
> and the DNC, with his list of hundreds of
> thousands of new fundraising sources and coattails
> that already seem to stretch all the way to
> Louisiana, they're going to tank because....?
>
> you can keep saying obama is a fraud and those who
> follow him are all starry eyed cultists, but the
> numbers don't lie -- even if you're right that
> he's a stuffed suit and an elitist, there's one
> thing working for him this year. he's not married
> to pre-emptive wars. people dig that.
>
> oh, yeah, and if he were, as you suggest,
> president of mexico, you might not have to build
> that wall after all, except perhaps to keep all
> those crazed automatons from crossing south!

Silence Dogood2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Appeasement will never get anyone anyplace other
> than STARTING a war.

cool, then all you conservatives who are itching for war with iran should, you know, welcome that then, right? you loved the first pre-emptive strike so much. we'll call the next one, Shock and Aw, Crap, Obama's President!

My goodness. What kind of a rhetoric is this? Is there no civil discourse anymore? Krauthammer has a point.

spudnik08 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Krauthammer is not stupid. He's an evil Zionist
> twit, to be sure. But he knows what he's doing.

Dandy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here you are again kidding trying to destroy all
> my fun with the little obamanites ,
>
> BTW ... How Our Kids doing today ?
>

they're great. almost none of them aer here today as it is "senior skip day." my classes of 25+ are now around five. it's very quiet.