Obama says Bush falsely accuses him of appeasement

Obama says he would meet with heads of state in places like Cuba, Iran and North Korea.

So all negotiation is appeasement? Therefore Bush is currently about to embark on some appeasement of Mamoud Abbas.

Mr. Bush expected to go into greater detail about the plight of the Palestinians when he meets the leader of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, in Sharm el-Sheik, Egypt over the weekend.

Nowhere did Bush say that Obama would appease terrorists, although it's clear who they would vote for.

Oh please... Obama himself said he'd negotiate.

So does Bush's Secretary of Defense, whats your point exactly?

Nowhere did Bush say that Obama would appease terrorists, although it's clear who they would vote for.

Wow, you are full of bull@!$%#. George W. Bush has been the best thing that could have ever happend to terrorists. The invasion of Iraq has been a boone to Iran. So it is pretty clear if it were up to them they probably want more of the same. Then again you were trying to pretend the opposite wernt you?

As for allegations of appeasement:

""Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along.
We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

You can obfuscate all you want, its clear who he meant to attack here.

Equating willingness to consider negotiation with appeasement is the true delusion and even Bush's own Secretary of Defense can see that.

Nowhere did Bush say that Obama would appease terrorists, although it's clear who they would vote for

Yeah... the party that would foolishly send half the U.S. military into the middle of the desert to rust and slowly-but-surely get picked-off for the next 100 years.

Nowhere did Bush say that Obama would appease terrorists, although it's clear who they would vote for.

Keep it up. This old Republican style of attack is going to take you nowhere. Didn't you get the Newt Gingrich memo?

bmvaughn

Nowhere did Bush say that Obama would appease terrorists, although it's clear who they would vote for.

ahhh how freaken matur3e.. you wanna take it there?? do you really..w e can go there if you want.
White supremest, neo nazis want mccain to win and love bush.
amadinjad loves bush and wants bush to win as he gained power on the back of bush's retoric.
Osama is no different than a socail conservative.. both think violence is a mean to an end, I bet ossam would vote for mccain as well.
and last terrorism has thrived under bush, terrorist atatcks are up and al quaeda has never been larger OR STRONGER.. bush is doing a recruitment drive in iraq while leaving the al quada head quarters in pakistan alone.. I THINK IT IS PLENTY OBVIOUS THEY KNOW WHAT PARTY BUTTERS THEIR BREAD.
You think they want obama to negocaite?? your assuming they want victory when they came to power for war.. once their is victory the war pigs will lose power.. hamas doesn't want to win against isreal, they want to fight isreal forever.

maybe you could quit being so rudely antiamerican. cause that crap really is going way to far in tastelessness and childishness. It is hard to belive that the republicain party could find a spot more shallow than the gutter and yet here we see them far below the slim and scum.

Wow, NV sure has gotten intolerant since I was last here.

Bush was speaking of Sen William Borah, not Obama.

Wow, NV sure has gotten intolerant since I was last here.

Folks have a hard time dealing with statements like you made in #3.2. If terrorist organizations could vote in presidential elections, why would they vote for someone who wanted to use diplomacy in addition to possible force? In other words, if a terrorist organization hates America and wants to see it fall, why would they want someone who might deprive them of the possibility of killing American soldiers?

There are some terrorist organizations that exist because of societal and economic conditions. If diplomacy could help relieve those issues and remove the situations that are spawning those specific acts of terror, how is that a bad thing?

Bush was speaking of Sen William Borah, not Obama.

What makes you say that he was not attacking Obama? Do you know something white house aids dont?

White House aides are acknowledging that this was a reference to the fact that Sen. Obama and other Democrats have publicly said that it would be ok for the U.S. President to meet with leaders like the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad.

Its a slur to equate negotiation with appeasment, and its quite obvious Bush sought to tar everyone who says its ok to try to negotiate with Iran. (Apparently he was not aware that his Secretary of Defense says its ok also, perhaps he should fire him as an appeaser?)

Wow, NV sure has gotten intolerant since I was last here.

How do you define intolerant and what exactly do believe to be both new and intolerant? Is pointing to the facts and disagreeing with unsubstatiated assertions a sign of intolerance?

apparently intollernate means disagree.
and that the president should be able to say what ever bs he wants withotu getting a responce.

Oh please... Obama himself said he'd negotiate.

So does Bush's Secretary of Defense, whats your point exactly?

I thought that Obama has said he would talk with Iran without preconditions while Gates has said he'd talk after we had some leverage on Iran. Big difference.

I thought that Obama has said he would talk with Iran without preconditions while Gates has said he'd talk after we had some leverage on Iran. Big difference.

Both advocate reasonable talks and not appeasement... Bigger difference. Actions speak louder than words. You can spin it all you want. Now if you want to provide actual in context quotes instead of your second hand perceptions, please go ahead. Whatever they said, equating talking with appeasement is dishonest plain and simple, and for a President to inject such petty partisn politics while oversees is wrong no matter what party.

McCains endorsement just makes it worse. Bush's hostility to diplomacy while pretending otherwise is bad for the nation. McCain was for talking to Hamas before he was against it. Hypocrisy on Hamas
McCain Was for Talking Before He Was Against It

None of them are advocating appeasement, and this partisan false rhetoric should be beneath the President of the United States.

How do you define intolerant and what exactly do believe to be both new and intolerant?

I think this qualifies:

White supremest, neo nazis want mccain to win and love bush.

Of course... joules' grammar hasn't changed I see :)

White supremest, neo nazis want mccain to win and love bush.

What exactly is intollerant about that single comment? Is it that you disagree with it as a factual matter or are you imagining words that are not there such as the word "Only" at the beginning? As a factual matter I dont have access to polling data, but I would bet that the vast majority of white supremsists and new nazis would prefer McCain to win rather than Clinton or Obama - of course they are fortunately a small minority and hardly typical of McCain supporters, not did the comment you quote say otherwise.

It appears to me to be an example to help illstruate why the claims to know what Hamas wants is a bit foolish.

Is that somehow new to newsvine? What do you find intollerant about that exactly?

Both advocate reasonable talks and not appeasement...

Not hardly. An example would be talking to Hitler or knocking his aircraft out of the air so he doesn't have air superiority and then talk.

Not hardly. An example would be talking to Hitler or knocking his aircraft out of the air so he doesn't have air superiority and then talk.

An example of what?

It appears to be an excellent example of revisionist delusional historic comparisons more than anything else. Are you accusing Gates of appeasement as well? Odd, but he hasnt compared Iran to WWII Nazi germany.

Do you really and honestly believe that Iran is just like Hitler in the middle of World War II? If you truly do, then losing thousand of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars while knocking out a nation that was Iran's most bitter enemy and had kept them in busy for decades, may have been a little bit of a massive strategic blunder dont you think?

Well then.
Lets take a looksee here.

Bush has made countless arguments against the platform of the current Democratic candidates.
Obama states recently that he would meet with heads of state in places like Cuba, Iran and North Korea; those deemed "rogue nations".
Clinton starts mentioning it in her speeches, opposing the idea.
McCain starts mentioning it in his speeches, opposing the idea vehemently.
Bush makes the statement mentioned in this article.

Wow, I wonder how Obama came to the conclusion that Bush was directing the attack at him. Simply unreal, what a baseless accusation!... Right? haha

I understand when you're running for office you sometimes think the world revolves around you. That is not always true. And it is not true in this case."

Nice rhetorical obfuscation. Is that why you love it? If he wasnt implying Obama then who were these "some" people and why did he talk about negotation and equate it with appeasement. Or is that not what he said?

Who was he talking about exactly?

And the comments fit perfectly with McCain's recent comments regarding who Hamas would vote for. I think this is a clear pattern.

the bipartisan 9-11 commission said we should talk to syria and iran, bush talked to the palistinians, reagan talked to the russains.. we are actually increasing talks with iran.. mainly over iraqi security.. wars DO not end unless the other side is genocided or you have talks.. to some how suggest talks ammount to appeasement or justification is to negate the reality that they do exist and don't need our appeasement or justification.

In hostage siturations you talk to the hostage take even if he is making unreasonable demands, you start by talking. The main reason being, is it gives us the upper hand in public perception. But by saying we will not talk under any circumstances or even setting up conditions to talk, we look egotitistical or not really serious about peace or diplomacy. It is about time to try something other than cow boy diplomacy.

You do know that with talks iraq could have had a regime change without soldiers dyign.. saddam offered to leave for 1 billion.. sounds crappy I know but we are looking at 1 trillion and already have 4000 dead.. the taliban also offered to turn over ossama, as long as they could stay in existance.. I didn't like the taliban.. it was good they were regmine changed.. but we could of had ossama, instead of gettign little video letters from his dead ghost in pakistan.

Talking causes zero harm and saves lives. Anyone who says we shouldn't talk is a moron.

Great line be Perino, and very true.

Joulesbeef
Talking causes zero harm and saves lives. Anyone who says we shouldn't talk is a moron.

I second this!

Ah! If only Bush could Talk!

Every time he speaks, he puts his Feet in his Mouth!

Must be generic for the Bush Dynasty!

It is called Bushism!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushism

Catch - 4.2- well, let's see----we know Hamas already wants Obama to get elected----who do you think then Knesset would prefer? Not that it matters much----but the Jewish vote in this country does in fact matter....it will matter in FLA and it may allow even NJ to come into play in November.....Obama is tanking on the Jewish vote as I seeded from another article today.

Hamas prefers any Democratic candidate because they are trying to break America from involvement in the Middle East. It's in his and his cohorts best interests that we promptly remove ourselves from Iraq.

-we know Hamas already wants Obama to get elected----who do you think then Knesset would prefer?

I don't particularly care what either of them thinks. I'm an American, not an Israeli. Why should their opinion matter to me?

Dennis, that is why Hillary is better, she will work with everyone.

Maybe she would have, but it doesn't matter any more. She's out, she just hasn't admitted it yet.

Why should their opinion matter to me?

Dennis--4.10---well if you want a President Obama---then you should be concerned about the Jewish vote in America.

I meant Hamas and the Knesset. That's what I was responding to.

I don't think most Americans vote on single issues, or at least, I hope not. I know I don't.

JG: Do you think that justice is still on Israel's side?

BO: I think that the idea of a secure Jewish state is a fundamentally just idea, and a necessary idea, given not only world history but the active existence of anti-Semitism, the potential vulnerability that the Jewish people could still experience. I know that that there are those who would argue that in some ways America has become a safe refuge for the Jewish people, but if you've gone through the Holocaust, then that does not offer the same sense of confidence and security as the idea that the Jewish people can take care of themselves no matter what happens. That makes it a fundamentally just idea.

That does not mean that I would agree with every action of the state of Israel, because it's a government and it has politicians, and as a politician myself I am deeply mindful that we are imperfect creatures and don't always act with justice uppermost on our minds. But the fundamental premise of Israel and the need to preserve a Jewish state that is secure is, I think, a just idea and one that should be supported here in the United States and around the world.

JG: Why do you think Ahmed Yousef of Hamas said what he said about you?

BO: My position on Hamas is indistinguishable from the position of Hillary Clinton or John McCain. I said they are a terrorist organization and I've repeatedly condemned them. I've repeatedly said, and I mean what I say: since they are a terrorist organization, we should not be dealing with them until they recognize Israel, renounce terrorism, and abide by previous agreements.

JG: Were you flummoxed by it?

BO: I wasn't flummoxed. I think what is going on there is the same reason why there are some suspicions of me in the Jewish community. Look, we don't do nuance well in politics and especially don't do it well on Middle East policy. We look at things as black and white, and not gray. It's conceivable that there are those in the Arab world who say to themselves, "This is a guy who spent some time in the Muslim world, has a middle name of Hussein, and appears more worldly and has called for talks with people, and so he's not going to be engaging in the same sort of cowboy diplomacy as George Bush," and that's something they're hopeful about. I think that's a perfectly legitimate perception as long as they're not confused about my unyielding support for Israel's security.

When I visited Ramallah, among a group of Palestinian students, one of the things that I said to those students was: "Look, I am sympathetic to you and the need for you guys to have a country that can function, but understand this: if you're waiting for America to distance itself from Israel, you are delusional. Because my commitment, our commitment, to Israel's security is non-negotiable." I've said this in front of audiences where, if there were any doubts about my position, that'd be a place where you'd hear it.

When Israel invaded Lebanon two summers ago, I was in South Africa, a place where, obviously, when you get outside the United States, you can hear much more critical commentary about Israel's actions, and I was asked about this in a press conference, and that time, and for the entire summer, I was very adamant about Israel's right to defend itself. I said that there's not a nation-state on Earth that would tolerate having two of its soldiers kidnapped and just let it go. So I welcome the Muslim world's accurate perception that I am interested in opening up dialogue and interested in moving away from the unilateral policies of George Bush, but nobody should mistake that for a softer stance when it comes to terrorism or when it comes to protecting Israel's security or making sure that the alliance is strong and firm. You will not see, under my presidency, any slackening in commitment to Israel's security. [1]

Well now, hold on. Bush did give up golf for the cause. He should get some credit for that. < / sarcasm >

Good then let's take away his golf cart and let him search around for his golf balls all day instead of trying to screw with foreign policy while he's still in office.

PS let's make sure we send the secret service along so he doesn't cheat, that way it won't waste the taxpayer's money while we keep him distracted with golf.

Forest

His handlers forced him to give up golf cause it didn't look good.
I doubt bush has made a descion in his life.

I guess he was putting a square peg in a circle when he was a child! LOL

one thing.. I hope the public is now sick of this.. it is like a broken record.. and the tune was ok but this whole"if you vgote for the other guy crazy people will eat your kids" is gettign a bit tiresome.
they tried that crap in mississsippi and the dem won singlehandily.
they also tried this crap in 06 when the dems swept.
I think the gop has no more ideas as they have squandered away everythign else their party stands for witht he bush administartion. The gop is totally unreconisible from the party of just 8 years ago.

GWB is runn ing the al quada recruitment office in iraq and is their lead recruiter..I hear he is getting a rolex for his services.
Mean while back at the al quada headquaters where everyone is sitting outside int he warm pakistan air, laughing about how mind blowingly well everythign is going for them.

Probably should point out OSSAMA is a RIGHT WING terrorist.
chavez may be a leftist but ossama is a republicain. and so is amadinajad as well is Abdel Aziz Rantisi .

kinda strange when we fight right wing terrorists with right wing leaders, the right wing terrorist get stronger. Iran used to have a dem leader and then bush called them the axis of evil and they elected a republicain amadinajad. Bush tried to start a civil war in palistine to weaken hamas, and instead soldified their control. Bush went to war against al quada, and now they are stronger than they were on 9/11 and safe in pakistan. (oh yeah who got condemend for sayign he woul dactually bomb al quada no matter where they hid and the countries that harboured them?? oh yeah obama when he said he would attack al quada in pakistan.)

Keystone Cops! LOL

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Cops

amazing no one even brings that up.. our reporters are a joke.. and the administartion shouldn't be able to choose who to call on.
It may be a tasteless question but no less tasteless than the comments coming from this asses mouth. Get him to denouse his grandfather

I keep looking but I don't see the words, Barack Obama, in the statement by Bush.

Democrats seem to be overly sensitive about being associated with the term terrorist appeasement.

I guess they should stop doing it.

jazzman, you're being silly. Bush is quoted as saying

Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along.

He's following Washington political etiquette by not name the "some," but its beyond obvious that he's talking about Obama.

that's the new spin "i wasn't talking about you"
LOLOLO I guess he was talkigabout gates and rice who both suggested we talk more with out enenmies.. maybe he was tlakign about himself and north korea.. we bombed them back into compliance.. oh wait we dint.. we had talks and no one had to die.. freaken amazing.

Bush Wanted, Dead or Alive!

That is what a leading Historian said about Bush!

Is that it? That's right up there with 'It's OK I remember my first drink."

and

'3 million sperm and you had to luck out'

Your pithy one liners are pathetic, they are pith-deficient. Your superiority is a threadbare security blanket. Just because you either don't agree with me or cannot understand me I'm incoherent ?

Oh and its 8-28 am and guess what I'll get back to you whenever I feel like it and there's not a damned thing you can do about it except embarrass yourself with adolescent putdowns, that coming from a guy who's 40+ kinda self evidently telescopes a certain arrested social development.

Poor jazzman,still mouthing off at his first kegger.

coherent enough?

Just because you either don't agree with me or cannot understand me I'm incoherent ?

Your meandering style of commenting doesn't mask the basic problem with your comments.

They make no damn sense.

I believe you most often focus on your fantasies about the personality of the person you are are responding to, instead of on the subject, because you have nothing worthwhile to say about the subject.

You may think your writing style is avant-garde, but it's really just convoluted nonsense.

I don't think most Americans vote on single issues

Dennis--14.4---Do you have any understanding whatsoever about the evangelical vote in America???---I was cheering OUT LOUD for my President when I heard his comments at Knesset.....and so were all those conservatives who are less than inspired by John McCain---our rallying call for November is: ANYONE BUT OBAMA!!!! Way to go George Bush....way to go!

.and so were all those conservatives who are less than inspired by John McCain

Proof?

And so what?

I guess you are ignoring that evangelicals are hardly a given for the Republicans this year.

Also, remember how well the Anyone But Bush thing went for us Dems...heh.

Did you also cheer when the elitist Bush said he gave up golf to share in the sacrifices of the soldiers and their famillies, Lisa? I'm sure there's some talking point to excuse that, right?

TJG 15.6- if you had tape of GWB on golf course you'd be out there saying he didn't care about the troops and their sacrifice, right? This is just another one of those damned if he does damned if he doesn'ts....so Keith....so not worthy of discussion.

Well, except that it was Bush himself who said that it was his big sacrifice for the troops, giving up golf. How elitist! And how typical that you would minimize it. And how sad, that you are that invested in avoiding the truth and facts just to be comfortable politically.

I was just talking with my grandmother on the phone and mentioned the Bush golf thing. She said she refused to believe it--is that what it takes to support that man, a complete denial of reality and simple facts, including words Bush himself spoke? What is it about him that makes people willing to step away from reality?

Bush pretty much said that he doesn't care about the troops with his golf comment. The man is a coddled infant in a man's body, insulated from anything but sycophants. He's a daddy's boy who has earned nothing on his own merits. Congrats on your party's legacy with him, Lisa.

You may think your writing style is avant-garde, but it's really just convoluted nonsense.

and this is you staying ontopic?

Again with the transparent lunacy, your arrogance/delusion is so blinding that you fully seem to presume it rational that you can transpose what other people are thinking onto them, ie "you may think..." and keeping your own opinions and stating them as objective facts "but it's really..."

Wow you surely must own the keys to objective reality.
Here, let me, the guy who writes convoluted nonsense help you out with the english thing.

"What you write I presume to be some attempt at an avant garde style, however I find it convoluted and it makes no sense to me."

There see it's just you, you keep thinking there's more to you than there is.

now say thank you.

Here, let me, the guy who writes convoluted nonsense help you out with the english thing.

"What you write I presume to be some attempt at an avant garde style, however I find it convoluted and it makes no sense to me."

Thanks, glad you agree it's total BS.

Well thats some advanced schoolyard stuff there. I guess you win. The fact remains that my dad is actually bigger than your dad so I guess my pride is salvageable.

Still, phew, I mean wow, where did you learn your amazing byzantine snappy comeback artform?

I know as long as I keep posting you will be honor-bound to retort and I shall have more time to study your methods. I don't know though, they seem pretty quantum.

Well thats some advanced schoolyard stuff there

winsomecowboy,

Conceded.

But, anyone reviewing many of your past comments on NV will see you specialize in unprovoked sophomoric personal attack.

If some great transformation has now taken place with you, I'm amazed, as well as glad.

Keep up the good work.

What a hypocritical anti american, unethical criminal putz we have runnign this country.

I think the crucial label is psychopath. Until someone shows me data demonstrating this 'man' actually has a conscience I'll run with that hypothesis.

I don't think Bush was trying "to get some love from the Israeli press;" he was trying to paint Obama as a terrorist appeaser, somebody wanting to talk to terrorists as they are burning his house down. It was a deliberate political move designed to define Obama this way. For what its worth, appeasing Hitler obviously was a really bad idea but not every opponent of American policy is Hitler. I mean, Bush's envoys talked to North Korea and negotiated with North Korea, a state as totalitarian as one can imagine. Iran is a model, in contrast.

It was a deliberate political move designed to define Obama this way.

This is crap. Look, if Obama's stance against terrorism is so strong, and he's been so clear that he wouldn't appease terrorists, then why the hell would he assume the statement was made about HIM and not Jimmy Carter who just flew out there to MEET WITH HAMAS! I'm not the biggest Bush supporter, but there's a lot of media out there right now jumping on everything he says and treating it as though the devil just spoke. Just imagine the jollies everyone would have had if it had been Bush who said he'd visited fifty-seven states instead of Obama. You can bet your ass John Stewart would have opened the show with it, but he doesn't mention it since it's Obama.

You know, it could be that it wasn't a rebuke to Obama, but a political attack like that wouldn't be out of character. Bush's quote was so general and open for interpretation that it's not clear when he meant. I'd point out that Carter is a marginal figure in the Democratic Party largely ostracized by the establishment now and that Obama does want to "negotiate" with a "radical" regime - Iran, to use Bush's direct words. Note to the wise: Chamberlain did, of course, negotiate with Hitler. More to the point, he gave him a large chunk of Czechoslovakia, which is the actual reason why he's correctly labeled an appeaser.

One some of your other comments about Obama, I think you make a good point, Fred.

and not Jimmy Carter who just flew out there to MEET WITH HAMAS!

Well McCain advocated meeting with Hamas, and McCain agreed with Bush, so one of those interpretations have to be wrong.

The main issue is that Bush is engaged in misleading and partisan attacks by equating negotation with appeasement. Its partisan, its petty, its beneath the President, its wrong and its insulting to everyone who appropriately suggests that meeting to talk with the President of Iran is not and has never been appeasement.

Meh, I don't see this as much of anything. Bush is a lame duck on his way out the door, trying to get some love from the Israeli press before he makes an exit.

Wow, if you don't realize their vociferous intent to start another war then you haven't seen all the data.

You're very correct on all 3 accounts.

I think the flaw in your position is the inability to see rationalism in the actions of terrorists and rogue states. I think believing in terrorists and state leaders stated rationale is quite lazy, sort of 'Oh OK I get it, you want to kill the great satan, righto.'

Rationale's change, objectives less so, ie, remove Saddam, install 'democracy', fight terrorism [over there]

wwii just as wwi just as this and every war, makes certain people very very rich.

Funnily enough, it tends to be the same groups of people. I mean just in one family alone you have loans to the Nazis, Iraq wars one and two and lots of smaller stuff, running the cia isn't playcenter.

All good expenditure of weapons.

I'm not sure that the Republicans have what you describe as "a clear and coherent vision of how to use military power." Bomb Iraq, talk to North Korea, retain a deep friendship with Saudi Arabia...

Democrats don't want to have discussions with "terrorist organizations," they want to have discussions with leaders of important states. I'm not sure why we can't "cut and run like we did in Vietnam;" it took about 20 years after the fall of Saigon for business relations to be normalized with that country. I wonder how long it would have taken without our foolish war and, if we see the same results in Iraq, we should "cut and run immediately."

Finally, Chamberlain didn't appease Hitler by talking to him; he appeased him by giving him half of Czechoslovakia. Barack Obama does not want to do anything like that.

Jesus...how much do you know about the Vietnam war? Just a query because your comments don't seem to benefit from the knowledge.....Let's examine this one...

I'm not sure why we can't "cut and run like we did in Vietnam;" it took about 20 years after the fall of Saigon for business relations to be normalized with that country.

That only cost us 50,000 dead.....no matter they weren't you?

Hell the South Vietnamese didn't even want us there, do you think the Viet Cong were from the North? The Viet Cong were from the south the north Vietnamese just helped them sometimes. It was a stupid war to begin with after we decided to give Vietnam back to the colonial French, and then after Dien Bien Fu even the French left. Uncle Ho declared for a Democratic state of Vietnam after the war and we wouldn't help them they felt as if they had no choice.

The one thing you have right here is that Vietnam did get relations normalized after decades of trying and by exceptionally harsh economic sanctions that should have killed off the rest of them.
It's amazing after this much time they've forgiven us at all.

If we had cut and run 10 years earlier now that might have done them some good, it's hanging around and picking off people while you wait for things to calm down that hurts the cause. All we're asking for is an intelligent discourse failing that we just go after the nuclear programs at it's source anything but this cowboy shoot anything that moves.

Forest

Forest, I'm not sure we disagree. We both seem to agree that the Vietnam war was unwise; we both seem to agree that, given that first statement, an earlier pull-out was preferable. So what are we arguing?