Friday, May 16, 2008
|
|
Bush vs. Carter -- not Bush vs. Obama
|
|
Posted by:
Michael Medved at
11:37 PM
|
|
Barack Obama made a decision yesterday to make an issue of a brief passage in the Knesset speech by President Bush. Though the President never mentioned the Senator by name, and spoke only of those who “seem to believe that we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals,” Obama seized on the remark and launched a major controversy, claiming that the White House (despite consistent denials) clearly intended to make a “false political attack.”
As I noted yesterday, this decision on the part of Obama involved obvious political calculation: Bush is less popular than McCain, so why not occupy a few days worth of sound bites in a Bush vs. Obama exchange?
The problem for the Democratic candidate is that while trying to associate his rival, Senator McCain, with President Bush, he may have inadvertently linked himself with a figure even less popular than the President: the sanctimonious and appalling Jimmy Carter.
Today in Saudi Arabia, White House aide Ed Gillespie (traveling with the president) shouted to the press that in his remarks Mr. Bush had Mr. Carter in mind, not Senator Obama. Obviously, Carter fits the description in the Bush speech better than Obama – given his insistence on meeting directly with the terror masters at Hamas. The context of the Bush speech also makes the Carter reference more appropriate than any inference that he was targeting Obama: speaking to the Israeli parliament, there would certainly be far more concern with Carter’s embarrassing adventure in Hamas-astan than with Obama’s suggestion that he would negotiate with Ahmadinejad.
Obama, in fact, has said he wouldn’t negotiate with Hamas – which raises a big question: why yes to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but no to the elected Palestinian leaders of Hamas? Hamas advocates violence, refuses to recognize Israel, is pledged to genocide against the Jewish state, and rejects all prior agreements made by the Palestinian authority --- and Ahmadinejad takes exactly the same position on all these issues. Obama said he wouldn’t negotiate with Hamas unless they recognized Israel, rejected violence, and pledged to honor prior agreements. Then why negotiate with the President of Iran—who hasn’t met even one of those pre-conditions?
And when it comes to Ahmadinejad’s status as an elected leader, not just a terrorist chieftain, his election in Iran (where the mullahs threw out all candidates who weren’t sufficiently “Islamic”) was probably even more suspect that the most recent Palestinian elections that were won by Hamas.
Obama, in other words, is totally and profoundly inconsistent here ---and the developing controversy now links him to Jimmy Carter.
Since Obama now says he disapproves of Carter’s “fun” (the very word the ex-President used in a USA TODAY interview describing his trip), would he agree with Mr. Bush’s remarks as applied to President Carter? If not, why not?
In other words, the current battle between Bush-and-Obama places the Illinois Senator on the side of the pathetic former president.
Do many Americans believe Carter did the right thing in negotiating with the killers and thugs of Hamas (where they later attacked Carter and claimed they never reached the “understanding” the Georgia jerk described)?
It’s arguable that Obama made a smart bet to assume that people hate Bush so deeply that they would instinctively prefer any other approach to foreign policy – no matter how ill-considered or poorly defined.
But if he’s betting that the American public has more confidence in the thoroughly discredited, 84-year-old walking hemorrhoid from Pains (okay, Plains), then that’s a bet Barack could well lose.
|
|
You are going to refer to a man who has helped build homes for the needy and homeless based on a few stupid actions he has made in the past? That's a lot more good than that other pathetic president named Reagan ever did (Did I mention under the Reagan administration, he created the homeless problem by closing down mental health centers?) Reagan: The real pathetic loser. Sorry, but if you can participate in vile hate speech, then so can I.
At least one thing is clear: Whatever Ed Schultz said about John McCain being a warmonger pales incomparison to this disgrace of journalism. Shame on you, Medved. |
|
|
Hours after Bush's speach, his lackey, McVain, was pointing at Obama. Typical BS. |
|
Not one mention of the despicable act of slamming American pols from a foreign country (how I remember all the heat Bubba took for protesting the Vietnam War in Europe). It's not surprising, since Mr. Medved doesn't shirk from his own disrespectful name calling ("jerk" "walking hemorrhoid"). How easily the face-saving Gillespie's reference to Carter could be a coverup of an embarrassing lapse by the president, yet you swallow the White House line as naively as the pro-war crowd did with all the wrong, wrong, wrong Iraq b.s.
America will approve a 3rd term for Bush as long as people like you can keep enough people scared to death and ill-informed. |
|
|
With a terrorist orginaztion backing Obama that really sends up a redflag in my book. The left surley clueless on what the radical jihadist want, I hope they know that jihadist want americans to read the koran and embrace Isalm as their religion, so you can throw away your idealistic ideas for that dream world utopia you think should exist and your way of life of left wing ideas, they would put you to death by the sword by being an infadel and they do not negotiate!!!!! |
|
|
|
Hamas terror manifesto
Compares charter calling for murder
of Jews to Declaration of Independence
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: March 20, 2008
12:45 pm Eastern
By Aaron Klein
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook
JERUSALEM – Sen. Barack Obama's Chicago church reprinted a manifesto by Hamas that defended terrorism as legitimate resistance, refused to recognize the right of Israel to exist and compared the terror group's official charter – which calls for the murder of Jews – to America's Declaration of Independence.
cont. link
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId= 59456
|
|
So Let Me Get This Straight...
You are going to refer to a man who has helped build homes for the needy and homeless based on a few stupid actions he has made in the past?
_____
This has nothing to do with free housing for your Brothers and Sisters..give ..give ..give me and take take takers .
When Lt John Kerry on his own went to France and talked Peace with the Viet Cong he should have been Hung .... When Jimmy Moron Carter , Bill Clinton , Gore, Polosi go to our terrorist enemies all it does is bring in more suicide bombers . Our enemies love Liberals that hate all that good about America .... you , Oboma wife hate about America ..if it doesn't have welfare attached too it Your KIND HATES IT .
That's a lot more good than that other pathetic president named Reagan ever did (Did I mention under the Reagan administration, he created the homeless problem by closing down mental health centers?) Reagan:
___
YOU SEE IT ALL ABOUT WELFARE WITH YOU !!! Reagean freed 1.7 Billion human being ..... don't you wish he was around to free the slaves all over Africa . Clinton stood bye and watched doing nothing 900,000 Blacks being murdered as did the UN LIBERALS LIKE YOU AND OBOMA LOVE .
The real pathetic loser. Sorry, but if you can participate in vile hate speech, then so can I. I GURES YOU DON'T READ MOVE ,ORG , HUFFINGTON POST OR THE DAILY KOS OR WATCH NSNBC LEFTIST CLOWNS ..... OH I FORGOT YOU HAVE REV WRIGHTS HATE WHITES AND AMERICA VIDEOS .
At least one thing is clear: Whatever Ed Schultz said about John McCain being a warmonger pales incomparison to this disgrace of journalism. Shame on you, Medved.
ED SCHULTZ HAS I/10 % OF Rushs aud .He is Air America ..... I knew you would love him since welfare and pacifismis his call much like you .
you make hard working Americans wish your Boats wound have sunk or the Tribal CHIEFS WOULD HAVE KEPT THERE ON DAMN SLAVES . |
|
|
|
|
that I worry it will be a return of Neo-Carterism. Do people remember how bad Carter was? |
|
|
7Sticks, you keep saying let me get this straight; no one is debating whether Jimmy Carter is a humanitarian. Even Democrats think Jimmy Carter is one of the worse President’s in modern history. It’s a topic most ideologs can agree. The conversations mostly go like this, "yes he was one of our weakest President’s, bless his heart, he sure has given back as a humanitarian." |
|
Bush's comments in the Knesset were directed more to Jimmy Carter. If you remember Carter just went and met with Hamas, despite vigorous Israeli opposition. But was it intended to take a swipe at Obama? Of course.
But getting past the gotcha of all this (with McCain trying to wedge Obama and Democratic American Jews/Israel Supporters and Obama trying to wedge McCain and Independents)--what I am interested in is hearing how Barack Obama would conduct foreign policy. It is fair to criticize Bush for his failures, but I cannot emphasis how much Jimmy Carter sucked at foreign policy. As bad as things are now, it was much worse under Carter. Maybe it was because I was a kid watching night after night of the hostage crisis in Iran, but I never ever want to go back to that. I want to hear Obama explain to us how his approach is different. So far I see from Obama a politician reacting, not exposing a clear position on this.
|
|
Truth be told, in yesterday’s comments, Obama showed trademark characteristics of a callow, young Ivy League grad – he thinks he knows more than he does, and has the audacity to lecture others when he doesn't know what he's talking about. Obama seems perversely intent on transporting an old adage regarding Harvard over to the Crimson’s law school: “You can always tell a Harvard man, but you can’t tell him much.”
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Weblogs/TWSFP/TWSFPView.asp#6 923
|
|
|
I could think of a lot worse things to call Jimmy Carter. |
|
|
Townhall wouldn't be dominated with airhead postings addressing silly issues. The sad truth is that there is virtually no difference between Obama and McCain on substance. That is why the volume is amplified when trying to magnify one or two issues to the extreme. It has come down to whether you want to vote for a white one-world big government liberal or a black one-world big government liberal. The outcome from electing either will not be substantially different and it most certainly mean the end of civilization... especially if they are elected without a mandate because enough of us voted 3rd party. Enough of these silly postings. Let's discuss what Fred Thompson brought up Wednesday: ISSUES! CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLES! Take a vacation Medved. |
|
meet with these people to tell them that the U.S.A. surrenders in the WOT and will give the advancement of the Islamic Jihadists' objectives a free path in America. That would certainly get them off our backs. |
|
...once again displaying your gross and blatant ignorance and shameful hypocrisy. President Bush never referred to Obama in his speech - he was in Israel, and obviously his speech was referring to the historical appeasement by the European powers just prior to WWII. The fact that you neo-Kommies project it to your leaders is YOUR SPIN! You identify with it! You own it!
Besides, isn't appeasement one of your core beliefs? Why not just proudly stand up for it? You advocate it every chance you get.
The only time you neo-Kommies want U.S. forces to use force is when its use has nothing to do with U.S. interests or when the drive-by media headlines need to be diverted from one of your leaders' scandals. |
|
the liberals are. No matter how vociferous you get Obama stepped in it big time! He made his appeasement policies headline news.
Another rookie mistake Obama!
Only liberals would ever think negotiating with psychopaths is fruitful. Do you negotiate with serial killers too? |
|
|
Bush and his canned speech punch lines are just as phoney as Barrack. If the man had an independent thought he would not have to always site an example EVERY SINGLE TIME. This has been the patten of his non-conservative style from the very begining yes I voted for him twice but I see why elections were a bitter topic when I was a kid my parents went through the same neo-conservative betrayals us true conservative are going through today. Voting isn't worth my time or effort. The IRS can KMA to I hope you all are happy with your third world politically correct nightmare as Limbaugh used to say "don't be alarmed" |
|
Iran is bad. They fund Hezbollah and Hamas, threaten to expand its nuclear program, and we think they may be funneling weapons into Iraq. They are the root cause for many of our troubles in the Middle East, and there is no doubt that they are the big winners of the war in Iraq. So if we aren't going to talk to the leaders of that country because "we can't dignify them with the presence of the office" (that's a very lame excuse btw), then what are we going to do? Sit back and do nothing? Bomb Tehran? Invade the country with our half-way broke military force? Do you really think we are going to get any support from the rest of the world for any of this after the mess we created in Iraq?
Hamas won free and fair elections that were held under great international over watch. Does that mean we should talk directly to a terrorist organization? No. But that does say something for what the actual people in the Occupied Territories want from their government, and apparently they like Hamas. We have to deal with that.
Think about it. After five-plus years in Iraq fighting our hearts out, Iran and al Qaeda are much stronger and we are much weaker overall.
This isn't working. Wake up America. |
|
|
Would have been able to talk to Bin Laden,then all of this nastiness could have been avoided. |
|
You try to be taken seriously by us all, and then you spout nonsense like there is no difference between McCain and Obama. Calling anyone who disagrees with you an "airhead" and suggesting Medved should take a break (from his own blog!).
There is a difference. McCain is for lower taxes, fiscal conservatism, and against running away from Iraq in defeat. He is also for conservative judges. Now he is far from your version of a perfect conservative, but he is a damn sight more conservative than Barack Obama.
I have disagreed with Hugh Hewitt many times, but I never had the termerity to suggest he stop blogging. I have disagreed with you, but I recognize your blog is your fortress of solitude so to speak. I would never tell you to stop.
But you want Obama to win because you think conservatism need to lie fallow this cycle to spring up renewed. If only it were that simple. |
|
|
|
|
The moonbat liberals will say that serial killers and terrorists are victims and deserve to coddelled and nurtured. Please!!!!! |
|
|
We could send the dynamic duo of Obama and Carter back in time and let them work their magic. Just think they could have spoken to the Columbine killers,the 9/11 terrorists,the maryland snipers,those idiots who dragged that black guy behind their pickup in Texas,Charles Manson,hell they could have stopped Santa Anna from storming the Alamo!(did GWB start that one too?) I'm sure all these nutbags would have never committed any heinous crimes against humanity had they just the chance to sit down with the dynamic duo. Hope and change,change and hope. |
|
"Did I mention under the Reagan administration, he created the homeless problem by closing down mental health centers?"
-- Ronald Reagan "created" the homeless problem? I guess Habitat For Humanity was being preemptive when they started up, 4 years before Reagan took office.
"Whatever Ed Schultz said about John McCain being a warmonger pales in comparison to this disgrace of journalism. Shame on you, Medved."
-- 1) Being prepared to do what it takes to solve a crisis is not the same as being a "warmonger". 2) Medved is NOT a journalist; he is a political commentator. If you're looking for reporting, you're in the wrong place; this is a combination editorial/letters to the editor page. |
|
"Not one mention of the despicable act of slamming American pols from a foreign country"
-- Words that DO NOT appear in the Bush speech:
Obama, Democrat, party, politician, election, foreign policy, precondition.
Bush said, "Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals." Putting aside for a moment the question of who "some" are, let's talk about who "we" are. In the sentence IMMEDIATELY PRECEEDING this one the president said, "Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred, and that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century. [Pun warning!] "We" are THE WORLD, as in: all of the peace-loving nations of the world. Therefore, when he says "some" he's referring to any and all politicians, heads of state, former heads of state, and cabinet members -- be they Americans or Europeans or Israelis -- that suggest negotiating with terrorists and radicals.
"How easily the face-saving Gillespie's reference to Carter could be a coverup of an embarrassing lapse by the president"
-- Nothing was covered up; nothing was embarassing; there was no "lapse". The president stands by his words. |
|
"Bush has been duly nailed for his remarks, regardless of whether or not he wants to hide behind the claim that he meant Carter rather than Obama."
-- He's been attacked, yes. Nailed? NOT. Also, he did not specifically mean his remarks for Carter (see response to Royinoslo).
"We KNOW who he meant just by his gutless manner of not naming names at the time of the disgusting accusations, and what a pleasant surprise to see him squashed like a bug for it."
-- Noise-making, no matter how loud, is NOT the same thing as squashing someone "like a bug". And let me get this straight: the fact that he intentionally directed his comments toward ANYONE who advocates negotiating with terrorists is part of the problem? Also, what "accusations" did he allegedly make against Obama?
"One has to laugh at the moronic backpedaling Bush and his apologists are now engaging in"
-- Who's backpedaling? Ahem . . .
President Bush said what he said; he also did not say what he did not say; he has not taken back or changed a SINGLE WORD of what he said; he said the right thing, and he was right to say it. |
|
"Bush and his canned speech punch lines are just as phoney as Barrack [sic]. If the man had an independent thought he would not have to always site [sic] an example EVERY SINGLE TIME."
-- What is phoney about Bush's speech? What is wrong about citing examples as evidence of why your opinion is correct? What does "cite an example every single time" mean?
"when I was a kid my parents went through the same neo-conservative betrayals us true conservative are going through today. Voting isn't worth my time or effort."
-- True conservatives vote. Conservatives who adopt the Eric Cartman "screw you guys, I'm going home" attitude are true to yourselves, but not to your society. You have the right to stay home, but it isn't the right thing to do ... especially if we end up with a President Obama as a result. |
|
"Hamas won free and fair elections that were held under great international over watch. Does that mean we should talk directly to a terrorist organization? No. But that does say something for what the actual people in the Occupied Territories want from their government, and apparently they like Hamas. We have to deal with that."
-- We ARE dealing with it. Remember the State Department's "road map for peace"? Remember its first CONDITION?
"Palestinian leadership issues unequivocal statement reiterating Israel’s right to exist in peace and security and calling for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire to end armed activity and all acts of violence against Israelis anywhere. All official Palestinian institutions end incitement against Israel."
How much of an effort is Hamas making to meet that condition?
When you say, "This isn't working. Wake up America," are you considering the possibility that it's what THEY ARE DOING that isn't working, not what we are doing? |
|
"The outcome from electing either [McCain or Obama] will not be substantially different and it most certainly mean the end of civilization ... especially if they are elected without a mandate because enough of us voted 3rd party."
-- And YOU gave ME a hard time for saying things will suck if Obama is elected? Nice prophecy.
As for being "elected without a mandate", we might do well to remember that this is a situation that has happened only 3 times in our history: 1800, 1824, & 1876. The likelihood of it happening again is pretty low. Ross Perot got almost 20 million votes in 1992, and 'Slick Willie' still won by mandate. |
|
Meanwhile, McCain should highlight his credentials as a reformer and a maverick to attract Democrats and independents who worry about Obama. Forget about the base. It will be there. Obama's liberalism, his pro-tax agenda and his proposed weakening of the USA Patriot Act -- as well as fears that he would appoint to office people such as Rev. Wright and William Ayers, a former member of the Weather Underground -- will all assure the full mobilization of the right. Immigration reform and McCain's other acts of apostasy will be forgiven for the sake of beating Obama.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/0 5/16/AR2008051603729_2.html
While McCain needs to run to the center to win (like every candidate has always done) ignoring the base would be a very big mistake for McCain. |
|
Does anyone remember when Carter was president? Everything was a mess and now he is at it again.
Go back to the peanut farm Jimmy. |
|
Pasadena Phil... Thanks
President Bush has clarified his statements regarding Appeasement, more specifically, to whom the remarks were directed towards. The intended, indirect target of his remarks was Former President Jimmy Carter, who has, of late, attempted to gain ground with Hamas. What is unfortunate, quite unfortunate, is that President Bush committed the same act as Former US President Bill Clinton... Criticizing a Former President on Foreign Soil.
While not a Clinton Supporter (In any form, Mr. or Mrs.), the standards of conduct should be the same, regardless of our grievances against the insults' target, especially when we consider that the target was a Former US President.
Americans should not be so fickle in their respect of elected officials that we tacitly grant acceptance of insult to our leaders.
What I Learned This Week
http://whatilearnedthisweek.wordpress.com |
|
George, can't help himself can he. Hey even Mr Appeasment Kevin James knew that Bush was refering to Sen. Obama.
This was classic -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1wSZBTAXRs
Let's get that Repub talking point wind-up gas-bag on TV more often.
Obama 08 |
|
|
For Israel to exist for the last 60 yrs. surronded by terrorist states they had to take a negotiation policy just for there survival,and wiil do whatever it takes to ensure that. |
|
whatilearnedthisweek wrote: "The intended, indirect target of [Bush's] remarks was Former President Jimmy Carter, who has, of late, attempted to gain ground with Hamas."
-- How exactly do you intentionally aim at an indirect target?
"President Bush committed the same act as Former US President Bill Clinton... Criticizing a Former President on Foreign Soil."
-- Negative! He criticized the policy position of talking to the leaders of terrorists and radicals, a position held by more people than just the former president, including some people in the Israeli government.
"Americans should not be so fickle in their respect of elected officials that we tacitly grant acceptance of insult to our leaders."
-- That's right; criticizing any political position Jimmy Carter holds now, 27 years after leaving office, is VERBOTEN. So, did you post messages at Daily Kos and Huff Po slamming Obama for saying Carter did the wrong thing?
If President Bush had slammed Carter for something he had said or done while in office, or if Carter was the only political leader in the world advocating this strategy today, or if the issue was one that didn't directly concern the Israeli government and its people -- THEN you might have a case to make. Since all three of those things are not true . . .
Deifying leaders is something that totalitarian regimes do, not us. |
|
Good Morning... just wanted to brighten your day with this new headline provided by the Washington times, I think it might be helpful in this debate.
Cohorts disavow Obama stance
By Joseph Curl
"Three prominent Democrats yesterday rejected Sen. Barack Obama's position of meeting unconditionally with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and leaders of other American enemies."
The cohorts are: Joe Biden, Gary Hart, Harold Ford Jr.
|
|
It is Bush v. Carter
Barack v. McCain
Barack will be debating McCain over having talks with rogue nations without preconditions...
|
|
|
I think Mr. Obama showed the Audacity of Arrogance thinking that President Bush was "talking" about him in Israel. When President Bush made his comment I immediately thought of two other democratic politicians who gave themselves phoney foreign diplomatic creditials and enjoyed being televised having "chats" with terrorists--that would be former President Jimmy Carter and current Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Isn't it interesting that Mr. Obama, very junior do-nothing Senator from Illinois thought the President was talking about him? |
|
if many of these columnist would say what they feel needs to be said without the snide & and insulting innuendos.
When they communitcate with as such they discredit themselves and what they have to say.
Conservatives need to rise above this inciting way to communitcate to win over others. Otherwise they are only preaching to the choir and getting their amens from the like minded. |
|
David:
You read the Rev. Moon paper? THE WASHINGTON TIMES? Now THERE is an unimpeachable source! WOW! A den of iniquity full of propagandists...like the WEEKLY STANDARD (and those two geniuses Kristol and Barnes! LOL ) You would be better off just making things up and posting it in here....
Oh, wait! I forgot. That's just what a lot of people in here do....or they parrot what a radio or TV babbler says. NO DEEPER READING. NO RESEARCH. NO CRITICAL INDEPENDENT THOUGHT. NO HISTORY. NO ACTUAL FACTS AND CONTEXT.
And some can't even SPELL in here (I don't mean typos... I mean actual SPELLING).
|
|
|
Maybe Obama will have the same affect on the extremist leaders as Carter had with the Ayatollah Khomeini. Maybe he'll kiss them on the cheak as Carter did that helped to empower him (by no longer fearing the US) that has resulted in the terrorist state of todays Iran. |
|
Jimmy Carter withrdrew support for the Shah of Iran, allowing the Ayatollah to take charge, and giving radical Islam a nation state of its own, something it did not have before. Now we have a real possibility that these dangerous thugs will acquire nuclear technology.
The Soviets invaded Afghanistan because the knew that Carter would not do a thing to stop them; it is hard to imagine them being so bold under Ronald Reagan (who did not lose an inch of free soil to the USSR). The instability created by that invasion and the rebellion against it created an opportunity for the Taliban to take charge.
During the Clinton years, Carter intervened to prevent a resumption of the Korean War, and in doing so gave Kim Jong Il the opportunity to develop nuclear weapons right under our nose.
Barack Obama's foreign policy advisor is Zbignew Brezinski, who used to work for the Carter Administration. Obama assumes that when Republicans mention aapeasment they speak about him.
We cannot afford another president under the "Carter" mold. The world would have been better off if he had remained the nicest peanut farmet in Georgia. |
|
|
I anxiously await a response. |
|
|
Does anyone agree that Obama is so vain that he thinks every Bush song is about him. |
|
|
By attributing Bush's comments to himself, he acknowledged he was one of those appeasers that Bush was talking about. |
|
|
Whether or not he was talking about Obama or Carter. |
|
WOW. Your post was full of inaccuracies (and radio babblers have filled your head with OFFAL).
Let's start from farther back in history regarding Iran. GO READ ABOUT THE REAL FACTUAL HISTORY of Iran. Start with the British after WWI. Then, in 1953, the US CIA, at the behest of the British (MI6), couped Mohammed Mossadegh, who was democratically elected in Iran. They installed the Shah, helped create SAVAK, and helped them with secret prisons and torture. WHY? OIL; BP. Why did 1979 occur? For many complex reasons which are complicated, BUT: if YOU were Iranian, and a member of YOUR family was killed and tortured by the Shah's thugs, and you knew Mossad, the French and the CIA were training these thugs, and it was about Iran's oil: HOW WOULD YOU FEEL? Certain factions in Iran now are thugs and fanatics, for sure... BUT.... |
|
There are many Persians still alive today WHO remember what happened in 1953 onward. See, the people WHO ARE ON THE RECEIVING END OF THESE POLICIES KNOW.... THEY KNOW. While the American public is kept in the dark by an AWOL media... and Corps who benfit COUNT ON PEOPLE LIKE YOU ARGUING ABOUT OBAMA vs. McCAIN !
It won't matter much who gets into the Oval, re: The US foreign policy. The American policy of occupation and control and proxy will continue in the Mid East. PERIOD.
WAKE........UP ! |
|
|
|