44 Comments

• 1. Aztec  |  November 27th, 2007 at 9:51 am

  Really, the war in Iraq has been such a success that it will solve the Arab-Israeli conflict and OBL has been successfully defeated? Where have I been these last few years?

• 2. Bigfoot  |  November 27th, 2007 at 9:59 am

  As I expected, it didn’t work - Arafat, offered 99% of what he said he wanted, refused to agree to anything less than 110% of his demands

  I thought it was 96%, in terms of how much land was offered, along with some other land to compensate for the other 4%. Whether 96% or 99%, a reasonable offer, I would think, by most people’s sensibilities. But then, terrorists aren’t “most people”.

  Arafat is dead - and in his place is Mahmous Abbas, a man just about as wicked as Arafat ever was, but also facing the fact that he either makes a deal with Israel and the US, or falls to the Hamas terrorists, who will kill him.

  Not quite, Mark. Both could happen. If Abbas makes a deal with Israel and the US, it could well lead directly to his being killed. Remember Anwar Sadat?

• 3. Eric T  |  November 27th, 2007 at 10:15 am

  The lines or boundry of the Israel border changed several times 1967, 1948, I think Hamas and Israel got to agree on a line that works for them both.

  The news today about Abu Drahb buying Citigroup. Are these business deals fair trade deals?. Did America get a large stake in one of their firms too?

  You mentioned Bin Laden said the Arab world should bet on him. If the war shifts from a military to economic war. The armchair Jihadists rolling in petrodollars may try to buy out America, drive down our currency. sabotage.
  I believe in Fair trade not isolationism, but many of their oil companies are state owned not publicly traded. Some of the Muslim people I have worked with say interest is forbidden in Islam. If that is the case the Citigroup sale will be the best thing this country has ever seen.

• 4. coulterfan  |  November 27th, 2007 at 10:26 am

  >>Some of the Muslim people I have worked with say interest is forbidden in Islam. If that is the case the Citigroup sale will be the best thing this country has ever seen.<<

  Remember that charging interest is immoral according to the Bible. The Christian Church prohibited it for 1500 years (according to Biblical Law). This is how the Jewish people developed an unsavory reputation- they were charging interest on loans when it was still forbidden by the Christian Church.

  I don’t think any modern religion still forbids it as immoral, whatever the Bible may say. . .

• 5. Kahn  |  November 27th, 2007 at 11:34 am

  Differences since last time:
  1. The big big Iraqi Army is not there to back up an attack on Israel.
  2. There are American troops and AIRPLANES stationed in Iraq. War justification and Bush hatred aside, look at a map and think about it as if you are Syria.
  3. Iran wants to expand westward and is developing nuclear weapons. Now, you can argue if thats true. But all thats necessary is that the Arabs believe it to be true. Israel is a continuing distraction. Many in the region would like to wrap it up to face the new threat.

  Is that enough to make a difference? I don’t know. Maybe. Hopefully.

• 6. AAR  |  November 27th, 2007 at 12:23 pm

  If it weren’t for the Iraq War, we might not even be having a peace conference.

  If it weren’t for the Iraq War, Saddam, his barbaric sons, and their murdering and torturing regime would still be in power.

  Saddam would still have SCUD missiles aimed at Israel and the surrounding nations, believed to be filled with WMD.

  Israel would still be practicing and preparing for attacks from Saddam.

  Saddam would still be funding suicide bombers to blow up Israeli families, homes, and businesses.

  If Democrats had not undermined President Bush and America, a peace settlement might already have been reached between Israel and the Palestinians!!!

  If Democrats had not undermined President Bush and America, Iran might not be on the verge of becoming an nuclear power, and a looming threat to Israel, the surrounding nations, and the world!

  AAR

• 7. Steve  |  November 27th, 2007 at 12:47 pm

  Great site!

  Would you like a Link Exchange with The Internet Radio Network? At the IRN you can listen to over 50 of America’s top Talk Shows via Free Streaming Audio! In addition you can email the President, VP and Congressional Leaders!!
  http://netradionetwork.com

• 8. coulterfan  |  November 27th, 2007 at 12:51 pm

  AAR-

  Wow! That’s some DELUSIONAL thinking! What if I was to claim that 9-11 wouldn’t have happened if Gore were president, that we would be energy independent, that the US would lead the world in renewable energy, etc?

  I mean, if we WERE energy independent (under Gore), we wouldn’t NEED Mideast oil, the Iraq War would be unnecessary, and the Arabs would be BEGGING for our currency.

  Ahh, what might have been ; )

• 9. neocon  |  November 27th, 2007 at 1:03 pm

  And the rape rooms would still be operating, Saddam would still be killing his dissenters, Saddam would still be seeking nukes, AQ would still have safe sanctuary, and 27,000,000 Iraqis would still live under oppression.

  Everything liberals love.

  Here’s the dimentia of the left as posted by coulter. 9/11 had obviously been planned for years in advance under Clintons nose (or blue dress), but for some reason (geez, could it be politics), the left likes to think that AQ decided to take down the towers because of Bush.

  coulter is the perfect example of a failed educational system.

• 10. Dasein Libsbane  |  November 27th, 2007 at 1:06 pm

  If Gore were President he would have issued an apology before the second tower was hit.

• 11. Kahn  |  November 27th, 2007 at 1:12 pm

  Coulter - How would we be energy independent? We tap 15% of our offshore oil and none of ANWAR. The alternatives to oil are nuclear, solar, wind, and bio.

  bio - drives up food prices and don’t burn as cleanly as oil.
  nuclear - I’m OK with that, are you? Are Democrats/liberals in general?
  solar - it’s just not there yet. Thouh I’d like to see every roof in the country with solar cells installed.
  wind - well, Democrats have actually stiffled most wind projects by the law Kennedy put in place to kill the Cape Cod project. Are you saying that if Al Gore was president that Walter Cronkite, John Kerry, and Ted Kennedy would be willing to have that project go forward? Cool.

  I think that AAR correctly pointed out that our presence in Iraq is a big difference. And he correctly points out that you (as a group) have not helped all that much.

• 12. coulterfan  |  November 27th, 2007 at 1:18 pm

  >>If Gore were President he would have issued an apology before the second tower was hit.<>9/11 had obviously been planned for years in advance under Clintons nose (or blue dress), but for some reason (geez, could it be politics), the left likes to think that AQ decided to take down the towers because of Bush.<<

  No, here’s the thing: Clinton was COMPETENT and ENGAGED in his role as President! You may recall that he STOPPED the 2000 bombings. . .

  I doubt that he would have WILLFULLY IGNORED a memo entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike Within US” or any of the dozens of other warnings. In fact, if 9-11 still happened, Clinton would have UNDOUBTEDLY gone after Al Queda, not IRAQ. And we all remember how swiftly he won the war with the Serbs, despite the Republicans’ Anti-Troops rhetoric at the time!

• 13. Kahn  |  November 27th, 2007 at 1:23 pm

  But, he had the chance to get Bin Laden and refused. Actually, he refused his capture/handover once and his assassination once. CIA had him in their sights. Facts is facts.

  His reasoning was that though Bin Laden was determined to attack us (a fact know during HIS presidency), we couldn’t do anything about it until a crime could be proven. Then, that we shouldn’t kill him because… no crime could be proven. Meanwhile he had his Justice Department end cooperation with the intelligence agencies.

  But, well I get the feeling that you want to discuss everything EXCEPT the peace process. Why is that?

• 14. neocon  |  November 27th, 2007 at 1:33 pm

  coulter - Clinton was quite masterful in Kosovo wasn’t he?

  Violent unrest in Kosovo (a United Nations-administered province of Serbia) broke out on March 17, 2004. Serbian communities and cultural sites were attacked, leading to the largest violent incident since the 1999 Kosovo War.

• 15. Eric T  |  November 27th, 2007 at 1:34 pm

  Coulterfan,

  “Clinton was COMPETENT and ENGAGED.” This is biggest load of manure I have ever heard. More like INCOMPETENT and IMMORAL. The Clinton Gun Ban earns him the spot in our history as the WORST PRESIDENT EVER

• 16. Kahn  |  November 27th, 2007 at 1:37 pm

  Eric, agreed the “gun ban” was stupid.

  I wonder how the DC decision will go? I hope the Supreme Court re-instates our Civil Rights.

• 17. coulterfan  |  November 27th, 2007 at 1:39 pm

  >>The Clinton Gun Ban earns him the spot in our history as the WORST PRESIDENT EVER<<

  The same one Guiliani supported (and still does)?

• 18. neocon  |  November 27th, 2007 at 1:50 pm

  coulter,

  Please expand on how Clinton “swiftly” won the Kosovo conflict after 3 years of carpet bombing the country and leaving behind continued violence.

  I am anxious to hear how liberals define success in war.

• 19. Eric T  |  November 27th, 2007 at 2:07 pm

  Coulterfan,

  I’m not a big Rudy fan. Big Cities are where gun crime is a problem. In Rural areas that is what people do for fun, they go shooting. It is good clean fun. For Some people fun is golf, for some it is going to the dance club and getting smashed and dancing all night. When they get in there car to drive home they cause more death than gun crimes by far. If a President was to ban alcohol or dance clubs, People who enjoy that stuff would remember him as the worst. That how I feel about Bill. Semi auto’s absorb recoil and my wife can comfortably shoot them. With bolt action, double barrel, single shot, or lever guns. The recoil is so severe that she can’t handle shooting them

  Kahn

  That is why the Supreme Court must be filled with conservatives who believe in America and Freedom and our Constitution and we cannot allow left leaning liberals, or socialists, or communists. A seat on that court.

• 20. coulterfan  |  November 27th, 2007 at 2:08 pm

  Weren’t the mass killings and rapes stopped? Wasn’t Milosevic captured, convicted, and imprisoned? I realize that the UN is still present in Kosovo, but how many troops have died since Milosevic was captured?

  ZERO. Now, how many troops are dying while occupying Iraq?

  I know it’s selfish to define victory by what it costs to AMERICAN taxpayers and in AMERICAN lives, but I guess I’m just sort of US-centric when it comes to war and OUR best interests!

  I know, I know. . . we should police the world, invade dictatorships and turn every country into a democracy like ours, etc, etc. . . Geez, I used to think the GOP was against ‘Nation Building’.

• 21. coulterfan  |  November 27th, 2007 at 2:16 pm

  Eric,

  Remember that rural ‘liberals’ and Democrats feel the same way about guns. Howard Dean, for instance, was endorsed by the NRA FOUR times!

  Still, I don’t know why anybody needs an Uzi or a FULLY auto weapon. . .

• 22. neocon  |  November 27th, 2007 at 2:18 pm

  coulter - Milosevic died of old age in the Hague, having never been convicted of anything.

  And are you speaking of our troops or UN troops? UN troops are being killed farily regularly, but you probably don;t care about them, right?

  And you are US-centric when it comes to war? Is that how you plan on building allies?

  Here’s more wonderful news coming out of Kosov following Clintons “swift” masterful job.

  “Every facet of the way of life of the Serbs of Kosovo is threatened by the new reality established since June 1999 under KFOR (the NATO Kosovo Force) and the U.N. and therefore the very existence of the Serbs there is threatened,” says the report “Hiding Genocide in Kosovo.”

  “All kinds of persecution using all types of methods have been adopted,” the report says. “Throughout the territory of Kosovo, the Serbs have been persecuted, a persecution that is happening on their own territory, in their own country. They are denied basic human rights and are not equal to their Muslim counterparts under the law.

  WASHINGTON – United Nations forces moved into Kosovo in 1999 to “stop genocide.” But, according to a blistering new report from the American Council for Kosovo, U.N. troops have aided and abetted the deliberate, systematic and nearly complete ethnic cleansing of the mostly Christian Serb population by mostly Muslim ethnic Albanians.

• 23. coulterfan  |  November 27th, 2007 at 2:25 pm

  Neocon,

  I know, not all can be as good at making allies as Bush. ..

  Not all wars can go as smoothly as Iraq and Afghanistan under Bush. . .

  Face it, pal, war isn’t clean and tidy. But contrast the cost (in dollars and lives) between Iraq and Kosovo. Also contrast the execution. . .

  Do you REALLY think that Iraq has gone BETTER than Kosovo? If so, you are in the DISTINCT minority (as usual). . .

• 24. neocon  |  November 27th, 2007 at 2:38 pm

  Spin and deflect coulter……..

  What’s the matter? You can’t back up your earlier assertion of how swiftly and justly the war in Kosovo was handled under Clinton?

  Time will be the judge on Iraq and considering current events, your position will most likely be the minority.

  I laughed at your line “war isn’t tidy”

  What a joke. You have been screaming like a little girl for years now on how badly managed the Iraq war is. So which is it?

• 25. TiredofLibBullShit  |  November 27th, 2007 at 2:49 pm

  What coulterfan probably does not know is that the security practices in affect at our nation’s airports were indeed conceived by AL GORE - his so called savior! His policies allowed the box cutters aboard those airplanes - but it’s Bush’s Fault

  The MEMO he and other kool-aid drinking libs keep referring to is below:

  The following is the text of an item from the Presidential Daily Brief received by President George W. Bush on August 6, 2001. Redacted material is indicated by brackets.

  Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US

  Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate Bin Ladin since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Ladin implied in US television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and “bring the fighting to America.”

  After US missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, Bin Ladin told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a [–] service.

  An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told an [–] service at the same time that Bin Ladin was planning to exploit the operative’s access to the US to mount a terrorist strike.

  The millennium plotting in Canada in 1999 may have been part of Bin Ladin’s first serious attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the US. Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the FBI that he conceived the idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport himself, but that Bin Ladin lieutenant Abu Zubaydah encouraged him and helped facilitate the operation. Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah was planning his own US attack.
  Ressam says Bin Ladin was aware of the Los Angeles operation.

  Although Bin Ladin has not succeeded, his attacks against the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks. Bin Ladin associates surveilled our Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam as early as 1993, and some members of the Nairobi cell planning the bombings were arrested and deported in 1997.

  Al-Qa’ida members–including some who are US citizens–have resided in or traveled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks. Two al-Qua’ da members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our embassies in East Africa were US citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s.
  A clandestine source said in 1998 that a Bin Ladin cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.

  We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a [–] service in 1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of “Blind Shaykh” ‘Umar ‘Abd al-Rahman and other US-held extremists.

  Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

  ——————-

  ok, Coulterfan, please point out where in that MEMO it reveals Bin Laden’s plan for 9/11. Show what information Gore could have used to prevent 9/11.

  As you and your ilk keep misleading everyone that if Bush simply would have listened to this memo, 9/11 would have been prevented.

  Which opportunity could have prevented 9/11 - Bush heeding the information in the MEMO, OR Clinton accepting the offer of Bin Laden extradition - literally on a silver platter AFTER OTHER AQ terrorist attacks! ????????

  Well, we’re waiting……….

• 26. coulterfan  |  November 27th, 2007 at 3:14 pm

  neocon,

  There is no ‘tidy’ war- you can laugh like a little girl until you pee yourself, but this is a fact.

  Now, I won’t review all of the problems with the Iraq war, but remember that Kosovo came in UNDER budget, was far FASTER, and costs fewer LIVES than anyone predicted.

  Can anyone say the same about Iraq? I remember statements like “we will be greeted as liberators”, “they have nuclear weapons”, “the war will pay for itself”, “the Iraq oil money will fund it’s own reconstruction”, the costs would be “less than 1 billion to the US taxpayers”, etc,etc

  Not only did NONE of those assertions prove true, but we didn’t guard the KNOWN weapons caches, we disbanded the Iraqi Army, we tortured prisoners, we ‘lost’ 10 BILLION dollars, etc, etc. . . Heck, Bush himself didn’t EVEN KNOW that there were 3 ethnic groups in Iraq one MONTH before the war! His incompetence is unbelievable!

  You can call Clinton ‘immoral’ (because Republicans, you know, NEVER behave badly or have affairs! LOL) but NO ONE ever called Clinton incompetent! Likewise, no one ever called Clinton uninformed - if he didn’t understand an issue, he MADE IT HIS BUSINESS to fully research and consider all sides. Bush, in contrast, only seems to surround himself with sycophants and ‘yes’-men who tell him what he wants to hear.

  If a Democrat had bungled a war so badly, he would have been impeached in a heartbeat. You can go on believing that Bush is competent, that the Iraq was well-managed, etc, but you are living in a fantasy world, my deluded friend. . .

• 27. Kahn  |  November 27th, 2007 at 3:23 pm

  coulter said “The same one Guiliani supported (and still does)?”

  Exactly. Thats why I won’t vote for him. I’ve explained it before…..

• 28. coulterfan  |  November 27th, 2007 at 3:23 pm

  Hey fullofBullshit,

  I think you missed my point. Someone was pretending that if Democrats weren’t demanding accountability and some measurable benchmarks, that Iraq and the world would be utopia. I countered that it would be equally absurd to say that 9-11 wouldn’t have happened if Gore were President.

  That said, there were plenty of signs that Bush ignored while playing rancher for photo ops! The memo specifically talks about hijacking planes, though. I would think that he would have AT LEAST read the memo and cut his vacation short! Then there were the FBI memos about Arabs taking flight training, but not caring about how to take-off or land. . . I could go on and on but you don’t listen- just go on believing that Bush is the best that the Republicans can offer (maybe he is!)

  Let me ask you: if there WEREN’T signs, why was Tennet’s first thought after the first tower was hit, “I hope this doesn’t have anything to do with that guy taking flight training in Minneapolis”. Meanwhile, Bush’s first thought was “What a lousy pilot!”

• 29. Ricorun  |  November 27th, 2007 at 3:42 pm

  neocon, with regard to Kosovo it appears that your basic point is that Clinton should have stayed on the job to see it through. But of course that’s ridiculous. So I guess maybe the argument is that he should have cleaned it up before he left. Given the time frame, that seems rather ridiculous, too. After all, it would be like saying that Bush should have had Iraq all cleaned up by Jan. 2005 or so. Wouldn’t it? What am I missing?

  And by the way, are you in favor of independence for Kosovo or not?

• 30. TiredofLibBullShit  |  November 27th, 2007 at 4:34 pm

  coulterfan or should I say “Useful idiot”…..

  You may think that the claim “9-11 wouldn’t have happened if Gore were President.” is absurd, but the talking heads in your party believe it! They have publicly said so, look it up, loser.

  Plenty of signs? You only point out the talking point of the memo…….hijacking airplanes? where? what point of origin? Again, a Gore and his panel’s failure for not putting in place policies for airport securities when they had the perfect chance.

  Your “Arabs taking flight training, but not caring about how to take-off or land(ing)” is AFTER THE FACT KNOWLEDGE and again CLINTON FAILURE by JAMIE GURLICK setting up a wall between the FBI and CIA and local law enforcement information there but can’t be shared by CLINTON POLICY. 20/20 hindsight cannot be used as you libs so love to do.

  You could go on and on, eh? You SPECULATE about first thoughts after the first plane hit the tower….more bullshit….my (and others’) first thought of you is that you’re an imbecile. Classical kool-aid drinker, you probably believe that 9/11 was an inside job, hired Saudis to do the deed……and Iraq is about oil….etc. etc. etc.

  On and on with useless bullshit talking points you mean. Come back when you have some real facts, imbecile.

• 31. coulterfan  |  November 27th, 2007 at 4:55 pm

  happilyeatingBullshit,

  >>You SPECULATE about first thoughts after the first plane hit the tower….more bullshit….my (and others’) first thought of you is that you’re an imbecile. Classical kool-aid drinker, you probably believe that 9/11 was an inside job, hired Saudis to do the deed……and Iraq is about oil….etc. etc. etc.<<

  Uh-huh. . . Actually, Tennet gave this testimony to the 9-11 committee. Bush’s ‘thought’ also came from his testimony to the committee.

  Don’t put words in my mouth, asshole. And don’t accuse me of using talking points (something I don’t do, unlike you and your party) and in the same breath accuse me of conspiracy theories.

  If you think Bush is a fantastic President, that’s your right. But the FACTS don’t agree with you, neither do 80% of the American people.

• 32. Eric T  |  November 27th, 2007 at 5:07 pm

  Coulterfan,

  What did you think of Clinton’s performance in Somalia?

  Why does someone need an Uzi? Saying that someone don’t need an Uzi is like saying they shouldn’t own a certain type of golf club or a that they can’t have a certian pair of shoes/pumps to match their new outfit. The ATF does the background check when someone buys that stuff. Imagine being in Louisana after Katrina, violent mobs breaking into homes. Five football player sized guys got your girlfriend pinned down and are ready to take “it” Or let’s switch shoe’s with the Iraqi’s and say a larger power invaded us here on our soil? It could happen, we could get a dem prez that defunds the military, makes some bad calls with foreign policy and these guy’s like Iran and Chavez who vow to crush American Imperialism may ally with some larger powers. If their economies are slow and unemployment high, they may want to try to dethrone the U.S. I bet on 9/10/01 you would have said the U.S.A will never be attacked, its is too far fecthed, no way, it’ll never happen.

• 33. coulterfan  |  November 27th, 2007 at 5:50 pm

  >>Why does someone need an Uzi? Saying that someone don’t need an Uzi is like saying they shouldn’t own a certain type of golf club or a that they can’t have a certian pair of shoes/pumps to match their new outfit.<<

  Okay. . . ummm, so if someone wanted a nuclear weapon for protection, you’d be okay with that, too? If not, it’s sort of like telling someone that he can’t wear those cufflinks, right?

• 34. Eric T  |  November 27th, 2007 at 6:12 pm

  Coulterfan

  You got it baby!

  You don’t know how many people I have met that come over from countries with no freedom like England or Japan. They come here and get to experience what freedom really is. Once they get a taste of real freedom, they never want to return to the tryanny that these 2nd rate countries offer. Ok we don’t need the personel nukes. But let’s say our military is off protecting allies and gets entangled in a larger than expected war. Kinda of like recently. National Guard and Reserve units used up to go fight overseas. The Homeland sitting close to defenseless. Enemy troops pour into our country, Do you want an Uzi or a single shot black powder rifle?

• 35. Eric T  |  November 27th, 2007 at 6:43 pm

  If we encourage other countries to take our 2nd amendment views maybe we won’t have to be out protecting them constantly and they will be able to defend themselves

• 36. Brian Gregory  |  November 27th, 2007 at 6:50 pm

  Take it in context - even if this conference doesn’t create some sort of extended peace deal, at least we’re moving toward diplomacy with certain radicals (a.k.a. Syria).

  In my view, it’s a good thing that we’re attemtping to settle with these rogue Middle Eastern nations. I firmly believe, however, that it’s not necessarily the nations’ governments causing the turmoil, but the terrorist cells WITHIN the countries! Whether they are state-sponsored or not, they still act of their own accord, and if we can somehow cut off their government funding, we can more directly slash their organizations’ hopes of success against Americans.

• 37. TiredofLibBullShit  |  November 27th, 2007 at 9:24 pm

  Useful idiot…..

  We are still waiting for you to highlight the “obvious” information in that memo that would have prevented 9/11.

  “Don’t put words in my mouth, asshole (oooh, I struck a nerve). And don’t accuse me of using talking points (something I don’t do, unlike you and your party) and in the same breath accuse me of conspiracy theories.”

  Those who feign outrage in the face of accusations have been tagged accurately. Those who do not feign outrage are usually not what they have been accused of. Something you don’t do???….bullshit!! Funny you repeated them verbatim - can you say useful idiot.

  Uh, also your claim of what Tenent said and Bush said uh, you really want to be taken seriously provide the necessary links (hint: cut paste like I did with your MEMO TALKING POINT dickhead.)

  Facts don’t agree with me? Well, when you present real facts and the links to verify your “facts” then I’ll admit when I’m wrong. I never claimed Bush is the greatest President (there are things I criticize him for), that was your lib ASSumption. Yep for you to be critical of your guys - something that’ll never happen and the evidence to that statement is in your post. You swallow their crap hook line and sinker. I can criticize Bush - shows you that I can think for myself and not some useful talking point repeating idiot like yourself.

• 38. Kahn  |  November 27th, 2007 at 10:15 pm

  The fact is, we’ve created and Iran has created a new atmosphere in the region. This may lead to an agreement.

  But coulter and others want to talk about ANYthing except that.

• 39. Ann  |  November 27th, 2007 at 10:52 pm

  See this Palestinians don’t even want a state.

• 40. Kahn  |  November 28th, 2007 at 12:28 am

  Ann - they may not have a choice. But, well at least Syria is still under a declared state of war with Israel. Not sure about the rest. The “Palestinians” may or may not want a state as you say. But the other warring parties may choose to end their wars like the Egyptians did.

  Though I doubt we’re willing to buy them off like Carter did.

• 41. Mark Noonan  |  November 28th, 2007 at 1:13 am

  I note with great care that the lefties have mostly stayed away from the subject…

  Don’t you people on the left ever get tired of looking like fools?

• 42. Kahn  |  November 28th, 2007 at 8:07 pm

  markus - thats your only post? Hey, thanks for contributing to the discussion - asswipe.

• 43. FmrMarine  |  November 29th, 2007 at 7:24 pm

  It ISNT about LAND
  It ISNT about the “palistianians” (really displaced jordanian nomads)
  It ISNT about boundaries.

  It IS about the Jews having a state in the middle of the muslem world.
  It will only be solved with the utter destruction of Isreal, or the muslems.
  The palis are only pawns being used as an EXCUSE to destroy Isreal.

  It is a FOOLS game we play with the islamic butchers believing we can accomplish peace with Isreal and her neighbors.

• 44. FmrMarine  |  November 29th, 2007 at 7:38 pm

  coulter fan:
  If you have to ask,
  YOU, wouldn’t understand the answer anyway.

Matt Margolis on Twitter