33 Comments

• 1. hank  |  May 17th, 2008 at 9:27 am

  I don’t know what butt you had your head stuck up while you let Alloush stay here for 13 years and you didn’t do anything about it. Getting poor folk all scared about some terrorist running around with little pocket H-bombs sure does us all a world of good, especially when our great president goes over to Saudi Arabia begging some sheik for more oil and he’s laughed out of the country. The president of the US has finally shown everyone what he’s really made of.

• 2. phnx  |  May 17th, 2008 at 10:01 am

  “while you let Alloush stay here for 13 years and you didn’t do anything about it.” hnak

  You frickin’ moron, its the left which is against profiling. Its the left which is preventing moles like this from being discovered. Its the left like Obama, and Carter who think they can change this fanatics “if they could only talk to him.

  If President Bush couldn’t convince the Saudi’s who are aledged friends to increase the oil supply, what makes you frickin’ moronic leftists think that your silver tongued leaders can convince the muslim fanatics who want to kill us to change their minds. They don’t just hate Bush and wnat him to die…they hate all western infidels and wish for all of us to DIE.

  sheesh idiots!!!!

• 3. Eric T  |  May 17th, 2008 at 10:19 am

  Hank,

  look at this,
  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24677050

  Bush got them to raise production, 300,000 barrels a day.

  What has Pelosi, and her merry band of tax hikers done except, drive up fuel price by raising taxes on drilling leases ect… What happened to “the democrats will bring down high energy prices before the 2006 elections?”
  They have the majority, and they have not performed, why give them another chance?

  When people make statements like this

  “Jordanian University lecturer Ibrahim Alloush recommended on Al-Jazeera television this week that suicide bombers be equipped with small nuclear bombs”.

  When someone says something like that.
  It is something that you gotta take serious,
  The party of surrender, the party of cut and run, open borders, They won’t take it serious, they’ll have the ACLU suing airlines for racial profiling, or try to end programs that intercept international phone calls between terrorists
  Hank, your guy Obama wants to sit down and have tea with the folks responsible for killing U.S troops. Picture a young kid whose face got melted off by an IED planted by a Hezbollah or a Shiite militiaman, who is taking orders and getting weapons from Iran. These guys are the ones that will fund the dreams of guys like Ibrahim Alloush.

• 4. William Teach  |  May 17th, 2008 at 10:46 am

  Whew, look at that BDS on display from hank. Can’t you just see these lefties growing up and spouting the same thing 20 years from now?

  Meanwhile, if the Islamists try it it, I sure hope the ’splode (which is when they set off their bombs unintentionally and take themselves out early)

• 5. SEW  |  May 17th, 2008 at 11:06 am

  hank, Remember the Dems and liberals are the ones that don’t want us to violate the “civil rights” of these folks by listening to their conversations. Only the evil Bush/Rove/Cheney people do. So who again has their head up their butt? YOU do clown.

• 6. Iraq » Maybe Obama &hellip  |  May 17th, 2008 at 11:22 am

  […] Silent Running wrote an interesting post today on Maybe Obama Can Talk Him Out of It?Here’s a quick excerptA promise of more foreign aid? US withdrawal from Iraq? A Palestinian capitol in eastern Jerusalem? What can you really offer the man who wants… […]

• 7. middlefinger  |  May 17th, 2008 at 12:30 pm

  You know I wasn’t really ascared until you posted this.

  Now, between what our Preznit and you guys are saying…

  I’m a fearin’ for my life.

  I’m going to go hide in the corner and shiver.

  (sarcasm off-get a grip Noonan, yeesh)

• 8. Freedom1  |  May 17th, 2008 at 6:11 pm

  This is what I’m talking about, Mark.

  I’ll re-post my response from another thread: (If people haven’t heard, the US is going to sign a nuclear agreement with Saudi Arabia and give Saudi Arabia enriched uranium!)

  Giving Saudi Arabia- Islamist Shar’ia Hell-on-Earth - from which 15 of the 19 9/11 WTC hijackers came from enriched uranium is insane. They will make dirty bombs out of it and perhaps the Russians or the Chinese or Pakistan will sell Saudi Arabia the plans to make nuclear weapons. It’s unbelievably insane. Once the jihadis acquire nuclear material/nukes, they will use them.

  Yes, the Saudis greatly fear a nuclear Iran. But, the sane and proper response isn’t to make the entire Middle East nuclear, it’s destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities. Take out Iran’s nuclear facilities, keep the rest of the Middle East nuclear weapon-free. (Except of course for Pakistan, and look what we have to put up with there. Al Qaeda and the Taliban have set up their base in Pakistan and we can’t touch them because of the potential for Pakistan’s nuclear weapons arsenal to fall into Taliban/other Islamic terrorists’ hands.)

  Oh, and one more point. Iran is Shiite. Saudi Arabia is Sunni. Sunnis and Shiites are bitter enemies. Once Saudi Arabia goes nuclear, Iran will fear Saudi Arabia. Iran will never give up its nuclear weapons program, then. Ever.

  The only sane and reasonable response is to militarily destroy Iran’s nuclear program, before the rest of the Middle East goes nuclear - to protect each other from each other.

  This is a frakking nightmare!

• 9. Freedom1  |  May 17th, 2008 at 6:22 pm

  Here’s the article:

  The United States Is Going To Supply Saudi Arabia With Enriched Uranium - AFP

  The White House said Washington and Riyadh were also to sign an agreement on nuclear cooperation that would clear the way for Saudi Arabia to receive enriched uranium for its reactors, without the need to master the fuel nuclear cycle itself as Iran has done.

  Insane and suicidal!

• 10. phnx  |  May 17th, 2008 at 9:17 pm

  ” Iran is Shiite. Saudi Arabia is Sunni. Sunnis and Shiites are bitter enemies. Once Saudi Arabia goes nuclear, Iran will fear Saudi Arabia. Iran will never give up its nuclear weapons program, then. Ever.”

  On the plus side maybe they’ll end up destroying each other. Although if that happens I’m sure Bush will be blamed.

• 11. Freedom1  |  May 18th, 2008 at 1:08 am

  10. phnx | May 17th, 2008 at 9:17 pm

  Hmm. Even if the radiation clouds don’t take out Israel, the US or our allies, the dirty bombs/nuclear weapons will obliterate millions of innocent Muslims and other people who don’t have to die. Nuclear nightmare scenario, IMO.

  Y’know, what will Demoncrats do when Bush is out of office and they can’t blame him for everything that goes wrong under the Sun? Will they go catatonic, manic or just have to have themselves committed to the nearest psychiatric facility? BDS - lasting side effects???

• 12. phnx  |  May 18th, 2008 at 4:47 am

  They will continue to blame Bush for decades to come. Notice how they are now trying to liken McCain to Nixon.

  BDS is just another manifestation of LDS, Leftist Derangement Syndrome, not to be confused with the Mormon’s Church of Latter Day Saints. It comes with being infected with leftist thinking. Originally limited to Universities in the Northeast, the disease has become an epidemic, spreading far and wide to the grade school level. Infection comes with exposure to political correctness such as global warming theory, taught as fact. Most grow out of it after the age of thirty, when reality begins to take hold and shake preconceived notions of fantasy. Although it is degenerative in nature and virtually incurable after the age of forty.

  LDS, if uncecked, can lead to NSM, Nannie State Mentality, in which the victims, having lost the ability of critical thinking and self reliance, insist that the government protect them for every threat, real or perceived. This includes protection aganst themslves, the state obviously knowing what”s best. The final result is complete dependence upon government assistance.

• 13. Willem van Oranje  |  May 18th, 2008 at 9:53 am

  So where is all this talk about how Bush had made the world a safer place now?

  So you agree that that didn’t work. Thanks for proving our, and especially Obama’s, point.

• 14. neocon  |  May 18th, 2008 at 11:13 am

  Willem,

  First of all, that’s quite the name. Do you wear ascots and smoking jackets?

  The world is a much safer place now with the US on the offense than it was when we had our heads buried in the sand.

  I don’t expect you to understand that because that acknowledgement would shatter your dishonest, myopic view of world events which originates in your ignorant and self loathing beliefs.

  Of course we could revert back to your preferred paradigm of a defensive posture with terrorist cells in the our country taking flying lessens, Jakarta nightclubs being blown up on a regular basis, Russia elementary school children being shot, marine barracks being blown up, US embassies around the globe being attacked, etc, etc.

  Those were the good ol days, right Willie?

• 15. gotbrains?  |  May 18th, 2008 at 1:10 pm

  Show me where Obama has ever indicated he would “promise more foreign aid” to suicide bombers as a means to prevent them from carrying out terrorist acts. Once again you use purely emotional manipulation to willfully distort Sen Obama’s positions.

  What Sen Obama has said is that the US should never be afraid to meet with its enemies. Sen McCain has said pretty much the same thing when he advocated working with Hamas after they became the de facto ruling party in the Palestinian territories.

  And US presidents have always met with adversaries, even ones that have publically stated they are dedicated to destroying us. Kennedy met with Khrushchev, even after the Soviet leader gave a speech saying he would “bury” us. Nixon met with Mao, who was perhaps the most murderous dictator of all time. Reagan met with Gorbachev, and his administration had secret meetings with Iran.

  Usually these meetings are focused on getting these groups to act in more practical rather than purely ideological ways, and to strengthen the hand of more moderate elements within them.

  Thinking adults know that having dialogue with enemies will not always bear positive results, and that dialogue alone will never get the job done. But no one can deny that these sorts of meetings have had positive outcomes, even with our most dangerous and implacable enemies. China today is a much more pragmatic and open society, and far less ideological than when Nixon first started dialogue. The Cold War effectively ended after the twin summits in Reykjavik and Washington, building on numerous other meetings with Soviet leaders over the years. Years of diplomatic efforts with Libya helped bring Col Qaddafi in from the cold. The Camp David accords resulted in a lasting peace with two of Israel’s staunchest enemies - countries that had on several occasions tried to wipe Israel off the map. And after years of diplomatic meetings with the US and UK during the 1990’s, pragmatic moderate democratic elements overwhelmingly won the presidency and local elections in Iran.

  Mr Bush, on the other hand, cannot see beyond a child-like vision that simplistically splits the world between all-good, and irredeemably evil. He sees no benefit from ever meeting with adversaries, blanketly labeling all such dialogue as “appeasement”. Mr Bush doesn’t understand the complexities of the world we live in, so his war-profiteering advisers have simplified it for him into into purely black and white. In his world, adversaries must surrender to all US demands as a pre-condition to any talking, thus ensuring that no talks will ever take place, and leaving him to pursue only hard-line military options.

  What has been the record of this policy? After years of careful diplomatic effort, Iran finally had a moderate government open to the West starting in 1998. President Khatami even offered the US use of Iranian airspace to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan - and yet Mr Bush could not resist gratuitously labeling Iran part of an “axis of evil” in his 2002 SOTU address. The result was that radical elements in Iran were strengthened, the moderate reformers were barred from running in elections, and now we’ve got Ahmadinejad. Good job.

  After years of Bush/Sharon hardline headbashing, the secular PLO - which had long ago rejected terrorism - was swept out of power in Palestine and replaced by the radical Islamic group Hamas. Good job.

  So what has Mr Bush’s approach gotten us? After years of hardline, “talking is for sissy appeasers” policy from the Bushies, at no time has Hamas been stronger. At no time has Hezbollah held more influence in Lebanon. At no time has Iran exerted more malicious influence in the region. At no time has the US image in the world been worse. And in the bargain, we’ve gotten ourselves entangled in an unnecessary sideshow in Iraq costing us at least $1 trillion and over 4,000 dead US servicemen. Good job.

• 16. Willem van Oranje  |  May 18th, 2008 at 1:51 pm

  gotbrains, your post is much too long. These people only understand things that can fit on a bumpersticker

• 17. neocon  |  May 18th, 2008 at 2:12 pm

  “Usually these meetings are focused on getting these groups to act in more practical rather than purely ideological ways, and to strengthen the hand of more moderate elements within them” Gotbrains?

  Obviously gotbrains? hasn’t any. His insinuation is that only liberals have the magic dust to persuade Al Qaeda and other rogue terrorist groups to stop acting on ideology!!!!

  That statement is deliciously naive and ignorant. And of course that brought praise from our resident smoking jacket wearing Willem.

  The comedy is rich.

• 18. neocon  |  May 18th, 2008 at 2:19 pm

  “Mr Bush doesn’t understand the complexities of the world we live in, so his war-profiteering advisers have simplified it for him into into purely black and white. In his world,” - gotbrains?

  Another deliciously ignorant statement. I sure hope gotbrains? feels the need to regale us with his wisdom again. It’s the best comedy read I have found in a long time.

• 19. neocon  |  May 18th, 2008 at 2:21 pm

  “…the secular PLO - which had long ago rejected terrorism -….” - gotbrains?

  oh my gawd…..it just gets better and better.

• 20. gotbrains?  |  May 18th, 2008 at 2:58 pm

  neocon -

  “His insinuation is that only liberals have the magic dust to persuade Al Qaeda and other rogue terrorist groups to stop acting on ideology!!!!… That statement is deliciously naive and ignorant.”

  Let me give you another example. In recent months, we’ve seen a decline in the overall violence levels in Iraq. The addition of 30k troops in Iraq for the much heralded “surge” is not that many - we merely took our troops levels from about 110k up to 140k (give or take), which was roughly the number of troops we had during the first couple years of our involvement in Iraq. So what really changed?

  What changed is that our military leaders on the ground started talking with some of the groups who had been fighting us in Iraq. Many of the groups that Gen Petraeus met with were Sunnis who had been setting roadside bombs and blowing up market places only a few months before. Some of these warlords were hard core terrorists who were dedicated to killing American soldiers. And yet, Gen Petraeus knew that at least some of them could be rationalized with. He sought to forge common ground and to strengthen the hand of moderates within these groups by addressing legitimate concerns of Sunnis who fought against American troops. More than anything else, it was the military’s diplomatic overtture to Sunni tribes - without help or direction from the Bush administration - that has resulted in diminished violence in Iraq.

  On the other side, the military has had on-going talks with Iranian counter-parts to use their influence to reign in Shi’ite groups. This has been equally instrumental in forging a period of relative calm.

  Yes, Gen Petraeus was not successful in negotiating with all groups fighting the US. And yes, he carried the big stick of the US military as part of his strategy. But the point is that military efforts alone were unsuccessful in Iraq - as they have been in Palestine, Lebanon, and elsewhere. It was only when talks began with the groups fighting US occupation that at least a small degree of progress was finally realized.

  So are you going to call Gen Petraeus an “appeaser” for his pragmatic mix of force and diplomacy? Gen Petraeus is just trying to get his mission done. If that means meeting with various adversaries to get them to act in more practical ways than setting road-side bombs, so be it.

  Note that this all happened from within the US military. As Sen Obama said in a recent interview with conservative columnist David Brooks, “The generals are light-years ahead of the civilians. They are trying to get the job done rather than look tough.”

  Obama went on to say, “There are rarely purely ideological movements out there. We can encourage actors to think in practical and not ideological terms. We can strengthen those elements that are making practical calculations.” It seems Gen Petraeus would agree wholeheartedly. Mr Bush, meanwhile, continues to compare every adversary to Hitler, and to equate every negotiation with “appeasement”.

• 21. gotbrains?  |  May 18th, 2008 at 3:25 pm

  Neocon -

  “oh my gawd…..it just gets better and better.”

  You wrote this is response to my statement that the PLO was a secular organization that had rejected terrorism. My statement is factual.

  The PLO is absolutely a secular organization - its charter specifically rejects the support for a particular religion, and its members come from many religious faiths. Several of its highest ranking members are Christians. Hamas, on the other hand, which has gained a tremendous follwing in Palestine during the hardline Bush/Sharon years, is a fundamentalist Islamic organization. As Sharon brought increasing military pressure to bear on Palestinians, Hamas displaced the PLO as the ruling party in the occupied territories.

  And it is factual as well that the PLO had rejected terrorism as a tactic. In 1993, the PLO officially recognized the State of Israel - one of only a handful of entities in the region to do so. In the official statement regarding the recognition of Israel, it was decreed that “The PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence.”

  So again, what has Bush’s doctrine of not talking to our adversaries gotten us? In the case of the Palestine, it merely resulted in the replacement of the moderate, secular, Israel-recognizing PLO with the radical, Islamic, terrorism-supporting Hamas. By any practical measure, Bush’s foreign policy has been a resounding failure that has only succeeded in harming US interests, while further radicalizing the Middle East. This is exactly what Osama bin Laden hoped for.

• 22. neocon  |  May 18th, 2008 at 3:31 pm

  “What changed is that our military leaders on the ground started talking with some of the groups who had been fighting us in Iraq.” - gotbrains?

  Wrong. What changed was our determination to stay in the battle which convinced those moderate Iraqis to TRUST us. That in turn opened the dialogue between us. This was accomplished despite the liberal hysteria for us to pull out, which would have convinced the moderate Iraqis that we are weak. See the difference?

  I also have learned fro your post that you obviously support the military component to this strategy, right?

  And Bush was way ahead of you on this one. He has always said that it will be a combination of military and diplomacy.

  If this Iraq is successful, by your own admision, then why would you call Iraq a disaster and insist that we pull out?

  BTW, I have archived this post of yours and will re-post it every time you advocate defeat. Because your post is clear evidence of why we should stay in the battle. Thank you for supporting Bush’s plan.

• 23. neocon  |  May 18th, 2008 at 3:40 pm

  “And it is factual as well that the PLO had rejected terrorism as a tactic. In 1993, the PLO officially recognized the State of Israel ” - gotbrains?

  Gotbrains? (or 42, or whoever), clearly demonstrates liberal ignorance and dishonesty:

  The Palestinian Authority Prefers to Harbor Hamas Rather than Dismantle its Capabilities
  In January 1996, it was reported throughout the Israeli press that the Chief of Israeli Military Intelligence, Major-General Moshe Ya’alon, warned the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that Yasser Arafat refused to dismantle the military potential of his Islamic opposition: “The organizational infrastructure of Hamas continues to be built, whether with weaponry or the mobilization of activitists.” Ya’alon then explained Arafat’s motivation: “Arafat is preserving this situation for final-status negotiations with Israel.” In other words, Arafat judged that he benefited from the Hamas and Islamic Jihad attacks on Israel because they provided him with negotiating leverage. After 58 Israelis were killed in Hamas and Islamic Jihad bombings during February-March 1996, Arafat briefly imprisoned their operatives, but began releasing them toward the end of 1996.

• 24. Pain  |  May 18th, 2008 at 3:48 pm

  22. neocon | May 18th, 2008 at 3:31 pm

  Wrong. What changed was our determination to stay in the battle which convinced those moderate Iraqis to TRUST us. That in turn opened the dialogue between us. This was accomplished despite the liberal hysteria for us to pull out, which would have convinced the moderate Iraqis that we are weak. See the difference?

  Paying the “enemy” cash to switch sides never hurts either.

• 25. neocon  |  May 18th, 2008 at 3:54 pm

  So now you’re deflecting to another reason? I thought you said it was because we suddenly decided to use diplomacy? So were you lying than? Were you just throwing shit out in your delusional BDS state of mind?

  So now it’s the cash? Who ties your shoes in the morning?

• 26. neocon  |  May 18th, 2008 at 3:55 pm

  Oh and tell me again how peaceful the PLO was.

  LMAO!!!!

• 27. neocon  |  May 18th, 2008 at 3:58 pm

  Arafat Gives a “Green Light” to Hamas to Attack Israel
  In a series of four meetings during March 9-13, 1997, Arafat met with the leaders of Hamas and other militant groups; these opposition elements walked away from the meetings with the clear impression that they had a “green light” to start terrorist attacks against Israel. Summarizing Israel’s reading of the March meetings, Chief of Staff Lt. General Amnon Shahak told Israel Radio on March 23: “Organizations such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad have an understanding from the Palestinian Authority to carry out attacks.” Ya’alon concluded a year later: “Sadly, I cannot say that at any point since it entered the territory in May 1994, that the Palestinian Authority acted decisively or in a clear-cut way against the operational capability of Hamas and Islamic Jihad” (Ma’ariv, April 16, 1998).

• 28. gotbrains?  |  May 18th, 2008 at 4:40 pm

  neocon -

  “What changed was our determination to stay in the battle which convinced those moderate Iraqis to TRUST us. That in turn opened the dialogue between us. This was accomplished despite the liberal hysteria for us to pull out, which would have convinced the moderate Iraqis that we are weak. See the difference?”

  Oh my - what a self-serving fantasy. Are you at all aware of how much pure propaganda you eagerly lap up?

  The fact is that many of these so-called “moderate Iraqis” we were able to co-opt were fighting the US military, and had killed US soldiers. These were insurgent groups. By every definition, they were our enemies - but Petraeus met with them anyway.

  Your fantasy interpretation obviously scripted by the Bushies after the fact doesn’t even make sense. According to you, our determination suddenly changed (as opposed to our determination before??), and that convinced Sunni insurgents to flip. But at the time of Gen Petraeus’ talks with Sunni warlords fighting the US occupation, calls from the US public to get out of Iraq were at their height. That hardly was a watershed moment that convinced Iraqis that we were going to stay in Iraq indefinitely - at no time during the US occupation did it look more likely that the US was getting ready to leave. In fact, one of the reasons some of the Sunni insurgents may have come to the table with Petraeus was that they thought the US was indeed about to pull out, and thus were afraid of what the Shi’ites would do to them without US troops there keeping the sides separated.

  And that in fact is what our military role in Iraq has been reduced to: keeping the sides separated. Keep in mind that all of this was predicted before we went in.

  “I also have learned fro your post that you obviously support the military component to this strategy, right?”

  We never should have invaded this country in the first place; and while we’ve managed some tactical success in recent months in bringing violence down, the overall strategy is a failure. We are no closer now to a viable Iraq than we were 3,4,5 years ago. During this period of less violence, political progress in Iraq has been almost entirely absent - Sunni and Shi’a remain as divided as ever. The US military cannot be expected to keep these sides apart forever.

  By the way, this situation with Shi’a and Sunni standing perpetually at the brink of civil war was predicted by just about every regional expert before we invaded.

  “And Bush was way ahead of you on this one. He has always said that it will be a combination of military and diplomacy.”

  The Bush administration has only ever played lip service to the vague notion of diplomacy, without really understanding what diplomacy is, or having any real intention of engaging in it. There is no indication that Gen Petraeus’ overtures to Sunni insurgents was the idea of, or sanctioned by, Mr Bush. In Bush’s mind, diplomacy means the other side caves in to all of our demands before we’ll talk to them. Meanwhile, like he did this week in Israel, Bush labels any suggestion of meeting with adversaries as “appeasement” - all in another shameless political ploy that is harmful to US interests.

  “If this Iraq is successful, by your own admision, then why would you call Iraq a disaster and insist that we pull out?”

  Again, we have had some tactical success - likely temporary - in lessening the violence, at least in comparison to 2006 and 2007. So after more than 5 years, half a trillion dollars, over 4,000 dead US servicemen, and perhaps 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians, we have only managed to bring violence down to 2005 levels, and Iraq is no closer to being a functioning country than it was when we set up the Vice-royalty of Paul Bremer. And while we are bogged down policing the Iraqi disaster, our actual enemies in Afghanistan and elsewhere are reconstituting.

  So let me ask you, neocon: was it all worth it? Recent progress in lessening the violence aside, has Iraq been a success overall? Is that your definition of success in Iraq?: the mere fact that violence has subsided to 2005 levels? And more to the point - is there no limit to the time and resources we are willing to invest in this costly and ill-advised experiment?

• 29. gotbrains?  |  May 18th, 2008 at 4:42 pm

  neocon -

  “So now you’re deflecting to another reason? I thought you said it was because we suddenly decided to use diplomacy? So were you lying than? Were you just throwing shit out in your delusional BDS state of mind?”

  Uh, you’re a little trigger-happy there. That was Pain who posted the stuff about the money payments.

• 30. neocon  |  May 18th, 2008 at 4:52 pm

  Did you already forget the following statement of yours that I was referencing?

  “What changed is that our military leaders on the ground started talking with some of the groups who had been fighting us in Iraq” - gotbrains?

  Seriously 42, or gotbrains, or Joe, or whoever you are today, I have had this same argument ad nauseum with trolls like you for five years now and I am must admit I am impressed, and a little concerned by your ability to argue the same issue for 5 years. It takes a special form of brain damage to do that.

• 31. gotbrains?  |  May 18th, 2008 at 5:43 pm

  neocon -

  “…I have had this same argument ad nauseum with trolls like you for five years now…”

  What argument is that? I don’t really detect any argument from you - only fairy tales.

  In any case, I guess you’ll agree that Mr Noonan’s BS here about Obama wanting to talk suicide bombers out of terrorist acts is both an absurd smear and a straw-man argument.

  Senator Obama merely said that the US should not be afraid to talk with our enemies - just like Mr McCain, General Petraeus, and every president has advocated.

• 32. Freedom1  |  May 19th, 2008 at 12:11 am

  12. phnx | May 18th, 2008 at 4:47 am

  LoL. Funny and (towards the end) too true!

• 33. Freedom1  |  May 19th, 2008 at 12:17 am

  Upon further consideration, I think the whole #12 post is true. BDS/LDS = major mental disorder.

Matt Margolis on Twitter