* N Korea situation deteriorating….talks fall apart. N Korea detonates a nuclear blast and fires off 7 missles.

Have you noticed that they only do that when Chairman Obama or Granny Botox are out of the country?

Seems like the way to keep the world safe is to keep them at home.

Obama kills a fly, asks what time is dinner. Michelle walks the dog, and brings in some freshly picked beefsteak tomatoes. ummm
160 days A+ Mr President!!!!

when did i say anything about jimmy carter?

You didnt. But you don’t have to; Obama is Jimmy Carter II.

i wasn’t even born when he was president.

no wonder you support Obama.

For goodness sake, give a speech – he’s good at that – about Pope John Paul II and Poland. People are not stupid, they’ll get the parallels, but it gives him diplomatic cover.

What about this scenario: The election results are overturned and now Obama must negotiate with the new guy. How happy is he going to be about Obama’s deep concern?

Ummmm…yes.

“The country was told of the huge threat that Saddam posed and that he was meeting with Al Quedia.”

By, among others, Al Gore, Joe Biden, Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright,…

“Simplistically, the republicans said OK kill him, take the country over, be greeted with flowers, and watch freedom take over.”

I don’t believe those were the exact words of the Senate Resolution authorizing the war, but in a way, I guess you could say that was the position of, among others, Dodd, Clinton, Kerry, Schumer…

“Easy cheesy!”

Wrong, gill44mn. No Republican or conservative EVER said (or would say) war is “easy cheesy.” Only the liberal dim-wits later complained that they had been “tricked” into voting for what they thought was the “no casualties” war option (which liberals continue to believe somehow exists).

“…its not as simplistic as good v evil world that republicans wished we lived in.”

As opposed to the “evil doesn’t exist” world that liberals TRULY BELIEVE they live in (except America, natch).

“The current republican foreign policy model seems to be: Damn the consequences, full bombast ahead!”

Oh, if only. From your fingertips to God’s ears, gill44mn.

and, fwiw, i graduated law school at 24.

No, Charles, of course they don’t have any evidence of that. In fact, the evidence proves the opposite because despite Obama’s waffling appeasement, IRAN IS BLAMING THE U.S. ANYWAY:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124523854750623001.html

Kind of like his 130 “measured, pragmatic” votes of “present” in the Illinois Legislature. Chad, we all heard his statement–he’s apparently deeply, deeply, deeply, concerned and troubled about the violence in Iran. Wow. What a statesman.

Do you have any evidence to support this claim? Do you really think that Obama saying the “wrong” thing will cause the government in Iran to crack down any harder?

In the past, this may have been a likely excuse for the U.S. President to not say much. But not this time! In the past protesters were usually just students and young people. This time it is all age groups and people from all walks of life; some carrying signs in English that say “hope and change.” Different situations call for different reactions.

Hope is very Powerful – Hope is what helped many in the Nazi camps to stay alive until liberation. Hope is what kept many in communist prisons, in gulags, or in “re-education” camps to keep believing in their ideals. Hope is what helps many individuals through the darkest days of their lives. In short, Hope, next to Love, is a very powerful human emotion – please don’t discount it.

For a President who campaigned on “Hope” it does seem a little odd that he doesn’t seem willing to share hope with those who could use it right now. The government in Iran will eventually crack down, as they have done in the past. Hope for this time will give people hope for the next time. And in the end, hope may be all that they have left. So why not give the people “over there” some hope?

I ask, does Obama truly know what hope is? Has he ever had real hope for himself, for others? Based upon his actions to date, I think the answers are no.

nor should you presume that obama’s response indicates indifference. obama recently gave an interview with cnn, in which he addressed this issue. his response is measured, pragmatic, but clearly not neoconservative. in the spirit of intellectual honesty, isn’t that your real complaint?

“Don’t Assume Ahmadinejad Really Lost”
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1904953,00.html

Jimmy Carter was President of the United States from January of 1977 to January of 1981.

Given that this is now 2009, that means boob cannot be more than 29 years old.

Yet, in in his previous postings, boob has claimed to be a graduate of Yale Law school with decades of experience.

Once again, boob has been demonstrated to be nothing more than a complete and total liar and shill.

Article two states:
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof. [Emphasis mine.]

Since Hamas, Al Quida, et al. Do not accept or apply the provisions thereof (ask Daniel Pearl. Oh wait, you can’t) We can do whatever we want.

It’s a sign of Western Civilization that Club Gitmo exists at all.

Mohammed: “Abdul? Pull out of the goat for a minute and listen up! Have you not heard? The USA has failed to abide with dicta from Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab in its treatment of discovery in terrorism trials?”

Abdul: “I am radicalized now! Death to the Infidels!”

Goat: Ba-a-a-a-a-a-a-a!

Neptune, the Obama Administration has now sided with the Bush interpretation of our “rule of law” which is that the Gitmo detainees DO NOT enjoy access to US Federal Courts. So, what you really mean by “our rule of law” is whatever liberals think it SHOULD be–guaranteeing our enemies all of the Constitutional rights enjoyed by Americans.

But more importantly, please explain to me the virtue or benefit to be derived by “demonstrating to those who hate us” that the US’s no. 1 priority will be zealously protecting their human rights if they are caught trying to murder us. Seriously, explain to me why that should be the guiding principle in this debate. Are you actually contending that perhaps they would renounce their terrorist ways if we guaranteed their right to a trial in an American Court if they happen to be caught in the act of trying to blow us up? Is that really what you think the terrorists are angry about?

Thanks for not answering my question, VtheK. I knew it was a fool’s errand to ask a question of you and expect a reasoned answer, instead of criticism and hyperbole.

Livewire, thank you for taking the time to offer up a real answer to a real question.