I hope Powell will return in the 2008 Democratic Administration as Secretary of Defense. He seems to have a point to prove and he will if given a chance.

DC: You are absolutely right about having a point to prove. However, I wonder myself about what he will do. He seemed to be enamored with his new position as a Board member of a relatively new start-up in Silicon Valley California - my stomping grounds.

I went to see and hear him speak in Washington DC last year; my sense is that he has not fully recovered from his debacle/mistreatment by the Bush Administration. Politics and politicians may have left a bad taste in his mouth for good.

Along with his support of the McCain (Torture) Amendment, and given the way that turned out (Cheney and Bush), that might have been the final nail in the Powell comeback coffin.

But who knows, he might make a comeback albeit my sense is that this man doesn't want anything else to do with politics!

Bill,

As the surge progresses it appears to more resemble the "partitioning plan", because when areas are secured they're being turned over to the locals (including militias) to govern and bypassing the national government in the green zone. Is surge synonymous with partitioning Iraq into autonomous regions (exit plan)? Is Bush taking Joe Biden's plan and renaming it surge? However I know Joe Biden wasn't the original author of the Partitioning plan.

The entire episode is blown out of proportion and Hillary and Barack should cool it because it's only helping the GOP and the continuation of Bush Inc.. They both gave differing generic answers and are trying to pin each other down with specifics for a primary election knock-out punch. As to the original question the correct answer is not yes or no, black or white, but gray. Hillary did not promise not to meet or to meet, but meet on a case by case basis. Obama did not state what the tone of the meeting would be so can not pin it on him as being naïve to have tea.

Flip-flopping seems to be popping up in regards to Hillary in these comments. My opinion on flip-flopping is that it can be a good trait to have. If Bush had flip-flopped on the number of troops needed in Iraq at the first signs of insurgency only a few weeks into the war many more of our troops and Iraqis would be alive today. Or better yet read Wilson's report and flip-flopped out of the Iraq invasion completely on the grounds that WMD did not exist there. The world can change rapidly and it takes a leader who can change just as rapidly to act instead of react. For any future president I would expect them to flip-flop to meet changes in a sometimes flip-flopping world instead of foolishly continuing a failed policy. I have no problem with Obama flip-flopping if such a change benefits the United States.

I think it's time to set in motion CONDITIONS for our leader to talk with Cuba's and Iran's leaders. It would be a win-win for all. However Chavez and Kim are too far out there for any face to face meetings between leaders, both are very unstable men.

Bill, comparing OBL to Ahmadinejad is a false analogy, you could have done better than that. That looks like a move out W's axis of evil play book.
************************************
Rev,

I hope Powel will return in the 2008 Democratic Administration as Secretary of Defense. He seems to have a point to prove and he will if given a chance.

Posted by: The Rev:

"This man understood foreign policy, military strategy, and personally knew many of the world leaders that we read about. And where is Colin? Er herm, #43 asked for his resignation!"
*******************************************
"NOW's Coverage of the Documentary "No End in Sight"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3jk4kJG1Sg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2XlEoiqX2U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4L5f9qlqBRw

I agree with Paris on Lindsey Lohan!

And I don't think it totally sucks that just because of Lindsey's little mistake and those early morning helicopters tracking her car in the City of Santa Monica last Tues---that Lindsey L. is going to be forced by that California judge to join Blackwater USA as "whirley-girl" in Iraq....

Is there "No End in Sight" to these injustices??????

What do the the Prez candidates have to say about this!!!!!! Is there a clip of the sentencing on YouTube yet??????
------------------------------------

Nearly four years after President Bush declared an end to combat in Iraq, the country is still fraught with daily casualties, costly commitments, and an ongoing debate on how to end the violence.
How did it come to this?

Here is how:

http://www.noendinsightmovie.com/

This week, NOW's David Brancaccio speaks with two very different, but unforgettable men who allege that U.S. bungling in Iraq created and fueled the deadly insurgency. Paul Hughes, a retired Army colonel, was part of the transition team after the U.S. invasion of Iraq. He says key decisions were made that ignored the realities of Iraq. Omar Fekeiki was a Washington Post reporter and translator who risked his life to help U.S. journalists.

Both Hughes and Fekeiki are featured in a new Sundance prize-winning documentary, "No End in Sight," which exposes what it calls "a chain of critical errors, denial, and incompetence that has galvanized a violent quagmire." Fekeiki's identity was hidden in the documentary for his protection, but he chose to appear unmasked on NOW for the first time."
[Source: PBS NOW: http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/316/index.html

------------------------------
In 2006:

Blackwater USA: Turning The All-Volunteer Army Into An 'Army For Hire'
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/30/blackwater-army/

Blackwater Mercenary

This week at a conference in Jordan, Blackwater USA vice chairman Cofer Black announced that the private security company is ready to shift from a security role to a more "overt combat role," essentially becoming an army for hire.

The Bush administration has shown itself more than willing to call in Blackwater in place of U.S. troops.

In Aug. 2003, the Bush administration awarded Blackwater a $21.3 million contract to guard then Amb. Paul Bremer.

The average senior special operations officer makes $50,000 a year from the U.S. government.

Employees in private security firms in Iraq often make more than $1,000 a day from government contracts. This arrangement is "depleting the ranks of the special forces," luring them into lucrative private jobs.

Some military analysts initially welcomed the administration's private security arrangement with Blackwater because it allowed "regular military troops to concentrate on fighting."

But Blackwater's new proposal would shift some of the fighting to the private sector, further diminishing the role of the all-volunteer army.

Filed under: Military

Posted by Amanda March 30, 2006 3:49 pm

Permalink | Comment (137)

OBAMA AND CLINTON ARE BOTH CFR MEMBERS.

That means any apparent differences between them is fake.

you decide

http://youtube.com/watch?v=eMlrSG1xb5k
http://www.irishamericansforobama.com/hillary_clinton_phases_of_panic_defeat.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyqAR4lJCmw&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Flittlerockforobama%2Ecom%2F

you decide!!!!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=eMlrSG1xb5k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyqAR4lJCmw&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Flittlerockforobama%2Ecom%2F
http://www.irishamericansforobama.com/hillary_clinton_phases_of_panic_defeat.html

Hi Mr arkin pig got some'n you must see baby

http://youtube.com/watch?v=eMlrSG1xb5k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyqAR4lJCmw&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Flittlerockforobama%2Ecom%2F
http://www.irishamericansforobama.com/hillary_clinton_phases_of_panic_defeat.html

Start off with a little honesty. These "debates" are not debates. They are dog and pony shows where ambitious and clever politicians come onto the stage with a variety of prepared one-liners looking for openings. Clinton was hoping for a chance to show how tough she is, a recurrent them with her. Obama was eager to show how he differs from Bush/Cheney. In a real debate, the interlocutor would come back with a question about priorities: where Mr O in your list of priorities is meeting with these bad guys? And how will you deal with domestic special interests like AIPAC and the Miami Cuban community? Where Ms O would your priorities lie? Why do your responses fall so close to the AIPAC party line? Can you list an area of disagreement with AIPAC?

You are the naive and ADD one, for assuming that these one-liners tell us anything about plans and policies. One of the best hints about policies is the identity of advisers on the Middle East. Why not ask, Mr O / Ms C tell us who you turn to for information and advice about the Middle East?

Why do we need another Clinton Presidency?

I was in Concord NH for "Bush/Cheney lite" Evnet. Barack Obama never said anything about Clinton! If you do not believe me you can see it for yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvxNNjScNI0

The Hilary Clinton Campaign campaign is making it up for fundraising purposes. Every person on her e-mail list got an e-mail begging for money because she is being "Attacked"

Obama won this exchange because Hillary is towing the line with the supporters of Israel to a degree that's ridiculous and downright unpatriotic. Is she running for the top spot in Israel or the US??? The Neocons are the ones behind Bush's 'don't talk to enemies of Israel' strategy. Hillary wants to continue that strategy. How much hot water do we have to be placed in before kowtowing to the Zionist criminals becomes a liability? Since the New York Times and Washington Post dominate policy-shaping news that the Washington crowd digest, we may never wake up. Hillary is not going to stop the war. Once she's in, she'll claim the situation has changed and she'll say she never would have promised to withdraw if 'she only knew in 2007 what she knows now'. She is totally beholden to the neocons and New York's equity firms. Expect more NAFTA type deals to ensure profits for Goldman Sachs and other 'smart' investors and don't expect THE US Army buffer between Iran and Israel to be going anywhere soon if Hillary gets in. She'll start running for her second term from the day she gets in and will only pay lip service to doing anything for the working class. If she makes Wall Street mad, she'll be limited to one-term; so everyone on the left get ready for a great betrayal. Bill and her invested huge amounts of political capital to get NAFTA passed. Meanwhile they felt the middle-classes's pain and did their best to increase it.

why clinton is so wrong and Obama so right

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyqAR4lJCmw&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Flittlerockforobama%2Ecom%2F

Obama...

still has a lot to learn, however, it would appear that he is already further ahead of the curve (without having served a day in office) than the current incumbent 2 term President of the United States.

Obama still beats #43, hands down. With regard to the remaining candidates, it still remains to be seen who will emerge as the candidate best suited to make decisions about American foreign policy, or which world leaders to talk to or not!

Well, at the very least both Clinton and Obama are on record as willing to talk to our enemies or adversaryies or whatever else you want to call them. Bush has this childlike mentality that prevents him with even talking to the loyal opposition. Time and again he has shown that he is flat out incapable of confronting those with viewpoints different from his own. Bush is our very first conservative talk radio host pretending to be President of the United States.

Check out a new documentary entitled: NO END IN SIGHT. It perfectly details why Bush has failed so dramatically. He has failed because like the conservative talk radio hosts he so admires, he has absolutely no working concept of a world grounded in reality. He sees the world precisely in the same, stark, ideologically black or white way that Rush Limbaugh sees the world. And, what can one expect from someone whose brain seems to be so stuck in a 1940s conceptual framework that he still reflexively uses phrases like "Hubba, Hubba".

It is a bit unsettling to realize we are dealing with people who still think the world is the same as it was back then.

Since 1989 - nearly 20 years- there has been either a Bush or a Clinton in office. It's time for a change. This is supposed to be a democracy not an oligarchy.

End of story.

Rigid stances bring leaders and at times nations down to their knees. American foreign policy has been very rigid and in Bush's case stupid and dumb for ages now. Obama has the mind, the world doesn't move around USA. It's time America started learning from it's mistakes in Iraq - that includes NOT Re-Electing Bush and definitely NOT TWICE!!!

Obama is trying to play in the major league without having been first thoroughly tested in the minor league. He has shown promise on occasion but is stiking out and droppiing the ball more frequently as the pressure increases. He is so anxious to be the star that he is even forgetting basics like which team he is on.

Obama is trying to play in the major league without having been first thoroughly tested in the minor league. He has shown promise on occasion but is stiking out and droppiing the ball more frequently as the pressure increases. He is so anxious to be the star that he is even forgetting basics like which team he is on.

Obama is trying to play in the major league without having been first thoroughly tested in the minor league. He has shown promise on occasion but is stiking out and droppiing the ball more frequently as the pressure increases. He is so anxious to be the star that he is even forgetting basics like which team he is on.

Mr. Arkin, Reading the comments on your piece gives me the impression that your readers have outgrown you in terms of education and awareness of international affairs. It will do you good to be more measured and responsible in your comments.

Let me talk to you using the "radical" language, which you seem to enjoy

You say Ahmadinezhad denies the right of Israel to exist. Well

Israel has already wiped off Palestine from the map. Further more Israel has already annexed some of the land it stole after the 1967 war, clear violation of international laws and human rights. Israel denies the right of Palestinians to have their own state; in 2002 the entire Arab world offered full recognition of Israel in return for Israel obeying UN resolutions to return the land it has grabbed from Palestinians. Israel refused to consider this offer and will continue to do so as long as there is imbalance of military power in its favor.

Furthermore, invest $10 in your education and buy a copy of Xenophon's "Cyrus the Great: The Arts of Leadership and War". You will learn how Iranians freed Jews and assisted them with man and material to go back and rebuild their temples in Palestine, and earned themselves at least a dozen references in the Torah.

In the past 250 years Iran has never invaded any other country and its leaders, repeatedly and consistently have stated that they have no design on any other nation. Compare that to Israel's daily use of excessive force on Palestinian civilians.

You portray Ahmadinezhad as a radical and unreliable barbarian. Let's look at some facts here;

From 1984 to 1987 the United States of America provided the Iraqi government with aerial photographs and other information with undeniable knowledge that Iraqis will use chemical weapons on their enemy, and they did, for 3 years with full knowledge of the United States.

That is enough to make President Reagan and other senior members of his administrations WAR CRIMINALS. Compare that with Iran's position, which during that same period refused to bomb civilian targets in Iraq. Obviously there seems to be a huge difference between your definition of civilized behavior and those of the rest of the world.

I don't think you have earned the right to portray Iran and Iranians as threats to the people of the Middle East knowing where you come from.

Name the time and place in Washington DC and I will come and face you eye ball to eye ball and challenge you to find fault in my assertion that your comments are born out of ignorance laced with arrogance.

You are a young man, you should be forward looking and courageous, so go try writing another piece where you explore the Kissingerian angel of Obama's foreign policy.

Arkin, man, how many times can you sneak "naive" into yr blog? Anyway, I'd rather have a bit of naiveté helming the ship o' state than the kind of experience wrought by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, et al.

Obama maybe doesn't have Clintonian prowess at triangulating these issues in a YouTube debate, but then again I think it all boils down to this: Obama was right on Iraq when it mattered, in 2002, before we went to war. Clinton was the fool, believing in Bush and his disastrous war of choice. Oh yeah, she was on the Wal-Mart board and wants to ban flag burning too. What a Democratic sophisticate! I mean: she's a Republican.

Woah, after reading this article i got a carter administration flashback. Where the highly intelligent president has a horribly ineffective presidency due to overreaching hopes and surrounding himself with poor advisers. fundamentally, i like what obama has to say and i like the fact that he is not part of the political machine. but this would also be at the cost of having experienced advisers and the complete backing of party lines.

Iran is not al'Qaeda, it's not a terrorist organization, it's an entire country. It has a democratically elected president. The very fact you would compare negotiating with Iran, stating our position in a diplomatic way, and seeking an open dialog with them, to negotiating with a terrorist organization, is purely naive on your part. You forget our president describes Iran as part of an "Axis of Evil." I suppose this recognizes Iran as a country--- but I honestly think anyone who looks at such statements will find them equally fanatical as those statements made by Iran in relation to Israel.

Obama is right. If anything, the best way to see a person's true self is to engage in honest (even if one sided) conversation with them. I have seen a lot of people turn fake in my life, and I have seen a lot of friends turn their back at the first sign of challenge. Yet, I don't hesitate to have a conversation with my "enemy." How they react to me in conversation gives me insight to their true being. Plus, what if I'm wrong about someone? Engaging them in conversation clears this up quickly. Very quickly. I just look them in the eye, and speak nothing but truth. When they look away and spit out social sound bites, I know they are fake, when they look me back and say something honest and original, I know they are true. At that point, a connection is created, and I feel a sense of enlightenment and peace.

I'm sure Obama isn't delusional and thinks that he will be able to have a heart-to-heart with Kim Jong II. He's not going to be able to sit down for coffee (how nicely put) with a dictator and come to peace. What he will do is open dialouge and see these people for what they are, rather then relying on the Media and his advisors.

I'm not saying Obama is perfect, that we should all bow down and give him the key to the White House. All I'm saying is he has done a good job at avoiding the dirt game of politics, and I won't turn my back on him just because his shoes occasionally get muddy.

As of now, he is the only reason I haven't registered Republican to vote for Ron Paul in the primary. That is a choice I only have a couple months left to make.

Could someone point out to me where Obama 'PROMISED' to meet with these leaders in the 1st year of his presidency? That's all i keep hearing from the Clinton campaign.

What I heard Obama say in the debate was that he was willing to engage these people diplomatically, instead of with bombs and missiles... a strategy that Bush-Cheney hasn't employed. The Clinton campaign will have you believe that he's going to fly down to South America and have a couple beers with Chavez.

Talk about making a mountain out of a mole hill.

"chat with him would be like sitting down with Osama bin Laden"

Well, first of all, the english approximation is 'Ahmadinejad', not 'Ahjmananjad'. Second, comparing a legitimate, popularly elected world leader (however unpopular his policies may be in the United States) to a terrorist responsible for thousands of deaths is worse than irresponsible or naive, for someone in your business, it's criminally negligent. Is it too much to ask mainstream media writers, even on blogs, to stick to some shred of credibility and avoid toting the party line they claim to oppose around like a handbag?

What was that Hillary Clinton said "....the power and prestige of the United States president....."!

Well, this just shows how out of touch she is with reality. The president of the United States certainly has no prestige left in the wider world! What prestige was left was destroyed by Bush!

In any case, one would expect the president to forgo the so called "prestige of the president" in a blink of an eye, if it meant saving one single innocent life! Oh, but not Mrs. Clinton.....who cares about the implications of world wars, death and destruction, as long as the "prestige of the president of the United States is maintained..."!

Sounds like, she is more worried about her hair style and the way she dresses and looks on camera, than what United States needs. Sounds like all presentation and no substance. Oh my lord, I am now going to be accused of being sexist, for speaking the truth!
What we need is fresh blood, untainted by all the old traditional political yard stick. Someone who cares more about the people and humanity and less about "how it may sound like to old political circles". Someone who is not afraid of being different. Someone who says what he is going to do and does what he says for a better world and without the need to destroy and kill innocent people! used to be called humanity and integrity!

If Obama sticks to his integrity and be consistent, who knows, he and everyone else may yet be surprised by the positive response of the public through the ballot paper!

There was a good piece on David Axelrod, Obama'a "chief media advisor" according to Arkin, in the Sunday New York Times about three months ago. In this article Mr. Axelrod states that his best friend is Rahm Emmanuel, the Zionist congressman from Chicago. Mr. Emmanuel served in the IDF in the first Iraq War. He is known to be a conduit for Zionist money into american politics. I formed an opinion about Obama based on this small bit of info, however when I saw his black face on the front of a national magazine in a less than flattering photograph, I began to wonder if the media powers that be were doing damage to Obama's image to please the owner's of the above mentioned national magazine, available in all airport news stands. We sure could use an even handed approach to the Palestinian occupation, since the Israelis don't have oil for sale. The Zionist orientation of the USA policy in Southwest Asia is costing us big time. The dollar is collapsing and this is serious for the future of the empire. The imperial military runs on money and blood. These are going to be in short supply if we don't have an executive willing to negotiate with are friends and our enemies.
Maybe Obama's instincts are good. I hope he doesn't let his handlers corrupt his desire to be the peace maker even if he has to talk back to AIPAC. Tony Karon's wedsite had an interesting piece on this topic a while ago. Thanks for the press on this subject, Arkin.

Sandy: Daffy Duck would be way better than what the republicans have to offer. Ron Paul is our only hope but I doubt if the Republicans will give him the party nomination.

"Smacked him down"? Say what you really mean. She gave that nigra a lash on the back to remind him to stay in his place. The best thing about Obama being in the race is that it exposes the MSM as racist-light.

Posted by: Ali Torkaman

President of Iran is a lot of bad things, but he never said that he is for the destruction of Israel. He how ever said he is for destruction of Zionism. If a journalist do not get the difference, either he is too dump or have sold it soul to the devil (Israel and Bush) for a pitiful existence

They lie through their teeth ali.

When the President of Iran said that the illegitimate zionist regime needed to be wiped from the pages of time (Juan Cole's translation), I (a Jew) understood exactly what he meant, and I agree 100%, along with EUROPE owing the Jews, not the Palestinians et al...

If only the semitic Jews hadn't been driven out by the shell-shocked/massacred DPs from the European wars, treated as untrusted 2nd class citizens by them, and distrusted by the Arabs who were being invaded by their kin, an inherently tribal kink-in-the-works, it could have been very different...

But the West would not have prospered from the turmoil, so the hatred of all who would threaten a SECULAR state of Israel would be considered anti-semitic.

They are liars.

Also Posted by: Eric Yendall | July 27, 2007 03:01 PM

Obama is absolutely right on this. Not talking to Iran at the highest levels out of a sense of pique, arrogance, or subservience to the Israel lobby is the height of stupidity. This type of thinking got us into Iraq in the first place. Bush-lite for sure.

Obama wants to talk war:

"In his statement, Obama said: "Allowing Iran, a radical theocracy that supports terrorism and openly threatens its neighbors, to acquire nuclear weapons is a risk we cannot take. All nations need to understand that, while Iran's most explicit and intolerable threats are aimed at Israel, its conduct threatens all of us."

Just like the rest of the murderous crew we currnetly call 'governance' in the United States, Obama spouts the same saber-rattling worthless crap-for-words intended to lead us into another worthless war.

See link previously posted.

Posted by: Eric Yendall | July 27, 2007 03:01 PM

William, this is one of your stupider statements. Since when does attitude towards Israel dictate who America talks to in pursuit of its own interests?.

"More impressive was TIP's July 19, 2007, press conference held on Capitol Hill to publicize the "Iranian threat," at which a number of current and former congressional members and well-known neoconservative pundits spoke, including Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy. According to TIP's website, among those speaking at the event were Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA), Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL), Rep. Jon Porter (R-NV), and Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY). Engel, who serves on TIP's board of advisers, told the audience: "This is our Munich. We need to stand up to Iran and tell them they cannot thumb their noses at world opinion" (quoted in Inter Press Service, July 23, 2007).

Many 2008 presidential candidates contributed statements to the press conference, including Sen. Joe Biden, (D-DE), Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS), Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), former Sen. John Edwards, former Gov. Mike Huckabee, and Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL). In his statement, Obama said: "Allowing Iran, a radical theocracy that supports terrorism and openly threatens its neighbors, to acquire nuclear weapons is a risk we cannot take. All nations need to understand that, while Iran's most explicit and intolerable threats are aimed at Israel, its conduct threatens all of us."

TIP has both a board of advisers and a board of directors. The advisers include 15 current and former U.S. senators and representatives--as well as actor Ron Silver. Divided almost equally among Democrats and Republicans, advisers include Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN), former Sen. Rick Santorum, Engel, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR). The board of directors is led by Chairman Michael Gelman, a Clinton appointee to the Holocaust Memorial Council and founding partner of the accounting firm Gelman, Rosenberg, & Freedman, and by Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi, TIP's founder, director, and main media personality. "

In Full, with copious links on page:
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/4430

Paris Hilton said:

Enough about Clinton/Obama: What about Lindsay Lohan? This poor girl may go to jail, just for driving without a license (and who hasn't done that?) and having a little cocaine in her car. Where can young people go to have fun, what kind of mind-altering substances can they take, when police have such a wet-blanket attitude toward Herbie's best friend?

I LUV YOU PARIS!
XOXOXO

Pure rubbish. America is quickly becoming the laughing stock of the world because of the Bushs, Cheneys and Clintons of the world.

Israel and USA have both threatened publicly on more than one occassion to bomb Iran. Where's the international outcry?

What a joke!

"The President of Iran doesn't even recognize Israel's right to exist. Sitting down to chat with him would be like sitting down with Osama bin Laden to explain that it's all a big misunderstanding, that America shares his ideals for a better life."

William, this is one of your stupider statements. Since when does attitude towards Israel dictate who America talks to in pursuit of its own interests?. Maybe the problem with America today is that people only talk to those who agree with them whether in politics or religion. Obama is absolutely right on this. Not talking to Iran at the highest levels out of a sense of pique, arrogance, or subservience to the Israel lobby is the height of stupidity. This type of thinking got us into Iraq in the first place. Bush-lite for sure.

"The president of Iran doesn't even recognize Israel's right to exist. Sitting down to chat with him would be like sitting down with Osama bin Laden to explain that it's all a big misunderstanding, that America shares his ideals for a better life."

William, this is one of your stupider statements. Since when does attitude towards Israel dictate who America talks to in pursuit of its own interests?. Maybe the problem with America today is that people only talk to those who agree with them whether in politics or religion. Obama is absolutely right on this. Not talking to Iran at the highest levels out of a sense of pique, arrogance, or subservience to the Israel lobby is the height of stupidity. This type of thinking got us into Iraq in the firsat place. Bush-lite for sure.

Lib Parody,

The last person to die, will likely die for the same reasons that the first one did, over religious denominationalism/sectarianism.

I am referring to Cain of the Hebrew scriptures of course!

I am a Rev, however, I have to admit that not everything about religion was or is good - so fight the power of the 'religious-military-complex'; I'll help ya!

Lib-Parody "You're right we suspect you cons more than we fear the "Bin-ladins" of the world." Enough said then; I get your(Libs in general) implicit hatred for those that would die to protect you. I must agree that Iraq was a bad idea when it started and a worse idea as it continues. This dialog begins to illustrate the futility of talking to those that hate you. "Libs", will you fight for your freedoms? The point made vis-a-vis the power of converstation to bridge the gap, splain it to the Obama k.

"Lib Parodys of the world", excellent!...

Tank you tank you! Will I fight or kneel while my head comes off? Oh I am so scared my boots are shaking with shock and awe. You're right we suspect you cons more than we fear the "Bin-ladins" of the world. Any cons who think the jihadists can do real damage to the US of A are either afraid of their own shadows or lack faith in this vast land of mine and yours. Bin Laden with his broad sword scares you more? Please see Raiders of the Lost Ark for the big bore. The boys dying now in Iraq are somebody's sons so don't let them die for a lie. Show me the WMD or get them boys a ticket home. I agree that the boys dying there as you write are believers in traditional America, honorable, respectful; they are each a treasure. So don't lose any more for a lost cause. I concur conservatives should withdraw, practice your Christian beliefs, and go to the country side; give to Caesar what is Caesar's as your Lord foresaw. No it's not gone already except in your storyboard. "Libs" we are true to our cause when we will not fight for your bad mores. Are we capable of distinguishing friend from foe? Not when you'll wait, "talk" to the "Bin-ladins" and let him have his way with moi. Good Christians that you are always taken with blood and gore...

The fact of the matter is...

Many, who Americans refer to as Americans Black Leaders, have been flying delegations around the world to meet with the so-called American bad guy leaders for decades now.

If you think back, Ambassador Young lost his position in the U.N. for meeting with Palestinian leaders; Rev. Jesse Jackson was chastised for meeting with Iranian leaders and so on.

But that's just small potatoes, many of these delegations of black leaders have met with leaders in the Middle-East (Including Arafat and Sharon), the Americas, and elsewhere in the world.

And, they return to the U.S.A. and hold press conferences and private meetings in order to brief interested Americans about the possibility of resolving standoffs between America and other nations of the world.

It will take the contribution of the once disenfranchised in America, to help the American majority to bridge their gap with people in other parts of the world that they have turned into enemies.

I know where Obama is coming from, however, he is naiive to believe that the majority population will put American foreign policy into the hands of an American minority - just look what happened to Colin Powell, a man who some thought might become America's 1st black President.

This man understood foreign policy, military strategy, and personally knew many of the world leaders that we read about. And where is Colin? Er herm, #43 asked for his resignation!

Non Sequitur...

This reminds me of the days when President Bush Sr. referred to Reagan's proposed economic policies as voodo economics.

The political process in America is somewhat akin to the legal process, it is adversarial; unfortunately.

Somewhere in between #43 and Obama, lies the truth. And, the likelihood of Hillary Clinton and Obama running on the same ticket is more than plausible than not; in fact it is likely.

If it happens, the two will balance each other off, unless Obama becomes a Cheney figure in the Hillary Clinton administration!

You think we can send 300,000 troops into Iran, stir it up a little, and then pull out immediately? Travel some more buddy. The experts are now telling us it would take from six months to two years to pull the 150,000 troops and their equipments out of Iraq. Even a withdrawal, especially a withdrawal, is not the job for amateurs. Maybe we should wait for the Bill/Hillary copresidency team for the pull out.

A second "blog" on this? Does the Washington Post actually pay Mr. Arkin to write this stuff? If so, I'm sure the money could be spent on more enlightening insights, couldn't it? No wonder the rest of the world laughs at American journalism. How can this skewed sequel of a "news article" make it to the front page of Google News?

But since I'm here: Israel, the Iranian president and Osama Bin Laden. Arkin suggests that it's naive to think Obama could in fact sit down with Iran's president and likens this to meeting up with bin Laden. But then he apologizes for digressing. Do digress. It might actually add some worthy information to this skeletal regurgitation of your previous "blog."

Let me help. There is probably a number of reasons why the president of Iran doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist - as shocking as this might be to the Western press and population. It might have to do with the fact that Israel was established by the United Nations post WWII with the promise that a Palestinian state would also be created as well. That was over 50 years ago people. Guess what? No Palestinian state.

This promise continues to be the carrot on a stick the Palestinians are taunted with to this day and one of the initial sparks that is now the raging fire of hatred some people in the Middle East have for us. It should also be pointed out that absolutely none of the neighboring countries in the Middle East voted in favor of establishing Israel in the middle of what was Palestine! This is a good place to start in understanding why the president of Iran or any leader in the Middle East doesn't want to recognize Israel's "right to exist."

As for claiming to know what "bin Laden's beef" is... I'm very confident that Mr. Arkin, being a former military analyst from what I understand, may in fact have some insight on this. I'm skeptical as to whether he (or the Washington Post) would actually write and publish an objective point of view with the full truth on this topic though. Or whether the American public could even digest the truth were it printed.

The U.S. government is undeniably responsible for actions that eventually led to 911, just as much as Osama bin Laden is. Why can't Americans look objectively at the history of the U.S. military's presence in the Middle East? You will undoubtedly see that the 911 attacks are in fact a retaliation for previous U.S. military actions. Maybe if the U.S. government, including the president, did actually sit down and talk to some of the more confrontational leaders, the world might actually be a safer place. Ah yes, but this is naive I'll be told. Yet, many people in America still actually believe that the price of war is less expensive then the cost of peace.

I fail to comprehend why conservative Americans don't get that they are being manipulated by their government under the false pretense of "patriotism." The press doesn't help either, especially when they simply denounce the leaders of other nations and the importance of communication.

I'll take "naivety" any day over the manipulation of current politics and weak journalism. Especially if there is even a remote possibility that it will bring face to face talks rather than senseless military invasions that lead us down darker and darker paths.

Yeah, I guess I'm naive too. But I'll take naivete over anything resembling Bush/Cheney, and come on, face it, Clinton is just more of the same. She certainly will not change the direction of the country more than any other run of the mill politician - Democrat or Republican.

"Lib Parodys of the world", excellent!, will you fight or kneel while your head comes off? You trust the "Bin-ladins" of the world more than you trust the conservatives that would die to protect you. The boys dieing now in Iraq are not "your" sons but "mine". I dare say that the boys dieing there as I write are believers in traditional America, honorable, respectful; they are each a treasure. While I talk my son down from sacrificing himself for the likes of you, your son never entertained the idea of sacrificing for me for me. I hope conservatives withdraw, practice our Christian beliefs, and let the country go; its gone already. "Libs" you are irrelevant if you will not fight for your freedoms. Are you capable of distinguishing friend from foe? I pray my son does not fight for you("Libs"), Obama, Clinton, or Bush. I'll wait, "talk" to the "Bin-ladins" (a conversation that you no doubt would approve) and let him have his way with you.

Try go and live in a country like Indonesia for a month, where Mr. Obama had lived, and I guarantee all of your views will be different!!! That's the problem these days with a lot of politicians, they lost touch with the rest of the world when they are too caught up with internal politic and local power brokering.

Ask any oil & gas executives who has traveled the world to remote and dangerous places how they feel about American foreign policy. How in the world did company like Exxon Mobile, Shell, and all their contractors, Halliburton, Slumberger, etc. go to some Muslim country like Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei, Azerbaijan, and strike the black gold? I'm sure they didn't go in with their guns blazing and using National Security as an excuse. They don't sit in their luxurious corporate offices and wait for the those in the world who has oil to come knocking. Hey we are the biggest consumer in this oil commodity, why don't you all fax in the quotations and best offers by Monday morning.

There are lots of way to engage or "visit" with the enemies. One example is to invite in the foreign leaders to Washington and show them around, like countless ex-presidents did. But this attitude about a PR-losing move is just being childish and arrogant, only someone of Obama's age would be guilty of committing.

If I vote for Obama, he will go around shaking the enemies hands and America loses face (honor), if I vote for an old-fox politically-correct candidate, he/she might as well just erect a Great Wall around the continental US, lock the doors, and hide in his/her basement, like some kid who just got bullied in the playground.

The Asian Solution:
Get the hell out of Iraq's internal affair, let them fight their civil war, amass the 300,000+ US troops near Iranian borders, go in there and talk to Ahjmenanjad, stir up that hornet nest, then pull the troops out immediately. Grab a popcorn, watch Middle East blow up in its conflict, then somebody will fax in the order for weapons, expertise, aids, and whatnot. Then everybody will want to be our friends, asking us when we can go visit them again. Oil for help, baaaby! Al Qaeda will be too busy shooting their own blood to bother with the US.

Oh, Korea by the way is handled amicably, Japan and China is more than capable to deal with them.

I agree with "Seedko," Mr. Arkin should do everyone a favor - stop writing these "articles" and continue your work for the HC campaign in some other venue

Cons, cons, cons, you are exasperating in the face of failure. What established principles upon which this country was formed will you discard and trample upon? In the face of brutality, dictatorship, and Islamic jihadist fascism will you do likewise? These people who hate us all do so precisely ... you know that for a fact?. Among the many things that pushy "let's all bash their heads off" talk does for us is that it causes us to be trapped in the muck of Middle Eastern sand. When Bin Laden gets to America, and he will by crossing the Rio Grand, will we at least put him in shackles or will he roam free like twelve million others demanding amnesty? The Christian right or the Gay left? Is that all you can see in this world? Why you hate the idea of it, but hate more the knowledge that gays won't fight for themselves? Perhaps they see you cons as more dangerous to their country than any jihadists can ever be. You are teaching your son not to "Love" his country so much that he would sacrifice his life for the likes of Hillary or Obama, or the incompetence of Bush for that matter? Maybe he won't sacrifice his life for his old man either? If you do not agree with the established principles upon which this country was formed then you should not lead it. Bushies the oath reads like "defend and protect" not "preemptive strike and occupy."

Comparing the leader of an international terrorist organization to the democratically elected President of a sovereign nation... well done Mr. Arkin.

Our policy towards Iran for the last 28 years has returned zero results. A new course is necessary. If we truly engaged Iran instead of relying on intermediaries and they continued in their defiant, irrational ways our position would be made all the more stronger. We talked with Russia during the Cold War, which worked to our advantage, why should there be such a slippery slope to "negative proganda" and failure for engaging other less powerful countries?

Such pointless arguing on whether to talk or not, and preconditions or not.

Obama's right in his follow-up, the content of a message is far more important than discussion on whether to send a message. For each candidate, discern WHAT would be said and whether that is what you want for our country's representation.

Check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyqAR4lJCmw

Check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyqAR4lJCmw

Check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyqAR4lJCmw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyqAR4lJCmw

What Obama needs to do is to shut up and listen if he visits these people. Israel is not popular in the Islamic world, and we need to return to our two track policy of dealing with Israel quietly and separating them from of our policy decisions with Islamic countries.
They are both idiots, and I am not going to vote for either of them.

Liberals, liberals, liberals, you are irrelevant in the face of brutality. What, of your audacity, will you fight and die for? In the face of brutality, dictatorship, and Islamic jihad-ist fascism will you fight? These people who hate us all do so precisely because of the liberal spew that come out of your ideas. Among the many things that wimpy "can't we all get along" talk does for us is that it causes us to be despised by the people who would sever your heads if they could get there hands on you. When Bin-laden gets to America, and he will, who's head comes off first? The Christian right or the Gay left? I think you know that Gays, artists, movie producers, elected women officials, all go first! I hate the idea of it, but I hate more the knowledge that those groups won't fight for themselves! I am teaching my son not to "Love" his country so much that he would sacrifice his life for the likes of Hillary or Obama, or the incompetence of Bush for that matter. If you do not agree with the established principles upon which this country was formed then you should not lead it. Obama the oath reads like "defend and protect" not "cower treat and supplicate."

After reading my conclusion:
Clinton and someone named Arkin = naive, ignorant and arrogant

I think Clinton's "experience" gives her the "clever thing to say" and "the best way to avoid/re-direct blame." This scares me and I am starting not to trust her. These skills may be great for a campaign, but as president we need someone with great character and leadership- not someon who flipflops and is great at deception.

I am finding Obama interesting, but there is alot of debates and time ahead to learn more about these candidates.

Obama /Clinton debate: When experience / othordoxy become a burden, originality is sovereign. That's part of what made america great - guts, naive and brave!

The more I watch the Dem debates, the more I come to these conclusions:

(a) Edwards is a lost cause. He looked good 4 years ago, when we're looking for a change. But this time round, every argument and position that come out of him seem so shaky.

(b) Obama looks good initially, not the least due to the fact that we don't know much about him. The more he debates, the more he reveals his weaknesses. He might be good as the vp candidate, but he won't be able to hold up, against GOP.

(c) And, naive is the right word for describing Obama's latest remark during the debate that he would sit down with those "undesirable" leaders. Granted that it's good to grab headlines, and it feels good to be different to distinguish yourself, but lets face it, his sitting-down comments did not reflect all the hard work and planning prior to *ANY* presidential engagement. You do not go out even for a leisure trip, without having a *PURPOSE*, dude. While I'm still sitting on fence about Clinton, what she said is reality, that you need careful planning before the engagement, and that's the HARD part. And Obama only sees the EASY part, probably on TV. :)

(d) While I might not like Clinton as a person, I do believe she has the right stuff to take on GOP and to move the country forward. This is versus the country's choice of a president like Bush, whom we like as a person, but is SUCH a lousy president (no brain power, no leadership, everything deferring to the Rove and Cheney lot). And for that change alone, I would pick Clinton.

(e) As to the suggestion of a change of advisors to Obama, no advisor is going to be more well qualified than Bill Clinton to Hilary Clinton. Afterall, SHE was the one who's advising Bill when they're in the White House for 8 years. People might play that to her disadvantage, but that's a big, big plus.

I'm tired about people talking About Billary's experiences. which ones? Bill's? he cheated on her and she did not divorced, why? cause of course she knew she was going to run and her PIMP'd be useful....

After reading my conclusion:
Clinton and someone named Arkin = naive, ignorant and arrogant

I think Clinton's "experience" gives her the "clever thing to say" and "the best way to avoid/re-direct blame." This scares me and I am starting not to trust her. These skills may be great for a campaign, but as president we need someone with great character and leadership- not someon who flipflops and is great at deception.

I am finding Obama interesting, but there is alot of debates and time ahead to learn more about these candidates.

Obama is correct, we need to communicate with other nations, not set back and remain silent like Billy Bob Bush. Of course Billy Bob has trouble speaking without a prepared script so maybe that is the problem. In any event, it seems Sandy has already cast that Daffy Duck vote; he is already our leader.

It's interesting how the term naive is used when one is trying to engage in diplomacy with an enemy. We didn't sit down with Saddam Hussein before entering Iraq. Perhaps if we had then we would have noticed his knees quivering like them were when we found him in a fox hole hiding from our troops, some of whom have probably been killed since capturing him. But that's ok. I'm sure that we, as good old fashion god fearing American citizens will "honor" them with a pretty little tombstone at Arlington. No photos please though.
It's ubsurd how much our country is suffering from hubris when we our leaders won't meet with their enemies to stare them down. Instead we send our boys and girls out into harms way with no plans for how to get them home.
Bush was all tough talk after 9/11. Look where that has gotten us. With the international community virtually at our beckon call after that tragedy we could have put as much money into diplomacy as we have into war spending and had much better results.
Our current government is such a hippocrasy and failure. It's too bad that we are too swept in by it to think that someone like Obama is just naive.
Unfortunately however, the author is right. Barack Obama doesn't need to change his thinking or ideals, just his PR team.

Mr. Arkin,

I suggest you try reading the classic "The art of War" by Sun-tzu. A specific quote from that work comes to mind - "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.". You might also try reading Senator Obama's "The Audacity of Hope" to gain a more informed perspective on his willingness to talk to "the bad guys". We already have too many politicians in Washington, we need more Statesmen.

BTW, nothing could pump more energy and vigor back into a sagging Republican Party than having Hilary as the Democratic nominee.

As a lifelong Democrat, I find her positions on most issues disingenuous at best; Slimy seems somehow more descriptive. Were she the Democratic nominee, I would have to (reluctantly) vote for someone else, *anyone* else.

"And his counter-strike, that Clinton was naïve for supporting the Iraq war when it was clear that there was no exit plan, is equally wrong. One can't make decisions about war and peace based upon prospects of success; they are about national security and American interests. I hope in the future Obama won't argue that he'll only support military action when the experts or his advisers can assure him of either success or an exit strategy. That would be naïve."

This assertion is absolutely ridiculous. No wonder we are in trouble in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan ... everywhere.

You don't go to war, particularly a war of choice, unless you have a clear and realistic chance of/plan for winning. Otherwise you pursue diplomacy, sue for peace, or stall for time. Name one person in the world today who in hindsight would go into Iraq like we did, neocon nuts don't count. The only time you fight without hesitation is when the enemy is crossing the border and invading your country in the classic sense. And the US has not faced that situation since 1812 or at least Dec 7, 1941.

Obama is right in this case.

Mr ARkin you are such an idiot by writing all that. why don't you join the clintons campaign and let the real people do the job?

to IJRAMIREZ.

What the word "preconditions" means to you?
If you really wanna solve problems you have to treat your rival with respects! then the dialogue can be productive.

Dear stupid readers,
To reduce the world to good guy bad guy is the naive position. To think of hope as naive is to be dead already. And to act like the coward unable to look the "bad guy" in the eye across the table is the painful admission that America can't see past their fear.

Mr. Arkins' belief in Obamas' naivete is perhaps a bit over the top: it must be remembered from where Obama hails - Chicago, Illinois. Now known as a lightweights political arena. No, Obama is a lot of things, but being possessed of child-like naivete is not one of them.

As for Ms Clinton, I would vote for her, simply because at this juncture I would vote for anything not connected to the present Republican Party. But, I have this deep, deep nagging in my near subconcious that keeps asking why the Clintons kept Janet Reno on as Atty General, and defended her to the end. Reno was nothing more or less than an Ashcroft cum Gonzalez...an idiological zealot bereft of any belief in the Constitution.

Unless the 'Reno' question can be put to rest in my mind, I will fervently hope that someone other than Ms Clinton becomes the Democrats candidate.

DAVID you said it the right way man!!!!

A+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

President of Iran is a lot of bad things, but he never said that he is for the destruction of Israel. He how ever said he is for destruction of Zionism. If a journalist do not get the difference, either he is too dump or have sold it soul to the devil (Israel and Bush) for a pitiful existence

We should not forget what the question was, would they meet Chavez, Castro, etc during the first year in office and without preconditions? I don't have an issue with a president of the US meeting anyone during the first year but without preconditions? Come on, let's not be silly. FDR did not meet Stalin without conditions. JFK did not meet Krushchev without conditions and Nixon did not meet Mao without preconditions. None of them met their foes during their first year in office. I find Mrs. Clinton answer perfectly reasonable.

I think Hillary Clinton answer the question exactly and Obama needed help from his advisor. It indicates that Obama is naive in foreign policy as Hillary said. I liked Obama on the beginning, I though he is good and articulating, but as time passed, I didn't find anything new on him except cheap slogan. It is interesting he said Hillary Bush-Cheney light but his site mentioned that he is getting foreign policy advice from Colin Powel and Condi, what a loser to attack Hillary to cover up his weakness. It is clear choice for voters like me to chose Hillary-who has passion, experience, knowledge or Obama-who has personality, wears nice suit-tie, able to attack other candidates but don't offer anything. I wonder how long Obama will stay in the race!!!!!

I was working abroad during Clinton era I know my country was looked up from so many people and leaders at that time. I want that back so I want to vote Hillary. Even though they have done some mistake in the past this is an opportunity for Hill and Bill to leave their legacy. Dear American, make your county proud than fighting for small issues.

Some of responds are too hateful. I know extreme liberal people use different substances so their brain doesn't work appropriately so their ideas are weird.

This is about the lamest rationale I have every seen to support Clinton. Of course I'd vote for her it she were the candidate opposing Giuliani or Thompson, but she's trying to be the politician her husband is without the silver tongue.

I don't think expressing a desire for dialogue is at all naive. It's an expression of something that we used to hold dear in this country, although the tolerance for it has waned with the advent and rise of the cable "news" fools. One of the biggest problems in discourse today is the lack of an intellectual foundation in the popular media. This article (op-ed piece, really) supports that contention.

I think for Ms Clinton to be a commander-in-chief is more like a joke.I would prefer a different woman if gender balancing is the issue.

If she voted for war in Iraq which killed my daughter, her sound judgement could not even afford her to be eccentric as she claims, when defending Bill's affair with Lewnsky...Was just watching these videos.

I guess when FDR met with Stalin he was naïve.

When JFK met with Khrushchev he was naïve.

When Nixon went to China to meet with Mao, he was naïve.

Clearly, the only foreign policy that works is to isolate your enemies and minimize outside influence in their country. Either that, or bomb them.

How does talking to Chavez, Castro and Ahjmenanjad weaken us? Do we run the risk that our president will be used as a propaganda tool by these countries? That is happening now and we are not even talking to them. Can it get any worse by talking. They have their agendas for sure and I am certain at the top levels of these countries our agenda is certainly understood. Our fear is that a naive, inexperienced president will be putty in their hands. Doubtful. Bush plays into their hands every day by being so resolutely defiant. Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, et al all met with the "evil empire" and whatever propaganda resulted dissapated as time went on or was discounted by those who know the truth.

It saddens my soul that people fail to realize that one's hope can be achieved without bloodshed and death; that with communication and mutual understanding the truth can be revealed, lives can be saved, and the oppressed and fallen can be redeemed.

I applaud any direction that is for attaining peaceable solutions through non-violent means.

Hmmm...Last name Arkin? How predictable...Another jewish talking head that can't resist cramming the us and them theology down everybody's throat - including Obama's. Mr. Arkin, did it ever occur to you that some Americans like Obama actually have the capacity to understand what our corporations...ahem..I mean government have been doing in third world countries for nearly a century? Unlike many people of your ilk, some Americans actually accept citizens of the countries you cite as fellow human beings - not ignorant animals for us to manipulate. Not everyone supports Israel and its theft (assisted by the west) of Palestinian land. Not everyone supports the United State's control of drug trafficking and oil in central and south america. Unlike you Mr. Arkin, some Americans see the world as a place in which to coexist - not dominate. If you and Israel think we have a monopoly on intelligence or the ability to build atomic weapons - think again. Much of the world may be under our thumb now - but how long do you think you can keep your savages under control? If the bully refuses to play nice in the sandbox - eventually those he bullies will figure out how to kick his sorry butt out. The question is not a matter of if - but when.

Every leader, or for that matter, every individual has a frame of reference from which "their truth" emmanates. Dialogue enables us to better understand these frames of reference, and potentially reach accords that are mutually beneficial. Often, the gap between the reference frames are too wide to be bridged by dialogue, if so, so be it. But its better to at least attempt than not. Advocating for peace can never be propogandized.

Setting preconditions for dialogue is unproductive, its the same as saying we can only discuss those things to which we've already agreed - that's not a discussion. The purpose of discussion seeks to find areas upon which agreements can be forged.

Perhaps it's Clinton and Mr. Arkin who are being naive?

By normal human logic there's nothing wrong with Obama's approach, especially given the fact that our current president (and others before) have proven the 'I won't talk to you until you agree with me' approach is less than useful.

It's making political 'logic' rather than common sense that has led us into a situation where we're justifiably and tragically no longer the good guys. It's what allows us to have politicians who have managed to be held to the LOWEST possible standards instead of the highest. It's what feeds and fuels the terrorist's recruitment efforts and creates new ones from scratch.

Every leader, or for that matter, every individual has a frame of reference from which "their truth" emmanates. Dialogue enables us to better understand these frames of reference, and potentially reach accords that are mutually beneficial. Often, the gap between the reference frames are too wide to be bridged by dialogue, if so, so be it. But its better to at least attempt than not. Advocating for peace can never be propogandized.

Setting preconditions for dialogue is unproductive, its the same as saying we can only discuss those things to which we've already agreed - that's not a discussion. The purpose of discussion seeks to find areas upon which agreements can be forged.

When will we stop being victims of the media and stop watching the innane stories and photographs of useless people in the entertainment industry like Hilton, Lohan and spears. Together they may have a smidgin of talent but for the most part don't deserve the attentin they get because they party, drink, and take drugs. concentrate of some young people who do good for the world. Tehre are lots of them out there. We need to dismiss these bad role models and find some good ones for the youth of today. These sick stars need to be ignored not put on a pedestal. They are not doing anything for the world to change it for the better.They are self indulgent, egotistical and useless people who could do much mroe with their time and money than purchase clothes, booze and drugs. It is the medi'as fault for constanly putting their faces and lives out there.

When will we stop being victims of the media and stop watching the innane stories and photographs of useless people in the entertainment industry like Hilton, Lohan and spears. Together they may have a smidgin of talent but for the most part don't deserve the attentin they get because they party, drink, and take drugs. concentrate of some young people who do good for the world. Tehre are lots of them out there. We need to dismiss these bad role models and find some good ones for the youth of today. These sick stars need to be ignored not put on a pedestal. They are not doing anything for the world to change it for the better.They are self indulgent, egotistical and useless people who could do much mroe with their time and money than purchase clothes, booze and drugs. It is the medi'as fault for constanly putting their faces and lives out there.

When will we stop being victims of the media and stop watching the innane stories and photographs of useless people in the entertainment industry like Hilton, Lohan and spears. Together they may have a smidgin of talent but for the most part don't deserve the attentin they get because they party, drink, and take drugs. concentrate of some young people who do good for the world. Tehre are lots of them out there. We need to dismiss these bad role models and find some good ones for the youth of today. These sick stars need to be ignored not put on a pedestal. They are not doing anything for the world to change it for the better.They are self indulgent, egotistical and useless people who could do much mroe with their time and money than purchase clothes, booze and drugs. It is the medi'as fault for constanly putting their faces and lives out there.

If the election were held today and the choices were:

Dem's- Clinton
Rep's- Anyone Else (not excluding Daffy Duck)
I'd vote Republican.

M Arkin,
you are a disgrace to this profession. what do you say about Billary voting for the war? not telling the truth about why she sent her child to private school? saying democrats are united and then attacking Obama?
I see your head and I already know how stupid and dumb you are. Keep playing the Clintons game; trust me it won't last.

The strange thing about this whole dustup is that I fully anticipate that both Obama and Clinton would, as President, do the same thing: begin with outreach and diplomacy and then, at the appropriate time, and with adequate homework, meet as appropriate with leaders on that list. I would not envision Obama taking a whirlwind tour of the list the first week, nor, in contrast to the oooutrageous Bush-lite charge, would Clinton avoid dialogue. Neither would be poking pencils in the eyes of other countries as the Republicans do incessantly [freedom fries anyone?] Both would be working to restore US leadership in the world. Both understand the severe damge that the Bush administration has done to the reputation and power of the US. SO...remind me again....--so many days later---what's the point?
Dear reporters: if you want to continue to ask each about diplomacy, a good place to start: ask each of them [and, for color, Republicans too] what they might want to discuss with each of the listed leaders and at what point following preliminary discussions it would be appropriate to sit down together. But in the meantime, perhaps pay a bit more attention to the mess the Bush/Cheney administration will have made with our relationship to the Iranian people by the time we have a new President.

How can you seriously take anyone who voted against English as the "official language?"
How can you even take anyone seriously who voted to give social security to aliens who have not paid a dime into the system?
Press 1 for stupidity.
Press 2 for God Bless America.
Press 3 for giving Clinton a gun and dropping her in Iraq without her secret service ($250,000.00 a day)protection, I'm sure she will be treated fairly.

If we're going to discuss naivete, let's consider the naivete in believing that the Bush administration was justified in it's rationale for invading Iraq. Consider the naivete in believing that Bush had a well formed plan for invading Iraq and it's subsequent rebuilding. Can anything else explain Senator Clinton's vote to invade Iraq? Let's see, who voted AGAINST the Iraq war....Oh yes! Barack Obama.

Mr. Arkins' belief in Obamas' naivete is perhaps a bit over the top: it must be rememered from where Obama hails - Chicago, Illinois. Now known as a lightweights political arena. No, Obama is a lot of things, but being possessed of child-like naivete is not one of them.

As for Ms Clinton, I would vote for her, simply because at this juncture I would vote fro anything not connected to the present Republican Party. But, I have this deep, deep nagging in my near subconcious that keeps asking why the Clintons kept Janet Reno on as Atty General, and defended her to the end. Reno was nothing more or less than an Ashcroft cum Gonzalez...an idiological zealot bereft of any belief in the Constitution.

Unless the 'Reno' question can be put to rest in my mind, I will fervently hope that someone other than Ms Clinton becomes the Democrats candidate.

Most of us are tired of the old ways of doing things. The adage "if it isn't broken then why fix it?" seems to apply here because it is broken and we need to fix it. I, for one, applaud Obama for wanting to at least try to fix this. We need to have face-to-face meetings with Iran because Iran will have the bomb and there is nothing we can do about it. Iraq is a walk in the park compared to any attempt at invading Iran so we might as well sit down and talk.

The president of Iran doesn't even recognize Israel's right to exist. Sitting down to chat with him would be like sitting down with Osama bin Laden to explain that it's all a big misunderstanding, that America shares his ideals for a better life.

Please...The Iranian President is pandering to his right wing, sound familar?? Although inflamatory to many, questioning Israel's Zionist element is dialog that needs to happen. Comparing him to bin laden is practicing the same type of wormy journalism that has played a major role putting us in Iraq. You can do better than that Mr. Arkin

It seems Obama is keeping his word. He is saying what he means to say whereas Clinton is continually changing what she says depending on what she thinks people want to hear. I am a Republican and I could very easily see myself voting for Obama in the next election. I like his message that we need a fundamental change.

Thank you so much, Paris, for setting us straight on our priorities. There is so much boring crap on TV about politics and war and stuff. And I agree, those nazi stormtroopers don't understand girls just wanna have fun!

The question was theoretical and so were the answers. Move on...you're debating and wasting time on a supposed incident that is no where near happening...like diplomacy and the professional State Department Bureaucrats. If any U S President can't hold their own in a face to face meeting. they should be doing something else for a living. The question would have been more with it if it were asked" What do you think President Ron Paul would do if asked to meet one of our enemy countries?

I can't seem to get over the issue that Mr. Obama was simply stating his position on broad and complicated issue under the best of circumstances. However, to call it naive is not accurate. We, voters, are smarter than that and we ought not take the medias point view, ever.

To me he simply said, It would be better to engage our counterparts before we waging war.

J

Mr. Arkin may be the one who is naive. The president's policies have become reckless and as far as Iran not recognizing Israel that may well be irrelevant when Israel has threatened to bomb Iran. Now, let's have real balance in discussions about foreign policy, not propaganda.

I agree with K. Miller.
Desperate "politicians" are noted for their unsavory attacks and henceforth, bad mouthing of anyone willing to make huge statements for change.
Always.....they contort meaning to their advantage.
We have witnessed the "real" Hillary with her whispers....GO Obama!

Mr. Arkin seems rather quick to call Obama naive. If he had done just a little research he would have discovered that not too long ago Senator Clinton said she would do the exact same thing with regard to talking to world leaders. Was she being naive then? This is typical double speak coming from the Senator. Senator Obama a the very least has demonstrated he will not flip flop for sake of a vote.

I agree with Tad. Clinton is very good at giving voice to the CW on all things. Nothing in this country will change so long as we keep the same people in power. I like Obama because he thinks outside the box.

For uncensored news please bookmark;

www.wsws.org
www.takingaimradio.info
www.onlinejournal.com
otherside123.blogspot.com
www.globalresearch.ca

Cheney determined to strike in US with WMD this summer; only impeachment and removal, or a general strike, can stop him

By Webster G. Tarpley
Online Journal Contributing Writer

Jul 23, 2007, 01:04

The greatest threat now is "a 9/11 occurring with a group of terrorists armed not with airline tickets and box cutters, but with a nuclear weapon in the middle of one of our own cities." --Dick Cheney on Face the Nation, CBS, April 15, 2007

A few days ago, a group of lawyers from western Massachusetts met with the local congressman, Democrat John Olver. Their request was that Olver take part in the urgent effort to impeach Bush and Cheney. Olver responded by saying that he had no intention of doing anything to support impeachment. He went further, offering the information that the United States would soon attack Iran, and that these hostilities would be followed by the imposition of a martial law regime here.

According to reports in the British press, the Cheney war party has gained the upper hand in the secret councils of the Bush White House, pushing aside the purported hesitations of Miss Rice, Secretary Gates, and the NATO allies to chart a direct course towards war with Iran:

'The balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has shifted back in favour of military action before President George Bush leaves office in 18 months, the Guardian has learned. The shift follows an internal review involving the White House, the Pentagon and the state department over the last month. Although the Bush administration is in deep trouble over Iraq, it remains focused on Iran. A well-placed source in Washington said: "Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo." . . . at a meeting of the White House, Pentagon and state department last month, Mr Cheney expressed frustration at the lack of progress and Mr Bush sided with him. "The balance has tilted. There is cause for concern," the source said this week. . . ."Cheney has limited capital left, but if he wanted to use all his capital on this one issue, he could still have an impact," said Patrick Cronin, the director of studies at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.' ("Cheney pushes Bush to act on Iran; Military solution back in favour as Rice loses out; President 'not prepared to leave conflict unresolved'," Guardian, July 16, 2007.)

For the rest please go to;

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2220.shtml

I think it's to the point where Clinton has proved she would actually be worse than Bush. In regards to manipulation of the truth and facts, she seems to be peerless. Her quote about Obama deviating from his rhetoric of hope is particularly ironic - because she makes no claims of being a "different" or ethical politician, she is free to attack and able to criticize Obama for rebutting. She's the quintessential scumbag politician.

last phrase *should* have been: "and it's sad that it even counts as 'audacious.'"

I believe it was that famous pacifist Winston Churchill who said "to jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war." I don't think Obama is arguing that talking to these despots will lead to some kind of magical conversion of them. Just that it's better than the alternative. That doesn't seem naive to me, and it's said that it even counts as "audacious."

Enough about Clinton/Obama: What about Lindsay Lohan? This poor girl may go to jail, just for driving without a license (and who hasn't done that?) and having a little cocaine in her car. Where can young people go to have fun, what kind of mind-altering substances can they take, when police have such a wet-blanket attitude toward Herbie's best friend?