leave that kind of talk out of the conversation. It has no place here.

Obama seems to disagree with you on that distinction, Justin. From the words of the Messiah himself:

“We must not negotiate with a terrorist group intent on Israel’s destruction. We should only sit down with Hamas if they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel’s right to exist and abide by past agreements.”

“Hamas is not a state. Hamas is a terrorist organization,”

A terrorist supporting state intent on Israel’s destruction and will not renounce terrorism nor recognize Israel’s right to exist – now thats another story.

Don’t states typically have more wealth and power than most organizations? It seems that the more powerful you are, the more dangerous and threatening you are, the more President Obama is willing to speak with you, and possible hash out a deal. It seems obvious to me that his policy would merely encourage terrorists to become more aggressive or to institutionalize their ambitions in order to get a seat at the table as legitimate world players.

Now all Hamas has to do is declare Gaza an official sovereign entity, which they probably could do since Israel withdrew and most of the Arab and Islamic world is behind Hamas, get it in writing at a summit in Cairo (hell, Israel unilaterally withdrew, Hamas can unilaterally declare itslef a government), and bingo! You have direct unconditional talks with President Obama.

Starting from the Great game to today it has been subjected to use as a pawn, in 1941 the USSR and Brit invaded it, the later govt, nationalized Iran’s Mineral Wealth (yes took away the rights of *its* citizens) the brits took away the rights of citizens of Iran, embargoed its oil and pumped America to do the same! So who’s the antagonist?

Then Ah!, the seed of evil by none other US, Operation Ajax, to CONTROL IRAN”S OIL!!! Now who’s the antaognist?

Ofcourse the ppl finally took to streets and kicked the American boot lickers away and now they have a nice strong country wishing to defend itself after years of foreign intervention.

Israel’s nukes are knoen through its own citizens, yet Israel is never threatened by use of force?

Not to forget the Iraq Iran war fuelled by US weapons, what would ppl do except HATE america.

But then ppl are blind to their own faults …. When Iran tries to interfere with other’s affairs (Hezbollah) it is rogue but when US …. Vietnam,Afghanistan,Iraq/Iran,Palestine,Iraq,Iran,N korea …….

When an animal reaches its age its prime it turns on its master ……(Osama)

They are a more legitimate representational government than Iran’s because the elections in Palestine were more free and more fair. Whats wrong with offering CHOPE to the terrorists of Hamas, if its OK to meet with the terrorists of Tehran?

Jimmy, I think you know why. Hamas isn’t trying to enrich uranium.

I would argue that engaging official diplomatic relations with Iran, thus ending their status as a rogue regime is in-and-of-itself a concession (albeit not as severe as the Sudetenland). What could possibly be accomplished that could not otherwise through back channels – like sizing them up, gaging what their real interests are, viewing how their power is structured, etc, etc, et freaking cetera.

If there is no problem with simply “talking,” then why the bug up Obama’s ass about Jimmy Carter’s trip to Hamastan? They are a more legitimate representational government than Iran’s because the elections in Palestine were more free and more fair. Whats wrong with offering CHOPE to the terrorists of Hamas, if its OK to meet with the terrorists of Tehran?

Anybody catch Chris Matthews last night? It was genius. I don’t know who the half-wit “conservative” pundit was, but Chris nailed him on this. Nevile Chamberline gave Hitler HALF OF CZECKOSLOVAKIA! Now that’s appeasement. People keep using “the appeasement of Hilter” as some kind of historical warning that we must never engage with our “enemies” and they don’t know what the freak their talking about. As Chris said, if you’re going throw around historical referrences, at least look them up and get your facts straight.

As to the subject…
“Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along,” – Bush
Why wouldn’t this work? Understand your enemy. Understand why they want what they want. Understand what YOU want and why YOU want it. Understand the differences between the two and how you can come to a peaceful agreement. Its called diplomacy. Remember in 2000 when Bush ran on a non-interventionist foreign policy and then after 9/11 he did a 180 and wants to intervene in everyone’s affairs.

Second, accusing us of yellow journalism is contradicted by the facts. Please check the following…

“Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along,” said Bush, in what White House aides privately acknowledged was a reference to calls by Obama and other Democrats for the U.S. president to sit down for talks with leaders like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Note the bolded section.

And yes, it’s true that the White House’s press secretary said this wasn’t about Obama, but it has been widely reported that they said one thing publicly and another thing privately. In other words, don’t let them spin you.

One last note, Bush wasn’t talking about radical cavedwelling terrorists. He talked about Hitler very specifically. So you can think Bush was just making some sort of random historic parallel in the Israeli parliament about an American senator wanting to talk to enemies of Israel on the ANNIVERSARY of the nation’s formation, but I’m not buying it.