Steve,

Such a wonderful bit of clouded reality you seem to regard as a triumphant barb. I will be delighted to respond to your assertions, even though your complete disregard for accuracy augmented by your BDS will likely tend to render such disposition futile.

For rejoinder I would simply state that while Bush is on record stating that, %u201Cit would send the wrong signal to people around the world if the president of the United States meets with tyrants,%u201D as well as, “Sitting down at the table, having your picture taken with a tyrant such as Raul Castro, for example, lends the status of the office and the status of our country to him. He gains a lot from it by saying, ‘Look at me. I am now recognized by the President of the United States,’%u201D (I site the following link: http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2008-02/2008-02-28-voa37.cfm?CFID=14996859&CFTOKEN=42006091), a position which is utterly correct, he has not at anytime disallowed every form of diplomacy. What Bush has done is to refuse Presidential audience with tyrants as well as insist that any diplomacy is conditional.

In contrast the %u201CLeft Wing Messiah%u201D Obama has repeated stated that he would meet with leaders of rouge nations such as Iran, North Korea, Syria and Cuba, with no pre-conditions. In Democratic debates, Obama%u2019s statements such as, “The notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them, which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration, is ridiculous,” are calculated mischaracterizations of the current administration%u2019s policy. Furthermore, Obama%u2019s submission that %u201CHe%u201D will be able to promulgate international security through unconditional reasoned dialog with such individuals is not only arrogant, but radiantly imprudent. He has the %u201Caudacity,%u201D (Oh yeah, there%u2019s that word again), to equate himself to JFK or Reagan in terms of dealing with meeting aggression with dialog.

Now, if you care to read a fairly conscientious attempt at illuminating the administration%u2019s guarded policy shift, I would guide you to the July 17th, WAPO article, Iran and U.S. Signaling Chance of Deal, by Glenn Kessler. Surprisingly, it manages to refrain from veering unequivocally into left field.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/07/16/ST2008071602550.html

Now Bush has sent his envoy to talks with Iran. Yet, they have not satisfied the requirements established by Bush for these talks. If Obama would have been an appeaser for meeting without established conditions being met. What does that make Bush?

You are right i dont know why i failed to see this before, just like Neville Chamberlain, Bush did nothing, and allowed Germany to take over country, or parts of countries and allowed the entire world to fall in to the flames of a massive world war, that caused the death of 100′s of MILLIONS of people.

Oh wait the President GWB is nothing like Chamberlain. But dont let the facts stand in your way, its ok, keep up the memo about how all the problems in the world are President GWB fault, and we all lived in a land of Milk and honey and everyone made 350K per year, everyone drove Mercedes, and everyone was a college grad, and no one was ever sick and no one ever died.

Dumbass.

Mincing words, today? Steve is spot on re talks with Iran. Neo-cons came unglued at the hinge by the mere mention of talks with Iran – unconditionally (whatever that means) or not.

The fact that Bush now appears willing to engage in precisely such talks is telling – either Bush is growing a brain or he has shaken his advice-givers of the past seven years or both.