+ New Atlanticist and Outside the Beltway linked The Obama "doctrine"--sort of. + The Moderate Voice linked How to dull the strategic brain. + Information Dissemination mentioned Tom's HASC testimony from last month. + HG's WORLD mentioned generati...

Just say the words..."President Barack Hussein Obama"...just drives ya nuts, doesn't it (obviously)...

By NAZILA FATHI
Published: April 22, 2009

TEHRAN —Iran announced officially on Wednesday that it welcomed talks over its nuclear program, and said that it was ready to offer a proposal to resolve the dispute over its uranium enrichment activities, the state-run IRNA news agency reported.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced last week in a speech that Iran would take part in the talks. Wednesday’s statement appeared to be an official response to an April 8 invitation by six major powers, including the United States, for a meeting to find a diplomatic solution.

I have only made reasonable assumptions.

Why are they reasonable beyond that they support your previously held view of Obama? Do you have any facts to support the contention that they are "reasonable"?

Tax every one into the poor house.

Slay as many unborn babies as possible.

Regulate the second law of thermal dynamics.

Cement the rights of perverts,illegal aliens, and criminals.

Maintain power at all cost no matter the costs.

Crap I could have wrote it for him and saved us billions of dollars.

He did bow to the king of Saudi Arabia and shook hands with Chavez.

Look, he nodded to the king of SA. Big deal. As others have pointed out, I prefer that to all the Bush hand holding of the guy. This isn't the middle ages -- there are no legal consequences to such an act. Maybe it was an inappropriate gesture, but no more so than puking in front of a Japanese PM or winking at the Queen of England. Good grief.

Now about Chavez. Again, big deal. Chavez is a third-rate thug. He poses zero strategic threat to the United States. The only people he really threatens is his own with the risk of poverty due to his insane economic policies. If he wants to pretend he is back in the 1960s and act like Che was a bankbook, let him. The world has passed his kind by, and we only elevate his stature by making him seem like a threat. So you shake his hand, make a joke about the book he gives you, and moves on.

You can't control everything. And you can't fight battles on every front. There is literally no upside strategically in getting into a pissing match with Chavez.

We have two wars going on. AQ leaders still at large. North Korea is testing missiles. Iran pursuing nukes. Pakistan just turned over effective sovereignty of another 1.5 million people to radical extremists. Oh, and we have a little ongoing problem with our financial system. I think, given all of that, Chavez is pretty small potatoes.

How is that for a justification?

The mention of bowing to the king should also be taken in context. Bernard challenged Zelsdorf on this and I was pointing out it was true. Is it not?

You certainly did more than merely point out the truth--you intimated that the acts were indefensible:

He did bow to the king of Saudi Arabia and shook hands with Chavez. If you can defend those actions I'd like to hear it.

What does that last mean if not that you think the acts can't be defended? I still maintain that, Obama's having been in office for only four months, it's a little too soon to be asserting his failures.

The mention of bowing to the king should also be taken in context. Bernard challenged Zelsdorf on this and I was pointing out it was true. Is it not?

My appropriate response to Chavez would have been a nod and invitation to have diplomats meet. No handshake and no "flipping the bone".

Speaking of "seriously", no one is flying the flag upside down we are merely pointing out that inexperience has consequences. Public discussion of such things is still allowed. Pointing out the electorate was duped is fair.

So let's not put words into each others mouths and discuss things on a higher level.

I believe Bush stepped up while I doubt Obama will.

This is your idea of substance? Delusion followed by baseless conjecture?

Oh, and as far as this goes:

He did bow to the king of Saudi Arabia

As has been pointed out before, at least he didn't kiss the dude and hold hands with him like the Bismarck of Crawford did. As for shaking hands with Chavez, I suppose your idea of appropriate foreign policy would have Obama flipping Hugo the bone instead, right? Look, you guys had eight years, and the electorate said enough. I know it's never too soon for you folks to start flying the flag upside down, but really, after only four months in office. C'mon. Seriously.

Sam, come on, you can do better than that. Post something with "substance".

Bernard, Your rhetorical tricks directed at ZR expose some weakness in your argument. Why not argue with facts and logic instead. He did bow to the king of Saudi Arabia and shook hands with Chavez. If you can defend those actions I'd like to hear it.

Why is it when you feel cornered you resort to profanity? Does that make you feel more 'right'? Or did you take a page from John Stewart?

Just wondering ...

I believe Bush stepped up in it while I doubt Obama will.

Fixed that for you.

bow to kings, shake hands warmly with Americas enemies,

He even bowed and shook hands with a dog! A Mexican dog no less! He's probably already signed away our sovereignty to this Latin Canine league.

Watch out Zelsdorf! The black helicopters are on the way. You'll need to put on your tinfoil hat to keep them from reading your thoughts.

Sarkozy, Chavez, Brown, Ahmadinejad, and others are far from impressed.

And you know this how?