Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire!

Interesting that his guilty conscious immediately assumed the Prez was talking to him, eh? This guy is such a dufus, I can only imagine what will happen if he gets voted in. I hate to think.
WC

LOL - can you say, ego?
WC

You’re actually contradicting yourself here. Mr Bush’s meaning of the word ‘terrorist’ is different to Obama’s. Mr Bush’s ‘terrorists’ are any and all people who are against American global interests and Obama’s ‘terrorists’ are people who actually present a physical threat to the lives ,not the profits, of the American people.
So by saying (quote : ‘So, Mr. Obama, how exactly does one “not hesitate to talk directly with Iran” without negotiating with terrorists?’) you show yourself to be a staunch supporter of George Bush’s meaning of what a ‘terrorist’ is. In other words you say that Iran’s leaders are ‘terrorists’ simply because they do not accept American supremacy over them. While Mr. Obama argues for dialogue with Irans regime and does not consider them terrorists because they simply do not aggree with the States.

Jos,

You will be right if you say that Iranian government violates human rights by limiting freedom of speech in its country, carries acts of violence and sponsors militant organisations such as Hamas. However, you still do contradict yourself considerably.Instead of stating the facts you simply play with the meaning of the word terrorist.
First of all the facts. I must say your partly right that Iran with its strong army can perhaps present a threat. But look at reality who still presents the biggest threat to the region and perhaps the whole world none other then the US? The US supplies Israel every year with 3-4 billion dollars in aid which creates a hugely dispropartionate balance of power in the region especially due to the fact that Israel, already possesses its own nuclear weapons. Thus what kind of threat can Iran possibly present to Israel when Iran has no nuclear weapons? Israel on the other hand can easily, by using its nuclear weapons destroy not just the whole regions but indeed the whole world. Then you say that Iran supports militants in Iraq and Afganistan which carry out acts of terror. But the US backed Iraqi government with the help of American troops together with its controversial support of several Iraqi militant groups against each other has deeply undermined the whole peace process in the country and the whole Middle Eastern region. With nearly everyday acts of atrocity committed by the above parties, all funded by the US, have left more then a million Iraqi people dead and have created several million Iraqi refugees forced to flee their country in order to save their lies. Precisely from this flows that the US government is involved in carrying out the biggest ammount of terrorist acts in the region.
Secondly one can easily presume that Iran, whatever its humanitarian record within its own country, would be on the defensive trying to protect its National interests. This is especially true when the US has been a threat to the country ever since the Reagan administration supported Saddam Hussein with his war against Iran.
Vowing to bring democracy to the region the US has instead brought war, violence and suffering to the whole Middle Eastern region. You defend your argument with your own meaning of the word terrorism. To you terrorism is open defiance to Bush’s interests in the region. However as many people can agree the meaning of the world terrorism is not just simply open defiance to the interests of a global super power but ‘terrorism is the act of violence against civilians to achieve political or ideological objectives by creating fear;.This is precisely what the US has set out to do in the Middle Eastern Region by displaying its huge war machine to create fear in all of its opponents.