No preconditions? We're going in weakly from the beginning, then, and passively making Iran's misbehavior seen as legitimate, not merely accomplished facts. Rewards? (Bribes?) Oh, how nice. Never mind the moral failure of such an approach. But then comes the real issue: We approach the Iranians deliberately with weakness, and offer them bribes , in exchange for WHAT? And given Iran has demonstrated numerous times it is dishonest as well as malevolent, what fool would trust Iran? Are we supposed to offer Iran a North Korea-style Nuclear Framework or something even more beneficial to Iran, only to be “surprised” and “disappointed” later?

And are we supposed to also offer Hamas and Fatah and even Hizballah a new existence, where we see these criminal organizations as legitimate and “try to understand their plight,” et cetera, ad nauseum?

And IN EXCHANGE FOR WHAT? Buying more oil and gas from Iran, rather than have it stop supporting terrorism and cease its WMD and its ballistic missile programs? Or is this some kind of PC lunacy where we're assumed to be the party totally in the “wrong” (for unclear “reasons,” but that doesn't stop the Usual Suspects), and it's our “obligation” to “remedy” our ways by offering Iran (or Hamas, or Fatah, etc.) offers and concessions and avoid making demands of the other party, in order to buy the goodwill of Iran and the rest of the world? It's we who should be expecting offers and concessions from Iran, not the other way.

The worst of the anti-war lunacy is disgusting to contemplate when Obama is appealing in large part to it with his PC- and anti-war-appealing sound bites. This is what raises some of a number of concerns among us more intelligent, rational, and sensible voters about what may be threatened if the Dems' left wing has its way with the USA. We don't want a foreign policy that deliberately weakens or threatens harm to us, obviously, nor is it reasonable or responsible to attempt to buy the goodwill of the rest of the world, particularly our enemies and adversaries.

* * *

“The LIE is that its BUSH's War.”

Of course. The war initially had support of most Americans easily, ranging from wholehearted to a begrudging dirty-job-better-done-now-than-later manner (”just show us the WMDs”). Only the extreme radical fringe (who abhors success or progress by the USA) was against it strongly. The other big lie is that it is an analogy to Vietnam, itself a war that had so much opposition that was dishonorable and diseased (just like so much opposition to Iraq now).

The title of the above is…………..To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Dodd, Daschle, BIDEN, REID……and a host of others voted for the use of force against Iraq. They told the president to get er done. Now Reid is leading the antiwar charge with drool from his mouth.

In 2006 the US congress was drastically changed to bring about the end of the war. They could easily do it if they wanted to. However the lie is that they somehow cant. The truth is they wanted the war to hang on for 2 more years until the 2008 presidential election because they knew they could use young boys lives to smash the GOP into little pieces.

I was one of those voting for change in 2006. They said they would end the war. THEY LIED.

I am NOT>>>>>NOT>>>>>>>>>NOT in favor of the WAR. I WAS>>>>WAS>>>>WAS…..opposed to it.. BUT. Truth is always truth. And Lies will always be lies. This is Americas WAR.

The LIE is that its BUSH's War.

Articulating a strategy in a speech while campaigning is totally different then actually implementing that in reality once your sitting in the White House. GWB promised to be a uniter too.

Rambie I totally agree. its exactly what the far left antiwar did with the GOP and the war in Iraq. They told enough lies that now we have come to actually believe that The democrats never stood on the steps of the Capitol and said “Saddam is a bad man……time to go get him.”

Now its GWB's war and the only democrat to ever vote for it was Hillary Clinton. Lies work wonders and they will never stop being a form of campaigning.

They are just throwing mud to see what sticks… if you tell a lie enough times someone will believe it and spread it then it'll be taken for truth. It worked for them in 2000 and 2004 elections.

I've noticed a strategy lately to purposefully avoid reasoned arguments in order to just throw wild cards out there, the goal being to create a perception. That the perception is a false perception matters little. As long as it's 'out there', it exists.

Rove has always been a master of manipulating perceptions, and I see this as just his latest exercise.