Here's something Obama and Ahmadinejad could chat about:

[Tigermike 3,055]

Report: Ahmadinejad Tells Japan to ‘Prepare for a World Without the U.S.’

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told Japan’s prime minister Thursday that the world will soon not include the United States, Iranian news agency IRNA reported.

"The U.S. domination is on the fall. Iran and Japan as two civilized and influential nations should get ready for a world minus the U.S.," Ahmadinejad told Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda on the sidelines of the U.N. food summit in Rome on Tuesday, IRNA reported.

The hard-line leader called for Japan’s cooperation in finding their historical and true status, IRNA reported.

"No body or power can wipe Iran off the world scene and Iranian nation of course can well manage its affairs under such an atmosphere," he said.

Also on Thursday, Iran accused the U.S. of pressuring the U.N.'s nuclear agency to base its latest investigation of Tehran's nuclear activities on fake evidence suggesting that Iran had a secret weapons program.

Ahmadinejad is currently at odds with Iran's new reformist parliament due to growing social and economic unrest.

In addition, the Iranian president is under fire worldwide for his comments on the destruction of Israel, his "suspicions" of the Sept. 11 terror attacks and his belief that homosexuals deserve to be executed, tortured or both.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,363498,00.html

With no preconditions.

[tiger88 934]

Yeah, maybe they are as overconfident as the liberals on this board are that obama will win. That could explain Ahmadinejad's confidence.

With these kind of loons out there and more powerful than ever I can't think of a bigger mistake for this country than electing Obama.

[arnaldoabru 11]

Yeah, maybe they are as overconfident as the liberals on this board are that obama will win. That could explain Ahmadinejad's confidence.

With these kind of loons out there and more powerful than ever I can't think of a bigger mistake for this country than electing Obama.

We need to overthrow Maliki-the sissy appaeasar.

[RunInRed 16,492]

Iraq meets with Israel. Israel meets with Syria. John McCain wants to stick his head in the sand. No thanks to the cowboy diplomacy we've come accustomed to under Bush.

[Tigermike 3,055]

Yesterday Obama tried to outdo John McCain at AIPAC by insisting that Jerusalem remain the undivided capital of Israel. The Palestinians erupted in anger at that statement, and by the end of the day they had Obama backpedaling:

Iraq meets with Israel. Israel meets with Syria. John McCain wants to stick his head in the sand. No thanks to the cowboy diplomacy we've come accustomed to under Bush.

Unlike the Obama "Foreign Policy" remarks this week that has both the Palestinians and the Israeli's mad.

Obama Clarifies Remarks on Jerusalem

Updated 9:10 p.m.

By Glenn Kessler

Facing criticism from Palestinians, Sen. Barack Obama acknowledged today that the status of Jerusalem will need to be negotiated in future peace talks, amending a statement earlier in the week that Jerusalem "must remain undivided."

Obama, during a speech Wednesday to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-israel lobbying group, had called for Jerusalem to become the site of the U.S. embassy, a frequent pledge for U.S. presidential candidates. (It is now in Tel Aviv.) But his statement that Jerusalem should be the undivided capital of Israel drew a swift rebuke from Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

"This statement is totally rejected," Abbas told reporters in Ramallah. "The whole world knows that holy Jerusalem was occupied in 1967 and we will not accept a Palestinian state without having Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state."

The Bush administration's official position is that the status of Jerusalem is among the most sensitive issues and must be decided by the parties. Former President Bill Clinton, before he left office, had proposed a formula under which "Jerusalem should be an open and undivided city," including locating the Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem.

Obama quickly backtracked today in an interview with CNN. (Would that be a flip flop?) (As far as flip flops go, John Kerry was a stand up guy compared to Obama.)

"Well, obviously, it's going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations," Obama said when asked whether Palestinians had no future claim to the city.

Obama said "as a practical matter, it would be very difficult to execute" a division of the city. "And I think that it is smart for us to -- to work through a system in which everybody has access to the extraordinary religious sites in Old Jerusalem but that Israel has a legitimate claim on that city."

But Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) later said on behalf of the Obama campaign that Obama's comment to CNN should not be seen as backtracking or even an amendment. He said Obama was clarifying that he has long believed that it is up to the parties involved to determine the status of Jerusalem.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2..._jerusalem.html

The US has no official position on the status of Jerusalem other than to insist that the two parties work it out between themselves. It is considered one of the most sensitive points in negotiations between the PA and Israel, and most diplomats avoid mentioning it at all to avoid unnecessary provocations while trying to get the two parties to talk.

Obama apparently doesn’t know that — because he hasn’t any experience at it.

[bojack34 2]

Yesterday Obama tried to outdo John McCain at AIPAC by insisting that Jerusalem remain the undivided capital of Israel. The Palestinians erupted in anger at that statement, and by the end of the day they had Obama backpedaling:

Iraq meets with Israel. Israel meets with Syria. John McCain wants to stick his head in the sand. No thanks to the cowboy diplomacy we've come accustomed to under Bush.

Unlike the Obama "Foreign Policy" remarks this week that has both the Palestinians and the Israeli's mad.

Obama Clarifies Remarks on Jerusalem

Updated 9:10 p.m.

By Glenn Kessler

Facing criticism from Palestinians, Sen. Barack Obama acknowledged today that the status of Jerusalem will need to be negotiated in future peace talks, amending a statement earlier in the week that Jerusalem "must remain undivided."

Obama, during a speech Wednesday to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-israel lobbying group, had called for Jerusalem to become the site of the U.S. embassy, a frequent pledge for U.S. presidential candidates. (It is now in Tel Aviv.) But his statement that Jerusalem should be the undivided capital of Israel drew a swift rebuke from Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

"This statement is totally rejected," Abbas told reporters in Ramallah. "The whole world knows that holy Jerusalem was occupied in 1967 and we will not accept a Palestinian state without having Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state."

The Bush administration's official position is that the status of Jerusalem is among the most sensitive issues and must be decided by the parties. Former President Bill Clinton, before he left office, had proposed a formula under which "Jerusalem should be an open and undivided city," including locating the Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem.

Obama quickly backtracked today in an interview with CNN. (Would that be a flip flop?) (As far as flip flops go, John Kerry was a stand up guy compared to Obama.)

"Well, obviously, it's going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations," Obama said when asked whether Palestinians had no future claim to the city.

Obama said "as a practical matter, it would be very difficult to execute" a division of the city. "And I think that it is smart for us to -- to work through a system in which everybody has access to the extraordinary religious sites in Old Jerusalem but that Israel has a legitimate claim on that city."

But Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) later said on behalf of the Obama campaign that Obama's comment to CNN should not be seen as backtracking or even an amendment. He said Obama was clarifying that he has long believed that it is up to the parties involved to determine the status of Jerusalem.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2..._jerusalem.html

The US has no official position on the status of Jerusalem other than to insist that the two parties work it out between themselves. It is considered one of the most sensitive points in negotiations between the PA and Israel, and most diplomats avoid mentioning it at all to avoid unnecessary provocations while trying to get the two parties to talk.

Obama apparently doesn’t know that — because he hasn’t any experience at it.

Sure Obama has experience. He was a student of the Rev. Wright for 20 years and he has a complete understanding of U.S. and World religion , politics.

[bigsixfive 328]

(Would that be a flip flop?) (As far as flip flops go, John Kerry was a stand up guy compared to Obama.)

I'd say Obama crawfishes more than he flip flops. Kerry would take the opposite position and act as if nothing happened or no stance was taken in the past. Obama will say or do something, then start backing off. Again, his MO when cornered is:

1) Gray the facts

2) Reverse the blame

3) Change the subject

[WarEagle007 1]

The guy has no real foreign policy...he just goes out there and speaks knowing that there are no published documents out there to verify what he says as actual policy...

[autigeremt 6,717]

Crawfishing........nice. That's a good way of putting it.

[jw 4 au 526]

Iraq meets with Israel. Israel meets with Syria. John McCain wants to stick his head in the sand. No thanks to the cowboy diplomacy we've come accustomed to under Bush.

How many times to you have to be told this, the US currently meets with Syria to address issues, just not with our No. 1 guy. Same as with Isreal. Quit trying to spin what is reality.