Kerry the man with the plans that won't work. Maybe, Edwards can take Iran to court to make them stop their nuke plan that is what Edwards does best right?
Bush will probably win look who he is running against. If they would have nominated a guy like Joe Biden I might even have voted for him. I always found him to be an extremely bright guy don't you agree?
Disgusting that Kerry & Edwards are trying to float proposals like this to Iran. Luckily for America Iran are more honorable than the Democrats.
Iran recruits 'human shield' for nuclear reactor http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1094613507272
Bush Can't Afford Inaction on Iran Zionist Propaganda 9-9-04 (Max Boot, Olin Senior Fellow in National Security Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations) http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion...,5220276.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions
Re: Bush Can't Afford Inaction on Iran Max Boot does have a fellowship at the Council of Foreign Relations, but his position on Iran policy is the opposite of the one advocated by that organization. The Council on Foreign Relations, which is traditionally a moderate (center-right) organization and part of the "realist" school of thought on foreign affairs, has advocated the very policy Max Boot derides. In other words, "engagement" with Iran. More on that later. But who is Max Boot anyway? To just mention he has a fellowship with the Council on Foreign Relations is misleading. More tellingly, he is also a contributing editor to the Weekly Standard -- the journal of choice for the motly crew of staunchly "pro-Israeli" thinkers referred to as "neoconservatives". Or, to put the answer to the question "Who is Max Boot?" differently: Max Boot is a neocon -- certainly, a neocon wannabe! And as Max Boot admits, support for Israel is a "key tenet of neocon thinking". Moving along... Since you like to misuse the pedigree of the Council on Foreign Relations, and cite opinion pieces from the LA Times, I suggest you actually cite the real position of both of these organizations. The LA Times position was outlined in an editorial only a couple days ago, as follows: As for the Council on Foreign Relations, and their position on Iran, here is their press release which tries to summarize their report advocating engagement with Iran: I think you are way out of your league when you start discussing mainstream US groups and their positions, unless they happen to mouthpieces for Aipac or part of the neocon cabal. Even though you appear "left/liberal" on economic and social policy issues, nonetheless you shouldn't be ashamed of joining the neocons: many of them started just like you, as "pro-Israeli" liberals who eventually decided that their "pro-Israeli" sympathies outweighed their leftist and liberal antecedents. Of course, some of them claim that what really happened was that their liberalism got "mugged by reality". Too bad they decided to trade some of the discredited ideas they held about politics and economics, with rather disingeneous and discredit opinions on foreign policy!
Re: Bush Can't Afford Inaction on Iran It was an accurate statement, even if you do not approve. I'm mostly familiar with the Jewish dominated ones, the other 10% (like the Council on Foreign Relations) are a little alien to me. Another dual loyalty conundrum.
If they would have nominated a guy like Joe Biden I might even have voted for him. I always found him to be an extremely bright guy don't you agree? <rimshot>