Iran Envoy Dismisses Threats Of Attack

Iran's Top Diplomat Predicts U.S., Israel In No Position To Launch Military Strike

(CBS/ AP)  It seems there is a chance Iran may be ready to negotiate an end to their nuclear program, in exchange for international assistance and development aid, reports CBS News Chief Foreign Affairs correspondent Lara Logan.

Iran's top diplomat promised an answer on negotiations "very soon" Wednesday at the United Nations and struck an unusually gentle tone as he dismissed any suggestions of conflict with Israel of the U.S.

"We do not predict a major tension or conflict in the region," Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told Logan.

Mottaki predicted that the United States and Israel would not risk the "craziness" of attacking his country and possibly provoking a wider Middle East war or driving oil prices into uncharted heights.

In an interview with The Associated Press on Wednesday, Mottaki said that he does not believe a military strike is looming while the U.S. economy is suffering and it is bogged down in a seven-year-old campaign in Afghanistan and more than five years in Iraq.

His remarks come amid mounting speculation that Israel may be considering a unilateral strike on Iran's nuclear facilities — a contingency that could upend already volatile oil markets.

"We do not foresee such a possibility at the moment. The Israeli government is facing a political breakdown within itself and within the region, so we do not foresee such a possibility for that regime to resort to such craziness," Mottaki said through his translator. "The United States, too, is not in a position where it can engage in, take another risk in the region.

"Of course, there are people in the United States who are interested in that. But we think that the rational thinkers in the United States will prevent from that action being taken, and will prevent the imposition of another adventuresome act that would put pressure on the American taxpayers."

President George W. Bush and others in Washington made it clear Wednesday that all options are on the table with regard to Iran and its nuclear program, but a military strike would not be Bush's first choice in the waning months of his presidency.

There have been growing worries that the conflict between Iran and the West over the nuclear issue could broaden into a more violent conflict, particularly if Israel tried to attack Iran's nuclear facilities in Natanz. The five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council — the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia — as well as Germany have offered new talks if Iran signals it is prepared to suspend its enrichment of uranium.

Although Iran prefers the diplomatic route, Mottaki said, he pointedly did not rule out trying to restrict oil traffic in the strategic Strait of Hormuz if Iran was attacked.

"In Iran, we must defend our national security, our country and our revolutionary system and we will continue to do so," he said. If his country was ever targeted militarily, he added, "politicians must step aside a bit and allow the military to make decisions."

But in the interview, conducted at AP's world headquarters in New York, Mottaki also signaled that a dialogue remains open to resolve the impasse and indicated Iran is seriously considering the offer of new talks. "We see and have observed some improvement in the U.S. position," he said.

He was not the only one apparently seeking to defuse tensions Wednesday.

"I have made it very clear to all parties that the first option ought to be solve this problem diplomatically," Bush said. "And the best way to solve it diplomatically is for the United States to work with other nations to send a focused message — and that is, you will be isolated, and you will have economic hardship if you continue to enrich."

At a Defense Department news conference, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said an Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities would be a high-risk move that could destabilize the Middle East.

Mullen would not say, however, what Israeli leaders told him during meetings last week about any intentions to strike Iran. "This is a very unstable part of the world and I don't need it to be more unstable," he said. "Opening up a third front right now would be extremely stressful on us."

He said that Iran would not have the ability to sustain a blockade of ship traffic in the Strait of Hormuz.

Mottaki, who was in New York for talks at the United Nations, hinted there has been diplomatic progress on easing tensions with the West. He struck a conciliatory tone toward the United States and said he sees improvements in the U.S. tone recently as well as in some recent diplomatic offerings to Iran.

But his visit also comes on the heels of a report by Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker that the United States has stepped up covert action intended to destabilize Iran's religious leadership. Mottaki described it as one of a series of such U.S. operations in Iran.

"We've become familiarized in the past 30 years with this approach by the United States," he said. "The United States has almost depleted all possible means it had in this direction."

In the interview, Mottaki denied U.S. claims that Iran helps arm and train Shiite militias in Iraq. "We are for stability in Iraq ... within a democratic system and framework that brings all who wish to operate within that framework together," he said.

Last month, the U.S. and its partners offered a package to Iran that included assistance for its civil nuclear program and development aid in exchange for an agreement by Iran to end nuclear enrichment. Iran claims that program is for peaceful purposes; Western powers say they suspect its true aim is to develop nuclear weapons.

The European Union's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, presented the package on behalf of the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany.

Mottaki said Iran was still examining the proposal and would respond shortly. Alluding to news reports that Iran's answer would come in two weeks, he added: "Maybe even sooner."

He also praised as "very constructive" Solana's response to Iran's proposals on the subject. Mottaki said he saw "significant capacities" being explored in the latest round of talks that were not present earlier.

He also blamed the recent rise in oil prices globally in part on political tensions in the Middle East.

In Madrid on Wednesday, Iranian Oil Minister Gholam Hossein Nozari warned that an attack on his country would provoke a fierce response "that nobody can imagine." Nozari said, however, that Tehran would not cut oil deliveries and would continue supplying the market even if struck by Israel or the United States.

Mottaki said he believes Iran is misunderstood and misrepresented, and again denied any ambition by Tehran for nuclear weapons. He also held out the possibility of discussions toward allowing a U.S. diplomatic office to open in Iran and on permitting direct flights between Iran and the United States.

"While downplaying the feasibility and need for a military confrontation, Iran’s Foreign Minister said that Iran will respond soon to an offer by the West to negotiate a resolution to its nuclear program and that there was a new atmosphere in the talks,” said CBS Foreign Affairs Analyst Pamela Falk from the U.N. Wednesday, “but Mottaki made a point to say that if attacked, Iran will defend its country and its national interest.”

[shanev137]

I think the mixed-messages are coming from the US.

[cyberus-2009]

Since we all know that W is full of bull does iran talking smack bring the term "waving a red flag" to mind?

[trishab4]

CBS: Iran''s top diplomat promised an answer on negotiations "very soon" Wednesday at the United Nations and struck an unusually gentle tone as he dismissed any suggestions of conflict with Israel of the U.S.

-Since when did we integrate Israel in the US? LOL!


-Those are some refreshing news. Once in a while, it''s to feel some hope in the air, for some peaceful times to come ahead! Strange enough, these news are coming from an Iranian!

[timdgrim]

It seems there is a chance Iran may be ready to negotiate an end to their nuclear program, in exchange for international assistance and development aid
***************
In other words, "Give us lots of your U. S. taxpayer money..and we will blow up antiquated cooling tower like North Korea (BS) and be removed from King George''s Axis of Evil list...Now I must go put my nose down (repeatedly) on my magic carpet..."

[clestes-2009]

shrub would completely trash his legacy if he attacked Iran to get by force what they offered peacefully in 2003.

He would go down in the history books as a war crazed, bloodthirsty president who condons torture and broke US and international laws.

IRan offered to suspend their nuclear development program, reconize Israel and fight terrorist groups n 2003.

This is good news and could be just what the economy needs.

[standlee5]

GWB/Condi are at it again.

[feelfree4u]

Re: "It seems there is a chance Iran may be ready to negotiate an end to their nuclear program, in exchange for international assistance and development aid, reports CBS News Chief Foreign Affairs correspondent Lara Logan."

If Ms. Logan were to do a bit of research on this topic, she might find out that the Iranians have the right, under the NPT, to enrich uranium for power production purposes.

Also, so far, their is no evidence at all that the Iranians are attempting to build a nuclear weapon, or that they are seeking to acquire a nuclear weapon, so this is really a non-issue.

Re: "I have made it very clear to all parties that the first option ought to be solve this problem diplomatically," Bush said."

I''m pretty sure that it has been the Iranians that have expressed a desire, all along, to resolve problems diplomatically, and that the Cowardly Cowboy just a kep'' on a hollerin'', "dead or alive! We don''t negotiate with trrrrrist!"

Am I thinking of someone else?

[edward1975-2009]

FeelFree4U: Do you really want this country to have the capabilities to produce a nuclear weapon. Their president on several occassions has said how he wishes to eradicate the world of Isreal, do you want him to have that opportunity. Do you think that it is a good idea or should we just wait until it is too late.

[sgtrds-e4]

Well he''s right, we are not in the position to attack Iran. Unfortunately that won''t stop the lunatics in the White House from doing it anyway! They want a region-wide war in the middle=east because war is very profitable to war contractors and oil companies. Wake up people! This has nothing to do with terrorism or freedom, it''s about MONEY! Our troops and innocent civilians are just expendable sacrifices to generate more and more and more blood money for the already rich. We''re being scre*wed! All of us! And it''s our own government that is doing it.

[sgtrds-e4]

It''''s not just the US and Isreal that will not permit Iran to obtain nuclear weapon. Most of Europe is against it.

Posted by corey2444 at 02:22 AM : Jul 03, 2008

But there is zero evidence that they are trying to get a nuclear weapon. None. Bush wants to invade Iran and it has no more to do with WMD''s then it did with Iraq, which is nothing. The goal of the Bush administration is not stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons, it''s building a middle-eastern US empire.

[longduck69]

America will not attack Iran. Isreal will do it. They bombed Syria''s nuclear plant. They will solve their own problems.

[feelfree4u]

(2 of 2)

Re: "Their president on several occassions has said how he wishes to eradicate the world of Isreal..."

I have looked into this, and I can''t find a single case where he actually said this. His comments had more a tone of mocking Israel for its own self-destruction. Judging from the effect that Israel is having on its host, he may well be right.

Re: "...do you want him to have that opportunity. Do you think that it is a good idea or should we just wait until it is too late."

First off, I don''t have a lot of sympathy for Israel. I think that their hard-line leaders have enacted some truly cruel and horrific policies, and that Israelis have far to much access and influence over our own policies.

Even if I were a fan of Israel though, there is no chance of Iran ever using a nuke on Israel as a first strike.

Why? A quick look at a map of the area reveals that a nuclear strike on Israel would do some serious damage to the Palestinians and other Iranian allies. Why would the Iranians squander such a strong oily hand, with such a loser proposition? I just won''t happen.

Even the "Supreme Leader" of Iran- the guy who really runs the show- has said that nuclear weapons are against Islam. That is a pretty difficult position for him to change his mind on down the road, in my opinion.

We have far more important things to worry about, and an attack on Iran will seal our doom, in my opinion.

[feelfree4u]

Edward1975,

Re: "FeelFree4U: Do you really want this country to have the capabilities to produce a nuclear weapon."

I am honestly not very worried about it.

Overall, I would like to see nuclear large scale nuclear fission activity abandoned, until we at least come up with some workable plan for safely storing the waste for the thousands of years that is required.

I would also like to see nuclear weapons banned altogether.

But the law is the law, and the NPT allows them to enrich uranium for power production. There is no evidence that they are attempting or even seeking to do otherwise, so there is no issue here.

Besides, I think that Iran would not be a significant nuclear threat even if they really wanted a weapon, and got a nuke tomorrow.

They have no practical use for one, and they are riding high on bulging oil prices. Why would they want to screw that up?


*1 of 2*

(cont.)

[feelfree4u]

corey2444,

Re: "The hard part of nuclear weapons is not the making of the weapons, it''s that making of nuclear energy. Once you have a nuclear reactor, it''s not a difficult process to start manufacturing weapons."

I don''t know where you ever got that idea. It is not a Lego set. Not to mention that they would need a delivery system, which quite often is literally, rocket science.

Re: "This ahmayabadabadoo has stood up on stage countless times and told the world what his intentions are with Israel. What proof do you need?"

I think that you misspelled his name, but as far as ''how much more proof'' goes...how about....ANY?

Anything at all?

[whiskyrocker]

Just like North Korea. If you stop doing something your not supposed to we(tax payers)will reward you with gifts from the west.

[alohaone1]

If Iran is truly into peaceful nuclear energy , why don''t they take the LIGHT WATER REACTOR given to them for free by the West , which can more than serve the purpose of generating power for peaceful means? it is given to them for FREE ?? can anyone see the lie they are using just like North Korea before . It is stupid to buy into this lie. The question is , can the world live with a nuclear Iran ? Consider this, they , the muslims don''t mind dying bombing others for they will be waited in Heaven by 79 virgins , plus , who would guanrantee that the technology Iran has will not be passed onto Hezbolla just like the IEDs are supplied to Iraqis Shiite now to kills Americans , all they will do is to deny any involment , but as caches upon caches of weapons with Iranian manufacture labels keep turning up in Iraq , even donkeys will doubt that the Iranians do not involve . So , For a guy who do not mind dying and who has time and again supplied terrorists with all kinds of weapons to kill Westerners , if you choose to allow him to have Nuclear bombs , I say good luck to you , just ask the South Koreans and the Japanese who p-- in their pants everytime the North Koreans shoot rockets over their heads and you will get the feeling . The Liberals are just as blind as stupid for believing words from the Iranian in this matters.

[uscitizenvet]

The U.S. probably won''t stretch it''s military too thin an get involved in an attack against Iran especially with elections coming up soon but that doesn''t rule out Israel going after them and I wouldn''t blame them if they did. A "joint venture" might make more sense such as the U.S. supplying the refueling capabilities that Israel would need in the air for their attack aircraft. No Way should Iran be allowed by the world to get any kind of nuclear weapon.

[omnibus66]

''I''ve thought about it and there is no way that even Bush is stupid enough to attack Iran.''

Posted by rafterman1 at 08:18 AM : Jul 03, 2008

----------------

Wrong

[trishab4]

Why? A quick look at a map of the area reveals that a nuclear strike on Israel would do some serious damage to the Palestinians and other Iranian allies. Why would the Iranians squander such a strong oily hand, with such a loser proposition? I just won''''t happen.

Even the "Supreme Leader" of Iran- the guy who really runs the show- has said that nuclear weapons are against Islam. That is a pretty difficult position for him to change his mind on down the road, in my opinion.

We have far more important things to worry about, and an attack on Iran will seal our doom, in my opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by FeelFree4U at 02:59 AM : Jul 03, 2008

- FF4U, wise analysis! Absolutely right! Major winds in that area are directed North East. Matter of fact if an Israeli ''farrts'' southern Lebanese, Syria''s Damascus can smell it, so are Nuclear fallouts. Actually the location and intercalation of different nations in the Middle-East is a natural savior, since being condemned to live together, harmlessly...

[samsel3]

The US invasion of Iraq Knocked out oil supplies to two of Saddam''s biggest customers, China & Russia. Both countries were not happy with the situation.

Both countries then signed deals with Iran. The Russians have been building multiple nuclear plants with trade for oil and China sealed direct supply deals.
Iran stands in the way of total control of global oil now with sales of oil to China%u2019s Sinopec Oil,deal signed Dec.10,2007.
Months ago China said there would be dire consequences if the US interfered with there direct oil contracts with Iran. Both parties in the Congress should be very concerned with China%u2019s growing war machine and need for oil. They are the real threat & the administration doesn%u201Dt care they are in control ! All that matters to them is BIG OIL and their corporate stock portfolios.

[minuteman-1]

Humanavance

Iran''s Shahab-3 (mod2) Missle, can reach all the way to Paris, 3,500km or 2,174 miles.....that is far

For someone to say, Iran is no threat to anyone ?

[antoniof123]

screw China! and screw Russia too!
Posted by zgomer

Are neo cons born dumber than dirt or do they get an injection?

[shawnp20]

"Mottaki predicted that the United States and Israel would not risk the "craziness" of attacking his country."

Has he NOT seen video, or heard audio of our President? He is the epitome of crazy... and not even Bush himself can predict what he is going to do from day to day!!!

[lochlan-2009]

"Iran''s Top Diplomat Predicts U.S., Israel In No Position To Launch Military Strike"

Well, that''s true, but it''s a good way to get those oil prices up, up, up.

[ici2i]

The only reason to attack Iran and step around diplomacy is to intentionally start WWIII. Is that really what the US & Israel want? On top of that, there will be a revolution in this country to overthrow our gov''t so overwhelming shotgun Dicky will be running scared. Since we''ll all perish in a world war anyway, I think I''ll fight my battle & die in DC. Our real fight should be a full frontal attack on the economy, not against a bunch of towell head extremists in a land where the common folk cherish peace as much as we do. And, we should take our big fat red white and blue thumb and squash any plan of Israel to act independetly and draw us into it.
...and that''s the way I see it

[naucoming4u]

Look up these weapons:

SS-N-22 "Sunburn" Anti-ship missile

Tor-M1 Anti-Air missile

These are weapons that Iran has now, (thanks to Russia). Both of these missiles greatly surpass the anti-ship and anti-air missiles America currently has/uses... by a wide margin.

People who think an attack on Iran will be a walk in the park like invading Iraq... are both highly uninformed and delusional!

[trillion1]

Is the Iranian envoy aware that we have an insane person as president. He attacked Iraq with less provocation.

[samthetvcat]

samsel3

WOW those are great points. You get the sense that the Bush administration before invading Iraq had the mindset that they were going to war against ''radical islam'' and missed the prediction of how turning Iraq from Sunni to Shiite leadership was going to empower Iran.

Now they could quite possibly be once again missing the full ramifications of how an attack on Iran would affect our relationship with China. Thankfully since Bush''s main concern is to protect Israel so Jesus can return as he believes will happen, there''s like zero chance he''ll pick on a country who is in the position to fight back and take it out on Israel . . . Nevertheless, I''m really glad we''re going to have the opportunity to change administrations really soon!

[oneamerican-]

Hey liberals-

Even the foreign press is seeing success in Iraq.

It''s not to late to admit you were completely wrong about the war, you know!

"Baghdad sees tentative rebirth" (BBC)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7482307.stm

"Optimism Grows in Iraq as Daily Life Improves"
(Der Speigel)
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,563471,00.html

Spend a little time thinking about just how wrong you have been over the 4th, OK?

It''ll build your character.

[caliguy55]

He''s right. But, that won''t stop a lunatic like Bush from attacking Iran. Only we can do that by demanding that Congress refuses to authorize and fund any such war.

[mbcsmith]

People who think an attack on Iran will be a walk in the park like invading Iraq... are both highly uninformed and delusional!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by NAUcoming4U at 11:21 AM : Jul 03, 2008


Please provide the name of anyone in a position of power who thinks this.

[minuteman-1]

NAUcoming4U

Not to mention....Iran''s Shahab-3 (mod2) Missle, can reach Paris or Holland or 2,174 miles

[minuteman-1]

NAUcoming4U.....I believe any strike on the Iranian nuclear facilitites would be carried out by bomber, strike aircraft and guided missles....a troop invasion is probably not necessary or possible, given the shear size and mountainous size of Iran

[bobnjersey]

[Even the foreign press is seeing success in Iraq.]
[Posted by OneAmerican- at 12:57 PM : Jul 03, 2008]

so today you''re taking to heart what non-americans say about american policy? what might have caused this change in viewpoint?

[samthetvcat]

---"Even the foreign press is seeing success in Iraq."---
Posted by OneAmerican

First off, the ''press'' as for-profit ventures exist to make money. Their primary reason for being is not necessarily to provide the truth. Many in the press supported invasion in Iraq in the first place - they''re not stupid, and they didn''t lack information . . . so if they weren''t guided by truth then isn''t the reason they take certain positions possibly because avoiding getting ''Dixie Chicked'' by those in power might be more important to the bottom line?

Second off, ''Mission Accomplished'' was a military military success - 2 years later Iraq was mired in civil war. Post-game analysis revealed that the military is not good at reading people and nation-building. The ''Surge'' appears to be a military success - the GOP do not ever cite changed mindsets and have not articulated any plans on how to succeed at nation-building. So based on that trend, two years from now, where do you expect Iraq to be in terms of progress? Please provide facts/theory/quotations of ASSESSMENTS as opposed to SPECULATIONS which substantiate your claims. Thx!

2 years later . . . ?

[cfin5]

They''ll show Kim Jong Mentallyill how he should have done it. We''ll watch a rerun here.

[ringading3]

Maybe the world needs Iran to nuke Israel? Then there would be peace.

[leftyintexas]

People who think an attack on Iran will be a walk in the park like invading Iraq... are both highly uninformed and delusional!


Posted by NAUcoming4U at 11:21 AM : Jul 03, 2008

Please provide the name of anyone in a position of power who thinks this.

Posted by mbcsmith at 01:14 PM : Jul 03, 2008

george bush and di@k cheney.

[naucoming4u]

People who think an attack on Iran will be a walk in the park like invading Iraq... are both highly uninformed and delusional!

Posted by NAUcoming4U at 11:21 AM : Jul 03, 2008

Please provide the name of anyone in a position of power who thinks this.

Posted by mbcsmith at 01:14 PM : Jul 03, 2008

george bush and di@k cheney.

Posted by leftyintexas at 02:01 PM : Jul 03, 2008
..........

...and the brain dead morons who follow their every word as gospel!

[leftyintexas]

He''''s right. But, that won''''t stop a lunatic like Bush from attacking Iran. Only we can do that by demanding that Congress refuses to authorize and fund any such war.

Posted by caliguy55 at 01:02 PM : Jul 03, 2008

Look for bush to start bombarding the public with more and more war-like rhetoric as he prepares the public for his next war... the invasion of Iran. He wants desperately to attack Iran before his term ends. The next President whether it''s Obama or McCain will inherit a world war crisis that will bring down America''s ecomomy as well as the rest of the world''s. And there will still be morons out there that think bush is the best thing since sliced bread. We live live in very scary times!

[naucoming4u]

NAUcoming4U.....I believe any strike on the Iranian nuclear facilitites would be carried out by bomber, strike aircraft and guided missles....a troop invasion is probably not necessary or possible, given the shear size and mountainous size of Iran

Posted by Minuteman-1 at 01:19 PM : Jul 03, 2008
..............

The Tor-M1 anti-air missile is capable of tracking, targeting, and intercepting multiple targets, specifically cruise missiles... especially the low and slow flying type like our Tomahawks and Harpoons!

Iran now has many of these systems in place that were imported from Russia, beginning a few years ago.

To your other point/post:

Yes, the Shahab-3 ballistic missile is capable of what you said. But there is one serious flaw in the logic that Iran would use missiles to attack another country, and that is simple...

...nothing leaves a calling card more than a land-based launch of a ballistic missile. As well, it would take Iran many years to have a nuclear device able to be made into a warhead, to be put atop a missile like the Shahab-3. Israel has dozens to hundreds of deliverable nuclear warheads right now. It would take Iran many decades to even come close to that number. If anything, Iran would use a nuclear device as a terrorist carried bomb as opposed to launching a missile. The technology to build a nuclear bomb is immense in scale... but to build a warhead, small enough to fit on a ballistic missile... is many times greater!

[naucoming4u]

Look for bush to start bombarding the public with more and more war-like rhetoric as he prepares the public for his next war... the invasion of Iran. He wants desperately to attack Iran before his term ends. The next President whether it''''s Obama or McCain will inherit a world war crisis that will bring down America''''s ecomomy as well as the rest of the world''''s. And there will still be morons out there that think bush is the best thing since sliced bread. We live live in very scary times!

Posted by leftyintexas at 02:12 PM : Jul 03, 2008
............

The rhetoric in preparing for a war with Iran will be used to help McCain for his election. The (hypothetical) plan is simple...

...convince the stupid among us (plenty of them), that military experience would be necessary in a time of a "new" war. For those idiots who vote... but only get their news/current events from the "top-of-the-hour" news breaks... in between prime-time reality shows... would fall for the "McCain military experience" krappola... hook, line, and sinker!

[kennedy7955]

If the US goes to war with Iran, I will leaving the country.

[leftyintexas]

NAUcoming4U.....I believe any strike on the Iranian nuclear facilitites would be carried out by bomber, strike aircraft and guided missles....a troop invasion is probably not necessary or possible, given the shear size and mountainous size of Iran

Posted by Minuteman-1 at 01:19 PM : Jul 03, 2008

I hope you are not suggesting that ANY attack on Iran would not be without serious reprecussions to us as well as to the rest of the world. Our economy would be crippled by the resulting oil shortage and we would have to invade because Iran will not sit still while all this is going on. The other problem is... we don''t have enough troops to carry out another invasion. Leave it to bush and his supporters to screw things up for everyone INCLUDING THEMSELVES.

[lochlan-2009]

"Iran''s Top Diplomat Predicts U.S., Israel In No Position To Launch Military Strike"

Yeah, but talking about rasies the price of oil.

Are you all half-wits?

[kennedy7955]

Leave it to bush and his supporters to screw things up for everyone INCLUDING THEMSELVES.

Bush has been quoted as saying that he didn''t care if the only supporters left were his wife and his dog. With that mindset, he can''t even see that he has screwed himself - but he knows he screwed everyone else and couldn''t give a ***.

[kennedy7955]

and still the US has no energy policy.

[kennedy7955]

I don''t mean to sound un-American but the Iran diplomat is making a lot more sense than our government.

[floydzepp2]

Hey liberals-Even the foreign press is seeing success in Iraq. It''s not to late to admit you were completely wrong about the war, you know!
Posted by OneAmerican- at 12:57 PM : Jul 03, 2008
-------------
Ooo. You say it and somehow we''re supposed to believe. What a hoot.

Sorry to burst your bubble sweet pea. but:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20080703/wl_csm/ohome

A ''surge'' unit sees change, but questions its permanence

[leftyintexas]

Hey liberals-Even the foreign press is seeing success in Iraq. It''''s not to late to admit you were completely wrong about the war, you know!
Posted by OneAmerican- at 12:57 PM : Jul 03, 2008

Talk about the ''dream'' bushite....