And Obama never promised to meet leaders of rogue nations in his first year…he said he "would be willing"…meanining he would at least consider it. I love you you people just followed Hillary's lead and are now claiming Obama "promised" to meet Ahmadinejad.

Ignorance run amok.

For the nine millionth time, Sen. Clinton did NOT say that she wouldn't meet with Ahmadinejad. She said she wouldn't PROMISE to meet with him in the FIRST YEAR OF HER PRESIDENCY without ascertaining that he was serious about negotiations and not just out to grandstand. She DID say that she would send high-level envoys to ensure that this was the case. After his speech at Columbia, I must say I agree with her precautions, which are also just standard diplomatic preparations and practice. Why would she waste her time as president and risk the nation's prestige to hear the man give her a head-count of gays in Iran? This is not about showing what an open-minded, great guy you are: it's about doing the nation's business.

Instead of negotiating with our enemies , we should be working with our allies to bolster stability to that region, while sending a strong message to Iran and Syria, that Iraq will NOT become a satellite state of terrorism. We need to also hold accountable those senators who communicate defeatism to the nation, while emboldening our enemies resolve to stay the course.

That is why I am voting “Grasso for President” - http://www.GrassoForPresident.com

"intellectual laziness"??

If you buy into this then you can't possibly have been watching for the last 6.5 years. This is the GEORGE W. BUSH administration calling Obama intellectually lazy. And the Clinton brigade is slurping it up like drooling dogs.

A different point of view is not intellectually lazy. It is the opposite, a thoughtful change in the way we do things.

I guess the "sharp-minded" among us always stay the course. It shows we have taken 5-10 polls on the political wind, and spent at least 5-10 minutes thinking about our approach.

I can see now from abroad, that the US population is manipulated by the media. It is sad to see that the average population does not go out of the country and see what is really happening abroad. Mr Obama is a good candidate and i agree with speaking with friends and "ennemies" if there is. But you cannot say that you would strike Pakistan if Talebans hide their, in that case bomb yourself or the UK and Canada because there are strong cells there as the former CIA head confirmed. From the outside world . We see that a country pronoing democracy has a hard time getting rid of a segregational justice and education. Healthcare is discrimative, so maybe we should the UN do their job.

The ONLY reason people seem to have for not talking to these evil leaders is because "it won't work". Talk about looking at the world the wrong way. Who cares if it ends up not working? There's a chance something may come from it… at the very least- international support via the idea that America is no longer a stubborn, hard-headed leader- I.e. International respect for being willing to LISTEN even if we aren't willing to compromise.

does everyone forget that the president of Iran was right in the middle of taking our people by force and humiliating the US and the people they held hostage back in the 70's. This man is bad! he should be treated as such, theres no rational conversation with this man. if everyone doesn't think his stupid speech about nothing to skate around the questions asked of him doesn't remind you of hitler, then somethings really wrong .he even wears his hair like him.
you cannot talk to this man. he only know one thing violence and that the whole world should be islamic(like being in the aryan race) The people of Iran need to wake up and get rid of these hard cruel people that run there country. It may take along time, but just like in kurdistan the Iraquis will appreciate there freedom more than under saddam, yes it is a mess, but imagine if Iran was like Egypt or Kuwait, the middle east could be a paradise where we as Americans and the rest of the world could travel in safety and bring friendly new ideas to both sides. iran is very bad for everyone in the world,
France is 100% correct, they may have fall out from a nuclear weapon that this man may use on Isreal if he gets one. it woulkd be like mexico facing missles at us.

We had our chances in the past to be less entangled in the entire region such as when President Carter tried to establish automotive standards that would have led to us being freed from the need for Mid-East oil by now. Unfortunately Ronald Reagan abandoned these efforts to appease the short term greed of the oil and car industries. Instead we haved to deal with clowns like Ahmadinejad and worse yet, foolishly involve ourselves in a tragic and moronic "war" that once more benefits–you guessed it–no one but the corporations profiting from the needless deaths and maimings of others. But we might as well let this guy speak his piece because–as an earlier poster pointed out–our government may decide he's our new "best friend" and start sending him weapons in a few months if we think he's on board with whatever "agenda" we pull out of the hat at that time.

The question is not whether to talk to Iranian leader not. The question is whether we should guarantee to talk to them NO MATTER WHAT CONDITIONS are and talk to them within the first year in the office.

If Iran tells us "we now have nuclear mass destruction weapons. If you don't do what we want you to do in the first year of your presidency we will destroy America!” Do you want to comply with them?!! It is in these kinds of scenario, Obama looked very naive by promising to talk to enemies with no condition whatsoever in the first year of his presidency. I am an independent but Clinton's answer makes me feel secure and save as an American. Obama president is very scary.

Mr. Obama doesn't know the rules of politics yet (He is too young!). Keep in mind, you are not allowed to the solve problems by negotiating or talking with other leaders since they either have to say "yes sir" for everything or they are "Evil Dictators". I am afraid that's why, you are not going to win even though I support you.

Hat's off to Rick in Burlington for his thoughtful insight into recent history. I could name a dozen newspapers that would be better if he would write a weekly column.

Much better to add light than heat - like the Hillary fan from NY - Obama is not Muslim. Always enjoy reading those with concrete opinions - all mixed up and permanently set.

Obama is naive and inexperienced. He was only elected to the Senate last year.

I don't think he ever went to college, if he did, it was probably through affirmative action. Americans are never going to elect a black Muslim as President! And his wife is unfit to be first lady. She should go home and stop talking right away!

Hillary Clinton has more strength and experience of any candidate. She's been a senator for 15 years now. She made many important decisions as first lady and is personally responsible for much of America's prosperity in the 90's.

Most Americans have always liked her. She's just like the girl next door.

Vote for Hillary!
Posted By Hip Hip Hoo-illary! New York, NY : September 24, 2007 2:24 pm

You must be on some kind of hallucinogen.

Talking doesnot mean that one will endorse or accept oter viewpoints. todays enemy could be tomorrow best friend. Didn't US changed policy towards a country that attaked Pearl Harbor and killed over 3000.
May be we are wrong or may be other party iis wrong or may be both are right. we could create a win-win situation for both parties so that they sell to their domestic auidences.
Talking is better than war. And i am talking about lowering one defences and cuaght off guard.

To "demwit" who said to have Obama ask the Iranian president to stop the proxy killing of US soldiers.

Well, Mr. Demwit, the US killed nearly one million Iranians by proxy during the Iran-Iraq War that lasted from 1980 to 1989. Who supplied Saddam Husseim the weapons (including chemical agents) to fight that war?

The US did. Do your homework before you spout such drivel.

Who put the Shah of Iran into power, who tortured and killed thousands of Iranians through his SAVAK secret service? The US and British did.

Who armed the Taliban to fight the Russian occupation of Afghanistan? Surprise!!! The United States.

It has been the US meddling in Middle Eastern affairs since WWII that has gotten us into this current mess.

How about a little more diplomacy rather than saber rattling? Look at what the failure of diplomacy has done for us.

Hip Hop Hoolary is wrong; Mr Obama was elected to the senate in 2004, not last year. Secondly, he's been in elected office about 10 years between his time in the Illinois legislature and the senate, which is longer than not only both Hillary's and John Edwards' time in elected office, but also longer than that of Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney, two top contenders on the republican side.

Hillary not only lacks the experience and wisdom to be commander-in-chief, but also seems to lack the willingness to take a stand and give direct answers on many of the issues facing us. Good person? Yes; Good president? Not so much.

Go Obama!

dear democratic fellow, Obama is hype and Edward is whiner so be careful when you make decision to vote.
make yourself and your country proud by voting smart and intelligent woman for the president of the USA.
Hillary for president 08!

Obama is spot on. Our current policy of making threats, moving military ships to the Gulf, and other crap like that has done nothing to move things forward. I'm amazed at the obtuseness of some people here attacking Obama for his position.
Also…it seems people forget that Ahmadinejad was ELECTED as a direct result of OUR trash talking (remember the "axis of evil" nonsense?). Before Bush gave that speech, Iran was actually helping US in terms of our efforts in Afghanistan to oust the Taliban. The Iranian moderates were moving forward, and implementing reform. Once Bush started making threats, the Iranians closed ranks and voted in Ahmadinejad in 2005.

Lastly, can someone explain this to me:
The rightwing NRA members claim that guns don't kill people, but people kill people. Well, if that's the case, then why are these same people claiming that Ahmadinejad is responsible for weapons allegedly made in Iran being used against our soldiers? Is he the one firing the rockets at our soldiers?

I don't get these people. The only person to blame for our soldiers deaths is BUSH.

Hip Hip Hoo-illary
Please stop posting and start your assignment. First read for the next 10 min. and locate the clues. Next, if you can't locate the clues, call me. Above all stop saying you support Hil, you're making us look bad. Let's just keep your support on the "down low". Sorry "Obama supporters" she really didn't know.

Yes, Obama is right. Aren't you all glad that the President (of Columbia University) had the opportunity to say to Ahmadinejad's face what we need to say? Being able to get into someone's face and forcefully express your views is powerful. I would like to know how Al jazeera reported it. I hope it gets widespread circulation in the middle east news media. I don't see Bush telling off Ahmadinejad like that.

Hip Hip Hoo-illary:

As a new yorker myself, I do like your enthusiasm about Hillary, although your statements has a few mistakes:

a) There is no evidence to support that Obama is currently an ideologically muslim. However, he had strong muslim influence when young. His middle name is muslim "Hussein", as he father was a muslim from africa. His step father was also a muslim, from Indonesia. He stayed with his step father in Indonesia for some years where he has been rumoured to have attended a muslim school because Indonesia ia a predominantly muslim country and most schools were run by muslims.

b) 8 of the 15 yrs for Hillary should be counted as the first lady, not as a senator. But, I would consider being a first lady is more beneficial as a presidential candidate, with proximity of the center of potiical action and opportunity to know the domestic and foreign powerful people.

c) The econoimic prosperity of the 1990's was under the her husband's administration. Alan Greenspan, the former federal reserve chairman, said that Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon are the only two smart and economically responsible presidents he had served all these years. Yeah, George H. Bush and his son (shrub or little bush) have not been considered smart or economically responsible presidents by Greenspan.

Obama really demostrates his "intellectual laziness", as the Bush admin has labelled him.

He said he would meet any foreign dictators. But, he does not shows his guts to meet Ahmadinejad in new york. Talk is cheap. I dont know what to beleive what he says these days.

to…Hip Hip Hoo-illary. I pray you are showing a wonderful sense of humor. Otherwise, you are too scary for words!
Obama has my vote for 80. His clear thinking is such a breath of fresh air.
Omama 08

I'm so proud of him. He is absolutely right - schools should have the freedom to invite any one they want to speak. And the United Nations is in New York City. If it were any where else, they probably wouldn't want Bush there.

Obama is right on. Talking to a foreign government is the only way to do business. Even if your communication were only threats, it at least lets both sides listen rather than surprises being thrown. There is no reason not to meet with these people. Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.

I believe a former British Prime Minister also met with someone once… now, who was it… oh, my memory fails me…

Anyway, he returned from that wonderful talk-fest and said the following:

"This morning I had another talk with the German Chancellor, Herr Hitler, and here is the paper which bears his name upon it as well as mine…. We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement, as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again… This is the second time in our history that there has come back from Germany to Downing Street peace with honour. I believe it is peace in our time."

Neville Chamberlain - Speech at Heston Airport, upon returning to England from Munich, 30 September 1938, in The Times 1 Oct. 1938. Source: Oxford Book of Modern Quotes

Hitler's response after the meeting:
"If ever that silly old man comes interfering here again with his umbrella, I'll kick him downstairs and jump on his stomach in front of the photographers."

Adolf Hitler after the Munich Agreement, The Inner Circle, Macmillan (1959), p. 135

You see, kids, not all problems can be solved with a nice, cozy gab-fest. Talk-talk-talking with tyrants and dictators simply gives them credibility and we can see first hand how well the little 1938 Munich Kumbaya session turned out.

Don't believe me? Ask the Czechs, the Pols, the Romanians, the Ukrainians and others whom Hitler devastated. Nearly, 70 years later, and they're still finding mass graves.

Tyrants cannot be appeased. Giving Aquavelvejad a stage and a forum is nothing more than appeasement. Seventy years from now people will ask themselves, "Why could they not see what was building up? Why did they allow this threat to grow? Why didn't they do something about it earlier?"

Is there any doubt that the demorats would have attempted to negotiate with Hitler too? And like Chamberlain, they continue to wave worthless pieces of paper at us proclaiming victory..

Posted By HomeoftheBrave : September 24, 2007 2:36 pm

The answer is yes. And they DID genious. The FDR administration, Churchhill and the Nazi's came together and agreed to cease using poison gas, saving our soldiers from suffering.

And JFK negotiated the cuban missle crisis with communist russia.

Yes it is good to talk to your enemy even if you disagree.

The opposite stance in stupid.

Obama is like the Pied Piper of Hamlet. All of you are following right after him. Most of you are going because you are use to following the crowd. If Obama said JUMP.. you feather heads would say, HOW HIGH. Even the dumb Republicans said he had intellectual laziness.

I don't have any objection to our polictical leaders speaking with others with different points of view. However, let's not forget who Ahmadinejad is. He may be the so-called president of Iran, but is nothing more than the talking head of Iranian Hardliners, which have little in common with the average Iranian citizen. I don't think Obama should see him, because he's basically nothing. We would be alot better off simply ignoring the man. His days are numbered anyway.

Obama continues to prove that he has a sophisticated, experienced and well balanced view of politics and fully appreciates the need for dialogue that powers things forward.

He is a courageous leader, who speaks his mind, voicing the truth, well aware that the meaning of his words can and will be intentionally misconstrued by his rivals to score political points. Nevertheless he soldiers on!

America don't lose this chance to redeem the country. Elect this man Obama for President in '08.

Please we still hold talks with Iran. Sending Condi over is no different from allowing the president to open up dialogue. You respect a country more by hearing straight from the hourses mouth. The only propoganda thats being taken place is from the United States media against Obama and his ideas. Why are Americans so affraid of dialogue? Thats how wars start from mis understandings or a thirst for Oil.

Mike in NY and others with similar views:

Aren't you glad that you got to hear him first hand and draw the conclusion that you did on your own? I trust in the ability of the American people to be able to make a reasonable judgement about an unreasonable man. The policy of the current administration has done nothing but promote hatred and resentment of the US. Let's talk to our enemies. It doesn't mean we support them, but it certainly is interesting to get a glimpse of how their minds work.

Why do people think when Obama said he'll meet with the president of Iran he'll be taking him out for drinks? We should not shy away from our enemies. It only creates long-term animosity and misunderstanding. Our refusal to meet and understand our enemies shows not only our arrogance, but also our insecurities. We are a proud nation, and thus should not be afraid to look our enemies in the eye and tell them what we think. It's just like Obama said earlier.

Besides, Ahmadinejad is just one man with a big mouth, and Iran is a country a fraction of the power of the US. He wouldn't dare try anything against us otherwise I'm sure Obama would wipe Iran from the face of the planet.

Hip Hip Hoo illary:
Hillary can have you. There is no where to begin to counter your statement. Too bizarre.

I agree with Tom and Karen.

The whole reason this country has freedon of speech is so that people can be free to espouse unpopular views. Anyone with half a brain would not all of a sudden start believing that the Hollocaust did not happened just bc the Iranian president said so.

I would not listen to Ann Coutler speak becuase she is quite VILE, but i would listen to this guy so i can here what he has to say BEFORE it has been filtred through the washington machine.

Obama did not say he would NEGOTIATE, he said meet with, listen to, try to understand. You can't understand something you dont know, and you can't get to know something by the propaganda that is floated around. Face to Face

Also why is it OK to talk/Negotiate/deal with and owe 3 thrillion dollars to Communist China, but speaking to cuba is out of the question. Really where is the Logic? And china's human rights issues are still far worse than Cuba's. I really dont understand the right wing and hillarys thinking process on this

Many people in the world completely disagree with US foreign policies, they have not stopped talking to George Bush. Many people call our presence in Iraq as occupation or invasion when we call "preaching of democracy". Those people din't stop doing business with the US.

We preach democracy but we can not respect democratically elected president of Iraq just because he does not share our world views. Same is true with Hugo Chavez.

On Obama, he has always seen the other side of the coin that smart people ignored to exploit. On that regard, you can call him naive. How many people will get a degree from Columbia and Harvard and won't try to convert them into big fat pay check. How many of the smart educated people would take a $13K/year community organization job and walk away from six figure salaries. If someone does, I am sure many of you will call that person "naive". In that regard, Obama is naive. Or if you are honest, you can say that this man has a serious passion for people, has a huge heart to feel other people's pain, and an intense desire to make a difference in other people's lives. That spirit is lost in materialistic view of the world and a selfish practice of individualism. But guess there are still people who are different from most of us. Seem we don't quite act like them but many of us still admire when we see someone doing it. Obama is everything that other people are not. People pulled him this far from southside of Chicago's streets. They will carry him all the way to the end.

Rabid Republicans can't surprise me, it is the Clinton Fan Club that never ceases to amuse… ignorant, ill-informed, with shallow reasoning and speaking in bumper stickers… CONGRATULATIONS! Fanatical left finally found commnon language with fanatical right!

I must say listening to Ahmadinejad speak today at Columbia has me open to the idea of talks between our country and his. I myself am guilty of being too quick to judge others but perhaps this is an opportunity for an open dialogue to begin. We have to understand the differences concerning racism, oppression, and the lack of willingness to acknowledge the homosexual lifestyle that many other countries have. Let's face it, if we had met many of our own past presidents of this country's early years we would not agree with thier ideologies either.

Tom,
I don't always agree with your post (I'm usually somewhat to the left of you) but I have to agree with this one. Your post was very intelligently written and you made a valid point. Anyone can defend speech that they agree with, but true freedom of speech is the ability to defend speech that is so against what you stand for on a fundamental level that is shakes you to your core. I pretty much believe that Ann Coulter is the devil but she has every right to speak her mind and voice her opinions. I would like to think that if I had to opportunity to hear her speak or even debate her that I would do so in a respectful manner.

You've gotta be a naive Ivy League nutjob to think meeting with an Iranian nutjob would be in any way productive.

I had much trepidation with this stinkin' piece of trash speaking anywhere in my country (certainly not ground zero), but we can gain a little credibility by at least showing we are really decent people that are willing to listen to differing viewpoints and DEBATE them.

This DEBATE should be only done on a college campus and should only happen if the audience is allowed to DEBATE the speaker and his views.

You can't do this in his country and my hope is that we hammer him with smart questions, and the world media portrays it as "another reason why this country and it's ideals are the best". I know probably wishful thinking.

How would you feel if you REALLY got to see this as a citizen in Iran, people questioning viewpoints and ideas without getting slaughtered for having a different one.

I agree with and RESPECT Obama, if he wants to meet behind the scenes, go for it, as let's face it, our own media believes in it (thanks to their totally biased ideaology that is rampant throughout the industry) and again, positive word would get out and that is how the game is played.

Idiot Bush, I always felt made mistake number one by alienating the media instead of embracing it (Bill Clinton was a master at doing it) as whether we want to admit it or not, you need the media to get out "the message".

Most times it is not the message, it is how it is "sold".

My degree in journalism is paying off…………….

I do have a beef with this school and many others who whine and cry about censorship and the need to hear all views, but whenever a non-progressive viewpoint (See Ann Coulter, Andrew Card or the Minutemen at this very school to name a FEW) is slated to speak they either have the request withdrawn, denied or they are shouted down, spit at or yes, have pies thrown at them.

Is this the progressive liberal agenda we want shoved down our kids throats?

We hear and read all the time that Republicans are close-minded and have a narrow view of the world, how open minded is what these "kids" do to Republicans or "OMG", Conservatives when they want to speak?

Just my 2 "sense".

Hey Hip Hop,

IF you are the typical Hillary supporter then she doesn't have a chance:

1) Obama is not a muslim
2) She has not been a senator for 15 years
3) She had nothing to do with the prosperity in the '90s

And just who does Obama think he would be representing in meeting with the devil on his own?

James from Phoenix,
we know exactly how Republicans think:
1) we'll attack and bomb anyone who thinks differently than we do
2) we can win the war on terror in a vacuum, screw every Arab country- we don't need to talk to them since we've already got this Iraq thing all figured out
3) It's ok to visit and even had trade relations with China (a communist country in case you didn't know) but we need to continue this ridiculous out dated embargo of Cuba

Hip Hip Hoo-illary - clearly you are out of touch, and should avoid making comments in an intellectual forum.

Barack Obama graduated from Columbia University and Harvard Law School! Affirmative action opens a door, but you must still be QUALIFIED to walk through the door.

Hip Hip Hoo-illary:

Brilliant satire!

Is there any doubt that the demorats would have attempted to negotiate with Hitler too? And like Chamberlain, they continue to wave worthless pieces of paper at us proclaiming victory..

Dear Senator Obama,

When you sit down for your negotiation without fear, ask Ahmadinejad to stop supporting the proxy killing of American soldiers.
Oh, use pretty please if you think that will help too..

After listening to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speech at Columbia University it is clear that he is completely out-of-touch with the realities of this world.

When will Obama be meeting with the Iranian Leader? The guy's in town - set it up, Obama. Put your money where your mouth is!

Let the American People see the Democrat Party and their alignments:

1. Obama - unrestricted talks with Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jung Il
2. Pelosi - friendly visit to Syria
3. Obama - Open flights for all Americans to visit (support) Fidel Castro
4. Hillary - Having tea with Mrs Arafat while suicide bombers kill Israeli women/children.

Throw in some socialism (healthcare for all, robinhood taxation, etc).

THAT is the party you want to support?

Obama is naive and inexperienced. He was only elected to the Senate last year.

I don't think he ever went to college, if he did, it was probably through affirmative action. Americans are never going to elect a black Muslim as President! And his wife is unfit to be first lady. She should go home and stop talking right away!

Hillary Clinton has more strength and experience of any candidate. She's been a senator for 15 years now. She made many important decisions as first lady and is personally responsible for much of America's prosperity in the 90's.

Most Americans have always liked her. She's just like the girl next door.

Vote for Hillary!

Good for you Obama. Ignoring people who have different points of view is exactly what is wrong with the current administration. Dialog never hurts. He might have extremist ideas, and he might be controlled by the religious leaders of his country, but, as far as I can tell, he is an intelligent man. So, apart from the intelligence part, he's alot like our president…

The Bush Administration seems to ratching up the drums of war. They want to invade Iran. Kudos to Obama for wanting to keep an open dialogue. Iran is currently co-operating with the IAEA in their nuclear power program. Isolating Iran will only make things worse. The last thing we need is another war, we already have two on the go. Thanks Rick for a precise of recent Iranian history. Thos who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.

This has pretty much been the nail in the coffin for my support of Clinton. We cannot influence where we do not engage. Obama has the right of it. Clinton would continue much of Bush's strategy, which has gotten us where we are now.

Obama is an idiot. Why isn't he meeting with Hawkmed this visit?

Rick in Burlington- what an excellent and intelligent way to state our past relationship with Iran. I agree completely. American's seem to suffer from short term memory. Not all leaders will agree with us or even govern as we would but agreeing to meet with them is quite different than agreeing with them. We would be wise to avoid the knee jerk cowboy response that our President has made so popular.

Very Good, Mr. Obama. I am with you all the way. Mrs. Clinton lacks the experience,the courage and the wisdom.

I'm glad that people are seeing that Obama brings something special, new and transforming to politics, something we haven't seen in recent memory. He is a truly gifted leader and not afraid of rethinking the way we do politics - I think most of us can agree that this is what our country needs right now.

I meant to say whoever wins the WH should MEET the little nutjob.

It is utterly amazing to me how the far right Republican conservatives have become so vocal concerning Mr. Ahmadinejad's speaking at Columbia University. Are these not the same people who are so in favor of the "right to bear arms" (ie: NRA) and the "freedom of spech?" Just beacuse you may dislike the messenger does not mean he hasn't the right to speak…especially on the of soil of the "land of the free and the home of the brave." What are you people afraid of??? As for me, I choose to live by an adage I heard many years ago…"keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer. You're right on target, Senator Obama!!!

Somebody clue me in to something here. When did we actively declare war on Iran? Oh, we didn't? Then I fail to understand how opening dialogue with a country we are not at war with is in the least bit controversial. If anything, bringing Iran to the table stands a better chance of loosening fundamentaism's hold on the country and bringing about stability.

Keep up the disciplined stance Obama. I just sent you 10 bucks. Talking to a country does not preclude a military option.

I think whoever wins the White House should meet with Aquavelvajad should let the little nutjob. When they do they can tell him that further acts of war against our military forces is not in the best interests of the security of Iran.

They should also make Joe Lieberman their Secretary of State and send him with survivors of the holocaust. Then Iran can tell them the holocaust never happened.

I am Extremely dissapointed at this criticism that Mr. Obama is receiving for this. We should applaud his efforts for extending some sort of dialogue with this Radical from Iran. Like it or not, Mr. Ahmadinejad IS the President of Iran, and wethere he is considered an enemy or not, we have to atleast try to show some diplomatic dialogue. Wasn't Mr. Obama criticized for hostile comment directed towards Iran not to long ago….? Senator Clinton and a few others were the ones who critized him I believe. So in my native tongue, we would reffer to all of them including Senator Clinton as Hypocrita's…

During my lifetime, we've been allies with Iran - giving them fighter planes. We've been enemies with them supporting Iraq's war against them. We have a long checkered history of supporting terrorist groups in the entire region as well as branding some groups as satanic not so many years later. We've had Taliban visit Texas as guests, we've had high US officials shaking hands with Saddam and being buddy, buddy with him. Later, we turn him in as a war criminal. Libya's president admittedly killed a bunch of Americans but is now a friend to our president's administration. All this has happened in what ? The past 30 or so years? Short term thinking, short term manipulation seems to be our nation's approach far too often. — Ahmadinejad - let's slow down here folks. Let's not let the Fundamental Christian End-of-time Agenda drive us, let's listen to what is clearly not a stupid man, but a man with a very different point of view. Ideas won't kill us. Rash decisions, short term actions without thinking out long term consequences will - the Iraq mess has recently reminded us of that.