You don’t call him Lord because he is president and this is the United States. It is unusual. The only possible reason to do so would be to imply something, which I inferred to be an insult based of your previous arguments about my “ideological blinders”.

Like I said, we are less than a month into his presidency. Generally, many of this stuff is down the line Democratic agenda, so I can’t complain. This site’s posts mainly consist of the GOP’s type of problems, so I can’t imagine agreeing with any of them. I can’t recall this site posting this, but I am really against William J. Lynn III, a lobbyist, for the Deputy Secretary of Defense, for example.

Anyway, I cannot speak for J and I don’t want to either. But as for me, I certainly have a lot of points to criticize about Obama and I don’t like all of his plans.

But this is not the point of discussion on this blog and not the climate to discuss these issues. This platform is designed or at least used by the far most contributors as a means to spread a lot of venom about the damned liberals and to reassure each other of their “true” attitudes. That’s fine and okay, I have a lot of fun here. But don’t expect anyone to have a serious discussion here. So the only thing people like J can do is to set a stop-sign every by and then. Do you really conclude that people like J, Keegan or me see Obama as their Lord only because they don’t criticize him. No Scott, you don’t. The intention is, to make them look a bit naive.

Please go on, I have a lot of work to do and some comedy is always welcome.

When have you opposed Lord Obama on any matter of substance?

By the way, that was very liberal of you taking offense to me calling him “Lord”. Liberals, always creating victims.

I’m assuming the purpose of these talks was to monitor the situations at hand. I assume because it is only thing that makes sense. These people have not enough leverage to conduct diplomacy. There would be no purpose in conducting talks that are beyond talk 2 because that would not be conducive to the desired goal, nor would meaningful progress be possible.

Finally, I don’t get what you are saying with “Lord” Obama business. You don’t know the full extent beyond my thought processes. I speak in defense of him because I can understand his positions, without your ideological blinders. I can understand your positions as well. As such, I have never insulted any of you based on the blind following of Bush as he lead us into a ditch. Yes, I have criticized Bush, but never anyone personally to my knowledge.

I am well aware of what “track II” means. However, the Obama team was in no position to properly have such discussions prior to winning the election.

Furthermore, do you really believe these were only “track II” talks? Well, I shouldn’t ask you that, I’m sure you do, because you follow lock-step behind ‘Lord’ Obama.

I, and probably many of my friends here on PD, am quite skeptical that these “talks” remained within the loose definition of “track II”.

“But since the term track II denotes nonofficial and informal conversations using unofficial actors, I assume they were unofficial and informal.”

But you’re way off on guessing my worst nightmare. That would be having to endure Gone with the Wind, The Sound of Music, or anything with John Travolta from beginning to end.

Everything is subjective, right GO? Who can really say what a terrorist is, right?

Riiiggghhhttt….

Hm, its almost 20 years now, that difference doesn’t count anymore. But to answer your question: I have the potential to be your worst nightmare. Cause my mother is from East Germany and my father is from, please sit before reading, is from Syria (no joke but the plain truth).
To set that shock down a bit: I was born and brought up in West Germany, where my father came to in 1957 to study, then he met my mother on a vacation in East Berlin, they married and they managed to get my mother (legaly) to West Germany in 1964. So, I was was educated in the sense of beeing a (West-)German and overall I feel as a European in the first place.

Oh, I should add, that my ties to Syria are not particular tight. I have visited Syria only twice and don’t even speak Arabic. Believe me I don’t have any sympathys for the regime over there and certainly its fair to call them bad guys. To call them “THE” bad guys is certainly untrue, there are some more in the region and teh world to blame as well.

Now, I’m not exactly sure who/what “bad guys” are, but Iran and Syria count. Not sure who else counts, but, um, are you from West Germany or East Germany?

By the way: what exactly are terrorists?

It makes me wonder what these “talks” were really all about, especially considering most of the world leaders supported Obama.

Or he’ll just say “that’s not true!”

There is a federal statute someplace in the US Code that prohibits anyone other than authorized administration personnel from conducting any diplomacy in the name of the United States. As Obama’s actions pre-dated his ascenion to the Oval, technically his actions would violate this statue.

But of course, we’re talking about the Obamessiah, so rules and regulations don’t apply to him.

Don’t we remeber the media brutaly attacking McCain for his non-vetting of Palin?

Only a true liberal would brag about making decisions based on “a panel of ambassadors and experts”.