"Now, they may not like what we want to hear -- so if I’m talking to the President of Iran, I’m going to inform him that Israel is our stalwart ally, and we are going to do what's necessary to protect them -- that we will not accept a nuclear bomb in Iran"

I've been wondering how this line is playing with Loony left. Most of the rhetoric from them the last 6 years has been to "blame the Jews" and "Who are we to tell anyone they can't have nukes?"

the looney left.....i love it dave ...in the meantime the clueless right... make up wars ...lie to the american public .. and allows for more than 3500 americans to die ..with no worries .... i think i will stick to the looney left ..we might be looney to you but we dont sacrafice american lives for no reason

talk about a non issue-yaaaawwwnnn.

I think it was incredibly dishonest of Hillary Clinton to criticize Obama's willingness to talk with foreign leaders, when just 3 months ago in Iowa, she had suggested the same approach!

http://wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_112220939.html

Clinton Blasts President Bush's Foreign Policy

(CBS/AP) DECORAH, Iowa Hillary Rodham Clinton on Sunday criticized President Bush's foreign policy, and said if she were president she would do things differently, including beginning diplomatic talks with supposed enemies and sending envoys throughout the world.

"I would begin diplomatic discussions with those countries with whom we have differences, to try to figure out what is the depth of those differences," said Clinton, who spoke to about 1,000 people at Luther College in Decorah in northeastern Iowa.

"I think it is a terrible mistake for our president to say he will not talk with bad people. You don't make peace with your friends -- you have to do the hard work of dealing with people you don't agree with," said Clinton, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination.

Opening talks with other countries doesn't mean the U.S. won't defend its interests whenever necessary, she said, "but what it means is that we should discuss other routes before we decide we're going to pursue military options.

"We cannot provide the leadership we need unless we are willing to try engage the other countries," she said,

She dished out plenty of criticism about the war in Iraq, and said when it comes to Iran, the U.S. needs to engage those with the real power -- the clerics.

Of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad she said: "He's like their front man, he's like their puppet. He goes out and gets people agitated and says things that everybody responds to, but he's not making the decisions. The decisions are being made within the alternative government of these clerics.

"We have no idea of how these people think, we have no contact with them," Clinton said, arguing that she's advocated for years to have a process of diplomacy with Iran.

"If we ever have to use force against any country, it should be seen as an action of last resort, not first resort," she said.

And why doesn't Senator Clinton release her own statement.  Calling on a bunch of her husband's old allies to speak for her does prove one point; this is more her husband's campaign then her own.  Ricardo just made his own point; sticking to the loony left.  After all, he is in California.....

Why hasn't the press jumped all over the apparent flip flop of Mrs. Clinton's approach to Iran and other supposed rogue states?

When can we see the interview?

Clinton using Rove style tactics, to mold and define the image of the candidate by twisting their words...that is not favorable. I have a feeling that won't work on Obama...he's learning.

I happen to admire both Obama and Hillary, and having watched the debate, on this particular issue
of meeting with these leaders, Obama obviously was
playing the audience, while Hillary was in fact whether conciously or not protraying classic leadership skills. One does not jump into bed with
your adversaries for the sole purpose of being different, it does not work like that at all.

looks like Obama has put Clinton on the defensive. She tried to attack Obama and he crushed her. Gotta love it.

She has not "flip flopped" as the right so likes to say.  She simply said that she would not meet with them unconditionally during the first year of her presidency.  She would begin diplomatic relations, she would meet with them under certain conditions.  This is another example of the Sean Hannity/Rush Limbaugh crowd distorting the truth and picking bits and pieces out of a statement to slant things in a negative direction toward the Democrats.
I am so sick of the partisan politics of the past 15 years.  I don't care if you are Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever, if a canditate is trying to make this country better by doing what is right for the country and not special interest groups I will vote for them.  This country has become so screwed up because of the fact that if you are a Democrat anything a Republican says and does you must disagree with it and condemn it and vice versa.  If we would just get back to doing what is best for the country and not for a stupid party or their lobbyists then maybe we could focus on important things like taking care of our own citizens needs for a change.

This SEX thing is getting very old, it is high time to give it up and move on. It seems the more dirt you have to sling the better your chances are of getting into Wash. D.C.
If you have ran out of questions to ask, how about leaving the sex thing out and move on to something more important like life in general, better  health care, the Iraq war, etc.

Simply stated, Obama is not ready to be President.  I respect the fact that Senator Clinton is a Washington insider.  I want experience, and someone who will represent this country well on an international stage.

Mr. Obama, please get something else to say about Senator Clinton, other than her vote on Iraq.  She voted for the war, but I respect that now she is trying to do something to end the war.  Mr. Obama instead of attacking Senator Clinton, try learning from her.  

I am an african american male who saw the clinton camp as being a positive emmisary, and a potential releif to the dastardly bush administration's policies. but as of today, and because of her attack on the obama camp, calling him irresponsible and naive on a world stage, I no longer have respect for Hillary. To show ultimate disrespect to this african american candidate by using a word like 'irresponsible'/naive gives her one less vote.....MINE.  Good luck Hillary, keep listening to the wrong advice.  

I am an african american male who saw the clinton camp as being a positive emmisary, and a potential releif to the dastardly bush administration's policies. but as of today, and because of her attack on the obama camp, calling him irresponsible and naive on a world stage, I no longer have respect for Hillary. To show ultimate disrespect to this african american candidate by using a word like 'irresponsible'/naive gives her one less vote.....MINE.  Good luck Hillary, keep listening to the wrong advice.  

I noticed the consistent pattern emerging very evident in the so-called  media "Clinton/Obama wars". It is the point where the marriage of  ‘we are all on the same team' and 'united we stand' seeks an annulment and the result is 'Me, not them' starts to drive the political bandwagon.  When all the little hats and bonnets fly into the arena with the intent of massaging the nomination for the ballot out of the people, all the big fish move forward, shoving everyone else out of the way. All the team objectivity and ability to understand that each person and the strengths they had which you supported and acknowledged before are still there. They don’t evaporate after you are going for the same job.

Before this 'political announcement' timetable comes into play, the comments and opinions you express about other politicians is considered at its face value.  The focus is on how good a job your colleague does in their job and party unity runs at an all-time high. The weight of every word or phrase uttered for the year or so before the announcements come out is weighed against the possibility that you DO make that announcement.  After you try to run for office, suddenly your commentary becomes how bad a job they have done or how much better a job YOU would do. Well, what does this do? It confuses things. It confuses the people. It starts division at the time you wish people to be able to embrace your party goals and ideals the most. What do we believe? Do we believe your last year assertions of how great Senator Bob has been for the American people, how responsive, how knowledgeable of all that is politics, or do we listen to the new spin where you take every opportunity to remind us how wrong for the job he is? I would like to say it really and truly starts heading downhill at the party debates. Imagine a room where four or more fellow party members, stand at their podiums and each takes their 2 minutes to dispute and point fingers at first one then the other. The goal is to put everyone on the stage in a bad light while pushing yourself into the stratus. It's counterproductive. It is playground politics and still as far into our democratic process as we claim to be, you’re all not getting beyond it.

Then the true insolvency of this process comes to light after the selection of party choice is made. All the former contenders now become the lotto pool for the vice presidential choice. Suddenly, all the rank and file that before thought you shouldn't have the job, now suddenly bend over backward to point out how fantastic you will be for it and start posturing for the vice president slot on the ticket. It isn't controlled by the voters either. Logic would say if it truly was a vote driven process, whoever had the high votes, president candidate, whoever was at the #2 slot, vice president. Use the same mentality as seen in the Miss America Pageant, (not that I approve of that outdated pageant). (if for any reason the duties cannot be performed by the winner, the 1st runner up will assume...yadda yadda yadda...you know how this goes). But that isn't the case.  Suddenly, the candidate and his panel of judges allow all the former contestants and the 'also-rans' to parade their wares before them in the political harem that is the vice presidential selection process.
I was struck with it hard during our last presidential election. Before Kerry wins the spot, it's attacking each other and spin spin spin. After, it's handshakes and giggles. Is it through this process, politicians think they are very clever or is it you think voters are very stupid and have no ability to question this? Senators Kerry and Edwards, I directly say to you, I had a very hard time swallowing the ballot choice. But when it becomes the choice, you’re stuck. You cannot go in and say "Sam Smith for President, but I kind of like that Bob Baily as vice president rather than Martin Morris, so yes, that's how I'm voting."
The media is pushing this forward almost as much, if not more, as the politicians themselves are. You’re all letting yourselves be their pet roosters in their cockfights while they are placing bets on the outcome. All your interactions with the other roosters are weighed to see what reaction they can get out of you and how the other roosters will respond to what you said and did. You’re going after it like a starving man chasing a breadcrumb. I mean they are referring to conversations between two adult Senators of the United States as ‘having a spat’. Having a spat? What is this supposed to say? How long before you see and wise up. What next? Will Senator Obama hold his breath until Senator Clinton backs down? Will she pull his hair and throw dirt on his suit on picture day?

Mind you this is a very subjective tool, but a powerful one. Also, it is never employable by the sitting and re-electable (first term) president. It’s a foregone conclusion that whoever is president now, if they can run or choose to, will do so unopposed by their party. There is where you see the unity. All the campers get behind the boat and push. While they lead out into the deep waters, the other side stands on the shore and argues over who’s boat it is.
So I say to you, just stop it. Say what YOU mean and mean it. Candidates, stop playing the spin game. Convince us you are the right person for the job and do not waste efforts to instead insist how wrong someone else is. For all we know, you are wrong for it too for the same, other or more pervasive reasons.

<<Why hasn't the press jumped all over the apparent flip flop of Mrs. Clinton's approach to Iran and other supposed rogue states?>>

Because she is the media darling when she's nothing more than a snarling pit bull in need of a visit to Michael Vick. She is cold, calculating, and manipulative--Karl Rove in drag.


<<I happen to admire both Obama and Hillary, and having watched the debate, on this particular issue
of meeting with these leaders, Obama obviously was
playing the audience, while Hillary was in fact whether conciously or not protraying classic leadership skills. One does not jump into bed with
your adversaries for the sole purpose of being different, it does not work like that at all.>>

Right idea, but you have it backwards. Obama was the one sounding Presidential and talking policy and putting into words his plans for dealing with what's left of American foreign policy following 8 years of Dubya's gun-slinging ways. It was Hillary twisting his words for the audience to make him look like an incompetent boob. In fact, it was she that turned out looking that way. Obama's continued hammering of his -POLICY- for dealing with these states shows someone thinking already at the level a President needs to. Hillary is pandering to her loyalists and business interests with deep pockets.

And day three of this dominating the blogosphere.  I doubt anyone is going to say anything new.  More "Hillary flip flopped" (she didn't) and "Obama's answer showed that he can bring real change" (maybe but that is not a given and real change is not necessarily for the better).  

I support Hillary.  I admire the things she has accomplished in her life, and I think she will go on to accomplish greater things in the future.  I think she is more realist than idealist and, after several years of neo-con idealism by the Bush Administration, I think a shot of realism would be a welcome change.

Does that mean I don't like Obama?  Absolutely not.  I think he has also accomplished great things in his life, and I don't doubt that he too will accomplish a good deal more.  I simply don't think it is his time yet.  I think he needs to build his resume, and he needs to gain more experience.  

I will like to see Hillary on Camera defending why she did not ask how to get our troops home before sending them to war. Oh she is so experienced to be naive in making such kindergarten mistake. I wonder why the press is not asking her to explain.

Carrie, exactly what "experience" does Hillary Clinton have that makes her a better candidate for president??  If experience is what you are using has a qualification for president shouldn't you be supporting Biden or Richardson??  Hillary Clinton has never been an executive of anything. Yes she spent 8 years in the whitehouse, but as first lady NOT as a policy maker. If a woman candidate is what you want Hillary Clinton is not even the most experienced there. Almost ALL the other female senators have more "experience" than Hillary Clinton!!!

Hi, Glen Jamaica, you are right. It is easy to play into lay people's ears. But we need someone who is experienced enough to lead this country aftter the Bush mess. Her ability to answer this question more thoroughly proved Hillary is more experienced. I suggest Obama wait another 8 years and it will be his term. At present, all he (and others) has to attack on Hillary is her Iraq vote, but don't they know that most of our country were fooled by Bush then? Anyone attack on her on this should raise this issue simultaneously to be fair and to show his character.

Hillary knows ( or Bill told her) what I know and Larry's(from Chicago)comment says it all.

This is why you are not hearing anything from Hillary today.  Everyone talks about how the men have to be careful criticizing Hillary as not to turn off the female vote well.....I keep telling you guys she is not Bill he would not have done something so stupid. She didn't have to go there. Her point if there was one,had been made(from her perspective).

Don't get me wrong, Obama has to stand on his own two feet, prove his own worth. However,"low blows" unnecessary "cheap shots"," dissing" call it what you like, won't wear well.

Larry, it wasn't that she was listening to the wrong advice.  She wasn't listening, period.  She was being Hillary, the real Hillary, this is the Hillary many of us have seen.

<<Simply stated, Obama is not ready to be President.  I respect the fact that Senator Clinton is a Washington insider.  I want experience, and someone who will represent this country well on an international stage.

Mr. Obama, please get something else to say about Senator Clinton, other than her vote on Iraq.  She voted for the war, but I respect that now she is trying to do something to end the war.  Mr. Obama instead of attacking Senator Clinton, try learning from her.>>


Being a Washington "insider" will give us 4, or heaven help up, 8 more years of this same bulls--- we're going through now, if not worse. People are sick and tired of politics as usual. Clinton is the epitome of it. Her complete and inaccurate spin of Obama's answer the other night is just the latest highlight of this.

As for Obama hitting her on her war vote, it's simple: he is asking her why she didn't ask the hard questions back then to come to the conclusion that this war wasn't needed. Right, other democratic senators voted for it, but they aren't running for President. She hasn't acted contrite in any way for that vote. Iraq is the key issue of this election and while Clinton keeps talking about the need to do things orderly and fashionably, Obama is all about "get the hell out now" which is what the majority of Americans want.

His answers to questions come off as more intelligent, more thoughtful, more free-flowing than anything HRC has said. Her answers come across as those of what some staffer wrote and she memorized. After 8 years of the Chimpanzee we have now, I want someone that has the ability to put together his own coherent thoughts without the fear of their brain oozing out of their ears.

<<Does that mean I don't like Obama?  Absolutely not.  I think he has also accomplished great things in his life, and I don't doubt that he too will accomplish a good deal more.  I simply don't think it is his time yet.  I think he needs to build his resume, and he needs to gain more experience.>>

Care to tell me what experience Hillary brings to the table? She's a first term senator who's brought exactly NOTHING to the floor of the Senate. Not one bill of any significance, voted for the war, will not difinitively say when or how she'll get us out of Iraq, and is suddenly looking tough only because she's running for President. What else? She was First Lady for 8 years. She demanded an office on the West Wing. Wow. Remember her healthcare debacle that could have easily resulted in her husband being a 1-term President?

She can't even go out and get her own supporters. Everyone she's leaning on now were her husband's supporters. Don't think for one second that she isn't cashing in her chips from the Lewinsky deal now by getting Bill working on these people on her behalf. There are some reports that they're supporting her begrudgingly, as a favor for Bill and nothing more.

I don't want someone like that running this country again. We have had this for the last 8 years, by the time the next President is inaugurated. Obama comes in with new thoughts on the diplomatic front, will have a plan to get us out of Iraq in 9 months, has stated he has a plan for healthcare, etc. He's talking the talk. Hillary is pandering to the same kinds of interests that helped get Dubya elected it seems. Obama is talking directly to the voters. I'm sorry you can't see it.

I'd like to see whoever moderates the next debate, pointedly ask Hillary to specifically exaplain her rationale for voting for the war, whether she still believes it was justified at any point in time, and what exactly her goal is in terms of getting out. I would also like them to ask her if she feels the need to apologize to the American people for her vote. Others have already done so.

A lot of posts in this thread are going after the "inexperienced" talking point.  Experience aside, Obama has a track record of good judgment, as his opposition to the Iraq War that Hillary supported.  This is one of the greatest blunders in foreign policy and it deserves to be brought up until Clinton explains why she didn't even bother to do her homework and read the NIE.  

No wonder they want to try to talk about only experience not judgment.  Yes Clinton is more of a DC "insider", clearly.  But even so Obama is much stronger than the talking point suggests.  For example, which do you think is better experience for becoming president: community organizer or corporate lawyer?  I admire some of the work that Hillary did as First Lady of AK and US, but when it comes to understanding how change happens from the ground up Obama has been there.  He's been there registering voters and working to get communities engaged politically.  He's been there as an attorney defending civil rights, not to take anything away from corporate law or personal injury.  Who doesn't want a constitutional scholar making nominations and cleaning up the mess W has made of the balance of powers?  

Take an actual look at Obama's resume.  Google "Obama CV".  To be told "not enough experience" when you've got a resume like that might ring a bell to too many Americans when you look at the history and ongoing realities people are dealing with.

Man, Obama is wrong and inexperienced and needs to get his team all on the same page of the playbook.

First they say he didn't mean what he said, now he did, and it's better?

Sorry Obama, not that I'd vote for you in the first place, but now there's no chance in hell. Go back to the Senate for another 10-12 years,then maybe you'll have the right stuff.

This concept of "we will not talk to them until they give us what we want" is absolutely sophomoric. It takes leadership to realize that communication is the best tool we can use to influence the people around us. If America is indeed the leader of this planet... and the moral standard... then we can't afford to be this petty with our communication.

The question for me to any candidate is HOW?  I ask that the candidates lay out their strategy for me so I can see how and IF the candidate has thought this out.
How will you bring the troops back?
How will you fix healthcare?
How will you fix education?
Details are important….if a candidate thinks they can accomplish the task tell us how…then I can vote in an educated manner.

larry - What does the fact that he is African American have to do with anything?  Or do you think that, because he is African American, he should not be criticized?  To me, his race is as irrelevant as Hillary's gender when it comes to who is best suited for the job.  

Lewis - I never said Biden and Richardson don't have more experience.  I like both of them, and I think both are qualified to be president.  However, at this stage, they don't have the support necessary to win the nomination.  

Larry Slack, as an African American male, why does the word irresponsible bother you so much. Why would YOU be so sensitive about that word? I like both Clinton and Obama by the way. Me thinks you are blinded by your own predjudice. I am biracial.

I agree with an earlier post, that said, If you're gonna cast your vote for experience, then Biden is the answer. All other arguments about experience is Mute. Hillary will Not come out & speak for herself, instead she throws a few spokespersons out there, because she does'nt want to further inflame the  Obama Masses. Go OBAMA

Michael - Once again, Hillary is in her second term.  They had something called an election in 2000, in which she was elected to her first term.  In the Senate, you are up for election every 6 years, which means that in 2006 (which was last year) she was elected to her SECOND term.  Still with me?

And what you said is true.  Obama is talking the talk.  But can he walk the walk?  I'm not convinced that he can.  

By the way, why do you find it necessary to question every comment I make?  Do you dislike all women or is it just Hillary and myself?  Am I not allowed my own opinions?  Do I really need to explain every opinion I have to you?  I don't think so.  I've repeated, numerous times, my opinion re: Hillary vs. Obama.  Go back and read it again, because this marks the LAST time I am going to answer you on this issue.      

Are we dissecting Hilary's policy making or that of Bill's? Will somebody please answer this question. To date Hilary hasn't alluded to or offered anything that will a change in direction of government thinking form that of the last 20 years. Nothing. Dubya's a joke, but harping on what Bill did back in the 90's DOES NOT automatically translate to those initiatives working in 2009. Barack is cutting the lead hourly. And guess what? Hilary knows it.

Dave from TN: What are you talking about? The "loony left" has *never* said "blame the Jews." Have many liberals asked that the Palestinian plight be more fairly considered? Surely, but to suggest that that argument is merely borne of hatred for Jews or Israel is inflammatory and dumb.

As for the Obama v. Clinton flare up (which is so, so stupid), I side with Obama. It's an obvious manipulation to suggest that his openness to meeting with these people was a pledge of any kind. Openness would be a nice change from our current administration.

It's the imperial mindset/worldview which implicitly conflates power with prestige. It is crystal clear to the world.  The empire can arrogantly wreck havoc wherever it wishes, whenever it wishes. The power display is clearly laid out for all to see. But that's what it is, raw power NOT prestige.  It is also interesting just who is chosen to take the actual risks of applying the power.  What is it that the most arrogant, vociferous, hawkish, "leaders" and neoconish policy wonks seem to have in common?  Things such as deferments, did you say? So much for the foreign policy establishment and their rush to Hillary Clinton's side, with the "prestige of the Presidency" comment.

I think it is time we have a positive, clear and open-minded new President to represent our country not only in our land but with new hope to the world.
I was at a crossroad regarding Hillary but her last negative remard regarding Obama's inability to deal with other countries leaders is just more of the same old school campaign junk of trying to make yourself look good by tearing apart everything your opponent literally states. Obama is asking American voters to hold the contenders to a higher standard by reviewing their political history, keeping the debates intelligent, analytical and fresh with clear solution ideas to today's problems.....Hillary say good-bye to my vote.

Senator Biden, a man of far greater insight than credit to him is given, hit the nail on the head when he said that there are far more important issues to be dealt with at this time than what may or may not be a candidates understanding of negotiation with foreign leaders.  We should be concerned about getting our troops home from a senseless war that is not supported by the American public.

Hillary did herself a great disservice when she brought in such a petty point to take the heat off herself since she really cannot justify her original support of the war in Iraq and cannot now offer an acceptable alternative in getting the U. S. out of this quagmier in Iraq.  At least Barack Obama sees the sense of the Iraq Study Report and knows negotiation is the ONLY solution in the Mideast!

<<Michael - Once again, Hillary is in her second term.  They had something called an election in 2000, in which she was elected to her first term.  In the Senate, you are up for election every 6 years, which means that in 2006 (which was last year) she was elected to her SECOND term.  Still with me?

And what you said is true.  Obama is talking the talk.  But can he walk the walk?  I'm not convinced that he can.  

By the way, why do you find it necessary to question every comment I make?  Do you dislike all women or is it just Hillary and myself?  Am I not allowed my own opinions?  Do I really need to explain every opinion I have to you?  I don't think so.  I've repeated, numerous times, my opinion re: Hillary vs. Obama.  Go back and read it again, because this marks the LAST time I am going to answer you on this issue.>>

7 years, instead of 6. That still doesn't answer the other point I brought up: What has she accomplished during that time on the Senate? Has she sponsored any great important piece of legislation or has she just signed her name as a co-sponsor to someone else's work? What has she done for the committee's she sits on? Again, her track record in the Senate is spotty at best. There are lesser Senators who've done more in the same length of time.

As for the other part of your post: I don't have a problem with women. I don't have a problem with a woman becoming President of the United States. The issue is, however, she needs to have a proven track record that speaks experience, poise, the ability to think for herself, not being sold to the highest bidder, not having her husband do the heavy lifting, give honest, straight-forward answers when asked pointed questions. Hillary is none of those things. There are women in the world of politics that can and have done these things. One day, perhaps, one of them will be willing to take on the challenge of running for the Presidency.

I made up my mind not to vote for Hillary during the first debate.  When the question was asked "how would you respond to a terrorist attack on the U.S. - Hillary (hoping to appear strong and presidential) said she would retalliate immediately.  Obama waffled a bit and it seems he gave some people the impression he was not as strong.  Question to Hillary:  retalliate? against Al Quaida? how? where? who?  Does she know something nobody else knows?  I think Obama hesitation was due to actually answering the question than giving a performance.

Anna - We retaliated immediately in 2001.  Wasn't so hard to figure out where to go then, won't be hard to figure that out when it happens again.  

Carrie - I must have somehow missed Osama bin Laden's funeral...

In a nut shell, all of this talk about who's going to do what, when and how; read a Bible people, whether you believe in God or not,prophecy speaks cleary on what's happening. Don't believe it? Read Revelations to start, and if you can't understand the symbolism, get with someone who can and then take another look at these world issues here.  No matter who you vote for, it's going down as planned not as circumstance.

I’m disappointed with Clinton for trying to capitalize by twisting words. This is an old ugly cow boy style, Clinton ! You better come up with plan not twisting words if you really want us to vote for you1

Obama is a strong man.

Maybe Hillary is afraid to be in a room with bad guys.  They would make her cry.  

Obama writes in "Audacity of Hope" how George W. Bush spoke with him at the White House and warned him to watch his back because he had folks aligned against him other than the Republicans.

And yet Michael, Hillary is in her second term.  She ran basically on her name, since she has no record in the Senate as a Senator from the great state of new York.  Aside from naming some post offices, some land in the carribean and congradulating the lacrosse teams, she has nothing to show as a Senator.  Now she is running for President based on her husband's name.

I read a funny parody about Obama's summit with the dictators. http://www.newsgroper.com/barack-obama/2007/07/24/the-rogue-nations-and-america-summit-2009/

Anna - You must have somehow missed the invasion into Afgahnistan as well.  Did you also miss all of the Taliban and Al Qaeda prisoners we carted to Cuba and other secret prisons?  And did you miss the U.S. shutting down the terrorist camps in Afghanistan?  (Before we had to go invade Iraq, of course - from what I understand, Afghanistan is not faring so well these days.)  

Bin Laden is not the be-all, end-all of terrorism.  Simply because he was not captured does not mean that we did not retaliate against those responsible for 9-11.  

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):