HAIL COLUMBIA - TRUTHSEEKING - TURN ABOUT IS FAIR PLAY

I would highly recommend that approach, Williams. The only problem is that I believe our President has a lot more to lose in such a stunt (i.e. for our whole nation) than Ahmadinajad gained in his approach. Firstly, I don't believe our leaders have the guts to do so--they might actually see something of value in nations they plan on bombing to hell in the near future--can't let that happen.

Michael - Are you suggesting that the tweo "leaders" in question are mirror images of each other?

I don't see why not, extremism seems to work that way in general--one side perpetuating the other. I must say that I was not aware of the issue in your question--i.e. I had not even thought about the "mirror image" notion with respect to these two men. It is possible that leaders in opposition are automatically "mirrors" of each other. Take JFK and Khrushchev, for instance--JFK was as temporizing in his rhetoric as his opponent.

Then you have this thing we call a "language barrier"--translators who stumble through their job (as "dinner jacket's" translator did) do not inspire much confidence--and I definitely think it would be instructive to ask some of the Iranians in the audience concerning what they heard vs. what the translator said--as these kinds of mistakes are very common.

But forgive me if I sound a little subversive, but there are comical similarities between "dinner jacket's" (my nick for Ahmadinajad) mannerisms and GWB

(1) Stupid grin
(2) Bother seem extremely naive.

I won't say they are "mirrors" of each other--but to understand the level of extremism that is required to bring and idiot like him into power, they must first understand how the same happened here at home.

I thought it would be a good thing for him to speak at Columbia, because the questions the students asked him would reveal the kind of person he really is, and we should 'know our enemy." But he lied or sidestepped the questions. He is as slippery as a reptile.

He's a pretty wily guy, but he does make some points in his speech. It's Bush's determination to get into war with Iran that makes us see him as so strong an "enemy" anyway. Of course Columbia should have let him speak, and of course he speaks out of both sides of his mouth. He's a politician, isn't he?

As for Bush doing anything logical and sane -- forget it.

Here's a question:

Does this Administration REALLY (i.e. yes...really) "want" a war with Iran? Or do they want the public to THINK that they "want a war with Iran?"

I think it is a valid question. Gibbs?

What is this Iran/U.S. affair that has so conveniently smoke-screened our failures in Iraq?