I follow the news and get the news from various sources. I even have get the Iranian news channel on my satellite.

I listen to a variety of news too, but you didn't say what your basis is for your statement.

I would be interested to know exactly what my post tells you about me?

Personally, I think the Bush administration is incredibly arrogant, thumbing its nose at Congress, the Constitution, the Supreme Court, the American people, the rest of the world, its own federal agencies, etc. So, yes, I do get quite a chuckle when a leader of a small country stands up to him. Sorry if you can't see the humor in that picture.

A good understanding of history teaches us that President Bush isn't alone in how he fights with Congress or challenges the constitutionality of various laws. The American system of checks and balances purposely sets up the branches of government to be in opposition. When they fight with each other we see the system working.

For many years objectiveness was the stated goal of the American news media. When I was in college just 15 years ago it was still being taught in my Mass Communications class. This changed as many conservatives made the argument that the mainstream media had a liberal bias and thus started the alternative media. The conservative alternative media, consisting mostly of talk radio, internet blogs and magazines, caused a reaction on the part of liberals to come out with their own alternative media. The result is that we now have extreme political figures (aka ideologues) like Rush Limbaugh and Micheal Moore that many Americans trust for factual information.

Ideologues put out what are known as "talking points." Whenever we hear people repeating the talking points of one side's extremism it tells us who that person is listening to. One example of a talking points is "drilling won't get us out of this." One liberal ideologue came up with this saying, the rest picked it up and they repeat it within their alternate media until they have their viewers and listeners repeating it. Conservative ideologues do the same thing.



There are about 200 countries in the world. Only 17 are larger than Iran. It is about the size of Alaska or the United Kingdom, France, Spain, and Germany combined. It has a population of 70 million. It is rich in oil and natural gas (ranking 2nd in the world) and occupies a geographical location ideal for exporting to Europe, the far east and Australia. In 1979 and 1980 the US was unable to get back 52 hostage held by them for over one year. Its military has nearly 550,000 trained active duty troops and 350,000 reserve troops. Apart from that they have a volunteer militia with 90,000 full-time members and 11 million members. It has an army, air force and navy. Its GDP in 2007 was $206 billion. Its economy is considered semi-developed (as opposed to "developing"). It has a growing service section and the construction of dams is increasing their agricultural sector dramatically. It is a beautiful country rated among the 10 most touristic countries. They have a strong manufacturing sector which includes biotechnology, nanotechnology and pharmaceuticals industry. It is a mistake to write Iran off as some "small country."

I think one of the Bush Administration's biggest blunders is not getting Iran to the negotiating table and getting some sort of diplomacy started. I understand no person and no administration is perfect. Everyone makes mistakes and every administration makes mistakes. I wouldn't expect any administration to admit their mistakes while still in office. That would be irresponsible. It will be interesting to see how the next administration handles the situation with Iran.

So, it sounds like you're saying that my post is simply saying that I listen to a lot of liberal media.

I would agree wholeheartedly with the above quote.

Why do you think it would be irresponsible for an administration to admit their mistakes? Actually, I don't even care if they admit their mistakes or not, but when they continue to persist on a course that isn't working or is just a bad idea, or when they continue to defend an action that was clearly a mistake, it gets really annoying.

When we are at war, to admit mistakes is to give our enemies fuel for their fire. Bad idea. Invading Iraq was responsible given the information the Bush Administration had. Leaving Donald Rumsfeild at his post as long as they did was a mistake. The surge was a change in strategy that seems to have worked so well we are now talking about pulling out of Iraq sooner than anyone could have imagined.

Iran is another issue. They are a big player and know it. Israel wants to attack them. Bush has decided the US will not attack them while he is in office but may allow Israel to do so if there is more evidence against Iran. An attack on Iran will be bad for the energy market. It would be best if we could somehow get Iran to the diplomatic table.

So is it a bad idea to admit mistakes only about a war that we are in?

And why does Israel want to attack Iran? I don't get it.

Why does Israel want to attack Iran???

According to the news reports over the past few years Iran has been threatening Israel with total extinction. Perhaps,,,, (this is just a wild guess) Maybe,,,, just possibly,,, Israel doesn't want to be totally annihilated. I am not sure but that could be why they want to attack Iran.

There's a fair bit of escalation going on here, too though: Iran feels like it has to act tough because it feels that it is under threat from Israel, backed by the US. After all, it is not Iran that is actively planning to attack Israel, it is Israel that has plans to attack Iran. From Iran's perspective, Israel is about to attack its peaceful nuclear power program.

Just putting oneself in the others' shoes for a moment is usually sufficient to find a perfectly human explanation for the actions and statements of people - but it's a simple act of empathy that seems to escape us so many times.

Sure, Ahmadinejad is guilty of intemperate rhetoric for domestic consumption that then gets reported internationally, but the fact remains that only one side in this conflict is actively preparing for war, and it isn't Iran.

Well we don't know what Iran is doing. Testing their missiles is being construed by some as preparing for war. Given the nervousness ofthe world community over Iran's nuclear program, why don't the abandon their enrichment program and simple agree to purchase the nuclear fuel needed for power plants from other countries like Brazil did for some time?