Buckwheat Gets Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Endorsement!
Patriot Games
Iranian President Favors Obama?
Friday, May 2, 2008
At a press conference during his visit to New Delhi on Tuesday, April
29, 2008 Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, asked what he thought
the result of the U.S. presidential election would be, replied, "We
don't interfere in the other countries' affairs but we think that the
American nation seek profound changes in their country."
Ahmadinejad's answer was the second reported instance in which a high
Iranian official, when asked about the U.S. presidential contest, has
used the word "change" or "changes" in his answer.
Experts on Iranian political discourse believe that the officials'
choice of words is intended to be a reference to Democratic contender
Barack Obama's campaign theme, "Change We Can Believe In," and to
thereby signal that relations between Tehran and Washington will
improve if Obama is elected. Obama has stated his willingness to meet
with Ahmadinejad.
Ahmadinejad went on to say that because of Obama's race, he would not
be "allowed" to become president, and that "presidency of a woman in a
country that boasts its gunmanship is unlikely." "I think the US
presidential campaign is being steered towards a determined
direction," he said.
At a Tehran press conference on March 10, 2008, an Iranian reporter
asked Seyed Mohammad Ali Hosseini, vice minister of foreign affairs of
Iran and spokesman of Iran's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which U.S.
presidential candidate Iran would support. Hosseini replied, "Iran
would not support any candidates in the U.S. presidential campaign."
He continued, "But the nations of the world are fed up with America's
warmongering policies and we demand these change."
Observers in Tehran note that Hosseini has a reputation for choosing
his words carefully. An Iranian analyst said, "Hosseini is considered
an expert on American affairs. He would not have used the word
'change' unless it was his intention to signal that the Iranian regime
prefers that the next U.S. president be Mr. Obama."
Flash Bazbo
<Pat...@America.Com> wrote:
>Iranian President Favors Obama?
Do you let Iran determine your voting preferences? What sort of weak
willed, addle-pated buffoon are you?
Patriot Games
<djfl...@dlsfdslkf.cmk> wrote:
>On Fri, 02 May 2008 13:12:04 -0400, Patriot Games
><Pat...@America.Com> wrote:
>>Iranian President Favors Obama?
>Do you let Iran determine your voting preferences?
Nope.
>What sort of weak willed, addle-pated buffoon are you?
This kind:
========================================
From: "Patriot Games" <Patriot@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 16:16:05 -0500
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Flash Bazbo" <djflsdkjf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:8mn9r3l65d37r6c9canc98jc6h2ellicrq@xxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:04:51 -0500, "Patriot Games"
<Patriot@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Jane Fonda Uses Vulgar Slang on Today
>Imagine. Jane Fonda has led such an insanely more exciting and
>fulfilling life than you, PG.
Really?
Let's see....
She sucked Ted Turner's dick, I never sucked Ted Turner's dick.
You are correct about one thing: It is INSANE to think of sucking Ted
Turner's dick is being "exciting and fulfilling" so we know where your
mental health is......
===========================================
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahah!!!
Neolibertarian
Patriot Games <Pat...@America.Com> wrote:
> http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Iranian_President_obama_/2008/05/02/92858.h
Little do they realize, Iran gets a Big Green Light no matter who we
elect in November.
The only thing we got going for us is the fact they don't realize it.
Osama bin Laden thought he understood America because he'd watched our
foreign policy under Clinton for eight years. 9-11 could have been a big
victory for him, instead of a devastating defeat for the Global
Jihad--which is what Bush surprised him with.
If by some miracle McCain is elected, the one thing he WON'T be able to
do is the one thing he's telling GOP's he's committed to doing: winning
the War on Terror.
--
NeoLibertarian
Patriot Games
<cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>In article <mpim14d7g3l8ictrd...@4ax.com>,
> Patriot Games <Pat...@America.Com> wrote:
>> http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Iranian_President_obama_/2008/05/02/92858.h
>> tml
>> Iranian President Favors Obama?
>> Friday, May 2, 2008
>elect in November.
I'll bet that McAmnesty will bomb Iran....
>The only thing we got going for us is the fact they don't realize it.
Well, they have been drinking their own Kool Aid....
>Osama bin Laden thought he understood America because he'd watched our
>foreign policy under Clinton for eight years. 9-11 could have been a big
>victory for him, instead of a devastating defeat for the Global
>Jihad--which is what Bush surprised him with.
95% of his 9/11 planning was done under Clinton and that set the tone
for his thinking. Obviously a critical error!
>If by some miracle McCain is elected, the one thing he WON'T be able to
>do is the one thing he's telling GOP's he's committed to doing: winning
>the War on Terror.
Its not winnable in any traditional sense.
But McAmnesty WILL continue to persue Localization.
Neolibertarian
Patriot Games <Pat...@America.Com> wrote:
But there's nothing in his background to show that he has even the
slightest ability to control events.
Put McCain in the White House when Abu Ghraib hit the New York Times and
CBS--and stayed on the front pages for over 30 days in a row.
Put McCain in the White House when Pillar is on PBS claiming that the
intelligence used to justify OIF was horribly misused, misinterpreted,
and, in his interview, only stops short of calling the President a fraud.
Put McCain in the White House when a retired general is claiming he told
the Joint Chiefs that it would take at least 300,000 troops to invade
Iraq.
Would he have steered a steady course through all these speed bumps? The
Bush administration has largely ignored it when members of their own
administration have pearl harbored them. In exchange, Bush's
extraordinary approval ratings have slowly bled away to the anemic
levels he enjoys today. But he's never looked back.
They'll demand that McCain turn the ship around. Day after day after
day.
Will he not listen to them?
When has he EVER not listened to them?
They'll prove that he's lying, They'll prove he's senile. They'll prove
that the mission in the Middle East is impossible to achieve. They'll
blind side him every chance they get.
Put McCain in the White House when secret document "X" is released to
the New York Times, proving that the libs are correct, and McCain is
wrong.
--
NeoLibertarian
Patriot Games
No President can control the NYT but McBeaner would have stepped up
and moved things quicker. Bush, bless his little heart, has been
shell-shocked and doing catch-up damage control for years.
>Put McCain in the White House when Pillar is on PBS claiming that the
>intelligence used to justify OIF was horribly misused, misinterpreted,
>and, in his interview, only stops short of calling the President a fraud.
McBurrito would find him and punch him out! Hahahahahah!
Not really... But he wouldn't pretend it didn't happen!
>Put McCain in the White House when a retired general is claiming he told
>the Joint Chiefs that it would take at least 300,000 troops to invade
>Iraq.
McAmnesty would NEVER tolerate back seat driving! George has always
had inadequacy problems with the JCS. (Probably because of his age
and limited service.) McChalupa has NO SUCH problems!
>Would he have steered a steady course through all these speed bumps? The
>Bush administration has largely ignored it when members of their own
>administration have pearl harbored them. In exchange, Bush's
>extraordinary approval ratings have slowly bled away to the anemic
>levels he enjoys today. But he's never looked back.
I'm impressed he's never looked back, its a laudable characteristic.
But if you put your foot on the neck of the problem and get it
resolved right then you don't ever HAVE to look back.
>They'll demand that McCain turn the ship around. Day after day after
>day.
>Will he not listen to them?
>When has he EVER not listened to them?
Of the three candidates McTaco is the ONLY one that can hop into his
limo, drive over to the Pentagon, close the conference door behind him
and go eye to eye with the JCS. They do not intimidate him AT ALL.
>They'll prove that he's lying, They'll prove he's senile. They'll prove
>that the mission in the Middle East is impossible to achieve. They'll
>blind side him every chance they get.
They'll only get one chance and then they'll get retirement checks.
You know as well as I do that OIF will end sweetly, nicely, AND WAAY
BEFORE 2012. Unlike Hitlary (always ducking sniper fire) and
Buckwheat (doesn't know when to duck or how to fire), McAmnesty will
leave a bloody trail of blasted ass from the Mall to Langley!
>Put McCain in the White House when secret document "X" is released to
>the New York Times, proving that the libs are correct, and McCain is
>wrong.
I'll see that bet and raise you this: Why did Cheney tell Powell to
go himself to Langley and review the raw intel himself, in person,
eyes only? Because Cheney KNEW there were 'problems' in the company.
He didn't know exactly who or exactly where but he knew. How'd he
know? Because buds in the Pentagon whispered it. (This is the #1
reason DoD has shadowed CIA for years, wasting tons of money but
keeping our butts mostly out of the very deepest trouble.)
I'm guaranteeing McEnchilada ALREADY has a footlocker full of
whispers, a full collection of notes on Plame (et.al.) and it will be
(gracefully, of course) assholes & elbows out the door if Juan takes
the Oath! You and I could torpedo Hitlary or Buckwheat in our sleep
but there will be concentric circles of old and older warhorses
keeping McCain safe and helping him close the book on Vietnam by
winning THIS ONE.
Seriously. Who better to get that win?
Neolibertarian
Patriot Games <Pat...@America.Com> wrote:
Nothing could be more appropriate.
But I'm not sure he's prepared for his own administration to blind side
him.
Which is what's going to happen to him.
--
NeoLibertarian