From CNN White House Correspondent Ed Henry
JERUSALEM (CNN) – In a particularly sharp blast from halfway around the world, President Bush suggested Thursday that Sen. Barack Obama and other Democrats are in favor of "appeasement" of terrorists in the same way U.S. leaders appeased Nazis in the run-up to World War II.
"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," said Bush, in what White House aides privately acknowledged was a reference to calls by Obama and other Democrats for the U.S. president to sit down for talks with leaders like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
"We have heard this foolish delusion before," Bush said in remarks to the Israeli Knesset. "As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American Senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."
The remarks seemed to be a not-so-subtle attempt to continue to raise doubts about Obama with Jewish-Americans. Those doubts were already stoked by Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, when he recently charged that Obama is the favored candidate of the terror group Hamas.
"Obviously this is an unprecedented political attack on foreign soil," Obama Communications Director Robert Gibbs told CNN's John Roberts on American Morning Thursday, adding that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates had been quoted Wednesday making remarks about dialogue with Iran that were similar to the Illinois senator's.
"Let's not confuse precondition with preparation," said Gibbs of any talks with Iran. "Obviously these meetings would be full of preparation. But we're not going to sit down and engage Iran, unless or until they give up their nuclear weapons program.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 100
Here is a statement from Senator Obama, released only a few minutes ago:
It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack. It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel. Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power - including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy - to pressure countries like Iran and Syria. George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the President's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel.
Keep talking, Mr Bush. Keep talking
And, Juan, declaring war on Al Qaeda did not also give them legitimacy. Of course it did. bin Laden is a criminal and his criminal group is also. This Bush War on Terror is all for show and is meaningless. Bush never intended to remove bin Laden from the game. Much better, in his mind (and in the minds of the neo-cons) to leave him out there so that he (and his minions) could drag out the fear card whenever they needed the American people to vote their way, or at a minimum, to get the public on their side.
We need new leadership. Legitimate leadership that will do what is right, not what gets them the most power or the most money.
The American people have been duped for the last seven and a half years by a immature frat boy and his small group of fascist underlings.
If you are a Republican, good for you. But, wake up to the nightmare that has beset this country and stop it from continuing.
To much of this kind of voting going on. That is why America is no longer the great nation it once was. Good Americans get involved in politics. It is the most important thing one can do--it is our civic duty--not just vote straight down the party line.
Dick Cheney and the neo-cons suckered him into dropping Kyoto and starting this foolish war. And Dick Cheney and the neo-cons were so clever that most of the dirt will not stick to them.
bin Laden suckered him into making a foolish connection between Iraq and al Qaeda when he should have been chasing the criminal to the ends of the world.
The Iraqi government has suckered him into an extended stay in Iraq while they play political games.
The list of world leaders and governments who have suckered our 'dear leader' is long.
The American people had better wake up out of this sleep we have been in or we will be seeing the end of this great American experiment called democracy.
That's fine. You are both faithful members of the five-percent club.
Obama IS the choice of Hamas, however. That is undisputed :
"Ahmed Yousef, chief political adviser to the Hamas Prime Minister said, 'We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election. He has a vision to change America.'"
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/19/mccain-camp-
says-hamas-wants-obama-2/
And, what is your point, Bret W? I am sure that the criminal Osama bin Laden was licking his lips when the idiot GWB was elected president.
Actually, BushCheneyCorp IS on the ballot, in the form of Johnny McSame. His presidency would be, in effect, Bush's third term, and would be even more disastrous for America and the rest of the world than the first two. You go ahead and vote for 4 more years of failure, though. Somebody's got to. Lord knows ol' Johnny Wadd's gonna have a rather difficult time in November.
"Obama is an idiot"
Only a true idiot would ever say such an idiotic thing. Congrats.
"Obama IS the choice of Hamas, however."
He's the choice of millions from all over the world. Funny how you only point out Hamas. Weird. It's almost as if you're a bush-worshipping, McSame-dick-licking, partisan hack, simply spewing your dumbass partisan rhetoric around.
You're an idiot.
"And, what is your point, Bret W? I am sure that the criminal Osama bin Laden was licking his lips when the idiot GWB was elected president."
Not likely, Gary.
Osama probably loved the ineptitude of the Clinton administration - especially the feeble attempts to shoot Tomahawk missiles at him from long distance. We all know how that turned out, don't we?
No, George Bush was thought of as a "scary cowboy" who might hunt them down like "varmints out on the back 40"...............somewhat like Reagan was thought of by the Iranians.
Remember to put your mindset back to 2000, not to today. Mr. Bush was still an unknown as a President. But being from Texas probably scared the beejezus out of most Middle East dictators.
Bret : "My point is that Hamas likes Obama. That's enough, isn't it?"
Clark : You're an idiot."
What, cat got your tongue? There really is no answer to my statement, Clark. Just let it go by as the truth it is. It's documented even.
Bret : "Obama IS the choice of Hamas, however."
Clark : He's the choice of millions from all over the world. Funny how you only point out Hamas. Weird. It's almost as if you're a bush-worshipping, McSame-dick-licking, partisan hack, simply spewing your dumbass partisan rhetoric around."
Dick-licking, Clark?
I think you've exhausted your mental resources when you resort to this kind of silliness. It's beneath even you, my metallic friend.
I'm a well-documented Hillary supporter on Gather and in real life. I voted for her in the Illinois primary when that circus tent popped up on the outskirts of town.
Don't you find it interesting that even when Hillary was the front-runner, Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, and every other terrorist state or organization REFUSED to endorse her?
You can't say the same about Obama, can you?
bin Laden, on the other hand, with his world view of total annihilation of western civilization, would find a cowboy in the White House the perfect foil to his hideous plans.
I agree with Clark.
It was an observation. You ARE an idiot. Your idiotic comment about Hamas means nothing, except to mindless rightwing twiddle dicks such as yourself.
"I'm a well-documented Hillary supporter on Gather and in real life. "
Ok, you're a liar AND an idiot.
"no doubt about we've been constantly under attack on average every 9 months since the war on terror started"
Actually, genius, worldwide terror attacks have exploded exponentially since your illegal invasion of Iraq. We've also left Bin Laden uncaptured, and al Qaeda is reportedly stronger than ever. Additionally, the Taliban is fully re-grouped and is making a strong push for regaining control of Afghanistan. Nice job, fool.
His continued votes against The Surge, and any of the Iraq War funding shows a predisposition to dislike confrontation, and an undercurrent of dislike for the military - especially when deployed and in the field.
His total refusal to even go to Iraq and see what's going on completely illegitimizes his "knowledge" of what's going on there. He's the only one of the three major candidates to have NEVER traveled there.
Thats nice, since all the world does not matter. Only Americans vote and for good reason.
Bret : "There really is no answer to my statement,"
Clark : It was an observation. You ARE an idiot. Your idiotic comment about Hamas means nothing, except to mindless rightwing twiddle dicks such as yourself. "
Keep digging Clark.............China can't be too far away from your current position. Need another shovel? Because I'd love to throw one down to you......LOL
Do you really think "No doubt Bin Laden is livin large in his piss stained turban in the his cave in the mountains"? He is living on a palatial estate in northern Pakistan with tribal warlords as their esteemed and honored guest.
I wonder what other fantasies you harbor.
Sorry, but Iraq had nothing to do with al Qaeda. Oh, and 69% of the public agrees with Obama on this, btw. I guess the majority of Americans must be terrorist appeasers too.
"His total refusal to even go to Iraq and see what's going on completely illegitimizes his "knowledge" of what's going on there."
Oh, PLEASE show us a quote of his in which he flatly refuses to go to Iraq! Please, please, please!!! Btw, did Johnny McInsane's heavily guarded trip through a tiny portion of the green zone give him a realistic viewpoint, in your opinion?
"Additionally, the Taliban is fully re-grouped and is making a strong push for regaining control of Afghanistan. Nice job, fool."
Even if we leave Iraq someday, the pressure to leave Afghanistan just doesn't exist. Especially not with a UN force already in place there. No, we'll be there for a long time. The Taliban supposedly number only around 12,000 Clark............and that is the Taliban's claimed number of active fighters. As usual, that's probably a bloated number :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban
Their days are numbered, as a bunch of these guys have been killed lately :
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080428/wl_asia_afp/
afghanistanunresttaliban
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/05/13/2243866.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/16/terror/main4019115.shtml
http://wcbstv.com/national/Al.Qaeda.killed.2.642549.html
Lori F., May 15, 2008, 1:33pm EDT"
LOL How is he going to do that? Drug our water system?
"Oh, PLEASE show us a quote of his in which he flatly refuses to go to Iraq! Please, please, please!!! Btw, did Johnny McInsane's heavily guarded trip through a tiny portion of the green zone give him a realistic viewpoint, in your opinion?"
McCain has been to Iraq 8 times, Clark. He's seen the transition.
Hillary's been there 3 times. She's seen the transition.
Obama has been to Iraq ZERO times. And those trips are free. He doesn't want to go, Clark. If he did go, he'd be forced to see that The Surge has worked. The PR disaster that would come from this would sink him. He's invested far too much in our failure to have to come back and report to the American people that we're winning. So he stays home, all nice and cozy in the Left Wing cocoon.
Besides Clark, Obama has no serious plan to get us out of Iraq anyways. He's just saying what the Leftist Mob wants to hear during the campaign. If he gets elected...............well, that's a whole different story. He's a populist without a plan, like most of them are :
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=6001af
15-399f-4b11-b7fb-6f52baca6bcc
No, I'm not that at all, but I am an offensive prick at times.
" I hate attacking people because I like discussing issues,"
Your idea of "discussing issues" seems to be to spew some rightwing nonsense, then refuse to accept reality when it's presented to you. Lofty.
" but you are different you come on all these threads and spew hate and nonsense. "
Funny, but nobody seems able to refute any of my so-called "nonsense." Why is that?
"John McCain is not the same as Bush."
You'd better inform your political "leaders," it would appear:
http://supremeirony.blogspot.com/2008/05/mccain-as-bushs-third-term.html
And, let's not forget that Johnny McSame not only wants to maintain the same failed Bushonomics disaster, but also wishes to stay in Iraq for up to 1,000 years AND to attack Iran as well. Sure sounds like a third bush term to me.
" Bush beat McCain in the primaries in 2000."
But ol' Johnny sure has flip flopped hard since then, hasn't he? Remarkable.
" All Republicans are not the same nor are all Democrats so stop with the crap. "
All republicans may not be the same, but you're all responsible for the disease that has infected and destroyed your party from within, because you sat back and watched it happen. You even applauded as your party took control of the public airwaves and shut down political discourse in this country, driving massive wedges between us all, in order to gain ever more power.
"What is scary about your comments clark is that Obama is the choice of people all over the world. "
What's scary about the world wanting hope for a change?
"Only Americans vote and for good reason. "
You're right...there's no other country on the planet that votes.
Way to invent things I never said. No wonder you suck so badly at this.
"Obama has been to Iraq ZERO times."
I knew that you were once again spewing bullshit. He's never once stated that he "refused to go."
"President Bush Committed Political Treason Today" | Philadelphia Daily News | 05/15/2008
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/President_Bush_committed_treason_today.html
Now now...no sense forcing reality and common sense upon him so aggressively.
How would Obama know what's going on in Iraq?
He's never been there.
This can't be said of the other two more well-informed candidates.
And just think, this is a topic Obama is passionate about, and yet he doesn't even have first-hand information. And this guy wants to be President?
Other than Senate testimony, has he even spoken with General Petraeus?
McCain's comment was a little more than just "being clever", Junior. It was stating that you don't know what's going on. Read the newspapers that say The Surge is working............you know, like the NY Times......LOL
What has Obama actually done (not said) to make you such a rabid follower of his?
IF YOU LIKED JIMMY CARTER..YOU'LL LOVE BARACK OBAMA
THAT's how much Americans care about results. And they also don't care about what other countries are saying as far as the election goes. Intelligent Americans care about the deep crap that Bush has left this country in after 7-1/2 yrs. of failed policies and illegal invasions. Unfortunately, you and Bret do not fit into that particular group. Get with the program.
Sorry Joe, that's not possible. The (f)right wingnuts said that people are either bigots or sexists and would rather not vote at all than to switch. Apparently that's why we're going see McSame inaugurated instead. If Clinton does not get the nod (hint:she won't) . . . you have to vote for McSame or stay home. LMAO ! ! ! Apparently you didn't get the memo.
"Results don't matter as long as you say nice things and have good intentions..."
Sounds like the RepubliCON mantra for the last two terms . . . WOOOOEEEE Lookee at those Booshie results!!!
(Sung to the Marine Corps Tune):
From the Capture of Bin La-a-den,
to the Double - U - M - D,
We have not clamped down our bor-or--ders
The results is what you see!
First to lie and fight and che-eat you,
And to bitch-slap Lib-er-ty,
We are proud to be the mindless
of the useless G-O-P!
"IF YOU LIKED JIMMY CARTER..YOU'LL LOVE BARACK OBAMA "
Cool! Good to know!
You're right...there's no other country on the planet that votes.
Yes..Only Americans vote in American Elections
He's never been there."
Maybe he can read? The better question might be, "How would Johnny McInsane know what's going on in Iraq, simply by very briefly visiting a heavily guarded, secluded portion of the country?"
"Other than Senate testimony, has he even spoken with General Petraeus?"
Oh yes, the latest Bushovic "yes man" in command would SURELY tell it like it is, right? We've NEVER known bushovics to lie or distort anything in any way, in order to paint a rosey picture, have we now?
"The Surge is working............"
Yeah, that's it. I guess that's why 2007 was the bloodiest year ever, and also why last month was the bloodiest month in 8 months. Yeah, that ol' surge sure is working, isn't it?
Btw, why would anyone who believes that this war was wrong, unnecessary, illegal, and MUST BE ENDED need to travel to Iraq in order to solidify that position? 69% of America wants this disaster ENDED within months. Obama is the only candidate offering to make that happen. Your boy wants to be there for 1,000 years. Good luck with that in Nov.
"What has Obama actually done (not said) to make you such a rabid follower of his? "
He offers something that no other candidate can...hope. And, he's created a movement underneath him, which means that his offer of hope can be transformed into reality.
He's never been there."
You seem to have plenty to say on the subject. Wonder how someone like you would have anything at all to say if you've not been there? In fact, by that logic you admit you yourself know NOTHING.
Unless we start dealing in facts instead of spin we cannot begin to resolve the issues that impact all of us, domestically and internationally.
David K., May 15, 2008, 3:22pm EDT "
Exactly, David. Why is it that when asked why they will not vote for a candidate, they respond with a snippet of media trivel, rather than outlining what they agree and disagree with concerning the candidate's policies? This morning on C-Span, one gentleman said he was going to vote for Clinton. When asked by the moderator why, he responded that his wife was voting for her....no other reason.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. People like this do not deserve to live in a democracy. They actually need a dictator who will tell them what to think and what to believe....then what to do. The US media is getting to be that dictator in this country and the people who cannot think for themselves are lapping up every little thing they throw out there.
A democracy can only survive if Americans are involved and informed. When Americans take the lazy way out of just sitting back and listening to and repeating pundit nonsense on tv, we're doomed.
It worked in 2004.
Ouch. That one hurts. That should be the end of ol' bertie on this thread, I would assume.
"Unless we start dealing in facts instead of spin we cannot begin to resolve the issues that impact all of us, domestically and internationally."
The trouble with that premise is that we live in an age in which facts simply are not being presented to the masses. In order to gather facts, one has to embark upon pro-active journeys beyond the MSM, and the vast majority of Americans are simply unwilling to put that much effort into it. It's far easier then, to simply regurgitate the false talking points that were heard the night before on the talking head pundit shows.
This is what has plagued democrats in campaigns for some time now. Republicans are fully satisfied to simply receive marching orders, along with a cute little soundbite or two that they can use to pummel their political opponent with. Democrats tend to be a bit deeper and more inquisitive, and require "nuance," in order to try to really get a handle on understanding things.
I believe that the difference is pathological, to be honest. I believe that the two sides are simply wired differently.
This is how the Republicans masses have mostly sunk to working now. There are no historical or factual references, or even caring about fact at all. Their view seems to be that enough people say something, it must be true. And the right-wing media knows this....they know they will not be challenged on their veracity by these types of minds.
"McCain has been to Iraq 8 times, Clark. He's seen the transition."
And learned nothing eight times.
Just what the nation needs, a corrupt and doddering idiot who can look squarely at dismal failure eight times, call it a "stroll in the marketplace", and promise another 100 years of the same.
You can give it up, Brett, (not that anyone wants what you're peddling); the nation is increasingly impatient about this failed and reckless venture -and all the dirt on Obama doesn't work even in Mississippi.
Oh yes, the latest Bushovic "yes man" in command would SURELY tell it like it is, right? We've NEVER known bushovics to lie or distort anything in any way, in order to paint a rosey picture, have we now?"
Proof that Clark is crazy. Anyone who does not agree with him is just a plant. You are a wild conspiracy nut.
Bret : "How would Obama know what's going on in Iraq?
He's never been there."
Clark : Maybe he can read? The better question might be, "How would Johnny McInsane know what's going on in Iraq, simply by very briefly visiting a heavily guarded, secluded portion of the country?"
No, the question was : How could Obama know what's going on in Iraq? Since he's never been there.
Clark, this isn't a tough question.
The answer : Obama does not know what's going on and he doesn't care to find out either. Its easier for him to just keep his head buried in the sand here at home.
What, no answer, Clark? How unusual for you….LOL
Clark : Oh yes, the latest Bushovic "yes man" in command would SURELY tell it like it is, right? We've NEVER known bushovics to lie or distort anything in any way, in order to paint a rosey picture, have we now?
Clark, I'm lobbing you softballs here. Just answer them straightforwardly and honestly. I know it will be embarrassing, but hey, the truth about Obama is.
Yeah, that's it. I guess that's why 2007 was the bloodiest year ever, and also why last month was the bloodiest month in 8 months. Yeah, that ol' surge sure is working, isn't it?
Try the statistics on icasualties.org, Clark. The last 6 months in Iraq have been the lowest number of casualties since we invaded in 2003.
Those unbiased numbers will confirm that The Surge has delivered what it promised.
If that's not enough, talk to your old buddy Jack Murtha :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHnGqWiGTg8&feature=related
Or maybe Hillary, after her trip to Iraq :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtw_qlzi-jg&NR=1
But the real question is : where is Obama's statement after he came back from Iraq?
Buehler? Buehler?.................
He offers something that no other candidate can...hope. And, he's created a movement underneath him, which means that his offer of hope can be transformed into reality."
Well that is something.
You're a creative guy to have come up with just that one item, Clark. I've asked this question at least 20 times on Gather and only one other Obama fanatic got as creative as you just did. 2 for 20 still leaves a lot of questions about this guy if his own fanatics can't think of his best achievements when put on the spot to name a few.
Brilliant.
How come you know so much about Iraq, bertie? How many trips have you made over there? Hmmmm? When was the last time you visited, where were you, what did you think of the concrete barriers between the neighborhoods, and how long did you stay?
This isn't a hard question, bertie. Why won't you answer? How many times has "Iraqi expert" bertie been in Iraq, how long were you there, and when was the last time you were there?
http://www.counterpunch.org/smith04302008.html
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/04/13/biden-lugar-agree-iraq-report-card-a-failure-bush-punting-the-troops-to-next-president/
Btw, bert, what was the metric by which we were to measure success of the "surge," and when was that metric to have been applied? Think hard on this one.
And quite wrongly so. In fact, other than two freakish years in the 80's, Carter's economy out-produced Redink Ronnie's, and Carter did it without driving the nation deeply into debt. Go figure.
Carter also suffered the results of the massive debt (nearly $1 trillion) piled onto the US economy by both the Vietnam debacle and the "Great Society" program, a catastrophic oil embargo in 1973, and a very serious oil shortage in 1977 (I believe). He also came in after Nixon induced the highest regressive tax in US history on the middle class (spiking the payroll tax dramatically), and after Ford's disastrously failed "WIN" bullshit program. He also came in mere years after massive shutdowns of US manufacturing began.
The fact that he was still able to out-produce most modern presidents, economically, speaks rather loud volumes. I could go on, but I won't. I wrote an article about him some time ago, and covered all.
Knock yourself out.......Anyone who actually lived through it knows only a true moron would claim Carter was anything but inept at best.....I notice you bring up Vietnam. You mean the war that Dem LBJ brought us deeper into and then was ended by A Republican Nixon? Oh yeah which party championed the "Great Society"? What's that ypou say? Another debacle begun by a liberal??? Shocking, just shocking
Back to the subject of this thread.
Chris Matthews had a talk with two guests on Hardball about this very issue. The reason I mention this is that Chris destroyed the moron arguing the case against Obama. Did not catch his last name, but his first is Kevin and he is a talk radio host. I have never seen anyone so ill informed and so hateful. Well, except for the right wingers that frequent Gather.
I will take a look around YouTube tomorrow to see if someone posts it. It was very entertaining.
http://www.youtube.com/v/d1wSZBTAXRs&hl=en">
"No, the question was : How could Obama know what's going on in Iraq?"
So Clark, how could Obama know what's going on in Iraq without talking to any of the troops first-hand, or speaking with the generals there who are actually in charge?
Even Hillary and Jack Murtha at least flew over there. Anyone in Congress who really wants to know, will do that.
Apparently, Obama wants to keep his head buried on this pivotal issue.
How come you know so much about Iraq, bertie? How many trips have you made over there? Hmmmm? When was the last time you visited, where were you, what did you think of the concrete barriers between the neighborhoods, and how long did you stay?
My son is stationed at Camp Victory right in Baghdad, Clark. I get to have video phone calls with him and his platoon twice a week. I have a pretty nice information pipeline. And lately, The Surge has worked so well that his platoon is bored to tears. That's always good news for a worried parent.
So Clark, I get up to date info all the time.
Where do you get your info?
I'm guessing the same place that Obama gets his.
This isn't a hard question, bertie. Why won't you answer?
I just did.
How many times has "Iraqi expert" bertie been in Iraq, how long were you there, and when was the last time you were there?"
Personally, the last time I was there was in 1992 - Al Faw Peninsula south of Basra. So Clark, when were you last in Iraq?
Apparently Kevin James didn't have a good answer for Chris Mathews on the question of what Neville Chamberlain did that was so bad in the late 30's. Chamberlain appeased Hitler by signing the Munich Agreement in 1938, which gave Hitler Czecholslovakia for the taking. In the same year, he also gave up the Irish Free State Royal Navy Ports - seriously degrading the Royal Navy's capacity to defend its European friends and allies. In 1939, Chamberlain's weak response to Hitler's Sept. 3rd invasion of Poland put him on the road to resignation.............which occurred less than a year later, after Hitler's invasion of France, the Netherlands, and Belgium.
The problem with Kevin James is he should not have been spewing all that hate without a clue as to what the definition of "appeasement" actual is.
The type of diplomacy that Obama recommends is far, far from appeasement. This whole episode is an attempt by Bush and McCain to paint a very unrealistic picture of Obama's ideas. Shame on them. And, I might add, is coming from a position of extreme weakness and will, possibly, make the election of McCain impossible.
Well, if James had researched his history a little better, he would have made Mathews look like an idiot...............because Mathews' premise is that Chamberlain's actions weren't all that bad. And of course, we know they were. Hitler proved what a "useful idiot" (Lenin's term, by the way) Chamberlain truly was.
But James' premise that Obama is an appeaser isn't too far off the mark. Obama's promise to go to "Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea in my first year of office, without any preconditions" is playing right into Kevin James' thesis about Obama.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1dSPrb5w_k&eurl=http://
littlegreenfootballs.com/article/29896_Obama_Changes_
His_Unconditional_Position_-_Update-_Video_Added
Clearly, this stupid and thoughtless comment by Obama during the Democratic debates undermines his claim that he has better judgment than McCain. By saying something like that, Obama just weakened his argument substantially.
[t]o yield or concede to the belligerent demands of (a nation, group, person, etc.) in a conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles.
Use this definition, which is the only one that fits this scenario, appeasement is not at all what Barack Obama was talking about. Surely an intelligent person such as yourself can see that using the word 'appeasement' was meant in a nasty and derogatory way and Bush had no business characterizing Obama's position in such a manner.
Now, if, in fact, Bush has given away the farm to North Korea to get them to drop their nuclear weapons program, that would in fact be appeasement. Especially, given the fact, that North Korean leadership cannot be trusted and will more than likely break any deal that was struck.
So, in essence, all of this 'appeasement' talk was done for purely political reasons and should be condemned.
How does Obama's statement show that he's got superior judgment? It makes him look stupid and ill-informed.
Maybe he should take his first trip over to Iraq and get his stuff together, before he starts spouting off about things he has little knowledge of.
"Now, if, in fact, Bush has given away the farm to North Korea to get them to drop their nuclear weapons program, that would in fact be appeasement."
Oh, you mean like what Bill Clinton did in 1994 in North Korea? I agree - THAT was bald-faced appeasement. Obama's appeasement is a lot more subtle than that................but its appeasement nonetheless.
I hope Obama understands how outflanked he was today and yesterday. He chose to jump into this whole argument unwisely. It would have been better for him to just let Pelosi and Reid act outraged. Subordinates could have handled it. Instead, Obama just stepped in a cow-pie that he didn't need to.
You state: "How does Obama's statement show that he's got superior judgment?"
You know, Bret, picking a candidate is a crap shoot. Obama may be just another politician. However, I have had a chance to see Obama speak, debate, and discuss issues, and I believe that he is the right candidate at the right time in our nation's history. Judgment, yes. Superior intellect, certainly. Honesty, I think so.
It is easy to get duped by an unscrupulous candidate as many did with George W. Bush. Don't bother defending his policies they are indefensible.
And, Bret, I am not a raging liberal. I am just an excellent judge of a person's character. I don't see all of the hate and rage in Obama that I see in a lot of the radical right wingers, nor in the radical left wingers. He, for a change, seems quite sane. And, if he can bridge the huge gap between those on the left and those on the right, then our country may get through these troubled times.
You state: "Obama's appeasement is a lot more subtle than that................but its appeasement nonetheless."
Appeasement requires the giving of something to an adversary in order to secure peace with that adversary. I don't think that you are seeing this. Again, I question why you cannot see this? Negotiating with an adversary is not appeasement. Look it up.
Obama's ideas regarding diplomacy with our adversaries, is an important step that America has always taken with those for whom we disagree. Everyone quotes JFK on this: "Never negotiate out of fear, but never fear to negotiate," but I prefer Sun-tsu: "keep your friends close and your enemies closer."
It is not weakness, nor is it softness to talk with your adversaries. In fact, it is cowardly for someone in a leadership position to send military into war without first using extreme effort to avoid war.
Iraq was never a threat to us and clearly had a 'balance of power' aspect that the Bush administration did not understand. Now that Iraq has been thoroughly destabilized, Iran will become a major player in the Middle East. Saddam Hussein, even with all of his nastiness, did have a key role to play in the region.
It is unfortunate that Bush's experts did not see this coming. Many did, but Bush did not want to hear anyone who might get in the way of his plan. Iraq was a terrible diversion from the task of capturing or eliminating bin Laden and his organization. Clearly, Bush was looking towards Iraq's oil fields when he sent our troops into Iraq. Another point that few will admit but is undoubtedly true.
You state: "I hope Obama understands how outflanked he was today and yesterday. He chose to jump into this whole argument unwisely. . . . Obama just stepped in a cow-pie that he didn't need to."
No, Bret, I see it quite differently. Obama managed to deflect the gutter politics of McCain and Bush, and did so with extraordinary elegance and maturity (the type of maturity you would expect to see in someone much older, but fail to see in Bush, McCain or the Clintons). I was quite impressed.
With all the gushing over Obama that I have done here, I am sure that you think I have my head so far up his a** that I can no longer see flaws in the man. Quite the contrary, he is not perfect. And, I would be the first to admit that I could be wrong about him. However, I can usually tell when someone is not being completely honest.
"Bret W., I am having a difficult time understanding how anyone can be so cynical of everything Democrat yet so locked in to everything Republican.
First off - I may be a registered Democrat, but I am so disgusted with how Far Left this party has become that I am not going to vote the straight party line, just because somebody has a "D" next to their name. I vote the person. And since I'm a Conservative (which is far more important to me than mere party affiliation), I'm happy when somebody like Travis Childers is elected in Mississippi. That gives me hope that our once-great party is coming back to the Center - where all the votes are.
I see this kind of thing on Gather all the time, but I cannot understand why those on the right can be so enraged and, if I can be frank, hateful, towards those who prefer peace over war. Why? I would truly like to understand."
Peace is good, but sometimes War cleans house...............and makes long-lasting peace a higher probability. I truly believe that is the case in Iraq nowdays. We should be implementing a "South Korea-style" situation there. Hey, it's worked hasn't it? Why not go with something that has achieved wild success?
And, Bret, I am not a raging liberal. I am just an excellent judge of a person's character. I don't see all of the hate and rage in Obama that I see in a lot of the radical right wingers, nor in the radical left wingers. He, for a change, seems quite sane. And, if he can bridge the huge gap between those on the left and those on the right, then our country may get through these troubled times.
First off, I don't see Obama as "evil". I just see him as a starry-eyed rube from the Left, without a lot of experience. For me, this is a lot more dangerous person to give the reins over to than say, Hillary or McCain. Obama is an unknown quantity – the other two, not so much.
You state: "Obama's appeasement is a lot more subtle than that................but its appeasement nonetheless."
If Obama hadn't said that he'd go to Iran, Syria, Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea within his first year of office as President, and start talking with these rogue nations, I might believe what you're saying. We've isolated these despots for a reason, Gary. Their isolation is a good thing. We look weak when we go to them. They should be coming to us…………..under our terms. Our terms are really easy to accomplish too – they just don't want to do them.
Appeasement requires the giving of something to an adversary in order to secure peace with that adversary. I don't think that you are seeing this. Again, I question why you cannot see this? Negotiating with an adversary is not appeasement. Look it up.