Full Version: Bush's Remarks in Israel
QUOTE
In a speech to Israel's Knesset marking the 60th anniversary of that country's independence, Bush said, "Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along." LA Times
QUOTE
McCain has attempted to link Obama to Hamas, which the State Department calls a terrorist group, citing a Hamas political adviser's comments praising Obama's foreign policy.
But Rubin said when he interviewed McCain two years ago for a British TV network, McCain suggested the United States should be willing to talk to Hamas officials in Gaza.
"They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so ... But it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that," McCain said, according to Rubin. Boston Globe
But Rubin said when he interviewed McCain two years ago for a British TV network, McCain suggested the United States should be willing to talk to Hamas officials in Gaza.
"They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so ... But it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that," McCain said, according to Rubin. Boston Globe
QUOTE
Mr. Obama’s foreign policy aides said any high-level talks with Iran would have the primary intention of persuading it to end its support for terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, to end its aggressive stance against Israel and to cease its uranium enrichment program. Unlike Mr. Bush, however, Mr. Obama would not make the end of that program a precondition for talks.
(Speaking on Fox News Channel, an Obama foreign policy adviser, Susan E. Rice, said his openness to meeting with Iranian leadership was not necessarily restricted to Mr. Ahmadinejad.)
As for Hamas, Mr. Obama’s aides said his position on engagement was not different from that of the administration; the group would have to renounce terrorism, recognize Israel and agree to abide by all pre-existing Palestinian treaties with Israel. NYTimes
(Speaking on Fox News Channel, an Obama foreign policy adviser, Susan E. Rice, said his openness to meeting with Iranian leadership was not necessarily restricted to Mr. Ahmadinejad.)
As for Hamas, Mr. Obama’s aides said his position on engagement was not different from that of the administration; the group would have to renounce terrorism, recognize Israel and agree to abide by all pre-existing Palestinian treaties with Israel. NYTimes
Were Bush’s remarks aimed at Obama?
If so, was it an attempt to sway American Jewish voters by painting Obama as sympathetic to Israel’s enemies?
Will the tactic work, or will it boomerang back on Republicans?
Were Bush’s remarks aimed at Obama?
Primarily, these remarks were intended for Barack Obama. Bush has been pressured before by former generals to negotiate with Iran. Source These remarks were intended for those as well.
If so, was it an attempt to sway American Jewish voters by painting Obama as sympathetic to Israel’s enemies?
There are only between 6-7 million Jewish Americans in the United States. They aren't significant in numbers. However, the Jews are the most powerful voting block in the United States because they own the country in every significant way. They control our mass media, so if you upset the Jews you risk being destroyed. (See Arsenio Hall) You know they possess power because they are only 1.2% of our population, yet our foreign policy is dictated by Israel. We must admit the reality, that America is Israel's satellite nation.
Will the tactic work, or will it boomerang back on Republicans?
Nothing will help the Republicans. Rep. Tom Davis admitted in writing and on television that the Republicans need to change their approach or they risk losing 20 seats in the House and about 6 seats in the Senate. Again, Republicans could run baby Jesus and he would lose.
Primarily, these remarks were intended for Barack Obama. Bush has been pressured before by former generals to negotiate with Iran. Source These remarks were intended for those as well.
If so, was it an attempt to sway American Jewish voters by painting Obama as sympathetic to Israel’s enemies?
There are only between 6-7 million Jewish Americans in the United States. They aren't significant in numbers. However, the Jews are the most powerful voting block in the United States because they own the country in every significant way. They control our mass media, so if you upset the Jews you risk being destroyed. (See Arsenio Hall) You know they possess power because they are only 1.2% of our population, yet our foreign policy is dictated by Israel. We must admit the reality, that America is Israel's satellite nation.
Will the tactic work, or will it boomerang back on Republicans?
Nothing will help the Republicans. Rep. Tom Davis admitted in writing and on television that the Republicans need to change their approach or they risk losing 20 seats in the House and about 6 seats in the Senate. Again, Republicans could run baby Jesus and he would lose.
Were Bush’s remarks aimed at Obama?
Hw says no and we also know there are plenty of folks in Europe he could have been referring to.
If so, was it an attempt to sway American Jewish voters by painting Obama as sympathetic to Israel’s enemies?
I doubt it. But with the “guilt” shown by Dems who ran to their podiums to denounce Bush its hard to tell.
Will the tactic work, or will it boomerang back on Republicans?
Well Obama started it with the ludicrous statement he made in a debate as he attacked Bush. Frankly I am surprised Bush did not name him for this silly idea. What exactly would one say “face to face” to Ahmadinejad? Did “Jimmy” succeed with Hamas? Of course not. They came out the next day and claimed he legitimized them and last week they moved to take over much of Lebanon - real success.
This will not boomerang on Republicans but WILL be an issue in the campaign that imo will hurt Obama.
A little extreme and you should know that most Jews are liberal and have the strongest support among liberals in Congress – although you are correct – both parties suck up to the lobby.
Hw says no and we also know there are plenty of folks in Europe he could have been referring to.
If so, was it an attempt to sway American Jewish voters by painting Obama as sympathetic to Israel’s enemies?
I doubt it. But with the “guilt” shown by Dems who ran to their podiums to denounce Bush its hard to tell.
Will the tactic work, or will it boomerang back on Republicans?
Well Obama started it with the ludicrous statement he made in a debate as he attacked Bush. Frankly I am surprised Bush did not name him for this silly idea. What exactly would one say “face to face” to Ahmadinejad? Did “Jimmy” succeed with Hamas? Of course not. They came out the next day and claimed he legitimized them and last week they moved to take over much of Lebanon - real success.
This will not boomerang on Republicans but WILL be an issue in the campaign that imo will hurt Obama.
QUOTE
Barnaby
You know they possess power because they are only 1.2% of our population, yet our foreign policy is dictated by Israel. We must admit the reality, that America is Israel's satellite nation
You know they possess power because they are only 1.2% of our population, yet our foreign policy is dictated by Israel. We must admit the reality, that America is Israel's satellite nation
A little extreme and you should know that most Jews are liberal and have the strongest support among liberals in Congress – although you are correct – both parties suck up to the lobby.
Were Bush’s remarks aimed at Obama?
Ironically he makes this comment and then the very next day he’s negotiating with the Saudi’s to increase the oil supply to the US. The Saudi’s are as guilty as anyone in the Middle East of funding terrorism either directly or indirectly.
This was clearly a shot at Obama and as barnaby2341 points out possibly some generals as well. Our president has learned nothing. Why negotiate when we can overrun a country that had no Al Qaeda presence until we created the chaos. Iran was funding nothing in Iraq until his ill advised invasion/occupation.
Will the tactic work, or will it boomerang back on Republicans?
The fall race is the Democrats to lose. I think anyone on this board could come across better than McCain in a debate. He’s changed his mind on Bush’s tax plan (flip flopper anyone) which has really turned out well for the economy, screwed up the Al Qaeda/Suni/Shia relationship in a recent visit to Iraq and he’s made the statement that we’ll be in Iraq a hundred years if we have to.
Ironically he makes this comment and then the very next day he’s negotiating with the Saudi’s to increase the oil supply to the US. The Saudi’s are as guilty as anyone in the Middle East of funding terrorism either directly or indirectly.
This was clearly a shot at Obama and as barnaby2341 points out possibly some generals as well. Our president has learned nothing. Why negotiate when we can overrun a country that had no Al Qaeda presence until we created the chaos. Iran was funding nothing in Iraq until his ill advised invasion/occupation.
Will the tactic work, or will it boomerang back on Republicans?
The fall race is the Democrats to lose. I think anyone on this board could come across better than McCain in a debate. He’s changed his mind on Bush’s tax plan (flip flopper anyone) which has really turned out well for the economy, screwed up the Al Qaeda/Suni/Shia relationship in a recent visit to Iraq and he’s made the statement that we’ll be in Iraq a hundred years if we have to.
Were Bush's remarks aimed at Obama?
Well they certainly got the entire democratic party up in the air. Obama seems to think the comments were meant for him.
If so, was it an attempt to sway American Jewish voters by painting Obama as sympathetic to Israel's enemies?
I think this speech was meant to be much more than a simple jab to elevate McCain and weaken Obama. That was the impression I received.
If we focus on 'tangible action' Bush's comments take on a cowboy-like wink and nod for regime change. The duality of his words implied a green light for any bellicose behaviour within the Olmert goverment. On the surface sure it could look like a comment meant for domestic consumption, but I think Bush's words were for the immediate audience. I can't help but wonder if last week foiled annoucement of a Karbala weapon's cache was purposefully set up so Bush could come here and not only talk about tangible evidence but put it on display. Had it not been for the efforts of one LA Time reporter, this anniversy speech could have been a pivotal moment in rousing hysteria.
Let me put it this way. I was not surprised by Bush's comments.
The surprise was what his audience said the next day.
Could we imply that if the speech focused on tangible action, the Israeli military was on the same page? It gets better.
Is this not pandering to the crowd? I think this remark confirms that Bush's actions are based on a fundalmentalist belief system that is ideological in nature. More Zionist than the Zionists would be a fitting way to remember the George Bush legacy.
Will the tactic work, or will it boomerang back on Republicans?
Let's use senator Joe Biden's remarks,
"This is
. This is malarkey. This is outrageous, outrageous for the president of the United States to go to a foreign country, sit in the Knesset, and make this kind of ridiculous statement. He's the guy that's weakened us. He's the guy that's increased the number of terrorists in the world. His policies have produced this vulnerability the United States have—his intelligence community has pointed that out, not me. The NIE has pointed that out. And what are you talking about? You know, is he going to fire Condi Rice? Condi Rice has talked about the need to sit down."
There was a clear intent to Bush comments that were not off the cuff. If the republicans do not rally around him his comments may solidify Democratic oppostion into something harsher than resisting the extended war funding bill.
Well they certainly got the entire democratic party up in the air. Obama seems to think the comments were meant for him.
If so, was it an attempt to sway American Jewish voters by painting Obama as sympathetic to Israel's enemies?
I think this speech was meant to be much more than a simple jab to elevate McCain and weaken Obama. That was the impression I received.
If we focus on 'tangible action' Bush's comments take on a cowboy-like wink and nod for regime change. The duality of his words implied a green light for any bellicose behaviour within the Olmert goverment. On the surface sure it could look like a comment meant for domestic consumption, but I think Bush's words were for the immediate audience. I can't help but wonder if last week foiled annoucement of a Karbala weapon's cache was purposefully set up so Bush could come here and not only talk about tangible evidence but put it on display. Had it not been for the efforts of one LA Time reporter, this anniversy speech could have been a pivotal moment in rousing hysteria.
Let me put it this way. I was not surprised by Bush's comments.
The surprise was what his audience said the next day.
QUOTE
"We are on the same page. We both see the threat ... And we both understand that tangible action is required to prevent the Iranians from moving forward on a nuclear weapon," Olmert spokesman Mark Regev said.
Regev described diplomatic efforts so far to exert pressure on Iran as "positive", but added: "It is clearly not sufficient and it's clear that additional steps will have to be taken".
Asked about the option of using military force, Regev said: "Leaders of many countries have talked about many options being on the table and, of course, Israel agrees with that."
Senior officials in Jerusalem said Thursday that Israel is fully satisfied with the results of Bush's visit, including policy on Iran's nuclear program. "In talks with the president of the United States during his visit it was made clear that Bush's statements on the subject of Iran's nuclear program are fully backed in practice," a senior official said.
Regev described diplomatic efforts so far to exert pressure on Iran as "positive", but added: "It is clearly not sufficient and it's clear that additional steps will have to be taken".
Asked about the option of using military force, Regev said: "Leaders of many countries have talked about many options being on the table and, of course, Israel agrees with that."
Senior officials in Jerusalem said Thursday that Israel is fully satisfied with the results of Bush's visit, including policy on Iran's nuclear program. "In talks with the president of the United States during his visit it was made clear that Bush's statements on the subject of Iran's nuclear program are fully backed in practice," a senior official said.
Could we imply that if the speech focused on tangible action, the Israeli military was on the same page? It gets better.
QUOTE
As a former Knesset speaker, MK Reuven Rivlin, put it Thursday, "I wish our leaders would make speeches like this." Rivlin described Bush as "manifesting the Zionist vision."
For all the threads that have broached the idea of the tail waggin the dog, for a Knesset speaker to say this to an American president is extraordinary. When Olmert takes the stand he is booed and an amazing thing happens:QUOTE
Contrary to the applause Bush received for his address, the speech by Prime Minister Olmert was less popular and stirred considerable controversy. Olmert promised that when there is a peace agreement it "will be approved by a large majority in the Knesset and it will be supported by the vast majority of the Israeli public."
Two MKs from the National Union, Zvi Hendel and Uri Ariel, left the plenum in protest, complaining that the event was "used to promote a political agenda that is opposed by most of the Israeli public." Hendel issued a statement calling on Olmert "to learn from the president of the United States what Zionism is."...He later proposed that Bush should replace Olmert.
Two MKs from the National Union, Zvi Hendel and Uri Ariel, left the plenum in protest, complaining that the event was "used to promote a political agenda that is opposed by most of the Israeli public." Hendel issued a statement calling on Olmert "to learn from the president of the United States what Zionism is."...He later proposed that Bush should replace Olmert.
Is this not pandering to the crowd? I think this remark confirms that Bush's actions are based on a fundalmentalist belief system that is ideological in nature. More Zionist than the Zionists would be a fitting way to remember the George Bush legacy.
Will the tactic work, or will it boomerang back on Republicans?
Let's use senator Joe Biden's remarks,
"This is
. This is malarkey. This is outrageous, outrageous for the president of the United States to go to a foreign country, sit in the Knesset, and make this kind of ridiculous statement. He's the guy that's weakened us. He's the guy that's increased the number of terrorists in the world. His policies have produced this vulnerability the United States have—his intelligence community has pointed that out, not me. The NIE has pointed that out. And what are you talking about? You know, is he going to fire Condi Rice? Condi Rice has talked about the need to sit down."There was a clear intent to Bush comments that were not off the cuff. If the republicans do not rally around him his comments may solidify Democratic oppostion into something harsher than resisting the extended war funding bill.
Were Bush’s remarks aimed at Obama?
Probably, at least in part since Obama has stated that he'd meet with terrorist regimes.
If so, was it an attempt to sway American Jewish voters by painting Obama as sympathetic to Israel’s enemies?
No, it was a statement of the truth. Whatever "American Jewish voters" do is up to them. But the facts are what they are. Obama wants to meet with people who have stated they want to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. He wants to talk with them like he's going to change their mind. Who knows, could work maybe. They could have an "Oprah moment".
Will the tactic work, or will it boomerang back on Republicans?
Telling the truth has become a "tactic"? Obama has said he will meet with the leaders of Iran and Syria, two terrorist states, both dedicated to the destruction of Israel. That was an ignorant and naive thing for him to say and proves that he's not ready for prime time. Will it "boomerang" on Republicans? Hardly. It's a big time issue that we'll hammer him on if the Democrats ever stop their food fight and nominate the guy.
Aquilla
Probably, at least in part since Obama has stated that he'd meet with terrorist regimes.
If so, was it an attempt to sway American Jewish voters by painting Obama as sympathetic to Israel’s enemies?
No, it was a statement of the truth. Whatever "American Jewish voters" do is up to them. But the facts are what they are. Obama wants to meet with people who have stated they want to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. He wants to talk with them like he's going to change their mind. Who knows, could work maybe. They could have an "Oprah moment".
Will the tactic work, or will it boomerang back on Republicans?
Telling the truth has become a "tactic"? Obama has said he will meet with the leaders of Iran and Syria, two terrorist states, both dedicated to the destruction of Israel. That was an ignorant and naive thing for him to say and proves that he's not ready for prime time. Will it "boomerang" on Republicans? Hardly. It's a big time issue that we'll hammer him on if the Democrats ever stop their food fight and nominate the guy.
Aquilla
Were Bush's remarks aimed at Obama?
Well, let's see. Is it a presidential year? Yes.
Is virtually everything that is said or done in a presidential year have political overtones. Yes, again.
Does a bear crap in the woods--or anywhere else he likes? Definitely yes.
OF COURSE, Dubya aimed his remarks at Obama. Before he has to hand over the keys to the White House next January, Bush isn't going to pass up a chance to take a cheap shot at the Democrats. It also reminds us that he still has a pulse, though faint.
Isn't it ironic that George Bush vents his spleen about Democrats being appeasers while his own granddaddy, Prescott Bush played "hide the salami" with the Nazis? Pot calling kettle...
If so, was it an attempt to sway American Jewish voters by painting Obama as sympathetic to Israel's enemies?
For any presidential candidate to have a hope in hell of winning, they absolutely must pledge allegiance to the 51st state of Israel. It isn't "sympathetic" to Israel's enemies to engage them in discussions. If it's in the best interests of the foreign policy and national security goals of the United States to talk with Iran or Syria or South Korea we should do. The Bush Administration is already doing it through back channel and third parties. The difference is a President Obama wouldn't sneak around doing it while denying it public he has any such interest.
If American Jewish voters allow themselves to be sucked in by Bush's bull, that would be unfortunate.
Will the tactic work, or will it boomerang back on Republicans?
Yesterday, the reliably right-wing Columbus Dispatch featured a story about ticked-off Clinton supporters vowing to vote for McCain if Obama becomes the Democratic nominee. It was obviously just another example of the conservative Republican noise machine peddling the seeds of "Democratic disarray and dissension."
Clinton supporters are mad at Obama supporters. Obama supporters are mad at Clinton supporters. Hillary and Barack are mad at each other. Bill Clinton is mad at everybody.
But EVERY Democrat is mad at George W. Bush. Nothing brings squabbling Democrats together like our shared dislike of Bush. He really is a uniter, not a divider. Thanks for reminding us, G. Dubya!
Nothing makes John McCain look like John McSame as echoing Bush's criticisms of Obama. It makes them look like the philosophical twins they really are. For someone who supported and served as a cheerleader for Bush's blunder in sending live American soldiers to fight an illegitimate war in Iraq so they could come back as dead American soldiers, McSame should be putting distance between himself and Bush. Instead, he just made himself again look like Bush's rent boy.
Nice goin' Mr. Straight Talker. Democrats don't even have to invent the McSame as Bush's evil twin scenario. Just watch the news and make the campaign ads. Another bonehead play by Bush, but that doesn't come as any real news, now does it?
Well, let's see. Is it a presidential year? Yes.
Is virtually everything that is said or done in a presidential year have political overtones. Yes, again.
Does a bear crap in the woods--or anywhere else he likes? Definitely yes.
OF COURSE, Dubya aimed his remarks at Obama. Before he has to hand over the keys to the White House next January, Bush isn't going to pass up a chance to take a cheap shot at the Democrats. It also reminds us that he still has a pulse, though faint.
Isn't it ironic that George Bush vents his spleen about Democrats being appeasers while his own granddaddy, Prescott Bush played "hide the salami" with the Nazis? Pot calling kettle...
If so, was it an attempt to sway American Jewish voters by painting Obama as sympathetic to Israel's enemies?
For any presidential candidate to have a hope in hell of winning, they absolutely must pledge allegiance to the 51st state of Israel. It isn't "sympathetic" to Israel's enemies to engage them in discussions. If it's in the best interests of the foreign policy and national security goals of the United States to talk with Iran or Syria or South Korea we should do. The Bush Administration is already doing it through back channel and third parties. The difference is a President Obama wouldn't sneak around doing it while denying it public he has any such interest.
If American Jewish voters allow themselves to be sucked in by Bush's bull, that would be unfortunate.
Will the tactic work, or will it boomerang back on Republicans?
Yesterday, the reliably right-wing Columbus Dispatch featured a story about ticked-off Clinton supporters vowing to vote for McCain if Obama becomes the Democratic nominee. It was obviously just another example of the conservative Republican noise machine peddling the seeds of "Democratic disarray and dissension."
Clinton supporters are mad at Obama supporters. Obama supporters are mad at Clinton supporters. Hillary and Barack are mad at each other. Bill Clinton is mad at everybody.
But EVERY Democrat is mad at George W. Bush. Nothing brings squabbling Democrats together like our shared dislike of Bush. He really is a uniter, not a divider. Thanks for reminding us, G. Dubya!
Nothing makes John McCain look like John McSame as echoing Bush's criticisms of Obama. It makes them look like the philosophical twins they really are. For someone who supported and served as a cheerleader for Bush's blunder in sending live American soldiers to fight an illegitimate war in Iraq so they could come back as dead American soldiers, McSame should be putting distance between himself and Bush. Instead, he just made himself again look like Bush's rent boy.
Nice goin' Mr. Straight Talker. Democrats don't even have to invent the McSame as Bush's evil twin scenario. Just watch the news and make the campaign ads. Another bonehead play by Bush, but that doesn't come as any real news, now does it?
QUOTE(DaffyGrl @ May 16 2008, 06:00 PM) 
Were Bush’s remarks aimed at Obama?
Almost certainly, its apparent both in the way it was worded and the example employed. Given that GW Bush is a political rival of Barack Obama though, I can't see anything wrong with it myself.
QUOTE
If so, was it an attempt to sway American Jewish voters by painting Obama as sympathetic to Israel’s enemies?
I think more its a sign of GW Bush's belligerent attitude and refusal to accept the broad criticism levelled against him. I think I respect that. It shows that he is not going to simply bow out and accept the condemnation of people who can't ever prove they could do better. Barack Obama, if he wins the presidency will have the chance though and we will see soon enough if he can do better. I seriously doubt it. Like Aquilla, I can't see how anything Barack Obama can say that will bring any influence to bear at all.
I think its also possible that GW Bush is making a stand now to safeguard his legacy. At some point int eh future, he/the Republicans can turn around and say, we told you so. By using the Nazi's as an example, he is also nailing his position to a very staunch example. The Nazi's couldn't be reasoned with. What obvious difference between Nazi Germany in 1938 and the Islamic Republic of Iran in 2008 makes anyone think Tehran is any different?
QUOTE
Will the tactic work, or will it boomerang back on Republicans?
....pass 
Were Bush's remarks aimed at Obama?
Obviously. Were there doubt in anyone's mind, the White House denied that the remarks were aimed at Sen. Obama almost immediately.
If so, was it an attempt to sway American Jewish voters by painting Obama as sympathetic to Israel's enemies?
Of course it was. Comparing Obama's willingness to attempt a bit of diplomacy with an enemy before launching an illegal invasion and indulging in six years of war crime to "Nazi appeasement" demonstrates such gross ignorance that Bush truly deserves defenders like Kevin James, whose knowledge of history, government, and policy extend no further than the last talking point he received from NewsMax. The man is a perfect spokesperson for the entire Bush administration. Such buffoonery would be laughable if it weren't such a tragic reminder of the leadership to which we've been subjected for the past seven years.
Will the tactic work, or will it boomerang back on Republicans?
It'll work, but it won't get them very far. Obama has already pandered heavily to the Israel lobby, telling AIPAC that "a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel... will always be my starting point" in relation to ME relations and that "we must preserve our total commitment to our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding military assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense programs." In the Cleveland debate, he claimed, "I have been a stalwart friend of Israel and supported the special relationship we enjoy with it. ... They are among our most important allies and their security is sacrosanct."
Of course the Republican Noise Machine will be making the most of the "appeasement" meme and it may have some impact on otherwise uninformed moderates, but I don't think the Republicans should expect much blowback this time - especially as their opposition is so tepid. This incident is a prime example of how insipid the Obama campaign's reaction to these sorts of things can be.
John McCain's reaction to Bush's remarks was as follows:
The Obama campaign's response to McCain (in its entirety):
That was it - more Reagan licking. Are you freaking kidding me? McCain says Reagan "didn't sit down in a negotiation with the religious extremists in Iran" and the best the Obama campaign can do is demonstrate that they are just as ignorant of history as Kevin James is?
McCain is right: Reagan didn't sit down in negotiations with religious extremists in Iran (though sending the Ayatollah Khomeini a freakin' cake and a Bible signed by theauthor president sounds a bit like appeasement to me). No, he didn't sit down and negotiate, he sent top officials like National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane to meet with Iranian officials in secret for over fourteen months. He didn't sit down and negotiate with the Iranians, he sold them god-damned weapons!
If the Obama camp wanted to nip this thing in the bud and address the ridiculous criticisms of the GOP, that's exactly what they should have said. The best they can do is whine about McCain being mean to them? Are these guys trying to lose the election?
Obviously. Were there doubt in anyone's mind, the White House denied that the remarks were aimed at Sen. Obama almost immediately.
If so, was it an attempt to sway American Jewish voters by painting Obama as sympathetic to Israel's enemies?
Of course it was. Comparing Obama's willingness to attempt a bit of diplomacy with an enemy before launching an illegal invasion and indulging in six years of war crime to "Nazi appeasement" demonstrates such gross ignorance that Bush truly deserves defenders like Kevin James, whose knowledge of history, government, and policy extend no further than the last talking point he received from NewsMax. The man is a perfect spokesperson for the entire Bush administration. Such buffoonery would be laughable if it weren't such a tragic reminder of the leadership to which we've been subjected for the past seven years.
Will the tactic work, or will it boomerang back on Republicans?
It'll work, but it won't get them very far. Obama has already pandered heavily to the Israel lobby, telling AIPAC that "a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel... will always be my starting point" in relation to ME relations and that "we must preserve our total commitment to our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding military assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense programs." In the Cleveland debate, he claimed, "I have been a stalwart friend of Israel and supported the special relationship we enjoy with it. ... They are among our most important allies and their security is sacrosanct."
Of course the Republican Noise Machine will be making the most of the "appeasement" meme and it may have some impact on otherwise uninformed moderates, but I don't think the Republicans should expect much blowback this time - especially as their opposition is so tepid. This incident is a prime example of how insipid the Obama campaign's reaction to these sorts of things can be.
John McCain's reaction to Bush's remarks was as follows:
QUOTE
Yes, there have been appeasers in the past, and the president is exactly right, and one of them is Neville Chamberlain. I believe that it's not an accident that our hostages came home from Iran when President Reagan was president of the United States. He didn't sit down in a negotiation with the religious extremists in Iran, he made it very clear that those hostages were coming home.
The Obama campaign's response to McCain (in its entirety):
QUOTE
It is the height of hypocrisy for John McCain to deliver a lofty speech about civility and bipartisanship in the morning and then embrace George Bush's disgraceful political attack in the afternoon. Instead of delivering meaningful change, John McCain wants to continue George Bush's irresponsible and failed Iran policy by refusing to engage in tough, direct diplomacy like Presidents from Kennedy to Reagan have done.
That was it - more Reagan licking. Are you freaking kidding me? McCain says Reagan "didn't sit down in a negotiation with the religious extremists in Iran" and the best the Obama campaign can do is demonstrate that they are just as ignorant of history as Kevin James is?
McCain is right: Reagan didn't sit down in negotiations with religious extremists in Iran (though sending the Ayatollah Khomeini a freakin' cake and a Bible signed by the
If the Obama camp wanted to nip this thing in the bud and address the ridiculous criticisms of the GOP, that's exactly what they should have said. The best they can do is whine about McCain being mean to them? Are these guys trying to lose the election?
Just as a general note, I don't see what's wrong with talking to the bad guys. If nothing else, it can help you learn more about them. You can also make it clear that you will not put up with certain behaviors. I mean, in the most extreme case, the cops don't just refuse to talk with a potential crooks; they yell "Freeze! We've got you surrounded!"
As far as the main question for debate goes, I don't think this will turn out to be that big a deal. The only major issue on which the Elephants have had a consistent advantage over the Donkeys in the minds of the voters in recent years has been national defense. The current situation (Iraq, PATRIOT Act) has greatly weakened that advantage, so the GOP has to keep beating the war drum every chance it gets.
As far as the main question for debate goes, I don't think this will turn out to be that big a deal. The only major issue on which the Elephants have had a consistent advantage over the Donkeys in the minds of the voters in recent years has been national defense. The current situation (Iraq, PATRIOT Act) has greatly weakened that advantage, so the GOP has to keep beating the war drum every chance it gets.
QUOTE(Victoria Silverwolf @ May 17 2008, 07:05 AM)
Just as a general note, I don't see what's wrong with talking to the bad guys. If nothing else, it can help you learn more about them. You can also make it clear that you will not put up with certain behaviors. I mean, in the most extreme case, the cops don't just refuse to talk with a potential crooks; they yell "Freeze! We've got you surrounded!"
As far as the main question for debate goes, I don't think this will turn out to be that big a deal. The only major issue on which the Elephants have had a consistent advantage over the Donkeys in the minds of the voters in recent years has been national defense. The current situation (Iraq, PATRIOT Act) has greatly weakened that advantage, so the GOP has to keep beating the war drum every chance it gets.
As far as the main question for debate goes, I don't think this will turn out to be that big a deal. The only major issue on which the Elephants have had a consistent advantage over the Donkeys in the minds of the voters in recent years has been national defense. The current situation (Iraq, PATRIOT Act) has greatly weakened that advantage, so the GOP has to keep beating the war drum every chance it gets.
I agree that “talking” to the bad guys is fine and we have been “talking” to Iran, Syria and others for decades. What is wrong is the President “talking” unless there is good reason to suspect a major breakthrough – one that has been confirmed by lower officials.
To allow the President to “talk” to Ahmadinejad is to further legitimize the man in a country where he is not even well respected by all.
Exactly what would you say to the man? What would the “president” be willing to give up? Does anyone really imagine that he would change his views? Has any other President of either party ever done this – of course not.
Obama made a gaff in saying this in a debate and now he is stuck with it and imo it will not help him.
QUOTE(Wertz)
McCain says Reagan "didn't sit down in a negotiation with the religious extremists in Iran" and the best the Obama campaign can do is demonstrate that they are just as ignorant of history as Kevin James is?
McCain is right: Reagan didn't sit down in negotiations with religious extremists in Iran (though sending the Ayatollah Khomeini a freakin' cake and a Bible signed by the author president sounds a bit like appeasement to me). No, he didn't sit down and negotiate, he sent top officials like National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane to meet with Iranian officials in secret for over fourteen months. He didn't sit down and negotiate with the Iranians, he sold them god-damned weapons!
If the Obama camp wanted to nip this thing in the bud and address the ridiculous criticisms of the GOP, that's exactly what they should have said. The best they can do is whine about McCain being mean to them? Are these guys trying to lose the election?
McCain is right: Reagan didn't sit down in negotiations with religious extremists in Iran (though sending the Ayatollah Khomeini a freakin' cake and a Bible signed by the author president sounds a bit like appeasement to me). No, he didn't sit down and negotiate, he sent top officials like National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane to meet with Iranian officials in secret for over fourteen months. He didn't sit down and negotiate with the Iranians, he sold them god-damned weapons!
If the Obama camp wanted to nip this thing in the bud and address the ridiculous criticisms of the GOP, that's exactly what they should have said. The best they can do is whine about McCain being mean to them? Are these guys trying to lose the election?
On this, my friend, you and I are 100% in agreement. I sent an email to Obama's campaign to that very effect. Bush gave Obama a gift in the form of a baseball bat and a hanging curve. McCain follows it up with a flat fastball over the middle of the plate that my nephew could have gone yard with and the best Obama got out of it was a few singles. Both of those shots should be sitting in Waveland Avenue right now. Sorry, its baseball season and who could resist a Cubs reference
The parsing that's taking place on the GOP side of Obama's comments is laughable. If you examine Reagan and Bush I's foreign policy, Obama's approach is nearly indistinguishable. But to hear Jon Kyl characterize it, you'd think we'll be inviting Mahmoud over to Camp David for some surf n turf and talking about the next season of American Idol. Its election season though, so none of this is hardly surprising. I love that Obama is punching back, unlike Gore or Kerry, but jabs ain't cutting it. A nice uppercut when McCain is leading his jaw like that is just what the doctor ordered, not a body blow that most of the public doesn't see.
Its an opportunity not fully taken advantage of at the moment, but I have a feeling this gift may keep on giving for awhile. We'll see.
The President's statement is ridiculous on many levels. (1) It violates long standing political protocol that American disagreements regarding foreign policy stop at the waters edge. (2) It fundamentally distorts the meaning of the word "appeasement" by using a false historical analogy. (Listen to Hardball HERE). (3) It was a direct interference in Israeli politics in favor of Likud over the governing Kadema and the Labor Party. And (4) it undermines the stated policies of the Secretaries of State and Defense and may signal the increased probability of an attack on Iran. (See this Jim Lobe's Article and the Links therein).
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.