Bush Makes Obama/Nazi Comparison

[patriotsblade]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24647139#24647139


This is some seriously twisted shit. Even Pat Buchanan was appalled and made the observation that it was Bush that opened a dialogue with, and ultimately persuaded Libya to give up their nuclear weapons program. The same goes for North Korea (one of Bush's axis of evil countries as well). But now when Obama suggests using diplomacy to deal with Iran, Bush says it's the equivalent to people that would 'appease the Nazi's. Not only was it a ridiculous attack by a sitting President on a presidential candidate, but he did it while standing on foreign soil during a celebration of the birth of Israel. What a sorry sack of shit this "President" is.

[Saguaro]

Who listens to Bush any more ?

[patriotsblade]

Not many, but it's an interesting day in politics when Pat Buchanan is defending Barack Obama.

[toxic]

... This is some seriously twisted shit. ... Not only was it a ridiculous attack by a sitting President on a presidential candidate, but he did it while standing on foreign soil during a celebration of the birth of Israel. What a sorry sack of shit this "President" is.

I agree.

Bush is always bizarre, but he is at his worst when in the presence of a bunch of "Yes Men".

I can practically hear the Israelis edging him on from here. "Yeah baby"-Clap-Clap. Clearly there is nothing he could say that they would consider "Over-the-Top".

[Yellowdogtexan]

mc :cane evidently agrees with bush's moronic comments as does lieberman.

Here is the statement from the Obama campaign on bush's latest stupidity. http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/05/obama_camp_hits_back_at_bushs.php"It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 6Oth 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."

[patriotsblade]

I like Joe Biden. This was his response:

Biden calls Bush comments 'bulls**t'

The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Joe Biden, D-Delaware, called President Bush’s comments accusing Sen. Barack Obama and other Democrats of wanting to appease terrorists "bulls–t” and said if the president disagrees so strongly with the idea of talking to Iran then he needs to fire his secretaries of State and Defense, both of whom Biden said have pushed to sit down with the Iranians.

“This is bullsh**t. 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,” Biden said angrily in a brief interview just off the Senate floor.

“He’s the guy who’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 has. His intelligence community pointed that out not me. The NIE has pointed that out and what are you talking about, is he going to fire Condi Rice? Condi Rice has talked about the need to sit down. So his first two appeasers are Rice and Gates. I hope he comes home and does something.”

He quoted Gates saying Wednesday that we “need to figure out a way to develop some leverage and then sit down and talk with them.”


http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/15/biden-calls-bush-comments-bulls-t/

[Yellowdogtexan]

I agree with Senator Biden.

Here are the comments of Senator Kerry to these really reallly stupid comments by bush http://kerry.senate.gov/cfm/record.cfm?id=297862WAHSINGTON, DC – Senator John Kerry made the following statement today, in response to President Bush’s partisan attacks from Israel’s Knesset.

“President Bush is still playing the disgusting and dangerous political game Karl Rove perfected which is insulting to every American and disrespectful to our ally Israel.

“George Bush should be making Israel secure, not slandering Barack Obama from the Knesset. If George Bush believes engagement with Iran is appeasement, the first thing he should do when he comes home is demand the resignation of his own Cabinet. Secretary Gates and Secretary Rice have both favored negotiations with Iran.

“The bottom line is that George Bush's policies have made America less safe. The Middle East is more unstable than it's been in decades. Al Qaeda is reconstituted, Israel is more threatened, Hamas controls Gaza, Hezbollah threatens to take over Lebanon, Iran is stronger and Iraq is in chaos. America needs – and Israel deserves – presidential leadership that actually makes us safer and stronger.”

[Judge Smails]

"W"'s own Grandfather, Prescott, dealt with and profited from the Nazi party.

[Matt]

This has been a nauseating day to watch the news.
That Bush face and the idiocy that comes from his mouth!!
I still cannot believe that he fooled enough people to get elected president.
He had no history of success in anything. Yet they want to act like Obama isn't qualified for Bush's job. Homer Simpson could do better. When you follow Bush you don't have much to live up to.

I am so anxious to get him out of office so that the cleanup can begin. Surely the voters have had enough of Bush and will not elect McSame ~ even if he does pretend he is going to be different. Not different enough. Might even be worse. Remember, the pick of the litter that Mc:cane came out of was pretty pathetic. :roll

[jim]

"W"'s own Grandfather, Prescott, dealt with and profited from the Nazi party.

Sure as hell did!!! I posted that once on the psycho board:ringo:brr

[Trueblue]

Go Joe Biden! :paclap He is exactly right.

[AYFR]

Reaching now aren't we?

Nowhere in is speech did Bush even mention Obama.

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. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all 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. (Applause.)
http://zionism-israel.com/israel_news/2008/05/masada-will-not-fall-again-transcript.html

Sounds like someone got defensive for nothing.

[Lone Laugher]

Right on cue Rev. Are you the only person in the world who does not know that Bush was referring to Obama?

You want to argue this point to death or will you JUST BE HONEST WITH US AND YOURSELF and admit that you also know that Bush was talking about Obama?

[AYFR]

I just want someone to show me where he mentioned Obama or how that conclusion was arrived at, because I sure do not see it.

I do see it as him attack the whole democrat party though.

[Lone Laugher]

I guess we have your answer then. Too bad.

[Lone Laugher]

BTW, Rev...your new hero was clear in his use of Obama's name. Check out McCain's comments regarding negotiating. Tell me that he and Bush are not working together.

[nixon]

Reaching now aren't we?

Nowhere in is speech did Bush even mention Obama.


http://zionism-israel.com/israel_news/2008/05/masada-will-not-fall-again-transcript.html

Sounds like someone got defensive for nothing.But your hero Reagan negotiated with extremists, did you forget? Here, please allow me to refresh your memory...http://www.inthe80s.com/scandal.shtml

[Judge Smails]

Reaching now aren't we?

Nowhere in is speech did Bush even mention Obama.


http://zionism-israel.com/israel_news/2008/05/masada-will-not-fall-again-transcript.html

Sounds like someone got defensive for nothing.

Perhaps you think yourself clever because bush didn't actually use Obama's name. This is typical bushit straight out of the rove play book. So let's see just how clever you are rev. or will you choose to play dumb?

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. We have heard this foolish delusion before.

To whom is bush refering?
You KNOW he wasn't refering to Obama because he didn't use his name...So tell us, whom do YOU think he was talking about?

[AYFR]

I guess we have your answer then. Too bad.My answer???
I honestly can not see that he was talking about Obama

Nor do I see him comparing anyone to the Nazis

If you could please post the quotes where he did that then fine.
BTW, Rev...your new hero was clear in his use of Obama's name. Check out McCain's comments regarding negotiating. Tell me that he and Bush are not working together.
Hmmm that's funny I did not see his name anywhere in the speech.

I do believe he was talking about the Democrat party as a whole though but not specifically Obama
But your hero Reagan negotiated with extremists, did you forget? Here, please allow me to refresh your memory...http://www.inthe80s.com/scandal.shtml
I know what Reagan did, and have I ever said I agreed with what he did now did I.

[AYFR]

Perhaps you think yourself clever because bush didn't actually use Obama's name. This is typical bushit straight out of the rove play book. So let's see just how clever you are rev. or will you choose to play dumb?

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. We have heard this foolish delusion before.

To whom is bush refering?
You KNOW he wasn't refering to Obama because he didn't use his name...So tell us, whom do YOU think he was talking about?
As I have already said he was talking about the Democrat party.

Read posts 14 and 19

Lets have some history here.
Carter said and says we should negotiate
Pelosi says the same
Hillary says it as well
And so does Dean, Biden, Kerry, Edwards and on and on and on.

[Saguaro]

Good try Rev, but no cigar

[Trueblue]

I think that coyness after such a blatant attack is really adding insult to injury.

[Trueblue]

As I have already said he was talking about the Democrat party.

Read posts 14 and 19

Lets have some history here.
Carter said and says we should negotiate
Pelosi says the same
Hillary says it as well
And so does Dean, Biden, Kerry, Edwards and on and on and on.

Yes, the difference is that Dems admit that they negotiate, and Pubs negotiate but don't admit it.

[AYFR]

It is not coy and I am not wrong on this. And untill you can prove me wrong he was talking about the Democrat party and not just Obama.


Also no one answered my question as to where he made the comparison that the Dems (or even Obama) was like the Nazis.

[Saguaro]

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. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all 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.

taken from the tex of Bush's speech:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080515/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_mideast_text;_ylt=AldTqWuLYnCAfAVS74B1xCeyFz4 D

[Judge Smails]

It is not coy and I am not wrong on this. And untill you can prove me wrong he was talking about the Democrat party and not just Obama.


Also no one answered my question as to where he made the comparison that the Dems (or even Obama) was like the Nazis.

Not surprisingly you are wrong.

You have stated that he wasn't talking about Obama directly, but the Democratic party in general.

The fact is his own Secretary of State, Condi Rice and his own Secretary of Defense, Gates has called for engagement with Iran.

The fact is bush has made deals with Lybian leader Qaddafi and Chairman Kim Jong Il of North Korea.

So in the world according to the bush waterboys (that's you), he could have just as easily been talking about members of his own administration or EVEN HIMSELF.

What a joke.

[Trueblue]

The Dixie Chicks, private citizens, criticized Bush while on foreign soil and the Pubs went nuts.

Now Bush, the President, has stuck his stupid self in the middle of an election in our nation while on foreign soil, and as is usual for Bush, he has been disingenuous to say the very least, comparing talking with the Iranians with appeasing the Nazis.

Bush is one sorry bastard.

[Judge Smails]

bush the gift that keeps on giving...

In the few minutes it took for him to stammer out yet another bucketload of verbal diarrhea, he managed to unite the Democrats behind Obama and have his political hacks spinning in circles to explain, once again, what this fucktard was "really" trying to say.

[Yellowdogtexan]

I just want someone to show me where he mentioned Obama or how that conclusion was arrived at, because I sure do not see it.What an ignorant and stupid post. This is as stupid and ignorant as your claim that rush did not insult a majority of our troops who do not believe in bush's moronic war. You really have a reading comprehension issue that is really very very sad.

Let me help you understand context (since you unable to keep from taking things out of context-again you should be glad that you are not a professional). Even bush's own advisors acknowledge that this comment was about Senator Obama http://thinkprogress.org/2008/05/15/bush-obama-nazi-appeaser/CNN’s Ed Henry reported that, while “President Bush never uttered the words Barack Obama,” his White House sources tell him it was clearly intended to be a partisan shot:White House aides are acknowledging that this was a reference to the fact that Sen. Obama and other Democrats have publicly said that it would be ok for the U.S. President to meet with leaders like the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad.
Only a fool or someone too stupid to understand the context of the quote would make the moronic claim

[Yellowdogtexan]

Speaker Pelosi nails it in that these comments from bush are too stupid and are beneath the office of president. http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0508/Pelosi_strongly_condemns_Bush_speech.htmlDemocrati c House leaders are calling out President Bush for a speech in Israel in which he seemed to suggest that Sen. Barack Obama wants the United States to "negotiate with terrorists."

In his speech, Bush said: “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."

The White House insists that Bush was "referring to a wide range of people, not any single person." But Obama's campaign says it appeared to be a swipe at him, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that Bush's remarks were "beneath the dignity of the office of the president and unworthy of our representation" at the celebration of Israel's 60th anniversary.

Referring to Sen. John McCain, Pelosi said: "I would hope that any serious person that aspires to lead the country, would disassociate themselves from those comments.”

As Pelosi was speaking, House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel issued a statement in which he said: "The tradition has always been that when a U.S. president is overseas, partisan politics stops at the water's edge. President Bush has now taken that principle and turned it on its head: for this White House, partisan politics now begins at the water’s edge, no matter the seriousness and gravity of the occasion. Does the president have no shame?”

[Yellowdogtexan]

Here is the statement of Senate Majority Leader Reid. http://democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=297885&—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made the following statement today in response to President Bush’s remarks before the Israeli Knesset:

“Not surprisingly, the engineer of the worst foreign policy in our nation’s history has fired yet another reckless and reprehensible round. More than seven years into his Presidency and in the sixth year of the directionless Iraq war, President Bush has yet to learn that his brand of divisive partisan rhetoric is precisely what has made America and our allies less secure. And for the President to make this statement before the government of our closest ally as it celebrates a remarkable milestone demeans this historic moment with partisan politics.

“President Bush’s own actions demonstrate that he believes negotiations – at the right moment, under the right conditions and with the right leaders – can both show strength and produce results. He has relied on negotiations with North Korea and Libya, two state sponsors of terror. And by conducting discussions with Russia, China, Libya, North Korea and Iran in recent years, President Bush has demonstrated his belief that negotiations can be a tool to advance America and Israel’s national security interests. I call on the President to explain the inconsistency between his Administration’s actions and his words today.”
bush has been one of the dumbest presidents in history and this latest statement just confirms bush's place in history.

[Judge Smails]

bush is going to continue to spoon feed the right-wing pablum to the mindless, infantile, toddlers that still need to have their diapers checked hourly, insuring that they are excreting the days neo-con corn-ladened talking points.

My greatest joy is reading the tripe that the bush faithful have to create in order to defend their master. I have to give them credit for the fantasy world that they have produced. Walt would be proud.

:mickey

[AYFR]

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. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all 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.

taken from the tex of Bush's speech:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080515/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_mideast_text;_ylt=AldTqWuLYnCAfAVS74B1xCeyFz4 D
Ok and.... He still did not compare anyone to the Nazis. He did compare negotiating with terrorists with negitiating with Nazis though
Not surprisingly you are wrong.

You have stated that he wasn't talking about Obama directly, but the Democratic party in general.

The fact is his own Secretary of State, Condi Rice and his own Secretary of Defense, Gates has called for engagement with Iran.

The fact is bush has made deals with Lybian leader Qaddafi and Chairman Kim Jong Il of North Korea.

So in the world according to the bush waterboys (that's you), he could have just as easily been talking about members of his own administration or EVEN HIMSELF.

What a joke.
I know what Bush and his Admin have done and I was not defending what they have done either. I am just telling you who he was talking about.
I love how just because someone challanges what is being said they suddenly become Bushies and such.

I am no supporter of Bush so you are wrong their.

I do however support the truth.



What an ignorant and stupid post. This is as stupid and ignorant as your claim that rush did not insult a majority of our troops who do not believe in bush's moronic war. You really have a reading comprehension issue that is really very very sad.

Let me help you understand context (since you unable to keep from taking things out of context-again you should be glad that you are not a professional). Even bush's own advisors acknowledge that this comment was about Senator Obama http://thinkprogress.org/2008/05/15/bush-obama-nazi-appeaser/Only a fool or someone too stupid to understand the context of the quote would make the moronic claim
:nono
Stop the insults.


But to the topic at hand. He remark was partisan and was clearly directed at the Democrat party, but it is spin and disingenuous to say he was talking about Obama

Speaker Pelosi nails it in that these comments from bush are too stupid and are beneath the office of president. http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0508/Pelosi_strongly_condemns_Bush_speech.html

Here is the statement of Senate Majority Leader Reid. http://democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=297885&bush has been one of the dumbest presidents in history and this latest statement just confirms bush's place in history.

You really think I care what Pelosi or Reid says about this. They are a partisan as Bush is.

[Trueblue]

Appeasement and Nazis is known to be a reference to Neville Chamberlain. In this case, it's a wildly inappropriate jab at Obama, especially when you consider there are prominent Republicans who also want to have talks with Iran.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Chamberlain

[Matt]

Ok and.... He still did not compare anyone to the Nazis. He did compare negotiating with terrorists with negitiating with Nazis though

I know what Bush and his Admin have done and I was not defending what they have done either. I am just telling you who he was talking about.
I love how just because someone challanges what is being said they suddenly become Bushies and such.

I am no supporter of Bush so you are wrong their.

I do however support the truth.


Yet you are a supporter of McCain.
My friend, you may need to examine the Bush connection and the truth more closely.

[Lone Laugher]

Rev....you may not care one way or the other...but your continuing to play dumb about this matter is doing nothing but making you lose credibility. The target of Bush' remarks is quite obvious. The interview that McCain did ( not the speech ) on the airplane simply solidified that Obama was the target of the remarks.

It is not a crime to admit that one is wrong. All you have to do is say something like:

"After seeing the speech and other news reports several times last night, I now see that Bush was indeed referring to Obama. When I first heard of the comments, I did not make the connection to Obama...or to Nazis."

It is painless, really.

[AYFR]

Appeasement and Nazis is known to be a reference to Neville Chamberlain. In this case, it's a wildly inappropriate jab at Obama, especially when you consider there are prominent Republicans who also want to have talks with Iran.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Chamberlain
It is a jab at the Democrat party not Obama
Yet you are a supporter of McCain.
My friend, you may need to examine the Bush connection and the truth more closely.
I support McCain not because he may or may not have ties with Bush but because I see him as the person best suited for the job.
Rev....you may not care one way or the other...but your continuing to play dumb about this matter is doing nothing but making you lose credibility. The target of Bush' remarks is quite obvious. The interview that McCain did ( not the speech ) on the airplane simply solidified that Obama was the target of the remarks.

It is not a crime to admit that one is wrong. All you have to do is say something like:

"After seeing the speech and other news reports several times last night, I now see that Bush was indeed referring to Obama. When I first heard of the comments, I did not make the connection to Obama...or to Nazis."

It is painless, really.
But LL I am not wrong, you are right that the target was obvious but the target was the whole Democrat party no just Obama.

Like you said admitting your wrong is painless. It goes something like this

"After reading Bush's speech I came to realize that I was wrong about Bush attacking Obama, I see now that he was instead attacking the whole Democrat party"

Try it for once, it won't hurt a bit I promise

Besides isn't attacking the whole party worse then attacking one person.

I also would like to add that him attacking the Democrat party this way was wrong.

[Trueblue]

It is a jab at the Democrat party not Obama

I support McCain not because he may or may not have ties with Bush but because I see him as the person best suited for the job.

But LL I am not wrong, you are right that the target was obvious but the target was the whole Democrat party no just Obama.

Like you said admitting your wrong is painless. It goes something like this

"After reading Bush's speech I came to realize that I was wrong about Bush attacking Obama, I see now that he was instead attacking the whole Democrat party"

Try it for once, it won't hurt a bit I promise

Besides isn't attacking the whole party worse then attacking one person.

I also would like to add that him attacking the Democrat party this way was wrong.

I would call that spin, personally.

Let's keep focused on the FACT that Bush is making this criticism when Bush has negotiated with Kadafi and has written a lovely letter to Kim Jong Il.

How dumb is Bush? A rhetorical question.

A better question, how dumb does Bush think that the public is? He is aiming this right at the people who voted for him.

[Yellowdogtexan]

Rev this attempt at spin is just as stupid as your claim that Rush did not call a majority of our troops 'phony soliders' simply because these soliders do not support the war in Iraq. That was stupid then and this attempt at spin is stupid now. You have a defect in your reading comprehension skills or inability to understand concepts that make you unable to understand what are rather simple concepts that is very sad.

Before the insults by bush in Israel, the bushies were telling everyone that this was aimed at Senator Obama. I posted one link last night and there are others Now that bush is getting attacked, the bushies and the idiots who are backing them are trying to back away from the clear insults.

The US is in deep trouble right now due to stupid positions like this. bush used the same insult back in 2003 as to anyone who wanted to talk to Saddam instead of bomb and look where that stupidity has left up. Any one who wanted to let the inspections proceed were accused of being appeasers and as a result we went to war based on fixed facts and intelligence. Now bush and mc :cane are trying the same stupid line and only idiots are buying it.

bush and mc :cane coordinated this stupidity and are hoping that there are still enough idiots out there who are dumb enough to buy this crap. Evidently there are still a few such as yourself who are willing to buy this stupidity.

[Yellowdogtexan]

Rev....you may not care one way or the other...but your continuing to play dumb about this matter is doing nothing but making you lose credibility. The target of Bush' remarks is quite obvious. The interview that McCain did ( not the speech ) on the airplane simply solidified that Obama was the target of the remarks.The Rev either has a defect in his reading comprehension skills or loves playing these rather silly games. He did the exact same thing with the insults of a majority of our troops by rush and his excuses here sound exactly the same. The :rev was wrong then and is wrong now but will never admit it because he is not able to understand the truth or because he likes the attention these stupid attempts at spin draw to him. I told the :rev back on the rush threads that I have lost all respect for his intelligence and the :rev has done nothing to change my opinion and in fact has reinforced such opinion with this silliness and his foolishness and stupidity on the tax cut myth thread

[Judge Smails]

Ok and.... He still did not compare anyone to the Nazis. He did compare negotiating with terrorists with negitiating with Nazis though

I know what Bush and his Admin have done and I was not defending what they have done either. I am just telling you who he was talking about.
I love how just because someone challanges what is being said they suddenly become Bushies and such.

I am no supporter of Bush so you are wrong their.

I do however support the truth.

You don't "support the truth". You support your version of the truth which conveniently lacks the daily recommended dose of FACTs, as illustrated here:

As I have already said he was talking about the Democrat party.

Read posts 14 and 19

Lets have some history here.
Carter said and says we should negotiate
Pelosi says the same
Hillary says it as well
And so does Dean, Biden, Kerry, Edwards and on and on and on.-REVEREND

Notice the lack of any republicans.

If TRUTH be your inspiration then what happened to the names of bush, rice and gates?

Your "truth" reverend is something you make up as you go along. If you think your posts are being clever you are sadly mistaken.

You should practice what you preach reverend.

Oh and by the way...bush's own aides admit that yesterdays comments were directed at Obama. I'll let you google it...give you something constructive to do. Let me know if you can't find it. I'll be more than happy to point you in the right direction.

[Judge Smails]

Here's Some More Truth Reverend:


Hypocrisy on Hamas
McCain Was for Talking Before He Was Against It

By James P. Rubin
Friday, May 16, 2008; A19



If the recent exchanges between President Bush, Barack Obama and John McCain on Hamas and terrorism are a preview of the general election, we are in for an ugly six months. Despite his reputation in the media as a charming maverick, McCain has shown that he is also happy to use Nixon-style dirty campaign tactics. By charging recently that Hamas is rooting for an Obama victory, McCain tried to use guilt by association to suggest that Obama is weak on national security and won't stand up to terrorist organizations, or that, as Richard Nixon might have put it, Obama is soft on Israel.

President Bush picked up this theme yesterday. Without naming Obama during his speech last night to Israel's Knesset, Bush suggested that Democrats want to "negotiate with terrorists" while Republicans want to fight terrorists.

The Obama campaign was right to criticize the president for his remarks and for engaging in partisan politics while overseas. Many presidents have said things abroad that could be construed as violating this unwritten rule of American politics. But it is hard to remember any president abusing the prestige of his office in as crude a way as Bush did yesterday. Charging your opponents with appeasement and likening them to Neville Chamberlain in the Knesset is a brutal blow. It is bad enough that Republicans use the politics of personal destruction here at home, but to deploy that kind of political weapon at an occasion as solemn as an American president addressing the parliament of a friendly government marks a new low.

McCain, meanwhile, is guilty of hypocrisy. I am a supporter of Hillary Clinton and believe that she was right to say, about McCain's statement on Hamas, "I don't think that anybody should take that seriously." Unfortunately, the Republicans know that some people will. That's why they say such things.

But given his own position on Hamas, McCain is the last politician who should be attacking Obama. Two years ago, just after Hamas won the Palestinian parliamentary elections, I interviewed McCain for the British network Sky News's "World News Tonight" program. Here is the crucial part of our exchange:

I asked: "Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the way they have in the past, working with the Palestinian government if Hamas is now in charge?"

McCain answered: "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."

For some Europeans in Davos, Switzerland, where the interview took place, that's a perfectly reasonable answer. But it is an unusual if not unique response for an American politician from either party. And it is most certainly not how the newly conservative presumptive Republican nominee would reply today.


Given that exchange, the new John McCain might say that Hamas should be rooting for the old John McCain to win the presidential election. The old John McCain, it appears, was ready to do business with a Hamas-led government, while both Clinton and Obama have said that Hamas must change its policies toward Israel and terrorism before it can have diplomatic relations with the United States.

Even if McCain had not favored doing business with Hamas two years ago, he had no business smearing Barack Obama. But given his stated position then, it is either the height of hypocrisy or a case of political amnesia for McCain to inject Hamas into the American election.

The writer, an adjunct professor at Columbia University's School of International Affairs, was an assistant secretary of state and the State Department's chief spokesman during the Clinton administration.

[jim]

Ever think that perhaps - Some can negotiate and some can't??:godzilla:hotdog

[AYFR]

I would call that spin, personally.

Let's keep focused on the FACT that Bush is making this criticism when Bush has negotiated with Kadafi and has written a lovely letter to Kim Jong Il.

How dumb is Bush? A rhetorical question.

A better question, how dumb does Bush think that the public is? He is aiming this right at the people who voted for him.
Oh don't get me wrong I do think that Bush is being very hypocritical here.

BTW it was not spin towards LL but sarcasm.

[AYFR]

Rev this attempt at spin is just as stupid as your claim that Rush did not call a majority of our troops 'phony soliders' simply because these soliders do not support the war in Iraq. That was stupid then and this attempt at spin is stupid now. You have a defect in your reading comprehension skills or inability to understand concepts that make you unable to understand what are rather simple concepts that is very sad.

Before the insults by bush in Israel, the bushies were telling everyone that this was aimed at Senator Obama. I posted one link last night and there are others Now that bush is getting attacked, the bushies and the idiots who are backing them are trying to back away from the clear insults.

The US is in deep trouble right now due to stupid positions like this. bush used the same insult back in 2003 as to anyone who wanted to talk to Saddam instead of bomb and look where that stupidity has left up. Any one who wanted to let the inspections proceed were accused of being appeasers and as a result we went to war based on fixed facts and intelligence. Now bush and mc :cane are trying the same stupid line and only idiots are buying it.

bush and mc :cane coordinated this stupidity and are hoping that there are still enough idiots out there who are dumb enough to buy this crap. Evidently there are still a few such as yourself who are willing to buy this stupidity.:roll

The Rev either has a defect in his reading comprehension skills or loves playing these rather silly games. He did the exact same thing with the insults of a majority of our troops by rush and his excuses here sound exactly the same. The :rev was wrong then and is wrong now but will never admit it because he is not able to understand the truth or because he likes the attention these stupid attempts at spin draw to him. I told the :rev back on the rush threads that I have lost all respect for his intelligence and the :rev has done nothing to change my opinion and in fact has reinforced such opinion with this silliness and his foolishness and stupidity on the tax cut myth threadagain :roll

You don't "support the truth". You support your version of the truth which conveniently lacks the daily recommended dose of FACTs, as illustrated here:

As I have already said he was talking about the Democrat party.

Read posts 14 and 19

Lets have some history here.
Carter said and says we should negotiate
Pelosi says the same
Hillary says it as well
And so does Dean, Biden, Kerry, Edwards and on and on and on.-REVEREND

Notice the lack of any republicans.

If TRUTH be your inspiration then what happened to the names of bush, rice and gates?

Your "truth" reverend is something you make up as you go along. If you think your posts are being clever you are sadly mistaken.

You should practice what you preach reverend.

Oh and by the way...bush's own aides admit that yesterdays comments were directed at Obama. I'll let you google it...give you something constructive to do. Let me know if you can't find it. I'll be more than happy to point you in the right direction.
Why didn't I list any Reps? Because Bush is not going to attack his own party, that was why I did not list them.

I know several Reps have negotiated and Bush may have well been including those as well. I do not know because he did not mantion anyone or party by name.


Buy y'all know WHAT THE FUCK EVER. You want to keep making this into something it isn't then fine keep up with the pettiness.

[Judge Smails]

:roll

again :roll


Why didn't I list any Reps? Because Bush is not going to attack his own party, that was why I did not list them.

I know several Reps have negotiated and Bush may have well been including those as well. I do not know because he did not mantion anyone or party by name.


Buy y'all know WHAT THE FUCK EVER. You want to keep making this into something it isn't then fine keep up with the pettiness.

The basis of your post was that you "support the truth".
Clearly that is not the case.

Don't attempt to portray yourself as the standard bearer for truth.

I know several Reps have negotiated and Bush may have well been including those as well. I do not know because he did not mantion anyone or party by name.

But you "knew" enough that bush was refering to the Democrats. Now suddenly you "do not know" because he did not mention anyone or party by name.

How convenient.

So much for truth.

[AYFR]

The basis of your post was that you "support the truth".
Clearly that is not the case.

Don't attempt to portray yourself as the standard bearer for truth.



But you "knew" enough that bush was refering to the Democrats. Now suddenly you "do not know" because he did not mention anyone or party by name.

How convenient.

So much for truth.

I know Bush enough to know that he was attacking the Democrat party.
Bush is as partisan as they get and anychance he gets to attack the Democrats he takes, that is why I could say he was refering to the Democrats.

I do support the truth which is plain to see is something you know nothing about.


He was talking about the democrats I never reversed my position on that. I just added that he MAY (key word there) have been also talking about certain Reps as well.
THAT is what I am not sure about.
I am sure he was attacking the democrat party (wrongly I might add as well)

Take off you partisan hatefilled glasses and see the truth.

[Judge Smails]

I know Bush enough to know that he was attacking the Democrat party.
Bush is as partisan as they get and anychance he gets to attack the Democrats he takes, that is why I could say he was refering to the Democrats.

I do support the truth which is plain to see is something you know nothing about.


He was talking about the democrats I never reversed my position on that. I just added that he MAY (key word there) have been also talking about certain Reps as well.
THAT is what I am not sure about.
I am sure he was attacking the democrat party (wrongly I might add as well)

Take off you partisan hatefilled glasses and see the truth.

So you have gone from knowing the truth to maybe knowing the truth.

Again as pointed out earlier on this thread and in today's news, bush's own aides admit that (read this part carefully) bush was refering to Obama.

Are you saying that bush's aides are lying? You should enlighten us seeing that you "know bush enough"

So what is it?

Are bush's aides lying?

Or are you flat out wrong?

[AYFR]

Please back up that with some proof.

I have no problem admiting when I am wrong if I am actually proven wrong.

Also I know the truth. The truth is that he was talking about the democrats. IN ADDITION TO THAT TRUTH, he MAY or MAY NOT have benn talking about others as well.

I can discern that from Bush's past actions and words.
His past has shown that he likes to attack the left and not the right.

[Judge Smails]

Please back up that with some proof.

I have no problem admiting when I am wrong if I am actually proven wrong.

Also I know the truth. The truth is that he was talking about the democrats. IN ADDITION TO THAT TRUTH, he MAY or MAY NOT have benn talking about others as well.

I can discern that from Bush's past actions and words.
His past has shown that he likes to attack the left and not the right.

From CNN:

May 15, 2008
Bush suggests Obama wants 'appeasement' of terrorists
Posted: 10:48 AM ET

From CNN White House Correspondent Ed Henry

Bush aides say the President was aiming his remarks at Obama and other Democrats.

JERUSALEM (CNN) – President Bush launched a sharp but veiled attack Thursday on Sen. Barack Obama and other Democrats, suggesting they favor "appeasement" of terrorists in the same way some Western leaders appeased Hitler in the run-up to World War II.
The president did not name Obama or any other Democrat, but White House aides privately acknowledged the remarks were aimed at the presidential candidate and others in his party. Former President Jimmy Carter has called for talks with Hamas.


Full Article:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/15/bush-suggests-obama-wants-appeasement-of-terrorists/

[Lone Laugher]

Judge....this could go on for a long fucking time. The Rev. prefers to argue semantics. He will exhaust every ounce of energy you have before he'll admit that he was being disingenuous at the start of this discussion. Evidence has no effect. Logic is suspended.

Best of luck to you. In the Rev's world....the last post wins.

[AYFR]

From CNN:

May 15, 2008
Bush suggests Obama wants 'appeasement' of terrorists
Posted: 10:48 AM ET

From CNN White House Correspondent Ed Henry

Bush aides say the President was aiming his remarks at Obama and other Democrats.

JERUSALEM (CNN) – President Bush launched a sharp but veiled attack Thursday on Sen. Barack Obama and other Democrats, suggesting they favor "appeasement" of terrorists in the same way some Western leaders appeased Hitler in the run-up to World War II.
The president did not name Obama or any other Democrat, but White House aides privately acknowledged the remarks were aimed at the presidential candidate and others in his party. Former President Jimmy Carter has called for talks with Hamas.


Full Article:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/15/bush-suggests-obama-wants-appeasement-of-terrorists/
From your own link, it shows that he was talking about the Democrats.

ALSO

http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2008/05/white-house-say.html


White House spokeswoman Dana Perino says President Bush's remarks in Israel today weren't directed at Democrat Barack Obama. Here's the transcript:
Q: There's some question about his comment here about "some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong" -- you know the passage. And he talks about the "false comfort of appeasement." This is being seen in some quarters as a slam on Senator Obama. Is this in any way directed at Senator Obama?
MS. PERINO: It is not. And I would think that all of you who cover these issues and have for a long time have known that there are many who have suggested these types of negotiations with people that President Bush thinks we should not talk to. I understand when you're running for office you sometimes think the world revolves around you -- that is not always true and it is not true in this case.
Q: But, so, not aimed at him -- do they include him?
MS. PERINO: He'll have to speak for himself as to what his policy is and you guys can know it well. This was a speech that the President gave to the Knesset. And this is not a new statement by President Bush. This is long-established United States policy, so it should come as no surprise that President Bush suggests that we should not be talking with these people. Q This is part of the election cycle, though -- was he stepping into the political cycle?
MS. PERINO: Of course he's not -- the President is President, regardless of an election cycle. And he's going to be the President of the United States until January 20, 2009. And we are not going to change policy based on the '08 election. We're not going to stop talking about the ideals and the values of the United States because there's an '08 election. They can fight it out for themselves over there, but this is not new policy that the President announced and it should come as no surprise to anybody that the President would talk about this. He talks about it in almost every interview, and in particular when
he's talking about the issues of Hamas and Hezbollah, al Qaeda, the Taliban, Iran, other state sponsors of terror. It's long-established United States policy.
Q: But you did say there are others who have enunciated a policy...and he has talked about this. So why shouldn't it be seen as anything?
MS. PERINO: I'm not going to get into '08 politics. The speech was not about '08 politics. If they want to try to make it about '08 politics -- and obviously be helped by the media -- so be it. But the President is President of the United States. This is a long-established policy that he has held and that he has talked about all over the world. And you guys have seen it for seven-and-a-half years. It's not going to change now.

[AYFR]

Judge....this could go on for a long fucking time. The Rev. prefers to argue semantics. He will exhaust every ounce of energy you have before he'll admit that he was being disingenuous at the start of this discussion. Evidence has no effect. Logic is suspended.

Best of luck to you. In the Rev's world....the last post wins.
Bullshit LL
I was not being disingenuous and there is no evidence to say Bush was talking about Obama. Just hearsay.

It takes a stretch of logic to say that his remark was aimed at Obama.

Oh wait I forget if someone is not in agreement with you they are wrong no matter what. Only the people that agree with you are right

[Judge Smails]

I just want someone to show me where he mentioned Obama or how that conclusion was arrived at, because I sure do not see it.

I do see it as him attack the whole democrat party though.

There's your question and it has been answered and backed up by outside sources.

Again bush's own aides admit that he was refering to Obama. The fact that they also mention the Democratic party is meaningless to your position, as you claimed bush was not refering to Obama.

Dana Perino?????

Dana Perino didn't even know about the Cuban Missile Crisis!

You'll need to do better than that.

[AYFR]

That they mention the democrat party solidifies my argument. Because y'alls argument was that he was ONLY talking about Obama while mine was he was talking about the whole party.
Obama is part of the Democrat party isn't he? Or has something happened to change that?

Beside how reliable is outside sources that will not reveal themselves?
I love how all of the sudden private sources are reliable.
That is funny.

Sorry but the official word from the White House is that he was not talking about Obama.


So just be honest with yoruselves and admit that because you hate Bush so much y'all made a mistake and are wrong and we can move on.

[Trueblue]

Bush does disgust me, and crap like this is why. He's completely full of shit.

[Trueblue]

The Rev. prefers to argue semantics. He will exhaust every ounce of energy you have before he'll admit that he was being disingenuous at the start of this discussion. Evidence has no effect. Logic is suspended.

.

[Judge Smails]

That they mention the democrat party solidifies my argument. Because y'alls argument was that he was ONLY talking about Obama while mine was he was talking about the whole party.
Obama is part of the Democrat party isn't he? Or has something happened to change that?

Beside how reliable is outside sources that will not reveal themselves?
I love how all of the sudden private sources are reliable.
That is funny.

Sorry but the official word from the White House is that he was not talking about Obama.


So just be honest with yoruselves and admit that because you hate Bush so much y'all made a mistake and are wrong and we can move on.

So if you can't defend your position you attack the sources.

I want to thank you for participating in this little exchange. everytime you touched the keyboard you dritfted further and further away from the truth, until you were left with nothing but to begin your circle jerk anew.

Clearly you have nothing intelligent to offer as I and the vast majority of other posters have pointed out.

Your entire debate was shallow and disingenous and puts you in a position to be the target of ridicule.

[AYFR]

So if you can't defend your position you attack the sources.

I want to thank you for participating in this little exchange. everytime you touched the keyboard you dritfted further and further away from the truth, until you were left with nothing but to begin your circle jerk anew.

Clearly you have nothing intelligent to offer as I and the vast majority of other posters have pointed out.

Your entire debate was shallow and disingenous and puts you in a position to be the target of ridicule.
I actuall defended my postion far better then you did. You use unnamed private sources and I use the White House press secretary.

Like Libs banning together and attacking me is anything new.

The left here always attacks what the reps do and always defends what the Dems do.

Doesn't matter what it is.

If the article had said that Bush has attacked the Democrat party you would jump on that bandwagon as well.

See while I have given facts

1) bush did not even say Obama
2) the White House says he was not talking about Obama
3) Bush was talking about mainly the Democrat Party as a whole

While you give just hearsay and talking points.

Typical.

[AYFR]

Judge....this could go on for a long fucking time. The Rev. prefers to argue semantics. He will exhaust every ounce of energy you have before he'll admit that he was being disingenuous at the start of this discussion. Evidence has no effect. Logic is suspended.

Best of luck to you. In the Rev's world....the last post wins.

.

See what it actually is; is that the left can't stand it when someone does not agree with them and provides facts opposite what they believe.

At the end all the have left can do is insult and complain.

[Judge Smails]

Just because you choose to ignore the facts doesn't prove your point. It only proves that you lack the ability to intelligently defend your position.

You do understand that by arguing semantics and ignoring the truth that you come across as looking foolish and even comical.

There's the real world and then there’s the world according to bush ...inhabited by a whopping %23.

Those numbers are that low because this administration is incompetent. They are handing this next election cycle... lock, stock and barrel to the Democrats.

I urge you to continue to spew the rancid offal you call "facts", because every dishonest, twisted word you type sends intelligent readers straight to the Democratic polling place of their choice.

You are the poster child for what is wrong with the republican party.

[AYFR]

That shows how much you know about me.
First I do not like Bush.
Second I am not a Republican.


What is funny is you claim to have given facts when you have just given hearsay.

[Trueblue]

I feel that you are often disingenuous and that you argue semantics instead of substance. It's really frustrating.

The unnamed WH sources are actually more reliable than the named in this instance. The sources are not named to us, but the media does know who these sources are and why they are in a position to know the facts. The named sources are trying to spin their way out of a controversy.

[AYFR]

Tehn we are on the same page TB because I often feel that you spin and make up facts that suit your arguement.

AS for the second part
:roll

[Trueblue]

Tehn we are on the same page TB because I often feel that you spin and make up facts that suit your arguement.

AS for the second part
:roll

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You seriously think I am spinning, and you disregard my point because of that. You aren't giving any mental energy to hearing my point.

Some people have a knee-jerk belief that unnamed equals unreliable, but that's just because they don't grasp the underlying process going on.

All week long, the WH operatives were prepping the media for this speech. They aren't calling up the media and saying "I'm not going to tell you who I am, but ____" [fill in the blank]. The media would not listen.

The unnamed source is giving their name, and the media knows that the this person works in the WH and is giving good information. This went on ALL week long. All week long.

The public face is giving you the public relations spin. The unnamed [unknown to us, but not to the reporter] source is telling the truth.

And BTW, I've never made up a fact. :mad

[Judge Smails]

That shows how much you know about me.
First I do not like Bush.
Second I am not a Republican.


What is funny is you claim to have given facts when you have just given hearsay.

I really don't care what label you choose to give yourself...you still come off looking like a neo-con, bush boy and that's all that matters.

You're disingenuous with your posts and you're disingenuous to yourself.

Not surprising really.

Just keep posting so all those fence sitters out there in cyberland can see what the future has in store for them if we don't take out the right-wing trash this November.

Which will they choose?...More dishonest spin from the neo-cons or a chance to put this country back on the right track and resume our rightful place as leaders of the free world.

[AYFR]

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You seriously think I am spinning, and you disregard my point because of that. You aren't giving any mental energy to hearing my point.

Some people have a knee-jerk belief that unnamed equals unreliable, but that's just because they don't grasp the underlying process going on.

All week long, the WH operatives were prepping the media for this speech. They aren't calling up the media and saying "I'm not going to tell you who I am, but ____" [fill in the blank]. The media would not listen.

The unnamed source is giving their name, and the media knows that the this person works in the WH and is giving good information. This went on ALL week long. All week long.

The public face is giving you the public relations spin. The unnamed [unknown to us, but not to the reporter] source is telling the truth.

And BTW, I've never made up a fact. :mad
Yeah like you ever honestly ever have tried to listen to my point.

TB I do listen to your points then counter them with my points.

Also you do not know if the unnamed source is telling the truth or not. You just hope they are so that you are right.

That's right I forgot that my facts are always wrong but yours on the ather hand are never wrong. (sarcasm btw)

I really don't care what label you choose to give yourself...you still come off looking like a neo-con, bush boy and that's all that matters.

You're disingenuous with your posts and you're disingenuous to yourself.

Not surprising really.

Just keep posting so all those fence sitters out there in cyberland can see what the future has in store for them if we don't take out the right-wing trash this November.

Which will they choose?...More dishonest spin from the neo-cons or a chance to put this country back on the right track and resume our rightful place as leaders of the free world.
:roll
Personally I think the Democrats are going to take an even bigger majority of the House and Senate.

It is the White House that I am not sure they can win.

Not because the Reps did anything to stop them either. The Reps had handed this election to the Dems but because they (IMO) choose the wrong nominee they may not win it.

If John Edwards had been the Nom the Reps would not stand a chance.


See I do not buy the spin that you do nor do I by talking points. I call it as I see it, but you keep repeating the Air America and DNC talking points.

Oh one other think I have not fully decide on who I will actually vote for this time around.

I may support McCain but as each day goes by he is slowly losing my support by pandering to everyone that walks by.

So you may think you know me but you do not. You are just a Liberal Democrat that thinks that if someone doesn't see everything the way you do then they are wrong.

Pathetic really.

As for the right track, good luck getting either party to do that.

BTW I am very genuine in my post and about myself. I stand by what I post and I DO NOT LIE.

I let the spin artist and party point talkers do that.



But I will remember that unnamed and private sources trump named ones. Just remember y'all set that precedence when it come back to bite ya.

If it is good for the goose.

[John Gault]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24647139#24647139


This is some seriously twisted shit. Even Pat Buchanan was appalled and made the observation that it was Bush that opened a dialogue with, and ultimately persuaded Libya to give up their nuclear weapons program. The same goes for North Korea (one of Bush's axis of evil countries as well). But now when Obama suggests using diplomacy to deal with Iran, Bush says it's the equivalent to people that would 'appease the Nazi's. Not only was it a ridiculous attack by a sitting President on a presidential candidate, but he did it while standing on foreign soil during a celebration of the birth of Israel. What a sorry sack of shit this "President" is.


Gee, I listened to it and I never heard Obama's name. I never heard him say democrat or presidential candidate?

He said some people...

Is Obama so self centered he thinks everything is about him?

but I will say if the shoe fits...

[John Gault]

Who listens to Bush any more ?

It would seem not the people who claim he was talking about Obama...

[John Gault]

I agree.

Bush is always bizarre, but he is at his worst when in the presence of a bunch of "Yes Men".

I can practically hear the Israelis edging him on from here. "Yeah baby"-Clap-Clap. Clearly there is nothing he could say that they would consider "Over-the-Top".

Did they leave out the part where he mentions Obama? I must have missed it.

[John Gault]

I like Joe Biden. This was his response:




http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/15/biden-calls-bush-comments-bulls-t/

Joe is a hair plugged moron.

[John Gault]

"W"'s own Grandfather, Prescott, dealt with and profited from the Nazi party.

Got any proof to go with that accusation?

[John Gault]

This has been a nauseating day to watch the news.
That Bush face and the idiocy that comes from his mouth!!
I still cannot believe that he fooled enough people to get elected president.
He had no history of success in anything. Yet they want to act like Obama isn't qualified for Bush's job. Homer Simpson could do better. When you follow Bush you don't have much to live up to.

I am so anxious to get him out of office so that the cleanup can begin. Surely the voters have had enough of Bush and will not elect McSame ~ even if he does pretend he is going to be different. Not different enough. Might even be worse. Remember, the pick of the litter that Mc:cane came out of was pretty pathetic. :roll


So you can give me the link where Bush mentioned Obama?

[John Gault]

But your hero Reagan negotiated with extremists, did you forget? Here, please allow me to refresh your memory...http://www.inthe80s.com/scandal.shtml

Tell me how this makes Bush's speech about Obama? Deflection is not an answer.

[John Gault]

Perhaps you think yourself clever because bush didn't actually use Obama's name. This is typical bushit straight out of the rove play book. So let's see just how clever you are rev. or will you choose to play dumb?

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. We have heard this foolish delusion before.

To whom is bush refering?
You KNOW he wasn't refering to Obama because he didn't use his name...So tell us, whom do YOU think he was talking about?

I guess he is speaking to whoever might think that some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along?

If Obama has no intention of doing that why did he get his wee little panties all in a wad over something that was not about him?

[John Gault]

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. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all 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.

taken from the tex of Bush's speech:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080515/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_mideast_text;_ylt=AldTqWuLYnCAfAVS74B1xCeyFz4 D

great, where is the Obama reference?

If Obama does not intend to negotiate with or appease terrorist then I don't see the problem here.

[John Gault]

Not surprisingly you are wrong.

You have stated that he wasn't talking about Obama directly, but the Democratic party in general.

The fact is his own Secretary of State, Condi Rice and his own Secretary of Defense, Gates has called for engagement with Iran.

The fact is bush has made deals with Lybian leader Qaddafi and Chairman Kim Jong Il of North Korea.

So in the world according to the bush waterboys (that's you), he could have just as easily been talking about members of his own administration or EVEN HIMSELF.

What a joke.

Sorry but the 'deal' with Khadafi was to help him dispose of his nuclear stuff. That was because he did not want to end up like Saddam once it became obvious that the US had a president with some stones for the first time since 88.

As far as Korea goes the negotiations are part of a 6 way negotiation. N. Korea tried to force direct with the US talks and W told them to go F themselves.

Try again.

[John Gault]

The Dixie Chicks, private citizens, criticized Bush while on foreign soil and the Pubs went nuts.

Now Bush, the President, has stuck his stupid self in the middle of an election in our nation while on foreign soil, and as is usual for Bush, he has been disingenuous to say the very least, comparing talking with the Iranians with appeasing the Nazis.

Bush is one sorry bastard.

Nice attempt at spin, but if Obama just ignored this he would have been far better off. The democrats are always perceived as weak on national defense and FP. Of course the reason is that they are weak. The democrat party has been basically feminized and thinks that talking will solve any problem and that being spo strong that no one would dare screw with you is just being a macho cowboy. Well being a Macho cowboy is what keeps us safe.

[John Gault]

Appeasement and Nazis is known to be a reference to Neville Chamberlain. In this case, it's a wildly inappropriate jab at Obama, especially when you consider there are prominent Republicans who also want to have talks with Iran.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Chamberlain

Again you asssume he is speaking of Obama, when he mentioned no individual or party for that matter.

Obama is way too defensive on this, it will hurt him come November no matter how hard the hard left tries to spin it.

He is weak, that is why he is so defensive.

[John Gault]

From CNN:

May 15, 2008
Bush suggests Obama wants 'appeasement' of terrorists
Posted: 10:48 AM ET

From CNN White House Correspondent Ed Henry

Bush aides say the President was aiming his remarks at Obama and other Democrats.

JERUSALEM (CNN) – President Bush launched a sharp but veiled attack Thursday on Sen. Barack Obama and other Democrats, suggesting they favor "appeasement" of terrorists in the same way some Western leaders appeased Hitler in the run-up to World War II.
The president did not name Obama or any other Democrat, but White House aides privately acknowledged the remarks were aimed at the presidential candidate and others in his party. Former President Jimmy Carter has called for talks with Hamas.


Full Article:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/15/bush-suggests-obama-wants-appeasement-of-terrorists/


privately acknowledged

Until someone says so publicly it is all speculation.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24647048/

Excerpted:

White House denied that Bush's words were in any way directed at Obama,

[John Gault]

Judge....this could go on for a long fucking time. The Rev. prefers to argue semantics. He will exhaust every ounce of energy you have before he'll admit that he was being disingenuous at the start of this discussion. Evidence has no effect. Logic is suspended.

Best of luck to you. In the Rev's world....the last post wins.

When you on the left constantly use Clintonian parsing on every iisue, and to make that claim of another is rather funny.

[John Gault]

I feel that you are often disingenuous and that you argue semantics instead of substance. It's really frustrating.

The unnamed WH sources are actually more reliable than the named in this instance. The sources are not named to us, but the media does know who these sources are and why they are in a position to know the facts. The named sources are trying to spin their way out of a controversy.

So the rule here seems to be the ones who agree with you but remain secret are reliable and the ones who disagree with you on the record are not?

How Clintonian of you.

[John Gault]

Clintonian defined:
Politcal sense
Following the Monica Lewinsky scandal and the Impeachment of President Bill Clinton the term "Clintonian" has also carried the connotation of verbal craftiness, usually in a political or legal context, intended to deceive or obscure the truth.

[Judge Smails]

Got any proof to go with that accusation?


Yup

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

Enjoy the read

[Judge Smails]

privately acknowledged

Until someone says so publicly it is all speculation.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24647048/

Excerpted:

Actually, it isn't speculation. If you are claiming that CNN's sources have not been verified, than why hasn't the White House demanded a retraction or even better, filed a libel case?

What's even more amusing is the very next day, bush travels to Saudi Arabia, a country known to support Hamas, the country that produced the majority of 9/11 terrorists and what does bush do?...he tries to negotiate an oil deal!

Are you comfortable with bush trying to make deals with a terrorist state?

[AYFR]

Yup

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

Enjoy the read
Harriman Bank was the main Wall Street partner for several German companies and the varied U.S. financial interests of Fritz Thyssen. Thyssen had been an early financial backer of the Nazi party, but by 1939 was bitterly denouncing Hitler and had fled Germany. He was later jailed by the Nazis for his opposition to the Nazi regime.[5] Business transactions with Germany were not illegal until Hitler declared war on the United States on December 11, 1941, but, six days after the attack on Pearl Harbor, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the Trading With the Enemy Act after it had been made public that U.S. companies were doing business with the declared enemy of the United States. On October 20, 1942, the U.S. government ordered the seizure of German banking operations in New York City. Roosevelt's Alien Property Custodian, Leo T. Crowley, signed Vesting Order Number 248 seizing property under the Trading with the Enemy Act. The order cited only the Union Banking Corporation (UBC), of which Bush was a director and held only one share. Fox News has reports on recently declassified material about this issue, according to a document signed by Homer Jones, chief of the division of investigation and research of the Office of Alien Property Custodian, a World War II-era agency.[6] By 1941 Thyssen no longer had control over his business empire, which was in the hands of the Nazi government.
E. Roland Harriman – 3991 shares
Cornelis Lievense – 4 shares (New York banker)
Harold D. Pennington – 1 share (Employed by Prescott Bush at Brown Brothers Harriman)
Ray Morris – 1 share (a business partner of the Bush and Harriman families)
Prescott S. Bush – 1 share (director of UBC; managing partner for E. Roland Harriman and Averell Harriman)
H.J. Kouwenhoven – 1 share (organized UBC for Von Thyssen, managed UBC in Netherlands)
Johann G. Groeninger – 1 share (German Industrial Executive)

The Harriman business interests seized under the act in October and November 1942 included:
Union Banking Corporation (UBC) (for Thyssen and Brown Brothers Harriman).
Dutch-American Trading Corporation (with Harriman)
the Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation (with Harriman)
Silesian-American Corporation (this company was partially owned by a German entity; during the war the Germans tried to take full control of Silesian-American. In response to that, the American government seized German owned minority shares in the company, leaving the U.S. partners to carry on the business.)

These assets were held by the U.S. government for the duration of the war, then returned afterward. UBC was dissolved in 1951. Bush was on the board of directors of UBC and held only one share in the company.

Toby Rogers claimed that Bush's connections to Silesian businesses (with Thyssen and Flick) made him complicit with the slave labour mining operations in Poland out of Auschwitz. However given Thyssen fled Germany before Hitler invaded Poland and set up those mining operations it is very hard to see how this claim can be defended.

Some records in the National Archives, including the Harriman papers, document the continued relationship of Brown Brothers Harriman with the anti-Nazi German exile Thyssen and some of his German investments up until his 1951 death.[7] Two former slave laborers from Poland filed suit in London against the government of the United States in the amount of $40 billion. Judge Rosemary Collier dismissed a class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. in 2001, citing the principle of state sovereignty.[5]

Prescott Bush's connection to the arms industry[8] came from his father Samuel P. Bush who worked for Buckeye Steel Castings Company which manufactured railway parts for the railroad industry and barrels for guns and casings for shells for Remington Arms.[9][10]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescott_Bush
Actually, it isn't speculation. If you are claiming that CNN's sources have not been verified, than why hasn't the White House demanded a retraction or even better, filed a libel case?

What's even more amusing is the very next day, bush travels to Saudi Arabia, a country known to support Hamas, the country that produced the majority of 9/11 terrorists and what does bush do?...he tries to negotiate an oil deal!

Are you comfortable with bush trying to make deals with a terrorist state?
CNN has been dishonest before.
How CNN hid the truth about Saddam and betrayed the world

April 21 2003


A stunning admission by the network's news chief raises questions about its values, writes Tim Rutten.


The 1991 Gulf War was a triumph for CNN. The network emerged from the war not simply as the world's network of record but as the one that proved the indispensability of 24-hour television news at moments of crisis. But as the 2003 war in Iraq winds down, CNN leaves the field with its reputation battered.

Despite the professional - sometimes distinguished - work of its journalists, a stunning admission by the network's top news executive has raised profound questions about the values that govern the core of CNN's news-gathering operation.

In an Opinion piece in The New York Times last week, CNN's news chief, Eason Jordan, wrote: "Over the last dozen years I made 13 trips to Baghdad to lobby the government to keep CNN's Baghdad bureau open and to arrange interviews with Iraqi leaders. Each time I visited, I became more distressed by what I saw and heard - awful things that could not be reported because doing so would have jeopardised the lives of Iraqis, particularly those on our Baghdad staff."

In the mid-1990s, according to Jordan, one of CNN's Iraqi cameramen was kidnapped and tortured by Saddam Hussein's secret police in an effort to force him to identify Jordan as a CIA agent. The network, Jordan said, did not report the incident because "CNN had been in Baghdad long enough to know that telling the world about the torture of one of its employees would almost certainly have gotten him killed and put his family and co-workers at great risk".

Similarly, Jordan wrote, CNN did not report a conversation he had with Saddam's son Uday in which the Iraqi told the network executive that his government planned to assassinate King Hussein of Jordan and two of Saddam's sons-in-law, who recently had defected to the neighbouring Hashemite kingdom.

Jordan did privately inform the king, who dismissed the threat. He did not warn the Iraqi defectors, who subsequently were lured back to Baghdad and murdered.

According to Jordan, he kept silent because he was sure Uday "would have responded by killing the Iraqi translator who was the only other participant in the meeting".

The CNN executive also recounted how he came "to know several Iraqi officials well enough that they confided in me that Saddam Hussein was a maniac who had to be removed". That went unreported on CNN, as did a recent plot by the regime to kill the network's reporters in Kurdistan, and other lurid, first-hand accounts of torture.

One of those involved the repeated beating and ultimate dismemberment of a young Kuwaiti woman caught talking with CNN by telephone. Her body parts were left in a bag on her family's doorstep.

All this, Jordan said, was done to protect CNN correspondents and employees. But the fact remains that for more than a decade, the network did not tell the full truth about what it knew about Saddam's regime.

Moreover, last October, when New Republic writer Franklin Foer questioned Jordan about his network's coverage of Iraq, the executive asserted without reservation that CNN had given "a full picture of the regime".

By Jordan's own admission, that was a lie.

All this, by Jordan's tacit admission, was done so CNN could continue transmitting television pictures from Baghdad and rolling up those all-important "gets", the exclusive on-camera interviews on which TV relies.

Orville Schell, dean of the University of California's Graduate School of Journalism, is a reporter and author with decades of experience of working in China. He offers another perspective from which to judge CNN's conduct.

"Because of authoritarian governments' penchant to punish those over whom it has control," Schell said, "a foreign correspondent must be ever mindful of how his or her reportorial activities impact on interviewees, locally hired colleagues and even local friends. As Eason Jordan points out, authoritarian regimes all too often take out their anger on whoever has been associated in any way with a story they do not like, just because these people are available to them. The Chinese call this tactic 'killing the chicken to scare the monkey'."

But what Jordan described was a systematic suppression of information, rather than the bending of accepted journalistic practice to obtain stories that otherwise couldn't be told.

Clearly, part of CNN's secrecy sprang from a genuine concern for the network's Iraqi employees and their families.

But it is incumbent on CNN to be more forthcoming on what role its desire to maintain a video-generating Baghdad presence played in these decisions.

The foundation of CNN's 1991 Gulf War triumph was Peter Arnett's first-person narration of that now famous footage of the first night's bombing of Baghdad. What part did the memory of that success play in what now turns out to be a decade-long reluctance to tell the whole truth about what was occurring inside Iraq?

The question that ought now to be asked at the CNN Centre in Atlanta is whether a fine news organisation has traded its birthright for a mess of pictures.

Tim Rutten writes about the media for the Los Angeles Times.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/20/1050777161410.html
As for this
Are you comfortable with bush trying to make deals with a terrorist state?
No I wish we would stop dealing with Saudia Arabia

[Trueblue]

It's not "an unnamed source", and it's not just CNN. It's MSNBC, too, and apparently other media outlets.

Surely you are aware that people are often more honest off the record than on the record.

In the week leading up to the speech, WH sources repeatedly contacted the media telling them that there was something in the speech that would raise eyebrows.

Gee, I listened to it and I never heard Obama's name. I never heard him say democrat or presidential candidate?

He said some people...

Is Obama so self centered he thinks everything is about him?

but I will say if the shoe fits...

I have seen you do this so many times, and it's so dishonest. In the same post you feign innocence and then show how completely you lied when feigning innocence.

Joe is a hair plugged moron.

OK, no attacks on age when it's relevant, but a rebuttal that consists of nothing but an attack on appearance is acceptable. :lol

Got any proof to go with that accusation?

This is well known.

Nice attempt at spin, but if Obama just ignored this he would have been far better off. The democrats are always perceived as weak on national defense and FP. Of course the reason is that they are weak. The democrat party has been basically feminized and thinks that talking will solve any problem and that being spo strong that no one would dare screw with you is just being a macho cowboy. Well being a Macho cowboy is what keeps us safe.

No, it's made us less safe.

Sorry but the 'deal' with Khadafi was to help him dispose of his nuclear stuff. That was because he did not want to end up like Saddam once it became obvious that the US had a president with some stones for the first time since 88.

As far as Korea goes the negotiations are part of a 6 way negotiation. N. Korea tried to force direct with the US talks and W told them to go F themselves.

Try again.

They sent Joe Biden, the DEMOCRAT to deal with Khadafi. A Publican administration asked Biden to go to Libya for the negotiations.

You lose this one big time.

Again you asssume he is speaking of Obama, when he mentioned no individual or party for that matter.

Obama is way too defensive on this, it will hurt him come November no matter how hard the hard left tries to spin it.

He is weak, that is why he is so defensive.

Well that certainly explains your behavior.

privately acknowledged

Until someone says so publicly it is all speculation.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24647048/

Excerpted:

You cannot be this naive.

So the rule here seems to be the ones who agree with you but remain secret are reliable and the ones who disagree with you on the record are not?

How Clintonian of you.

Are you really this logic impaired?

Actually, it isn't speculation. If you are claiming that CNN's sources have not been verified, than why hasn't the White House demanded a retraction or even better, filed a libel case?

What's even more amusing is the very next day, bush travels to Saudi Arabia, a country known to support Hamas, the country that produced the majority of 9/11 terrorists and what does bush do?...he tries to negotiate an oil deal!

Are you comfortable with bush trying to make deals with a terrorist state?

:werd

[Lone Laugher]

I must say I am a bit disappointed with the weakness of JG's arguments in this thread. For a while there I thought Cappy had decided to try and keep his new persona intact...but I think I have been proven wrong on that one.

[Yellowdogtexan]

Please back up that with some proof.The man who misquotes and takes material out of context wants proof. That is a amusing but let me show you how silly you are. First, people who are intelligent and in the know were warned that bush was going to directly attack Senator Obama and that this speech would gather a great deal of attention. Since the :rev has issues with understanding what he reads, this clip may help. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbIdTwwITIQAgain, the bushies warned the press that bush was going to attack Senator Obama and those warning were accurate. Again, here are two more examples. http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/About_Obama.html[QUOTE]....the Obama campaign sends over a couple of pretty clear indications that senior Bush staffers said he was talking about Obama before they officially walked the suggestion back.

Here's NBC's John Yang:Speaking on background, a senior administration official says the president's language to anyone -- the official specifically mentioned Obama and former President Jimmy Carter's suggestion that the U.S. talk to Hamas -- who has suggested engaging with rogue states or terrorist groups without first getting some leverage ...
And CNN's Ed Henry:Although the president didn't name names, administration officials are privately acknowledging this was a shot at Barack Obama and other Democrats.You do not leak previews of a speech like this without authorization from the white house and only a fool or someone who is too stupid to understand the written word would think that bush was not attacking Senator Obama.

As for gault's silly comments, it is clear that he does not understand politics. Again, if he had a clue as to how these attacks worked he would not make such silly and foolish comments. bush was aiming at Senator Obama and evidently coordinated this attack with mc :cane

[AYFR]

:roll
Everytime you insult you lose credibility.

[nixon]

:roll
Everytime you insult you lose credibility.The truth is not an insult.

[waterdog]

:roll
Everytime you insult you lose credibility.

The truth is not an insult.

Somehow, it becomes one when you tell an uncomfortable truth to a conservative. :roll

[AYFR]

The truth is not an insult.
Calling people stupid and other names is an insult.

[Trueblue]

The man who misquotes and takes material out of context wants proof. That is a amusing but let me show you how silly you are. First, people who are intelligent and in the know were warned that bush was going to directly attack Senator Obama and that this speech would gather a great deal of attention. Since the :rev has issues with understanding what he reads, this clip may help. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbIdTwwITIQAgain, the bushies warned the press that bush was going to attack Senator Obama and those warning were accurate. Again, here are two more examples. http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/About_Obama.html[QUOTE]....the Obama campaign sends over a couple of pretty clear indications that senior Bush staffers said he was talking about Obama before they officially walked the suggestion back.

Here's NBC's John Yang:Speaking on background, a senior administration official says the president's language to anyone -- the official specifically mentioned Obama and former President Jimmy Carter's suggestion that the U.S. talk to Hamas -- who has suggested engaging with rogue states or terrorist groups without first getting some leverage ...
And CNN's Ed Henry:Although the president didn't name names, administration officials are privately acknowledging this was a shot at Barack Obama and other Democrats.You do not leak previews of a speech like this without authorization from the white house and only a fool or someone who is too stupid to understand the written word would think that bush was not attacking Senator Obama.

As for gault's silly comments, it is clear that he does not understand politics. Again, if he had a clue as to how these attacks worked he would not make such silly and foolish comments. bush was aiming at Senator Obama and evidently coordinated this attack with mc :cane

Thanks for posting this, it's what I've been referencing.

[AYFR]

Spoon fed and eating whatever y'all told.

[nixon]

Spoon fed and eating whatever y'all told. Are you looking the mirror?:mw:mw:mw:akbar:mw

[Yellowdogtexan]

Everytime you insult you lose credibility.If you want to regain some credibility, you may want to stop ducking this question from the mc :cane is old thread
BTW, Rev, is that called spin or lying ~ or both?On the last post, I called attention to the fact that you have problems with correctly citing authority and I see that you do not want to discuss such issues. If I had been caught posting stuff out of context as often as you have, I would not want to deal with this either.

[John Gault]

Actually, it isn't speculation. If you are claiming that CNN's sources have not been verified, than why hasn't the White House demanded a retraction or even better, filed a libel case?

What's even more amusing is the very next day, bush travels to Saudi Arabia, a country known to support Hamas, the country that produced the majority of 9/11 terrorists and what does bush do?...he tries to negotiate an oil deal!

Are you comfortable with bush trying to make deals with a terrorist state?


No, if I had my way I would slap them down and force them to sell us the oil at a reasonable price. If not for Us they would all be under Saddams thumb by now.

[John Gault]

:roll
Everytime you insult you lose credibility.

Then I guess YDT has negative credibility?

[John Gault]

Are you looking the mirror?:mw:mw:mw:akbar:mw

Awesome debate tactic, the ole "I know you are but what am I" technique!

You might want to try the 'I'm rubber and your glue whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you'!

[Judge Smails]

No, if I had my way I would slap them down and force them to sell us the oil at a reasonable price. If not for Us they would all be under Saddams thumb by now.

Please tell us how Iraq was going to invade Saudi Arabia.

[Yellowdogtexan]

I saw this interview this morning and bush's smirk was back and it was clear that he wad dodging this question. http://thinkprogress.org/2008/05/19/bush-ducks-appeasement/Last week, during a speech to the Israeli parliament, President Bush said, “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.”

Yesterday on NBC, Middle East correspondent Richard Engel asked Bush if his remarks were directed at Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL). Bush, however, ducked the question and refused to give a direct answer: ENGEL: You said that negotiating with Iran is pointless, and then you went further. You said that it was appeasement. Were you referring to Senator Barack Obama?

BUSH: You know, my policies haven’t changed, but evidently the political calendar has. And when, you know, a leader of Iran says that they want to destroy Israel, you got to take those words seriously.....In fact, CNN reported last week that White House aides were “acknowledging that this was a reference to the fact that Sen. Obama and other Democrats have publicly said that it would be ok for the U.S. President to meet with leaders like the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad.” Moreover, Bush’s press secretary Dana Perino wouldn’t deny his comments “include” Obama.

While some observers have noted the flaw in Bush’s argument — that merely talking to one’s adversaries does not necessarily constitute “appeasement” — others have praised Bush. For example, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) called Bush’s “appeasement” reference “exactly right,” while Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) added that it was “moving.”

Given that Bush avoided Engel’s question, it seems he can only act as “opiner-in-chief” on the 2008 presidential election when he’s talking to foreigners.
Watch the video to see the smirk if you have a strong stomach

[nixon]

Awesome debate tactic, the ole "I know you are but what am I" technique!

You might want to try the 'I'm rubber and your glue whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you'!Wiseman, Please tell me what kind of technique is being used in this example, "Spoon fed and eating whatever y'all are told".

[Trueblue]

Spoon fed and eating whatever y'all told.

I'd have to say you were looking in the mirror, too, because there is nothing "spoon fed" about that report.

No, if I had my way I would slap them down and force them to sell us the oil at a reasonable price. If not for Us they would all be under Saddams thumb by now.

:lmao

Sure you would. It's worked so well to slap them down in Iraq.

[John Gault]

Please tell us how Iraq was going to invade Saudi Arabia.

When they took over Kawait they were poised to do the same to Saudi Arabia. If we had not intervened they would have. Why do you thin Saudi Arabia allowed us to put bases on their soil? You think it was because the Saudi's love of Kawait, or the more likely case that they thought that they were next. If we stay out of it in 91 Saudi Arabia, Kawait and maybe a few other countries like Dubai and Yemen are all part of Iraq.

[nixon]

When they took over Kawait they were poised to do the same to Saudi Arabia. If we had not intervened they would have. Why do you thin Saudi Arabia allowed us to put bases on their soil? You think it was because the Saudi's love of Kawait, or the more likely case that they thought that they were next. If we stay out of it in 91 Saudi Arabia, Kawait and maybe a few other countries like Dubai and Yemen are all part of Iraq.Why don't you convince the Saudis of that so oil goes back to $12 a barrel like it was during the last Administration? Tell them they owe the Americans their lives. Good luck.

[Trueblue]

Why don't you convince the Saudis of that so oil goes back to $12 a barrel like it was during the last Administration? Tell them they owe the Americans their lives. Good luck.

:snicker

[AYFR]

If you want to regain some credibility, you may want to stop ducking this question from the mc :cane is old thread
On the last post, I called attention to the fact that you have problems with correctly citing authority and I see that you do not want to discuss such issues. If I had been caught posting stuff out of context as often as you have, I would not want to deal with this either.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you have not completely read the thread.
Because I did address your post here
I saw that part YDT, I did not miss it.
But for most people his age is not the issue or reason they will no vote for him.
The man who misquotes and takes material out of context wants proof. That is a amusing but let me show you how silly you are. First, people who are intelligent and in the know were warned that bush was going to directly attack Senator Obama and that this speech would gather a great deal of attention. Since the :rev has issues with understanding what he reads, this clip may help. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbIdTwwITIQAgain, the bushies warned the press that bush was going to attack Senator Obama and those warning were accurate. Again, here are two more examples. http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/About_Obama.html
As for gault's silly comments, it is clear that he does not understand politics. Again, if he had a clue as to how these attacks worked he would not make such silly and foolish comments. bush was aiming at Senator Obama and evidently coordinated this attack with mc :cane
So tell me this oh mighty god of lawyers.
If this was a court case and you an an attorney told the judge and jury that you had privately disclosed information that Bush was talking about Obama but refused to say who, what whould happen? What would would the judge say?
Then I guess YDT has negative credibility?
:yep

I'd have to say you were looking in the mirror, too, because there is nothing "spoon fed" about that report.


TB you repeat everything the DNC says, that is spoon fed. You believe it because CNN says it is true irregardless of anything else.
That is spoon fed.

[Trueblue]

If this was a court case and you an an attorney told the judge and jury that you had privately disclosed information that Bush was talking about Obama but refused to say who, what whould happen? What would would the judge say?

You confuse what would happen in court with the totality of the truth.

Just because some evidence isn't admissible in court doesn't make the evidence disappear.

The WH actively pushed this all week to the media. Then they wanted to run away from it when things got hot.

TB you repeat everything the DNC says, that is spoon fed. You believe it because CNN says it is true irregardless of anything else.
That is spoon fed.

Rev, you may believe that, but it isn't so. I'm not even sure you believe it, actually. I think it's just a way to get to me. Or to try, at least.

[John Gault]

Why don't you convince the Saudis of that so oil goes back to $12 a barrel like it was during the last Administration? Tell them they owe the Americans their lives. Good luck.

I did not say they gave a flying F about our opinions, I am not talking about asking.

[John Gault]

Personally I think he was talking about Carter.

it does not matter the shoe fits Carter and Obama.

[Trueblue]

Personally I think he was talking about Carter.

it does not matter the shoe fits Carter and Obama.

Is this what you really believe, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary? Or is this just a post for the cause?

[John Gault]

Is this what you really believe, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary? Or is this just a post for the cause?

There is no direc evidense except as provided by people who will not say who they are.

PS _ don't care even if he did mean Obamination, anything that will help defeat him is a service to America.

[Trueblue]

There is no direc evidense except as provided by people who will not say who they are.

PS _ don't care even if he did mean Obamination, anything that will help defeat him is a service to America.

There is ample evidence for anyone who understands 1) how the media-WH connection works and 2) anyone who isn't playing a bullshit game with themselves.

You cared when the Dixie Chicks criticized Bush on foreign soil, and they were not even public officials. But the POTUS brings this lying :bs up on foreign soil, and you are fine with it.

[AYFR]

You confuse what would happen in court with the totality of the truth.

Just because some evidence isn't admissible in court doesn't make the evidence disappear.

The WH actively pushed this all week to the media. Then they wanted to run away from it when things got hot.
If the evidence is not admissible then it is not true proof.


Rev, you may believe that, but it isn't so. I'm not even sure you believe it, actually. I think it's just a way to get to me. Or to try, at least.
TB I did not believe it at first but I do now.
Could care less if it bothers you either.


Anyways no matter who Bush was talking about be it Carter, the Democrats or by a stretch of imagination Obama he did not compare anyone to the Nazis
What he did was say that negotiating with terrorists is about as useless as negotiating with Hitler would have been.
It was not an attack; he was speaking what he deemed to be the truth, that negotiating with terrorists is useless.

I know you are going to say it was an attack but let me ask you a question

Do the Dems believe that you can negotiate with them?

If you answer yes (and you will if you are being truthfull)
Then Bush was not attacking, he was pointing out that it is his belief that you cannot negotiate.

[Trueblue]

If the evidence is not admissible then it is not true proof.

That is a huge error in reasoning.

TB I did not believe it at first but I do now.
Could care less if it bothers you either.

You have a tendency to believe what you wish to believe. This is an example of that.

Anyways no matter who Bush was talking about be it Carter, the Democrats or by a stretch of imagination Obama he did not compare anyone to the Nazis
What he did was say that negotiating with terrorists is about as useless as negotiating with Hitler would have been.
It was not an attack; he was speaking what he deemed to be the truth, that negotiating with terrorists is useless.

Yes, he did make a Nazi comparison. You have to know some history to see it.

I know you are going to say it was an attack but let me ask you a question

Do the Dems believe that you can negotiate with them?

If you answer yes (and you will if you are being truthfull)
Then Bush was not attacking, he was pointing out that it is his belief that you cannot negotiate.

No, what Bush was doing was comparing negotiations to appeasement. It was throughly dishonest of him, too.

[Trueblue]

I get so tired of explaining the obvious to people who are constantly playing word games instead of trying to converse.

Many truths are not allowed as testimony in a trial. For example, someone's prior criminal history is often not allowed into testimony. Does that mean that they really don't have that history? Of course not.

[AYFR]

That is a huge error in reasoning.
Not according to the courts


You have a tendency to believe what you wish to believe. This is an example of that.
Belief substaniated by proof


Yes, he did make a Nazi comparison. You have to know some history to see it.

No he did not, you have to be able to comprehend what you read to know that though.
Again here is what was 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. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all 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. (Applause.)
Now just where does he compare anyone to the Nazis?
If anyone like to compare people to Nazis it is the Democrats comparing Bush to Hitler, the Reps to Nazisa and the troops to Nazis.

No, what Bush was doing was comparing negotiations to appeasement. It was throughly dishonest of him, too
They only way to negotiate with a terrorist is to appease them. Give in to what they want.

[Trueblue]

Not according to the courts

According to anyone with a lick of common sense, including anybody involved with the courts in any professional sense.



Belief substaniated by proof

In this case, it seems to be enough for you to say it.



No he did not, you have to be able to comprehend what you read to know that though.
Again here is what was said

Now just where does he compare anyone to the Nazis?
If anyone like to compare people to Nazis it is the Democrats comparing Bush to Hitler, the Reps to Nazisa and the troops to Nazis.

Appeasement. You have to know some history.

They only way to negotiate with a terrorist is to appease them. Give in to what they want.

Well BS. Any negotiations involve compromise, but the US always negotiates from a position of strength. This would be no exception. For example, NK is getting something out of the negotiations, and yet they are a rogue state.

[AYFR]

According to anyone with a lick of common sense, including anybody involved with the courts in any professional sense.

:roll


In this case, it seems to be enough for you to say it.
There is enough proof in all your posts




Appeasement. You have to know some history.
This has nothing to do with history