Bush vs. Carter -- not Bush vs. Obama

[AYFR]

Another take on it

Barack Obama made a decision yesterday to make an issue of a brief passage in the Knesset speech by President Bush. Though the President never mentioned the Senator by name, and spoke only of those who “seem to believe that we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals,” Obama seized on the remark and launched a major controversy, claiming that the White House (despite consistent denials) clearly intended to make a “false political attack.”

As I noted yesterday, this decision on the part of Obama involved obvious political calculation: Bush is less popular than McCain, so why not occupy a few days worth of sound bites in a Bush vs. Obama exchange?

The problem for the Democratic candidate is that while trying to associate his rival, Senator McCain, with President Bush, he may have inadvertently linked himself with a figure even less popular than the President: the sanctimonious and appalling Jimmy Carter.

Today in Saudi Arabia, White House aide Ed Gillespie (traveling with the president) shouted to the press that in his remarks Mr. Bush had Mr. Carter in mind, not Senator Obama. Obviously, Carter fits the description in the Bush speech better than Obama – given his insistence on meeting directly with the terror masters at Hamas. The context of the Bush speech also makes the Carter reference more appropriate than any inference that he was targeting Obama: speaking to the Israeli parliament, there would certainly be far more concern with Carter’s embarrassing adventure in Hamas-astan than with Obama’s suggestion that he would negotiate with Ahmadinejad.

Obama, in fact, has said he wouldn’t negotiate with Hamas – which raises a big question: why yes to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but no to the elected Palestinian leaders of Hamas? Hamas advocates violence, refuses to recognize Israel, is pledged to genocide against the Jewish state, and rejects all prior agreements made by the Palestinian authority --- and Ahmadinejad takes exactly the same position on all these issues. Obama said he wouldn’t negotiate with Hamas unless they recognized Israel, rejected violence, and pledged to honor prior agreements. Then why negotiate with the President of Iran—who hasn’t met even one of those pre-conditions?

And when it comes to Ahmadinejad’s status as an elected leader, not just a terrorist chieftain, his election in Iran (where the mullahs threw out all candidates who weren’t sufficiently “Islamic”) was probably even more suspect that the most recent Palestinian elections that were won by Hamas.

Obama, in other words, is totally and profoundly inconsistent here ---and the developing controversy now links him to Jimmy Carter.

Since Obama now says he disapproves of Carter’s “fun” (the very word the ex-President used in a USA TODAY interview describing his trip), would he agree with Mr. Bush’s remarks as applied to President Carter? If not, why not?

In other words, the current battle between Bush-and-Obama places the Illinois Senator on the side of the pathetic former president.

Do many Americans believe Carter did the right thing in negotiating with the killers and thugs of Hamas (where they later attacked Carter and claimed they never reached the “understanding” the Georgia jerk described)?

It’s arguable that Obama made a smart bet to assume that people hate Bush so deeply that they would instinctively prefer any other approach to foreign policy – no matter how ill-considered or poorly defined.

But if he’s betting that the American public has more confidence in the thoroughly discredited, 84-year-old walking hemorrhoid from Pains (okay, Plains), then that’s a bet Barack could well lose.

[issac the dragon]

Carter didn't start a war with people who had done nothing to us. The longer George Bush is in office, the better the Carter years look.

[Saguaro]

Rev, is that from Rush ? Who wrote that ?

[AYFR]

Sag you know better then that. You know I do not like or listen to Rush.
It was Medved, he is the only talk show I listen to.
I forgot to post a link
http://michaelmedved.townhall.com/blog/g/101bb5f5-591f-4848-9718-b5c3b45e11a5

[Saguaro]

Thanks, I just wondered what idiot came up with it

[Yellowdogtexan]

Thanks, I just wondered what idiot came up with itMedved is indeed an idiot. This is as stupid as his claims that blacks were better off as slaves.

The facts are the statements were intended to be direct attacks on Senator Obama. The bushies briefed the press on this before the speech. When both Congress and the press reacted badly to the bush attacks, then the bushies tried to come up with new justifications or spin on bush's statements but such spins are just plain stupid and wrong. No one who is intelligent would buy such spin.

[John Gault]

Medved is indeed an idiot. This is as stupid as his claims that blacks were better off as slaves.

The facts are the statements were intended to be direct attacks on Senator Obama. The bushies briefed the press on this before the speech. When both Congress and the press reacted badly to the bush attacks, then the bushies tried to come up with new justifications or spin on bush's statements but such spins are just plain stupid and wrong. No one who is intelligent would buy such spin.

I believe what he said was that they were better off today that their ancestors had been brought here, even if on slave ships.

While not politically correct it is quite true. Even the poorest in this country are better off than most of the middle class in almost all the Sub Sahara countries in Africa.

Do you assert differently?

[toxic]

When the phrase, "Think-Outside-Of-The-Box", was originated, I'm sure the message was being delivered to anal Republicans. No successful person could possibly be as inflexable as them.

They cannot recognize planning, ingenuity or ability. Instead they always fall back to the little rules organized by their latest failure figure. A kind of CYA strategy, so when they fail, they can say at least they followed the rules :)

Here they seem to be following Bush's (& Associates) example. WTF idiots would follow in his footsteps on International Relations.

[Trueblue]

So John, if thousands of our citizens, a huge proportion of the healthy young people in our nation were kidnapped and taken elsewhere, that would have NO effect on the nations' future? Really? You can't see that without thousands being taken from Africa, the situation in Africa would be different?

Amazing.

[Yellowdogtexan]

As I prediected, this talking point was too stupid to last long. The clear facts that bush intended to attack Senator Obama as evidence by the numerous reports from his aides show that this silly claim was just a weak attempt at spin. Again, Medved is a true idiot and a tool of the bushies.

[AYFR]

As I prediected, this talking point was too stupid to last long. The clear facts that bush intended to attack Senator Obama as evidence by the numerous reports from his aides show that this silly claim was just a weak attempt at spin. Again, Medved is a true idiot and a tool of the bushies.
Show me a quote from one of his aides saying he meant Obama, not a news report but an actual quote.

There is not one shred of evidence he meant Obama, just hearsay and supposed "private sources"

[Yellowdogtexan]

Show me a quote from one of his aides saying he meant Obama, not a news report but an actual quote.

There is not one shred of evidence he meant Obama, just hearsay and supposed "private sources"There is a reason why it is illegal for lay persons and non-professionals to try to practice law. I have explained exactly how the so-called hearsay objection is bogus in that everyone knows which press aides passed on the tip that bush was going to attack Senator Obama. It is so amusing and sad to see lay people make fools of themselves by trying to understand issues that are beyond their ability.

The hearsay rule would not apply to any direct testimony of these aides and these aides could easily be called before a court or a congressional committee to testify as to what they told the press about bush's planned attacked. If we were in a court room, your attempt at analysis would be laughed at and then posted in the humor section of the bar journal where lawyers laugh at lay people.

[AYFR]

So you so not have actuall quotes, that was what I thought.
So who are these aides then, since you said everyone knows give us names.

If I were in a courtroom then the aides would not be private sources. We would know who they were and we would also have actual quotes. So I would not have to say it was hearsay or ask to prove the quotes because the aides themselves would be there.
As it is now all we have now is the news saying that they have sources but won't disclose their names.

It is unfortunate that you are not able to seperate the courtroom from life outside of it.
We keep telling you that this is not court but you just can't seem to graps that.
In this forum you are not a lawyer, you are YDT a plain ole person debating politics.

[Ringo]

Carter didn't start a war with people who had done nothing to us. The longer George Bush is in office, the better the Carter years look.

Bush went after one the TOP TERRORIST supporters and ONE OF THE TOP TERRORISTS in the World in Sodomy Hussein, knowing full well he would draw, Al Kabong and his Al Queda spooks as well as units from Hamas into Iraq, for a good ol ass kicking!! Worked well, much better than LBJ's Liberal Sacrificing of 58,000 Americans for NOTHING!!!

Liberals need to Plant Flowers, trade Tu Tu's and Pink leotards and go to each others house for Barney or My Space Hanna Montana sing alongs, and let ADULTS and people of courage handle the bad asses of the World!!!:godzilla:godzilla:godzilla:hulk

[AYFR]

Carter didn't start a war with people who had done nothing to us. The longer George Bush is in office, the better the Carter years look.
No Carter is just one of the reason the ME is in the situation it is today.

[Yellowdogtexan]

So you so not have actuall quotes, that was what I thought.The briefing by the bushies has been well reported. Just because you do not like these facts do not mean that they do not exist.

You do not understand the law and your analysis is so funny that I am tempted to send it to the legal humor section of the bar journal so that other lawyers can enjoy it. The fact that the bushies briefed the press about the planned attack by bush on Senator Obama is well documented. You may not like this document but your opinion as a layperson on this issue is meaningless. The concept that these reports are hearsay is so amusing and wrong/. These press aides are known and would have to testify if called and so the hearsay rule is not applicable

You can not raise quasi-legal objections and then hide behind the fact that you are a layperson. I am a member of the bar and licensed to practice law and therefore my opinion on the law is actually admissible (the opinions of experts and professionals are admissible under the rules of evidence) while your opinion as a layperson and non-professional is meaningless other than as a source of amusement and humor. I find it amusing that you would think that the opinion of a lay person and non-professional would have any merit or meaning on a legal issues. Thanks for the laugh :LL

Again, you may not like the fact but no one cares about the opinion of a layperson as to whether these facts are admissble. The facts are clear and these facts show that bush intended to attack Senator Obama and the fact that you do not like these facts isjust plain funny:LL

[Trueblue]

Show me a quote from one of his aides saying he meant Obama, not a news report but an actual quote.

There is not one shred of evidence he meant Obama, just hearsay and supposed "private sources"

You need to look up the word shred. And hearsay.

[AYFR]

The briefing by the bushies has been well reported. Just because you do not like these facts do not mean that they do not exist.

You do not understand the law and your analysis is so funny that I am tempted to send it to the legal humor section of the bar journal so that other lawyers can enjoy it. The fact that the bushies briefed the press about the planned attack by bush on Senator Obama is well documented. You may not like this document but your opinion as a layperson on this issue is meaningless. The concept that these reports are hearsay is so amusing and wrong/. These press aides are known and would have to testify if called and so the hearsay rule is not applicable

You can not raise quasi-legal objections and then hide behind the fact that you are a layperson. I am a member of the bar and licensed to practice law and therefore my opinion on the law is actually admissible (the opinions of experts and professionals are admissible under the rules of evidence) while your opinion as a layperson and non-professional is meaningless other than as a source of amusement and humor. I find it amusing that you would think that the opinion of a lay person and non-professional would have any merit or meaning on a legal issues. Thanks for the laugh :LL

Again, you may not like the fact but no one cares about the opinion of a layperson as to whether these facts are admissble. The facts are clear and these facts show that bush intended to attack Senator Obama and the fact that you do not like these facts isjust plain funny:LL
Once again you fail to realize that we are not at court.

Just admit that you do not have the quotes and we can move on.

[AYFR]

You need to look up the word shred. And hearsay.

Hearsay
1. unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge: I pay no attention to hearsay.
2. an item of idle or unverified information or gossip; rumor: a malicious hearsay.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hearsay
Until the release of the aides names it is unverified.

Shred

1. A long irregular strip that is cut or torn off.
2. A small amount; a particle: not a shred of evidence.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/shred

[Yellowdogtexan]

Once again you fail to realize that we are not at court.It is you a silly layperson who is trying to express an opinion on a legal issue. Your opinion on such issues are amusing but worthless. The :rev is not a professional and lacks the training and knowledge to understand legal issues. It was rather amusing and silly for the :rev to try to express an opinion on a legal concept. :ydt

Again, the :rev is like a egyptian fish. He is swimming in denial. The facts are clear. bush planned an attack on Senator Obama and had his press aides brief the press on that planned attack. The :rev does not like these facts but that is because he is in denial as to reality. Again, when the facts are with you, you pound the facts and when the law is with you pound the law and when neither support your case, you pound the table. Like a spoiled child, the :rev is going to ignore reality and the well reported facts here because these facts are against him. It is really very amusing :LL

[Matt]

Really, Rev. Get past this.
If you were being realistic and this was a Democrat you would not need such concrete evidence. It would be easy for you to see that this was deliberate and very thinly veiled.
Only Ringo hangs on so tirelessly to his need to believe the worst of the Democrats and discount the pubs flubs.
It's just one more of the Bush attempts that failed.
He used to it by now. You should try to get used to it 'cause he ain't gonna' get any better.

[AYFR]

It is you a silly layperson who is trying to express an opinion on a legal issue. Your opinion on such issues are amusing but worthless. The :rev is not a professional and lacks the training and knowledge to understand legal issues. It was rather amusing and silly for the :rev to try to express an opinion on a legal concept. :ydt
This is not a legal issue and we are not in court.
Again, the :rev is like a egyptian fish. He is swimming in denial. The facts are clear. bush planned an attack on Senator Obama and had his press aides brief the press on that planned attack. The :rev does not like these facts but that is because he is in denial as to reality. Again, when the facts are with you, you pound the facts and when the law is with you pound the law and when neither support your case, you pound the table. Like a spoiled child, the :rev is going to ignore reality and the well reported facts here because these facts are against him. It is really very amusing :LL
C'mon ydt show me the quotes form the aides.
Put up or shut up.
All you have now is someone saying that they recieved private information.
Really, Rev. Get past this.
If you were being realistic and this was a Democrat you would not need such concrete evidence. It would be easy for you to see that this was deliberate and very thinly veiled.
Only Ringo hangs on so tirelessly to his need to believe the worst of the Democrats and discount the pubs flubs.
It's just one more of the Bush attempts that failed.
He used to it by now. You should try to get used to it 'cause he ain't gonna' get any better.

Matt you are wrong here. I would not be attacking the Democrat without proof. Solid actual proof.

[Yellowdogtexan]

This is not a legal issue and we are not in court.You are attempting to ignore reality and reject the evidence that bush planned his insult and attack on Senator Obama on a purely legal ground i.e. that the reported accounts of bush aides briefing the press are hearsay and not admissible. It is you who is trying and failing to make a legal argument. These reports are valid and it is you who can not deal with reality. It was silly of a non-professional and lay person like yourself to try to make a legal argument and as I have repeatedly pointed out, these reports would be admissible in a court or before a Congressional committee if the matter came to that. :ydt

The reports about the bush aides briefing the press about the bush planned attack on Senator Obama have been well documents and are facts. The fact that you do not like these facts is amusing but is not relevant to the discussion on this thread. Your opinion as to the admissibility and relevance of these reports is that of a non-professional lay person and therefore is meaningless except as a source of humor. :ydt

:rev you are in denial. You want to ignore reality because you do not like the real world and I find your rants here to be amusing. :LL

[Matt]

Whatever, Rev. :roll:shrug2

[Trueblue]

Rev, either you don't understand how the WH [EVERY WH] gives off the record information to the media, or you just can't admit that you made a mistake.

[AYFR]

TB you just cannot admit that maybe the media is lying.
Both Bush and the WH have said it was not about Obama.

[Trueblue]

TB you just cannot admit that maybe the media is lying.
Both Bush and the WH have said it was not about Obama.

Rev, you are so full of shit, and I'm sick of trying to explain how stuff works that is outside of your immediate experience.

[AYFR]

TB you are the one that is full of shit.
There is no mention of Obama at all in that speech. Both the White House and Bush have denied it but that doesn't matter to you so long as you get to attack a Republican.

Here are the FACTS that you fail to see

The speech NEVER mentions Obama

There is currently no proof of the so called sources (no quotes or names)

The White House has denied that it was about Obama.

Now I know that you will not deal with the facts because the do not fit into your talking points.

[Trueblue]

I'm sorry, but you are built too low for this discussion.

[AYFR]

That's right I forget, that we have to agree with you.

[Matt]

TB you just cannot admit that maybe the media is lying.
Both Bush and the WH have said it was not about Obama.

Man, that convinces me. Case closed!!!

I would be :rofl2 if this wasn't so :sad.

[Trueblue]

People's brains have been ruined by right-wing ideology. Not conservative ideology. Right-wing.

[AYFR]

Yeah like left wing is any better.

[SavageJug]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/payn080520_06_cmyk.jpg