All Roads Lead to Obama
Obama is showing his sensitive side.
In a speech to Israel’s Knesset, Bush said: “Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along.
“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.”
Obama responded with a statement, seizing on Bush’s remarks even as it was unclear to whom the president was referring.
“It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel’s independence to launch a false political attack,” Obama said in the statement his aides distributed. “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.”
White House press secretary Dana Perino flatly rejected the idea that the Knesset remark was aimed in any way at Obama. The remark is fairly typical for Bush speeches, and Gordon Johndroe, a national security spokesman for the president, said the president was referring to “a wide range of people who have talked to or suggested we talk to Hamas, Hezbollah or their state sponsors” over a long period of time.
[...]
“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,” she said.
Bush has been making similar comments about appeasement for 7 years or so.
Seriously, Obama’s ego is comical.
Perhaps it was directed at him, perhaps it wasn’t. Perhaps he didn’t really know if it was or wasn’t, but decided to act like it was in order to make him seem like he’s shifted to the general election already.
But what really makes the soda come out of my nose is when Bush supporter criticizes someone else for having a big ego—with a straight face.
Posted by scott on May 15, 2008 at 1253 hrs
Interesting… I’ve never thought of myself as a “Bush supporter.” That seems like such a blanket statement. I voted for him. I support him on some issues (tax cuts, WOT, etc.), but oppose him on others (education, government spending, deficit spending, weak dollar policy, etc.). Ah well… I suppose it’s true in some respects.
Still, you’ve fallen into the old diversion tactic. Can we admit that both Bosh and Obama have massive egos?
Posted by Owen on May 15, 2008 at 1350 hrs
Maybe this is where Obama got the idea it was directed at him:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/15/bush-suggests-obama-wants-appeasement-of-terrorists/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.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 15, 2008 at 1354 hrs
It is outrageous that our president would go in front of the Knesset and take a swipe at his parties political opponents with some bullshit Nazi appeasement comparison.
Bush attacked a position held by Obama. Even if Bush didn’t intend to aim it Obama (which I think is pretty obvious that he did) it is smart for Obama to frame it like he was attacking Obama directly. The more Obama can point out that he is the opposite of Bush, the more support he will gain.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 15, 2008 at 1408 hrs
Bottom line - Bush is right about the terrorists. No amount of hair splitting over the nuances of his speech will change that.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 15, 2008 at 1426 hrs
If Bush is right then he should set his Nazi appeasing defense secretary straight:
“We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage ... and then sit down and talk with them. If there is going to be a discussion, then they need something, too. We can’t go to a discussion and be completely the demander, with them not feeling that they need anything from us.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 15, 2008 at 1436 hrs
Of course Gates was referring to non-government contacts and referring to them in way that would bypass the Iranian government to allow the US leverage over Iran, but why let his words get in the way of a good story?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 15, 2008 at 1516 hrs
I think we need to see his activities. Thanks for your information.
Posted by Kredit ohne Schufa on May 15, 2008 at 1536 hrs
Spin it anyway you like BVBB, but Gates is talking about diplomacy. Completely shunning diplomatic solutions like Bush has done and McCain promises to do has done nothing to weaken Iran, it may have strengthened them.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 15, 2008 at 1615 hrs
Gates is talking about actively undermining Iran’s government in order to gain leverage over them to enable a negotiation in his favor.
What has Bush done other than diplomacy with Iran?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 15, 2008 at 1632 hrs
Gates is talking about actively undermining Iran’s government
Really… Gates was part of the “Iraq study group” that recommended we should have a direct dialogue with Iran.
What has Bush done other than diplomacy with Iran?
Other than diplomacy? What diplomatic efforts have we been engaged in? This administration hasn’t done anything other than talk tough and occupy their neighbor. We haven’t made any progress with Iran.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 15, 2008 at 1717 hrs
Progress towards what? What does Iran have that we value? Tough talk and ignoring them is diplomacy. Giving away something for nothing is simple appeasement.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 15, 2008 at 1731 hrs
How is Robert Gates “Nazi appeasing”? Moreover WTF does Gates have to do with Bush’s Speech and Obama’s ego? Is this the 3rd Way of looking at this issue?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 15, 2008 at 1818 hrs
I agree that this was directed more toward’s America’s appeaser, Jimmy Carter and those who believe in what he says. Does that include Obama? Maybe, based on his past statements, for which he has back tracked a little. And yes, Bush has been saying this for 7 years. And name one politician who does not have a big ego?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 15, 2008 at 1939 hrs
How is Robert Gates “Nazi appeasing”? Moreover WTF does Gates have to do with Bush’s Speech and Obama’s ego?
Obama advocated for dealing with Iran diplomatically, Bush equated that with Nazi appeasement. Bush’s current Defense Secretary and former Secretary of State advocated for a similar strategy and are therefore the same sort of “nazi appeasers”.
It doesn’t have anything to do with Obama’s ego.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 15, 2008 at 1958 hrs
Ahhh.. the lack of nuance comes in handy…
Bush is advocating against direct diplomacy. In other words, major officials and the President himself should not meet with the Iranians, thus granting them legitimacy and power in the region. This is far different than a bunch of underlings meeting with them on very specific issues. Yes, it’s a form of diplomacy, but different than the Prime Minister meeting with a Head of State.
Liberals conveniently move out of the world of gray into the world of black and white when it’s convenient.
Posted by Owen on May 15, 2008 at 2008 hrs
While I’m not foreign policy expert, I can tell you that I think many Americans agree with me on one point: we don’t trust president Bush and his foreign policy record gives us no reason to favor his ideas over anyone else’s. Anyone else’s.
Mark my words: when the history of the Iraq war is written, president Bush and his cabinet will not be vindicated—they’ll be vilified. The whole thing will be regarded as one of the biggest foreign policy blunders in American history.
I don’t know if it’s good to hold direct, high-level talks with Iran. It sounds good to me, I’m thinker and a talker and a peace-loving person—but is it really the best thing? If I am to be honest, I have to trust someone else’s judgement on that.
Who’s judgement will it be? President Bush’s? Hell, I figure whatever he’s advocating immediately has two marks against it simply because he likes it. At least two people here will call this Bush Derangement Syndrome—I call it knowing who to believe and who to mistrust.
Posted by scott on May 15, 2008 at 2042 hrs
There is no nuance to discern here Owen. Diplomacy in the Bush administration at any level has been shunned (btw the Secretaries of State and Defense are hardly “underlings”). If Bush or McCain were willing to advocate for dialogue with Iran at any level you would have a point, but they don’t.
And please don’t label me.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 15, 2008 at 2128 hrs
Total Entries: 19652
Total Comments: 129807
Most Recent Entry: 02/09/2012 08:10 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/10/2012 11:00 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 132
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/10/2012 12:10 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).