Obama: But I Want To Talk To Terrorists
May 15th, 2008 at 12:45pm Matt Margolis
ABC News reports that Obama’s campaign is “taking issue” with a comment made by President Bush during remarks he made in Israel to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel’s statehood.
“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 President said to the country’s legislative body, “We have heard this foolish delusion before. 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.”
In a statement, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., shot across the bow: “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.”
Perhaps it’s just Obama’s massive ego, but what makes him think that remark was direct at him? As the story points out, those words from the President are hardly new.
ABC News’ White House troops point out that the President has made similar statements in the past and Bush did not specifically cite Obama by name, though he did reference Sen. William Borah’s immortal reaction upon hearing that Hitler had invaded Poland and begun World War II, something he has not highlighted in the past.
“(The President) has said similar things before,” a White House official told ABC News’ Martha Raddatz. “But it is in reference to a number of people, think Carter, others who have engaged in this or suggested it.”
White House spokesperson Dana Perino was asked if Bush’s line was a slam against Obama and she insisted, “It is not.”
“I understand that when you are running for office sometimes you think the world revolves around you. That is not always true and it is not true in this case,” Perino added, though the White House is keenly aware of how such statements might play during a heated political season and has steadfastly avoided commenting on the 2008 race.
It sounds to me that Obama is trying to score points with Jewish voters who are understandly wary of supporting a candidate who has the endorsement of Hamas, and whose own advisor had talks with the terror group.
The fact is that President Bush is 100% correct. Appeasement and containment don’t always work - and its dangerous to assume they do. As inexperienced as Obama may be, he should be able to recognize that. But, if he wants to have coffee and doughnuts with terror groups, then that’s his position… but don’t expect me to vote for someone like that.
UPDATE: More from Matt DiBari.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats
54 Comments Add your own
1. OhioOrrin | May 15th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
I don’t necessarily disagree w ear bama on this point. it seems too ez to make political hay like johnny mac saying we might be in Iraq for 100 yrs totally ignoring we’ve been “in” Japan & Germany for 60.
the evident north korean nuke disclosure would seem to validate this approach.
perhaps it’s more important to decide at what level the talks take place.
after all, keep ur friends close & ur enemies closer!
2. Sidetrack | May 15th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Where is the Dixie Chick type outrage from the cons? A sitting President, on foreign soil, airs America’s political laundry. Name or no name we in America know “exactly” to whom these comments were directed. Most of us are not Limbaugh, Rove, or Hannity stooges; we will not be patronized by this failed W.H.
3. Casper | May 15th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Talking to someone is not appeasement. We talked to the soviets for over 40 years and managed to stay out of WW III because of it.
4. Canadian Observer | May 15th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
3. Casper | May 15th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Talking to someone is not appeasement. We talked to the soviets for over 40 years and managed to stay out of WW III because of it.
——————————–
Exactly, diplomacy is a wonderful tool. Unfortunately, it has not seen much use under the current administration. Hopefully, with a new era on the horizon, it will have a comeback.
5. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, D.S.V.J. | May 15th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
O! What an albatross Mr Bush will be about the neck of Senator M’Cain by September. A cruel summer is on its way.
BTW, The Senator he quoted was a progressive Republican who was a brilliant politician having had the vision to not support Hoover and to support the New Deal.
6. Sunny | May 15th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Only George W. Bush would be so pompous and have the gall to make such a statement. He is so arrogant and deluded as to his stature and grandeur. What a mess he has made of everything for the past eight years. If only he would have had just half (or maybe even a forth) of the intelligence that Obama possesses we would not be in the mess we are in today. This man does not have a clue as to the damage he has caused to the Republican Party. The sooner he gets back to the ranch to cut brush the better.
7. Magnum Serpentine | May 15th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Matt,
george is 100 percent wrong.
george should be called to the congress and censured for such a remark.
Yet another politicalization of a non-political event. How dare george do this to Israel. we should be celebrating Israel’s birthday not make it a platform for george’s third term
This remark of george creates a black eye for the United States. george is a disgrace to the United States.
8. Bigfoot | May 15th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Talking to someone is not appeasement. We talked to the soviets for over 40 years and managed to stay out of WW III because of it.
The Soviets (the enemies faced by Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan) had a strong sense of self-preservation, which is all you’re left with after you’ve rejected religion and any belief in a higher Power, and knew that we had military strength comparible to theirs. Radical muslims, on the other hand, would gladly destroy themselves in the act of destroying those whom they regard as enemies, as they showed us on 9/11, and in their numerous suicide bombings in Israel and elsewhere. They also regard non-muslims as sub-human (as evidenced by their calling Jews “apes” and “pigs”), which makes them more like Hitler, with whom diplomacy failed dismally, then like the Soviets, with whom diplomacy succeeded.
No one, not even George Bush, is saying “never try diplomacy” (and in fact, contrary to CO’s statement, we have tried diplomacy with North Korea and Iran over their nuke programs), only that diplomacy doesn’t always work.
What a mess he has made of everything for the past eight years.
Let’s see. 1993 - 1st attack on the WTC. 1995 (or 1996) - Khobar towers military barracks in Saudi Arabia. 1998 - Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. 2000 - USS Cole. All of these came before Bush took office. 2001 - 9/11, on Bush’s watch, but before his policies took shape. After 2001 - no successful terror attacks on US soil, US embassies, US naval ships, or barracks outside any war zone. Intersting how all those attacks against American non-combatants took place BEFORE Bush’s policies were implemented, but none afterwards, and how these attacks stopped after we started to fight back.
9. thrower | May 15th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Did David Axelrod write McCains’s response to Bush’s speech? Every time McCain is forced to align himself with the Bush administration, he makes Obama’s case that he is essentially a third Bush term. This is damaging beyond belief to his campaign.
10. Sunny | May 15th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
excuse me bigfoot, but your examples just don’t cut it. Bush has made a terrible mess of this country for the past 8 years which has nothing to do with 9/11, although that may be his excuse for being an idiot. He never used his veto pen until the Democrats got into office in 2006. He allowed out of control spending by congress, put forth idiotic legislation with the No Child Left Behind and the Prescription bills. He is a cheerleader for big business allowing their profits to be put ahead of what is best for the nation, his administration has totally failed to execute their duties in overseeing their various departments, he allowed Dick Cheney free reign to do as he pleases, and as “an oil man” one would have expected a little more from him in keeping gasoline prices in line. Yes, Bush has been a failure and nothing you can say will change that.
11. Jay Gaultieri | May 15th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
“After 2001 - no successful terror attacks on US soil, US embassies, US naval ships, or barracks outside any war zone.”
Someone sent ricin to the Senate and shut it down in 2003.
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0204/020404c1.htm
What you are saying is simply untrue.
12. Sunny | May 15th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
I believe our embassy in Bagdad has been attacked by terrorists as well. Does that count bigmouth?
13. phnx | May 15th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
“George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists” B.Hussein Obama 5/15/08
Lest you leftists forget, Obama is back peddling from his first position on this issue.
Countries determined by the Secretary of State to have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism are designated pursuant to three laws: section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act, section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act, and section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act.
Country Designation Date
Cuba March 1, 1982
Iran January 19, 1984
North Korea January 20, 1988
Sudan August 12, 1993
Syria December 29, 1979
Note the designation dates are well before the Bush administration toolk office.
7/23/07
Question to Senator Obama:
“Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?”
Answer from Obama: “I would”
Just before Samantha Power got canned for calling Hillary a monster, she gave an interview explaining Obama’s rules of diplomacy:
Obama would engage with Iran’s President Ahmadinejad. He would sit down with North Korea and Syria. Is there anyone he wouldn’t talk to? “Not among elected heads of state. He won’t talk to Hamas, but he would talk to Abbas.”
Even though she says “elected heads of state,” she doesn’t really mean elected–he would meet with Kim Jong-Il and Assad, and I don’t think even the Obama folks are claiming that Ahmadinejad is a legitimately elected head of state. Granted, the campaign has been as vague as possible on this ever since Obama declared he would meet with any dictator who would sit down with him, but it seems like the key requirement is running a country with internationally recognized borders–you do that, you get your invitation to the Obama summit. So again, the question: if Hezbollah manages a complete takeover of Lebanon, would Obama meet with Nasrallah? There’s no obvious reason why not, though it would be great if someone actually pushed Obama for an answer.
Most recently another Obama advisor, Robert Malley, told The Times he had regularly been in contact with Hamas, which controls Gaza but is listed by the US State Department as a terrorist organisation.
Malley was subsequently fired by Obama in a fit of faux outrage. It appears that engagement is OK as long as you don’t get caught, or their is someone else to take the fall.
“The buck stops here” Harry S. Truman
“The buck stops with my advisors” Barack H. Obama
14. Just Another Taxpayer | May 15th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
McCain would have to talk to them after Bush tenure where his bungling efforts at war have empowered the Iranians.
He’s incompetent, and he’s impotent and the world knows it. If he was so big and powerful, he could demand that the Iraqis bear a significant portion of the financial burden by paying us back in oil, instead of going hat in hand to the Saudis, again, to beg them to pressure OPEC into increasing production for the whiny beasts in this country who can’t find alternatives to bring the down the price of energy(Instead of bring down the price of oil. )
Bush may deny Saudis access to the only thing of value we have to offer them, outside of an insaitiable market for their oil: weapons. Like the Saudis couldn’t buy them from someone else.
Unforgivable as it maybe for the Iranians to get nukes, W has made sure it’s inevitable.
Need proof: Look at North Korea. We might’ve been able to work a deal with the Chinese to get rid of Kim, whose starved 2 milliobn of his own people to death. And maybe, at least, build a free market economy on the Chinese model. Instead we’re chasing ghosts in the deserts of Iraq.
What a waste.
Have a nice day.
15. Barack Obama » Obam&hellip | May 15th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
[…] unknown wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerpt ABC News reports that Obama’s campaign is “taking issue” with a comment made by President Bush during remarks he made in Israel to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel’s statehood. “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 President said to the country’s legislative body, “We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American […]
16. Danish Artist | May 15th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
As usual sunny, you are comparing apples to oranges - hint, stay on topic.
Diplomacy works when dealing from positions of strength as seen with Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan (hmmm, why is Carter left out of that list from Obama’s advisor’s response?).
You dumbass libs are presenting the “talking never hurt anything” as though it was ruled out. As with N. Korea and Iran, they have been “talked to” on several occasions with the same result. You libs want to keep talking. That, people, is a sign of weakness for these people.
Liberals, they want to keep doing the same thing hoping for a different result.
17. William Teach | May 15th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Hey, sunny, just to make your liberal head explode from FACTS, No Child Left Behind was the brainchild of Ted drunKennedy.
Anyhow, please continue cutting and pasting your talking points emails. So amusing!
Or have you memorized them yet? Seriously, why is it that almost every liberal seems to “type” the same thing?
18. bongoman | May 15th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Are there more anti-USA terrorists now than there were 8 years ago?
I wonder…
19. bongoman | May 15th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
And McCain again proves he is clueless when talking about diplomacy he states:
Unbelievable. Someone needs to clue him on the Iran-Contra affair and remind him that we traded arms for hostages. That’s why they came home.
What is wrong with McCain?
20. Danish Artist | May 15th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
“Are there more anti-USA terrorists now than there were 8 years ago?
I wonder…”
Well, think about it. If there are 2 new terrorists for every existing terrorist that was killed then the terrorist population would be doubled.
If Obama and you libs had your appeasing way (as we saw in the 90s), at the same rate (two new for every existing one) the population would be tripled.
We have seen terrorists have second thoughts and return to a “normal” life. Remember OBL criticized those who abandoned the jihad.
Bong - man,
Change your shit or clean out your bong. Somebody needs to clue you in, Iran Contra was not about trading hostages for arms. That was purely political speculation, just like Bush flew to Iran to delay the hostage release so Reagan would win. You have confused your talking points.
You people are pathetic.
21. phnx | May 15th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
JAT, are you a moron or just grossly uninformed? How in the hell do you think we got North Korea to agree to stop their nuke program?
As I recall it was you moronic leftists who were insisting that Bush negotiate one on one with Kim, just like the Clintonistas. (BTW: other than Madame secretary Halfbright making a complete A** of herself, how did that work out?)
Instead the Bush administration realized that the best way to get North Korea to the table and to get an agreement wa sto involve China, Japan, and Russia involved in the negotiations. Much to your chagrin it worked.
OBTW: Libya gave up its nuke program as well due to the proper diplomatic pressure from The Bush administration.
So much for you BDS filled talking points.
22. NeoClown | May 15th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Hillary has Bubba.
Obama has Rev. Wright.
McCain has Dubya.
Everyone has an idiot.
23. bongoman | May 15th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
20. Danish Artist wrote:
Huh? You better tell that to Ronnie, who in his Address to the Nation on 4 march 1987 stated that:
24. Percy Beezer | May 15th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
The 6 hostages involved in the Iran-Contra affair were hostages of Hezbollah, not Iran. The Iranian hostages McCain is talking about were released 6 years earlier in January 1981. Reagan as a candidate did not negotiate for the release of the Iranian hostages, nor did anyone else representing Reagan.
Contrast that to Carter sending Warren Christopher to Paris to secretly negotiate with the Iranians in 1980, which achieved exactly nothing.
25. 42 | May 15th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Danish Artist | May 15th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
“Iran Contra was not about trading hostages for arms.”
uh..yes…yes it was about that and then some
“the false comfort of appeasement”
“Appeasement and containment don’t always work”
“If Obama and you libs had your appeasing way”
cons just making this up or what? Do any of you even know what appeasement is? Someone please show just one…one simple instance in which Obama has said, hinted or implied anything about appeasement
just one, that’s all I’m asking for
26. Jim | May 15th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Diplomacy works for most of the world’s normal nations, but I don’t think hitting extremists, who decapitate their “enemies”, bomb civilians, or stone their women, with a pacifist leaflet campaign will get you very far. Hence, Bush understands how to balance diplomacy and military efficacy in the right measure.
Hussein Obama probably just wants a taxpayer paid ticket to the Middle East so he can pray in a Muslim mosque, which is closed to non-believers BTW.
27. 42 | May 15th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
“but I don’t think hitting extremists…with a pacifist leaflet campaign will get you very far.”
example please…who ever said they were going to hit extremists with a leaflet campaign?
28. neocon | May 15th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Bongman
The 53 hostages held by Iran during the Carter admin were released in 1981 and had nothing to do with Iran Contra, which originated in 1985 or there abouts.
Remember Operation Eagle Claw? Great example of half-assed liberal effort.
29. 42 | May 15th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
“Remember Operation Eagle Claw? Great example of half-assed liberal effort.”
A dust storm was the fault of liberals?
American Service Men DIED and you say their effort was half-assed?
Why do you hate our military so much?
30. neocon | May 15th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Those damn dust storms!
Do you realize that one Iranian civilian was killed because of Carters callousness to invade a sovereign nation just to rescue hostages?
Why do you support such war mongers?
31. 42 | May 15th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
why are you trying to avoid my questions?
How was a dust storm the fault of liberals and why are you mocking the deaths of American service men, or in your words “war mongers”?
32. steveGA | May 15th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Could some of you wingnuts explain your collective logic to me? Consider the following propositions proposed by some of the resident right-wing geniuses here:
1. President Bush’s aggressive foreign policy has prevented terrorist attacks. The one obvious exception, 9/11, should be discounted because Bush was only president for about 9 months. In other words, it was Clinton’s fault.
2. The release of US hostages by Iran on Reagan’s 1st day in office was a result of Reagan’s aggressive foreign policy. In other words, this success was Reagan’s, not Carter’s.
So now, you wingnut geniuses, explain to me why Reagan gets credit for something that happened on day 1 in office, and Bush avoids blame for something that happened in his 9th month? Was Reagan superhuman, or is Bush just really, really slow and lazy? Or are you just pulling s**t out of your *ss?
33. neocon | May 15th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Of course it is 42. He didn’t have an exit strategy. How can you go into military operations without exit contingencies? Carter obviously had none and therefore the deaths of 8 military personel and 1 Iranian civilian are on his hands.
And you blame it on dust. How do you sleep at night?
34. Sidetrack | May 15th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
17. William Teach | May 15th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Hey, sunny, just to make your liberal head explode from FACTS, No Child Left Behind was the brainchild of Ted drunKennedy.
Wrong again you little swift-boater. This was hatched in the Houston public school system. And get this it turns out they faked the data, such as drop out rates to make the system look better than it was.
35. 42 | May 15th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
“without exit contingencies?”
actually they didn’t have a contingency plan for a dust storm
and you still didn’t answer my questions, let us try this one more time:
How was a dust storm the fault of liberals and why are you mocking the deaths of American service men, or in your words “war mongers”?
you said these things…back it up
36. neocon | May 15th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
steveGA,
First of all steve, you’re being a little sensitive, i am afraid you might hurt the environment, so chill out.
Also, the hostages were released on January 21, 1981. Something else happened that day, that could be construed as awfully coincidental.
Clinton said that he kept close tabs on UBL and Al Qaeda during his Presidency. 9/11 was an operation that was in the planning stages for years, with cells in this country taking flying lessons, while Clinton got hummers in the oval office. I guess that’s a nice gig if you can get it.
37. neocon | May 15th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
42,
Stay with me, I will go slow. Carter. did. not. have. exit. strategies. in. the. event. of. unforseen. circumstances.
That’s a liberal Presidents fault. I mean you always have to have exit strategies. Right?
Do I need to dumb that down for you.
38. 42 | May 15th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
“Clinton said that he kept close tabs on UBL and Al Qaeda during his Presidency. 9/11 was an operation that was in the planning stages for years, with cells in this country taking flying lessons”
And the Clinton camp gave GWB a full account of this, which lead to the ever famous briefing of OBS intent on attacking the US…while GWB was playing with action figures in the oval office
I guess that’s a nice gig if you can get it.
39. Willem van Oranje | May 15th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Right. But who introduced and conflated the 52 Iran-hostages with the 6 Hezbollah-hostages in this thread? It wasn’t bongoman, it was Danish Artist.
Bongoman rightly pointed out that the Reagan Administration had made deals with Iran to bring the hostages home.
40. neocon | May 15th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Oh and one other thing…
“war mongers” was a reference to liberals, not the military.
You know you just may be too dumb to mock. That would be a first.
Of course I assume you to be a frequent resident liberal under another handle.
Why do you guys always change your handle?
41. neocon | May 15th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
You might want to read George Tenet’s book.
42. neocon | May 15th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
“And the Clinton camp gave GWB a full account of this….” - 42
So Clinton knew Atta was taking flying lessens? Clinton knew 9/11 was in the planning stages?
Is that what you’re saying?
43. Tom Thumb | May 15th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Iran has not invaded another country in what…200 years?
Iran is seeking peaceful use of nuclear power as dictated under the rules of the IAEA.
There is absolutely no evidence that Iran is connected to the violence in Iraq. In fact, the Iraqi government has turned to them more than once to mediate in the peace process.
The only terrorists are the ones that invaded Iraq to steal their oil and occupy Iraq against the will of the Iraqi people.
44. Willem van Oranje | May 15th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
SteveGA
Let them also explain this: Bill Clinton took office on January 20, 1993. The First WTC Bombing took place on February 26, 1993. Five WEEKS into his Presidency, yet the blame for that is always placed on his doorstep.
In addition: when Bush took over, he was extensively warned for Al-Qaeda and UBL by the Clinton-administration.
Bush did nothing with these warnings.
During his first week in office, Bush got confirmation that the attack on the USS Cole three months before he took office was masterminded by UBL. Clinton had made preparations for a strike on UBL in case of such a conformation.
Bush simply couldn’t be bothered.
The perpetrators for attacks during Clinton’s presidency have been caught and tried. The attack on the USS Cole was carried out three months before he left office. The people responsible for that attack: UBL with the help of Sudanese government officials (supported by Cindy McCain?); and for 9/11 have still not been held to account.
45. neocon | May 15th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Tom Thumb,
Ahmendijad, is that you? You nut.
46. neocon | May 15th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
You might want to read George Tenet’s book
47. neocon | May 15th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
(supported by Cindy McCain?); - Willem
Just a question. Did you put your pinky on your bottom lip when you typed that?
48. William Teach | May 15th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
Sorry, Sidetrack, but NCLB was Kennedy’s brainchild. I know facts are difficult for liberals to understand, but, give it a shot.
BTW, I appreciate being called a little swift boater, because that means I was telling the truth.
BTW, I cannot believe these leftards are actually trying to play this 9/11 blame game again. Freaking unbelievable.
49. Tom Thumb | May 15th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Deleted - off topic.
50. Willem van Oranje | May 15th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Deleted - off topic.
51. Just Another Taxpayer | May 16th, 2008 at 4:02 am
Phnx,
You should remember that just because you and Bush share the same mental defeciencies, you cannot assume the same for everyone else.
Remember Reagans famous injunction “Trust, but verify.”
Has anyone walked in and taken the bombs and radioactive material already built there? Kim, no doubt, is a man of his word. And if the North Koreans start soemthing, what are we gonna do? Build more weapons financed by the Chinese cause we’re to cheap to build them ourselves? Oh, yeah, Kims shaking in his shoes at the prospect of dealing with someone with your intellectual might.
Then, you went off on some tangent about Bush doing just what Clinton did.
So what? It didn’t work for Clinton, it’s supposed to work better for Bush because …he’s …smarter?
Let’s assume that all the problems are Clintons fault at the time that Bush enters office: So what does Bush do about Bin Laden before 9/11?
Nothing. In 2005, the special unit set up to track Bin Laden closes down.
He’s hiding next to Pakistans nukes, and the election process seems to be breaking down between rival factions. Musharraf maybe back in power, and democracy suffered another setback. Bin Laden still has his safe haven.
Why are our troops chasing rag-tag remains of Bush reputation around the Iraqi desert while Kim remains free to do as he pleases, and Bin Laden sits next to nukes while Bush stands by helplessly?
Your citing Lybia and North Korea as examples of Bush successfully keeping arms from terrorists is as lame a Bush citing intelligence reports after the invasion to excuse his incompetence.
Irononicly, the very examples you cite mean that you believe that engaging people works, even if you are trying to kill them and vice versa.
What exactly are you trying to say here?
With people like you supporting McCain, no doubt, the Iranians will be too frightened to do anything but what they damn well please.
Whose going to stop them from doing otherwise.
52. phnx | May 16th, 2008 at 4:38 am
JAT,
Is English your second language or have you been hitting the sauce tonight? Go back and read the post again and try to focus if you are going to respond. Rambling makes you look like a fool or a drunk or both.
53. Kurt | May 16th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
First,
For those liberals who think the Israelis were somehow offended by President Bush’s comments, did you here the applause after these comments?
Second, who said Bush was refering to Obama? Little boy Barack being a little defensive here?
Third, nomatter what Obama says, he was endorsed by Hamas. PERIOD END OF DISCUSSION. He may not like to admit it but the enemies of America, foreign and domestic, support him
Warning flags are everywhere folks. This guy is no good
54. A Pot Full Of Obama |&hellip | July 16th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
[…] a political platform that twists and turns dependent on the wind, a personal determination to negotiate with terrorists, (to whom the only correct response being two in the body, one in the head~ you never negotiate […]
Leave a Comment
Please report any inappropriate or abusive comments to abuse@blogsforvictory.com. Please include the blog entry title and the comment number.
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed