Obama: But I Want To Talk To Terrorists
Tags: Israel/Judaism, President Bush.
Click here to get Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority by Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan.
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.
Thank you for visiting Blogs For Victory. If you enjoy our content, please consider making a donation to help us cover the costs of our servers.Matt Margolis is co-author (with Mark Noonan) of Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority. He also blogs at The Buffalo Bean. Follow Matt on Twitter.
55 Responses to “Obama: But I Want To Talk To Terrorists”
Caucus of Corruption
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.
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.
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
[...] 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 [...]
How is it not important to any American that Obama refuses to salute the American Flag or pledge allegiance to America? NO reason is good enough. This is NOT American. How is this not a big deal? How can the American President refuse? How can you try to be the president of a country that you won’t pledge your allegiance to? So what’s the real reason why he wants to lift the ban on communicating with terrorist leaders?
It’s a known fact that the terrorist plan to take over America from the inside. Suddenly, here comes this president who hasn’t fought for America in any kind of war, with the least amount of experience, who won’t support the American flag, and wants to lift the ban on communicating with terrorist leaders. How convenient!!!!!! DOES THIS NOT RAISE ANY RED FLAGS!!!!!!!!!
So you have an anti- American American presidential candidate whose wife is obviously extremely racist. Who tries to make anyone who does not vote Obama seem racist. A woman who refers to votes not as people but as colors. And has previously promised to use all of her then and future resources to elevate the black community.
The way things seem to me, with Michelle having such strong views, having more education than her husband, that it would be Michelle running the show behind the curtain. Either way the country would still be an Obamanation. These are very important issues that no one seems to be questioning.
(Now, I’m half black and half white, so I have the right to both sides. I don’t want any one to be the leader of my country who is once again going to make race an issue. We need to be done with that. Who’s to say whose white or black? Some where down the line we’re all “mixed” with something.)
Honestly, I just want the right man for the job. I’m sick of large amounts of my money going to the gas. I’m sick of our economic struggle. I agree, we need change. But what kind of change are we talking