McCain Responds to Obama’s Whine
May 16th, 2008 at 10:51pm Mark Noonan
Loud and clear:
Earlier today, Senator Obama made a few remarks I would like to respond to. I welcome a debate about protecting America . No issue is more important. Senator Obama claimed all I had to offer was the ‘naive and irresponsible belief’ that tough talk would cause Iran to give up its nuclear program. He should know better. I have some news for Senator Obama: Talking, not even with soaring rhetoric, in unconditional meetings with the man who calls Israel a ’stinking corpse’ and arms terrorist who kill Americans will not convince Iran to give up its nuclear program. It is reckless to suggest that unconditional meetings will advance our interests.
It would be a wonderful thing if we lived in a world where we don’t have enemies. But that is not the world we live in, and until Senator Obama understands that reality, the American people have every reason to doubt whether he has the strength, judgment, and determination to keep us safe.
Barack Obama proves himself again and again manifestly incompetent to be President of the United States of America - Iran’s government is responsible for the death of Americans as well as our brave Iraqi allies…we’re supposed to ask them if they’ll kindly leave off killing us? Ask them if they’ll kindly stay out of Iraq? Ask them if they’ll kindly give up nuclear weapons? Ask them if they’ll kindly not pursue another Holocaust against the Jews?
No, we don’t ask - we instruct. Iran must give up its nuclear ambitions and must give up its dreams of destroying Israel - only after the Iranian government has done these things can talks with Iran about other outstanding issues ensue.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats, Republicans, War on Terror
49 Comments Add your own
1. gotbrains? | May 16th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
And here’s Obama response to McCain’s response:
Zing.
Oh you poor sots are so going down come Nov.
2. Willem van Oranje | May 17th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Write with Caps Lock on next time, it just gives it that extra touch. Also writing in German just gives it that extra litte zing.
But it way past bedtime for you now. Hop to bed.
3. Danish Artist | May 17th, 2008 at 12:06 am
gotbrains? - you surely don’t if you have to ask.
Are you sure you have the correct quote from Obama ‘08?
Kerry ‘04 said the same thing …. he lost!
YAWN, same tired old rhetoric. Tough talk is not going to work? Obama said that he would hold unconditional tough talk if he was President. So, that rules his ideas out. What will he say next, before changing his mind again?
4. SEW | May 17th, 2008 at 12:21 am
Barry Some Obama talking tough with GWB and John McCain. Hillarious. Talks nice with the terrorists. What a dunce.
5. LiberalNitemare | May 17th, 2008 at 12:30 am
1.
Obama Saddam challenged McCain to a debate on foriegn policy because he over reacted to Bush’s appeasement speech and needs to say something … anything to avoid further embarrasment.
2. McCain accepts -
“Earlier today, Senator Obama made a few remarks I would like to respond to. I welcome a debate about protecting America . No issue is more important.”
3. Obamas response is to yell fear-monger and strangely forgets all about the debate.
Wheres the zing got-brains? I think I missed it.
6. bagni | May 17th, 2008 at 1:19 am
markmc
sorry this is terrestially off topic
but the story this week about vatican and aliens?
the cosmic crew had to go off
if you think feet stink you’ll listen at:
http://www.thealientruth.com/index.php?page=podcasts
as always up front
our astrological apologies!
7. Kahn | May 17th, 2008 at 1:21 am
Bush had the best quote. After Hitler invaded Poland (don’t forget after a secret deal with Stalin), one Democrat Senator said “Oh if only I’d had a chance to talk to ho him, this never would have happened.”
We’ve seen the result of withdrawing into a protectionist and isolationist nation. It led to WW1, WW2, and Korea.
But whatever. Please keep spouting your naive and crazy ideas. Shout them loudly from every street corner.
And what ever you do, don’t read about this guy named George McGovern.
8. Casper | May 17th, 2008 at 1:36 am
Kahn,
“Bush had the best quote. After Hitler invaded Poland (don’t forget after a secret deal with Stalin), one Democrat Senator said “Oh if only I’d had a chance to talk to ho him, this never would have happened.”
Actually, it was a Republican Senator.
9. Kahn | May 17th, 2008 at 2:00 am
Oh, well my mistake. Still ludicrous though, wasn’t it?
And I know from pointing out that Roosevelt knew about the concentration camps and did nothing to stop them, that references to party affiliation in the 1940’s doesn’t matter because parties are different now.
10. Mark Noonan | May 17th, 2008 at 3:44 am
Williem,
Yeah, I’m just a little Nazi over here - but if you’ll leave off your fool conviction that anything non-left is proto-Nazi, you’ll understand that the United States is the aggrieved party in the Iran/US dispute and it s up to Iran to appease us, not the other way ’round.
11. Canadian Observer | May 17th, 2008 at 6:44 am
Obama…… “No amount of utterly predictable fear-mongering and tough talk can change the fact that John McCain is running to continue the most disastrous foreign policy in recent American history.”
——————————————-
Fear-mongering seems to be the only weapon Obama’s Republican opponents have to use against him.
McCain’s platform, as long as it adheres to the failed Bush doctrine, is just sad history to the American voter. Something they want to put behind them.
The American people are finished with Bush and Bush clones and are ready for an inspired leader who can bring hope to a country that has been beaten down by utter incompetence for 8 years.
12. gotbrains? | May 17th, 2008 at 7:44 am
Khan -
“Bush had the best quote. After Hitler invaded Poland (don’t forget after a secret deal with Stalin), one Democrat Senator said “Oh if only I’d had a chance to talk to ho him, this never would have happened.”
And after Bush made those thinly veiled attacks against the likely next president while on foreign soil, he then hopped on a plane to Saudi Arabia, a documented terrorist state that has 1. Held telethons to raise money for suicide bombers 2. Supplied 15 of the 19 suicide bombers on 9/11 3. Currently provides most of the suicide bombers in Iraq 4. Is the birthplace of Osama bin Laden 5. Will arrest you if you enter the country with a Bible in your suitcase. Guess Mr Bush believes you can talk with some terrorist states and not others.
But maybe everyone here is right - Bush wasn’t referring to Obama when he talked about appeasement, but rather was actually talking about Ronald Reagan (after all, Bush specifically referred to a Republican Senator as an example of an appeaser, so maybe his remarks were directed to a Republican president). Mr Reagan not only talked to the Iranians, but sold weapons to them! This at a time when the Iranian regime was much more religiously fanatical than it is today, and just after an Iranian-backed group had blown up the Marine barracks in Beirut, killing 268 US servicemen.
Bush-Reagan: appeasers of terrorist states. And as Barack Obama has pointed out, the Bush appeasement policy “has cost us thousands of lives and a trillion dollars in Iraq, strengthened Iran, enabled Hamas to take Gaza, took our eye off al Qaeda, failed to capture Osama bin Laden, failed to finish the job in Afghanistan, and left us less safe and less respected in the world”. Well said, Sen Obama.
13. Pain | May 17th, 2008 at 8:05 am
7. Kahn | May 17th, 2008 at 1:21 am
This is the sort of ill informed rhetoric that lets Us know that the Right Wing is unfit to govern. The simple act of checking facts does not appeal enough to Kahn to be accurate because it is easier to build a facade of lies that get repeated over and over by loyalists who follow because they wish to be led rather than think.
McCain himself in an interview with SkyNews has said that he would negotiate with a Hamas government to bring peace to the Middle East. We, Ourselves, are sorry to inform you that you are overrmatched in November against Obama.
14. FmrMarine | May 17th, 2008 at 9:18 am
McLAME
is a freeking fool if he thinks HUSSEIN earbama is going to play nice. This guy is a chicago ghetto rat and will be the dirtiest of an opponent as any one has seen.
His railing against Bush for a CORRECT statement made in Isreal, then dragging McLame into it speaks volumes of what is to come.
McLame is going to bring a pillow to a knife fight….pitiful.
What happened to the “outrage” for the really disparaging remarks made by the rotten old hag piglosy about Bush? ………ignored!!
15. neocon | May 17th, 2008 at 10:01 am
gotbrains?
why did you change your handle again?
Some members of the Reagan administration spoke with Iran, but Reagan himself never did, so that comment was transparently dishonest.
And Bush going to Saudi continues an on-going dialogue with the Kingdom that nearly every President has established, so that again is blatantly dishonest.
How do you guys expect to earn any respect when you lie all the time?
Pain,
So the GOP is unfit to govern despite winning 5 of the last 7 POTUS elections? Or is it that fact that has your panties in a bunch?
16. phnx | May 17th, 2008 at 10:13 am
After the three losses of republican house seats, and the recent pronouncments of Obama, my prediction for the fall is that the Dems increase their house and senate majorities.
However, with a large percentage of blue collar whites and women either staying home or voting against Obama due either to his race or the shameless treatment of Hillary by the left,…McCain will take the Whitehouse.
We will see four years of gridlock, unless the dems can secure veto proof majorities.
17. neocon | May 17th, 2008 at 10:35 am
I want to know what it is about the following statement that liberals disagree with.
“Our problem in America gets solved when we aggressively go for domestic exploration. Our problem in America gets solved if we expand our refining capacity, promote nuclear energy and continue our strategy for the advancing of alternative energies as well as conservation,” Bush said.
18. neocon | May 17th, 2008 at 10:41 am
I also want to know why people like 42 and Pain want to silence the votes of the many good Democrats still supporting Hillary. Why do you just assume Obama is the candidate when many millions of people in Florida and Michigan support Hillary?
Oh right……their votes don’t count. I guess Obama will be the President of 48 states. Or is it 57?
LMAO
19. Canadian Observer | May 17th, 2008 at 10:42 am
However, with a large percentage of blue collar whites and women either staying home or voting against Obama due either to his race or the shameless treatment of Hillary by the left,…McCain will take the Whitehouse
16. phnx | May 17th, 2008 at 10:13 am
So, phnx, it looks as if you’re saying a large percentage of blue collar white Americans are racist and would not vote for a candidate because of his ethnic origins. Is it your opinion, phnx, that the color of Obama’s skin has more significance than his ability to lead the free world?
20. Kahn | May 17th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Pain - Hey, whatever. I admitted I was wrong immediately. Somethging I rarely if ever see leftofascist posters do. You DO know I’m correct about FDR… right?
Point is, Bush COULD have meant Pelosi or Carter. But since Obama clearly is planning on appeasing our enemies he interpreted it as referring to him. It hit just a little to close to home. Since he’s said so little about his plans, this is actually a good insight into what he plans to do.
Or, well what do YOU think Obama has planned.
21. neocon | May 17th, 2008 at 10:56 am
CO,
I think you need to direct that question to the reported 92% of African Americans that support Barack.
And why do you want to silence the many Hillary supporters? Do you believe that only certain votes should count?
And I believe it’s been the Democrats that have injected the racism into this race, specifically the Clintons. phnx was merely echoing what’s already been mused by liberals.
Sorry.
22. Canadian Observer | May 17th, 2008 at 11:24 am
And I believe it’s been the Democrats that have injected the racism into this race, specifically the Clintons. phnx was merely echoing what’s already been mused by liberals.
Sorry.
21. neocon | May 17th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Sorry is right. If this is indeed a truthful sentiment, neocon, regardless of who voices it, it is a sad and sorry state of affairs.
23. Above | May 17th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Deleted - phony emial address, paranoid conspiracy theories; if we don’t get a real e mail, we can’t send the black helicopters after you.
24. neocon | May 17th, 2008 at 11:31 am
CO,
Then why do you overlook the reportings that 92% of African Americans support Obama? Do you think there might be some racial influence there?
Or are they just voting for the bext candidate?
25. neocon | May 17th, 2008 at 11:33 am
“Threatens destruction of Iran with nuclear weapons..” - Above
No, that was Hillary.
And then you wish the for the death of a fellow American. WOW!
Mark, ban this poster. He is a vile human being.
26. neocon | May 17th, 2008 at 11:34 am
CO,
The poster Above is representative of the dementia that has permeated the Democratic party.
And is why it is becoming more and more evident that liberalism is a brain disorder.
27. Canadian Observer | May 17th, 2008 at 11:43 am
24. neocon | May 17th, 2008 at 11:31 am
No doubt for both reasons, neocon. It would be wonderful though if the last reason were the prime consideration. Unfortunately, it appears that the race issue still haunts America. Sigh……
28. Kahn | May 17th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Above - please limit your “lists” to actual events and facts and not to cartoons you watched on Cartoon Networks Adult Swim.
29. FmrMarine | May 17th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
CO
>>>t would be wonderful though if the last reason were the prime consideration. Unfortunately, it appears that the race issue still haunts America. Sigh……<<<
The frog (french Quebec) - canadian problem STILL haunts canada so mind your own house moron, we will vote for whom WE want not what a p!$$ ant divided country citizen thinks of America.
30. phnx | May 17th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
CO, its not just my opinion, according to exit polls, Clinton beat Obama nearly 3 to 1 among union households and among white Catholics, barely half said they would vote for him in November if he is the party’s nominee. The media has already cited this as his Achilles Heel.
This is spell big trouble for Obama. Call them racists it you want, your words not mine. I’m sure that some are. But the irony with the democrats when it comes to identity politics, is that some will not support a candidate because of skin color and some others will support a candidate BECAUSE of skin color. Those who won’t support, for whatever reason, are always branded by the media as “less educated”. This is elitist code for “too stupid to know better”. Much of the leftist elitist support for Obama is based on a desire by these psuedo intellectuals to “feel good about their egalitarian choice”. An Obama ‘08 bumper sticker is a sign to other elitist that you too have transcended race. There are bonus points if the sticker is on a 5 year old or older Volvo station wagon and double bonus points if the sticker is on a Prius.
Whatever happened to Martin Luther’s dream that a person be judged on the content of their character. Apparently the leftists have forgotten this.
As to his qualifications to run the free world, I haven’t seen or heard of any. In his tenure in the Illinois Senate he simply voted present on controversial issues. In his Short tenure in the US congress he has the most liberal voting record of any senator and has no meaninful history of “reaching accross the isles” to work for any bi-partisan legislation. He has shown a willingness to engage the sponsors of terror on a Presidential level without any preconditions, which shows a dangerous naivite and lack of understanding of international diplomacy.
So in a word…NO…he is not qualified, regardless of the color of his skin.
31. Obama » McCain Resp&hellip | May 17th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
[…] Blogs For Victory wrote an interesting post today on McCain Responds to Obamaâs WhineHere’s a quick excerpt Loud and clear: Earlier today, Senator Obama made a few remarks I would like to respond to. I welcome a debate about protecting America . No issue is more important. Senator Obama claimed all I had to offer was the ‘naive and irresponsible belief’ that tough talk would cause Iran to give up its nuclear program. He should know better. I have some news for Senator Obama: Talking, not even with soaring rhetoric, in unconditional meetings with the man who calls Israel a ’stinking corpse’ and arms […]
32. Obam would debate as McCa&hellip | May 17th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
[…] McCain Responds to Obama’s Whine […]
33. bongoman | May 17th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
We’ve heard all these accusations of appeasement before.
Remember Reagan was accused of appeasement because of his intention to negotiate with the evil empire?
Pat Robertson, Howard Phillips Rumsfeld and Newt Gringich all denounced Reagan and used the Chamberlain analogy to describe him in the 1980’s.
Howard Phillips published ads which
Phillips also “scorned President Reagan as ‘a useful idiot for Kremlin propaganda’”.
Pat Robertson, in 1988 “suggested that President Ronald Reagan could be compared to Neville Chamberlain . . . by agreeing to a medium-range nuclear arms agreement with Soviet leader Mikhail S. Gorbachev.”
And Gingrich described President Reagan’s rapprochement with Gorbachev in 1985 as potentially “the most dangerous summit for the West since Adolf Hitler met with Chamberlain in 1938 at Munich.”
So, the appeasement analogies aren’t new are they? The extremist war mongerers and profiteers will always find someone to tar with that brush.
34. Willem van Oranje | May 17th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Mark
Oooh. Touchy today, aren’t we?
Show me were I accused you of being a Nazi. Because I said you should have written it in German? Do you believe that writing in German is Nazism?
You obviously haven’t learned anything the past couple of years. You still live under the assumption
that might makes right. It doesn’t, not by a long shot.
You obviously still think that the US has any ‘might’ left or that other countries are impressed with it.
Not even Yemen is impressed with the US. And a man representing Papua New Guinea faced down the United States on Bali and won.
35. Willem van Oranje | May 17th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
bongoman,
nice catch.
I remember it distinctly that the hawks in the Reagan adminstration went apeshit over Reagan talking to Gorby, but didn’t know they accused him of being an ‘appeaser’ a la Chamberlain. That’s really funny. These people are so predictable, isn’t it.
But it is sad that to them talking equals appeasing. I’m wondering what their marriages look like.
36. bongoman | May 17th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
Thank Glenn Greenwald for the references.
37. Kahn | May 18th, 2008 at 12:43 am
Sure Bongo. Except the USSR had 5000 atomic weapons aimed at us and the talks were threats to spend them into the ground if they wanted to keep up the arms race.
Meanwhile:
1. Since Obama wasn’t even named by Bush and his remarks could well have applied to Carter or Pelosi - just why did he assume the remarks were aimed at him? Maybe they hit too close to home?
2. Just what IS this great and compelling argument Obama is going to make to our enemies? If it’s just acting tough…. how’s that change? What is the great NEW way he’s talking about? Please, enlighten us with your enormous liberal brain! If not concessions, WHAT!?!?!?
Oh and liberals. This is not an attack on Patriotism. I believe that Obama IS a patraiot. Albeit a misguided and naive one. And we’ll remember the scaremongering phrase when you attack us on social security and mediare later in the year.
Hey, what IS your social security plan by the way? Oh well - don’t want to go off subject…
Oh and WVO - jeeezzz we’re just so stupid over here. Just what did you mean when you said to write it in German? I thought you were making a NAZI reference also. If I was wrong, well - just why did you write that? Can you explain it?
38. bongoman | May 18th, 2008 at 1:44 am
Hey, I’m not the one calling Reagan an appeaser - it was Gingrich, Phillips, Robertson and Rumsfeld. Get it? They were the ones likening him to Chamberlain, yeah?
39. Kahn | May 18th, 2008 at 2:06 am
OK - so I see you couldn’t explain what Obamas positions actually are and decided to deflect that fact rather than be honorable and honest. OK. Thanks for your contribution there Bongo.
40. Willem van Oranje | May 18th, 2008 at 2:06 am
Kahn
So you are attacking Obama’s plan, without knowing what his plan IS … ?
You know, in this modern age, it’s not that difficult to inform yourself. Politicians nowadays have this thingy called “a website”. You can use ‘the google’ to get the address but I will give it you for free: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/#iran
I will even go one step further: I will cut and paste the relevant part for you:
Kahn:
and
Still don’t get it?
Then let me spell it out for you: it is perfectly possible to say one thing, without leaving any doubt to what or to whom you are referring, without actually saying it.
It was a very deliberate trap and both you and Mark have fallen for it.
And no, I don’t believe you or Mark or all Republicans or all conservatives are Nazis. But I do want to point out to certain elements in the US that an unconditional worshipping of military power and might; flag waving; patriotism; nationalism; the American exceptionalism; the branding of yourself as superior and others as inferior is a major reason why the rest of the world has become increasingly anti-american in the last couple of years.
41. Kahn | May 18th, 2008 at 3:00 am
No WVO - I’m attacking his lack of a plan. I’m attacking your support for a plan that you don’t know and can’t articulate. I’m speculating that Obamas anger at a remark that seemed not aimed at him, is suggestive of his possible plans. Then, I’m speculating further on what these plans might be. Since Obama (and you) won’t say what his
YOU’RE support for a plan YOU don’t know is absurd.
How could we possibly put MORE pressure on Iran? We have a huge military presence in evgery nation bordering Iran right now. But Obama has stated he will remove forces from Iraq. One would suppose he would remove them from Kuwait, Bahrain, and the Gulf also? But, well - one HAS to suppose doesn’t one? Since his “plan” is no plan at all.
“If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations.”
According to the last Intelligence Estimate, they have already stopped working on nuclear weapons and they deny supporting terrorism. So, what you think they’re lying? And are these not offering concessions to stop bad behavior? And is that not in fact appeasement? I mean really - isn’t it?
You write “Then let me spell it out for you: it is perfectly possible to say one thing, without leaving any doubt to what or to whom you are referring, without actually saying it.”
Well, apparently it’s NOT so easy. At least - not so easy for you. I still don’t get what your point is if it’s not to suggest we are NAZI like. In fact, you justify this view in the following paragraph. No, I mean yes.
Here, I’ll try: WVO, I would never in a million years say you are a pompous self-riotous wind bag.
But hey, you’re country is the one that packed it’s neighbors off to Germany and Poland to be gassed, not mine. Tell me, how far do you live from Ann Franks home? She and her family were betrayed by neighbors, weren’t they? Hmmm, funny - the French significantly reduced their Jewish population during the early to mid-40’s also didn’t they? Yep - real shining examples your two countries are. But I guess you are the experts on how to act NAZI.
It is “liberals” who control entertainment TV, broadcast news, and most newspapers here.
It is “liberals” (take for example, Oliver Stone) who are willing to create wild flights of fancy and call them history. It is liberals who use TV and movies to belittle and attack their conservative opponents in shows and movies disguised as entertainment.
And it is liberals who seek to stifle those few speech outlets (talk Radio, Fox News, a precious few newspapers) who dare challenge their views. They attack conservative speech
And it is “liberals” who seek to take our earnings (but don’t volunteer more of their own) to distribute to buy votes. They seek state control of wealth.
Since NONE of the cities that have actually banned guns are any better after decades - this clearly can not be the reason they seek to eliminate them. Yet, they want to take them away from the citizens. Clearly, it is “liberals” who seek an unarmed populace so there will be no resistance when they impose the rest of their socialist tyranny.
They attack conservatives as evil. They dehumanize and vilify opponents.
But again - YOU are the experts over there. Not us. You’re the ones who created Communism, and Fascism. Who succumbed to them, even embraced them. Last time I checked - all the concentration camps (you know, the ones with the ovens) are in Europe. Not even Pol Pot could compete with you people - and THATS saying something. Though it’s possible that Stalin could.
Of course, our saving you from HIM was just a part of our misguided militarism, I guess.
42. phnx | May 18th, 2008 at 4:58 am
Kahn,
WVO…Waste Vegtable Oil…an appropriate moniker for our wooden shod friend…I like it.
Obama’s plan includes appointing Rodney King as Sec. of State. His “ccccan’t we all just get along” policy is sure to win the hearts and minds of the Islamo Fascists.
43. Willem van Oranje | May 18th, 2008 at 11:00 am
Kahn
You’ve so lost that debate. I’ve laid out his plan and instead of addressing it you create all sorts of strawmen (no, Obama will keep forces in the region, so there goes your argument).
And you still haven’t learned who were the ones that actively fought Nazism and fascism before and during WWII. It wasn’t the right.
And it wasn’t the right that tried to protect the Jews, the gypsies, the homosexuals, the socialists, the communists and people from the resistance, from being sent to the concentration.
The right collaborated with the Nazis. They believed appeasement was a far better strategy.
And you want to learn what my family did and what happened to them during the war? You POS?
44. Kahn | May 18th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
WVO , but the plan you spell out IS appeasement. Remove troops from the region and give you what you want if you promise to stop being bad.
But, um, it was a dutch family that turned over the Franks. Wasn’t it? It was Dutch families all over Holland that did the same. Wasn’t it? Dutch Police that worked with the Gestapo and SS to round up homosexuals, Jews, and communists? Dutch trains that packed them in?
But, well OK you fought them!
You allowed them to happen. You caved to them almost instantly because of your lack of preparation. Then, for the most part you cooperated with them in their maniacal plans.
British, Canadian, and American troops kicked them out of Holland. NOT YOU.
Your plan to resist included sending young Jewish children to the gas chambers to save your own worthless lives.
No wonder you don’t recognize appeasement when you see it. And no wonder you can’t tell the difference between a wolf and a sheep dog.
45. Kahn | May 18th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
On Europe further, since WVO has me on a roll. Do you realize that in many European nations under current law, someone depicting Hitler in a bad light (say in a cartoon) could be jailed for “hate speech”. It would be illegal to hate NAZI’s.
Kumbaya!
46. Freedom1 | May 19th, 2008 at 12:33 am
Kahn, funny you should mention that…
Dutchman Arrested for Aggravated Cartoonery
No joke. Arrested over a cartoon. The Dutch are spinelessly appeasing Islamists. There’s no free speech or freedom of expression in Europe or Canada.
47. Kahn | May 19th, 2008 at 1:47 am
WVO - that would mean that anti-Hitler cartoons or anti-NAZI cartoons that “offended” them would have been banned, wouldn’t it? That you could have actually gone to jail for comparing the SS to the devil?
Well - at least the Franks would have had fair warning to get the hell out of there.
48. SoulRubba | May 19th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Condi Rice and Gates as recently as a week ago said we should sit down with Iran and talk with them directly. Sounds like appeasement to me…..
49. Kahn | May 19th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Soul - but thats with Iran completely surrounded and with no offers on the table.
Obama has stated his intent to remove our forces from the region (while talking tough) and offered possible concessions ahead of time.
Have YOU ever had to negotiate for anything? Crimminy, read up on it. You actually see them as the same?
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