The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Archives

National Security

Candidates Respond to Bush Talk of 'Appeasement'

Note: Please upgrade your Flash plug-in to view our enhanced content.

Addressing the Knesset in Jerusalem, President Bush takes a veiled swipe at Sen. Barack Obama and other Democrats, calling suggestions of negotiating with terrorists "appeasement." (Video by CBSNEWS.com.)

Updated 4:36 p.m.
By Garance Franke-Ruta
At a celebration of Israel's 60th anniversary in Jerusalem today, President Bush took a subtle swipe at Democratic presidential front-runner Sen. Barack Obama and other Democrats who have called for greater diplomacy with rogue states. "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," Bush said in an address to Israel's Knesset, according to a Washington Post report from the scene.

"We have heard this foolish delusion before," Bush said. "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."

Obama rapidly issued a statement calling Bush's comments "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," said Obama. "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."

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean chimed in, calling Bush's remarks "a cheap political attack." "Bush's outrageous comments are an embarrassment to our country, not based in fact and bring us no closer to our goal of ending terrorist attacks against Israel and bringing peace to the region," he said in a statement. "If John McCain is really serious about being a different kind of Republican, he'll denounce these remarks in the strongest terms possible."

Nancy Pelosi called the comments "beneath the dignity of the office of the president" and implored serious-minded people to denounce them, a pointed invitation to McCain.

Far from denouncing the remarks, McCain said he agreed with them. "Yes, there have been appeasers in the past, and the president is exactly right, and one of them is Neville Chamberlain,'' Mr. McCain told reporters on his campaign bus, The New York Times reports. "I believe that it's not an accident that our hostages came home from Iran when President Reagan was president of the United States. He didn't sit down in a negotiation with the religious extremists in Iran, he made it very clear that those hostages were coming home.''

Asked if Obama was an appeaser, McCain said: "I think that Barack Obama needs to explain why he wants to sit down and talk with a man who is the head of a government that is a state sponsor of terrorism, that is responsible for the killing of brave young Americans, that wants to wipe Israel off the map, who denies the Holocaust. That's what I think Senator Obama ought to explain to the American people.''

That elicited another round from the Obama campaign Thursday afternoon. "It is the height of hypocrisy for John McCain to deliver a lofty speech about civility and bipartisanship in the morning and then embrace George Bush's disgraceful political attack in the afternoon," fired back Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor. "Instead of delivering meaningful change, John McCain wants to continue George Bush's irresponsible and failed Iran policy by refusing to engage in tough, direct diplomacy like Presidents from Kennedy to Reagan have done."

Posted at 12:48 PM ET on May 15, 2008  | Category:  National Security
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Previous: Steelworkers Union Comes Out for Obama | Next: Edwards Supporters Start to Swing to Obama


Add 44 to Your Site
Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Trail. This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Trail.
Get This Widget >>


Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Wow, a lot of people need to go back and read some history. Talking is not appeasement when it is backed by the full strength of American military, diplomatic, economic, and cultural influence. Of course, Bush has utterly decimated our ability to use any of those things, but that's neither here nor there. The next president will have the opportunity to rebuild many of our institutions of foreign relations - and use them. Read Fukayama's piece in the latest Foreign Affairs for more on why appeasement did fail with Hitler - not because of talking, but because there was nothing to back it up. The current admin is so enamored with the use of violent force, it forgot our American strengths lie in our ability to balance all of the instruments of foreign policy. Not going to say Obama or McCain has it exactly right, but I will say either of them are a damnsight better than the current regime.

Posted by: ECL | May 18, 2008 6:38 AM

I find this whole reaction by Obama and his crew of sycophants amusing. He was awfully quick to assume the role of paranoid defensive whining victim. I thought he was going to call for his mommy. Very Presidential ... what a buffoon. Just more evidence that he is ill equipped to be President of The US.

Posted by: Occam | May 17, 2008 3:13 AM

I find this whole reaction by Obama and his crew of sycophants amusing. He was awfully quick to assume the role of paranoid defensive whining victim. I thought he was going to call for his mommy. Very Presidential ... what a buffoon. Just more evidence that he is ill equipped to be President of The US.

Posted by: Occam | May 17, 2008 3:11 AM

I see scared Republicans.

Posted by: Sense | May 16, 2008 12:58 PM

DC Dave: A smart Blogger/Voter is an INFORMED Blogger/Voter. You should keep your "mouth" shut and be thought an uninformed blogger/voter (fool) than to "write/speak" and remove all doubt! Wake up and read, review and listen to Obama's message regarding his vision and approaches/strategies to address issues of concern to the American people, to move this country forward into the 21st centruy, and regain the respect that America once had with our foreign neighbors.

Posted by: Sixtwo1 | May 16, 2008 12:56 PM

Bush's own family were Nazi appeasers! He is talking about himself, not the dems!

Bush's administration talked to the following Terrorists:
* Momar Kadafi (Terrorist at the time)
* Kim Jong-il (Terrorist still)
* Dick Cheney (Terrorist Creation Machine)
....and I'm sure many more I can't recall.

Posted by: Franky | May 16, 2008 12:50 PM

Bush is too much a coward to tell the truth:

"Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany."

Prescott Bush also helped plan a military coup aimed at installing a fascist dictatorship in the United States."

Posted by: Marshall | May 16, 2008 12:41 PM

DCDave:
"The funniest thig to me was Obama saying 'I have never stood for .......', that made me chuckle because it is unclear what Obama has ever stood for, since the guy has no record at all except for a couple of campaign speeches."
=========
I guess that it was a good thing you weren't voting in 1861 when an equally inexperienced guy from Illnois with a "couple of campaign speeches" was running for President: his name was Abraham Lincoln.
=========
As for what Obama stands for, try:

easing the tax burden on the middle-class; giving those making under $70,000 a payroll tax credit of up to $1,000.

Make Health Care Available to ALL Americans, not just the lucky ones.

Give tax credits to Businesses that keep jobs in the USA, instead of ones that farm out jobs overseas.

Help small businesses get Loans for start-up and give them tax credits toward expansion. Small Businesses are the back bone of the Country employing more people in total than large corporations.

Improve our educational system to make our students competitive with their better educated peers oversears...ever ask yourself Why Bill Gates goes to Capital Hill hoping to get more work visas granted to foreign engineers, and techs? He says that there are not enough skilled workers in the USA..that is why, and it isn't right, IMO.

Get serious about finding real solutions to our energy crisis by exploring alternative sources such as Nuclear Power.

Stop the "borrow and spend" Policy of the Bush regime...which will bolster our American Dollar on the World currency Market.

Get us out of this disasterous War in Iraq, and stop the sabre Rattling now taken up by FlipFlop McBush, it is time for the USA to Stop being "America: World's Policeman."

Posted by: Hold_That_Tiger | May 16, 2008 12:10 PM

How low will a president go. While I was fighting in Nam, Chicken George was getting drunk in Texas. What disgrace he has brought to the great office of the presidency of our great county.

Posted by: S.L.R | May 16, 2008 11:52 AM

The funniest thig to me was Obama saying 'I have never stood for .......', that made me chuckle because it is unclear what Obama has ever stood for, since the guy has no record at all except for a couple of campaign speeches.

Posted by: DCDave | May 16, 2008 11:52 AM

is is me or did Seth steal his rant from Jack
Nicholson's character in "A FEW GOOD MEN"
we have more than a "Few Good Men" in this country-unfortunately we have let over 4000 of them be murdered by barbarians from the middle ages-and we refuse to admit that we cannot change the killing that has gone on for over 1000 years-to hell with Iraq and Iran - get out now

Posted by: Chuck S. | May 16, 2008 11:44 AM

Goodness gracious ! The Republican Attack Teams (also known by the acronym "RATs") will be in their splendourous 'display' for the next six months and McBush's 'Straight-Talk Express' has just been re-named the "Straight-Trash Express " !
I fully encourage their present behaviour, so that the whole world will once again be witness to their smear-ridden, gutter-politics to which they have always resorted to, because of their pathetic record on all issues, foreign and domestic !!

Posted by: Hussien for America | May 16, 2008 11:38 AM

WASHINGTON -- President Bush's grandfather was a director of a bank seized by the federal government because of its ties to a German industrialist who helped bankroll Adolf Hitler's rise to power, government documents show.
Prescott Bush was one of seven directors of Union Banking Corp. (search), a New York investment bank owned by a bank controlled by the Thyssen family, according to recently declassified National Archives documents reviewed by The Associated Press.
Fritz Thyssen was an early financial supporter of Hitler, whose Nazi party Thyssen believed was preferable to communism.

Both Harrimans and Bush were partners in the New York investment firm of Brown Brothers, Harriman and Co., which handled the financial transactions of the bank as well as other financial dealings with several other companies linked to Bank voor Handel that were confiscated by the U.S. government during World War II.
Union Banking was seized by the government in October 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act.

The two Holocaust survivors suing the US government and the Bush family for a total of $40bn in compensation claim both materially benefited from Auschwitz slave labour during the second world war, Kurt Julius Goldstein, 87, and Peter Gingold, 85, began a class action in America in 2001, but the case was thrown out by Judge Rosemary Collier on the grounds that the government cannot be held liable under the principle of "state sovereignty".

BBC report: Document uncovers details of a planned coup in the USA in 1933 by right-wing American businessmen. The coup was aimed at toppling President Franklin D Roosevelt with the help of half-a-million war veterans. The plotters, who were alleged to involve some of the most famous families in America, (owners of Heinz, Birds Eye, Goodtea, Maxwell Hse & George Bush's Grandfather, Prescott) believed that their country should adopt the policies of Hitler and Mussolini to beat the great depression.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larisa-alexandrovna/#blogger_bio

Posted by: Marcus Darnley | May 16, 2008 11:34 AM

What an idiot. His own Sec. of Defense and State have recently suggest that we talk to Iran. He negotiated with Lybia and they turned over their nuclear equipment to US. Bush talks about spreading democracy and when Hammas is elected he refused to talk to them. McCain supports Bush's comments so we know if he is elected we will just get a 3rd term of Bush's policies.

Posted by: Gregg Harcus | May 16, 2008 11:18 AM

re Seth's comments;

Funny Bush wasn't so gung-ho when He had the chance to serve in Vietnam but chose to Party-Boy his way out of duty instead in the National Guard. Yeah, that Bush is a tough guy; meanwhile he recently told some in-country soldiers that he "envied" their opportunity to experience the "romance" of fighting in Afghanistan. Give me an effing break man. Seth, before you go on and get all misty-eyed over Bush Jr as Warrior, I suggest that you take a look at his own cowardly record. Now Bush41...he was a REAL hero, pity that he raised such a chicken hawk pathetic excuse for a son.

Posted by: Hold_That_Tiger | May 16, 2008 10:57 AM

What GW should have said!

Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whose gonna do it? You Hillary? You Osama Obama? I have more responsibility here than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Saddam, and you curse Carl Rove. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That water-boarding terrorists, while tragic, probably saved lives. And that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. I know deep down in places you don't talk about at parties and body-piercing gatherings, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a bunch of limped-wristed tree-huggers who rise and sleep under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, and then question the manner in which I provide it. I prefer you said THANK YOU, and went on your delusional kumbaya singing ways, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think! You friggin' people. You have no idea how to defend a nation. All you did is weaken a country today, that's all you did. You put people's lives in danger. Sweet dreams, son.

Posted by: Seth | May 16, 2008 10:33 AM

Thank God USA invaided Puerto Rico in 1908 otherwise we would be F***ed today!

I am Puertorrican and I can say this born and raised!

Go McCain

Posted by: Rafael San Juan PR | May 16, 2008 10:19 AM

BUSH 1 OBAMA 0


Do not under-estimate GWB!!!

P.S. He never mention no name and Obama was barking before Bush even left the room he was talking in! lol!!! Obama the electoral college votes do not add for you!

Posted by: Rafael VA | May 16, 2008 10:16 AM

I love the fact that George Bush said that! What I think is more funny is that he never mention any names and Obama is upset! Ha Ha Ha! Democrats had a impossible chance to loose in November but, now that they have elected a rookie that dose not have the fight like Clinton has and the knowladge she has or even Edwards they will loose. No way the electoral votes add up for Obama. Bush is smarter than you think! He put a fishing bait out there and Obama fell for it like a fool! Bush 1 Obama 0 lol lol!!!

Go McCain 2008

Posted by: Rafael VA | May 16, 2008 10:12 AM

"World does not revolve around Obama. As an independent I want to vote against Republican, but the more I hear about Obama's foreign policy, I just shrink."

And what would Obama's "foreign policy" be?
=========
"Now, John SIDNEY McCain, on the other hand, asks some good questions. Will Obama "explain why he wants to sit down and talk with a man who is the head of a government that is a state sponsor of terrorism, that is responsible for the killing of brave young Americans, that wants to wipe Israel off the map, who denies the Holocaust?"
===================
Let's play a game. Who said the following?

""Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the way they have in the past, working with the Palestinian government if Hamas is now in charge?"

"They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that."

Was it a) Obama, or B)Flipflop McCain (ding,ding,ding)
===========

"Bush accurately quoted Senator Borah -"

A Republican, which Bush, of course, forgot to mention, and an isolationist; it took a Democrat, FDR, to push America to do the right thing in WW2 first by getting the "Lend-Lease Program" into place to bolster the UK's ability to ward off a Nazi invasion...
===========
"but instead Obama and the media are making it an issue and it will bring Obama's anti-jewish feelings to the forefront."

His "anti-jewish" feelings? Prove it. (remember, Jeremiah Wright is NOT the candidate.) Site a real Obama quote that suggests that he is "anti-Jewish."
===========
"President Bush is an imbecile and a national disgrace, and McCain is shaping up to be his mini-me."

Yep.
===========
"The officials noted Robert Malley, a principal Obama foreign policy adviser, has penned numerous opinion articles, many of them co-written with a former adviser to the late Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat, petitioning for dialogue with Hamas and blasting Israel for numerous policies he says harm the Palestinian cause."

Are you saying that Israel does NOTHING wrong in its relations with the Palestininian People? I suggest that you look at the FACTS again.
===========
"why does obama want to sit down and talk to an iran extremist?? Obama is a muslim people wake UP!!!!!Muslims said they are taking over America from the inside out!
Well, would you at least agree that neither of us KNOW (for sure) whether Obama is a Christian or not? The American voters are entitled base their decision entirely on that uncertainty."

You know what? I don't give a rat's patoot WHAT "Big Daddy in the Sky" fantasy that Obama or any of these people believe in; in fact I find religion totally irrelevant to the discussion of who should Lead our Country which is in deep doo doo economic trouble. I can only say that I don't believe that it is in our best interest to elect "Flip-Flop McCain" for a 3rd Bush term.
=============
"Obama's appeasement strategy with those that share Ahmadinejab's views would be a mistake. Now, Hillary more than ever!"

Define "appeasement" (I LOVE you Chris Matthews, all is forgiven.) BTW, Hillary has come out and attacked Bush on his bone-head, devisive comment. Insiders of her campaign indicate that she realizes that she has lost; expect our Hillary to come back to the Democratic fold and campaign her heart out for Obama.

Posted by: Hold_That_Tiger | May 16, 2008 10:05 AM

Senator McCain needs to get his history straight. Reagan did not sit down with the leaders of Iran, because Reagan wasn't the President when he "made it clear" that the hostages were coming home. In fact, there was negotiation between Reagan's staff and the Iranians not to release the hostages until the day of Reagan's inauguration, as a means of embarrassing Jimmy Carter, who had actually secured their release. Carter himself, went to then West Germany to receive them. What's the lesson here? Carter negotiated with Iran--with the mediation of Algiers--and got the job done.

Posted by: SRVclctr | May 16, 2008 10:04 AM

This poster does not even understand what the president said or what it meant. Fortunatly most all other world leaders know what the president was up to and what a stupid man he is. I believe they take what he says now with a grain of salt as just the ranting of a not very smart man who should never have been a world leader.


***********
Bush's speech a "Home Run"
I have been plenty disappointed with President Bush at times but his latest speech at the mark of the 60th anniversary of Israel's statehood was a homerun! If the Barrack Obama can't take the heat he shouldn't be running. Why is it that every Democrat who compares Bush to Stalin, Hitler or Pol Pot is never challanged for attacking the President yet when President Bush criticizes the rediculous idea of sitting down and talking with leaders who sponsor terrorism Democrats their feathers get all ruffled? Suck it up Democrats or are you so elitist that you can not be criticized? You sicken me!

Obama is such a cry baby, not every speech people make is about Him. Proves he is to young and Extremely 'To Immature to even run a corner store let alone an entire country. Maybe he should go run Hammas with 'Traitor Carter?'

Posted by: maggieb | May 16, 2008 4:55 AM

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2008 9:09 AM

Talking to terrorists or enemies? Does it work? Let's think?

- What about the IRA? Weren't they officially labeled a terrorist organization? Years of battle did not defeat them. DIALOG brought them into the fold and resulted in peace. The USA was directly involved in this dialog.

- What about the PLO? Weren't they officially labeled a terrorist organization? Decades of battle did not defeat them. DIALOG again, by the USA and Israel. Oh my.

- What about President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan? Weren't he and his government major backers of the Taliban, prior to and on 9/11? Didn't that effectively make his government a state sponsor of terrorism? We talked to him and have paid him billions to switch sides. The United States government is his biggest backer, domestic or foreign.

Maybe a little more history:

- The Soviet Union. Reagan talked.
- The Apartheid government of South Africa. The USA always maintained diplomatic relations, even while they were oppressing and jailing their citizens simply based on race.
- Augusto Pinochet of Chile. How many thousands of his people did he kill, including American's. The CIA and the Nixon government were his biggest supporters.
- China. The communist government has always been very repressive, plus the USA fought two major wars against countries they supported against us. We talked and now pay more money to them than any other country, even while they continue to repress. Talk about appeasement!

Bush uses the term "appeasement" in his fear-based politics only to suit him. Fact is his administration and many before are well practiced. Talking to bring peace is not appeasement, but of course George Bush and his war-mongering colleagues would know nothing about that.

Posted by: Dave | May 16, 2008 6:50 AM

Surprise! Surprise! Who would have ever thought that the right wing hate machine was led by the Shrub? Now we'll see what Barack is made of.

Posted by: PhilTR | May 16, 2008 6:08 AM

Bush's speech a "Home Run"
I have been plenty disappointed with President Bush at times but his latest speech at the mark of the 60th anniversary of Israel's statehood was a homerun! If the Barrack Obama can't take the heat he shouldn't be running. Why is it that every Democrat who compares Bush to Stalin, Hitler or Pol Pot is never challanged for attacking the President yet when President Bush criticizes the rediculous idea of sitting down and talking with leaders who sponsor terrorism Democrats their feathers get all ruffled? Suck it up Democrats or are you so elitist that you can not be criticized? You sicken me!

Obama is such a cry baby, not every speech people make is about Him. Proves he is to young and Extremely 'To Immature to even run a corner store let alone an entire country. Maybe he should go run Hammas with 'Traitor Carter?'

Posted by: maggieb | May 16, 2008 4:55 AM

REALLY, Bush was Qualified. Unless you watch a different channel than Canada, your President could not make a speech for two years without the aid of a pre schooler. Give the world a break. Everyone is watching. Yes, we care and count. Peace to you all.
Pres Bush's decision to engage in partisan intervention. What the hell is next for you people, another war. Hilary says that new cars will pull you through. How many of you can afford a new car in the next couple of years, how many of you leased??. You will not be attacked, hopefully if you vote as the America I have known for 40 years. Man you are screwed. What a shame your great powers could not attack and control Burma. That would be the America I knew.
Life is great.


Posted by: justadad55+ | May 15, 2008 11:27 PM

>
Do you think that ANY of the 16,934,160 Hillary voters would follow her over to a McCain-Clinton ticket?

Many more Republicans would leave than Democrats join.

I think a John McCain/David Duke ticket would be much more likely.

Posted by: Sally | May 15, 2008 11:16 PM

Is there any serious person who believes....

Posted by: B. Lloyd | May 15, 2008 10:48 PM
---

I don't think you know what "serious" means.

Try using "Tin-Foil Hat Wearing" instead.

Posted by: Franky | May 15, 2008 11:11 PM

Is there any serious person who believes Barack (Chamberlain) Obama won't sell Israel out the first chance his gets?

Peace in our time!

Have fun now, Israelis -- for tomorrow you die.

Posted by: B. Lloyd | May 15, 2008 10:48 PM

Is there any serious person who believes Barack (Chamberlain) Obama won't sell Israel out the first chance his gets?

Peace in our time!

Have fun now, Israelis -- for tomorrow you die.

Posted by: B. Lloyd | May 15, 2008 10:46 PM

The only qualifications for the presidency are natural born citizen; 35 years old; and residency within the U.S. for the past 14 years.

Bush met that standard.

His professional resume though had some serious warning flags. His elected office experience included one stint as a Governor in a state where the power resides with the legislature. He oversaw a state which ran up large budget deficits during his tenure and had the most polluted American city.

His professional resume was a litany of business disasters. Bush had every advantage and some how managed to squander large sums of his dad's friend's money. He was someone who got where he was by virtue of family names and connections, not based on merit. He was rejected from UT Law and got into Harvard Business thanks to family connections.

Contrast that with a politician with a solid 10 year track record in federal and state politics. A self-made man who obtained one of the most competitive pre-professional positions (Harvard Law Review). A community organizer; and later the organizer of one of the largest voter registration drives in the history of Illinois in advance of the 1992 election. A best-selling author, and a political player who employed a new political strategy against an opponent with superior political connections who had the benefit of witnessing two previous presidential campaigns. A high-level achiever by pretty much any standard. Self-made men historically have a pretty good presidential track record.

Posted by: JP2 | May 15, 2008 10:31 PM

JakeD:

Bush was indeed qualified for presidency. He didn't honestly earn the 2000 election. Gore was clearly the winner and that's without bias, just stating the fact. Bush had that election handed to him. We should've stuck with Gore, the real winner in that election, and this country probably wouldn't be in the condition it is currently in today (but we'll never find out because a special group of people gave us Bush). That's the thing, Bush with all of his two terms lacks commen sense and wisdom that Obama has. He also lacks the boldness to face this country and answer us as though we are the intelligent people we are and not lie to us. Bush keeps lying with televised statements telling us lies like we don't see for ourselves what's going on. Your argument helps Bush none. Obama stands out compared to Bush. With Obama's wisdom, commen sense, and passion for this country, had he had Bush's place to begin with, I believe he could've helped save us from some of the conditions we currently face where Bush has failed us. This is my personal take on it though. I like him as a person, but I am displeased with his constant veto conduct, and lack of will power to take certain actions when needed and necessary that's all.

Posted by: Obama2008 | May 15, 2008 9:54 PM

Until someone discovers oil in the Gaza strip whi cares about the Palestinians. If a country decides to live like criminals they will be treated like criminals.

Posted by: marctrain1 | May 15, 2008 9:47 PM

Anyone else:

Do you think that ANY of the 16,934,160 Hillary voters would follow her over to a McCain-Clinton ticket?

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 9:44 PM

Obama2008:

How "interesting" that an almost-two term President lacks the qualifications to be President, yet your guy was in D.C., what, less than one year before deciding to run?

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 9:43 PM

I believe President Bush lacks any kind of credibility to say ANYTHING with his lack of the Know How to be a president. I like you as a person Bush, but I await the day you step down. You left A LOT of Work to do for the next person to take on the presidency. So be it...

Posted by: Obama2008 | May 15, 2008 9:36 PM

JP:

Setting aside the even lower probability that he would ever ask Hillary to run as his Vice-President, how many of her 17 million voters do you think would follow her to a McCain-Clinton ticket?

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 9:32 PM

Wouldn't be the first time a power-greedy Speaker of the House tried to use Impeachment to become President of the United States ...

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 9:30 PM

JakeD, I'm not banking on it yet.

Although James Madison did refer to an idea of "impeachment by the community".

Effectively that is what will happen if McCain doesn't get to serve Bush's 3rd term.

Posted by: JP2 | May 15, 2008 9:24 PM

OTOH, I could definitely see Patricia starting Impeachment proceedings on November 5th ...

Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2008 9:17 PM

JP2:

True (but, if you really think Pelosi is going to start Impeachment proceedings SIX MONTHS before the General Election, I've got a bridge to sell you ; )

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 9:12 PM

JakeD, circumstances change.

Posted by: JP2 | May 15, 2008 9:07 PM

Isreal is only 60 years old? How? Why is it only 60 years old? I have read about 'Isreal' in the King James Testament of the Bible. That region of the country is very very old. What was it called 61 years AGO? Are the people who LIVED on the land 61 years ago still there?
61 years ago, what was that region like?

Isreal-so young a nation. Wow!
61 years later and all we have is conflict and war, such a young nation with such problem for the world. Why? ... OH... wait a minute. Don't the Palenstian people live there too? How old are they this year? Oh yeah-noboby cares. And the conflict continues...

Posted by: mscookie321 | May 15, 2008 9:06 PM

JP2:

I believe it was a DEMOCRAT, Speaker of the House Pelosi, who took that particular option "off the table" ...

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 9:00 PM

It's past time for impeaching that S.O.B. George W. Bush. The man is a walking, talking embarrassment.

No president has done more damage to Israel's security than him -- and more importantly to the United States of America's security.

The Israelis can thank him for the weapons pipeline that runs directly from Iran through Iraq to Lebanon -- something that didn't exist before 2003.

McCain offers more of the same.

Unmitigated disasters -- both of them.

Posted by: JP2 | May 15, 2008 8:58 PM

JakeD: "Maybe, lsb50 -- I knew he wasn't referring to Osama, I mean, Obama......"

Hmmm. You knew? How?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2008 8:57 PM

Harry:

WE'RE # 1!!! WE'RE # 1!!! WE'RE # 1!!!

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 8:51 PM

omyobama:

You are a genius -- seriously -- what gave me away? The multiple times I said "I wouldn't vote for Hillary in a million years", or all the times I've defended McCain, Bush, and Reagan while bashing Obama as much as I can?

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 8:50 PM


And the Israeli leaders were smiling and clappihg their bloody hands.

Bush's speech draws a red line around our support for Israel.

When we VOTE IN NOVEMBER let's have a referendum on whether to keep supporting genocide, and the land grabbing....such as the just announced establishment of more settlements on the West Bank.

Let's do vote on the billions we send them every year. And how the world hates us for it. LONG PAST TIME.

Posted by: Harry | May 15, 2008 8:49 PM

JakeD and rat ... so glad you're coming out of the bunker and displaying your true colors -- all you Clinton supporters that thought these 2 represented Mrs. Clinton's best interests on ANYTHING may now see these Republican rear guard experts as who they are and always have been in their vicious attacks to get fellow Democrats to attack one another. And please, don't tell me any true Democrat wants anything to do with any of these clowns, including the clown in chief. Let's see, he: violated the unspoken rule of keeping partisan politics out of foreign visits; he got his facts and his historical allegory wrong (diplomatic discussions are NOT appeasement -- giving 1/2 of Czechoslovakia to Hitler IS appeasement); he got his own administration's diplomatic efforts wrong (ummm, just yesterday Defense Secty. Gates said we need to be talking to .... Iran; so has Condi Rice). I guess Buuuuush musta been talkin' about them since he swears he wasn't talkin' about Obama; and I guess he has forgotten the historical importance of diplomatic efforts by, oh I don't know, Richard Nixon and China, Ronald Reagan and the Soviets, AND Iran, Israel and Egypt & Jordan, ummm and George Bush and KimSung-Il. This guy is ridiculous. Still not too late to impeach ...

Posted by: omyobama | May 15, 2008 8:43 PM

Maybe, lsb50 -- I knew he wasn't referring to Osama, I mean, Obama -- thanks for the material : )

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 8:39 PM

Ignore the DRUNK!

Posted by: OneFreeMan | May 15, 2008 8:32 PM

JakeD: "Did President Bush specifically say "Barack HUSSEIN Obama"?

Actually Jake, no. Maybe he was referring to his own Defense Secretary Robert Gates who indicated today that the United States should construct a combination of incentives and pressure to engage Iran, saying "We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage . . . and then sit down and talk with them".

Posted by: lsb50 | May 15, 2008 8:25 PM

pmorlan:

"Outrageous commentS"?! Plural? Why don't we slow down and start with just the first quote: "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" -- do you deny that some seem to believe this -- what exactly is OUTRAGEOUS about that?

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 7:48 PM

Bush never said that Barack HUSSEIN Osama, I mean, Obama "supported engagement with terrorists" either.

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 1:12 PM
----

Another cowardly Republican using fear to support their terrorist ways.

The Republican Grand Failure is coming to an end. Even the Bush gansters' lie machine is starting to breakdown.

But, I do thank you all for sending so many new voters our way!

Posted by: Franky | May 15, 2008 7:43 PM

Once again we see that John McCain is joined at the hip with president Bush. Instead of denouncing Bush's outrageous comments made in Israel today, as any honorable person would do, Senator McCain instead tried to use them to attack Senator Obama.

I think McCain's disingenous behavior today makes it pretty clear that McCain will do or say anything to win this election even stooping as low as using the holocaust to attack his opponent. Shame on you Senator McCain. So much for your promise to end gutter politics.

Posted by: pmorlan | May 15, 2008 7:40 PM

Lsb50:

Did President Bush specifically say "Barack HUSSEIN Obama"? I don't believe so (although he did mention Osama in the speech ; )

WE'RE # 1!!! WE'RE # 1!!! WE'RE # 1!!!

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 7:24 PM

Did Barack Obama specifically say "negotiate"? I don't believe so. There is a big difference between meet with and talk, and negotiate. I admire Barack Obama for his willingness to at least try. Let's face it, nothing else has worked.

President Bush should be ashamed. What Obama suggests is noble, peaceful, and intelligent. And this will go a long way to lift up our image with the rest of the world.

Posted by: Lsb50 | May 15, 2008 7:20 PM

"And" ...?

I can't wait ; )

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 7:12 PM


GO AHEAD, GO AHEAD. More More. Wish more Americans knew what these posters are saying should read the ugly hate on this post.
BECAUSE Americans are sick to death of our support of savage Israel, and tired of being detested by the world for it. The posters who infest these posts, and most oethers here, constantly, are about Israel by the Israel firsters.
You are making anti-semites by the dozens.

And

Posted by: more | May 15, 2008 7:09 PM

What?! I thought AMERICA was the most hated and least respected state in the world? WE'RE # 1!!! WE'RE # 1!!!

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 7:06 PM

As odious and detested as Bush is, he knew where his ugly menacing words would sell.

In Israel, where savage war mongering is the first act. Where the work of civilized and decent people, Diplomacy, is not used or respected. But then when was genecide
a thing of diplomacy, or decency.

Puts a big red light on Israel, and what kind of state it is. (see the BBC survey, in which it is the most hated and least respected state in the world.)

Posted by: tired | May 15, 2008 7:01 PM

For instance, I don't think that Sen. Obama has ever been among those who "suggest if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of the enemies of peace, and America utterly rejects it. Israel's population may be just over 7 million. But when you confront terror and evil, you are 307 million strong, because the United States of America stands with you."

Was Bush, nonetheless, a "racist" referring to Obama only with that comment too?

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 7:00 PM

Perhaps one of the "intelligent, well-educated people" (preferably one willing to give a name to him/herself) can explain how any of Bush's remarks today would apply to Obama more so, than say, someone like Jimmy Carter?

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 6:56 PM


TO: JakeD who wrote: "As you can see, Bush never even mentioned Obama's name."

We are not Hillary supporters, we are intelligent, well-educated people, and we understand when we are being talked to, as well as what is being said, so don't give us that "I never mentioned your name crap"!


NOW, MORE THAN EVER, BARACK OBAMA!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2008 6:48 PM

TO: JakeD who wrote: "As you can see, Bush never even mentioned Obama's name."

We are not Hillary supporters, are intelligent, well-educated people, and we understand when we are being talked to, as well as what is being said, so don't give us that "I never mentioned your name crap"!

NOW, MORE THAN EVER, BARACK OBAMA!


Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2008 6:47 PM

2hess,

A little more background information on your boy'

Brzezinski was the one that planned Operation Eagle Claw, to free the hostages in Iran using Delta Force and other Special Forces units but the mission was a failure.

Brzezinski was criticized widely in the press and became the least popular member of Carter's administration. Edward Kennedy challenged President Carter for the 1980 Democratic nomination, and at the convention Kennedy's delegates loudly booed Brzezinski.

After 9/11 Brzezinski was criticized for his role in the formation of the Afghan mujaheddin network, some of which would later form the Taliban and would shelter Al Qaeda camps

Posted by: tdl62 | May 15, 2008 6:41 PM

tdl62:
If Obama is not an appeaser, why did he have his lead foreign policy man, Zbigniew Brzezinski, ...
***

Anybody who knows Brzezinski's record knows he was the hardline "hawk" in the Carter administration, largely responsible for getting support for the muhajadeen guerilla resistance to the USSR in Afghanistan. He contributed as much to weakening the USSR as anything Reagan did.

He may also be held partly responsible for the blowback from Al Qaeda - but it was the subsequent Republican administrations that abandoned Afghanistan, creating the conditions that led to its hosting a terror program.

Posted by: j2hess | May 15, 2008 6:30 PM

gbooksdc:

As you can see, Bush never even mentioned Obama's name.

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 6:16 PM

No problem, Mark W., I think I know what you are saying now. I have no problem with hypocrites being exposed BTW regardless of political persuasion. Hopefully, the Catholic Church purges all homosexual priests too. As for Separation of Church and State, I am all for NO STATE-RUN CHURCH and government staying completely out of church business.

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 6:15 PM

An attack by Bush upon the character of a politician would be regarded as a feather in that politician's cap in most quarters.

The fact is that the more Bush tries to help McCain or hurt Dems, the more he reinforces the notion that McCain would be Bush's third term and thus, helps Obama and hurts McCain. if he REALLY wanted to hurt Obama, he'd endorse him.

Posted by: gbooksdc | May 15, 2008 6:14 PM

Once, I prayed for companionship in bed and I got bed bugs, that is what I am saying.

Forces of repression and oppression will be met with opposite forces eventually in my universe. So necons, evangeligals and the like forced their ethics and morals on our nation much like church/state follies of the past.

Now we all know the self chosen ones or the self righteous right did not practice as they preach. Some of these uncompromising Legislators were exposed as pedophiles, perverts, adulterers, theives and complicit with shady charactors like Abramoff, especially down in Florida, a state which has been under the influence of the Bush Family for sometime.

Same sex marraige, they opposed violently trying to get a constitutional amendment prohibiting the act. To me that is church interface with state rights. The law is such one of Federalism. That is to say, State are independent on marraige legislations and practices. Of course the church opposes same sex marraige but the Church is not the state. And State as well Federal constitutions protect individual rights.

There are many issues in which States could investigate and convict parties guilty of crimes in the absence of federal law enforcement. From oil prices, to wiretapping, to illegal searches and seizures to false imprisonment could be charged by State Attorney Generals.

But basically I am being flippant about people who use fear to preach by claiming that "the end of the world is near". This is an ending to conservative or right control in our Federal government. I doubt balance will be acheived this time around. That's just it the way it goes. The more I hear legislators crying into the microphones of Assembly floors, the more I believe, their end is near.

Sorry for being long winded.

Posted by: Mark W. | May 15, 2008 6:04 PM

I believe it was Bush that was President when the Terrorists came home.

Without Bush and the Republicans, we'd have had no terrorists attacks in the USA!

Posted by: Georgia | May 15, 2008 6:02 PM

Sally:

Luckily (unless the Court changes something) the ruling doesn't take effect for 30 days. None of the illegal "marriages" are re-instated either.

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 6:02 PM

I wonder what the Republicans will do now that all their leaders are moving to California to get married to each other.

Posted by: Sally | May 15, 2008 5:59 PM

If Obama is not an appeaser, why did he have his lead foreign policy man, Zbigniew Brzezinski, travel to Syria and meet with President Assad? What promises did he make on behalf of Obama?

"Don't forget, Brzezinski was also one of Carter's leading foreign policy wonks; we all know how great Carter's foreign policy was."

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile--hoping it will eat him last"--Winston Churchill

Posted by: tdl62 | May 15, 2008 5:51 PM

JakeD,

All I can do is smile because you now live in a state where gays get to marry and I'm sure nothing bothers you as much as two men entering into that holy union. Yay!

Posted by: Nuffsaid | May 15, 2008 5:50 PM

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 5:45 PM

Nuffsaid:

I've seen ENOUGH of your posts to justify the remark -- no "nerve" need be touched for any neutral observer -- go back to politics, or grammar, I could care less.

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 5:42 PM

justadad55+:

Are you an American? You first ask "What the hell is next for you people, another war" and then (seeming to lament the lack of another war) "What a shame your great powers could not attack and control Burma."

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 5:38 PM

Ouch JakeD,

Must we resort to name calling. Did I touch a nerve or something?

Your May 15, 2008 5:07 PM post is semantically ambiguous. While my interpretation of it may not have been what you intended, it is certainly not an incorrect way to understand the post.

As to your May 15, 2008 5:20 PM post, you state: "assuming you, . . .were forced to post as much as I post." My point is, no one is forcing you to post, though the fact that you post as much as you do may give you reason to use a machete approach.

In any event, let's get back to politics because I'm not interested in this kind of literary dissection. It bores me.

Posted by: Nuffsaid | May 15, 2008 5:38 PM

Pres Bush's decision to engage in partisan intervention. What the hell is next for you people, another war. Hilary says that new cars will pull you through. How many of you can afford a new car in the next couple of years, how many of you leased??. You will not be attacked, hopefully if you vote as the America I have known for 40 years. Man you are screwed. What a shame your great powers could not attack and control Burma. That would be the America I knew.
Life is great.

Posted by: justadad55+ | May 15, 2008 5:32 PM

herzliebster:

So, again, what is the "lie"? You just admitted Reagan was President when "the hostages came home" (as I recall, PRESIDENT Reagan allowed Carter to fly on Air Force One to greet them). McCain is saying that Reagan did NOT negotiate.

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 5:30 PM

Events from bushes remarks from today in my opinion put obama closer to the white house bush says that its wrong to negotiate with the enemy but if you think about it we have been doing it for the last 4-5 years in iraq im a soldier and ive been there 4 times already and i just got back in nov and the war changed we went from fighting the enemy to negotiating with the enemy and paying him monthly to set up checkpoints and on top of that carry weapons that in the past was fired at us and killed past brothers so what right do president bush have to say that obama is wrong for negotiating with the enemy, when he's been doing it for years????

Posted by: SSGSlim81 | May 15, 2008 5:26 PM

I don't have time to read all the comments, and I hope and trust this point has been made repeatedly.

McCain says:

"I believe that it's not an accident that our hostages came home from Iran when President Reagan was president of the United States. He didn't sit down in a negotiation with the religious extremists in Iran, he made it very clear that those hostages were coming home.'"

THAT IS A LIE.

Yes, the hostages "came home when Reagan was President. Specifically, they were released SIX MINUTES after Reagan was inaugurated.

There are various conspiracy theories about why the actual release was delayed until not only after the 1980 election but after the inauguration -- clearly somebody did not want Carter to get the credit for it before the election. But Carter, not Reagan, was President when the release of the hostages was actually negotiated.

Posted by: herzliebster | May 15, 2008 5:20 PM

Nuffsaid:

To clarify my 5:07 PM post (if this even helps), assuming you -- the person who posts at WaPa under the name "Nuffsaid" -- were forced to post as much as I post, you would need a machete as well. I'm sure you will let me know if you still don't understand.

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 5:20 PM

Tut, tut. Sounds like a teacher wrote that last entry. Three smacks with a ruler.

Posted by: sam | May 15, 2008 5:18 PM

Okay, JakeD. Whatever you say.

Posted by: swalker3 | May 15, 2008 5:18 PM

I must say, Pres Bush's decision to engage in partisan intervention in our election while standing on foreign soil is disturbing. It is highly inappropriate.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2008 5:16 PM

swalker3:

There are 17 million voters out there for McCain if he picks Hillary as his running mate.

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 5:15 PM

Nuffsaid:

I never that I "had to post." Learn to read, idiot.

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 5:13 PM

JakeD,

The fact of the matter is John McCain lost votes today.

Posted by: swalker3 | May 15, 2008 5:13 PM

Mark W.:

Are you saying that Evangelicals "prayed" for same-sex marriage? Or, are you back on Bush? Honestly, I'm not sure what you are talking about.

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 5:12 PM

"Obama's tepid reaction to the outlandish, anti-American things Wright said and his the way he handled the Wright situation makes Obama guilty of appeasement. Obama, said he would meet our enemies without conditions, including Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran. If his approach to Wright were applied, Obama would emerge from that meeting by condemning Ahmadinejad's threat to wipe Israel off the map while also condemning American and Israeli policies. After all, we have nuclear weapons and so does Israel, so who are we to deny Iran? Or, as Obama put it Friday when talking about race relations, "People all want the same thing."

If Obama is not an appeaser, why did he have his lead foreign policy man, Zbigniew Brzezinski, travel to Syria and meet with President Assad? What promises did he make on behalf of Obama?

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile--hoping it will eat him last"--Winston Churchill

Posted by: Obamaisanappeaser | May 15, 2008 5:12 PM

JakeD,

Didn't realize you "had to post." I suggest that if you need a machete approach to posting, then perhaps you're posting far more than you should be. Take up knitting or something.

Posted by: Nuffsaid | May 15, 2008 5:11 PM

Nuffsaid:

If you had to post as much as I do, you would need a machete as well ; )

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 5:07 PM

Yep, ain't it grand ? That pendulum forced to the far right by the self righteous adulterers are now seeing the fruiation of their own Apacolypse. Evangelicals should not be surprised, these are the prayers being answered to them. It's just old wisdom and not ingenious new age thought to be careful what you pray for because you might not like what you get. I remain amused.

Posted by: Mark W. | May 15, 2008 5:05 PM

JakeD,

You're conflating two people's posts into one and asking us to choose between positions that either may not share. Nuance is difficult, but if you move gingerly through the posts, you'll manage. I just know you will.

Posted by: Nuffsaid | May 15, 2008 5:01 PM

On the other hand, McCain's casual dismissal of Obama's "dirty politics" whining may portend a somewhat different dynamic than Obama experienced in the primary. I'm not so sure Garance and her gang of nasty children are so eager to tear McCain to shreds as they were with Sen Clinton.

If the whining doesn't work, what then? Oh, I know, "racist!"
I'm afraid that may be a very shallow bag of tricks.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2008 4:57 PM

This is an opportunity for Obama to try and persuade voters to support him and his policies. This is a valid campaign issue and the American people want to know his true beliefs on Israel. Does he hold the same beliefs towards Jews held by Rev Wright, George Soros or Lewis Farrakhan. What would he talk about to the President of Iran who holds the following belief,

"Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Wednesday that Israel was "dying" and that people in the Middle East would destroy it if given the chance."

Unfortunately, everytime Obama has been confronted immediately with an issue (Wright, Ayers, Rezko)he mishandles it. But, after taking several days to write the perfect speech, I expect to hear a well-written speech but filled with empty rhetoric and false promises.

Now, is your opportunity to convince us you are the man for all the people, Obama.


Posted by: tdl62 | May 15, 2008 4:55 PM

LOL -- which one is it then? A) Everytime McCain speaks up to defend a Bush policy he loses votes or B) His own Republican colleagues are running away from him? Pick one, and then let me know.

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 4:55 PM

Bush is a moron who couldn't find Poland, Palestine, or Pennsylvania for that matter on a map.

McCain wishes he would shut up and go away but he wont, and he is dragging McCain down with him.

Posted by: jvf | May 15, 2008 4:51 PM

JakeD

Understand this. Everytime McCain speaks up to defend a Bush policy he loses votes.

Posted by: swalker3 | May 15, 2008 4:49 PM

JakeD,

Irrelevant in that his entire administration has failed so much that even his own Republican colleagues are running away from him. He has the highest disapproval ratings in modern history. And he is a lame duck president. That he grabs the front page of newspapers doesn't speak to his relevancy.

Posted by: Nuffsaid | May 15, 2008 4:49 PM

I'm not sure rushing out on defense at every scurrilous attack is going to be a winning strategy for the GE. Thank goodness Sen Clinton will be our candidate.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2008 4:49 PM

Nuffsaid:

So "irrelevant" that Bush stole the front page from McCain AND hundreds of posts here?!

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 4:42 PM

Oops: Spoke too soon: Here's a statement from Rep. Roy Blunt, the House's number two Republican, who insults the entire state of California in the process:

"Today, the decision of unelected judges to overturn the will of the people of California on the question of same-sex marriage demonstrates the lengths that unelected judges will go to substitute their own worldview for the wisdom of the American people. The Supreme Court of California chose today to legislate from the bench without any concern or deference for the democratic process.

"This ruling effectively opens the door to allowing the opinion of this state's court on same-sex marriage to stand as the law of the land for the entire country. These California values are not the values of the majority of the American people - and the manner in which this decision was rendered is not consistent with the values of a democratic society."

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 4:39 PM

All I can find is this:

"I respect the court's decision and as governor, I will uphold its ruling," said California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, in a statement. "As I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state supreme court ruling."

(Too bad that Amendment is going to pass and, if McCain plays his cards right, he will get all of California's electoral votes too ; )

Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2008 4:36 PM

I wonder if Bush will ask for Robert Gates and Condi Rice's resignation when he arrives from the Middle East since BOTH claimed that we need to begin negotiations with Iran.

Bush is so irrelevant he makes yawn.

Posted by: Nuffsaid | May 15, 2008 4:35 PM

Bush's contempt for Sen. Borah probably has a lot more to do with the work that Sen. Borah did uncovering rampant corruption in the Harding administration.

Bush and Washington based Republicans including McKeating think it is their God-given right to rob hard-working Americans and dole out cheap labor and tax-payer money to their sugar-daddies in industry.

Posted by: JP2 | May 15, 2008 4:34 PM

I would think Hillary should have an opinion. If she gets rid of Bill she can finally settle down with her personal assistant.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
pj451:

By "his ass" are you referring to the President of the United States?

For everyone else:

Have any of the candidates responded to the California Supreme Court ruling that our State Constitution grants same-sex couples a fundamental right to "marriage"? I haven't seen any yet.

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 4:28 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2008 4:31 PM

Interesting talking points:

"Bush should drop dead on the spot as far as I am concerned."

Posted by [ANONYMOUS, although the Secret Service can easily track your IP address]: | May 15, 2008 4:26 PM

"why hasn't somebody shot his ass by now?"

Posted by: pj451 [basically ANONYMOUS too] | May 15, 2008 4:21 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2008 4:31 PM

John SIDNEY McCain said: "I believe that it's not an accident that our hostages came home from Iran when President Reagan was President of the United States. He didn't sit down in a negotiation with the religious extremists in Iran, he made it very clear that those hostages were coming home."

Shorter McCain: I believe in Magic.

The Iranians just magically decided to release the U.S. hostages -- the exchange of hi-tech weaponry and the months of negotiations involving high level White House staff (through back-channels) had nothing to do with it.

Either McCain honestly believes what he's saying -- which means he's nuts.

Or he's a liar just like his buddy George W. Bush.

Posted by: JP2 | May 15, 2008 4:29 PM

pj451:

By "his ass" are you referring to the President of the United States?

For everyone else:

Have any of the candidates responded to the California Supreme Court ruling that our State Constitution grants same-sex couples a fundamental right to "marriage"? I haven't seen any yet.

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 4:28 PM

There has always been rumors that Nancy was making decisions at one point.

)))))))))))))
When did Reagan's Alzheimers start to kick in... during Iran Contra I think.


Posted by: JakeD's shadow | May 15, 2008 4:25 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2008 4:28 PM

For Bush to quote someone who was a truly great man out of context was not right. Bush is little more then a turd next to Senator William Edgar Borah. I would bet Bush doesn't even know who he was, just someone gave him the moron his quote. Bush should drop dead on the spot as far as I am concerned.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2008 4:26 PM

Not only did Reagan sit down and talk to Iran, he gave them weapons!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: mike | May 15, 2008 4:25 PM

When did Reagan's Alzheimers start to kick in... during Iran Contra I think.


Posted by: JakeD's shadow | May 15, 2008 4:25 PM

Hindsight may be 20/20, but McCain is suffering from tunnel vision. And Bush... well, once the image leaves his retina, up the optic nerve, past the optic chiasma, it synapses onto crud. Bush's cortex is jelly. "Duh, I gave up playing golf for the troops. I think?! Oh but I did manage to get in 18 holes here and there. Duh!"

Posted by: JakeD's shadow | May 15, 2008 4:23 PM

"A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not."

Ronald WILSON Reagan.

Shorter Reagan:

"Who are you going to believe, me, or your lying eyes?"

Posted by: JP2 | May 15, 2008 4:23 PM

why hasn't somebody shot his ass by now?

Posted by: pj451 | May 15, 2008 4:21 PM

JP2:

John SIDNEY McCain said: "I believe that it's not an accident that our hostages came home from Iran when President Reagan was President of the United States. He didn't sit down in a negotiation with the religious extremists in Iran, he made it very clear that those hostages were coming home."

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 4:19 PM

"A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not. As the Tower board reported, what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages. This runs counter to my own beliefs, to administration policy, and to the original strategy we had in mind."

Ronald WILSON Reagan

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 4:17 PM

JakeD, you're making a distinction without a difference.

The national security adviser and CIA director report directly to the president.

Posted by: JP2 | May 15, 2008 4:14 PM

swalker3 and Jake's shadow:

Keep reading (in particular, my posts re: "Hindsight being 20/20" and "Reagan himself").

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 4:13 PM

Oh Lord... John McCain doesn't agree with what Reagan stood for... there goes his Conservative base.

Posted by: JakeD's shadow | May 15, 2008 4:09 PM

JakeD

Reagan sat down multiple times with various leaders of the Soviet Union, which had 5,000 Nuclear Warheads pointed at the United States, held half of Europe hostage under communist rule and supported Castro's hostile regime 90 miles from U.S. soil. Clearly a much more menacing threat to our security than Iran poses today.

Oh, and, if you're wondering the Reagan administration spoke with Iran, please, look up the IRAN CONTRA affair.

Posted by: swalker3 | May 15, 2008 4:08 PM

"When it comes to "Worst" Presidents, you will always have to keep Bushie UNDER Carter!'


I have to agree. During my voting years, Carter (reminds me of Obama) did not know his arse from a hole in the ground and ran this country into the ground. His irresponsible policies turned me into a Reagan Democrat. The worst economic experience of my life. The second Democratic President was Clinton and I experienced the best economic conditions of my life.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2008 4:08 PM

By the way... Rumsfeld was acting on behalf of Reagan, meeting with this terrorist dictator. Oh Lord, why did Reagan want friendly relations with Saddam?
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Posted by: JakeD's shadow | May 15, 2008 4:08 PM

JakeD's shadow:

Of course, if McCain has said "Don Rumsfeld didn't kiss Saddam's butt in Iraq" then even I would have to disagree with him. Next canard?

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 4:07 PM

Amy:

If most Americans believed that Elvis was alive, that doesn't make it so. There's a very good reason America is a REPUBLIC rather than direct democracy ; )

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 4:05 PM

Rumsfeld kissing Saddam's butt.... check out:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Posted by: JakeD's shadow | May 15, 2008 4:04 PM

Since most Israelis want their government to have direct talks with Hammas, does that mean that they are appeasing terrorists too? Or do they have a more sophisticated understanding of the situation, in their own country than George Bush does?

Poll: Most Israelis back direct talks with Hamas on Shalit

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/958473.html

Posted by: Amy | May 15, 2008 4:03 PM

JP2:

Please cite any evidence that Reagan himself "sat down" in any negotiation with the religious extremists in Iran.

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 3:56 PM

Technically, the X5 is an SAV, not SUV ; )

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 3:50 PM

LOL! When it comes to "Worst" Presidents, you will always have to keep Bushie UNDER Cahter!

No matter how hard Bushie tries, as long as he lives, Jimmy keeps raising the Bar!

Surprised he has not agreed to meet Chavez and Ahmadinejad for intimate Chats yet!

Posted by: RAT-The | May 15, 2008 3:48 PM

I think I might be wrong and a case could be made for Bush 43 to be #2. Harding was clueless, corrupt, and asleep at the wheel. Bush 43 adds incompetence, nepotism, and an unnecessary war to the list.

Historians debate whether Buchanan's hands-off leadership style merely delayed the inevitable Civil War or actually caused it. I personally think the Civil War was a bloodletting that was inevitable. But as a nod to historians that know far more than I, I put Buchanan atop the list and Bush 2nd.

Any real historians who want to come with facts to the contrary would be welcome...would love to hear an informed opinion on the subject.

Posted by: P Diddy | May 15, 2008 3:47 PM

McCain is starting to sound senile.

Reagan didn't talk to the Iranians about hostages? Has the man forgotten Iran-Contra?

Maybe McCain thinks it isn't "negotiations" if we ship high tech weaponry as part of a compromise.

Posted by: JP2 | May 15, 2008 3:47 PM

P Diddy:

Apology accepted (at least you don't have Bush as the WORST one ; )

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 3:38 PM

Sandy:

I answered those questions (yet, no one has answered mine; curiously, huh?)

j2hess:

I knew all of that (see my comments, below, re: Hindsight being 20/20 ; )

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 3:36 PM

My "Worst Presidents Ever" List:

1. James Buchanan
2. Warren GAMALIEL Harding
3. George WALKER Bush

(apologies to JakeD :-) )

Posted by: P Diddy | May 15, 2008 3:34 PM

For the record, there's no "american flag stickers and slogans of liberty" on our X5.

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 3:33 PM

Does Bush knows that Tony Blair achieve peace with the IRA in Northern Ireland by talking to the extremist through a back channel for years? By the way, that was the method also used by John Mayor (Conservative former Prime Minister) when he was in the government.
The results, although took years, was peace

Posted by: Gus | May 15, 2008 3:32 PM

JakeD wrote:

"Well, would you at least agree that neither of us KNOW (for sure) whether Obama is a Christian or not? The American voters are entitled base their decision entirely on that uncertainty."

JakeD, would you at least agree that neither of us KNOWS (for sure) whether John McCain eats babies or not? The American voters are entitled to base their decision entirely on that uncertainty.

Posted by: ASinMoCo | May 15, 2008 2:26 PM
---------------------------
You stole the words out of my mouth. Although my example was going to be whether Hillary was a pedophile.

Jake JACKASS D is a miscreant.

Posted by: Sandy | May 15, 2008 3:32 PM

tdl62, JakeD, and a bunch of others;

Re: negotiations

Hamas
Perhaps you are not aware that the Bush administration is negotiating with Hamas through the back door, using Egypt as the intermediary?

Iran
Iran assisted our campaign in Afghanistan, and was looking for more estensive talks and cooperation. They were spurned by Bush and named part of the "Axis of Evil" along with Iraq, who we invaded. The only sensible conclusion available to Iran is that the US under Bush is a dangerous enemy against whome they must be prepared to defend themselves.

Ahmadinejad did not call for genocide in Israel as is widely misreported; he said that the REGIME should disappear from the map. Iran supports terrorists; we have supported terrorists. If we negotiated with the USSR, we can negotiate with Iran.

The no-military alternatives to negotiations haven't worked very well; the military route would be a disaster twice the magnitude of Iraq. It might not work; Bush's policies clearly have not worked.

Appeasement
Why didn't Neville Chamberland (and the French) oppose Hitler's invasion and occupation of the Sudentenland? Was it appeasement? No, it was that they thought they had more to fear from the communists than the fascists, and they believed the USSR would be the main beneficiary of a war in Eastern Europe. It was worse than appeasement, it was a sell-out, but from the best of motives!

Negotiations:
The goal of negotiations is first of all information about where the levers of persuasion or coercion lie. One of the techniques of negotiation is to identify faultlines within the regime that can be exploited to split off and marginalize the worst of the opposition. If war is politics by other means, negotiations can be war by other means. It's worth a try.


Posted by: j2hess | May 15, 2008 3:27 PM

Bush is God. God hates queers and black people, that's why he tried to drown them in Hurricane Katrina. It's all the Democrats fault Iraq did not have WMDs when Bush promised us they would, the Liberals are the reason the economy is tanking, not a multi-trillion dollar war financed by China or the government's lack of corporate oversight, it's the Dems fault the GOP admin. failed to have any foresight to plan the aftermath of the war, the Democrats are hiding Bin Laden in San Francisco, I can't figure out wheter Obama is a closet Muslim or an American-hating Baptist, but either way I'm pissed that we don't have a prayer in '08 and I'm powerless to rescind 8 years of failed neo-con policy, it's the Dems fault the world is sick of our arrogance and insistance that every other country should have the exact same interests as us and now it's finally biting us in the @$$, change scares me, things I don't understand scare me, foriegners scare me, I'm scared of terrorists even though the odds of me being caught in a terrorist attack are impossibly small, all muslims are terrorists, but not all Christians are abortion clinic bombers, Bush didn't lie us into the occupation, he just forgot to mention the negatives and really needed our support at the time, torture isn't torture if you're not being punished for anything, safety from any imagined attack is more important than freedom even though my SUV is plastered with american flag stickers and slogans of liberty and I pay valuable lip-service to the Constitution, women should mostly stay at home and be mothers, anyone who criticizes the president or asks tough questions hates
America, anyone who criticizes past American policies hates America, I decide who hates America, I decide who goes to hell, I am the Decider, I am Bush, Bush is God, I am God. I am American. F**k Yeah!

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 3:25 PM

jeffp:

For the record, both LBJ and Nixon had lower approval ratings. Historians have routinely ranked Warren G. Harding, Franklin Pierce, and James Buchanan as the "worst" Presidents.

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 3:24 PM

America Does Not Negotiate With Terrorists!:

Thank you. My prayers are with those on the front-lines today and all the loved ones of those we've lost.

tellthetruth:

Please cite any evidence that Reagan himself "sat down" in any negotiation with the religious extremists in Iran.

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 3:20 PM

In response to jenCM's post... the McMoron you castigate was attempting to give you his vision. I know the big words can confuse, and I'm sure reading comprehension is not as much fun as coming up with smarmy comments, but please try to read the article you cite prior to commenting on it. If you had, you would surely have noticed the following:

So, what I want to do today is take a little time to describe what I would hope to have achieved at the end of my first term as President. I cannot guarantee I will have achieved these things. I am presumptuous enough to think I would be a good President, but not so much that I believe I can govern by command.
-------------------
JenCM's post:

Direct off the presses, direct quotes from McMoron's speech on what he will do in his first time...


http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/15/text_of_mccains_vision_of_2013.html


Here's a short list of What freakin' planet are you standing on??? quotes...


- The increase in... intelligence... led to the capture or death of Osama bin Laden.
Um... Since when??


- The size of the Army and Marine Corps has been... increased, and are now better equipped and trained to defend us.
There was an article not TWO DAYS ago that said up tp 10% of ppl in Iraq were categorized as MEDICALLY unfit for service.


- Americans again have confidence in their economic future.
Again... I'm sorry, what??? Maybe if you meant walking confidentally in to foreclosure.


-The world food crisis has ended, inflation is low, and the quality of life not only in our country, but in some of the most impoverished countries around the world is much improved.
Our country? He must not be opening the paper, because I keep hearing about how people can barely afford milk.
The rest of the world? Umm... Anyone been to Myanmar lately?


- The United States is well on the way to independence from foreign sources of oil
Let all those people with a car, raise their hand...


McCain, I will vote for you the day I move to your planet.


Obama '08


Posted by: jencm | May 15, 2008 1:42 PM

Posted by: lingering_lead | May 15, 2008 3:18 PM

Stay visible please W -- WORST PRESIDENT EVER.

You are the democrats best weapon against your own party.

Get Cheney out of his cave too.

Posted by: jeffp | May 15, 2008 3:18 PM

I, for one, strongly encourage Sen McCain to frequently and publicly agree with Pres Bush. This strikes me as a sure winning strategy for November.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2008 3:18 PM

Thanks George for continuing highlight the ways in which you and McCain agree. Which is most ways.

Keep it up until election day!

Posted by: Mike | May 15, 2008 3:17 PM

In saying it's no accident that our hostages came home from Iran with Reagan as president, McCain is using a red herring here, at best. It has been solidly verified that Reagan's advance-men made a deal with Iran to release the hostages *after* the election to hinder Carter's efforts to get them released and, hence, his re-election effort. It worked.

That doesn't make Reagan the tougher or more skilled negotiator. It just makes his corrupt administration dirtier from the outset. And this long before the Iran-Contra scandal.

Posted by: tellthetruth | May 15, 2008 3:15 PM

As a family member that lost 2 members of my family during 9/11, I am going to say what President Bush should have said and to be fair to both President Bush and candidate Obama, I don't know if this was what he meant to say. "There are many peace advocates in the United States that say we should be peaceful and talk to countries that harbor and train terrorists that jeopardize our country' s freedom and safety of all Americans. America was attacked viciously and by cold blooded killers that were willing to sacrifice their own lives to end ours. The terrorists vow to kill all Americans and promise to continue the deadly attacks on the soil of the United States. This is not a fear tactic to provoke fear in the American people, this is a reality. As a President of the United States, I took an oath, to protect and serve the American people to the best of my ability. I failed that oath on 9/11, it was on my watch. Never again, will that mistake be made again. That is why we must be diligent, steadfast, and aggressive on this war, this world war on terrorism. Peace talks will not bring back loved ones lost on 9/11, America does not and never will negotiate with terrorists. We will fight to protect ourselves, we will have a safe and terrorist free country again for each and every American."

Posted by: America Does Not Negotiate With Terrorists! | May 15, 2008 3:15 PM

lingering_lead:

Not too far off -- all part of "BDS" (see below) -- the fringe leftists actually think Karl Rove controls some secret laser in space that can direct hurricanes now ... same as the 9/11 Conspiracy kooks.

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 3:12 PM

Thank you GW Bush! The gift that keeps on giving.

As McCain was trying to distance himself from Bush with rhetoric about global warming and major troop reductions in Iraq by 2013(?!), Bush opens his mouth again and forces McCain to help defend him.

McCain = 3rd Bush Term = McBush!

p.s. Don't be fooled karen. Bush was taking a subtle swipe at Obama and some other Democrats in true Karl Rovian style.

Posted by: AJ | May 15, 2008 3:12 PM

As for Obamas policy of appeasement ,it brings back memories of Neville Chamberlin . Obama is nofriend of Israel I'm sure.I wonnder how fast he woulds come to Israels aid if they were attacked. He should not be President!

Posted by: lizard2 | May 15, 2008 3:11 PM

From the person who brought you the Iraq war, Hurrican karina, subprime meltdown, $4/gallon gas and the first economic recession since the 70s....it is rich that Bush would criticize anybody. Really does he think anyone but the Israeli stooges at the conf listens to what he says?
--------------------------------------------

Damn, I spit my drink on my keyboard when I read this... Playa has got to be the funniest guy in the world.

"From the guy who brought you... Hurricane Katrina"

If you close your eyes, you can just see George Bush blowing that sucker onto the shores of Naginville while the good mayor and his white patrician governor stood by idly.

Posted by: lingering_lead | May 15, 2008 3:08 PM

You are one to talk, BGJD:

"I'm sure the families of those 4000 Americans who have died for nothing in Iraq now feel so good knowing the W made such a grand sacrifice in honor of their loss."

Posted by: BGJD | May 15, 2008 2:02 PM

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 3:04 PM

Bush and the the Rovians here seem to not understand what "appeasement" means. It wasn't Chamberlain's talking to Hitler that was appeasement, it was giving him Czechoslovakia. Even Churchill did not oppose talking to the Germans.

Does anyone seriously believe that by not talking to a country's leaders we will make them change? Yeah, that has worked so well with Cuba the last 50 years.

Posted by: BGJD | May 15, 2008 3:02 PM

Countdown-Ever hear of Alan Keyes?

If he had more support I would have welcomed him! Unlike "Barry", he is NOT a Socialist and a stooge for Kennedy, Lurch, Daschle, and Soros!

As is, he should be in Mitt & Mike's Cabinet! ;~)

Posted by: RAT-The | May 15, 2008 3:01 PM

Anonymous at 2:56 PM:

It seems as if you suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome ("BDS"), at the very least, if that's what you are asking.

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 2:59 PM

I thought Bush was slamming Jimmy Carter, not Obama. Obama's reaction is very weird, almost like he is guilty of something. He does protest too much. Bush was in Israel, so talking about the Nazis were appropriate. All these weird democrats getting their panties in an uproar. It is hysterical. GUILTY AS CHARGED

Posted by: Karen | May 15, 2008 2:58 PM

Not at all, countdown. I could show you plenty of DEMOCRATS who have made the same mistake -- I heard it on the RADIO just this morning -- you want all of us to go gardening?

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 2:56 PM

playa - very true. i come from a single mom, and most of my family is no where near as successful as i am - and by successful i mean only breaking above average income.

but at the end of the day, these are the voters that need to be turned. and i understand these voters... they are my mom, my aunts and uncles.. This is a country where 90% of the population does not read newspapers, does not read the articles below the headlines, and turns the news off shortly after the boy-in-the-well story is over.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcaWZ5ZE8Dc


republicans own these voters. and they are the hardest to turn NOT because they are dumb - i am not insinuating that nor do i believe it - but they are the most insultated from the message of dems and the 'new' msg coming from politicians like Obama.

hillary new how to put the scandal into politics that capitalized on our wretched media-information system. barack has been a saint if only for not losing his temper in the midst of all this.

when the message goes so deep as to hit these voters, these suburbs, these communities, will be the day american really turns a corner.

Posted by: jencm | May 15, 2008 2:56 PM

JakeD wrote: "Since at least McCain and I agree with Bush's remarks, I would have to take exception to your OPINION that Bush "has f4ckeup everything he has touched" ..."

Yeah, and 1/4 of people are retarded; Bush has an approval rating of below %30. Do you see where I'm going with this?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2008 2:56 PM

Isn't diverting attention from the criminals who actually planned the killing of thousands of americans and were hiding in afganistan/pakistan an act of appeasment? How about if that helps to recruit more anti-american terrorists? How about if that strengthens the enemies of our allies? It wasn't too long ago that bush said he doesn't think about osama bin laden all that much! Hail to the appeaser in chief!
Talking with your adversary never was an act of appeasment. It was and still is what responsible governments do. But of course bush couldn't possibly recognize that because he's too busy appeasing the warmongers in his party.

Posted by: philly76 | May 15, 2008 2:55 PM

JakeD, your osama/obama comment is awfully childish for a retiree. how disappointing, but not surprising for a desperate republican with no game but name calling. better get used a brown president (that goes for ratboy too.) i know it will be hard but you seem tough. you will have many years to espouse your racist views. maybe you should try gardening or some other relaxing outdoor activity instead of trolling the blogs.

Posted by: countdown2009 | May 15, 2008 2:53 PM

Again, I would be more than happy to discuss abortion on an appropriate thread, but we are kinda going far afield from whether George WALKER Bush took "a veiled swipe" at Barack HUSSEIN Obama or not ...

Does anyone want to discuss THAT?

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 2:53 PM

Well, Spectator2, unfortunately there is still "slavery" in the U.S. too, so I guess it depends on your definition of "rare" is. Would you be O.K. if the 14th Amendment read: "Slavery should be safe, legal, and rare"? I know I wouldn't ; )

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 2:50 PM

Obviously, the GOP slime machine is setting out on a campaign to appeal to Jewish voters by making people believe Obama is pro radical Islam. They will use the favorite method, guilt by association, and when that doesn't work, outright lies. Disgusting, but typical.

Posted by: BGJD | May 15, 2008 2:48 PM

So Jake D wants to see abortion "abolished."

Setting the bar hight, that Jake D is. Abortion has been around since biblical times.

Why can't you folks settle for safe, legal, and rare? That sounds better than unsafe, illegal, and not nearly as rare as you'd like to think it is.

Posted by: Spectator2 | May 15, 2008 2:47 PM

The Rovians in this comment section are really startin' to scare me. I can just see them at work, trying hard to get John McCain to be the next George Bush. Heaven help us all!! Obama in November along with a working Democratic Congress will begin to right the ship and put this Country on a course good for ALL it's people, not just the right-stepping few.

Posted by: Harold F. Crockett Jr. | May 15, 2008 2:46 PM

Playa:

I would be happy to answer all of your questions, just as soon as you answer the one I asked you first: "Why DENOUNCE when he agrees with what Bush said?"

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 2:46 PM

Countdown-My turn! :-)

Racist? Moi?

No creo Yo!

Demanding a Country's Leaders defend the Sovereignty of one Country from an Invasion of another Country of very interrelated People who group together against the invaded Country's Individuals, is called "Nationalism".

While incredibly STUPID People like Bushie and McSame/Amnesty worry Soooooo much about keeping Iraq for the Iraqi's, they seem to have ZERO qualms about Reconquista here in the Estados Unidos del Norte!

Comprende? ;~)

Posted by: RAT-The | May 15, 2008 2:44 PM

From the person who brought you the Iraq war, Hurrican karina, subprime meltdown, $4/gallon gas and the first economic recession since the 70s....it is rich that Bush would criticize anybody. Really does he think anyone but the Israeli stooges at the conf listens to what he says?

Posted by: Playa | May 15, 2008 2:41 PM

George, who?
Dude, are you still in hear?

===>>>>>

Posted by: An-idiot-in-chief | May 15, 2008 2:38 PM

Now for the rest of the story, sumbit millions of dollars in Patriotic Thinktank consultation fees to IlistenmorethanItalk.com.

Posted by: Mark W. | May 15, 2008 2:38 PM

Mike:

It's going to be that and/or calling anyone who questions him a "racist" ... we are in for a LONG Summer : (

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 2:36 PM

I made a mistake. An Arab born Syrian converting to Christianity is now an approved and ordained Saint.

I don't know if some of our own radicals condemned about 12 million illegal aliens proposing to ship them all back to Mexico.

And, a community would have to decide who is a good or bad radical other than one man's opinion.

Posted by: Mark W. | May 15, 2008 2:36 PM

countdown2009:

Been there, done that (I'm enjoying retirement too much, but thanks for the "concern").

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 2:34 PM

What a load of crap. This was no attack on Obama.

This appears to be the new strategy of the Democrats/liberal media. Make Obama's candidacy one of perpetual victimhood, regardless of how many times he attacks McCain or Bush.

The bleating sheep on the left will swallow this tripe whole of course, and we will perpetuate the myth of the pure and decent Democrats defending themselves from the evil and unscrupulous Republicans.

Baa, baa, my liberal friends. Baa, baa.

Posted by: Mike | May 15, 2008 2:33 PM

"Apparently Obama has said that he would talk with the leaders of Iran and Syria, but not with those of Hamas. That's good enough for me. End of story."

So, you advocate Obama talking to people that want to destroy Israel.

"Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Wednesday that Israel was "dying" and that people in the Middle East would destroy it if given the chance."

Posted by: tdl62 | May 15, 2008 2:33 PM

'"We have heard this foolish delusion before," Bush said'


Can I get that on a bumper sticker!?

That should be the Republican opening line for all speeches!

Posted by: Franky | May 15, 2008 2:31 PM

Steve Chan and ASinMoCo

Of course I would agree that none of us KNOWS (for sure) whether John McCain is a Christian or even eats babies. And, the American voters are entitled to base their decision entirely on that uncertainty. Care to answer MY question now?

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 2:31 PM

JakeD fancies himself as the man with all the answers. go get a job. and to RAT-The (whatever that means) - i can only hope you get run over by a truck full of brown people. that will be your just reward. racist A-hole.

Posted by: countdown2009 | May 15, 2008 2:30 PM

Jencm....You'd see the world like McCain if a rich blond adultress beer heir played all your bills. Hardworking Americans who struggled to built their fortunes support Obama because he is one of us!

Posted by: Playa | May 15, 2008 2:30 PM

First Dana Perino may be right for the wrong reason. I am the center of the Universe.

Can one negoiate with Hitlers, no. But why is that ? Because Hitlers are unwilling to compromise their personal ideologies ?

Can extremists be tolerated ? I doubt that because acts of terrorism are accepted nearly globally as unacceptable forms of geo-political, domestic political or religious activisms.

Are radicals tolerable ? Well, has Rev. Wright, Rev. Sharpton or Anne Coulter been taken out yet ? Are these people in our modern society afforded a certain amount of tolerance ?

In an abstract world, objectives of freedom and independence would be an inside or internal job much like the United States spirit of 1776. Outside influence inflicted by external sources applied to people who are free in life to make their own choices, would be opposite to certain inalienable rights or gifts of Divine Providence.

On the learning curve, children must be eventually freed to make their own mistakes. Hopefully, the children will make good choices so that their mothers will not weep.

Lastly, what is evil ? Apparently, The orginal Hitler exterminated Jewish people. History of Catholic Church implies that Jewish people were the tools of the Devil causing the crucifixation of JC. In fact an convert to Christianity from Syria, who is not considered a Saint, predicted a rise of a new race or sect which would be the new tools of evil. That prediction was made through psalms or songs back around 550 AD.

I am the center of the Universe and I approved this message.

Posted by: Mark W. | May 15, 2008 2:29 PM

Shrink2 Asked:

Ever heard of Oliver North?

Arms for hostages?

Of course Reagan made deals with Iran, is there anyone who thinks this is an issue?

____________________________________________


RAT Responds: I can't Recall anything like that.

Posted by: RAT-The | May 15, 2008 2:29 PM

"One would think McCain would have enough class to denounce Bush's statement against a fellow American in a foreign land."

Obama once again shows his inexperience by attacking the messenger, instead of addressing the message. Instead of being so angry, this is a perfect opportunity for Obama to share his views on Israel. He wants to sit down and talk to Iran and Hamas. What would he ask them and what would they talk about. Obama does not handle issues very well when first confronted with them (Wright, Ayers, Rezko) It normally takes Obama several days whenever he has been confronted with a crisis to write the perfect speech, and respond. So, within the next several days we will have our answer from Obama.

Posted by: tdl62 | May 15, 2008 2:28 PM

If anything, George Bush's bellicosity as made Israel less secure, not more so.

Even more to the point, a majority of Israelis think their government should negotiate with Hammas.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/958473.html

More lies from the folks who brought you, WMDs and a "cakewalk" in Iraq.

Posted by: Amy | May 15, 2008 2:28 PM

Funny statement from a guy whose family did so much business with the Nazi's. Appeasing the Nazi's was how the Bush family made it's money. They did so much more than just talk.

Posted by: thebob.bob | May 15, 2008 2:28 PM

Your Conscience:

What would you think about McCain asking Hillary to run as HIS Vice-President?

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 2:27 PM

On the subject of religion, aside from the Constitution not allowing a religious test, let me ask the following question?

Do we KNOW (for sure) if McCain is a Christian and not a Manchurian Candidate Christian? Just because someone goes to church, got married in a church, etc. Didn't Christianity teach "Thou Shalt not kill"? What do we call "stay in Iraq until we win"? Or for that matter, Hillary's "obliterating Iran" remark?

Whether or not one is a Christian is as relevant as whether or not one wears a flag pin!

Grow up, for those who wanted to smear Obama. The country will be better off if we stay with the issues and not personal smears. Talk about taking over American from within!

Posted by: Steve Chan, Los Altos Hills | May 15, 2008 2:27 PM

JakeD wrote:

"Well, would you at least agree that neither of us KNOW (for sure) whether Obama is a Christian or not? The American voters are entitled base their decision entirely on that uncertainty."

JakeD, would you at least agree that neither of us KNOWS (for sure) whether John McCain eats babies or not? The American voters are entitled to base their decision entirely on that uncertainty.

Posted by: ASinMoCo | May 15, 2008 2:26 PM

Sorry for mass-posting this guys, but I took the time to read the ubber-long article and these was too good to pass up...


Fresh off the presses, direct quotes from McMoron's speech on what he will do in his first time...


http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/15/text_of_mccains_vision_of_2013.html


Here's a short list of What freakin' planet are you standing on??? quotes...


- The increase in... intelligence... led to the capture or death of Osama bin Laden.
Um... Since when??


- The size of the Army and Marine Corps has been... increased, and are now better equipped and trained to defend us.
There was an article not TWO DAYS ago that said up tp 10% of ppl in Iraq were categorized as MEDICALLY unfit for service.


- Americans again have confidence in their economic future.
Again... I'm sorry, what??? Maybe if you meant walking confidentally in to foreclosure.


-The world food crisis has ended, inflation is low, and the quality of life not only in our country, but in some of the most impoverished countries around the world is much improved.
Our country? He must not be opening the paper, because I keep hearing about how people can barely afford milk.
The rest of the world? Umm... Anyone been to Myanmar lately?


- The United States is well on the way to independence from foreign sources of oil
Let all those people with a car, raise their hand...

.

McCain, I will vote for you the day I move to your planet.

.

Obama '08

Posted by: jencm | May 15, 2008 2:25 PM

But, we are kinda going afield from whether George WALKER Bush took "a veiled swipe" at Barack HUSSEIN Obama or not ...

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 2:25 PM

Earth to JakeD....Kerry not running for President. Kerry lost, so will that diaper wearing senile hypocrite McCain.

Posted by: Playa | May 15, 2008 2:24 PM

Every Republican, especially the Failure in Chief, who now tries to open their beak to bleet even an opinion is a laughable insignificant laughingstock.

If you voted for Chimpy McFlightsuit and supported, enabled, and excused this national disgrace, disaster of a war, crushing failing economy your opinion and vote are worthless. Scream your ignorant xenophobia and dittohead ignorance all you want but you are impotent and irrelevant to the national dialogue.

Republicans are completely irrelevant, incompetent, and impotent. It is cute though how they play along as if they had a prayer in 08. Go ask Hastert's Dem replacement (backed by Obama) and MS-01 District Dem how they are doing.

Posted by: Your Conscience | May 15, 2008 2:24 PM

Apparently Obama has said that he would talk with the leaders of Iran and Syria, but not with those of Hamas. That's good enough for me. End of story. End also (soon, 1/20/09) of the failed W. Administration and the futile attempts to boost W's abysmal approval rating.

Posted by: boesc | May 15, 2008 2:23 PM

Playa:

I would be happy for McCain to take the same, exact position the Kerry campaign took in 2004 re: Teresa's tax returns ...

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 2:23 PM

JakeD,

You think John "straight-talk express" McCain would get his wife Cindy McCain to release her tax records? Who knew she had over $2 million invested in Sudan. You know the Sudan that was Osama's base? What else is McCain hiding?

Posted by: Playa | May 15, 2008 2:21 PM

Ever heard of Oliver North?

Arms for hostages?

Of course Reagan made deals with Iran, is there anyone who thinks this is an issue?

Posted by: shrink2 | May 15, 2008 2:19 PM

DF in FL:

I prefer to call that "ending the Cold War that Democrats couldn't end."

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 2:18 PM

Playa:

Why DENOUNCE when he agrees with what Bush said? Perhaps you have the definition of "straight-talk express" backwards?

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 2:17 PM

Who's the Appeaser:

Hindsight is always 20/20 -- knowing everything we know leading up to 9/11, of course Reagan could have done things differently -- but, then again, so could have FDR prior to Pearl Harbor. Crucial decisions have to be made based on less than perfect information. I believe that history will cut Reagan some slack, though, since he was busy ending the Cold War that Democrats couldn't end.

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 2:15 PM

One would think McCain would have enough class to denounce Bush's statement against a fellow American in a foreign land. But then what would you expect from a low life who cheats with a rich ho while his first wife was ill with cancer.

Posted by: Playa | May 15, 2008 2:15 PM

Just to set the record straight, McCain is wrong as usual. Apparently, McCain "forgot" that the Reagan had nothing to do with the release of the hostages. However, on several occasions Reagan did sit down and negotiate with the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War (apparently McCain considers Reagan to be an "appeaser").

Actually, the Iranian hostages were released after the Algiers Accords were signed and the US agreed not to interfere in Iran's internal affairs, remove all trade sanctions and unfreeze all Iranian assets in the US.

..

Posted by: DF in FL | May 15, 2008 2:13 PM

"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," Bush said in an address to Israel's Knesset...."

Yes, it's true Ronald Reagan sought to cultivate Iranian leaders by airlifting them a cake (and a Bible too, if memory serves) as part of Reagan's IranContra caper. But it's not nice to criticize an authentic American hero who can't defend himself, especially when this criticism is delivered by a lame duck President from foreign soil.

Posted by: FirstMouse | May 15, 2008 2:12 PM

...a muslim people wake UP!!!!!Muslims said they are taking over America from the inside out!

Posted by: lil ric | May 15, 2008 1:52 PM
---

This is the sad Republican Fear Machine at work again.

This is the only way the Republican's can be relected:

1. Scare People
2. Lie to People
3. Scare them about the lie
4. Lie again to spin away the truth

Posted by: Franky | May 15, 2008 2:11 PM

McCain should pick a better high-water mark for American foreign policy in the Middle East than the Reagan administration -- which sold arms to Iran to get hostages out of Lebanon (while Iran was supporting Hezbollah which killed hundreds of Americans in Lebanon), helped prop up Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war and whose feeble bombing of Libya may have led to the Flt 103 tragedy. Maybe it just seems comparatively robust when compared to the Bush administration's even more woeful record.

Posted by: Who'sthe Appeaser | May 15, 2008 2:10 PM

Posted by: tdl62 | May 15, 2008 2:05 PM

" '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,' Bush said in an address to Israel's Knesset."

Since Bush is about as incapable of mounting ingenious arguments as a Chihuahua is of mounting a Great Dane, I think there's more than a whiff of personal inadequacy on display here.

Regardless of your feelings on Iraq or Afghanistan, I don't think any honest person would deny that Bush's inability to conduct even the most basic diplomacy has hamstrung us in both these efforts. If Obama (or any other reasonably competent person) had been at the helm in 2002 and 2003, we'd have much stronger and more participatory international coalition forces standing beside us on these battlefields instead of the ridiculously small number of token troops peppered among an overwhelmingly American force. We need a real negotiator in the White House, not another obdurate, bullying fool.

Posted by: whatmeregister | May 15, 2008 2:05 PM

"Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Wednesday that Israel was "dying" and that people in the Middle East would destroy it if given the chance."

Obama's appeasement strategy with those that share Ahmadinejab's views would be a mistake.

Now, Hillary more than ever!

Posted by: tdl62 | May 15, 2008 2:03 PM

gavin930:

Well, would you at least agree that neither of us KNOW (for sure) whether Obama is a Christian or not? The American voters are entitled base their decision entirely on that uncertainty.

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 2:02 PM

ill ric writes: "Obama is a muslim people wake UP!!!!!Muslims said they are taking over America from the inside out!"

We've got how many more months of this to look forward to?

Posted by: gavin930 | May 15, 2008 2:00 PM

jon:

I have read allegations that Reagan sent (former CIA Director) Vice-President Elect Bush to "negotiate" -- who know if that's true -- besides, that's different than what McCain accurately stated about Reagan himself.

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 1:59 PM

Article VI, section 3, of the Constitution states (in relevant part):

" ... no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 1:57 PM

tdl62 - you have quotes in your 1:31 PM, but did not indicate the source or provide a link. Would you so we could verify what you are saying?

As for Reagan and negotiations with Iran over the hostages - Did Bob Woodward write a book about this? There have been charges for years that Reagan dealt with Iran via back channels prior to the election to delay a release because he was worried about an "october surprise."

Posted by: jon | May 15, 2008 1:56 PM

lil ric:

To be fair, only the candidate and God Himself KNOW whether he is a Christian or not. Besides, there's no "Religious test" for the Office of President of the United States.

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 1:55 PM

Mccain is asking Obama a question he cant go around and talk his way out of it. why does obama want to sit down and talk to an iran extremist?? Obama is a muslim people wake UP!!!!!Muslims said they are taking over America from the inside out!

Posted by: lil ric | May 15, 2008 1:52 PM

One seemingly consistent theme running throughout Barack Obama's career is his comfort with aligning himself with people who are anti-Israel advocates. Early on in his career he chose a church headed by a former Black Muslim who is a harsh anti-Israel advocate and who may be seen as tinged with anti-Semitism. This church is a member of a denomination whose governing body has taken a series of anti-Israel actions. As his political fortunes and ambition climbed, he found support from George Soros, multibillionaire promoter of groups that have been consistently harsh and biased critics of the American-Israel relationship. He is the candidate most favored by the Arab-American community.


He selected a church headed by Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Wright routinely compares Israel to apartheid South Africa and considers blacks "The Chosen People". Wright sees his role not just as a religious counselor but also as an educator and political activist.

Soros supports Obama, is also a fierce foe of Israel, for years funding groups that have worked against Israel. He has also openly proclaimed his desire to break the bonds between America and Israel and has written of his desire to erode political support for Israel. Soros also called for concessions to Hamas -- a terror group that has killed many innocent people and that has called for the destruction of Israel. When this came to light, some leading Democrats personally denounced Soros; Obama had a spokesman issue this rather bland statement:

He has openly advocated outreach towards Iran, a state that makes clear its genocidal intentions towards Israel, funds Hezbollah and terrorism against America, Israel, and Jewish targets around the world. Obama has seemed to excuse attacks against Americans by Iranian-supported terror groups because we have provoked Iran by trying to liberate Iraq

Posted by: what does obama really believe | May 15, 2008 1:50 PM

tdk62 said "Bush's speech should have been left overseas."

WTF does THAT mean? That what Bush says in Vegas stays in Vegas? That saying one thing overseas and one thing here is a GOOD thing?

Is he stating his true position here or there? Are there aspects of his foreign policy WE should not hear? That only foreigners should here?

Posted by: Cal Gal | May 15, 2008 1:49 PM

Franky:

I would be quite satisfied if the historical bookends for the GOP are the abolition of slavery and abortion in the U.S.

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 1:48 PM

The Republican Grand Failure is coming to an end. The Republican extremism and radical anti-american actions of the Bush administration have done enough damage to this great nation.

Posted by: Franky | May 15, 2008 1:45 PM

Robert Hewson:

There's a new "Golf-Gate" thread already up at The "Fact" Checker.

Peter North:

Careful, it is ILLEGAL to threaten the President of the United States, even over the Internets ; )

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 1:44 PM

Personally, I am getting VERY tired of Listening to "Barry" TALK his way out of things HE SAID!(Or DID)

Cripes, and he has not even secured the nomination yet!

FOUR long YEARS of it?

Dear God, NOOOOOOoooooOOOOOOO! :-o

Posted by: RAT-The | May 15, 2008 1:43 PM

Sorry for mass-posting this guys, but I took the time to read the ubber-long article and these was too good to pass up...


Direct off the presses, direct quotes from McMoron's speech on what he will do in his first time...


http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/15/text_of_mccains_vision_of_2013.html


Here's a short list of What freakin' planet are you standing on??? quotes...


- The increase in... intelligence... led to the capture or death of Osama bin Laden.
Um... Since when??


- The size of the Army and Marine Corps has been... increased, and are now better equipped and trained to defend us.
There was an article not TWO DAYS ago that said up tp 10% of ppl in Iraq were categorized as MEDICALLY unfit for service.


- Americans again have confidence in their economic future.
Again... I'm sorry, what??? Maybe if you meant walking confidentally in to foreclosure.


-The world food crisis has ended, inflation is low, and the quality of life not only in our country, but in some of the most impoverished countries around the world is much improved.
Our country? He must not be opening the paper, because I keep hearing about how people can barely afford milk.
The rest of the world? Umm... Anyone been to Myanmar lately?


- The United States is well on the way to independence from foreign sources of oil
Let all those people with a car, raise their hand...

McCain, I will vote for you the day I move to your planet.

Obama '08

Posted by: jencm | May 15, 2008 1:42 PM

edwcorey:

James EARL Carter, for one ; )

wldbil:

I was, at least.

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 1:41 PM

Bush is a piece of sh@t. I hope he drops dead soon.

Posted by: Peter North | May 15, 2008 1:41 PM

From: "Head of State"
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/05/golf-as-expiation.html


Thursday, May 15, 2008
Golf as Expiation

From Reuters:


"U.S. President George W. Bush said on Tuesday he quit playing golf in 2003 out of respect for the families of Americans killed in the war in Iraq."


Golf As Expiation

By Guru Alano Jeffries Lipmiano, adviser to former heads of state Amin, Taylor, Nixon et al.

Many have criticized President Bush for his statement that he gave up golf as a way of making a personal sacrifice to show solidarity with those fighting and risking their lives in the war in Iraq, a war that he largely created.

However, I think that it is difficult to see the value and importance--the weight and value of such a personal sacrifice--until we examine it more closely.

I recall meeting with Mobutu Sese Seko, I believe it was in the late 1960s. He had just finished his plundering of the Zairian (now Congolese) economy after deposing Joseph Kasavubu in a bloody coup, raping the natural resources of the nation, and had lured the former Minister of Education back to the nation on the assumption that he would be amnestied, only to be tortured and then murdered by Mobutu's minions.

I recall the scene vividly, Seko sitting atop an ornate Louis the XVII original, running his right hand through a hand of rubies. "I am satisfied, Guru, but I cannot yet find full and complete satisfaction. There is a vague feeling of irritation, or disquiet. Perhaps I am taking my people in the wrong direction."

Table tennis, I recommended. Give up table tennis, your favorite sport after your evening repasts. With this sacrifice, you will show that you too are willing to deny yourself what is important, that you too will bear the burdens of want, as does the nation. Seko smiled, as several rubies fell from the bag to the floor.

I, too, remember vividly, the events of 1973. Pinochet had just overthrown Allende in a bloody coup, and he had just then declared himself "Supreme Chief of the Nation". The General had begun his "disappearing" of political opponents, in which over 2000 were killed and about 30,000 tortured.
"Guru," he said one evening, as we sat in the Massage Room of the Presidential Palace, "There is a pain in my lower back that emerges whenever I hear the shouts of imprisoned former associates from the courtyard, a pain that no massage can remove. Please, tell me, how can I rid myself of this continuous suffering?"

I looked to the plate of Maté and Alfajores (fried Argentinian bread) that sat on a tray beside the massage table. "You must make a show of sacrifice to rid yourself of the tension of the difficult removal of your treasonous enemies, General." I pointed to the tray. "General", I said, "Mate' es fine. No mas."

He smiled, instructed a satrap to remove the tray. The following day, the vanishing of the Disappeared once again flowed without imposition or bar.

It was only months later that I sat with Nixon and Kissinger. It was late at night, the three of us seated in the Oval Office, tumblers of scotch before us--all but Nixon's untouched--and Nixon shoulders hunched low over his desk, the desk lamp against the night sky framed in the window behind him casting his face in an eerie glow.

"It's the goddamn press, Henry. They want to hang us. Why don't they realize what I am trying to do for them, Henry? Peaceniks, Hippies, Yippies, and the damn New York Times. One day, when this has all passed, passed us on, then they'll realize, then they'll understand how hard I worked, how hard I tried..." The tumbler shook in his hand, and all that could be heard was the ice lightly clinking against the heavy glass. "What can I do, Guru? What can I do?"

I looked to the gilt framed picture on his desk, of Nixon playing the piano, Pat beside him. "You must sacrifice. You must abstain. The piano is your sacrifice to the lives so bravely being lost in Vietnam. Just as they have given up their freedom to play stringed ebony instruments in the Southeast Asian jungles, so you too shall put aside this desire. For them. "

He looked at me with a silent, poignant, smile, as a tear slowly ran down his cheek. "Henry", he said, waving his hand "Tell Ramon to remove the piano from the East Room and put it in the basement. And have him bring another bottle of Scotch."

There are many such tales of deep sacrifice for the good of one's nation, taken with a full and insightful vision of what the nation has suffered, and taken with a full understanding of what that suffering entails.

The sacrifice of golf is no mere folly, not a trivial and thereby horrifying statement by a man so out of touch throughout his entire life with the meaning of actual suffering, by a man whose lifelong values have been so skewed by the cosseting of pain, infliction of deprivation, error, and the human consequence of his actions by an ever-present familial safety net that he cannot even conceive of the notion of risk inherent in actual sacrifice, by a man in thrall to his own limitations and such fears of those limitations that he has walled himself in from all that might possibility contradict it.

No. It is not.

Golf is a sacrifice, a man giving up the very peace and solace, the removal from daily life, that his war has removed from those that his actions have sent into sands of Iraq.

And so I say, Mr. President, put your putter aside with honor, and with pride. And with the knowledge that you too have made a great sacrifice, fully in keeping with the actions and goals that you have taken on behalf of this nation.

Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/05/golf-as-expiation.html

Posted by: Robert Hewson | May 15, 2008 1:40 PM

"Nancy Pelosi called the comments "beneath the dignity of the office of the president"."

haAHHahaHaahAHAhahahahahAhahaAAHAHA

Posted by: jencm | May 15, 2008 1:40 PM

JakeD, Bush may not have mentioned Obama "by name," but which other candidate/politician has expressed willingness to negotiate with hostile states? Simple logic determines who Bush meant, and to suggest otherwise is more than disingenuousness on the part of someone who claims to have gotten a Stanford JD.

Posted by: edwcorey | May 15, 2008 1:39 PM

Bush accurately quoted Senator Borah

and we are aware that the Senator was a Republican...

Posted by: wldbil | May 15, 2008 1:39 PM

Jakey, your logic doesn't stand when it is based on a misquote.

Posted by: PRinNJ | May 15, 2008 1:38 PM

PRinNJ:

I'm not "slam[ming]" anyone -- I am simply applying the same logic that Bush's statement was "a subtle swipe at Democratic presidential front-runner Sen. Barack Obama" to Obama's statement -- you can't have it both ways.

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 1:34 PM

"Obama aide wants
Foreign adviser's 'anti-Israel policies,"

"While officials here largely maintain a policy against interfering in U.S. election politics, some Israeli security officials quietly expressed "concern" about an adviser to Sen. Barack Obama who has advocated negotiations with Hamas and providing international assistance to the terrorist group."

"The officials noted Robert Malley, a principal Obama foreign policy adviser, has penned numerous opinion articles, many of them co-written with a former adviser to the late Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat, petitioning for dialogue with Hamas and blasting Israel for numerous policies he says harm the Palestinian cause."

Malley also previously penned a well-circulated New York Review of Books piece largely blaming Israel for the collapse of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations at Camp David in 2000 when Arafat turned down a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza and eastern sections of Jerusalem and instead returned to the Middle East to launch an intifada, or terrorist campaign, against the Jewish state.

Malley's contentions have been strongly refuted by key participants at Camp David, including President Bill Clinton, then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and primary U.S. envoy to the Middle East Dennis Ross, all of whom squarely blamed Arafat's refusal to make peace for the talks' failure.

Of course, once we found out about Malley, he resigned. Malley was only doing what Obama wanted done in secret.

Be aware of the wolf in sheeps clothing.

Posted by: tdl62 | May 15, 2008 1:31 PM

JakeD, please get your slams correct. Obama did not call Israel a sore and wound, he called the Israeli - Palestinian conflict a sore and wound. There is a great difference.

Posted by: PRinNJ | May 15, 2008 1:29 PM

hey mcinsane, carrots go with sticks.

Posted by: egalitaire | May 15, 2008 1:29 PM

Vincent:

Luckily, the "world" does not get to vote for President of the UNITED STATES.

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 1:27 PM

cathy:

Please cite any credible evidence that Ronald WILSON Reagan personally "sat down in a negotiation with the religious extremists in Iran" (which is what McCain said, and just to be clear, does not cover whether Bush41 or anyone else from the Reagan Administration "sat" down with Iran ; )

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 1:26 PM

So what Bush is saying is that we have defined our enemies so we will continue to play this game of war with no end insight because there is absolutely NO ROOM FOR NEGOTIATION

Please ask the world what they think of Bush's foriegn policy.

Posted by: Vincent | May 15, 2008 1:25 PM

edwcorey:

I'm not "lying" -- I am simply applying the same logic that Bush's statement was "a subtle swipe at Democratic presidential front-runner Sen. Barack Obama" to Obama's statement -- next canard?

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 1:23 PM

John McCain proves himself to be a poor student of history. Reagan was able to secure the release of the American hostages through the NEGOTIATED sale of arms to the Iranians,thus leading to the Iran-Contra scandal.

President Bush is an imbecile and a national disgrace, and McCain is shaping up to be his mini-me.

Posted by: cathy | May 15, 2008 1:23 PM

Our politics have hit rock bottom, when everytime someone makes a speech, their words are twisted into illogical meanings. Bush's speech should have been left overseas but instead Obama and the media are making it an issue and it will bring Obama's anti-jewish feelings to the forefront. Bush did not mention names, so I think thou (Obama) protests too much leads to us to believe Bush spoke the truth and hit a nerve. Obama did spend 20 years listening to an anti-Israel preacher as well as his church awarding an award to Farrakhan, who for nearly 30 years, has marked himself a notable figure on the extremist scene by making hateful statements targeting Jews, whites and homosexuals.

Now, we Hillary more than ever!!

Posted by: tdl62 | May 15, 2008 1:22 PM

Obama called Israel a "constant sore" and "constant wound" on America's reputation overseas. Pick one, WaPo, and only one, to stick with.

Posted by: JakeD

That's a lie, liar. And your claim was ridiculed by Jeffrey Goldberg, the author of the interview:

The Honorable Mr. Boehner

A press release from House Republican leader John Boehner asserts that Barack Obama told me that Israel is a "constant sore" that infects American foreign policy. "Israel is a critical American ally and a beacon of democracy in the Middle East, not a `constant sore' as Barack Obama claims," Boehner's statement reads.
Mr. Boehner, I'm sure, is a terribly busy man, with many burdensome responsibilities, so I have to assume that he simply didn't have time to read the entire Obama interview, or even the entire paragraph, or even a single clause. If he had, of course, he would have seen that Obama was clearly calling the Middle East conflict, and not Israel, a sore. Why, there's no one who would disagree that the Middle East conflict is a "sore," is there?

http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/

Posted by: edwcorey | May 15, 2008 1:22 PM

Mike McNally:

Bush accurately quoted Senator Borah -- and never once mentioned "Obama" by name -- using your same logic, then Obama called Israel a "constant sore" and "constant wound" on America's reputation overseas. Pick one, and only one, and stick with it.

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 1:21 PM

AMviennaVA:

You are aware that Bush was in Israel for her 60-Year Celebration, right? It's in the FIRST SENTENCE of the thread above. Since at least McCain and I agree with Bush's remarks, I would have to take exception to your OPINION that Bush "has f4ckeup everything he has touched" ...

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 1:17 PM

I'd think Bush would be a little more polite to the next President of the US. When Edwards is the next Attorneys General and starts up the war crime hearings, Bush and his evil little entourage of Cheney, Rove, Rice, and Rumsfeld might want a little leniency. And just think, Bush passed a law where Obama will have the legal right to lock them in cells in Guantanamo and torture them indefinitely. Or maybe Obama could send him off to the Hague and see if the rest of the world would like to try him. But then again, this is Bush we're talking about. He isn't really that bright.

Posted by: MikeMcNally | May 15, 2008 1:16 PM

Now, John SIDNEY McCain, on the other hand, asks some good questions. Will Obama "explain why he wants to sit down and talk with a man who is the head of a government that is a state sponsor of terrorism, that is responsible for the killing of brave young Americans, that wants to wipe Israel off the map, who denies the Holocaust?"

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 1:15 PM

First, Jimmy Carter, in the final days of his office, negotiated the release of the hostages through Secretary of State Warren Christopher, Algerian intermediaries and members of the Iranian government. So McCain is wrong there. Second, Reagan negotiated a second crisis by means of Iran-Contra--which was unethical, illegal, and treasonous--Iran received arms and Bibles (aid and comfort to a declared enemy). Third, quoting anyone regarding WW2 and the Nazis, Bush should have quoted his grandfather, who was known as the Nazi financier and helped Hitler's rise to power. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

Posted by: edwcorey | May 15, 2008 1:14 PM

So, Bush has to go abroad to make statements on domestic politics. He should stay here, and keep quiet, to boot. Considering how he has f4ckeup everything he has touched, why is he expressing an opinion?

Posted by: AMviennaVA | May 15, 2008 1:14 PM

P.S. -- Bush never said that Barack HUSSEIN Osama, I mean, Obama "supported engagement with terrorists" either.

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 1:12 PM

I am not a fan of President Bush. I simply don't understand what is wrong is his statement.
Why Obama and his surrogate thinks that this is a attack on him? When Looser Kerry and Dashle defends Obama, then it becomes much more clearer that Obama's foreign policy of appeasment is worse than John Kerry's "Global Test".
World does not revolve around Obama. As an independent I want to vote against Republican, but the more I hear about Obama's foreign policy, I just shrink.

Posted by: Bip | May 15, 2008 1:11 PM

Bush accurately quoted
Senator Borah -- and never once mentioned "Obama" by name -- using the same logic re: "a subtle swipe at Democratic presidential front-runner Sen. Barack Obama" then Obama called Israel a "constant sore" and "constant wound" on America's reputation overseas. Pick one, WaPo, and only one, to stick with.

Posted by: JakeD | May 15, 2008 1:04 PM

Upon reading the purported Democratic responses to the "charge" of appeasement, I have to think that the "shoe fits" in this case.

Posted by: DQuixote1 | May 15, 2008 1:02 PM

Well Senor McAmnesty, maybe Ahmadinejad thinks it is the Islamic thing to do?

Until Juan is ready to accept the Fact that an invasion of our Country of MILLIONS of People who are NOT WANTED, and were NOT Invited, but who, now that they are here, and have dug in, think they can begin DEMANDING things, IS A NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE,

He should just STFU!

Worry about HOME before Worrying about the Rest of this World!

Our Home has been INVADED!

Posted by: RAT-The | May 15, 2008 1:01 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2009 The Washington Post Company