Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Baker Says Talking With Enemies Is Not Appeasement

Updated 1:18 p.m.
By Glenn Kessler
A video clip of former secretary of state James A. Baker is making the rounds of the Internet, providing an interesting counterpoint to the furious argument between Sen. Barack Obama and the Republicans over whether it is proper to talk to enemies. President Bush started a furor when, during a speech to the Israeli parliament last week, he said that negotiating with "terrorists and radicals" such as Iran was "the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

Sen. John McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee, joined in the attack, which was decried by Obama and Democrats. "Why does Senator Obama want to sit down with a state sponsor of terrorism? What does Senator Obama want to talk about with [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad?" McCain asked reporters.

But now Baker's Oct. 6, 2006, interview on Fox News' "Hannity and Colmes" has emerged. In the interview, he emphatically dismisses the notion advanced by his Republican brethren that talking with enemies -- even state sponsors of terrorism -- is any sort of appeasement.

"You don't just talk to your friends, you talk to your enemies as well," an animated Baker said. "Diplomacy involves talking to your enemies. You don't reward your enemies necessarily by talking to them if you are tough and you know what you are doing. You don't appease them. Talking to an enemy is not in my view appeasement."

Baker noted that when he was secretary of state for President Bush's father, he made 15 trips to Syria in 1990 and 1991, "at the time when Syria was on the list of countries who were state sponsors of terrorism. On the 16th trip, guess what, lo and behold, Syria changed 25 years of policy and agreed for the first time in the history to sit at the table with Israel, which is what Israel wanted at the time."

Baker concluded: "All I am saying, that would never happened if I, if we, hadn't been sufficiently dedicated that we were going to keep at it."

Baker, incidentally, has endorsed McCain, telling reporters in February: "John is what I think I am, a principled pragmatist. He prefers to get things done rather than to insist on ideological purity."

McCain welcomed his support and praised his acumen at the time. "Secretary Baker has a distinguished record of service to our country and our party," said McCain. "I look forward to his counsel and am honored to have his support."

By Web Politics Editor  |  May 20, 2008; 12:35 PM ET
Categories:  Making the Rounds  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: McCain, Wooing Florida, Hits Obama on Cuba Policy
Next: McKinnon To Step Aside From McCain Effort


cognitorex wrote:

The original reporting of the Baker Hannity discussion on negotiating and appeasement report is attributable to Craig Johnson aka cognitorex on Op-Ed News October 2006 and his blog cognitorex dot blogspot dot com (Baker flummoxes Hannity). It was also first ressurected/reported in this cycle in Talking Points Memo (TPM Cafe) on Monday May 18 at 7:00 am)See below original report:
TPM Cafe link, which went around net on various sites is:
October 6, 2006 at 09:03:14


by (link=):

craig johnson Page 1 of 1 page(s)

Tell A Friend

James Baker, the globally accomplished diplomat and former GOP Secretary of State under Reagan totally flummoxed the cartoonish GOP bagman, Sean Hannity.

Point blank, Baker said that given the choice between waging a war or a foreign policy solely restricted to establishing a new democracy in the Mid-east or alternatively pursuing policies of stabilizing the region, policies of stabilization were preferable.

Hannity tried to parry this heretical bashing of Bush's core foreign policy talking point with the usual GOP gobbledygook propaganda such as "this is "World War III" and "this is a fight against Islamo Fascists." Baker seemed uninterested in Sean's offer of GOP red meat talking points and he continued.

Paraphrased as best I can, Baker said, "Given the choice between engaging America's forces based on a principle (i.e. 'democracy') or based on establishing stability, stability is, all things considered, the superior objective.

Not yet finished shredding the inept Bush, Rice, Cheney foreign policy, Baker continued by basically saying that not engaging in talks with America's enemies was nuts and sophomoric (my words). He recounted that he personally visited Syria almost twenty times and on his next visit Syria abandoned their twenty-year-old policy towards Israel and agreed to sit with Israel in negotiations, de facto recognizing their existence.
(The original reporting by Craig Johnson came from simply switching to Fox during "Brittany/Paris gossip type reporting on MSNBC then him having his mouth drop open as Hannity was dosed with non GOP red meat talking points by Baker. Op-Ed news took it as an 'Article" and it received 40,000 hits world wide.)
5/22/2008 10:23:12 AM

Posted by: Craig Johnson/ cognitorex | May 22, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

keep friends close, keep emenies closer; if American can do that, we will be success.

However, the world won't listen to American any more; this country is weakening by Bush, Chenny and their administration. American, it is time to live a humble life and embrace change and improve the country so we can face China & Russia.

Posted by: Katy | May 22, 2008 11:07 AM | Report abuse

Nice to see that so many readers of this blog are all DNC apologists. Don't know what the Foreign policy/Democrat-screed subject matter of this article and your comments have to do with the usual subject matter of this blog. I thought the blog was about HR and benefits. Silly me!

If you have your way in November, when it all hits the fan in mid-to late 2009, and the crypto-socialists start pursuing their ultimate agendas, you bleeding hearts are likely to be standing at the end of the unemployment line wondering what happened. Companies with smaller profits and higher taxes naturally tend to cut the non-profit centers first --that means you folks in HR/Benefits Administration. (Of course maybe you don't think you'll need any privately-funded benefits since by that time you exxpect we'll ALL be feeding at the federal trough.)

But go on -- keep campaigning blindly for your Harvard hero. He's full of sound and fury, but he signifies nothing.

Posted by: Michael | May 21, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

For an excellent article on what McSame and the GOP are trying to do, see:;_ylt=Ao7c4QyG6QDWbVB699.8_OpsnwcF/*

Without quoting the whole article, the key is:

"The fact that Obama had only hinted at eventually and after long preparation doing what Franklin Roosevelt (with Josef Stalin) and Richard Nixon (with Mao Zedong) did and any reasonable president would and should do in the proper situation, was totally dismissed -- until Republican candidate John McCain then challenged Obama on a related comment, which was Obama's description of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute as a "running sore," a rather honest description that McCain chose to see as anti-Israel...

This is all nonsense, but it is dangerous nonsense, indeed, and the American people will largely have to sort it out themselves since one senses that the airwaves will be full of these kinds of misquotes, misjudgments and soberingly masqueraded threats for a long time to come."

Posted by: dcwsano | May 20, 2008 6:21 PM | Report abuse

Nice to hear the voice of adult leadership from a Republican once in a while. Too bad most of them have been kissing Cheney's a** for the last 7.5 years.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

Thank you Mr. Newsom for your perspective.

The lack of historical perspective of the right-wing is astounding. In 1938 Britain and France had no way of stopping Germany from taking Czechoslovakia. Germany, unlike Iran, Cuba and the others today, was militarily superior to France and Britain combined. France and Britain had neither the ability nor the will to stop Germany. Chamberlain's great falling was believing he accomplished something when he gave in to Germany's demands ("Peace in our time.") France, in contrast, agreed to let Germany have Czechoslovakia but never assumed this would bring peace. There are zero historical parallels between 1938 and today.

We have a vastly different situation today. While Russia and soon China pose real threats to the U.S., Iran and the others do not. We should talk to them, as Obama says, not to appease them or give them concessions, but to make clear that any attempts to cause harm to the neighbors, much less the U.S., will be met with force. Talking is not appeasement, giving concessions for nothing is. Obama has never advocated that. McSame is misrepresenting his position.

Posted by: dcwsano | May 20, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

McCain is scary. He talks about Obama's lack of experience but he does not have a clue about foreign policy will all of his so called experience. He is not too sharp. He is slower than Bush. He can't match the leaders with the countries. He does not understand the dynamics between middle east political, military and sectarian leadership as much as you or I do folks. And I could see if he had experienced people like Baker as his staff but he will inherit all of the same people that are currently backing bush.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

Thats the republican way. They don't count on voters being smart, they count on us being lazy and dumb when it comes to voting. They hope for us to ignorant of fact so they can tell us last minute lies to influence our vote. The internet however can get just as much TV exposure to the public as they can. You cant pull willie hortons anymore. Even us lazy dumb voters have access to YouTube. Not only can we get the lies fast we can get the truth just as well.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

Good clip. Talking to ones adversaries is something anybody with common sense can understand. What an idiotic debate we're having. Thanks to Bush/McCain we have reached a new low in the national debate. The talking heads over at Fox will have fits over this.

Posted by: sferris | May 20, 2008 5:48 PM | Report abuse

Bush did not know about Bakers trips to Syria in 90 and 91 because he was still drinking and cokin back then. Someone probably had to show him the clip. McCain is not to smart to follow bush's play.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Wow, I am really impressed. The right-wing nut jobs who like to bombard the WP with their asinine comments are nowhere to found on this post/blog. I guess it is crystal-clear that Baker's comments contradict the Bush-McCain doctrine. So really what could Rat-the and JakeD say about Bakers comments.... NADA!

Posted by: JakeD's shadow | May 20, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Elin: Indeed. Perhaps it's time we had a president who got in to an Ivy League school on his grades, and then got good grades (Editor of the Law Review), and not one who finished at the bottom of his class (McCain), to replace the current one, who finished at the bottom of his after getting in on daddy's legacy. I know Carter gave being smart a bad name, but we need to get over it.

Posted by: JoeT1 | May 20, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Apparently Chris Matthews could have been speaking to a lot of people who seem to have no idea what appeasement really means or meant in relation to Hitler. Our President is one of those people. We really need to teach history in a more comprehensive manner in our school systems.

Posted by: Elin | May 20, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

UH... where's JakeD? Where's RAT-THE? Cue the crickets. Enjoy the sound of silence. Dumba$$ess!

Posted by: JakeD's shadow | May 20, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Even people who endosed McCain know he's and idiot.

I guess they all just hope to be the puppetmaster of the Bush puppet McCain.

Posted by: Kent | May 20, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

Is anyone really shocked that the party of the uneducated doesn't understand english very well?

Soon Republicans will need to shorten their name to something like "GOP" so their voters can spell it.

Posted by: Franky | May 20, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Nice comments, Mr. Baker. Now if you apologize for your part in stealing the election for the Bush child, you might be forgiven.

Posted by: thebob.bob | May 20, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

From "Head of State"

Monday, May 19, 2008
Hot Bush "Injection": A Brief History of Appeasement

It was this morning, while on the elliptical machine, that I heard the 20th (when I began counting) reference to Bush having "injected" foreign policy, via his raising of "appeasement" before the Knesset, into the Democratic campaign debate.

Aside from the face that a Bush injection would likely require more investigation from the FDA and CDC than vaccinations laced with 50% thimerosal, the discussion, which has shown surprising legs, has revealed a remarkable lack of basic knowledge about the distinctions between negotiation (e.g. Nixon's intervention with, at the time a rogue Chinese state, which largely prevented conflict and helped to usher China into the family of nations; ) and appeasement--ranging from the Kevin James school of international policy negotiation through utter lack of knowledge to more informed but still significantly incomplete or incorrect understandings of appeasement as it has been used in this context.

Therefore, I provide you with brief, fully accurate history of the "appeasement" that has been raised in these debates, so that those who wish to use actual fact in advancing their arguments can do so (For those who wish to continue to rely on insinuation, distortion, or the ritual, repetitive, seemingly talismanic use of the cry "He's an appeaser! You know! Like Munich! Like Chamberlain!" without knowing what this actually means. Please proceed to Remedial History, room 101B. No gum).

The Munich Agreement:

The Brief Pre-History of Munich:

Hitler, levered into power in January of 1933 (ironically after their first significant national election outcome decrease in 1932, after which they very well may have faded into their earlier insignificance) through the dramatic miscalculations of former Chancellor Von Papen (who, in his proposed role as Vice-Chancellor, hoped to be the "power behind the throne", and to return to the Chancellorship) and prominent Nationalist Alfred Hugenberg, among others to isolate and co-opt Hitler in a cabinet of Conservative Nationalists ("We've hired him"--Von Papen; "We've boxed him in"-Hugenberg), who persuaded the reluctant, aging President Hindenberg to accept this agreement, soon gained primacy and control over the cabinet, government, and increasingly the nation, through a series of questionable legislative (e.g. "The Enabling Act") and viciously revolutionary and counter-revolutionary (i.e., the elimination of other political parties, the Rohm Purge, brutal and cynical anti-Semitic actions by the SA, the Gleischaltung or "Coordination" of virtually all German organizations and press in 1934) actions.

After gaining such control, and with an autarkic economy that, from the start, invested huge sums in rearmament, Hitler brought the German military into coordination as well, under the aegis of the compliant General Blomberg, and with a shared mission of challenging the restraints placed upon German armament under the Versailles Treaty which followed World War I (Hitler's railing against this treaty had been a key element in the rise of the Nazis to power, particularly in the most dire economic phases of the Weimar Republic). In a series of shocking and escalating violations of this treaty, Germany announced the reestablishment of the German Air Force (1935), the reoccupation of the Rhineland (1936) and the Anschluss of Austria (1937), Hitler began an express drive for expansion conveyed as a correction of the Versailles Treaty, but in fact a clearly stated intent to increase the "living space" (Lebensraum) of Germany, and to attain hegemony in Europe (and, eventually, beyond).

In 1938, under the pretext of incorporating the Sudeten Germans who lived in Czechoslovakia (and utilizing Czech Nazi sympathizers to provoke manufactured "incidents" among this group), Hitler continued this expansionist drive by threatening, beginning in the famous "Weekend Crisis" of May 20-22, 1938, to attack Czechoslovakia on behalf of the Sudetens. Months of anti-Czech propaganda created by the Goebbels-controlled ministry continued through June, July and August. Following a vicious tirade at the conclusion of the Party Congress against the Czechs on Sept. 12, threatening action if the "issues" regarding the Sudetenland were not resolved. This provoked a wave of fear and disturbance across France and the Sudetenland.

As a result, on September 15, Neville Chamberlain flew to Munich to meet with Hitler. Hitler, in this first meeting, presented Chamberlain with an apparent fait accompli, stating that he would settle the matter himself "one way or another", clearly implying force. Chamberlain met this with the remark that under such conditions, there was no further point in talking--after which, Hitler tactically receded and stated that if the question of incorporation of the Sudetenland was open, discussions should continue. Hitler's ultimate goal here was to use the tactic of Sudeten independence to force Czechoslovakia to cede the Sudeten potion of its nation to Germany, claiming that "we want to Czechs"--e.g., the remaining part of the country--and that without such an incorporation, he would attack--thus unleashing the protective guarantees of France to Czechoslovakia, and thereby, a second World War.

Under such pressure, France and Britain placed weight on Czechoslovakia to cede the Sudetenland. Hitler, Mussolini, Chamberlain and Daladier (the French premier) provided the basis for the Munich Agreement--which indeed carved off the Sudetenland, leading to Chamberlain's notorious statement of "peace in our time"--set along side Goebbels statement that "We have achieved everything we wanted according to the small plan, while the big plan is...for the moment, not realizable".

Hitler, in fact, intended to incorporate the rest of Czechoslovakia--and was described as disappointed that the agreement had denied him the opportunity for a war against the Czechs that would allow him this full territorial conquest in a single step. In March of 1939, following a similar propaganda barrage regarding Slovakian nationalist independence, Hitler threatened Czech President Benes with invasion, should he not cede the rest of the nation. Under such threat, Benes collapsed, and the Germans seized the remaining portion of Czechoslovakia without resistance.

Ironically, these constant risk-all gambits led Hitler to his fatal mistake--the conquest of Poland, which, although "victorious", led Britain, France, and ultimately the USA to enter the fight against Germany, and Germany to seek to end the battle against these enemies by removing their most likely ally--the Soviet Union--a combined two front battle which led to the downfall of Nazi Germany.

This was appeasement.

The appeasement here was agreeing to give away Czechoslovakia--carving it into sections, and giving the section, and eventually the nation, away. It was shameful--and wrong.

Negotiation: Talking To Leaders

Despite the endless rhetoric of the past week, negotiation is not appeasement.

Two of many examples:

Nixon's Rapprochement With China:

Despite the well-known failings of the Nixon Presidency, Nixon's engagement with China remains a signal achievement. Note that Nixon, throughout his career, was an ardent fighter of Communism. Thus, we might have fully expected him to take the "negotiation is weakness" position with a country that, at the time, was regarded as a rogue nation in the West.

Nevertheless, this fervent anti-Communist chose to negotiate--a marked change from previous U.S. policy--and continued to do so even as highly inflammatory border attacks occurred between China and the Soviet Union in 1969, stating that "We simply cannot afford to leave China outside the family of nations." (a statement that would likely draw errant fire of commentators from the Right if it were uttered today). With a persistent diplomacy through 1969-1972, culminating in a meeting with Chou en Lai, these negotiations led to a dramatic thawing of relations with both China and the Soviet Union--where, in meetings with Leonid Brezhnev, an anti-ballistic missile treaty, a trade agreement worth a billion dollars, and a SALT treaty were signed.

Here, talk--negotiation--decried as weakness this past week--and at the time of these negotiations--led to success.

Reagan and Gorbachev

Reagan, of course, was noted for referring to the Soviet Union as the "Evil Empire."

Despite this stance, he too was willing to negotiate with Gorbachev in the interests of nuclear disarmament--and despite the objections of many on the Right, whose statements at the time regarding the weakness of negotiation could be easily grafted onto the present debates.

As we know, Reagan's meetings, according to Alan Greenspan, "started the sequence of geopolitical initiatives that led Mr. Gorbachev to figuratively tear down the Berlin Wall", and contributed to the break up of the Soviet Union.

Many from the right called for aggressive military action--for missiles first, rather than negotiation
Talk--negotiation--led to success.

Note that in each case, the President talked with a leader who they regarded as hostile--in the face of those who argued then, as they do now, that talking--negotiation--signifies weakness.

In each case, talking--strong, informed negotiation--did not result in appeasement of the aggressor, but instead resulted in the desired outcome--in one case, the component breakup of the aggressor nation--in another the end of a threat of nuclear conflict--without a single loss of life.

Negotiation is not appeasement.

When negotiation is chosen, however, it will be the case that those who simply wished for the visceral strike--the simplistic first solution of subduing an enemy through the use of might--will not find its satisfaction. We have seen the results of this position, throughout the years--from the events recounted in the first section, to the present.

Perhaps, in negotiation, it is *they* who have been appeased.

If so, given history--this was a favorable outcome indeed.

Head of State

Posted by: Robert Hewson | May 20, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Baker's comments. What do you say now "I'll say or do anything to get elected" McCain? Let's see you spin this one!!! Keating Five Lives!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Great article, great comments!

Posted by: Alice | May 20, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

End of Debate for McCain. Obama wins.
James Baker, the globally respected Secretary of State under Republican George HW Bush on Fox News last October. He put together the Gulf War Coalition and the Madrid talks between Israel and the Palestinians that led to the Oslo Accords. He is a true statesman. Counter-terrorism experts agree with Obama 10 to 1. Admiral Fallon, recently retired Centcom Chief, an officer with huge diplomatic and military experience, agrees with Obama.

"Diplomacy involves talking to your enemies. You don't reward your enemies necessarily by talking to them if you are tough and you know what you are doing. You don't appease them. Talking to an enemy is not in my view appeasement."

McCain is pandering on foreign policy and not even fully knowledgeable on who the real power in Iran is. Joe Klein from Time Magazine laid a trap for him Monday and McCain walked right into it, displaying his foreign policy ignorance on Iran for the whole world to see.

Talking tough has been exposed as a sham for hiding ignorance and scaring the American public into voting GOP. We need a president with tough-thinking, intelligent foreign policy, not a dogmatic, minimally informed, chest-thumping saber-rattler with a violent temper like McCain.
The more this goes on, the weaker McCain will look. He can't win this argument on the merits.

Posted by: asja | May 20, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

They should couple this clip with Dick Cheney's 1994 clip talking about why it didn't make sense to drive on to Baghdad in the first Gulf War.

That clip makes my day every time I see it. Cheney had some common sense once.


Posted by: steve boyington | May 20, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

I'd watch out, Mr. Baker. Johnny, Cheney and Boosh might throw you in "appeasers" prison in Guantanamo for thinking like that.

Posted by: steve boyington | May 20, 2008 2:37 PM | Report abuse

Say what you want about the Reagan/Bush domestic agenda, but man they had some smart people working on foreign policy. I know it was actually Nancy who got Ron to talk with the Soviets initially, but you can't take Madrid or Iraq away from them. Obviously Iraq wasn't perfect, but with Powell in charge we at least did what was necessary to secure our own safety. Baker is still incredibly astute with regard to foreign policy. It's encouraging to see someone of his stature holds the same views as our next President.

Posted by: Paul | May 20, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse


Obama/Biden 2008!

Posted by: CHANGE IS COMING! | May 20, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Mr Baker says he talked with Syria many times, an the results were WHAT?? They still hate Isreal. But he was the Sec of State at the time, he never mentioned that the President should talk with these heads of state. There in is the difference, we talk through others all the time. When Sen Obama assumed it was he who the President was referring, it started all of this lack of understanding. Sen Obama has flip flopped his answer sense the debate, an the MSM is joining the bandwagon. Oh to have our MSM to just report the news in its purest form. But thats days gone by now.

Posted by: Ed | May 20, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

This is absurd. We must ignore our enemies and call their populations "evil" names while depriving them of supplies. Look at the success we've had in Cuba. We finally have Castro right where we want him and you Democrats want to start talking? Reagan would have never talked to the Iranians except for when he was trading them arms for hostages, but that doesn't count. Just like he didn't cut and run in Lebanon, he just man-retreated. Although, you elitists wouldn't understand the everyman appeal of a Hollywood actor.

Posted by: Heez | May 20, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

This shows just what an ignorant policy McCain is trying to peddle. Even staunch Republicans and foreign policy hawks are for some sort of chatter with our "enemies."

Posted by: matt | May 20, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Appeasement in it's purest definition is likened to giving something away to the enemy, not discussing options.

Posted by: jr | May 20, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

In my work I have had the opportunity to talk with some of the world's leading counter-terrorist experts and military advisors. All of them have taken the same basic positions that Obama has been putting forth for some time now. I believe Obama will be very strong in his foreign policy and that McCain is just out of touch in another time.

Posted by: jr | May 20, 2008 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for this illuminating clip! It shows what I have been thinking for the past week.

Since when has talking been appeasement? The notion that we cannot talk to our global neighbors is ludicrous, outdated, and dangerous. We can all sit at the same table and still disagree.

This coming election goes beyond Democrat versus Republican. John McSame will just dig us deeper and divide us even more irreparably. I am glad Obama offers us a choice, and a positive way to move forward.

Posted by: Demi T. | May 20, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

The more I read these postings, is the more I realize how far behind our country really is. How can we want Democracy for the world and we can't get it right here in the US? This is 2008 and we still live in a racist country. I really thought we were beyond judging people by their gender or race but I see that no matter how much education and money we have, we are still ignorant. The people have voted for who they want but because it's not WHO you want, they are willing to vote for another 4 years of Bush. Do you know how foolish that sounds? You sound like a 3 yr old tell their mother "I don't love you no more" because that child didn't get their way.
Don't you realize that the world watches our news and read our papers online? Don't you realize how stupid and ignorant we look bring up issues that will not solve the crisis that the Bush Administrate has created?
No one is perfect. The Clintons have skeletons in the closest but Obama, McCain and everyone in this world has them too. Who are we to judge? If we started to investigate you, God only knows what we will find. Instead of worry about non important things, our focus should be on how to unite the country (Democrats and Republicans) as a whole and figure out how we are going to clean up mess that will be left behind.
I am just a fed up hard working American who wants change from old politics. I want a government that has the American people at heart not their personal bank account. I want a President that is going to help the ALL people -red, yellow, black and white with this mortgage crisis, create jobs, provide every kids with a great education, provide healthcare not bailing out Bear Sterns. I want a President that will figure out a way to get our Troops home and provide them with the help they are going to need mentally, physically and financially to get their life in order.
The world used to view America as this wonderful utopia, now thanks to Bush; we are the laughing stock of the world. LET SHOW THE WORLD THAT AMERICA IS STILL THE BEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD.
Vote for who will make this country better, VOTE DEMOCRAT!!!!

Posted by: Fed up | May 20, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company