President Bush takes shot at Obama in Israel

[JoeChalupa]

Here we go. Bush lowers bar by taking a shot at Obama over talks with Iran. I agree with Pat Buchanan that this was low for a sitting president to use this as a political attack.
Bush is such a hyprocrite though considering our history.
The Bush administration has negotiated with Korea so I don't know what the hell he's trying to prove but make himself sound lame.

[boutons_]

"talk to Hiter"

"appeasement"

Playing the Nazi/Chamberlain cards.

How original. How appropriate to and accurate characterization Obama's position.

The wars of dubya/Old McFlopPanderKeating are working out so much better. :lol

you're doing a heckuva job, dubya

8 more months

.

[boutons_]

Here's how dubya/Old McFlopPanderKeatingdubya Bogus-War-for-Iran-Oil is a-building:



http://www.alternet.org/images/site/logo.gif


The Bush Administration's Bogus Claims About Iran's Weapons Smuggling

By Gareth Porter, IPS News
Posted on May 15, 2008, Printed on May 15, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/85458/

WASHINGTON, May 14 (IPS) -- Early this month, the George W. Bush administration's plan to create a new crescendo of accusations against Iran for allegedly smuggling arms to Shiite militias in Iraq encountered not just one but two setbacks.

The government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki refused to endorse U.S. charges of Iranian involvement in arms smuggling to the Mahdi Army,

(:lol along with all his other incompetences, dubya can't even pull the string of his installed puppet Maliki)

and a plan to show off a huge collection of Iranian arms captured in and around Karbala had to be called off after it was discovered that none of the arms were of Iranian origin. :lol


The news media's failure to report that the arms captured from Shiite militiamen in Karbala did not include a single Iranian weapon shielded the U.S. military from a much bigger blow to its anti-Iran strategy.

The Bush administration and top Iraq commander Gen. David Petraeus had plotted a sequence of events that would build domestic U.S. political support for a possible strike against Iran over its "meddling" in Iraq and especially its alleged export of arms to Shiite militias.

The plan was keyed to a briefing document to be prepared by Petraeus on the alleged Iranian role in arming and training Shiite militias that would be surfaced publicly after the al-Maliki government had endorsed it and it used to accuse Iran publicly.

=============

well, certainly no "talking to Hitler" and "appeasement" in dubya's Iran project.

Exactly like Iraq-for-oil, the Iran "intel" is politicized (fuck you, Gates/CIA) and "fixed up" to match dubya's political objective of attacking Iran-for-oil.

[clambake]

actually, it's the first sign of intelligence we've seen from bush in quite some time.

Nazi smack always plays to a big room in Israel, however, i'm damned mad about the shot he took at a dead ronald reagan.

[RandomGuy]

I can't think of anything that would help Barack more than Bush saying something bad about him. At this point it is a badge of honor for a Democrat.

I hope he keeps it up.

[Nbadan]

Given Dubya's granddad's own Nazi connections, it's surprising Dubya would go there


Rumours of a link between the US first family and the Nazi war machine have circulated for decades. Now the Guardian can reveal how repercussions of events that culminated in action under the Trading with the Enemy Act are still being felt by today's president

George 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.

The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.

His business dealings, which continued until his company's assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy.

The evidence has also prompted one former US Nazi war crimes prosecutor to argue that the late senator's action should have been grounds for prosecution for giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar)

[xrayzebra]

God help anyone who would even start to tell the Messiah he is
naked. Problem is: Bush didn't direct his remarks to the Messiah.
But it certainly does fit doesn't it. I love the fact Hussain trotted
out all the usual lefties to defend him. What a whimp, what a loser,
what a stupid, un-informed person Obama is.

[Don Quixote]

wow. Shumer and Biden are fit to be tied! How dare the President criticize our guy, or us?

That's worth the price of admission!

(Sorry, no YouTube links, I don't go there much.)

[clambake]

he didn't say obama.

i can't believe the shot he took at ronald reagan, however, i can believe he did it after reagan was already dead.

[Don Quixote]

God help anyone who would even start to tell the Messiah he is
naked. Problem is: Bush didn't direct his remarks to the Messiah.
But it certainly does fit doesn't it. I love the fact Hussein trotted
out all the usual lefties to defend him. What a wimp, what a loser,
what a stupid, un-informed person Obama is.

Yeah ... St. Barry is old enough to remember the 70s. I'm not sure how a return to Carter's foreign policy is a good thing. Has he been mis-educated?

[ChumpDumper]

he didn't say obama.

i can't believe the shot he took at ronald reagan, however, i can believe he did it after reagan was already dead.He's just mad because Reagan never gave up golf.

[SnakeBoy]

That's funny. Mention the word appeasement and Obama pops right up and says "Why are you talking about me".

[clambake]

That's funny. Mention the word appeasement and Obama pops right up and says "Why are you talking about me".

no, thats what reagan would say.

[boutons_]

President Bush Committed Political Treason Today

By Will Bunch

The Philadelphia Daily News Thursday 15 May 2008

I've seen a lot of sad things in American politics in my lifetime - the resignation of a president who became a national disgrace (http://www.watergate.info/) after he oversaw a campaign of break-ins and cover-ups, another who circumvented the Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair) to trade arms for hostages, and yet is now hailed as national hero. And those paled to what we have seen in the last seven years - flagrant disregard for the Constitution, (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/) the launching of a "pre-emptive" war on false pretenses, and discussions about torture (http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/LawPolitics/Story?id=4635175) and other shocking abuses inside the White House inner sanctum.
But now it's come to this: A new low that I never imagined was even possible.

President Bush went on foreign soil today, and committed what I consider an act of political treason: Comparing the candidate of the U.S. opposition party to appeasers of Nazi Germany - in the very nation that was carved out from the horrific calamity of the Holocaust. Bush's bizarre and beyond-appropriate detour into American presidential politics took place in the middle of what should have been an occasion for joy: A speech to Israeli's Knesset to honor that nation's 60th birthday.
But here's what he said (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&tab=wn&ned=us&q=bush+knesset+obama):
JERUSALEM (CNN) – In a particularly sharp blast from halfway around the world, President Bush suggested Thursday that Sen. Barack Obama and other Democrats are in favor of "appeasement" of terrorists in the same way U.S. leaders appeased Nazis in the run-up to World War II. "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," said Bush, in what White House aides privately acknowledged was a reference to calls by Obama and other Democrats for the U.S. president to sit down for talks with leaders like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
"We have heard this foolish delusion before," Bush said in remarks to the Israeli Knesset. "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."
As a believer in free speech, I think Bush has a right to say what he wants, but as a President of the United States who swore to uphold the Constitution, his freedom also carries an awesome and solemn responsibility, and what this president said today is a serious breach of that high moral standard.

Of course, there are differences of opinion on how America should handle Iran, and that's why we're having an election here at home, to sort these issues out - hopefully with respect and not with emotional and inaccurate appeals. Not only is the president's comment a gross misrepresentation of Barack Obama's stance on the issue, but ironically, it comes just a day after his own Secretary of State, Robert Gates, said of Iran (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/05/14/ST2008051404020.html): "We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage ... and then sit down and talk with them." Is Gates a Nazi appeaser-type, too? And Bush has been hardly consistent on this point, either. Look at his own dealings with oil-rich Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/04/libya.oil/), linked to deadly terror attacks like Pan Am Flight 103.

But what Bush did in Israel this morning goes well beyond the accepted confines of American political debate, When the president speaks to a foreign parliament on behalf of our country, his message needs to be clear and unambiguous. Our democracy may look messy to outsiders, and we may have our disagreements with some sharp elbows thrown around, but at the end of the day we are not Republicans or Democrats or liberals or conservatives.

We are Americans.

And you, Mr. Bush, are the leader of us all. To use a diplomatic setting on foreign soil to score a cheap political point at home is way beneath your office, way beneath your country, and way beneath the people you serve. You have been handed an office once uplifted to great heights by fellow countrymen from Washington to Lincoln to Roosevelt to Eisenhower, and have plunged it so deeply into the Karl-Rove-and-Rush-Limbaugh-fueled world of political destruction and survival of all costs that have lost all perspective - and all sense of decency. To travel to Israel and to associate a sitting American senator and your possible successor in the Oval Office with those who at one time gave comfort to an enemy of the United States is, in and of itself, an act of political treason.

In another irony, this comes from an administration that has already committed such grave abuses that its former officials are becoming fearful of traveling overseas, lest they be arrested for war crimes (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9786.html). Despite the alleged crimes and misdemeanors of the Bush administration, the Democrats who control the House have until now been restrained in their use of the impeachment process, hoping that the final eight months of our American nightmare can pass by quickly. Indeed, one has to wonder how much of Bush's outrageous statement this morning arose from fear - fear that a President Obama will go after his wrongdoing in 2009.

Today, it's a whole new ballgame. I believe this treacherous statement by a U.S. president in Israel is a signal to the Democrats in the House in Washington, that it's time to play its Constitutional role in ending this trauma, before even greater acts against the interest of America are wrongly committed in our name.

===================

dubya in Israel calling his legit, US opposition Nazi appeasers? Holy fucking shit.

[boutons_]

"Why are you talking about me".

... because Obama said, with all same pre-conditions as Old McFlapPanderKeating, that he would talk to Hamas, and he would talk to Iran.

dubya's speech writer, since dubya is too stupid to write his own, knew exactly that the Nazi/Hitler appeaser would mean Obama. are YOU this fucking stupid and uniformed?

[PixelPusher]

:lmao at this abysmally stupid right wing hack that gets pwned by...Chris Matthews? It gets good at the 2:00 mark.
d1wSZBTAXRs

[boutons_]

A long-time conservative trashes conservatives and US security. A true "maverick", not a bogus maverick like Old McFlopPanderKeating.

==================

Negotiating isn't appeasement

Bush, McCain and other conservatives are on the wrong side of history when they dismiss Obama's foreign policy.

By J. Peter Scoblic

May 17, 2008

In a speech to the Israeli parliament Thursday, President Bush took a swipe at Barack Obama for his willingness to negotiate with evil regimes.

"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," Bush said. "We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all 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."

But if there is anything that has been discredited by history, it is the argument that every enemy is Hitler, that negotiations constitute appeasement, and that talking will automatically lead to a slaughter of Holocaust-like proportions. It is an argument that conservatives made throughout the Cold War, and, if the charge seemed overblown at the time, it seems positively ludicrous with the clarity of hindsight.

The modern conservative movement was founded in no small part on the idea that presidents Truman and Eisenhower were "appeasing" the Soviets. The logic went something like this: Because communism was evil, the United States should seek to destroy it, not coexist with it; the bipartisan policy of containment, which sought to prevent the further spread of communism, was a moral and strategic folly because it implied long-term coexistence with Moscow. Conservative foreign policy guru James Burnham wrote entire books claiming that containment -- which, after the Cold War, would be credited with defeating the Soviet Union -- constituted "appeasement."

Instead, conservatives agitated for the rollback of communism, and they opposed all negotiations with the Soviets. When Eisenhower welcomed Premier Nikita S. Khrushchev to the United States in 1959, William F. Buckley Jr., the right's leader, complained that the act of "diplomatic sentimentality" signaled the "death rattle of the West."

Conservatives even applied this critique to one of the most dangerous moments in human history: the Cuban missile crisis, during which the United States and the Soviet Union nearly came to nuclear blows over Moscow's deployment of missiles 90 miles off the American coast. When President Kennedy successfully negotiated a peaceful conclusion to the crisis, conservative icon Barry Goldwater protested that he had appeased the Soviets by promising not to invade Cuba if they backed down.

The Soviets withdrew their missiles in what was widely seen as a humiliation to Khrushchev, but Goldwater believed that Kennedy's diplomacy gave "the communists one of their greatest victories in their race for world power that they have enjoyed to date." To Goldwater, it was far preferable to risk nuclear war with the Soviets than to give up our right to roll back Fidel Castro.

Indeed, conservatives considered virtually any attempt to bring the arms race under control as a surrender to communism. When the SALT I agreement capping nuclear arsenals came to Capitol Hill, conservative Rep. John Ashbrook (whose presidential candidacy Buckley supported in 1972) said that "the total history of man indicates we can place very little reliance on treaties or written documents. This is especially true when the agreements are with nations or powers which have aggressive plans. Hitler had plans. Chamberlain's Munich served only to deaden the free world to reality. The communists have plans. SALT will merely cause us to lower our guard, possibly fatally."

A few years later, Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson, the elected face of the burgeoning neoconservative movement, charged President Carter with "appeasement in its purest form" for negotiating SALT II, which set equal limits on the number of U.S. and Soviet nuclear missiles and bombers.

Ronald Reagan, whose election in 1980 was seen as the culmination of the conservative movement, dubbed SALT II "appeasement" as well, but the trope would come back to bite him. Although Reagan pleased the right enormously during his first three years in office with his military expansion, his call for rollback and his advocacy of missile defenses, conservatives reacted with horror once he began serious negotiations with the Soviets. When he and Mikhail Gorbachev signed the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in 1987, which for the first time eliminated an entire class of nuclear weapons, Buckley's National Review dubbed it "suicide." The Conservative Caucus took out a full-page newspaper ad saying "Appeasement is as unwise in 1988 as in 1938." It paired photos of Reagan and Gorbachev with photos of Neville Chamberlain and Hitler.

Containment, negotiation, nuclear stability -- each of these things helped protect the United States and end the Cold War. And yet, at the time, conservatives thought each was synonymous with appeasement.

The Bush administration has been little different, refusing for years to talk to North Korea or Iran about their nuclear programs because it wanted to defeat evil, not talk to it. The result was that Pyongyang tested a nuclear weapon and Iran's uranium program continued unfettered.

(By contrast, when the administration negotiated with Libya -- an act that its chief arms controller, John Bolton, had previously derided as, yes, "appeasement" -- it succeeded in eliminating Tripoli's nuclear program.)

Alas, John McCain accused President Clinton of "appeasement" for engaging North Korea, instead calling for "rogue state rollback," and now he dismisses the idea of negotiations with Iran. Given conservatism's historical record, Obama's inclination to negotiate seems only sensible.

When will conservatives learn that it is 2008, not 1938?

J. Peter Scoblic, executive editor of the New Republic, is the author of "U.S. vs. Them: How a Half Century of Conservatism Has Undermined America's Security."

==================

Repugs and conservatives, their ideology, have historically been considered incredibly dumb, ignorant, and just flat-out wrong.

So here we are, nearly 7 years after the Repugs PASSIVELY PERMITTED the attack on WTC by being so "strong on national security", after 5 years of failed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US is not any safer, and much, much poorer. Par for the course, as played by the lying golfer dubya and his ignorant, anti-American Repug party.

[possessed]

As long as everyone is certain Bush wasn't talking about Jimmy Carter, who recently made a controversial visit to the middle-east to visit Hamas and who could easily be looked at as an appeaser because of things such as the Panama Canal Treaties.

That wouldn't fire up the Obama robots though, would it? Obama's people know this.

[xrayzebra]

Are you all still whining because someone called your
Messiah on his plans for world peace. Of course saying
he has a plan is like saying he is capable of planning, which
of course is a little on the wild side. If he had an idea it
would be a first. Oh, he is for change. Of course most ladies
go through a change as matter of course. And his would be
about the same. Nothing new.

[Wild Cobra]

A long-time conservative trashes conservatives and US security. A true "maverick", not a bogus maverick like Old McFlopPanderKeating.

==================

Negotiating isn't appeasement

Bush, McCain and other conservatives are on the wrong side of history when they dismiss Obama's foreign policy.

By J. Peter Scoblic

May 17, 2008

---snip---

How can any intelligent person take such an article serious when it calls president Bush and senator McCain conservatives?

[Nbadan]

Republicans never appease, right?


tHliQNZcmi8

[possessed]

Are you all still whining because someone called your
Messiah on his plans for world peace. Of course saying
he has a plan is like saying he is capable of planning, which
of course is a little on the wild side. If he had an idea it
would be a first. Oh, he is for change. Of course most ladies
go through a change as matter of course. And his would be
about the same. Nothing new.

Nobody took a dig at Obama though, the comment was clearly directed at Jimmy Carter. Bush said this in Israel to get a rise out of Israelis who recently refused to meet with Carter, not a rise out of Americans who may vote for Obama.

Seriously, it's so obvious that I have to question the intelligence of the mainstream media, unless of course Obama has them all in his pocket. I'm not surprised by the reaction of the mindless Obama supporters who fell for this buffoonery about Bush's statement being directed at Obama. Obama, his staffers and the media have these dolts eating right out of the palm of his hand. It's pathetic.

And Liberals think Bush is dumb. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

[Ignignokt]

Here we go. Bush lowers bar by taking a shot at Obama over talks with Iran. I agree with Pat Buchanan that this was low for a sitting president to use this as a political attack.
Bush is such a hyprocrite though considering our history.
The Bush administration has negotiated with Korea so I don't know what the hell he's trying to prove but make himself sound lame.

Just becuase Obama feels the need to act like an 8th grade girl fishing for victimhood to get sympathy for class president, does not give you the right to do it aswell.

[Ignignokt]

I can see the new drudge headlines..

"Bush picked Log Cabin Syrup over Aunt Jemima for waffles this morning.

Obama campaign outraged."


"Keith Olberman prefers to butter his taint"

[xrayzebra]

Why is every always picking on me......BHO. The man of hope and
change. Like his diapers every hour on the hour. What a cry baby!

[clambake]

chump made a very good point.

what is that fool bush doing whining about appeasement when he pays iraqis everyday not to kill us?