The Power of Citizen Journalism
Post News ($)»     Post Blog»     Upload Image»     Groups»     Events»     Alerts»     User Benefits»
Email Print Share

Email this article

Recipient email:
Your email:
optional
Message:
optional

article imageBush Makes Veiled Attack Against Obama, Democrats

Posted May 15, 2008 by  Sue D. in Politics | 12 comments | 428 views
Advertising
President George Bush made a statement to the Israel Knesset this morning, where he pointed out the dangers of appeasing terrorists and compared it to 1939 when an American Senator thought if he had spoken to Hitler the war would have been avoided.
Although President George Bush did not mention and party or politician by name, it is being reported it was a direct "sharp but veiled attack" on Barack Obama and the Democratic party.

Bush's statement regarding appeasement, which was part of a longer speech made in Jerusalem, included the following comment:

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. 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. (Applause.)


Although no specific names were mentioned by Bush, Barack Obama immediately lashed out in statement to CNN, saying:

"It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack," Obama said in a statement released to CNN by his campaign. "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…."

"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," Obama's statement said.


Obama asserts that he he has never supported "engagement with terrorists" but according to his own website on the Foriegn Policy page, it states, "Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions...."

On that same page, under the "talk to friends and foes" category, it states, "Obama is willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe."

Enter Joseph Lieberman, Independent Democratic Senator for Connecticut who has endorsed Republican presidential candidate John McCain and in his statement he asserts that president Bush is "exactly right".

"President Bush got it exactly right today when he warned about the threat of Iran and its terrorist proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah. It is imperative that we reject the flawed and naïve thinking that denies or dismisses the words of extremists and terrorists when they shout “Death to America” and “Death to Israel,” and that holds that—if only we were to sit down and negotiate with these killers—they would cease to threaten us. It is critical to our national security that our commander-in-chief is able to distinguish between America’s friends and America’s enemies, and not confuse the two.”


This war of words between Bush, Obama and Lieberman is starting to create even more controversy with the Democratic bloggers thinking it was a direct political attack aimed at Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and other Democratic leaders as well as the continuing of the hard feelings that Democratic supporters feel about Joseph Lieberman, especially since he announced his support for John McCain.

[Update] John McCain weighs in on this newest controversy saying, "Yes, there have been appeasers in the past, and the president is exactly right, and one of them is Neville Chamberlain. 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 he thought Mr. Obama was an appeaser — the Democratic candidate has said he would be willing to meet with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran — Mr. McCain sidestepped and 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.'’


Joe Biden (D-Delaware) who is the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee called Bush's statement "bullsh*t".
article:254756:13::0

2 subscribers
Subscribe To This Thread[?] :
  • Sue D. Posted May 15, 2008 by  Sue D.
    #1
    Update added- Politicians react.
  • avatar Posted May 15, 2008 by  Samantha A. Torrence
    #2
    haha Bullshit. My favorite phrase.

    As far as his criticism of people willing to negotiate with terrorists, good for him. We dont NOT negotiate with terrorists.
  • Sue D. Posted May 15, 2008 by  Sue D.
    #3
    @ Samantha A. Torrence
    haha Bullshit. My favorite phrase.

    As far as his criticism of people willing to negotiate with terrorists, good for him. We dont NOT negotiate with terrorists.


    What I really enjoyed was Pelosi's response.

    The American Spectator nailed her right to the wall with this:

    But I thought the most ironic criticism of the speech came from Nancy Pelosi, who called it "beneath the dignity of the office" for President Bush to visit our staunch ally and make the case against appeasement. This is the same Pelosi, you may recall, who visited the terror state of Syria amid State Department protest and told President Bashar Assad that Israel was ready for peace talks with its longtime enemy, when Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert denied saying anything of the sort.


    GAME.SET.MATCH.

    No wonder the Democrats are up in arms (pun intended), they are the party that consistently tries to appease even after seeing from History that it has never works.

    What is that old expression about not learning the lessons that history teaches?
  • RCB2875 Posted May 15, 2008 by  RCB2875
    #4
    What is that old expression about not learning the lessons that history teaches?


    Alex I'll take.. What is a Democrat for? $100
  • Sue D. Posted May 15, 2008 by  Sue D.
    #5
    @ RCB2875
    Alex I'll take.. What is a Democrat for? $100


    ROFL! That was bad, but funny.
  • Hammster Posted May 15, 2008 by  Hammster
    #6
    Nancy Peelowsee and Jimmie C can run their mouth and commit the US to all sorts and have nothing said.
  • avatar Posted May 16, 2008 by  Mr Garibaldi
    #7
    Joe Biden (D-Delaware) who is the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee called Bush's statement "bullsh*t".


    Something Biden is intimately familiar with...
  • Sue D. Posted May 16, 2008 by  Sue D.
    #8
    LOLOL
  • avatar Posted May 16, 2008 by  Mr Garibaldi
    #9
    Have you noticed that in all the tap dancing and denouncement of Bush's speech that not one of them has come out in a full denial of appeasement?
  • redhawk Posted May 16, 2008 by  redhawk
    #10
    What is really bothering the Democrats?
    Is it that by Pelosi trip scarf in hand to share tea and Honey with Assad , followed by Hamas invasion of Lebanon rather Smeared this policy of appeasement??
    Or that Jammah Cawta went and Hugged Hamas leaders after he really messed up over Palestine way back thus creating the current increase of violence in Gaza.. after all the Gaza Palestinians are doing political calls to the USA to promote Obama ( CNN and Fox News,, week-end)..
    Or is it that Bin Laden pops up from under a rock now that Barack is getting his Tutus all twisted ( along with Pelosi, Daschle, Kerry, Biden and Emanuel) over a statement by PRESIDENT Bush regarding a well proven historical fact with no mention of any current living Senator...
    Is it that by connecting all of the above dots and adding the Obama stated policy of no conditional meetings with the leaders of Syria, NOKO, and Iran as well as posted on his blog causing them to realize that when it comes to National Security they are both Inept and Running Scared ... ?? OR are the Left overs from the failed policies of Clinton failures with thecwell know results what scares the Panties off them??
    I just wonder ...
  • redhawk Posted May 16, 2008 by  redhawk
    #11
    @ Mr Garibaldi
    Something Biden is intimately familiar with...

    Yes he should be since he's so FULL OF IT!!!
    and Pelosi's usual nada is yet a classic example of the fact that when she's out of view the Loon Party looks better...
  • redhawk Posted May 16, 2008 by  redhawk
    #12
    @ Hammster
    Nancy Peelowsee and Jimmie C can run their mouth and commit the US to all sorts and have nothing said.

    No but look at the results of their Pacification meetings.. Pelosi is followed by Hamas invasion of Lebanon.. Just to prove how much they think of the Moron..
    and Jamma's hugging of the Hamas leader has started increased bombings of Israel... Now that is the Sum total of the Tremendous Achievemnts of the Pecenicks from loon Lake

Add a Comment

emptyAdd a Comment or Login/Register empty