Thursday, May 15, 2008
Why is everyone assuming Bush was talking about Obama?
Many of my fellow Democrats are in a tizzy over something President Bush said to the Israeli parliament. From the BBC:
“Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals,” said Mr Bush in his speech.
“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.”
Why is everyone — including Barack Obama — assuming that Bush was referring to Obama?
When I first heard about the comment, I assumed Bush was referring to Jimmy Carter, not Barack Obama. Jimmy Carter is the one who recently met with leaders of Hamas, a terrorist organization dedicated to the destruction of Israel.
Funny that nobody thought he was referring to Hillary Clinton. Then again, she made is quite clear what her response would if she was president if and when Iran were to ever launch a nuclear attack against Israel.
Now that I think about it, many of my fellow Democrats got in a tizzy over that too. Go figure.
Which are you going to believe? Actual democrats’ actual reaction to an actual Hillary war posturing, or Bush telling you what other people think? This ain’t exactly the Pepsi Challenge here.
“They doth protest too much”
I, too, thought the Dems’ reaction to Bush’s powerful speech was incredibly telling. There are a number in the Republicans and foreign leaders to whom the message applies as well, but it’s hilarious seeing the leading Dems tie themselves up in knots over this.
The Republicans are in a world of hurt this election cycle, but man…you guys are ten times as F-ed up.
I took the Pepsi Challenge once a long, long time ago at the Los Angeles Zoo. I got a sip of two refreshing cola themed soft drinks along with a saltine cracker. Good Times!
Marc, I don’t like defending George W. Bush. It’s not something I am very comfortable doing. With that said, I kinda feel as though he had to say what he said. Jimmy Carter forced his hand. When he met with members of Hamas in Cairo afew weeks ago, it sent the wrong message. Not only to the Israeli government, but to the rest of the world.
Hamas is a terrorist organization that is dedicated to the destruction of Israel. They have engaged in suicide bombings against both Israeli civilians and members of the Israeli military. A former President of the United States sitting down with these dickheads sends the wrong message.
“Marc, I don’t like defending George W. Bush. It’s not something I am very comfortable doing.”
Well, if it makes you feel any better, I don’t see you so much defending Bush as you are your country and the damage done to it if leaders meet with dictators, tyrants and killers with no preconditions, as Obama said he’d do in a Democrat debate a few months back.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1dSPrb5w_k
blah blah blah.. obama bad.. blah blah…
bush was talking about obama as the republicans are trying to label him as “naive” as we SHOULDN’T talk to our enemies, just rattle our sabers at them and yell at them to fall in line.
“and the damage done to it if leaders meet with dictators, tyrants and killers with no preconditions”
so we should have preconditions for everything we do? that is naive and a colonialist view of the world that hasn’t worked in the past, isn’t working now, and should not be brought into the future.
good luck with all that.
For what it’s worth, I actually think a lot of the problems we have today can be directly tied to the fact that we have been more then willing to deal with “dictators, tyrants and killers”.
I still don’t see how Obama was the focus of what Bush said. I think he was talking about Jimmy Carter since he just recently met with the leaders of a terrorist organization.
leaders of a terrorist organization that have a large section of that country’s parliment. it’s like the old addage, keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
Obama was brought in through McCain echo’n the Bush statement. That’s where the citation was, not in Bush’s main, over-arching attack on Democrats in general.
Was Bush even attacking Democrats? To be honest, I didn’t listen to the entire speech. I’m not a big fan of Bush. The senator he referred to that said something about wishing he could speak to Hitler was a Republican.
Yeah.. Bush is setting up John McCain’s future attacks on Obama if he gets the nomination. what they’re expected to do is portray Obama as an Idealist who is too new to politics to know the implications and dangers meeting with enemies without preconditions are. they’re appealing to the isolationists here in a rather logical move. however, i see wisdom in meeting with enemies. and what is an “enemy” anyway? esp. from a party that espouses Christian beliefs. you’d have no enemies if you loved them… however, don’t tell the republicans that.
oh.. from the washington post today from McCain on Obama: “Likely GOP nominee accuses rival of “inexperience and reckless judgment” for willingness to talk.”
I think that is in reference to something Obama said during one of the debates. Back when he was still willing to debate. He said that he would be willing to talk to anyone, even leaders from rouge countries.
But once again, unless Bush comes out and clearly states he was talking about Obama, I’m more inclined to think he was referring to Jimmy Carter. It was Jimmy Carter who just sat down and talked with the leaders of a terrorist organization.
In a related note, have you seen this? It’s funny.
YouTube Link
I saw it. I really didn’t understand why Chris Matthews baited him into arguing about Neville Chamberlain. I didn’t see what transpired before the clip started. Did Keven James mention Chamberlain before Tweedy Bird set him up? I heard McCain mention him, but I don’t know if this guy did.
well rick, that’s the thing. he didn’t come out and say it, just towed the republican line. so point it at obama, carter, whoever, it is an attack on the Dems. so point it to either, it works. it’s not an either/or argument it’s a both/and blanket statement that the repubs are so grand at doing.
Was it an attack or a statement of fact? Jimmy Carter sat down and talked to the leaders of Hamas, a terrorist organization.
and you’d rather not talk with them? they’ve got a bit of sway in that area.
No, I do not favor talking to terrorists. I’m in favor of killing terrorists. Talking to terrorists only legitimizes terrorism as a viable political tool.
even though we make terrorists? so if we make them, should we try to stop them? wouldn’t nonviolent ends be best met through nonviolent means?
How exactly do we MAKE terrorists?
“No, I do not favor talking to terrorists. I’m in favor of killing terrorists. Talking to terrorists only legitimizes terrorism as a viable political tool.”
You have to be kidding. Please say so, lest I slap my forehead until it turns red. Talking to leaders of groups labeled as “terrorists” (a dubiously easy label in the first place) and defending our poor little selves against their scary, scary actions are not mutually exclusive. People who think otherwise are living in undue daily fear.
“How exactly do we MAKE terrorists?”
*slap*
Come on Rick, you know this one.
No I am not kidding. I thought it was painfully clear that I was being very serious. Hamas aren’t just labeled as terrorists. They are terrorists. They have repeatedly targeted civilians. They’ve blown up buses. They’ve blown up restaurants. They’ve blown up supermarkets. They’ve even used women as suicide bombers. They’ve killed a lot of innocent people. So yeah, it’s pretty easy to label Hamas as being terrorists.
No, I’m afraid not. If someone is going to make the claim the “we” make terrorists, I require some clarification.
seriously? alrighty.. you asked for it. How did the Taliban come to power in Afganistan? Who funded the anti-Sandinista who then became the drug-warlords in Columbia and Peru? Who sold weapons to Iran in exchange for the release of the American hostages? Who put Saddam Hussien in charge in the first place? Who helped create and sponsor the WTO, who does not manage the global economy impartially, but in its operation has a systematic bias toward rich countries and multinational corporations, harming smaller countries which have less negotiation power? Some examples of this bias are: Rich countries are able to maintain high import duties and quotas in certain products, blocking imports from developing countries (e.g. clothing);
The increase in non-tariff barriers such as anti-dumping measures allowed against developing countries;
The maintenance of high protection of agriculture in developed countries while developing ones are pressed to open their markets;
Many developing countries do not have the capacity to follow the negotiations and participate actively in the Uruguay Round; and
The TRIPs agreement which limits developing countries from utilizing some technology that originates from abroad in their local systems (including medicines and agricultural products).
Answer: America.
Hamas won a majority of seats in the Palestinian parliament in Feb 2006. To think we can get anywhere without them is insane. This is where the tide has shifted. An arrangement between Israel and Hamas could advance both sides’ interests.
However.. why do people resort to terrorism in the first place? I blame the Double D’s of Disenfranchisement and Desititution. Terrorism doesn’t work however, http://www.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securitymatters/2007/07/securitymatters_0712
or does it? Gandhi and MLK JR were considered terrorists by the prevailing governments. I would venture to say Jesus was as well to both the Roman Empire and Israelite Temple Appologists. He was, most would agree, a leader of a religious movement in a time of occupation and unrest. He had come to save his people during a time of armed conflict. He was executed. He was a martyr. further reading on this is: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/359206/was_jesus_a_1st_century_terrorist.html
so what is a terrorist? It’s what the big army calls the little army.
Wrong. I never asked you what a terrorist was. I know what a terrorist is. I’ve seen terrorism first hand and up close. Have you?
Go peddle your anti-America bullshit someplace else. It ain’t welcome here.
what is a terrorist? since you’ve seen them up close…
anti-America? Nope. Patriotic. I’m not about to say my country doesn’t have problems nor cause them. To say one’s country is without wrong is Nationalism. THAT shouldn’t be welcomed ANYWHERE.
A terrorist is someone that commits violence against civilians to archive a political objective. So unless you have information about the United States instructing people how to make vests containing explosives, nails, and rat poison, I don’t want to hear it.
Go spew your crap somewhere else.
Is the US economic policy global terrorism? Does inaction count as terrorism like in Darfur? How about here in the US during Katrina? Would that count as violence against citizens?
I’m not spew’n crap, just giving you shit to consider that you’d rather not. If you want to stick you head in a hole and not be mindful of how your country’s actions and policies affect others then that’s not patriotic. that’s stupid. You bring up great questions on why the democrats run things yet you fail to look at some larger and more pressing issues.
stop avoiding the questions like a coward and deal with them.
Once again Luke, I have zero tolerance for your brand of ignorance. To equate our nation’s economic policy to the thugs that employ suicide bombers to murder woman and children is absurd.
Is America perfect? Of course not. I think over the last few years on this blog I’ve made that point very clear. That doesn’t mean for a nanosecond that I think we have anything in common with terrorists like the members of Hamas.
Luke hasn’t really said anything incorrect yet, technically. He’s just being a shade more objective than the average American. He has bad news to tell, but that’s not the same as ignorance.
Well then, you and him can get together to slap your heads and talk about how the United States is just like the thugs that recruit teenagers to walk into pizza restaurants with bombs strapped to their chests.
Just don’t do it here.
thanks rick for saying that America isn’t perfect. i was frankly surprised by your reaction to what i had to say. i know america has done great things, we’ve helped out in MANY places and continue to do so. but like you’ve admited, we’re not perfect. we as a country are, in some ways continue’n the desparation that is happening in these third world countries. or at least we’re being SCAPEGOATED by the governments (like the Saudi’s and Iran) who are putting their own people in these desparate situations.
i’m more interested in figuring out why people see the only answer is to blow themselves up with as many other innocent people they can take with them. WTF? that doesn’t make any sense! how then can i understand these people and their mindset?
“I have zero tolerance for your brand of ignorance.”
is it ignorance? to figure out where the root problem is and stop it there? what’s harder, killing a terrorist or killing the cause of terrorism? killing people is ignorant, as you’re just removing the symptom, not the cause. That’s just as barbaric as terrorism itself, it’s a quid pro quo version of justice that only perpetuates violence and ignorance. i’d say the cause is much harder and we’re largely ignorant of what causes it here in our american context. i must agree with you that terrorism is awful, horrible and should be condemned in all of it’s contexts. but how can we stop it at the root? how have we contributed to it? and what do we do next? i think this involved dialogue with those very people who are leading these people, namely Iran, Hamas, and others. It’s a start.
Yes, it’s ignorance.
I don’t care of finding out the root cause of why someone straps explosives on themselves and then murders innocent people in a crowded restaurant. Maybe they’ve had a hard life. Maybe they have been mistreated by an oppressive government. Maybe they are just assholes. I don’t really care.
When Hitler went around western and eastern Europe and exterminated millions of Jews, I don’t remember reading about anyone trying to figure out why Hitler was trying to exterminate and entire race of people.
Terrorism is a technique that should never be accepted or condoned by the civilized world. The message should be that once an organization stoops to using terrorism to get it’s point across, they will never be accepted by the rest of civilized society. The very last thing you want to do is have a former President of the United States sit with a terrorist organization. How will we ever stop those that will use the technique of terrorism in the future when this is the message we send out?
“The very last thing you want to do is have a former President of the United States sit with a terrorist organization.”
No, the last thing you want is a total failure to stop the terrorism from happening, which is exactly what our current loser-in-chief has consistently produced for the past five years in Iraq. This whole “we don’t talk to terrorists” attitude is dismissive and oversimplified. It’s like trying to answer the question, “What’s your favorite ice cream?” with either “yes” or “no.”
When your box of crayons is down to just black and white, it’s time to get some new crayons.
Also, the US military didn’t kill Hitler.
“When Hitler went around western and eastern Europe and exterminated millions of Jews, I don’t remember reading about anyone trying to figure out why Hitler was trying to exterminate and entire race of people.”
no, as we just had to stop it. but germany has spent every year since 1946 trying to figure out what went so horribly wrong in their society. those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.
same with terrorism. gotta get it at the root. if not it’ll keep popping up like those weeds in your side-walk.
Have you ever even been to Germany? They don’t spend an awful lot of time thinking about living under the Third Reich. In fact, you could say it’s the complete opposite. Furthermore, Nazi Germany came to an end in 1945, not 1946.
I never said that they did. My point was that nobody wasted time in the 40’s figuring out the root cause of Hitler’s problems. Neither should we when it comes to terrorists. Terrorists should be killed, not figured out or understood.
” Furthermore, Nazi Germany came to an end in 1945, not 1946.” i know that, what i’m saying is that since 1946 (once the Holocaust became wider known and the dust of the war had started to settle), ppl have been trying to figure out Hitler. those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it. wake up.
“Have you ever even been to Germany?”
yeah, i studied in Leipzig, traveled the country extensively and have a lot of friends who are still working to understand what their grandparents did. you know what they say about assuming…
“They don’t spend an awful lot of time thinking about living under the Third Reich”
are you dense? they just built a national holocaust monument this past Feb. for those who perished between 1933 and 1945. geez rick, you didn’t put a whole lot of thought here did you?
Maybe their grandparents were just raging assholes. That works for me.
Actually, the “Murdered Jews of Europe Memorial” was finished in 2005, not last year. A mere 45 years after the Holocaust. Not that the memorial even refers to anything called the Holocaust. If memory serves, the day it opened to the public, someone went around spray painting Swastikas on some of the nondescript blocks of concrete that make up the memorial. Evidently the designers knew the German people would do this type of thing. The blocks are coated with some type of sealant that makes paint easy to wash off.
Maybe that’s why it took them so long to come up with a memorial. They had to figure out an easy way to remove Swastikas.
“Maybe their grandparents were just raging assholes. That works for me.”
well, how do we head off another “raging asshole movement”? that’s what i’m concerned with.