Bush suggests Obama wants 'appeasement' of terrorists

cnredd · #1 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 11:35 AM

Quote:

President Bush launched a sharp but veiled attack Thursday on Sen. Barack Obama and other Democrats, suggesting they favor "appeasement" of terrorists in the same way some Western leaders appeased Hitler in the run-up to World War II.

The president did not name Obama or any other Democrat, but White House aides privately acknowledged the remarks were aimed at the presidential candidate and others in his party. Former President Jimmy Carter has called for talks with Hamas.

"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 at Israel's 60th anniversary celebration in Jerusalem.

"We have heard this foolish delusion before," Bush said in remarks to Israel's parliament, the 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."

Amen!...Took someone long enough to say it...

cnredd · #2 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 11:54 AM

Obama's response...

Obama Takes Issue With Bush Foreign Policy Speech

Quote:

In a statement, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., shot across the bow: "It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 6Oth anniversary of Israel's independence to launch 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. 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."

Obama never "supported engagement with terrorists"?...

Then maybe he should get this off of his website which says the opposite...

Quote:

Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.

Talk to our Foes and Friends: Obama is willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe. He will do the careful preparation necessary, but will signal that America is ready to come to the table, and that he is willing to lead. And if America is willing to come to the table, the world will be more willing to rally behind American leadership to deal with challenges like terrorism, and Iran and North Korea's nuclear programs.

In other words, Obama's annoyed that Bush is saying what's on Obama's own website...

How DARE he!...

dga · #3 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnredd

Obama's response...

Obama Takes Issue With Bush Foreign Policy Speech

Obama never "supported engagement with terrorists"?...

Then maybe he should get this off of his website which says the opposite...

In other words, Obama's annoyed that Bush is saying what's on Obama's own website...

How DARE he!...

Well here's the thing. That "terrorist" umbrella seems to be ever expanding. After 9/11 it was Al Qaeda, we are clear those are terrorists, they got on the planes and flew into the towers. Then came the Taliban, because they were aiding terrorists (okay, I buy it, we were pissed and someone had to pay). Then Iraq with the non-existent weapons of mass destruction, still aiding and abetting. Now Iran who is in the same situation as North Korea, the only difference is their missils would be aimed at South Korea, not Israel.

This is why the American government is viewed in such a negative light. You don't do what I say, I'll invade you, or I'll bomb you, cause I'm the decider!

To be truthful, foreign policy has been such in America for ages, not just with Bush; the difference is that before it would be underpaying for imported goods, or witholding needed aid.

Mikeyy said it best: "to a man with a hammer, every problem is a nail."

Gordon Shumway · #4 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dga

Well here's the thing. That "terrorist" umbrella seems to be ever expanding. After 9/11 it was Al Qaeda, we are clear those are terrorists, they got on the planes and flew into the towers. Then came the Taliban, because they were aiding terrorists (okay, I buy it, we were pissed and someone had to pay). Then Iraq with the non-existent weapons of mass destruction, still aiding and abetting. Now Iran who is in the same situation as North Korea, the only difference is their missils would be aimed at South Korea, not Israel.

This is why the American government is viewed in such a negative light. You don't do what I say, I'll invade you, or I'll bomb you, cause I'm the decider!

To be truthful, foreign policy has been such in America for ages, not just with Bush; the difference is that before it would be underpaying for imported goods, or witholding needed aid.

Mikeyy said it best: "to a man with a hammer, every problem is a nail."

While you may believe this wasn't enough to go to war over; it is dishonest to claim that no WMDs have been found in Iraq.

MORE THAN 500 WMD FOUND IN IRAQ SINCE 2003

DefenseLink News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says

Lawmakers Cite Weapons Found in Iraq - washingtonpost.com

Mikeyy · #5 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 05:09 PM

This was a no class cheap and false attack. First this is America. Our Politicians should play their political games in America. There is a time and place for these things. Again Bush shows that party is more important then country. What a punk.

Spencer Collins · #6 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 06:35 PM

Appeasement is a strong word,that said..discussion with terorists should not be undertaken without setting ground rules for the discussion.

Mikeyy · #7 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spencer Collins

Appeasement is a strong word,that said..discussion with terorists should not be undertaken without setting ground rules for the discussion.

Even without any ground rules. Discussions are not appeasement. You can always say fuck off in a discussion. This is pure politics.

How many times in the history of man has this question be asked?

"Why didn't they talk before all of these people died?"

I'll bet a bunch.

Spencer Collins · #8 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikeyy

Even without any ground rules. Discussions are not appeasement. You can always say fuck off in a discussion. This is pure politics.

How many times in the history of man has this question be asked?

"Why didn't they talk before all of these people died?"

I'll bet a bunch.

I agree..discussions alone do not rise to the level of apeasement.John Adams was villified for leaving the door open to discussion and peace.In the end,he was proved to be correct.The door must remain open for discussion..

Mikeyy · #9 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spencer Collins

I agree..discussions alone do not rise to the level of apeasement.John Adams was villified for leaving the door open to discussion and peace.In the end,he was proved to be correct.The door must remain open for discussion..

Its always easy to sail with the wind.

Spencer Collins · #10 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikeyy

Its always easy to sail with the wind.

That depends on the "direction" of the wind! Without ground rules,the ship has no specific destination and leaves the good ship and crew open to peril.The goal and destination should be peace but Envoys on both sides need to be briefed on what is negotiable and what is not.For example,it is customary to demand that hostilities must sease before discussions begin.Good faith on both sides must be shown.We should be open to discussion,if we remain opposed to discussion,the terms of peace shall remain dust in the wind.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

The Following User Says Thank You to cnredd For This Useful Post:
bhkad

The Following User Says Thank You to Gordon Shumway For This Useful Post:
mlurp