Obama slams Bush - Republicans invoke Godwins law and lose

[Nick]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20080516/ ... 02f96.html

WATERTOWN, South Dakota (Reuters) - Democrat Barack Obama accused President George W. Bush on Friday of "fear-mongering" for suggesting Democrats wanted to appease terrorists and vowed to meet leaders of hostile nations like Iran if elected.
(Advertisement)

In a long-distance foreign policy debate that ricocheted through the U.S. presidential campaign, Republican candidate John McCain called Obama reckless and out of touch with reality, while Hillary Clinton has defended her rival Democrat.

Obama clearly relished the clash with Bush and chance to link McCain with the unpopular Republican president. He said Bush had contributed to Iran's rise in the Middle East by launching the Iraq war, which he said had removed Baghdad as a counterweight to the Islamic republic.

The Illinois senator said McCain was as much to blame as Bush for what he termed a U.S. Middle East policy failure.

"They're trying to fool you, and trying to scare you, and they're not telling the truth. And the reason is because they can't win a foreign-policy debate on the merits. But it's not going to work," said Obama, the Democratic front-runner vying to face McCain in the November presidential election.

Obama said if elected president he would meet, with preparation but without preconditions, leaders Bush has avoided, such as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, North Korea's Kim Jong-il and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

"I would engage in direct talks," he told reporters after a speech.

Iran, Syria and North Korea are considered by the U.S. State Department to be state sponsors of terrorism while Venezuela has stoked anti-American sentiment in South America.

Bush triggered Democratic outrage on Thursday by saying in a speech in Israel that some politicians would pursue the "false comfort of appeasement" by negotiating with militant groups such as the Palestinian Hamas and Hezbollah organizations and Iran.

Obama said Bush and McCain were guilty of "bombast, exaggerations and fear-mongering."

The White House said it was baffled at the Democratic response and that Bush had long made similar statements.

"I would encourage you to ask them what sentences that they disagree with, what specific sentence," White House counsellor Ed Gillespie said on the Air Force One flight to Saudi Arabia.

McCain's campaign accused Obama of an "hysterical diatribe" and the Arizona senator said he welcomed a debate on security. "Talking, not even with soaring rhetoric, ... will not convince Iran to give up its nuclear program. It is reckless to suggest that unconditional meetings will advance our interests," McCain told a Tennessee meeting of the National Rifle Association.

It was wrong to believe there were no enemies in the world, he said. "Until Sen. Obama understands that reality, the American people have every reason to doubt whether he has the strength, judgment and determination to keep us safe."

NATIONAL STAGE

The episode allowed Obama to talk directly to Bush and elevate himself on the national stage as he tries to wrap up the Democratic presidential nomination. Even party rival Hillary Clinton has come to Obama's defence, saying on Thursday that Bush's remarks were "outrageous and deeply offensive."

Weakened by the Iraq war and ailing economy, Republicans hope to convince Americans that Obama is too inexperienced to be trusted as commander in chief, as McCain tried to assert on Friday.

But Obama sought to turn the experience question around on Bush and McCain.

"They've got to answer for the fact that Iran is the greatest strategic beneficiary of our invasion of Iraq. It made Iran stronger, George Bush's policies," he said.

"They're going to have to explain why Hamas now controls Gaza, Hamas that was strengthened because the United States insisted that we should have democratic elections in the Palestinian Authority," he added.

"I was offended by what is a continuation of a strategy from this White House, now mimicked by Senator McCain, that replaces strategy and analysis and smart policy with bombast, exaggerations and fear-mongering," the Illinois senator said.

This guy really needs to be the next President. His arguments are valid and he has embarrassed the Administration (which they deserve) and McCain for their ill thought out attack. Good times. Lets hope they don't end in January.

Bush really fired an own goal there, bringing the middle east issue right into the nomination process. Especially given McCain's useless stance on foreign policy, Bush has just handed a massive gimme to Obama. Hoo fucking ray.

[Forthe]

It was a smart move. He owned the news yesterday and will dominate the weekend news with some pretty good soundbites:

"Bush McCain have a lot to answer for"
"I trust the American people to trust their own eyes"

If he manages to narrow McCains national security advantage early this should be a cakewalk.

[Fairweather Pure]

I would like to see a debate where McCain either answers or dodges these very direct questions.

[Forthe]

I expect we will see Republicans back off the whole appeasement argument and fall back to inexperience. Appeasement gives Obama a lot of Reagan and JFK ammo, both of whom were labeled appeasers by the right, allowing Obama to paint himself in the image of heroes from both sides.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Bush wasn't even talking about Obama. He was talking about Jimmy Carter. Obama, like many of you Obama-lovers, are very defensive. He flip-flopped all over about this issue. It's quite funny. You guys think it's awesome and shows his genius. Oh man. Maybe the internet and information being made available to all. won't actually ever bring us all together.

[Noysyrump]

Obama was all butt hurt cause he knows it applies to him too. Regardless of whom it was in reference too.

[Tristinn]

Do you guys get the most massive boners being 28 percenters?

If I was a 28 percenter I would be in a pretty deep hole right now.. like.. fucking my cousin or something.

[Aslanna]

All we need now is for Funk to post and we'll have the Trifecta of Stupidness which infects every thread around here.

[Forthe]

Bush wasn't even talking about Obama. He was talking about Jimmy Carter. Obama, like many of you Obama-lovers, are very defensive. He flip-flopped all over about this issue. It's quite funny. You guys think it's awesome and shows his genius. Oh man. Maybe the internet and information being made available to all. won't actually ever bring us all together.

Both CNN and NBC reported that administration aides suggested the speech was directed at Obama and Carter.

The administration claiming otherwise afterwards is a rope-a-dope.

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.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... errorists/

[Noysyrump]

All we need now is for Funk to post and we'll have the Trifecta of Stupidness which infects every thread around here.

Finally I'm included! Still dont get included by name though.




One sad panda.

[Noysyrump]

Do you guys get the most massive boners being 28 percenters?

If I was a 28 percenter I would be in a pretty deep hole right now.. like.. fucking my cousin or something.

What makes you think I'm in the 28%? If polled I'd tick the "indifferent" box, thus not making me a 28 percenter.

[Xatrei]

As Chris Matthews demonstrated (youtube copy) to this empty-headed right-wing radio hack, there's a pretty significant difference between appeasement and talking with someone. The right-wing retards that habitually conflate the two need to pick up a book or two, one of which should be a dictionary.

And yes, immediately after Bush's address, his aides were telling press in Israel that his remarks were directed towards Obama, but they rapidly backtracked from that once this story started to blow up. The notion that he was referring to Carter didn't come up until the 3rd+ version of Bush's intent as stated by his handlers.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

A fool sits down at a table with terrorists and treats them as equals. Everything Bush said was correct. Liberals and their belief they can talk every thing out with the bad guys is so sad. That foolishness brought us 9/11.

[Xatrei]

No one relevant has ever suggested trying to sit down and negotiate with terrorists, as equals or otherwise. However, meeting with the Iranians, as has been suggested by numerous members of Bush's own administration, has been painted as appeasement by Bush and his rabid devotees. It's no different than our past negotiations with China, the U.S.S.R., Lybia, North Korea or many other "bad guys" with whom we've held diplomatic talks. Meeting with Hamas is a bit more of a gray area. While it forms the democratically elected majority within the Palestinian Authority, the militant group has been branded a "terrorist organization" (others might say they are insurgents resisting the criminal occupation of their lands by Europeans, but that's a separate tangent). Some argue that a distinction must be made between Hamas the political party and Hamas the militant organization, and that's a legitimate and fair debate to have. Ultimately, attempting to sit down and negotiate with other nations with whom we have issues is an appropriate and responsible step. The diplomatic options must be exhausted before considering other steps.

Just to be clear for the idiots like Midnyte, I'm talking about diplomatic talks with other governments not sitting down for a beer with Al-Qaeda to try to work things out.

[Forthe]

A fool sits down at a table with terrorists and treats them as equals. Everything Bush said was correct. Liberals and their belief they can talk every thing out with the bad guys is so sad. That foolishness brought us 9/11.

Main Entry: con·flate
Pronunciation: \kən-ˈflāt\
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): con·flat·ed; con·flat·ing
Etymology: Latin conflatus, past participle of conflare to blow together, fuse, from com- + flare to blow — more at blow
Date: 1610
1 a: to bring together : fuse b: confuse
2: to combine (as two readings of a text) into a composite whole

[Zaelath]

A fool sits down at a table with terrorists and treats them as equals. Everything Bush said was correct. Liberals and their belief they can talk every thing out with the bad guys is so sad. That foolishness brought us 9/11.

It's somewhat overly optimistic to believe there is a diplomatic solution to every problem, however you pwn the stupid when you support "solving" terrorism by "invading an unrelated oil rich country". But, we need comic relief, so have at it Gomer.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

No one relevant has ever suggested trying to sit down and negotiate with terrorists, as equals or otherwise.

Mr Obama raised eyebrows last year when he first stated his support for direct negotiations without preconditions with the controversial Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The above is what people had a problem with. He has since amended his position a few times.

[Forthe]

Mid, What conditions would you like him to put in place?

[Xatrei]

Mr Obama raised eyebrows last year when he first stated his support for direct negotiations without preconditions with the controversial Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The above is what people had a problem with. He has since amended his position a few times.

Yes, of course Obama is willing to sit down and talk to foreign governments with which we have icy relations, with no or few preconditions, as has been his more recently stated policy. There's nothing wrong with talking to Iran. Bush's own cabinet members recommend talking to Iran. We're talking to North Korea (you know, that other part of Bush's laughable 'Axis of Evil' ) now, for Jebus' sake. Apparently, Bush's position is that it's only "appeasement" when someone other than his administration doing the talking. What you're doing here is demonstrating the fact that you, like so many other mindless cogs in the right wing regime's propaganda machine, cannot tell the difference between an unfriendly foreign government and the nebulous (and increasingly useless) term "terrorist." Here's a hint: Iran is a foreign government, not a terrorist group. Contrary to what you would have us believe, it's not a sign of weakness to talk to your enemies. Granted, not every problem can be resolved through diplomacy, but it's virtually always the preferable first step.

As I said before, no one has ever suggested that we negotiate with terrorists, least of all Obama.

[Forthe]

If George Bush and John McCain have a problem with direct diplomacy, led by the president of the United States, then they can explain why they have a problem with John F. Kennedy because that's what he did with [Soviet leader Nikita] Khrushchev, or Ronald Reagan, 'cause that's what he did with [Soviet leader Mikhail] Gorbachev, or Richard Nixon 'cause that's what they did with [Chinese leader Mao Tse-tung]," Obama said in Roseburg, Ore. "That’s exactly the kind of diplomacy we need to keep us safe.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar ... -mcca.html

Edit: Nobody thought Obama would win the gas tax holiday argument but he did. McCain needs to run away from this asap.

[masteen]

A fool sits down at a table with terrorists and treats them as equals. Everything Bush said was correct. Liberals and their belief they can talk every thing out with the bad guys is so sad. That foolishness brought us 9/11.

Surely you can't be this obtuse. The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend, and the fundy assholes we armed and trained in Afghanistan are a sore reminder of that. But it should also remind us of the price of ignorance. We turned our backs and ignored place once the Soviets were gone, and what they created using materials and knowledge we gave them was truly horrific.

We can't stick our fingers in our ears and go "LALALALA I'm not listening to you Hugo and Mahmoud!" Like them or not, they are leaders of nations.

[VariaVespasa]

He isnt that obtuse. I believe I may have mentioned the actual truth once or twice in the past.

[Nick]

Yeah, there is certainly a problem in some quarters of understanding the difference between communication and appeasement. This whole gung-ho we are the republican global army and we don't stop fer no goddamn sand nigger argument is embarrassing and has no place in civilized discourse.

Ultimately, one mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter. (I'm not justifying terrorism, unless the cap fits) This is the crux of the matter. If certain idiots want to simply go on and on about how evil the enemy is, nothing will ever get solved. I'm not saying people like Bin Laden can be talked to, but then people used to say that about the Troubles here in Ireland, and look how wrong they turned out to be.

However, Obama's never even mentioned discussing issues with terrorists, he's simply not ruling out a mediated process between other governments. This is nothing new, in the history of diplomacy, and it is nothing new in the history of America.

The real fucking stupid thing about this is that the US already negotiates with, and subsidises terrorists on a daily basis in Iraq. That's a fact btw. The hypocrisy is risible. Only morons would defend Bush's statements *surprise that someone quoted the following dipshit's idiotic response to this thread*

A fool sits down at a table with terrorists and treats them as equals. Everything Bush said was correct. Liberals and their belief they can talk every thing out with the bad guys is so sad. That foolishness brought us 9/11.

No, your stupid "Fuck Muslims" attitude, coupled with stupid American decisions throughout history, brought us 9/11. Moron.

It's a hilarious indictment of the short memory and stupidity of people like you that this sort of thing is even brought up. It's a totally lost argument. Give it up.

“Keep in mind that as early as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, they negotiated with the al Qaeda of their day, the Barbary pirates before finally attacking them,” Hart said.

Despite primarily focusing his attacks on the Bush administration, the former senator from Colorado linked Bush’s comments to presumptive Republican nominee John McCain.

“John McCain's already attacked Barack Obama as saying he's the candidate from Hamas. And so I think this was all part of the McCain campaign.”

[Gzette]

I'm guessing Bush would negotiate with Iran if they had nukes. To paraphrase Madeline Albright, that is the chief lesson of the Bush foreign policy: get nukes and we won't invade you. Pleasant dreams.

At this point, any indictment by the Bush administration is a positive step. In fact I think it will be McCain's number one obstacle heading towards November, separating himself and the republican party from GW. However in doing that, he loses some fundraising capabilities. It's no doubt Obama will out spend McCain, but the disparity could be HUGE. I wish I had the numbers to see how much each has raised.