Obama '08?

Ticomaya wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

Thanks, Joe, I caught that part. I understood he did not name anyone, and was giving the unnamed sources the credence they deserved. I thought perhaps there was more, but apparently the hullabaloo about Bush "disparaging" Obama in a foreign country is because anonymous White House aides have privately indicated Bush was referencing Obama and other democrats.

No, the "hullabaloo" about Bush disparaging Obama was because that's exactly what Bush intended. The unnamed sources merely confirmed that.

He was likely referring to many people.

Some people have a limitless capacity for self-delusion.

joefromchicago wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

He was likely referring to many people.

Some people have a limitless capacity for self-delusion.

Others are easily manipulated.

"Yes, there have been appeasers in the past, and the president is exactly right, and one of them is Neville Chamberlain,'' Mr. McCain told reporters on his campaign bus after a speech in Columbus, Ohio. "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 that former President Jimmy Carter, who struggled with the hostage crisis, was an appeaser, Mr. McCain replied: "I don't know if he was an appeaser or not, but he terribly mishandled the Iranian hostage crisis.''

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.''

Democrats in Congress failed last week to force a deadline for a US retreat from Iraq. This week, it was Iran's turn. American and Iranian diplomats held historic talks yesterday with Iran hoping to ease a US exit from the war.

The fact that these talks took place at all was a signal that both sides seek a new chapter in Iraq.

Four hours of negotiations between their respective ambassadors to Baghdad, held in the chambers of the Iraqi prime minister, focused solely on Iraq.

TEHRAN - Iran said on Monday that it will not hold a fourth round of talks with the United States on security in Iraq as long as US forces continue attacking Shiite militias in Baghdad.

*** Bush's gift to Obama: When President Bush -- thousands of miles away in Israel -- decided to fire his thinly veiled shot at Obama yesterday, it was a giant gift to the Illinois senator and his campaign. Why? One, it essentially kept Clinton on the sidelines just two days after her big West Virginia victory. Two, Obama's opponent was no longer Clinton or McCain, but the man with the 27% job-approval rating. And three, it rallied Democrats to Obama's side. Even neutral Dems, like Joe Biden, Rahm Emanuel and Harry Reid, quickly leapt to Obama's defense. Some Democrats might be deeply divided right now. Pro-choice women are angry at NARAL's endorsement of Obama; Clinton supporters are upset that Obama is looking like the eventual nominee; and some African Americans are unhappy with the Clintons. But what's the best way to unify them all? Give them an excuse to turn their attention to Bush. And this will all play out another day -- and will likely extend into the weekend -- as Obama will respond this afternoon to Bush at his rally with Tom Daschle in South Dakota, NBC's Andrea Mitchell reports. Obama will react to both what he considers Bush's politicization of foreign policy and the substance of Bush's attack.

*** The power of Bush: Regardless of whether you believe Bush yesterday did the right thing or not as far as the unwritten rules of partisan politics, it is a reminder of how the president can toss an issue grenade into the middle of the campaign and change the narrative in a nanosecond. But we have to ask: Did anyone in McCain's orbit get a head's up on this? After all, Bush's remarks -- and then McCain's response to them -- overshadowed McCain's big "2013" speech that he gave to put more room between himself and Bush. They also undercut that very speech after McCain essentially agreed with Bush's assessment. As the Obama campaign pointed out, McCain delivered "a lofty speech about civility and bipartisanship in the morning, and then embrace[d] George Bush's disgraceful political attack in the afternoon." Now, McCain's past (and possibly contradictory) statements on Hamas are gaining fresh scrutiny today with an op-ed by Jamie Rubin in today's Washington Post.

I think Obama made a serious mistake in his 'assumption' that President Bush was referring to him. If he had just kept his mouth shut he would not have called more attention to the fact that he SAID he would talk to terrorist leaders in at least one debate and in at least one speech and as posted on his website. The President was saying nothing that has not been said many times before and he was saying it to the single audience most threatened by terrorist intentions.

If Obama is now renouncing his intentions to talk to ANY leader no matter who, he should have agreed with the President. Otherwise it will be made to look like a case of 'he protests too much'.

The president did not name Sen. Barack Obama or any other Democrat, but White House aides privately acknowledged to CNN that the remarks were aimed at the presidential candidate and others in his party.

The way he did it, and the time he chose to do it, is a giant gift to Obama, and a poke in the eye to McCain.

Did you read what I quoted?

I think the whole flap is fab.

Yes, Bush was referring to Obama. Duh. This really isn't being seriously questioned.

The way he did it, and the time he chose to do it, is a giant gift to Obama, and a poke in the eye to McCain.

"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 in an address to the Knesset, the Israeli parliament, on Thursday. "We have heard this foolish delusion before. 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.''

I wonder how you bunch would categorize the foreign aid we send to North Korea every year?

What about the millions of dollars we give to Pakistan?

Guess it's not 'appeasement' when Republicans are the ones giving the dictators the money.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I wonder how you bunch would categorize the foreign aid we send to North Korea every year?

What about the millions of dollars we give to Pakistan?

Guess it's not 'appeasement' when Republicans are the ones giving the dictators the money.

Cycloptichorn

Wait... the Democrats are in control of Congress... they write the checks...not the President....