Ticomaya
 
  1  
Fri 16 May, 2008 12:14 am
joefromchicago wrote:
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.


Others are easily manipulated.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Fri 16 May, 2008 04:35 am
Ticomaya wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
He was likely referring to many people.

Some people have a limitless capacity for self-delusion.

Others are easily manipulated.

Sometimes those are the same people...
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Fri 16 May, 2008 06:32 am
Pussyfooting around naming names in this whole issue only give an out which is not even meant to fool anybody.

This is what McCain said about it:

Quote:


http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/15/mccain-agrees-with-bushs-remarks/

There is just so much wrong with all this I hardly know where to start and fear and I won't be able to do it justice but anyway-

Giving arms for hostages is appeasment more than talking with enemies.

We cannot choose our enemies and tough talk about Israel is not actions. Also; Iran did not say Israel should be wiped out the map; that is a misquote which has taken been taken as fact.

Does Iran's President wants Israel wiped off the map?

Also we deal with states who have had dealing with terrorist in the past and we still do. Iran just happens to be our boogieman right now. Pakistan sponsors terrorism by providing a safe haven for Osma Bin Laden but we never hear boo about Pakistan.

And we have sat down with Iran ourselves in talks with Iraq; were we "appeasing" terrorist when we talked with Iran then?

Iran, US talk on Iraq: now what?

Quote:
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.


Iran refuses US talks until Iraq attacks stop

Quote:
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.


I suppose those US ambassdors are nazis. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Fri 16 May, 2008 07:02 am
Barack Obama at his campaign stop in Beaverton, Oregon, claims that he has now campaigned in 57 states. This is the type of gaffe that Barack usually hammers McCain about due to his age.

Barack should just poke fun at himself and agree to appear on Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?

I think it's safe to assume he meant 47.

The USA consists of 50 states for those of you who went to California public schools.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Fri 16 May, 2008 08:18 am
He just wants to be the President of 57 states, not 50.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Fri 16 May, 2008 08:22 am
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'.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Fri 16 May, 2008 08:24 am
The Dems will use any excuse to pitch a fit about Bush. They are such a bunch of whiner pansies.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Fri 16 May, 2008 08:28 am
I think it's fab.

First Read:

Quote:
*** 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.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Fri 16 May, 2008 08:30 am
Foxfyre wrote:
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'.


From the CNN article

Quote:
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.


McCain recommended negotiating with Hamas two years ago. Our State Department and Gates recommend negotiating with Iran. Bush is meeting with Abbas in Syria this week. Who exactly is it that we shouldn't be talking to again?

A losing issue for your bunch. If only for the fact that Bush's crew and McCain would do the exact same thing as they are now decrying in Obama.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Fri 16 May, 2008 08:32 am
If you think it's fab then you are no Democrat. Ask Pelosi what she thinks.

Maybe we should make Obama president of Puerto Rico, or Guam.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Fri 16 May, 2008 08:36 am
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.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Fri 16 May, 2008 08:42 am
sozobe wrote:
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.

Makes sense to me. The Bush clique is nothing if not vindictive.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Fri 16 May, 2008 08:42 am
sozobe wrote:
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.


He was referring to appeasers. If Obama is an appeaser, then he was talking directly about him.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Fri 16 May, 2008 08:44 am
I was wondering about that -- whether the eye-poking part could be purposeful. Dunno.

This is the "Jamie Rubin" article referred to in the First Read stuff I quoted:

Hypocrisy on Hamas
McCain Was for Talking Before He Was Against It

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/15/AR2008051503306.html
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Fri 16 May, 2008 08:53 am
I said 'talk' but Tico, being a precise kind of guy, used the correct term: appeasement. This was Bush's message that 'appeasing' tyrants only clears the way for more tyranny which is why you don't negotiate with terrorists or tyrants. Obama's correct response should have been, well he certainly isn't talking about me because I am not an appeaser.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Fri 16 May, 2008 08:55 am
This is what he said:

Quote:
"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.''
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Fri 16 May, 2008 09:00 am
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
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Fri 16 May, 2008 09:23 am
While reading about Mc Main backing down from his staying in Iraq for 100 years I ran across something Obama said some time ago that I missed. He gave himself the usual politicial out on Iraq by specifing that he would get out of Iraq "unless" the military people gave him advice to the contrary. This seems to me to be vintage Bush bull shyt. I still have a problem with truth and politicians weather democratic or republican. They all spout what they think people want to hear than do whatever they want once elected. And of course the sheeple go along with it because hope springs eternal. After 200 years of this crap one would think that at least some of the citizens would realize they were being played.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Fri 16 May, 2008 09:24 am
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....
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Fri 16 May, 2008 09:25 am
cjhsa wrote:
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....


The Republicans wrote those checks when they were in control of Congress up until 2006. You seem to forget that little point.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 859
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.19 seconds on 07/12/2025 at 03:08:30