Obama '08?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

His position is exactly the same as GW's.

Here's the money line.

Quote:

""I do not want to keep our troops in Iraq a minute longer than necessary to secure our interests there.

Our interests in Iraq will NEVER be secure in our absence. Therefore, we will be there forever according to him.

Try thinking for a second. If we create an Iraq which can stand on it's own, who will they be allies with? Iran, our supposed enemies. Our interests will never be secure by letting that happen. So we won't leave.

This **** isn't difficult to figure out if you bother to look even an iota deeper then the surface of people's statements, jeez

Cycloptichorn

Then think about Obama's plan and the bullshit he is saying.

In MY opinion, I do not buy Obama's line of pacifism and appeasement. He will give into their demands in the hopes of finding peace. That is my opinion.

What you are buying into is the right-wing media narrative. The code word 'appeasement' is the clue to this. You don't have any idea what Obama will do or not do with any country.

Right now we are sending many millions to North Korea and Pakistan. Are we appeasing them?

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

What you are buying into is the right-wing media narrative. The code word 'appeasement' is the clue to this. You don't have any idea what Obama will do or not do with any country.

Right now we are sending many millions to North Korea and Pakistan. Are we appeasing them?

Cycloptichorn

You also have to define "appeasement". Holding talks with a country is not appeasement. Granting unilateral concessions to hopefully halt undesirable behavior is appeasement. I seriously doubt Obama would do that.

Though White House aide Ed Gillespie said the target, if there was a target, of President Bush's speech yestreday was Jimmy Carter, Obama spokesman Bill Burton passed along two "crystal clear examples" of the White House saying that the speech was intended to suggest, without naming, Barack Obama. The examples are laundered through the brains of two very well respected White House correspondents.

NBC (John Yang): Speaking on background, a senior administration official says the president's language to anyone -- the official specifically mentioned Obama and former President Jimmy Carter's suggestion that the U.S. talk to Hamas -- who has suggested engaging with rogue states or terrorist groups without first getting some leverage.

CNN (Ed Henry): While the words Barack Obama were never used White House aides privately admit the President referring not just to Barack Obama but other Democrats like Jimmy Carter, for example, who has recently suggested himself has sat down with Hamas leaders and has suggested that the U.S. government to should sit down with Hamas. So, the inference is clear. Although the President didn't name names, administration officials are privately acknowledging this was a shot at Barack Obama and other Democrats.

With respect: Gillespie and Dana Perino are ... contradicting the SAOs who briefed Ed Henry and John Yang. SAOs tend to be more forthcoming. Make of it what you will.

In Watertown South, Dakota, Sen. Barack Obama called President Bush's remarks "outrageous and appalling and divisive."

Well I want to be perfectly clear with George Bush and John McCain - if they want a debate about protecting the United States of America, that's a debate I'm ready to win, because George Bush and John McCain have a lot to answer for.

He used the phrase "Bush and John McCain" about a dozen times, which speaks for itself. Obama came off as tough, pissed off, and in a fighting mood; the Goths are at the gate, and Obama's beating them back. That type of thing.

Just came across this, in terms of whether Bush was actually talking about Obama:

Marc Ambinder wrote:

Though White House aide Ed Gillespie said the target, if there was a target, of President Bush's speech yestreday was Jimmy Carter, Obama spokesman Bill Burton passed along two "crystal clear examples" of the White House saying that the speech was intended to suggest, without naming, Barack Obama. The examples are laundered through the brains of two very well respected White House correspondents.

NBC (John Yang): Speaking on background, a senior administration official says the president's language to anyone -- the official specifically mentioned Obama and former President Jimmy Carter's suggestion that the U.S. talk to Hamas -- who has suggested engaging with rogue states or terrorist groups without first getting some leverage.

CNN (Ed Henry): While the words Barack Obama were never used White House aides privately admit the President referring not just to Barack Obama but other Democrats like Jimmy Carter, for example, who has recently suggested himself has sat down with Hamas leaders and has suggested that the U.S. government to should sit down with Hamas. So, the inference is clear. Although the President didn't name names, administration officials are privately acknowledging this was a shot at Barack Obama and other Democrats.

With respect: Gillespie and Dana Perino are ... contradicting the SAOs who briefed Ed Henry and John Yang. SAOs tend to be more forthcoming. Make of it what you will.

Links in original:

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/obama_camp_white_house_has_its.php

Ya know how I keep saying that I can't wait for the general election debates, because we'll see Obama without filters? (Filters include the need to handle Hillary with kid gloves so she doesn't [effectively] cry "bully!", a dearth of real policy differences, and a reluctance to be destructive to his own party.)

The filters are coming off!

Marc Ambinder wrote:

In Watertown South, Dakota, Sen. Barack Obama called President Bush's remarks "outrageous and appalling and divisive."

Well I want to be perfectly clear with George Bush and John McCain - if they want a debate about protecting the United States of America, that's a debate I'm ready to win, because George Bush and John McCain have a lot to answer for.

He used the phrase "Bush and John McCain" about a dozen times, which speaks for itself. Obama came off as tough, pissed off, and in a fighting mood; the Goths are at the gate, and Obama's beating them back. That type of thing.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/obama_bushmccain_have_a_lot_to.php

engineer wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

What you are buying into is the right-wing media narrative. The code word 'appeasement' is the clue to this. You don't have any idea what Obama will do or not do with any country.

Right now we are sending many millions to North Korea and Pakistan. Are we appeasing them?

Cycloptichorn

You also have to define "appeasement". Holding talks with a country is not appeasement. Granting unilateral concessions to hopefully halt undesirable behavior is appeasement. I seriously doubt Obama would do that.

One could argue an immediate withdrawal of our troops, unconditionally, would be appeasement. This may be a likely course of action for Obama. He is campaiging on this issue of removing troops in 16 months.

When another country makes demands and such demands are accommodated on the theory that will make the other country happy and they will then play nice, that is appeasement.

And, based on a looooooong history, it is just about the most naive and stupid diplomatic technique a nation can employ.

Foxfyre wrote:

When another country makes demands and such demands are accommodated on the theory that will make the other country happy and they will then play nice, that is appeasement.

And, based on a looooooong history, it is just about the most naive and stupid diplomatic technique a nation can employ.

So the money that Pakistan demanded we give them - and which we now give to them on a yearly basis - you don't call that appeasement?

How 'bout North Korea?

None of you Conservatives have the balls to address this, it's pretty clear.

Cycloptichorn

The Clinton appeasement program for North Korea included hundreds of millions of dollars in aid, food, oil and even a nuclear reactor.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

When another country makes demands and such demands are accommodated on the theory that will make the other country happy and they will then play nice, that is appeasement.

And, based on a looooooong history, it is just about the most naive and stupid diplomatic technique a nation can employ.

So the money that Pakistan demanded we give them - and which we now give to them on a yearly basis - you don't call that appeasement?

How 'bout North Korea?

None of you Conservatives have the balls to address this, it's pretty clear.

Cycloptichorn

To be fair (something I know you dont like to do) the money going to NK was actually started by Bill Clinton...

Quote:

The Clinton appeasement program for North Korea included hundreds of millions of dollars in aid, food, oil and even a nuclear reactor.

Thats from here...
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/1/7/164846.shtml

So while Bush is guilty of continuing a stupid policy, the actual policy was started by Clinton.

Did you object then?
Somehow I dont think you did.

Also, to the best of my knowledge, neither President Bush nor President Clinton are running for anything right now, but we can include their activities in the history when we assess what works and what doesn't.

I am interested, however, in whether McCain or Obama has the best grasp of effective fundamental diplomacy based on what we know works and what doesn't work. Somehow, I think McCain will come out better in that debate.

teenyboone wrote:

First, thanks for being honest! Now, tell me what year did he, (Bush), win? I guess rigging an election is fair game, huh?

:wink:

teeny, I like your non-vicious approach to debating here. No election was rigged. Think for yourself, do not swallow all the bilge fed you by the Democrat slime and spin machine. Gore tried to have a recount, based on only some precincts, not the whole state, which was unconstitutional, and rightly the Supreme Court stopped the Florida courts from trying to conduct an illegally skewed recount. Subsequent investigations proved Bush won. Get over it.

engineer wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

What you are buying into is the right-wing media narrative. The code word 'appeasement' is the clue to this. You don't have any idea what Obama will do or not do with any country.

Right now we are sending many millions to North Korea and Pakistan. Are we appeasing them?

Cycloptichorn

You also have to define "appeasement". Holding talks with a country is not appeasement. Granting unilateral concessions to hopefully halt undesirable behavior is appeasement. I seriously doubt Obama would do that.

One could argue an immediate withdrawal of our troops, unconditionally, would be appeasement. This may be a likely course of action for Obama. He is campaiging on this issue of removing troops in 16 months.

..... You don't have any idea what Obama will do or not do with any country.
Cycloptichorn