"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. 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."~Bush in Jerusalem

...Uhhh I thought was very UnAmerican and UnPatriotic to criticize Americans while on foreign soil? WTF Mr. Bush? Just ask the Anti American Muslim terrorist band, The Dixie Chicks.

AND I remember "Some ingenious people seemed to think" if we invaded Iraq we'd be greeted as liberaters and the war/occupation would pay for itself.

How'd that work out, genious?

This is absolutely unprecidented for an American President to criticize a possible candidate (Obama) let alone to do it on Foreign soil).

Like I've said before this adminstration will play the FEAR CARD, as always, and tell you, you will die if you vote for Obama. Now it just beginning. Can't wait for the Race Card too. Can't wait for murf to repeat these talking points either. But I'm sure Fox News will cover this this like the Dixie Chiks because they are "Fair and Balanced"

Terrorism in Iraq is your creation, Mr. Bush. It's gonna take decades to repair the damage of this incompetent Administration. AGAIN the are NOT true republicans.

http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2008/05/bush_no_negotiation_with_kille.html

Below is a complete transcript of Keith Olbermann's "Special Comment" from the Wednesday, May 14 Countdown on MSNBC:

Finally tonight, as promised, a "Special Comment" on two topics a lot of us had foolishly thought and naively hoped we would not again have to address, and a third topic nobody thought a President would ever seriously mention in public, unless perhaps he'd just been hit in the head with something and was not in full possession of his faculties, how he expressed his empathy with families of the dead in Iraq by giving up golf.

President Bush has resorted anew to the sleaziest fear-mongering and mass manipulation of an administration of a public life dedicated to realizing the lowest of our expectations. And he has now applied these poisons to the 2008 presidential election, on behalf of the party at whose center he and Mr. McCain lurk. Mr. Bush has predicted that the election of a Democratic President could, quote, "eventually lead to another attack on the United States." This ludicrous, infuriating, holier-than-thou and most importantly bone-headedly wrong statement came yesterday during an interview with Politico.com and online users of Yahoo.

The question was phrased as follows: "If we were to pull out of Iraq next year, what's the worst that could happen, what's the doomsday scenario?"

And the President replied: "Doomsday scenario, of course, is that extremists throughout the Middle East would be emboldened, which would eventually lead to another attack on the United States. The biggest issue we face is, it's bigger than Iraq, it's this ideological struggle against cold-blooded killers who will kill people to achieve their political objectives."

Mr. Bush, at long last, has it not dawned on you that the America you have now created, includes "cold-blooded killers who will kill people to achieve their political objectives?" They are those in, or formerly in, your employ, who may yet be charged some day with war crimes.

Through your haze of self-congratulation and self-pity, do you still have no earthly clue that this nation has laid waste to Iraq to achieve your political objectives? "This ideological struggle" you speak of, Mr. Bush, is taking place within this country. It is a struggle between Americans who cherish freedom, ours and everybody else's, and Americans like you, sir, to whom freedom is just a brand name, just like "Patriot Act" is a brand name or "Protect America" is a brand name.

But wait, there's more: You also have said "Iraq is the place where al-Qaeda and other extremists have made their stand and they will be defeated." They made no "stand" in Iraq, sir, you allowed them to assemble there!

As certainly as if that were the plan, the borders were left wide open by your government's farcical post-invasion strategy of "they'll greet us as liberators." And as certainly as if that were the plan, the inspiration for another generation of terrorists in another country was provided by your government's farcical post-invasion strategy of letting the societal infrastructure of Iraq dissolve, to be replaced by an American viceroyalty, enforced by merciless mercenaries who shoot unarmed Iraqis and then evade prosecution in any country by hiding behind your skirts, sir. Terrorism inside Iraq is your creation, Mr. Bush!

It was a Yahoo user who brought up the second topic upon whose introduction Mr. Bush should have passed, or punted, or gotten up and left the room claiming he heard Dick Cheney calling him. "Do you feel," asked an ordinary American, "that you were misled on Iraq?"

"I feel like, I felt like, there were weapons of mass destruction," the President said. "You know, 'mislead' is a strong word, it almost connotes some kind of intentional, I don't think so, I think there was a, not only our intelligence community, but intelligence communities all across the world shared the same assessment. And so I was disappointed to see how flawed our intelligence was."

Flawed. You, Mr. Bush, and your tragically know-it-all minions, threw out every piece of intelligence that suggested there were no such weapons. You, Mr. Bush, threw out every person who suggested that the sober, contradictory, reality-based intelligence needed to be listened to, and damned fast. You, Mr. Bush, are responsible for how "intelligence communities all around the world shared the same assessment." You and the sycophants you dredged up and put behind the most important steering wheel in the world propagated palpable nonsense and shoved it down the throat of every intelligence community across the world and punished everybody who didn't agree it was really chicken salad.

And you, Mr. Bush, threw under the bus, all of the subsequent critics who bravely stepped forward later to point out just how much of a self-fulfilling prophecy you had embraced, and adopted as this country's policy in lieu of, say, common sense.

The fiasco of pre-war intelligence, sir, is your fiasco. You should build a great statue of yourself turning a deaf ear to the warnings of the realists, while you are shown embracing the three-card monte dealers like Richard Perle and Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. That would be a far more fitting tribute to your legacy, Mr. Bush, than this presidential library you are constructing as a giant fable about your presidency, an edifice you might as well claim was built from "Iraqi weapons of mass destruction" because there will be just as many of those inside your presidential library as there were inside Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

Of course, if there is one overriding theme to this President's administration it is the utter, always-failing, inability to know when to quit when it is behind. And so Mr. Bush answered yet another question about this layered, nuanced, wheels-within-wheels garbage heap that constituted his excuse for war.

"And so you feel that you didn't have all the information you should have or the right spin on that information?"

"No, no," replied the President. "I was told by people, that they had weapons of mass destruction."
People? What people? The insane informant "Curveball?" The Iraqi snake oil salesman Ahmed Chalabi? The American snake oil salesman Dick Cheney?

"I was told by people that they had weapons of mass destruction, as were members of Congress, who voted for the resolution to get rid of Saddam Hussein.

"And, of course, the political heat gets on, and they start to run and try to hide from their votes."

Mr. Bush, you destroyed the evidence that contradicted the resolution you jammed down the Congress's throat, the way you jammed it down the nation's throat. When required by law to verify that your evidence was accurate, you simply resubmitted it, with phrases amounting to "See, I done proved it," virtually written in the margins in crayon. You defied patriotic Americans to say "The Emperor Has No Clothes," only this time with the stakes, as you and the mental dwarves in your employ put it, being a "mushroom cloud over an American city."

And as a final crash of self-indulgent nonsense, when the incontrovertible truth of your panoramic and murderous deceit has even begun to cost your political party seemingly perpetual congressional seats in places like North Carolina and last night Mississippi, you can actually say with a straight face, sir, that the members of Congress, "the political heat gets on and they start to run and try to hide from their votes," while you greet the political heat and try to run and hide from your presidency, and your legacy, 4,000 of the Americans you were supposed to protect are dead in Iraq, with your only feeble, pathetic answer being, "I was told by people that they had weapons of mass destruction."

Then came Mr. Bush's final blow to our nation's solar plexus, his last reopening of our common wounds, his last remark that makes the rest of us question not merely his leadership or his judgement but his very suitability to remain in office. "Mr. President," he was asked, "you haven't been golfing in recent years. Is that related to Iraq?"

"Yes," began perhaps the most startling reply of this nightmarish blight on our lives as Americans in our history. "It really is. I don't want some mom whose son may have recently died, to see the Commander in Chief playing golf. I feel I owe it to the families to be as, to be in solidarity as best as I can with them. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal."

Golf, sir? Golf sends the wrong signal to the grieving families of our men and women butchered in Iraq? Do you think these families, Mr. Bush, their lives blighted forever, care about you playing golf? Do you think, sir, they care about you?

You, Mr. Bush, you who let their sons and daughters be killed. Sir, to show your solidarity with them you gave up golf? Sir, to show your solidarity with them you didn't give up your pursuit of this insurance-scam, profiteering, morally and financially bankrupting war. Sir, to show your solidarity with them you didn't even give up talking about Iraq, a subject about which you have incessantly proved without pause or backwards glance, that you may literally be the least informed person in the world? Sir, to show your solidarity with them, you didn't give up your presidency? In your own words  "solidarity as best as I can" is to stop a game? That is the "best" you can? Four thousand Americans give up their lives and your sacrifice was to give up golf! Golf. Not "Gulf," golf.

And still it gets worse. Because it proves that the President's unendurable sacrifice, his unbearable pain, the suspension of getting to hit a stick and a ball together, was not even his own damned idea.

"Mr. President, was there a particular moment or incident that brought you to that decision, or how did you come to that?"

"I remember when de Mello, who was at the U.N., got killed in Baghdad as a result of these murderers taking this good man's life. And I was playing golf, I think I was in central Texas, and they pulled me off the golf course, and I said, it's just not worth it any more to do."

Your one, tone-deaf, arrogant, pathetic, embarrassing gesture, and you didn't even think of it yourself? The great Bushian sacrifice â€" an Army private loses a leg, a Marine loses half his skull, 4,000 of their brothers and sisters lose their lives â€" you lose golf, and they have to pull you off the golf course to get you to just do that?

If it's even true. Apart from your medical files, which dutifully record your torn calf muscle and the knee pain which forced you to give up running at the same time â€" coincidence, no doubt â€" the bombing in Baghdad which killed Sergio Vieira de Mello of the U.N. and interrupted your round of golf was on Aug. 19, 2003. And yet, there's an Associated Press account of you and photographs playing golf as late as Columbus Day of that year, October 13, nearly two months later.

Mr. Bush, I hate to break it to you 6 ½ years after you yoked this nation and your place in history to the wrong war, in the wrong place, against the wrong people, but the war in Iraq is not about you. It is not, Mr. Bush, about your grief when American after American comes home in a box. It is not, Mr. Bush, about what your addled brain has produced in the way of paranoid delusions of risks that do not exist, ready to be activated if some Democrat, and not your twin Mr. McCain, succeeds you.

The war in Iraq, your war, Mr. Bush, is about how you accomplished the derangement of two nations, and how you helped funnel billions of taxpayer dollars to lascivious and perennially thirsty corporations like Halliburton and Blackwater, and how you sent 4,000 Americans to their deaths for nothing!

It is not, Mr. Bush, about your golf game! And, sir, if you have any hopes that next January 20 will not be celebrated as a day of soul-wrenching, heart-felt thanksgiving, because your faithless stewardship of this presidency will have finally come to a merciful end, this last piece of advice:

When somebody asks you, sir, about Democrats who must now pull this country back from the abyss you have placed us at; when somebody asks you, sir, about the cooked books and faked threats you foisted on a sincere and frightened nation; when somebody asks you, sir, about your gallant, noble, self-abdicating sacrifice of your golf game so as to soothe the families of the war dead; this advice, Mr. Bush: Shut the hell up! Good night and good luck.

"Terrorism in Iraq is your creation"

Stupid me, I was blaming the terrorists the whole time.

Yep, my hatred toward Bush is sooo great I'm going to vote for the canidate that says there are 57 states just like the Muslims have. I want to vote for a guy that has the decision making capability to not be swayed by his own personal mentor for years, hangs around with left wing nuts, tells me he’s not an elitist whilst telling me to hang on to my gun all along not being able to be touched by the truth because we are attacking him, he fights the good fight for a baby that survived an abortion by not wanting to help it while it’s on the table and wants to let the baby die. He tells me he’s going to tax the shi& out of me and create an atmosphere of harmony through the world by conferring with the very people that want to destroy us....yea that’s my guy a true champion for change

Change we can believe in! Fu$% Bush

GO OBAMA

God you people are blind.

Keith Olbermann? He's the leftist version of Shawn Hannity.

1st off, Bush did NOT mention Obama by name. If the Obama campaign is having a hissy-fit over the language he used, it's only because they know the shoe fits. Bush did not say he's ashamed of a senator, the way the dixie Chicks said they're ashamed of the prez and the US. Bush is the prez of the US, and can't be worried about a political campaign that he's not directly involved in. He's still governing. His words still mean something. He was in Israel, which is being shelled almost daily from gaza rockets, and his message was that he will always stand against terrorism, and won't have an open dialogue with terrorists. What a crime! If Obama wants to sit down and talk to the Katyusha rocket launchers, that's up to him, and seems to be the way he leans, politically, but don't blame Bush for stating his own case, and the foreign policy differences regarding dealing with terrorists between his camp and another camp.

Obama's own words: "...I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies, like Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did..."

It's on his own website.

As I said in a previous thread, his linking of Roosevelt/Kennedy and Truman to being like himself, as being guys who had open dialogue with their enemies, is ludicrous, factually wrong, and idiotic.

If he wants to say he's for open dialogue without preconditions if he becomes president, that's up to him, but expecting others not to mention what his policy might be because it might "offend" the Obama campaign, is just silly.

Obama is seen as extremely weak on foreign policy. That is his achilles heel. It IS his achilles heel because he's clueless about it, and it comes across in his speeches, in the debates, and in his statements.

When Hillary said she'd respond with all out military force against Iran if they ever attacked Israel, Obama said she sounded like a Bush clone. Great answer Barack, considering it was the right answer. No wonder Hizbullah and Hamas support the Obama campaign. What other answer could there be, Barack? To not do anything, and have tea and a dialogue with nutty Iran man after the attack has already began?

The Bush administration, as much as I loathe them, has a very simple request to open up dialogue with countries like Iran: Stop denying that the holocaust ever happened, recognize Israel's right to exist, and stop saying that you're going to wipe Israel off the map. These seem like simple, obvious requests in order to open up a political "dialogue" from one chief head of state to another, but wingnuts like Iwannajihad from Iran can't even do that. No, wingnuts like Iwannajihad want to cling to their extremist rhetoric AND also have a dialogue with the West. And Obama just might think this is OK.

What if Obama wanted to have a dialogue with American rightists and skinhead/neonazi holocaust deniers? Should he give their beliefs even a shred of credibility by taking the time to have a talk with them?
Does he really think he's brilliant enough to change their troglodyte views?

When you sit down and talk to wingnuts, you give the wingnuts legitimacy, and you will never penetrate their thinking in order to see things your way because seeing things your way is not what their goal is, their goal is to be seen as having dialogue with the POTUS, which legitimizes their views in the minds of all the other wingnuts out there that are in their "club."

"...Terrorism in Iraq is your creation, Mr. Bush..."

Agreed, but Bush was in Israel talking to the Israelis while they've been under constant rocket attacks from gaza (one of which struck a mall and injured dozens, while Bush was there). His statements regarding appeasement didn't have anything to do with Iraq, since "appeasement" did not take place with Iraq. He was speaking to the Israeli/Palestinian issue, and terror sponsored states in general.

"...It's gonna take decades to repair the damage of this incompetent Administration..."

Agreed, but there are no guarantees that Barack would be any better, and there are some indiciations that he could be far worse, as far as his foreign policy "beliefs" go.

"...AGAIN the are NOT true republicans.

I agree.

This election is shaping up to be one of the messiest ever. I've even seen articles regarding Ron Paul supporters that are planning on hijacking the Republican convention. lol! Apparently, Mccain was due to make a speech somewhere, and the entire floor was comprised of Ron Paul supporters with Ron Paul signs shouting Ron Paul's name, and Mccain had to cancel the speech, and the Republican goon squads showed up at his next scheduled event and made sure that Ron Paul supporters were weeded out, and had their privilidges and passes taken away and none of them could get into the event, and it has been ongoing since wherever Mccain is set to show up. Mccain has extremely tepid support and many who used to vote Republican religiously aren't going to do so this election. Both parties could wind up with very ugly conventions, although the Republicans will do their best to quell any "problems" while the dems will keep begging Hillary to bow out.

Hillary was betrayed by half the democrat base, and I can guarantee you, she's pissed. She was supported vehemently by dems all through the Clinton white house years, and then was lauded as one of the most influential members of the senate. She was one of their "stars" for 16 years. Then they toss her aside like a dirty paper plate in favor of some young African American senator. lol! Yep, she's torqued off, and she can smile all she wants when she says she's going to support whoever the nominee is, but she is going to fight to the death to see to it that either she's the nominee, or that she damages Obama so completely that he can't win, which means she could attempt another run in 2012. She wants that office, damnit!

*****************
"...I don't know if we each have a destiny, or if we're all just floatin' around accidental-like on a breeze. But I, I think maybe it's both, maybe both happening at the same time." -Forrest Gump

First off...
Why can Obama run all over the country and say everything the President has done is a failure, but when Bush just mentions a failed policy without saying a name...(never said anything about Obama), he is bashed fo rit?

I can't wait to see the excuses made for Obama when he gets into office.

Scary to think that a man of his mindset will be the most powerfull leader on Earth....

You simply do not play nice with terrorist or the nations that feed them!!!
There is no other solution...playing nice has failed.
It is an ignorant utopian fantasy, to think that you can sit at a table with these type of people and get a peace treaty.

~~~~~~~~~
Olberman....
Lets see, he wants to produce a film...now what way can he get his name out there?
I don't know...maybe being a loud mouthed idiot....
If Olberman is the mouth piece for the lefty liberal nut jobs...and his comments are praised by Dingbat....and you want me to vote for Obama, and give the entire power of this country to people like Obama/Dingbat/Reid/Olberman and mikey Moore....

You want a scare tactic?
All the thumpers have to do is post some the comments from Dingbat and Ried and then under them post the obama dream.....
If that doesn't scare you, then you are brain dead!




“…man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.”

I don't understand the arguments on here... This is like DW and abortion. a true criticism is made..and it is like... waaa waaaa... but Obama does this. If you don't like Obama so be it I think there are good arguments against him from time to time. I also think that what Bush did was way way out of line. What he has done has been way way out of line. He is a dishonest slime bag. And, no, he didn't specifically say Obama... did he really need to?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmUad6JOFcQ






"Well, it ain't braggin' if it's true
Yes sir, yes sir
It ain't braggin' if it's true
Muhammad Ali said that
Back when he was a young man
Back when he was Cassius Clay
Before he fought too many fights
And left his brain inside the ring"

The whole text was fantastic, but two paragraphs really stand out:

"But wait, there's more: You also have said "Iraq is the place where al-Qaeda and other extremists have made their stand and they will be defeated." They made no "stand" in Iraq, sir, you allowed them to assemble there!

As certainly as if that were the plan, the borders were left wide open by your government's farcical post-invasion strategy of "they'll greet us as liberators." And as certainly as if that were the plan, the inspiration for another generation of terrorists in another country was provided by your government's farcical post-invasion strategy of letting the societal infrastructure of Iraq dissolve, to be replaced by an American viceroyalty, enforced by merciless mercenaries who shoot unarmed Iraqis and then evade prosecution in any country by hiding behind your skirts, sir. Terrorism inside Iraq is your creation, Mr. Bush!"

It wasn't bad enough that the Bushies lied about WMD intelligence, and it wasn't bad enough that the Bushies ignored or trashed the considerable array of intelligence and military analysts who reported that the WMD threat was bogus.

But what this simpleton really screwed up was making a safe haven for Osama's followers, and then motivating countless more Arabs to follow this real enemy. The invasion overthrew a jerk, but he was a secular jerk who was a blood enemy to all Islamic fundamentalists.

Oh, and Bush managed to geo-politically strengthen Iran in the process.

It's like he won the all time inept Trifecta: Strengthened two strategic enemies and weakend our national defense by exhausting our military and bankrupting our economy.

Go and commute the sentences or pardon some more treasonous felons Senor Bush. Just please don't touch any more international controls.

Actually these ARE true republicans been this way for a while.

WASHINGTON (AP) - An internal e-mail written by a Veterans Affairs employee suggests avoiding a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder for veterans.

It suggests an alternative diagnosis of adjustment disorder, which might result in a lower disability payment. The memo says that the department is having "more and more compensation seeking veterans" and also that there's not enough time to make a PTSD determination.

A copy of the e-mail was distributed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a congressional watchdog group, and VoteVets.org which opposes the Bush administration on the war and veterans issues.

VA Secretary James Peake says the suggestions in the e-mail were "inappropriate" and that the employee had been repudiated and was apologetic

...My father was a Vietnam Vet and looking back it's so obvious he had Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. How in the fuching world could you not have PTSD after experiencing the Hell of War? My Dad was a mad man who got absolutely no help from the goverment. Nothing has changed. How UnPatriotic is that???
There has been many many stories already of soldiers coming back from Iraq and acting out violence in a variety of ways and commiting suicide. But we are the best country ever in the world, right? <roll eyes>

The Obama faithful can cry foul all they want. His own statements are on his own website, and that's what Bush is referring too. He clearly didn't LIE about Obama's own statements.

Whether you guys like it or not, Bush was in Israel, and the Israelis are very nervous about an Obama presidency. How are they supposed to feel? Obama criticized Clinton for saying she'd defend them if Iran attacked! Of course his views on their country is a topic of conversation. Sorry, but Obama does not live in a vacuum. He is running for prez and his views are important! Sheesh.

If Obama can't handle the heat generated by his own statements, that's his problem. What is Bush supposed to say to the Israelis?

"Oh, don't worry, Obama criticized his opponent for saying she'd defend your nation if you were attacked by Iran, but I'm sure he was just kidding, and is just as committed to defending you as she said she is..."

Bush is under no obligation whatsoever to defend, help, or shut up for Obama.
The thought that he's under some obligation to play nice for Obama is hilarious.

Sitting presidents have free reign to comment on anything they want. It is EX-presidents that are supposed to be graceful once they leave office, and stfu, but Carter and Clinton made sure to change that "tradition."

Sorry. I know you guys think Bush's presidency is already over, but he's still the prez for a little while yet.

I hate to say it, but... umm... Reagan pursued a diplomatic relationship with Iran. I'm sorry.

As for Israel being nervous about an Obama presidency... have you talked with them? Which high ranking official did you interview to obtain this information?

I think the influence Iran has over many hostile nations in the middle-east gives them plenty of legitimacy. Of course, America is a "big man" eh, he is so "macho!" Bombing the hell out of everyone is the best solution, right? Screw what they have to say, let's nuke them back to the stone age. Where am I wrong here? Isn't this McCain's platform? The man who can't tell the difference between the Shi'a and the Sunni? The man who still believes Al-Quaida launched their attacks from Iraq?

Also, Obama is handling the heat fine. I think some of his supporters are being a bit ignorant by believing for one second that a diplomatic solution isn't required here. Stop being so afraid of the neo-cons... they get all their information from Fox News and the Heritage foundation; two organizations that produce some of the most idiotic pieces of writing I have ever read. NOTHING they say is accurate... the more you say, "well, you're right about that," the more you are willing to accept many other lies these organizations produce.

By the way, if Iran attacked Israel, I don't care who the President is... the Jewish/Pro-Israel lobby is so strong, the United States would have to defend Israel. Even though Israel took Palestine from the Arabs by force... and we wonder why they are so angry. This is not anti-semitism, by the way, for Israel does need protection... but to sit here and wonder why there is such animosity for Israel when they are allowed to pursue nuclear technology and no one else in the region is? It's pretty obvious to me. If there is a solution to the tensions in the middle-east, bombing non-Israeli nations is the WORST possible strategy.

Just remember this: NOTHING was ever made of Bush's inexperience for the Presidency... NOTHING was ever made of Ronald Reagan's inexperience... (remember, being a governor does not make you the president) Last time I checked, NEITHER BARACK NOR JOHN MCCAIN HAVE EVER BEEN PRESIDENT BEFORE. The thing is, the issue of Barack's inexperience is a bit odd to me... honestly, I think it is the typical response of white America to the prospect of an African America being elected into the Oval Office. The vast majority of whites STILL believe that African Americans are somehow inferior to them.

Something that people don't bring up about Barack: he has called the heads of many investment banks to ask for their advice on the economy and fiscal policy, he listens to economists when they talk about the foolishness of a gas tax holiday... Senator Obama will surround himself with intelligent individuals that aren't swinging from the balls of the Heritage foundation and other institutes that produce lies to promote a movement conservative agenda that does nothing to improve the welfare of this country. Young people see this... and you can make fun of him all you want, and why not, it's easy to do. He's smarter than all of you and he's black. Sorry if that ruins your life... deal with it.

Not a big Bush fan but nothing he said was out of line. Furthermore, claiming Truman, Kennedy and Roosevelt talked to our enemies is a simplistic statement.

I am sure if the Russian or Chinese leaders had made statements to the effect that France or Japan would soon be wiped off the planet our Presidents would NOT have met with them unless they disavowed such nonsense. That was never the case.

The idiot in Iran and the Hamas leaders can not be reasoned with as long as their STATED goal is to annihilate another sovereign country i.e. Israel.

Obama has made such statements about talking to these guys and now he is trying to throw up a smoke screen to hide this foreign policy blunder.

The guy is very inexperienced particularly in this area. Hope he gets up to speed soon since McCain is losing support quickly and Bob Barr running as an independent on a Fair Tax and get out of Iraq platform is sure to siphon off significant numbers this fall.

A republican wipeout seems certain at this point.

_____________________________________________
January 6,1991: The last post season victory for the Bengals.

The leader of the free world amazing sacrifice...

"I don't want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander in chief playing golf," he said in an interview with the Politico. "I feel I owe it to the families to be as -- to be in solidarity as best as I can with them. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal"~George W. Bush

...Thank God we have a president that will make such an incredible sacrifice for his country. The families of the soldiers must be so proud and feel vindicated that Bush is making such a vital sacrifice by giving up Golf to save us all. God Bless America! <tears still keep falling>

AND Plus Dubya was very brave and a great American to be the only war time president to cut taxes during a war. The "No millionare left behind" plan has been very successful for the wealthy, forget the "No child left behind" plan. Why pay for this war and what do children know, anyway? AND Those insane Democrats will raise taxes to pay for this pointless war. WHY make these War proffitering fear mongerals
pay for this war?

<roll eyes>

"The "No millionare left behind" plan has been very successful for the wealthy, forget the "No child left behind" plan. Why pay for this war and what do children know, anyway? AND Those insane Democrats will raise taxes to pay for this pointless war."


Unbelievable do you actually believe the stuff you spew or you listen to the democratic talking points and repeat them?......your analysis of our tax burden is totally incorrect and you thinking of wealthy Americans as an evil entity is right on line with the socialism the democratic party wants to embrace…..but if you care for the facts here ya go

Right now 32.4% of all Americans who file a tax return pay $0.00 in federal income taxes. Overall 41% of Americans are free of income tax on the federal level. The bottom 50% of earners pays federal taxes of 2.98%. Their total taxes paid represent 3.07% of all the income taxes collected by the federal gov't.
Since Bush's tax cuts in 2001 the percentage of people paying no federal income tax has gone from 27% to 32%. That 32% is the highest since 1950. So who picks up the rest of it…right the top tier…..don’t believe me …here ya go


http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

So your tax cut for the evil rich is not correct.

Dunn, your arguement makes a great talking point for the 80% of America that is too stupid to understand anything but won't fly with me.

The tax cuts have increased revenues into the treasury, its the spending that is out of control. Iraq is part of it but pork barrel and our ever growing dependancy culture are more to blame. The recent farm bill is a great example. Nothing like spending more on food stamps so the obese poor people in this country can somehow ward off starvation. Oh, and give those wealthy corn farmers a check. Fudking brillian.


Bush is an idiot but I will make a prediction, if Obama passes half of what he wants and the tax cuts expires we will fall into a deep recession mild depression and I will be very rich since I make my living as an equity trader. We are actually hopeing Obama wins so we can hit the jackpot.

_____________________________________________
January 6,1991: The last post season victory for the Bengals.

Dunn posted Keith.  I'll post Rush.

It used to be, when we all started here, when Barack finally hit the scene last summer the only thing we couldn't mention were his ears. He went out there, actually told Maureen Dowd he's very sensitive about his ears, and she said, "We're trying to toughen you up." Hasn't worked. Since then, when we could only not mention his ears, now we cannot talk about his mother, now we can't talk about his father -- I mean, he can. Now we can't talk about his wife. Now we can't talk about his preacher. Now we can't talk about his voting record. And we dare not talk about his religion. And we don't use the appeasement word, can't say appeasement now. We can't talk about color. We can't talk about race. We can't talk about lack of color. We can't talk about his friends, mobsters and bombers, terrorists. We can't talk about schooling. Can't talk about his name. Can't talk about his experience. Can't talk about his income. Can't talk about his flag pin. In the beginning it was just his ears. Now he's a messiah, we can't say anything about the guy without it being a mean-spirited personal attack.

-Rush

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_051608/content/01125108.guest.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_iZ8M5vSmU
http://www.petfinder.com/

Jeez ka you are an even bigger idiot than homey and I thought that was impossible.

So Reagan and Rumsfeld were stupid for trying to negotiate with Evil Do-ers? ....



Don't tell me the usual talking point Saddam killed his own people unless you can make some foolish arguement Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. It's not our job to police the world and waste money and lives doing so.

AND... So is Bush calling his own Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, a Nazi Appeaser too? LMMFAO Here is what Gates had to say just yestterday:

    "The United States should construct a combination of incentives and pressure to engage Iran, and may have missed earlier opportunities to begin a useful dialogue with Tehran."

    "We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage . . . and then sit down and talk with them," Gates said. "If there is going to be a discussion, then they need something, too. We can't go to a discussion and be completely the demander, with them not feeling that they need anything from us." Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said yesterday"~Nazi Appeaser

...It's beyond hilarious and sad that no one here is not offended by that Bush/Gates hypocrisy and the fact an American President would criticize an American on FOREIGN SOIL. It's absolutely unheard of for a president to do this. So many here and allover America were extremely outraged about the Dixie Chicks comments, like they were terrorists and Anti Americans. Turns out the Dixie Chicks were more intelligent than Spoiled Frat Boy Dumbya. No one has yet to address that insane Bush hypocrisy, in this thread.


`"We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason if we dig deep in our history and doctrine and remember that we are not descended from fearful men, not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes which were, for the moment, unpopular. We can deny our heritage and our history, but we cannot escape responsibility for the result. There is no way for a citizen of the Republic to abdicate his responsibility."~Edward R. Murrow March 9, 1954

"...I hate to say it, but... umm... Reagan pursued a diplomatic relationship with Iran. I'm sorry..."

That was at least 20 or more years ago, when Iran was not considered a serious threat to develop nukes any time soon. Much has happened since. Much.

"...As for Israel being nervous about an Obama presidency... have you talked with them? Which high ranking official did you interview to obtain this information?"

OK, OK, since you think I'm just pulling what the Israelis feel outta my ass with no sources whatsoever, I'll give you a link, and curiously enough, from an Israeli who supports Obama. Whether or not he is being misunderstood isn't the issue. He laments the fact that "Israel is worried about Obama."

http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2008/01/13/yossi-sarid-israel-worried-about-obama/


All you have to do is read some Israeli web publications. They're out there, in case you're interested, but I'm not going to go back over the last month and dig up every article I've read about Israeli "doubts" regarding Obama, just because you're uninformed about how they feel, and pre-suppose that they all adore Obama the way you do.

Now let me ask you...how do you know they aren't scared? Are you just assuming they aren't since you love Obama so much? Have you talked to them and asked them if they're scared of a US president that laughs at his opponent when she says she'll defend Israel if attacked by Iran?

Iwannajihad, for the 569th time, just yesterday, again declared that Israel's demise was soon to come to pass.

http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP193008

Obama belittled Hillary during a recent debate, which I watched with my own eyes (sorry, no link, not going to look) for saying she'd respond with all out force to protect Israel if they were attacked by Iran.

And now, a few weeks later, Obama agrees with Hillary!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080512/pl_afp/usvotemideastobama

Gee, I wish I knew where he stood on the issue! That would be nice!

It doesn't take a genius to figure out why Israelis might be nervous about Obama, but keep questioning the obvious if it makes you happy.

"...I think the influence Iran has over many hostile nations in the middle-east gives them plenty of legitimacy..."

Hitler was "legitimate" too, and Chamberlain promised "peices in our time."

Having "influence" does not mean one is able to be persuaded diplomatically, about anything, nor does it mean that you bow to the will of a nation with "influence." We have INFLUENCE too, but apparently not enouogh to convince Iran that Israel has a right to exist, or that the holocaust really, truly, did happen. If you think the Iranian president can be persuaded to see anything our way if he can't even be persuaded that the holocaust happened, well, I guess we can just disagree, as I see no evidence of him being "persuadable" on even these most fundamental of issues.

"...Of course, America is a "big man" eh, he is so "macho!" Bombing the hell out of everyone is the best solution, right?"

You're right. If Iran attacked Israel, we should talk! Oh wait, that was basically Obama's reply to Hillary's statement that she'd defend Israel.

But wait! Obama now says he would never stop defending Israel!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080512/pl_afp/usvotemideastobama

I guess he was just feeling "silly" when he criticized Hillary for being a Bush clone, when asked what she'd do if Iran attacked Israel. I guess he changed his mind, and wants to be a "Bush clone" too! That's swell.

He must have just realized how much fun it would be to be the "big man" and "macho!" Why else would he now so vehemently insist that he'd "protect" Israel? Yes, Obama must have finally realized how much fun being "macho" is, or he's just full of sh!t and is making it up as he goes along, like a rank amatuer. Don't worry though! The media is covering for his every flip flop and mistake, the media you "trust" so much.

"...Screw what they have to say, let's nuke them back to the stone age..."

Yeah, you're absolutely right! We should listen to leaders who
1) Deny the holocaust
2) Can't recognize the right of 7 or 8 million people to exist.
3) Promise to erase those 7 or 8 million people from the earth, on a weekly basis.

Yes, those are people we should be giving credibility to by sitting down and discussing things with them. I'm sure we can talk some sense into them!

...but of course, there were idiot senators during WW2 who actually thought they could have prevented the war if they'd just been able to sit down and talk with Hitler. They were sooooooooo much smarter than everyone else who tried to talk to him, just like Obama is going to be sooooooooo much smarter dealing with Iwannajihad.

Go on believing that if you want.

We can call him Barack Chamberlain for old times sake, or Neville Obama, whichever you prefer...

Oh wait, we don't need to now though, since yesterday he said he would never sit down with leaders that don't recognize Israel's right to exist. I just hope he can decide where he really stands on that issue soon. He seems, "confused."

"...Where am I wrong here? Isn't this McCain's platform?"

If it was just Mccain's platform before, it's Obama's platform now too! Amazing how that worked out! Bomb the enemies of Israel back into the stone-age if they attack Israel, Barack! Wheeeeeeeeeee! That is his policy today. What a macho man!

"...The man who can't tell the difference between the Shi'a and the Sunni?"

I bet he knows how many states are in the union though...and that Roosevelt/Kennedy, and Truman didn't "negotiate" with their enemies.

There are 57 Islamic "states" in the world. Maybe that's what Barack was thinking about when he mantioned the 57 states he's been to...

"...The man who still believes Al-Quaida launched their attacks from Iraq?"

Show me where Mccain said this. I don't even care, because I'm not voting for any of them, but since you want me to "prove" things to you like the Israelis being nervous about Obama, I'd like some "proof" of Mccain saying that Al-Queada launched their attacks from Iraq.

"...Also, Obama is handling the heat fine..."

Yeah, he did a total foreign policy flip-flop, and is now totally committed to Israel's protection, after he laughed at Hillary for stating she was totally committed to their protection. Yeah, he's "fine."

"...I think some of his supporters are being a bit ignorant by believing for one second that a diplomatic solution isn't required here..."

So, you think he can talk sense into Iwannajihad? What makes you think he can? You just got a gut feeling? You have "faith" in him? You just think he's so super? What? What does Obama have that will break through the type of irrationality that Iran displays on a weekly basis? His experiences in Chicago?

"...Stop being so afraid of the neo-cons... they get all their information from Fox News and the Heritage foundation, two organizations that produce some of the most idiotic pieces of writing I have ever read..."

I get my news from various sources, and I don't blindly trust any, no matter what the source is. But go ahead and keep believing everything Keith Olbermann tells you, and keep talking to me as if I'm some nai've idiot that can't trust my own judgement.

"...NOTHING they say is accurate..."

What a fugging crock of crap. "NOTHING" accurate, right? I mean, I bet they don't even get the date on their publications right! If only all the news media could be fair and impartial, like CBS and the NY Times. lmfao.

"... the more you say, "well, you're right about that," the more you are willing to accept many other lies these organizations produce..."

The entire media is corrupt. The sooner you realize this, the sooner you will stop cherry picking the media organizations that pass the "credibility" standard with you, just because you agree with everything they say.

"...By the way, if Iran attacked Israel, I don't care who the President is... the Jewish/Pro-Israel lobby is so strong, the United States would have to defend Israel..."

Then why did Obama call Clinton a "Bush clone" when she stated that's exactly what she'd do? Is he just such a "macho" man that he can't bring himself to agree with a woman, no matter how fundamentally right her answer is? If so, it shows a lot about Obama, and if not, it shows that he's a geopolitcal neophyte, and largely clueless about sound foreign policy views, and is feeling his way along as he goes.

"...Even though Israel took Palestine from the Arabs by force..."

Is that what your media told you?

"...and we wonder why they are so angry..."

Maybe they should be angry with their arab brethren that rejected the 1948 partition to equally divide the Holy land between jew and arab.

"...This is not anti-semitism, by the way, for Israel does need protection..."

But they aren't allowed to defend themselves, like in 1948, right? They were agreeable to living side by side with arabs, and the arabs rejected the UN plan. The Palestinians that were "forced" out (according to you) in the beginning, largely left of their own accord, as they were warned by their own arab brethren that war was coming, and to clear out for now, and to come back later after the Jew had been defeated. Didn't happen. They started the war in 48, then demanded the original territory after they lost. lol. Yeah, that's how diplomacy should work! Start wars because you want the whole pie to yourself instead of half the pie, then when you get your ass kicked, run to the world and demand that you still should get half the pie! That makes sense...

"...but to sit here and wonder why there is such animosity for Israel when they are allowed to pursue nuclear technology and no one else in the region is?"

Hmmmm. Could it be because they're a democratic form of government, and not an Islamic Theocracy or Kingdom that demands submission? Have you heard Ehud Olmert say anything about how he's going to wipe the arabs off the map lately? You're right though, I think a leader like Iwannajihad should be allowed to develop nukes. Clearly, through his words and deeds, he's demonstrated great statesmanship, responsibility, and has built up a lot of trust in the region. lol. Do you think Saudi Arabia wants him to have nukes? Egypt? Iraq? Jordan? No, they don't. Why do you think that is? They must be prejudiced against Muslims! Oh wait, I know, those Arab countries don't want Iran to have nukes because they're not "really" arabs, and are Persians, so it's all about racism!

"...It's pretty obvious to me. If there is a solution to the tensions in the middle-east, bombing non-Israeli nations is the WORST possible strategy..."

Uhm, that's an interesting way to form that statement. One might read into it that you think it's OK if Israel is bombed as part of a "solution," as long as the "non-Israeli" nations aren't, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that one.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with that notion, per se, but what's the best, most sensible, most realistic strategy that you think is going to work? Asking iwannajihad to please recognize Israel's right to exist? Beg, and say please, with sugar on top? You do realize that any dialogue is pointless if we can't even get past that simple roadblock, right? Any peace dialogue could begin once that fundamental precept is accepted by guys like Iwannajihad. Until then, it's just a bunch of fantasies, thinking about how Obama is just soooooooo smart that Iwannajihad will suddenly drop his extreme views and see "reason."

See, this is the thing you're apparently missing, as well as so many other people. You are dealing with a regime in Iran, and Hizbullah and Palestinian Hamas, that won't even recognize the most fundamental rights of another nation, in order to get that nation to the table to "talk." Arafat's wonderful "PLO Charter" (now Mahmoud Abbas's) still refuses to say that Israel has a right to exist. Sorry, but you can't "talk" or use "diplomacy" in a situation where one party refuses to even recognize the other party's existence. I mean, I would say the right to exist is a fundamental right that most heads of state wouldn't allow to be a "dealbreaker." I can just see how diplomatic talks between Obama and Iwannajihad would go...

Obama: "Hey IwannaJ, we need to get past this pesky hate between you guys and Israel..."
Iwannajihad: "Between us and who?"
Obama: "Israel..."
IwannaJihad: "Who or what is this you speak of?"
Obama: "Uhh, I'm sorry, my translator must have mispoken..."
Iwannajihad: "Indeed..."
Obama: "What we need to do is find a way for Iran, and the rest of the nations in greater arabia to learn to live in peace and harmony with Israel..."
Iwannajihad: "Peace and harmony with who?"
Obama: "Israel...you know, the nation of Israel..."
Iwannajihad: "I know nothing of this Israel you speak of. We do not recognize any nation in the world by the name of 'Israel,' nor do we recognize that anyone in this so called 'Israel' has the right to exist. I do not know of this Israel you speak of..."
Obama: "Hey man, I'm trying to be a diplomat here. C'mon, work with me..."
Iwannajihad: "We are a peace loving people who love Allah (praised be his name) and wish no harm to anyone who we recognize as a nation..."
Obama: "uhhhhhh....hmmmmmm....well, what if I can get Israel to say what a great fella you are? Would that make a difference?"
Iwannajihad: "...I recognize no praise from Israeli ape. They are sub-human. You know that, don't you, president Obama?"
Obama: (To himself- oh cripes...this is going to be more difficult than I thought! I'm not the diplomatic whiz I thought I was! Crap! All the people at home that blindely worship me are going to be sorely disappointed!")

That's pretty much how any "diplomacy" will go down with Iran, which makes the notion of diplomacy with them impossible. Who knows? Iran is a highly educated people, with many young students that love Western values and democracy, and lifestyle, and can't stand their own theocracy. Given time, maybe iran will work itself out. Right now, it is an intelligent nation with so many possibilities, being held hostage by a theocracy that suppresses them and their creativity. I feel sorry for them, but that doesn't mean their leader is a man that will isten to reason, or should even be given the credibility of an audience with the president.

"...Just remember this: NOTHING was ever made of Bush's inexperience for the Presidency... NOTHING was ever made of Ronald Reagan's inexperience... (remember, being a governor does not make you the president) Last time I checked, NEITHER BARACK NOR JOHN MCCAIN HAVE EVER BEEN PRESIDENT BEFORE..."

So your point is that Obama is just as unqualified as the last slug. Excellent...

"...The thing is, the issue of Barack's inexperience is a bit odd to me... honestly, I think it is the typical response of white America to the prospect of an African America being elected into the Oval Office..."

You're right. It's all about racism. It has nothing to do with the fact that the guy is regarded as more left than Hillary Clinton, which is really saying something. It's allllllllll about the race! Sheesh.

"...The vast majority of whites STILL believe that African Americans are somehow inferior to them..."

Did you conduct a survey, or are you just speaking for yourself? Seriously 'Saur, I respect you as a poster here and value your input, and I know we disagree politically, but that's pretty pathetic. Millions and millions of Republicans AND Democrats would vote for Colin Powell if he ever wanted the headache of the job, no matter which ticket he ran under, and he could easily win. Why would they vote for him and not Obama? Because he's not a flaming lefty who believes the government is the answer to all the world's problems, that's why.
I have no doubt that there are portions of both parties that won't vote for Obama because of his race, but to insinuate that "the MAJORITY of whites" won't vote for him because he's African American and "inferior" is ludicrous, considering he'd be NOWHERE in this race if a "majority" of whites thought he was inferior. Absolutely ridiculous. Obama is where he is today because of the white vote, or do you think 12% of the population (blacks) are the one's carrying him to the Democratic nomination? Hilarious.

You preach about American racism, yet your candidate stands on the precipice of being the democratic nominee...

Wait! I see! If Obama gets elected, then the US is just a little less racist than you think it is right now, but if he's not elected, well, all your worst fears about racism have been confirmed, and it had nothing to do with Obama's politics, and EVERYTHING to do with his race. I see...

The fact is, about half this country is liberal, and the other half is conservative. Conservatives aren't going to vote for Obama and it wouldn't matter if he was a lilly white lib-dem like Ted Kennedy. They aren't voting for Obama because he's a liberal democrat way to the left of their values. But yeah, blame it on racism! All must be a racist if they believe in conservative principles of government, but won't vote for a black liberal!
Sad.

And I hate white people too, since I didn't vote for Kerry in 04!

"...Something that people don't bring up about Barack: he has called the heads of many investment banks to ask for their advice on the economy and fiscal policy, he listens to economists when they talk about the foolishness of a gas tax holiday... Senator Obama will surround himself with intelligent individuals that aren't swinging from the balls of the Heritage foundation and other institutes that produce lies to promote a movement conservative agenda that does nothing to improve the welfare of this country..."

You mean like the Reverend Wright and Bill Ayers? Yeah, making freinds with those guys was a great move for him, and shows just how "open minded" and intelligent he really is.

And sorry, but the neocons do not represent me as a "conservative," as in limited government conservatives, but are about as conservative in their governance as the dems are. Kennedy would be considered a "right winger" by today's standards.

"...Young people see this...

Yeah, because young people are the most intelligent people in the world. We should just let them elect our leaders, seeing as how their young wisdom far outstrips anything us old bastards know. Maybe they should take away the right to vote for anyone over 30...

"... and you can make fun of him all you want, and why not, it's easy to do..."

Yes, when using his own words against him, it sure is.

"...He's smarter than all of you and he's black. Sorry if that ruins your life... deal with it..."

Colin Powell is smarter than me too. How come that doesn't "ruin my life?"
I find it offensive that you assume I'm a racist because I refuse to cast my vote for a big government liberal. WTG! lol at your blatant, lame, race card attempt. Pretty sad, but still, kinda funny in a way. But thanks for labeling anyone that doesn't vote for Obama as an insecure, idiot racist who is afraid of a black guy because he graduated from "Havahd." Swell.

Maybe you should go work for Obama, and get him to use these arguments during the campaign. They sure are persuasive...

And Dunn, where did you all get this idea that a president can't comment about how he will never appease terrorists, on foreign soil? WTF? Are you saying that Obama (or anyone, for that matter) running for president is more important than Bush carrying out his duties as the president? What don't you people get? The guy was speaking at the Israeli Knesset, and part of his speech had to do with not appeasing terrorists, which the Israelis deal with on a continual basis. Obama only became connected to these comments because he flipped out and automatically assumed Bush was talking about him, and even if Bush was talking about him, he NEVER mentioned his name, his party, or anything personally about HIM! If Obama hadn't cried like a wounded little bitch, no one would have thought "OH, Bush MUST be talking about OBAMA! How dare he!" lol.

The column Katie posted is exactly right, and I don't give a crap who it came from. Apparently, you can't even discuss foreign policy, if that policy disagrees with Obama's policy, because Obama might get "offended" and think you MUST be talking about him! What a joke.

*****************
"...I don't know if we each have a destiny, or if we're all just floatin' around accidental-like on a breeze. But I, I think maybe it's both, maybe both happening at the same time." -Forrest Gump

Dunn. let me put it another way...

Bush did not mention the name of Barack Obama, or the name of a political party, or the name of a country even.

He spoke about appeasement, and the consequences of appeasement throughout history.

If Obama is not an appeaser, and doesn't see himself as an appeaser, why would he even respond to Bush's statments about appeasement, except to say "I agree with president Bush. We will never appease those who use terror..."

It would be like Bush being in Mexico, talking about the dangers of the drug trade, and then Obama freaking out, even though he thinks drugs are bad too.
Why would Obama assume Bush was saying he thinks drugs are good, unless he did think drugs are good?

Sorry, but if you guys will even make just the slightest attempt to take off your blinders, you will admit that Obama basically admitted, through his reaction to Bush's comments, that yes, he at least somewhat leans towards appeasement.

I see nothing illogical about this assumption, and it is certainly within the realm of possibility. Why else would he have reacted the way he did?

Sorry, but if someone says child molestation is bad, I'm not going to get all defensive and say "how dare you say that about me! I think child molestation is bad too!"

Bush: "Appeasement is bad..."

Obama: "I'm not an appeaser, you dirty trickster!"

lmmfgdao.

Obama = appeaser. His defensiveness when there was no need for it, told me so. Why did he have to react that way? Because he's on record as saying that forming a dialogue with our enemies is just as important as forming a dialogue with our friends. If he made that too broad of a generalization, so broad that HE felt the mere word "appeasement" from Bush's mouth automatically applied to him, that's his problem, not Bush's. It doesn't matter what Bush's intent was. If he never mentioned his name, Obama shouldn't have assumed it applied to him, unless, of course, he sees himself as an appeaser.

*****************
"...I don't know if we each have a destiny, or if we're all just floatin' around accidental-like on a breeze. But I, I think maybe it's both, maybe both happening at the same time." -Forrest Gump

"Dunn. let me put it another way...
Bush did not mention the name of Barack Obama, or the name of a political party, or the name of a country even."~cmbh

...Chris. let me put another way... Bush never directly said Iraq was responsible for 9/11. Yet... 80% of of Americans thought they were responsible, berfore the war because of Bush's and Cheney's innuendo to suggest so. There is dumbasses that still believe it, even after Bush finally admitted there was no connection. Bush has always made these carefully written insulting innuendo speeches.

Bush was an alcholic cokecaine addict til he was 40 and has never accomplished anything on his own. Daddy did everything for him.

AND I guess it was just a coincidence Bush said this in the middle of a heated Election year. I guess Bush was relly talking about Al Sharton, Nancy Pelosi, or France?

Still no one has addressed how UnAmerican and UnPatriotic it is to criticize any American while on Foreign Soil. I guess y'all are Anti-Americans too? LOL

Again Dunn you try to fool the easy 90% of this country that are uneducated with your Rumsfeld Saddam pic. Sorry but Saddam was not advicating the destruction of Israel at that time, instead he was fighting the Iranian Scum who Jimmy Carter let take our embassy workers hostage for 444 days.

Was Saddam a great guy at at that point? NO. Was he willing to fight the Iranians while we sat back like pu$$ies? Yes. Basically, Reagan was paying the guy to fight a war we were not willing to or able do. Keep in mind our military was in terrible shape and we were only 5 or 6 years out of the Vietnam debacle.

Saddam and Iraq were one of the most progressive leaders and countries in the Middle East during the 80's. Women could drive, work, go to college, etc. People were allowed to travel and there was NO SHIA law. Saddam was very strict by our standards but nothing like the other Muslim dominated countries. Everything changed when he invaded Kuwait....in 1990. Kuwait was a $hit hole.

_____________________________________________
January 6,1991: The last post season victory for the Bengals.

"... Still no one has addressed how UnAmerican and UnPatriotic it is to criticize any American while on Foreign Soil. I guess y'all are Anti-Americans too?"

Bush did not criticize any American, or America. He criticized appeasers, which is a foreign policy mindset among those who think they can break through the blind hate of extremism. As far as I know, there is no "Senator Appeasement" in congress right now...

Hell, I listened to more of Obama's comments yesterday, and the guy just flat out lied about what Bush said.

"President Bush said I'm for appeasement. President Bush said Democrats are for appeasement..."

Bush never said anything of the sort, and Obama knows it, and if he wants to keep getting more defensive about it and lie about what Bush said, that's up to him, but all this stuff is going to make great fodder for Mccain should Obama get the nomination. I can't wait to see the campaign commercial of Obama criticizing Hillary in the debate for wanting to defend Israel if attacked by Iran, and Obama calling her a "Bush clone" over it, then a few weeks later, Obama promising that he would defend Israel if attacked by Iran too.

IMO, this is what is going on. Obama knows Bush's popularity is one of the all time lowest for a president in his last year in office. Bush is poison, politically. By acting as if Bush "attacked" him, he believes it will end up helping his campaign. Campaigns are built on strategically timed statements and conflicts, and it appears that instead of campaigning against Hillary and Mccain, Obama wants to campaign against Bush. That might be a winning strategy for getting the nomination, but I don't see it helping him beat Mccain. He needs to pick his battles more carefully, instead of attacking comments that he has to flat out lie about, or "assume" were directed towards him. Then again, it probably doesn't matter. Those that love the guy are going to love him in November no matter what, and those who have decided that no way are they going to vote for him, aren't going to change their minds by November either.

*****************
"...I don't know if we each have a destiny, or if we're all just floatin' around accidental-like on a breeze. But I, I think maybe it's both, maybe both happening at the same time." -Forrest Gump

Obama's strategy will be bush/mccain, it doesn't matter it is the same guy.  McCain has been siding with bush on a lot of stuff lately, that is going to end up hurting him.  He was better off when he criticized the president on the war.

 

 

"Well, it ain't braggin' if it's true
Yes sir, yes sir
It ain't braggin' if it's true
Muhammad Ali said that
Back when he was a young man
Back when he was Cassius Clay
Before he fought too many fights
And left his brain inside the ring"

"Obama's strategy will be bush/mccain, it doesn't matter it is the same guy..."

Agreed. That will be the mindset Obama will be using for the next 6 months.

"...McCain has been siding with bush on a lot of stuff lately, that is going to end up hurting him..."

It's quite possible.

"...He was better off when he criticized the president on the war."

Maybe, but the one arena Obama needs to avoid, because he always ends up coming off as quite "unpresidential," is the foreign policy area. He had no need to get into it with Bush the other day over foreign policy, but since he did, it gave Mccain the opening he needed to talk about the Obama/foreign policy "fears."

Much like Obama will be linking Mccain to Bush the next 6 months as much as he can, Mccain will be linking Obama to being woefully unprepared to handle crucial foreign policy decisions.

They each know each other's vulnerable spots, and will be focusing on them, but the last thing Obama should be doing is bringing up foreign policy. Much like Mccain needs to be seen as not being Bush2, Obama needs to avoid being seen as Carter2. There is a huge segment of this population that believes the defense of this country should be the #1 thing the goverment is good at. They will be voting for Mccain no matter what. Obama should stay out of the foreign policy stuff if he can. The people that are voting for him are voting for him for reasons other than a strong national defense.

*****************
"...I don't know if we each have a destiny, or if we're all just floatin' around accidental-like on a breeze. But I, I think maybe it's both, maybe both happening at the same time." -Forrest Gump

"There is a huge segment of this population that believes the defense of this country should be the #1 thing the goverment is good at."

That is number 1 importance. But how was invading Iraq consistent with defense of this country? Thats what the brain dead just don't follow. Rush told em, we were figtin terra! LMAO.

Johnson was pretty stupid for the Nam thing too, but I’m over it and now I look forward to better leadership….of course I could still voice my hatred of the stupid mistakes through history but that would be counterproductive…..so instead of beating a dead horse lets look to the future without repeating the mistakes of the past….remember Bush is not running and regardless of what you believe we should have done the fact remains the terrorist are in Iraq now.

What are you, Mr Rogers with this think positive speech? Tell my Viet Nam Vet father your over Viet Nam. Yeah let's just go into denial and not hold this administration accountable for absolutely anything and NOT setting an example how to not commit these mistakes again so we can continue to waste innocent lives for no reason. Thanks for the update that Bush isn't running again. I believe it was Mr. Bush said there were terrorists in Iraq responsible for 9/11 BUT your saying there are terrorist just there "now"? Why should Bush be held responsible that lie among countless others LOL Lets just keep making the same mistakes, forget the past and not learn from the past. Hopefully you and the soldirs and there families can just get over Bush's presidency and just move on.

Just think happy thoughts boys and girls and forget about catastrophic war crimes. I'm sure Republicans will move on and not talk about Obama's or Hillary's past. They will just move on, because that would be counter productive and what's best for this country, right?