Subscribe: Comments on: WHEN WILL OBAMA RESPOND TO ‘APPEASEMENT’ CHARGE?
http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2008/05/17/when-will-obama-respond-to-appeasement-charge/feed/
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade B rated
Language: English
Tags:
administration  bush  carter  democrats  iran nixon  iran  liberal forgotten  made  making  obama  people  preconditions  president  world 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Comments on: WHEN WILL OBAMA RESPOND TO ‘APPEASEMENT’ CHARGE?

Comments on: WHEN WILL OBAMA RESPOND TO ‘APPEASEMENT’ CHARGE?



Politics served up with a smile... And a stilletto.



Published: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 16:04:10 +0000

 



By: EntropyIncreases

Tue, 20 May 2008 20:45:33 +0000

#22, Bush's administration has met with several of the world's bad leaders. So if a Pres. Obama would merely meet them with preconditions about nuclear progress and regional interference, among a few other preconditions, it would not be very different from the current administration. The "mistake" he made is critical to understanding his judgement vis a vis foreign relations. Making use of organizations of which we are members to dialogue with our enemies in multilateral negotiations has been done by this administration. Bilateral negotiations have also occurred. The big difference between them is the preconditions comment. Which Obama has buttressed with talking about legitimate grievances. #9,.,.,#21, it is great to bring up his grandfather. Classic red herring. How this relates to the original post is a little arcane. I think it much more of indictment of Bush that he is as willing to negotiate as he is than that his grandfather invested with the Nazis, not because his grandfather's actions were unimportant, just irrelevant to this discussion. Arab/Israeli peace is still a distant dream. I think Bush was casting a wide net. His comments included Pres. Carter, some people in the Knesset, leaders in Pakistan, large swathes of Democrats, well meaning centrists -- cosmopolitans from around the world. He was probably thinking about Sen. Obama, who knows, but I think he knows enough about the world to know it is a problem not isolated to just Obama.



By: Larry, your brother

Mon, 19 May 2008 18:16:23 +0000

Imagine this scenario: A key regional player supports a terrorist group hoping to overthrow a flawed, though friendly to the U.S., government. They provide arms, funding, and training to this terrorist group. The U.S. has called them out for doing it, said they should be ostracized, and refuses to recognize them. Yet, our President says we should talk with them while the war is still being fought and, indeed, makes that trip. His apologists point out it is probably the highlight of his presidency and, in fact, maybe any presidency. President Obama traveling to Iran? Obviously not. It was Nixon traveling to China in 1972. You could paint the same scenario using the Soviet Union. And remember--we KNEW they both had nuclear weapons. Obama made the mistake of saying he would meet with these people without preconditions. But if you believe anyone in the State Department would let him do that you're wrong. The refreshing difference we see with someone like Obama is the change from the belligerent bully who has occupied the White House for 7+ years. We forget that past presidents of both stripes have met with our avowed enemies to both resolve issues and keep them in check. China=Iran? Not hardly. Nixon was going for the gold - attempting to outflank the Soviets and alter the world balance of power. Talking to Iran hardly rises to that level. Besides, setting up the strawman that Bush or anyone else doesn't want to talk to Iran is just not working anymore. We have preconditions for talks with Iran; stop their enrichment activities, halt their support for Shia militias hostile to the US in Iraq, and stop funding terrorism. Obama said he wanted to meet with Iran without establishing that country's seriousness in carrying on negotiations. That is stupid, foolish, and naive beyond belief - almsot as bad as what he said yesterday - that "Iran was not a threat" to the United States. It doesn't matter what the state department would or wouldn't "let" him do. He's the fricking president for god's sake! The fact that he made the statement shows an extraordinary shallowness and inexperience that disqualifies him from being president. Your brother Rick



By: Still Liberal

Sun, 18 May 2008 16:56:47 +0000

16retire05 Said: 10:31 pm still liberal, perhaps you have forgotten that Joseph Kennedy, while Ambassador to Great Britian, was such a Hitler supporter that the British kicked him out? yep, that was Tubby Teddy’s dad. No I have not forgot that fact. Joe Kennedy should have been tried for his crap as well. But I haven't heard Teddy beating McCain with a Nazi stick as Pressie's grandson did.



By: Mister Snitch

Sun, 18 May 2008 14:07:21 +0000

"everyone knows who Bush was referring to" Bush made no overt reference to anyone. It's not at all disingenuous to point that out. We might presume he was referring to Democrats because he is, after all, a Republican. We're probably even right in that presumption. But there's nothing at all disingenuous in 'innocent until proven guilty'. That's PROVEN, not PRESUMED. It's true that the sensitivities about this exist because of widespread public perception re Democrats. Still, your opening statement cries for reworking. (Too late NOW, I suppose.)



By: Santay

Sun, 18 May 2008 10:38:07 +0000

If Obama had the least bit of sense he would have agreed with Bush that appeasement doesn't work and let it go. By jumping up and going ballistic all he did was stamp Obama=appeasement in people's minds.



By: Bill

Sun, 18 May 2008 08:00:47 +0000

in response to "Bush didn’t specifically name anyone in his “appeasement” remarks" Oh yes he did. Who else in todays world has been talking about sitting down and negotiating with Iran? Bush was directly speaking of Obama and you all know it. All Bush has been doing is attacking and look where we are 8 years later, high gas prices, housing foreclosures, many many popular retail stores are moving over seas and hurting are US malls thanks to Bush. I hope Bush spends the rest of his life behind bars for treason. He sold out America.



By: David R. Block

Sun, 18 May 2008 03:52:23 +0000

I'm with Dennis D. The first person who came to mind was Carter. Wasn't he just over there making nicey-nice with Hamas and Hezbollah??



By: retire05

Sun, 18 May 2008 03:31:25 +0000

still liberal, perhaps you have forgotten that Joseph Kennedy, while Ambassador to Great Britian, was such a Hitler supporter that the British kicked him out? yep, that was Tubby Teddy's dad.



By: HE HATE ME

Sun, 18 May 2008 02:16:45 +0000

#12 another wishful kool-aid drinking obama apologist heard from with nothing of a substantive nature he can add to the debate. Why not rationalize what the Clinton administration did for national security by selling technology to China or tell us how Pinch and his cretinous editors at the NY Times are so patriotic even though they give hope to the Islamofascists and contribute to US deaths in Iraq? I'd like to see plenty of so-called patriotic moonbats prosecuted to the fullest extent, including kakaheads like Jimmy Carter and the Hollywood elite that goes around sucking up to dictators while badmouthing their own country in foreign lands. If Bush really were so evil and violating the constitution, you'd think he would have made piggy Mikey Moore disappear by now. Nice to see that swine is making another propaganda movie to speak to his far left choir of mutant mooretards. Normal people see what a Goebbels he really is. Would love to see the trolls here try their BS over at Chas. Johnson's blog. You'd think they'd be busy enough pontificating at insane asylums such as BU, Huff and Kos. In any case, stiff libs can't handle the truth, such as hero Kerry's treason in Paris, magic hats, Xmas in Cambodia under Nixon's "watch" and blatant lies about his fellow GIs.



By: Opaldivine

Sun, 18 May 2008 01:16:14 +0000

I have seen McCain three times on TV this week and every single time he made a major factual error in his reporting the facts. Not the least of which is distinguishing Sunni from Shia McCain could not more beat Obama in aa debate than he can escape his own words and previous voting record. Anyone who thinks we should stay in Iraq is going to lose, in particular, the Republican Party. PS nothing is hanging over the heads of Democrats. something is hanging over the heads of Conservatives