Subscribe: Comments on: AREN’T THERE ANY GROWN UPS IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY?
http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2008/05/15/arent-there-any-grown-ups-in-the-democratic-party/feed/
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade A rated
Language: English
Tags:
bill  bush  democrats  don  enemies  hear  iran  maintain peace  make  missed point  peace  policy  president  question  read  talk  talking  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: AREN’T THERE ANY GROWN UPS IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY?

Comments on: AREN’T THERE ANY GROWN UPS IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY?



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



Published: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 13:12:03 +0000

 



By: Ed T

Tue, 20 May 2008 20:09:26 +0000

The problem with what Bush said is that it is basically wrong. There is a great quote from Moshe Dayan - who knew the Middle East and was no liberal: "If you want to make peace, you don't talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies. "



By: Windy Wilson

Tue, 20 May 2008 17:12:23 +0000

B.O. is upset about THIS? What would he do if he really were president and the criticisms come much more frequently and sharper? Or does he think that all the criticisms of Bush 2, Bush 1, and Reagan were fair and reasonable?



By: vnjagvet

Sat, 17 May 2008 03:29:27 +0000

Until January, 2009, there is only one President of the United States, and has every right to represent the USA at the Knessett. As I read the speech (and I read it all), he said nothing there that is inconsistent with US foreign policy for the last twenty-five years. I would be interested in seeing the commenters who believe W made a heinous statement quote it and tell us all where it differs from US Foreign policy from 1992-2000.



By: Bill Arnold

Fri, 16 May 2008 23:25:03 +0000

My main objection is that Bush was conflating talk and negotiation with appeasement. And doing this in front of the Knesset - Israel has often negotiated with its mortal enemies, even compromised with them to make peace (e.g. Egypt), and continues to do so. Somehow this administration has managed to convince a large number people that initiating discussion with an enemy is a significant concession that amounts to an act of appeasement. Selective shunning is a lousy tool for prevention of conflict in a small world. (Iran will not be a universal pariah until they run out of oil.) American Heritage Dictionary appeasement ... 2. The policy of granting concessions to potential enemies to maintain peace. I think the dictionary definition serves us well here, Bill. The question isn't that we shouldn't talk to Iran and Syria - we eventually will. The question is what "concessions" we are willing to grant in order to maintain the peace. I bring up Lebanon as a perfect example. Unless the ground work is laid extraordinarily carefully a la China in '72, we may find ourselves in a diplomatic trap - pressured by our own process to make a deal and thus giving away something vital. Happened with Russia a couple of times - namely, when we gave up a huge MIRV advantage for, in the end, nothing. Bargaining with enemies is not about making them like us. It's about avoiding misunderstandings that lead to war. I am not convinced entirely - although there are surely some elements in Iran who are rational - that we are dealing with a normal state when talking about Iran. The insularity of that crowd is incredible. It's why the don't believe the holocaust happened and all these cockamamie conspiracy theories. No foe we've ever encountered has shown this level of ignorance about the outside world. That makes them incredibly dangerous as well as almost impossible to talk to. This is not just a question of talking or not talking. It is a question of attitude - a question raised by Bush that has the Democrats screaming bloody murder because they recognize their attitude in those words. Both Obama and the Democrats overreacted to Bush's criticism. But it was a telling overreaction, don't you think? ed.



By: Bill Arnold

Fri, 16 May 2008 23:02:53 +0000

But you are very typical of the far left. Intellectual discourse is impossible, because you hear only what you want to hear. The people posting here presumably at least occasionally read Rick's posts, and engaging in left/right argument in comment sections is hardly discussion in an echo-chamber. And "far left"?? Disregarding the fact that from the POV of most of the developed world, the American "left" is center-right, at what percentile of the American political spectrum would you place the cutoff for "far left"? Bear in mind that many on the left would place BObama at about 60-70th percentile, with his instincts for compromise driving his actual policy even closer to the center. (The "most liberal Senator" tag is just B.S., a cunningly-designed statistical artifact that was also trotted out for John Kerry.)



By: Rob

Fri, 16 May 2008 21:23:41 +0000

LOL It's a riot to see "the dumbest President ever" make the bed wetting lefties and their Messiah look like total fools. Bullseye W



By: Surrender Monkey Friday: Obama And Dems Protest Too Much » Pirate’s Cove — Global Warming Rules!

Fri, 16 May 2008 20:10:50 +0000

[...] I never got around to reading what Right WIng Nut House wrote, which is really funny That wet spot you see forming under the chair of Will Bunch, Michael [...]



By: Michael B.

Fri, 16 May 2008 19:14:42 +0000

bb, I stand corrected! Only 5 of 8 of the accused have been exonerated. But you missed my point- Murtha condemned them PRIOR to any evidence. You also missed my point about the current state of the Republican party- by taxing, spending, increasing the size of the gov, they have become, in effect, democrats. But you are very typical of the far left. Intellectual discourse is impossible, because you hear only what you want to hear. Your arguments are made without evidence (e.g. "sending tax dollars to Bush cronies", "anti-catholic", "war based on lies", etc.) I can't keep arguing with idiots (sorry for the ad hominem), I actually have a job.



By: Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator

Fri, 16 May 2008 18:33:36 +0000

Amendments... House Democrats, defying President Bush's threat of a veto, will offer a supplemental appropriation ...



By: shaun

Fri, 16 May 2008 18:11:29 +0000

At least you know who Chamberlain was. Heh. I don't think there's a hole deep enough that he can crawl into to hide. ed.