Obama
Posted on 05/16/2008 9:52:25 AM PDT by Reagan Man
WATERTOWN, S.D. (AP) - Barack Obama has called President Bush's comments on appeasement "exactly the kind of appalling attack that's divided our country and alienates us from the rest of the world." Obama criticized Republican rival John McCain and President Bush for "dishonest and divisive" attacks in hinting that the Democratic presidential candidate would appease terrorists.
Obama strongly responded Friday to the comments Bush made in Israel on Thursday and McCain's subsequent words. Obama told a town hall meeting, "That's the kind of hypocrisy that we've been seeing in our foreign policy, the kind of fear-peddling, fear mongering that has prevented us from actually making us safer."
Obama said McCain had a "naive and irresponsible belief that tough talk from Washington will somehow cause Iran to give up it's nuclear program and support for terrorism."
Yesterday, Obama accused President Bush of "a false political attack" after Bush warned in Israel against appeasing terrorists—early salvos in a general election campaign that's already blazing even as the Democratic front-runner tries to sew up his party's nomination.
The White House denied Bush had targeted Obama, who said the Republican commander in chief's intent was obvious.
In short order, the controversy spilled across the presidential campaign.
John McCain, the Republican nominee in waiting, said Obama was showing "naivete and inexperience and lack of judgment" in his willingness to meet with U.S. foes.
Hillary Rodham Clinton then called Bush's original comments "offensive and outrageous, especially in light of his failures in foreign policy."
As the workday began stateside, Bush gave a speech to Israel's Knesset in which he spoke of the president of Iran, who has called for the destruction of the U.S. ally. Then, the president said: "Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the 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 I could only have talked to Hitler, all 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 added.
With the president abroad and those seeking to succeed him campaigning at home, the transcontinental tiff signaled the early direction of the general election. Bush seemed to assume the traditional lame-duck presidential role in trying to help the Republican nominee-in-waiting, and Obama tried to maneuver for advantage—and to show strength—while on the cusp of clinching the Democratic nomination.
McCain played his political role as well in tandem with Obama, notable for two White House hopefuls who are campaigning for a bipartisan governing approach free of the often divisive discourse in Washington.
By tradition, partisan politics comes to a halt when a U.S. president is on foreign soil, and Bush's remarks led Obama to quickly cry foul. The first-term Illinois senator responded to the comments as if they were criticism of his position that as president he would be willing to personally meet with Iran's leaders and those of other regimes the United States has deemed rogue.
"It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack," Obama said in a statement his aides distributed. "George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel.
In turn, White House press secretary Dana Perino denied that the Knesset remark was aimed at Obama. In fact, the language is fairly typical for Bush speeches, and Gordon Johndroe, a national security spokesman for the president, said Bush was referring to "a wide range of people who have talked to or suggested we talk to Hamas, Hezbollah or their state sponsors" over a long period of time.
One such person most recently was former President Carter, who held talks with Hamas leaders, leading to criticism from Bush officials as well as Obama and McCain.
Even as the White House said Bush meant no dig at the Democrat, Perino couldn't resist the opportunity to get in a small one.
"I understand when you're running for office you sometimes think the world revolves around you. That is not always true. And it is not true in this case," she said.
Meanwhile, in Columbus, Ohio, McCain said he took the White House at its word, but then he weighed into the spat himself, saying: "This does bring up an issue that we will be discussing with the American people, and that is, why does Barack Obama, Senator Obama, want to sit down with a state sponsor of terrorism?"
Asked if Obama was an appeaser, McCain said Obama must explain why he wants to talk with leaders like Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and added that Obama's position was a serious error. "It shows naivete and inexperience and lack of judgment to say that he wants to sit down across the table from an individual who leads a country that says Israel is a stinking corpse, that is dedicated to the extinction of the state of Israel. My question is, what does he want to talk about?"
Clinton, campaigning in South Dakota in advance of a June 3 Democratic primary, said Bush's statement had "no place in any presidential address. ...
"I have differences with Senator Obama on certain foreign policy matters, but I think we are united in our opposition to the Bush policies and to the continuation of those policies by Senator McCain." Clinton has criticized Obama in the past for his pledge to meet with prominent adversaries of the United States without precondition.
Although his political interest is keen, Bush has mostly tried to refrain from injecting himself into the presidential race.
He largely remained silent during the Republican primaries but appeared with McCain at the White House after the Arizona senator clinched the nomination and, since then, has talked up McCain frequently. As for the Democratic race, the president typically avoids naming names, but he has publicly disagreed with the positions of the Democratic front-runners, including Obama's expressed willingness to meet leaders of U.S. adversaries.
The debate over whether a president should directly negotiate with such leaders has been one of the most prominent issue differences in the race for the Democratic nomination. Obama has said he would be willing to meet with heads of state in places like Iran, Cuba and North Korea. Democratic rival Hillary Rodham Clinton has argued that those meetings could be used for propaganda and her first response would be outreach through diplomatic channels.
By criticizing Bush, Obama sent a signal that he's ready to take on the sitting president and the incumbent party—and tried to counter the notion that Clinton would be the stronger Democratic general election candidate. Democrats also are working to link the unpopular Bush to McCain at every turn as the public craves change, and even if it wasn't directed at Obama, Bush's remark gave Democrats an opening to claim more of the same.
"It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel," Obama said in his statement. "Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what (Presidents) Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power—including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy—to pressure countries like Iran and Syria."
For their part, McCain and Republicans increasingly see Obama as their November rival and have been taking every opportunity to raise questions about his readiness to be a wartime commander in chief. The GOP also hopes to make national security—historically a Republican strength—a focus of the campaign when the political terrain favors Democrats.
Indicating what's to come, McCain said: "Peace through strength is the way we achieve peace in the world. That's the point. I will debate this issue with Senator Obama throughout this campaign."
Some distant relative of B. Hussein Obama's?
He's already laying out the plan to dismantle the military. He wants the US weak.
This is a “appalling attack”!
I want a list of all these attacks by Dems.
Someone needs to point blank ask ...
“what makes you think he was referring to you?”
Whaaaaaaaaaa!
A little thin skinned aren’t we Barry?
McGovern Redux.
"Not surprising idiot Obama didn’t pick up on that."I am truly appalled at the amount of things this guy says that can tear him apart, but even more upset that Republicans keep missing the tee-shots that he sets up. A couple of months ago Obama was talking about no WMD found in Iraq, pointing to the one intelligence agency out of fifteen that said Hussein had no WMDs. A quick thinking Republican (which we seem to be lacking) would have said. "OK, so if 1 out of 15 saying no WMDs exist is enough to NOT go to war... Are you saying that if only 1 in 15 said he DID have WMDs, you would have gone to war?"
But no... the putz gets a pass on his stupid comment. I am wholly unimpressed with the RNC of today.
Yesterday Obama said McCain had a "naive and irresponsible belief that tough talk from Washington will somehow cause Iran to give up it's nuclear program and support for terrorism." LINK So does the RNC or anyone from McCain's campaign get on the air and ask... "Does Obama believe that pillow talk from Washington will cause Iran to give up it's nuclear program?"
Obama said in a statement his aides distributed. "George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel." Obama is so cock-sure of his position as the world's brightest man that he missed the hilarity of his own statement, as the President was making these remarks to a standing ovation in front of the Knesset. If they agreed with Obama, they wouldn't have been applauding the President.
Republicans are afraid to punch back at this lame idiot. This guy is going to get a free pass and win the White House simply because he's black and everyone else is afraid to be called a racist for doing nothing more than questioning this man.
Their own Jimmy Carter?
I know, I know, that was low...
Bush attacked the “IDEA” of appeasement of tyrannical dictators and those who would and have supported genocide of Israel. He was speaking to the Kinnessette. Obama, and the dems in this country, have received this attack as an appointed criticism of Obama. He devined that it was he who Bush was talking about. It seems that Obama would agree with Bush’s assertion, rather than assume the mantle of appeasor and take umbridge of Bush’s statement. The shoe apparently fit Obama and therefore Obama took the statement personally. Obama convicted himself of being in alliance with those who appeased Hitler and now, common day tyrants.
Hmmmm. Just tell Iran that we don’t want them to have WMDs, and, if they don’t see it that way, we’ll attack them. That’s how to do it, says Obama.
How is that different than our current policy? (Except our current policy is undermined by these idiots, saying something can be just because they want it to be).
I think he also said that HE will lower gas prices, because they should be lower.
Hillary will be the biggest beneficiary of this idiocracy.
The Dems will be begging for her as their nominee when he begins actual policy discussions with an actual foe.
I have been wondering what it was going to be. I didn’t think Hillary could nuke him, given that the press IS in his camp.
This was just a media ploy. Look at all the media time he got opposing Bush. The Dems are eating it up. Even Fox had BO’s pic right up on the screen next to Bush’s. Trying for the presidential look......didn’t quite work.
BHO responds by agreeing, referring to Israel as an “open sore.”
This post (<-click), while addressing taxes, helps to explain why government "leaders" like Obama are actually in contempt of the Constitution that they have sworn to defend, foolishly following in the footsteps of FDR's dirty federal spending politics.
In fact, the article referenced below shows that Obama is the #1 federal spending proposer in the Senate for '08; Clinton is #2.
Obama, a big-shot federal spenderThe people need to reconnect with the Founder's division of federal and state government powers. The people then need to wise up to the major problem that the federal government is not operating within the restraints of the federal Constitution, particularly where constitutionally unauthorized federal spending is concerned.
The bottom line is that the people need to send big-shot, Constitution-ignoring federal spenders like Obama home as opposed to trying to send people like him to the Oval Office. The people need to get in the faces of the feds, demanding a stop to constitutionally unauthorized federal spending while appropriately lowering federal taxes - or get out of DC.
Since Pres Bush was speaking of the Nazis, he very well could have been speaking of the appeaser, Neville Chamberlain, of GB who thought he could “reason” with Hitler. Obama, thinking only of himself, thought Bush was speaking of HIM. What a narcissist! It’s all about him. Bush was making a statement of fact that you can’t reason with terrorists. The only thing they understand is a gun. What would you talk about? Now, can you give us a little time to get our house in order before you blow yourself and us up? Do we need to convert to Islam? Would that save us? Anything, just tell us what to do.
Actually, in his speech, Bush specifically made reference to a US Senator who served in the Senate at the beginning of WWII, and who lamented that he could have reasoned with Hitler if he’d been there when Hitler was invading Poland.
So unless Obama is this Senator’s reincarnated soul, it seems pretty clear that Bush was not referring to Obama.
"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."
Roosevelt and Truman both insisted on the unconditional surrender of the Nazis and Japanese, and Kennedy was trying to prove to Nikita Khrushchev that he wasn't going to let him be pushed around just because he was a Democrat. Obama makes no such representation.
Now, here's Obama in a New York Times interview:
Q: "Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?"
A: "I would". (responded Obama)
'nuff said.
He says that tough talk won't solve anything, missing the point that tough talk backed up by action has solved many things in this world. Talk tough to the muslims and back it up with action the way we have in Iraq and Afghanistan. Barry want's to talk soft and do nothing to terrorists, a plan of action that has never worked in the past.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.