Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The issue here is that Bush went to a foreign country and trashed the person who may well be his successor, comparing him to appeasing Hitler.> The President's comments applied to more than just Senator Obama, and more than just some American democrats.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "The President's comments applied to more than just Senator Obama, and more than just some American democrats." Except the White House admitted he directed his remarks at Obama and Democrats.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan We really need a huge countdown clock on the south lawn ticking off the weeks, hours and minutes until this disasterous administration vacates our White House. No matter who wins in november, it will be cause for a national day of celebration that we will be turning the page on an absolutely abysmal failure.
Originally Posted By DlandDug My goodness, the dudgeon in here is as high as an elephant's eye. Too bad so much of it is misplaced. Bush said that negotiating with terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah was appeasement. There was a fleeting mention of the President of Iran, but only in the context of his extremist statements. And where does it say that this was all about Obama? Oh yeah, here: >>The president did not name Sen. Barack Obama or any other Democrat, but White House aides privately acknowledged to CNN that the remarks were aimed at the presidential candidate and others in his party. After Bush's comments were reported, the White House denied that they were specifically aimed at Obama.<< I guess unnamed White House aides privately "acknowledging" to CNN trumps what Bush actually said or White House denials. At least, if you're a bunch of partisan hacks...
Originally Posted By ecdc I think I'll take the day off work to celebrate. If any of you happen to be in Salt Lake City on inauguration day, the drinks are on me.
Originally Posted By DlandDug P.S. By "partisan hacks" I refer to the usual gang in Washington: Joe Biden (classy, classy comment!), Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and that paragon, Mr. Howard Dean. Oh, and Barack himself, too, who was apparently only too eager to claim the comments were all about him.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>P.S. By "partisan hacks" I refer to the usual gang in Washington: Joe Biden (classy, classy comment!), Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and that paragon, Mr. Howard Dean. Oh, and Barack himself, too, who was apparently only too eager to claim the comments were all about him.<< Biden had every right to be outraged - his remarks couldn't have been more appropriate. Of course, some will be more bothered at simple profanity than at the disgusting comments made by Bush.
Originally Posted By DlandDug It's all this high level hand wringing and scolding I find ridiculous. Bush made a basically awkward, not to say bone headed statement in Israel, and then partisan hacks used the comments to make political points by accusing Bush of trying to make political points.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>It's all this high level hand wringing and scolding I find ridiculous. Bush made a basically awkward<< It's this defense of this President that I find ridiculous. He was elected by demonizing and accusing those on the other side of not being patriotic enough, of using fear tactics and convincing people that if John Kerry was elected, Osama would be sleeping with their daughter. To simply call this an awkward comment manages to ignore 7 years of Rovian tactics. And you haven't offered a scrap of evidence to counter CNN's claim that White House officials confirmed it was about Obama, other than your own wishful thinking.
Originally Posted By DlandDug Well, I don't need to respond to charges of defending Bush, since I didn't do that. But I will continue to say that the level of rancor surrounding this story is patently absurd. I will respond to this: >>And you haven't offered a scrap of evidence to counter CNN's claim that White House officials confirmed it was about Obama, other than your own wishful thinking.<< First, no White House officials said anything of the sort. According to CNN, White House aides "acknowledged" the claim. And the White House has officially stated it wasn't about Obama. And what do you know, when you read the transcript, that's actually the case. So it seems that the "wishful thinking" is pretty much on the part of CNN.
Originally Posted By X-san ***“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."*** Or, just maybe, on a case by case basis we could address their issues in talks that aim to understand where BOTH sides have gone wrong. ***Biden also admitted to initially calling Bush’s comments “bull----.†“I reacted viscerally,†he said. “But the essence of what I said was accurate. I should have said malarkey.â€*** Why the f-word would that have been any different?
Originally Posted By DAR <<Or, just maybe, on a case by case basis we could address their issues in talks that aim to understand where BOTH sides have gone wrong.>> So we should talk with Hezbollah, Hamas, Al-Qaeda and any of these other terroist groups? Let's see what would their issues be, oh yeah. All women are to be treated lower than dogs. You can only accept the ways of Allah, if you don't you are an infidel and must die. All the Jews must die. Feel free to fill in more.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "But I will continue to say that the level of rancor surrounding this story is patently absurd." I find everything Bush does is absurd anymore so I guess it's a push.
Originally Posted By X-san As I said, it's on a case by case basis. You have a lot of hateful prejudicial things to say (and I'm pretty sure you read them somewhere), and that might or might not pertain to the thousands of militant groups on the planet.... But believe it or not there are also actual grievances out there which are legitimate, peoples who have been disenfranchised, and terrorist organizations who are pissed off for a reason (case...by...case...). Also, you are incredibly crude and a racist bigot for saying such nasty stuff...but you get a pass because the people you are attacking are ragheads right? I'm not condoning ANY of these groups for their terrorist ACTIONS, but my point is that the issues at hand are real. For idiot Bush to say "well, we can't expect them to suddenly admit they were wrong" is to undermine the entire issue of why we have arrived at the point we are at. Again, it's case by case. Not all of these groups or nations can be reasoned with. But guess what? Back a while ago the country I live in now was incredibly unreasonable. To the point where people said hateful things about the culture just like you're doing now. But, things change. Get over your prejudice, Dar. You should be smarter than that.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan As Joe Biden pointed out, this administration has had talks with North Korea, Mohammar Ghadafi and others. And the results of those talks have been beneficial to US interests. If this president didn't have such a long history of questioning teh patriotism of people who do not agree with his administration, Doug, perhaps people wouldn't be so quick to pounce when he makes statements like this. But he and Mr. Cheney have done that quite regularly, especially in the context of campaign seasons, so it isn't a stretch to connect the dots. Talks and negotiations, by the way, are not a one way street. Just because we have talks does NOT mean we won't ever use military force if need be. Talks can break down if one side won't be reasonable. But effective foreign policy requires that we do more than smirk, swagger and sabre-rattle. Unless, of course, we think that pre-emptive wars are a really effective, fabulous idea.
Originally Posted By DlandDug The issue isn't about negotiating with unfriendly countries. It's about negotiating with terrorists. In the cold light of dawn, I now believe that Bush basically said something he thought that Israel would like to hear. And the (frighteningly instant and seemingly coordinated) response from several prominent Democrats was to recast those comments as some sort of veiled attack on their candidate, Barack Obama. CNN even went to far as to plump that up by claiming unnamed "White House aides" privately acknowledged that this was the case, despite the fact that the comments themselves belie that, and the White House officially stated it was not intended. It's all politics as usual. (Big surprise.) But it's not what I have been told to expect from the charismatic Mr. Obama. Or maybe he really is just another of the same old politicians we've been dealing with all along...
Originally Posted By DAR <<You have a lot of hateful prejudicial things to say (and I'm pretty sure you read them somewhere), and that might or might not pertain to the thousands of militant groups on the planet....>> It's really not hateful I'm against any group that engages in terrorism. <<But believe it or not there are also actual grievances out there which are legitimate, peoples who have been disenfranchised, and terrorist organizations who are pissed off for a reason (case...by...case...).>> Excuse me??? Yeah let's take it on a case by case basis. Say Hezbollah, Hamas what you like to see? The complete destruction and anhilation of Israel and its people. <<Also, you are incredibly crude and a racist bigot for saying such nasty stuff...but you get a pass because the people you are attacking are ragheads right? >> Wow so saying this about terrorists makes one a bigot? These are people that have hijacked a religion with their extreme views(and don't get started on Christianity) by killing innocent people. They have no moral compass. They don't deserve to be treated with one ounce of dignity or respect. F-them.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Dug- At this juncture, any "official White House response" carries no credibility whatsoever. None. I don't care if it was merely to confirm the sun came up. That's how bad it has become with this Administration. Speaking only for myself, I have never been so angry at a president in my life. He's an unmitigated disaster, and the sooner his sorry carcass leave the White House the better. Nixon was better than this guy.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>It's about negotiating with terrorists.<< Would you please explain how Obama's position is different from Clinton's, McCain's or Bush's on this? I'll save you the effort: It isn't. Yet the White House has time and again tried to paint their political foes as "emboldening" terrorists in all manner of ways. McCain is doing the same thing. Yet, curiously, their policies are all pretty much in line with each other on this.
Originally Posted By DAR If any of you actually think that Al-Qaeda or any one of these groups is willing to sit down and have talk you're just naive.
