Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Who is asking to talk with Al Queda? That's a straw man argument. What many people would like is to see Osama bin Laden dead. You know, the guy this president says he doesn't think much about.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<<We talked to the Soviets for 40 years. Because it was in OUR interests to do so. And it's a good thing we did.>> <But Reagan didn't really talk to the Soviets until they were weakening towards the end.> Reagan didn't visit Russia during his first term. But talks on lower levels continued, as they had for 40 years through presidents of both parties. The "summit" thing really only came to be expected started with Nixon anyway. Talking in general was pretty consistent throughout the cold war. And looking again at Bush's comments, it's a little hard to discern what he thought he was saying. He mentioned Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, and Iran. If he's saying that "some" are advocating direct talks with the first three, that's simply inaccurate. No major US political figure AFAIK is suggesting that. If he's saying that "some" are advocating direct talks with Iran and that's a bad thing, that's hypocritical - his own administration is doing so and and Rice and Gates have suggested doing so on a higher level. So it seems to me he's combining a strawman argument with hypocrisy AND vague insinuations that democrats are weak on national security, even though no one's advocating what he's insinuating. The trifecta!
Originally Posted By ecdc >>I'd like to see all terrorists dead but hey that's just me.<< DAR, you continue to talk about issues that no one's raised here, as 2oony has pointed out. You can't conflate Iran, terrible as their leader might be, with al Qaeda. Iran is a sovereign nation with millions of inhabitants. Their leaders will come and go, but the country will remain. As a country, they have political, social, and economic power that we have to reckon with. Al Qaeda, on the other hand, is none of this. We could exterminate al Qaeda (which we're *all* for - so please stop with this absurd idea that liberals want to have tea and crumpets with Osama) and their influence would wane and die out, though other groups might step in. If we kill Iranian leaders, the people remain, and no matter what they think of them, they'll turn to nationalism and patriotism. No one loathes George Bush more than me, but if he were assassinated by a foreign power, you better believe I'd want to bomb them into utter oblivion. DAR, you're a smart, thoughtful guy. But sometimes you let your outrage at atrocities cloud your judgment and arguments. We're all outraged at what Iran's president says, we all hate terrorists. We all hated 9/11. We're on the same page. But sometimes we all have to take a deep breath and recognize it's not as simple as erasing an entire country off of the map.
Originally Posted By DAR No but sometimes we need to take out the people that make a terrible country. I wish we could go into Burma and wipeout the entire Junta sadly that's not going to be the case.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>At this juncture, any "official White House response" carries no credibility whatsoever.<< Regardless, my beef is with the way "White House aides privately acknowledged" turned into "White House officials confirmed." >>And looking again at Bush's comments, it's a little hard to discern what he thought he was saying. He mentioned Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, and Iran.<< And that's just the problem here. It was a clumsy statement, parsed just enough (the reference to Iran was actually to statements made by its leader) to make it basically meaningless, except to those who want to puff it up into something else (Cue: Democrats!). I know of no one of any credibility who wants to negotiate with terrorist groups. We all agree on that, no?
Originally Posted By DAR <<But sometimes you let your outrage at atrocities cloud your judgment and arguments>> My argument is that those in engage in such atrocities such as terrorism or genocide should be dead. That's how you stop such things from happening. You kill them.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Sure. But you can't deny that Bush made a big point out of saying that "some" people DO want to, then comparing that to Hitler and the Nazis. Say what? THAT's what people objected to. It wasn't just clumsy, it was insinuating something that isn't true. We can all agree that's not good, no?
Originally Posted By DlandDug This whole controversy has been largely whipped up by partisan politicians and a media that has a vested interest in inciting conflict. CNN's coverage goes beyond disingenuous and simply lies. They cover this, of course, with the notion that they are reporting on the Democratic response, rather than on the speech itself. Read the actual speech here: <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/05/20080515-1.html" target="_blank">http://www.whitehouse.gov/news...5-1.html</a> Then explain why CNN's story would say the following: >>The president, at Israel's 60th anniversary celebration in Jerusalem, suggested that some Democrats were acting in the same way some Western leaders did when they appeased Hitler in the runup to World War II.<< Here's what he actually said in the salient section: >>There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain away their words. It's natural, but it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously. Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century. 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. (Applause.) Some people suggest if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of the enemies of peace, and America utterly rejects it. Israel's population may be just over 7 million. But when you confront terror and evil, you are 307 million strong, because the United States of America stands with you. (Applause.) America stands with you in breaking up terrorist networks and denying the extremists sanctuary. America stands with you in firmly opposing Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions. Permitting the world's leading sponsor of terror to possess the world's deadliest weapons would be an unforgivable betrayal for future generations. For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. (Applause.) Ultimately, to prevail in this struggle, we must offer an alternative to the ideology of the extremists by extending our vision of justice and tolerance and freedom and hope...<< CNN also said: >>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.<< So CNN gives credence to "private acknowledgements" by unnamed "aides." Most egregious is this whopper: >>Bush then made his transition to Obama and other Democrats without naming names, raising the specter of the Holocaust to make his point.<< False and false. Bush did not "transition to" or speak of or even mention Obama or any other Democrat. And the reference to the Holocaust was made much earlier in the speech, in a section dealing with Israel's historical struggle for existence. The media and opportunistic politicians will continue to willfully ignore the facts in the cause of whipping up false outrage. That's what they do. But it is sad that after what we have been through in the last seven years (Seven? How about 15?), we still seem to fall for it every time.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Come on, Dug. Some of your point is well taken, but Bush still insisted on insinuating that "some" (a weasel word if ever there was one) want to negotiate with terrorists (when no major US political figure has suggested that) and then specifically brings up a "US Senator" who wanted to do so with Hitler. It's a strawman at best (the first part) and a nasty insinuation at worst (the last part). <but White House aides privately acknowledged to CNN that the remarks were aimed at the presidential candidate and others in his party. > You get all huffy at that, but surely you must know that all news organizations take comments from white house sources who ask to be unnamed. Are you saying CNN made the acknowledgment up? You have no basis for saying so. And if not, apparently right after the speech was given they were happy to say "yeah, they're aimed at Obama and the Democrats." Notice that only AFTER Biden and others called "malarkey" on these comments did the white house deny they were "specifically" aimed at Obama (but not that they were aimed at Democrats... and again, no democrat I know has called to negotiate with the terrorist groups Bush mentioned).
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>You get all huffy at that, but surely you must know that all news organizations take comments from white house sources who ask to be unnamed.<< Please keep track of what I am actually all huffy about. I'm huffy that "private acknowledgements" by unnamed "White House aides" became "confirmation" by "White House officials." "Some" is a weasel word? I guess that depends on what "is" is...
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Doug, I believe you give this administration too much credit. They seldom, if ever, take the high road. And if there were any doubt, look no further than John McCain, whose attempts to connect Obama with Hamas make Bush's comments look decidely polite by comparisson.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 It's a weasel word because then one can always go back and say "well, I didn't mean HIM." As indeed, they did. Who, exactly, were they talking about then? As I said, even at its most benign it's a strawman argument.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>we still seem to fall for it every time.<< What many people aren't falling for is the standard "plausible deniability" stuff that is this administration's so well known for. I realize that the buck never, ever stops with them. They will say things and later explain them away. But it doesn't mean we have to fall for it.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Doug, I believe you give this administration too much credit. They seldom, if ever, take the high road.<< Um, when did I say that ANYONE was taking a high road in this? I believe I have said that I view Bush's comments here as clumsy, awkward and bone headed. >>And if there were any doubt, look no further than John McCain, whose attempts to connect Obama with Hamas make Bush's comments look decidely polite by comparisson.<< McCain didn't "attempt" any connection. He pointed out that Hamas leader Ahmed Yousef said, “We like Mr. Obama and we hope that he will win the election.†It was then Obama's privilege to engage, or not engage, in debate on something that is, in my opinion, a legitimate point of discussion. (And thanks for reminding me of another of those Obama "fun house" moments.)
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <McCain didn't "attempt" any connection. > Of course he did. And there IS no connection between Obama and Hamas. From Andrew Sullivan's blog: <a href="http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/05/mccain-obama-ha.html" target="_blank">http://andrewsullivan.theatlan...-ha.html</a> "It's very obvious to everyone that Senator Obama shares nothing of the values or goals of Hamas, which is a terrorist organization," McCain said. "But it's also a fact that a spokesperson from Hamas said that he approves of Obama's candidacy. I think that's of interest to the American people." "The right answer is that nominees for president do not legitimize the attempts of foreign terrorist groups to intervene in American elections. But what's galling here is the Clintonian passive-aggressive pose: I'm not saying it, but the "America people" are "interested". It's a way to peddle slime while pretending that you're not. At some point, McCain will have to choose. But the signs aren't too good." When Yousef says something like this out of the blue, it is reprehensible for McCain or anyone else to imply Obama is in any way involved. It is no more a "legitimate point of discussion" than if Myanmar's leader announced support of McCain. If Obama tried to demagogue it to say that it was, I'd say the same about him.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >><McCain didn't "attempt" any connection. > Of course he did.<< Sigh. I guess those little "" mean nothing to some people. I was saying he didn't "attempt," but rather he merely pointed out the connection. When the leader of Hamas offers an endorsement of a candidate, it is legitimate to discuss it. I seem to recall reading other statements on these boards from... this morning... about nutty preachers endorsing members of the GOP. Granted, they weren't the candidate's own ministers of twenty year's standing. But there seemed to be no question that the endorsement, at the very least, implied a connection. Obama is completely within his rights to repudiate the statements of the leader of Hamas. Or to claim that he had no idea just what his minister was preaching from the pulpit in the church he attended for twenty years. And we all have the privilege of making decisions based on the conversation.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Sigh. I guess those little "" mean nothing to some people.<< I see. So it sounds like we're supposed to take Bush, the official White House statement, and McCain at their word. We're supposed to treat Obama, the unnamed White House sources, and CNN with suspicion, merely using a statement to whip up a political frenzy. Yup, sounds like a balanced assessment of the situation to me.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>I see. So it sounds like we're supposed to take Bush, the official White House statement, and McCain at their word. We're supposed to treat Obama, the unnamed White House sources, and CNN with suspicion, merely using a statement to whip up a political frenzy. Yup, sounds like a balanced assessment of the situation to me.<< No, I was pointing out that I did not believe that McCain was "attempting" anything, but rather was saying something rather plainly. And yes, we should treat CNN with suspicion. Yes. They essentially lied in their reporting. Yes. And Obama and others are, indeed, using this to whip up a political frenzy. Glad we understand each other on this, at least. Oh, and I also agree that it's a no more balanced assessment than CNN's coverage, the reaction by the Dems, or the absurd level of rancor that has been displayed here.
