US News
May 15, 2008, 16:39 GMT
Obama slams Bush for false attack with appeasement remarks
And Also
Similar articles
- Increased risk of terrorist attacks, security chief says
- Obama pledges to review Guantanamo cases
- US presidential candidates to honour 9/11 victims
Latest Headlines in US
- 1. Suspect in quadruple police execution evades capture (1st Lead)
- 2. Four police officers slain in coffee shop "execution"
- 3. Struggles at home leave Obama hamstrung at Copenhagen (Feature)
- 4. Four US police officers shot dead near air force base (1st Lead)
- 5. Four US police officers shot dead near air force base
Via BuzzFeed
Older Talkback
Isn't the leader who claimed he would have our nation go after osama bin laden and the 9/11 terrorist gang in the countries that harbored them-Afghanistan and Pakistan- the same leader who quickly appeased the military dictator of Pakistan by not going after osama bin laden and the 9/11 terrorist gang in Pakistan, the very country that continues to harbor them? The same country that gave nuclear bomb technology to their buddy nation of North Korea. Oh yes, we are afraid that we might violate Pakistan national sovereignty! Seems like real appeasement to me.
Some of you should perhaps venture out in the world andstop panicking about islam .Paranoia is not exactly the proper input to address anotherculture .The result is to declare Obam a muslim,then pretending heis in fact a relapse,pretending he is too close with islam,pretending he is too close with islamist,then to conclude according to islam he is to be decapitated .Honestly this kind of ignorance ought to emabarass just by the sheer contradictions of logics those that use this kind of nonsense in a political debate .
The only conclusion one cand raw from this kind of confusion is that a little bit more understanding wouldn't harm some of you .
Biggotry is not the monopoly of islam .What to say about asociety where 4 year old toddlers are accused of sexual harasment and lifted from the school banks by police officers because the kid in question puts his head to rest against the bossom of the teacher .The toddler now has a police record labeling him as a sexual pervert.And likewisea six year old boy dragged to a police station also from school because he pats another girl's bottom during playtime .Isn't is biggotry uand complete misunderstanding of the nature of childrento accuse such small children of sexual behaviour.More examples are available .The bad news ist hat these events did not take place in Iran or another islamist country but in the good old US of A.What to think of that ?
'who quickly appeased the military dictator of Pakistan by not going after osama bin laden and the 9/11 terrorist gang in Pakistan'
We ARE going after bin Laden in Pakistan. We have troops on the ground IN Pakistan... Bin Laden is hiding, to tell you the truth we don't even KNOW if he is in Pakistan. Should we send in a full scale invasion into every country that we suspect is harboring bin laden?
'. Oh yes, we are afraid that we might violate Pakistan national sovereignty! '
We have special forces operating in Pakistan. We re guarding Pakistan nuclear arsenal, we have been handed more al Qaeda by Pakistan then anywhere else... And you want a full scale invasion because you are so smart...
'Some of you should perhaps venture out in the world andstop panicking about islam'
No one is pancaking, I just object to aircraft full of people being flown in to buildings full of people and the idiots who think rewarding that behavior is the way to prevent it.
'
Biggotry is not the monopoly of islam .What to say about asociety where 4 year old toddlers are accused of sexual harasment and lifted from the school banks by police officers because the kid in question puts his head to rest against the bossom of the teacher .The toddler now has a police record labeling him as a sexual pervert.And likewisea six year old boy dragged to a police station also from school because he pats another girl's bottom during playtime .'
Tonny, once again, you demonstrate that you do not know the first thing about Americans.
'Some of you should perhaps venture out in the world andstop panicking about islam'
Yeah, we should be more like Europe:
uk.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZNx0xHe0p0
RE:
'who quickly appeased the military dictator of Pakistan by not going after osama bin laden and the 9/11 terrorist gang in Pakistan'
We ARE going after bin Laden in Pakistan. We have troops on the ground IN Pakistan... Bin Laden is hiding, to tell you the truth we don't even KNOW if he is in Pakistan. Should we send in a full scale invasion into every country that we suspect is harboring bin laden?
===========================
Bush had the opportunity to go after the Taliban, and did not. We let them escape over the mountains into Pakistan.
Talking about 'NOW' is as stupid as trying to reverse an amputation after the surgery. For anyone who actually bothers to keep up with the news, the 'government' in Pakistan is fragile, and their internal problems are far from over. The presence of U.S. troops would not be welcomed by the people, particularly those in Waziristan.
THIS!!! is appeasement!!! Pakistan, for their part, is once again 'folding' and leaving the game, and pulling back their troops:
online.wsj.com/article/SB121078214645692263.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan -- Pakistan freed dozens of militants Wednesday and started pulling troops from areas of a volatile tribal region as a part of an effort to make peace with Islamist militants.
Government officials also said the two sides were close to a deal that could end hostilities in the country's tribal region of South Waziristan and in parts of North West Frontier Province, one of Pakistan's four provinces.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization said it is concerned that the Pakistani government's peace efforts have led to a sharp rise in attacks on the coalition's forces in eastern Afghanistan, where they are fighting insurgents. NATO spokesman James Appathurai said Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer plans to visit Islamabad soon for talks.
Pakistan's new government has been trying to reach a peace deal with Baitullah Mehsud, the leader of Tehrik-e-Taliban, a militant outfit involved in several bloody terrorist attacks in northern Pakistan. But the talks stalled last month after the government rejected the militants' demand to pull out troops from a tribal region.
The government's efforts have alarmed Washington, which worries that the lull will allow al Qaeda and other militant groups to regroup inside Pakistan and attack both there and over the border. But Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani has said the Pakistani government's past strategy, centered on military assaults, failed to produce the desired results.
The U.S. has poured $6 billion into Pakistan in the last six years and accomplished absolutely nothing so says Joel Brinkley a former foreign correspondent for the New York Times and now a professor of journalism at Stanford. This is a very interesting article, and it is just another stupid happening in the saga of Geo. Bush!
'McCain campaign decides to purge'
And the subject was Obamas appeasement, thanks for cutting and pasting another ENTIRE article that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
'The time for this discussion was 2001'
And the subject was Obamas appeasement, thanks for cutting and pasting another ENTIRE article that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
'Bush had the opportunity to go after the Taliban, and did not. We let them escape over the mountains into Pakistan.'
So you flip flop again, you have been on both sides of this issue so many times that your opinion on it (as well as everything else) is completely worthless. It will just change in a matter of moments.
We did not 'let' anyone escape. Nor do you even know if Bin Laden is in Pakastan.
' The presence of U.S. troops would not be welcomed by the people, particularly those in Waziristan.'
We have special forces in Waziristan. Idiot. A full scale invasion of Pakistan is not in our internists, yet you are blathering on about the fact that we didn't invade them with everything we have as somehow appeasing them. YOU ARE JUST PLAIN DUMB.
Actually, you are an Iranian islamist apologist who should be packed up and sent back to where you REALLY think of as home.
'Interview with a Taliban leader'
And the subject was Obamas appeasement, thanks for cutting and pasting another ENTIRE article that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
'Shariah law is the issue'
Yes, I will not submit to Sharia or islam... THAT is the issue.
'es, it is quite true that the US has been appeasing the military dictator of Pakistan for almost seven years since 9/11. I have read many accounts of this, from many different sources. Offered up below is just another report detailing our appeasement.'
So we should have invaded Pakistan?
' We had the world with us back then,'
LOL...
'Where do you think bin laden and the other al qqaeda who escaped went? '
Why don't we just invade EVERY country that we suspect they are hiding in? If you know where bin Laden is let us know. Otherwise, advocating for invading every country that we suspect he is hiding in is just plain stupid.
'To our al qaeda attracting magnet we constructed in Iraq? '
Many, many thousands of them DID go to Iraq and were killed there.
'By most intelligent accounts they went into Pakistan'
Good thing that we have American troops operating in Pakistan then.
' Why should we be, as you claim, still be looking for bin laden, in Pakistan, '
We should be looking for him everywhere we suspect he is, that doesn't mean large scale invasions of countries that have been our allies in the past and that have been cooperating with us.
Bin Ladens son went to Iran, should we have invaded Iran as well?
'It is no wonder to me that Pakistan has turned over some al qaeda to us. That's exactly where most of them are living. '
You had Eric Rudolph living in the Appalachian mountains in the middle of the USA for 5 years while on the 10 most wanted list... Once again, where is Bin Laden? If you know where he is you will see US military intervention.
' Appeasement works both ways- in exchange for the US leaving hands off Pakistan'
So we should invade Pakistan...
'Please feel free to read up on all this, so you can understand it better.'
Please feel free to clean out your savings account and buy a clue. The ENTIRE article that you ct and pasted from sources unknown doesn't change the fact that a full scale invasion of Pakistan would be a stupid thing to do.
RE:
'And the subject was Obamas appeasement, thanks for cutting and pasting another ENTIRE article that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.'
=======================================
The topic is also McCain's cronyism in terms of his backers, because when you provide for those who back you over and above the other constitutents, it's a form of payola. When your platform is based on prolonging Bush's errors, rather than finding a way to STOP spending a fortune propping up a situation that Bush himself created, that's not the 'opposite' of appeasment - it's unrealistic. If the basis of the fundamentalists is indeed Sharia law (which even the populations of those countries don't want), there's nothing that our military presence will do to abate those feelings. In fact, we become the irritant which makes it worse just by being there.
Per Boone Pickens, the cost to the U.S. of oil each year is $600 billion. Another 'bonus' from the Bush demagoguery.
www.nuwireinvestor.com/articles/community-wind-power-51526.aspx
T. Boone Pickens discussed his $10 billion plan to erect 2,700 wind turbines across the Texas panhandle, a project that will generate enough electricity to power about one million homes, in a recent interview with The Guardian (U.K.). Pickens, founder of Mesa Petroleum and bona fide oil tycoon, presumably doesn’t have any big plans for Earth Day: “Don’t get the idea that I’ve turned green,” he told his interviewer.
==============================
YOUR topic is Obama's appeasement, thanks to Bush's planned outburst just to inflame schmucks like you - as if you needed any help in your delusions.
Did you bother to read what Obama said? Or, were there too many of those darned syllables for you again?
www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/opinion/16brooks.html?th&emc=th
“The debate we’re going to be having with John McCain is how do we understand the blend of military action to diplomatic action that we are going to undertake,” he said. “I constantly reject this notion that any hint of strategies involving diplomacy are somehow soft or indicate surrender or means that you are not going to crack down on terrorism. Those are the terms of debate that have led to blunder after blunder.”
Obama said he found that the military brass thinks the way he does: “The generals are light-years ahead of the civilians. They are trying to get the job done rather than look tough.”
I asked him if negotiating with a theocratic/ideological power like Iran is different from negotiating with a nation that’s primarily pursuing material interests. He acknowledged that “If your opponents are looking for your destruction it’s hard to sit across the table from them,” but, he continued: “There are rarely purely ideological movements out there. We can encourage actors to think in practical and not ideological terms. We can strengthen those elements that are making practical calculations.”
'The topic is also McCain's cronyism[sic] in terms of his backers, because when you provide for those who back you over and above the other constitutents[sic], it's a form of payola'
No idiot, that:
1) Wasn't the topic you filthy islamist dog.
2) McCain does not do that, unlike Obama who has actually helped Tony Rezko steal millions of dollars from the tax payers in exchange for campaign contributions.
3) In light of #2 one can only shudder to think what kind of payback George Soros is going to expect for all the checks he is paying out on Obamas behalf.
' When your platform is based on prolonging Bush's errors, '
When YOURS is throwing a lifeline to the islamist scumbags that are being DEFEATED in Iraq to enable Iran to take over...
' If the basis of the fundamentalists is indeed Sharia law (which even the populations of those countries don't want), there's nothing that our military presence will do to abate those feelings.'
Yes, there is: We can stop those who are forcing Sharia down other peoples throats at the tip of a Kalashnikov. We can and ARE doing that in both countries that you want to abandon.
'Per Boone Pickens, the cost to the U.S. of oil each year is $600 billion. '
You have a mental problem that makes you incapable of concentrating on the topic at hand and veering off on completely unrelated nonsense.
Want to know why oil is so frigging high? Because the democrats have rejected drilling in Alaska. They have rejected drilling off the pacific coast. They have rejected drilling off the Baja peninsula. They have rejected drilling in Colorado. They have rejected drilling in Wyoming. They have rejected drilling in the Dakotas. They have rejected expanding operations in the Gulf Of Mexico. They have rejected drilling off the East coast... They just rejected exploiting the oil shale in Colorado even though we now have the technology to do it.
www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/may/15/panel-defeats-attempt-end-oi l-shale-moratorium
There is enough oil to last the next 100 years in the USA but the democrats wont let us touch it because the 'environmentalists' would have a fit. That is why oil is at 120 a barrel and that is why it is going higher.
Now, you complete moron, think... focus here with all your capabilities:
What is going to happen to the price of oil if we turn over Iraq to al Qaeda and Iran? What will happen to the price of oil if Iran is allowed to choke off the strait of Hormuz as they have repeatedly threatened and tried to do? Yes, IDIOT, the price of oil will skyrocket. That is what Obama wants to.
'YOUR topic is Obama's appeasement, thanks to Bush's planned outburst just to inflame schmucks like you - as if you needed any help in your delusions.'
Bush was talking about Carter who was meeting with Hamas while they were murdering Israelis in rocket attacks, you ape.
'Did you bother to read what Obama said? Or, were there too many of those darned syllables for you again?'
I posted the video of his vow to get on his knees on behalf of the USA for whatever tin plated dictator has an issue for the Great Satan. Go watch it, as well as what the monsters you wish to put in charge of the middle east are doing to your cousins:
www.liveleak.com/view?i=aea_1185836331
www.liveleak.com/view?i=271_1189517695
www.liveleak.com/view?i=518_1190245078
'“If your opponents are looking for your destruction it’s hard to sit across the table from them,”
But he will anyway...
'File this one with the stories about how well al-Maliki did in Basra, before U.S. and British forces saved his butt, and the Iranians got al-Sadr to cease)'
Idiot, the iranians got sadr to cease because they saw the militia (group of thugs who were really great at beating up on the civilian population, hiding, and getting absolutely slaughtered when they tried to stand and fight) getting it's ass kicked all over the place.
You were wrong then, you are wrong now. Don't you ever tire of making a fool out of yourself you islamist idiot?
George Bush seems to have really rattled Barack Obama and the Democratic Party with his speech yesterday in the Israeli Knesset. Rather than ignoring Bush’s argument against appeasement, or adopting it, Barack Obama has declared that Bush intended his denunciation of appeasement as an attack on his campaign, even though Bush never even mentioned the nationality of modern appeasers in his speech. Obama lashed out in a speech today, calling Bush’s rhetoric “appalling”: [waaaaahhhhh-ed]
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.”
[...]
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.
But Bush never mentioned any specific person in his speech today, and didn’t even specify that he was referring to Americans. Newsbusters has the full transcript, with this relevant part of the speech.
'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.
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.'
[...]Obviously, Bush wasn’t referring to American politicians in this passage, but instead politicians in Europe and elsewhere who have either an animus towards Israel or appreciation for dhimmitude. Nothing — and I mean nothing — in this speech points to any candidate or the Democratic Party, unless they identify themselves as the reference.
Obama and his surrogates drew those connections themselves. Instead of acknowledging the historical truth of appeasement’s failures, they chose to argue with it. Obama could have taken the smart route and embraced it to explain how he understands the lessons of appeasement, which is why his talks with Iran would not result in it. Instead, he got volcanically defensive, which suggests that even Obama sees the parallels between his everything’s-on-the-table approach and the Chamberlain diplomacy which resulted in dismantling Czechoslovakia.
And if Obama considers discussion of foreign policy “divisive”, then he should hie himself right back to Academia. Guess what, Senator? Presidential elections focus on foreign-policy principles, and if you can’t defend yours, then you have no business running for office.
hotair.com/archives/2008/05/16/rookie-mistakes-again-obama-owns-appease ment/
Marc Ambinder reports that Bush meant to scold Jimmy Carter for his recent visit with Hamas, as Ed Gillespie explained to reporters in Saudi Arabia:
“We did not anticipate that it would be taken that way, because its kind of hard to take it that way when you look at the actual words. … There was some anticipation that someone might say you know its an expression of rebuke to former President Carter for having met with Hamas. that was something that was anticipated but no one wrote about it or raised it.”
And if one actually reads what Bush said, that interpretation looks a lot more likely than a supposed attack on Obama. Carter had just hugged Khaled Mashaal in Damascus and insisted that the US should open a dialogue with Hamas.
marcambinder.theatlantic.com
Barack Obama, meanwhile, continues to embarrass himself today at a presser on an attack that never was.
He heard the word 'appeaser' and naturally thought people were talking about him.
Bush just reads what his speech writer hands him, and then he doesn't even do that very well!
As usual:
'2) McCain does not do that, unlike Obama who has actually helped Tony Rezko steal millions of dollars from the tax payers in exchange for campaign contributions.'
Liar!
'3) In light of #2 one can only shudder to think what kind of payback George Soros is going to expect for all the checks he is paying out on Obamas behalf. '
Maybe something like Rupert Murdoch's access to any media organization he cares to take and turn into another right wing outlet?
Your ranting is comical at best, and propoganda at worst.
I'd suggest that, before you draw any conclusions, you open your eyes to the fact that totalitarians the world over are, at this moment, allowing 10's of thousands of people to die, that could be helped, simply because they are frightened of opening their societies to the rest of humanity.
Compared to this, I think your attention would be better served by offering dissent for those marxist regiemes you love so much. As for Mr. Obama, I could care less what he worships as long as he puts America first. After all, that is the oath Presidents take.
Also, I happen to live in one of the most liberal states in America and it was the libnazi legislature that criminalized every man-on-woman assualt as a sexual assault. We actually had a 13 year old brought up on felony sexual assault charges for slapping a girls ass.
This is what happens in the libnazi state.
why don't you move somewhere that fits you better - or maybe outside the U.S.!
'This is what happens in the libnazi state.'
This is what happens in a rightwing, fundamentalist, republican state.
Your Talkback on this Story