CharlesMay 16th, 2008 - 19:04:02

I really do think President Obama can achieve peace in our time.

It is glorious!

Report this comment

Obama is dangerous to the security of civilizationMay 16th, 2008 - 19:48:30

'I hold in my hand.. a letter signed by Mr.Ahmadinejad and Mr. Kim Jong-il... '

Charles, you really have to use a bigger sledgehammer. No one here is going to get the Neville Chamberlain reference.

By the way, Obama is a liar and is flip flopping so many times it is enough to give an observer vertigo. At noon today Obama said: “I have never said I would negotiate with terrorists.” Then at 3 pm he reiterated that he will personally engage in “direct talks” with Iran, a state sponsor of terrorism, as he complained bitterly about President Bush’s speech in Israel.


From his official campaign web site:

Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior.


Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. FULL STOP. Obama says very clearly that he’s going to negotiate with them, and somehow convince them to “change their behavior.” And yet, he stands there and denies it with a straight face. His lemmings don't care that he’s now blatantly lying, even when it’s a simple matter to fact check him. In his little tantrum today there were so many falsehoods, so many mis-characterizations of other peoples positions that the only conclusion one can come to is that he is a pathological liar.

It is also inescapable that he is a craven appeaser.

Report this comment

BR- - - - Raised in New York City- - -May 16th, 2008 - 20:07:59

I disagree with Mr. Obama and Hillary C.....Oh yes, anti-appeasement sstatements should, absolutely be uttered by this President and any other president in this-modern-and-confused-by-the-slick-media-world! Hillary and Obama are trying to raise votes by pandering to the 'We will overcome' crowd who think our country's current enemies can be appeased by a gentler approach. That's the worst B.S. since Himmler and Hitler's Air Marshall conjured up and fed to the German people many years (not so many actually)ago.
Our enemies are very real and we best not ever even begin to appease them as the American media (some) have already done and do every single day. The Peace movement is the most gullible I have ever known. [Peace marches should be performed on Tehran and Pyonyang and Damascus if they are going to be done ANYWHERE. They are truly wasted in Boston, New York, San Francisco, and L.A. where Americans already know about the injusices served up in the capitols.
No APPEASMENT TO OUR ENEMIES. Turning one's cheek to our enemies is no part of patriotism.

Report this comment

CharlesMay 16th, 2008 - 20:12:44

Honestly I kinda like Obama. Of course his stock has gone down a bit the last couple months, but I can't pretend the world would stop turning if he became president.

More than anything, he comes across as weak and indecisive if you look at his actions (inaction) compared with his practiced eloquence when among admirers.

'Virtuous motives, trammeled by inertia and timidity, are no match for armed and resolute wickedness. (W.C.)'

Report this comment

Obama, our new appeaserMay 16th, 2008 - 20:24:13

'Honestly I kinda like Obama. Of course his stock has gone down a bit the last couple months, but I can't pretend the world would stop turning if he became president.'

It would be a disaster for the USA and would effectively end our status as a superpower... But yes, the world would continue to rotate on it's axis around the sun.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
ABRIDGED:

Barack Obama, our new appeaser

Sunday, March 30th 2008, 4:00 AM

Consider, for example, that Obama, alone among all major candidates this year, said he would meet our enemies without conditions, including Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran. If his approach to Wright were applied, Obama would emerge from that meeting by condemning Ahmadinejad's threat to wipe Israel off the map while also condemning American and Israeli policies. This moral equivalency would be tacit support for Iran's warped grievances, and perhaps for its nuclear program.

After all, we have nuclear weapons and so does Israel, so who are we to deny Iran? Or, as Obama put it Friday when talking about race relations, 'People all want the same thing.'

They don't, but appeasement thinking often credits everybody with equally good and worthy intentions. That was the mistake of the most infamous appeaser of modern times, Neville Chamberlain, the British prime minister who, with France's help, gave in to Adolf Hitler in hopes of heading off war. In exchange for sacrificing innocent Czechs and others living on lands Hitler wanted, Chamberlain famously waved a treaty with Hitler's name on it that he insisted would secure 'peace for our time.'

Within days, Herr Hitler, as Chamberlain called him, attacked his neighbors and within a year Europe was engulfed in World War II.

Would Obama be so naive or craven? Because of his limited experience, we don't know. That's why the Wright episode, the most difficult issue of his idealistic campaign, takes on huge importance. The lessons are not pretty.

He sloppily compared Wright's virulent anti-Americanism with his grandmother's private expressions of racial prejudice in a way that makes them seem equally guilty. He complained repeatedly, including on Friday on ABC's 'The View,' that the profane, inflammatory remarks captured on video clips are a mere 'snippet' of Wright's many sermons.

'People are a mix of good and bad,' he said, and added, 'I feel badly he's been characterized in this way and people haven't seen the broader aspect of him.'

What 'broader aspect' offsets such hate and lunacy? With new examples emerging of anti-Semitic writings in the bulletin put out by Wright's church, there is no mitigating context.

And even as he gradually undercuts his initial denial that he knew of Wright's distorted views, Obama still suggests the case reflects how he would behave as President.

Report this comment

If the shoe fits.May 16th, 2008 - 20:28:27

By the way, Bush never mentioned the word Obama or Barack or Democrat in his speech... Isn't it odd that Obama would immediately think people were talking about him when he heard the word 'appeaser'?

Report this comment

Hope & Change (tm)May 16th, 2008 - 20:33:28

Barack Obama claims he's not an appeaser. But when President Bush attacked those who 'seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists,' why was the senator sure he was talking about him?

'The lady doth protest too much, methinks' is the famous Hamlet quote referring to pleas of innocence that actually indicate guilt. Did Obama, the near-certain Democratic Party nominee for president, 'protest too much' in complaining about Bush's speech to Israel's Knesset on Thursday?

Addressing lawmakers in Jerusalem in a special session of the legislature commemorating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the state of Israel, the president made comments with which few Americans could find fault.

'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,' the president said.

'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.' '

According to the president, 'We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.'

That infamous senator, William Edgar Borah of Idaho, wasn't even a Democrat; he was a 'progressive' Republican, an isolationist who in 1919 helped wreck Woodrow Wilson's internationalist dream of a League of Nations. So why would Obama issue such a stinging statement in response to the president's remarks?[...]

Furthermore, the terrorists themselves know a President Obama will engage with them. The chief political adviser to Hamas' Gaza leader Ismail Haniyeh is on record as saying, 'We like Mr. Obama, and we hope he will win the election.'

Earlier this month, Obama described the takeover of West Beirut by Hezbollah gunmen as a 'power grab' and declared, 'It's time to engage in diplomatic efforts to help build a new Lebanese consensus.'

Letters found on the seized computer of Raul Reyes, the warlord with Colombia's Marxist-Leninist FARC terrorist group who was killed in an army strike in March, happily reported that 'two gringos' he met assured him that Obama would win the election.

www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=295744081664205

Report this comment

to the hippie willing to let others get killedMay 17th, 2008 - 00:13:12

'Here we have our president who promised to go after osama bin laden, and the 9/11 terrorists, and the countries that harbor them. '

LOL, how many more countries do we need to invade? You would be in the streets with giant paper-maché puppets of Bush and Cheney reeking the place up with your pot and patchouli stank you harry arm pitted woman.

'The Taliban had been created, funded, and allowed safe haven by Pakistan, and after the US ran al qaeda and the Taliban out of Afghanistan, they fled over the border back into Pakistan. '

And groups like them are scattered all over the globe. Do we invade every country with a bunch of islamist idiots? We would be invading the UK, Canada and Detroit.

'Our failure to capture/kill osama bin laden is because we did not follow him and his al qaeda terrorists into Pakistan in the winter of 2001/2002, but we allowed them to escape instead.'

We didn't 'allow' anyone to escape, They ran off like the pussies they are.

'Taliban and al qaeda still exists on both sides of the Afghan/Pakistan border, perhaps even stronger than they were in 2001'

1500 less of the rats since 6 months ago, and no they are getting weaker not stronger.

'There is no credible expanation for what has happened except that Bush became a terrorist appeaser, by not going after them when we could, into Pakistan.'

The credible explanation for that comment is that you are a moron. WE HAVE US TROOPS OPERATING IN PAKISTAN.

We have troops hunting for bin laden and troops guarding their nuclear arsenal. You simply do not have a clue.

Report this comment

in your appeasing delusion-May 17th, 2008 - 01:55:14

in your appeasing delusion of not holding the military dictator of Pakistan accountable for anything, and being a blind apologist for the blunders of the bush admin, please tell us what countries beside Iraq do you endorse invading in the effort to kill/capture osama bin laden? Let me guess how you tow the appeasing admin line- next you want to go into Iran, Syria, North Korea, and anywhere else you want, except Pakistan, where osama bin laden lives laughing at us, protected by your buddy Musharraf.

Report this comment

thanks for the tortured logic...May 17th, 2008 - 04:04:42

'n your appeasing delusion of not holding the military dictator of Pakistan accountable for anything, and being a blind apologist for the blunders of the bush admin, please tell us what countries beside Iraq do you endorse invading in the effort to kill/capture osama bin laden? '

Wait a minute.. You were the one who was endorsing invading Pakistan (even though we have troops there and even though you do not know bin laden is in Pakistan at all...)

'Let me guess how you tow the appeasing admin line- '

You guess wrong idiot.

Where in Pakistan is bin laden? Are you sure he is not in Yemen? The Sudan? Iran? Are you prepared for a full scale invasion of EVERYWHERE on earth that he may be hiding? Kashmir, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia? You probably whined like a stuck pig over Afghanistan/Iraq. Now you want to invade everywhere he may be hiding. What if he is in Russia?

If you have a concrete idea where he is I support moving heaven and earth to kill him. Seriously. But you don't. You do not have any ideas about anything. By your stupid 'logic' we should be launching a full scale invasion on a country that already is allowing our troops to operate on their soil. I have trained Pakistanis and trust me, they wouldn't be push-overs. Add to that fact one little detail, they have the atomic bomb.

So shut your stupid hole.

Report this comment