I've seen a lot of sad things in American politics in my lifetime -- the resignation of a president who became a national disgrace after he oversaw a campaign of break-ins and cover-ups, another who circumvented the Constitution to trade arms for hostages, and yet is now hailed as national hero. And those paled to what we have seen in the last seven years -- flagrant disregard for the Constitution, the launching of a "pre-emptive" war on false pretenses, and discussions about torture and other shocking abuses inside the White House inner sanctum.
But now it's come to this: A new low that I never imagined was even possible.
President Bush went on foreign soil today, and committed what I consider an act of political treason: Comparing the candidate of the U.S. opposition party to appeasers of Nazi Germany -- in the very nation that was carved out from the horrific calamity of the Holocaust. Bush's bizarre and beyond-appropriate detour into American presidential politics took place in the middle of what should have been an occasion for joy: A speech to Israeli's Knesset to honor that nation's 60th birthday.
But here's what he said:
JERUSALEM (CNN) – In a particularly sharp blast from halfway around the world, President Bush suggested Thursday that Sen. Barack Obama and other Democrats are in favor of "appeasement" of terrorists in the same way U.S. leaders appeased Nazis in the run-up to World War II.
"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," said Bush, in what White House aides privately acknowledged was a reference to calls by Obama and other Democrats for the U.S. president to sit down for talks with leaders like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
"We have heard this foolish delusion before," Bush said in remarks to the Israeli Knesset. "As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American Senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of 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."
As a believer in free speech, I think Bush has a right to say what he wants, but as a President of the United States who swore to uphold the Constitution, his freedom also carries an awesome and solemn responsibility, and what this president said today is a serious breach of that high moral standard.
Of course, there are differences of opinion on how America should handle Iran, and that's why we're having an election here at home, to sort these issues out -- hopefully with respect and not with emotional and inaccurate appeals. Not only is the president's comment a gross misrepresentation of Barack Obama's stance on the issue, but ironically, it comes just a day after his own Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, said of Iran: "We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage . . . and then sit down and talk with them." Is Gates a Nazi appeaser-type, too? And Bush has been hardly consistent on this point, either. Look at his own dealings with oil-rich Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi, linked to deadly terror attacks like Pan Am Flight 103.
But what Bush did in Israel this morning goes well beyond the accepted confines of American political debate, When the president speaks to a foreign parliament on behalf of our country, his message needs to be clear and unambiguous. Our democracy may look messy to outsiders, and we may have our disagreements with some sharp elbows thrown around, but at the end of the day we are not Republicans or Democrats or liberals or conservatives.
We are Americans.
And you, Mr. Bush, are the leader of us all. To use a diplomatic setting on foreign soil to score a cheap political point at home is way beneath your office, way beneath your country, and way beneath the people you serve. You have been handed an office once uplifted to great heights by fellow countrymen from Washington to Lincoln to Roosevelt to Eisenhower, and have plunged it so deeply into the Karl-Rove-and-Rush-Limbaugh-fueled world of political destruction and survival of all costs that have lost all perspective -- and all sense of decency. To travel to Israel and to associate a sitting American senator and your possible successor in the Oval Office with those who at one time gave comfort to an enemy of the United States is, in and of itself, an act of political treason.
In another irony, this comes from an administration that has already committed such grave abuses that its former officials are becoming fearful of traveling overseas, lest they be arrested for war crimes. Despite the alleged crimes and misdemeanors of the Bush administration, the Democrats who control the House have until now been restrained in their use of the impeachment process, hoping that the final eight months of our American nightmare can pass by quickly. Indeed, one has to wonder how much of Bush's outrageous statement this morning arose from fear -- fear that a President Obama will go after his wrongdoing in 2009.
Today, it's a whole new ballgame. I believe this treacherous statement by a U.S. president in Israel is a signal to the Democrats in the House in Washington, that it's time to play its Constitutional role in ending this trauma, before even greater acts against the interest of America are wrongly committed in our name.
Posted by Will Bunch @ 12:00 PM
Permalink |
183 comments
I am totally agree with you wompus,these are the cheep one.And nothing new here.
--------------------
loriana
FSBO
Hello, I am a West Philadelphia Artist,
my work - on youtube.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCFdUzFeaho
I found this "BUSH TREASON" article on google, and feel the same way. I am sure that after this many years of Americans idolizing Capitalism as God, Money and Greed have taken over our Political arena.
George W. Bush has consistently covered up investigations into himself, and I am SURE at least in my well educated GUT, that he has Lied and inadvertantly yet mercilessly killed thousands of American troops and even more thousands of Innocents for MONEY and GREED. He Must be Tried for Treason. This needs to be talked about. I am trying to Educate people thought ART the evils of worshipping an Ideology, such as "CAPITALISM GONE WILD" I need more people to hear me and my art. I want to educate people through imagery and propaganda art just as the Government media has uneducated them.
-christopher john marshall
JHWHnews
"Capitalism Gone Wild" - featuring my patented flaming Liberty Bow and Freedom Arrows of Justice!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCFdUzFeaho
Please enjoy the Video!
Thanks for you time and Consideration.
Please Spread the WORD!
So Bush political comment is a breach of a high moral standard, oh really? Way beyond his hundreds of acts of real treason and sedition. His war crimes and crimes against humanity. His crimes against the Constitution and Bill of Rights? Theft of trillions, concentration camps, kidnapping and torture. You must be from the Democratic school of thought that says those crimes don't equal a blow job for Impeachment purposes, eh. You better put that crack pipe down son as it's making you null and void. Perhaps you might have talked about the Crime Family Bush's stint as Hitler's American bankers, or how they made a couple million off of Auschwitz, etc. Or was this just a comedy piece?
THANK YOU WILL! There are not enough people who have access to the medis willing to call it like it is. The dry drunk, spoiled frat boy, who behaves in ways that would make most mothers cringe, has had a free pass with his selfish destrucktive behavior,for too long.
Way to go will. If only someone would put him away where he can no longer do harm.
Calm down folks. It's old history that appeasement attempts with Hitler were wrong. Why bring up that old history? Because it's relevant during a 60 year anniversary of the formation if Israel, something that happened right after the Holocaust, something that was made prolonged by unpreparedness brought on by the false comfort of appeasement. The current issue facing free nations is the subject of Iran - UN actions (both carrot and stick) have not worked to curb their desire to develop nuclear capabilities. Some think more carrots may do the trick. That can be the wrong path. Seems like a logical point (not exactly treasonous). If Senator Obama says "Hey! I resemble that statement!", well... perhaps he should consider history a little more, and consider how the prestige of the office of the president of the United States should not be used to give legitimacy to two-bit dictators around the world. Anyways, I guess what I'm saying is "get a grip folks".
To Bush, and Israel, peace means having complete control over the Middle East, like Hitler wanted over all of Europe, and Bush seems to welcome dictators, and terrorist he can control, otherwise they meet the same fate as Saddam.
Will, you put this all into perspective. What Bush did in Jerusalem was way out of line, and totally wrong as the spokesman for all of us in another country. As you said, other Presidents have done things that were wrong (and Nixon even resigned, rather than be impeached). In this case, over the last seven years this administration has taken this to a whole other level. And now, this president (and Vice President) need to be held accountable. Bush's speech was a treasonable act. Under high crimes and misdemeanors, this Congress needs to act, and act now. Waiting for this administration's "clock" to run out is no longer an option. Are you listening Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Reid?
If the rest of the world took Bush's advice not to negotiate with terrorists and radicals, no one would talk to us. To much of the world, our government is committing terror in it's war and occupation of Iraq and our policies of extaordinary rendition and torture and denial of basic legal rights to prisoners. War is simply terrorism on a bigger budget. Iran was subjected to a CIA coup in 1953 which overthrew their democratically elected and popular Prime Minister, Mohammed Massadegh, ushering in the US- backed police state of the Shah. In the 80's we armed Saddam with chemical and other weapons and supported his murderous war against Iran. More recently, Bush included Iran in his "axis of evil" and proceeded to use his policy of preemptive, unilateral warfare to bomb Iraq which did not have nukes. Bush didn't bomb N Korea because it had nukes. And he has continually threatened Iran even though Iran in 2003 expressed a desire and willingness to discuss our differences. Bush wanted no parts of that and continued his Saber rattling. We must ask ourselves- Who are the terrorists here? And we must ask if the parallel that Bush draws between Iran and Hitler is less accurate than a parallel between the actions of Hitler and Bush....
How long does it take to get a comment posted on this blog ? Do you sanitize it first ???
Jack, youa re rigth about one thing, it would take some magic for Bush to produce peace and prosperity. Instead we have deficits, debt, a devalued dollar and an unneccesary war. And you rail against those who would dare question our exhalted leader.
Particularly galling coming from someone whose family wealth stems from collusion with the Nazis AFTER the US entered WWII, when Prescott Bush's share of UBC was seized under the Trading With The Enemy Act. Of course, it's entirely possible that the Deciderer doesn't know this, or, for that matter, how to spell "UBC."
Treason? Get the hell out of hear. Obama wants to meet with these guys, then gets mad when Bush points it out. I dont even think he was talking about Obama, I think he was refering to Jimmy Carter and his recent embarassment. No, treason would be selling the secret of our nuclear program to the Chinese, or giving 0.7% our of GNP to the UN. All the stuff they say about Bush and then they through a hissy fit when he gives it back to them. Grow a set libs.
But lisa given that the speech was in Israel, an ally that has faced an existential threat from the time of its birth, I think that it IS relevant to discuss the concept of "appeasement" vs. "diplomacy" in the speech i.e. what is the fine line between the two. This is an important and much agonized matter of global affairs. The frothing Bush haters who demean and belittle the man's intellect (one commenter comparing him to a baby who needs his diaper changed - certainly the sign of a truly evolved intellect there. The baby is running the country, you're on the freaking internet, genius) are supposed to be the voice of intelligent and reasonable dissent? I just think what's sad is the juvenile level to which discussion and dissent has lowered itself. Bush could by some magical fiat produce world peace and prosperity and the Bush haters would still not retreat from their staunch narrative that he is the single worst human being ever to breathe. And the media is fine with this. B-level, one-trick-pony hacks like Will Bunch can paste a small excerpt from a speech that contains a statement he disagrees with and the floodgates open. New terms (political treason?) are invented to satisfy an ever growing need to fulfill this religious devotion that pitiable, one-dimensional intellectual lightweights like Will Bunch have toward adding newer, more crass, more gutter level personal slurs against Bush as if the meaning of their lives depend on it. I think Bush has made some colossal blunders and is a horrendous communicator no doub. But do you really think a ticket of say how about Will Bunch as PRez and his sniveling sycophant Talking Points Sleuth as VP would do a better job? Here's a novel idea - read the ENTIRE speech that Bush gave to the Knesset and dare I say make your own judgment?
I think there is some missing the point in some of the comments. The main point is that Bush embarrassed the United States. The visit and speech was to celebrate 60 years of Israel. It wasn't about him, or about the elections in the US or about America at all except to continue to show strong support to our ally Israel. Whether he had the 'right' to say what he thought, whether his grandfather worked with the Nazis or whatever there is to say about terrorists. All that was not relevant at this moment in this speech. I don't care how other leaders behave or what all the core reasons are to say he can use his speaking time to do anything he wants and that we need to talk about terrorism at all times. It was sad to see the leader of - supposedly - the greatest country in the free world use this amazingly auspicious moment and opportunity to be a great spokesperson and leader to do nothing but to puzzle the rest of the world because of his focus on his perception of issues in the US. Sad.
Rabid, maniacal Bush haters are funny. Their lives revolve around crafting the most eloquent phrase that expresses their "outrage" in a back-and-forth of "Oh yeah well I'll bet I hate Bush more that YOU!!!" Demands to impeach, declaration that he is the "worst President ever" by people who probably couldn't name the Presidents let alone explain their policies, claims of suffer the most devastating attacks on their basic fundamental rights despite their ability to spew every vile insult against Bush on the internet 24-7, cobbling together like Mad Libs every combination of "neo-con", "warmonger", "Chimp", etc. Conspiracy freaks like McGuire spouting rants in the hope that Ron Paul will pat him on the head, declaring literally every single misfortune in the world and their lives the fault of one G.W. Bush. Then Bush makes a tough, take-no-prisoners, statement about a particular foreign policy point (uh yes political, he's a politician - whatever the invented term "political treason" is supposed to mean I'm not sure) and all the programmed "I hate Bush more that I like life itself" minions cry and whine and say "not fair" and "how dare you." Strange times.
Good article. One point I beg to differ on: "To use a diplomatic setting on foreign soil to score a cheap political point at home is way beneath your office, way beneath your country, and way beneath the people you serve ..."
I don't feel it is beneath the office, the country, or (especially) the people Bush serves. The office of US President has been steadily reduced over the last 35 years to that of a charade. The US President is a puppet, having his strings pulled by unelected parties who are shielded from public view. There is no longer any "high moral standard" which is attached to that office, nor is there a fair, untainted process by which an individual ascends to the office of the presidency.
Nor is what Bush said 'beneath our country'. Fifty years ago, this would have been true. With our continued imperialistic aggression (under the BS guise of a "war on terror"), the rest of the world sees us for the desperate piranhas our current leaders project us to be. We deny "due process" to those ACCUSED of being "terrorist colaborators" -- an excuse to haul off those who oppose Bush Administration policies INDEFINITELY, and incarcerate them, torture them or even worse. I would like to know how ANYTHING at present could be "beneath" this country.
The last and final point of dissention is that Bush's actions were 'beneath the people he serves'. Plainly put, the people he TRULY serves are the Rockefeller faction of the Illuminati/New World Order. He has not acted in the best interests of the US people since he took office. His complete focus has been to implement the objectives of the PNAC (Parnership For A New American Century); 17 of the architects of the PNAC agenda are current or former Bush II cabinet members. Our economy is in complete shambles, we are an international disgrace and they have shown themselves to be nothing more than criminals.
Whomever, specifically, it is that Bush serves, it certainly is NOT the American people.
YIKES! Hey Willy, you've been drinking too much of the Obama Kool-Aid! The world really does not revolve around him, ya know? Bush's comments about appeasment were most likely directed toward those in the Carter camp who just completed several discussions with the Hamas leadership. I know it's difficult to believe that Obama wasn't the one being referenced here, but the evidence suggests it!
Oh..... and by the way, why didn't you bring up Carter's disasterous handling of the hostage situation, the stagflation he caused and the 17% mortgage rates? In addition, why not any mention of Clinton's cheapening of the office of the President in his scandle... and the tial wagging the dog missles fired at some pharma factories while the scandle was going on?.... and allowing terrorists to plan bombings of our embassy's and 1993's World Trade Center bombing?
Don't be such an obvious apologist.... for either side!
Hey Xi, another hilarious rant. You and some of the others here really deserve each other. do agree with you and them on one thing: no need to get all in a lather about Bush's latest Bushism. The man is so irrelevant, such a joke that it's hard to get incensed. He's like a two-year-old that can't be potty trained, and all we have to do is just keep holding our noses and wipe his behind until the day comes when he leaves the white house he and his cronies have left in tatters.
Yes, specifics are needed. Just remember to go by those same standards when justifying an invasion. No more half baked evidence like yellow cake, mobile bio labs, Shia Iran funding Sunni AQ, etc.. Glad to see you've come around, Xi Jah.
Comment removed.
Just one more treason charge. This joker has violated his oath of office from day one. So when is that useless Congress going to do something about it?
Hey everyone, just Google the name Prescott Bush!
speaking of HITLER AND THE LION OF THE SENATE...................
Joseph Kennedy and the Jews
By Edward Renehan, Jr.
Mr. Renehan's most recent book is The Kennedys at War, 1937-1945, published in April 2002 by Doubleday.
Arriving at London in early 1938, newly-appointed U.S. Ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy took up quickly with another transplanted American. Viscountess Nancy Witcher Langhorne Astor assured Kennedy early in their friendship that he should not be put off by her pronounced and proud anti-Catholicism.
"I'm glad you are smart enough not to take my [views] personally," she wrote. Astor pointed out that she had a number of Roman Catholic friends - G.K. Chesterton among them - with whom she shared, if nothing else, a profound hatred for the Jewish race. Joe Kennedy, in turn, had always detested Jews generally, although he claimed several as friends individually. Indeed, Kennedy seems to have tolerated the occasional Jew in the same way Astor tolerated the occasional Catholic.
Kennedy and Astor looked upon Adolf Hitler as a welcome solution to both of these "world problems" (Nancy's phrase). No member of the so-called "Cliveden Set" (the informal cabal of appeasers who met frequently at Nancy Astor's palatial home) seemed much concerned with the dilemma faced by Jews under the Reich. Astor wrote Kennedy that Hitler would have to do more than just "give a rough time" to "the killers of Christ" before she'd be in favor of launching "Armageddon to save them. The wheel of history swings round as the Lord would have it. Who are we to stand in the way of the future?" Kennedy replied that he expected the "Jew media" in the United States to become a problem, that "Jewish pundits in New York and Los Angeles" were already making noises contrived to "set a match to the fuse of the world."
DoD: Chinook helicopters
at Pa. plant vandalized
Associated Press, by Randy Pennell
RIDLEY PARK, Pa. - Two military helicopters were vandalized on the production line at a Boeing factory near Philadelphia, the Defense Department said Thursday as it offered a reward. Federal officials handed out fliers to workers at the Boeing Rotorcraft Systems plant listing a $5,000 reward for information leading to whomever damaged the two H-47 Chinook helicopters. (Snip) There are no surveillance cameras on the production line...
Please check all Obama workers
N.Y. outlaws displaying nooses as a threat
Associated Press, by Staff
Albany, N.Y. -- The state of New York has outlawed the display of a noose as a threat, following several high-profile cases involving the symbol of racist lynchings. Gov. David Paterson signed the law Thursday to make such displays a felony punishable by as many as four years in prison. ''It is sad that in these modern times there remains a need to address the problem of individuals who use nooses as a means of threat and intimidation''
In a related story "gang signs" can be used in schools because it would be unfair to minorities
Hitting A Nerve
Investors Business Daily, by Editorial Staff
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? http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v344/bb5usa/misc/?action=view¤t=Chamberlain1.flv
Matthews Rips Guest For Ignorance
of History, Then Claims Cole
Attack Happened Under Bush After lambasting a guest for not knowing his Neville Chamberlain history, Matthews surmised that the attack on the USS Cole in October, 2000 happened under . . . President Bush.well, after all, John Heinz Kerry got to spend Christmas in Cmmbodia, thanks to NixonAnd Hilary Clinton's plane was under a hail of bullets..This should be reported in all 57 states ! Barack Obama, , told an Oregon audience that "I've been in 57 states.UHMMM seems like a remember "Quayle potato" still working for yrs but not WITH CULT LOVING MSM FOR HE WHOSE MIDDLE NAME CAN'T BE MENTIONED
My, my how judgmental everyone is. No one knows exactly what happens behind closed doors of ANY president or candidate. All the public knows is what we are hearing...especially from the new media. If any of you 'know -it- alls' can step up to the plate and try to untangle what Clinton enabled for the 8 years he was in the White House, leaving it all to Mr. Bush to deal with, then go ahead. Nothing is new concerning the Middle East. Nothing was done during the 2 terms that Clinton was in office. But, we all know, that Mr. Clinton's word is less than believable, and he was 'preoccupied' with Monica, just to mention one 'lady'. Do any of you really believe that 'talking' with the Mid Eastern dicators will accomplish anything plausible? ANY politician will say whatever they believe the public wants to hear to get into office. They all have 'plans', but no one really can bet their life and the lives of their famiies that their plan will solve anything different than what we have right now. I would wager that this war esculates under a new president, no matter who wins the election. The Arabs are out to prove their point, no matter what. On, don't come after me for being anti-Arab; my dad was 1/2 Turk.
President Bush gives himself the right that he alone is entitled to be intolerant, an extremeist, a fundamentalist and refuses to share with others, irrespective of their religious persuasions, these fanatical religous sentiments.
President Bush gives himself the right that he alone is entitled to be intolerant, an extremeist, a fundamentalist and refuses to share with others, irrespective of their religious persuasions, these fanatical religous sentiments.
IMPEACH HIM NOW! WHAT ARE AMERICANS WAITING FOR?
IMPEACH HIM NOW! WHAT ARE AMERICANS WAITING FOR?
Will --- You really got the "28%ers" riled up today. I like Republican Tom Davis' comment yesterday: Everytime Bush opens his mouth, he puts a microphone in it".
This "Nazi" thing is dead on arrival: Theater. I'm starting to wonder about a "gas trap". Will prices suddenly fall in October?
“…the embarrassment that William Jefferson Clinton heaped on this nation.”
Yeah, right. No debt, few war deaths, a booming economy, a country respected by most countries of the world, strong allies around the globe. That’s a lot to be embarrassed about. Bush has so much more to be proud of.
Embarrassment? Maybe in the eyes of the puritanical fools that we can thank for electing Bush twice, and the pathetic state of our nation right now.
I am embarrassed to be an American. When Clinton was president, I was proud to be an American.
I don't like Bush, but you're a terrible columnist - get a new job.
The only comment I have yet seen is.... All together now....
"Only in America"....... Oops my bad.. He was out of CONUS.
Hurry up and let's close those borders before he get's back.
Its sad to read the small remarks...
As opposed to:
....bibde barack en han han han.Posted by tommy john
Without a doubt some of the more misinformed statements of fact I have read in some time. It's amazing to me that these people know how to spell and for that matter, read. By their logic one would surmise they are ignorant of all things wordly but their barroom thinking. Oh that's right, they are Philadelphian's, how could that be ignored?
Another place? Fantasyland, perhaps? If not, please regal us with tales of invading hordes on our soil.
Comment removed.
I stopped listening to the moron in the White House after the "Mission Accomplished" speech. He belongs on the short bus.
"In an interview with the Politico website, the president said he took the decision because of the war. "I don't want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander in chief playing golf. I feel I owe it to the families to be in solidarity. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal."
Brandon Friedman, a veteran US infantry officer who served in both Iraq and Afghanistan, told the Press Association: "Thousands of Americans have given up a lot more than golf for this war. For President Bush to imply that he somehow stands in solidarity with families of American soldiers by giving up golf is disgraceful. It's an insult to all Americans and a slap in the face to our troops' families."
Friedman, who is vice chairman of the US veterans' organisation VoteVets, added: "It shows how disconnected he is from everyday Americans, especially those who are serving in Iraq."
This is why, once the political pathology on the presidency had been established, congress should have moved quickly to remove it via impeachment. However, congress, in its desire to be "politically practical", has lost precious ground, and time, in making the necessary constitutional correction. Like any pathogen, one cannot merely run the clock out, with the hope that things will get better "as time goes by"! The fundamental problem is that no one can predict the future. And, there's plenty of time left on the clock for the "pathogen" to wreak incalculable havoc while we wait for the next general election cycle.
In a scene from the movie, "The Young Sherlock Holmes", Sherlock calls Dr. Watson a "weasel". Dr. Watson replied that he was not a weasel, just "practical". Holmes retorted that weasels are "practical"! This has been the condition of the congress, on both sides, for different reasons. However, they both failed their constitutional duty for political prostitution. Thus, giving George Bush his greatest, and only strength.
tommy, let us know when you enlist.
All these bush lovers on here and not one has mentioned his supreme sacrifice for the war: giving up golf. Now I know that not hitting the links is quite a hardship, I mean I know my folks didn't play golf during WWII while having to ration gas and meat, etc. Just think how much we could contribute to the war effort if we all stopped playing golf. That will show the world that America means business. C'mon oc, xi, mnh, and all you other bush worshippers. Drop those Titlists and Big Berthas. Call Tiger Woods and get him to drop off the tour. We want no appeasers in the war on terror. What the heck, FDR didn't play golf during WWII, Churchill put away his mashie for the duration, Eisenhower waited until he became president to whip out the Wilsons. Let us not criticize our dear sacrificing president for underhandedly ripping the Democratic candidate. Let us follow his example and put away our Pings and funny clothes and show the world that we are serious in the war on terror.
When Bush said what he did about the Nazi bit, he is judging others by what he, himself has done.
Comment removed.
In the first place, that content was inappropriate for the cimcumstances - an Israeli celebration. In the second, there are behavioral norms for what you should or should not say when representing the US abroad, which this speach violatd. In the third, the measure of appeasement lies not in talking to your adversaries but in what you do as a result of thoat talking. Was Nixon an appeaser when he went to China?
What we are seeing is the disintegration of what will go down in historty as the worst president in the last 150 years (maybe, if he tries hard, he can get even worse than Buchanan). We have a petulant man, frustrated by his failures who is trying to take it out on others. Understandable from a private person, inexcusable fropm a president.
You'll notice he neglected to mention the quote came from a Republican - and an adulterer, at that.
Paranoid? I never believed that a country with a secular ruler, under years of sanctions had developed a WMD program and was sharing it with religious fundamentalists. Now go turn on your nitelite and check under the bed for those islamofacistpirates.
If this is what he ahs to say, Bush seriously might be better off to just say nothing for the next 7 months. What can he say? Idiotic comments like this?
All Obama has to do is point out how McCain is still tied to this administration (and party) and then point to the U.S's plummeting stature and credibility in the world, and how as a training ground, recruiting tool, and PR tool for terrorists, the Iraq debacle and lies that lead to it make 80's Afghanistan quaint.
"Tough guy" talk and actions have made us far more vulnerable. Period.
Obviously, you believe in the philosophy that only Bush can be insulted and called a liar by top democrats. Hillary also is fair game for cheap shots but the chosen one, Barack Obama, must never be criticized. Politics is a dirty and rough game. If poor widdle Barack can't take it, then he should find another line of work.
Exactly why is calling someone an appeaser for advocating talks with a country that has openly called for the annihilation of another country wrong while the democrats constantly call Bush a liar? I challenge any person to prove that Bush knew that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before the invasion. I believe the war shouldn't have been fought but there is no evidence, other accusations by partisans against the war, that Bush knowingly invaded Iraq with the knowledge that Saddam had destroyed all of his weapons. Maybe Rev. Wright can tell us about his sources that told him that the US govt. caused the AIDs epidemic. Maybe those sources can prove Bush lied.
President Bush is probably getting paid under the table by Hillary and Bill Clinton to try and derail Obama's campaign.
U.S. politics is a Hollywood production and this is a failed attempt at the box office.
Hillary, Bill, and George Bush are privately owned by big oil companies.
They have no personality aside from the one's the media gave them.
They are puppets.
Thanks for helping big oil companies destroy the habitat that supports human civilization!!
Now kindly fade into black and disapear.
very well said and I agree with you Will. you don't need a career change. some people love their demons now matter what is being inflicted upon them or others. thanks for speaking up.
As other commentators stated, nothing too shocking here from George Bush's usual attitude. He still clings to the notion that if he keeps spitting the same lies, the pool that collects might appear to be the truth to someone. I learned that doesn't work before I was 10 years old. The emotional language of "aiding and abetting terrorists" has consistently been the only argument used by this administration (certainly no specific, detailed arguments based on facts) to legitimize the long list of abuses against the United States Constitution and attacks against anyone that expresses slightest disagreement with the Bush administration, such as the statements made in Israel. I wonder if Bush's continued defiance toward reality is a defense for his failures or if he unfortunately suffers from pre-senile dementia as Ronald Reagan did during his presidency...maybe both. Regardless, George Bush must be impeached for the sake of securing our democracy before a precedent is established for future opportunists to hijack the Office of the Presidency for their own ambitious purposes.
Comment removed.
OC, just trying to help you guys gain some perspective. You seem more worried about what Will, a local journalist says, that what our president does. You glance over an artiucle than trip over yourselves to post comments filled with outrage. I'd call it Bunch Derangement Syndrome.
As for daven, know what really emboldens our enemies? Surrounding them in Tora Bora, then letting em get away. Or announcing to the world "Mission Accomplished" or the "insurgency is in its last throes" years ago, only to find that we are still fighting.
Just what is "political treason" anyway? Never heard of it.
Bush's statement must have been effective to cause all this buzz and people defending Neville Obama Hussein Chamberlain's inexperience from the left. More to come. Get used to it.
Comment removed.
The Bush administration has denied referring to Obama when making his statement today in Israel. Unless you have proof that he was, you should not make the assumptions that you did (like the "journalists" at CNN). Furthermore, I didn't see you this outraged when Carter went overseas and exercised his own personal foreign policy in violation of the orders of the State Dept.! And hypocritical is it to suggest "political treason", whatever that is, when the Dems teeter on the verge of actual treason on a daily basis with their constant attacks on those defending us while they work as hard as they can to help our enemies. There aren't just "differences of opinion" in this country. There are those that wish to preserve what America stands for and there are those (like yourself) who want to see America (in its current form) destroyed and rebuilt with a Socialist, secular-progressive nation. I would LOVE to see the Democrats try to go after President Bush for any supposed crime. The foolishness of those in opposition would be exposed for the world to see. Democrats ARE emboldening our enemies. The only crime Bush has committed is not going after those of you who actually do bring aid and comfort to them.
"its not Will's fault you flock to this sight to feign outrage. It's not Will's fault that because.........etc." Jeez RG, one might think you're in competition with the sleuth as Will's favorite toady.
@ SteveMG: the answer is Winston Churchill. Do you consider him to be an appeaser?
First of all, Will is a Bush hater dating back to when he accusing Bush of stealing the spotlight by going to V-Tech to show the nation's support after the massacre. He chose to forget that Bush went down there that day because THAT'S WHEN TECH PLANNED THEIR CONVOCATION! Similarly, he chooses to ignore things that go against is anti-Bush bashing. Bush never specifically mentioned Iran, nor did he mention any of the candidates. The white house said that he was criticizing any Democrats and any in his OWN party who disagrees with the fact that we can't negotiate with terrorists.
Let's all be really honest here. Deep down, the Dems are happy the war is not going well because it would turn the public away from the Republicans and vote for the Dems. It's just a simple fact. Everyone knows it. Am I picking on the Dems? Not really. Because if the roles were reversed, the Reps would do exactly the same thing. Will, don't give us all this talk about we're all Americans, junk. If we were Americans, all politicians, not just the Reps should be glad when things in Iraq were more peaceFUL (not at peace, but more peaceful than a year ago). Yet, you don't hear any praise from the Dems or Bush haters. You only hear the sound of crickets until something negative comes up again to make Bush and the Reps look bad so that the Dems would get more power. This is politics these days, people. You want political treason? Take a hard look at our political system and how the politicians say what they want to make you vote for them. They don't care for us. They only want more power for themselves. That's for BOTH sides of the aisle.
b.atk, Xi Jah, Jackie, MNH, its not Will's fault you flock to this sight to feign outrage. Its Not Will's fault that when Bush talks the world laughs. It's not Will's fault the GOP lost another seat in Miss. Its not Will's fault that Tom Davis, a Repub leader said the Republican brand was "in the trash". Its not Will's fault we're stuck babysitting civil strife in Iraq, where the terrorists aren't, instead of Afghanistan. Its not Will's fault that because ofIraq, we're running up massive deficits and debt. Why do you complain about Will so much?
You forgot to add the other disgrace. The blue dress and all the things that went around it. The Clintons proved that the greatest office in the land could be brought to a low the founding fathers never would have believed. Sadly Bill Clinton was allowed to stay in office effectively creating a priviledged class about the " equal rights" provision of the constitution. We just tossed a Navy Admiral out for similar violations. Here the Commander in Chief got away with something his subordinated couldn't. Why is Hillary running behind. Many Americans detest this hypocracy.
As for Bushes comments. Soon after Nevile Chamberlins talks with Hitler he declared "peace in our time". There was an old growler on the back bench of Parliment. He protestes Chamberlian vehemantly and declared you cannot negotitate with an irrational man. Of course this member of Parliment was Winston Churchill. Those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it. Obama and Hillary are playing politics with our security. Neither is capable of being Commander in Chief.
I couldn't agree more with your column. George W. Bush has done more to hurt this country's standing and security than any other president in modern times. He is a disaster, and for him to cast aspersions on Barack Obama's patriotism is truly an outrage.
The hypocrytical point bears emphasizing:
Herr Grandpa prescott barf bush
twar the chief Hitler Nazi Appeaser
in Amerika before, during, and after WW2.
The bush organized crime family
has since been richly
well rewarded for their
undying patriotic loyalty
to the religious principles of
Hitlerian Nazi Fascism.
And the 28% of amerikans who art the most
patriotic of the most patriotic
amerikans art today just as unshakably
faithful to their fascist God, Herr barf bush,
who can walk on water and
to this day can do no wrong...
unto eternity.
May they and their organized families
be as richly well rewarded, too.
amen
Now "Some" = Barack Obama? Welcome to "1984." Watch what you say?
Comment removed.
To answer SteveMG's question the 'wienie' that said "jaw-jaw is better than war-war" was none other than Winston S.Churchill.
The irony that is provided by ignorance is usually the best.
http://encarta.msn.com/quote_1861505459/Diplomacy_To_jaw-jaw_is_better_than_.html
Churchill was a true leader in peace and war, and everything George Bush is not.
Bunch, why do you have to lie? Bush did not mention Baraq Hussein Obama, not even once. Sounds like desparate Demokook paranoia.
Comment removed.
Will is a genius! I'm surprised that such a genius failed to mention in his opening paragraph the embarrassment that William Jefferson Clinton heaped on this nation. Maybe that's why he writes Attytood for philly.com.
neocons neocons blood for oil! bush lied! Obama is the Messiah! Warmongering rethuglicans! blah blah blah blah blah. Will your act is so tired you're a freaking parody of yourself.
Will Bunch reminds me of my neutered cat.
Will,
It would be nice if someone in your position could use this space for unbiased political commentary, not to push along their own agenda and to try to make themselves famous. "Political treason" is overreacting just a bit, don't you think? If this is truly a new low in American politics, as you have described, you should probably start looking for a new line of work. It amazes me time and time again that you are still permitted to have a voice in such a large media outlet. Keep your blow hard, propaganda filled agenda off what is generally a terrific website.
While I may share the outrage about Bush's comments.. the use of the term "political treason" is right out of the GOP playbook, and shouldn't be used.
While I may share the outrage about Bush's comments.. the use of the term "political treason" is right out of the GOP playbook, and shouldn't be used.
Well, Bush IS correct... Honest to God---if the man cured cancer, people like Will Bunch would STILL find something to bitch and moan about, geeeezzzzz... It's ALMOST become humorous, well, if it wasn't so damn pathetic!!! Obama's plan to "save the world" IS a joke... Obama's plan for Non-action is what we got back in the 1990's with Slick Willy, and we see where that got us....
Xi Jah - you rock!
Chimpy McHitler and his Nazi war criminal Cheney after plotting and carrying out 9/11 went to work to seed the clouds that created the racist Hurricane Katrina to bring blood money for oil to Halliburton while torturing without trial renditioned Abu Ghraib! Worst president ever Blackwater shreds the Constitution and illegal warmongering neocons! Impeach Shrub neocon right-winger Limbaugh war machine with corporate Fox News treason! No one died when Clinton lied so if you are not appalled you haven't been paying attention to my bumper sticker! St. Obama the Prophet the Second Coming of Hope and Change will bring peace and love and harmony and end racism and give you all jobs and stop the windfall evil oil company profits! There you go Bunch, that's your entire world view in one neat package. TPS = [DELETED].
Sorry, there is no talking to Islamic lunatics who blow up women and children in markets and produce stands.
At this point, I'm beginning to think that Obama should make his willingness to investigate the crimes of the Bush administration into a campaign issue!
Make John McCain debate in public the issue of whether the Bush legacy should be protected by continuing to ignore the evidence. It will keep him from being able to run away from the most despised president in our history, and Bush is likely to keep saying more and more stupid things between now and November to remind people why they dislike him so.
Although some of your other commenters may still support him, they are a rapidly dwindling minority.
Someone just forwarded this to me at work.
"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." -Barack Obama
"That he made this statement, and that it passed without comment by the journalists covering his speech indicates either breathtaking ignorance of history on the part of both, or deceit. I assume the Roosevelt to whom Sen. Obama referred is Franklin D. Roosevelt. Our enemies in World War II were Nazi Germany, headed by Adolf Hitler; fascist Italy, headed by Benito Mussolini, and militarist Japan, headed by Hideki Tojo. FDR talked directly with none of them before the outbreak of hostilities, and his policy once war began was unconditional surrender. FDR died before victory was achieved, and was succeeded by Harry Truman. Truman did not modify the policy of unconditional surrender. He ended that war not with negotiation, but with the atomic bomb. Harry Truman also was president when North Korea invaded South Korea in June, 1950. President Truman’s response was not to call up North Korean dictator Kim Il Sung for a chat. It was to send troops..."
"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." -Barack Obama
"That he made this statement, and that it passed without comment by the journalists covering his speech indicates either breathtaking ignorance of history on the part of both, or deceit. I assume the Roosevelt to whom Sen. Obama referred is Franklin D. Roosevelt. Our enemies in World War II were Nazi Germany, headed by Adolf Hitler; fascist Italy, headed by Benito Mussolini, and militarist Japan, headed by Hideki Tojo. FDR talked directly with none of them before the outbreak of hostilities, and his policy once war began was unconditional surrender. FDR died before victory was achieved, and was succeeded by Harry Truman. Truman did not modify the policy of unconditional surrender. He ended that war not with negotiation, but with the atomic bomb. Harry Truman also was president when North Korea invaded South Korea in June, 1950. President Truman’s response was not to call up North Korean dictator Kim Il Sung for a chat. It was to send troops..."
Go George. We love ya.
Sorry, SteveMG, I read all the posts and figured out (duh) you probably meant what I responded. But nobody posted it, so for the literal-minded like myself and the miseducated FOX viewers, I thought it was important to post. No offense intended.
Hey umlado, Thank goodness that old Winnie was smart enough to know when his own advice was not going to work. World war II would have been very different without the old warrior. God bless him.
Comment removed.
Bush lied, people died. The US Government did 911. President Chimpy McSmirk, Haliburton!, Michael Moore was right...what about tower 7? controlled demolition, etc, et al.....This is what your blog is turning into Will
You forgot that we invented AIDS, too.
SteveMG wrote:
Which appeaser said: "Jaw, jaw, jaw is better than war, war, war"? a) Chamberlain, b) Daladier, c) some other wienie?
Posted by SteveMG
The answer is (d), Winston Churchill.
[quote]
NUMBER: 1914
AUTHOR: Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill (1874–1965)
QUOTATION: To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war.
ATTRIBUTION: WINSTON CHURCHILL, remarks at a White House luncheon, June 26, 1954. His exact words are not known, because the meetings and the luncheon that day were closed to reporters, but above is the commonly cited version.
His words are quoted as “It is ‘better to jaw-jaw than to war-war,’” in the sub-heading on p. 1 of The New York Times, June 27, 1954, and as “To jaw-jaw always is better than to war-war” on p. 3.
The Washington Post in its June 27 issue, p. 1, has “better to talk jaw to jaw than have war,” and The Star, Washington, D.C., p. 1, a slight variation, “It is better to talk jaw to jaw than to have war.”
[end quote]
source: http://www.bartleby.com/73/1914.html
Comment removed.
Comment removed.
Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld should be in prison awaiting execution for war crimes, treason, torture, violations of international law, and violations of the U. S. Constitution.
Comment removed.
Comment removed.
"Big difference.
Posted by ocjones".............Reminds me of that old Vulcan saying, "only Nixon could go to China". You bet, there's a big difference. Bush could never go to Tehran because his record of failure in the War on Terror makes him appear weak and undisciplined.
It was a REPUBLICAN who said that. Isn't that a hoot? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Edgar_Borah
Hi Will-don't worry about the concern trolls here who say this was a bad, nasty thing to say about our Chimpmaster in Chief...
I totally support everything you've said here...SOME DARE CALL IT TREASON, and it simply is...
For a standing American president to bash a Dem presidential candidate and compare him to Nazi apeasers, especially overseas, is beyond the pale, but this is a small act of treason compared to the lies and deceptions that got us into this illegal and immoral Occupation of Iraq, and the takeover and destruction of the US laws and conventions...
I completely agree with this article. Yes, Bush and the lot of them have repeatedly called anyone who disagrees with their warmongering schemes as enemies, but he goes too far this time. These last few months are just more agonizing torture while we gnash our teeth waiting for the idiot to leave office. How much more damage will he do before he finally exits the scene? Is it not enough to continually embarrass us at home and abroad? Must he also seek to destroy any chance at resolving some of the horrendous failures he put in place? Bush ignores the fact that his policies have worked so well that Iran has become more powerful, terrorists have recruited more members, and the US is going broke trying to pay for his never-ending quagmire. He also forgets that the majority of Americans believe we are headed in the wrong direction; yet, he attempts to derail Obama before he has a chance, and once again betrays all of us.
Bush forgot to add that when oil is involved, all bets are off. "The Bush administration wants to give Libya a waiver on a law that allows terror victims [Pan Am 103] to sue the country as well as the U.S. companies that are eager to do business with Libya. The law has halted billions of dollars in contracts between U.S. companies and Libya and slowed exploration for new oil supplies because of questions about liability."
I notice that TPS is also in the dark about this.
Good follow-up point.
Go back and look at what Bush said. His comments clearly indicate that he thinks that talking to terrorists constitutes appeasement. Ergo, he instructed high-ranking members of his administration to be appeasers, by talking to Iran. Apparently, he thinks it's just fine for high-ranking members of his administration to believe that just by sitting down and talking with terrorists they will magically stop being terrorists.
As usual, dear mr. ocjones, you don't disappoint.
Pgh Firefighter, these idiots not only won't fight, but they'd cry their little eyes out if taxes were rraised to reflect the true cost of the war, instead of just deficit spending. Their only idea of support is blogging tough and slapping a ribbon magnet, made in China, on their car.
Oh MNH, your definition of inasion is hilarious. You rpobably consider Iraq a liberation, yet crossing into Pakistan to pursue AQ would be an invasion. As for your question, I dunno, we coulda took the lead in Tora Bora. Bush said dead or alive, McCain said follow him to the gates of hell, niowhere did I here the exception "unless he's in Pakistan, then we'll cut bait". Still can't wrap your head around that?
RG, what would you have done? Invaded Pakistan? You Smerconish-Pakistan kooks like to complain about our partnership with Pakistan, but you never speak about what you would have done alternatively. They didn't want our troops in their country - so other than getting them to help us, our alternative was to invade them too. Are you saying you would support that?
"No American president should ever legitimize terrorists by sitting down with them for all the world to see.".................Right. The preferred method to legitimize them is to let them escape capture when you had them cornered in Afghanistan, then go after the wrong country.
So many of you miss the real point. Bush hates diplomacy and prefers war. Should Kennedy have shunned diplomacy over the missiles in Cuba and just pushed the button? Should we have squandered 55,000 lives in Vietnam or tried to negotiate a settlement before pulling the trigger? Would it be better for Israel and Hamas and Hezbola to settle their differences diplomatically or continue to kill each other over their problems? Would it not have been better to show Saddam a way out of his country with his skin whole than to spend untold Billions of our taxes and nearly 4100 American lives blowing up another country over WMD's that never existed? For many of you, Bush's choice of war and death seems to be the best way forward. That's likely because you don't have to put your own azzes on the line - or those of your children.
So Bush goes to another country and uses his speaking role to drag our internal political debate onto the world stage - and he gets to take a few political cheap shots at the same time he bashes the usefulness of diplomacy.
Have so many of you forgotten how DUMB this guy is, how OFTEN he lies to everybody, and how much of an utter FAILURE his presidency has been? He should really heed the words of one gentleman who very recently advised Mr. Bush to, "Shut the ...Hell up!"
You Prescott Bush DemoKooks - you spend too much time on your tinfoil hat conspiracy kook web sites. Try doing some work for a change...
"Regarding these allegations, the Anti-Defamation League has stated, "Rumors about the alleged Nazi 'ties' of the late Prescott Bush, the grandfather of President George W. Bush, have circulated widely through the Internet in recent years. These charges are untenable and politically motivated." The rumors began with ultrarightist attacks on George H.W. Bush during his 1980 presidential run, and were renewed during his 1988 run."
The roots of the Prescott Bush-Hitler kook rumors have been traced to the kook hero Lyndon LaRouche. Joe Kennedy had many, many more dealings with the Nazis, and woman-murderer Democrat Teddy "The Swimmer" Kennedy is still the hero of the Demokooks and the left.
Jones, so by your logic the President can't be trusted to meet with anybody because he'll suddenly turn over the keys to the kingdom, right?
Posted by SteveMG ---------
Why am I not shocked to learn that you don't get it? No American president should ever legitimize terrorists by sitting down with them for all the world to see.-----I notice that TPS is also in the dark about this. After all, I see no evidence at all that anyone has appeased Iran in any way, or that the president has instructed anyone to do so. Stupid response.
I guess Bush appeased Pakistan by outsourcing the hunt for bun Laden to them at the cost of $1 bil a year. And was it appeasement when Rummy shook hands with Saddam in the 80s?
Never mind. It wasn't Obama. Bush was actually referring to Ollie North, John Poindexter, and Bob McFarlane.
Comment removed.
OK Jones, so by your logic the President can't be trusted to meet with anybody because he'll suddenly turn over the keys to the kingdom, right?
WAAAHHHH! ---Baraq Hussein Obama
Big difference.
I see. So, it isn't the President that's appeasing terrorists, it's members of the the President's administration who have received instructions from the President to be appeasers.
Good point, dear mr. ocjones. That is a big difference.
Who is Bush referring to, I wonder, if not Obama, when he says "some seem to believe....". I don't ever recall Obama proposing that we should negotiate with terrorists. Obama needs to demand from Bush that he clarify that his remarks before the Knesset were not intended to suggest that, and that he come clean about who he is talking about. If he won't, then Obama should request an audience with the Knesset to offer his rebuttal to that insinuation. That's fair, isn't it?
Will, your blog is just...eh...yawn. All of your viewpoints are so predictable.
"there are many who have suggested these types of negotiations with people that the president, President Bush, thinks that we should not talk to. I understand when you're running for office [or posting on comment boards] you sometimes think the world revolves around you. That is not always true. And it is not true in this case."
As usual the lefties here are deep into the art of deception. The fact of the matter is that the U.S. is presently engaging in talks with Iran. Republicans, by and large, reject the notion that the president should personally engage Iran in direct talks with them. The Secty of defense is not proposing that the president should sit down with them, which is what BHO proposes to do. Big difference.
Can we IMPEACH THIS ASSHOLE NOW?
PRESCOTT BUSH,PRESCOTT BUSH,PRESCOTT BUSH
PRESCOTT BUSH,PRESCOTT BUSH,PRESCOTT BUSH
This rant, as well as those of the ENITRE DemocRAT party, show how the truth hits home when PRESIDENT Bush speaks it.
Bush calls you libs the traitors that you are and you have a breakdown. Time for all you loons to face facts...we are in World War III and YOU ARE the traitors and the appeasers bush says you are. You are a pathetic bunch of hypocrites and Anti-American screwballs who must be stopped at all costs. Now, back to the coming war with Iran.
Wait until Obama gets briefed on all the top secret stuff he doesn't know about yet. He will wish he hadn't ran his mouth promising things he can't back up.
"I find it ironic that Bush is accusing Obama and other democrats of appeasing terrorists, such as certain politicians did with the Nazis. He need look no further than his own family for Nazi appeasers - - his grandfather, Senator Prescott Bush, sympathized with, and did business with Nazi Germany, before and during the war. Bringing up the Bush family history is relevant because Bush is the one that started it.
Posted by capges" Since it hits so close to home, it can be argued that Bush is more qualified and credible to speak on this subject than others.
What is so disturbing is that these neo dimwits bluff and bluster over "democracy" and bringing "freedom" to the ME...yet when a valid, internationally observed and validated election is held (the standard which, BTW, our 2000 election did not meet), and overwhelmingly won by one party, it is dismissed by the petulant children leading the US, because, well our guys didn't win. Like it or not, Hamas is the elected leaders of the Palestinian people. Sorry, dumbbells, you can't have it both ways. Democracy is, or isn't. You can't choose to follow democracy based on the outcome. Otherwise, you are just urinating on the graves of the soldiers BushCo sent to their slaughter in order to bring this "democracy" to the ME. No wonder we have ZERO credibility in the world. It's like Romper Room in the White House, and the really stupid kids are leading the way.
Human treason:
1. Leaving a young woman to drown in the Chappaquidick
2. Claiming that your granny is a typical white person
Well Bush should know all about appeasing the Nazis, after all it is how his family made all of their money!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescott_Bush
If the President is really that outraged, he should just fire Condaleeza Rice and Robert Gates, both of whom also think we have to sit down with Iran. He should, AS Xi Jah would say, put up or shut up.
political treason? Will; you sound like a real drama queen. First, Bush never mentioned Obama, Bush said "some", Obama identified himself as the "some", finishing the job for Bush. Now Obama has to defend his comments on negotiating with rougue nations. He's an adult, running for president, I think he should be able to take the heat or get out of the kitchen.
political treason? Will; you sound like a real drama queen. First, Bush never mentioned Obama, Bush said "some", Obama identified himself as the "some", finishing the job for Bush. Now Obama has to defend his comments on negotiating with rougue nations. He's an adult, running for president, I think he should be able to take the heat or get out of the kitchen.
Judas Priest, db, could you be any more dishonest? Qaddafi had his sea change well before we invade Iraq. You KNOW this. Why the lie?
Comment removed.
I find it ironic that Bush is accusing Obama and other democrats of appeasing terrorists, such as certain politicians did with the Nazis. He need look no further than his own family for Nazi appeasers - - his grandfather, Senator Prescott Bush, sympathized with, and did business with Nazi Germany, before and during the war. Bringing up the Bush family history is relevant because Bush is the one that started it.
Earlier, Steve asked "Which appeaser said, "Jaw, jaw, jaw is better than war, war, war"? That dates back to England's Prime Minister Robert Walpole in October 1739, as King George II announced a declaration of war against Spain, formally initiating the War of Jenkins' Ear. As the church bells pealed throughout London in enthusiastic support of the war, Walpole remarked,"They ring their bells, but soon will wring their hands." Walpole understood that English commerce had more to lose than did the Spanish, and that it was better (and cheaper) to continue negotiations with Spain (jaw, jaw, jaw) and to set Admiral Vernon loose on Spanish holdings in the Caribbean (war, war, war). Of course, the war did produce one good thing, inspiring Thomas Arne to write a song called "Rule, Britannia!" in honor of Vernon's victory at Porto Bello [Panama] in November 1739. The war hawks succeeded in forcing Walpole out of office in 1742.
Hey, you want a description of political treason? Jimmy Carter.
I don't think this is political treason (is there another form of treason?). I think it is just the latest in a long line of dumb things that have come out of his mouth.
I'm not saying meeting with Iran is the way to go (honestly, I'm not surprised we haven't attacked them yet if they truly are funneling arms into Iraq), but didn't diplomacy play a role in North Korea's decision to shut down Yongbyon?
I'm not saying meeting with Iran is the way to go (honestly, I'm not surprised we haven't attacked them yet if they truly are funneling arms into Iraq), but didn't diplomacy play a role in North Korea's decision to shut down Yongbyon?
HURRY MESSIAH TELL CHAVEZ YOU'LL MEET HIM................WaPo Notes Chavez Backing for FARC Terrorists,
Six days after Wall Street Journal's Jose de Cordoba and Jay Solomon published their front-pager, "Chávez Aided Colombia Rebels, Captured Computer Files Show," the Washington Post turned out its coverage of the development by staffer Juan Forero, who pulled a few punches by failing to directly finger Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez:
CARACAS, Venezuela, May 14 -- High-ranking officials in Venezuela offered to help Colombian guerrillas obtain surface-to-air missiles meant to change the balance of power in their war with the Colombian government, according to internal rebel documents.
Steve, let's say that Bush/Obama/McCain decide to "sit down" and "talk" with Iran and their cool president. Can you think of one point that should be ceded to Iran that would benefit our national security?
Comment removed.
Hey, Bunch, how much room in your house does your shrine to your messiah BHO take up? Have you sacrificed a middle-sized bedroom? The garage? The whole basement? How did it feel you stopped being an objective journalist and started being one of the inane, pointless "pundits" who add nothing to the political discourse in this country because they only spout their own biased views?
Oh, and btw, you're going to have to clean up your syntax to post under this new system. No more of those longshoreman-like comments.
And grandaddy Arn. I think Jess had a longer hiatus than db cooper?
Pookie, since you are so worried about Iran, please tell us your feelings on the Iraqi govt consistently meeting with their president? They consider him an ally. Is that the kind of progress in iraq Bush was talking about?
OBAMA said,
“And yet my interest in meeting with Iran is practical; it is not based on my assessment of who they are or my judgment about their values, but rather it is a practical assessment in terms of how we can best achieve our ultimate goal, which is an Iran that is not threatening its neighbors, is not threatening Israel, does not possess nuclear weapons, is not funding organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas."
what's up, Jess? Looks like your wannabe boyfriend, sloboat, bit the dust.
MNH there is a difference between criticism and lies. Not that you would know the difference but most people do anymore. I think the last count was 72%. For you 28%ers, just do the best you can. You obviously can't see that what you're doing is not working. You are the kind of guy who drives into a fogbank and floors the gas pedal to get through it quicker. When you cause a 50 car pileup, then you blame the other 49 drivers. But you're entitled to your driver's license so we just have to cross our fingers and hope the President doesn't f up anything else in the next eight months.
Obama would engage Iran if elected, he says
By Michael R. Gordon and Jeff Zeleny Published: November 1, 2007
CHICAGO: If elected president, Senator Barack Obama would meet with Iran's leaders and offer economic inducements and a possible promise not to seek "regime change" if Iran stopped meddling in Iraq and cooperated on terrorism and nuclear issues
I guess if you're an idiot, you may consider invading Iraq at the expense of ignoring Afghanistan a brilliant way to be tough on terror. Admiral Fallon clearly didn't agree. And now we send Gates and Condi to our NATO allies to beg for more troops for Afghanistan. Remind me again what connections Saddam had to 9/11? Is Iran's influence stronger or weaker since we went over there? How's Beirut going? Whose in charge in Gaza? Brilliant.
Not sure how Qhaddafi became the focus of the story here, rather than Bush's remarks but I'd like to point out that all he did was 'renounce' a WMD program. So did Saddam Hussein if I recall correctly. (And how'd that go?) What is different is that in exchange for drilling in Libya, US Oil companies are lobbying the US Government to give Qhaddafi immunity from being prosecuted by victims of his terror program.
Anyway, given the rest of the text of his speech, there is no way in hell peace among Israel and Palestine is going to be achieved under his presidency. I'm guessing the speech was a bit like one you might your boss after you've given your two weeks notice.
Thew filthy messiah OBAMA said he would meet with amahandjob capice ?? Whats so hard to understand about this for you cult followers? You Jewish block voters better open your check books some more to buy the black messiah
I'm sure you're locked and loaded MNH. As for Bush, did Israel thank him for pushing for the election in Gaza that Hamas ended up winning? Did he waddle up to the podium and quack like the lame duck he is?
Qaddafi learned the same lesson that Castro did: Sit down, shut up, keep your hands to yourself (at least only murder your own people) and we'll let you die of old age. Hussein even learned this lesson (he didn't harbor Al Qeada, he didn't have a WMD program), but Bush didn't heed the lessons from his father, and former Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, etc. that invading Iraq would be a diaster. Jones you're always quick to point out how quick people whine when Obama is questioned, but you're just as quick to whine when your hero is questioned.
I am past being outraged at the junk coming out of Bush's mouth (I'd use a stronger word but it might not get past the censor that is here now). This is no more outrageous than all the "you're with me or you're a terrorist" spew that has been the battle cry of the Republicans since 9/11. It worked for a while. 2006 and the special elections since (not to mention the unusual number of Republicans who aren't going to even try to get re-elected this year) show it doesn't work at all now. Honestly, you should say, "Thank you, Mr. President, for doing all you can to elect a Democratic President and increasing the Democratic Congressional majority. Here at the end you are finally doing the right thing, oblivious to it as you are."
Comment removed.
I'll take "Hyperbole" for $800, Alex.
Enjoy your hissy-fits ladies.
Man, the Husseiniacs like BDS Bunch are really, really sensitive... If Baraq Hussein Obama can't take a little criticism, he's not ready to be President. As for Bush's quote: ""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" - what about this do you disagree with? Do you really think you can negotiate with Al Qaeda and convince them to like us? Just like Bunch has BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome), these guys have ADS (American Derangement Syndrome) and JDS (Jewish Derangement Syndrome). Talk and negotation is not going to change it. Face it - they want war with us. You can either choose to fight back or capitulate. Grab a gun or the Koran, make your choice.
More whining whenever Barack's positions are questioned.
P.S. I imagine that Ghadafi well remembers what Ronald Reagan thought of his terrorist ways.
Both Presidents Bush made themselves impeachment proof by selecting VP's that were even less disreable than the Presidents.
What exactly is so problematic with what President Bush said? The liberal author in this liberal paper with it's liberal readers/posters object to everything Mr. Bush does. If a Democrat does make it to the White House this time around, you will only have yourselves to blame when appeasement becomes the official US policy. How much of my tax dollars will youspend on the ransom?
Can anyone help me out here? Is August of 2002 before or after March 2003?
"but ironically, it comes just a day after his own Secretary of State, Robert Gates, said of Iran: "
Oops.
Gates is the Secretary of DEFENSE.
(I forget who our Secretary of State is... but I'm sure we'll see her again before the kickoff to the Iran War...)
"The administration overstates Iraq, but its critics go too far in saying that force played no role," says Bruce W. Jentleson, a foreign-policy adviser to Al Gore in the 2000 presidential campaign and professor at Duke University, who has written the most detailed study of why Col. Gadhafi abandoned WMD: "It was force and diplomacy, not force or diplomacy that turned Gadhafi around . . . a combination of steel and a willingness to deal."
Clearly, Col. Gadhafi's decision, which Libyans say predated the Iraqi invasion, was part of a broader shift prompted by the miserable failure of his socialist experiment at home, the collapse of the Soviet Union abroad, and his growing conviction that the sanctions which prevented him from expanding oil production--and which isolated him--were jeopardizing his rule. ...
Even before 9/11, the Bush administration was focused on unconventional "new threats" to the U.S., particularly WMD in the hands of rogue states and terrorist groups. In his first speech on national security policy, in May 2001, Mr. Bush said he might use force to limit the spread of WMD to those who "seek to destroy us." Deterrence, he said, "is no longer enough."...
In August and the fall of 2002, the British sent emissaries to discuss Libya's unconventional weapons with Col. Gadhafi. At the same time, Saif-al-Islam was trying to develop an intelligence backchannel to convince the U.S. and Britain that his father wanted a WMD deal. Officials said that Saif initially relied heavily on emissaries, including Mohammed Rashid, a Palestinian who had managed much of Yasser Arafat's money. Though officials recalled that the CIA seemed strangely uninterested in what the Libyan leader's son had to say, MI5, Britain's spy agency, reportedly assured Mr. Rashid that Tony Blair would raise Libya with Mr. Bush when the two men met at Camp David in September 2002.
Comment removed.
Will, I still don't get what you are calling political treason. At the same time this gem from XJ: "Impeachment? For what?" Let us commenters say stupid things. You're the professional here, Will. You should do better than "political treason".
How and why did Col. Gadhafi, the despotic, still dangerously capricious leader, decide to abandon a lifetime of revolution and terrorism and abandon the WMD programs he had pursued since seizing power in a coup in 1969? What role did American intelligence play in that decision? And how much change can Col. Gadhafi tolerate and still retain power?
Col. Gadhafi's hip, 34-year-old son, Saif-al-Islam, told me in Vienna--where he earned an M.B.A....that his father changed course because he had to. "Overnight we found ourselves in a different world," said Saif, referring to the Sept. 11 attacks. "So Libya had to redesign its policies to cope with these new realities."
But a review of confidential government records and interviews with current and former officials in London, Tripoli, Vienna and Washington suggest that other factors were involved. Prominent among them is a heretofore undisclosed intelligence coup--the administration's decision in late 2003 to give Libyan officials a compact disc containing intercepts of a conversation about Libya's nuclear weapons program between Libya's nuclear chief and A.Q. Khan--that reinforced Col. Gadhafi's decision to reverse course on WMD.
... evidence suggests that a mix of intelligence, diplomacy and the use of force in Iraq helped persuade him that the weapons he had pursued since he came to power, and on which he had secretly spent $300 million ($100 million on nuclear equipment and material alone), made him more, not less, vulnerable.
Comment removed.
tony, whatever Bush's grandpa did is history. What is more relevant would be that the President was contradicted by his own Secretary of Defense. What is more relevant is that by conducting diplomacy, you can also build a coalition. What is more relevant is that as long as this is the tone of this administration, voters have to realize that a McCain administration is going to be riddled with the leftovers from this administration. Most of the political appointees from the administration will remain in place. McCain may find some new faces for some top jobs, but most of the undersecretaries and deputies will remain in place. Electing John McCain will reinforce the concept that the smears which brought down our government and our country will remain the basis of power.
Comment removed.
Will, these are not well reasoned arguments, but cheap shots. As stated above, Qaddafi has come in from the cold. Bush's words are a comparison by implication not an out-and-out comparison. This is not journalism. It is 'bloviating'.
Last I checked, Gadhafi, largely as a result of the Iraq War, renounced his WMD program and ceased to act as a state sponsor of terrorism.
Apparently, db, you think that negotiating with terrorist isn't appeasement if they approach the U.S. to resolve the disagreement - and that you completely disregard their ongoing terrorist activity as a criteria to determine whether negotiations should take place.
Just when did you do a complete 180 on your views of diplomacy? Was it before, or after the person you voted for twice has tried to use Libya as a justification for one of the biggest foreign policy disasters in the history of the country?
So, Will, aside from being "tradition," why is doing it on foreign soil more significant. What is the meaning behind the tradition?
"Conservatives" are constantly saying that public criticism of our government here in the States "emboldens" terrorists. You seem to be saying something similar - only making the distinction that it's been done on foreign soil. Steve's right. Fact of the matter is that given the virtrually universally shared opinion of Bush around the globe (excluding the marginalize 27% of the American public that are Republican sycophants) criticizing Obama is only more likely to improve Obama's standing throughout the rest of the world - no matter where he does it.
Perhaps, in an unconscious way, Bush is actually trying to finally do something that will improve America's ability to achieve global objectives should Obama get elected?
Nothing new here. Remember when Seymour Hersh outed Richard Perle for his 5 outrageous and illegal conflicts of interest? Perle called Hersh a terrorist.
Remember when Rod Paige, Bush's Education Secretary called the National Educators Association a terrorist group?
This has been the right's tactic all along.
This guy is like a drunk at the end of a nightmarish bender. Thankfully, the human race stopped listening to this bloviating mass of crud about five years ago.
" Look at his own dealings with oil-rich Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi,"
Last I checked, Gadhafi, largely as a result of the Iraq War, renounced his WMD program and ceased to act as a state sponsor of terrorism.
Another minor detail that Will apparently couldn't be bothered to remember. I guess BDS gets you so worked up that you don't think all the way through what you are writing.
This guy is like a drunk at then end of a nightmarish bender (and that's probably closer to the truth than not). If any family would know about Nazi's, it's the Bush clan starting with Prescott. This guy is a disgusting sleazeball waste of human breath slime masquerading as a human being......other than that, he's OK. The good thing is that the human race stopped listening to this bloviating pile of excrement about five years ago.
A couple of years ago, Harry Reid was sharply criticized for calling Bush "a loser" because Bush was on a trip abroad (I believe it was Egypt). So we have a tradition that it's inappropriate that it's not proper to criticize the president when he's abroad, but he can go in front of a foreign government and make scurrilious charges about his opponents back home. Only in Bush's America.
Even Nixon never did this.
Congratulations on your most hyperbolic post to date, Will.
" To travel to Israel and to associate a sitting American senator and your possible successor in the Oval Office with those who at one time gave comfort to an enemy of the United States " Uh, Will, when Chamberlain was appeasing Hitler, Nazi Germany was not a declared enemy of the United States yet - and would not be for several more years. But don't let historical fact get in the way of your rants. Obama and Hillary and the Dems have been attacking Bush relentlessly over the war for years. Pelosi went to Syria to conduct her own foreign policy. Apparently the left likes to dish it out, but can't take it in return.
As emptywheel points out over at FDL, Dubya's grandpa, Prescott Bush, was a Nazi Enabler. I'm "shocked" that Dubya didn't make reference to this in his speech.
Actually, on second thought, I pretty much agree with Stevie there. There's nothing new in Bush implying that anyone who disagrees with his approach to the "GWOT" is an ally of terrorists. I'm not sure how his doing it on foreign soil is particularly relevant.
Which appeaser said: "Jaw, jaw, jaw is better than war, war, war"? a) Chamberlain, b) Daladier, c) some other wienie?
Geez, Will, you should probably have sat on this entry for a few minutes before you put it up. What the heck is "political treason" anyway? What the Peresident said is the usual political smear that was probably not even taken seriously by his audience. Did you think that President Bush had credibility anywhere in the world, and that the auduence wouldn't know any better? It's not even the most offensive thing he has said this week. But you decided to express your outrage and constructed some kind of sandy foundation to mount some kind of argument that this was the last straw. Instead the reader is left to wonder what the heck you are talking about and disregarding your whole post as some sort of hysterical rant. Instead of creating the basis for the discussion of the president's low life political smear, you've actually directed the discussion instead to the ravings of some hysterical hater. Instead of forcing the Bush sycophants into dealing with the issue, all they have to do is brush off another case of BDS.
You go, Will.
And good point in focusing on how the Bush administration has repeatedly pointed to the results of negotiations with Gadhafi as evidence of success of their administration's foreign policy.
Also, interesting, is that after years of asserting that diplomacy with enemies is "appeasement" they now claim success in the results of negotiations with North Korea; of course, forgetting to mention that essentially what they've achieved is nothing more substantial than what had been achieved under the Clinton administration - results that they ridiculed.
183 comments | View All | Paginate Comments
Philly.com Promotions
- News | Sports | Business | What's Happening | Restaurants & Food | Entertainment | Living | Marketplace | Jobs
Site Services:
Classifieds:
- Jobs | Cars | Real Estate | Rentals | Marketplace | Celebrations
Partners:
