War of Words, Bush, Obama, Lieberman and Others
Posted on May 15, 2008
Cross posted from Wake up America
Although President George Bush did not mention and party or politician by name, it is being reported it was a direct “sharp but veiled attack” on Barack Obama and the Democratic party.
Bush’s statement regarding appeasement, which was part of a longer speech made in Jerusalem, included the following comment:
Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: “Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.” We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history. (Applause.)
Although no specific names were mentioned by Bush, Barack Obama immediately lashed out in statement to CNN, saying:
“It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel’s independence to launch a false political attack,” Obama said in a statement released to CNN by his campaign. “It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel….”
“George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president’s extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel,” Obama’s statement said.
Obama asserts that he he has never supported “engagement with terrorists” but according to his own website on the Foriegn Policy page, it states, “Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions….”
On that same page, under the “talk to friends and foes” category, it states, “Obama is willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe.”
Enter Joseph Lieberman, Independent Democratic Senator for Connecticut who has endorsed Republican presidential candidate John McCain and in his statement he asserts that president Bush is “exactly right”.
“President Bush got it exactly right today when he warned about the threat of Iran and its terrorist proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah. It is imperative that we reject the flawed and naïve thinking that denies or dismisses the words of extremists and terrorists when they shout “Death to America” and “Death to Israel,” and that holds that—if only we were to sit down and negotiate with these killers—they would cease to threaten us. It is critical to our national security that our commander-in-chief is able to distinguish between America’s friends and America’s enemies, and not confuse the two.”
This war of words between Bush, Obama and Lieberman is starting to create even more controversy with the Democratic bloggers thinking it was a direct political attack aimed at Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and other Democratic leaders as well as the continuing of the hard feelings that Democratic supporters feel about Joseph Lieberman, especially since he announced his support for John McCain.
Obama has often suggested that he would speak with leaders of countries that are listed as terrorist states and as his own website says, he is prepared to do without “preconditions“, so his protests now in saying that he has “never supported engagement with terrorists” is directly contradictory from his previous words and statements on his website.
[Update] John McCain weighs in on this newest controversy saying, “Yes, there have been appeasers in the past, and the president is exactly right, and one of them is Neville Chamberlain. I believe that it’s not an accident that our hostages came home from Iran when President Reagan was president of the United States. He didn’t sit down in a negotiation with the religious extremists in Iran, he made it very clear that those hostages were coming home.’’
Asked if he thought Mr. Obama was an appeaser — the Democratic candidate has said he would be willing to meet with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran — Mr. McCain sidestepped and said, “I think that Barack Obama needs to explain why he wants to sit down and talk with a man who is the head of a government that is a state sponsor of terrorism, that is responsible for the killing of brave young Americans, that wants to wipe Israel off the map, who denies the Holocaust. That’s what I think Senator Obama ought to explain to the American people.’’
Joe Biden (D-Delaware) who is the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee called Bush’s statement “bullsh*t“.
[Update #2] Pelosi’s response.
The American Spectator nailed her right to the wall with this:
But I thought the most ironic criticism of the speech came from Nancy Pelosi, who called it “beneath the dignity of the office” for President Bush to visit our staunch ally and make the case against appeasement. This is the same Pelosi, you may recall, who visited the terror state of Syria amid State Department protest and told President Bashar Assad that Israel was ready for peace talks with its longtime enemy, when Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert denied saying anything of the sort.
GAME.SET.MATCH.
What is that old expression about not learning the lessons that history teaches?
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, Elections, News, Politics As Usual
Trackback URL
Comments
4 Responses to “War of Words, Bush, Obama, Lieberman and Others”
Leave a Reply
Obviously we must all be mistaken. It must be that the Obama web site is being missread.
Sort of like the fifty-seven states (Arab ?) that the bummer referred to.
When Obama makes a statement you must wait a few days before you react so the media has the time to tell you what is was that it really meant. I’m still waiting for someone to tell me what ‘God, gun and bitter’ means to a marxist as.h..e like Obummer. Amazing that a cheap b…..d that gives nothing to charity wishes to give .7% of our Gross Domestic Product to our enemies.
I for one love every time President Bush grabs that bully pulpit and reminds us of the war on terror, and how anybody that does not think the way he does is a weak kneed, yellow belly, chicken livered, and now (Gasp), Nazi appeaser. It just reminds all of us that it was this kind of talk that got us into Iraq in the first place…
And when McCain comes out and agrees, and then extols the President’s position, why I just love it. For it just emphasizes how dangerous this man really is. Now, drifting away from his 50 to 100 year estimate, he tells us “victory” will be assured within 4 years, if he is elected…
On the other hand, this talk is dangerous and scary. Why have none of the blogespher luminaries raised the question of whether Mr. Bush was simply giving the green light for possible Israeli or US attacks on Iran. Once you tar Iran with the Nazi label, in Israel, in a staged show of solidarity, what other options are available?
And it is precisely that same type of ideology expressed by “Our Paul” that allowed Hitler’s deadly march across Europe in the last century, and Stalin to murder millions of people post-WWII. It is amazing how the American people, like “Our Paul,” who have so easily forgotten September 11, 2001, when people were JUMPING OUT OF Buildings, how the WTC was bombed in 1992, the American Embassies in Africa, the Kobhar Tower in Saudi, and the attack on the U.S.S. Cole off Yemen. President Bush did not call it a “War on OBL” but a “WAR ON TERROR,” meaning that the US would no longer tolerate (as in the past with President Clinton) terror and STATE Sponsored Terrorism. It will be interesting to see what kind of reaction “Our Paul” has when we are attacked again under the foreign policy appeasement of Barack Obama.
Our Paul:
What did President Bush say that was wrong? The interesting thing here has been watching all the kook leftists like yourself throw a temper tantrum over it. He never mentioned any person by name, he never even mentioned the Democrat Party or anything of the sort…but that didn’t stop Barry and his Dem defnders from jumping up and saying it was directed at them. Why would they think that, IF THAT WASN’T WHAT THEY WANT TO DO??? Guilty consciences, or what? Obama says on his own website that is exactly what he’d do, then lies about it and says everybody knows that ISN’T what he’d do. Which is it???