Is saying you'll meet countries like Iran and Syria without preconditions the same as saying you'll talk with terrorists?
My Way News - Obama says Bush falsely accused him of appeasementI think this hit too close to home for Obama. If he wasn't planning on appeasement, why would this bother him? If he wasn't planning on meeting and negotiating with state sponsors of terror, why would he gripe?WASHINGTON (AP) - Barack Obama accused President Bush of "a false political attack" Thursday after Bush warned in Israel against appeasing terrorists - early salvos in a general election campaign that's already blazing even as the Democratic front-runner tries to sew up his party's nomination.
The White House denied Bush had targeted Obama, who said the Republican commander in chief's intent was obvious.
Unfortunately, he's on the record saying he'd meet 'without preconditions' the sponsors of terrorism in the ME. Maybe he's got something to offer them to try to get them to stop?
And I'm sure they will. After all, they're just reasonable people who are slightly misunderstood, right? There's no such thing as a BAD state, or a BAD dictator, right? They're all amenable to persuasion, and I'm sure a few billion here and there will go far in making them our staunch allies and good world citizens.
Heh. And the Publisher's Clearing House van's parked right outside my house, too.
Sorry - but the hysteria by the Obama supporters (and by the man himself) over this sounds like a frantic denial of something he'd planned to do - and was hoping nobody was paying attention to when he mentioned it.
J.
Comments (5)
The inconsistency is priceless.
The Democrats are convinced that they can save the world by negotiating and reaching agreements with the Iranians, with Al Queda, Hezbollah, etc.
Yet they are unable to have a peacable discussion with their own domestic political opposition- the Republicans.
They really think dealing with Syria will be easier than dealing with Republicans?
What?
Ben
Posted by Ben | May 16, 2008 9:54 AM
Posted on May 16, 2008 09:54
They might be right, Ben. With the Republicans, they'd need to negotiate to a reasonable end.
With the Syrians, they'd just need to capitulate. That's MUCH easier.
J.
Posted by JLawson | May 16, 2008 12:32 PM
Posted on May 16, 2008 12:32
I keep hearing about how this stuff is "unprecedented"; it is obvious that they have no sense of history. The political speech in the middle to late 1800s makes this stuff pale in comparison. But of course, it's old news, and we're trying to make a point here, so shut up...
Posted by John C. | May 17, 2008 1:47 AM
Posted on May 17, 2008 01:47
Apparently no one in the D party has any sense of any history as President Bush is just re-stating something going back to Thomas Jefferson's view on extortion via threats from abroad. Hell, he even tried the 'international group' route and announced it a failure! Had to deal with appeasers, too, in Congress.
As I read somewhere else, when someone shouts 'Hey, Moron!' into a room of 100 people and one guy says 'Hey, that's insulting me!' you have just done a process of self-identification. President Bush puts out a commentary on appeasement and ONE MAN protests... self-identification on the part of Barack Obama.
Basic US foreign policy since Jefferson... and when we try something *new* we come to realize Jefferson's wisdom time and again.
Posted by ajacksonian | May 17, 2008 10:39 AM
Posted on May 17, 2008 10:39
In the same vein...this one today is pretty funny...!
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/17/obama-appeasement-bill-cosby-and-shop-class/
Posted by suek | May 17, 2008 11:02 AM
Posted on May 17, 2008 11:02