ABC News: Obama Takes Issue With Bush Foreign Policy Speech--Hitler Reference (M.E.T)

[NavyDave]

Wasn't it the Bush Administration who negotiated with Libya, the terrorist regime who brought down Pan Am flight 103, to give up their pursuit of WMD's?

If by Negotiate you mean Shock and Awe on Iraq and Saddam's azz, Then yeah.

[IHOPSkins]

.....FDR prepared us for war, FDR waged the war, and FDR's leadership won the war....

I guess FDR didn't Appease the Communists and give away Eastern Europe?

[JMS]

Not a candidate, but Jimmy Carter, as has been discussed ad nauseum.

And I have said, CNN reported that a bush administration offcial has stated that Bush's speach was about Obama, and Carter.

But as I said, your thread title is false. It never happened. And those drawing conclusions are those with a purpose for doing so.

I was watching the story on CNN. CNN, NY Times, and NPR have all linked Bush's statements to Obama. I've provided the links. You claiming it's false is just denial.

I just hope if we're going to be misleading about candidates, and that's going to fly now, that it's exercised with consistency all the way through November.

There was nothing misleading in my post.

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Whether it was deliberate or not, President Bush now has directly interfered in the Democratic presidential battle in this final stage of the nominating process. His Knesset speech in Jerusalem on the 60th anniversary of Israel’s independence was widely seen as raising serious last-minute warnings about Barack Obama’s foreign policy strategy.

“Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along,” he said, without referring to Obama by name. “We have heard this foolish delusion before.”

And then, the president dropped the bombshell – making the comparison to the appeasement of Hitler and the Nazis.

His remarks were seen as a direct condemnation of Obama’s assertion that he, as president, would be willing to meet directly with the leaders of Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela – among others.

There is no doubt that Obama’s critics, especially Republicans, want to raise questions about his readiness to be commander in chief. They think that his experience is limited. They also say that on many national security issues, he’s a blank slate.

So is he president’s assertion in Jerusalem his way of raising some flags even at this last moment? I don’t know. I do know that those kinds of pointed words don’t get into a carefully-drafted presidential speech without a lot of consideration and discussion.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

You don't have any leg to stand on...

[IHOPSkins]

And I have said, CNN reported that a bush administration offcial has stated that Bush's speach was about Obama, and Carter.........

"WASHINGTON - Barack Obama’s offer to meet without precondition with leaders of renegade nations such as Cuba, North Korea and Iran touched off a war of words, with rival Hillary Rodham Clinton calling him naive and Obama linking her to President Bush’s diplomacy."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19933710/

:laugh:

Liberal Air getting Thick

[Teller]

And I have said, CNN reported that a bush administration offcial has stated that Bush's speach was about Obama, and Carter.

And who was the audience? What was their reaction?

I was watching the story on CNN. CNN, NY Times, and NPR have all linked Bush's statements to Obama. I've provided the links. You claiming it's false is just denial.

So what if he was referencing Obama indirectly. And it WAS indirect, certainly not a "call out" of ANY kind. If the Obama camp was offended, that's on him, not on Bush.

There was nothing misleading in my post.

Nice play on words. I expected as much.

I REFERENCED YOUR TITLE, WHICH IS PATENTLY FALSE.

Get it that time?

You don't have any leg to stand on...

Okeedoke.

This little wormhole in the forum rules you seem to have discovered will be tested soon.

[skinthemboys]

I just wonder if that was a prediction, an endorsement of said action, or a personal promise.

No matter which it was, still absolutely deplorable.

None of the above. More of a hunch. Im not predicting anything. Thank you

[JMS]

I guess FDR didn't Appease the Communists and give away Eastern Europe?

That's not what we were discussing. FDR did make some mistakes. There is plenty of scholarly work which agrees with your point. FDR was close to death when he met with Stalin at Yalta for the last time.. 2/11/1945, He was dead less than two months after the Yalta conference.

Then again there is plenty of scholarly work which suggests eastern Europe would not have gone to the Soviets if Roosevelt had lived.

.

My point was the guy who Bush labelled as an appeaser and who he quoted.. Senator William Borah, was a 32 year Republican senator from Idaho. He was a freaking leader of the Republican party in 1939 when he made the quote.

It's a joke that Bush quotes a Republican in trying to define Obama as an apeaser.

"Lord, if I could only have talked with Hitler, all this might have been avoided." —September 1939, upon hearing that Hitler had invaded Poland

I further said Chamberlain the British PM who has also gone down in history as an appeaser, was also a conservative.

[twa]

"WASHINGTON - Barack Obama’s offer to meet without precondition with leaders of renegade nations such as Cuba, North Korea and Iran touched off a war of words, with rival Hillary Rodham Clinton calling him naive and Obama linking her to President Bush’s diplomacy."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19933710/

:laugh:

Liberal Air getting Thick

But didn't Obama say he would never negotiate with terrorists?

Changed his damned mind again already?

[NavyDave]

And I have said, CNN reported that a bush administration offcial has stated that Bush's speach was about Obama, and Carter.

I was watching the story on CNN. CNN, NY Times, and NPR have all linked Bush's statements to Obama. I've provided the links. You claiming it's false is just denial.

There was nothing misleading in my post.

You don't have any leg to stand on...

What is the big deal? Jimmy Carter is definately an appeaser and Barrack Hussein Obama has said on the air and on his website that he would meet with the terrorist leaders and Dictators with no strings attached and he does come off as an appeaser.

Why hide it?

Europe knows and likes the fact that the next POTUS could be as spineless as them.

[Smoot Point Really]

HH is correct here. The Title of the thread is misleading and false. There are people in the US, Europe and the Middle East who feel we should have direct talks with terrorists and those who support. Why is it calling out Obama when you have so many to choose from? To name a few inside the US who would also apply: John Kerry, John Edwards, President Carter, Nancy Pelosi, Dennis Kucinich, Henry Waxman, Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, and Madeline Albright.

[Smoot Point Really]

Obama should've just ignored this and stuck to the economy... He'll get his arse kicked if he takes this on.

[JMS]

And who was the audience? What was their reaction?

It was an anchor man. no audience.

So what if he was referencing Obama indirectly. And it WAS indirect, certainly not a "call out" of ANY kind. If the Obama camp was offended, that's on him, not on Bush.

If a sitting president involves himself in an election, while addressing a foreign government.. It's big news. I can't think of anything more inflamitory than calling a Democrat nomineee a Nazi appeaser in the Knesset.....

Nice play on words. I expected as much.

I'm not playing on words. I've backed up my title of this thread with articles from CNN, and The NY Times. You've even admitted as much, that Bush was calling out Obama in his statements.

I apologize if you think it was misleading. As I said, I was watching the story on CNN when I posted and used the words from the TV story. I'll be more careful in the future.

[Jumbo]

Per the "broken rules" and the OP. First, as the OP indicated, people in many major media outlets were representing the story in the same general way since this morning ("right" or "wrong") including focusing on the Hitler-Godwin Moment.

Now even if those media sources are guilty of "patently false" (in capital letters ) headlining, it would be diffcult to penalize some ES poster for what is being done all day by pros. But the formatting needs work (read the rules), JMS, and I am editing the title.

Second (should have been first, really) people should try the old Report-a-post feature when you think there's been a violation (stunning concept, no?) instead of repressing the need to scream out the pain of message board injustice. Amazing thing, but most of the post moderation we do is in response to some complaint.

You see, I'd submit that the mods (most) actually do have an agenda. I have inside info that supports the notion mods avoid most of these numbnutz, I mean political, threads as much as possible because the same bright guys are consistently engaged in the same type of stunningly insightful and intellectually impressive open-minded dialogues that we feel overmatched and it's too diffcult for us to follow.

So we don't enter these threads willingly (usually) other than to indulge petty personal vendettas, oppress White Christian Middle Class Conservative Republican Males or gays (same thing), neuter atheists, abuse handicapped (great word) folks, slander "little people", or if someone has complained about an infraction.

Thank you HH for another opportunity to do the enormous ******* thingy. :laugh:

Topic wise I haven't read the article yet, though I heard some of the speech. But I'm sure there has still been no change in the important realities that Obama is a racist Muslim and Bush is responsible for 9/11.

[JMS]

What is the big deal? Jimmy Carter is definately an appeaser and Barrack Hussein Obama has said on the air and on his website that he would meet with the terrorist leaders and Dictators with no strings attached and he does come off as an appeaser.

Why hide it?

Europe knows and likes the fact that the next POTUS could be as spineless as them.

I don't think there is any question Obama has called for direct talks with some folks Bush would not meet with... That's not the issue.

The issue is when Bush made his inflamitory statement in the legislature equating those who want to talk with our nation's enemies with Nazi appeasers, was he reffering to Obama. And is that really what a sitting US President should be doing on foreign soil undercutting potentially the next President of the United States.

The NY Times, CNN, and NPR have all made that association.

Make no mistake this would be a very controversial statement if Bush made it Here in the United States. Making it in the Knesset is much worse.

Anyway that's the discussion.,

[Jumbo]

BTW, NBC and CNN just announced the story as Bush Goes After Obama, too. Some one needs to send them a PM. What's Fox calling it? Haven't seen yet.

[techboy]

But I'm sure there has still been no change in the important realities that Obama is a racist Muslim and Bush is responsible for 9/11.

Your snide comments will not serve to divert our attention from the fact that both have ties to the CFR. Have the Bilderbergers sent you your monthly 30 pieces of silver, yet?

Fascist.

[33]

Anyway that's the discussion.

Maybe the best way to end a post.

[jpyaks3]

There are Hezbolah cells are in the US and have been for a while.

Overseas its not that difficult for them if they want to to target tourist from the US and make a statement.

Any proof?

[JMS]

BTW, NBC and CNN just announced the story as Bush Goes After Obama, too. Some one needs to send them a PM. What's Fox calling it? Haven't seen yet.

I looked for a fox refference.. They hadn't picked up the story yet...

[jpyaks3]

But didn't Obama say he would never negotiate with terrorists?

Changed his damned mind again already?

Head of states dont quite qualify as terrorists. If we dont talk to people then they cant hurt us right?

[Jumbo]

Your snide comments will not serve to divert our attention from the fact that both have ties to the CFR. Have the Bilderbergers sent you your monthly 30 pieces of silver, yet?

Fascist.

All I have so far is the helmet. I need the decoder ring and the x-ray glasses.

[IHOPSkins]

......The issue is when Bush made his inflamitory statement in the legislature equating those who want to talk with our nation's enemies with Nazi appeasers, was he reffering to Obama. And is that really what a sitting US President should be doing on foreign soil undercutting potentially the next President of the United States.....

Is that worse than....

"Former President Carter says President Bush's administration is "the worst in history" in international relations, taking aim at the White House's policy of pre-emptive war and its Middle East diplomacy."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/19/politics/main2828207.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_2828207

A sitting president gets it from a former president

[twa]

Head of states dont quite qualify as terrorists. If we dont talk to people then they cant hurt us right?

Which was my point,Obama says he will not negotiate with terrorists(including Hamas JMS :laugh: ) ,so why is he convinced Bush is singling him out?

Quote

"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals

It must be the radicals that single him out ???

[Mister Happy]

You forget that Obama was able to cause the Nigerian rebels to consider a ceasefire without even talking to them.

Imagine what he could do if he actually negotiated.

[jpyaks3]

Which was my point,Obama says he will not negotiate with terrorists(including Hamas JMS :laugh: ) ,so why is he convinced Bush is singling him out?

Quote

"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals

It must be the radicals that single him out ???

Except every single media outlet also saw the connection. It was quite obvious who he was targeting and Obama is showing that he isnt gonna let Bush take potshots at him.