home

George W. Bush Reaches New Political Low

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:07:01 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

There is a famous truism that politics ends at the waters' edge. George W. Bush trampled that much trumpeted principle to engage in a vile McCarthyistic attack on Barack Obama before the Israeli Knesset.

Not only is George W. Bush the worst President in history, he is the most tasteless and disgusting.

What a shameful episode for our Nation that this travesty of a President was elected to the highest office in our land. He will always remain a stain in our history.

Speaking for me only

Comments closed

< Sean Penn on Obama: Not Ready to Endorse | CA Supreme Court Overrules Gay Marriage Ban >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    George W. Bush Reaches New Political Low | 211 comments (211 topical)
    Somehow I don't think (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by andgarden on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:14:25 PM EST
    anyone takes him seriously anymore. He is an irrelevant buffoon--who unfortunately has more than 8 months left being the most powerful man in the world.

    kick him back HARD. (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Salo on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:16:21 PM EST
    He might be a baboon but he's still dangerous.

    [ Parent ]
    He's signaling the all-clear. (none / 0) (#30)
    by madamab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:27:39 PM EST
    Full steam ahead, torpedoes on Obama!

    [ Parent ]
    I actually tend to forget (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by DCDemocrat on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:17:36 PM EST
    that he is president.  I actually think the country embarked on the current race in early 2007 in part as a way to forget who actually holds the office.

    [ Parent ]
    Yet dubya's (5.00 / 1) (#217)
    by Lahdee on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:31:25 PM EST
    trigger finger still works. Unfortunately for us this buffoon with power is a very dangerous man.

    Honor? None
    Koolade? Plenty

    [ Parent ]

    I agree completely (none / 0) (#10)
    by TruthMatters on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:18:44 PM EST
    I heard about it was shocked and then went ya know its Bush this sort of thing doesn't surprise me anymore. and this is why the GOP is losing special election after special election, the People are tired of this man, and the GOP associate with him at their own risk.

    [ Parent ]
    Nice when we can all agree on (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by bjorn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:01:04 PM EST
    who the bad guys are!

    [ Parent ]
    Well His Popularity In Israel (none / 0) (#59)
    by squeaky on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:37:10 PM EST
    Is about the opposite it is here in the US.

    According to a Gallup poll conducted last summer, 66 percent of Israelis are satisfied with the U.S. leadership - higher than any Western state and most non-Western states.

    link

    But then again about the same percentage of Israelies think it will be a positive step to sit down and talk with Hamas.

    Sixty-four percent of Israelis say the government must hold direct talks with the Hamas government in Gaza toward a cease-fire and the release of captive soldier Gilad Shalit. Less than one-third (28 percent) still opposes such talks.

    [snip]

    The survey also showed that Likud voters are much more moderate than their Knesset representatives. About half (48 percent) support talks with Hamas.

    In Kadima, 55 percent are for talks, while among Labor voters, the number jumps to 72 percent.

    Haaretz

    [ Parent ]

    Well (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by Steve M on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:46:08 PM EST
    This is evidence of what every good liberal understands: the spectrum of permissible opinion regarding Israeli policy is far greater in Israel itself than it is in America.

    In our country, you have to try and out-Likud the Likud Party, which is to say, the Israelis who even Ariel Sharon considered too far-right to be acceptable.

    [ Parent ]

    With a bully pulpit to match (none / 0) (#218)
    by madamab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:31:49 PM EST
    his bullying personality.

    [ Parent ]
    It's the security stupid (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by delacarpa on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:22:28 PM EST
    Bush has alerted the American people with this statement that the GOP will make the case and McCain will run on, and that possibly once again we will lose the election on the security issue IMO.

    Lieberman, Obama's bipartisan friend (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:24:38 PM EST
    Welcome to bipartisan reality Senator Obama.
    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.

    Think Progress

    I cannot wait to kick this guy to the other (none / 0) (#43)
    by Anne on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:31:36 PM EST
    side of the aisle...and when I think he could have been our vice president, and could now running for the top spot, I want to throw up.

    What an embarrassment.

    [ Parent ]

    Don't worry (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:33:20 PM EST
    Obama will bring us together.  See.  

    [ Parent ]
    Please kick immediately. (1.00 / 0) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:40:41 PM EST
    All that would do is cost you the majority in the Senate.

    Maybe then we can get some oil drilling started.

    [ Parent ]

    Wasn't it Harry Reid who said (none / 0) (#179)
    by shoephone on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:05:00 PM EST
    on Larry King last week that the Democratic leadership is already considering taking Lieberman's committee chairmanship away from him? The sh*t has finally hit the fan in the Senate. They are not liking the fact that Lieberman has endorsed McCain.

    If we win a few more Senate seats in November (which I do expect) look for Lieberman to be officially relegated to LONER status.

    [ Parent ]

    I fully expect this to happen (none / 0) (#184)
    by madamab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:07:32 PM EST
    the second the 111th Senate is inaugurated with a filibuster-proof majority.

    It will much more than richly deserved.

    [ Parent ]

    It really doesn't matter (none / 0) (#192)
    by Steve M on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:10:58 PM EST
    even if they kicked Lieberman out today, there wouldn't be a new organizing resolution.  Dems will continue to control the Senate through the next election, and presumably beyond.

    I hope that what Reid is doing here is trying to keep Lieberman inside the tent p*ssing out.  All indications are that he's going to play the Zell Miller role at the RNC convention, but if we threaten him, maybe he can be persuaded to stand down.  If we actually execute the threat, though, he has nothing to lose and might as well go around trashing the party.

    Like I said, I hope this is the game Reid is playing.  Who knows.

    [ Parent ]

    oTrolls stop blaming anti-BO voters 4 his disaster (none / 0) (#220)
    by Ellie on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:33:40 PM EST
    Let's get this clear. Obama will lose in the general election because of what he did to his Dem rivals and the party overall.

    Obama will lose because he abandoned core principles to pander to hard right wing, anti democratic -- and anti Democratic -- in the name of a nebulous BS Unity Change slogan that not even he can live up to. He made it impossible for huge groups of loyal Dem voters to support him.

    • SCOTUS will be on Obama supporters.
    • Senate control will be all Obama voters' fault.
    • The continuing war on Iraq will be ALL Obama voters' fault.
    • the absence of traditional Dem supporters getting Obama's back will be ALL Obama voters' fault.

    Obama has littered the landscape with attacks smearing everyone who doesn't (for whatever reason) support him racists, ignorant, bitter, clinging &c He doesn't automatically OWN everyone's vote and Bad Monster Lady, or other rivals, are "stealing" them. Obama has to earn them.

    He has mined the GE landscape with his own weaponry with unexploded cluster bombs. The right wing can use these against him in the general election and not get a speck of dirt on themselves.

    Whatever disaster unfolds a nano-second after Obama unfairly thugs Sen Clinton out of the race is 100% Obama's.

    (Until an official vote count is in, I'm backing HRC all the way. She's in it to win it.)

    [ Parent ]

    Geez BTD (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by squeaky on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:27:43 PM EST
    The least you could have done for us is provide the cliff notes and spared us having to wade through that sewage.

    While I never have agreed with Bush on much (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by talex on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:28:35 PM EST
    he does have a point regarding Obama's naive notion for a President to talk directly to Iran. Bush may couch it with hyperbole but the essence of what Obama suggests is wrong headed is correct.

    And then Obama is hypocritical about what he proposes anyway. He wants to meet with Iran who sponsors Hamas and Hezbollah - but yet when Carter went to meet with Hamas Obama said it was a bad idea. So it is OK for Obama to meet with the Hamas sponsors but it is bad for Cater to meet with the beneficiary of the sponsor? That makes no sense at all and is another example of Obama's continued double-speak on many issues.

    Bush never identified who he was talking about (none / 0) (#210)
    by daryl herbert on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:22:14 PM EST
    Obama has said repeatedly that he won't personally meet with Hamas (unless certain preconditions are met)

    Carter, on the other hand, did meet with Hamas.  Bush was taking a direct swipe at Carter, and only indirectly at Obama.  The Israelis would understand that--his visit is still fresh in their minds.  In general, it's not polite to name people when you take a swing at them, so naturally he didn't mention Carter's name.

    Bush is forcing Obama to take a stand: was Carter right or wrong to make the visit?  There's nothing Obama hates more.

    [ Parent ]

    Why do you guys always skip over (none / 0) (#215)
    by talex on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:29:26 PM EST
    the part of a post you can't answer?

    Obama won't meet with Hamas but he will meet with Iran who sponsors and supports Hamas. Of course that irony escapes you.

    And thank you for 'mind reading' Bush. only you know in what order he was criticizing people.

    [ Parent ]

    Are you kidding? (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:30:15 PM EST
    Well, he may well be a stain on American history, but you know Obama's loving this, don't you?

    Just watching the changing lede on the Times' web site this morning you could see how hard his campaign was working to create an issue out of this.  It's nothing but a win for him.  He gets to act "nomineetorial" (eg, to demonstrate that he's already fighting the general election) while making the campaign about Bush on one issue where Bush and McCain are closely tied to each other.

    You can make a reasonable argument that Bush's statement was a veiled reference to Obama but it wasn't explicit.  Good (and fast) work by team Obama turning it into an issue.

    The only element of danger for Obama is that Bush made his comment in Israel, and Obama's been working very hard to build bridges (I wrote "suck up", but I thought that might be too confrontational) with pro-Israel groups lately.

    Heh (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by Steve M on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:34:50 PM EST
    If Obama thinks the way to score points off this is to whine like John Kerry about how "sad" and "regrettable" Bush's remarks are, then I've seen this movie before.

    You generally shouldn't welcome a fight unless you're in the mood to fight.

    [ Parent ]

    Huh?? (1.00 / 0) (#80)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:46:54 PM EST
    The Repubs want Obama to turn it into an issue. It requires specific statements and brings in a whole host of side issues including the The Reverend, Ayers and who do you want answering the phone at 3AM.

    Obama would be best served to try and not look worse.

    [ Parent ]

    I suppose so (none / 0) (#119)
    by Salo on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:10:28 PM EST
    Howvere Gerany was the 31 military power in the world 1937-42, so noone really got to tell them what to do.  

    No-one gets to tell the US what to do either.

    [ Parent ]

    #1 military power (none / 0) (#120)
    by Salo on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:10:49 PM EST
    scuse me.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama as wimp? (none / 0) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:34:47 PM EST
    I think not.

    It is good to pin McCain on this but I am not sure this is quite as politically positive for Obama as you seem to.

    Obama and Hamas in  the same sentence is not so good imo.

    [ Parent ]

    Well, get ready... (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by masslib on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:52:08 PM EST
    if he is the nominee you are going to see his name linked to terrorist over and over again, particularly that relationship with William Ayers.  

    [ Parent ]
    there will be a neologism (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by Salo on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:08:21 PM EST
    Obhamas.  His name is ripe for it.

    [ Parent ]
    But McCain is working so hard to distinguish (none / 0) (#181)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:06:56 PM EST
    himself from Bush and Bush destroys those efforts in a few moments.

    I expect that the Obama camp recognizes the danger you point to, thus the measured nature fo their response.  But it is a net negative for McCain IMO.

    [ Parent ]

    Bush and McCain (none / 0) (#58)
    by cannondaddy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:36:03 PM EST
    speaking with one mouth.  That man-hug picture will be burned into everyone's retinas by late September.

    [ Parent ]
    That picture. . . (none / 0) (#74)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:43:28 PM EST
    plus McCain's on-tape statement that he really doesn't know very much about the economy will, hopefully, be the major plot points in the upcoming release "John McCain and the Campaign of DOOM".

    [ Parent ]
    Well If A Picture Hugging Bush Will (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:05:05 PM EST
    do a candidate in, why is Lieberman still in the senate?

    McCain's comment regarding the economy is much better IMO.

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah, I think people are (none / 0) (#163)
    by ruffian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:46:38 PM EST
    putting way too much faith in that picture.

    [ Parent ]
    And Obama's (1.00 / 0) (#85)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:48:53 PM EST
    objection to extending the Bush tax cuts will show him to be what???

    A Demo Pres wanting to take more money out of our pockets.

    [ Parent ]

    Actually only part of them (none / 0) (#115)
    by cannondaddy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:07:07 PM EST
    the marriage penalty repeal and child tax stay intact.  He's only going to roll back the upper income tax breaks.  He has pledge to cut income taxes for the middle class.  McCain's "middle class tax cut" is a repeal of the AMT, which is really an upper middle class tax cut.  I've never earned enough to pay AMT.

    [ Parent ]
    heh (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:31:15 PM EST
    My wife's anger at Obama over the "sweetie" incident was somewhat defused when I pointed out how this incident shows the GOP to be far, far more scummy.

    So being a little scummy is OK?
     

    Well (none / 0) (#46)
    by Steve M on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:32:34 PM EST
    There will only be two names on the ballot in November, so you choose your poison.

    [ Parent ]
    I choose neither. (5.00 / 4) (#89)
    by masslib on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:50:12 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    As will I! (5.00 / 4) (#128)
    by alexei on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:16:03 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Actually, Steve sweetie, (none / 0) (#213)
    by oldpro on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:27:14 PM EST
    there will be at least half a dozen.

    (I'm going to start using the 'sweetie' add-on with perfect strangers, now that it has been modeled by Barack.  Previously, I'd save it for my only son and cute little kids under 6 or 7).

    Don't take it personally...it's just a bad habit I have (of mimicing the speech of those on TV).

    [ Parent ]

    How presumptive of Obama (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by PainKillerJayne on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:34:16 PM EST
    to think Bush was speaking of him. Welcome to the "Big Top" Barry.

    (no names were mentioned)

    That's why they call him. . . (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:44:27 PM EST
    How presumptive of Obama

    the presumptive nominee!

    [ Parent ]

    Not everything is about Obama (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:45:31 PM EST
    I don't see the attack against Obama. I'll bet a good researcher could find plenty of people in politics who take that stand.

    If that is a good characterization of Obama's policy idea, so much so that Obama believes this is all about him, maybe Obama should explain, though.

    Sounds like more of Bush's sarcasim in defense of himself and his many bad decisions, and a blanket critisim of all who disagree.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes. I must be really obtuse, because (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by chancellor on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:16:15 PM EST
    I thought it was a slam at Jimmy Carter. I guess I just didn't see this being specifically directed toward Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    Bush is hiding behind (none / 0) (#130)
    by Salo on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:16:16 PM EST
    the noble struggles of ww2 to excuse his own failed war.

    [ Parent ]
    Joe Biden, turning in his VP audition tape (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by ruffian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:39:48 PM EST
    This is what it takes.  But it has to come from the top of the ticket too.  

    Not a word blizzard like Obama and Kerry prefer.

    Check out (5.00 / 4) (#94)
    by madamab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:52:03 PM EST
    Paul Begala's response.

    This is how it's done.

    "Bush negotiates with terrorists all the time."

    Bingo.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh that is good (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by ruffian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:44:06 PM EST
    on many levels.  Assume Obama and not Clinton is the one being called the appeaser (even though Bush sees them both the same), attack Bush, and then throw in an 'oh by the way, I don't support Obama, and my candidate Clinton does not negotiate with Iran without preconditions.'

    He's the man.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't entirely agree but (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by rilkefan on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:51:36 PM EST
    I don't know that Bush's statement is that far out from fairly standard policy/rhetoric.  He's been saying that kind of thing for years I think.

    That is (none / 0) (#96)
    by rilkefan on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:52:18 PM EST
    I'm sympathetic to your argument but etc.

    [ Parent ]
    Propaganda? (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by squeaky on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:53:09 PM EST
    ONe of the main reasons I can never vote for Obama is his appeasment policy to Mid east.

    You are pulling that stuff out of your butt. His mid east policy is just as reactionary as Hillary's is.

    I agree with you on this (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by tree on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:22:28 PM EST
    Their middle east policies are not very different, and both of them are appeasing Israel for domesic political reasons, which is counterproductive to a just solution to the problem.

    [ Parent ]
    Rather suspect Obama's to her left on fp (none / 0) (#106)
    by rilkefan on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:00:53 PM EST
    I liked WJC's attempted course on most things (obviously not Rwanda) though.  HRC would probably have to act in a more muscular fashion than Obama to maintain cred.

    [ Parent ]
    Keep guessing... (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by madamab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:03:13 PM EST
    he has publicly and repeatedly vowed to emulate the foreign policies of GHW Bush and Ronald Reagan.

    Obama is not to HRC's left on anything, least of all FP.

    [ Parent ]

    This is a blatant misreading of Obama (none / 0) (#123)
    by rilkefan on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:13:01 PM EST
    Bush père took a lot of classically liberal positions of fp which HRC would praise if she needed to.  Reagan negotiated with the Russkis.  I thought it was awful framing for Obama to say what he said about HW and Ronnie, but looking at his past positions and statements and his current advisors, he's probably a bit to HRC's left on fp.  From a global point of view their positions are hardly different, but from a US POV they are distinguishable.

    Topically, you can't deny she's more hawkish on Israel.

    [ Parent ]

    I am not deliberately misreading Obama (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by madamab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:26:10 PM EST
    but I was alive and sentient during the reigns of Raygun and GHW Bush. Guess what, we managed to get into costly and far-reaching wars during all of their tenures and avoid them during Clinton's. Quelle surprise.

    HRC is certainly too hawkish for me, but I don't see how Obama is any less so. His advisers sure don't make me feel any better about him - they are hawkish too. Samantha Power is an idiot as well. And no, I don't think he's any less of an Israel backer than HRC is. He wouldn't have gotten far in Congress if he didn't bow to AIPAC. He just denounced Jimmeh for meeting with Hamas. Why do you think that was?

    Sure, Obama gave one safe liberal speech on the Iraq war. But that doesn't mean he's to the left of HRC. His votes speak much louder to me.

    [ Parent ]

    Pay attention, I didn't say "deliberate" (none / 0) (#178)
    by rilkefan on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:03:23 PM EST
    "He just denounced Jimmeh for meeting with Hamas. Why do you think that was?"

    Because it's against US, UN, European policy?

    Obama has moved rhetorically a bit rightwards because he was getting hurt by HRC, but it's obviously, duh, rhetorical.  He's to her left on fp, to her right on domestic policy.

    [ Parent ]

    It just amazes me (none / 0) (#197)
    by madamab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:15:15 PM EST
    how I am taking him at his word, looking at all the evidence and his positions and his advisors as you suggested I do, and I am "misreading" him.

    Whereas you are guessing and hoping, and you are the one who knows all.

    Duh indeed.

    [ Parent ]

    Bush is an idiot (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by dissenter on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:55:20 PM EST
    But you are absolutely right. After working in both Iraq and Afghanistan I know exactly what you are talking about. This is the problem with Obama. He doesn't understand blue collar workers let alone angry Muslims or even moderate Arabs.

    He has no understanding of how things work over there. He doesn't understand the mindset; even for conducting business. He thinks he is talking to Canadian leaders. I do not understand why democrats can't understand this. The world is not the same as America.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Steve M on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:58:27 PM EST
    Obama has spent much of the campaign walking back his early statements about meeting our enemies without preconditions, etc.  It's clear that he doesn't actually believe that, but he made an unfortunate decision to ratify a bad debate answer in order to try and paint Hillary as a warmonger.  He clearly gets that the position you're concerned about is a nonstarter.

    But the Damage is Done (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by dissenter on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:03:04 PM EST
    That is what people don't understand I think. He is perceived in a certain way and that isn't going to change now. When you make statements over here about that part of the world you better be clear, and right the first time. End of story. If you do not, you are just thought of as weak and easy to manipulate. That is what Clinton got and Obama didn't. He could never negotiate in that part of the world successfully now on anything.

    He is totally damaged goods.

    [ Parent ]

    Sadly, you are correct. (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by madamab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    He should know how to respond better than he has, but in the end, he can't WORM his way out of what he said before.

    And his associations with Hamas and Ayers will be amplified into a massive problem.

    [ Parent ]

    There is the possibility that this is also an (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:12:55 PM EST
    attempt to cut into the Jewish vote here in America. Two for the price of one. IOW Obama is weak on terror and weak in his support of Israel.

    [ Parent ]
    Well (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by Steve M on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:17:42 PM EST
    That's a 100% given.  This has been Republican strategy for a long time now.  I've been having a very hard time convincing some of my Jewish colleagues at work that Obama has acceptable positions on Israel.

    [ Parent ]
    I Think You Will Have A Harder Time Between (none / 0) (#154)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:41:16 PM EST
    now and November. There is a lot of conflicting information floating around about Obama's stance early in his political career in IL and now that he has become the presidential nominee.

    Not saying that Obama positions are not acceptable.  Unfortunately there is information (statements, associates and advisors) that generate doubts which will be emphasized and exaggerated by the Republicans.

    [ Parent ]

    Yep (none / 0) (#133)
    by dissenter on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:18:50 PM EST
    This will help McCain and Clinton because it shines a light on his deficiencies in so many areas. You just keep totaling them up and it equals UNELECTABLE.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm sorry... (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by OrangeFur on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:18:08 PM EST
    I can't stand Bush at all, but I glanced through the speech, and couldn't find the offending line. Does he actually refer to Obama in it anywhere? Can someone enlighten me? I feel kind of dense.

    overheated reaction to "some" =Obama? (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by noholib on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:48:40 PM EST
    Dear OrangeFur and others,

    I assume people are referring to these lines:
    "There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain their words away. This is natural. But it is deadly wrong. ...
    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."

    I don't see this as a McCarthyite slur at all or directed particularly at Senator Obama. Some people do think it takes only sitting down and talking to solve problems, while some think one has to talk to one's enemies even if only to know them better so as to combat them better.  President Bush could mean Senator Obama, he could mean President Carter, he could mean Senator Kerry in the last campaign, he could mean a host of others, including all Democrats and all critics of his foreign policy. I think there is a vastly overheated reaction to this on today's blog, with an undue focus on Senator Obama. It is a larger question: how to deal with terrorists and radicals?  with sweet reason? with hard-headed talks? with an attempt to see if there is any common ground (there may well not be)?  with defensive preparation? with an ostrich like Condi/Bush August 2001 approach?  Please let's remember what Richard Clarke was arguing about the Republican Administration's failure to heed the warnings and connect the dots -- partly because that would have looked like continuity with the Bill Clinton administration! The Bush administration committed an "original sin" in summer 2001 and has been in guilt-ridden over-reaction ever since. But, how to deal with terrorism is a REAL issue for this country, so I wouldn't get sidetracked with charges of McCarthyism at this point.  In my opinion, this speech is not the moment to pivot to Senator Obama and come to his defense because the poor man's reputation has been sullied. President Bush has bigger fish to fry in this.  And the issues are indeed serious and worthy of serious attention.  THat being said, let me assure you that I don't agree with President Bush's approach, and I think his administration is also guilty of having completely dropped the ball on Afghanistan and al-Qaeda, partly because of his obsession with Iraq.

    [ Parent ]

    The Soviets (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by dissenter on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:21:59 PM EST
    are not Arabs or Muslims. All of this WW2, Cold War stuff is irrelevant whether it is coming from republicans or democrats.

    Here is a suggestion. Go volunteer to serve your country in Iraq and Afghanistan and then come back and tell me that Barack Obama is going to be an asset in ending any violence. You will be sadly schooled in the ways of the Muslim world.

    I have to negotiate with Muslim leaders all the time as do my counterparts working across all ministries. They have NO respect for BO because he looks weak to them.

    Thin ice - watch the generalizations n/t (none / 0) (#143)
    by rilkefan on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:25:10 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Genralizations? (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by dissenter on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:35:25 PM EST
    I am talking facts. That is my job over there as it is for lots of other people who work with their counterparts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    THEY are the ones that tell us nobody respects him not the other way around. It is a little disheartening even for a Clinton supporter since I am being shot at all the time in an effort to IMPROVE things.

    They respect toughness and frankly, lots of them, brutality. You may not like that and it might not fit in with political correctness but that is the way the world works over there.

    They laugh at democracy and individual rights.  They understand power only.

    [ Parent ]

    yup (none / 0) (#171)
    by Salo on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:52:27 PM EST
    Obama has no particular intrinsic ability to quiet down the fighting or hostility in the ME.

    And he gave an answer about Iran that could end up being used against him.

    Still, ww2 and the Nazis bear no relation to th emilitias and tribes and cells that the US is fighting.

    The Soviet's and the wider Communist movement do bear some relation given their exploitation of guerilla tactics and bombings.  That struggle required the US to use covert means as well as diplomatic means.

    [ Parent ]

    You know what is weird though (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by dissenter on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:15:16 PM EST
    for as much as the Afghans hated the soviets, they really liked some things. We are going through this process to get people into ministries based on merit not family relations. There is great resistance because the Afghans think the ministries should just hire as many people as possible for $50 a month instead of paying more to Afghans that went to college and can actually improve their country.

    The pay is so low that most educated Afghans don't want to work for Afghanistan, but rather us. Or they want out. Anyway, we have been trying to show them a way forward utilizing educated Afghans and they resist and resist and resist. Meanwhile, the country goes to hell, educated Afghans are doing everything they can to leave the country and the corruption level makes the Iraqi Govt look like a well run civil service.

    This $50 mindset came from the soviets. I once asked a minister if they liked this approach so much why they kicked the soviets out. It was a joke, kinda but it did take him a minute to smile and then say good point.

    [ Parent ]

    I can't believe (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by pie on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:23:39 PM EST
    we're still getting people defending George Bush, the least popular and worst president we've ever had.  The man has zero accomplishments and will leave the country far, far worse than when he came in.

    I thought the few remaining kool-aid drinkers had all faded into the woodwork by now.  Of course, there's always McCain to defend from similarities.

    Too Sensitive (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Barbara D on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:24:31 PM EST
    This is the same position Bush has had through out his tenure in office. (That it hasn't worked doesn't stop him from having disdain for anyone who disagrees with him.) He could have been directly speaking to Jimmy Carter, Obama or anyone else who would open talks with Iran or one of its sponsored organizations.

    Obama has been trying to back pedal from his statement that he would meet unconditionally with the president of Iran from the time he made the statement during one of the early debates. (Recently, Susan Rice claimed he didn't say he would meet unconditionally.) He needs to clarify what approach he will take to the Middle East.

    Complaining about a vague comment by a lame (duck) president is at best overly sensitive and at worst paranoid. Either way, it isn't very presidential.

    Why are you surprised? (4.33 / 6) (#4)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:15:07 PM EST
    Welcome to real American politics.  Let's see where the whining blogosphere and MSM will do now.  

    Did anyone think they will let go of power like that?  

    Well, I think someone stepped into a trap... (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by Leisa on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:20:28 PM EST
    there were no names mentioned, even Carter was just in the Middle East talking to Hamas leaders...  

    The response by Obama and his surrogates will blow back on them as a campaign that makes mountains out of mole hills. The narrative has begun.  Obama is going to be shredded in the fall if he continues to spin things as an attack against him the way he did against Hillary.  

    [ Parent ]

    DK is mad at Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by Josey on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:07:32 PM EST
    because she hasn't issued a press release defending THE ONE.


    [ Parent ]
    Holy crap, are you serious? (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by masslib on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:10:00 PM EST
    Jesus, she's not his mother.  

    [ Parent ]
    nothing new there.if she passed away, (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by hellothere on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:10:24 PM EST
    they'd be mad because of press coverage.

    [ Parent ]
    Isn't He Capable Of Defending Himself? (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:12:22 PM EST
    DK thrives on Hillary hatred now. Permanent outrage. So what else is new.

    [ Parent ]
    IACF! (none / 0) (#188)
    by madamab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:08:55 PM EST
    Begala has already given the response, by the way.

    Guess Orange Satanites don't read HuffPo.

    [ Parent ]

    Suppose Hillary is just (none / 0) (#195)
    by zfran on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:12:31 PM EST
    letting Obama "handle" it for all of us to see..

    [ Parent ]
    Not everything is about Hillary (none / 0) (#201)
    by dmfox on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:17:27 PM EST
    Geesh, can't you take Obama's side on this one after a vile attack from Bush?

    It's not all about Hillary-Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    The MSM is saying GWB (none / 0) (#207)
    by zfran on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:20:11 PM EST
    was making these remarks toward Jimmy Carter and his recent Hamas visit and all others who might agree with Carter's way. He never mentioned Obama, altho' I believe he meant him. Shouldn't have said it, but let Obama handle it, let's see out of this what we see!!

    [ Parent ]
    Right On Stellaaa....The Teflon obama Thought (3.00 / 2) (#22)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:24:29 PM EST
    his super shield would be enough to keep people
    from attacking him.  Looks like it isn't true and it is just beginning for him.  bush will not be the only one dogging him.  And he thought Hillary was bad....bwaaaahahahahahaha

    [ Parent ]
    Hmmm . . . (none / 0) (#176)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:00:04 PM EST
    Bush did Obama a favor today.

    [ Parent ]
    He's doing it to help Obama (none / 0) (#29)
    by Davidson on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:27:35 PM EST
    He's trying to rally the Democratic troops around Obama and make the calls for "Unity now!" seem more necessary.  He knows that with CDS at full alert, it'll somehow be spun to demonize Clinton, like, "The Republicans want Clinton; they're scared of Obama!" which is just not true.  Obama is a godsend to the flailing GOP.  They won't have to smear Obama, he's that easy to defeat.

    Bush is many things, but he's not stupid when it comes to helping a Republican win the WH.

    [ Parent ]

    Heh...Obama has to defend himself (4.00 / 4) (#40)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:30:42 PM EST
    I am not running to his assistance.  

    [ Parent ]
    I am not running to his assistance. (none / 0) (#149)
    by uncledad on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:31:11 PM EST
    So do you stand with bu$hco, McSame, Lieberman and the neoconsuperfratboy's? Do you think we should never have dimplomacy with our enemy's?

    [ Parent ]
    No, but neither did Hillary (none / 0) (#206)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:20:04 PM EST
    and Obama has to show us how he will defend against the RNC

    [ Parent ]
    Won't work for me (none / 0) (#86)
    by BarnBabe on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:48:57 PM EST
    GW rallying us does not cut the mustard. Sorry. And I don't think Bush means anything to most people. Just the guy we are replacing soon.

    [ Parent ]
    he is trying to help mccain and (none / 0) (#156)
    by hellothere on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:43:05 PM EST
    most important george opens mouth and inserts foot quite often.

    [ Parent ]
    In this BTD . . . (3.00 / 2) (#175)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:58:33 PM EST
    you speak for all of us.

    It was good to see Dems stand together today in expressing outrage at Bush's disgusting display.

    BTD writes (1.00 / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:23:10 PM EST
    There is a famous truism that politics ends at the waters' edge

    Then why have the Democrats and the anti-war Left been attacking the President for the past 7 years??

    The attacking overseas is the point Jim (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:26:13 PM EST
    Surely you do not require silence at home as well?

    [ Parent ]
    As you understood (1.00 / 0) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:33:54 PM EST
    My point was, is and will be the hypocrisy that has been demonstrated by the Demos and anti-war Left in this matter.

    [ Parent ]
    But you make no sense (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:37:34 PM EST
    That is often the problem with your points Jim.

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (none / 0) (#63)
    by Steve M on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:38:05 PM EST
    You are alluding to what?  Jim McDermott?  If you want to actually bring up specific incidents of Democrats criticizing Bush in front of foreign audiences, you might even get BTD to agree with you that it was wrong.

    Recall that when Hugo Chavez made his inflammatory statements about Bush at the UN, even Charlie Rangel had the President's back.

    [ Parent ]

    On McDermott (none / 0) (#92)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:51:23 PM EST

    I did agree with Jim's criticism of his statements in Iraq as a matter of fact.

    [ Parent ]
    How did I know? (none / 0) (#172)
    by Steve M on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:56:29 PM EST
    Actually sort of a no-brainer IMO.

    By a funny coincidence, I see Jim McDermott has chosen today to endorse Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    perhaps (none / 0) (#45)
    by dws3665 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:32:13 PM EST
    he thought the water's edge being referred to was the Potomac?

    [ Parent ]
    Presidents are supposed (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by HelenK on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:27:45 PM EST
    to leave partisan politics at the border, not regular people.

    I always were my "no bush" pin, a W with a line through it, when I go to Europe. Then everyone knows I did not vote for him.

    [ Parent ]

    My comment (1.00 / 1) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:37:33 PM EST
    defined the anti-War left and the Demos. Now, if you want to claim the anti-war Left as "regular people" be my guest.

    I don't.

    [ Parent ]

    Go with up is down if works for you n/t (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by rilkefan on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:47:13 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    You misunderstand (none / 0) (#39)
    by rilkefan on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:30:40 PM EST
    It means pols shouldn't go to foreign countries and criticize the president.  Standing on American soil you can say what you want.

    Not my favorite rule but the idea is the country is a representational democracy and should present a unified front to the world on foreign policy.

    [ Parent ]

    So you think (1.00 / 1) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:35:32 PM EST
    that none of the comments by Reid, Pelosi, etc., haven't been read over seas?

    Amazing. Truly amazing.

    [ Parent ]

    Gosh (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Steve M on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:40:25 PM EST
    Well if that's the standard - don't criticize the President if someone overseas might repeat it - then I think you have a major problem with the American notion of free speech.

    I wonder if you applied the same standard to the Republicans who attacked Clinton's foreign policy in the 90s, the ones who accused him of "wagging the dog" for trying to kill Osama bin Laden.  Gosh, I'm sure our enemies must have lapped that up, hearing Republican Senators and Congressmen assert that the attack launched by the President was nothing more than a domestic political ploy.

    [ Parent ]

    And the answer is (1.00 / 0) (#102)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:57:23 PM EST
    I wonder if you applied the same standard to the Republicans who attacked Clinton's foreign policy in the 90s,

    Yes I did.

    I also didn't think we should go into Kosovo and told all my Congressional folks.

    But when Clinton went anyway I shut up and supported his policy and the troops.

    As for free speech.... You have that right.

    You also have something called a responsibility...

    [ Parent ]

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Steve M on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:07:32 PM EST
    Your formulation of the water's-edge rule, that we must never utter a discouraging word about a war once it's been started, has seemingly never been observed throughout our history.  What war have we fought that was never questioned by the domestic political opposition?

    Heck, the Republicans in Congress conducted an investigation of whether FDR had foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor while the war was still going on.

    This is why I yawn when you try to paint the current version of the Democrats as somehow treasonous.  If it's a treason, then it's a sort of treason that has taken place repeatedly and consistently throughout our history.

    Do you think it could ever be in America's interests to end a war, any war, and bring our troops home?  If so, then why should it be a patriot's responsibility not to say so?

    [ Parent ]

    Iraq is a catastrophe. (none / 0) (#124)
    by Salo on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:13:15 PM EST
    The architect of that catastrophe should not be allowed to hide behind the nobility of the struggle of ww2.

    [ Parent ]
    Hello, it's a democracy (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by rilkefan on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:42:41 PM EST
    See the idiotic stuff the Republicans said about Clinton's intervention in Bosnia.  Bush's foreign policy has been objectively catastrophic, and citizens have the right to say so when they're not representing the country as a whole (well, when Obama is president he can do so in measured terms).

    [ Parent ]
    And no (none / 0) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:39:16 PM EST
    it doesn't mean that.

    It means that during the time of war the parties put politics behind them and work on winning the war.

    [ Parent ]

    There's always a war (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by rilkefan on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:45:24 PM EST
    - hot, cold, on terra, ...  The gates of the temple of Janus are always open.  And your policy would ensure that tyrants would ensure that to be the case in perpetuity.

    [ Parent ]
    Permanent War (none / 0) (