George W. Bush Reaches New Political Low

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 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    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.

    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!

    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.

    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


    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.

    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!

    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.


    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.


    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.



    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.  

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.)


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


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

    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.


    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.  

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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".

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    I choose neither. (5.00 / 4) (#89)
    by masslib on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:50:12 PM EST
    As will I! (5.00 / 4) (#128)
    by alexei on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:16:03 PM EST
    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).


    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!


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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."



    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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
    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.  


    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.

    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.  

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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..

    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.


    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!!

    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

    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.

    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.


    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.  

    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?

    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

    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.

    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.

    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?

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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?

    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.


    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.


    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
    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.


    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.


    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.


    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...


    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?


    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.

    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).

    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.


    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.

    Permanent War (none / 0) (#88)
    by squeaky on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:49:49 PM EST
    Permanent power to silence dissent, suspend constitutional rights, and disregard international laws. That is his point and the keystone of neocon philosophy.

    Again, why should I bother to support Obama? (1.00 / 1) (#146)
    by mrmobi on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:27:30 PM EST
    Ummm, because he's a Democrat, and, the last time I checked, you guys were calling yourselves Democrats in here.

    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.

    Clearly, the Israeli people are "naive," and agree with the "appeaser" Obama. Why do the Israeli people hate Israel?

    Al Qaeda are more like the Soviets than the Nazis.  That means you need a cold war strategy of selective engagment designed to discredit and cripple rather than conventional war like ww2.

    Total fail. Al Qaeda = no infrastructure, no country, no uniformed army, no (thank Christ) nuclear weapons. What is needed is what John Kerry  argued for in 2004. This war should be a police action, run in concert with heavy diplomatic and covert intelligence actions.

    Think about it. Why was the Afghanistan War so short? Because there was almost nothing to bomb. Think about this, too. We bomb a terrorist training camp, with, say a $1 million dollar cruise missile or a 1/2 million dollar smart bomb. We go away, as we always do (see Charley Wilson's War), and they rebuild it for $50,000.

    Who loses in the long run? And who pays for this kind of idiotic policy?

    For whatever reason (1.00 / 0) (#224)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:35:57 PM EST
    I can't respond to individual comments..

    Steve M -

    This is why I yawn when you try to paint the current version of the Democrats as somehow treasonous.

    Please don't put words in my mouth. Not responsible, yes. Encouraging the enemey, yes. Treason, no.

    I repeat. The "at the water's edge" comment does not refer to what is said "overseas," but the need for a bi-partisan foreign policy during war time.

    The fact that both sides have violated it has nothing to do with the harm caused.

    Helenk -

    Let's talk about Nazi COLLABORATORS for a moment.

    Woops, George, that would be YOUR GRANDFATHER. Maybe you don't want to go there.

    Let's talk about Muslims for a moment and men abandoning their children.

    Woops, Obama, that would be YOUR FATHER. Maybe you don't want to go there,

    Now HelenK, do you really want to visit the sins of the fathers and grandfathers on the sons and daughters? At what point would you stop? Shall we condemn the Japanese for attacking us? Shall we bomb Hanoi because they breached the treaty causing millions to die? Shall we nuke the Chinese  because they attacked us in Korea?

    Let's take it as a serious argument. (none / 0) (#1)
    by Salo on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:11:03 PM EST
    because your answer does not defuse the point he makes.

    Someone ought to point out that Chamberlain declared war on Germany when the Germans rolled into Poland. FDR wanted to help the Polish British and French but the GOP blocked him.

    That unsettles Bush's historical point.

    The next point to counter it with is this:

    Al Qaeda are more like the Soviets than the Nazis.  That means you need a cold war strategy of selective engagment designed to discredit and cripple rather than conventional war like ww2.

    George W. Bush (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by madamab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:22:09 PM EST
    is a complete and utter disgrace and embarrassment to the United States, as well as a contemptible war criminal and traitor.


    I firmly believe that the propaganda Bush catapults cannot be countered by logic. His statements are Rove-designed to appeal to the emotions only, and are always rooted in some form of truthiness. Look how many people still believe Obama is a Muslim...because he has Muslims in his family and his church supports Louis Farrakhan.

    The true believers to whom Bush speaks will always believe the worst about Democrats. It's just a small leap to say that Obama sympathizes with terrorists. He's close to William Ayers and supports talking to Ahmadenijad without preconditions, after all. It's vile and disgusting but it's not shocking.

    We can only counter this type of stuff by reframing the issues. However, Bush and the Republicans have the media on their side and it's not easy to do. Bush has just given the signal that it's gloves-off time on our presumptuous nominee.

    Will Obama be able to use his eloquence, big cash reserves and Party support to defuse their attacks? Or will the right-wing scream machine destroy him?

    Time will tell.


    he need to rhetorically (none / 0) (#103)
    by Salo on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:57:49 PM EST
    kick Bush's rhetorical teeth in.

    The point is (1.00 / 0) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:21:24 PM EST
    Germany would not have attacked Poland had Chamberlain not traded "peace in our time," a few months, for years and years of hellish war.

    germany was hell bent on war (none / 0) (#101)
    by Salo on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:56:45 PM EST
    in 1918. They just decided to retool.

    You needed a massive coalition to stop them: Russians, British French  Americans acting in concert. Appeasment was a side issue--it didn't cause the problem with Germany, and I doubt Chamberlain really thought it would stop German aggression.

    Obama needs to hit back very very hard.


    so who exactly is Hitler in your equation? (none / 0) (#114)
    by seesdifferent on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:06:53 PM EST

    that historical event has nothing to do with what's going on in the Middle East. What country has Iran ever invaded? We are creating more terrorists every day in the middle east with our occupation of Iraq. And why are we there? to attempt to rob their oil. Everyone knows that.

    If you searching for historical precedents, Napoleon is a much better one. I would suggest you take a look at Juan Cole's site.


    Bush saw 300 (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Salo on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:14:51 PM EST
    and wanted to get his own back on the bejeweled Persian emperor for killing Captain America and his well oiled and speedo clad body guard.

    LOL!!! (none / 0) (#147)
    by madamab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:29:14 PM EST
    I think you have captured Bush's thought processes precisely. Bravo!

    and then ridicule Bush for losing (none / 0) (#2)
    by Salo on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:13:22 PM EST
    that war over an 8 year long disaster.

    Accuse Bush of losing the war.


    Better yet (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by andgarden on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:15:34 PM EST
    "Mr. President, where is Osama Bin Laden?"

    They must hit him back and bury (none / 0) (#8)
    by Salo on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:16:54 PM EST
    him in counter accusations.

    Prescott Bush, anyone? (none / 0) (#21)
    by HelenK on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:24:28 PM EST
    Let's talk about Nazi COLLABORATORS for a moment.

    Woops, George, that would be YOUR GRANDFATHER. Maybe you don't want to go there.


    No one ever brings that up... (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by madamab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:26:42 PM EST
    if I were being attacked this way, that's the FIRST PLACE I'd go.

    Heh (none / 0) (#83)
    by Steve M on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:48:16 PM EST
    I actually think the whole Prescott Bush thing is a bit of liberal mythology, kinda like that story about Poppy Bush and the supermarket scanner.

    Did Bush have investments in pre-war Germany, sure, but it's just sort of a gotcha.  Lots of people had similar dealings with Germany, it doesn't mean they collaborated with the Nazi regime or had any idea how evil its intentions were.  I'm pretty sure Prescott Bush was no Henry Ford.


    Um, no... (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by madamab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:58:20 PM EST
    Prescott Bush actually had his company's assets seized for Trading with the Enemy.

    He was the real deal.


    I dunno (none / 0) (#110)
    by Steve M on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:03:12 PM EST
    I still think it's a gotcha.  There was no indication he was personally involved or that he sympathized with Hitler.

    I mean, I get tired of conservatives constantly bringing up Robert Byrd's history with the KKK, and that's actually factual.  Maybe I just get fatigued by this sort of accusation in general.


    Come on Steve M.. (none / 0) (#127)
    by madamab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:15:43 PM EST
    Bush's Nazi past and present is incredibly germane to how he and his team are governing the US. Byrd's KKK past is a gotcha because it doesn't pertain.

    Bush surrounds himself with Nazi sympathizers. KKKarl admires Goebbels. Rumsfeld admires the Anschluss. The Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, the spying on Americans - all right out of the Nazi playbook.

    I would have had no qualms whatsoever.


    France and germany (none / 0) (#91)
    by Salo on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:50:36 PM EST
    were each other's biggest trading partners, so it's a moot issue.

    Not Only Pre War (none / 0) (#121)
    by squeaky on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:12:34 PM EST
    But during the war. He was in essence Thyssen's banker.

    It was a matter of public record that the Bush holdings were seized by the US government after the Nazis overran Holland. In 1951, the Bush's reclaimed Union Bank from the US Alien Property Custodian, along with their "neutral" Dutch assets.


    And I guess by "lots of people" you mean Rockefeller.


    If anyone knows... (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by desertswine on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:53:13 PM EST
    about NAZI sympathizers, its certainly the Bush family.

    Bush is an absolute disgrace and embarrasment to us all.

    Why the hell wasn't this jamoke impeached.


    Is this sentence the attack you're referring to? (none / 0) (#6)
    by fctchekr on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:16:18 PM EST
    "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."

    President Who? (none / 0) (#11)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:19:05 PM EST
    Forgot all about that irrelevant little weasel.

    I only skimmed... (none / 0) (#12)
    by NWHiker on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:19:34 PM EST
    Because I can imagine his voice reading and it gives me the icky creepy crawlies... but where does he attack Obama? I searched for names, campaign, candidate and didn't see any mention of Obama.

    In other words. I'm missing something. Can someone please enlighten me?

    This. (none / 0) (#14)
    by Faust on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:21:29 PM EST
    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. We have heard this foolish delusion before. 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.

    Saw this update at Think Progress: (none / 0) (#16)
    by Anne on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:21:37 PM EST
    The Group News Blog reports that the senator quoted by Bush in his speech was a Republican Senator, William Boria (R) from Idaho.

    Although there doesn't seem to be any actual attribution link that points to Boria, so, who knows?

    That Bush failed to name the "American Senator" that he cast as a Nazi appeaser made it too easy for people to assume he was speaking about Obama, which leads one to suppose that it was a deliberate failure.

    And, of course, Joe Lieberman agreed with the characterization, which makes me hope that in January, 2009, we can finally kick Lieberman to the other side of the aisle.  Although, if McCain is elected, I suspect Lieberman will make the leap on his own, with much fanfare.

    What's your point? (1.00 / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:29:20 PM EST
    The Repubs in 1940 were isolationists, just as many in the Demo party is now. All educated people know that.

    And this is what Bush said:

    We have heard this foolish delusion before. 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.'

    Since 1939 is 69 years ago no reasonable person can think that Bush was calling Obama a "Nazi appeaser."



    I am so terribly sorry - I didn't realize the (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Anne on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:37:32 PM EST
    big difference between being called an actual Nazi appeaser and being compared to someone who was seen as one.

    Please tell me you don't think the segue Bush made from saying that "some" want to talk to terrorists, to his little anecdote about the American Senator in 1939 was just a coincidence.

    If Obama thinks he is going to deflect these kinds of attacks with gentlemanly serves over the net, he's in for a rough ride.

    I can't wait to hear how Clinton responds.


    I'm sorry, you are right of course (none / 0) (#79)
    by ruffian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:46:39 PM EST
    It is the comparison that is insulting.

    And Obama's response is lacking fire, to say the least.  We can only expect an escalation of this kind of talk from Bush in the coming months.  He loves it, and it makes him relevant again.  Obama needs to sharpen it up.  The fan boys seem to think that  being quick to the internets with a response is enough.


    Yes - I agree (none / 0) (#50)
    by ruffian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:33:33 PM EST
    he may be alluding to Obama in the first part of the passage, but no one can really believe he is saying Obama was a Senator when the Nazis invaded Poland.  Not even McCain is that old.



    Now that I have read the remarks several (none / 0) (#34)
    by Anne on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:28:15 PM EST
    times, I see where Obama felt attacked - because he was - but I agree that Obama's response was very Kerry-esque; made me wonder if Kerry wrote it, actually.

    If this is all Obama can come back with, things are a lot worse than I thought.


    Obama's response (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by madamab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:33:22 PM EST
    is 100% Obama.

    He has responded exactly the same way the last couple of times McCain attacked him.

    Again, why should I bother to support Obama? HRC would have eviscerated him.


    There's (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:42:17 PM EST
    no point. It's Kerry the return. Ugh. Can someone just make Obama go away for 6 months if he's the nominee and pop back up right before the Nov. elections? I have no desire for a repeat of 2004. However, with Obama that looks to be exactly what it will be. Start working on those downticket races I guess. Whatever.

    Has our political system ever been in such a mess?


    In the long run the downticket races (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by ruffian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:50:22 PM EST
    are more important.  go for it!  

    I also saw enough of this movie in 2004. It doesn't end well.


    William Borah (none / 0) (#41)
    by ruffian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:31:01 PM EST
    is who I think they must mean.  

    So, not everything is about (none / 0) (#51)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:33:34 PM EST
    Obama? I only read an article on bush's speech because of the Obama reply to it. My first thought was the comment really may not have been directed at any one person. Heaven knows there are more than a handful of people who don't agree with bush on anything.

    Obama might want to change his response to, "he wasn't talking about me" and let bush deal with his latest dreadful comments all by himself.

    The man doesn't have an ounce of credibility.


    I agree: Obama turned this into a story (5.00 / 3) (#139)
    by Davidson on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:23:21 PM EST
    I've reread that statement and even checked out the video at CBS and Bush is not talking about Obama in particular but whom he considers "appeasers" in general.  He's made these comments before.

    Obama is awfully defensive to the point of being hyper-sensitive.

    Obama playing this up could backfire because people will be thinking, "Why did he think it was about him?" and then start scrutinizing him a lot more.  Even Mitt Romney called him out--effectively, too (Something like: if you throw a rock over a fence, the dog that barks is the one that got hit).


    A better response is forthcoming we hope (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:22:57 PM EST

    Maybe (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by Steve M on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:31:45 PM EST
    I'm still waiting for the "better response" to McCain's Hamas smear.  It bothers me that the blogosphere has lost all desire to see Fighting Dems hit back against this stuff.

    This was the kind of over-the-top smear that absolutely demands a rhetorical punch in the mouth.  Biden got it right.  Jim Webb wouldn't have let this one pass.  Maybe Obama needs to take a few lessons.


    Obama (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:34:52 PM EST
    apparently is doing whatever Kerry tells him to do even repeating him verbatim. Do the idiots supporting Obama not realize that Kerry LOST!!

    Man, I'm past caring at this point. I hope President McCain at least won't call me "sweetie."


    Kerry's actual response (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by Steve M on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:41:48 PM EST
    In a separate statement, Sen. John F. Kerry said that Bush "is still playing the disgusting and dangerous political game Karl Rove perfected, which is insulting to every American and disrespectful to our ally Israel. George Bush should be making Israel secure, not slandering Barack Obama from the Knesset."

    No prizes will be awarded, but arguably even this is tougher than what Obama said.


    I gotta (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:47:20 PM EST
    agree there. Even Kerry was better than Obama. What does that say? Nothing good in my mind. The flight of the security moms in Nov. would be my guess.

    The problem (5.00 / 4) (#97)
    by Steve M on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:52:38 PM EST
    Whining about Republicans playing the fear card is, at the end of the day, nothing but a process-based response.  How dare they say these things, blah blah blah.  The only time you want to play the outrage game in politics is when you truly think you can force an apology at the end of the day, which obviously will not be forthcoming in this case.

    Biden's response is correct because he calls it a scummy statement AND provides a response on the merits: Bush has a lot of nerve when his own foreign policy ideas have been proven to be so awful.

    This is why Obama was far more effective when he responded to the 3am ad by saying "actually, I'm the one with the good judgment to answer that phone, as shown by my stance on the war" than when his campaign went around whining about Hillary's awful fearmongering.  National security is a legitimate issue for voters, and you have to give them a response on the merits, not just "how dare you bring up national security!"


    Your blog-fu is powerful today, Steve M (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Ellie on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:07:59 PM EST
    What you said plus, the simple strategy to use of the moment (and media space) productively. Ideally: get up the block but use it as momentum for a pop of one's own. :-)

    The pallid milquetoast response starting from "I feel so sorry for someone who'd resort to such a thing blah blah blah ..." -- a familiar old standard from the Dem Manual of Hootingly Ineffectual PoliBudo -- is just a timewaster.

    It accomplishes nothing more than highlight (a) the effectiveness of the attacker (b) the reluctance or inability  of the [Dem in question, usually] to defend himself or do anything to remedy the situation overall.

    So what people are left with at the end of it is: waaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh.  


    Well said (none / 0) (#205)
    by ruffian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:19:55 PM EST
    You nailed exactly what bothers me about the usual responses to these things - the 'that is offensive and so and so should apologize' approach. It gives the power right back to the offender and assumes he cares if he hurt your feelings.



    GIven time, a WORM restatement will emerge (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by jawbone on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:48:20 PM EST
    Geez (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by Steve M on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:20:30 PM EST
    And now look at this.

    Not only is Obama's message mealy-mouthed and whiny, but he is apparently getting his way in ensuring that it is the ONLY message anyone will hear!

    This is going to get very ugly once the media no longer has an opportunity to gleefully resolve every rhetorical controversy to Hillary Clinton's detriment.  Why, Bush might even get away with this ridiculous "I never said I was talking about Obama" defense.  Do you think the media would ever have let Hillary get away with such an absurd argument?


    controlling the message has a big downside (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by kempis on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:42:08 PM EST
    No plausible deniability. If the Obama campaign makes it clear that they control the messages, then it's going to be hard for them to drive up McCain's negatives, isn't it?

    How on earth are they going to sell the idea that they're practicing a "new politics" and campaign negatively--which is a necessity. McCain has lower negatives than Obama does.

    Am I missing something?


    Boss politics: Databases, cash all go through us (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by Ellie on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:15:45 PM EST
    Cool, it'll be like having Tom "Man Purse" DeLay as president, only with a D on the cap and Dem core principlll-- oh wait ...

    I meant with NONE of the Dem values in place to bog this new machine down, since Obama's platform (and plans so far) have been Unity with the right.


    I so don't get it (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by Emma on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:06:07 PM EST
    How does unilateral disarmament re:  527s HELP Obama, like his supporters seem to think?  Am I missing something?  Do they really think the GOP 527s will be shamed or rendered ineffective 'cuz Obama took the "high road"?

    Somebody, please, tell me what I'm missting.


    Well (5.00 / 3) (#185)
    by Steve M on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:07:53 PM EST
    Look at the first comment at my link.

    Yes, they really do believe unilateral disarmament will magically make all our arguments have standing against McCain.

    The creepiness factor is only getting worse.  Everything Obama does is hailed as an act of sublime genius.


    I read about this earlier. (3.00 / 2) (#153)
    by madamab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:36:07 PM EST
    It's so disgusting. All Progressive Media will Speak the Word of Obama!

    Obama for America = Connecticut For Lieberman.

    A Party of One.


    Yes we do. (none / 0) (#24)
    by madamab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:25:13 PM EST
    No it's (none / 0) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:32:41 PM EST
    not. Obama is repeating Kerry verbatim time and again. Ugh, can we just get to Nov. and President McCain if Obama's going to be the nominee. I have no desire to rerun the 2004 election but it looks like that's what Obama wants. Bush is so bad that 1/2 the electorate think that McCain represents change.

    I hope (none / 0) (#214)
    by oldpro on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:29:10 PM EST
    it turns out to be 'hope you can believe in.'

    Further angering the Democratic Party (none / 0) (#27)
    by 1jane on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:26:43 PM EST
    and solidifying Independents and moderate Republicans is what Bush accomplishes with his absurd comments. Gad's his favorability numbers are in the tank. Envision the McCain/Bush hug photo and go work for the Democratic presidential nominee. We can't afford more of Bush's policy.

    Dead on... (none / 0) (#28)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:27:00 PM EST
    he is turning pages when he should be attacking.  OOps, there it goes right through our fingers.  

    often wonder if he realizes the contempt (none / 0) (#33)
    by thereyougo on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:27:55 PM EST
    the people have for him. Rumors are that he doesn't like hear bad news.

    I must say, however, when I heard him at the last presser, he sounded cogent, able to fuse a string of words together. He was wrong and out of touch (he wasn't aware of high gas prices)of course, but nonetheless, he made sense in his own warped sense world.

    It changed my perception of him from the last 7 years somehow,but not much.

    Who is the appeaser? (none / 0) (#64)
    by SeeEmDee on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:39:08 PM EST
    Ever hear of the USS Liberty?

    "Appeasement"? Who's appeasing whom? Who is in such an almighty hurry to show such fealty to a foreign government?

    And...does Georgie really want to bring up comparisons with Nazis...when his family benefited so handsomely from associating with them?

    Glass houses, Georgie, glass houses...

    Wow (1.00 / 0) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:42:42 PM EST
    The USS Liberty attack happened 41 years ago.

    If we go back there, can we also go back to '79 and kick the stuffing out of Iran for seizing our embassy??


    Obama's foreign policy experience, nil (none / 0) (#66)
    by fctchekr on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:39:31 PM EST
    Isn't Bush practically quoting Obama's own words? Maybe Obama has convinced Americans under the age of 50,that his foreign policy regarding Israel is acceptable, there are millions who are not convinced...

    You ask for a miracle I give you the G W B (none / 0) (#109)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:03:08 PM EST
    W has the potential to be the great uniter for the Democratic Party.

    you hope! won't happen. (none / 0) (#167)
    by hellothere on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:48:27 PM EST
    I do not believe while on foreign (none / 0) (#136)
    by zfran on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:21:10 PM EST
    soil GWB should have said what he did, however, the response, the initial response from the Obama camp was totally on the defensive..then the followers came out with the harsher stuff, one of the best, Joe Biden, gave the best response. If you have to go on the defensive while you have a whole team to work on a offensive retort, again, you do not deserve and should not be President of the United States!!

    The problem of course (none / 0) (#145)
    by Salo on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:26:40 PM EST
    is that MSNBC attacked Clinton for pointing out how dangerous it was to promise to chat with Iran in open talks.  It's an argument the GOP will win
    Obama should point out that Bush has failed at his task and that he should have won the war already.

    Okay (none / 0) (#142)
    by Steve M on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:24:34 PM EST
    but the slippery part of the debate is the one where we take a specific promise to meet with specific leaders, without preconditions, in Obama's first year in office, and then say that if you think that would be a bad idea, then you're opposed to speaking to our enemies in general.

    In fact, the comment you just responded to says quite clearly that he favors negotiating with Hamas, just not in the same way Obama (supposedly) proposes to do.

    You can favor diplomacy in general and still not be of the opinion that we should sit down anytime, anyplace, with anyone.  Now, you can hold the latter position if you like, but that's not going to be anywhere close to Obama's position in the GE, this much I know for sure.

    The actual problem with (none / 0) (#148)
    by Salo on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:29:54 PM EST
    Chamberlain was that the British military at that moment was smaller than Germany's.

    As long as you have a bigger military than an opponent/rival you can safely engage in almost any discussions.  


    Heh (none / 0) (#151)
    by Steve M on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:34:01 PM EST
    It is not a question of "safety," it is a question of whether it is the most productive route.

    I understand there is a liberal position that says we should talk with anyone, anytime, anywhere.  I don't see the point in arguing about it because it is not the position of Barack Obama or any mainstream politician.  Go write an angry letter to Obama if you really think he should take that position.


    That's not quite what i meant (none / 0) (#161)
    by Salo on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:44:30 PM EST
    I don't know why Obama pandered to tha dumbass question in the Utube debate.

    He was just vacuuming up sappy liberal voters in anticipation of Iowa.


    trouble is they have him (none / 0) (#166)
    by Salo on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:47:58 PM EST
    on tape saying he would.  At the time I thought Clinton demolished his credibility as a potential president.   Of course Obama was simply playing to the crowd at that moment.

    I was making more of an historical point about what appeasement really was.

    The rest of the world appeases the US because the US is a military goliath. Some states pluck up the heart to fight back, but most do not because they are militarily inferior.


    You don't speak for you only on this one (none / 0) (#160)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:44:21 PM EST
    at all.

    the point is bush doesn't give a rap (none / 0) (#164)
    by hellothere on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:46:56 PM EST
    what the dems think. he is doing it for a reason and no matter how the obama folks spin it, it is for a reason.

    Could someone (none / 0) (#165)
    by Andy08 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:47:40 PM EST
    explain what did Bush say specifically about Obama? Sorry can't  access the link.

    Hmmm. Clinton? (none / 0) (#169)
    by Fabian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:50:31 PM EST
    If she steps up, do let us know how she threads the needle.  

    Consider this a test - how stands the scores thus far?

    I posted Begala's response... (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by madamab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:00:20 PM EST
    it's over at HuffPo.

    He blew Obama's response out of the water.


    Thanks. (none / 0) (#200)
    by Fabian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:16:05 PM EST
    Substantive, too.  Always a plus.

    No, I disagree.... (none / 0) (#173)
    by Andre on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:56:37 PM EST
    what Bush is doing is rescuing Obama.  He knows full well that Dems will rally about the person he cast aspersions on, and that's what he wants. THIS IS A ROVE PLAY! They're so desperate to save their own asses, and they know just how week Obama will be as an adversary, so they're helping him out. If he's smart, Obama will rather worry about how badly his endorsement from Edwards has hurt him with the media.  Probably badly.  But Obama is too puffed up to see it.

    This has got to be (none / 0) (#191)
    by cannondaddy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:10:48 PM EST
    is the craziest post I've read all day.

    I was just going to say "HUH?".n/t (none / 0) (#202)
    by Fabian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:17:44 PM EST
    Bush is an embarrassment (none / 0) (#182)
    by tworivers on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:07:26 PM EST
    Truly an incompetent for the ages.

    As self-deluded and willfully ignorant as he is, i think that on some level Bush realizes what a joke he has become to the vast majority of Americans.  One gets the sense with some of his bizarre behavior recently (doing a soft shoe shuffle for the reporters, etc.) that he might be heavily medicated.  
    Perhaps this takes the sting out of the abject failure of his presidency?

    Obama isn't very clear (none / 0) (#187)
    by daryl herbert on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:08:55 PM EST
    George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists

    What does that even mean?

    First, Obama is in favor of direct, presidential, no preconditions talks with Fatah terrorists who hold the presidency of the PA.

    Second, what does Obama mean by "engagement"?  That the US should never talk to terror groups at all?  (I don't just mean Obama personally flying out to talk to them, I mean talking to them in general.)  Just about everyone supports political "engagement" with some terror groups, to one degree or another.  If we could talk to al Qaida, and splinter the group by convincing some of them not to come after us, that would be a good thing.

    Third, doesn't Sen. Obama want the Israelis to engage politically with Hamas?  They should be talking to each other (in fact, they are talking to each other).  Isn't that a kind of "engagement"?

    Fourth, isn't shooting terrorists a kind of "engagement"?

    I'd like to hear Sen. Obama's clarifications of his remarks.  I think his use of the word "engagement" is too easily misunderstood, because it's vague and ambiguous.  Who knows what he really meant?

    Vagueness (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by madamab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:11:34 PM EST
    is an Obama trademark.

    All things to all people.

    It's deliberate.


    was Bush talking about Obama? (none / 0) (#204)
    by Josey on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:18:48 PM EST
    or did Obama just use Bush's comments to respond as the presumptuous Dem nominee.

    People seem to differ here... (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by madamab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:21:57 PM EST
    personally I think it was a direct salvo against Obama and the first signal that the Republicans should get their attack machine revved up.

    But, no names were used. It was a very clever way for Bush to insert himself into the national conversation, considering how generally irrelevant he is to the news cycle these days.


    McCarthy (none / 0) (#196)
    by tek on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:14:32 PM EST
    Are you serious?  You think that was a McCarthy attack?  You think George W. Bush and his pea-brain are concerned with Obama?

    I'd bet the quote Bush gave can be attributed to Albert Gore, Sr.  A strong pacifist in both world wars.

    This is just Obama exercising his political M. O.  Take issue with prominent politicians and claim they are criticizing you unjustly to focus attention on yourself and attempt to put yourself on the same plane as the national players in the eyes of the public.

    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by Steve M on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:20:23 PM EST
    Albert Gore, Sr. resigned from Congress in order to serve in WWII.  He was 9 years old when WWI ended.

    I wonder where you possibly could be getting your facts from.


    Cough (none / 0) (#212)
    by jarober on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:26:57 PM EST
    This from someone who advocates cutting all war funding in the midst of a war.  Let me know when Jimmy Carter can spell "Logan Act", too.

    Isn't it getting a tad (none / 0) (#216)
    by 1jane on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:29:57 PM EST
    irrational to keep chasing a mirage. The flame fests may be part of the healing process...here is hoping it won't take too long. The real deal is: we will have a Democratic president, a Democratic congress, and we will have taken one heck of a lot of seats in our state legislatures, in Governorships and so on. We are going to be holding the bag for at least 8 years. Let's not mess this up.

    I admire the way (none / 0) (#219)
    by dem08 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:32:55 PM EST
    many here back up Big Tent by attacking Obama.

    It bodes well for the Fall.

    ((I know Hillary voters often hate Obama, still....))

    George Bush's speech in Israel (none / 0) (#221)
    by 18anapple2 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:42:21 PM EST
    Isn't  more likely he was referencing Jimmy Carter's meeting with Hamas in this context ?

    George Bush (none / 0) (#222)
    by 18anapple2 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:08:50 PM EST
    Read the text of the speech again "Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, .." Prior to that he was talking abt Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran is only mentioned a couple of paras later. Do you think he was referencing Carter's meeting with Hamas.
    Obama afterall distanced himself from that meeting . I think it is a fantastic gimmick to put himself in the middle and draw attention to himself! Afterall this is a surefire way of getting everybody to defend him!!


    Attack? (none / 0) (#223)
    by jarober on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:35:31 PM EST
    So how is this a partisan attack?  Did he mention any candidates?  Did he mention any parties?  The only direct reference was to a US Senator in 1939 (and based on then current politics, almost certainly a Republican).

    If you think this is a McCarthy-ite attack on Obama, it says a lot more about your worries than about anything else.  

    Looking at all the Dems hollering as if in pain, I'm reminded of something my best friend used to say to me:

    Are you yelling to convince me, or yourself?

    Looks to me like the level of insecurity on the part of Democrats is enormous.  Which is curious, given how well you are likely to do in House and Senate pickups.