Outraged Democrats are on the attack over Bush's speech to the Knesset in which he said this:

Quote:

---

Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

---

The Obama campaign issued a statement in which he said, "It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack

"George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president's extraordinary politicisation of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally, Israel."

I guess that isn't a problem since Obama "reframed" his position.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino responded:

Quote:

---

"I understand when you're running for office you sometimes think the world revolves around you. That is not always true. And it is not true in this case."

---

I think Bush and Perino were both right. And you?

I say if the shoe fits wear it .

He can reframe it all he wants to . His initial instinct was to say he would engage in unconditional dialogue at the Presidential level with any rogue and thug jackbooted dictator .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

He can reframe it all he wants to . His initial instinct was to say he would engage in unconditional dialogue at the Presidential level with any rogue and thug jackbooted dictator .

---

Didn't I remember something about an Obama advisor "with tire tracks on his back" over meeting with Hamas? I guess everyone has also already forgotten about that idiot Jimmy Carter and his visit with Hamas last month and Pelosi's Syrian adventure. Seems like the left is already knee deep in their "foolish delusion" of negotiating with terrorists.

Hello:

I don't know when diplomacy became a dirty word... I don't know why you guy's think we shouldn't talk to our enemy. I mean talkings good, no?? I mean, how're you going to find out what it's going to take to make peace??

Oh, I understand your thinking... We'll just blow them the hell up and then we'll NEVER have to talk to them...

But, Mr. Righty, it ain't working. We DON'T seem to be able to blow them the hell up - even with the billions George spent...

So, we can't blow 'em up, and we ain't going to talk... That doesn't sound very smart. Actually, it makes NO sense at all. That's right - NONE.

I'm a believer in what Ariel Sharon said. "Talk to them like you're not fighting them. Fight them like you're not talking to them".

excon

Please tell me a case where a President had unconditional meetings with enemies. I can't recall one instance when Roosevelt had a sit down meeting with Hitler or Hideki Tojo .As far as negotiating with terrorists ;which was the basis of Bush's comments despite Obama's paranoia, negotiating with terrorists and their enablers only confirms their sense of the effectiveness of terrorism... Grovelling in Damascus in a burka like Madam Mimi did is not effective diplomacy.

Regarding Ariel Sharon :
Ironically it may have been Sharon who in fact inspired Bush's comments to the Knesset.

After the 9-11 attacks Sharon advised President Bush Not to appease the Arabs at Israel's expense.
Sharon Invokes Munich in Warning U.S. on 'Appeasement' - New York Times

''Don't repeat the terrible mistakes of 1938, when the enlightened democracies in Europe decided to sacrifice Czechoslovakia for a comfortable, temporary solution. [Israel] will not be Czechoslovakia.''

In the speech to the Knesset Bush made it a point to praise Sharon ;and using the reminder during his speech was more a tribute to Sharon rather than a admonishment of the increasingly paranoid Obama. It is Obama who has in fact politicized the President's speech.

Ex,

You guys make it sound so noble, "I dunno when diplomacy became a dirty word.... I dunno why you guy's think we shouldn't talk to our enemy." Diplomacy implies relations, it doesn't work when it's one sided, and the people (which may be a stretch) Bush is referring to aren't interested in relations - they've proven it over and over again.

People that strap bombs on and blow themselves up in a market full of innocent shoppers, at a hotel full of Jewish vacationers, strap explosives on young girls or someone's handicapped son aren't interested in relations. When they decide to join the civilized world perhaps a dialogue can be opened that may lead to "relations," but Bush is absolutely right - appeasement benefits the enemy and weakens us. As Aesop said, "we often give our enemies the means of our own destruction."

In his latest column Charles Krauthammer wrote it in a way you should understand:

Quote:

---

You rarely hear about Israel's terrible suffering in that 1948-49 war. You hear only the Palestinian side. Today, in the same vein, you hear that Israeli settlements and checkpoints and occupation are the continuing root causes of terrorism and instability in the region.

But in 1948, there were no "occupied territories." Nor in 1967 when Egypt, Syria and Jordan joined together in a second war of annihilation against Israel.

Look at Gaza today. No Israeli occupation, no settlements, not a single Jew left. The Palestinian response? Unremitting rocket fire killing and maiming Israeli civilians. The declared casus belli of the Palestinian government in Gaza behind these rockets? The very existence of a Jewish state.

One constantly hears about the disabling complexity of the Arab-Israeli dispute. Complex it is, but the root cause is not. Israel's crime is not its policies but its insistence on living. On the day the Arabs -- and the Palestinians in particular -- make a collective decision to accept the Jewish state, there will be peace, as Israel proved with its treaties with Egypt and Jordan. Until that day, there will be nothing but war. And every "peace process," however cynical or well meaning, will come to nothing.

---

How many more demands should Israel meet? How many demands should we?

The really telling part of this story is that there were no names mentioned or even remotely suggested in the statement from President Bush.

But who is it that started yelling the loudest, yeah, it is the Guy who told us that he would meet with these barbarians without pre-conditions.

I still agree with the statement, and I am paraphrasing here, where do you begin talking to someone who calls Israel a "rotting corpse", or who denies that the holocaust ever even happened, or who believe that God has given them the order to destroy us?

I like Mike Huckabee's comment this morning, he said when you throw a rock over the fence, it is the yelling dog that got hit.

Obama should have let this pass, without comment, but no, he was insulted by the comment, even though he pointed his own finger at himself in doing so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by progunr

Obama should have let this pass, without comment, but no, he was insulted by the comment, even though he pointed his own finger at himself in doing so.

---

Yeah, expressing outrage is what Dems do best. I personally think they're acting like arrogant, spoiled little brats. It would be nice to see some grownups in Washington next year...

Just remember one thing... the architect is no longer at the White House so it is not plausible that this episode is a diabolical plot to provoke Obamamania into a melt-down.

A dog yelping ? It sounds to me like the whole pack is braying at the moon.But Jimmy Carter has been conspicuosly silent ;which is surprising since his second term is at stake here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Just remember one thing... the architect is no longer at the White House so it is not plausible that this episode is a diabolical plot to provoke Obamamania into a melt-down.

A dog yelping ? It sounds to me like the whole pack is braying at the moon.But Jimmy Carter has been conspicuosly silent ;which is surprising since he second term is at stake here.

---

I suppose Biden's response wasn't "beneath the dignity of the office"

Quote:

---

“This is bullsh.., this is malarkey.”

---

I think it's funny that Hillary would be critical considering the remarks her hubby made in Dubai back in 2005.

Back in 2001 on Crossfire, Tucker Carlson was asking Paul Begala about a memo written by James Carville, Stan Greenberg and Bob Schrum that called 9/11 "a moment of opportunity for Democrats." Begala responded with "politics stop at the water's edge. But on our side of that water."

The outrage today is amusing.

If this isn't funny enough, I just heard the punch line!

President Bush finally admitted today that in deed, his remarks were intended for someone specific.

Former President Jimmy Carter.

OK Mr. Obama, you may now remove your foot from your mouth.

If I were out only to steal someone's oil, land and whatever else I could get my hands on, I wouldn't want to face them, let alone talk to them. I would Demonize them by telling everyone that they are animals that cannot be reasoned with. Non-Humans, not worth my breath nor my time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by magprob

If I were out only to steal someone's oil, land and whatever else I could get my hands on, I wouldn't want to face them, let alone talk to them. I would Demonize them by telling everyone that they are animals that cannot be reasoned with. Non-Humans, not worth my breath nor my time.

---

These people, and I do use the term loosely, don't need any help with being demonized, they do a great job of demonizing themselves with their idiotic beliefs.

Why don't some of you terrorist appeasers tell us, what is the first question for the man who denies the holocaust even happened and has a mission to eliminate Israel from the face of the planet?

What do you think YOU could say that will make him go "holy crap, you are right, I've been wrong all along"!

Negotiate with terrorists. That is a most moronic idea, being pushed by, well, morons.

Hello again:

I don't know. I suppose you just don't understand what diplomacy is. Not surprising...

You don't negotiate with your enemy to change his mind. You negotiate with him to make a deal. He doesn't have to like you or agree with you in order to make a deal with you. You don't really think we've been agreed with or liked by all the countries we've made deals/treaties with throughout the world, do you?

Well, I suppose according your what you're saying now, you think they all just love us. I don't know how guys think.

It's like I said. You don't really understand the art of diplomacy. Neither does anybody in your party.

excon

OK. What did I say that would make you believe, that I believe, that "they" love us?

Just the opposite, they wish to eliminate everyone who does not share their beliefs, from the face of the earth.

If the idea is not to make them change their mind, but to make a deal, what kind of deal do we make with people who believe that they are on a mission from God, to destroy anyone who does not believe the same things that they do?

Do you really believe that there is a diplomatic solution to that?

What would you offer that could beat all those virgins when they get to heaven?

Hello again progunr:

Again, I don't think you understand the nature of our enemy. HE'S not the guy strapping bombs on his body. He's not the guy who's dreaming about virgins.

HE'S the guy who SENDS the guy with bombs strapped to his body. Our enemy is living a good life. HE USES fanatics to do his dirty work. But you shouldn't believe for a minute that he's fanatic himself. HE can be negotiated with.

excon

Here is diplomacy at it's best . Reagan came in and called the Soviets the Evil Empire and for years would NOT negotiate with them . And the libs complained that he would not talk to the Soviets even though his predecessors had.

Instead he built up our strength... and the libs complained ; then he began forward deployment of Pershing Missiles. And the libs complained. Then he began research in what was derided as "star wars " technology and the libs complained that he was starting a new arms race

Then and only then did he agree to meet with the new Soviet leader who was committed to reform ;after many hours of their diplomatic corp hashing out an agenda .They met with preconditions and with a reasonable chance that an agenda could be achieved . THAT is Diplomacy.

Tell me what basis does Israel have for meeting with Hamas ? The Israelis gave away their bargaining chips when they walked away from Gaza . For their gesture they are subject to daily rocket barrages from Gaza.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Reagan came in and called the Soviets the Evil Empire and for years would NOT negotiate with them .

---

Hello again, tom:

It's good right wing spin. It's just not true. Reagan wouldn't talk with them true, but WE HAD DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH THEM. Our DIPLOMATS were talking, and talking PLENTY. There was a RED telephone connection between the Kremlin and Washington, DC. even if it wasn't used.

THAT isn't what we have today with BUSH'S enemy's. When he says he's not talking, he's not talking. We have NO embassy's - no diplomats - nothing.

To my way of thinking, it's just plain stupid. It IS what I expect from the dufus in chief, though.

excon