May 15 2008
Bush Smacks Down Obama And Dems On Their Surrender-At-All-Cost Plans For Iraq
President Bush took off the gloves and laid one right on the kisser of Barack Obama and his Surrendercrat policy for Iraq:
“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,” said Bush, in what White House aides privately acknowledged was a reference to calls by Obama and other Democrats for the U.S. president to sit down for talks with leaders like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
“We have heard this foolish delusion before,” Bush said in remarks to the Israeli Knesset. “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.”
Appeasement especially seems foolish given the fact Iraq is executing a final mopping up of al-Qaeda in Iraq right now. Why grasp for defeat this close to victory?
In 2007 the Democrats tried to force a retreat from Congress. They even tried to stop The Surge which has brought security to Iraq, political reconciliation across Iraq’s various sects and strength to Maliki’s government. The result is one of the lowest approval ratings for a Congress, achieved faster than ever before. Americans don’t back losers. American know our enemy and are impressed with our success against all odds and cries of doom from the leftward fringes.
The Dems climbed out on this Surrender Branch two years ago and will probably be skewered by it this fall in the Presidential elections. And who knows, if the far right can get its act together and stop slamming moderate and independent conservatives, the Surrendercrat debacle could even change the GOP’s future in Congressional races as well. But that takes more than winning in Iraq, it would take some serious mea culpa’s from those on the far right who now oppose Bush and McCain.
Anyway, Bush’s comment must have left a mark for Mad Dog Doh!-berman to go all foamy-at-the-mouth! Someone needs to check that man for rabies, he really has gone ga-ga.
Obama whined today after hearing these remarks…And on the heels of his own remarks yesterday about Pakistanis speaking “Arab”. LOL!
Oh, and don’t forget the FIFTY-SEVEN states of the United States!!!
Soothie, how’s that I V league education workin’ for your candidate? Does he have an MBA from Harvard?
jesus-h-christ you’ve been talking about a final mopping up of al queda for how long now? 5 years 35,000 american casualties, a minimum of two trillion dollars, and a mess that is purely of bushs making is being “mopped up”. appeasment is just a rnc talking point that gutter-snipes like you swallow hook line and sinker. what did the smartest guy in the current cabinet say just yesterday? “…we need to figure out a way to develop some leverage . . . and then sit down and talk with them,” gates said. “if there is going to be a discussion, then they need something, too. we can’t go to a discussion and be completely the demander, with them not feeling that they need anything from us.”
kennedy nixon and reagan engaged our enemies. the idiots in the current white house and their blindered followers (you) would rather spend endless amounts of blood and treasure in order to accomplish nothing…well with the exception of strengthening iran. you have managed to accomplish that.
It’s really sad that Norm would resort to defaming the prophet Jesus
OK Fair warning, Pull the plastic down over your monitor
If George Bush where running for President again, he would win by an even bigger margin than in 2004!
God Bless the Man!
The war in Iraq has been going on for only 5 years, so how can there have been a final mopping up for that long?
Amen, TomAnon!
Uh, Norm…I think it’s safe to say Bush has “engaged” our enemy.
I suspect that norm sits in front of the television with his hands over his ears, shouting nanananananan and his hands over his eyes so that he can’t hear or see reality.
Yeah, AJ has been talking about the progress in Iraq for years which just goes to show that he knew we would ultimately succeed 5 years ago. Pretty good prediction!
You’ll be thanking God one day for that “idiot” in the Whitehouse.
Whip,
Do you really think Norm will ever be thankful about anything?
Boy, Bush really does depend on simpletons like yourselves (the roughly 25% of the country that still approve of his presidency) to accept these types of ridiculous statements without actually questioning whether they make sense.
Revered Republican presidents throughout the 20th Century talked to our enemies and produced important foreign policy results. Eisenhower talked with the North Koreans, Soviets and China to end the Korean War. Nixon talked to China, a communist regime that supported our enemies in both the Korean and Vietnam Wars, and opened the door to more productive relationship we currently enjoy with China. Reagan talked to the Soviet Union, a communist regime with 100’s of nuclear warheads pointed at us that was bent on expanding its world power, which led to the fall of the communist regime. If you accept Bush’s theory, all of these presidents were traitors and appeasers regardless of the results they achieved. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
Bush himself has been extensively negotiating with North Korea, a communist regime with nuclear weapons that Bush labeled part of the Axis of Evil. Bush even talked to the Iranians after the Afghanistan war and actually enlisted their assistance in garnering support within Afghanistan for the government we helped create. How can you pe0ple applaud Bush’s statement when you know for a fact he has doen and is currently doing the exact same thing he is criticizing? Have you drunk so much of the cool-aid that you cannot even see the obvious hypocricy in his statement?
By the way, it looks like McCain has joined the appeaser ranks. He is now committing to a timetable for the withdrawl of our troops from Iraq. McCain states that most American troops will be withdrawn from Iraq in 2013, which is what Clinton said was her goal in a September 2007 debate. Here is the link – http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/15/mccain_outlines_troop_withdraw.html?hpid=topnews.
I know you all revere Bush regardless of what he says or does, but for the good of our country please start thinking for yourselves. All American presidents throughout our history, including Bush, understood the importance of diplomacy and talking to our enemies. Merely talking to our enemies does not mean that you capitulate or surrender. Please stop being so afraid and buying into Bush’s fear mongering.
Heh.
Conman,
Bush has annoyed me mightily over the years, but on this he remains dead on.
No, the soft word has not worked, and the big stick has to date been spared.
Has anyone noticed that the terrorists don’t really seem to want to sit and talk? We tried diplomacy. We even went to the UN and tried to get their support and help in trying to get rid of the terrorists with diplomacy. Hussein was laughing in our face and hiding things from the UN “peacekeepers.” They would rather bomb and kill us than talk with us. We are their mortal enemy.
Everyone who sat the school bully down and had a diplomatic discussion with him about how he should stop picking on kids raise your hands.
Crzy4politics,
The UN is far from perfect, but I’m not exactly sure why you fault the UN for its stance on the Iraqi War. The main reason the key UN countries didn’t support our invasion of Iraq was they were skeptical about our WMD intelligence and they were concerned that it would cause bigger problems in the Middle East. Turns out they were right. There were no WMDs and our intelligence to the contrary meager and deeply flawed. The Iraqi war has led to bigger problems in the Middle East by taking resources out of Afghanistan before the job was complete leading to Al Qaeda and the Talibans new safe haven in Pakistan, using up all of our military resources and substantially undermining our military readiness, exacerbating the Sunni-Shite tensions in the region, creating the potential for an Al Qaeda haven if we are unsuccessful (your words, not mine) and strengthening Iran’s position in the region. For the large majority of Americans who now say that the Iraqi War was a mistake, we can only wish that Bush would have listen more to our allies on this issue.
But let’s put actual facts aside and pretend that you are correct we really tried diplomacy in Iraq and it failed – what is your point? Is it that because we failed once in our history, we should never do it again on principle grounds? Why doesn’t that same analysis apply to those diplomatic successes I pointed out above – if it worked before, we should always do it? I don’t get this all-or-nothing mentality of your Bushies – the real world is much more complicated and nuanced to apply the same policy in every single situation.
While there are certain terrorist groups (Al Qaeda) that we should not talk to or negotiated with because there sole purpose is to bomb and kill us, that analysis rarely applies to countries. Iran is a real danger in the region that needs to be checked/contained, but I always laugh when people claim that Iran is hell-bent on wiping out Israel and the West. The Iranian regime has been in power since 1979, and yet they have never directly attacked Israel, the U.S. or other western countries. They won’t do so because they know that we would obliterate them. Despite all of their religous rhetoric about wiping out their enemies, that is merely rhetoric. What they really care about is holding onto power and enjoying their lavish lifestyle. They will not do anything that would jeopardize there hold on power.
Conman,
Iran has been waging war against these United States for 28 years and counting. They continue to do so now via proxy in Iraq.
Time and past time to repay the debt with interest.
I didn’t say anything about an AlQaeda safehaven, must be confusing me with someone else.
“I don’t get this all-or-nothing mentality of your Bushies – the real world is much more complicated and nuanced to apply the same policy in every single situation.”
And my point was that you can’t say there has to be diplomatic talks with everyone. There are people out there it just won’t work with. Like, the terrorists. I never said anything about the other diplomatic instances you mentioned. I just made the point that the terrorists aren’t exactly the sit down and talk type. Which goes along with what you said above that there can’t be an all or nothing mentality.
There is no use in talking to the terrorists. They want us dead. But in talking to everyone else we have to give them something: money or arms to get anywhere with them. The do not agree wo help us in any way out of the goodness of their hearts. They regard the US as patsies and/or a money tree.
Barbara, I would submit that there is one reason to keep channels open with terrorists:
If you can get a mole in there you may get acces to secret DNC strategies.
Barack Hussein Obama, Saddam Hussein, And Al-Qa’ida
By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Do a little time shift and look at this statement as it would have come out circa 1938 – it’s a statment Sen. William Borah himself could have been proud of.
Spring, 1938:
“While there are certain people that we should not talk to or negotiate with because there sole purpose is to bomb and kill us, that analysis rarely applies to countries. Germany is a real danger in the region that needs to be checked/contained, but I always laugh when people claim that Germany is hell-bent on wiping out Judaism and the West. The German regime has been in power since 1933, and yet they have never directly attacked the U.S. or other western countries. They won’t do so because they know that we would obliterate them. Despite all of their political rhetoric about wiping out their enemies, that is merely rhetoric. What they really care about is holding onto power and enjoying their lavish lifestyle. They will not do anything that would jeopardize there hold on power.”
Well said, sir. Neville Chamberlain himself would be proud.
At least the appeasers in 1938 had no direct action against their countries when they made these claims. I’m not condoning them by any means but to put it in perspective, we’ve already been hit. Had these comments been made after December 7th, 1941 then you could compare them with just how ridiculous the actions of today’s Democrats are.
There’s absolutely no excuse for idle chatting now.