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.
39 Responses to “Bush Smacks Down Obama And Dems On Their Surrender-At-All-Cost Plans For Iraq”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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.
if talking to iran equals “surrendering” to them, doesn’t that mean that ronald reagan surrendered to the soviet union?
I agree with Bush and if Obama is not planning to chat up with terrorists and dictators…what is he so defensive about?
And I still like Bush. The man has balls.
Apparently Upyernoz has a seriously confused take on the difference between conservatives “talking” and leftists “talking”.
Obama is such a cry baby. What is he going to do if he wins and actually has to be responsible, take heat, answer questions, get blamed. all that.
How can Obama win, Terrye? I was under the impression that America was moving to the center?
Apparently Upyernoz has a seriously confused take on the difference between conservatives “talking” and leftists “talking”.
in other words, you got my point. talking is not the same thing as surrendering, if it were, then we lost the cold war.
but instead of acknowledging my point openly, you’re falling back on ridiculous mischaracterizations about what “leftists” really mean. it’s quite revealing that you’re no longer damning obama for what he actually said, but instead for what you imagine he might really mean. which is a much weaker argument.
Upyours, I made no comment about Obama…just you.
Nice try.
Norm,
When did Kennedy ever successfully negotiate with the enemy? Even Kruschev laughed at him.
Conman,
That is not the reason for the UN’s lack of support. The “Oil For Food” scandal played a big role. It was the largest scandal, dollarwise, in the history of the world.
All,
I had the pleasure of hearing VD Hansen at the Hoover Institute on Tuesday. He gave an overview of the War and the geopolitics. And he wishes Bush would speak up more. I guess we heared from Bush today.
Macker,
Kennedy successfully negotiated with the Soviet Union on the Cuban Missle Crises. He got them to remove the missles from Cuba while at the same time averting a nuclear war. Had he listen to his more conservative/military advisers, who strongly advocated attacking Cuba and starting WWIII, we would all be obliterated. I think it is fair to call that a significant foreign policy success.
Oil for food was not the primary reason for the reluctance to support our invasion and it hardly is the largest scandal in history. Do a simple google search and you will see that Enron was a much, much bigger scandal in terms of dollars.
Terrye,
Obama responded to Bush’s comment and corrected the record, and you call him a cry baby. What is he supposed to do - just sit there and accept it? Does that mean that McFlip-Flop is a cry baby too if he responds to critcism directed at him? Too funny!
All,
Several of us have noted numerous instances when past presidents, many of whom are respected Republicans, and Bush himself has negotiated with countries we view as our enemies. The only thing you people have said in response is: (1) parrot Bush’s comments about Nazi Germany as if nothing has happened since 1938; and (2) reiterate Bush’s claim that it won’t work. I think it is safe to say that you cannot intelligently defend Bush’s statements because they don’t square with history.
I hope you are all proud of President Bush. He goes to Israel supposedly to commemorate its 60th anniversary, an important historical moment, and he uses it to launch a partisan attack on the presumptive Democratic nominee. What a petty man!
AJ, what was it you were saying the other day about the need to stop all of this partisan rhetoric and division? I guess it only applies to people who don’t agree 100% with you, no matter how ridiculous your position may be.
Conman,
You read too much history by Sorenson and McNamara.
And Bush forced three party talks with N Korea instead of bi-lateral talks with us as Clinton failed at.
As for going overseas to criticize us and subvert us, you need look no further than Carter and Pelosi.
Take off your red tinted glasses.
Great posts Macker. I see we have an NEA educated person who think they know it all….and really know nothing.
And really, confusing the USSR with Iran is such an insult….to the USSR! It’s because the Obamakins don’t understand what appeasement is, that they are doomed to never understand evil.
But, actually, truth be known, they would give away everything we have to make the Iranians ( and all other thug nations) LIKE US!!!
It’s a sickness. Bill c. had it. All Kos Kids have it…as well as all global socialists…of which Obama is their spokesman.
75:
He can win because people like you let him. And because a lot of people have been so turned off by certain people on the right, it has given the whole bunch a bad name.
Norm says:
“jesus-h-christ you’ve been talking about a final mopping up of al queda for how long now? 5 years 35,000r how long now? 5 years 35,000″
Exaggeration? Note that Strata Sphere will be celebrating it’s 3rd anniversary on May 19.
“He can win because people like you let him. And because a lot of people have been so turned off by certain people on the right, it has given the whole bunch a bad name.”
Left by Terrye on May 15th, 2008
Ah, spoken like a true Democrat suffering from victimization. Don’t let those pesky facts get in the way…it’s all someone elses fault! At least now you’ve slipped and let the truth be known that it’s all conservatives you have a problem with. Once a liberal always a liberal.
Newt got it right on Fox News last night. I paraphrase here, Newt said, “Obama should have simply said, “the President is right. I will never negotiate with Terrorists”". Obama would have removed all doubt about the “no preconditions” statement for negotiation. He would instantly demonstrate a “bipartisan” attitude, etc. It would have been a clear and massive move to the center. This is such a low risk statement, I cannot believe they could not think this up for themselves.
But no, Obama assumes the victim mantle and wails and cries how he has been done wrong. His off the cuff comments are becoming increasingly incoherent. Plus he throws a fit over a perfectly sensible statement made by the President at the 60th Anniversary of Israel. There is righteous indignation and there is wailing over a comment that hits to close to home. Clearly the President’s statement hit to close to home for BO.
Thank you Whippet. I grow weary of suffering fools.
But I’d certainly like to hear Terrye’s thoughts on what she means by “people like you” and “let him”? Just what kind of person am I, Terrye, and just how, pray tell, would I (and people like me) “let him” win?
Macker, ever read VDH’s ‘Carnage and Culture’? (or Culture and Carnage…having a dyslexic/memory fade already this morning).
I highly recommend it if not.
Ivehadit……..just watched Obama give a news conference over this and he is still whining. Whining with a plan. Ohhh he is a toughie! His voice gets all stronger with authority. He is the one who will keep us safe. He says that everyone agrees that George Bush and McCain have been following failed policies and made us “less safe”. Everyone?
This must be like ‘everyone’ agrees on global warming. He repeats exactly what the MSM has been running with since the Joe & Val show. He also uses the words invaded Iraq. This is a man with a plan.
He quotes the Dem’s MSM that states all their CRAP as facts.
Thank God for President Bush.
If those Pugs in Congress , who are about to lose their jobs, had two brain cells between them all, they would be all over every TV set in America backing up the President’s words. YESTERDAY. Surely these dumbos could at least watch what the Dem’s do and copy? How many Dem Senators did I see on FOX yesterday? Repug idiots. They never get it. It started with the orginal cabinet nominees. All the Pug dimwits had to do was stand up and fight. NOT BUSH, idiot. He is not the enemy. He can not save your sorry hides. He gave you enough red meat to have driven the Dems out of town. He has the spine to actually say the words and what are you doing with it?
MSM (the real power)
Dumb Pug Congress
Selfish one issue pundits
Is there some deadly force that has sealed the Elected Republican’s mouths????????????????????????????? Are they forced to hide from the cameras????????????? Is something holding them hostage?
Owl, I found it hysterical that Obama immediately thought Bush’s ‘appeasement’ comments the other day in Israel were about him!