President Bush Lowers The Boom!

[Kitchener]

Ironically, the only reason anyone even noticed that Bush had burped out these incoherent mumblings about appeasement is because Obama responded to them.

It was probably a tactical mistake for Obama to have done so. It speaks ill of his political judgement, that he treats a hammer like Bush seriously.

When you have a mendacious walking disaster like Bush stacked up against someone who correctly saw (and said) from the outset that the war in Iraq was a bad idea, Obama has no need to defend his foreign policy acumen. From here on out, Bush should stick to lying about why he quit golf.

Edited May 17, 2008 by Kitchener

[bush_cheney2004]

...It was probably a tactical mistake for Obama to have done so. It speaks ill of his political judgement, that he treats a hammer like Bush seriously.

He had no choice, since the Obama campaign strategy is defined by being anti-Bush.

Obama is running against a man who is not even in the race. Not too bad for a "hammer".

[Moonlight Graham]

Obama is running against a man who is not even in the race.

I beg to differ.

[Moonlight Graham]

America (and the West) are talking to Iran...you just don't like what is being said. Even France promised to nuke Iran if necessary.

There's a difference between talking to someone, and talking with someone. How many conversations has Bush had with Ahmadinejad?

The point isn't that talking will solve these problems. The point is that you can at least make an effort to talk with them. Even if it may only provide the smallest of gains at the very best, it is worth a shot. This administration seems to be skipping the "talking" part and going right to the "bombing" part.

What if talking with Iran resulted is some small agreement where Iran pulled a few tanks out of some area & it resulted in saving the life of 1 u.s. soldier or one civilian? Is that not worth the price and the effort a 12-hour plane-ride?

It would be interesting to see how Bush would have done during the Cuban missle crisis. Would he have gone all hard-ass & not have bothered talking/responding with Khrushchev and blown us all up? Former U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara's Lesson #1: "empathize with your enemy".

[bush_cheney2004]

There's a difference between talking to someone, and talking with someone. How many conversations has Bush had with Ahmadinejad?

Hell if I know...but there are communications "with" Iran on a routine basis at many levels, if only for practical reasons.

The point isn't that talking will solve these problems. The point is that you can at least make an effort to talk with them. Even if it may only provide the smallest of gains at the very best, it is worth a shot. This administration seems to be skipping the "talking" part and going right to the "bombing" part.

"Talking has occurred"....maybe it's time for bombing based on all the "talk". Paleface say Iran no smokem' peace pipe.

What if talking with Iran resulted is some small agreement where Iran pulled a few tanks out of some area & it resulted in saving the life of 1 u.s. soldier or one civilian? Is that not worth the price and the effort a 12-hour plane-ride?

Hell no!

It would be interesting to see how Bush would have done during the Cuban missle crisis. Would he have gone all hard-ass & not have bothered talking/responding with Khrushchev and blown us all up? Former U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara's Lesson #1: "empathize with your enemy".

Guess again....JFK did go all hard ass...you just don't know the details.

[sharkman]

The point isn't that talking will solve these problems. The point is that you can at least make an effort to talk with them. Even if it may only provide the smallest of gains at the very best, it is worth a shot. This administration seems to be skipping the "talking" part and going right to the "bombing" part.

What if talking with Iran resulted is some small agreement where Iran pulled a few tanks out of some area & it resulted in saving the life of 1 u.s. soldier or one civilian? Is that not worth the price and the effort a 12-hour plane-ride?

It would be interesting to see how Bush would have done during the Cuban missle crisis. Would he have gone all hard-ass & not have bothered talking/responding with Khrushchev and blown us all up? Former U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara's Lesson #1: "empathize with your enemy".

There is no benefit to talking with a man that keeps uttering death threats to your friends, and selling weapons to your enemies to use on you. I don't know why the left can't understand that, even Clinton didn't talk with Sadam, except with bombs.

The Cuban missile crisis? Castro/Khrushchev were testing a young and untested president with the missile installation, with Bush at the helm they wouldn't have dared such a provocative move. Any other musings?

[peter_puck]

Senator Obama is incredibly naive if he thinks he can make Bush Bashing the cornerstone of his campaign and cuddle up to Iran without any price to pay. They don't call them "junior senators" for nothing.

Bush bashing is a great corner stone! He is about the most hated/incompetent US president in history. In the last congressional elections, Republican candiates avoid him like the plague. Besides, negative politics is the only thing that works any more. The massive negative campaigns of the Bush camp managed to get an utter lightweight elected.

[sharkman]

Yes peter, but Bush isn't running this time. It gives McCain a leg up and may even be a strategy of the McCain camp. The more time Obama spends on Bush the less time he spends on McCain.

[Moonlight Graham]

Guess again....JFK did go all hard ass...you just don't know the details.

Right. I forgot you were in the room.

Bush probably would have agreed with the Joint Chiefs of Staff (and Cheney and Rummy if they were there too) in their recommendation to invade Cuba. Thats the hard ass approach. And we would all be dead. Please enlighten me on what im missing.

[bush_cheney2004]

Right. I forgot you were in the room.

Bush probably would have agreed with the Joint Chiefs of Staff (and Cheney and Rummy if they were there too) in their recommendation to invade Cuba. Thats the hard ass approach. And we would all be dead. Please enlighten me on what im missing.

You are missing quite a lot....and understanding....of what constitutes "hard ass"

1) Bay of Pigs

2) Operation Mongoose & Northwoods

3) Phibriglex exercise

4) DefCon 2

5) Very aggressive ASW operations

6) Jupiter missiles in Turkey

7) U-2 overflights of the USSR

8) First and second strike nuclear superiority

9) Pre-planned retaliatory strikes

10) Just for fun, Canada's own military brass ignored the PM and went on alert, following the US Pentagon!

....also, we would not all be dead.....but lots more dead Soviets!

Edited May 22, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[peter_puck]

Yes peter, but Bush isn't running this time. It gives McCain a leg up and may even be a strategy of the McCain camp. The more time Obama spends on Bush the less time he spends on McCain.

Of course Bush is not running, but neither is Reverend Wright. They have managed to stick Wright to Obama, and I think it would be even easier to stick Bush to McCain. The Republicans got crushed in the last congressional elections because of Bush.

Voters are stuipid. How many really understands the Obama health plan, or McCain's reasons for staying in Iraq. How many can comprehend the long term damage the current budget deficit is causing ? Attack ads work because they are simple. People understand "John Kerry" is a liar , "Obama is an uber Liberal", "Michael Dukakis is a cary carrying member of the ACLU" "Bob Dole is mean" they are very simple ideas that stick in peoples heads.

All you need is lots of money to beat these simple ideas into peoples heads. In the past the money has come from the religious right, now it may come from the left.

It really is unfair, but its the way things go. McCain probably hates Bush more than I do (he has very good reason) but the Democrats will probably be able to paint him as a Bush clone.

I really hope it doesn't happen though. McCain should have been

[bush_cheney2004]

..Voters are stuipid. How many really understands the Obama health plan, or McCain's reasons for staying in Iraq. How many can comprehend the long term damage the current budget deficit is causing ? Attack ads work because they are simple. People understand "John Kerry" is a liar , "Obama is an uber Liberal", "Michael Dukakis is a cary carrying member of the ACLU" "Bob Dole is mean" they are very simple ideas that stick in peoples heads.

[sharkman]

Of course Bush is not running, but neither is Reverend Wright. They have managed to stick Wright to Obama, and I think it would be even easier to stick Bush to McCain. The Republicans got crushed in the last congressional elections because of Bush.

Voters are stuipid. How many really understands the Obama health plan, or McCain's reasons for staying in Iraq. How many can comprehend the long term damage the current budget deficit is causing ? Attack ads work because they are simple. People understand "John Kerry" is a liar , "Obama is an uber Liberal", "Michael Dukakis is a cary carrying member of the ACLU" "Bob Dole is mean" they are very simple ideas that stick in peoples heads.

All you need is lots of money to beat these simple ideas into peoples heads. In the past the money has come from the religious right, now it may come from the left.

Speak for yourself.

Uh, they didn't manage to stick Wright to Obama. If they could have, Obama would have lost the nomination, plain and simple. His voting base believed instead that, although he went to the man's church for 20 years, he never heard any of the controversial sermons. Obama was lying his ass off of course. But his base (90% of blacks) doesn't seem to care. I think it's partly because they believe some of the things Wright said, and they see any attacks on Obama as racial attacks. And when he loses in the election, they will see it as whitey putting down the black man, and riots will ensue.

[Kitchener]

Israeli leadership turns out to be anti-Israel appeasers; now negotiating with Syria!

I'm sure Bush will be "lowering the boom" on them any day now for being, like, all appeasing and stuff.

[M.Dancer]

Israeli leadership turns out to be anti-Israel appeasers; now negotiating with Syria!

I'm sure Bush will be "lowering the boom" on them any day now for being, like, all appeasing and stuff.

Maybe you should read the article instead of stopping at the headline.

[Kitchener]

Maybe you should read the article instead of stopping at the headline.

I'm sure you think you have some point here. Perhaps by attempting to make it explicit, you would discover whether you really do, or are merely under (what some might call) a "foolish delusion".

[M.Dancer]

I'm sure you think you have some point here. Perhaps by attempting to make it explicit, you would discover whether you really do, or are merely under (what some might call) a "foolish delusion".

Perhaps you should comment on the content of the article rather than what you wish it said.

[Kitchener]

Perhaps you should comment on the content of the article rather than what you wish it said.

Keep trying... clearly you believe you have something to say...

The Israelis are negotiating with the Syrians. Bush went to Israel to snipe at Obama that “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."

If you think something somewhere in the article states that Israel is not negotiating with Syria, you should consider yourself gloriously free to actually cite it.

Or continue making a fool of yourself. Also good, I guess.

[M.Dancer]

Keep trying... clearly you believe you have something to say...

The Israelis are negotiating with the Syrians. Bush went to Israel to snipe at Obama that “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."

If you think something somewhere in the article states that Israel is not negotiating with Syria, you should consider yourself gloriously free to actually cite it.

Or continue making a fool of yourself. Also good, I guess.

Thanks for equating Syria with terrorists....

This may be too subtle for you...

This week's statement says the two sides will negotiate indirectly, through Turkish mediation,

[Kitchener]

Thanks for equating Syria with terrorists....

I think you meant to address this to the Bush administration, right?

This may be too subtle for you, being obvious and all, but the point is about Bush's hypocrisy. Note how the article -- if you read it -- points out that Olmert has blamed the US as being the ones who oppose Israeli negotiations with Syria. Hence making their current negotiations as good a candidate for "appeasement" as whatever lame-assed analogy Bush was burping out about Obama.

[M.Dancer]

I think you meant to address this to the Bush administration, right?

This may be too subtle for you, being obvious and all, but the point is about Bush's hypocrisy. Note how the article -- if you read it -- points out that Olmert has blamed the US as being the ones who oppose Israeli negotiations with Syria. Hence making their current negotiations as good a candidate for "appeasement" as whatever lame-assed analogy Bush was burping out about Obama.

I looked everywhere for the word blame....couldn't find it. Perhaps you read a differnt story.

So why are talks starting now? Mr Olmert used to hint that America was blocking them. American officials have toned down their public distaste in recent months, saying that Israel is free to do what it wants. The Bush administration still believes that the Golan is not enough to buy Syria's dissociation from its current Iranian and Lebanese allies.

As for Obama...bah....the jr senator wants to appease...that is give away everything in return for nothing. Israel on the otherhand have chips they can use and chips they want in return....and that is obvioulsly too obvious for you.

[Kitchener]

I looked everywhere for the word blame....couldn't find it. Perhaps you read a differnt story.

Throw your back out with that dodge?

And your self-foot-shooting about Syria suddenly down the memory hole, eh?

As for Obama...bah....the jr senator wants to appease...that is give away everything in return for nothing.

Golly, what story did you read those exact words in? Talk about hypocritical buffoonery.

[M.Dancer]

Talk about hypocritical buffoonery.

Don't talk about Obama that way...he da great democratic white hope.

But go ahead....there's something to be gained from Syria and syria has something to gain from Israel....what is there to be gained from Hezbollah? What is there from Hamas?

Anyway, there will be no truce with Hamas...Hamas will refuse to stop rocketing.... and whether Syria is prepared to stop funding Hezbollah is another story...I doubt it as it gives them a proxy card in labanon.