Bush Compares Obama To Nazi Appeasers IN ISRAEL

B

blackascoal

The Force is With Me
"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."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/15/bush-compares-obama-to-na_n_101859.html
 
He makes my skin crawl, and it defies belief that he could still be speaking like this. But I think he has become a caricature of himself. I don’t think this is going to play, at all, anymore.
 
This is beyond the pale and I'm sure McCain will publicly run away from it.

Isn't negotiation what halted the North Koreans after years of unsuccessful bluster from the Bush Administration?

Didn't Bush negotiate with Libya?
 
Missed this; I started a dupe. The guy barely opens his mouth anymore, but when he does, it's always something that tees me off.

I'm so sick of him (and the rest of his minions) lecturing us about what is & isn't the right course of action, after presiding over the worst foreign policy debacle in modern times.
 
McCain and Bush will make a great team. McCain publically denouncing negative campaigning, Bush with the nasty comments.
 
It demonstrates the imbalance America has with Israel in the middle east.

I wonder what American Jews think of this.
 
His definition of "appeasement" is total BS. Neville Chamberlain made CONCESSIONS to Hitler, and actually appeased.

Merely talking isn't appeasing, and trying to equate the 2 is incredibly deceitful, and probably effective with a portion of the American public. It's one of the continuing methods they use to stifle debate & prevent any sort of honest discussion about terrorism & foreign policy.
 
Where is the mighty UN in all of this? Why are they not using their "we can solve shit in a month" (when we actually get off our asses) diplomacy? Why have they not resolved the issues with Iran? Sudan? Congo? Burma? Tibet?

Oh yeah... because they are impotent. They will wait until the US does something and then criticize it and tell us how they could have done it better.

and yes... this is a feeble feeble diversionary attempt as there simply is no response or justification for Bush's comments.
 
I love how much he completely out-classes Bush. Bush looks like a little boy w/ a duncecap on just on his own, but whenever he engages Obama in any way, the contrast is even more pronounced.

What a pathetic, loser excuse for a man & President...
 
Superfreak said:
Where is the mighty UN in all of this? Why are they not using their "we can solve shit in a month" (when we actually get off our asses) diplomacy? Why have they not resolved the issues with Iran? Sudan? Congo? Burma? Tibet?

Oh yeah... because they are impotent. They will wait until the US does something and then criticize it and tell us how they could have done it better.

and yes... this is a feeble feeble diversionary attempt as there simply is no response or justification for Bush's comments.
Click to expand...

What the fuck does this have to do with anything?

In any event, it's just another fucking bullshit attempt to blame institutions for things the individual members of the institution refuse to do. The UN can only act when the members of the UN authorize it to act. The UN can't just up and decide to tackle issues in the Sudan, Congo, Burma or Tibet unless the members of the UN authorize it. "They" are the member states, including the United States, not "the UN."

As far as I am aware, the US hasn't really pressed the UN to do anything at all about the Sudan, Congo, Burma or Tibet. If the US really wanted to do so, it could. It doesn't.

On the Iranian front, you are aware that the IAEA monitors the Iranian nuclear program and that the UN security council recently imposed heightened sanctions on Iran for failing to halt it's enrichment program. This is a classic example of the US, a member state and permanent member of the security council, getting things done at the UN when it wants to. What more do you want?
 
Damocles said:
It is interesting that "some (people)" means "Obama" to people.
Click to expand...

"The White House said Bush's comment wasn't a reference to Obama.

"It is not," press secretary Dana Perino told reporters in Israel. "I would think that all of you who cover these issues and have for a long time have known that there are many who have suggested these types of negotiations with people that the president, President Bush, thinks that we should not talk to. 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."

Note.... The above in no way justifies Bush's comments, whether they were about Obama or not....
 
Dungheap said:
What the fuck does this have to do with anything?

In any event, it's just another fucking bullshit attempt to blame institutions for things the individual members of the institution refuse to do. The UN can only act when the members of the UN authorize it to act. The UN can't just up and decide to tackle issues in the Sudan, Congo, Burma or Tibet unless the members of the UN authorize it. "They" are the member states, including the United States, not "the UN."

As far as I am aware, the US hasn't really pressed the UN to do anything at all about the Sudan, Congo, Burma or Tibet. If the US really wanted to do so, it could. It doesn't.

On the Iranian front, you are aware that the IAEA monitors the Iranian nuclear program and that the UN security council recently imposed heightened sanctions on Iran for failing to halt it's enrichment program. This is a classic example of the US, a member state and permanent member of the security council, getting things done at the UN when it wants to. What more do you want?
Click to expand...


Wow, somebody went off.... and I am guessing you never made it to the final line of my post....

"and yes... this is a feeble feeble diversionary attempt as there simply is no response or justification for Bush's comments"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top