"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....
"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.
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"
We are going to start beliveing what the Bush White House says again?
Bush never said, "Obama says this". He said "Some" say this. At least according to the quote. Where is the immediate assumption that he was speaking of Obama coming from?I'm lost, please explain.
Bush never said, "Obama says this". He said "Some" say this. At least according to the quote. Where is the immediate assumption that he was speaking of Obama coming from?
Bush never said, "Obama says this". He said "Some" say this. At least according to the quote. Where is the immediate assumption that he was speaking of Obama coming from?
Stop.
Ah, I see... Aids are always "privately" holding conversations with somebody who hates Bush all the time. Because you know, Bush's Administration tolerates that kind of stuff...the fact that the article said those secret anonymous "aides" said it was about "Obama and others". Which means the aide probably stated... it is about everyone who suggested direct talks, which the writer then assumed meant "Obama and others". I mean the world does revolve around Obama and all.
Regardless, it is a moot point. As agreed upon by most on the thread, Bush's comments were ridiculous at best... idiotic at the norm.
Ah, I see... Aids are always "privately" holding conversations with somebody who hates Bush all the time. Because you know, Bush's Administration tolerates that kind of stuff...
But heck, I hadn't read the huffington article until now, just the quote. It does say that Bush Aides privately told her it was about "Obama and other Democrats" so I should believe it.
the fact that the article said those secret anonymous "aides" said it was about "Obama and others". Which means the aide probably stated... it is about everyone who suggested direct talks, which the writer then assumed meant "Obama and others". I mean the world does revolve around Obama and all.
Regardless, it is a moot point. As agreed upon by most on the thread, Bush's comments were ridiculous at best... idiotic at the norm.
How the fuck do you know?
That's a neat trick though: 1) Make a baseless assumption based on a baseless assumption 2) ??????, 3) profit.
Ah, I see... Aids are always "privately" holding conversations with somebody who hates Bush all the time. Because you know, Bush's Administration tolerates that kind of stuff...
But heck, I hadn't read the huffington article until now, just the quote. It does say that Bush Aides privately told her it was about "Obama and other Democrats" so I should believe it.
Yeah, because SF is making loads of money here.
Yeah, because SF is making loads of money here.
Well, he is an underpants gnome isn't he?
Do elaborate...