May 16, 2008 9:18 AM
Dems say McCain flip-flopped on negotiating with Hamas
The blowback continues on President Bush's remarks in Israel that those who would negotiate with rogue leaders and terrorists as appeasers in a speech to the Israeli Knesset which was perceived as an attack on Democratic presidential frontrunner Barack Obama.
Democrats are accusing presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain of flip-flopping on the issue, saying he was in favor of negotiations with Hamas before he was against it.
James P. Rubin, who was State Department spokesman during the Clinton administration, writes:
Given his own position on Hamas, McCain is the last politician who should be attacking Obama. Two years ago, just after Hamas won the Palestinian parliamentary elections, I interviewed McCain for the British network Sky News's "World News Tonight" program. Here is the crucial part of our exchange:I asked: "Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the way they have in the past, working with the Palestinian government if Hamas is now in charge?"
McCain answered: "They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that."
For some Europeans in Davos, Switzerland, where the interview took place, that's a perfectly reasonable answer. But it is an unusual if not unique response for an American politician from either party. And it is most certainly not how the newly conservative presumptive Republican nominee would reply today.
Given that exchange, the new John McCain might say that Hamas should be rooting for the old John McCain to win the presidential election. The old John McCain, it appears, was ready to do business with a Hamas-led government, while both Clinton and Obama have said that Hamas must change its policies toward Israel and terrorism before it can have diplomatic relations with the United States.
EARLIER
President Bush warned in Israel against "appeasement" of terrorists - and Sen. Barack Obama took it personally.
Obama accused President Bush of "a false political attack" Thursday after Bush warned in Israel against appeasing terrorists - early salvos in a general election campaign that's already blazing even as Obama tries to sew up his party's nomination.The White House denied Obama was Bush's target, but the Democratic presidential contender said the Republican president's intent was clear. John McCain, the likely GOP nominee, jumped in, too, using the opportunity to argue that Obama was showing "naivete and inexperience and lack of judgment" in his willingness to meet with U.S. foes.
With the president abroad and those seeking to succeed him campaigning at home, the transcontinental tiff signaled the early direction of the general election. Bush seemed to assume the traditional lame-duck presidential role in trying to help the Republican nominee-in-waiting, and Obama tried to maneuver for advantage - and to show strength - while on the cusp of clinching the Democratic nomination.
McCain played his political role as well in tandem with Obama, notable for two White House hopefuls who are campaigning for a bipartisan governing approach free of the often divisive discourse in Washington.
As the workday began stateside, Bush gave a speech to Israel's Knesset in which he spoke of the president of Iran, who has called for the destruction of the U.S. ally. Then, Bush said: "Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along."
"We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all 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," Bush added.
Reaction was quick: Sen. Joe Biden called Bush's remarks "bullshit." House speaker Nancy Pelosi called Bush's remarks "beneath the dignity of the office."
Massimo Calabresi has this analysis of the Bush-Obama smackfest.
May 15, 2008
2:41 PM
Shaggy aka Obamas typical bitter white person writes:
Hearye Hearye,
From now on anyone who questions me is either a racist or attacking me.
Even if they are repeating my exact statements or sentiments.
Barack Hussein Obama.
May 15, 2008
2:44 PM
Anonymous writes:
Does he really need to say or accuse? I am rather positive Osama has been preaching appeasement for quite some time now, allong with the rest of his fellow surrender monkeys. Hmm, theres a thought, the Femdems are finally getting a real life porch monkey to lead the surrender monkeys....
May 15, 2008
2:47 PM
Anonymous writes:
Does he really need to say or accuse? I am rather positive Osama has been preaching appeasement for quite some time now, allong with the rest of his fellow surrender monkeys. Hmm, theres a thought, the Femdems are finally getting a real life porch monkey to lead the surrender monkeys....
May 15, 2008
2:52 PM
Anonymous writes:
Hey Obama,
Why did you call for Don Imus's firing yet you protected the comments from your racist Reverend.
Heavens forbid someone quote you directly.
You are getting peeled like an onion and what we are left with stinks to high heaven.
I've heard you cry foul more times than I hear you telling the truth.
Poor baby, wait until the general election.
May 15, 2008
2:53 PM
jay writes:
is anyone really listening to this guy or the folks that support his policies anymore?
May 15, 2008
3:21 PM
Anonymous writes:
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4630
May 15, 2008
3:21 PM
Anonymous writes:
Stupid jay, no one is listening, blah blah, yet you are so scared of letting the people vote on the abortion issue. Jay, all talk, all the time
May 15, 2008
3:49 PM
PJ Pulitzer writes:
"Appeaser" is too kind a thing to call Obama. "A**-Kisser" is more like it.
May 15, 2008
4:00 PM
Like it Is writes:
Bush is getting soft in his old age. He should say what he really thinks. Bush is doing God's will and Obama is Satan.
May 15, 2008
6:35 PM
Plain Language writes:
If the shoe fits.....
May 15, 2008
10:41 PM
joe writes:
>Hmm, theres a thought, the Femdems are finally getting a real life porch monkey to lead the surrender monkeys....
That's the good thing about the Obama candidacy- it's going to bring all the racist a**holes out into the open.
May 16, 2008
6:46 AM
Anonymous writes:
Even all the talking heads on cable are laughing at the Whitehouse's denial on this report.
Whitehouse lost it's credibility as soon as Bush took office. You know, the party that ran on credibility.
May 16, 2008
7:16 AM
SASQUATCH writes:
BASED ON OBAMA'S HYSTERICAL AND VERY DEFENSIVE REACTION it sure looks looks like Bush ripped it right off of BO's website. Did Bush rip a page out of the DNC playbook and expose it to America? Based on that "raw nevere" reaction from all the Dems, it sure looks that way!
May 16, 2008
7:31 AM
Anonymous writes:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/22/60minutes/main595214.shtml
Remember this?
"Doing Business With The Enemy
Are U.S. Firms Doing Business In Nations That Support Terrorism?
CBS) Did it ever occur to you that when President Bush says, "Money is the lifeblood of terrorist operations," he's talking about your money -- and every other American's money"
"“These three companies, as far as we were concerned, appear to have violated the spirit of the law,” says Thompson. “In the case of Halliburton, as an example, they have an offshore subsidiary in the Cayman Islands. That subsidiary is doing business with Iran.”
That subsidiary, Halliburton Products and Services, Ltd., is wholly owned by the U.S.-based Halliburton and is registered in a building in the capital of the Cayman Islands – a building owned by the local Calidonian Bank. Halliburton and other companies set up in this Caribbean Island, because of tax and secrecy laws that are corporate friendly.
Halliburton is the company that Vice President Dick Cheney used to run. He was CEO from 1995 to 2000, during which time Halliburton Products and Services set up shop in Iran. Today, it sells about $40 million a year worth of oil field services to the Iranian government"
Very sad indeed
"
May 16, 2008
7:42 AM
Charles_B writes:
People ranting about Obama wanting to "appease" the enemy simply don't know the meaning of the term.
Appeasement isn't merely talking to the enemy, it's capitulation. Chamberlain's mistake wasn't talking to Hitler, it was giving away half of Czechoslovakia.
Only someone profoundly stupid would dismiss talking to an enemy in favor of armed conflict as appeasement, so of course Bush would do it--on foreign soil no less.
Here's a clip of the sort of bullying moron on the right who talked real loud about appeasement but hasn't even the faintest clue what the word means:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YK0d8ENS__c&e
Hilarious and scary at the same time--that someone could be so ignorant and be given a microphone to amplify his stupidity. This clip should end this guy's career.
May 16, 2008
7:43 AM
nappyheadedho writes:
Rev. Wright (USN and USMC vet), I'm gonna get ya! You didn't tell Americans GWB and USSC Judge Alito are both card-toting UCMJ felons, AWOL, deserters, and guilty of illegal separation and discharge. Nor did he tell that McCain and Neil bush are both bank robbers and whoremeongers. GHWB refused to prosecute his own son, however, GWB saw fit to prosecute Lil' Kim, Bonds, Jones, Snipes, Re. Sharpton, Vick, and Denver's Rev. Acen Phillips. Sweet plantation justice. Meanwhile, Obama and his posse, NAACP and Congressional Black Caucus are hiding under their desks, singing and humming stanzas from "We Shall Overcome".
May 16, 2008
7:50 AM
SASQUATCH writes:
Haven't Pelosi and Jimmie Carter been routinely huddling with middle-east terrorists as reported right here in the Rocky? Didn't John Kerry meet with the North Vietnamese military DURING that war?
No wonder why the Dems are so hyper-sensitive and defensive. The truth hurts.
May 16, 2008
8:11 AM
Froward69 writes:
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/07/hbc-90000651
every other generation the Bush family has been trying to dismantle America.
then the obtuse nature of glorifying wrights questionable remarks while Ignoring pat roberson, fallwell, and mcSames current witchdoctor. "New Orleans had it coming, from god."
May 16, 2008
8:14 AM
Anonymous writes:
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/07/hbc-90000651
every other generation the Bush family has been trying to dismantle America.
then the obtuse nature of glorifying wrights questionable remarks while Ignoring pat roberson, fallwell, and mcSames current witchdoctor. "New Orleans had it coming, from god."
May 16, 2008
8:14 AM
Froward69 writes:
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/07/hbc-90000651
every other generation the Bush family has been trying to dismantle America.
then the obtuse nature of glorifying wrights questionable remarks while Ignoring pat roberson, fallwell, and mcSames current witchdoctor. "New Orleans had it coming, from god."
May 16, 2008
8:59 AM
just sayin' writes:
Who cares what Bush has to say about anything? He has been a colossal failure. His policies and actions have been nothing but destructive. He is without a doubt the worst President in our country's history.
May 16, 2008
9:07 AM
KW writes:
Hey fro - Ease up a bit on that post button wouldja?
I saw the video and Bush was definitely taking a shot over bow of the democrats ship, but to say he was aiming at any "one" person in particular is inane.
But what's revealing is the responses by certain members of the dem party feeling the need to denounce Bush's remark with harsh criticism... this shows an obvious nerve has been struck.
Apparently Obama, Kerry, Pelosi, etc..., can identify well with Bush's remark, and felt the need to defend the very position they claim never to have taken.
May 16, 2008
9:22 AM
Uninformed Lefty Wingnut writes:
"National Sea Monkey Day" is obviously a right wing conspiracy to defame Barak Obama, and to use racial stereotypes against him. I demand a full investigation and that Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and the NAACP organize a day of national civil disobedience.
May 16, 2008
9:27 AM
Charles_B writes:
People ranting about Obama wanting to "appease" the enemy simply don't know the meaning of the term.
Appeasement isn't merely talking to the enemy, it's capitulation. Chamberlain's mistake wasn't talking to Hitler, it was giving away half of Czechoslovakia.
Only someone profoundly stupid would dismiss talking to an enemy in favor of armed conflict as appeasement, so of course Bush would do it--on foreign soil no less.
Here's a clip of the sort of bullying moron on the right who talked real loud about appeasement but hasn't even the faintest clue what the word means:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YK0d8ENS__c&e
Hilarious and scary at the same time--that someone could be so ignorant and be given a microphone to amplify his stupidity. This clip should end this guy's career.
May 16, 2008
10:16 AM
primafacie writes:
That was clearly a jab at the Democrats and the Code Pink types. Not just Barack Obama, also Nancy Pelosi and Jimmy Carter.
While there is merit in tough diplomacy with Iran and North Korea -- states with which we are not yet directly at war -- we are certainly indirectly at war with Iran and its tacit support of the terrorists in Iraq.
With such extremists, what is there to discuss? Where is the room for negotiation in 9/11? Where is the gray area in "wipe Israel off the map"? If there are magic words to convince Hamas and Hellabazoo (Rep. Charlie Rangel's mispronuncation, still cracks me up) to see the error of their ways, let's hear them.
May 16, 2008
10:29 AM
Shaggy aka Obamas typical bitter white person writes:
I love this....Poor Obama....No one should even second guess this elitist or you will have a flock of loons pecking at you...lol
What a flipping baby Obama is once he gets peeled..it's gonna be a long and embarrassing election for him
Even if this was a shot at Obama, it is not a lie...He has said he would meet under no obligations with terrorist states.
Why does he think he is being targeted?
Must be the quilt by association again.
I can't believe so many people cannot see thru this clown already
May 16, 2008
11:27 AM
history buff writes:
Charles B
Excellent post.
May 16, 2008
11:29 AM
Tbone writes:
Seeing as how bush's grandpa did business with the nazi's, he might want to watch who he's calling an appeaser.
Man, the 2008 mccain is going to be so pissed at the 2006 mcccain for wanting to talk to hamas.
I see the trolls are out today in full force.
May 16, 2008
12:36 PM
SASQUATCH writes:
OBAMA GOT CAUGT LIEING, NO WONDER HIS HYSTERICAL REACTION!!!
Not only has Obama said that he would unconditionally meet with terrorists--his unambiguous and condeming tapes are being played over and over again on radio--BO's position is also made perfectly clear on his website.
More importantly, BO has ALREADY meet with terrorists--his close personal friend, pentagon, capital and NYC police station bomber--WILLIAM AYRES (Weather Underground)--was an active, and still remains, a very proud terrorist.
The peeling of this phony, common and lieing politico continues!
May 16, 2008
1:15 PM
Anonymous writes:
HEY LOOK AT ME.
Let me indulge you in MY fantasies.
May 16, 2008
1:52 PM
shag2 writes:
Shag, you have so much credibility after voting for the worst prez. in american history twice. Give it up you moron. NO ONE respects anything you or sasquatch say here. You should both be in therapy and on medication. And whats w/ the obsession w/ hair?
May 16, 2008
2:04 PM
Shaggy writes:
Then don't read them 760 errrrr Shag2.
You have asked me that question several times.
However I do understand why you wouldn't post under AM760 anymore.
btw, did you see that Mark had to take another one of your posts down?
That make sit two....I have been on here for two years and have NEVER seen anyone else's that had to be taken down.
It shouldn't be taken as a compliment.
May 16, 2008
2:47 PM
Love & Darkness & my Sidearm writes:
McCain flip-flopping? You're kidding.
Why is this news - everybody knows McCain is a standard dyed-in-the-wool GOP Sheeple who will change his stance as needed after he wets his finger and holds it to the sky to see which way the political wind is blowing.
He was once "straight-talk", but now has become just another GOP blowhard who repeats the same pathetic Righty Drivel that we hear from proven losers like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Anne Coulter.
May 16, 2008
3:28 PM
Ben- Former Democrat writes:
Love,
McCain a "dyed in the wool" GOP. Hell, I consider him an old school Democrat, and a traitor(amnesty nonsense and all).
May 16, 2008
3:30 PM
Anonymous writes:
Has anyone ever seen someone who gets a free pass in the press as Obama does?
Has anyone ever seen someone apologize as much as Obama does?
Has anyone seen someone protect their racial friends like Obama does?
Has anyone ever seen someone that protects his terrorist friends like Obama does?
Has anyone ever seen someone throw their grandma under the bus as Obama did?
Has anyone ever seen someone who's wife is not proud of her country as Obamas is?
Have you ever seen someone running for President that has so many off limits such as middle names, preachers, Churches, white grandmas..ect as Obama?
Has anyone ever seen someone as arrogant as obama?
Has anyone ever seen someone get so offended when when our President says we shouldn't talk with Terrorist nations as Obama?
Has anyone ever seen someone so inexperienced run for the highest office as Obama?
Has anyone ever seen someone that would be the worst person ever for President as Obama?
Will we all see the biggest face plant by any Candidate ever to run for President like will happen to Obama?
May 16, 2008
3:40 PM
Ben- Former Democrat writes:
3:30 No I haven't. It is unprecedented, and unacceptable.
May 16, 2008
3:59 PM
Anonymous writes:
Has anyone ever seen someone who gets a free pass in the press as John McSame does?
Has anyone ever seen someone apologize as much as John McSame does?
Has anyone seen someone protect their racial friends like John McSame does?
Has anyone ever seen someone that protects his terrorist friends like John McSame does?
Has anyone ever seen someone throw their grandma under the bus as John McSame did?
Has anyone ever seen someone who's wife is not proud of her country as John McSames is?
Have you ever seen someone running for President that has so many off limits such as middle names, preachers, Churches, white grandmas..ect as John McSame?
Has anyone ever seen someone as arrogant as John McSame?
Has anyone ever seen someone get so offended when when our President says we shouldn't talk with Terrorist nations as John McSame?
Has anyone ever seen someone so inexperienced run for the highest office as John McSame?
Has anyone ever seen someone that would be the worst person ever for President as John McSame?
Will we all see the biggest face plant by any Candidate ever to run for President like will happen to John McSame?
May 16, 2008
4:00 PM
Anonymous writes:
Just watched the Chris Mathews show from the you Youtube post Charles_B put up.
Shaggy, KW- that's you ramming your nonsense down these blogs every 10 minutes. So now you know.
May 16, 2008
4:08 PM
Jack- Former Republican writes:
3:59 No I haven't. It is unprecedented, and unacceptable.
May 16, 2008
4:49 PM
just sayin' writes:
that was a classic Charles B. I thought O'Really was the biggest wingnut stooge but I guess it is this Kevin James person
May 16, 2008
5:49 PM
jay writes:
has mcsame flipflopped on supporting dialogue with regional players including hamas?
"They’re the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so…but it’s a new reality in the Middle East."---mcflip, 2006
May 17, 2008
6:51 AM
Anonymous writes:
Another sad example
http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/2-halliburton-charged-with-selling-nuclear-technologies-to-iran/
"Halliburton Charged with Selling Nuclear Technologies to Iran
in Top 25 Censored Stories for 2007
Source: Global Research.ca, August 5, 2005, Title: “Halliburton Secretly Doing Business With Key Member of Iran’s Nuclear Team,” Author: Jason Leopold
Faculty Evaluator: Catherine Nelson
Student Researchers: Kristine Medeiros and Pla Herr
According to journalist Jason Leopold, sources at former Cheney company Halliburton allege that, as recently as January of 2005, Halliburton sold key components for a nuclear reactor to an Iranian oil development company. Leopold says his Halliburton sources have intimate knowledge of the business dealings of both Halliburton and Oriental Oil Kish, one of Iran’s largest private oil companies. "
"During a trip to the Middle East in March 1996, Vice President Dick Cheney told a group of mostly U.S. businessmen that Congress should ease sanctions in Iran and Libya to foster better relationships, a statement that, in hindsight, is completely hypocritical considering the Bush administration’s foreign policy.
“Let me make a generalized statement about a trend I see in the U.S. Congress that I find disturbing, that applies not only with respect to the Iranian situation but a number of others as well,” Cheney said. “I think we Americans sometimes make mistakes . . . There seems to be an assumption that somehow we know what’s best for everybody else and that we are going to use our economic clout to get everybody else to live the way we would like.”
Cheney was the chief executive of Halliburton Corporation at the time he uttered those words. It was Cheney who directed Halliburton toward aggressive business dealings with Iran—in violation of U.S. law—in the mid-1990s, which continued through 2005 and is the reason Iran has the capability to enrich weapons-grade uranium.
It was Halliburton’s secret sale of centrifuges to Iran that helped get the uranium enrichment program off the ground, according to a three-year investigation that includes interviews conducted with more than a dozen current and former Halliburton employees. "
Bushies sold us out as usual
May 17, 2008
11:31 AM
Liberal Hypocrisy writes:
Democrats are very disorganized. First Obama starts policital ads exploiting McCains discussion about a military presence in Iraq by implying that he supported a continued war in Iraq for 50 or 100 years. There defense for this blatant lie was "it was McCain's own words".
Now, without mentioning names, President Bush reminds the world about Obama's own words regarding unconditional meetings with supporters of terror, namely Iran. Obama's people immediately cry foul like little girls at the use of Obama's own words. They then "adjust" Obama's position statement to say that he would only have discussions with Iran once they discontinue their nuclear program.
Funny.... that has been Bush's position all along.
Yes Virginia, the Democrats are imploding again.
May 17, 2008
11:31 AM
Liberal Hypocrisy writes:
Democrats are very disorganized. First Obama starts policital ads exploiting McCains discussion about a military presence in Iraq by implying that he supported a continued war in Iraq for 50 or 100 years. There defense for this blatant lie was "it was McCain's own words".
Now, without mentioning names, President Bush reminds the world about Obama's own words regarding unconditional meetings with supporters of terror, namely Iran. Obama's people immediately cry foul like little girls at the use of Obama's own words. They then "adjust" Obama's position statement to say that he would only have discussions with Iran once they discontinue their nuclear program.
Funny.... that has been Bush's position all along.
Yes Virginia, the Democrats are imploding again.
May 17, 2008
11:43 AM
Anonymous writes:
I feel bad for McSame - poor guy has to spend the next 6 months kissing Bush/Cheney/Rove/Limbaugh/Coulter/Hannitty a$$, and his "reward" will be losing at least 30 states to Obama.
Dude deserved a better ending than this.....
May 17, 2008
12:53 PM
LOL writes:
too funny jay. Dems are so fractured that polls document time and time again the significant crossover voting that will occur in November. Your uninformed bravado is worthy of a loyal liberal sheeple.
Keep up the self hypnosis.
LOL.
May 17, 2008
1:30 PM
jay writes:
conspiracy theories about "crossover" voters isn't going to help you overcome the the horrible effects wrought by the possibility of yet another failed bush term under mcsame crazy cruton
May 17, 2008
1:54 PM
Anonymous writes:
What will really save the dumocrats right now is when John Kerry "reports for duty"...
May 17, 2008
2:04 PM
Anonymous writes:
McCain, McSame, McBush......
(snort, tee hee, wheeze)
So Cool. It rhymes.
-jayhole
May 17, 2008
2:09 PM
Monty writes:
You usual hypocrisy is on display again jay. You only quote polls whose results fit into your radical ideology. You pass off as conspiracy those that do not.
Very weak old boy.
May 17, 2008
7:39 PM
Smells like Bush writes:
McCain predicts Iraq victory by 2013
"its not a time table" its victoy which I have always predicted. I didn't know when we were going to win WW 2- I just knew we were going to win"
Now much of a strategy is it?
May 18, 2008
2:06 PM
Mitch R. writes:
Jay is just his usual duplicitous self. He always cherry picks polls and discounts the ones that don't further his far left ideas.
that's why no one takes him seriously.
May 18, 2008
6:35 PM
Republicans are untrustworthy writes:
Robert Gates a Bushies also says we should talk too.
A"sserting that Obama "wants to talk to" Iran, CBS' Greenfield did not mention that Gates also advocates talking to Iran
Summary: While discussing President Bush's speech to the Israeli Knesset, in which Bush stated that "some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals," Jeff Greenfield stated that "the number one fear in Israel and among some American Jews is Iran -- that's who Obama wants to talk to." However, Greenfield did not note that Defense Secretary Robert Gates reportedly stated that the United States should "sit down and talk with" Iran."
http://mediamatters.org/items/200805160009
May 18, 2008
8:18 PM
Anonymous writes:
What will really save the dumocrats right now is when John Kerry "reports for duty"...
Posted by on May 17
Atually the fact that Bush has been AWOL (again) is all they needed
May 19, 2008
8:49 AM
Jeff writes:
McCain flip-flops on everything. That's the point! That's what has made him the darling of the media and the left as he doesn't subscribe to everything the GOP does. Just one example shows why he won't get this GOP'rs vote in November: He conspired with 13 others to subvert the constitution in creating an illegal strong-arm group bent on preventing congress from performing it's duties.
Any leftie here who says he doesn't want McCain in office isn't showing their true colors. They love the 'Maverick' in this guy and they've touted his ability to thumb his nose at those who voted him into office while he does whatever he wants.
I'll be abstaining from the vote this year as there isn't anyone worthy of the office in this election.
May 19, 2008
8:53 AM
Anonymous writes:
seems to me that the major issue here, once again, was W opening his ignorant mouth again ... as for JM, so what? ... he changed his mind? .... whoopty-do ... crank up the spin machine, just like stupid trinket items that BO says fires of the repugnican spin monster .... I hate what politics has become in this country ... always adversarial and almost never cooperative ... no wonder nothing ever seems to progress
May 19, 2008
9:00 AM
Anonymous writes:
Then leave the political blogs Jeff.
You can't complain if you don't vote. You deserve the crappy society you didn't vote to change. I think there's an American Idol blog out there just for you.
May 19, 2008
9:20 AM
SkiBum writes:
What we always see during elections is that almost all candidates for a given office appear to vacillate because they are, at times, breaking free of supporting their party positions and adding clarity based on their own beliefs, as well as reacting to changes in many areas. For example, nobody has voted "present" more than Obama - but if he is elected, he won't get to do that. Can't you hear it now? "Mr. President, we're tracking multiple ICBM launches from Russia. What are your orders?" And Obama replies, "Present".
What matters most with both of the final candidates is, what do they believe now, and what actions would they take in various circumstances? If we have to hold them to finite accountability for things they supported during the previous regime, then we're viewing things through tainted lenses.
May 19, 2008
10:00 AM
Jeff writes:
9:00 your ignorance is astounding.
McCain is the consumate politician who will strive to please everyone, everytime... as long as it gets him in the press.
Hillary is the 'blame everyone else' candidate
Obamma is the 'smooth talking, deliver nothing' candidate.
There isn't anything about any of these candidates the inspires trust or confidence. The biggest concern is that they'd break what currently works. McCain is the closest to the same ideology but he's proven he can't be trusted with the keys, Hillary is of the same vein and we KNOW holds ZERO ability to be trusted. Obamma, in his naïveté, would wreak havok on many things that protect America such as the Patriot Act and NSEERS. The 'populist, media educated masses' (ie; lazy, leftist media fed, ingoramous' such as yourself) wouldn't realize the impact of his ineptness until the mullah's are going door-to-door selling Qur'ans as the media will willingly cover it up.
The only candidate which would restore America is Alan Keyes but he hasn't brown-nosed the politically-correct crowd enough and has no likely-hood of getting elected.
Your desire to treat this election similar to the braindead 'Idol' watchers in just picking 'one of the last ones standing' is what should disqualify you and those similar from the voting booth. Millions of people will vote for Obamma just because his name has been plastered all over everything and it's recognizable.
May 19, 2008
10:59 AM
jay writes:
"The biggest concern is that they'd break what currently works."
interesting thought. what do you think has been "working" under bush, jeff?
"Obamma, in his naïveté, would wreak havok on many things that protect America such as the Patriot Act and NSEERS. The 'populist, media educated masses' wouldn't realize the impact of his ineptness until the mullah's are going door-to-door selling Qur'ans as the media will willingly cover it up."
seriously? do you really believe this?
May 19, 2008
11:02 AM
Tbone writes:
skibum-
Why would Russia launch ICBM's at us?
This is 2008, not 1988.
Let me guess - Fred Thompson supporter?
May 19, 2008
11:59 AM
SkiBum writes:
Tbone, it was an intentionally silly example, just to show how he will have to make solid decisions if elected president. I think he would do just fine to be honest. Things change for any person elected to office, and what Obama did, or McCain did, or what Hillary did, may not be the same things they would do as president.
Jeff, do I understand this correctly? You actually support the Patriot Act (the name of which is wholly laughable and disgusting to all things in the name of freedom and liberty)?
May 19, 2008
12:41 PM
DR writes:
I'm having a difficult time Jeff, understanding what you are concerned about Obama or anyone breaking. I was trying to count the broken things during Bush II, and just right off the top have come up with:
- the economy
- Iraq
- energy in general
- Habeas Corpus
- The Constitution and Bill of Rights
- Louisiana and Mississippi
- our refusal to break Geneva conventions
- our stand on torture
- healthcare improvements
- no child left behind
- wiretap protections
- federal budget
- mail, email, phys surveillance protections
And these took little time and almost no effort. Given more time, the list could easily double or triple. My guess is that Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and the other founders would be appalled. And you have a list of things that would offset these travesties?
Bear in mind that I am a lifelong conservative who has only voted for one Dem president (Clinton) since 1972. But then, I don't see the "Republican" party any longer because they don't resemble the values they are supposed to. To me, my wonderful country isn't like America any more - it's more like the USSR every day.
May 19, 2008
1:26 PM
Holier Than Thou writes:
Does anyone miss the irony?
Here we have our own government preaching democracy and freedom. Then Hamas becomes the democratically elected government of the Palestinian territory. Suddenly, our politicians forget all about democracy. They're too chicken to follow their own espoused principles and talk with Hamas because, well, we just hate them? That's pure cowardice.
Now let's look at Israel. Here we have another democratically elected government with a peculiar defect. Historically, Arabs including Palestinian Arabs and Jews claim common ancestry with Abraham, the Abraham of the old Bible. That makes them the same people or at least members of the same extended family. So, the ugly weirdness of Israel is the apartheid they inflict on their Palestinian cousins.
Of course, Israel has a lot of admirable qualities. They're pro-American when they're not spying on us. They're well educated, technologically advanced, liberal, friendly people, and they don't fly airplanes into our skyscrapers. They're also survivors of the worst genocide in the history of Earth, which makes them more than a little bit insecure and paranoid. This is why they're so heavy-handed in dealing with their cousins. Many of them also have German and Ukrainian cousins who tried to wipe them out a couple generations ago.
Seems to me that if you want to make peace between these people, a good start would be to encourage them to adopt some of the principles that work for us. That includes democracy but it also religious tolerance or, more precisely, the disrespecting of establishments of religion as a basis for governance. Religious government typically foments discrimination and disunity in the public.
Another principle to encourage would be to provide Israel with an equitable means of compensating Palestinians who have been dispossessed of their land. Because at it's very core, the whole fight started over land.
Before any peace could be made, the simple fact remains that we must be willing to talk to all parties. I know this is a tough one for a lot of you because it takes real courage to do that.
May 19, 2008
1:42 PM
Anonymous writes:
"What matters most with both of the final candidates is, what do they believe now, and what actions would they take in various circumstances?"
SkiBum
do you really believe thats what Obama would do?
say Present? If good judgement is what you are looking for Yours is really suspect if you think thats what Obama is about.
Heres what is a great Obama didn't want us to go to war in Iraq. This was correct. Both Clinton and McCain were wrong. Bush misled us to go there.
Bush is busy trying to make the case for Iran. McCain thinks this is a great idea. You think we're going to be safer doing war with Iran on top or Iraq? Why does Halburton do business with Iran?
Tell us how this is good judgment by talking tough and doing stop loss keeping our troops in harms way for 100 years?
Your judgement is suspect not Obamas
May 19, 2008
3:15 PM
Anonymous writes:
Holier .... one problem with your argument about Palestinians is basically that there is no such thing ... they are the 'trash' thrown out of UAE, Saudi, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, and the other Muslim nations who ran them off for various reasons .... they ended up essentially squatting in and around various points within Israel over the last 50 to 60 years ... Arafat essentially coined the 'Palestinian' term, based on the idea that any lie which is repeated often enough becomes the truth, and that is precisely what happened .... the general 'Semitic' peoples of the region are indeed genetically related, but their philosophy of life (and death) is heavily tainted by their religious views, and basically hardly resemble once another in the least
May 19, 2008
3:19 PM
SkiBum writes:
1:42, I already answered this at 11:59. Read all the posts before posting please.
May 19, 2008
3:20 PM
Anonymous writes:
Anotehr fine example from our mexican friends:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/05/19/baja.killings/index.html
May 19, 2008
5:37 PM
Doesn't matter writes:
Just waitin' on Jeff. Come in Jeff. Jeff must be out enjoying some of his civil liberties still left over from the Patriot Act.
But but but but but but Clinton and Kennedy isn't going work as an answer either Jeff.
May 20, 2008
11:15 AM
Jeff writes:
jay - Jeff, do I understand this correctly? You actually support the Patriot Act (the name of which is wholly laughable and disgusting to all things in the name of freedom and liberty)?
Absolutely and without modification. You scoff at terms that you don't understand and try to seperate the name from the intent to ensure 'freedom and liberty'. Democrats routinely vilify any references to patriotism or love of country, particularly when it comes to our armed forces. The CIA, FBI and NSA are four letter words to liberals as they are meant to expose deceit and uncover the truth.
In short (it can never be short with Dems as they require so much education just to get to a point of understanding) :
The things that are working that will be dismantled by Obamma (surely) and Hillary (partially) are:
* The USA Patriot Act - Full name which you'll never hear from the media: "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism"
- Just a couple of features we enjoy today:
- Facilitated information sharing and cooperation among government agencies. This tore down the 'wall' built previously and specifically raised in the Clinton administration. Sandy Berger (Clinton’s NSA) later attempted to cover this up by his pilferage and subsequent destruction of classified documents from the National Archives to prevent their review by the 9/11 commission (he plead guilty to this, no debate needed).
- Provided the ability to investigate and prosecute anyone who financially supports terrorism or funnels money to terrorists.
- Expanded consistent wiretapping and surveillance capabilities to include terrorism suspects (Even notoriously liberal Joe Biden was astonished to hear that we could apply wiretapping to members of the MOB but couldn't previously to terrorists), Oh BTW, he voted for the Patriot act as well as every other senator excluding one.
- Upgraded and implemented digital tools (computers, software, databases, HMIs, etc.) for intelligence gathering, which had become obsolete during the Clinton administration.
* NSEERS Full Name: National Security Entry-Exit Registration System meant to help immigration offices get a better handle on who was coming to America and what they were doing. In short it actually makes use of the existing I-94 document, which had no policy enforcement prior (one 9/11 HiJacker wrote "Ramada Hotel, New York" on his with no address, etc and was allowed to enter the country).
- Updated requirements which weren't required prior to the USA Patriot Act :
- Requires visitors to provided information regarding themselves (height, weight, eye/hair color, etc.), their plans and whereabouts while in the country.
- Required persons from countries known for terrorist activities to submit to a simple fingerprint check (performed digitally with two fingers, taking 10 seconds or less and run against a database of wanted criminals and terrorists).
- Subsequent registration of nonimmigrant visa holders who wish to remain in the US after 30 days to verify the activities/location/plans concur with the I-94 information they provided.
- Required short-term visas to be verified upon departure from the US. This wasn't done prior to 2002 so the records were incomplete and the INS had no idea who was still in the country.
The Patriot Act continues to provide additional security and prevention measures despite the democrats best attempts to make America more vulnerable.
May 20, 2008
12:50 PM
jay writes:
holy blind politically motivated rationalization batman
jeff, it wasn't me that asked you that question, but i believe it to be a good one.
May 20, 2008
1:17 PM
Jeff writes:
jay, when you're right you're right. It was ski-bum although the political persuasion is identical. As far as politically motivated? You've proven two things: You are equally blindly motivated by the left politically: AND You refuse to acknowledge any truth the goes against your way of thinking.
As far as DR's list :
- the economy (Jobs aplenty and no recession in sight (ie; 2 qtrs of loss rqd), Home Mortgage 'crisis'- a bunch of people who had no business buying a home learned a tough lesson)
- Iraq (Media trumpeted civil war? Must be over but it won't be reported. Reminds me of the 3 monkeys regarding successes, see, speak, hear)
- energy in general (Yep, plenty of energy. Need to tap into ANWR to offset China and India's spike in use and resulting cost increase)
- Habeas Corpus (Sure do feel bad for those terrorists, they need a hug)
- The Constitution and Bill of Rights (Yep, still intact and working, the USA is the best country in the world without question)
- Louisiana and Mississippi (Katrina Dems failed to prepare properly in Louisiana and their residents continue to wail while Mississippians who had equal and worse impact are back on their feet)
- our refusal to break Geneva conventions (This one's a beauty. Find one use of the word terrorist in the wording and then I'll go further in breaking this down. You won't find one as it doesn't apply although the Gitmo detainees have some of the best care they've ever had, they're literally trying to kill themselves to get in)
- our stand on torture (Dems never get it. Public affirmation of a limitation of interogation methods is counter-productive and emboldens terrorists. We strip our interogators of any leverage they have by publicly certifying an imposed limitation. Terrorists just laugh uncontrollably at this)
- healthcare improvements (still the best healthcare system in the world, Thank God I was born an American Child)
- no child left behind (I thought all Dems were about good intentions even if they weren't fruitful in the end, at least "W" tried but couldn't get the public educators to do their part. I could name scores of democratic backed initiatives that turned out worse but they 'care', right?)
- wiretap protections (If you're not a terrorist don't concern yourself, if you are, head back to Iran)
- federal budget (I agree, the Dems in congress have been woeful in making sure we meet our obligations regarding the budget and deficit)
- mail, email, phys surveillance protections (see the wiretap response above)
Hit me with your second list anytime...
May 20, 2008
1:56 PM
jay writes:
i'll say it again....holy blind politically motivated rationalization batman.
i have a question for you jeff....one that many of our right wing regs have failed to answer.
what bush accomplishments warrant a continuation of his policies under mccain?
if you don't mind, i'd like to save us some time and state that "enacting no child left behind" isn't an accomplishment. an accomplishment would be to have devised and implemented a system that significantly improved the nation's grade school test scores. "appointed 2 supreme court judges" isn't an accomplishment....that's a job duty.
okay...good luck.
May 20, 2008
2:07 PM
Shelley writes:
It's obvious that the left is fired up to counter-accuse McCain after Obamma stumbles while trying to defend his oft-stated desire to meet with terrorist nations (their leaders) with no framework or preconditions. He goes on to adopt Bush's position in a clumsy attempt to shift attention from his juvenile pie in the sky foreign policy musings.
May 20, 2008
2:09 PM
JW writes:
jay,
Why are you bothering with that idiot? He is THE "Sell my rights out to make me feel safe because Im a sissy" KING. If the rest of America was this scared of a few cave dwelling towel heads, Id be worried. As it is, its only guys like that...IQ of 19 and bladder control issues.
May 20, 2008
3:02 PM
Anonymous writes:
More democratic lies:
http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=92105
May 21, 2008
8:20 AM
Anonymous writes:
jeff = Big Brother wussy who is so scared of everything that he is willing to give up his and our freedom for his false sense of security. Should just move to China, then he can get what he wants since he obviously hates America and her Civil Liberties!
So when you moving jeff? China will give you everything you desire - an oppresive, authoritarian government that will follow your every move so they can "protect your freedom". Those big, bad "terrorists" wont get you there and the government will make all your decisions for you so you don't have to worry about things like thinking for yourself or responsiblity. China is the NeoCon dream.
Oh and your replies to the list DR posted were just laughable. But don't let things like facts and reality get in your way of defending the biggest failure in American history!
May 22, 2008
3:49 AM
Anonymous writes:
but but but the illegals
May 22, 2008
9:43 PM
Buh Bye writes:
What a juvenile attempt at foreign policy- Obama has got to drop the utopian pie in the sky rhetoric and learn something about the complexities of world politics. He is an empty suit.
May 23, 2008
7:04 AM
Rootin Tootin McCain writes:
Shaggy you are so right bro
we need to go back to
"Bring em on" Yahoo. lets git them terrists.
everybody is an axis of evil. War is great and everybody who doesnt support this is a traitor.
May 23, 2008
9:25 AM
Anonymous writes:
Another fine example from our Mexican friends:
http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=92293
Tina Griego would be proud!
May 23, 2008
6:01 PM
Conventional Wisdom writes:
Yep, those libbies are very nervous now that Obama's mettle for foreign policy and the get-tough Appeaser-In-Chief he promises to be once elected.
I'd be taking a good hard look at Mr. McCain if Barack is elevated. I know many Hillary supporters will.