Barack Obama Takes on Bush & McCain

A True Leader or Just Words? (0.00 / 1)

Analysis of selected quotes from this speech:

Obama: (Bush) accused me and other Democrats of wanting to negotiate with terrorists and said we were appeasers no different than people who appeased Adolf Hitler.

If you read the text of the speech (See http://www.whitehouse.gov/news... ) you'll notice Bush didn't accuse anybody of anything.  He said, "Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals."  No mention of Obama.  No mention of Democrats.  Wasn't it Mr. Obama himself who once said that words mean something?  It was the Obama campaign who picked this fight.

Obama:  We are now entering our sixth year of war in Iraq.  We were supposed to be going over there for weapons of mass destruction which we never found.

That we never found WMDs is not true.  We found hundreds of them. (See http://www.foxnews.com/story/0... )  It is true that we didn't find the massive stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons that were thought to exist in Iraq, but we found evidence of weapons programs that could quickly be restarted should sanctions have been lifted.

This is not to say that there were not intelligence failures - there were - but Republicans and Democrats alike going back to the Clinton administration are on record as professing a belief that Saddam held WMDs, and the vote in Congress to authorize the war reflects this.  Thus, for Senator Obama to have opposed entering Iraq from the start indicates he either a) had intelligence in the Illinois Senate that the rest of the country wasn't privy to, or b) didn't believe a Saddam possessing WMDs was a sufficient enough threat to do anything about - which reflects directly on how an Obama administration might handle a nuclear Iran.    

Obama:  We have not been made more safe.

We haven't?  We have not suffered a major terrorist attack since 9/11, and under the leadership of President Bush the United States has gone longer without suffering an attack than at anytime in the last thirty years. (See http://img171.imageshack.us/my... ) Thus, in terms of civilian deaths due to terrorism we are certainly safer.

Obama: Al-Qaeda's leadership is stronger than ever.

Stronger than ever?  On April 30th of this year, the State Department released its annual report on terrorism  in which it said "AQ's organizational strength is difficult to determine in the aftermath of extensive counterterrorist efforts since 9/11, but several thousand members and associates comprise the AQ-associated movement. The arrests and deaths of mid-level and senior AQ operatives have disrupted some communication, financial, and facilitation nodes and disrupted some terrorist plots." (See  http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/... ) The Associated Press says that State Department counter terrorism coordinator Dell Dailey "stressed that al-Qaida is still weaker overall than it was before Sept. 11, 2001." (See http://ap.google.com/article/A... )

Obama:  Hamas now controls Gaza, a Hamas that was strengthened because the United States insisted that we should have democratic elections in the Palestinian Authority.

Is Senator Obama inferring here that democracy is only a good thing when the outcome can be controlled?  

Obama:  That's the Bush - McCain record on protecting this country...They're not telling the truth.

They're not the only ones!

Obama:  I believe we need to use all elements of American power to pressure Iran, including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy...That's what Ronald Reagan did when dealing with the Soviets.

Consider the following from Charles Krauthammer on how Reagan was treated while he was president:  "These were the twin themes: Reagan was stupid, and his stupidity made him dangerous. Those too young to remember the 1980s would be astonished to know how common the notion was of Reagan as a warmonger.  In the early '80s, the West experienced a nuclear hysteria -- a sudden panic about imminent nuclear destruction and a mindless demand to "freeze" nuclear weapons. What had changed to bring this on? Reagan had become president. Like George W. Bush today, the U.S. president was seen as a greater threat to peace than was the enemy he was confronting."  (See  http://www.washingtonpost.com/... )

Obama:  Understand George Bush's Secretary of Defense suggests that we talk directly to Iran.  

"We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage . . . and then sit down and talk with them," Gates said."  (See http://www.washingtonpost.com/... )  Notice the part about leverage.  This is how Reagan handled the Soviet Union.  He built up our military, actually increased our weaponry, such that we would have leverage by which to negotiate.  Senator Obama has said he would meet with Iran "unconditionally".  To be fair, he did say in the Austin debate on February 21st that there would have to be "preparations".  

Obama:  It's time to present Iran with a clear choice.  If it ends its nuclear program, support for terror, and threats to Israel, then Iran can rejoin the community of nations.  If not, Iran will face deeper isolation and steeper sanctions.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/mid...
Iran recently announced it is tripling its number of centrifuges to 9,000.  It takes 3,000 centrifuges one year to develop the enriched uranium necessary for an atomic weapon.  Has Senator Obama (or anyone considering voting for him) considered that we (and/or Israel) might not have time enough for an increase in sanctions to have their intended effect on Iran?

Obama:  But in the Bush/McCain worldview, everyone who disagrees with their foreign policy is (an) appeaser.

Now let's be fair.  Bush only accused those who would negotiate of appeasement, and he didn't name names.  If agreeing to sit down unconditionally is not negotiation, then Obama has no reason to take offense.  However, the question must be asked:  If an Obama administration will only "present Iran with a clear choice," what would be the point of a President Obama sitting down with Iranian leadership?  Typically, that stature is reserved for negotiations.

Txag007
txag007.townhall.com

---

by: txag007 @ Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:48:27 AM CDT

Offered without further comment (0.00 / 0)

Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.

---

by: boadicea @ Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:10:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Further Comment (0.00 / 0)

That's actually pretty funny.  You're failure to comment, though, is interesting because Chris Matthews isn't entirely on target here.  Chamberlain's mistake wasn't just that he "gave something away," but rather it was his peace at all costs attitude.  In other words, negotiating with Iran, even without conceding a thing, is likely to produce the same deception that occured in Munich because Ahmadinejad has already made his goals clear, much like Hitler had done in "Mein Kampf" years before his 1938 meeting with Chamberlain.  We know what his intentions are, and we know the timeframe in which he will be able to act on those intentions.  So we must ask ourselves: How likely is Iran to change its ways, and is the risk we would be taking by waiting to find out worth it?

Txag

---

by: txag007 @ Sat May 17, 2008 at 16:36:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You are a college graduate, right? (0.00 / 0)

So I assume that you do actually know how to properly cite and footnote, and are choosing not to because it does not suit your purposes here.

I'll repeat this comment to make sure we're clear on why there is no reply to your contentions.

I do find it interesting to note that you gloss right over the fact that the mynah bird deployed to echo the President's assertions  didn't have the vaguest understanding of the historical reference he was invoking-any more than you apparently do.

Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.

---

by: boadicea @ Sat May 17, 2008 at 21:31:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What is it you are doubting? (0.00 / 0)

Is it that Chamberlain was deceived by Hitler in Munich?
(See http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisda... or http://eudocs.lib.byu.edu/inde... )

Is it that "Mein Kampf" was first published in 1925, thirteen years before he assured Chamberlain he would not make anymore territorial advances in Europe?
(See http://www.amazon.com/Mein-Kam... )

Is it that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly promised to wipe Israel off the map?
(See http://www.breitbart.com/artic... )

Or is it the timetable by which Iran could have a nuclear weapon?
(See http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t... )

If there is anything else I have said which you doubt, feel free to let me know, and I will be more than happy to provide a source of documentation.

Let me ask you something else:  Isn't a United States that believes an Ahmadinejad who says Iran's uranium enrichment is only for energy purposes a lot like a Britain that believes a Hitler who says he will not make territorial demands in Europe?  Just as Neville Chamberlain gave away the Sudetenland, the U.S. is effectively giving Iran a nuke.

As for your contention that the radio talk show host on Hardball was "deployed to echo the President's assertions," I don't suppose you have a source you could properly cite or footnote to support this assertion, do you?  Or shall I assume that you are choosing not to because it does not suit your purposes here?

Forgive me, as well, if I remain skeptical that your lack of reply has anything to do with a failure on my part to fully document my posts.  In the past no response came from you after I linked to a Pentagon report which showed a source you were quoting to be incorrect, or when I linked to a 1999 CNN article that reports Saddam Hussein once offered bin Laden asylum, or when I linked to the 1998 Clinton adminstration indictment of bin Laden which claims that Iraq made agreements with bin Laden, all of which you claimed to be false.  I surmise your unwillingness to admit error has more to do with your lack of reply than anything else.

But that's fine.  You don't need to apologize to me.  Just don't continue to mislead readers of this site, many of whom will be casting a presidential ballot this November.

---

by: txag007 @ Sun May 18, 2008 at 16:31:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Once a liar, always a liar.... (4.00 / 2)

You just can't stop, can you?  The sad thing is that you fool nobody but yourself.  I do give you some credit.  You have to really dig deep to align the data the way you do.  As liar's go, you do a moderately good job given your level of intelligence.  

Let's examine one of todays lies:

That we never found WMDs is not true.  We found hundreds of them. (See http://www.foxnews.com/story/0... )  It is true that we didn't find the massive stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons that were thought to exist in Iraq, but we found evidence of weapons programs that could quickly be restarted should sanctions have been lifted.

First off, let's look at the date of this story.  June 2006.  Locked in a heated battle for his Senate seat against Bob Casey and taking heat for his position on the Iraq war. His team digs deep trying to justify his stance on the war as the citizens of PA come to grips with the lies that have been told to them about this unjustified war.

The answer: We did find WMD's!  This story gained traction for a couple of days at which point it was debunked as completely irrelevant and Santorum lost his Senate seat (but kept his place in the englist lexicon).

His lies caught up with him the same way yours catch up with you.  It's such hard work looking for evidence to support your lies when there is so much truth that is easily found.  All you have to do is google 'duelfer report' to find this out.  

I am curious how you reconcile all of your lies.  Do they ever come back for insufficient funds?  Our very own fearless leader and President was quoted as saying this:

"The chief weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer, has now issued a comprehensive report that confirms the earlier conclusion of David Kay that Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there."

Are you calling George W. Bush a liar now too?  Why do you hate America so much?  


"You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother."

Albert Einstein

---

by: jimmyjackearl @ Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:11:29 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Appeasement V. Diplomacy (4.00 / 1)

You and the loud Mr. James both start from a false premise. It is not appeasement to talk to hostile govts, but to give away things like, oh, say, Czechoslovakia or Poland.

That's not just my take on it.  This guy knows a little from tough diplomacy, I think, though I don't always agree with his ultimate conclusions:

COLMES: You were - during the Reagan/Bush years - known for shuttle diplomacy. That phrase was used a lot. Going back and forth between the Palestinians, between the Israelis.

BAKER: Yes.

COLMES: A level of engagement which some have said is not present today. Is this administration engaged enough with the people they should be talking to, to solve the kind of problems you're talking about?

BAKER: My view is that you don't just talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies, as well. And the diplomacy involves talking to your enemies.

You don't reward your enemies...

COLMES: Right.

BAKER: ... necessarily, by talking to them if you're tough and you know what you're doing.  You don't appease them. Talking to an enemy is not, in my view, appeasement.

I made 15 trips to Syria in 1990-1991 at a time when Syria was on the list of countries who are state sponsors of terrorism. And the 16th trip, guess what? Lo and behold, Syria changed 25 years of policy and agreed for the first time in history to come sit at the table with Israel, which is what Israel wanted at the time. And, thereby, implicitly recognized Israel's right to exist.

Now, all I'm saying is that would never have happened if we hadn't been sufficiently dedicated that we were going to keep at it. And that's the only...

COLMES: You deserve a lot of credit for that, and I think the Bush 41 administration does. Is this administration as dedicated to that level of dialogue worldwide, to enable those kinds of relationships.

BAKER: I think the president gave a magnificent speech in 2002, when he said, "We - I have a vision of a Palestinian state and an Israeli nation living side by side securely in peace." And it would be good if we can get that vision implemented. I think that's what you're asking me.

Yes, it would be great if we could get that vision implemented. But I'm one who believes that you - I don't think it's appeasement to talk to someone who happens to be an enemy.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

emphasis added for the deliberately obtuse


Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.

---

by: boadicea @ Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:31:44 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Why before he was sanctified... (4.00 / 1)

I remember leftist Ronald Reagan being vilified by the same 'shoot first, ask questions 3 trillion dollars later' folks as being the Chamberlain of his day for negotiating arms control treaties with the then Soviet Union.  For people like 007, talk is a sign of weakness and there is no limit to how many lives they are willing to put on the line (as long as their asses are safe) in order to not appear as the weak and craven creatures that they are.  

Real warriors look at violence at the last resort, not the first.

"You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother."

Albert Einstein

---

by: jimmyjackearl @ Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:13:19 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Differences (0.00 / 0)

First, Iran is much closer to going nuclear today than Syria was in 1990?  Talking to Iran carries a much greater risk.
(See http://www.globalsecurity.org/... )

Secondly, the example you provided isn't equivalent with Mr. Obama's statements.  We're not discussing dialogue between members of an Obama administration and lower level Iranian officials.  Senator Obama has said repeatedly that he would be willing to sit down personally with Mahmoud Ahmedinejad without preconditions. This is where the comparisons to Neville Chamberlain come in.

And finally, answer one question for me.  Ahmadinejad has promised to wipe Israel off the map.  What exactly is there for he and Obama to talk about?

Txag

---

by: txag007 @ Mon May 19, 2008 at 23:52:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

How do you come up with this? (0.00 / 0)

Talking to Iran carries a much greater risk

A much greater risk than what?  Why are you so afraid?

"You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother."

Albert Einstein

---

by: jimmyjackearl @ Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:39:02 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Which of the following don't you believe? (0.00 / 0)

1. The State Department which has Iran at the top of its list of state sponsors of terror.

2. Ahmadinejad's promise to wipe Israel off the map.

3. The estimated time of one year in which Iran will be capable of building a nuclear weapon.

Iran poses a much greater risk today than Syria did in 1990, to answer your question.  

You don't seem to think so. Why?

---

by: txag007 @ Tue May 20, 2008 at 20:09:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't believe... (0.00 / 0)

number 2.

Would you care to provide an "actual" quote properly sourced for this lie 007?

"You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother."

Albert Einstein

---

by: jimmyjackearl @ Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:56:27 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

See here. (0.00 / 0)

Actually, I've already done it just a few posts up in this same thread.  In case you missed it, see here:
http://www.breitbart.com/artic...

Does this change your mind on the threat Iran poses?  

---

by: txag007 @ Wed May 21, 2008 at 18:34:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

If you are going to continue to lie... (0.00 / 0)

you are going to have to do better than this.

This quote of yours, is another lie:

Ahmadinejad's promise to wipe Israel off the map.

The only support you offer for you lie is a quote from an article that says:

Ahmadinejad provoked a world outcry in October when he said Israel should be "wiped off the map."

Even if Ahmadinejad did say, Israel should be 'wiped off the map' it doesn't support the lie that you are telling that he made a 'promise to wipe Israel off the map.'

Do you see the difference?  This is really something most people pick up by 5th grade English.  

I'm still waiting for and actual quote and source to support your lies.  

"You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother."

Albert Einstein

---

by: jimmyjackearl @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:33:07 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Put it in context, please. (0.00 / 0)

How convenient it was for you to ignore the first five sentences of the article.  Here they are:

The president of Iran again lashed out at Israel on Friday and said it was "heading toward annihilation," just days after Tehran raised fears about its nuclear activities by saying it successfully enriched uranium for the first time.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called Israel a "permanent threat" to the Middle East that will "soon" be liberated. He also appeared to again question whether the Holocaust really happened.

"Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation," Ahmadinejad said at the opening of a conference in support of the Palestinians. "The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm."

Ahmadinejad provoked a world outcry in October when he said Israel should be "wiped off the map."

In context, Ahmadinejad's statement was certainly threatening in nature.  However, for the sake of this discussion, let's pretend those five preceding sentences aren't there, and all we have to go on was the statement you quoted that Isreal should be wiped off the map.  In keeping with the context of this discussion, should we continue to allow someone who would say such a thing to continue to enrich uranium?  You seem to be saying we should.

---

by: txag007 @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 18:59:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Once again your lies fail you 007,,, (4.00 / 1)

You can't do it can you.  

Part of the problem is that you rely on others to think for you.  Even that wouldn't be so bad except that you are only interested in listening to people who reinforce your worst fears and prejudices.  

I am still waiting for an actual quote in context of "Ahmadinejad's promise to wipe Israel off the map."

I will give you a real big hint to help you along by providing the actual quote that you are referring to:

"Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."

If you don't speak Farsi, perhaps you can find an Iranian or Persian to translate it for you.  Don't worry.  They are not too dangerous to talk to.

Once we settle up on your lies, we can move forward on a more general discussion.

"You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother."

Albert Einstein

---

by: jimmyjackearl @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:29:33 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Nice sig. (0.00 / 0)

For posterity:

"You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother."

Albert Einstein

Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.

---

by: boadicea @ Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:08:56 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Do not feed the troll (4.00 / 1)

Seriously.  Consider the source: txag007.townhall.com

---

by: =j @ Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:37:53 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Chicken Fried Bacon dipped in country fresh gravy. (0.00 / 0)

I have cut back on his feeding as it seems he has an unlimited appetite for nothing but the most choicest cuts of thinly sliced propaganda.  
No matter how often he chokes on his own words, he just can't stop himself.  

If only there was a bible passage to describe this behavior of eating bad food, partially digesting it and then passing it off as fact.  

Oh, wait.  There is!

I would really like to move his diet into a more healthy direction, something like Chicken Fried Bacon:

"You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother."

Albert Einstein

---

by: jimmyjackearl @ Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:19:29 AM CDT

[ Parent ]