The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

obama wants to double the capital gains tax. will people vote for that?

THIS WAS NEITHER ABOUT OBAMA NOR APPEASEMENT

Why is the media focusing on the wrong story here?

Obviously Obama picked up on the potential for headlines, but isn't that a secondary story?

This about the misuse of the term "NEGOTIATE"

http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/2008/05/bushs-misrepresentation-of-negotiate.html

Let's face it, the ONLY Foreign Policy Hawks left are:

____ Evangelicals who are thinking Jesus is coming back (Can you say WVirginia?)

____ Zionists (who are milking the above group dry.

____ The super-wealthy who are making a killing out of the War.

The above #s won't even get you a train ticket to DC.

How is what Bush said "divisive"? It seems to me every time Obama perceives a dispute with his point of view or proposed policy he deems it "divisive" i.e. code word for racist. His reaction seemed to me to be an over-reaction, somewhat of a temper tantrum. I'm not even positive Bush was referring to him. . .other recent examples include Carter, Pelosi who actually spoke with terrorists, and they sure came back with some easing of terrorists positions, didn't they?
P.S. I see Obama has re-adopted the flag lapel pin of late. What is up with that?

Lady, the Republicans will lose the election because we're all sick of the flag pin crap and want some real answers about our nation's future. To say Bush was referring to Carter is ridiculous...what would Bush gain from criticizing Carter in 2008? Seriously. Obama's reaction was appropriate for a couple reasons: 1) you don't take domestic disputes and air them overseas in front of another nation's legislature - Bush could've been a man and addressed his false argument here at home; and 2) nobody - either Democrat or Republican - is suggesting appeasement. Supporters of dialogue with folks we dislike include Reagan, Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Sec. of Defense Gates, and Obama.
Think clear, man. Only Bush (and apparently McCain) believe in a foreign policy that entails either the silent treatment or unilateral carpet bombing. Fortunately, most of us citizens learned a bit about conflict resolution after high school and can appreciate Obama's position.

If the McSame had an ounce of brain he would look at what happened to Hillary, Davis et al and figure out that sticking his nose up the neocon butt isn't going to get him to the white house.

But that goes to show these pea brains are hand picked by the players precisely for their stupidity, to serve as puppets.

"Barry" would do the same!

Remember Folks-IF it was up to Barack Hussein, Saddam Hussein WOULD STILL BE IN CONTROL OF THE COUNTRY OF IRAQ!

Sorry, but the only thing I can imagine worse than the costs of what occurred over the last 5 Years since removing Saddam, would have been the price of NOT removing him!

NO O'Bomba!

mittromney.com-check out HIS "Issues"! :-)

Romney/Huckabee '08!

"CAN" the Old Man! :-(

Sir, you are utterly insane. I doubt you knew the name Saddam Hussein before the war. If Saddam was so bad, and the American deaths associated with his removal were SO worth it, why aren't we invading North Korea, or Iran, or Somalia, or Nigeria, or Venezuela, or Saudi Arabia. Each of these nation's leaders are equal to or more serious threats to the US than Saddam ever was. Take a step back, take a deep breath, put down the Bush koolaid, and see the world for what it is....a bit more complicated than you seem to believe.

Excellent point! I think she should run as an Independent if the Dems are too stupid to nominate her. She is a moderate whom a majority would support in the general election.

Since the Dems want to write off millions of voers in Florida and Michigan, we should write of the Democrats, Republicans and vote for.............................
ACTUAL REAL CHANGE and have an
INDEPENDENT PRESIDENT: HILLARY CLINTON,
who would NOT be beholden to none of the special interests from either side

Really? Hillary didn't seem to care less about MI or FL until it bacame evident that she was losing the nomination. Both candidates signed the same agreement that both states were disqualified after they violated DNC primary schedules - (which was a bad political move, but they both agreed). Obama at least has honored the agreed-to rules. Now that Hillary has lost, she suddenly is concerned about franchisement of FL and MI voters? If you can't see through that pandering, you'll fall for anything.

George Bush has been creating these strawman arguments, wholecloth drawn from his paranoid mind, for almost 8 years now. It is time somebody called him on it. "Oh, no! I wasn't talking about Obama. I was talking about the Republican Senator Borah from the 1930's..." Why, everybody should have known that. Give us a break, OK? And John mcCain looks like Wily E. Coyote after the Acme firecrackers blow up in his face. It's not selling folks. Try to get back to reality, OK?

I just have to shake my head at how Americans perceive Hamas and other hate filled 'terrorist' organizations. This is because Americans blatantly choose to ignore history in that Israel was formed by terrorism: the murdering and expulsion of Palestinians from their villages and their land. But Americans are willing to turn a blind eye to this inconvenient piece of history which still continues even today as more Jewish settlements continue springing up in the West Bank. Now don't get me wrong. I am no terrorist, Muslim or some wing nut that believes Israel doesn't have the right to exist. On the contrary, it has every right to exist and then some! But the issue isn't whether Hamas is an impediment to peace but whether Israel will stop it's own terrorist activities. That is the key to bringing peace not only to Israel but the entire Middle East. If Americans choose to ignore history and keep labeling those fighting terrorism as 'terrorists' than peace in the Middle East will never be achieved; especially, when the very word 'terrorism' has now become a scapegoat for dialogue and is now used willy-nilly by Republicans and the far right to avoid dealing with the issues in a logical, historically correct framework. The fact of the matter is there is lots of terrorism to go around on all sides of the conflict: both Israel and the Palestinians! And to a certain extent even the United States. There is only one way to stop this never ending circle of violence in the Middle East and that is for Israel to stop its occupation of the West Bank; once that is achieved and a Palestinian state is formed, then Israel has every right to respond to terrorism: this is because they will have taken themselves out of the equation and no longer be a terrorist state. Until then all this talk about 'terrorists' is simply ignoring history and ignoring our own complacency.

Anti-GOP:

At least McCain's not a secret, Nazi Muslim.

Posted by: JakeD | May 16, 2008 3:35 PM

I love JakeD's comments! Yo, J.d., how to you reconcile nazism and islam in the same phrase? I mean, it sounds cool, but, huh?

Obama has no credibility what so ever on any issue, let alone the foreign affairs. Nobody in this world will take Obama seriously.

"Obama is not afraid to fire back". The liberal press is pretending that they have chosen a lion. But in fact they have simply puffed up a lamb.

If we elect Obama, our country is in grave danger.

So many words, and not even one real idea. Is there a useful point you can make for us?

Uninterrupted policy? Please. Alter is a smart guy and a student of history, so one can only marvel at how his partisanship and his intense dislike of President Bush allowed him to make such a silly and historically inaccurate statement. "

ONCE AGAIN, our liberal press is in the tank for Obama.

Twisting, distorting, smearin, and lying again.

Really sad indeed..............

Pretty weak commentary - you refuted nothing, other than your distaste for any suggestion that Bush made a huge gaffe in taking domestic political disputes overseas and making inaccurate comments in front of another nation's legislature.

I just have to shake my head at how Americans perceive Hamas and other hate filled 'terrorist' organizations. This is because Americans blatantly choose to ignore history in that Israel was formed by terrorism: the murdering and expulsion of Palestinians from their villages and their land. But Americans are willing to turn a blind eye to this inconvenient piece of history which still continues even today as more Jewish settlements continue springing up in the West Bank. Now don't get me wrong. I am no a terrorist, Muslim or some wing nut that believes Israel doesn't have the right to exist. On the contrary, it has every right to exist and then some! But the issue isn't whether Hamas is an impediment to peace but whether Israel will stop it's own terrorist activities. That is the key to bringing peace not only to Israel but the entire Middle East. If Americans choose to ignore history and keep labeling those fighting terrorism as 'terrorists' than piece in the Middle East will never be achieved. On the contrary, the very word 'terrorism' has now become a scapegoat for dialogue and is now used willy-nilly by Republicans and the far right to avoid dealing with the issues in a logical, historically correct framework. The fact of the matter is there is lots of terrorism to go around on both sides of the conflict: from Israel and the Palestinians! And to a certain extent even the United States. There is only one way to stop this never ending circle of violence in the Middle East and that is for Israel to stop its occupation of the West Bank; once that is achieved and a Palestinian state is formed, then Israel has every right to respond to terrorism: this is because they will have taken themselves out of the equation and no longer be a terrorist state. Until then all this talk about 'terrorists' is simply ignoring history and ignoring our own complacency.

The Republicans cannot win this election on the issues. Polls reveal that Americans trust the Dems more than the Republicans on EVERY issue--the economy, health care, and, yes, national security.

Since the Republicans can't win the war of ideas, make no mistake that they will assassinate Obama's character with every trick in the book. They will impugn his patriotism, paint him as alien and not really American, and portray him as "elitist"--as if attending the nation's premier universities somehow disqualified him from being President.

The irony about the phony "elitism" issue is that when you compare the McCains' net worth to the Obamas', it's not even close. And if you look at policy positions, there's no doubt about who McCain's tax policy benefits: CEO's (who get paid hundreds of millions of dollars to drive companies into the ground) and the very wealthiest of the wealthy. Who gives a rat's nose what fancy lettuce Obama eats: show your tax returns, Cindy McCain!

Cheryl - who else would Bush be talking about? Carter isn't running for president! Bush has record of demonizing his opponents as defeatists, appeasers, enablers of terrorism. This is the Bush way of playing politics, through fear and smearing. The difference is that Obama isn't going to put up with this sh!t and neither are we.

No doubt, the republicans are DONE in 2008.

FINALLY, a clear majority of my fellow Americans see through the republicans' nasty, selfish, hateful games.

Sissy-boy george bush, The Worst President In History, has been and incredulously stupidly remains the thankful downfall of the republican party.

Thanks george. Bye bye republicans.

More of Obama's Phoney Rhetoric! He has no idea if Bush was referring to him or Carter....It is just yet ANOTHER WAY for him to stay in the spotlight...accept it just makes him look even more stupid regarding foreign policy than he all ready is...Think about the fact that for OVER a year he has been BASHING the US President on NATIONAL TV...while millions of foreign Countries HEAR AND SEE this..yet Bush is not permitted as the "PRESIDENT" to comment negatively on what he disagrees with...WHO is Obama kidding. At this MOMENT, Obama is no more than a WANABE! He is not the nominee and he sure has not won any elections. Doubt that he ever will.

Everyone should watch this to know what kind of ignorant dumb F***s the republicans are. No wonder they got led by the nose by neocons into the BIGGEST DISASTER IN AMERICAN HISTORY!!!

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/05/16/170523.aspx

What amazes me most about Republicans is that they never hear the rattle of their own tail.

I love how the new 2008 hero for the republicans is Truman. A guy who dropped a few bombs on Japan and then cried like a baby to his grave. Regrets, regrets he had. And, this is a person you hold up historicaly against Obama. Bush was a bomb dropper, Truman was a bomb dropper. They killed innocent and guilty people and Bush will be crying before he meets his maker just like Truman. That's what happens when you allow or want to be pushed into a position where you will not lose face and won't back down. You make decisions that haunt you the rest of your life.

As for the gang on, pile on on Ted from PDX, some person was speaking about serving in the Korean war and wondering why he was paying taxes and why shoudn't young people die now a days. Well, because they don't have to. So, if you want to have young people and civilians die just to justify your war time service, then you need to think again. War and/or occupation is ugly - ask my sister about her time in Iraq who came back with a disease the VA still hasn't cured and ask yourself is it worth it? What have we gained? No more terrorist attacks? Well, the reason why that hasn't happened is debatable. But, why are we still in Iraq when they were not even the people who perpetuated the attacks to begin with? So, to prevent Bin Laden from launching another attack we invate a country that had nothing to do with it? So, since we are drowing and dying in China's lead paint products, causing death for pets and kids, let's invade, oh, I don't know, Japan. They are flooding our markets with electronics and have a good lead on the robotic market and they are kind of in the same geographical area, so let's take down the Japanese. Do you realize how idiotic your rationales are? Do you realize how you are slowly but certainly sinking into an abyss of A speak?

And, for the dude who spelled meet like "meat", do a spell check please on the more fundamental words. I see "meat" and instantly think, yeah, not working for me right now.

all this talk is foolish, we are the enemy not the american people, but the american government. They have become the bully of the world. Our policies the last few years have been foolish, wrong and pathetic.I am talking back to the Clinton adminstration too. We need a real leader and there are none in sight, certainly not this pathetic bunch we have running for office for the major parties.

I am glad Obama put both Bush and McCain in their place. Unlike Kerry who did not know how to fight back, Obama brings the fight to you if needed. Take that Republicans..

I never seen such a cry baby in a presidential candidate, egged on by the media. GWB is just making a point about dealing with terrorists. For all you know he could have meant President Carter and by jumping on the statement could imply that he wants to be lumped together with Carter.
Please grow up Barack.

I just love the McCain flip flop tour. From Bush's tax cuts, free speech, gay marriage, abortion, Jerry Falwell, torture, Kyoto Accord and now Hamas, McCain seems more qualified to work at a local five and dime flipping pancakes than being President of the United States. No wonder he needs a teleprompter when speaking - to keep him from making a wrong turn on his 'Straight Talk Express.' But even the teleprompter makes him look rigid and uncomfortable - no doubt because even he can't believe what he is saying compared to just a few months ago. Sometimes when I'm watching the good senator from Arizona stumbling and bumbling through his ever changing policy speech, I don't know whether to laugh or cry: cry because the United States deserves more than this and laugh because he looks like Rodney the Robot - except older.

CHILL OUT KID???
Are you kidding?

Listen. America has accomplished a lot. But leadership like this leaves me wondering where you road leads.
You've really got to take a good, long look at yourselves. Is your current foreign policy going to work in the long run?
The hole keeps getting deeper.....

The more I read about Obama, the more I realize that he is just an opportunistic talker who will do and say anything to get elected. He seems to view the campaign as simply a long debate in which his aim is to score points every day.

Today's case in point - slamming McCain for "failing to catch Osama Bin Laden." Yes Obama, and you would have caught him? I guess you know just which cave he's hiding in. What a posturing charlatan.

TO: Barack "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" Obama

Posted by: JakeD | May 16, 2008 5:56 PM

___________________________________
I think you've taken it far enough.

CHILL OUT KID!

During a speech to the Israeli parliament, President Bush attacked Barack Obama, comparing him to Nazi appeasers for the Illinois senator's willingness to hold discussions with Iran.

One problem: Bush's speech came just hours after The Washington Post reported that Bush's defense secretary, Robert Gates, said that the United States needs to "sit down and talk with" Iran. Not only that, Gates added, "We can't go to a discussion and be completely the demander."

Read Article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/05/14/ST2008051404020.html

Hey GY!

If you guys choose a leader that opts to continue the war in Iraq you'll be borrowing more money from China to finance a war that has done nothing but tarnish America's image in the world.
Look. I'm sorry to be the one to tell you, but you've been played for fools and the rest of us (and more of you than care to admit it) can plainly see that the Emperor has no clothes.
Get your eyes off the manufactured headlines and see the big picture.

Obama has no credibility what so ever on any issue, let alone the foreign affairs. Nobody in this world will take Obama seriously.

"Obama is not afraid to fire back". The liberal press is pretending that they have chosen a lion. But in fact they have simply puffed up a lamb.

If we elect Obama, our country is in grave danger.

Dubya sites the Germans rolling into Poland as a general warning about global inaction...When did America enter WW2? After Pearl Harbor, right? The rest of the world joined the war against Germany in 1939. The US remained inactive until 1941 and now Bush prattles on like America led the charge!
Honestly! America has been made a fool by a conniving, folksy Texan! You guys need to get back in the driver's seat and show that Yankee initiative and ingenuity that made you great.
True leadership unites people. All I see now is an America that stands divided and my guess is you'll stay that way.

Obama has soooooooo many issues with himself, his wife, his associations---I am predicting a landslide for John McCain in November. GOP will lose many more house seats though and several Senate seats--unless they get their act together...
Obama is totally flawed....McCain could very well run the electoral table on him....

It's indeed rich listening to George W. Bush talking about Nazi appeasers" when his family's fortune was made by his granddaddy almost entirely by doing business with those same Nazis. Pretty rich indeed. But when did reality or shame ever faze this pathetic clown from throwing a little fearmongering, historical inaccuracy and demagoguery around? I don't think it ever has.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larisa-alexandrovna/all-the-presidents-nazis_b_102022.html

No more "smoke them out", "freedom fries" or "axis of evil" policies please

JakeD: Obviously, those who have already served have the right. Does it bother you at all that something north of 90% of those advocating "stay the course" would suddenly abandon the pulpit if they thought it meant 'they' were going over 'there' to get shot at? And may I assume that you endorse paying for the war with real dollars, today, now?

WWII was the last time this country stood equally together on a threat to this country. Our record since then has been deteriorating, to a point now where we have volunteer soldiers getting paid $40K a year to go in harms way (and their families at home on food stamps), while Bush and Cheney funnel dollars borrowed from China through companies like Blackwater, so US mercenaries can make $500K filling in the gaps in our forces.

Why? Because, as I said, there is no real support for this military action in this country. Our volunteer soldiers continue to re-enlist not because they believe in what we're doing over there, but because they don't want to leave their fellow soldiers who are still required to serve. It's about the erosion of the moral foundations of this country. Whatever delinquency you're engaged in (avoiding service, plundering someone's pension fund, selling a VR mortgage to someone who can't afford it, or building a useless bridge so your son-in-law can keep his job), as long as you have a plausible explanation for it, you get a free pass, even if you get caught.

It's about sound bites, talking points, and a half-life to most news items that numbers in days or even hours. While we in the rabble are arguing amongst ourselves pointlessly in one of these on-line forums, a handful of folks who realize the wheels are coming off, are grabbing whatever money or influence they can get their hands on, and prepping their neo-con bomb shelter. (Property in Idaho or Alaska with a log-cabin and a big fence...)

Maureen had it right, although her erudite post was probably too long for most to read, or too erudite for those who did. These bizarre rants about Obama's middle name amaze me. What if his name was, say "Abraham Obama"? That sounds very Middle Eastern to me...I guess he must be a Muslim terrorist. And for those who think the reason Al-Qaeda hasn't attacked us again since 9/11 is because they're afraid of G.W. Bush, I have news for you: they love George Bush. He's kept them in business, made it easy to get recruits. The same as the extremists in Iran love him. Every time he opens his mouth he justifies them. Most of all, why should they attack again when Bush continues to inflict so much damage on our country for them?

The final irony in all of this is that we haven't even begun to focus on the biggest problems we've got: climate change, an agricultural ecosystem which is showing signs of collapse, and an unsustainable population of 6.6-billion that has some policy wonks thinking a small nuclear war might be just the thing we need right now. If you wonder why a company like Blackwater exists, this hypothesis might provide an answer.

So keep yelling at each other, and the rest of the time, keep whistling (past our collective graveyard).

little husseins defenders appear to be upset because he has said that he will meat with every terrorist leader as in iran, north korea, etc, without preconditions.
so he is going to give them a boost in prestige and get nothing in return.
does anyone think that this fool is going to talk a terrorist out of being a terrorist?
not going to happen in the real world.

So the GOP strategy is to have Bush lead the debate on foreign policy and middle east success? Are we to infer that Mark Foley will lead the debate on family values and Jack Abramoff will debate ethics?

Seriously, GOP faithful, do you want McCain standing side by side with Bush in this debate? If I were the Obama camp, I'd be doing cartwheels. You get to go toe to toe with a man that HALF of his own party thinks is incompetent, and debate him on the source of his unpopularity?

Every give and take with Obama versus McCain/Bush will salve the wounds between Obama and the Clinton wing of the party.

Boy are the GOP stupid. Is Bush trying to have them ALL get defeated.

I won't even go into what his "Appeasement" speech has likely done to our European and Asian allies who routinely interact with the Iranian government.

so little hussein who did not know his friend and mentor of 20 years was anti american, anti white, anti jew, anti israel, and proislamic, has the ability to know the leaders of terrorist countires.
yea right.

My apologies for misunerstang your post, jake. When just typing it happens! LOL!

obama will talk to terrorist sponsor states but with preparation.
what preparation?
well he will put on clean under clothes and shine his shoes.
yep thats all the prep this fool thinks he needs.

What many are failing to discern is the difference between power and influence. Those who believe in an overt clubbing and brazen show of power realize they would be falling into the Bushtonian camp. Power communication has been effectively used to in a sense brainwash the American public that they are enemy, rogue states that need to be dealt with. We have seen what a power-approach, or negotiating based on threats, has entailed and resulted in: a diminished return, or ROI, for the US. The investment of power communication and resources has resulted in a huge loss on many fronts for the US: human lives, financial (a ballooning deficit, heavy inflation, severe credit shortfalls), defense, human services and resources, healthcare, international reputation, a demoralized nation.
Obama is seeking to effect change through negotiation, but more importantly influence. If you study the subject, you will find influence in the long run is far more rewarding than power. Influence is predictive and can be positive or negative. For, example in negotiations, Obama could state with regards to Iran:
Positive
If you stop using nuclear power (which is a bit ironic since we are considering it again ourselves, but another story), the Palestinians have a better chance at having their own safe state.
Or, negative (not recommended);
If you insist upon aiding Hamas, the US will immediately negotiate with other nations outside the middle-east in importing oil, embark on an immediate national foreign oil withdrawal-program, necessitating mandatory public transportation, oil for production only, etc.
They are two entirely different styles of leadership, and I would offer that Bushtonian/Rovian/Dick leading and communicating using power and threats has enabled our current dire situation. Effective negotiation (use of influence), and the good type typically doesn't include preconditions, because it's a power-play and reduces the number of possible positive solutions and outcomes, is what Obama is speaking about.
People just need to figure out what kind of world they want: the one that increases the likelihood of continued war and occupations, or one that increases the likelihood of a movement towards focusing on domestic issues and working towards a more peaceful and secure world.

In Obamas first debate with McCain he ought to announce that he plans to send the Bush administration to Gitmo after he takes the oath of office...

A little waterboarding maybe...?

After 3 1/2 years in Gitmo Obama can announce just in time for his re-election campaign that he now plans to send the Bush administration to the Hague, to face War Crimes Charges...

abqcleve:

Have a great weekend -- sorry I gave you "nothing in terms of policy or anything resembling an intelligent case" for any of my arguments -- good luck getting your questions answered ...

For the record, Faulpelz brought up 'Blessed Are The Peacemakers' -- I simply am asking whether Truman was a Peacemaker for dropping TWO A-bombs -- I didn't bring up "Peacemakers". The answer to that question is very relevant to a thread on "who is better fit to guide the nation's foreign policy."

Or, I keep repeating the same, simple question over and over thus confirming that a certain poster refuses to answer simple questions.

P.S. to ted in pdx -- let's see if you can do any better: I completed my combat tour in Korea and have paid plenty of taxes ever since -- do I have the "right" to advocate a policy which requires others to do the fighting and the dying for me? How do you FORCE someone else to enlist in the ALL-VOLUNTEER military?

Jake D has been exposed....

Dude you are in a deep hole so please stop digging. First you are the only one playing the Reverend Wright guilt by association game and now you tried to change the subject to Truman and A-Bombs.

Truman was a democrat and he used the most deadly weapon known to man to defeat our enemy. Furthermore FDR, authorized the Weapon's development. Thus proving that democrats are more than willing to bring the pain on our enemies when the situation dictates.

Perhaps if you knew a little more about military history you might know that the Japanese did not surrender because of the A-Bomb. Most credible military historians agree that the Japanese surrender when the Russians invaded Manchuria and some of the northern most Japanese Islands. It was only then that the Japanese saw no way out of this encirclement and surrendered. The Russians were the peacemakers because they were the final straw that made the Japanese capitulate.

Once again you have opened your mouth...only to insert your foot and what remains of your ego.

Maybe you should stick playing the Reverend Wright guilt by association game because you look mighty silly when referring to military history.

Okay - I have to respond to the person that said the GOP cannot protect this country because it hasn't for 8 years. How can you possibly argue this? There has not been another terrorist attack and that's not because of lack of effort. You can say what you want about the reasons for going to war in Iraq and the execution of the war until the surge in early 2007. The administration botched it big time. But, I do believe their efforts to protect the homeland have been successful.

Jake D Said: Did you ever find out if Barack HUSSEIN Obama was listening to Rev. Wright's sermon the Sunday after 9/11?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Our resident frothy mouthed anti-Obama zealot keeps repeating this thus confirming that he is only here to launch weapons of mass distraction...

He has nothing in terms of policy or anything resembling an intelligent case for his hatred so he is reduced to playing the guilt by association political games that his party hopes will get McSame into the Whitehouse.

Obviously the 49% of the white folks in Indiana didn't buy the Reverend Wright guilt by association game and the folks in North Carolina didn't buy it at all...

So much for Reverend Wright stopping the Obama train!

hahahaha!

dionysis:

I was joking (if Obama gets the SNL treatment during the Presidential Debates, then he won't have "his head handed to him" -- luckily, there are actually some reporters who seem to like McCain too -- that's all what I was referring to ; )

We are in fact losing the war on terror abroad, and losing the war between ourselves at home. A quick tour of this forum, and it's clear that the enemies we despise the most are our fellow citizens who appear to disagree with us on some talking point. Calling someone a 'moron' or an 'idiot', or characterizing their commentary as 'stupid' (the list goes on), is not a debate, it's not even evidence that any thinking is going on.

I would ask one simple question of those who believe Bush did the right thing, and we should all agree with John McCain that we're going to "stay the course" for another 4 years (and I credit him for telling the truth about what he intends to do), which of you is willing to a) join the army to relieve just one of the 150,000 or so reservists who have been carrying the load for all of us these last 5 years, or b) start paying the taxes necessary to pay the costs of this war with current dollars, rather than 'borrowing' the money from a generation of Americans who haven't even been born yet?

If you're willing to support both of those changes in the status quo, I'd say you're entitled to your point of view. If you're not, you don't have the right to advocate a policy which requires others to do the fighting and the dying for you.

So far, the vast majority of Americans fall into that latter category, and that is why we are losing the war, and that is why the future of this country is in such grave peril as we speak.

John McSame as Bush:

You seem to have problems answering the questions actually asked. I won't comment whether that makes you look "silly" or not. But, for the sake of argument, let's agree that Truman was a peacemaker when he declined teh British request, and Ike was a war-mongering prick who secretly wanted the military-industrial complex to take over the U.S. and the world.

Now, can you answer THIS question:

Was Harry Truman a "Peacemaker" when he dropped TWO A-bombs on Japan?

Here's my answer, if it helps: YES!

No jakal, it does not. The answers are the same. We just have very philosophical differences that must be addressed. We can agree to disagree. But there are questions that Obama cannot answer without looking like a fool. McCain on the other hand has firm beliefs whether you like them or not. I do not agree with Bush 50% of the time but at least I know he means what he says. We are electing a President, not a rock star.

Jake D asked: Was Harry Truman a "Peacemaker" when he dropped TWO A-bombs on Japan?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I know Truman was a peacemaker when he declined a british request to destablize Iran's government in order to install a more western friendly government to steal their oil.

It was Dwight Eisenhower (republican) that agreed to the British plan to get the US involved in middle eastern affairs and that dumb move started the chain of events with Iran and other middle eastern states.

It always seems to be the republicans that create these monsters and then they have the nerve to blame dems for not cleaning up their messes.

Do yourself a favor Jake D and pick up a history book so you can know the whole story. Thanks again for making yourself look silly.

(lol)

(From SNL skit)

Russert: But who is this man (Putin's successor)? What is his name?

Clinton: Um, Med-ev..

Russert: Dimetri Mededyev. Senator Obama, same question.

Obama: Dimetri Medeveve.

Russert: Correct. Senator Clinton. Nigeria's Foreign Affairs Minister, can you name him?

Clinton: Uh. I don't ...

Russert: Ojo Madoyoquay. Senator Obama, same question ...

dionysis:

That depends on who is asking the questions ; )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJ_y2zfy-ZM&feature=related

John McSame as Bush:

Did you ever find out if Barack HUSSEIN Obama was listening to Rev. Wright's sermon the Sunday after 9/11?

After 8 years, 4000+ deaths and 2 trillion dollars with no end in sight to the Iraq fiasco John McSame does not stand a chance against either Obama or Hillary.

Gonna be hard to sell stay the course.....to Americans who clearly want change.

Obama will get his head handed to him in a foreign policy debate.

To those who believe that Hamas's "preference" for Obama as President of the United States means that they are his great friend, I ask this question:
Do you really think that this terrorist organization who wishes to impose sharia Islamic law on their own people would "prefer" a woman President?
A woman. Someone with whom they will not even shake hands. Someone who so sexually manipulates them that they can do nothing other than preserve her life for the sake of birthing sons?
Of COURSE, a Hamas representative is going to say they prefer a man to a woman.
And, of COURSE, they are going to prefer a man other than John McCain because he is Bush 3 and they don't have to be geniuses to figure that out.

Again, if it was Sheryl "The best way to solve problems is to not have enemies" Crow who was all upset about the President's speech, then I would understand ; )

As a Army veteran of 17 years including 3 combat tours I think any leader that pursues a peaceful path with our enemies is not a coward. I think that makes him a real leader of men/women in my book.

President Obama or President McCain engaging the Iranians or Hamas in a effort to obtain peace is a good thing. That does not mean we give up the farm like WWII, but all attempts at striking a peace should be made prior to a use of force.

Anyone who disagrees with that obviously has not been involved in a war and does not understand just how incredibly destructive wars are.

I applaud Obama for trying the diplomacy route because Bush's policy has succeeded in some ways but it is mostly a failure in my opinion.

Faulpelz:

The Pledge of Allegiance was written by a socialist and Jesus indeed said 'Blessed Are The Peacemakers'. So, I have a question for you:

Was Harry Truman a "Peacemaker" when he dropped TWO A-bombs on Japan?

'I am a Jewish'? Now I know who makes up the republican party, without a doubt.

And, I like the way McCain responded today: "I have some news for Sen. Obama ... Unconditional meetings with a man who calls Israel a 'stinking corpse' ... will not convince Iran to give up its nuclear program. It is reckless ... to suggest that unconditional meetings will advance our interests."

McCain added that it "would be a wonderful thing if we lived in a world where we don't have enemies. That's not the world we live in. And until Sen. Obama understands that reality, the American people have every reason to doubt whether he has strength, judgment and determination to keep us safe."

McCain spokesman, Tucker Bounds, had earlier said that Obama's comments were a "hysterical diatribe in response to a speech in which his name wasn't even mentioned." LOL

i love this one:

"I'm a Jewish [THIS IS A LIE - LITTLE HUSSEIN OBAMA WANTS TO TALK WITH IRAN THAT CALL ISRAEL A ROTTING CORPS - THIS IS NO JEW WRITING] and i can't see my self voting to anyone else other then Obama [THIS PART IS PROBABLY TRUE BUT NOT FOR THE REASO HE HAS STATED]. The reason is because of he's honest and he gives a damn about what you think of him. [SO WHAT PEOPLE THINK OF HIM IS IMPORTANT RATHER THAN RESULTS. AND IF LITTHE HUSSEIN IS SO HONEST WHY DID HE KEEP LYING ABOUT WRIGHT AND NOT KNOWING WHAT AN ANIT AMERICAN, ANTI WHITE ANTI JEW AND INTI ISRAEL RACIST SCUM HE WAS. HE KNEW THE MAN FOR 20 YEARS AND HE LIED ABOUT NOE KNOWING.] Let me tell you this When a person cares enough about you you should pray to become closer to that person! [CARING IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN RESULTS? YOU ARE A FOOL. AND IF HE REALLY CARED HE WOULD NOT HANG WITH TERRORISTS LIKE WEATHER UNDERGROUND CRIMINALS WHO ADMIT TO BOMBING THE PENTAGON, POLICE STATIONS, AND OTHER GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS. HOW CAN THIS MAN CARE ABOUT YOU AND STILL CALL A PERSON IN THE WEATHER UNDERGROUND A FRIEND?]cause at the end nobody will stand for you except the one who cares about you! [JUST LIKE JIMMY KARTER DID. YEA HE DID A GREAT JOB. LITTLE HUSSEIN OBAMA WILL NOT DO THE JOB AND DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THE REAL WORLD.]"

Oh yes indeed. The GOP has no cowards. They will send the world to hell in a hand basket.
Nuke 'em baby! What I want to know is why Jesus ever bothered to say 'Blessed Are The Peacemakers'. Obviously, JC never heard of Republicans. My, they are good at keeping the Word. Obama is one of their lefty losers. And to think that the Pledge of Allegiance was written by a socialist.

It is quit simple, the Democrats as a whole are pretty big cowards. Vietnam taught us they have not a damn clue about tactics and strategy, but decided they best knew how to run a war.

Clinton in Somolia kept the heavy armor off shore, not on shore where the massive fire power would scare the craps outta the tin war lords.

Now we got ole forktongue speaking outta both sides of his mouth - tell him to take the flag off, we know he has no respect for it. He is afraid that Bush is speaking abuot him, so his "upscale" panties get in a bunch and he tries to man up. HA HA HA - his wife has more gonads then he does.

And for the record - I think all three candidates are pieces of garbage. Thank God I am an Independent.

de nada, JakeD.

You don't think Clinton's response was "sharper"? "Sad" v. "Outrageous"? His office did respond with, "extraordinary politicization of foreign policy," but even that isn't really an attack.

I can't tell whether all these "attack" and "sharp reply" characterizations in the press are an attempt to castigate Obama or praise him!

The hardly-sympathetic Shmuel Rosner, for one, writing today in Haaretz (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/984167.html) said, "Bush taunted those who follow 'the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.' There is only one candidate for the White House in 2008 who advocates direct dialogue with the Iranian regime, and that is Obama." So, there was no mystery.

Seems to me, the statement Bush made, taking internal political disagreements in from of a foreign governing body, is what everyone is pretty upset about. Not that I know everything, but I really cannot think of a precedent for that.

It's one thing for Bush to have said, "You know, Israel, we're on the same page vis-a-vis terrorists--we have your back." It's entirely another to say, "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."

If it weren't clear enough, Bush's reference to "an American Senator" in 1939 is pretty transparent.

Anyway, makes no difference. I liked the way Obama responded.

Obama wasn't hiding out in an underground bunker cowering like Bush.

Posted by: John McSame as Bush | May 16, 2008 1:41 PM

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bush was at a school reading "The Little Goat". Then when they whispered in his ear, he got a stupid "deer in the headlights" look on his face, then kept on reading.

That's the President who's a member of the GOP. And now McCain is trying to take his place? "Dumb and Dumber"; it's not just a movie anymore.

Are all Republicans this stupid?

I'm a Jewish and i can't see my self voting to anyone else other then Obama. The reason is because of he's honest and he gives a damn about what you think of him. Let me tell you this When a person cares enough about you you should pray to become closer to that person! cause at the end nobody will stand for you except the one who cares about you!

abqcleve:

Yes, that was my post. If there was, in fact, some change in the language so as to not single out any specific person like Carter (or Obama's campaign staff member) for actually "meeting" with Hamas, I believe that would be exculpatory. Of course, any such drafts are protected under Executive Privilege as well ; )

Republicans can not protect this country. The proof is in the last 8 years.

How many new threats to america has the Republican administration created due to their lack of working foriegn policy during the last 8 years?

I think Bush was refering to that great democrat Jimmy Carter who undenialbly has tried to personaly appease Hamas. Obama is justifyably paranoid because he already stated he would talk to everybody that the US wont negotiate with. Now he says he wont talk to terrorist's which are the bulk of the nations we are not talking to. Face facts; the democrats cant even have a primary election without leaving out two of the biggest states in the union. How can any sane person trust them with international affairs? The only thing they are good at is undermining the war effort. For that they should be proud! They have helped the enemy more than Iran or Bin Laden could drean of. It's no accident that Hamas endorses Obama. They know he will win their war for them by pulling out just when the tide is turning!

So what if Obama stands up to Bush-McCain. That's the really easy stuff.

Obama was afraid to debate a woman. That was tough and scary. So how do we know he can stand up against the big boys - Saudis, Iranians, Syrians, North Koreans, Chinese, etc., etc.

He has zip zero experience, let alone foreign experience. Can he hack it?

listen hear sweetie- I know what's best for you and you and you and you and you and you- when will you all realize that I am the 2nd coming - I am here to enlighten you foolish uneducated God loving, gun loving, Country loving people. America is the worst place on Earth- once you realize this and see the light you will vote for me.

Posted by: too stupid to know any better -- | May 16, 2008 3:59 PM

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

McCain, get your a$$ back to work. We don't pay you to be stupid.

Is this your post, JakeD (you're unusually good about ensuring your name is on everything, though others try to pretend they're you)?

You didn't include the last two questions and answers:
.......
Posted by: | May 16, 2008 6:22 PM

I didn't respond to those because I think they further illustrate my point: Gillespie's clearly talking out of his A$$ and the reporter senses it--that's why he keeps pressing him. Do you see something exculpatory in them??

Sorry, that last one was from me.

abqcleve:

You're welcome. Perhaps I should have used the WaPo's characterization of Obama's "sharp reply" instead of "attack" : )

P.S. to Roman -- as soon as I get an answer, I will make my point.

Breaking news: flag pin is indicative of one's love of the country.

Posted by: L'Mo | May 16, 2008 4:17 PM

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Breaking news: Declaring war on a nation based upon shakey evidence, thereby causing the needless deaths of American serviceman and women is indicative of one's hatred of the country.

You didn't include the last two questions and answers:

Q So when the question of a possible rebuke to Carter came up, was the language changed, what was the discussion, what was the analysis of what might be --

MR. GILLESPIE: The -- it was put in the context of a broader discussion of approach and policy, so that it would not be seen as a reference to any individual. But obviously --

Q I'm sorry, so the language was changed from what to what?

MR. GILLESPIE: I think there was some -- I don't know, and I'm not going to go back and get drafts for you to look and see how it changed throughout.

jakeD:
So what if he was listening to him! why don't you say your point instead of trying to make people guess it.

Thanks for the transcript: I always appreciate it when folks attempt to back up their arguments.

The salient point:

MR. GILLESPIE: "There was some anticipation that someone might say, oh, it's an expression of -- a rebuke to former President Carter for having met with Hamas. That was something that was anticipated. No one wrote about that or raised that as a question. It was really designed to talk about the President's policies, the policies of the United States. And so, no, there was not anticipation that that was going to --

Q -- a rebuke to Carter?

MR. GILLESPIE: No, it was -- all I can do is point you to the actual words. And so I'm surprised and curious as to the reaction -- and frankly I just want to stay on the -- focused on the reaction of congressional leaders because that's where we deal. "

Methinks Ed "I never met a vet I wanted to help" Gillespie is doing quite a lot of dancing here!

I think the point is, everybody except the Bush camp understood the thinly veiled reference, and better yet, Obama used it to repsond quite well, I thought, the "attack" mischaracterization notwithstanding.

Good response: I appreciate that.

It seems as if the McCain campaign will do nothing but to put the most obtuse spin on Obama's comments. It would be a shame if all that the Republican voters ever hear is the machinations of the Republican rhetoric that totally misstates and misrepresents the opposing side. I am so glad that I listen to the people making the speeches rather than what is said about or written about them. At times, there is no reasonable semblance. It is obvious that McCain never heard Obama's comments today. We do not need a President who either does not hear the opposition correctly or refuses to hear the opposition.

John McSame as Bush:

Did you ever find out if Barack HUSSEIN Obama was listening to Rev. Wright's sermon the Sunday after 9/11?

Last night there was a report on faux news in Pakistan and there were Pakistani men working at the phonebank telling the news what they were doing. Before every primary, they call those states and try to get people out to vote for Obama. Do some researse and take your head out of the clouds.
It's really happening.

Posted by: tdl62
*************************

OK, I just watched the original report (not Fox) which is Al Jazeera-English (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21YF7ggCG6g).

They're Palestinian kids, not Pakistanis. It's not clear from this report what they're doing: they just get together in an internet cafe "before each primary." There are no phones in the video: they're sitting at computers.

I suspect they're simply showing up on boards like this one. I am not a Palestinian, in case you're curious.

Wow, is that all you guys got???!!! And why is it so difficult for you to accurately report what you think you have against Obama?

Keep it coming frothy mouthed Obama haters....Get all of that hate and bile out of your system. (hahaha!)

November is going to be a tough month for you folks. You might want to pre-schedule some grief counselors because McSame and most of the Republicans are going home courtesy of the American electorate you disappointed for the past 8 years.

There were plenty of appeasers right there in the audience at the Knesset. The framing of the argument is nice, though. Take an erroneous swipe when it was intended for the audience seated. How overreactive on Senator Obama's part. Those who doth protest too much!.

President Bush was addressing the Knesset. The speech was to remind members of the Knesset that voted to appease the Palastinians by handing over Gaza that they received nothing for it. President Bush was echoing the many statements of Israeli statesman over the years. Giving terrorists anything, as proven yet again by handing over Gaza, always results in the same thing. "We want something else next". It was clear that he was comparing the appeasers in the Knesset to Neville Chamberlain. But if the shoe fits on the Democrats, then the truth hurts, huh?

You might be able to take one part of the speech, where he talked about a US Senator in 1939 that remarked, "If I just could have talked to Hitler this could have been avoided". If Obama just could talk to these 'nut job' leaders, he could talk them out of their wrong ideas. That comes from his website.

Validating the tactics is always bad. Giving in is validating the tactics. It is not complicated.

The fact that Senator Obama felt it was directed at him is probably he saw his Iran/Syria policy from his website as to the origin of the remark. On the website, he claims to be the only candidate that will have direct presidential talks with Iran's leader with no preconditions. The only precondition we have right now is the compliance with UN resolutions regarding uranium enrichment.

Please let me know about any other preconditions I might have missed.

Oh, BTW, The site of the nuclear reactor in Syria, that was destroyed, was cleared in 48 hours. No outcry from Syria was forthcoming. I wonder why? Does anyone think Iran might have funded this project?

Silence from both of them speaks volumes as to the purpose of the reactor.

If Obama = scary. then what Bush = to??
for those who have a hard time getting the fact right... Obama didn't and will not lie to us, Bush did and he'll not stop till his A$$ is out of office. Obama thinks before he speaks, Bush is not! in fact he made us look like fools with a power around the world. Obama is our foreign policy cause he lived in over seas (outside the box), Bush (inside a farm) you do the math! Now i'm not making jokes or disrespacting anybody, I'm simply saying if you are not with him. Don't be against him either!

Q Ed, can you talk to us a little bit about yesterday's speech and how much the White House may or may not have anticipated the reaction that ultimately occurred, where people interpreted this as a reference to Barack Obama?

MR. GILLESPIE: We did not anticipate that it would be taken that way, because it's kind of hard to take it that way if you look at the actual words of the President's remarks, which are consistent with what he has said in the past relative to dealing with groups like Hezbollah and Hamas and al Qaeda; relative to standing by Israel; relative to concerns about Iran developing the prospect of a nuclear weapon.

And so there was really nothing new in the speech that anyone could point to that would indicate that. There was some anticipation that someone might say, oh, it's an expression of -- a rebuke to former President Carter for having met with Hamas. That was something that was anticipated. No one wrote about that or raised that as a question. It was really designed to talk about the President's policies, the policies of the United States. And so, no, there was not anticipation that that was going to --

Q -- a rebuke to Carter?

MR. GILLESPIE: No, it was -- all I can do is point you to the actual words. And so I'm surprised and curious as to the reaction -- and frankly I just want to stay on the -- focused on the reaction of congressional leaders because that's where we deal. We're happily not in a campaign and out of the political arena, but we are dealing with the House Speaker and the leader in the Senate and the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and I don't know what sentence they could point to that they would say is reckless or outrageous.

The fact is that if you look at the words, they're pretty consistent with what the President has said in the past, and frankly consistent with what many of them have said. They have said that -- I think most have said that we shouldn't negotiate with terrorists or extremists. Most have said that we should not allow for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon; that would not be in the world's interests. Most have said we should stand by Israel as an ally in the Middle East and a democracy there. So I don't know what -- again -- what sentence they consider to be outrageous or reckless, and I --

Q Does the President believe that --

Q Ed, what was new in the wording was a whole reference to Hitler and appeasement. He hasn't said that before in the policy statement. Why did he add that in in this speech? Just because he was in Israel?

MR. GILLESPIE: Well, Israel, obviously when you talk about history and people's words having meaning and not being disregarded -- we have seen in the past, in history, when the words of people were not taken seriously, and we have to take those words seriously. And so, yes, I think that -- in the Knesset, that's an area -- or an audience where an understanding of taking the words of someone like Hitler seriously in understanding the distinction between good and evil is an important one.

Q So just to be clear about that then -- that line was inserted specifically because of this audience?

MR. GILLESPIE: I think the audience was taken into account there, yes.

Q Ed, does the President believe that Senator Obama is advocating negotiating with terrorists and radicals?

MR. GILLESPIE: The President is stating American policy and his policy toward Iran and toward Hezbollah and toward al Qaeda. We are happy to allow for Senator Obama and others to express their own points of view on these things, and like I say, that's -- we're going to deal with -- I'm more interested in talking about the reaction of congressional leaders because as the President we deal with Congress.

And I think that their comments about the President's remarks are unjustified and unwarranted, and I would like to know what specifically the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the Speaker of the House, or the Majority Leader, what line do they disagree with, what sentences that they take exception to: that we should stand by Israel; that we shouldn't allow for Iran to develop nuclear weapons; that we should not negotiate with terrorists and extremists? I think that in the past, they have all been positions that there's been general consensus on, so I don't know where it is they find those statements to be outrageous.

Q But the President does try to shape public debate, and including the general election debate, by using his platform. Was that his intent here, to try to shape the course of public debate in the election by using his --

MR. GILLESPIE: If you look at the President's comments on terrorism and Iran, they predate the general election, they predate the primary election, they predate the President's election in 2000. So this is something that he feels strongly about, and as the President of the United States and as a world leader, he is going to continue to rally, and to rally international opposition to the prospect of Iran developing a nuclear weapon, and trying to rally, as we'll continue to see over the next few days, the world to stop terrorism and extremism.

Q I take it you think that the media kind of misplayed this one. And let me just ask you if you think that as we're getting into the election season, that if the White House is going to be vetting speeches more closely with that in mind.

MR. GILLESPIE: Look, I'm not anyone's editor or publisher. People are -- we have a free press in this country. I would urge people to write what the President said, and use -- and allow readers to look at his words and form their own conclusions. But we live in a world of news analysis and commentary, and I understand that, so people are free to do it.

Q But will the White House be -- moving forward, will they be more attuned to that; that, you know, we're kind of in a different season now, and that things -- if a butterfly flaps its wings in Jerusalem, and roils Ohio or something like that.

MR. GILLESPIE: Look, you know, it's hard to guess what the media -- again, because we don't necessarily live in a world where people just report what the President says, they have to report what they think it means. And it's hard to guess what the media might write. But that's -- again, you're free to do it, and that's the world in which we live.

Q That actually raises an interesting question. What do you think accounted for this backlash from Democrats? How did, you know --

MR. GILLESPIE: Again, I don't know because I -- again, I would encourage you to ask them what sentences that they disagree with, what specific sentence.

Q But do you think it was -- it's the media and the way that the speech was reported yesterday?

MR. GILLESPIE: You know, I can't -- I'm not a sociologist.

Q You weren't happy with the fact that it was seen as a swipe against Obama?

MR. GILLESPIE: Again, I'm not happy or unhappy. I'm more concerned about the words of congressional leaders, because we deal with the Congress, and if they are changing some of the policies that in the past there's been bipartisan consensus on relative to fighting terrorists and extremists, or stopping Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, or standing by Israel, if there's a shift in that kind of bipartisan consensus, that is where we operate at the White House and in the executive branch. And not sure what it is that they take exception to, or where they see a difference from what the President said.

And I would again encourage the media, whatever you want to do, it's your editors -- to ask them if maybe you might ask the Speaker of the House, or the leader of the Senate, or the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, what sentence that the President uttered, what words do you disagree with in those comments in the Knesset?

Q So when the --

MR. GILLESPIE: As opposed to -- do you disagree with our characterization of what he may or may not have been thinking?

Q So when the question of a possible rebuke to Carter came up, was the language changed, what was the discussion, what was the analysis of what might be --

MR. GILLESPIE: The -- it was put in the context of a broader discussion of approach and policy, so that it would not be seen as a reference to any individual. But obviously --

Q I'm sorry, so the language was changed from what to what?

MR. GILLESPIE: I think there was some -- I don't know, and I'm not going to go back and get drafts for you to look and see how it changed throughout. I'm sorry.

Despite all of these Weapons of Mass Distraction launched by our resident Obama-Hating Zealots....He keeps winning with black, white and hispanic votes...

Keep going haters.....you are only adding fuel to the house cleaning of republicans coming in November.

No, abqcleve, Gillespie admitted that there was some concern in the White House that an earlier draft of the speech could have been misinterpretted as a slam against Carter personally -- therefore the language was changed so it would not be seen as a reference to any specific individual -- nice try though.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/05/20080516-3.html

Barack "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" Obama

Correction. I am sorry, it is Palestine men that are making calls to primary voters.

It may be hard to believe, but working in this tiny Internet cafe in Gaza City may just be one of Barack Obama's biggest fans.

Before every U.S. primary, 23-year-old Ibrahim Abu Jayyab gathers 17 of his friends to try and rally support for Obama's campaign in the U.S.

Ibrahim and his friends call random numbers in the U.S. before every primary to deliver one simple message: Elect Senator Obama.

http://coldheartedtruth.com/politics/index.php/2008/05/15/another-endorsement-for-obama-1?blog=15

Dear Republican Zealots,

Your attempts at the politics of distraction are failing. They are failing because the republican party has clearly failed America for the last 8 years.

Many lunatics within the GOP thought the Reverend Wright guilt by a association political snow-job would stop Obama. The problem is most American's are hurting too bad from Bush's 8 years to be fooled by stuff that does not matter.

This is why people with college education and the military that normally votes overwhelmingly republican are voting and contributing to Obama's campaign.

It comical in a sad sort of way to read all of these anti-Obama posts and none of them ever mention his policies. Thus proving that (some...not all) republicans live off of hate and fearmongering.

Just take a look at what our resident obama-haters are saying. None of it is about the issues. It's all about their weapons of mass distraction.

Obama would make a great leader that is of a boy scout troop and assuming he can lead them out of the woods.

McCain is such a disappointment.

It was "measured" for Obama to attack someone who never mentioned his name (and, supposedly, even Obama admits he would not "negotiate with terrorists" so Bush's slam didn't even apply to him)?
*********************

I think he responded, not "attacked": where do you get your rabid characterization? You're parsing that a little finely, which I've observed you do before. Every other American, including your beloved John Boy, understood the reference: "I think that Barack Obama needs to explain why he wants to sit down and talk with a man who is the head of a government that is a state sponsor of terrorism, that is responsible for the killing of brave young Americans, that wants to wipe Israel off the map, who denies the Holocaust. That's what I think Senator Obama ought to explain to the American people."

Ed Gillespie today hillariously tried to explain that Bush's reference was to Carter. Regardless, I think many Obama supporters were happy to see him respond so quickly: good PR for his position and an easy contrast to Bush's disastrous foreign policy record.

Hapuchi:

You do realize that HIS FATHER was President of the United States when Iraq invaded Kuwait, right? If I was a betting man, I would suspect just once or twice that Bush Jr. had seen a map of Iraq. At least Dick Cheney showed him his map of where all the oil wells were ; )

Franky:

http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertreport/videos.jhtml?videoId=168494

I am sick of RepubliCON artists like Bush .
He probabaly did not know where Iraq is before he became President

Now, I mean if it was Sheryl "The best way to solve problems is to not have enemies" Crowe who was all upset about the President's speech, then I would understand.

Do you have proof the Palestinians are running phonebanks supporting Obama? I didn't think so.

The most apt analogy isn't between Democrats and appeasement to Nazis; it's between Republicans and Nazi propoganda. I have read and heard many, many interviews with "good Germans" asked, after the war, how they fell for Hitler. The most common answer: no one stood up and called them out on the slow erosion of truth.

If you really love America, stand up and call the liars out.

Posted by: abqcleve | May 16, 2008 5:34 PM

Last night there was a report on faux news in Pakistan and there were Pakistani men working at the phonebank telling the news what they were doing. Before every primary, they call those states and try to get people out to vote for Obama. Do some researse and take your head out of the clouds.
It's really happening.

abqcleve:

It was "measured" for Obama to attack someone who never mentioned his name (and, supposedly, even Obama admits he would not "negotiate with terrorists" so Bush's slam didn't even apply to him) as launching "exactly the kind of appalling attack that's divided our country and that alienates us from the world"?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/16/obama.bush.mccain/index.html

Kinda reminds you of the "Boy Who Cried Wolf" one too many times.

"That's why I call you out, jerk."

Woof woof a goldfish.

Posted by: Gary E. Masters
**********************

Do you want to participate, Mr. Masters? I have no problem with people's opinions on these boards, except when they try to pass off blatant BS like the homunculous I was responding to. Do you want his back? Do you have proof the Palestinians are running phonebanks supporting Obama? I didn't think so.

The most apt analogy isn't between Democrats and appeasement to Nazis; it's between Republicans and Nazi propoganda. I have read and heard many, many interviews with "good Germans" asked, after the war, how they fell for Hitler. The most common answer: no one stood up and called them out on the slow erosion of truth.

If you really love America, stand up and call the liars out.

little hussein has a fools view of the world.
being nice and talking to people does not work if the people you want to talk with only want you dead.
north korea thinks we need to all be killed or taken over because communism is the best form of government in the world. then killed 35,000 americans in the korean war.
iran declared war on us under karter and they have not renounced that. they want israel to be destroyed and deny the murder of millions of jews during ww2. what do you say to someone like that?
let me guess, "we hear you" and/or "we love you".
it does not work and only a fool thinks it does.

THANKS FOR THE TRUTH:

"Obama then launched into list of grievances, including a war fought on the premise of uprooting weapons of mass destruction that were never found, the failure to catch Osama Bin Laden and turning Iran into the "greatest beneficiary" of the Iraq war."

thetorturermovie.com

JakeD, not a history professor -- just a student of history.

Obama: "It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack. George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel."

Clinton: "President Bush's comparison of any Democrat to Nazi appeasers is both offensive and outrageous on the face of it, especially in light of his failures in foreign policy. This is the kind of statement that has no place in any presidential address and certainly to use an important moment like the 60th anniversary celebration of Israel to make a political point seems terribly misplaced. Unfortunately, this is what we've come to expect from President Bush."

Clinton's "does it better?" How so? They're very similar, though I would say Obama's is more measured: "sad" v. "outrageous." I prefer measured, myself. That's the essence of diplomacy.

Dale:

To be fair, God help the United States if McCain gets elected too. May the Lord protect the United States REGARDLESS of who wins the White House! In Jesus's name, AMEN!

DEFENSE COMMITTEE:

No one has claimed if you don't vote for McCain you are unpatriotic. I totally agree that we should vote for the candidate who is best suited to run our country. While I believe that is John McCain, you are certainly entitled tp believe it is Obama or Hillary.

God help the United States if Obama gets elected.

Obama = Scary

The only thing that elevates McCain is his service in Vietnam which is admirable. But, it can't be denied that there are Americans who served just as admirably and some moreso. McCain is alive and still can live a very long life. Many soldiers lost their lives and many soldiers have lives that are horrible due to the wars. Some are suffering horrible injuries that have affected vital organs. They will never be right.

I think it's time to pay him off. Give him and soldiers like him a parade. Give him and others like him a statue. Give him and others like him a street of their choosing to have their names. If possible give him one thousand dollars.

Then tell him you've been paid. There are veterans who have never profited by their service in war. There are soldiers who have come back to misery end desertion. There are soldiers who are in hospitals that are filthy and they don't complain.

But John McCain is different. We are all in debt to him to the tune of the presidency. If we don't vote for him we are unpatriotic.

No. We as voters should vote for the candidates and nominees who are best suited to run our country. It is our duty to vote for the best leaders who have the ideals we Americans respect and emulate.

Four quotes that blow the Republicans' national security lies and McCain's tough-guy credentials out of the water:

1. "When you pulled troops out of Somalia in 1993, bin Laden said, 'I have seen the frailty and the weakness and the cowardice of U.S. troops.'"
Chris Wallace, FOX News, to Bill Clinton, Sep 2006

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,215397,00.html

Clinton famously lost his temper in this interview. Why?

2. "And make no mistake about it, if we were to leave Somalia tomorrow, other nations would leave, too. Chaos would resume, the relief effort would stop and starvation soon would return. That knowledge has led us to continue our mission...
So, now, we face a choice. Do we leave when the job gets tough or when the job is well done?
Recently, Gen. Colin Powell said this about our choices in Somalia: 'Because things get difficult, you don't cut and run. You work the problem and try to find a correct solution.'...
So let us finish the work we set out to do. Let us demonstrate to the world, as generations of Americans have done before us, that when Americans take on a challenge, they do the job right."
President Bill Clinton, Oct 8, 1993.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-14550618.html
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE0DA153AF93BA35753C1A965958260

3. John McCain disagreed:
"The criteria should be to bring them home as rapidly and safely as possible, an evolution which I think could be completed in a matter of weeks. Our continued military presence in Somalia allows another situation to arise which could then lead to the wounding, killing or capture of American fighting men and women. We should do all in our power to avoid that.

What should be the criteria is our immediate, orderly withdrawal from Somalia. And if we don't do that, and other Americans die, other Americans are wounded, other Americans are captured, because we stayed too long, longer than necessary, then I would say that the responsibilities for that lie with the Congress of the United States, who did not exercise their authority, under the constitution of the United States, and mandate that they brought them home as quickly and safely as possible.

The argument that somehow the United States would suffer a loss to our prestige and our viability, as far as the No. 1 superpower in the world, I think is baloney. The fact is, we won the cold war. The fact is, we won the Persian Gulf conflict. And the fact is that the United States is still the only major world superpower.

I can tell you what will erode our prestige. I can tell you what will hurt our viability as the world's superpower, and that is if we enmesh ourselves in a drawn-out situation which entails the loss of American lives, more debacles like the one we saw with the failed mission to capture Aideed's lieutenants, using American forces, and that then will be what hurts our prestige.

We suffered a terrible tragedy in Beirut, Mr. President; 240 young marines lost their lives, but we got out. Now is the time for us to get out of Somalia as rapidly and as promptly and as safely as possible.

I, along with many others, will have an amendment that says exactly that ... It does not say anything about any other missions that the United States may need or feels it needs to carry out. It will say that we should get out as rapidly and orderly as possible."
Sen John McCain, Oct 1993

Here's a video of his speech:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPyKpcivQYQ

4. Guess who said this:
'Mr. President, I must say I have also been jarred by the reactions of many of our colleagues in the U.S. Senate and in the Congress. I am jarred by the extraordinary sense of panic that seems to be rushing through this deliberative body, and by the strident cries for a quick exit...

'Mr. President, we are in a situation now where withdrawal would send the wrong signal to Aidid and his supporters.

'Rightly or wrongly, the Bush (41) administration committed us to this operation. We, as a nation, have accepted this responsibility. We should not panic and flee when the going gets rough.'
Senator John Kerry, Oct 1993

So. Who's the limp-wristed cut-and-runner now?

Check my facts. American history has been re-written by the conservative noise machine. The above is what really happened.

John McCain also called for pullout from Haiti. Because McCain is only too happy to undermine the missions of US troops abroad if he thinks it will score points against Democrats. He sticks with Iraq because it's a Republican war in which his credibility is sunk.

If Iraq was a Democrat war, John McCain would have spent the past five years loudly complaining that Baghdad wasn't worth the bones of a single Marine.

"That's why I call you out, jerk."

Woof woof a goldfish.

JP2:

I take it you were a professor of history in another life too ; )

HISTORY LESSON:

The appeasement of Adolf Hitler by the British and French governments between 1933 and 1939 is only ONE of the most well-known case of appeasement and one of the major causes of the negative connotations now attached to the word. The Munich Agreement, in particular, stands as a major example of appeasement.

These politicians not only worried about the threat posed by Hitler's Germany, but also about the threat posed by the Soviet Union. Many British politicians, in particular, felt that Bolshevik ideology was a greater danger to Europe and wanted to build up the strength of Germany as a bulwark.

The Chamberlain government, in 1937, eventually decided to pursue a more active policy of appeasement to push Germany eastwards, with the aim of encouraging and allowing Germany to expand towards the east until Germany and the Soviet Union shared a common frontier.

The British government had calculated that this situation of Germany sharing a closer border with the Soviet Union would increase the probability of Hitler launching an attack against the Soviet Union instead of against Western Europe.

This line of thinking proved accurate, initially, when Germany invaded the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941.

By setting the Germans against the Bolsheviks, the British government hoped to kill two birds with one stone, expecting that the two enemies would exhaust each another in a German-Soviet war.

This plan to push Germany eastwards broke down when Hitler broke his prior agreements and insisted on invading Poland in 1939. Under the pressure of British public opinion, Chamberlain was finally forced to declare war against Germany.

When Nixon went to China he had something to trade (look at the current world) and they wanted it. He had reason. The debate is not talk or not talk, but when do we talk and what do we have to offer. The President is properly reluctant to talk now because our strategic and tactical position is so weak. Obama would be in the same fix. What could we offer? The head of Israel on a plate? Immediate evacuation of Iraq. A fire sale on our efforts? That is the true debate. When the USA has had a position and something to trade, we have always talked to our opponents. But now is not yet the right time. Perhaps it will be in a year or so. Obama is not really wrong. But he does have a bias that makes him hard to understand.

Most people who throw around the term "appeasement" don't know what they're talking about. They're idiots.

The term is connected to Chamberlain's acquiescence to Hitler's demands regarding the Sudentanland (Chamberlain essentially said he could invade it). Part of the issue here was that Europe was still in the throws of a Depression and mired in its own conflicts (the British in Ireland and Spain was in the midst of a Civil War).

The entire continent and the U.K. had disarmed after WWI, and entire generation had been wiped out, so there wasn't exactly the means or the political will to take the fight to Germany. It would have been the Brits versus the Germans -- with the German's benefiting from homefield advantage and a huge military advantage (Germany was ahead of the other nation's in ramping up its military capacity in the mid-30s).

Chamberlain's diplomatic stance was also bolster by a policy of rearmanent -- so that when the invasion of Poland took place, the U.K. was in a better position to use military force. His view was pragmatic -- his public stance was in terms of peace, but on the home-front he provided his nation a contingency plan for war.

As far as the comparisons between Iran and Germany go -- these are pretty weak. Germany was an industrialized nation with a very recent history of military aggression against its neighbors. The Iranian economy is not especially strong and its military capacity is limited. The nation has wielded influence as the U.S. did in the 1980s in Central America through proxies, but it has been several hundred years since it has invaded another country (the first Gulf War -- as its called in the Middle East between Iran and Iraq was a defensive one -- Hussein invaded Iran, not the other way around).

As far as planes flying into buildings on the home-front, this is a reality that won't go away. The war on terror in a very real way has limited the U.S. economic and strategic capacity to take the fight to "the terrorist" beyond our borders. A nation can lose a war on the home-front by wasting its economic capacity in foreign wars (something that happened to the former Soviet Union in Afghanistan -- the war bleed the country's economic capacity dry).

People are welcome to believe fantasy vision and magic visions of someone like McCain who proclaims world peace and a domestic tranquility by 2013. The reality is that the U.S. has a long-road ahead. Part of the challenge is using all of our resources militarily, economic, and diplomatically in a way that advances our strategic interests. Leaving the U.S. with $18 to $20 trillion worth of debt by 2018 as McCain's tax-cutting policies are likely to do leave the U.S. in an extremely vulnerable position. The U.S. may still have nukes, but a much larger number of Americans are likely to die simply because of wide-spread poverty and the costs associated with it.

The fact is that there are people in the middle-