Stop talking about Obama's mother! Heh.

Good one!

President Bush, how dare you speak the truth. ww

"Roosevelt and Truman did not negotiate, did not meet their enemies without preconditions, did not seek accommodation and understanding and compromise."-jt

U.S. Under-secretary of State Sumner Welles met with Hitler AFTER the fall of Poland. AFTER the Anglo-French declaration of war.

Hmmmm...that must have been someone impersonating the Truman administration when it negotiated with North Korea and China in, I believe, 1951-52.

Nice deflections, bryanD and JFO, but you two really didn't deal with the substance of Jay T's post. Bush was entirely within his constitutional rights to do and say what he did yesterday and Team Obama was just being utterly stupid. They and their allies and media cheerleaders greatly overreached. As Instapundit said, Obama did himself no favors by standing up and shouting (figuratively) "he's talking about me!!" when Bush spoke against appeasement.

To answer your complaints:

bryanD - we weren't at war with Hitler in 1939. Technically, Nazi Germany wasn't our enemy until December 1941, although Roosevelt and his boys were working with Mr. Churchill through lend-lease. Before the onset of war, there was a very strong isolationist sentiment in the United States. Seeking a peace between the combattants to avoid a repeat of the Great War was natural. BUT that was in 1939, before 56 million people died. Bush was speaking in 2008, long after the full consequences of appeasement and meeting such people as Hitler proved to be fruitless. So, your example is not valid, in light of history itself.

JFO - and you see the result of Truman and Ike's negotiating (talking) Korea to a conclusion: we're still at a stalemate after more than 50 years. Again, not a valid example, because Bush was speaking against the danger of appeasement -- and not pressing for creating another dangerous intensely armed broder like the Korean DMZ.

It's good to know meeting with Hitler actually stopped WW2.

JFO consistantly misses the point of all the posts here. Track back and you will find that true.

Dana Perino answered the reporters question about this by saying: "When people run in an election, they think everything revolves around them." That says it all about Obama. Of course he can talk to our enemies because he believes America should be damned, that our citizens are gun nuts and cling to religion as if they are stupid and of course any time a white person speaks, it is "typical" of us. ww

Once again leftist posters totally miss the finer points of critical issues. Administrations DO hold discussions with present or potential enemies, BUT they do it thru channels or via Dept of State negotiators, etc. For example the US has been in negotiations with No. Korea over their nuke program. The president of the US must not be running around the world willy-nilly talking to any tin-horned dictator about anything that may come up. A responsible president authorizes certain limited discussions/negotiations to take place in order to gain specific objectives. A US president meeting with a terrorist leader just to be "nice" is hardly an appropriate diplomatic approach - unless your ultimate goal is total surrender.

JT, you nailed it. My first thought when I heard Bush's comments was that he was thinking of not only Obama, but all Democrats. You do not gain respect among your enemies by sitting down at the table to negotiate. It is a sign of weakness. That Obama and crew immediately took offense (even though he wasn't named specifically) tells you volumes about this actually being their policy. Don't you question their sincerity when you see this kind of reaction?

"...we weren't at war with Hitler in 1939"-big mo

We're not at war with Iran now. My point stands.

And I may add, Roosevelt's correspondences to the Wilhelmstrasse and Welles' trips in person where to a regime that had already assumed the power of life and death over the nation via the Enabling Act. Jews were stripped of their citizenship in 1934, all their capital ordered confiscated by 1938, yet Roosevelt and Welles continued to bargain through 1939. At least.
I think 200+ US citizens had died in U-boat attacks by this time. I THINK 1 US ship had been confiscated (SS Athena??).

Anyway, per JT's point? Bush or Bill Cosby? Bush was just wallowing in the midst of the only friends he has left while politicking for the south Florida Jewish vote while tactfully ignoring Israeli political scandals and controversies such as the ban on new mixed marriages allowed to exist inside Israel.

Per Obama: Bush just has a twitchy trigger finger. He sees Apaches everywhere. Zulus on the brain.

The Democrats "doth protest too much, methinks"!

Guess the shoe not only fit but also pinched.

Now Willie, remember always when you criticize others that it is you who wants to kill folks in San Francisco. If in doubt "track back" to May 7 to confirm.

I don't disagree with the concept that Bush can say what he wants where he wants and when he wants. He's an idiot so what do you expect? I also agree that Obama shouldn't have responded - I wouldn't know why anyone on our side would respond to anything that Bush has to say. Just let his stupidity hang out there.

Lastly I must say that I do get a kick out of the right wing's newly discovered right to say negative things about Americans and America while on foreign soil. But I guess better late than never for you folks.

He did not say negative things about America JFO.

Then again, those on "your side" have a different view of what is negative about American than those who are proud of and love America.

bryanD - your point does not stand, particularly because you are trying to score points with history while ignoring the LESSONS of history. Bush, who you obviously hold in utter contempt, was speaking before a nation that was created to prevent another Holocaust. Iran, whom we are at war with (just not declared; they are murdering our soliders) preaches anihilation of Israel on a near-daily basis.

Appeasement with Iran as far as Israel is concerned is a no-go. And considering we're no better than Israel as far as Ahmadinejad and the mullahs are concerned, why appease them, too?

And besides, if Roosevelt and Hopkins had FULLY known in 1939 what was about to happen (in other words, what we learned in 1945 and at Nuremburg), don't you think they would have acted differently?

As for the rest of your comments, they're beneath contempt.

More wise foreign policy advice from a man who couldn't wait to get into Iraq and was wrong on every prediction he made. Weird since he is such a military expert. (See Jay Tea's "Silly Navy" series)

Surprisingly, he now defends Bush, the Swift Boat Liars, Nixon and anything else the Republican party puts out.

Anyways, Bush Godwined himself out of rationale when this whole conversation started. Can you imagine if Obama went over seas and implied Bush helped Nazi's? (Not counting his grandfather) I think Jay Tea might blow his last fuse.

I see old byranDumbass still doesn't have a clue. Old pack-a-derm ears has a very thin skin.

Jp2 - are you saying that Bush implied that Obama would have "helped Nazis"? Because he did no such thing.

The only person Bush refered to by name was a dead Republican.

Bush was arguing against appeasing tyrants.

Why in the world you libs are having a knee-jerk reaction against this is just plain weird -- or your hatred of Bush has just totally warped your minds.

All Obama had to do was 1) say nothing or 2) say "I agree: appeasement is bad and I intend to do no such thing." Instead, he blew his stack and assumed Bush was talking about him. All of you libs always say that Bush is stupid, Bush is an idiot, blah, blah, blah. Whatever. Bush warned against appeasement. Obama said, "Hey! Quit talking about me!" And Bush is supposed to be stupid?

I hope that someday, when you liberals grow up, you come to be ashamed of yourselves.

My goodness. "Bush is an idiot" spoken by the persistant liar and attention dificit commenter JFO. JP2 always the rational thinker. NOT.

Thank God Algore wasn't president when the WTC happened. Oh Yeah! And the democrats are keeping the war going and have been for two years. You lefties are misinformed. ww

No matter what color you use to describe Obama's skin, it's way too thin to be President. Just ask Chimpy W. BusHitler.

For the last 5 years democrats have been globetrotting around the world trashing the President (professionally and personally) and the US foreign policy in an attempt to short circuit administration influence and secure our defeat in Iraq. Bush states a historical fact while in Israel and the liberal nation goes beserk.

Hit a little close to home boys? Not meaning to question your patriotism or anything (especially our courtroom commando. Don't want him to fly into a rage again.) but don't you feel a little duplicidous?

btw JP2, just what Swiftboat "lies" are you referring to? The one were Kerry was sent on the "secret mission" into Cambodia, xmas '68 by Nixon? OR the one where everyone say him flee the engagement downriver but he actually thought he was engaging the enemy upriver (a perfectly honest mistake)?

Just curious.

Every time jp2 decides to attack me, he gets under my skin a little by mocking my excursion into historical fiction and my expectation of the Iraqi insurgents to have folded up by now.

On the first point: it's entirely subjective, but a lot of people liked my story about the mythical USS Manchester (not to be confused with the several real ships that bore that name). That he wants to mock it shows that he really is fixated on me.

On the insurgents, I admit I was wrong, because I did not take two key elements into account:

1) Iran would invest so much time, money, resources, and personnel into propping up the terrorists in Iraq, much like they are doing in Lebanon.

2) The US and the rest of the world would willingly turn a blind eye to Iran's naked aggression and acts of war against the Coalition forces and the legitimate government of Iran.

Quite frankly, I never even considered those two possibilities because they struck me as too insanely improbable. I would have liked to see the first Iranians caught in Iran summarily executed as terrorists and mercenaries, and let Tehran know that any more Iranian combatants would be treated the same -- unless Iran would like to formally declare war against the Iraqi government, in which case they would be treated as prisoners of war. But that didn't happen.

As for the rest of jp2's belchings... the Swift Boat Veterans' allegations have repeatedly withstood challenges, and even forced Kerry to amend part of his "history" from Viet Nam. I did not defend Nixon, merely gave him credit for a particularly well-crafted turn of phrase that describes a legal oddity (but pointed out that it did NOT apply to the circumstances he was trying to use it).

As I said, when he does his typical dumb shit, it gets under my skin a little. Then I remember that that is likely his intention, to divert the matter from what I say to me personally, and take it as an admission that he has no other way of refuting what I say.

Oh, and his mother says he has a very small penis.

J.

...I would have liked to see the first Iranians caught in Iran summarily executed...

Typo? :)

I just looked at the debate footage that various sites are using to back their position that Obama is an "appeaser" of some kind.

It seems to me to be a big of reach to equate saying you would engaging in a conversation with a country and handing them the farm.

Neville Chamberlain did a lot more than talk to to the Germans, he signed the Munich Agreement giving them a sizable chunk of Czechoslovakia.

Can anyone enlighten me and tell me exactly what Obama has promised to give anyone and what he proposes we get in exchange?

Rance, ask Obama's people. He is the one saying GW is talking about him. ww

JT, I don't know why you let the trolls get to you. jp2, JFO and the rest of their ilk consistantly miss the point of the post whether intentional or not. (in JFO's case, I think it is a reading comprehension problem)

I kinda wish you hadn't responded to jp2. He needs no validation in my book. ww

Jay Tea nailed BHO. It's as if President Bush made a speech critical of horse thieves, and Obama responded by saying, "How dare you attack me!" The only rational response from any of the Dems (dims?) would have been, "We agree with President Bush and oppose appeasement." But they would all rather die than agree with anything W said.

WildWillie:
Actually, Jay Tea is saying that GW is talking about him and thereby linking the "appeasement" comment to the TV footage at the end of his link.

"If Senator Obama doesn't like people saying such things about him, then perhaps he shouldn't say the kinds of things that give those remarks credence." -- Jay Tea

The Israelis fully understood what Bush was saying, even if the idiot liberals did not. They applauded his words.

I think the libs WANTED to be offended. I think Obama wanted to prove he's nobody's mama's boy but picked the stupidest thing he could have.

Psst! Obama! If you're not an appeaser, then don't feign outrage!

But he's not going to back down, and is going to continue to smear and slime Bush for something Bush didn't do to him.

Which, in its own way, is a good thing. Bush, as usual, will emerge as the bigger man, and Obama, should he actually get elected, will have made such a ferocious stand against appeasement that he'll look even stupider when he actually does it as president.

Jay Tea:

On Iran, you forgot to mention smuggling arms to insurgents in Iraq, supplying military tactics and intel to insurgents in Iraq, giving safehaven to Moqtada al-Sadr, "buzzing" our warships in the Strait of Hormuz and in the Gulf itself, supplying military personnel and, more to the point, conducting a proxy war against us.

Sorry, Jay, I just plain missed your #22 post.(Great response BTW!)

I'd say Obama's reaction is proof that he remembers how he answered the question at the debate when a man asked if he would meet, without precondition, the leaders of Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, etc (regardless of what his foreign policy adviser Susan Rice remembers.)

He responded, "Yes," and that he would meet with them on a personal level.

And For Rance's question: Obama has suggested economic and security incentives and the possible inclusion to the WTO for Iran specifically.

Having a clue. Yeah, I got one of those. Hawks and Doves is what we called'em back in the Vietnam day. GB's hawk attitudes is what got us in this mess. Iraq was surrounded and contained, WMD were a lie. Yet right-leaning bloggers want to vindicate him as this somehow great leader. I think they are the ones who need the clue.

-- "See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda," Bush said in explaining his communications strategy last May.

-- "See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda," Bush said in explaining his communications strategy last May.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1230-01.htm

I may be an Obama come lately, actually I'm a Hillary supporter, but Barrack probably will win this thing. I have not heard Mr. Obama talk about appeasing terrorists; Jay do you have a source or are we just repeating things over until the truth sinks in.

I have not heard Mr. Obama talk about appeasing terrorists; Jay do you have a source or are we just repeating things over until the truth sinks in.

Here let me assist. This is direct from Obama's site:

Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions.

Direct. Presidential. Diplomacy. With. A. Terrorist. State.

Like the mullahs are just going to say, "Gee, that whole membership into the WTO sounds really sounds appealing, let's just drop our nuke program and terrorist activities and go with that."

Yup, now there's the "ingenuous argument" Bush was talking about.

Actually, if Bush had an individual in mind for the comment in his speech, it was more likely Jimmy Carter - who had actually been talking to terrorists recently.

But since Obama is running as the second coming of Jimmy Carter, I guess the foo shits.

Oh, Lordy. An entire post based on the ludicrously disingenuous claim of "gosh gee, was Bush's statement crafted to include a swipe at a political opponent? Aw shucks, we had no idea he was referring to Obama! After all, he didn't go 'wink wink' after he said it!"

Well, at least not everyone is so dishonest, as COgirl admitted it was obvious Bush's comment was aimed at Obama.

"Thank God Algore wasn't president when the WTC happened."

I'm trying to think of a worse reaction Algore (sic) might have come up with than W did.

Perhaps using nuclear missles on every major city in the US. Other than that, I can't think of a worse reaction than GWB's.

Hey, lookie! McCain says we should have Direct. Presidential. Diplomacy. With. A. Terrorist. State.

That's already been debunked, Brian, Rubin's piece is dishonest and takes McCain out of context.

Must be why you like it.

Will, Huckabee has just given Obama another reason to cry and get outraged. Drudge has a big headline about Huckabee joking about Obama getting shot at.

The context won't matter:

"During a speech to the National Rifle Association convention in Louisville, Kentucky Friday, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee joked to the audience that an offstage noise was Barack Obama avoiding gunfire.

"That was Barack Obama, he just tripped off a chair, he's getting ready to speak," Huckabee said. "Somebody aimed a gun at him and he dove for the floor."

"The line was met with laughter."

Brilliant, Huck. Just brilliant. Putz.

Of course if W had been president during WWII, he would have attacked Russia...Stalin was a tyrant after all, in possession of weapons of mass destruction. Only a weak, appeasing president would have sat down to talk with such a leader.

Oh, please. That Hot Air article just takes other things McCain said and falsely recasts them as potential preconditions to his comment on talking with Hamas. But when McCain said it, he didn't list preconditions.

In fact, he said this...

I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice . . . -->BUT<-- it's a new reality in the Middle East.

That big BUT up there indicates a change from previous policy, not agreement with it.

That was pretty incoherent, Milton.

By the way, you did learn in history class that Winston Churchill began planning military operations in Scandanavia to aid Finland against the Soviet Union in 1940?

Milton - well, if Patton was W's commanding general, then, yes.

Oh, and Milton, just what WMD did Stalin have during WWII? Do you know?

No, Brian, Rubin's piece is dishonest about what McCain was saying. But taking things out of context is a favorite of yourse.

And making snarky comments without anything to back them up is one of yours. Oh, sorry... "yourse".

As preface to becoming an example of Godwin's Law, GW said "Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along".

As opposed to sitting around waiting for them to decide on their own that they have been wrong all along?

If you you refuse to talk to your enemy directly, you have no choice but to yell at him in the public forum for all the world to hear. That leaves him two choices: Give in to your demands, or publicly defy you to save face.

However, if you are talking to your enemy, you can send your emissary to him to whisper in his ear, "We know what you are doing and if you don't knock it off, we will make you knock it off. We know where you live."

When you negotiate, you don't alway have to convince the other person that you are right and he is wrong. All you have to do is convince him that it is his best interest to do things your way.

Ahhh yes.. appeasement, one of the defining characteristics of the left. Of course Obama thought GW was talking about him. Every libtard on the planet should be thinking the same thing!! (YOU talkin bout ME!!!??)

THE TRUTH HURTS..now if the SHOE FITS for ANY libtard, to fckn bad........next

Being one of the readers who liked very much Jay's story about the USS Manchester, I got a little pissed when some piece of shit weasel called it a "Silly Navy" series....

but then ....it was revealed he has a small penis...so ..that kinda explains things..

"On the insurgents, I admit I was wrong, because I did not take two key elements into account:

1) Iran would invest so much time, money, resources, and personnel into propping up the terrorists in Iraq, much like they are doing in Lebanon."

Awesome that you are leveraging your poorly taken position on the Iraq war on another (hopeful) attack on Iran. Wise, as always. But...

Please provide evidence of such things.

For example, where are most of the insurgents coming from? (I'll give you a big hint - it's not Iran!)

"That was pretty incoherent, Milton.
By the way, you did learn in history class that Winston Churchill began planning military operations in Scandanavia to aid Finland against the Soviet Union in 1940?
Posted by SPQR"

Finland was the alibi. Sweden's natural resources were the true aim. Unless 3 conscript UK divisions were to hold off the Red Army in real life with no hope of evacuation or reinforcements. Plus Gamelin would have been pissed!

I do not think Bush understand the meaning of the word appeasement or misled. How did he get that Yale degree?

A Southern African kid can tell you what the word means, they have extensive knowledge of the Eurpean history( thanks to coloniliasm), as well as the US influence on the oppressive White regime in South Africa, whom the Reagan and Bush Snr. governement APPEASED to continue to inlfict apartheid on the black majority in South Africa, and at the same time benefit from SA's minaral resources.

Obama got Bush and McCain by the b**8ls. Hypocrites

"Please provide evidence of such things."

"For example, where are most of the insurgents coming from? (I'll give you a big hint - it's not Iran!)"

That's a bit too simplistic a response. Okay, it's a LOT simplistic.

Jay said "time, money, resources and personnel". Then you focus on "personnel" and try to call him a liar.

This is why people here poke fun at you jp2.

I see Brian is not showing any signs of growing up.