Obama get's testy

[autigeremt 6,657]

foxnews

The White House denied Thursday that President Bush was focusing on Barack Obama when — during a speech to the Israeli parliament — he criticized politicians who would speak to terrorist backers.

In his speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of the founding of the state of Israel, Bush said anyone who claims that talking with terrorists will result in peace is experiencing a “foolish delusion.”

“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. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: ‘Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of 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,” the president said.

While Bush never mentioned Obama by name, “aggressive personal diplomacy” with Iran is an oft-stated proposal by Obama as a means to end that country’s support for insurgency in Iraq and its nuclear programs.

Obama swiftly criticized Bush for a “false political attack” and said the president’s foreign policy has failed to secure the U.S. or Israel.

“Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan(What????? Republicans????) did and use all elements of American power — including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy — to pressure countries like Iran and Syria. George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists (hmmmmmmm....I guess talking with the Pres. of Iran is NOW out of the question), 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,” Obama said.

[CCTAU 3,336]

Call a duck a duck and he goes all quackers.

[Tigermike 3,042]

From Team Obama whose panties are in a wad over the speech:

“Obviously this is an unprecedented political attack on foreign soil,” Obama Communications Director Robert Gibbs told CNN’s John Roberts on American Morning Thursday, adding that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates had been quoted Wednesday making remarks about dialogue with Iran that were similar to the Illinois senator’s.

“Let’s not confuse precondition with preparation,” said Gibbs of any talks with Iran. “Obviously these meetings would be full of preparation. But we’re not going to sit down and engage Iran, unless or until they give up their nuclear weapons program.”

Really, is that right? Let’s go back and take a look at the tape, from which Obama has been running for the last few weeks:

You Tube

from Obama's own website:

Without preconditions. That means without Iran guaranteeing anything, let alone the big prize of their nuclear program. Gibbs’ statement makes absolutely no sense in context of Bush’s remarks or Obama’s previous statements. If Iran gave up its nuclear weapons program today, Bush would open diplomatic contacts with Iran and might even consider a summit. He’s made that very clear over the last few years, holding out WTO sponsorship and normalized relations in exchange for just that concession.If Obama now says he won’t meet with Iran until they surrender their nuclear-weapons program, how exactly does that differ from Bush? And how does that fit with his previous statements about having talks “without preconditions”?

Beyond that, Obama has never explained how talks with Ahmadinejad would convince Iran to stop being, well, the lunatic mullahcracy that it is. Instead of supporting the grassroots efforts at real reform, Obama would simply give credence to the sham “reformers” the Guardian Council approves as part of its oppressive control over the political process in Iran. Meeting with Ahmadinejad, who has held regional conferences extolling a world without Israel or the US, would give the hard-liners a boost in stature while reducing our credibility with Iranians looking to rid themselves of the mullahcracy and establish real representative government. They don’t want us to bomb Iran into submission, but they also don’t want us to abandon them for a Neville Chamberlain-like illusory diplomatic exchange that changes nothing.

If Gibbs wants to eliminate the confusion on these points, then he needs to start with Barack Obama, who apparently has no clue what preconditions mean. Maybe he should have learned that before running for President.

[WinCrimson 61]

Where is the flip flop?

And what's wrong with sitting down and talking with others? I was under the impression that such a "radical" idea was a basic concept in negotiation.

Having a discussion with other nation's leaders doesn't mean an agreement will be reached. It's highly unlikely, in fact. However, we've exhausted all other options and spewing more young American blood is not the answer.

[CCTAU 3,336]

Where is the flip flop?

And what's wrong with sitting down and talking with others? I was under the impression that such a "radical" idea was a basic concept in negotiation.

Having a discussion with other nation's leaders doesn't mean an agreement will be reached. It's highly unlikely, in fact. However, we've exhausted all other options and spewing more young American blood is not the answer.

Sitting and talking with terror sponsoring countries has worked so well in the past. But I see your point. We've never had a pseudo-muslim as a president before, it just might work this time. Kinda like socialism, it hasn't worked before because we haven't tried it.

Achmed don't like it being brought up because he now knows that most of America sees it as a weak and stupid negotiating tactic to announce what you will or will not do with/to an enemy. The more America sees of this guy, the more they realize he has no clue how to protect America. The empty suit continues to shine well, but it's dulling.

[Justin5 20]

Yeah, I fail to see the chance in thinking.

(I refuse to use GOP terminology like 'flip-flop'.)

[Justin5 20]

Where is the flip flop?

And what's wrong with sitting down and talking with others? I was under the impression that such a "radical" idea was a basic concept in negotiation.

Having a discussion with other nation's leaders doesn't mean an agreement will be reached. It's highly unlikely, in fact. However, we've exhausted all other options and spewing more young American blood is not the answer.

Sitting and talking with terror sponsoring countries has worked so well in the past. But I see your point. We've never had a pseudo-muslim as a president before, it just might work this time. Kinda like socialism, it hasn't worked before because we haven't tried it.

Achmed don't like it being brought up because he now knows that most of America sees it as a weak and stupid negotiating tactic to announce what you will or will not do with/to an enemy. The more America sees

of this guy, the more they realize he has no clue how to protect America. The empty suit continues to shine well, but it's dulling.

I completely agree, I mean the more people learn the more they are starting to go against Oba.....What?!?! You mean his support hasn't been slipping?!?

Once Clinton officially drops out (which she is doing very nicely by turning attacks towards McCain while telling her base to support Obama *if* she loses) Obama will enjoy a nice 8-12% lead over McCain.