The Moderate Voice - Latest Comments in Obama Responds To Bush’s “Appalling” Charge Of Him Wanting Terrorists “Appeasement”

Re: Obama Responds To Bush’s “Appalling” Charge Of Him Wanting Terrorists “Appeasement”

ChrisWWW — Sun, 18 May 2008 20:24:28 -0000

Neocon,
Appeasement is not sitting down personally with the leader of another country. I suggest you research the definition and historical context.

Re: Obama Responds To Bush’s “Appalling” Charge Of Him Wanting Terrorists “Appeasement”

Neocon — Sun, 18 May 2008 00:04:32 -0000

The amazing thing about the progressive left is that they have started a new strategy.

That strategy consists of redefining all political terms that might reflect negatively on their main man. Thus we are now in the redefining mode of the word appeasement. Talking is not appeasement. Yet the parallels between Neville Chamberlain and what Barak Obama has said he will do are remarkable and they beg to be compared.

Neville Chamberlain went to Hitler and negotiated with him personally.

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

and

Talk to our Foes and Friends: Obama is willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe. He will do the careful preparation necessary, but will signal that America is ready to come to the table

Appeasement is the act of concession for the sake of an agreement. Barak Obama will govern to his base.

His base wants out of Iraq and so we will leave Iraq. His base wants to negotiate with everyone in sight and so Barak Obama as his website says that he will personally TAKE CHARGE and sit down and negotiate with everyone in sight.

Look to the base. The base defines the President. Presidents govern to their base. Barak Obama said that he intends to MAKE the Republicans see things his way. He has no intention of governing to those who do not see things his way.

So it is the base. The base is what will define Barak Obama as president. If you want to see what kind of president he will be, just look to his base.

Re: Obama Responds To Bush’s “Appalling” Charge Of Him Wanting Terrorists “Appeasement”

runasim — Sat, 17 May 2008 16:29:41 -0000

CStanley,

Nce of you to advise Democrats on strategy.
How did that approach work out for Kerry?

Assuming that Carter was the prime target in the speech, Tt doesn't make his insertion of US politics into Israel's anniversary any more palatable.
An American president swiping at other Ameicans in a foreign country is ugly. it besmirches the face of America abroad.

By using words like appeasemen while bringing up Hitler's ghost, he also put another nail in the coffin of the peace negotiations.

His legacy, indeed.!
More violence in Israeli territories and more divisiveness at home.
All in the name of the Nov. election, I have no doubt.

Re: Obama Responds To Bush’s “Appalling” Charge Of Him Wanting Terrorists “Appeasement”

CStanley — Sat, 17 May 2008 09:48:06 -0000

Elrod, it makes a lot more sense if you parse it as a repudiation of Jimmy Carter, but of course politically it makes more sense for Democrats to take it as a personal insult (except that this may backfire because many of us see that this means that the Dems feel that they own this criticism- in many ways it would seem better to say, "Nothing to take personally about his criticism because he obviously wasn't talking about me.")

Re: Obama Responds To Bush’s “Appalling” Charge Of Him Wanting Terrorists “Appeasement”

ChrisWWW — Sat, 17 May 2008 00:53:55 -0000

Bush and McCain should be made to pay for their reckless rhetoric whether or not it was directly aimed at Obama.

Re: Obama Responds To Bush’s “Appalling” Charge Of Him Wanting Terrorists “Appeasement”

elrod — Fri, 16 May 2008 21:56:24 -0000

Jim is right. The phrase "some say" is an attack against all domestic opponents, including Obama and everybody else.

Re: Obama Responds To Bush’s “Appalling” Charge Of Him Wanting Terrorists “Appeasement”

Jim_Satterfield — Fri, 16 May 2008 21:32:40 -0000

Bush's comments are aimed towards any Democrat who hasn't voted with him on every issue that his administration considers to relate the the "War on Terror". Every one of his supporters know this but try to pretend otherwise in public.

Re: Obama Responds To Bush’s “Appalling” Charge Of Him Wanting Terrorists “Appeasement”

runasim — Fri, 16 May 2008 19:50:54 -0000

An observation:

Personal insluts are the alat resort when logical reasoning fails.

Re: Obama Responds To Bush’s “Appalling” Charge Of Him Wanting Terrorists “Appeasement”

daveinboca — Fri, 16 May 2008 19:19:36 -0000

runasim, you're problem appears to be that you are that one person that P T Barnum said was born every minute.

Re: Obama Responds To Bush’s “Appalling” Charge Of Him Wanting Terrorists “Appeasement”

runasim — Fri, 16 May 2008 18:31:40 -0000

CStanley,

We differ(as has been true across many topics) , on basic philosophical grounds..

You want to take a snippet in time, a few phrases, to either condemn a person (Wright) or to exhonorate a person (MCain).

I think that ithis approach distorts reality, in the same way that looking at only the nose distorts understanding of the face.

Re: Obama Responds To Bush’s “Appalling” Charge Of Him Wanting Terrorists “Appeasement”

CStanley — Fri, 16 May 2008 17:57:28 -0000

Long before Bush went to Israel, McCain has been shopping around the Hamas=Obama line.
As far as I know, the first time he brought it up is when a Hamas leader endorsed Obama. I suspect if someone questionable endorsed McCain, then Obama's camp would have responded similarly.

I don't see how that context, whatever your feelings on it, affect whether or not McCain's actual words about Hamas should be distorted. For all the context you see about how the GOP plays the game, I see the same from the opposite side- that a liberal columnist twists McCain's words and then Obama picks up the ball and runs with it. What I find particularly bold is to do so at the same time while he's criticizing McCain for hypocrisy about honest campaign tactics.

Re: Obama Responds To Bush’s “Appalling” Charge Of Him Wanting Terrorists “Appeasement”

runasim — Fri, 16 May 2008 17:49:36 -0000

These conflicts in interpretation don't pop up out of the blue.
Context, context, context.

Bush has a long history of characterizing Dems as the appeasers, the traitors, the friends of terrorism, especially during election times.
He makes a speech now without naming Obama, although several staffers are reported (on both CNN and MNBC) to have said this was thw unspolen intent.

Although Bush doesn't speak the name Obama, McCain immediately picks up the ball and does so loud and clear. It was, and continues to be be,a lovely double play, but the ball is clearly visible as it flies back and forth between Bush and the not-Bush candidate.

Hitler has already been injected in the rhetoric, so we have 9/11 to look forward to.in the near future.

The experience of Bush's presidency, with his political maneuvers is as much a part of this indiviual event as anything currently said or not said.
Context, you know.

Re: Obama Responds To Bush’s “Appalling” Charge Of Him Wanting Terrorists “Appeasement”

runasim — Fri, 16 May 2008 17:24:10 -0000

CStanley,

Have you even followed what McCain has been saying?

Long before Bush went to Israel, McCain has been shopping around the Hamas=Obama line.

Twisting, spinning and misrerepresentation was the core of McCain's campaign against Romney. It's what he has done and what he is doing, all the while claiming he is the straight shooter.

While he is not alone in playing smear politics, neither does he deserve special dispensation, or consideration..

Re: Obama Responds To Bush’s “Appalling” Charge Of Him Wanting Terrorists “Appeasement”

kritt11 — Fri, 16 May 2008 17:18:24 -0000

The main problem is the conflation of negotiations with appeasement. Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler handed over half of Czechoslovakia to the Nazi's. There's no evidence that talking to Hamas would hand over half of Israel or lead to our defeat by terrorists.

Bush's rhetoric is the same old scare tactics that the GOP has used for the last 8 years. It is becoming less and less effective on the voting public. The more McCain chooses to agree with Bush, the easier it will be for the Democrats to tie them together in the fall.

Re: Obama Responds To Bush’s “Appalling” Charge Of Him Wanting Terrorists “Appeasement”

CStanley — Fri, 16 May 2008 16:00:46 -0000

Well, at least he preaches well to the choir.

It would probably help people figure out if Bush was referring to him in his criticism if we actually knew what Obama's position on negotiations really is. Since I've asked about seven different times and haven't gotten a response, I still don't know what his position is or what his supporters think his position is.

He called the attacks “dishonest and divisive” and accused McCain of “hypocrisy” for going after him despite having advocated talking to foes himself.

This part is actually breathtakingly ballsy- as the accusation aimed at McCain is based on a misrepresentation of what McCain said, and in the same sentence that Obama repeats that disingenuous attack on McCain he's using the same to say that McCain is hypocritical about claiming to run a clean campaign. Incredible, really.

Re: Obama Responds To Bush’s “Appalling” Charge Of Him Wanting Terrorists “Appeasement”

Slamfu — Fri, 16 May 2008 15:41:31 -0000

Obama is going to clean McCain's clock in November. Everytime I hear them talk I only become more convinced.