Back to Main
| May 2008 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
Go to MixMap.com to get your own MySpace Tracker
(0) Comments
... even though Bush officials say he didn’t.
Throughout the course of this campaign, Barack Obama has frequently said that he would engage Iran, Syria, North Korea and other so-called rogue nations without preconditions, in the tradition of Teddy Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy, as he has said on the trail. This section, called “Renewing America’s diplomacy,” is on Obama’s web site:
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, and that he is willing to lead. And if America is willing to come to the table, the world will be more willing to rally behind American leadership to deal with challenges like terrorism, and Iran and North Korea’s nuclear programs.
President Bush has repeatedly declined to make direct statements about issues that have arisen on the campaign trail, insisting that he will not be made the “pundit-in-chief” by being drawn into the campaign to succeed him.
Well, so much for that.
Speaking to Israeli legislators at the Knesset today, Bush said:
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.
“Ingenious argument?” “Foolish delusion?”
Wha-POW!!
So much for going gently into that good night.
Oh, administration officials tried their best to downplay the in-your-face way the comments were played in the media. (White House spokesman Dana Perino had a decent quote: “I understand when you are running for office sometimes you think the world revolves around you. That is not always true and it is not true in this case.” Ha ha!) But that did absolutely nothing to tamp down the fire.
Obama called the comments a “false political attack” and lamented Bush’s “extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear.”
Democrats were much more aggressive. They fired back, calling Bush’s statement “outrageous comments” that “are an embarrassment to our country” (DNC Chairman Howard Dean), “unworthy of his office” (Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi) , “disgusting,” “dangerous,” “insulting,” “disrespectful” and a slander on Obama (U.S. Sen. John Kerry).
And then there was U.S. Sen. Joe Biden, who called the statements “Bulls---”, “malarkey” and “long-distance swift-boating.”
But Republicans stood by the president’s remarks.
John McCain had this to say:
“I think Barack Obama needs to sit down and explain why he wants to talk with a man who is the head of a government that is a state sponsor of terror, that is responsible for the killing of brave young Americans, who wants to wipe Israel off the map, denies the Holocaust. That is what I think that Senator Obama ought to explain to the American people,” he said while on a bus to the airport.
“It is a serious error on the part of Senator Obama that shows naiveté and inexperience and lack of judgment to say that he wants to sit down across the table from an individual who leads a country who says that Israel is a stinking corpse, that is dedicated to the extinction of Israel. My question is, what does he want to talk about?”
Mitt Romney said “he is reminded of the saying that the dog that barks on the other side of the fence is the one that was hit by the rock,” according to FoxNews.com.
Republicans appeared everywhere, singing the same song: Why would everyone automatically assume these comments were directed at Obama if the shoe doesn’t fit?
This is a lot of sound and fury to test out what will likely be the centerpiece of the McCain campaign this fall: Obama can’t be trusted with foreign policy. It’s the area where McCain believes Obama just can’t match up. It’s the general election equivalent of Hillary Clinton’s “working class, white voters” primary argument.
I guess going 0-for-3 in special elections has caused the GOP to retool its message machine. They’re back to the near-unison response that characterized Republicans’ strength—for today, at least.
What do you think? Is it accurate to call Obama’s goal of “renewing America’s diplomacy” tantamount to “appeasement?” Or are Democrats right to be outraged that Bush drew the comparison? Have your say in comments.
Page 3 of 5 pages « First < 1 2 3 4 5 >
