Bush blasts into Obama

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: eskimospy
You're missing the problem with Bush's speech. Mainly that it was full of lies. It willfully misrepresented Obama's position in order to try and score cheap political points while addressing an important ally. It was childish and petty. And don't try to say because he didn't mention him by name that he wasn't referring to him... because you know that he was.

Obama's Official Campaign Site

Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior.

This being the Iran that is a state sponsor of terrorist groups across the Middle East like Hezbollah and Hamas.

Again though, Bush was not addressing Obama specifically. Taking in context with his full speech, it was a general warning. It is closer to a criticism of Jimmy Carter who recently met with Hamas than it is to Obama.

Only Obama's thin-skin (and his supporters) about his lack of foreign policy experience and his statement in the YouTube debate that he would meet Iran without precondition is causing this controversy.

How is his statement equal to Bush's fear induced statement?

Bush's statement doesn't mention anything about diplomacy. All he spouts is rhetoric that "some people" want to appease. Meeting without preconditions is just the opposite of the Bush ideology of diplomacy. You know, the one where he states "If you don't meet all of our conditions while knowingly accepting that we will do absolutely nothing in return, then you are a terrorist and I will openly label you as part of an imaginary axis and then take my ball and go home."

Meeting with != appeasing.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: eskimospy
You're missing the problem with Bush's speech. Mainly that it was full of lies. It willfully misrepresented Obama's position in order to try and score cheap political points while addressing an important ally. It was childish and petty. And don't try to say because he didn't mention him by name that he wasn't referring to him... because you know that he was.

Obama's Official Campaign Site

Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior.

This being the Iran that is a state sponsor of terrorist groups across the Middle East like Hezbollah and Hamas.

Again though, Bush was not addressing Obama specifically. Taking in context with his full speech, it was a general warning. It is closer to a criticism of Jimmy Carter who recently met with Hamas than it is to Obama.

Only Obama's thin-skin (and his supporters) about his lack of foreign policy experience and his statement in the YouTube debate that he would meet Iran without precondition is causing this controversy.

Right, so how is meeting Iran without preconditions appeasement? How is Jimmy Carter meeting with Hamas appeasement?

To think that Bush was just issuing a general warning out into thin air for general consumption strains credulity. He and his party's candidate do not want to talk to these people before they give in to our demands, Obama is specifically on record saying that he does. You can't possibly think that Bush was just saying that to say it and not draw distinctions between the two. He did that, and then he tried to label what Obama wants to do as appeasement when that is an obvious lie.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: eskimospy
You're missing the problem with Bush's speech. Mainly that it was full of lies. It willfully misrepresented Obama's position in order to try and score cheap political points while addressing an important ally. It was childish and petty. And don't try to say because he didn't mention him by name that he wasn't referring to him... because you know that he was.

Obama's Official Campaign Site

Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior.

This being the Iran that is a state sponsor of terrorist groups across the Middle East like Hezbollah and Hamas.

Again though, Bush was not addressing Obama specifically. Taking in context with his full speech, it was a general warning. It is closer to a criticism of Jimmy Carter who recently met with Hamas than it is to Obama.

Only Obama's thin-skin (and his supporters) about his lack of foreign policy experience and his statement in the YouTube debate that he would meet Iran without precondition is causing this controversy.

How is his statement equal to Bush's fear induced statement?

Bush's statement doesn't mention anything about diplomacy. All he spouts is rhetoric that "some people" want to appease. Meeting without preconditions is just the opposite of the Bush ideology of diplomacy. You know, the one where he states "If you don't meet all of our conditions while knowingly accepting that we will do absolutely nothing in return, then you are a terrorist and I will openly label you as part of an imaginary axis and then take my ball and go home."

Meeting with != appeasing.

I didn't say it was equal. I did say that I don't think Bush was criticizing Obama as much as he was criticizing Carter, who just recently met with Hamas. It is Obama that is making an issue of this.

Just a general question - Why would you meet without precondition a terrorist sponsoring nation that has repeatedly stone-walled and not held up their end of agreements? You wouldn't do it in the business world. Why the hell would you do it in the foreign policy world? You'd just get rope-a-dope'd again (see Albright/North Korea) unless the other side showed they were willing to meet in good faith. And Iran has been rope-a-doping the EU and UN for a number of years now.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Queasy
There are lots of other people out there who think that if we just sit down and talk with tyrants and fanatics then everything will be ok. Forgetting that talking with tyrants and fanatics rarely works because they never hold up their end of the bargain.

Why does Bush's Sec. Def. Gates think we should engage in talks with Iran, exactly like Obama is suggesting?

Why does GOP Presidential Nominee McCain think we should engage in talks with Hamas, exactly like Obama is suggesting?

Remember when McCain was asked about hamas. they had just won the election , They hadn't kicked out other aspects of their government, taken over Gaza, or started the current violence.

He was saying basically what the admin was saying at that time: "Newly elected government, give them a chance."

Two years later....they've been given a chance.

That is nowhere near accurate about Hamas. Immediately upon Hamas' election the US cut off all aid to Palestine that was formerly going there in reaction to it. How is that saying "newly elected government, give them a chance"? In fact, they explicitly stated that they hoped to undermine Hamas by destroying its ability to govern.

 

[Queasy]

Whaddya know, White House was talking about Carter.

Ed Gillespie, gaggling to reporters today in Saudi Arabia, said that the White House really meant to Get Carter, not Obama:

"We did not anticipate that it would be taken that way, because its kind of hard to take it that way when you look at the actual words. ... There was some anticipation that someone might say you know its an expression of rebuke to former President Carter for having met with Hamas. that was something that was anticipated but no one wrote about it or raised it."

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Queasy
Whaddya know, White House was talking about Carter.

Ed Gillespie, gaggling to reporters today in Saudi Arabia, said that the White House really meant to Get Carter, not Obama:

"We did not anticipate that it would be taken that way, because its kind of hard to take it that way when you look at the actual words. ... There was some anticipation that someone might say you know its an expression of rebuke to former President Carter for having met with Hamas. that was something that was anticipated but no one wrote about it or raised it."

Wow, one of the chief White House political strategists (pretty much Karl Rove's replacement) is attempting to distance them from the tremendous amount of flak they have been taking over these remarks. Shocking.

Even if that's true though, his speech is still a lie. Carter meeting with Hamas is not appeasement.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Queasy
Whaddya know, White House was talking about Carter.

Ed Gillespie, gaggling to reporters today in Saudi Arabia, said that the White House really meant to Get Carter, not Obama:

"We did not anticipate that it would be taken that way, because its kind of hard to take it that way when you look at the actual words. ... There was some anticipation that someone might say you know its an expression of rebuke to former President Carter for having met with Hamas. that was something that was anticipated but no one wrote about it or raised it."

And yet Bush's aides and other WH officials were saying that he was talking about Obama yesterday until the shit hit the fan because the populous didn't like him bad mouthing the potential next president on foreign soil.

Bush did not mention the Democratic front-runner by name and the White House officially denied that Bush was referring to Obama. But White House officials indicated that the criticism applied to Obama, who has said that as president he would rely on greater diplomacy to improve relations with unfriendly nations.

Back peddling at its finest by the Bush administration. And the fact that you are taking the WH's after-the-fact explanation as truth says a lot about your gullibility/partisanship based on their past history.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Even if that's true though, his speech is still a lie. Carter meeting with Hamas is not appeasement.

It wasn't the meeting with Hamas. It's what he said and did in and after the meeting.

But hey! Obama was against the meeting too!

The Illinois senator, campaigning in Pennsylvania which holds the next presidential voting contest on Tuesday, told a group of Jewish leaders he has an "unshakable commitment" to help protect Israel from its "bitter enemies."

"That's why I have a fundamental difference with President Carter and disagree with his decision to meet with Hamas," Obama said. "We must not negotiate with a terrorist group intent on Israel's destruction. We should only sit down with Hamas if they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist and abide by past agreements."

"Hamas is not a state. Hamas is a terrorist organization," he said.

Of course, this was five days after Obama said he didn't really have a comment on Carter's meeting. Link

INDIANAPOLIS (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said on Friday it was not his place to criticize former President Jimmy Carter if he were to meet with Hamas, although Obama said he would not meet with the militant Palestinian group. ...

?I?m not going to comment on former President Carter. He?s a private citizen. It?s not my place to discuss who he shouldn?t meet with,? Obama told reporters while campaigning in Indianapolis.

So which is it?

And again, why would Obama be willing to meet with Iran without precondition if he's not willing to meet with one of Iran's proxies?

 

[Harvey]

In a perfect example of Bushwhacko non-thinking attempts at guilt by association, right wing Los Angeles radio talking head, Kevin James appeared on Chris Matthews' Hardball to comment on Bush's references in his speech. James kept shouting the same buzz word, "appeasement," including references to British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, who, in 1938, signed the Munich Agreementan agreement with Hitler ceding part of Czechoslovakia to Germany in return for Hitler's promise not to pursue further annexation of Czechoslovakian land. The agreement was signed by Nazi Germany, France, Britain, and Italy, but Czechoslovakia, whose land was being handed over to Hitler, was not invited to the conference and had no say in the matter.

Chamberlain returned to England and proudly proclaimed the agreement assured England and the world of "peace in our time." Of course, we know how well Hitler kept his word and what followed. Chamberlain's actions are now cited as a prime example of appeasement.

Matthews repeatedly asked James if he even knew who Neville Chamberlain was and what he had actually done. The only answer James could muster was, "It's the exact same thing." and continue mumbling the word, "appeasement," but he couldn't answer the question so he just kept shouting the same words over and over. Matthews finally says, "You're BSing me, aren't you?" and "You don't know what you're talking about, Kevin."

 

[jpeyton]

Kevin James nicely sums up the GOP viewpoint on this issue.

It's called selective ignorance. Or in Kevin James' case, complete ignorance. And he got WORKED by Chris Matthews who decided to call him on it.

Obama said in his speech this morning that he's openly inviting a debate with McSame on foreign policy. Hopefully they'll schedule one after the June primaries are over.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Harvey
In a perfect example of Bushwhacko non-thinking attempts at guilt by association, right wing Los Angeles right wing radio talking head, Kevin James appeared on Chris Matthews' Hardball to comment on Bush's references in his speech. James kept shouting the same buzz word, "appeasement," including references to British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, who, in 1938, signed the Munich Agreementan agreement with Hitler ceding part of Czechoslovakia to Germany in return for Hitler's promise not to pursue further annexation of Czechoslovakian land. The agreement was signed by Nazi Germany, France, Britain, and Italy, but Czechoslovakia, whose land was being handed over to Hitler, was not invited to the conference and had no say in the matter.

Chamberlain returned to England and proudly proclaimed the agreement assured England and the world of "peace in our time." Of course, we know how well Hitler kept his word and what followed. Chamberlain's actions are now cited as a prime example of appeasement.

Matthews repeatedly asked James if he even knew who Neville Chamberlain was and what he had actually done. The only answer James could muster was, "It's the exact same thing." and continue mumbling the word, "appeasement," but he couldn't answer the question so he just kept shouting the same words over and over. Matthews finally says, "You're BSing me, aren't you?" and "You don't know what you're talking about, Kevin."

And then Matthews went on to prove he wasn't up to speed on history by asserting that the U.S.S. Cole bombing occurred under Bush.

I saw this last night and all three people in this segment showed themselves to be woefully ignorant.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Even if that's true though, his speech is still a lie. Carter meeting with Hamas is not appeasement.

It wasn't the meeting with Hamas. It's what he said and did in and after the meeting.

But hey! Obama was against the meeting too!

The Illinois senator, campaigning in Pennsylvania which holds the next presidential voting contest on Tuesday, told a group of Jewish leaders he has an "unshakable commitment" to help protect Israel from its "bitter enemies."

"That's why I have a fundamental difference with President Carter and disagree with his decision to meet with Hamas," Obama said. "We must not negotiate with a terrorist group intent on Israel's destruction. We should only sit down with Hamas if they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist and abide by past agreements."

"Hamas is not a state. Hamas is a terrorist organization," he said.

Of course, this was five days after Obama said he didn't really have a comment on Carter's meeting. Link

INDIANAPOLIS (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said on Friday it was not his place to criticize former President Jimmy Carter if he were to meet with Hamas, although Obama said he would not meet with the militant Palestinian group. ...

?I?m not going to comment on former President Carter. He?s a private citizen. It?s not my place to discuss who he shouldn?t meet with,? Obama told reporters while campaigning in Indianapolis.

So which is it?

And again, why would Obama be willing to meet with Iran without precondition if he's not willing to meet with one of Iran's proxies?

What does being for or against the meeting have to do with Bush having lied by calling it appeasement? You're trying to change what this discussion is about to try and get it on a more favorable footing.

Are you really saying you can't figure out why someone would be more inclined to meet with Iran then with a proxy terrorist group that it finances? As an analogy, would you be shocked to learn that another country in the 80's would have wanted to negotiate with the US but not the Sandinista?

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Queasy
Whaddya know, White House was talking about Carter.

Ed Gillespie, gaggling to reporters today in Saudi Arabia, said that the White House really meant to Get Carter, not Obama:

"We did not anticipate that it would be taken that way, because its kind of hard to take it that way when you look at the actual words. ... There was some anticipation that someone might say you know its an expression of rebuke to former President Carter for having met with Hamas. that was something that was anticipated but no one wrote about it or raised it."

And yet Bush's aides and other WH officials were saying that he was talking about Obama yesterday until the shit hit the fan because the populous didn't like him bad mouthing the potential next president on foreign soil.

Bush did not mention the Democratic front-runner by name and the White House officially denied that Bush was referring to Obama. But White House officials indicated that the criticism applied to Obama, who has said that as president he would rely on greater diplomacy to improve relations with unfriendly nations.

Back peddling at its finest by the Bush administration. And the fact that you are taking the WH's after-the-fact explanation as truth says a lot about your gullibility/partisanship based on their past history.

named sources trump unnamed officials that the reporter could be making up?

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
What does being for or against the meeting have to do with Bush having lied by calling it appeasement? You're trying to change what this discussion is about to try and get it on a more favorable footing.

Again, I don't believe Bush was blasting Obama specifically. I don't know how many times I have to say it.

Again, it wasn't just meeting with Hamas, it was Carter's statements before, during, and after the meeting with Hamas.

Are you really saying you can't figure out why someone would be more inclined to meet with Iran then with a proxy terrorist group that it finances? As an analogy, would you be shocked to learn that another country in the 80's would have wanted to negotiate with the US but not the Sandinista?

You're missing the most important qualifer - 'without precondition'. Iran has yet to show it is willing to meet in good faith with the EU or UN much less the United States. The US has been trying to push diplomatic efforts as well but Iran refuses to show any good faith and they are the ones that have refused to meet.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: eskimospy
What does being for or against the meeting have to do with Bush having lied by calling it appeasement? You're trying to change what this discussion is about to try and get it on a more favorable footing.

Again, I don't believe Bush was blasting Obama specifically. I don't know how many times I have to say it.

Again, it wasn't just meeting with Hamas, it was Carter's statements before, during, and after the meeting with Hamas.

Are you really saying you can't figure out why someone would be more inclined to meet with Iran then with a proxy terrorist group that it finances? As an analogy, would you be shocked to learn that another country in the 80's would have wanted to negotiate with the US but not the Sandinista?

You're missing the most important qualifer - 'without precondition'. Iran has yet to show it is willing to meet in good faith with the EU or UN much less the United States. The US has been trying to push diplomatic efforts as well but Iran refuses to show any good faith and they are the ones that have refused to meet.

Again, how are any of those statements before or after the meeting appeasement? Do you know what appeasement is?

My last post did not address whether you think it's about Obama or not. I think you're incredibly naive to think that it wasn't, but I imagine that is more an ideological blind spot then anything else and so it is unlikely to change.

Why is 'without precondition' an important qualifier? Just meeting with someone in no way obligates you to do anything, it's just something that people do who aren't insane.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Again, how are any of those statements before or after the meeting appeasement? Do you know what appeasement is?

Let's see, laying a wreath at Arafat's grave. That's pretty much a direct insult to America considering Arafat ordered the killing of two American diplomats in '73. Not to mention the thousands of others dead at the hands of Arafat's terrorist organization.

Then there was Carter naively declaring that Hamas was open to a cease-fire. Hamas has shown otherwise.

Then there was his post-trip op-ed piece where he essentially white-washed Hamas.

With his words and actions, Carter, as a former President of the United States, is legitimizing Hamas. That is a form of appeasement.

Why is 'without precondition' an important qualifier? Just meeting with someone in no way obligates you to do anything, it's just something that people do who aren't insane.

Because meeting with someone who has clearly shown no intention of holding up their end of the bargain in the past (and not just with the United States) is simply dangerous. Having the President of the United States meet with them under such conditions also legitimizes them.

 

[Queasy]

Heh

Barack Obama, the man Newsweek magazine said was in possession of ?almost preternatural equanimity,? seems to be losing his bearings (to quote an Obama phrase from a few weeks ago). I say that based on this story in which Obama called President Bush's comments yesterday in Israel on appeasement ?exactly the kind of appalling attack that's divided our country and alienates us from the rest of the world.? This comes after yesterday?s accusation by Obama that the president had leveled a ?false political attack? against him. (For good measure Hillary Clinton called the president?s comments ?offensive and outrageous.? This from the husband and wife team that routinely destroyed people whom they viewed as a threat to their political power.)

If Obama believes the president?s appeasement formulation was wrong, fine; let him make a substantive argument for why that?s the case. And if he wants to present a careful argument for why as president he would meet without preconditions with the leader of not only Iran but also with the leaders of Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea, all in his first year, that?s fine, too. In fact, it would be a welcome addition to the presidential debate. But for Obama to lash out in the manner he has is silly and unbecoming.

What is driving this response? Probably the belief by Obama that he?s vulnerable to being portrayed as weak on national security matters and he wants to prove that he can?t be ?swift-boated.? But Obama?s response will achieve neither aim and, in fact, it makes Obama look thin-skinned, a bit rattled, and prickly. Indeed, Obama?s response seems so 1990s. His words and the words of the campaign could have come straight from the lips of Paul Begala or other former Clinton attack dogs.

Obama and the Democrat?s DefCon 1 response to the president?s speech to the Knesset is a perfect illustration of the kind of tiresome ?old politics? we really don?t need. The early media reports I heard of Bush?s speech didn?t even mention the appeasement line; it was only after Obama?s campaign and other Democrats exploded in (manufactured) fury that it became a political issue at all. Or, perhaps more accurately, a ?distraction.? Which is exactly what I thought Obama was trying to move us away from.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Again, how are any of those statements before or after the meeting appeasement? Do you know what appeasement is?

Let's see, laying a wreath at Arafat's grave. That's pretty much a direct insult to America considering Arafat ordered the killing of two American diplomats in '73. Not to mention the thousands of others dead at the hands of Arafat's terrorist organization.

Then there was Carter naively declaring that Hamas was open to a cease-fire. Hamas has shown otherwise.

Then there was his post-trip op-ed piece where he essentially white-washed Hamas.

With his words and actions, Carter, as a former President of the United States, is legitimizing Hamas. That is a form of appeasement.

Why is 'without precondition' an important qualifier? Just meeting with someone in no way obligates you to do anything, it's just something that people do who aren't insane.

Because meeting with someone who has clearly shown no intention of holding up their end of the bargain in the past (and not just with the United States) is simply dangerous. Having the President of the United States meet with them under such conditions also legitimizes them.

Are you kidding me? This conversation is over. That's the stupidest definition of appeasement I've ever heard. If you actually used that definition you can turn almost any meeting of any kind into some sort of appeasement. What you are trying to defend has no connection with reality or the English language as it is commonly used.

In addition, anyone who knows the slightest thing about international relations would never say that a country has no interest in holding up their end of a bargain under all circumstances. Treaties are only as powerful as the mutual interests involved, and the art of good diplomacy is leveraging those interests to get what you want. Simply refusing to meet with someone because they are 'evil and untrustworthy' or something like that is the diplomacy of a 5th grader.

 

[jpeyton]

I know this isn't exactly a beacon of truth like The National Review Online, but here's something from The Wall Street Journal I saw today:

Text

But this week a House Republican said publicly what many say privately, that there is another truth. "Members and pundits . . . fail to understand the deep seated antipathy toward the president, the war, gas prices, the economy, foreclosures," said Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia in a 20-page memo to House GOP leaders.

The party, Mr. Davis told me, is "an airplane flying right into a mountain." Analyses of its predicament reflect an "investment in the Bush presidency," but "the public has just moved so far past that." "Our leaders go up to the second floor of the White House and they get a case of White House-itis." Mr. Bush has left the party at a disadvantage in terms of communications: "He can't articulate. The only asset we have now is the big microphone, and he swallowed it." The party, said Mr. Davis, must admit its predicament, act independently of the White House, and force Democrats to define themselves.

And yet, once again, Bush spoke on behalf of the party and its nominee yesterday. I can't believe the GOP is letting Bush steer their party towards complete ruin this fall, but I'm happy to watch it happen.

 

[Harvey]

ap·pease

tr.v. ap·peased, ap·peas·ing, ap·peas·es

1. To bring peace, quiet, or calm to; soothe.
   
2. To satisfy or relieve: appease one's thirst.
   
3. To pacify or attempt to pacify (an enemy) by granting concessions, often at the expense of principle. See Synonyms at pacify.

ap·pease·ment

n.

1. 
   
   a. An act of appeasing.
   
   b. The condition of being appeased.
   
2. The policy of granting concessions to potential enemies to maintain peace.

Making the clear distinction between talking and the Bushwhackos' malicious abuse of the word, "appeasement."

 

[bamacre]

Harvey, your link to that Hardball segment isn't working.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YN1qgb9Oe0

And it's hilarious, too, BTW.

 

[nageov3t]

this whole thing seems like, dare I say, a distraction.

Obama leached onto this statement which wasn't even about him to launch himself as the democratic nominee.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: loki8481
this whole thing seems like, dare I say, a distraction.

Obama leached onto this statement which wasn't even about him to launch himself as the democratic nominee.

Yeah, for a guy who CLAIMS he is against "distractions"... what a load of crap.

 

[ProfJohn]

It is obvious that the Democrats know this is a problem for them.

You have Carter going to meet with the leaders of Hezbollah.
You have Obama saying he will meet with the President of Iran.
Then you have Obama hanging out with unrepentant American terrorist Bill Ayers.

It all adds up to make Obama look weak when it comes to fighting terrorism. We are still close enough to 9-11 and there is still enough of a threat of terrorism in the world to make that a major problem when it comes election time.

I am sure how to deal with terrorist will be a major issue in the fall debates.

 

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
It is obvious that the Democrats know this is a problem for them.

You have Carter going to meet with the leaders of Hezbollah.
You have Obama saying he will meet with the President of Iran.
Then you have Obama hanging out with unrepentant American terrorist Bill Ayers.

It all adds up to make Obama look weak when it comes to fighting terrorism. We are still close enough to 9-11 and there is still enough of a threat of terrorism in the world to make that a major problem when it comes election time.

I am sure how to deal with terrorist will be a major issue in the fall debates.

McCain should dig up Obama's drug use in the debates. Something along the lines of "I was a POW getting tortured in Vietnam when you were smoking crack".