Obama Says Bush and McCain Are ?Fear Mongering? in Attacks

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,101
194
106
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05...ccf1cada492&ei=5087%0A


Barack Obama responded sharply on Friday to attacks on his foreign policy, linking President Bush and Senator John McCain as partners in ?the failed policies? of the past seven years and criticizing them for ?hypocrisy, fear peddling, fear mongering.?


That pretty much sums up the ass holes.

Confronting a major challenge to his world view, Mr. Obama tried to turn the tables on his critics, saying they were guilty of ?bluster? and ?dishonest, divisive? tactics. He cited a litany of what he called foreign policy blunders by the Bush administration and accused Mr. McCain, the presumed Republican nominee, of ?doubling down? on them.

?George Bush and John McCain have a lot to answer for,? Mr. Obama said at a midday forum here, listing the Iraq war, the strengthening of Iran and groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, Osama bin Laden?s being still at large and stalled diplomacy in other parts of the Middle East among their chief failings.

?If George Bush and John McCain want to have a debate about protecting the United States of America,? Mr. Obama said, ?that is a debate I am happy to have any time, any place.?

His defiance and disdain for Mr. Bush?s record appeared to be a signal that he will push back against efforts to define him or his record as weak on terror or accommodating to foreign foes, a strategy Republicans used successfully against Senator John Kerry in 2004.

The appearance also signaled that the campaigns are pivoting swiftly toward the general election, with the two sides already in full attack mode.

Consistently throughout his comments about foreign policy, Mr. Obama yoked Mr. Bush and Mr. McCain as one entity, mentioning their names in the same sentence 10 times in barely 10 minutes. He portrayed them as being not only inflexible, but also ?naïve and irresponsible,? the characteristics they ascribe to him.

The remarks were made a day after Mr. Bush, addressing the Israeli Parliament, spoke of what he called a tendency toward ?appeasement? in some quarters of the West, similar to that shown to the Nazis before the invasion of Poland.

Mr. Bush also said he rejected negotiations with ?terrorists and radicals,? implying that Democrats favored such a position. Mr. Obama said he found the remarks offensive.

?After almost eight years, I did not think I could be surprised by anything that George Bush says,? Mr. Obama said, criticizing Mr. Bush for raising an internal issue on foreign soil. ?But I was wrong.?

Mr. McCain endorsed Mr. Bush?s remarks, saying, ?The president is exactly right,? and adding that Mr. Obama ?needs to explain why he is willing to sit down and talk? with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran.

Mr. Obama at first joked that he wanted to respond to ?a little foreign policy dustup yesterday.? But he quickly made it clear that he regarded the exchange as anything but funny, criticizing Mr. Bush and saying Mr. McCain ?still hasn?t spelled out one substantial way in which he?d be different from George Bush?s foreign policy.?

?In the Bush-McCain world view, everyone who disagrees with their failed Iran policy is an appeaser,? Mr. Obama said.

Mr. McCain?s campaign answered quickly and sharply on Friday. A spokesman, Tucker Bounds, called the remarks a ?hysterical diatribe in response to a speech in which his name wasn?t even mentioned.?

Mr. McCain, speaking to the National Rifle Association in Louisville, Ky., said he welcomed a debate with Mr. Obama over national security and threw the naïve description back at Mr. Obama.

?It would be a wonderful thing if we lived in a world where we don?t have enemies,? Mr. McCain said. ?But that is not the world we live in, and until Senator Obama understands that reality, the American people have every reason to doubt whether he has the strength, judgment and determination to keep us safe.?

For nearly a month, Republicans have stepped up attacks on Mr. Obama?s foreign policy perspective, highlighting a Hamas official?s complimentary comments about him in mid-April, as well as Mr. Obama?s statements that he is willing to meet with leaders of so-called rogue states like Iran, Syria, North Korea and Venezuela ?without preconditions.? On Friday, Mr. Obama tried, not for the first time, to deflect and counter the criticisms by articulating his view of foreign relations, one in which military might is accompanied by diplomatic engagement with all countries, including enemies. His most specific example was a significantly changed policy toward Iran, one that would be equal parts carrot and stick.

?It?s time to present Iran with a clear choice,? Mr. Obama said. ?If it abandons its nuclear program, support for terror and threats to Israel, then Iran can rejoin the community of nations. If not, Iran will face deeper isolation and steeper sanctions.

The administration?s policy has merely ?empowered Iran,? he said, with its unmitigated hostility. As a result, it is now Iran, not Iraq, he added, that ?poses the greatest threat to America and Israel in the Middle East in a generation.?

?Our Iran policy is a complete failure,? Mr. Obama said. ?And that?s the policy that John McCain is running on.?

Mr. McCain responded by saying: ?I have some news for Senator Obama. Talking, not even with soaring rhetoric, in unconditional meetings with the man who calls Israel a ?stinking corpse? and arms terrorists who kill Americans will not convince Iran to give up its nuclear program. It is reckless to suggest that unconditional meetings will advance our interests.?

As a setting for a major statement of Mr. Obama?s views on how the United States should deal with some of the most problem-laden areas in the world, the venue here was an unlikely one. Although Mr. Bush issued his criticism from the Israeli Knesset, Mr. Obama stood in what was grandly called a ?livestock arena,? with wood chips and even cow chips scattered on the floor.

The Obama campaign said it wanted to move strongly and swiftly, guided by lessons learned from the 2004 campaign.

?There is no question that when the president on foreign soil launches a political attack we need to respond with the facts and with force,? said Bill Burton, national spokesman for the campaign.

Mr. Burton said he expected many such confrontations between Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain. ?The truth is that there are many, many real differences,? Mr. Burton said.

In a news conference after the forum, Mr. Obama?s criticisms of his Republican adversaries were even more pointed.

?This White House, now mimicked by Senator McCain,? he said, ?replaces strategy and analysis and smart policy with bombast, exaggeration and fear mongering.?

He also said Mr. Bush?s speech on Thursday in Israel ?wasn?t about a foreign policy argument ? it was about politics.?

To maintain, as the White House and the McCain campaign have done, that Mr. Bush?s remarks about appeasement were not aimed at administration critics like him is ?being disingenuous,? Mr. Obama said.

He addressed Republican contentions that he was willing to meet unconditionally with Mr. Ahmadinejad. Mr. McCain has said several times recently that he could not conceive of sitting down and talking with a foreign leader who has called for Israel?s extinction, and he has described Mr. Obama as all too willing to do so.

The criticism is clearly meant to stoke unease that some Jews have expressed over Mr. Obama?s candidacy, a problem Mr. Obama has been trying to address.

Mr. Obama drew a distinction, saying his administration would start negotiations with Iran ?without preconditions? and being directly involved himself. For that to occur, he added, Iran would have to meet benchmarks or conditions.

That reiterates remarks he has made numerous times in the past year, though not in a YouTube debate last July that the McCain campaign has repeatedly cited.

Agreeing to begin talks without preconditions ?does not mean we would not have preparations,? Mr. Obama said.

?Those preparations would involve starting with low-level diplomatic contacts? like National Security Council or State Department emissaries, he said.

In addition to defending his concept of diplomatic engagement, Mr. Obama said it was Mr. Bush and Mr. McCain who have strayed from what he described as a robust tradition of bilateral support for resolving conflicts through direct negotiations, a tradition that ran from John F. Kennedy to Richard M. Nixon and Ronald Reagan.

?What?s puzzling is that this in any way would be controversial,? he said. ?This has been the history of U.S. diplomacy until very recently.?

Boy this crap is just starting to get good!

The repubs must be really worried!!!!!!!

Maybe the truth and the american people might wake up and see how badly they getting F**KED!

:)

Edit, Yeah I know we already got bushes take on this. But the D take and the shots back are pretty funny and deserve a thread of it's own... I think.

After watching the video (Obama's) on the same link above, I think the guy actually knows what he's talking about! :) Maybe I'll vote for him if he runs on the D ticket.

 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Not surprisingly, the MSM is squarely behind Obama regarding this. McCain and Bush are getting slammed for their rhetoric earlier this week.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
I guess Obama was soft on Hillary because she was a woman. But with these two, the gloves come off.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Administrator
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
30
86
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
But, but, but, What about the boogeyman?
But, but, but, What about Bush's references to Neville Chamberlain's attempted appeasement of Hitler and his lame attempt to hang that on Obama?

In a speech to the Israeli Parliament, the Traitor In Chief accused Obama of suffering from "foolish delusion" for saying he would be interested in talking with radicals and dictators and comparing Obama's approach to British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler by giving away half of Czechosolovakia.

McCain didn't directly accuse Obama of being an appeaser, but he slammed Obama's willingness to meet with leaders such as Iranian President Ahmadinejad.

Obama's right. Bush is a lying, fear mongering turd, and McSame is his play along lap dog shill promising more of the same bullshit that has paralyzed our nation for seven deadly, painful, costly years.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,676
136
Check your sarcasm meter, Harvey...

The beauty of the boogeyman attribution is that he can't possibly be reasoned with, because he's the boogeyman, therefore there's no sense in even trying- a mindless brute, with endless appetite, like the bears in yellowstone...

It's the underlying rationale behind all of the appeasement raving, and it's horseshit.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
5
0
So what is Obama's plan to deal with Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran?

Has he even laid a plan out?
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
5
0
Oh here is his plan, right from his web site...

We should just talk to Iran and they will change their ways, or else... well there is no 'or else'
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. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.
Comprehensive settlement?? Is he that foolish? I hope he stands up in a debate and uses that line.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,947
126
Pj weren't we just talking about "appeasement" and how talking to your enemy isn't "appeasement"

what do you suggest we do? Go to war with them? Ignore them? Just bomb them whenever we want? Please do tell.
 

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,101
194
106
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Oh here is his plan, right from his web site...

We should just talk to Iran and they will change their ways, or else... well there is no 'or else'
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. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.
Comprehensive settlement?? Is he that foolish? I hope he stands up in a debate and uses that line.
So what's your failure? Going over there and starting WWIII? Yeah, I'll take the comprehensive settlement.... Sheesh I hope he uses that line too. I wish bush would of used that line for Iraq... then maybe we wouldn't be over there right now! Every think of that one?

Or maybe you think it's ok for a president to fly overseas for a 60 year celebration... and instead of talks of good times and moving forward ... what does he do??? Makes a complete fool of himself and the USA ... I guess those are the foolish acts you back...

 

conehead433

Diamond Member
Dec 4, 2002
5,459
660
126
Appeasement? Isn't that what GWB has offered both NK and Iran for giving up their nuclear ambitions. Bush and McCain are a joke.
 

RichardE

Banned
Dec 31, 2005
10,246
2
0
Originally posted by: ericlp
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Oh here is his plan, right from his web site...

We should just talk to Iran and they will change their ways, or else... well there is no 'or else'
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. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.
Comprehensive settlement?? Is he that foolish? I hope he stands up in a debate and uses that line.
So what's your failure? Going over there and starting WWIII? Yeah, I'll take the comprehensive settlement.... Sheesh I hope he uses that line too. I wish bush would of used that line for Iraq... then maybe we wouldn't be over there right now! Every think of that one?

Or maybe you think it's ok for a president to fly overseas for a 60 year celebration... and instead of talks of good times and moving forward ... what does he do??? Makes a complete fool of himself and the USA ... I guess those are the foolish acts you back...
You can't really blame PJ, the only way republicans deal with enemies is to starve them through sanctions or bomb them to hell all the while ignoring there phone calls. They think fear can control the world without reprecusions back to the fear monger. I'm not sure where the idea developed that diplomatic talks were bad. Of course, the only time diplomatic talks are bad is when the enemy can easily be killed with a bomb. If they can truly fight back diplomacy is the answer (See Diplomacy keeping us out of WW3 with Russia).
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,947
126
Yes we can blame pj and anyone who has the same idiotic thought process. They should all be on the front lines.
 

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,101
194
106
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: ericlp
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Oh here is his plan, right from his web site...

We should just talk to Iran and they will change their ways, or else... well there is no 'or else'
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. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.
Comprehensive settlement?? Is he that foolish? I hope he stands up in a debate and uses that line.
So what's your failure? Going over there and starting WWIII? Yeah, I'll take the comprehensive settlement.... Sheesh I hope he uses that line too. I wish bush would of used that line for Iraq... then maybe we wouldn't be over there right now! Every think of that one?

Or maybe you think it's ok for a president to fly overseas for a 60 year celebration... and instead of talks of good times and moving forward ... what does he do??? Makes a complete fool of himself and the USA ... I guess those are the foolish acts you back...
You can't really blame PJ, the only way republicans deal with enemies is to starve them through sanctions or bomb them to hell all the while ignoring there phone calls. They think fear can control the world without reprecusions back to the fear monger. I'm not sure where the idea developed that diplomatic talks were bad. Of course, the only time diplomatic talks are bad is when the enemy can easily be killed with a bomb. If they can truly fight back diplomacy is the answer (See Diplomacy keeping us out of WW3 with Russia).
Blame PJ for what? For backing a certified idiot? and voting a fool in twice and still can't see he's a retarded loser?

I am not giving anyone any slack... Shit it's time for a change and it's none too soon!

The way this country has been run for the past seven years is proof enough.

I am not one into killing before we talk. Talk should always happen and every last channel should be used up before one missile or one bomb is dropped. I guess I'm not into 'killing' people.

Edit, no matter how 'easy' they could be 'killed'....

 

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,101
194
106
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Yk9ryQP-_Sw


obama's speech on the tards

He had me going until about 7:40 into it.

This is yet another example of our two parties arguing over details of the same foreign policy. Disgusting.
I've been saying this all this time.

Sadly, are "TWO" party system is flawed big time and forces us to VOTE for two of the "lesser" evils ... Why can't we just vote for who we want?

Why can't we have a 20 party system?

 

RichardE

Banned
Dec 31, 2005
10,246
2
0
Originally posted by: ericlp
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Yk9ryQP-_Sw


obama's speech on the tards

He had me going until about 7:40 into it.

This is yet another example of our two parties arguing over details of the same foreign policy. Disgusting.
I've been saying this all this time.

Sadly, are "TWO" party system is flawed big time and forces us to VOTE for two of the "lesser" evils ... Why can't we just vote for who we want?

Why can't we have a 20 party system?
To polarize politics even more?

The issue is not whether we can vote for one of two parties, but why compromises cannot be had in politics today. Everyone is too busy crying about the results of failed legislation to get down to the hard questions and work on those. People won't need more than two parties if the parties we had were not so black and white and did nothing but follow there ideologies rather than the choices they have. People are too busy pushing for the piece of a pie there neighbor has. For some reason thinking it is going to be gone soon, when they need to sit back and worry about themselves.

Sorry, but more than 2 parties you would have a even bigger polarization. The only thing they could run on is moderation, but even than what would that do? It is not just the politicians that are polarized to the point that they will defend whatever they can according to there ideologies no matter the consequences. When was the last time in any debate we had here we saw a post that went along the lines of "oh that makes sense sorta, I guess if we added these parts to that it could work for both sides." The closest we get is "We will have to agree to disagree". When did compromise become such a sin in politics?
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
3
0
I believe that in a debate between obama and mccain, the ammunition is all on obama's end. He can go back to government high end intelligence sources to trump any of the vague demagogues McCain can pull up. "We're safer" responded with "NSA [I think it was] says Al Qaeda is operationally as strong as they ever have been." He can go on all day with things like this, it will be a debate of fact vs prejudice.

In a world of black and white, PJ et all consider a dialogue with one's enemy to be appeasement. Sad.
 

tweaker2

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
13,428
5,452
136
c'mon hillary, get out of the ring so these two guys can offically start swinging at each other.

i can see good 'ol mccain (as in "good 'ol boy, not "good old boy") pivoting on one foot in the center of the ring looking for those few good hits with obama dancing aournd him ala cassius clay, circling mcain and tagging him with more stinging jabs than you'd see at a tattoo parlor. mccain is countering barack's zingers with a few wildly swung blows yelled in from his coaches bush and rove in the far corner.

man, i can't wait for it. let the shellacking party begin. bust out the popcorn, peanuts and brewskies but don't blink or you might miss a mess of machine gun straight rights coming off of barack's shoulder-fired gatling gun or the blinding knee-knockers coming from his big bertha southpaw.

let 'er rip.

edit -syntax
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
If Obama is scared by a speech or campaign ad, maybe he should get out of the race. the world can be a pretty scary place.
 

LittleNemoNES

Diamond Member
Oct 7, 2005
4,142
0
0
Because of McCain's recent behaviour, I started having a more critical view him.
This was the tipping point.
I even donated a few (very little) bucks to McCain (can I have that money back? :p) but now Obama is clearly the smarter, cleaner candidate.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
The PJ fear in talking to the enemy is the prospect of suddenly waking up in a more complex world with many shades of gray. And suddenly the PJ side is not always wearing the the lily white good guy hat. And gasp at times is wearing the black hat.

We must recognize the fact that the GWB foreign and domestic policy is not delivering the results we need. And no matter how hard we try to pretend these are the results we want, reality tells it us no.

I am quite frankly baffled why Iran is not more of a US ally. But with the GWB foreign policy of continually goading Iran, how can we not expect Iran to react with hostility?

And since we are now stuck in two quagmires, its time to realize that we can't solve either Iraq or Afghanistan without Iranian help. By 8/2009, the term of Achmadinejad will be over and having an Obama in the WH greatly increases the probability of having a more moderate Iranian leadership being the replacements. The GWB administration has had a totally Iran hostile foreign policy in place for seven years now. And if anything Iran is now stronger and the US is greatly weakened.

Even PJ should be admitting, its time for a CHANGE IN POLICY.

Or its time for PJ to say the policy we have now is working.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY