May 15, 2008
George Bush Demeans the Presidency, Attacks Obama in Israel (Brent Budowsky)
To understand why the American military is facing such extreme challenges, why our security has been so gravely endangered by failed policies, and why the Republican Party faces a catastrophe in congressional elections, look no further than George Bush taking the low road addressing Israelis.
It is astounding and possibly unprecedented for an American president to make partisan cheap-shot attacks on a domestic opponent while in a foreign land. Only George Bush is so unwise, so partisan, and so low-road to do what Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Bush 41 and Bill Clinton have never done.
Usually the issue is that domestic opponents should refrain from attacking an American president while the president is on foreign soil. Here, the American president lowers himself and demeans his office by attacking an opponent while the president is on foreign soil.
George Bush is not only the man historians will probably call the worst president in history, he is already the worst former president in history, leaving a legacy of catastrophes, crises, failures and trillion-dollar disasters for his successor.
Republicans have now lost three straight major House elections in three hard Republican districts and face a political meltdown of historic magnitude in November. In two recent elections, Republicans tried the old smear tactics using Barack Obama and the Speaker in negative ads, and were creamed by voters.
George Bush has learned nothing from his failures and disasters as commander in chief and Republicans have learned nothing even when they lose a string of elections in districts they should have won by large margins.
The page is turning. The change is coming. The president who will soon leave office with a nation and world grateful he will be gone, does the only thing he knows how to do, and takes the low road again.
Permalink TrackBack EMail This Post
Share this post
What's This 33 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Spot on as usual Brent. Bush continues to show how intellectually and morally challenged he is. What a bitter and twisted human being Dumbya is. Who voted for this village idiot?
Comment by Lester — May 15, 2008 @ 11:13 am
Bush was right to slam Obama. Obama is a moron you want to be President, to replace someone you perceive as a moron. Perplexing mind block? Stubborn resistance to actuality? It certainly is an interesting paradox.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — May 15, 2008 @ 11:46 am
Rosie, considering Obama has NOT started any wars based on LIES, what makes him the "moron" you're trying to equate to Dumbya?
Rosie you keep trying to prognosticate for us all how you can see that Obama will be bad for the country. Yet, I'm certain in 2000 you would've told us all Dumbya was right for the country. Correct? You've confessed to us all that you voted twice for the village idiot to be President. Now look where it's gotten us all. In a hell of a mess.
Rosie, I see you as part of the problem. Therefore you have no solutions to offer.
Comment by Lester — May 15, 2008 @ 12:07 pm
Brent, He had to do it in a foreign nation. No one would listen to him here. He knows the Republicans will lose, and he knows it's his fault. through all the hell he has put this country through, you have yet to hear about any of it being his fault at fox news. Bush's number one cheerleader Hannity has yet to say Bush drove this country into the abyss.
Comment by Yvonne — May 15, 2008 @ 12:10 pm
Brent,
Funny how Obama's name was never mentioned in the speech. Nor, was it directed at a "Presednetial" runner.
Hmm,so the President expresses his opinion on foreign policy and that equates to attacking Obama.
Surprised you did not call him a racist. What a sad state of affairs for your "fear-mongering" that everything the President says is about Obama.
Another good laugh for today from Brent, thanks!
Comment by Jon Pemberton — May 15, 2008 @ 12:20 pm
There is absolutely nothing wrong in stating the fact that appeasing aggressors would only make them bolder. When obama is willing to take that approach either by being naive or sympathetic towards murderers and tyrants like Castro, Chavez or Ahmadinejad, naturally he's opening himself up for valid criticism.
Comment by Misha — May 15, 2008 @ 12:24 pm
As much as I support Senator Obama and loathe Deputy Dubya Bush — Sheriff Dick Cheney's puerile propaganda catapult — I must point out that America has no formal and ratified treaty of alliance with Israel: a fact of which Senator Obama appears genuinely — and, unfortunately, loudly –ignorant.
This lack of a formal alliance means that Israel has no reciprocal treaty responsibilities vis-a-vis the United States. This lack of a formal alliance means that our "stalwart ally" has contributed no troops to aid America's overstressed Army, Marine Corps, and National Guard in Iraq and Afghanistan. This lack of a formal alliance means that our "stalwart ally" Israel has contributed no annual billions of dollars to help out the American taxpayers browbeaten by their own government into endlessly funding Zionist imperial militarism aimed at destabilizing middle-eastern muslim countries in Israel's interests, not ours.
Some "stalwart ally." What has racist Apartheid Zionist Israel ever done for America? I know of little, if anything. So, rather than call this sixty-year-old bloodsucking vampire baby a "stalwart ally," I'd really rather that Senator Obama accurately call this latest crusader kingdom an obnoxious debilitating dependent that ceaselessly interfers in America's internal political affairs — with a great deal of help from dreadful American Presidents like Deputy Dubya Bush and innocent, aspiring American presidents like Barack Obama. Israel owns them both.
I don't really expect Senator Obama to supply this necessary and long-overdue clarification, naturally. He has already allowed Israel and the Republicans to bully him into pledging fealty to to a foreign country before even taking the oath of office promising to look out first and foremost for America. Yet how I long for the days of the "Arabist" President George H. W. Bush whose Secretary of State James Baker III said of Israel and America's Israeli lobby: "F*ck 'em. They didn't vote for us." So, although I don't expect Senator Obama to publicly enunciate Secretary Baker's profane-but-accurate observation, I would appreciate him pointing out the truthful absence of any "alliance" with racist, Apartheid Zionist Israel in the context of voluntarily abandoned American sovereignty.
Comment by Michael Murry — May 15, 2008 @ 12:28 pm
Interestingly, through all of your babble, you never mention once what it was Bush actually said. The truth is, he never said Obama's name, did he? Obama made the assumption that Bush was talking about him. Why? Because he knows that his proposed policy of trying to talk to tyrant countries like Iran is ridiculous and stupid.
Once again, Obama proved that he can't take the heat of a Presidential election.
Comment by John Simmons — May 15, 2008 @ 1:24 pm
Indeed Obama was never mentioned by name. But this born Islamic appeaser knows not to ask for whom the appeasement bell tolls, because it tolls for him.
Can anyone believe that this employer of advisers that communicate with Hamas "suddenly" learned about his adviser's true colors, considering the adviser's history and his father being a personal friend of Arafat? Can we forget his other advisers, some now let go for unrelated reasons, always advocating treating the Palestinians with kid gloves?
When Hamas endorses Obama, this can't be denied, but anyone who mentions this fact can be "deplored". When Palestinians in Gaza phonebank for Obama, this also cannot be denied, only covered up by mainstream media. When the Iranians call Obama "one of us" this is not widely reported.
What kind of idiot can believe that Obama is anything but a compulsive appeaser of Muslims? The man who called the islamic call to prayer one of the prettiest sounds on earth is ready, willing, and able to sell his country out to the worst scum on earth, but some want to pretend that the mere hint of that is inappropriate. To hell with the fifth columnists who will not bless America but will damn it to destruction!
Comment by Igor R. — May 15, 2008 @ 1:58 pm
So the President stated that negotiating with terrorists and radicals is wrong.
What an insulting thing to say! That's terrible, horrible.
And he says it in Israel - the country most impacted by terrorism and Islamic radicalism.
Another shocking event.
Wait - according to the Democrats it's horrible because it can be perceived as an attack on their presumptive nominee.
No one says that negotiating with terrorists wrong. Obama feels that negotiating with Iran is ok. Now that's disgusting.
Comment by Jay from Texas — May 15, 2008 @ 2:24 pm
I'll tell you what is discusting Jay; you're lying sack of crap just like the self-proclaimed Nazi, Igor. When and where did Obama sya he'd "negotiate with Iran"?
Comment by Lester — May 15, 2008 @ 3:11 pm
Here you go, Lester. Enjoy!
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/11/03/obama_says_us_must_try_talking_to_iran/
Comment by John Simmons — May 15, 2008 @ 4:15 pm
Brent,
This is to be expected of a desperate president in the twilight of his term, whose party - witness the recent votes in New Orleans and Missippi - is facing extraordinary failure in November.
The questions we have to ask is Where do the Clintonistas stand on this one? and Will they continue to divide the party?
Comment by barbara day — May 15, 2008 @ 4:19 pm
Here's another one Les, in case you missed it:
http://www.newsmax.com/politics/obama_iran/2007/11/02/46155.html
Comment by John Simmons — May 15, 2008 @ 4:19 pm
And Here's One More! From Iran's own newspaper!
http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=156302
Comment by John Simmons — May 15, 2008 @ 4:23 pm
John,
Then Obama is following rational thought because Bush's Defense Sec. stated the same thing. So does make Bush's Sec. Def an appeaser too. Here is the link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/05/14/ST2008051404020.html
So for once, we have thinking people making decision that can benefit the country, not people like you who couldn't think his way out of a paper bag, even if it was wet.
Comment by Mike Coleman — May 15, 2008 @ 5:16 pm
Lester, since you're a self-proclaimed moron, please refrain from trying to make any sense. Oh wait, you never do anyway, good job for a self-proclaimed moron!
Comment by Igor R. — May 15, 2008 @ 5:21 pm
Just wait till the next speech abroad denouncing terrorists, after which the entire Democratic establishment starting with Obama objects because it's clear he was referring to the friends (Bill Ayers) and supporters (Hamas) of Obama.
Comment by Igor R. — May 15, 2008 @ 5:24 pm
It's similar to when blacks complain if IQ tests are used for job entry exams to identify the brightest candidates. Did anyone mention that blacks have lower IQ? No, except that blacks complain that such IQ tests are illegal and wrong…
Comment by Dr.Pupsik — May 15, 2008 @ 5:39 pm
By the way, I hear Carter is now upset at Obama for jumping the gun, he thought the appeaser speech was clearly directed at him.
Comment by Igor R. — May 15, 2008 @ 5:49 pm
Hey Simmons, not only are you a liar, you can't read. No where is Obama QUOTED as saying he'd "negotiate". That is your own spin and that of many neocon newspapers and pundits.
Comment by Lester — May 15, 2008 @ 5:55 pm
Lester, Lester
Once again when you don't have ideas on your side you resort to the crazed rantings of the extremist wing of your party.
Obama has stated over and over that he will negotiate without preconditions with Iran.
Do you disagree with your messiah? Or are you just an angry man without support for your crazed, wacko, out of the mainstream ideas
Comment by Jay from Texas — May 15, 2008 @ 6:03 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1dSPrb5w_k
Here's the link to the You Tube Debate where the man says it.
Suck on that Lester
Comment by Jay from Texas — May 15, 2008 @ 6:13 pm
*** Igor
There is a big difference between appeasement and direct talks. Appeasement means giving up something first. Obama has never suggested anything closely resembling appeasement.
A member of Hamas did not exactly "endorse" Obama. That was McCain's talking point. However whether Hamas actually wrote an article I do not know for sure, I have not seen any evidence of it, have you? It has been said that Hamas hopes Obama is elected which is not unusual, the entire world is excited about Obama becoming the next US President. BTW Obama said many times, "I will not talk with Hamas." Personally I disagree with him.
Hamas was legitimately and democratically elected by the Palestinians. It is more than just a militia they provide social services: food, medicine, clothing, education for impoverished Palestinians. The US deemed Hamas as a "terrorist" group likewise GreenPeace is also on the terrorist "list." Granted there is a difference between Hamas and GP, but as a reference point thought you ought to know.
Igor we must never fear to talk with our adversaries as well as our allies. If Reagan had not talked with Russia there is a good chance we might have been annihilated or still embroiled in the Cold War. Tony Blair spent months negotiating with Libya's leader, Kadafi?, who is now an "ally." North Korea is another example. Nothing is ever solved absent communication.
Bush cannot have it both ways. Furthermore playing politics overseas is despicable. No president prior to Bush broke the code of honor. It was disrespectful & ignorant.
Obama will be the best thing that has ever happened to America. Two-million donors contribute on-line to his campaign — some on a regular basis. Did you know he has worked his entire adult-life dedicated to social justice? He graduated cum laude from Harvard Law School. Turning down several lucrative (6-figure) job offers Obama became a community organizer for $5000 a year! Have you noticed the way he runs his campaign is nothing short of remarkable. All 50-states with ground crew volunteers in every one.
Igor, read interview transcripts. Therein you will learn facts rather than propaganda, spin and lies. BTW Obama is a Christian. He is not and never was Muslim. But that ought not be an issue anyhow.
Turn-off Faux news and Rush Limbaugh. They are poisoning your mind!
Comment by serena1313 — May 16, 2008 @ 1:23 am
Truth hurts, that's why obama sensed he's being targeted, and rightly so.
Comment by Misha — May 16, 2008 @ 1:25 am
Yo, simmons dude, Nixon visited Red China twice and Reagan negotiated with the Russians as well, leading up to an end to the cold war. To follow your twisted logic you must consider their efforts "ridiculous and stupid" (your words, simmons) too. I don'y know what scares me more, the terrorists or ignorant Americans like you.
Comment by E Jack Hewlitt — May 16, 2008 @ 1:27 am
It's a little ridiculous to compare Obama's willingness to negotiate without preconditions to Reagan - Gorbachev.
First Reagan had leverage since the Soviet economy was crumbling and secondly he had a willing partner in Gorbachev.
In Iran there is no willingness. They won't give anything up since they don't have to as long as European companies, Russia and China all support them.
It would give Obama more credibility if he gives some ideas as to how he can convince Iran to compromise on anything.
Obama will find out that it takes more than flowery speeches to get things done.
The real comparison is Obama to Carter - not Reagan, Nixon or Kennedy.
Comment by Jay from Texas — May 16, 2008 @ 11:14 am
Lester: I love it when you go Code Pink on us. Keep up the good work.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — May 16, 2008 @ 11:50 am
I think that after dismal 41% loss in W.Virginia and before another double-digit loss in Kentucky next week, Obama decided to pick a fight with an unpopular President to divert media attention and get some Democratic support from Congress.
Comment by Misha — May 16, 2008 @ 11:57 am
Serena, this is what I mean by and endorsement from Hamas:
"We like Mr. Obama, and we hope that he will win the elections," Ahmed Yousuf, Hamas' top political adviser in the Gaza Strip, said in an exclusive interview with WND and with the John Batchelor Show on WABC Radio in New York.
"I hope Mr. Obama and the Democrats will change the political discourse. … I do believe [Obama] is like John Kennedy, a great man with a great principal. And he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community, but not with humiliation and arrogance," Yousuf said, speaking from Gaza
Serena, appeasement is open-ended talks with terrorists and radicals without painting them into a corner first. If an American President meets with Ahmadinejad, that sends a signal to his domestic opposition, his friends and enemies abroad that he is legit. Making contact through indirect channels is one thing, but while Iran is killing American soldiers in Iraq and authorizing violence in Lebanon and the Gaza strip, to just meet with them is appeasement because it weakens the US position. There is nothing talks like that have EVER accomplished. The one time Reagan met with Gorbachev without preconditions, he just got up and left, and Gorbachev was the leader of the largest country on earth, not a pure terrorist.
Hamas, however elected and whatever it is they do for the local population authorized firing of a specially brought in (for Bush's visit) missile into a shopping mall with no military value that struck a medical building gravely injuring a 4 month old baby along with 100 others. It is excuses like yours for Hamas that make it clear what Obama's supporters are really like.
The "community organizer" job description was created by Saul Alinsky, an anti-American radical. I don't want a President with this training, especially one who had taught Alinsky's philosophy. The words "social justice" carry a heavy baggage and just make me cringe.
Comment by Igor R. — May 16, 2008 @ 2:19 pm
Hamas constituents are a bit upset about how their lawful representatives got a little over-representative:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23710388-2703,00.html
Comment by Igor R. — May 16, 2008 @ 9:15 pm
Brent,
We, here in the US, are often accused of not knowing our history. That notion was made fact when Bush spoke of Nazis "appeasers" in front of the Israeli parliament. It's a wonder he did not get laughed off the podium.
GWB's grandfather was one of several moneyed, US-Hitler appeasers in this country. Prescott Bush, along with other notable Republican fat cats plotted a coup against Roosevelt. Could that be one of the reasons US citizens have lost many of their constitutional rights during GWB's 2-miserable-terms in office?
It is most embarrassing for a US president to show such ignorance abroad. Could that be why the Saudis told him to buzz-off?
Anyone unfamiliar with the history of the Bush-Walker klan should read Kevin Phillips' "American Dynasty"
Comment by barbara day — May 18, 2008 @ 4:31 pm
Great post Brent. We love you here in Florida.
Bush continues to smear the reputation of America abroad. I voted for him in 2000 and regret it deeply. I will not likely vote for another GOP cnadidate again. Only time will tell.
From reading the other postings I see several die hard Bush fans flanning the flames of propaganda. Give it up Igor.
Comment by Jan M. — May 18, 2008 @ 11:24 pm