May 16, 2008
'Obama Fires Back at Bush' (Ron Christie)
I just caught the headline above emblazoned on The Washington Post website. At issue, of course, is the speech President Bush delivered before the Israeli Knesset that apparently has Sen. Obama tied up in knots. To set the table, here are the president’s remarks:
"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," Bush told the Israeli lawmakers. "We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of 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."
For his part, Sen. Obama called the remarks “dishonest, divisive attacks.” Sorry, senator, I don’t believe the president mentioned you by name or intended to call attention to you.
But while we’re at it, didn’t Sen. Obama state that he would meet, without pre-condition but with “preparation," leaders in countries hostile to the United States such as Iran, Cuba and Venezuela during a debate with Sen. Clinton on Feb. 8? While I don’t believe for a second the president had Sen. Obama in mind when he uttered his remarks, it does seem that negotiating with radicals and trying to persuade them of the error of their ways is exactly what the presumptive nominee for president from Illinois is suggesting.
Permalink TrackBack EMail This Post
Share this post
What's This 43 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
The liar-based right wing neocons (Ron) seem to have a bad habit of interchangably using "meet" and "negotiate". Now wonder right wing kooks (Ron, Igor, Misha, Simmons) and neocons are so misinformed. Are you familiar with the english language Ron?
Comment by Lester — May 16, 2008 @ 3:50 pm
Obama is hurting himself more everyday!!! what is sad is the working class voters are going to be the one to suffer from this EGO game
Comment by Jen — May 16, 2008 @ 4:10 pm
There is a Russian fable that goes like this (imagine a cold Russian winter, and everyone is wearing fur hats): A thief stole something from a store and quickly ran outside and melted in to the crowd in a busy square. The owner, who didn't have a good look at the thief also ran outside and started screaming "The thief's hat is on fire!". One guy grabbed his hat, and so of course he was the one. Same here. The appeaser knows who he is and now he has revealed himself for all to see without being mentioned by name.
Comment by Igor R. — May 16, 2008 @ 4:16 pm
I keep hearing this response that Bush did not mention by name Obama or the democrats. If he had not Obama in his subtext, then who do you suppose he was referencing? I mean, who would be your educated guess? Fellow Republicans?
Comment by Rob — May 16, 2008 @ 4:18 pm
Which people was Mr. Bush referring to when he said "some," Mr. Christie? And what was the relevance to current events of these unnamed people that Mr. Bush referred to before the Knesset? Just curious what your opinion is.
Comment by Stamjan Wurstbratten — May 16, 2008 @ 4:37 pm
Sorry, Ron.
Was the President in a foreign country? Did his remarks, even though vague, insinuate that anyone who would use dialogue instead of war as first tool is guilty of "appeasement" and worse?
Is there anyone more prominent
than Senator Obama in calling for a return to dialogue first and war last? Perhaps…
President Carter has consistently used the approach to save countless lives in the world; Bush's methods have resulted in 4000 plus American deaths, as many as a million Iraqi deaths, with additional millions displaced from their homes. Bush has held thousands in prison camps without hope of due process or even acknowledgement of their incarceration.
To imply that Obama and/or Carter should be compared to those who sought to appease Hitler would be laughable if it wasn't for the tragically real Hitler comparison that should be made here.
Out of respect for the office, but certainly not for the man,
I won't state the obvious.
Comment by smilinjack — May 16, 2008 @ 4:40 pm
Igor..good story…bad example.
Mr. Christie–note the below:
"Administration officials never dissuaded me from the idea that they believe Obama is included in the category of people the president described."
Comment by Theard — May 16, 2008 @ 4:49 pm
You're right, Ron. Bush didn't use Obama's name, but that's just because he's a cowardly scumbag who uses insinuation and straw men instead of forthright debate.
He's a loser, everyone hates him, and the more he does to antagonize Obama the bigger the tidal wave is going to be in November.
Put on your life vest, chump.
Comment by lowellfield — May 16, 2008 @ 4:53 pm
It's really kind of amusing to watch the Bush regime resort to the same old tactics of making Hitler refferences towards the opposition when there's no other leg to stand on. We saw it with OBL and Hussein while selling his war on fear. When facts and history fails the Bush regime, it's distort, distort, distort. If Mr Bush had a thread of credibilty left, some folks might put something into his asinine statements. Of course, we all know that well went dry long ago.
Comment by andy42302 — May 16, 2008 @ 6:41 pm
Obama is an idiot. There, I said it.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — May 16, 2008 @ 6:56 pm
This is how the media covered up one of Bush's greatest speeches:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/05/16/media-disgrace-america-israel-themselves
Comment by Igor R. — May 16, 2008 @ 7:29 pm
A thoughtful editorial on Obama's counterpunches:
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=295830654715668
Comment by Igor R. — May 16, 2008 @ 9:12 pm
Two degrees of separation:
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/qazwiniobama.jpg
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/qazwinifadlallah.jpg
Comment by Igor R. — May 16, 2008 @ 9:45 pm
Hey Rob, you asked, "If he had not Obama in his subtext, then who do you suppose he was referencing? I mean, who would be your educated guess?" Well, how about just about every country in Europe? The Europeans (going back to our "friend" Chirac in France) were falling all over themselves to give "incentives" to Iran not to produce nuclear engergy. And where did all this appeasement get them? Nowhere. Who else could Bush be referring to? Well, how about the UN Security Council? They keep passing sanctions that don't mean a thing and only encourage Iran to pursue their nuclear ambitions. Or how about the IAEA? They are the international group that's supposed to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Doesn't seem they're having much luck with Iran either. So when you want to know who Bush was referring to, trust me, there are plenty of people in this world who are falling all over themselves to appease the Iranians.
Comment by Libertyship46 — May 16, 2008 @ 9:53 pm
The audacity of truth:
http://www.jeffhead.com/audacityoftruth.htm
Comment by Igor R. — May 16, 2008 @ 9:55 pm
Just because we see desperate, discredited Republicans (and You-Know-Her with her three testicles) huffing and puffing on their racist anti-Muslim dog-whistles while the neighborhood dogs go howling mad doesn't mean that the desperate, discredited Republicans (and You-Know-Her) have any intention of seeing the agonized beasts attack any (especially black) Democrat who might just happen to come walking by at the moment. Of course not.
I can still well remember the 1950s and -60s when scurrilous Republicans "Tailgunner Joe" McCarthy and "Tricky Dick" Nixon would surreptitiously accuse Democrats (the only other party in a two-party system) of "communist sympathies" because the Democrats somehow had this "pink" (or slightly RED-ish) hue, not to mention that they "walked like ducks and quacked like ducks" — which made them "communists." See?
Good for Senator Obama pointing out that we evolved human Democrats don't need to hear the ultra-high-pitched innuendo ourselves to understand what the Republicans visibly blowing like crazy on their dog whistles have in mind.
And all those "loyal ally" Israelis wildly cheering as Deputy Dubya Bush defames the next President of the United States has to say something unappealing about "loyalty" and "ally" that most true Americans won't soon forget or forgive.
Comment by Michael Murry — May 16, 2008 @ 10:57 pm
Which is why I support Hillary Clinton for president.
http://www.hillary-wins.com
Comment by Alessandro Machi — May 17, 2008 @ 12:41 am
Clearly nobody here has the slightest clue what the difference is between appeasement and diplomacy. Since Bush hasn't shown any ability for diplomacy whatsoever, maybe that accounts for Americans' ignorance on this matter. And Ron, you are equally responsible for spreading ignorance.
You see Ron, Bush is writing letters to Kim, Gates is saying we should talk with Iran, McCain said we should talk to Hamas, Rummy supported Saddam, Nixon met with Mao, Reagan sat down with the Soviet Union, and so on and so on… Your heroes listed here, weren't appeasing the enemy, they were TALKING. Appeasement is Bush conceding immediately after 9/11 to Osama's demand that the US remove our military base from his holy land! Does that make it any clearer for you Ronnie?
Comment by Heather — May 17, 2008 @ 2:34 am
If obama wants to link up McCain with President Bush, Republicans shall jump on the opportunity to link up obama with Jimmy Carter. Actually, they both have a lot in common. Carter had no problems hugging murderers and tyrants, throw mud on US President on foreign soil, no international or domestic policy experience, naive and ultra-liberal, and so on… Same things could be said about obama. These two scums shall be joined at the heap by our "attack dogs", and in every post, every negative ads, or interviews obama/Carter link should be emphasized until obama finds himself building housing projects for worthless bums.
Comment by Misha — May 17, 2008 @ 3:08 am
Ron and Igor (neocon buffoons) are getting desperate, having seen the winds of change blowing in the special election breeze.
Funny how the senator Bush referred to derisively in his speech was a Republican from Idaho.
Also interesting that Neville Chamberlain, the original Hitler-appeaser, was a staunch conservative. And that appeasement actually means giving something away, not talking with our enemies.
Too bad McNasty and Knuckle-dragger Bush can't remember their history (even though McCain lived through it). Perhaps McCain was busy napping during that class? Or was that the State of the Union address?
No wonder McSame can't even remember that he thought it would be a great idea to meet with Hamas 2 years ago…must be a 'senior moment'.
Obama's promise to speak with foreign leaders whom we dislike goes no further than Bush's few diplomatic successes, including negotiations with N. Korea (a state proliferator of nukes) and Libya.
It will be great to have a president who understand how diplomacy actually works.
Comment by Will — May 17, 2008 @ 4:32 am
Yeah, it's always the evil Republicans in the minds of the childish. Obama's simply afraid someone might see him for what he really is, a childish actor. I didn't any hear any Democrats complain when he labeled whites as racist bitter bible thumping gun toters. That was a direct reference to someone. When the President makes a statement about people with certain traits, and they're out there, gee, Barack can't handle it.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — May 17, 2008 @ 9:14 am
Could the Republican's and President 28% get any more intellectually and ethically bankrupt? The neocon wing of the GOP is getting very desperate and paranoid as evidenced by your post Ron. Is there civil war within the ranks of the GOP? Could it be that the moderate wing of the GOP is revolting against these neocon sycophants?
Comment by Martha Vance — May 17, 2008 @ 9:31 am
To the Hill: What's going on about Huckabee's assasination idea of Obama? I haven't heard much about it on the MSM, is anything being done? I know this is a free country where you can say anything unless you are Obama, but when does soemthing like this become over the line and action is taken?
Comment by yvonne — May 17, 2008 @ 11:22 am
So Ron, let me put this to you in a way rabid, bloodthirsty, warmongering chickenhawks like yourself can understand.
Just how did invading and militarily occupying Iraq weaken or frighten Usama bin Laden or Ayman al-Zawahiri?
Just how did invading and militarily occupying Iraq weaken or frighten Iran, and how is Iran's influence weaker as a result of the US occupation of Iraq?
Just how did invading and militarily occupying Iraq leave our military stronger, not weaker?
Just did invading and militarily occupying Iraq result in more, not less, US prestige & influence, especially in the Middle East?
Really, charges of "appeasement" are ludicrous coming from the US President who fervently, slavishly and enthusiastically appeased Usama bin Laden by foolishly doing something Bush Sr wasn't stupid enough to attempt, depose Saddam Hussein and occupy Iraq.
"Mission Accomplished" Indeed!
Comment by KingCranky — May 18, 2008 @ 12:16 pm
Hmmm…seems that somebody couldn't take what I had to say before, as it has "mysteriously" disappeared. Let's see if it sticks this time.
Bush, Keven James, and now Ron Christie all have something in common: They obviously have no idea what the meaning of appeasement actually IS. It is NOT striving for diplomacy or merely talking/negotiating. Appeasement is the act of concession, to actually give in to the enemy's desires. One excellent example in recent history of actual appeasement, is how Bush removed the US military base off of Osama's holy land immediately after 9/11 (Osama's stated reason for the attack).
Does that make it a little clearer for you Ronnie?
Comment by Heather — May 18, 2008 @ 4:22 pm
You'd have to be a neocon to believe this was some sort of a broad reference. But yes it's Ron Christie, water carrier for the worst vice president in our history.
Comment by Jan M. — May 18, 2008 @ 11:15 pm
Lester — what is the point of a meeting unless there is negotiating? Liberals like you always want to try to find a hidden meaning in straightforward phraseology
Comment by John Simmons — May 19, 2008 @ 9:26 am
Yvonne — it was a joke, in a free speech country. Get over it.
Comment by John Simmons — May 19, 2008 @ 10:31 am
Ron;
If we are to talk appeasement, then Bush should have first hand knowledge as it was his Grandfather Prescott that was Hitler's greatest backer and helped him rise to power;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar
and here;
http://www.rense.com/general40/bushfamilyfundedhitler.htm
and here;
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,100474,00.html
so the next time you talk about appeasment and Bush in teh same post, his grandfather was teh biggest appeaser of all.
Comment by Mike Coleman — May 19, 2008 @ 11:57 am
A Political Perspective from Abroad
19th May 2008
“How can we be lovers, if we can’t be friends“according to the lyrics of one of Michael Bolton’s songs. Well in the world of politics being on talking terms with some of the leaders of other countries would be a great start. Even more importantly, where there is a divergence of political philosophies, it is not a bad staring point in any political relationship to be able to open up direct dialogue between warring states, from the perspective of negotiating peace settlements.
President Bush on a recent visit to Jerusalem delivered a speech to the Israeli Parliament and equated those who would negotiate with “terrorists and radicals” as appeasers of the Nazis — a remark widely interpreted as a covert assault on Senator Obama’s personal character and his political judgment. This statement was clearly choreographed by Bush staffers to undermine Senator Obama’s reputation as an able and informed politician on matters of foreign policy; a politician who has demonstrated a refreshingly new approach to complex political issues. Senator Obama has advocated greater engagement with countries such as North Korea, which has nuclear weapons; Iran, which almost has nuclear weapons; Syria, which would wish to have nuclear weapons and with Cuba who is not even on speaking terms with it’s neighbour for almost fifty years. In his address, which some political pundits might reasonable charge Mr. Bush with appeasing the Israelis, he 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’ ”. Perhaps, Mr. Bush is right, but who knows with such dialogue, what might have been or how persuasive the American senator may have been to change the course of history?
In all of this, there appears to be a dichotomy and a visual paralysis in the Bush administration’s thinking complexity and intellectual foresight on issues of foreign policies and political ideologies on countering “terrorists and radicals” or progressively dealing with countries defined as the ‘Axis of Evil’. Was it not the case, that Yasser Arafat the chairman of the PLO and president of the Palestinian people since 1968, a leader who for decades oversaw terrorism and suicide bombings of the Israeli people, was eventually brought to the peace table through dialogue? Was it not the same Yasser Arafat who was brought to shake hands with the Prime Minister of Israel, Yitzhak Rabin on the White House lawn, as a direct consequence of years of exhaustive diplomatic negotiations, which secured peace between two hostile neighbours in the Middle East region? Admittedly, today there is a change on the political landscape in this region and there is a discerning return of serious conflict with suicide bombings and violent incursions between the Palestinian people and the Israelis, but some will argue that permanent progress has been achieved; in spite of the fact the Hammas and the Israeli government continue to have a volatile relationship. Was it not the case also that Mr. Bush entertained in the White House, Sinn Féin leaders Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness the current Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland both widely regarded as being central figures on the Army Council of the Irish Republican Army [IRA] and the leader of the Democratic Unionist Party [DUP] Dr. Ian Paisley, a sympathizer and supporter of the Ulster Volunteer Force [UVF] which is a Loyalist paramilitary group. The fact remains, that as a direct consequence of years of painful diplomacy and skillful negotiations conducted by Bertie Aherne the Irish Prime Minister, Tony Blair the British Prime Minister, President Bill Clinton and Senator George Mitchell, with teams of key political advisers of international renown, peace in Northern Ireland was eventually achieved? Of course Mr. Bush would need to be reminded that, as he doesn’t advocate talking to terrorists, Sinn Féin is the political wing of the IRA [terrorists and self appointed Irish Republican Army] which for decades indiscriminately kidnapped, kneecapped, killed and bombed people in Northern Ireland and in Britain. Mr. Bush would need to be reminded also that Dr Ian Paisley, the current First Minister of Northern Ireland and former minister for disseminating protestant propaganda and inciting hatred against Irish Catholics, advocated for decades ‘no surrender’, violence and bloodshed and never condemned the murderous actions of the UVF or UDA [Ulster Defence Association another loyalist paramilitary organization in Northern Ireland, outlawed in Britain as a terrorist group].
If Mr. Bush had been president instead of Mr. Clinton, at the early and critical stages of negotiations between the PLO and the Israeli government, Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin would most likely, not have been shaking hands on the White House lawn, as there would not have been talks in the first place or a peace settlement in the absence of dialogue and negotiations. Neither, for that matter would there have been negotiated peace settlements in Northern Ireland. Mr. Bush, like his father before him, is a great man for sitting on his hands and talking the talk.
In his clandestine attack on Senator Obama, Mr. Bush chooses to ignore the fact that under his command, his administration has for years been engaged in dialogue with former leaders of terrorists’ organizations who have since achieved the status of statesmen. Most people would agree that on balance, negotiating with leaders of rogue states or heads of terrorist organizations is a risky business and at times undesirable, but where there is a vacuum in political diplomacy, terrorists and extremists are provided with the opportunity to fill that void with acts of indiscriminate violence and other assignments of terrorism.
Mr. Bush may declare that without invading Iraq the world would be a less safer place and of course Mr. Bush will also claim that the war against terrorists is making major progress in different regions in Iraq, Afghanistan and other sites, more significantly in Iraq since the military ‘surge’ was launched. But try convincing the Iraqi people who have lost thousands of loved ones and their homes destroyed by bombs or the widows and orphaned children of American and British soldiers, who went to war on the false premise that they were ousting a regime lead by President Saddam Hussein, who according to Mr. Bush’s intelligence possessed weapons of mass destruction and had the capability to launch global warfare within a matter of hours. Try telling these misfortunate bereaved and dispossessed people whose lives have been destroyed that progress has been achieved in Iraq and against the terrorist, by this illegal and unnecessary war.
As Mr. Bush prepares to leave the White House, he may very well reflect on the missed opportunities, during his double term in office, to achieve lasting peace settlements or for that matter even initiate meaningful peace talks with the leaders of ‘rogue states’ through open dialogue. Perhaps, as Mr. Bush reminded us last week whilst speaking in Jerusalem, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked…’
In the words of Abraham Lincoln, “The best way to destroy an enemy is to make him a friend”.
John Shortall
Comment by JohnShortall — May 19, 2008 @ 12:22 pm
Shortall — what editorial page did you steal that blabber from?
Comment by John Simmons — May 19, 2008 @ 2:03 pm
Will, I knew that the Senator Bush was referring to was a Republican, although I didn't know his state. But yet a certain other senator, with a slightly more recent pedigree took the reference about appeasement to be directed at him.
Will, Chuck Hagel who is a Republcan is even more despicable than most Democrats. McCain's positions on illegal immigration and Global Warming are unacceptable to me, so I'm not too much into blind party loyalty. On the other hand, when McCain was referring to meeting with Hamas he qualified it by them renouncing their core beliefs. But of course they didn't mention it on DailyKos where you get all your information.
The Democrats of the last forty years have been the party of appeasement. Whatever you can point to in their previous history, their recent history has been of advocating surrender to external enemies, eviscerating the armed forces, imposing restrictions on communications between law-enforcement agencies, declaring the war lost, trying to enforce defeat on the battle field, minimizing the Islamic threat, earlier minimizing the Soviet threat, an almost supernatural belief in the curative power of diplomacy without any thought given the the necessary leverage.
In other words, the Democrats are the fifth column working toward the annihilation of the US. You can make theories about their motivations, but their actions speak for themselves. When this type of a party advances a candidate who is even more anti-American and terrorist-loving than what we've been used to, with his unusual Islamic AND radical Marxists roots, going all the way back to his parents' early history and continuing to today, one has to belief that the party feels they can go for the jugular and finally destroy the dreaded capitalist system and the hegemony of the United States. The scum is celebrating their upcoming victory early, so all people of good will must do whatever they can to stop them.
Comment by Igor R. — May 19, 2008 @ 2:19 pm
John Shortall, next time an armed assailant is pointing a gun at you and demanding something from you, try quoting him Abraham Lincoln and see how far that gets you.
Yasser Arafat, who had years earlier ordered murders of American diplomats, among his many "achievements" did indeed shake a few hands. The results of his handshakes: there are none. Ariel Sharon ordered the evacuation of Gaza in the stupid hope that appeasement will lessen terrorism. Gaza today? A launching platform for missiles indiscriminately targeted at Israeli civilian areas.
Ahmadinejad has just referred to Israel as a "stinking corpse". Anyone who has not heard his reference to wiping Israel of the map has been asleep for years. Less known are his strongly and consistently stated beliefs,, some just a few days ago, about the imminance of the Mahdi's and the hidden imam's arrivals. The guy honestly beliefs that Mahdi is running the current event cycle. And yet, Obama DID state that he would meet with this madman without preconditions. His campaign and John Kerry attempted to lie and cover that up, but it's hard to hide things said on national TV as Hillary has found out.
Obama who called the Islamic call to prayer "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth" and who can recite many verses of Koran in perfect Arabic and whose church gave Louis Farakhan a lifetime achievement award IS NOT TO BE TRUSTED TO FIGHT TERRORISM. Obama, whose name was found on the computers of dead terrorists on the Columbian border as the great American hope for them, IS NOT TO BE TRUSTED. Obama, who is friendly according to his own campaign with one of the worst home-grown American terrorists Bill Ayers IS NOT TO BE TRUSTED.
When Hitler was given Czechoslovakia on a silver platter many said "it's OK". Many are saying "it's OK" about Obama. Well, it's not OK and terrorist sympathizers should not be elected as US Presidents.
Comment by Igor R. — May 19, 2008 @ 2:36 pm
Mr. Shortall, you people from across the pond have been "talking" to Iran for how many years now, pleading with them to stop their nuclear program? And what has it gotten you? Oh that's right, NOWHERE! The French (especially the old Chirac administration, which never knew a terrorist state it didn't like), the Germans and the British have spent years offering "incentives" (i.e., bribes) to the Iranians to stop their nuclear program and what has been the result? Oh, that's right, the Iranians basically told you to go stuff yourselves. And with all your begging, pleading with, or APPEASING the Iranians, where are you today? Oh, that's right, RIGHT BACK WHERE YOU STARTED SEVERAL YEARS AGO. Even the new French president, Sarkozy, is sick of the Iranians and their threats, even though he's not doing much about it. So as you keep "talking" to the Iranians, just know that they're going to continue with their nuclear program and eventually get nuclear weapons. I really don't know how spineless, gutless, appeasers like you really live with yourselves. Evidently, you people really haven't learned anything from World War II. I pity you because Europe is a lot closer to Iran than Washington is. Guess who they're going to blackmail first? Any ideas, you moron?
Comment by Libertyship46 — May 19, 2008 @ 4:07 pm
To all of you neocon fools;
The new NIE released a short time ago, stated that Iran gave up it's nuclear ambition in 2004. You have to really, really sytupid to fall for the same BS that Bush pulled on Iraq, but in the cases of Igor, Misha, Simmons and Libertyskirt, I guess that you can foll some of the people all of the time.
Comment by Mike Coleman — May 19, 2008 @ 7:47 pm
Hey Mikey, so good to see that you're off your medication long enough to tap out some of your rantings on a computer. So I guess you are one of those gutless, naive, fools who really thinks Iran wants nuclear power just to produce electricity, right? Well, I've got a deal for you. What say we do nothing, absolutely nothing about Iran (I'm sure a whining, spineless, appeaser like you would go for that). Then when we lose London, or Paris, or Berlin to a nuclear blast from a nuclear device that was given to a Muslim terrorist group by Iran, we can all come back to Mike Coleman and say, "Hey Mikey, what's the plan now?" You see, Mikey, you have luxury of being incredibly wrong about Iran. The rest of the world does not. It's as simple as that. So if you're wrong, what are you going to say to all of the dead in Israel or Europe if a bomb goes off? I thought so, you fool. You'd have nothing to say but, "sorry." Moron. By the way, the NIE report was based on information that was several years old. It also didn't deal with the fact that the technology for enriching uranium (which is what no one disputes the Iranians are doing right now) can also be used to make nuclear weapons. Stop spouting your inaccurate MoveOn.Org talking points, you fool.
Comment by Libertyship46 — May 20, 2008 @ 6:50 am
Yes, Mike is ready to believe anything good about America's enemies and everything bad about its defenders. What a proud member of the fifth column! You want to vote the way he is going to? Pick Obama!
Comment by Igor R. — May 20, 2008 @ 2:14 pm
Mike Coleman, good post as usual. I notice neither one of the neocon fools (Igor and Libertyskirt) addressed your point about the Iran NIE. And like you, I know why. They are brainwashed neocons that ignore facts and just parrott what their ditto-head guru (Fat Boy) tells them. Subsequently, as you know, Igor and Skirt live in an alternate parrallel universe where down is up, and outside is in. It's amazing and entertaining, at least to a certain extent.
Igor and Libertyskirt, have you even heard about this Iran NIE? Are you aware of it's contents? Do you think Michael Moore wrote that NIE?
Comment by Lester — May 20, 2008 @ 3:23 pm
Igor;
In your post #36, let me tell you something. Under this Administration, I have seen torture used as a policy against teh enemy. That is something that as an American, I thought I would never see. Are you proud of that? If you are, you are as sick and depraved as I thought you were. I have lived when the Soviet Union threaten to bury us and went through the drills of duck and cover. When I moved to DC, we were the number 1 place to strike in case of a nuclear war but we went along with our lives not being afraid. Because of 9/11, all of you little girls, yeah, that means, you, RR, Simmons, Misha and Libertyskirt is afraid of a country than spent 4.8 billion dollars on defense last year. The leader of you little girlymen is GW Bush and tricky Dick Cheney, both of whom were real life chickenhawks. It is past time where someone told them were to get off and I'm glad that Obama is doing that. So my question to all of you girlymen is, what are you afraid of? Who is the big bad boogeyman scaring you? If it is Iran, you are a girlyman and it shows.
Comment by Mike Coleman — May 20, 2008 @ 5:03 pm
Uh, Lester, you really are as dumb as you seem. READ MY POST. I said, "By the way, the NIE report was based on information that was several years old. It also didn't deal with the fact that the technology for enriching uranium (which is what no one disputes the Iranians are doing right now) can also be used to make nuclear weapons. Stop spouting your inaccurate MoveOn.Org talking points, you fool." You are such an idiot for not reading my post. Next time you take a slam at somebody, do the reading first, you jerk.
Comment by Libertyship46 — May 20, 2008 @ 5:56 pm
Lester, the NIE isn't worth the virtual paper it was written on. Anyone who believes that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons is a fool. Just because somebody told somebody that Iran stopped four or five years ago would be a ridiculous reason to believe that they are willing to risk sanctions and even total annihilation for generating electricity while being one of the top suppliers of oil.
Is this behavior consistent with peaceful intent?
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jHz-Bz3Pa0Ivga_oNIvTbrBoIN7QD90PK5180
Comment by Igor R. — May 20, 2008 @ 9:12 pm
Uh Libertyskirt, you got your skirt up around your neck as the political wind seems to be giving you fits. Your lack of cognitive reasoning is driving you over the edge in to insanity. You might try giving up the AM radio as Rush (drug-addeled gas bag) has eaten in to your remaining half-brain. In a way, I feel sorry for you neocon whacko's as you have no logic or credibility left at all to stand on, do you? It is entertaining though. So Libertyskirt, just keep on spewing your crazy talk and telling us all how fearful you are about those Iraq WMD's.
Comment by Lester — May 21, 2008 @ 9:38 am
Lester, true to form all you can do is retreat to your far-left insults and, as usual, you can't refute facts when you are confronted with them. As I said, the Iranians may not be at the stage of actually making nuclear weapons, but BEFORE you make a nuclear weapon you have to enrich uranium, which is what they are doing right now. Even your far-left loon friends at the United Nations have confirmed this, which is why the UN voted for sanctions against Iran. So unless the UN is also lieing to you too, the Iranians are continuing their nuclear program, a program even they are concerned with. But to morons like you, facts mean nothing and the only thing that you have left are your MoveOn.org talking points. You're such a jerk, Lester. Try reading for a change. You may actually learn something.
Comment by Libertyship46 — May 21, 2008 @ 11:55 am