May 16 2008
Cry Baby Obama
Boy, Obama sure is looking the fool over his Surrendercrat plan to run from Iraq and talk to Iran and al-Qaeda (can we all just get along). Bush rightfully noted how history has shown ‘talking’ doesn’t work when dealing with blood-thirsty and suicidal extremists. And how does Obama respond? He cries ‘unfair’!
Barack Obama rebuked Republican rival John McCain and President Bush for “dishonest, divisive” attacks in hinting that the Democratic presidential candidate would appease terrorists, staunchly defending his national security credentials for the general election campaign.
Nothing like emphasizing the negatives Barack! Aren’t Obama’s national security credentials his time as a Boy Scout when he went to Europe or something? Here is what people see when Obama cries he has been unfairly attacked:
And this is one of Bush’s most memorable images as the leader of a nation at war:
Hmmmm, when we think of a strong leader able to stand up to all of our threats as a nation does someone who cries “it’s unfair” come to mind? If Obama wants to paint McCain as another Bush he needs to make sure that analogy works in his favor. Right now …, not so much.
conman:
Bush is not the one looking like an idiot. He gave up golf for the troops? Well poor Michelle is talking about having to pay back school loans out of a measly four million.
All you have to do is look at Bush and you know he gave up more than golf.
And speaking of looking like an idiot Obama getting all outraged over a speech in which his name was not even mentioned does not make him look to bright.
And that crap about Powell is silly. No one is saying that we do not have any contact with the countries. The point is you might see Bush send people to talk to the North Koreans, but you will not see him shake hands with the dictator of North Korea. And the US does not have and has not had diplomtic relations with the Iranians for about 30 years. And until now the Democrats showed no interest in doing so.
You know what conman does. He goes to the left sites like Huffpo where he diligently and mindlessly absorbs the daily propaganda and then he comes to conservative sites like Aj’s and regurgitates it as if it is all news to us.
He/she actually believes we are buying that crap. Amazing isn’t it?
Terrye, I see you’re still batting zero.
I didn’t say I believed Conman, only that it wouldn’t surprise me if McCain had said that. We’ll just add “putting words into people’s mouths” to the loooooooooong list of leftist attributes you exhibit here. You put on quite a show! 🙂
Terrye,
What did Bush give up in honor of the troops? Name one thing – anything? Did he give up all of his record length vacations – nope. Did he give up his divisive politcs in an attempt to unite the country behind the war effort – nope. He has sacrificed nothing for the troops. The change in Bush’s looks is nothing more than 7 more years of againg and too much sun on his Texas ranch.
Your response on the Syrian issue is laughable. Are you claiming that what Bush was trying to say in his speech is that it is okay to negotiate with our enemies so long as we don’t shake their hand? Are you serious? If so, you really need to re-read Bush’s speech. It has nothing to do with shaking hands. He specifically used the word “negotiate”. You know, like we are doing with the North Koreans right now. If you think that Bush’s decision to send the US
Secretary of State to meet with the leader of Syria was just for idle chit-chat, you need to brush up on history and basic diplomacy.
conman:
Divisive? From day one of Bush’s term in office the Democrats have been assholes. Every time he even attempted to get along with them out came the Bushitler crap.
Record length vacations? That is so STUPID. Do you honestly believe that if Bush is in Texas he is not President? Do you think that when Clinton was in the White House with his pants down around his ankles he was more of a President than Bush is when he is meeting with allies and advisors somewhere else?
Look at the man’s face. Look at the years in that face. He has aged a lot more than 8 years since he took office. Anyone who was not a partisan dick could see it.
And you know what? I am tired of listening to simple minded liberals who have no sense of history yammer on about foreign policy. There was two terms of saber rattling from the Democratic administration toward Iraq before Bush came along. Every Democrat from Bill Richardson to Bill Clinton to John Murtha himself maintained that Saddam was a supporter of terrorism, a threat to the US and his own people, that he harbored both weapons and weapons programs and that his regime should be removed from power. No one doubted that. No one questioned it. They maintained that posture just so long as it was politically advantageous to do so. And then when things got tough, they switched gears and counted on silly uninformed partisan liitle fools like you to let them get away with it.
BTW, my family has sent three young men off to Iraq. I don’t need lectures from you on sacrifice.
CNN/McCain/Hamas/Video…so we can put this baby to bed….
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2008/05/16/cnn-lets-clintonista-denounce-mccain-s-hypocrisy-hamas
I think that Big Lizards as one of the best take downs of conman’s hero Obama that I have seen, here is a part of it:
In a brilliant speech before the Knesset today, President George W. Bush said the following (you can read the complete speech by clicking the Slither On):
There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain away their words. It’s natural, but it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously. Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century.
Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: “Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.” We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.
Almost immediately, Barack Obama reacted with volcanic fury, leaping to the conclusion that the warning against “appeasement” was aimed squarely at him:
By tradition, partisan politics comes to a halt when a U.S. president is on foreign soil, and Bush’s remarks led Obama to quickly cry foul. The first-term Illinois senator responded to the comments as if they were criticism of his position that as president he would be willing to personally meet with Iran’s leaders and those of other regimes the United States has deemed rogue.
“It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel’s independence to launch a false political attack,” Obama said in a statement his aides distributed. “George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president’s extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel.” [Actually, if they help keep Obama out of the Oval Office, then I think they do a tremendous lot to secure the American people and our stalwart ally Israel!]
Let’s ponder that exchange for a moment. I see three fascinating dynamics at play in the fields of the Obamessiah…
Dynamic 1: “The wicked flee when no man pursueth”
Bush attacked appeasement — and Obama instantly recognized himself, reacting angrily and defensively. So even Obama realizes that his proposed unconditional dialoging with Mahmoud, Jong-Il, Raul, and Oogo skirts perilously close to appeasement.
But since Obama sees America — not Iran, North Korea, Cuba, or Venezuela — as the cause of all the world’s ills, he truculently believes that it’s up to us to “make amends.” We must meet with those we have “wronged” by our “cowboy diplomacy” all these years — which wrongs created a patriotic backlash that takes the form of groups we falsely label as “terrorists” (that would be Hamas, Hezbollah, even al-Qaeda). We must meet with our victims and humble ourselves before them; then they will forgive us and stop all the attacks against us… which were all based on a GOP-inspired misunderstanding anyway.
(Obama likely learned this attitude from two decades of listening to Jeremiah Wright’s sermons.)
But he knows he can never say such a thing out loud: He would never be elected. In his own mind, he probably imagines this is because Americans are afraid the face the truth; but for whatever reason, this attitude is a secret he’s trying desperately to hide.
Thus Obama’s guilty start when he hears that very thing trip from the not so agile lips of George W. Bush. Since it’s so overwhelmingly obvious to Barack Obama that Bush meant to single him out, he probably didn’t even notice that his name never came up.
Dynamic 2: “If you know who I mean — and I think you do!”
75:
Oh please, you and conman joining forces to give me a hard time. How fitting.
My point is that it should have surprised. Whatever else one might say about McCain he is not known to be a softie. Just ask conman.
and then, of course, no whining lefty would be complete without an absurd comment from their media defending the Messiah…
From LGF (Compliments of the Starbucks Times):
Seattle Times Editor: ‘Hitler’s Demands Were Not Unreasonable’
Fri, May 16, 2008 at 1:14:14 pm PST
Seattle Times editorial writer Bruce Ramsey, in an effort to defend Barack Obama against President Bush’s “appeasement” speech, actually ends up defending Nazi Germany, Adolf Hitler, and the Anschluss (the annexation of Austria): Bush, and His Use of ‘Appeasement’.
Democrats are rebuking President Bush for saying in his speech to the Knesset, here, that to “negotiate with terrorists and radicals” is “appeasement.” The Democrats took it as a slap at Barack Obama. What bothers me is the continual reference to Hitler and his National Socialists, particularly the British and French accommodation at the Munich Conference of 1938.
What Hitler was demanding was not unreasonable. He wanted the German-speaking areas of Europe under German authority. He had just annexed Austria, which was German-speaking, without bloodshed. There were two more small pieces of Germanic territory: the free city of Danzig and the Sudetenland, a border area of what is now the Czech Republic.
We live in an era when you do not change national borders for these sorts of reasons. But in 1938 it was different. Germany’s eastern and western borders had been redrawn 19 years before—and not to its benefit. In the democracies there was some sense of guilt with how Germany had been treated after World War I. Certainly there was a memory of the “Great War.” In 2008, we have entirely forgotten World War I, and how utterly unlike any conception of “The Good War” it was. When the British let Hitler have a slice of Czechoslovakia, they were following their historical wisdom: avoid war. War produces results far more horrible than you expected. War is a bad investment. It is not glorious. Don’t give anyone an excuse to start one.
In other words 75, the leftie troll says something snarky about the RINO and you bite.
The fact that the same leftie troll would undoubtedly p0rtray that RINO as a right wing fascist out to start a war with Iran just flies right by you.
Oh , but of course, Terrye. Why, just the other day in fact, Conman and I were chatting over Vodka Gimlets and Baklava at the Biltmore on how we could scheme together a plan to make you look even more foolish than you already do!
Call mom, get a fresh CT scan, or something but seek help.
Enjoy, Terrye. Cry and ye shall receive!
http://minx.cc/?post=262687
The Messiah has reached new levels of devotion…
Compliments of LGF and the Seattle Times:
Seattle Times Editor: ‘Hitler’s Demands Were Not Unreasonable’
Fri, May 16, 2008 at 1:14:14 pm PST
Seattle Times editorial writer Bruce Ramsey, in an effort to defend Barack Obama against President Bush’s “appeasement” speech, actually ends up defending Nazi Germany, Adolf Hitler, and the Anschluss (the annexation of Austria): Bush, and His Use of ‘Appeasement’.
Democrats are rebuking President Bush for saying in his speech to the Knesset, here, that to “negotiate with terrorists and radicals” is “appeasement.” The Democrats took it as a slap at Barack Obama. What bothers me is the continual reference to Hitler and his National Socialists, particularly the British and French accommodation at the Munich Conference of 1938.
What Hitler was demanding was not unreasonable. He wanted the German-speaking areas of Europe under German authority. He had just annexed Austria, which was German-speaking, without bloodshed. There were two more small pieces of Germanic territory: the free city of Danzig and the Sudetenland, a border area of what is now the Czech Republic.
We live in an era when you do not change national borders for these sorts of reasons. But in 1938 it was different. Germany’s eastern and western borders had been redrawn 19 years before—and not to its benefit. In the democracies there was some sense of guilt with how Germany had been treated after World War I. Certainly there was a memory of the “Great War.” In 2008, we have entirely forgotten World War I, and how utterly unlike any conception of “The Good War” it was. When the British let Hitler have a slice of Czechoslovakia, they were following their historical wisdom: avoid war. War produces results far more horrible than you expected. War is a bad investment. It is not glorious. Don’t give anyone an excuse to start one.
Upyernoz said:
“i suspect spin is all strata has got. it seems to me that he isn’t able to address obama’s remarks in the merits.”
Actually, Strata addressed obama’s remarks in considerable detail. It’s your babbling on your site you’re thinking of.
conman says:
“Since then, a few discrepancies have arisen with Bush’s claim. It turns out someone found a video of him playing golf in October of 2003. Ooops. It also turns out that at the end of 2003 Bush had knee problems that forced him to give up running. Problems that could also keep someone from playing golf. Here is the link covering all of this.”
Gotta love the libs circular argument. he provides a link that he purports to prove all this. He argues that Bush gave up golf because of a muscle tear in August, not for the troops but then ‘claims’ he played again in October (the link says December, not October). but, but, but, if he had this tear in August that prevented him from playing, how did he play in October(or December). Conman, next time get your lies lined up ‘ahead’ of posting.
75:
Life is too short to follow your link. I have no intention of doing it.
BTW, you are the one who made a point of coming after me, so maybe you need that scan. You seem to be a little paranoid and pushy. They have drugs for that you know.
{Now, here is where you tell me I ought to know about drugs}
and on and on.
I don’t know about you but this whole pissing match is starting to bore the hell out of me.
They say Ike played golf while planning for DDay. Typical Republican, vacationing in a war.
Gee, there’s a shocker…Terrye refuses to watch the video. AJ must be proud to have a fraud like you in his corner. Pathetic.
Actually, Strata addressed obama’s remarks in considerable detail.
detail? strata’s post quoted a total of two words out of obama’s entire speech. he then spent the rest of the post simply labeling obama as being a “crybaby”.
is that what counts as “considerable detail” around here? you guys crack me up sometimes.