Obama, the guilty dog, barks first

I don"t think he feels guilty about his doctrine of appeasement. I believe he is proud of it. They are mad because he was able to make his point on a stage they do not have. It is all about fear of influence and nothing about offense.

 

Actually I don't think Bush even used Obama's name. In that case Obama can't accuse him of anything.

 

If the terrorist appeasement shoe fits... wear it.

Why would Obama want to follow in Carter's shoes anyway?

 

Good point RM. :thumbs:

 

Obama just heard the words and thought "Hey, that's me he's talking about!" so he had to respond thereby confirming the point for Bush. I think it was great!

 

Quite the whiner isn't he.

 

Who Let that Dog Out?

Woof, woof! Who let the dog out. Preach it brother...a big AMEN to you. If BHO wasn't guilty, then why did he bark? Bush still knows how to yank that chain. McCain owes him a big note of thanks!

Pastor Paul:wavey:

 

Obama squealed because he wanted more headlines. He knew Bush was talking about Carter. This is all not only so silly and childish, it is also disgusting.

 

You all know that Bush was talking about Obama, but you are too...well, you just won't admit it. Now if it were a democrat who made the statement toward George W. Bush or John McBush, you would all be up in arms. So much for fairness.

 

The radical right-wing wouldn't know fairness if it bit them in the rear end, dragonfly.

Just look at someone who claims to be following Christ calling the man who might be the next president of this country a dog. Is there no level to which the radical right-wing won't stoop to try to get the chief advocate for the warfare state in this campaign, Senator John Sidney McCain III, elected president????

 

Let me play the role of a so-called "radical right-winger" because it's kind of fun at times.

Bush said: "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." The quotation was from what William E. Borah, US Senator for Idaho, a Republican, said back in 1939.
​

Let's say, just for fun, that Obama was his mark:

In 2004 Obama said to the Chicago Tribune: "The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to take military action, if any?"

In 2006 Obama said, "I think that military options have to be on the table when you're dealing with rogue states that have shown constant hostility towards the United States. The point that I would make, though, is that we have not explored all of our options. We have not explored any kind of dialogue with either Iran or North Korea, and I think that has been a mistake. As a consequence, we have almost no leverage over them."

In 2007 Obama said to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee that he regards Iran's government as "a threat to all of us," stating that the US "should take no option, including military action, off the table. Sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons."

In 2007 Obama said: "When I am this party's nominee, my opponent will not be able to say that I voted for the war in Iraq; or that I gave George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran; or that I supported Bush-Cheney policies of not talking to leaders that we don't like."

Obama says he "... is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions."
​

Obama says he "... is willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe. He will do the careful preparation necessary, but will signal that America is ready to come to the table, and that he is willing to lead. And if America is willing to come to the table, the world will be more willing to rally behind American leadership to deal with challenges like terrorism, and Iran and North Korea's nuclear programs."
​

So, what has happened from 2004 to 2008 to Obama's thinking or, better still, just what is his position on this issue? Is he for something solid or is he just against whatever Bush has or has not done? Would he really do anything differently or have any better results at the "table" with Iran or North Korea than any one else who's been facing it already?

What is "change" anyway? Is this like the "change" so many experience at work most times new management is brought in? You know what I mean don't you? The kind of "change" that means "business as usual" except that some new people get put "in charge" of the various departments that are "re-organized".

I am reminded that we can not successfully negotiate with Satan because we will always give away something, he will never be satisfied, and we will always give away some more the next time we compromise with him.

 

Senator Obama is more in line with the thinking of Ronald Reagan on this subject - "Trust but verify".

 

Obama is nothing like Reagan

 

Pot calling the kettle black again?