Bush Warns Against Those Who Would Negotiate With Terrorists

It sure is good that President Reagan disagreed with you!

 

ds
Yea right! Sanctions have worked so well in Cuba.

 

Please, don't play stupid. You know who Bush was talking about.

 

Don't play dumb, Pastor Mitchell. Everyone knows to whom he was referring.

 

Let's not forget the Bush family fortune was built in part by financing the Nazi regime. And then there's this...

Watch the video...


And this...

The most extraordinary exchange takes place when Lt. Gen. Michael DeLong bemoans shrinking political support for Neo-Con war plans on Capitol Hill and suggests that sympathy for the Bush administration's agenda will only be achieved after a new terror attack.
Rumsfeld agrees that the psychological impact of 9/11 is wearing off and the "behavior pattern" of citizens in both the U.S. and Europe suggests that they are unconcerned about the threat of terror. ​

DELONG: Politically, what are the challenges because you're not going to have a lot of sympathetic ears up there until it [a terror attack] happens. ​

RUMSFELD: That's what I was just going to say. This President's pretty much a victim of success. We haven't had an attack in five years. The perception of the threat is so low in this society that it's not surprising that the behavior pattern reflects a low threat assessment. The same thing's in Europe, there's a low threat perception. The correction for that, I suppose, is an attack. And when that happens, then everyone gets energized for another [inaudible] and it's a shame we don't have the maturity to recognize the seriousness of the threats...the lethality, the carnage, that can be imposed on our society is so real and so present and so serious that you'd think we'd be able to understand it, but as a society, the longer you get away from 9/11, the less...the less...
​

Click here for the audio clip.

Strange how he (Bush) warms of negotiating with terrorists. Hmmm. Maybe he doesn't want them telling anyone that we're using their "special talents" on the down low.

 

I think it is laughable that Bush says we should not negotiate with terrorists. Look at his record during his administration and we keep on buying from China even though they persecute Christians and execute political prisoners for harvesting their body organs to sell on the black market. And, yes, it was Bush and the Republican controlled Congress that granted China permanent normal trade relations with the US in January 2002.

 

And yet the anti-war Dems advocated continued sanctions against Saddam. Because they worked so well.

 

Who, Jimmy Carter? Nancy Pelosi? Both of whom made un-authorized foreign policy trips to the M-E. How do you know he wasn't refering to them?

 

Why? He has been saying this for a long time. This is not new, and it didn't start with Obama. Bush is right and you know it, and Obama knows it. But Obama is in the place of trying to win, and so he has to say things that differentiate him from Bush and McCain even though he knows he will never do it.

To quote someone else, "That's real Christian of you."

 

"President Bill Clinton is actively pushing to get Congress to grant China permanent normal trade relations." - May 25, 2000
LINK

 

Yes, but Congress approved it and Bush signed it.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/12/27/world/main322541.shtml?source=search_story

 

Here's yet another laughable (but sad) Bush foreign policy where he not only negotiated with terrorists but gave them weapons paid for with OUR tax dollars:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/020170.php

The PA is just as much a terrorist group as Hamas. All because Bush wanted to push the Road Map from Hell down Israel's throat. Disgusting.

 

Well yes he did. We also trade with former enemies such as Viet Nam. But as far as we know, neither China or Viet Nam is currently firing rockets cross-border into other countries or setting roadside bombs to kill our troops. But sure, there can always an argument one way or another. No administration has ever been totally consistant or ethically pure that I know of.

 

So, it's okay then, as long as Americans aren't the ones being terrorized by China? My point is, Bush is a hypocrite and has a record of not only negotiating but HELPING terrorists by some of his foreign policies. And he knew and Congress knew about China's human rights violations when they granted China Permanent Normal Trade Relations with the US, all for $$$ - greed.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120977705104464315.html

http://en.epochtimes.com/news/6-11-16/48226.html

http://china.hrw.org/press/news_rel...s_at_serious_risk_of_torture_and_mistreatment

 

They are not running for president. They are no threat to the election chances of Senator John Sidney McCain III.

 

McCain is , and always has been, his own biggest "threat" when it comes to his chances of being elected.

 

The foreign policy of President Bush is a travesty. It has nothing to do with liberal or conservative. The focal point is his lack of leadership ability and ineptness. To say he is better than the usual liberal clowns of Obama, Kerry, Gore, Carter, and Clinton does not excuse his lack of doing his job. They may have done worse, but we as a country can do better than the whole lot of them.

If you are going to fight a war, you fight to win, and you go to war on honest premises.

Too bad for our nation, but the Republicans, all of them, both Congress and the President, deserve to get thrashed at the polls this November. Maybe when they get it through their thick, self serving, power hungry heads that they are elected to serve the American people, and govern by the conservative principals that they promised, maybe they will regain power.

 

And they figured half a million dead children was worth the price. They got just as much blood on their hands as the pro war republicans.