Any BO fans wanna tell us WHY it was ALL ABOUT HIM?

Come on give it your best shot, LOL.

President Bush, is still the president as far as I know, WHY would BO think Bush's remarks WERE ABOUT HIM? Excuse me, but, if the dems see subliminal messages in a speech that the POTUS gives at a world anniversary for Israel as against BO, WHY? The world does not revolve around presidential candidates in the US, come on!

Perhaps, BO, thinks he really is the second coming, LOL.

Thoughts?

Lulu

Good questions, Lulu.  To some extent the Dems are (not without reason) a bit hypersensitive on this issue.

For another, they reflexively use any attempt to attack the President.  This includes when speaking in a non-partisan matter as head of state.  The "politics stops at the water's edge" concept became obsolete quite some time ago.

Perhaps the Democrats assumed that by attacking Bush for supposedly amining his remarks at certain Democrats (of which, to read the text of his speech, there is absolutely zero evidence), they might get McCain to support the President - which he quite rightly has done.  They want desperately to paint McCain as a Bush clone. 

I think in this case they have overreached a bit, and are likely to start backtracking in the next day or two.

MWL

Only one word comes to my mind Mike, NARCISSISTIC!

Seems to me they are very vulnerable in this area, and we can not be vulnerable at this time, with our war on terror. Wimp equates to BO in my mind at this point, what a whiner too, its not ABOUT him yet! ! !

Lulu

Edit, sorry Myra, spell check doesn't do definitions, my mistake for not re-reading.

Thanks for the compliment. Lulu;

Sev-Mills:

President Bush did not name Sen. Obama as a person he was speaking of.  The only way Sen Obama could know that he was the subject of the remark is that he knows he is guilty. 

By the way, isn't it a fact that Hamas DID endorce Sen. Obama?  The Sen. may have not wanted the endorcement, but he did get it, did he not?.

hondo 

Thanks for the compliment. Lulu;

"Seems to me they are very venerable in this area" I accept it eagerly.
[/quote]

I think Lulu meant "venereal".

[quote user="Sev_Mills"]This is part of a concerted effort by the Republicans to accuse Obama of "appeasing" people who are demonized by the Israelis. A few days ago McCain said that Hamas had endorsed Obama and today Lil' Bush chimes in with his stupid speech. One must be a fool not to make the connection.[/quote]

Obama's comment about being willing to sit "and talk" with Ahmedinejad without preconditions is very worthy of criticism.  It has nothing to do with being demonized by Israelis (let's please not have another Ivyman here).

Attention and legitimization is what terrorist organizations want more than anything else.   As we saw with Jimmy Carter's ill-advised "talk" with Hamas, it is grossly misguided and foolish optimism to blithely say "I'll talk with anybody".   These groups have shown a million times over that they are unresponsive to honest peace brokering and Ghandiesque peace overtures.   These are interpreted only as signs of weakness and invigorate the use of terror.   Obama's apparent following in Carter's footsteps is very worrying, and a legitimate issue for criticism and debate.

Myra,

You may want to check that, the news reports I read claimed Barack Obama was FLATTERED by Hamas's endorsement. Oh, and he is now wearing the flag pin, I'm not sure if its the flag pin with 57 states or our 50 state pin though. Any idea Myra on who the extra seven states are that BO has been too? Iran, Syria, North Korea...?

Lulu

The president struck too close to their hearts.

Obama would be a joke of a president. He's not ready for prime time. Make a great used car salesman, though. 

[quote user="MyraL"]Hondo, one and only one, Hamas official endorsed Obama. It was unwelcome.
[/quote]

I bet it was publicly unwelcome. If the Nazi's had endorsed FDR, it would have been unwelcome. However, I don't remember FDR campaigning that he wanted to talk to the Nazi's. Perhaps you can refresh my memories? 

Why bother talking to any terrorist group who advocates the destruction of Israel?

Seems a non-starter to me.

I also think to terrorists threats concerning Israel is plenty enough justification for Israel to smoke them, by any available method, including nukes.

Personally, I think some of the 57 (hmmmm, where HAVE I heard that number before) muslim states would have a "come-to-Jesus-moment." Heh Heh.

Are there really 57 muslim states? I've read that someplace.

Rick 

Mr. Purrington

Let's talk about a more recent memory when an Israeli leader was accused of, and subsequently assassinated, as an "appeaser."  Yitzhak Rabin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Yitzhak_Rabin

Since Rabin's assassination it's been downhill all the way.

Among many other things, Bush's speech was anything but an act of leadership.  He cut off Condi Rice and Robert Gates at the knees in light of their Mideast peace efforts, but at least he did me the service of confirming that McCain, eager to embrace the "appeasement" lingo, is in fact Bush's twin. 

Bluff and bluster have been two hallmarks of the current incompetent administration (OBL dead or alive, anyone?). No reason to believe McCain (or is it "McCain't?") won't be more of the same. Someone else always pays the price for their loose talk.  Bob U. 

Well, I'm sure those in Iran who are opposed to Ahmedinejad didn't get much of a morale boost by Obama's loose comments either, which served no purpose but to give their nutjob leader greater legitimacy. Ahmedidinejad only serves at the pleasure of the radical clerics, and would never win an honest election in Iran. Do you think Obama considered that before he threw the legitimate Iranian opposition parties under his bus?

I think the Bush comments were absolutely meant for domestic political consumption. and I didn't like it. But since Bush is probably less popular in this country than Hamas, this McCain-Bush tactic that has been used by Obama for months, never mentioning McCain without Bush, is not exactly a new 'higher level' style of politics either. It is classic negative campaigning, and Obama engaged in it long before McCain did.

-dale 

Let's talk about a more recent memory when an Israeli leader was accused of, and subsequently assassinated, as an "appeaser."  Yitzhak Rabin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Yitzhak_Rabin

Since Rabin's assassination it's been downhill all the way.

Among many other things, Bush's speech was anything but an act of leadership.  He cut off Condi Rice and Robert Gates at the knees in light of their Mideast peace efforts, but at least he did me the service of confirming that McCain, eager to embrace the "appeasement" lingo, is in fact Bush's twin. 

Bluff and bluster have been two hallmarks of the current incompetent administration (OBL dead or alive, anyone?). No reason to believe McCain (or is it "McCain't?") won't be more of the same. Someone else always pays the price for their loose talk.  Bob U. 

[/quote]

Bob,

I tend to agree with your comments, as well as the comments once made by, I believe, JFK.  Kennedy once stated we should never negotiate out of fear, but we should also never be afraid to negotiate. This approach seems to have been lost on the Bush administration. There's been way too much "tough" cowboy talk, too little listening, and too much shooting.

I think you guys are blowing this wayyy out of proportion.  First off, i think the remark was directed more towards Carter than Obama and that Obama is simply using to respond to his lack of foreign policy experience (or any experience on anything for that matter). 

What is listening to Ahmadinejad going to net you?  Is listening to him rant about how they need to destroy Israel and kill Americans going to cause you to pause and relate to him and see just exactly where he is coming from?  Give me a break!

I really hope Obama (Carter II) wins so people wake up to the fact that electing a Chamberlin on foreign policy who screams for peace will only lead to disaster.   

Lulu: 

the news reports I read claimed Barack Obama was FLATTERED by Hamas's endorsement 

Actually, to be fair (and accurate), Obama himself never expressed that he was in any way pleased with or "flattered" by Hamas's endorsement.  Obama is, in that respect, off the hook IMO.  Partly.  But not entirely.

Someone on Obama's campaign staff DID express that the campaign was "flattered" by the endorsement, and no one on the campaign expressed anything other than positives regarding it for a couple of days.  This speaks VOLUMES, IMO.  It shows once again the kind of folks Obama has chosen to associate himself with over his long political career.

Oh, and he is now wearing the flag pin, I'm not sure if its the flag pin with 57 states or our 50 state pin though.

Actually, I think it's one of the old 48 state pins, Lulu.  Florida and Michigan don't count, remember? ;-)

MWL

The amazing thing is that if Obama says that he wants to talk with terrorist, the Dem voters will support that view.

If Obama wants to bring down our economy with taxes on capital gains and earnings, there are a certain amount of people, usually extremist on the left, that support the destruction of our economy.

Why?  They want the US relegated to a 3rd World Nation, in order to allow 3rd World Countries to become wealtheir and stronger.  The only explanation that I can offer for that is that these people don't like the US, or that they came from those 3rd World Countries.

FACT - The president spoke in the middle east today, and DID NOT mention any other candidate specifically.

FACT - Obama reacted, obviously upset, and criticized Bush for taking polictics "overseas".

FACT - Obama and other dems never complained when Sen. Shumer went to Iraq a specifically criticized Bush while praising Sadam.....

FACT - Obama and other dems never criticized Pelosi for taking politics overseas.

FACT - Obama DID say he would talk unconditionally - to terrorists!

Well supported opinion - democrats are unprincipled hypocrits!

//mjs