McCain does massive U Turn on Iraq

[camsmith]

What a load of disingenuous garbage.

If you think that at least go on to explain why you think what I said was "disingenuous garbage".

ah, so you don't understand politics at all. Odd. I would have thought you'd understand the concept of subtext, and possibly have some fundamental appreciation of the way politics is conducted. Clearly you don't though.

I think you may be the only person in the entire world who heard those comments and didn't realise he was talking about Obama and the Democrats

I was going to reply, but just read an excelent article that says all I was going to say:

President Bush was in Israel the other day and gave a speech to the Knesset. Its perspective was summed up by his closing anecdote – a departing British officer in May 1948 handing the iron bar to the Zion Gate to a trembling rabbi and telling him it was the first time in 18 centuries that a key to the gates of the Jerusalem was in the hands of a Jew. In other words, it was a big-picture speech, referencing the Holocaust, the pogroms, Masada – and the challenges that lie ahead. Sen. Obama was not mentioned in the text. No Democrat was mentioned, save for President Truman, in the context of his recognition of the new state of Israel when it was a mere 11 minutes old.

Nonetheless, Barack Obama decided that the president's speech was really about him, and he didn't care for it. He didn't put it quite as bluntly as he did with the Rev. Wright, but the message was the same: "That's enough. That's a show of disrespect to me." And, taking their cue from the soon-to-be nominee's weirdly petty narcissism, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Joe Biden and Co. piled on to deplore Bush's outrageous, unacceptable, unpresidential, outrageously unacceptable and unacceptably unpresidential behavior.

Honestly. What a bunch of self-absorbed ninnies. Here's what the president 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.' We have an obligation to call this what it is – the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

It says something for Democrat touchiness that the minute a guy makes a generalized observation about folks who appease terrorists and dictators the Dems assume: Hey, they're talking about me. Actually, he wasn't – or, to be more precise, he wasn't talking onlyabout you.

Yes, there are plenty of Democrats who are in favor of negotiating with our enemies, and a few Republicans, too – President Bush's pal James Baker, whose Iraq Study Group was full of proposals to barter with Iran and Syria and everybody else. But that general line is also taken by at least three of Tony Blair's former Cabinet ministers and his senior policy adviser, and by the leader of Canada's New Democratic Party and by a whole bunch of bigshot Europeans. It's not a Democrat election policy, it's an entire worldview. Even Barack Obama can't be so vain as to think his fly-me-to-[insert name of enemy here]concept is an original idea.

Increasingly, the Western world has attitudes rather than policies. It's one thing to talk as a means to an end. But these days, for most midlevel powers, talks arethe end, talks without end. Because that's what civilized nations like doing – chit-chatting, shooting the breeze, having tea and crumpets, talking talking talking. Uncivilized nations like torturing dissidents, killing civilians, bombing villages, doing doing doing. It's easier to get the doers to pass themselves off as talkers then to get the talkers to rouse themselves to do anything.

And, as the Iranians understand, talks provide a splendid cover for getting on with anything you want to do. If, say, you want to get on with your nuclear program relatively undisturbed, the easiest way to do it is to enter years of endless talks with the Europeans over said nuclear program. That's why that Hamas honcho endorsed Obama: They know he's their best shot at getting a European foreign minister installed as president of the United States.


<snip>

Here are some words of Hussein Massawi, the former leader of Hezbollah:

"We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you."

Are his actions consistent with those words? Amazingly so. So, too, are those of Hezbollah's patrons in Tehran.

President Reagan talked with the Soviets while pushing ahead with the deployment of Cruise and Pershing missiles in Europe. He spoke softly – after getting himself a bigger stick. Sen. Obama is proposing to reward a man who pledges to wipe Israel off the map with a presidential photo-op to which he will bring not even a twig. No wonder he's so twitchy about it.

©MARK STEYN

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/president-obama-words-2044703-bush-talking

 

[fairdinkum]

2012?

I thought giving timelines simply helped the terrorists?

 

[Palmer Stoat]

If you think that at least go on to explain why you think what I said was "disingenuous garbage".

You're being disingenuous again. It's obvious what I was saying.

 

[DaveW]

©MARK STEYN

The personification of disingenuous garbage.

 

[Contra Mundum]

Joe Biden does a Tony Abbott.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/15/biden-calls-bush-comments-bulls-t/

Biden calls Bush comments 'bulls**t'
Posted: 04:07 PM ET

From CNN Congressional Producer Ted Barrett

(CNN) — The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Joe Biden, D-Delaware, called President Bush’s comments accusing Sen. Barack Obama and other Democrats of wanting to appease terrorists "bulls**t” and said if the president disagrees so strongly with the idea of talking to Iran then he needs to fire his secretaries of State and Defense, both of whom Biden said have pushed to sit down with the Iranians.

“This is bullshit. This is malarkey. This is outrageous. Outrageous for the president of the United States to go to a foreign country, sit in the Knesset…and make this kind of ridiculous statement,” Biden said angrily in a brief interview just off the Senate floor.

“He’s the guy who’s weakened us. He’s the guy that’s increased the number of terrorists in the world. His policies have produced this vulnerability the United States has. His intelligence community pointed that out not me. The NIE has pointed that out and what are you talking about, is he going to fire Condi Rice? Condi Rice has talked about the need to sit down. So his first two appeasers are Rice and Gates. I hope he comes home and does something.”

He quoted Gates saying Wednesday that we “need to figure out a way to develop some leverage and then sit down and talk with them.”

That is soo Good baby - good old Joe!!!

 

[Contra Mundum]

The personification of disingenuous garbage.

I cannot believe anyone would quote Mark Steyn as any authority for everything - he is the right wing equivalent of Noam!!!

 

[camsmith]

I cannot believe anyone would quote Mark Steyn as any authority for everything - he is the right wing equivalent of Noam!!!

Whatever he is that article explains the situations perfectly.

If Noam had wrote it I would have still posted it here.

 

[Mr Q]

Whatever he is that article explains the situations perfectly.

If Noam had wrote it I would have still posted it here.

Well duh! Whoever wrote it said what you wanted it to say, so if it had been written by Hilary Clinton you'd have posted it.

 

[camsmith]

Well duh! Whoever wrote it said what you wanted it to say, so if it had been written by Hilary Clinton you'd have posted it.

Exactly.

Great article too. Matters little if it was written by Steyn or Stalin.

 

[Mr Q]

Exactly.

Great article too. Matters little if it was written by Steyn or Stalin.

But that's the thing. It wouldn't have been written by anyone to the left of Steyn.

Let me put it this way - I'd agree with Janet Albrechtsen if she voiced an opinion I agreed with, but it's not going to happen, because we don't believe in the same things. You agree with a far right wing op-ed piece. There's a shock...

 

[Lance Uppercut]

If you think that at least go on to explain why you think what I said was "disingenuous garbage".



I was going to reply, but just read an excelent article that says all I was going to say:

why oh why don't you people read your own articles?

Actually, he wasn't – or, to be more precise, he wasn't talking only about you.

So even our right wing friend Steyn thinks that he was talking about Democrats and Obama.

What a laugh.

That guy, and you, both believe Democrats give succour to terrorists. Once again, you've proved exactly why Obama and Nancy et al had to come out and call it for what it was: a disgraceful display of fear-mongering

 

[camsmith]

why oh why don't you people read your own articles?

So even our right wing friend Steyn thinks that he was talking about Democrats and Obama.

What a laugh.

That guy, and you, both believe Democrats give succour to terrorists. Once again, you've proved exactly why Obama and Nancy et al had to come out and call it for what it was: a disgraceful display of fear-mongering

Err,

Actually, he wasn't – or, to be more precise, he wasn't talking only about you

Exactly, sure it may have covered Obama but he wasn't specifically talking about him, or even the democrats. It even applied to some Republicans.

If you had read the sentence immediately following the one you quoted you would have seen this:

Yes, there are plenty of Democrats who are in favor of negotiating with our enemies, and a few Republicans, too

See it even applied to some Republicans (why didn't they come out and have a cry like Obama?). It was a general statement aimed at all who want to talk to terrorists/terrorist supporters without any preconditions. Obama just happens to be one, he isn't alone.

..you've proved exactly why Obama and Nancy et al had to come out and call it for what it was: a disgraceful display of fear-mongering

Call it what is was? The truth?

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

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Err,



Exactly, sure it may have covered Obama but he wasn't specifically talking about him, or even the democrats. It even applied to some Republicans.

If you had read the sentence immediately following the one you quoted you would have seen this:



See it even applied to some Republicans (why didn't they come out and have a cry like Obama?). It was a general statement aimed at all who want to talk to terrorists/terrorist supporters without any preconditions. Obama just happens to be one, he isn't alone.



Call it what is was? The truth?

so he was talking about Obama. You look a little ridiculous, given this previous statement:

Funny how Bush talks about apeasing terrorists without mentioning names and the usual suspects in the democratic party just assume that he's talking about them.

But in essence, you're missing the point anyway.

It isn't appeasing "terrorists" by talking about the issues in Iran, especially since the US gift-wrapped the region and handed it to them on a silver platter by dismantling Iraq.

You might find this astonishing, but Obama maybe believes there's better ways of dealing with international affairs than invading countries, destroying infrastructure, empowering terrorists with the perfect training ground, and of course giving them enough grievances to inculcate generations of new terrorists.

I guess you're more in the "obliterate Iran" camp anyway, yes?

See cam, this is why Bush is on the nose. You're just too blind to see it, as evidenced by your glee that Bush's inflammatory remarks found their target - although you ludicriously and disingenously tried to claim it wasn't, then contradicted yourself on your very next post.

 

[camsmith]

so he was talking about Obama. You look a little ridiculous, given this previous statement:

No he was talking about those who want to talk soft with terrorist sympathises. It covers a wide range of people from Republicans to Democrats, to former presidents and leaders of foreign nations. Obama and the democrats decided to make it out like it was specifically about him. It wasn't.

You might find this astonishing, but Obama maybe believes there's better ways of dealing with international affairs than invading countries, destroying infrastructure, empowering terrorists with the perfect training ground, and of course giving them enough grievances to inculcate generations of new terrorists.

Like bombing an ally in Pakistan? Yep, Obama is an angel. Wants to bomb nations friendly to the US but talk with no preconditions to Americas enemies.

I guess you're more in the "obliterate Iran" camp anyway, yes?

See cam, this is why Bush is on the nose. You're just too blind to see it, as evidenced by your glee that Bush's inflammatory remarks found their target - although you ludicriously and disingenously tried to claim it wasn't, then contradicted yourself on your very next post.

Nope. Im in the try and find a peaceful solutions through tough talking and a strong defense camp. Lybia giving up their WMD's is a great example of how it works.

I didn't contradict myself. Bush made a general remark that applied to a number of people and poor little Obama tried to make it out Bush was specifically singling him out.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

No he was talking about those who want to talk soft with terrorist sympathises. It covers a wide range of people from Republicans to Democrats, to former presidents and leaders of foreign nations. Obama and the democrats decided to make it out like it was specifically about him. It wasn't.



Like bombing an ally in Pakistan? Yep, Obama is an angel. Wants to bomb nations friendly to the US but talk with no preconditions to Americas enemies.



Nope. Im in the try and find a peaceful solutions through tough talking and a strong defense camp. Lybia giving up their WMD's is a great example of how it works.

I didn't contradict myself. Bush made a general remark that applied to a number of people and poor little Obama tried to make it out Bush was specifically singling him out.

cam, GWB, was he or was he not referring to Obama? It's a simple question, which you've answered.

Can you provide any evidence whatsoever that what Obama was complaining about was that Bush was referring solely to him? Of course you can't, because it's a pathetic strawman defence.

It doesn't matter a shit if a few other people were maligned by Bush's outrageous comments, even if they were Republicans. The comments were primarily and politically targeted against Obama, as the soon-to-be presumptive Democrat candidate. cam, I know you're not an idiot, and I'm sure you understand how politics works, or am I wrong?

Obama, Pelosi, and anyone else who was besmirched by Bush has every reason to be outraged by Bush's Knesset comments.

You did contradict yourself, because you ridiculed Obama for believing that Bush was talking about him, when now you (and your right wing columnist mate) both admit that Obama was targeted by the comments.

In any fact, the simple fact of the matter is that you are spectacularly missing the point; that Bush has no right to accuse Obama, Pelosi, or even whatever Republicans you care to mention of "appeasing terrorists". This is typical of the neo-con with us or against us line that is currently a stinking corpse of an ideology.

You accuse Obama of wanting to talk to Iran "without preconditions"; whereas you want a continuation of Bush's "tough talking" - which is pretty much a condradiction in terms if the "tough" part by it's very essence precludes any of the "talking" part.

I mean, how dumb would you have to be to swallow that, when it seems even most of America don't.

How successful has Bush been with regards to disarming Iran by his "tough talking"?

I'll tell you what he has been successful at; and that's handing primary control of the geo-political situation in the ME to Iran on a silver platter; and exponentially increasing the numbers and grievances of terrorists, all by "tough" action in refusing to consider diplomacy and unilaterally invading Iraq.

And you want a continuation of these policies?

 

[JW Frogen]

How successful has Bush been with regards to disarming Iran by his "tough talking"??

If we are talking nuclear program here, not very, though the EU has tried nice talking, and that does not work either. This is not a misunderstanding, this is a strategic and ideological difference, the refusal to see the difference is more serious than a refusal to respond.

I would think the only thing that has a chance with Iran is tough bombing, nicely targeted.

 

[JoondalupJ]

That's going to be McCain's signature speech of the campaign. It gells with the Iraqi security advisor's recent statement in Washington that the ISF will be ready to take over in 2012 and also with what is happening on the ground in Iraq, for eg the ISF has now taken over Basra, is defanging the Mahdis in Sadr City and has commenced a major operation to clear AlQI and the remainder of the insurgency out of Mosul.

Not a "massive U-turn" at all.

Just logic .America hates the Iraq war and McCain is running for President ,I don't think he'd be saying anything else hey?

 

[JW Frogen]

Just logic .America hates the Iraq war and McCain is running for President ,I don't think he'd be saying anything else hey?

He could say nothing at all, like Obama.

I will leave, call it peace, when I leave, and call it peace.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

If we are talking nuclear program here, not very, though the EU has tried nice talking, and that does not work either. This is not a misunderstanding, this is a strategic and ideological difference, the refusal to see the difference is more serious than a refusal to respond.

I would think the only thing that has a chance with Iran is tough bombing, nicely targeted.

any chance that might foster more hatred and resentment of America, thus contributing to the self-fulfilling spiral of hatred and violence?

Iran have a huge demographic of young people, sympathetic and appreciative of the West's values.

You want to bomb their infrastructure, kill innocent families, and inculcate immeasurably more children as terrorists with real reasons to hate and seek out revenge on the West?

 

[likka]

You want to bomb their infrastructure, kill innocent families, and inculcate immeasurably more children as terrorists with real reasons to hate and seek out revenge on the West?

He did say in another thread he liked Hitler, so why would he not want this outcome?

 

[Palmer Stoat]

I would think the only thing that has a chance with Iran is tough bombing, nicely targeted.

Of course you do, Frogen. Perhaps you could draw up a list of countries you wouldn't bomb?

Just for our reference.

 

[JW Frogen]

any chance that might foster more hatred and resentment of America, thus contributing to the self-fulfilling spiral of hatred and violence?

Iran have a huge demographic of young people, sympathetic and appreciative of the West's values.?

Yeah, that is nice. Perhaps when they run the country we can talk it out, even go to an Emienin concert. Unfortunately the Mullahs who actually run the country and want to pursue a nuclear arms race in the world's most dangerous part of the globe really don't give a flying ____ about Iranian teenagers who love coke, Maccas and Britney Spears.

 

[JW Frogen]

Of course you do, Frogen. Perhaps you could draw up a list of countries you wouldn't bomb?

Just for our reference.

Hey, I have no problem with Vanuatu.

Yet.

 

[Palmer Stoat]

Hey, I have no problem with Vanuatu.

Yet.

You're a merciful man.

 

[GuruJane]

You're a merciful man.

Unlike his problem with changing kitty litter. Froge needs to smoke a better class of dope, obviously.