I hate the guy, but, for once, he's absolutely right:

Bush Denounces Mideast Extremists

JERUSALEM, May 15 -- President Bush invoked the specter of the Holocaust to warn Israeli lawmakers on Thursday afternoon that they must take seriously the incendiary language of extremist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, as he celebrated the state's 60th anniversary by sketching out a more hopeful future of peaceful co-existence between Jews and Arabs.

On the second day of his Middle East trip, Bush toured the historic Dead Sea fortress Masada before returning here for an emotional address to the Israeli Knesset, where he cited Hamas' call for the "elimination" of Israel, Hezbollah followers' chants of "Death to Israel, Death to America" and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's vow to wipe the Jewish state off the map.

"There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain away their words. It is natural," Bush said. "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."

Bush also dismissed the idea of talking with these U.S. adversaries, as some in the United States have advocated. Former President Jimmy Carter, for instance, recently met with leaders of Hamas and said the U.S. ought to open conversations with the militant group that now controls the Gaza strip and is classified as a terrorist entity by the U.S. and Israel.

"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," Bush told the Israeli lawmakers. "We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of 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."

Full Story

+ + +

Broken clocks...

Biden: Bush's comments were 'bullshit'


Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), piling on to Democratic complaints about President Bush’s speech in Israel today:

“This is bullshit, this is malarkey. This is outrageous, for the president of the United States to go to a foreign country, to sit in the Knesset ... and make this kind of ridiculous statement.”

Speaking before the Knesset, Bush said that “some people” believe the United States “should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along."

"We have heard this foolish delusion before," Bush said. "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."

Democrats have interpreted the comments as an attack on Sen. Barack Obama, and Biden, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said that the president was out of line.

“He is the guy who has weakened us,” he said. “He has increased the number of terrorists in the world. It is his policies that have produced this vulnerability that the U.S. has. It’s his [own] intelligence community [that] has pointed this out, not me.”

Biden noted that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have both suggested that the United States ought to find a way to talk more with its enemies.

"If he thinks this is appeasement, is he going to come back and fire his own cabinet?” Biden asked. “Is he going to fire Condi Rice?”



In a separate statement, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) said that Bush "is still playing the disgusting and dangerous political game Karl Rove perfected, which is insulting to every American and disrespectful to our ally Israel. George Bush should be making Israel secure, not slandering Barack Obama from the Knesset."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) also weighed in.

“Not surprisingly, the engineer of the worst foreign policy in our nation’s history has fired yet another reckless and reprehensible round," said Reid. "For the President to make this statement before the government of our closest ally as it celebrates a remarkable milestone demeans this historic moment with partisan politics."

The White House insists that Bush wasn’t referring specifically to Obama, an argument that Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) called "baloney."

"There is no escaping what the president is doing," said Durbin, who supports Obama. "It is an attack on Sen. Obama’s position that we should not be avoiding even those we disagree with when it comes to negotiations and diplomacy."

Durbin called Bush's remarks "unfair and really unfortunate."

UPDATE: In a conference call with reporters later in the afternoon, Biden said his initial word choice was "not very eloquent" and said he should have just stuck with the word "malarkey." Biden said he "reacted viscerally" when asked about Bush's speech after stepping off an elevator.

However, Biden again did not mince words when discussing Bush's remarks, accusing the president of engaging in "long-distance swiftboating" with his speech in Israel. Biden also cited numerous examples of the Bush Administration reaching out to unfriendly regimes in Libya, North Korea and Iran, arguing that Bush's insinuation that the Democrats were soft on terrorism was "truly delusional ... and truly disgraceful."


source

First off: Thank you. That was an intelligent, rational response citing published reports.

I don't see where he singled out Obama specifically in his speech to the Knesset. Given the venue and the occasion, I thought it was a slap at Carter's meeting with Hamas.

I don't recall W extending much of an olive branch towards Iran at any point in his Presidency. He did to some extent with Kim Jong Il, but there are a few significant differences: For starters, Kim has never, to my knowledge, threatened to wipe any ethnic or religious group off the map. Second, Kim already has the bomb. It's a much different scenario when the genie has already escaped the bottle.

But, most significantly, the difference between the two nations' strategic intents is huge: Kim holds his nukes out in order to wring material concessions from other nations to feed the people he's starved and, thus, prop up his tottering regime. Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs are on record repeatedly vowing to annihilate the Jews. In a sea of grays, this is about as close to black and white as it gets.

BTW: I've always been fond of the word "Malarkey."

Quote:

---

I thought it was a slap at Carter's meeting with Hamas.

---

So did I.

I also thought it was uncutting Rice and her hopes for a peace agreement in her last year since it gave Israel the perfect "out".

But, I don't buy Bush's support for Israel and damnation of Hamas. The fact is that Bush has NEVER slammed the MONEY behind Hamas - much of which comes from "our friends" the Saudis and the UAE. The Saudis used to give "bounty" rewards to families of suicide bombers, for God's sake. Talk about supporting terror.

I agree with JimB on N Korea. They use the bombs as a threat to protect themselves from any possible invasion and a bargaining chips to get food and other concessions. And, while they exist, the Chinese have a mad dog they can unlease to scare the region if we bother them too much on reform, etc.

The religious nuts that run Iran might use the fucking things. Maybe even against the Sunni in Iraq. Maybe against the Christians in Lebanon.

With the upheaval in Pakistan, it worries me that no one seems to know who actually controls their 40 or so nukes. Some nationalist Paki crackpot might just point one at New Delhi for Allah and then what? Nuclear winter on the Ganges?

now this is funny...

Right Wing radio host owned on Hardball today

I didn't realize Bush Press Secretary Dana Perino had no idea what the Cuban Missile Crisis was...what a scarily uninformed group.

Link didn't work.

Quote:

---

I didn't realize Bush Press Secretary Dana Perino had no idea what the Cuban Missile Crisis was...what a scarily uninformed group.

---

Perino is fucking dumber than any PW (and most street Crack Whores) and I'd kill to see her have to fill out the standard JM application form. She makes Rosemary Kennedy (or whichever one old Joe had lobotomized) look like Einstein.

Again, the dumb sonofabitch's statement today just seemed to me like the broken clock being right twice a day.

sorry if the link doesn't work...it does for me. it is out there tho and is funny. LA Right Wing talk show host yelling about Neville Chamberlain and Matthews keeps asking him what Chamberlain is famous for doing...all the douche radio guy can say is "he was an appeaser" and finally after minutes it becomes obvious that he has no idea who N.C. was.... it was painfully fun to watch and so telling about idiots that have no sense of history yet get caught up in the spin.

PS- McCain needs to support the GI Bill... I really am thinking that McCain is going to be a fun candidate to watch because he is flip flopping all over the place and is likely to blow a gasket at some point.

Quote:

---

PS- McCain needs to support the GI Bill...

---

Agreed.

I thought Bush was taking a stab at Carter. Carter was recently there and pissed the Israelis quite thoroughly. So is elitist Obama just that conceited or is this an attempt to pull Bush into the election spotlight, in attempt to tie him to McCain? Politics as usual doesn't sound like the move of a candidate for change.

elitist? ffs man...

It was a political Alley Oop...Bush set it up for McCain who delivered the shot. Carter is of no real significance. Obama has said and been criticized that he feels that diplomacy is an important tool...specifically with Iran. If we are speaking with North Korea than why not Iran?

Because Iran is directly involved in the death of US servicemen.

Quote:

---

Because Iran is directly involved in the death of US servicemen.

---

So was the China and the Soviet Union...by proxy. Reagan's administration negotiated with Iran (Iran-Contra?). The fact of the matter is that our failed policys in the middle east over the decade have strengthened Iran's Shiites from Iraq to Gaza.

We are in no position to try to start another war. The hardon to attack Iran is purely NeoCon wet dreamery. There are plenty of conservatives who agree with this. The price of oil would skyrocket. It is time to take a different approach.

After Iraq I find it hard to understand how anyone can believe what this administration feels is the correct route to take.

Time for some sensible foreign policy that isnt driven by the fucking bible.

Ahhh. Just set up my new laptop and the link works fine. (Yes, I did my part to support the economy, but, more importantly, my hard drive was nearly fried.) That was funny shit.

I don't know enough about the GI bill and the candidates' positions on it to really comment. But to be fair, when it comes to flip-flopping, it seems to be a two way street. After all, Obama is wearing his lapel pin again now that he's all but won the nomination.

Since I really don't like either of them, this oughta be an interesting season.

grats on the new laptop jim.

Obama's flag pin is a small issue compared with McCain's complete sell out to the BushCorp division of the GOP. Also for someone that claims to want to keep big money out of politics, McSame sure does have a lot of Lobbyists working in his campaign.

I think Obama was mainly saying that the flag pin is a hollow gesture of patriotism that is all about image over substance. It is like if the president claimed that his sacrifice to help the families of the troops killed in this chosen war was to stop playing golf...that kind of nonsense that the American public is finally beginning to see completely through.

Flag pins and preachers won't help the GOP this year

I personally think the flag pin is a bullshit issue, but, sadly, theres a LOT of voters out there that see it otherwise. Style's been giving a drubbing to substance since the election of 1840. (Tippicanoe and Tyler, Too.)

Although, the sacrifice issue is one area where McCain has it all over Shrub. He never talks about it, except privately with military families, but his youngest son skipped the Annapolis appointment that was waiting for him, joined the Marines at 17, and, as a Lance Corporal, just came back from a tour in Anbar. NY Times article. And I believe that one of his older sons graduates this year, though I don't know whether he's chosen the Navy or the Corps, or what the likelihood of his being deployed to the front will be. In that respect, at least, Mac's got a far greater investment in this than Bush, Clinton, Obama, Rummy or any of the other Douchebags, whether you agree with his position or not.

As John Prine said in '70- "Your Flag Decal Won't Get You Into Heaven Anymore"

The Trinity of Hell

Trying to discern the intention of a Bush historical allusion is like herding retarded feral cats.

Wait a minute: Falwell let blacks into his school? Or is that just since he died?

Liberty's poor scores are due to the liberal media/liberal elite/quantitative test scores/any rational judgment of their students/shut the fuck up/

These are constitutional scholars/high test-score types who are worthy of the tired croniesm of the Bush/Cheney/Rove dumbsss-quo types who infiltrate all aspects of their "Era of Accountability!"

Huh? You lost me there.