Bush "attacks" Obama

[Sooner_Havok]

Bush suggests Obama wants 'appeasement' of terrorists

Ok, now I admit crap is getting taken to far. Oh boo hoo Bush said some things that were critical to Obama. STFU! Jesus F'ing Christ! This is a legitimate criticism of Obama's foreign policy plan. People bitch and moan when real issues aren't addressed, and when one finally is, they bitch about it not being fair. This isn't about freaking monkey shirts or rev wright, this is a completely legitimate criticism, man up and deal with it. I wouldn't go as far to call what he wants to do appeasement, but I am not going to bitch about semantics here.

Oh Nos, a freaking REPUBLICAN is critical over what a democrat has to say First time that a high ranking party leader has critized someone from across the aisle right

[SoonerProphet]

Appeasement, much like the term "isolationist", is term meant to stifle debate and the overall thought process.

[Sooner_Havok]

Appeasement, much like the term "isolationist", is term meant to stifle debate and the overall thought process.

So the term may have been to harsh, the point he was trying to make is still a valid one

[soonerscuba]

Yeah, I don't care what Bush has to say, I can hardly wait until he fades out as a sad footnote next year. At this point, you probably get a bump if he spouts one of his ridiculous parallels at you, assuming anybody listens at all anymore.

[Sooner_Havok]

I just can't believe the donks are getting their collective panties in a twist over this.

[Sooner_Havok]

I am glad RLIMC can't see what I am saying. Then he would find out we probably agree on something. That would be truly awful.

[SoonerProphet]

So the term may have been to harsh, the point he was trying to make is still a valid one

Um, no...Bush's foreign policy or that of the "neoconservative" crowd has no validity whatsoever and on many levels.

First, to lump all "terrorist" groups under one umbrella is intellectually lazy. To link US foreign policy to Israel's in dangerous and unconstitutional. We have no friends only interests, conflating their issues to ours is assuredly not in our national interests. Secondly, engaging in talks with North Korea, Libya, and the like while ignoring a democratically elected Hamas smacks of hypocrisy.

[Sooner_Havok]

Um, no...Bush's foreign policy or that of the "neoconservative" crowd has no validity whatsoever and on many levels.

First, to lump all "terrorist" groups under one umbrella is intellectually lazy. To link US foreign policy to Israel's in dangerous and unconstitutional. We have no friends only interests, conflating their issues to ours is assuredly not in our national interests. Secondly, engaging in talks with North Korea, Libya, and the like while ignoring a democratically elected Hamas smacks of hypocrisy.

Look, I ain't saying I agree with what the guy said, I am just saying bringing up criticism about his plans to meet with these guys is valid. I think we should open diplomatic channels with them, but there are some pretty good reasons why we shouldn't either.

[SoonerProphet]

Look, I ain't saying I agree with what the guy said, I am just saying bringing up criticism about his plans to meet with these guys is valid. I think we should open diplomatic channels with them, but there are some pretty good reasons why we shouldn't either.

Outside of the kooky arguments offered up with the frontpage mag and little green footballs crowd, what would be some damaging about establishing communications with Hamas, Hezbollah, or Iran for that matter?

[Sooner_Havok]

Outside of the kooky arguments offered up with the frontpage mag and little green footballs crowd, what would be some damaging about establishing communications with Hamas, Hezbollah, or Iran for that matter?

First would be why reward these groups with direct relations with the US before they have done anything.

[swardboy]

I'm more inclined to think Bush was affirming Israel's decision to basically ignore Billy Carter's brother......

[Sooner_Havok]

I'm more inclined to think Bush was affirming Israel's decision to basically ignore Billy Carter's brother......

Well you'd be wrong, republicans is evil

[Animal Mother]

Look, I ain't saying I agree with what the guy said, I am just saying bringing up criticism about his plans to meet with these guys is valid. I think we should open diplomatic channels with them, but there are some pretty good reasons why we shouldn't either.

If you waffled anymore than your quote above, I say you were a politician yourself.
As far as what is said about Obama, I'll consider the source and be done with it.

[KC//CRIMSON]

I wonder if G-Dub really gave up golf (which was super meaningful btw...) or did he just come to the realization of "Hey, I kinda suck at is game!"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008...georgebush.usa

[SoonerProphet]

I'm more inclined to think Bush was affirming Israel's decision to basically ignore Billy Carter's brother......

I realize opinions about the peanut farmer vary, but it was his administration that established one of the longest lasting peace deals in the Mideast.

[swardboy]

Um, no...Bush's foreign policy or that of the "neoconservative" crowd has no validity whatsoever and on many levels.

First, to lump all "terrorist" groups under one umbrella is intellectually lazy. To link US foreign policy to Israel's in dangerous and unconstitutional. We have no friends only interests, conflating their issues to ours is assuredly not in our national interests. Secondly, engaging in talks with North Korea, Libya, and the like while ignoring a democratically elected Hamas smacks of hypocrisy.

When this happened I pretty much gave up on a solution in the middle east....it's gonna burn....

[Sooner_Havok]

If you waffled anymore than your quote above, I say you were a politician yourself.
As far as what is said about Obama, I'll consider the source and be done with it.

What? I don't have to agree with what he said to agree with why he said it. I personally like the idea of opening diplomatic channels with hostile entities, but I can admit that it does present a number of pitfalls. You can't just say that what your guy says is 100% right, and blindly ignore the possible problems that one of his policies might present. While I do think we would gain something from the talks, I am willing to admit we might lose some things by opening the channels.

[SoonerProphet]

When this happened I pretty much gave up on a solution in the middle east....it's gonna burn....

What? So the grand dream of democratizing the Mideast is a pipedream. Oh, I see, your solution involves brown folks kowtowing to the demands of the US and Israel, not expressing their own desires and hopes for the reagion.

[Fraggle145]

I just thought it was stupid (no surprise here) for Bush to bring it up at a different countries 60 Anniversary in front of their version of congress. Do your dirty laundry at home.

[Sooner_Havok]

I just thought it was stupid (no surprise here) for Bush to bring it up at a different countries 60 Anniversary in front of their version of congress. Do your dirty laundry at home.

Yeah, the timing may have been poor, but I still say it was a valid criticism.