link didn't want to put Obama in thread title but some feel that this is who he's aiming this at JERUSALEM (CNN) – President Bush launched a sharp but veiled attack Thursday on Sen. Barack Obama and other Democrats, suggesting they favor "appeasement" of terrorists in the same way some Western leaders appeased Hitler in the run-up to World War II. The president did not name Obama or any other Democrat, but White House aides privately acknowledged the remarks were aimed at the presidential candidate and others in his party. Former President Jimmy Carter has called for talks with Hamas. "Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," Bush said at Israel's 60th anniversary celebration in Jerusalem. "We have heard this foolish delusion before," Bush said in remarks to Israel's parliament, the Knesset. "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." The remarks seemed to be a not-so-subtle attempt to continue to raise doubts about Obama with Jewish Americans. Those doubts were earlier stoked by Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee in the 2008 presidential election, when he recently charged that Obama is the favored candidate of the terror group Hamas. Obama last week called the Hamas allegation a "smear" and lashed out Thursday at Bush's speech in Israel. "It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack," Obama said in a statement released to CNN by his campaign. "It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel…." "George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel," Obama's statement said. Obama favors "tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions," according to his Web site, "and is willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe." He does not favor talks with Hamas, which he has called a terrorist organization. The Bush administration held three rounds of discussions with Iran about security in Iraq last year, including two at the ambassadorial level, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates Wednesday said Washington needed to "figure out a way to develop some leverage … and then sit down and talk with" Iran. Bush largely focused his speech in Jerusalem on highlighting the American-Israeli partnership. "The alliance between our governments is unbreakable, yet the source of our friendship runs deeper than any treaty," he said. Bush said the United States and Israel are locked in an ideological struggle with radicals in the Middle East, using the speech to tie al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden to the terror groups Hamas and Hezbollah. "That is why the founding charter of Hamas calls for the 'elimination' of Israel," said Bush. "That is why the followers of Hezbollah chant 'Death to Israel, Death to America!' That is why Osama bin Laden teaches that 'the killing of Jews and Americans is one of the biggest duties.' And that is why the president of Iran dreams of returning the Middle East to the Middle Ages and calls for Israel to be wiped off the map." Bush then made his transition to Obama and other Democrats without naming names, raising the specter of the Holocaust to make his point. "There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain their words away," said Bush. "This is natural. 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," the president said.
First of all, the White House has said that Bush wasn't specifically addressing Barakakis with this remark, and it is quite presumptuous of Barakakis to think otherwise. The world doesn't revolve around him, believe it or not, and everyone isn't talking about him with every comment they make... what a pompous fool Barakakis is.... But does anyone think Barakakis' ingenious arguments will convince the terrorists that their age old struggle is invalid? That's the height of naivete, and sadly the platform on which Barakakis' foreign policy is built. It must sting a liberal to have their messiah get OWNED by George W Bush. OUCH
"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."
I think you have to realize that this comment is really a prelude for what could be a total mauling of Obama on the foreign policy issues. They are quite defensive on the subject.... for a reason... Obama loses a foreign policy debate to McCain 10 times out of 10.
How's that hunt for Osama going, Bush? How're our friends in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, Bush? What about Uzbekistan, which received triple the US aid under Bush depsite a brutal regime known for boiling people alive? I could go on... Who's the appeaser again?
Where does CNN (or Obama) get an attack on Obama from this quote? If it's aimed at anyone in particular, it's Jimmy Carter not Obama. You can agree or disagree with what he's saying, but I don't see how it can be construed as an attack on Obama... This article is basically an Op/Ed piece from CNN. Also.. Ironic that he thinks it's "sad" that Bush would "launch a political attack" on him - then does the exact same thing in the very next sentence.
Very true. They've tried it in 2000 and 2004 and it worked, but in 2006 when they tried it again, people had grown wiser. That dog just won't hunt anymore.
One's an attack: no merit, no proof, just fear, uncertainty, and doubt. The other is the truth, born out of continuous reports that verify it's accuracy. You be the judge.
I know it's already been pointed out, but I'm serious. But I want to know... do you not see the difference in the two? There is zero history of the Democrats claiming they want to appease terrorists. There is history showing a stronger Iran. One is a change in direction away from what is known to be true. The other is trying to scare people into thinking something bad about a political party.
It's all part of the Rovian attack strategy that has mercifully been failing since 2004. Disagree with the president's goofy ideas - you're appeasing. Point out verfiable problems with said strategy - you're unamerican, and a shameless political attacker. Thankfully, only 20ish percent of the population is dumb enough (willfully ignorant enough) to fall for that shtick anymore.
Where in the speech did Bush accuse Democrats of appeasing terrorists? Sounds like your issue is with CNN, not Bush. They're the only ones who said anything about Democrats.
"We have heard this foolish delusion before," Bush said in remarks to Israel's parliament, the Knesset. "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." I wonder if anyone in the press will think to point out that "as Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939" Bush's grandfather Prescott was building the family fortune by doing business with the Nazis. Probably not.
when he referenced hitler he equated negotiating with them to allowing hitler into Poland, which was called appeasement. He makes a direct correlation, therefore saying the strategies are the same. nice of him to bring up hitler in front of a jewish audience who's votes are critical in Florida btw
I've been thinking about this a lot lately, with all the discussions about WW2 we've had in class. I generally agree with the presidnet. You can't sidestep the problem or assume the terrorists are going to negotiate becuase they never will. They've never liked us and they want to kill all Americans. There's no denying there is a problem. The fanatical Muslims seem bent on destroying Israel and the West. A threat to peace somewhere is a threat to peace everywhere.
When Bush compared the Democratic stance to appeasement of the Nazis. It was in the speech. But yes I do have many problems with CNN as well.
this is not WWII, there is no correlation. this is not conventional war, we let Hitler march in to Poland, what's the equivalent in the War on Terror, none. Germany is a country, a western european country with whom we share many values.
