Thursday, May 15

'malarkey'

So President Bush goes to Israel to celebrate the 60th Anniversary of the Jewish state and in a speech he starts talking about appeasement and the Nazis and modern day terrorists. And the Democrats are offended.
"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."
Does that automatically translate into 'an attack' on Barack Obama? No. And it's a stretch to conclude so. It certainly does sound like Obama's own policy pronouncements of talking to terrorists. It sounds like the same old thing that every Democrat has been advocating since before I was born 41 years ago.

I took the remarks as an encouragement to the Israelis on their continuing struggle against Hamas, other homegrown and regional terrorists groups and anti-Zionist countries like Iran and Syria.

Obama, Clinton, Gore, Carter, and most of the Democrats, meanwhile, are, in fact, appeasers. Anytime a politician starts talking about 'dialogue' and 'diplomacy,' they are saying, 'I'm not going to take decisive action.'

The Democrats' opposition to the Iraq war is a great example of their coddling a dictator. Look no further.

Joe Biden: "Bush's comments were bullshit, malarkey."

John Kerry: "The political games of Karl Rove."

Harry Reid: "The engineer of the worst foreign policy in our nation’s history has fired yet another reckless and reprehensible round."

Dick Durbin: "Unfair and really unfortunate."

Acknowledging terrorists and giving them credibility. That's the foreign policy of the so called 'Democratic' party. Which is why Bush's remarks today have sparked this mini-controversy. The Democrats understand that everybody regards them as soft on terrorism, otherwise the President's comments wouldn't have even registered on the radar.

12 Comments:

Blogger Chris said...

"It certainly does sound like Obama's own policy pronouncements of talking to terrorists. It sounds like the same old thing that every Democrat has been advocating since before I was born 41 years ago."

That's rather odd considering it was Reagan who sold arms in exchange for hostages. And it's odd that it was Reagan who sold arms to Saddam Hussein. What's even odder is it was Reagan who supplied the Jihad in Afghanistan that bin Laden was commanding.

"I took the remarks as an encouragement to the Israelis on their continuing struggle against Hamas, other homegrown and regional terrorists groups and anti-Zionist countries like Iran and Syria."

You conveniently leave out Saudi Arabia. The Sauds are Bush's biggest allies, the worlds biggest sponsor of terrorism, the home of 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers and almost single handily responsible for every penny funneled to Hamas. You can't even begin to talk about regional terrorist groups without mentioning wahibism. There is no one appeasing terrorists and state sponsors of terrorists more than George Bush and his GOP.

"The Democrats have a long history of coddling dictators, despots and terrorists, by acknowledging them and by giving them credibility."

Name one. Just one dictator the Dems have coddled. No one did more to arm and fund bin Laden and Saddam Hussein than Ronald Reagan.

Kent, please tell me this post was written by someone else.

3:59 PM  
Blogger Kent said...

Castro.

7:09 PM  
Blogger Chris said...

What Dem coddled Castro? It was Kennedy that tried to take him out. Even if Castro is all you can name, that's still quite a bit less coddling than what Reagan did and what Bush is doing currently.

7:25 PM  
Blogger Kent said...

Of course, your point about bin Laden and Hussein are well taken, but, as you are well aware, realities change quickly.

I would submit to you that it is an entirely different conversation that you would like to have about Reagan and his choice in supporting the Contras and my narrative about supporting of dictators.

To your challenge about 'naming one,' I say: (1.) Fidel Castro. Democrats have been celebrating him for years.

(2.) How else can Obama's desire to meet with Holocaust deniers be described as anything other than 'coddling dictators'?

(3.) How else could you possibly describe Jimmy Carter's globe trotting and support of Chavez and Hamas all these years as anything other than the 'coddling of dictators'?

(4.) John Kerry wanted to provide Iran with nuclear fuel. That's not 'coddling dictators'?

I understand the Saudi Arabia comment. But I'm sure you also understand that America, as a result of inaction by both major American political parties, is now a permanent captive to foreign sources of oil. As such, our leaders are forced to pay obeisance to the oil rich Arabs.

I proudly stand by my post. The modern era Democrats are terrorist sympathizers and nothing more.

7:27 PM  
Blogger Chris said...

The reality is no one did more to create Hussein and bin Laden than Ronald Reagan. Nowadays Republicans want to attack Clinton for not doing enough to stop both madmen. If Clinton had done what Reagan did, the neocons, led by George Bush, would call it treasonous.

I don't even know what you mean by me wanting to have a different conversation about Reagan. He most assuredly supported dictators. Saddam was a dictator and he had no better friend in the 80s than Reagan. Supporting contras is a different matter altogether with Reagan. I'm talking about supporting Hussein, the Sauds, Mubarak in Egypt, Pinochet, Marcos in the Philippines, they are all Reagan supported dictators. He cozied up to more dictators than any president in history.

1. I don't know of one Democrat who has celebrated Castro.

2. The Saudis are the biggest holocaust deniers in the world. That has not stopped George Bush and Dick Cheney from meeting with them one single time. They are business partners, close friends and George Bush ensures that the Saudi monarchy will not be overthrown. All the while huge amounts of Saudi oil money goes to Hamas and wahibist training camps. If there is anyone wanting to talk to terrorist supporters, holocaust deniers, and enemies of America it's George Bush.

3. see #2

4. Ronald Reagan provided Saddam Hussein with the chemical weapons that he used on his own people. Also, Reagan illegally sold Iran, the country the neocons want to invade next, with weapons in exchange for hostages. That's not coddling dictators?

"I understand the Saudi Arabia comment. But I'm sure you also understand that America, as a result of inaction by both major American political parties, is now a permanent captive to foreign sources of oil. As such, our leaders are forced to pay obeisance to the oil rich Arabs."

Our Leader, George W. Bush, makes millions of dollars from doing business with the Saudis. There isn't any one person more responsible for keeping America "captive" to Saudi oil than Bush. The Sauds in turn use the money we pay for our oil to fund Islamic terrorists all over the world, including the ones we fight in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Modern era Republicans are nothing more than hot air who want to rewrite history to fit their Fantasy World narrative.

There has been no political party in America that has coddled dictators and supported terrorists more than the GOP. There's no denying that.

8:58 PM  
Blogger Kent said...

I disagree with your assessment of Reagan re: Hussein and bin Laden. As I've stated previously, geo-political realities change.

You're not going to win many debates by playing Monday morning QB on Hussein and bin Laden. That won't fly. We supported Iraq against Iran and the mujahadeen against the Soviets.

Reagan wasn't an interventionist, per se. He protected American interests (Grenada) responded to terrorism (Gadaffi and Libya) and supported allies militarily (Great Britain in the Faulklands) but he wasn't pre-emptive. So to say that he coddled Mubarak, Pinochet and Marcos is a bit simplistic.

The fact that you chose this line of thinking is an even worse indictment on Clinton. He coddled Kim Jong Il, Arafat, and both Hussein and bin Laden while they were actively killing Americans.

Jimmy Carter has been, and continues to coddle terrorists. He oversaw the illegitimate elections of Hugo Chavez. He most recently met with Hamas, ignoring a request that he not do so by the Bush Administration.

Re: Bush and the long standing relationship with the Saudi Royal Family...I'm troubled by it also. But I also have no direct evidence that what you say is true. I suspect you don't either.

But to say that 'there isn't any one person more responsible for keeping America "captive" to Saudi oil than Bush,' is dumb.

America is "captive" to foreign sources of oil because of the vision-less leadership of both Democrats and Republicans. America is "captive" to foreign sources of oil because of rabid environmental policies that prohibit America from utilizing our own natural resources in places like Alaska, the coastlines and the Gulf of Mexico.

FDR coddled Hitler. And terrorists like Hamas are openly rooting (even manning phone banks) for Obama because they know he's going to be soft on terror.

Sorry, Dude. Your arguments don't pass muster. But I love you.

3:09 PM  
Blogger American Patriot said...

On this one I'm going to have to side with Chris. No one has coddled more dictators then the GOP and its just wishful thinking to say otherwise, actually it makes our side look pretty stupid when we deny historical events, but there is one very important detail that Chris is missing.

Chris is trying to have a moral debate, and perhaps the dems do have an advantage when you want to have a moral debate, but what they miss is that running a country is not about morality. It is about protecting the interests of that country and its citizens. Sorry, that's just the way it is. Sure, we've helped the Iraqis establish a democracy, but we got, or at least thought we were going to get, a lot of oil on the back end. If given the chance the dems will take this country to its doom on their high horse. No superpower has ever stayed that way by being moral. That's just something the libs are going to have to learn from history. Sure, we can speak out about human rights and stuff, but all that has to come after our national interests.

12:20 PM  
Blogger Chris said...

Kent, realities do indeed change. That doesn't change the fact that Reagan armed and supported both bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. You say Dems coddle terrorists, but then want to overlook Reagan's overwhelming responsibility for creating the two madmen that we fight today. There is no one more responsible for creating jihad than Ronald Reagan. That's not Monday morning quarterbacking. That's stating the obvious. Monday morning quarterbacking is saying that we should have done things differently. All I'm saying is that this is what Reagan did, and because of his actions we have the current world. I'm not suggesting running a different play, or using a different play book. I'm saying this is the play Reagan ran and this is the result. That's not Monday morning quarterbacking in the least. You're wanting to overlook it altogether, however.

Then for some reason, not arming and supporting jong il, bin Laden or Hussein, like Clinton did, is coddling terrorists. Your line of thinking amazes me. Apparently it's okay to arm and fund terrorists but not arming and funding them equals "coddling." I suppose the only thing that can possibly support that reasoning is to say that when Reagan was busy arming and funding terrorists they were our terrorists. But now that they are no longer our terrorists and using the weapons Reagan gave them to kill Americans it's coddling.

FDR coddled Hitler? That must be a joke. Reagan armed, funded and supported bin Laden, Hussein, Pinochet, Marcos, Mubarak and so many other illegal rulers and dictators-- not mentioning the contras-- and you say that's too simplistic to call coddling. Yet FDR never did anything close to the likes of Reagan and FDR is a coddler.

No direct evidence that Bush and the Saudis are pals, and that Bush and his family profit off of their business relationship with the Sauds. Really?

Try here, here, here and here.

Kent, I love you too man, but you can do much better than this.

9:16 AM  
Blogger Chris said...

AP, how am I trying to have a moral argument? I'm not sure I follow that at all. I would be interested in hearing when morality enters my replies. Also, Iraq is not a democracy. It's not even close. A foreign occupied country cannot by definition be a democracy.

9:19 AM  
Blogger Kent said...

FDR was slow to react to the threat of Hitler and as a result not taking action, in my mind, isn't much different than coddling.

FDR also had a bunch of Hitler sympathizers working for him, most notably Ambassador Joe Kennedy.

The person responsible for 'creating Jihad' as you put it is none other than Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, and the worst President in American history.

We'll agree to disagree about Reagan. Arming Hussein against Iran and bin Laden against the Soviets turned out the way it turned out.

We'll also agree to disagree about Iraq not being 'a democracy.' You're overlooking several democratically held elections.

I'm doing some games this week. Wednesday night the Cards, Thursday the Reds. Too bad the Pads suck.

5:36 PM  
Blogger Chris said...

I'm watching the Cards right now at SD. I love baseball!

FDR was slow to react so he's a coddler but arming and funding dictators and terrorists is too simplistic. Wow!

Reagan had a bunch of Hussein sympathizers working for him. Most notably Donald Rumsfeld.

Sorry, again, but bin Laden's jihad was created by Ronald Reagan. Read it here.

Elections are not democracy. In fact elections have nothing to do with democracy. The Soviet Union held elections all the time and I don't think you would dare call it a democracy.

7:37 PM  
Blogger Kent said...

For whatever reason I can't access these links. I click on them, nothing happens.

Re: Reagan's jihad, read "The Looming Tower" by Lawrence Wright. The Arabs were turned into fundamental lunatics after the fall of the Shah of Iran.

Carter's fecklessness brought the world into the modern era of terrorism.

10:50 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Copyright 2004-2013, RightFromLeft.blogspot.com. All Rights Reserved. All materials contained on this site are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without prior written permission. 0