Sen. Barack Obama rips President George W. Bush and Sen. John McCain for "divisive" attacks in hinting that he would appease terrorists.
Obama : Bush Attack Appalling
- Thread starter MASTERBAKER
- Start date
lol@noone commenting on my thread..
spctantric
Banned
Obama Strikes Back at Bush on Diplomacy
By Matthew Mosk
WATERTOWN, S.D., May 16 -- Sen. Barack Obama pushed back Friday against President Bush's implicit criticism of his approach to foreign policy, condemning his administration for not capturing Osama bin Laden and blaming its Iraq war policy for strengthening and emboldening Iran.
An animated Obama, cheered on by a crowd gathered on the floor of a livestock arena, said he would be delighted if the presidential race turned into a conversation about which party is better suited to guide the nation's foreign policy.
"If George Bush and John McCain want to have a debate about protecting the United States of America, that is a debate that I'm happy to have anytime, anyplace, and that is a debate I will win because George Bush and John McCain have a lot to answer for," the Democratic front-runner said.
<a href="http://strategicposture.blogspot.com/2008/05/obama-strikes-back-at-bush-on-diplomacy.html">Full Article</a>
By Matthew Mosk
WATERTOWN, S.D., May 16 -- Sen. Barack Obama pushed back Friday against President Bush's implicit criticism of his approach to foreign policy, condemning his administration for not capturing Osama bin Laden and blaming its Iraq war policy for strengthening and emboldening Iran.
An animated Obama, cheered on by a crowd gathered on the floor of a livestock arena, said he would be delighted if the presidential race turned into a conversation about which party is better suited to guide the nation's foreign policy.
"If George Bush and John McCain want to have a debate about protecting the United States of America, that is a debate that I'm happy to have anytime, anyplace, and that is a debate I will win because George Bush and John McCain have a lot to answer for," the Democratic front-runner said.
<a href="http://strategicposture.blogspot.com/2008/05/obama-strikes-back-at-bush-on-diplomacy.html">Full Article</a>
spctantric
Banned
Re: Obama Strikes Back at Bush on Diplomacy
I dont think Bush was even talkin about Obama, but any time Obama has a chance to tie McCain to GW Bush, he is going to do it. Smart move if you ask me. If Americans agree with anything its that GW is a failed president, making McCain look like more Bush is thus a winning strategy.
I dont think Bush was even talkin about Obama, but any time Obama has a chance to tie McCain to GW Bush, he is going to do it. Smart move if you ask me. If Americans agree with anything its that GW is a failed president, making McCain look like more Bush is thus a winning strategy.
Re: Obama Strikes Back at Bush on Diplomacy
Bush said Obama's name. You cant get more obvious then that.
Bush said Obama's name. You cant get more obvious then that.
Yep and BUSH did the opposite with IRAQ and look at the USA now.
Re: Obama Strikes Back at Bush on Diplomacy
I don't think there's a chance in hell that Bush wasn't referring to Obama.
In fact, I hope Bush doesn't-but-does refer to Obama a lot more. There
is very little of Bush's foreign policy that hasn't been seen or can't be viewed
as a failure, in one way or another. Frankly, since Obama's campaign is
riding heavly on Bush's failures, I think we're going to see more of Bush
making accusatory statements at Barack as he (Bush) attempts to defend
what he views is his legacy.
QueEx
I don't think there's a chance in hell that Bush wasn't referring to Obama.
In fact, I hope Bush doesn't-but-does refer to Obama a lot more. There
is very little of Bush's foreign policy that hasn't been seen or can't be viewed
as a failure, in one way or another. Frankly, since Obama's campaign is
riding heavly on Bush's failures, I think we're going to see more of Bush
making accusatory statements at Barack as he (Bush) attempts to defend
what he views is his legacy.
QueEx
Re: Obama Strikes Back at Bush on Diplomacy
More importantly, did you see McCain piggy back off of what Bush said? It was planned and intentional. I just need Obama to ride this point hard from here on out.
He was talking about O and I am glad. This gives O the perfect chance to pivot out of primary to general debate topics and leave Hillary in the dust.
More importantly, did you see McCain piggy back off of what Bush said? It was planned and intentional. I just need Obama to ride this point hard from here on out.
I swore Bush didn't even say the man's name.
I repeat Bush didn't outright say "obama wants to a nazi appleaser". Actually, the remark was towards Mr. Jimmy Carter of all people. This is a mistake by the Obama campaign. Obama should of took the stance of "hell he wasn't talking to me". His fight is with Mccain/Hillary, not President Bush...
I repeat Bush didn't outright say "obama wants to a nazi appleaser". Actually, the remark was towards Mr. Jimmy Carter of all people. This is a mistake by the Obama campaign. Obama should of took the stance of "hell he wasn't talking to me". His fight is with Mccain/Hillary, not President Bush...
He didn't ??? LOL. He might as well had.
It is well known that Bush will say some of the dumbest shit. Dumbest! Whether Bush likes it or not, every time he opens his dumb assed mouth he's going to give Mr. Obama an opportunity to tie his dumb ass words around his neck and around McCain's neck. Everytime McCain tries to avoid those words or distinguishes himself from Mr. Bush, he's going to look like he's avoiding the party's conservative base.
Please, please; let the man talk! LOL
QueEx
Even dumb@$$ Kevin James knew Bush was talking about Obama...
Where u been?
HA!!!
again.... did bush say OBAMA?
Everyone can speculate anything.
McCain's campaign and the GOP made it very clear Obama was the target of that Bush tirade.
WERD.
Even McCain piggy backed off that BS on the "Straight Crack" Express. This was, as most things with Bush, poorly executed and open to massive scutiny...
look, until Bush openly say what Obama thinks he said about him, I see no reason for him to attack Bush. This wasn't a good attack on Obama's part.
OH yea, the truth is, this makes Obama look like a weaker candidate than Hilary.
He is getting mad at NOTHING. Its all speculation....
<font size="5"><center>Obama: Bush, McCain Should 'Explain
Why They Have a Problem With JFK</font size></center>
May 17, 2008 5:53 PM
ABC News Sunlen Miller reports:
Sen. Barack Obama went one step further today in his pushback against presumptive GOP presidential nominee Sen. John McCain and President Bush on appeasement, suggesting that both Republicans have a problem with presidents past who have engaged in direct diplomacy.
"If George Bush and John McCain have a problem with direct diplomacy, led by the president of the United States, then they can explain why they have a problem with John F. Kennedy because that's what he did with [Soviet leader Nikita] Khrushchev, or Ronald Reagan, 'cause that's what he did with [Soviet leader Mikhail] Gorbachev, or Richard Nixon 'cause that's what they did with [Chinese leader Mao Tse-tung]," Obama said in Roseburg, Ore. "That’s exactly the kind of diplomacy we need to keep us safe."
Obama called the dust-up "appealing," after Bush said in Israel at the Knesset that it was a mistake to talk about diplomacy with "terrorists and radicals."
"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. "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."
Obama also blasted McCain's healthcare proposals during a town-hall meeting.
"Essentially his plan is we’re gonna dismantle the employer-based system and give everybody a tax break and then see if you can fend for yourself in the marketplace," Obama told the crowd. "He wants to give you the failed Bush health-care polices for another four years."
Obama has been increasing the frequency of his criticisms of McCain, pointing out the contrasts in their views on national security, the economy, the rural agenda, and now health care.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/05/obama-bush-mcca.html
Why They Have a Problem With JFK</font size></center>
May 17, 2008 5:53 PM
ABC News Sunlen Miller reports:
Sen. Barack Obama went one step further today in his pushback against presumptive GOP presidential nominee Sen. John McCain and President Bush on appeasement, suggesting that both Republicans have a problem with presidents past who have engaged in direct diplomacy.
"If George Bush and John McCain have a problem with direct diplomacy, led by the president of the United States, then they can explain why they have a problem with John F. Kennedy because that's what he did with [Soviet leader Nikita] Khrushchev, or Ronald Reagan, 'cause that's what he did with [Soviet leader Mikhail] Gorbachev, or Richard Nixon 'cause that's what they did with [Chinese leader Mao Tse-tung]," Obama said in Roseburg, Ore. "That’s exactly the kind of diplomacy we need to keep us safe."
Obama called the dust-up "appealing," after Bush said in Israel at the Knesset that it was a mistake to talk about diplomacy with "terrorists and radicals."
"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. "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."
Obama also blasted McCain's healthcare proposals during a town-hall meeting.
"Essentially his plan is we’re gonna dismantle the employer-based system and give everybody a tax break and then see if you can fend for yourself in the marketplace," Obama told the crowd. "He wants to give you the failed Bush health-care polices for another four years."
Obama has been increasing the frequency of his criticisms of McCain, pointing out the contrasts in their views on national security, the economy, the rural agenda, and now health care.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/05/obama-bush-mcca.html
again I asked, did Bush mention Obama in ANY way?
Disagree. Anytime Bush says something and you get McCain cosigning it, you've won. Anytime Obama can continue to show the links between Bush and McCain and that McCain is just another term for Bush... he's won. The only thing McCain has is the "illusion" that he is still a "maverick". Once Obama sheds him of that, he has nothing left....connecting him with Bush kills McCain's image will expose him for the fraud that he is....the shadow of his former self who folded on all his convictions in order to get the nomination.
Obama keeps at his Bush bashing and don't expect Bush to take shots at him. Crying fowl when Bush does.
No. Obama actually invites a serve from Bush; then returns with the viciousness during the volley; and dares McCain to touch Bush's racket.
Whether, as some say, Bush didn't call Obama out at all; or, as you say, Obama's bashing, the strategy at this point appears to be thus: get Bush to make a comment, any comment, they hammer a nail into his coffin and dare McCain to try to pull them out. If he does, make him defend the indefensible, Bush policy.
Since Barack turned his back to Hillary and his face to Bush-McCain, the general public and political pundits alike have not been giving a shit what Rev. Wright, Hillary or Bill is saying. I don't know how well Barack will do in the end, but in the opening salvo, the concensus seems to be Barack won, hence, the strategy right now is successful.
QueEx
This is actually will hurt Obama in the long term. Here's two examples.
1. You cannot argue the fact that this country is has been safer since 9-11. No matter if you believe 9-11 is real, or not. The Iraq war served its purpose as being a decoy on the War on Terror. No one can argue this with a logical argument.
2. Fighting Bush tends to be fruitless. Remember 2004, Kerry fought Bush on foreign policy tooth, and nail. Bush won. You can say that they cheated, or whatever. The bottom line is, President Bush won most of the Mexican vote, and got a good percentage of the Black vote. *reason why they are pushing Obama so hard* Most of this came from people choosing the better of 2 evils.
For the record, Bush and associates ignored credible sources, and proceeded with the planned attack on Iraq, to gain oil. That shit backfired. Look at Iraq and Afganistan, the United States is fucked, because the powers from within defrauded the voting system. As a result we now live and try to survive in a mangled country, on crutches, keeping faith in its legacy, land of the free, home of the brave. U.S.A. is dead in the water and needs change, folks, we need some change....
Do you actually believe that this country is that bad off? What happen to having faith in the American people?
It doesn't matter who is president, if we do not have faith in ourselves, or even someone higher, we will not succeed.
Bush, as usual, was "told", that this would appear to be clever and this would be a boon for the republican party - instead he got his @$$ handed to him again. If this ill-advised, idiotic and historically-erroneous analogy had been received then he would be waiting to receive his "Mission Accomplished" pat on the back as usual. It didn't work now he wants to back track and all the republican sheep are in lockstep denial. Typical.
The 1:14 mark should, but won't, be of interest to your denial - I mean - argument.
[FLASH]http://www.youtube.com/v/bjIfeNEk1gU&hl=en[/FLASH]
Do you really beleive it doesn't matter who is president? That is the dumbest shit I've ever heard. Do you know how many countries are fucked up because the leader/president made stupid decisions? It don't matter what the people believe if the president is making the decisions. The people voice their opinions during elections and that's why it's improtant that we're informed so we can make the right decision. Unfortunately, like in 2000,somtimes both choices are shit and so this two party system is flawed. Why should people be limited to choosing the lesser of two evils? Even if we have faith in ourselves we cannot achieve with a leader that does things in the interest of the ruling minority. It's time for a president who acts in the interest of the people, ALL THE PEOPLE DESPITE THEIR RACE, GENDER, OR CLASS.
Last edited:
First off, you give OUR president too much power. In our government, we have checks and balances at every turn. If a president was truly doing what you are saying IN THIS COUNTRY, he will get impeach. History has proved this to be right.
Secondly, the two party system is the best form of government right now. We could have a one party system, and basically have no change whatsoever.
Finally, you sound very defeated when it comes to faith. I think if you realize that everyone isn't going to do what you want them to do, you would have a better chance understanding that things come and go. Its sad to see people who lost faith in themselves.
Bush, as usual, was "told", that this would appear to be clever and this would be a boon for the republican party - instead he got his @$$ handed to him again. If this ill-advised, idiotic and historically-erroneous analogy had been received then he would be waiting to receive his "Mission Accomplished" pat on the back as usual. It didn't work now he wants to back track and all the republican sheep are in lockstep denial. Typical.
The 1:14 mark should, but won't, be of interest to your denial - I mean - argument.
[FLASH]http://www.youtube.com/v/bjIfeNEk1gU&hl=en[/FLASH]
So its official, democrats are extra sensitive these days...
What exactly do you mean by the term "safer" ???
Do you mean:
We are less likely since 2001 to have a major terrorist strike against the U.S. than before 2001 ???
Do you mean people feel more confident that there will NOT be a major terrorist attack against the U.S. since 2001 than before 2001 ???
Do you mean that since a major terrorist attack has NOT occurred in the U.S. since 2001, that such is proof that we are less likely to be attacked since 2001 than we were before 2001 ???
Please explain what you mean by "safer". Do you mean people feel more confident that there will NOT be a major terrorist attack against the U.S. since 2001 than before 2001 ???
Do you mean that since a major terrorist attack has NOT occurred in the U.S. since 2001, that such is proof that we are less likely to be attacked since 2001 than we were before 2001 ???
Before you explain, have you ever heard of the fallacy of "Cause and Effect" ??? If so, can you please tell me what, if anything, that might have to do with your "safer" supposition above.
I have lots to say about this supposition, but I will wait until you've dealt with the one above, first.
QueEx
Similar threads
