Biden says Bush's comments are "bull#$%@"

Can someone explain to me why the subject that president Bush commented on while in Israel is inappropriate?  It seems like a perfectly valid point to debate.  Pelosi's comments on the matter are the best considering the language her colleague Biden made...which I would say are decidedly unbecoming of a Senator, but I digress.

http://voanews.com/english/2008-05-15-voa28.cfm 

I wouldn't say that it was inappropriate, ignorant, unsupported and passive aggressive come to mind but not inappropriate.  

What I mean by that is that he is clearly talking about Obama, so why doesn't he come out and say that?  Instead he hides behind pronouns and something Owen hates and that's "them"  statements.  Who are they?  That way we can take "their" actual statements versus biased paraphrased statements made by a man on his way out the door and analyze them objectively. 

Sure he's talking about Obama.  Obama wants to "negotiate" with Iran.  He's also talking about Pelosi who "negotiated with Syria" to "free some hostages" a while back.  He's talking about Carter who likes to kick it with Hamas.  He's talking to any number of stupid people and he's right.  They're convinced they'll come up with some "ingenious" dialogue that will make these bloodthirsty animals realize they've been wrong all along.  Its stupidity and its weak.  It sends mixed messages and emboldens our enemies.

Now these same people are "outraged".  Big freakin' deal. 

I guess we could talk tough and threaten everyone that doesn't like us?  Does that work in your personal or professional life?  

Bush has proven that violence only causes more violence and only strengthens terrorists recruiting, and you know for a fact that even if we killed them all more would resurface elsewhere and we could maintain this vicious circle.

So you know for a fact that sitting down with Iran wouldn't work?  That's quite to projection, I'm not saying it will but for you to be so certain it would not do any good is pretty bold.  You should be McCain's running mate seeing has he is also pretty good at making predictions.  

Thank god Reagan never talked to Gorba-chump.

 He did!

http://www.ufodigest.com/news/1206/gorbachev.html

Why is it that "real" threats like China, the USSR etc...get the hand of diplomacy?  Could it be that it's because they are a real threat?

GW also negotiated with Libya and North Korea.  Libya, a known sponsor of terror struck a deal with George and the United States.

This is my main problem with his statements, plus you know how everyone on this board hates Hitler references.

Oh, I TOTALLY agree that they were unbecoming of a senator.  He should have been more of a statesman, like our humble and principled vice president.  Have you forgotten about the time he told a colleague to "go f*** [him]self" on the senate floor?

Since he's a Republican, I suppose he gets a free pass, though. 

I'm really not a fan of any of these doubletalking hacks we call politicians, but when I hear one of them talk publicly the way that I would, it at least makes them seem a little bit more human!

 Cheney seems more human to GRocky now.

Speaking of Cheney, wasn't it Dick that lobbied congress in 1996 to ease sanctions on Iran while he was the CEO of Halliburton?

I thought it was hilarious when Cheney told that senator to f*** off.  I just think it's silly for us musician types to feign offense over a guy calling Chimpy McBush's thinly veiled political chicanery what it was.  Everybody cusses.  Deal with it!

 "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... 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."

He could be talking about anyone who believes that we should try talks and negotiations with terrorists.  And frankly, I agree with his statement. 

I love spokesperson Perino's response to Obama's pissed-off-ed-ness.

"I understand that when you are running for office sometimes you think the world revolves around you. That is not always true and it is not true in this case."

GRocky:

I just think it's silly for us musician types to feign offense over a guy calling Chimpy McBush's thinly veiled political chicanery what it was.  Everybody cusses.  Deal with it!

Yeah but the only ones feigning offense in this scenario is the Obama camp.

O-O-OhOhOh:

 "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... 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."

He could be talking about anyone who believes that we should try talks and negotiations with terrorists.  And frankly, I agree with his statement. 

I love spokesperson Perino's response to Obama's pissed-off-ed-ness.

"I understand that when you are running for office sometimes you think the world revolves around you. That is not always true and it is not true in this case."

Then who are these "some"? Why then are they that important to bring up at this Juncture?  There are "some" that belive we should turn the Middle East into glass, AKA Nuke the hell out of the area.  There are "some" that believe lots of things,  Who are these "some"?  Isn't that one of your favorite question Owen?

You may agree with him too bad his actions don't. 

Not only is he being a hypocrite but he also playing the Hitler Card in Israel...when there is little in comparisson between these two mutually exclusive times in history.  

Toodles:

O-O-OhOhOh:

"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... 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."

He could be talking about anyone who believes that we should try talks and negotiations with terrorists.  And frankly, I agree with his statement. 

I love spokesperson Perino's response to Obama's pissed-off-ed-ness.

"I understand that when you are running for office sometimes you think the world revolves around you. That is not always true and it is not true in this case."

 

Then who are these "some"? Why then are they that important to bring up at this Juncture?  There are "some" that belive we should turn the Middle East into glass, AKA Nuke the hell out of the area.  There are "some" that believe lots of things,  Who are these "some"?  Isn't that one of your favorite question Owen?

You may agree with him too bad his actions don't. 

Not only is he being a hypocrite but he also playing the Hitler Card in Israel...when there is little in comparisson between these two mutually exclusive times in history.  

From the same ABC article:

"Did we know this could be construed as being about Obama? Yes, of course," a White House source told ABC News. "But was this about just Obama? No, it was about Pelosi, Carter, Biden, Obama, etc. When the line went in the speech, we made sure that it was the same as everything (Bush) has said in the past. This was not about just Obama."

Question answered.

"Mutually exclusive times?"  My lord, do you even know what that phrase means?  To suggest that there is no legitimate comparison between Naziism and Islamo-Fascism is the height of ignorance.

And for the record, my favorite question is: "Why is a duck?"

We should have the Kobra Kai run our country and we wouldn't have this problem!

O-O-OhOhOh:

Toodles:

O-O-OhOhOh:

"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... 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."

He could be talking about anyone who believes that we should try talks and negotiations with terrorists.  And frankly, I agree with his statement. 

I love spokesperson Perino's response to Obama's pissed-off-ed-ness.

"I understand that when you are running for office sometimes you think the world revolves around you. That is not always true and it is not true in this case."

 

Then who are these "some"? Why then are they that important to bring up at this Juncture?  There are "some" that belive we should turn the Middle East into glass, AKA Nuke the hell out of the area.  There are "some" that believe lots of things,  Who are these "some"?  Isn't that one of your favorite question Owen?

You may agree with him too bad his actions don't. 

Not only is he being a hypocrite but he also playing the Hitler Card in Israel...when there is little in comparisson between these two mutually exclusive times in history.  

 

From the same ABC article:

"Did we know this could be construed as being about Obama? Yes, of course," a White House source told ABC News. "But was this about just Obama? No, it was about Pelosi, Carter, Biden, Obama, etc. When the line went in the speech, we made sure that it was the same as everything (Bush) has said in the past. This was not about just Obama."

Question answered.

So it was about Obama?  I feel that way too so do a lot of other Americans but only one is seeking election into Georges office. 

"Mutually exclusive times?"  My lord, do you even know what that phrase means?  I know exactly what it means and you are right I did use it incorrectly but that mishap does't argue the fact that these are two seperate and different times in history and to use one to casue fear of another is what is ignorant.

To suggest that there is no legitimate comparison between Naziism and Islamo-Fascism is the height of ignorance.  Of course there is, Nazism also has similarities to many different movements but it is the differences that matter.  We are occupying a country by force right now and rounding up those we see as threats to our way of life and putting them into camps.  See, certain things are similar.

And for the record, my favorite question is: "Why is a duck?"  My bad

So, about the hypocrite that currently calls himselve President. 

Just read Obama's reaction to the comments about him and others that feel tough diplomacy is better avenue at this time than violence.

I think it was a mature and level headed response. 

Something a President might say.

G.G.:

 He did!

http://www.ufodigest.com/news/1206/gorbachev.html

Hilarious

Todd o the Mornin':

O-O-OhOhOh:

Toodles:

O-O-OhOhOh:

"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... 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."

He could be talking about anyone who believes that we should try talks and negotiations with terrorists.  And frankly, I agree with his statement. 

I love spokesperson Perino's response to Obama's pissed-off-ed-ness.

"I understand that when you are running for office sometimes you think the world revolves around you. That is not always true and it is not true in this case."

 

Then who are these "some"? Why then are they that important to bring up at this Juncture?  There are "some" that belive we should turn the Middle East into glass, AKA Nuke the hell out of the area.  There are "some" that believe lots of things,  Who are these "some"?  Isn't that one of your favorite question Owen?

You may agree with him too bad his actions don't. 

Not only is he being a hypocrite but he also playing the Hitler Card in Israel...when there is little in comparisson between these two mutually exclusive times in history.  

 

From the same ABC article:

"Did we know this could be construed as being about Obama? Yes, of course," a White House source told ABC News. "But was this about just Obama? No, it was about Pelosi, Carter, Biden, Obama, etc. When the line went in the speech, we made sure that it was the same as everything (Bush) has said in the past. This was not about just Obama."

Question answered.

So it was about Obama?  I feel that way too so do a lot of other Americans but only one is seeking election into Georges office. 

"Mutually exclusive times?"  My lord, do you even know what that phrase means?  I know exactly what it means and you are right I did use it incorrectly but that mishap does't argue the fact that these are two seperate and different times in history and to use one to casue fear of another is what is ignorant.

To suggest that there is no legitimate comparison between Naziism and Islamo-Fascism is the height of ignorance.  Of course there is, Nazism also has similarities to many different movements but it is the differences that matter.  We are occupying a country by force right now and rounding up those we see as threats to our way of life and putting them into camps.  See, certain things are similar.

And for the record, my favorite question is: "Why is a duck?"  My bad

So, about the hypocrite that currently calls himselve President. 

 

 

Himselve? 

Anyway, pointing out that 1939-1949 and 1998-2008 are different times is like saying blue and yellow are two different colors.  NO SHIT.

Connect the dots, Todd.  The issue is whether or not traditional diplomacy could be effectively employed against a violent, fascistic movement hell-bent on genocide (incidentally of the same people). 

History shows that this is extraordinarily unlikely.  One can make attempts, which happens ALL the time, but most of these "accords" or "truces" fail shortly after they began.  if I'm not mistaken, that's what we're talking about here.

Make sense?