…. and where they’ll stop, nobody knows.
Earlier today, I touched on the emerging controversy surrounding comments Bush made in a speech to members of the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel’s statehood. As the story has gotten more play in the mainstream media, the leftosphere has erupted in a full blown outrage reminiscent of what one would see at a super-sized KinderCare center. As usual, many of them – along with Barry O. himself – are either being willfully ignorant or painfully stupid, all the while denying Obama said what he did about “unconditional talks” with the likes of Iran and North Korea, and hypocritically going off on the fact that Bush made the remarks while on foreign soil. I’ll get to that more in a minute, but first, let’s take a look at the remarks in question from the speech:
There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain their words away. 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.
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 â€“ the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.
In the CNN story I linked to this morning, WH aides supposedly “confirmed” that Bush was referring to Obama and other Democrats, but it’s also being reported that the WH is “denying” any specific Democrat was targeted in the speech.
First things first: I think the fact that Obama and other Democrats jumped on Bush’s comments when he didn’t single anyone or any group by name speaks volumes about how defensive they are about their positions – positions which are exactly as Bush described them. Hey, if I supported unconditional talks with sworn enemies of the United States, I’d be defensive too if someone suggested I wanted to appease those enemies. The truth hurts sometimes, and today the far left are once again displaying just how allergic to truth they really are.
The prime example of the allergic reactions we’ve seen today comes from Barack Obama himself:
“It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 6Oth anniversary of Israel’s independence to launch a false political attack. 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. Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power — including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy – to pressure countries like Iran and Syria. 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.”
Why does Obama call it a “false political attack”? Well, because it’s true, of course. Next thing you know, he’ll be calling it a “distraction.” Just a few days ago, Obama’s spinmeisters, including his coddlers at the NYT, tried to rewrite history by suggesting he never stated he’d never hold meetings with the world’s most notorious despots unconditionally. This in spite of the fact that his own website says otherwise:
Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.
From a CNN debate last July:
In Monday’s debate from Charleston, S.C., Obama was asked by a questioner via YouTube if he would be willing to meet—without precondition—in the first year of his presidency with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea.
“I would,” he responded.
Here’s the video:
But the President’s suggestion that it’s appeasement for “some” (meaning Obama and other Democrats who agree with him) to believe that direct negotiations with the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will resolve threats to the homeland was a “false political attack.” Just like McCain’s truthful statement about Hamas endorsing Obama was an indication that McCain was “losing his bearings.”
Another line of attack being waged against the President over what he said is that he made the comments while on foreign soil. Senator Joe Biden called Bush’s remarks “bullsh*t.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had this to say when asked about Bush’s remarks:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that Bush’s remarks were “beneath the dignity of the office of the president and unworthy of our representation” at the celebration of Israel’s 60th anniversary.
Referring to Sen. John McCain, Pelosi said: “I would hope that any serious person that aspires to lead the country, would disassociate themselves from those comments.”
House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel weighed in, too:
“The tradition has always been that when a U.S. president is overseas, partisan politics stops at the water’s edge. President Bush has now taken that principle and turned it on its head: for this White House, partisan politics now begins at the water’s edge, no matter the seriousness and gravity of the occasion. Does the president have no shame?”
Rick Moran has, I think, the definitive response to all the “baseless attack on foreign soil” whiners:
And I wonder if Willy Boy’s outrage extends to calling to account ex-presidents or ex-vice presidents who regularly go on foreign soil and all but call the president of the United States a traitor. Where the f**k are you people when those two characters pop up in Switzerland, or Saudi Arabia, or Great Britain and make the most personal, hurtful, politically motivated attacks on Bush?
Spare me your fake outrage. When you come around to criticizing Carter and Gore for the swipes in foreign countries they’ve taken at Bush then you may have earned yourself a measure of standing to hurl your infantile charges at Bush.
And it isn’t just Gore and Carter who have routinely dissed Bush either by name or strong implication and worked against US interests while standing on foreign soil. How about Baghdad Jim McDermott, who criticized Bush on Iraqi soil – on Saddam’s dime? Or Senator Jay Rockefeller, who openly admitted in late 2005 that he met with Iraq’s ally Syria, among other Middle Eastern countries, in January of 2002 to notify them that he believed the President had made up his mind to go to war with Iraq? Or Democrat party chair Howard Dean, who stated last March:
Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean has been meeting with world leaders to repair “the extraordinary damage” that the Bush administration has done to America’s image and to prepare the way for a new Democratic president.
“I am trying to build relationships with other governments in preparation for a Democratic takeover” Dean told me. “I want to make clear that there is an opposition in America and that we are ready to take power and that when we do, we are going to have much better relationships with them.”
That was a stunt that Democrat nominee for president John Kerry pulled, too, in 2004.
There are countless other examples of this type of routine stabbing in the back on foreign soil being done by prominent Democrats, all done “officially” in the name of “restoring America’s good name in the world” but unofficially it’s being done to directly undermine the President’s foreign policy agenda.
Where the hell was the outrage over all that from the same people who are b*tching now about the President speaking the truth in front of a crowd of people who know all too well the brutal consequences of western leaders trying to “talk” maniacal despots out of going through with their plans to use weapons of mass destruction and/or military force to bend people to their will?
Oh, and as far as Obama’s repeated arguments that “other presidents” like JFK and FDR have met with our enemies before in order to avoid conflict, dude, please – learn some history.
I don’t know what’s worse: The mediots being completely in the tank for this guy, the fact that nearly half the electorate has been hoodwinked by his charm and engaging style, or that the man himself is either a) willfully ignorant of the truth and along with that routinely and intentionally tries to mislead the American people about 75% of the time he is speaking, or b) really doesn’t know any better when he opens his mouth.
Once upon a time I’d have selected “b” – but knowing what we know now about Barack Obama, and how he’ll say anything in order to win over the hearts and minds of the American electorate, I have no hesitation in selecting “a.” He can’t possibly be that dense to not know that so much of what he says on the campaign trail is either a gross misrepresentation of the truth or a flat out lie. Rather, he just counts on many of his supporters being stuck on stupid. And so far on that front, unfortunately, he’s been right on the money.