Barack Obama and other reality-challenged Democrats sail down Denial River

Posted by: ST on May 15, 2008 at 7:56 pm

…. 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 – the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

Video here:

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.”

Uh huh.

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.”

Thankfully, he didn’t. Nor did Senator Joe Lieberman, about the only thinking Democrat left in the Senate.

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.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Trackbacks

  • Wizbang trackbacked with More Distortion from the Left...
  • 11 Responses to “Barack Obama and other reality-challenged Democrats sail down Denial River”

    Comments

    1. teqjack says:

      eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran

      How courageous of him to criticise ex-Pres Clinton. Although he could have added more for Carter, but why go back that far?

    2. Mwalimu Daudi says:

      This is the moment of truth for Republicans. If they retreat in the face of the phony outrage by Democrats they deserve to lose. Stop appeasing Democrats!

    3. Severian says:

      Man, the more I see Snobama in action, the more I think that if he gets elected we are going to long for someone with the backbone and strength of Jimmy Carter. :((

    4. NC Cop says:

      Nowhere in the Presidents speech did I see “Democrats” or “Obama”. I think the fact that they automatically assumed he was talking about them speaks volumes.

      Me thinks thou dost protest too much.

      Biden says it’s “Bulls**t”, but then Pelosi speaks of the comments being “beneath the dignity of the office of the president and unworthy of our representation”.
      I’ve never seen such immature, childish, and ignorant behavior on the part of politicians.

      The dems have taken a turn into loonyland and have set up permanent residence.

    5. T-Steel says:

      Personally the Dems and Repubs are squarely in Loonyland via the Crazy Express. Bush appeases Saudi Arabia (where we all know the 9/11 attackers come from and THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INVESTIGATED MORE). Senator Obama wants to meet with dictators/terrorist leaders without pre-conditions (just a poor statement). Biden gettin’ his “bullshit” working. Hannity becoming the right arm of the National Enquirer. Air America full of airheads. So on and so forth.

      I’m just so sick of the Donkey and Elephant…

    6. sanity says:

      This reminds me so much of Obama and the Democrats….

      You walked into the party
      Like you were walking onto a yacht
      Your hat strategically dipped below one eye
      Your scarf it was apricot
      You had one eye in the mirror
      As you watched yourself gavotte
      And all the girls dreamed that they’d be your partner
      They’d be your partner, and

      You’re so vain
      You probably think this song is about you
      You’re so vain
      I’ll bet you think this song is about you
      Don’t you? Don’t you?

      You had me several years ago
      When I was still quite naive
      Well, you said that we made such a pretty pair
      And that you would never leave
      But you gave away the things you loved
      And one of them was me
      I had some dreams they were clouds in my coffee
      Clouds in my coffee, and

      You’re so vain
      You probably think this song is about you
      You’re so vain
      I’ll bet you think this song is about you
      Don’t you? Don’t you?

      I had some dreams they were clouds in my coffee
      Clouds in my coffee, and

      You’re so vain
      You probably think this song is about you
      You’re so vain
      I’ll bet you think this song is about you
      Don’t you? Don’t you?

      Well, I hear you went up to Saratoga
      And your horse naturally won
      Then you flew your Lear jet up to Nova Scotia
      To see the total eclipse of the sun
      Well, you’re where you should be all the time
      And when you’re not, you’re with
      Some underworld spy or the wife of a close friend
      Wife of a close friend, and

      You’re so vain
      You probably think this song is about you
      You’re so vain
      I’ll bet you think this song is about you
      Don’t you? Don’t you? Don’t you?

      You’re So Vain – Carly Simon

      Obama, you’re so vain,
      I bet you think this speech is about you….
      Don’t you? Don’t you? Don’t you?

    7. Lorie Byrd says:

      Amen S.T. Excellent job pulling all this info into one “must read post.”

    8. Leslie says:

      I think the key word in all these discussions is the term “unconditional talks.” The problem isn’t the decision to engage in talks; it’s not knowing when to walk away when they’re not going anyplace. But that serves no useful purpose, so the trick is to find out what can be achieved before the talks actually begin.

      In order to do diplomacy right, you send lower level people out to lay the groundwork and find out what is possible and what can be achieved when the alpha dogs finally meet. I.e., the lower level people engage in conditional talks first, to see what can be accomplished–if anything. And if nothing can, then flick the cigar and say “hello–I must be going!” and abandon the discussions.

      So: If the lower level folks report back that Iran will engage in talks if the U.S. agrees that Israel should be driven into the sea (which is probable), then of course no talks should take place.

      This isn’t rocket science, people.

      :-?

    9. Tango says:

      …am I the only one here who (upon hearing Dubya’s remarks) -considered he was speaking to the Israelis? You know – the ones who’ve consistently supported a strategy of negotiating with terrorists (and) so-called “land for peace” deals which have gained them nothing? Other than continued bombings and rocket attacks upon their civilian populace, I mean? :-?