digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Obama Responds To McBush Appeasement Attack

huffingtonpost.com — *****

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • DocOctavius, on 05/16/2008, -10/+70Whoa buddy- learn to use periods. Plus, you don't know what you're talking about.
    • Tickitata, on 05/16/2008, -17/+2now it just looks like you're attacking BObama... and still maintaining a positive digg count. nice!
    • ligyron, on 05/17/2008, -3/+2Buried to make your post more controversial
    • yuutokun, on 05/17/2008, -5/+1There was a farmer who had a dog...
    • jbenson2, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1The O-man makes Jimmy Carter look tough

      Is he aware that Iran is killing American soldiers and Marines?
      Does Obama know anything about the mullahs and their record of terror and their ambitions for the region?
      Obama expects people to take his support for Israel's security seriously, and then declares that Iran isn't a serious threat?
    • modernjazz, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1What Obama is aware of is that if he says "George Bush and John McCain have a lot to answer for" enough times, coupling the two as if they are the same person, he will continue to get the support of the average Bush hater. And in this election, that's about all you have to do to win. It doesn't matter that he's a rookie in way over his head. I fear for us all.
  • sandy77477, on 05/16/2008, -15/+36Sen Obama has consistenlty has been a staunch support of the Jewish community and has statd consistently is support of the Jewish state. Sen Obama has never avoided a question on his positons on specific issues. Sen Obama begain his candica y arguign the potints of the have nots. His positons on most issues are those that support helping the average individual get the leg up that they need to lessen the divide. Please go to www.barackobama.com and learn more about what he stands for. ont he direction of the wind.
  • fixin, on 05/16/2008, -19/+149Unable to rationally argue with Obama on this issue (since Obama is clearly correct), McCain responded by calling Obama's reasoned and insightful statements a "hysterical diatribe" and outrageously stating that Obama thinks that the U.S. doesn't have any enemies.

    I hope you disappointed Clinton supporters are watching - DO NOT VOTE FOR MCCAIN OUT OF SPITE. HE WILL DRIVE THIS COUNTRY EVEN FARTHER INTO RUIN.

    http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/20 ...
    • Jambi, on 05/16/2008, -6/+15The Clintons and their supporters generally strike me as petty; my guess is you'll see a lot of them voting for McCain come November.
    • nastronomical, on 05/16/2008, -41/+3Obama: Sure, I'll meet with Castro, Chavez, Ahmadinejad, etc

      ****Link****



      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSFSUbMWenU
      • WasabiBomb, on 05/16/2008, -0/+26You keep posting this as if we should be bothered by it. Personally, I think it's high time we have a President who's willing to discuss matters like an adult, instead of using the military as his own personal megaphone.

        War should be the LAST resort, not the first.
      • yodaj007, on 05/16/2008, -1/+15Polly want a cracker? I'll make the same reply I made to your previous post:

        It's called "diplomacy."
        • bjornski, on 05/16/2008, -1/+9Republicans don't know the meaning of the word.
      • Fordi, on 05/16/2008, -0/+9He also said he will not negotiate with governments that espouse and practice terroristic acts. Castro, Chavez, and Ahmadinejad are not doing so.

        It's like you don't listen to what you link in context of the article.

        Do you conflate conversation with appeasement, as Mr. Bush does?
    • xGORDOx, on 05/16/2008, -12/+4Well, it was a hysterical diatribe when you realize that Bush's comment was about Jimmy Carter and not about Obama at all.
      You're all brainwashed, sheesh, listen to the actual speech instead of simply reading Huffpo and listening to Olbermann. They have agendas too!
      • headzoo, on 05/16/2008, -1/+101) If it was about Jimmy Carter (It wasn't), how is that any more right?

        2) Bush's staff said he was talking about Obama immediately fallowing the speech, and they only changed their stance once everyone was going nuts over the comment.

        But you go ahead and believe The White House's corrected stance. And you're calling _us_ brainwashed.
        • Dynamis, on 05/16/2008, -6/+1@headzoo

          Maybe you can explain exactly what is wrong with the stance of "not negotiating with terrorists"?
        • headzoo, on 05/16/2008, -1/+12@Dynamis - I think you're confusing "negotiate" with "talk to". No one has said anything about negotiating with terrorist.
    • eitup, on 05/16/2008, -15/+2Didn't the clintons already get us into this mess with terrorists? Obama is going to do the same thing as bill clinton and let them come after us.
      • EtherGnat, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4And what, pray tell, did George Bush do his first year in office that was more productive than what Clinton did? What did George H. W. Bush do as President about terrorists? We'll wait.
    • wliebkem, on 05/16/2008, -8/+3umm... Actually, it is possible to rationally argue that one should not negotiate with terrorists. Obama is not clearly correct. A large number of people believe that hosting meetings with terrorists legitimizes them, increases their influence and recruitment, and undermines attempts to mitigate their terrorist activities.

      Please allow me to provide an example: when Jimmy Carter tried to negotiate with Iran after they took our diplomats and citizens hostage in the 1970s. I remember this time well. Here is a quote from Wikipedia:

      "The initial takeover plan was to hold the embassy for only a few hours, but it soon changed. Khomeini made no comment on the occupation for several days, waiting first to gauge American reaction to the hostage taking, which he feared might be violent.[23] It was not. Some attribute the Iranian decision not to release the hostages quickly to the soft line of U.S. President Jimmy Carter; his immediate response was to appeal for the release of the hostages on humanitarian grounds and to share his hopes of a strategic anti-communist alliance with the Islamic Republic."

      The 55 diplomats were held for 444 days, paraded around Iran with bags over their heads, etc. It was a source of national shame for this country, day after day after day. Reagan, a candidate for president during part of the crisis, stated that his first act would be immediate military action. As a result, the hostages were released hours after Reagan took office.

      Most despots respect only force and the will to use it when necessary. The use of that force is not always necessary, and Iraq is a legitimate debate. However, it is factually incorrect to state that Obama's position cannot be debated. Please free your mind from dogged campaign line.
      • Mejari, on 05/16/2008, -2/+3And who in the world says we should negotiate with terrorists? Thats not at all what Obama was saying, has said, or will ever say. Simple talking with our enemies does not mean negotiation, it means we want to take the time to learn about their point of view. Sometimes it's so completely ***** up that nothing gets done, other times they are willing to talk (not negotiate) about possible solutions. Just talking doesn't give anything away and it is certainly not 'appeasement', as the buzzword seems to be.

        Oh, and I call ***** on your reason that the hostages were released. They were not released because they pissed their pants when Reagan took office (it was 20 minutes after he was sworn in, not hours), they were released due to constant discussion with the terrorists by Jimmy Carter.
        • wliebkem, on 05/17/2008, -3/+1Let me be sure I understand your point. According to Mejari, for 444 days, Khomeini paraded our diplomats around Iran in headbags. But, due to the excellent negotiating power of Jimmy Carter, they were released. And it was only pure coincidence that they were released minutes after the election of Ronald Reagan, who promised to us that he would seek military action against Iran when he became president if the hostages were not released.

          Mr. Carter WAS intensely negotiating with the Iranians throughout the entire 444 days. He knew that his hopes for re-election hinged upon getting those hostages back. I agree that in exchange for the release of the hostages, Carter freed up $8 billion in Iranian assets. But you only prove my point - Carter was completely impotent against Khomeini. His poorly planned Operation Eagle Claw was a total failure and further enhanced Iranian prestige. His negotiations were worth nothing... until Ronald Reagen came in bearing a credible threat. Then, the hostages were freed. As a final fart in the eye of Carter, a last little insult, the Iranians waited until Carter was stripped of his authority before handing the hostages over.

          You mention that talking with our enemies to learn their point of view is reasonable. I "call *****" on this. For example, Osama Bin Laden is an enemy of the United States. While you may think it is wise to explore his point of view, I don't care about his point of view. He joyfully admitted to the purposeful slaughter of thousands of innocent American civilians. I want him dead.

          Negotiating or "talking with" enemies is reasonable under some circumstances... for example, in the cold war, it was reasonable to try to prevent mutual destruction. It is also reasonable when we are in a position of strength and have the will to use that strength, as many of these groups will back down and be reasonable once they sense the legitimate likelihood of their destruction. But if our enemies are despots or terrorists who know that we lack real forceful options or the will to use them, then we lose all leverage - as was the case with Carter. Do you wonder why in the world would HAMAS be rooting for Obama? They prefer to have an American president in place that they do not have to respect.
        • Mejari, on 05/17/2008, -0/+4Who in the ***** world is talking about sitting down with Osama? You or I or Obama or any US citizen get within 20 feet of that ***** you leap across the room and tear his ***** throat out. But Osama bin Laden, terrorist, mass-murder, general douche-bag, is not the same as the leader of a sovereign nation. You say it's ok to talk when the other side has nuclear arms, like in the cold war. You do know that lots of nations with nuclear arms don't like us right now, right? If I recall it's been Bush who's been the impotent president off invading random countries while North Korea is waving it's arms yelling "I've got the bomb! I hate your guts! I've got the bomb!" but Bush is too afraid to confront them (the worst he ever did was lump them in the axis of evil). You call talking with our enemies to learn their point of view ***** and then in your next paragraph say 'oh, well, sometimes it's a good idea'. If you'll look at anything Obama has done you'll see he's not afraid to us America's big stick, all he's said is that it won't be his first option. He specifically said if he had actionable intelligence regarding terrorist leaders he'd go in and get them, not sit down and talk. Make up your mind, either we shouldn't listen to terrorists, or we should listen to them about our political process. And trust me, there is no person in the ENTIRE COUNTRY, from ultra-raging-hippy-liberal-douche to redneck-inbred-dumbass-neo-con-hillbilly, who, if elected president, could possibly be less respected by the rest of the world right now than President Bush. Just because Obama doesn't saddle up to the podium, grab his crotch, spit into a jug and announce he's gonna get all y'all terrists doesn't mean he's going to be some pussy who doesn't know when to lay the hurt on someone. It's called restraint, it's called logic, it's called common ***** sense, and it's something I wish this administration had a lot more of.
        • wliebkem, on 05/17/2008, -3/+1I won't bother responding to your less rational statements.

          How about if we pull out of Iraq, Al Qaeda in Iraq takes power, and elects Osama Bin Laden prime minister. Now he's head of a sovereign nation. Time to start listening to him? I consider Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to be a similar character.

          You might call this implausible, but then how do you explain Hamas? It's charter calls for the death of Israel, a long-time ally of the United States. It is a terrorist organization which now carries a mantle of being a government, which has been gilded and legitimized by the great negotiator Jimmy Carter. Should President Obama chatting up those fellows? These guys are killers and unfortunately respect nothing but military power. In Hebrew, "hamas" means "violence."
    • JointVenture, on 05/16/2008, -8/+1So who do YOU think the enemies of the United States are?

      Do you think EVERY enemy can be reasoned with?
      • StarlessKnight, on 05/16/2008, -0/+9Do you think we shouldn't at least TRY before we start trying to decimate the country they reside in?
        • JointVenture, on 05/17/2008, -5/+1We've been "talking" to Iran since 1976. Maybe not upfront, but talks have taken place.

          The leader of Iran can not be reasoned with.

          He sponsors Hamas, and they will NEVER negotiate.

        • wliebkem, on 05/17/2008, -3/+1Osama Bin Laden joyfully slaughtered thousands of innocent American civilians. I take it from your post that you think we should be at the negotiation table with him. Great job there buddy.

          "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided."
      • Mejari, on 05/17/2008, -0/+6Did you know that there are many types of arguments people can use to distract from the real issue at hand? The one you just employed was the manipulation of the original issue into one that you can easily win. By changing the argument from "We should talk with people who don't agree with us" to "We should talk to all our enemies and never engage in any military action" is to make the claim that Barack is saying that no force should ever be used and all we should ever do is talk, which is completely false, but an easier fight for you.
        "Do you think EVERY enemy can be reasoned with?"
        Just because not every one can doesn't mean we shouldn't try and it doesn't mean at least some of those talks will yield results, saving the US money, and more importantly, saving the lives of the soldiers we put in harms way when we abandon any semblance of diplomacy simply because our president is too pigheaded to exhaust every possible option before getting our soldiers killed and ruining the lives of millions of civilians. Yes, sometimes force is required, and no one is denying that, but to simply treat it as the first and only option to get through to our enemies is ridiculous, damaging to our reputation around the world (which believe it or not is important) and frankly is the act of a pathetic man (and I use 'man' loosely) and his pathetic friends to earn themselves a few extra bucks and a page in the history books. Well they've got it; every time people look into the history books about the past 7 years they will see destruction, poverty, hatred, unjust wars, torture, the list goes on. So congratulations, the world will always remember the people who didn't try to talk, and it will too soon forget the millions upon millions of lives they destroyed.
        • wliebkem, on 05/17/2008, -2/+2This evening I hung out with a recently retired US ambassador. She would have a very different opinion that we do not pursue diplomacy. We just don't open formal talks with terrorist organizations like Hamas unless they vacate their ways. For example, McCain has said that he would consider talking to Hamas... IF they agree to abandon their founding principle of the destruction of Israel. It's called insisting on principle.
        • wliebkem, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2Mejari,

          You make the point that it is important to listen to other points of view. Yet I wonder if you have dugg down any of my posts in these threads. I have been civil and used logic; I have simply espoused a different point of view. But rather than let it stand, I find that people have dugg many of my comments down so that they won't see the light of day.

          If you have dugg down any of my comments, I call that hypocritical. Digging something down suppresses others from seeing it. If you digg down a well-reasoned argument that you simply disagree with, you are silencing good speech, debate, and vibrancy on this site. The result is a homogeneous, dead dittofactory worse than Rush Limbaugh. Frustrated users with differing viewpoints will go elsewhere to express themselves, and you will have enclaves of "dittohead" opinion rather than the dialog that you claim is a path to understanding. Your candidate and mine espouse unity. From a recent quote, "We belong to different parties, not different countries... we are also compatriots."

          My recommendation for political digg:
          1. Digg up ALL well-reasoned discussion, even if you disagree. Reply to those you disagree with.
          2. Don't digg up or down mosts posts.
          3. Digg down true idiotic static such as "McRetard" or "O-Bitch-a." Instead of digging down a post with a true factual inaccuracy, correct the inaccuracy with sources.
        • shmatt, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2Your civility is appreciated and i read your whole comments. I dugg down one or two though, because you continuously mischaracterize what Obama said. No one is saying we should negotiate with known terrorists, but diplomacy is necessary when we're talking about sovereign nations. The original argument that Bush made comparing Obama to Neville Chamberlain was calculated and misleading. Obama is not offering to sign over parcels of land to our enemies. That is the crux of his argument and IT IS WRONG.
    • wliebkem, on 05/17/2008, -8/+1Do not vote for McCain out of spite. Vote for him because he is the better candidate.
  • mike17032, on 05/16/2008, -55/+15At least there has been less huffingtonspam in recent days, but one is still to many.

    Find a real site so I dont have to bury all these bammabots.
    • WasabiBomb, on 05/16/2008, -3/+14Find a decent argument so we don't have to bury your comments.
    • sassip, on 05/17/2008, -0/+4Why don't YOU find a "real" site?
    • sleepwalkers, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2So you're saying that because of the source of the story, you won't bother reading it and processing it? If it's coming from a biased source, it's still logical to read it and then think about how it agrees or disagrees with your views and weigh it against a biased story from the other side and attempt to deduce the real facts sans bias from both sides, regardless of what you believe or who you support.
      Ugh critical thinking skills seem to be severely lacking in most people these days (or maybe it's the will to use them that is lacking).
  • DeePsix501, on 05/16/2008, -6/+23This is honestly the debate we need to be having. We need to leave behind this Primary business and get to work fixing everything that is broken. We have a lot of work to do in all areas from Foreign Policy to our Economy and our Environment.
    • Mard, on 05/16/2008, -2/+21Precisely right. Democrats need to bring the focus back to issues rather than the artificial outrages the media has tried to push our attention towards. Yet again, Republicans show they have no idea how to win this year by baiting the Democrats into discussing an issue that most Americans will side with the Dems on. Props to Obama for taking advantage of this excellent opportunity to nail Bush and McCain for what they have done to our country.
    • DeePsix501, on 05/16/2008, -1/+10Thanks Mard, this topic has generaly been a Republican strongpoint especially in 2004. We really need to shut down this moronic idea. There is absolutely no harm in sitting down with someone, even your enemy, and talking with them. Since when has the Republican argument been that Diplomacy is bad?
      • wliebkem, on 05/16/2008, -5/+2Diplomacy is good.

        Legitimizing terrorist groups and their sponsors is bad. Most Americans and many democrats would agree.

        Should our president engage in talks with Osama Ben Laden around a table, as equals? Osama is head of an organized group who is trying to make political statements, after all. Yet Osama was gleeful and celebratory when thousands of innocent Americans crashed, burned, or were buried alive by his hand. Do you think the result of such a meeting would be Osama recanting his ways, calling on islamic extremists to stop attacking the United States? Or do you think such a meeting would be televised around the planet, with pro-extremist forces showing Osama "fearlessly confronting" the devil American president? You would legitizmize Osama's positions as just a disagreement rather than the evil that he represents.


        • oldgal, on 05/16/2008, -0/+8Gee, makes me wonder why all those republican presidents talked to their Russian counterparts or why Nixon went to China. I have not heard anyone say they would sit down with Bin Laden - not sure where you got that one. Just because you have a hammer doesn't mean that everything you see is a nail (not original, but not sure who to attribute it to).
        • Mejari, on 05/16/2008, -0/+8Who's advocating sitting down with Osama? If any US agent, citizen or president gets within 20 feet of the man I would hope they leap across the room and strangle him right then and there. You could look for the rest of your life and never find an instance of Obama saying we should sit down with Osama bin Laden and have a friendly chat.
      • JointVenture, on 05/16/2008, -7/+1Do you honestly believe that every enemy can be reasoned with? Do you really think that Hamas will negotiate and acknowledge the right of Israel to exist?

        This is the problem with liberals, they are unable to acknowledge human nature and the evil the humans are capable of. They think every issue can be settled by diplomacy.

        Until Hamas says they would be willing to recognize Israel you can not negotiate with them.

        Their stance is firm, even if Israel moved their capital to a one acre garbage dump and gave all the rest to the Palestinians Hamas would not recognize Israel.

        Its not about land or negotiations, its about Israel, or NO Israel.

        You cannot negotiate with that, so why meet them.

        Look at the bang up job Jimmy Carter did, a week after he left Beirut war broke out.

    • flashback99, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1By 'we', do you mean 'they' ?
  • scubaman5000, on 05/16/2008, -15/+69McCain = Bush
    • lpse2000, on 05/16/2008, -22/+5Obama = terrorist appeaser??? Oh sorry, didn't mean to talk about your Messiah like that.
      • xGORDOx, on 05/16/2008, -9/+3How dare to speak out against Christ, er, I mean Obama.
      • zeusthemoose, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1Actually, McCain and Bush are the terrorist appeasers. Lets play a game. Its called name the terrorist organization that has grown under bush and would grow further under mccain. Oh yeah thats right, Al Qaeda, Hammas, and nations like Iran etc. Tough on terrorism is the biggest joke of the century, and the joke is on you!
        • xGORDOx, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1pretty sure Al Qeada grew under Clinton to the point where they were strong enough to carry out 9/11.

          You're a douche bag.
    • xGORDOx, on 05/16/2008, -14/+4Actually, if you listen to what Obama actually said today, about no negotiations without certain preconditions...

      Obama = Bush

      It's the exact same foreign policy!
      Does anyone really think Obama is going to change anything? Serioulsy?
      • scubaman5000, on 05/16/2008, -3/+10I absolutely think he has already changed politics in America and will continue to do so. It's about damn time we have a man with some integrity in the White House.

        Serioulsy...
      • xGORDOx, on 05/16/2008, -5/+2Oh I agree we need a man with integrity, we haven't have one in over twenty years!

        Obama will do nothing except be reported on by the MSM less brutally than Bush.
        Eventually his halo will tarnish and the MSM will go after him, if he's lucky enough to go two terms, he'll go through the same scandal ridden second term as every other President. Round and round we go.
      • dagamer34, on 05/16/2008, -1/+5You know what preconditions Bush wants before we talk? Everything we've asked for plus a cherry on top. Honestly, what would there to be to talk about at such an imaginary meeting if we've gotten everything we wanted already.

        Only problem is that talking is SUPPOSED to get us the positions we want. It's like buying the furniture for a house that doesn't exist yet!
    • gasin, on 05/16/2008, -3/+8McBush!!! with a side of stale soggy fries?!!! nah thanks - I am trying to stay healthy :)
    • eitup, on 05/16/2008, -4/+4Im out for bush everytime I hit the bars.
    • skellener, on 05/16/2008, -2/+3McCain = McBush
    • wliebkem, on 05/16/2008, -6/+1Bush is a fairly far-right leaning republican who believes in little accountability and has grown government despite his pledge not to.

      McCain is the most moderate of all republicans, a reformer who has introduced and passed campaign finance reform and many other major legislative actions with help on both sides of the aisle, and a long-established free thinker. He has fought for decades for increased accountability and reduced government waste.

      Your faulty analogy is a fallacy of reasoning. I am sad that it has been dugg up. Ah well, ad populum appeals are also a fallacy of reasoning.
      • Mejari, on 05/16/2008, -1/+2If you have seen any stories about McCain since he was named the nominee you will see that he has shifted so far to the right he veers off the road while driving. He used his 'moderate maverick' oxymoron to get the nomination and now he's trying to calm down his right-wing party members by continuing the fallacy that the economy is great and the whole words doesn't hate us that Bush and crew keep trying to pull over our eyes. I agree that McCain used to be a good politician that was doing good things, but McCain has made it abundantly clear that those days are over.
        • wliebkem, on 05/17/2008, -1/+1I agree that McCain is trying to appease right-wingers - witness the NRA stuff today. However, he also has decades of being who he is and this election is not going to shape him. He of all people has already been shaped. Do you honestly believe that McCain of all people would become a right winger? It's like believing Lieberman would suddenly transform to the left of MoveOn.

          Frankly, most of the Europe is just "over" America at this point rather than hating us. Personally, I think this a natural part of the transformation of our relationship with Europe, from protector to... something more like equals. I believe that after this type of prolonged protection period, a rejection stage had to enter in, and Bush just made that easy for them. I think they see themselves as competitors and equals now, as the EU and other progress shows. I am all for it as it is a better relationship, although we won't ever have that puppy-dog adoration that we did when protecting them from Kruschev.

          The economy is weak, although I will remind you that there was another bubble bursting at the end of Clinton's term. These things come and are a function of human psychology. We constantly think we have something new with no economic ceiling - whether it is the dot-com craze or the real estate craze - and then laugh or cry at how stupid we were when it all comes falling down. More taxes drag down the economy, and I am against new taxes in an economic downturn. Also, increased taxes will force some very hard choices for me and my family, which is already feeling some hits from the economy.

    • flashback99, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3= *****.
    • alsiddiq, on 05/17/2008, -3/+1McCain > Bush
    • samw1ns, on 05/17/2008, -0/+3no, at least mccain isnt a draft dodging pussy.
  • Alix7, on 05/16/2008, -39/+6If I was Obama, I'd be like, "Prescott Bush *****, ya'll niggaz neva hear about ya own daddy's daddy? Peace like chicken grease, cya in Washington"
    • Fordi, on 05/16/2008, -3/+3Aww, why're you being dugg down? I lolled!
      • coredump0x01, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4Most likely people attribute the "***** speak" to a racial attack on Obama, While a look at the OP's profile reveals he is an Obama supporter...
      • Fordi, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2Hey, this is a first! Good to see you in the debate (or, at least the same area of the debate I'm in)!

        Anyway, hell, the post itself sticks him firmly in the Obama-supporting category; naming Prescott Bush in reference to appeasement and intergovernmental interference is a tacit accusation of hypocracy, as Prescott was pretty deep in the Iraqui streets, as it were.

        Of course, can't expect everyone to know their history. Oh well. Ali, you still get props from CD above and myself! Hilarious + Topical = quality diggage, but not always quantity.
      • maikai, on 05/18/2008, -1/+1he's being dug down because the word is offensive and shouldn't be used by anyone. ever. black or white.
        • Fordi, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Words aren't offensive. Intents and meanings may be. Words are not.
  • nastronomical, on 05/16/2008, -42/+8Obama: Sure, I'll meet with Castro, Chavez, Ahmadinejad, etc

    ****Link****



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSFSUbMWenU
    • scubaman5000, on 05/16/2008, -7/+18What's wrong with talking to people?

      Diplomacy > War
    • nastronomical, on 05/16/2008, -14/+7Ignorance defined.
      • kreneskyp, on 05/16/2008, -3/+9yup, thats pretty much how i'd describe you
      • scubaman5000, on 05/16/2008, -3/+7You replied to your own comment with "Ignorance defined". Do you always insult yourself or only when you are mindlessly spamming the same comment over and over.
      • sleepwalkers, on 05/17/2008, -0/+3If you're going to reply to comments like that, at least attempt to explain why it's "ignorance defined." There's nothing wrong with healthy debate. I'm sure there are a handful of people this far down in the comments who are willing to debate it with you without infusing insults or vitriol into it. Hell, I'm willing.
        That is, unless you're simply looking to spout vitriolic comments of your own without any real backing. Then it's pointless for you to comment (much like the insults).
    • kingmanic, on 05/16/2008, -4/+12If he meets with them and hands over Iowa you then may have a point. Until then you are just a troll with problems with the definition of the word appeasement.
    • renagadex2, on 05/16/2008, -5/+3You're a shmuck.
    • Fordi, on 05/16/2008, -3/+7Duplicate post has been posted > once.
  • moolaismyfriend, on 05/16/2008, -18/+66Republicans don't even know the basic definition of appeasement.

    Why do Republicans hate the English language?
    • rholland356, on 05/16/2008, -7/+17Oh, the republicans know from appeasement. Remember this little bit of recent history?

      It was 15 Saudis who attacked the USA on 9/11.

      GW Bush served as appeaser-in-chief in the days after 9/11. He appeased the Saudis by letting flying them about the USA picking up friends and family to high-tail it outta there. US Citizens were grounded from air travel, while Bush's Saudi masters called the shots.

      Bush appeasment of Saudi citizens has a long history. It is a Bush family tradition.
    • headzoo, on 05/16/2008, -2/+12Oh, they know what appeasement means. They're just hoping to throw around big scary words, and hoping that they embed themselves in the minds of the American people. Long after this has all blown over, there will see be many people (Mostly in W.V. apparently) that will still be thinking, "That Hussein is an appeaser! (Whatever that means)".
    • oldgal, on 05/16/2008, -6/+2Why do they think wienie whacking is synonymous with diplomacy?
  • badnewshotel, on 05/16/2008, -36/+14Please, Obama, the world does not revolve around you. I think it's hilarious that you so quickly took offense to a remark about appeasing terrorists. You heard what the president said and, even though he never mentioned you, you immediately knew he must have been talking about you. Why? Because Bush is right - you want to appease killers and think that just talking to them will make them love us. You, and everyone who thinks like you, are naive children.
    • scubaman5000, on 05/16/2008, -6/+14"Because Bush is right"

      Holy ***** dude... I can't believe you just said that...
    • WasabiBomb, on 05/16/2008, -3/+11Oh, so you think that Bush WASN'T referring to Obama when he made that statement?

      Then who, exactly, was Bush talking about?
      • Dynamis, on 05/16/2008, -8/+4Take your pick, but Jimmy Carter is a fine example. But what does it really matter if he was talking specifically about one individual?
        • petrodollar, on 05/16/2008, -2/+6"Take your pick"

          Funnily enough, that's precisely what Obama did.
        • kreneskyp, on 05/16/2008, -2/+3how about because the previous poster argued that it wasn't about obama.

        • Dynamis, on 05/16/2008, -0/+5Yes he did and I think he's digging a hole for himself here.
      • Dibou, on 05/16/2008, -5/+3Carter is the prime candidate.
        Obama is just hyper-sensitive and seems to have an inferiority complex.
        • EtherGnat, on 05/16/2008, -3/+7The Republicans have been going after Obama for so-called appeasement for some time. Bush wasn't the first one mentioning it, so there is NO doubt who Bush was talking about.
    • Fordi, on 05/16/2008, -3/+10Somehow, you seem to have confused 'Appease' with 'Talk to'. It doesn't follow.
      • Dynamis, on 05/16/2008, -2/+3I think you're confusing "(Obama) direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions"

        with "Talk to"
        • scubaman5000, on 05/16/2008, -4/+6Give me an example of why direct presidential diplomacy without preconditions would be a bad thing. I just don't see how diplomacy could ever be negative and I'd like to know why you think it would be.
        • Dynamis, on 05/16/2008, -5/+3Neville Chamberlain is the first person that comes to mind. Jimmy Carter would be another. Throughout history there are plenty of examples of when diplomacy was or would have been a bad decision. It should always be considered what course of action could be taken to lead to possible diplomacy, but that's not to say that diplomacy should be the first response to any country no matter what their actions are.
        • Fordi, on 05/16/2008, -2/+6"(Obama) direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions"

          "Presidential diplomacy" is political speak for "Talk to". "Without preconditions" just means Iran doesn't have to meet any standard to have this talk.

          In short, I'm not confusing anything. You seem to think 'diplomacy' implies 'treaty', or some other such nonsense. The only thing diplomacy implies is that the people talking both have some degree of control to make concessions, or to impose sanctions, should the need arise - a power which the US President has. Still, it implies nothing about the use of that power.
        • scubaman5000, on 05/16/2008, -3/+5Sorry but you fail to convince me. Are you really going to make me search for specific examples to support your argument? If you want to make a point about something you need to provide details.
          Ok I looked up Neville Chamberlain... you really think this is an example that supports your argument? This is a guy who made a stupid decision. If I have a neighbor that is blocking my driveway talking to him about the problem does not mean that I end up giving him my car.
          I can't find anything about Jimmy Carter that would relate to what you're trying to say and I honestly don't know a whole lot about him.
        • badnewshotel, on 05/17/2008, -4/+2Scubaman - you must be like 15 years old. There's no way you can have a brain and push aside Chamberlain and Carter with a simple 'oh, I can't find anything about them' comment. Please - learn some history!!!
        • Fordi, on 05/17/2008, -1/+3@badnews: Whatever examples you can give of Carter or Chamberlain are a very small slice of the diplomatic pie. You're pointing out two examples where a douche made a bad decision during diplomacy, but you're not making a case for why diplomacy is inherently bad.

          All actions with potential rewards carry the risk of ***** up. Essentially, you're afraid of differential risk here - placing the potential risks of screwing up far above the known risk of doing nothing, and failing to weigh in the potential benefits of doing it right.

          So, yeah. Politically, you're a coward. Nice to know. I generally block political cowards; they normally have nothing useful to add to the conversation.
    • Gerz1219, on 05/16/2008, -3/+11Umm, every major news source has reported that Bush's aides admitted he was referring specifically to Obama. Then they changed their story after the outrage reminded the administration that it's not 2003 anymore.
      • badnewshotel, on 05/17/2008, -4/+1Really - every single news source? Really? Name them.
    • Mejari, on 05/16/2008, -2/+8So wait, "Bush wasn't talking about Obama", then in the same comment: "Bush is right about Obama"? You can't even get your story straight in one comment.
      • badnewshotel, on 05/17/2008, -4/+1Nice try. But, you fail. Back to your command center in mom's basement, retard.
    • sleepwalkers, on 05/17/2008, -0/+4It's sad how Bush can say one thing and all of a sudden people are ready to jump all over Obama claiming he's an "appeaser."
      From the American Heritage Dictionary: "Appease: To pacify or attempt to pacify (an enemy) by granting concessions, often at the expense of principle."
      Note how Obama has not even so much as suggested he would do any such thing. He has said he would **talk** to other countries.
      Honestly, it doesn't matter who the hell you support or what "side" you believe you're on; don't say ***** about anyone else if you can't even figure out the proper definition of the words you're using!
  • fuze44, on 05/16/2008, -21/+12The White House has responded that they foresaw the remarks as likely being intepreted as an attack on Carter, with which they had no problem. But, Obama being so quick to take offense reminds me of an old saying: "Throw a rock into a pack of dogs, and the one who yelps is the one who was hit."
    • renagadex2, on 05/16/2008, -2/+5what the hell are you talking about. so, according to your saying, the one who was offended was hit by the insult? So obama yelped therefore he was hit by Bush's attack....
    • WasabiBomb, on 05/16/2008, -3/+10So while we're in the middle of an election cycle, Bush just decided to make an off-the-cuff remark ridiculing an ex-president's views on foreign relations? Please.
    • Ndiggnation, on 05/16/2008, -2/+8I saw that they had said that too, but why in the world would taking a shot at Carter's handling of the Iran hostage crisis even be relevant now?
      • wliebkem, on 05/17/2008, -3/+1Because he was in Israel, and trying to reassure the Israelis that Carters attempt to legitimize Hamas does not carry the weight of the American government. We do not negotiate with terrorist organizations that are founded on the principle of the destruction of Israel/other allies.
    • papastout, on 05/16/2008, -3/+5yup, that's an old saying - it's also irrelevant.
    • wliebkem, on 05/16/2008, -5/+2I agree. Bush clearly hit a nerve.
    • sassip, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2If Bush wanted to take a shot at Carter, why didn't he?
      • wliebkem, on 05/17/2008, -1/+1Although subtlety is not Bush's strong point, I believe he was trying to be indirect.
  • radiofrequency, on 05/16/2008, -20/+10Bush was vague about who he was accusing of being a terrorist appeaser. Obama saw his chance and took credit. Or is this Obama's "platform" anyway and he wants to look like a terrorist appeaser. It certainly looks like he's trying to build a case for it.
    • WasabiBomb, on 05/16/2008, -4/+5So who, exactly, was Bush referring to, if not Obama?
      • jbenson2, on 05/16/2008, -5/+4The entire Democrat party.
      • radiofrequency, on 05/16/2008, -5/+4He said he was referring to Carter but Obama jumped at the chance to be victimized as a "terrorist appeaser". Why is that?
        • WasabiBomb, on 05/16/2008, -1/+6He said that after the fact. If his intention was to refer to Carter, why wasn't it clearer?
          And why make that statement during an election cycle?

          Let me guess- it was a "misspeak".
        • dagamer34, on 05/16/2008, -1/+4Even if it was Carter, that would still make Bush guilty of political football overseas, something NO President in their right mind should be doing.
        • Kr05eSuks, on 05/16/2008, -1/+3Carter? I'm sure it was Reagan..
  • SubjectiveC, on 05/16/2008, -28/+32Is Digg merging with the HuffingtonPost or what the hell is going on?
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 05/16/2008, -9/+9Reality has a well known, Left-wing bias.
    • brianjlowry, on 05/16/2008, -2/+10Why is he being buried again? Seriously?
  • ShemDaimwood, on 05/16/2008, -15/+33I'm an Obama supporter, and even I'm getting tired of some of the frivolous HuffPost pieces making it to the front page lately.
    • jzh1554, on 05/16/2008, -6/+7Who cares about the article, it's the video that's important
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 05/16/2008, -6/+4Me too.
      Oh dang, I just dugg this article because it promotes Obama.

      If I didn't think America was going to descend into civil war if McCain took over, I'd be bothered by this slight Obama-annoyance.
  • cambob76, on 05/16/2008, -4/+9Hey! Where did Hillary go? :-) Has anyone seen her?
  • drmobutu, on 05/16/2008, -5/+13Appease who? The Saudis?
  • OC73, on 05/16/2008, -24/+8Obama: How dare you! How dare you! How dare you!

    Bush: I was talking about Carter.
    • AuroraDark, on 05/16/2008, -5/+12Except that White House aides later confirmed that he was speaking about Obama.
      • jbenson2, on 05/16/2008, -5/+5How about some specific names instead of the "unidentified source" spin.
      • sleepwalkers, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1I initially thought it was a veiled attack at Obama, but I see you sitting at +5 diggs yet there's no source for that and it's the first I've heard of that...
        Do you have any sort of source?
    • rholland356, on 05/16/2008, -3/+7What? Did Carter give away half of Czechoslovakia? Did he represent the US government in any fashion? Naw, THAT doesn't measure up to "appeasement." Carter couldn't do anything but jawbone with Hamas.

      Now, grounding all US flights except for special Saudi flights after 9/11--THAT passes muster as "appeasement." Appeasing a foreign power, whose citizens had just attacked the USA.

      And, speaking of our Jawboner in Chief, when do you think he'll set about putting leverage on his Saudi friends to increase production to lower the cost of oil? He said he'd do that. Do you think he might believe that higher oil prices please the Saudis?
      • jbenson2, on 05/16/2008, -4/+2One could make an argument that what Carter did recently was even worse than what Chamberlain did. Chamberlain was trying to prevent a way. Carter was just adding fuel to the enemy.
        • scottc, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1One could try to make that argument, but it would make one look pretty foolish. Want to give it a shot?
      • Kr05eSuks, on 05/16/2008, -2/+4like what ? sold them weapons? then used that cash to fund another terrorist org? oh wait that was Reagan!
    • headzoo, on 05/16/2008, -3/+6How does it make Bush right if he was talking about Carter?
  • Tr3vor, on 05/16/2008, -14/+4ooooo new comment system. allowed to block people?! goodbye mr babyman
    • dkapuchino, on 05/16/2008, -1/+5We shouldn't be blockin people we disagree with. We should sit down and talk with them.
      • Tr3vor, on 05/17/2008, -2/+1its not a matter of disagreeing as it just utter despite...
  • lpse2000, on 05/16/2008, -8/+6You guys are a little sensitive aren't you? So ya'll really must feel that "some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along"?
    • bjs3171, on 05/16/2008, -2/+6you really believe our current course of action will presuade them they have been wrong all along, don't you? because it's been working so well untill now.
    • EtherGnat, on 05/16/2008, -1/+3No, we believe that talking to them might help identify ways we can move towards a solution. Even if it's just to tell them we're going to kick their ass if they continue on their current course I fail to see how anything is risked by opening a dialog.

      Our current method of diplomacy reminds me of high school. You want to ask Jennifer to the prom, but you don't want to talk to her directly, so you ask your friend Tim to tell his friend Susan to see if Jennifer might be interested. Grow the ***** up and just pick up the phone!
    • iticu, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1Because starting wars and giving terrorist organisations more reason to hate you and think they're in the right is the best way to go about it.

      No really.
    • thinkresults, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1The only thing I'm "sensitive" about is how poorly our current leadership has engaged the world over the last 7 1/2 years.

      NO ONE of any intelligence, including Obama, is saying we need to "persuade" anyone that they are wrong. If anything, that seems to be the naive pattern of the current administration (and thinking of McCain) as they supposedly do their best to persuade others of the wonders of our point of view; then, when that fails (over and over), it must be because those others are "evil-doers" and "hate our freedom".

      No - this is about carrot and stick, real-world diplomacy versus kindergarten name-calling and fear-mongering to get your way. Much of the electorate, including you apparently, think it's either call everyone Hitler who you don't like (while sitting in your corner building your walls and pointing your guns) or "appeasement". You truly can't see another, dare I say adult, way of approaching the world - can you?

      So when it comes to the important area of foreign policy then, who's really acting sensitive?



  • evo8ftw, on 05/16/2008, -21/+7Stop for the love of god and all this holy stop. This has been on the front page 30 times today. Stop posting the same ***** over and over. Stop cry you Obama worshipers.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 05/16/2008, -3/+6Not being embarrassed by your candidate and his lack of general knowledge on the Middle East, Economics, and breathing is NOT exactly worship.
      • Mejari, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2Oh my god, it's a pretzel! AAaaagh!
        *chokes*
  • xGORDOx, on 05/16/2008, -20/+8What is crazy is how you are all falling for this fake controversy.
    Obama is getting you all drummed up, yet the comments weren't even about him:

    http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/ ...

    They were in regards to Jimmy Carter. Did anyone here complaining actually hear the speech?

    Talk about sheep. wow.
    • moolaismyfriend, on 05/16/2008, -10/+4You believe that I got a bridge for sale you ignorant anti-American tool.
    • swrostmore, on 05/16/2008, -7/+10I know Bush fails at the english language, but do you seriously expect anyone to believe "some people" was supposed to mean just one person?

      And did you just use the phrase "talk about sheep." after quoting a White House press release?
    • AuroraDark, on 05/16/2008, -5/+7Except that White House aides later confirmed that he was speaking about Obama.
    • bjs3171, on 05/16/2008, -2/+6yes i listened. and he said "some believe" not "one person believes". also, he mentioned "democratic nominees."
    • xGORDOx, on 05/16/2008, -6/+6Right, and Obama was just touring the middle east where Bush made the speech....
      oh no wait, that was Jimmy Carter!

      You people are seriously stupid.
      Bush wasn't making the speech to you sitting on your couch, look to the crowd and region in which he was giving it, then look at who was the last American "dignitary" to do the same in that same region.

      Just one hint: it wasn't Obama.

      Obama is making it about Obama, plain and simple, and it's working!
      • Mejari, on 05/16/2008, -3/+1Take your own advice, look at the crowd. You really think it's appropriate for a sitting president to go to a different country and pronounce to their leaders that any of his countrymen that have served this country with distinction, whether it be Obama, Carter or anybody else, are somehow helping the people who are attacking and killing their citizens? That is disgusting and flagrantly untrue, and it shows yet again how little respect Bush and Co have for anyone that isn't a 'Loyal Bushy' and how low they will go to score the tiniest of political points.
        • Laughsatyou, on 05/18/2008, -1/+1cept when you do it to bush, hypocrite.
        • Mejari, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1I wasn't aware I, as leader of a sovereign nation, traveled around the world speaking ill of my opposite party. I must go tell my people, they'll be glad to hear it. Now, which country do I run, again?
  • papastout, on 05/16/2008, -14/+4Wow, I'm impressed by how little people know of history - ESP our [p] 'resident'

    Comments like this open the floodgates for Bush to be compared to Hitler - which isn't really much of a stretch at all.
    • dkapuchino, on 05/16/2008, -2/+2Saw the world hitler, dugg you down. Get lost.
      • papastout, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1Hey, a noob - neat. Welcome to Digg!
  • Infidelcastr0, on 05/16/2008, -7/+15Anyone see the Q&A he did with reporters a bit later, a bit dry on the usual Hope and Change chorus but gave a great demonstration of Obama's ability to deal with the press and unfounded criticism and give direct answers as well as a more in-depth discussion of policies, I think its safe to say that as president, Obama's press conferences would be a great deal less HILARIOUS than Bush's....... Which is a good thing.
  • drgooch, on 05/16/2008, -19/+12huffington sucks.
    you suck for posting anything from that site.
  • SydBloom, on 05/16/2008, -22/+4In a statement of capitulation today, Osama Obamanation stated that taking exception to arab terrorist thugs and supporting Israel in its right to exist in peace is not going to be his mid-east policy. He went further and stated that our senior policy figures were wrong in condeming acts of terrorism and violence against unarmed innocent women and children if they were Jews. Such sentiment can only be applied to arabs, specifically, Hamas and PLO members.

    Osama has officially declared to the islamofacist world that the era of liberal democrat unilateral disarmament would return to America if he is elected. Reiterating old outdated ideas which failed miserably during the cold war period with the former Soviet Union, Osama Obamanation declared that he would enjoin Jimmy Carter and Ted Kennedy military policy and lay down arms and let Israel fend for itself.

    Capitulation and engagement with terrorists who believe in the destruction of Israel, the murder of all Jews and the destruction of Western Religions will be a corner stone of Osama Obamanation's mid-east policy. In a clear voice the Obamanation stated that Pastor Wrights sermons have become a central belief and guiding principal for a Osama Administration.

    In direct contradiction to the liberal democrat Osama Obamanation, GW Bush has remained steadfast in his belief in freedom and that blowing up school children on school buses is not a political he wishes to endorse or condone.
  • nastronomical, on 05/16/2008, -38/+10Obama - Iran stop building nukes, screwing up iraq and funding hamas/hezbolla.
    Iran - no...we arent doing that.
    Obama - ok cool, i trust you.
    Iran - want some tea?
    Obama - ok
    • dkapuchino, on 05/16/2008, -8/+4Actually, it's more like:
      OB1 - Iran, stop building nukes, vowing to destroy Israel, screwing up Iraq (now that we're gone), and funding terrorist groups.
      Iran - Umm. no.
      OB1 - Please?
      Iran - Umm. no.
      OB1 - If you don't, we'll have to use military force. I'd rather not.
      Iran - Umm. no.
    • sotose, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1Electric six:"Lets's start a war"
      Iran:what?
      Electric six:"Start a nuclear war"
      Iran:What??
      Electric six:"AT THE GAY BAR"
      Iran:??
  • mfc5200, on 05/16/2008, -8/+13I hate this! I have to choose between McCain's foreign policy and Obama's economic policies. Shoot me now.

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with meeting with people. You don't have to agree, you don't have to concede, you don't have to shake hands...you don't have to do anything. All it is, is this: You have an issue with another party, you are meeting with them to figure out how you can get over these issues and move forward in the best way possible.

    If the last few years have showed anything, its that "not meeting with them, until they agree to your conditions" is not a good way to get what you want and move forward.

    Was Jimmy Carter "appeasing" the Egyptians and Jordanians by meeting with them? No, he brought peace between them and the Israelis that has lasted to this day. The problem is, everyone seems to think all things are zero sum games. McCain apparently thinks negotiations and diplomacy are a zero sum game, where if one party gains, it must be at the expense of the other. Obama realizes this is false, which is good. On the other hand, all the democrats rhetoric suggests that trade is a zero sum mercantilistic game, where one trading party (the exporter) is gaining at the expense of the importer. Of course this is not true and couldn't be farther from the truth.

    At the same time though, Obama is rejecting talking to Hamas because that would be political suicide. It is unfortunate that he is sacrificing his beliefs and principles because of this pressure. Not a good sign.

    This country is *****.
    • brianjlowry, on 05/16/2008, -2/+7I almost agree with you entirely. You had me until the last few lines, anyhow. I don't see how meeting with a terrorist organization makes any sense. They are terrorists - from a safety standpoint it is ludacris. You can dispute Iran all day long, but Iran as a whole is not a terrorist organization - it just has some bad apples like our country. I don't think everyone in Iran is proud of Ahmadinejad, similar to how not everyone is proud of the W.

      I actually think our country is well off and everything is going to be fine. It's not like we have daily bombings happening over here or anything... walk down the street to Starbucks, buy a Mocha Latte, and pull out your laptop on their free wireless network to research other parts of the world. Get some perspective before saying how screwed we are.
    • Lazydriver, on 05/16/2008, -2/+6New president = new talks.

      New talks = Iran, I'm a liberal, but if you don't stop building nukes we're gonna sanction your ass down to hell.
      • Trichomonas, on 05/17/2008, -0/+4Oh please. Where is the proof that they are building nukes?

        There are a lot of things wrong with Iran but you certainly can't know that they are building nukes.

        I'd have to agree with brianjlowrybrianjlowry (first reply to mfc5200mfc5200 2 posts up) and couldn't have said it better myself.
    • dkapuchino, on 05/16/2008, -3/+2It's not a matter of not meeting with them until they agree with your conditions. It's a matter of not meeting with them until they stop terrorist activities, and they are willing to sit down and talk about conditions.
    • apetrie, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4What is your issue with Obama's economic policies? (serious question, not baiting)

      It seems to me like he wants the U.S. to move more in the direction of many other western countries. The people are healthier, better off, and lead measurably better lives in those countries. Besides the typical hysteria over the socialist communist leftist whateverotherbuzzwordfreaksamericansout-ist take over, I'm not sure what the problem is.

      So honestly, whats the issue?
    • JointVenture, on 05/16/2008, -5/+1Hey dumb *****, EGYPT negotiated a truce with Israel because Israel kicked their ***** ass 4 times and totally destroyed their air force.

      You ***** moron.
      • mfc5200, on 05/16/2008, -0/+5http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_david_accords
        • JointVenture, on 05/17/2008, -1/+1Whats your point *****? I know about Camp David, I watched it live. (or as live as one could in 78)

          The point is EGYPT did not come to the table till they got their ass kicked and finally realized the would never be able to defeat Israel. The Arabs got their ass kicked even when they teamed up on Israel.

          Nice try sparky.

          That's the problem with the Iraq war, or any modern war these days, nobody has the stomach to win so it goes on and on and on, tyrant after tyrant after tyrant.
      • zeusthemoose, on 05/17/2008, -0/+3HOLY *****!!!!!!!! Congratulations. You win the prize. Biggest moron on digg. I can't believe you wrote that little jem. Honestly. Your ignorance of reality is astonishing.
  • IAMMIGHTY, on 05/16/2008, -7/+9WTF is a McBush????
    • apadana, on 05/16/2008, -2/+0haha
    • abby11, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1MMM YOU!
    • macmelo, on 05/17/2008, -0/+0I'm guessing a McBush is like a number 2, right?
    • cambob76, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1McCain = Bush + old age + a little more crazy juice + little more brains -> McBush
    • Stonekeeper, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1Sounds like a cheap'n'cheerfull escort agency... o.O
    • PoopOnPaul, on 05/17/2008, -0/+0Pubes in your burger.
  • clippypog, on 05/16/2008, -13/+6time for Obama appeasement tea party
    Hey, where are you guys from? How are you doing today?
    • bjornski, on 05/16/2008, -2/+4 LAUER: Let me ask you about Syria.

      Mr. McCAIN: Sure.

      LAUER: They have denied possessing weapons of mass destruction, they've also denied harboring any senior members of the Iraqi leader. The US administration says they have evidence to the contrary. How would you proceed with that situation?

      Mr. McCAIN: I think it's very appropriate that Colin Powell is going to Syria. I think we should put diplomatic and other pressures on them. It's also a time for Mr. Asad Bashar to realize that he should be more like his father was. I think he's too heavily influenced by a lot of the radical Islamic elements and--and militant groups.

      LAUER: Do you think Syria meets the criteria set forth by the president in his post-9/11 address to Congress that they pose an imminent threat to the US in that they are either sponsoring or harboring terrorists?

      Mr. McCAIN: I think they're--they're sponsoring and harboring terrorists. I think they have been occupying Lebanon, which should be free and independent for a long time, but I don't think that that means that we will now resort to the military action. We--we can apply a lot of pressure other than military--than the military action. So what I'm saying, we're a long way away from it.

      LAUER: Under what circumstances--under what circumstances would you back military action?

      Mr. McCAIN: When we've exhausted all other options. And we have a lot of options to--to exercise. And I'm glad Colin Powell's going there, but the Syrians have got to understand there's a new day in the Middle East.
  • Vector713, on 05/16/2008, -4/+4oh so we're calling him McBush now... sorry, I just can't keep track of all the names people call him anymore..
  • duckyinc, on 05/16/2008, -6/+1Why ***** don't you have anything to say?
  • rakovlam, on 05/16/2008, -17/+8Bush attacked the idea of appeasement (The entire point of having an intellectual debate. Such a simple concept even Bush got it) but somehow Obama and his worshipers translated into an ad hominem attack against Him.

    While the black John Edwards is the center of some (oh look, I obviously refered to Obama) people's universe, most people understand Bush cannot be attacking Obama's foreign policy. He does not have one.
  • p0s3r, on 05/16/2008, -16/+8I like the part where Obama attacked Bush's policies towards states like Iran, just to say he would change it by doing exactly what Bush says in his policy.
  • NelsonR, on 05/16/2008, -5/+4Even though I advocate an Obama Presidency it does not mean I agree with him totally. Israel is not the 51st state of the United states regardless of what you may have been told. Lieberman who ONLY represents Israel and AIPAC who overtly does represent Israel do not have the final say for Americans. Israel have their own nukes, they have decided, ON THEIR OWN, to make Israel and the land surrounding them Hebrew, in other words defend on your own what you think is the truism you seek. Israel and the Jewish faith is the sole influencing force within the middle east so again, why are we involved in perpetrating Israel over Arabs? I should add that our biased attitude for peace is disgusting but I know where the butter is spread in Washington, D.C.
    Israel wants to inhabit Arab land, their problem, not ours. How much more sanity must be observed while the term, PEACE will never be achieved with what is.
    Why the hell is Israel our cause while being a biased arbitor? Once again I will say, if I were an Arab I would hate and despise the U.S. for it's bias's.
    • apadana, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2"Israel is not the 51st state of the United states regardless of what you may have been told."

      In some ways it is. It was a creation of the US and England after WW2. They don't even have their own currency. They use US dollars.
      • sasmon, on 05/17/2008, -0/+0May be off point, but I believe the official currency is the new sheqel. Although as in many areas, including Mexico, the dollar remains the currency of business when foreigners visit. I don't really know....any actual Israelis know?
    • blackprizm, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2Unfortunately, Israel is the United States foothold in that part of the middle east. It's one more military base to strike the oil fields from. It is a strategic alliance.
  • sasmon, on 05/16/2008, -2/+12Negotiations with rogue and enemy nations can work. Call it appeasement if you must, but consider the case of Egypt. After President Carter put his considerable diplomatic skills to work, Egypt, long an enemy of Israel, signed a treaty in 1978. In exchange, the US has provided Egypt with about $2 billion in economic aid. I believe it is the 3rd highest recipient of foreign aid following Russia and Israel. This may not do much for our pride, but it is appeasement and it has been carried out by every administration since. Aid numbers for the last decade have been declining and Egypt is still at peace with Israel. Egypt has become, with Jordan, one of the most cordial to Israel in the region. Conservative choose to frame this in black and white terms, but by doing this, you force countries and their populace, in other spheres of influence, to make decisions in those terms. Finding a middle ground, from which you can establish long term peace and economic and political stability should be our goal. Leaders of these "rogue" states may indeed turn out to be just as unreasonable as our own administration, but we should not continue without attempting a dialog to find out.
    • dagamer34, on 05/16/2008, -3/+2Hamas isn't a country.
    • dkapuchino, on 05/16/2008, -4/+3Egypt signed a treaty with Israel after losing 4 wars with Israel. Once they realized they won't be able to get rid of Israel by military force, they were willing to sit down and talk. The Israeli leader to sign with egypt by the way was the harball right wing Menachem Begin.
      Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran aren't there. They actually do believe they can wipe off The US / Israel / Lebanon / Jordan by terrorist activities. You want them to sit down and talk? show them that terrorism is not the way, and that it gets them nowhere.

      Acheiving peace is indeed a matter of diplomacy, but that diplomacy can only be backed by strength, and the willingness to use that strength against if there are no other options. Obama might have the diplomacy, he doesn't have the strength to back it up.
      • sasmon, on 05/17/2008, -0/+0My point really is that talking with enemies does no harm. It is not an acknowledgment of baseless grievances. Egypt could have chosen to continue its hostile attitude toward Israel, as Syria and most other Middle Eastern countries still do, but Carter decided to hear them out and negotiate a settlement. Faced with a stark choice between continued aggression toward a common enemy which brings prestige in the region or making peace with that enemy which then brings retribution (Egypt was the victim of restricted trade as a result of this treaty from Saudi Arabia and other nations) it is hard not to do the easy thing. However, by creating a dialog Carter was able to accomplish what I believe most people in the WORLD thought was an impossible achievement. Had Egypt continued its aggressive stance, we would have not been any worse off other than knowing more about our enemies motives, intentions and long term goals.
    • macinhood, on 05/16/2008, -2/+1So we're to make friends by paying them off... I see.
      • sasmon, on 05/17/2008, -0/+0I'm just stating the facts, implications aside. I believe we are paying them to not attack Israel and from the facts I don't think I'm far off base to claim so. It's not always pretty to acknowledge the bare truth of some American foreign policy, but it is what it is. I'm also not making any moral judgment as to whether these actions are appropriate or not. Rather, I am pointing out a significant case, that is profoundly relative to the current situation, which illustrates how negotiation can actually achieve a kind of peace.
    • JointVenture, on 05/16/2008, -2/+2OMFG how ***** stupid are you! Israel beat the ***** ***** out of Egypt, destroying their air force, and THEN Egypt negotiated a truce.
      • sasmon, on 05/17/2008, -0/+0Well that's awesome how rude you are. It's also good to know that you understand the time frames involved. Israel destroyed their Air Force in the 1967 War, which is what I assume you are referring to. I'm also making the assumption that you believe this truce to have been some form of surrender as a result of that event. However, the Camp David Peace Accords occurred 11 years after. Before you go pointing fingers of stupidity you might want to at least perform a cursory Google search to "research" your "argument".
    • foofightrs777, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2Don't call it appeasement, because it isn't.
  • vanguardanon, on 05/16/2008, -5/+15Obama responded well but I wish he mentioned that Reagan spoke with the Russians all the time. If you invoke the beloved Reagan republicans will immediately STFU. There is no way to claim that talking to Russia didn't help achieve peace and glastnos.
    • dkapuchino, on 05/16/2008, -2/+4While Russia might have been an enemy, the russians weren't engaged in a "holy war" against the United States. Talking to your enemies is okay, when your enemies are ready to talk. Acts of violence and terrorists attacks show that they are not yet ready to talk.
      • JointVenture, on 05/16/2008, -6/+1I cant believe you are so ***** stupid that you would compare negotiating with Russia to negotiating with Hamas.

        That is why you people scare me. How old are you?

  • TheInformer, on 05/16/2008, -14/+6How is it an 'attack' when it's the truth?
    • JointVenture, on 05/16/2008, -1/+2Because every day the Democrats add another issue , person or policy that WE are not allowed to discuss because if we do we are just trying to DISTRACT people from the "issues" or attack him because we are racist.
  • coresnake, on 05/16/2008, -11/+3Well I guess we know why Digg was down yesterday.. they were upgrading their Ron Paul news blocking engine, because now the front page is back to the same Ospama Mccain crap
  • jbenson2, on 05/16/2008, -12/+9The O-man said: "When Kennedy met with Khruschev, we were on the brink of nuclear war."

    That's Barack Obama from today's incredible press conference where the Illinois senator combined petulance and ignorance in an unnerving display of just how unqualified he is to be Commander-in-Chief

    For the record, Kennedy and Khrushchev met in Vienna in June of 1961. We were not on the brink of nuclear war.
    • dkapuchino, on 05/16/2008, -2/+3It's all about the Rhetorics. Obamas got em. America digs em.
    • Kr05eSuks, on 05/16/2008, -1/+4uhh WRONG ...again

      bay of pigs....summit....Cuban missile crisis (nuclear climax)
      • R0am3r, on 05/17/2008, -2/+1The Cuban missile crisis was in 1962, not 1961! We were NOT on the brink of nuclear war. Let me guess, you were a History major?

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis
        • Kr05eSuks, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1bay of pigs 1961
          summit 1961
          CMC 1962

          brink - the point at which something is likely to begin;

          looks like that would be the bay of pigs...

          are you so blinded that you refuse to see that?
        • dkapuchino, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1Let me get this straight. First Summit, then missle crisis? We meet with them and talk to them, and they still set up nuclear missles in Cuba?
          I'm thinking the whole talking thing just is enough then.
        • Kr05eSuks, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1i see you still dont get it.. and typical.. change the subject..
          the subject is what Obama said..and is correct.. he never said all diplomacy will prevail..
          but you know what..you still try!! and that is the point.
      • jbenson2, on 05/17/2008, -2/+1The Cuban Missile Crisis was 15 months in the future. Just another O-man lie.
        • caroyapp1, on 05/17/2008, -1/+1I don't think that Obama mentioned which year that was. He said in the 60s which is correct. And we were on a brink of a nuclear war.
        • jbenson2, on 05/17/2008, -1/+1He did not say the 60's. Obama doesn't history very well. Kennedy and Khrushchev only met once and it was in Vienna in June of 1961. We were not on the brink of nuclear war. But you could make a legitimate argument that Kennedy's meeting was a disaster which is exactly what would happen to Obama's meetings without pre-conditions with the leaders of Iran,Syria, Cuba,and North Korea.
        • JekJob, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1Shut up.
        • Kr05eSuks, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1bay of pigs started it all(BRINK)...lead into the Cuban Missile Crisis(CLIMAX)..
          need any more lessons?

  • skellener, on 05/16/2008, -7/+4Dugg for McBush. I started using that one awhile ago too! This country can't take another four years of a fast food, bought and sold corporate president. I'd rather have Nader, but I'll take Obama.
  • chase001, on 05/16/2008, -7/+11It's a bit ironic for the grandson of a Nazi business parter and sympathizer to call anyone an apeaser.
    • TinternAbbot, on 05/16/2008, -2/+4No, it's not ironic. It would be ironic if a nazi sympathizer said these things, it is not ironic if the grandson of someone who had tenuous ties to a group that had tenuous ties to the nazis says these things. Stay in school.
      • thestranger, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1It would be a form of dramatic irony, if Bush was somehow unaware or not thinking about this information about his grandfather, when he made that particular statement.
      • chase001, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1I s Congress having to seize two of Prescott Bush's companies because he would not stop doing business with them even after the Trading With the Enemies Act was passed considered tenuous? The Nazi dream lived on after Germany it just changed countries and it only took them two generations to get into the Presidency.
  • vasconcj, on 05/16/2008, -7/+2Huckabee jokes about Obama being assassinated... Crazy...

    Video here: http://digg.com/politics/Huckabee_Jokes_about_Obam ...
  • GreyHobbyHorse, on 05/16/2008, -12/+4Democrat appeaser hit right between the eyes, squeals like stuck pig because someone called him an appeaser. How rich is this --- I guess he forgot that people didn't forget he said this in that fateful debate. LOL ... Did you notice the Israeli audience, standing ovation ...

    If a Democrat appeaser ever said they loved America half the country would faint. The Democrat hate America first party.

    Oh man, I can't quit laughing. Poor guy is so naive he thinks everyone else is as stupid as he is.
    • johnnyfistfight, on 05/16/2008, -1/+3Right on target.
    • caroyapp1, on 05/17/2008, -0/+0You must be a repug. You sound like one and write like one and even don't know the meaning of the word 'appease'. Yep. You must be Kevin James! lol
  • vasconcj, on 05/16/2008, -6/+6the republicans don't have a clue... now Huckabee joking about OBAMA's ASSASSINATION... career ender?

    Here's the video of the statement: http://digg.com/politics/Huckabee_Jokes_about_Obam ...
    • highlyhigh, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1lol the guy's sense of humor is more wacked than his hair-do.
  • Vash3001, on 05/16/2008, -1/+9Buried for not being about hamburgers.
  • nastronomical, on 05/16/2008, -13/+4Obama: Sure, I'll meet with Castro, Chavez, Ahmadinejad, etc

    ****Link****




    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSFSUbMWenU
    • johnnyfistfight, on 05/16/2008, -6/+2You're going to be buried for telling the truth. You just don't do that sort of thing here.
      Obama never said that thing you think he said about that thing. It's neocons, Halliburton, Cheney and Bush's grandfather was Hitlers buddy and explain what happen to building 7. Just don't talk about Obama.
  • macinhood, on 05/16/2008, -5/+2Calling the terrorists dogs would be insulting to a great animal, but I think that's just the way they should be treated. If they want to play with the rest of the world, we tell them what we want and expect... we keep whatever needed pressure on them until they bend to our will... and we give them a tasty treat for being good. Done. I don't give a crap what their reasons are... they can either get along with their neighbors and the rest of the reasonable world, or we're going to jam our collective boot up their a$$. Oh, and if you're offended by that... I'm offended by your offense, so piss off.
    • Kwipper, on 05/17/2008, -2/+1I just wish Bush would call the terrorists as they really are..

      Assholes.
    • onyxcoltrane, on 05/17/2008, -0/+3If you are an innocent Iraqi victim of US bombing in an unwarranted invasion, then guess who the terrorists are?
  • JointVenture, on 05/16/2008, -4/+6Everyone knows we are not allowed to question Obama, he has done no wrong, just ask his fans.

    At least the Republicans are willing to take John McCain to task, the obama fans on the other hand will never and I mean never admit to a single fault.

    In fact I challenge you Obama fans to list five concerns you have about Obama, list five issues that you disagree with...

    Can you do it? Or are you brainwashed. Please I'm really serious, can you list 5, or even 2? If you cant you need to ask yourself some serious questions.
    • JointVenture, on 05/17/2008, -1/+1Thats what I thought. You just cant bring yourself to type it.

      Almost as if you're brainwashed.

      ***** even Bush's daughter has criticized her father.
  • phrenzy, on 05/16/2008, -2/+3Thanks for the lulz, Republican trolls. I swear, whenever I actually start to feel nervous about the general election, I just come here to get a sneak preview of what the Republicans can come up with to try to explain why McCain is a better choice than Obama. They don't have much to work with except the same boogeymen jingoism that they have been using for the past 7 years. The difference is, this time (unlike Kerry and Gore) there is somebody who is articulate and forceful enough to throw it right back in their face.

    It's gonna be like watching a pop-warner football team playing against the Pro-Bowlers.

    ENABLED, ENERGIZED, LEGITIMIZED!!!
  • amightywind, on 05/16/2008, -5/+3Obama's press conference today was rather embarrassing. His ignorance of the basic history of the Cold War was on full display. His notions of diplomacy with countries that act in bad faith is naive. Obama showed us startlingly Un-Presidential stuff today. Man, did President Bush kick the messiah in the balls with this one.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 59 of 59 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.