Bush warns against appeasing terrorists; Obama claims 'false political attack' on him
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
Australia's most populated state lifts uranium mining ban
( 2 )
-
Israel blames Iran for series of blasts
( 22 )
-
Obama: Strong U.S.-China ties help rest of the world
( 6 )
-
Santorum surging in Republican presidential race
( 17 )
-
Private funeral Saturday for Whitney Houston
( 2 )
-
- English Instructor (Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe)
- Berlitz Japan, Inc. (ベルリッツ・ジャパン株式会社), Kansai
- Salary: ¥125,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month
-
- FT English Teachers for Kids - Osaka
- Kohgakusha Co., Ltd. （株式会社興学社）, Osaka
- Salary: ¥255,000 ~ ¥275,000 / Month Travel Expenses, Encouragement of Japanese learning*
-
- Translator
- ZAIHON, Inc. (日本財務翻訳株式会社), Tokyo
- Salary: ¥6.0M / Year Negotiable
Order by Time Order by Popularity
61 Comments
Login to comment
0
skipthesong
“naiveté and inexperience and lack of judgment” in his willingness to meet with U.S. foes."
Why don't they meet with us? Why haven't they even reached out and tried to get things worked out?
0
Everton2
There is always a better chance of a resolution if you talk to the people you are in disagreement with. It just makes sense in the course of any plan to find a common ground. In fact, it is exceedingly arrogant to take the position that they are not worth the time to talk with. It follows that same insane and patently stupid position that if they don't agree with us they are against us.
0
Bgood41
I think Barak Hussein Obama can do better than that. He criticizes Bush every turns he could; and now crying foul like a baby when the wheel turns on him. It is a historical fact, remember Chamberlain appeased Hitler before WWII! There have been numerous attempts of talking with Iran Syria and Palestinian alike over the years. It have not produced result because we did not match their demands? It is so naive to suggest that common ground can be achieved in this case. Please study their real intent, and then learn how to talk. The Dems and Obama offer their band-aid solution that go nowhere. Keep on singing "give peace a chance" or "kumbaya my lord". I guess a lot of folks love these Hollywood themes. What a shame!
0
skipthesong
It follows that same insane and patently stupid position that if they don't agree with us they are against us." Everton, I hope you are not in the camp that is on the oppisite end that basically says the same thing... If you are not for this and that then you are that and this..
Keep on singing "give peace a chance" or "kumbaya my lord". I guess a lot of folks love these Hollywood themes" Ah yes, but if the shoe was on the other foot, they would be doing exactly what Bush is doing..
0
adaydream
Why would our enemies want to talk to us? george bush has threatened, accused without evidence and pissed off most of the civilized world.
Why would people extend a hand?
We need to re-open dialogue with the world, not just countries that will trade in USD.
0
skipthesong
adaydream: the crap with the ME has been going on long before Bush. Or were you not born before the Carter years?
Perhaps if they did extend a conversation when not only Clinton, but Bush Sr, and even Regan were in office and they even tried it.
0
SuperLib
It is probably good to separate the act of talking with what someone is talking about. I generally support talking to these people in an attempt to soften their point of view, but I sure as hell don't support giving them anything that would lead to terrorism being an effective negotiation tool.
0
skipthesong
I would like to a talk and when that fails, I am willing to bet everyone comes down on the US.
0
SuperLib
Well, I said that I support talking, but obviously I don't support self-loathing Americans representing me at the table. Guys like daydream would bring a box of tissues and some kneepads. Not a good ending for the rest of us, I'd imagine.
0
skipthesong
As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: ‘Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.’"
So, does history repeat itself?
0
skipthesong
When I hear Obama is going to start talking to internal American enemies, to bring them together, such as the NBP and KKK, then I'll listen to him about talking to anyone of American's enemies.
Besides, aren't there just too many?
0
Zaphod
Obama should explain what exactly he wants to talk with Ahmedinejad with. The speed of the dismantling of the "stinking corpse" of Israel? The timetable for the conversion of the USA into an islamic republic, as demanded by Ahmedinejad in his open letter to Bush? The timetable for the next conference that denies the holocaust?
If Obama thinks that by simply "talking" he could change the firm conviction of a 12er Shiite activist like Ahmedineja is delusional.
Another interesting aspect is that as a born muslim, Obama would be considered an apostate in Iran. And Iran has just recently reinstated the death penalty for apostacy, according to Shariah law, apostecy being the worst crime imaginable. Just the man for a friendly talk with Ahmedinejad, for sure.
0
skipthesong
And Iran has just recently reinstated the death penalty for apostacy, according to Shariah law, apostecy being the worst crime imaginable. Just the man for a friendly talk with Ahmedinejad, for sure."
Do you really think that would or even could happen to him?
0
Taka313
Now this is the beauty behind george bush. The same guy who O.K.'d paying Sunni insurgents money to fight al quaeda is talking about not appeasing the terrorists. The same guy who takes away freedoms in order to fight an enemy that supposedly hates us for our freedoms is talking about not appeasing the terrorists.
There are times when I think that george bush may be the dumbest man to ever hold a public office, then there are moments like this. This man, is an artist. B.S. is his canvas.
Taka
0
DanManjt
So much for when a U.S. president is overseas, partisan politics stops at the water's edge. Well, that's what you get with Bush. What an @ss.
In more than one way. Think about it: Its really rather a bad move on Bush's part for his party. If Obama and the Democrats can run against Bush this fall, its really curtains for the McCain and the Republicans.
Stupid slams like this just make the McBush third term case to the American people.
So you see, I'm loving it.
0
skipthesong
Taka313: You have a damn good point. Although I would debate as to what freedoms I have lost.
But, the article is about appeasing the terrorist and Obama wanting to talk to them. So, let me ask you - as history has shown, with Bush's point about Hitler (just the quote man, not the man), do you think it is a good idea to talk to them and would they take it as using terror as a negotiating tool? If you do answer that, please leave Bush out of it.
Additionally, the US population is fighting internally, and that has increase in the last ten-fifteen years. Why won't Obama have the fighting races sit down with one another? All represented groups do seem to use a form of terror, so why not?
0
reddragonguy
Appeasing terrorists?
yes right, thats why Osama Bin laden is still out there in Pakistan!
0
Alphaape
I saw a good discussion on this on Fox news today. The one commentator wanted to know what would Obama tell Iran in regards to their activity. The pro Obama commentator said that he would bring ultimatums to Iran on what the response would be if they continue with their current policy.
It seems to me, that the pro-Obama commentator is saying that Obama will do the same thing that Bush is doing now. From other reports I have read, this seems to be the mantra of the Dems. They state that they don't want to continue the war, but will be willing to invade places like Pakistan to go after the US enemies, and this sems the same to me as Bush.
What Obama has not menioned, is what tone he will take. I agree, during the cold war, we had discussions with the USSR, but they were a legitimate government. We even had some diplomatic channels with Japan during WW2 working behind the scenes to try to reach an agreement to end the war without the "total surrender" evenl late into the war. So, talking to your enemies is fine by me, but what I need to know is what direction will he be going in his policy towards Hamas, Iran and other terror states. He has not clearly defined his position. It is one thing to have back channels to these groups and have a President like Bush or McCain in office, since they know that they can only go so far and then feel the harsh reality of possible military action. But it is another to have those same channels with someone like Obama in office and knowing that he does not have the will to back up friendly nations like Israel with military force.
0
GrouchyGaijin
Not supporting United States Government policies, does not make one, in any way, less of a friend of the American people and most certainly does not label one an anti-American. Just like criticizing the Mafia does not make one anti-Italian.
0
Taka313
Skip, I would really like to answer your question but I don't fully understand where you are headed with it. Could you please re-phrase it? Then I will endeavor to answer it for you.
Taka
0
skipthesong
Taka: We tried appeasing Hitler, it didn't work. Why do you think it would work here? Do you think talking to terrorist groups, which are not a government, use terror as a bargaining chip and if yes, how many NEW groups will pop up?
Why is it more important to talk to terrorist in other countries and not talk to people/extremist groups in the states?
0
skipthesong
When/if Obama is in office, how will he respond to these groups who are intent on removing Israel?
0
RomeoRamenII
Just what did President Bush say or what position did he take that slammed barack specifically?
President Bush has stated all along that it is his opinion and policy that the US will not negotiate with terrorists or those who threaten us or our allies and has spoken out against those who would want to before.
Is the reference he gave in the speech incorrect? Did he say something that was new?
Heh ... Seems the democrats can dish it out, but can't take it.
RR
0
presto345
Obama crying foul indicates he feels guilty.
0
adaydream
Why did george bush slam any American politician overseas, period?
0
Taka313
Skip,
I'm still a little shaky as to where you are going with this one but this is what I think: I think it makes absolute sense to sit down and talk with the terrorists. Talking isn't appeasement, nor is negotiating a compromise. Appeasement is just giving them what they want without getting anything in return. No one is advocating that here. The right-wing noise machine would have us believe that is the case, but it's not. bush's speech was simply a straw man argument, nothing more.
I don't know if that is the case. What extremist groups do we not talk to in the states? I do know that senior law enforcement officer are given training in negotiating and the FBI Academy in Quantico, VA also teaches a class in negotiating. At least they did back in the early '80s (my father attended it).
Well...that's the best you are going to get on a Friday afternoon. I'm clocking out early. My work is done and the mac here at my office died. Have a good one.
Peace,
Taka
0
adaydream
Whoever the democratic president is: If there is a country that has an agenda to terrorize, let's say Mexico. These are terrorist, now. Should we sit down with them and try to keep the peace or just call them names and threaten them with military options?
0
Madverts
Madverts warned Bush about creating terrorists.
Only he didn't listen.
And now we have, thanks to Bush Co, a chaotic country called Iraq slipping into fundiness and further anti-Americanism, and of course Afghanistan, the country we weren't going to forget about, but did.
Bush Co should keep quiet on the issue of terrorism. He once called himself the "War President". I submit he is the Terror President.
Stroll on 2009 when the enema has been effectuated, and we have a Democrat at the helm of the free world.
0
smithinjapan
“Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along.”
Bush seems to believe that the government of Iran (whom the US helped install after overthrowing the former leader, only to have it fail AGAIN) are a bunch of terrorists, as well as that of Syria, and anyone else who doesn't agree with him. Therefore, he is saying basically the entire ME needs to be invaded and FORCED into democracy; of course, when they do hold democratic elections and groups like Hamas get elected, hell, they are terrorists too!
Bush proves once again what an utter ar$e he is, and how completely unqualified he is to lead a country, let alone preach what 'democracy' is and isn't, as well as what makes up terrorists (like himself).
Presto345: "Obama crying foul indicates he feels guilty."
So you whole-heartedly admit McCain wants a 100 year war because he's crying foul about people saying he said it, and that he feels bad about all the pork-barrel spending that has led to the economic crisis the US is facing, etc. Newsflash: just because someone cries foul about slander, doesn't mean they feel guilty in the least.
0
DXXJP
Um then what the hell is going on in NK. There is room for diplomacy or talks with an axis of evil unless your an oil producing nation.
0
smithinjapan
"Um then what the hell is going on in NK. There is room for diplomacy or talks with an axis of evil unless your an oil producing nation."
No kidding! And not only that, he never said there is any 'peace and democracy in NK' in his crystal ball premonition; he, as you said, limited it to oil producers.
0
Madverts
Speaking of Bush Co and terror, "bin-Laden" has made supposedly made another tape:
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/05/16/bin.laden.message/index.html
"(Bush Co) decried the actions and the motivations of terrorists and noted that bin Laden teaches that "the killing of Jews and Americans is one of the biggest duties."
Bush hasn't appeased terror. He's actually aided the terrorists.
0
nucular
smithinjapan : "Bush seems to believe that the government of Iran (whom the US helped install after overthrowing the former leader, only to have it fail AGAIN) are a bunch of terrorists, as well as that of Syria, and anyone else who doesn't agree with him. "
The US helped "install" the Khomeini gov't? It was the US that put up the exiled Khomeini in a swank Paris suburb so he could foment his glorious Islamic revolution that, 29 years on, has reduced Iran to a nearly third world nation despite the fact that it sits on more oil than it could ever use??
Tell us more, professor.
0
Madverts
"The US helped "install" the Khomeini gov't?"
Heh, even your history can't be that bad to not understand the reference to the democraticly elected government the US helped overthrow. The CIA even used Saddam Hussein as part of a 6 man hit-squad to assasinate the then leader of Iraq. Before they supplied him with 'choppers and posin gas to better kill Iranians.
No wonder people balk at bush and his dwindling supporters when he speaks of appeasing terrorists. Given these two0 choices, I'd rather appease them than make the bastards stronger...
0
Sarge
Bush's comments are right on.
But I think Obama might be the guy to negotiate peace in the Middle East, with his middle name being Hussein and all.
xD
0
nucular
madverts : "Heh, even your history can't be that bad to not understand the reference to the democraticly elected government the US helped overthrow."
Quite apart from what smithinJapan was saying (the US installed Khomeini?) that was interesting to read.
I mean, from a guy who insists democracy cannot come to the region how is it Iran once had it?
0
Madverts
nuke,
Let's just say democracy is possible in the region - provided they elect the people we like.
0
Sarge
"the people we like"
They would be people who aren't interested in killing us.
0
nucular
madverts : "Let's just say democracy is possible in the region - provided they elect the people we like."
No, the way you flail about I'm more inclined to believe that people like you value and point to the Mossadegh years and democracy in Iran only because you can charge it was snuffed out by the same people you insist are forcing it on Iraq. No mention of Soviet military adventurism in the region, no mention that what became BP is the main reason he was overthrown, never any context, just one preposterous straight line from Dulles to Wolfowitz.
0
Madverts
Flail? Heh.
The Soviets learnt their lesson. The Americans haven't.
Better luck next time.
0
Sarge
"The Soviets learnt their lesson"
Thanks to American-made stinger missiles, eh?
0
Madverts
Yes, uh, sarge, I'm sure Ossama bin Laden enjoyed the training program!
0
Sarge
Yes, uh, madverts, I'm sure Binny did enjoy it. His life pretty much sucks now though.
0
nucular
"The Soviets learnt their lesson."
At last we are on topic. Yes, they watched and were emboldened by how Carter caved in to Khomeini and correctly guessed his admin would do nothing if they made a play for the long-coveted Afghanistan.
Obama would be Carter all over again.
0
Madverts
"His life pretty much sucks now though."
Why's that, uh, sarge? He's the hero of the fundie world, the so-called War on Terror has been a monumental failure and worse, he's still at large and allegedly making tapes...
Even if the US manage to snuff him off, he's of the egotistical ilk of idiots that know fine well his snuffing will bring him martydom.
Either way, we lose.
0
smithinjapan
Nucular: A shame you don't know much about your own history. The 1953 CIA led coup against the democratically-elected Prime Minister of Iran Mohammad Mossadegh then led to the Shah being installed as Prime Minister after a second coup was staged and succeeded. Kermit Roosevelt and he toasted each other, with the Shah stating, " “I owe my throne to God, my people, my army, and you.” Correspondents later joked that, 'he was quite right, though he got the order mixed up." The CIA was so extremely proud of their overthrowing the Iranian government that a very short time later the Guatemalan government, whom they decided they didn't like suddenly, was overthrown. BOOM... suddenly there are worse people 'in office' than those that preceded them. Fortunately, many governments know all this and, like with Chavez in Venezuela, when the US doesn't like those who are elected, the US' coup attempts fail. Mission accomplished.
Thus endeth the history lesson, my friend. Weep about the facts all you like, but the facts they are; bush and his cronies, and people like him in US government (past and present) drone on and on about democracy and what it means, and yet they themselves move against democracy when they simply don't like the results. Truly sad.
0
Madverts
nucular,
"if they made a play for the long-coveted Afghanistan."
Like I said - check your history. The then leader of Afghanistan invited the Soviets in. But that isn't the topic.
I can see why you and uh, sarge get uptight, having been ardent bush supporters throughout his failed tenure and all, but like I said, the man shouldn't be critisizing or even giving advice on combatting terrorism whatsoever.
No one, bin Laden included has done more for Islamic fundimentalism than Bush Co and the neo-cons.
0
smithinjapan
Madverts: I notice nucular has 'disappeared' since my last post on historical facts and regime change, and the challenge to the current government's stance on it. Hmmm....
Again, bush is a flat out moron, and his allusions to the current governments the US has in some cases helped install... well.... it's even more hilarious to see them support their dear leader.
0
zurcronium
If President Obama wants to get advice on how to fail miserably in the middle east, or anywhere for that matter, he can call on bush. At this very moment bush is running an appeasement program for North Korea, which really does have nukes, unlike Iraq which didnt.
bush giving advice on foreign affairs is totally worthless. Unless you want to fail. Then its terrific.
0
SezWho2
Well, in any event, President Bush is at least an expert when it comes to not being persuaded by ingenious arguments that he has been wrong all along.
0
nucular
zurcronium : "If President Obama [sic] wants to get advice on how to fail miserably in the middle east [Middle East] , or anywhere for that matter, he can call on bush [Bush] ."
Obama is president of Canada?
I really don't get your post.
You need your head checked.
0
adaydream
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2007/240707fascistcoup.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0925-01.htm
george bush ought to keep his mouth shut. There are plenty who remember or have been reminded what his grandfather did to help advance the efforts of Adolf Hitler. Talk about appeasing the enemy.
It is unbelieveable that george bush would take American politics and slanderous attacks overseas. If Barack had done this, the republicans would be livid and accuse him of being un-American.
Change....Oh for a change in American politics.
0
skipthesong
smith: you are correct in your CIA post. But, do you think the CIA still has that type of power? I don't.
Addtionally, Obama has made a mistake in talking about this. I personally think he should have kept quiet on it. That would have been much better. Now, people are wasting time one what was said, what it mean, blah blah...
It would have been better to just gaffe it off
0
RomeoRamenII
President Bush never mentioned a name or even a party. But just like the article says, anyone guilty of doing exactly what he stated yelped immediately.
Heh ... everyone but the liberals is getting a kick out of watching barack cry foul again. It exposes him for how weak he really is.
RR
0
super delegate
Bush speaks in obviously general terms about appeasement bunnies and like the rookie that he is Barack Hussein Obama leaps up, identifies himself as guilty, and then gets all huffy.
Hahahahaha.
Too funny!
0
Taka313
It's a good point to say that bush didn't mention anyone in particular when he spoke.
Also, it's never a bad idea to point out that in few cases does anyone really know what bush is talking about, bush included!
Taka
0
GW
if it wasnt so serious a topic I wud say its hilarious reading all this back & forth btwn Dems & Repubs....... same ole same ole
Bottom Line is Bush & his wingnuts have made the world a much more dangerous place, caused the deaths of 10`s of thousands, made a terrorist paradise in Iraq, & looks like Afganistan is sliding backwards, ditto for Pakistan & Bush is busy with NKorea & made a recent trip to Saudi Arabia a lovely thriving example of ME democracy(HA HA NOT!) & he has the friggin gall to talk about appeasing terrorists, pathetic
0
Zaphod
Bush simply made a factual statement --- that appeasers are naive and dangerous. Obama found decided that shoe fits him and put it on. That is all there is to it.
0
GW
Zaphod
bush was simply describing himself, or didnt you read my lovely rant pointing out his appeasing of NKorea & SArabia, thats all there is to it!
0
Farmboy
Note: You have to find the terrorists in order to appease them. "Yuuu-huuu, Osaaaama" has not proven to be effective.
0
Zaphod
GW
Bushes brownnosing the Saudis is disgraceful. And trying to bribe North Korea into abandoning their nuke program was a blunder, but remember that was Clinton`s original strategy, and a long-standing demand from the Democrats. Bush simply obliged, and see what we got.
Regardless, appeasing Ahmedinejad like Obama has suggested takes it to a different dimension altogether.
Back to top