Oh, c'm'on.
If a right winger makes a fool of himself, there must be a plot to set him up?
I'm not much for conspiracy theories based on nothing more than vague suspicions and vague 'possibilites'.

As a general rule,my own theory is that there is a plot behind all the screaming heads interviews on cable 'news”. It's to enhance the viewership of the host, promote the host as a personlity, increase ratings for the station and increase profits for the owners.

No worries. There are a number of issues where I have a distrust of the MSM as well, for the spin and poorly researched positions that I have seen them take in the past (on either party). Be it via omission, lack of context, or otherwise, loud voices within that group do not make it easy to see an issue even close to its entirety.

On Bush and whether or not he meant Obama- I think he most likely did, but he framed it as an “if the shoe fits” criticism. So the question is, do Obama supporters believe the shoe fits? If they don't then the criticism doesn't rightly go to Obama so why get so outraged over it? It'd add a lot more to the discourse if people would actually explain why they think talking with Iran without appeasement might be possible (which apparently is the position of Obama and his supporters), or why they don't think so at this time (which is Bush and McCain's position.)

Oh, it was there. Coulter and her harridans were screaming for Pelosi's head! Oops that pesky memory hole.. fell in it again.

Appeasement is giving things away so the bullies don't stuff you into a locker tomorrow. Talk/negotiation is both parties walking away with something. This hysteria has to stop, common sense needs to come back from exile.
The greatest battle one is the one not fought.
Neocons and jackasses are all hot to pull triggers, shoot first and then leave the American taxpayer to clean up the crime scene.

Iraq is not “ours” to give away, it is not a province, protectorate or state. Go back to civics class!

Newsflash- we've had enough with your antics. at least in December you'll have a Democrat in the WH to bitch about- look forward to that.

Look at how Senator Obama has response to his lack of support from blue collar whites. Instead of trying to identify their concerns and make proposals based upon their concerns, he just called them a bunch of racist and told them to get over it.

I wasn't (and am not) aware of the WH aides' comments. If true (and I have no reason to doubt you), them that of course makes this an Emily Litella moment for me. (showing my age with THAT reference)

And Bush refuses to talk to our enemies. Yessiree..I'd say that Bush is the big appeaser and has put America at great risk….

BTW: of course Bush was referring to Obama. We've seen how Bush uses vague language to get around questions that he doesn't want to answer, and he has admitted to outright lying (I'm referring to his removal of Rumsfeld- you might recall that Bush said Rumsfeld had his full support then after the Nov. 2006 elections Bush sacked Rumsfeld. When Bush was asked about his support of Rumsfeld just a week, Bush replied that he knew the previous week that Rumsfeld was going to be sacked, but he gave the answer he did because he didn't want to discuss it. I didn't think it was ok for presidents to lie to the public because they didn't want to discuss something. He could have said any number of things, instead of an outright lie.

The only party in America Bush would feel the need to attack would be the Dems. and the highest profile Dem (and most direct threat to the Republicans) is Obama.

There are times when the MSM takes a perspective one way (or another) on a given story, so as to spin it as they see fit. I'll grant you that. However, the only spin that can be given that White House aides told CNN that Bush was targetting Obama is to simply deny that it occurred, as you seem to be implying.

So, to clear up the fog, I ask you for a yes or a no: Is CNN lying about obtaining a statement from White House aides where they acknowledge that the President's remarks were aimed at Barack Obama?

What I'm basically saying is I have no problem with Bush attacking Obama, if he did it directly and accurately. He's got a fair place to disagree with Obama, but he has to do his argument justice if he is to do it internationally or even domestically. If his problem is not with Obama, he needs to point to whom he is actually referring. Otherwise, he's fighting a strawman that doesn't exist.

If you want intelligent debates on issues, you'd literally have experts on those issues and in those fields answering and asking the questions.

I love it. Let's forget Reagan and the Soveits. Let's forget Nixon & China. Yes, we can't possibly “talk” to our enemies…

Come on, guys. Austin, though, you know what I'm getting at. This is a case where you say 'all right, yeah, that was pretty stupid' and move on, because there's not really a good case to be made.

If the President wanted to say he disagreed with Obama, he should point out why he disagrees with the President having direct talks, and then explain why that is valid. So, he'd not only say 'well, it legitimizes our enemies.' He'd say 'well, see, these other things don't.' Basically, there's an argument to be made, but it's not being pursued fully or honestly.

If the President could say 'these talks will have a negative impact on us, and here's why, and here's why the alternatives are less negative', then I don't think he'd get much flack for it.

Using a strawman, however, just makes his actual claims weaker.

It's like he's counting on people being stupid enough that only the sparknotes version of the discussion will do. He should invest some time into actually communicating his qualms to the American people in a way that doesn't assume we need abridged idiocy.

What I'm trying to get at here is the outrage is because Bush not only took a pot-shot at Obama, but mischaracterized him as Nelville Chamberlein's house of appeasement. However, if you say the statement is not about Obama, then who is he talking about? If the answer is people who have a policy of appeasement towards Iran that are part of the US government, then he is not talking about anyone.

He is talking about a mythical character.

Appeasement is quite literally giving someone else whatever they want so that they won't hurt you. Diplomacy is the act of developing mutual wants. The point of diplomacy is not to avert a threat, but to lay the foundations for influence and partnership. That is, quite literally, appeasement would be if Iran was actually capable of conquering another country, and we let them do it so that they wouldn't hurt us or our allies. Diplomacy is the act of sitting down with Iran and talking about nuclear policy, about the war in Iraq, about a whole host of things, and finding the places where our interests are common, and developing wants for Iran to see.

The President's flaw, then, is that if he is speaking about someone, then he is mischaracterizing what they are doing and confusing diplomacy with appeasement. If he is not, however, then he is simply speaking about a nothing; about no one.

Appeasement doesn't work, but not every country we ever meet is Nazi Germany. Negotiations and diplomacy sometimes work (see: Reagan/Soviet Union, Nixon/China, FDR/Soviet Union), and sometimes they do not. War sometimes provides resolution, but often times fails, at the largest cost (Vietnam, Iraq).

You cannot throw diplomacy or negotiations off the table, however, because they are preventative. They prevent the biggest plague on human beings in terms of money, progress and lives: warfare. No one wants World War II or World War I or a Civil War. It does not follow that we give up everything to prevent it. It does not follow, either, however, that we try nothing else.

American adults are dying in Iraq, and coming home and killing themselves here. They have massive injuries. They are being misdiagnosed to push them back into the field. There are very few looking out for them or their families, and all it appears to be is a minmizing of fiscal loss despite the fact that these soldiers are entitled to the full ride. The thing is, this is the cost of the war, and it is worth measures of diplomacy, negotations, and direct talks to prevent these costs.

Will Barak Obama give away, Iraq? Afghanistan? Israel?
reply

Can someone please pick my jaw off the floor for me?