Obama Responds To Bush’s “Appalling” Charge Of Him Wanting Terrorists “Appeasement” (UPDATED)
Democratic Senator Barack Obama has responded to President George Bush and presumptive Republican nominee Senator John McCain — calling Bush’s suggestion that he favored “appeasement” of terrorists “appalling” and blasting McCain’s agreement with Bush on the issue.
He called the attacks “dishonest and divisive” and accused McCain of “hypocrisy” for going after him despite having advocated talking to foes himself. He also cited various Republicans bigwigs and policymakers who also advocate dialogue. Here is his speech, via TPM:
Barack Obama struck back hard at President Bush and John McCain Friday, accusing them of hypocrisy and of distorting his position on dialogue with nations hostile to the United States, telling a South Dakota crowd that “I’m running for president to change course, not to continue George Bush’s course.”
“I want to be perfectly clear with George Bush and John McCain, and with the people of South Dakota,” he said at a Watertown campaign stop. “If George Bush and John McCain want to have a debate about protecting the United States of America, that is a debate that I’m happy to have any time, any place and that is debate I will win because George Bush and John McCain have a lot to answer for.”
In his comments before the Israeli Knesset Thursday, Bush seemed to equate the Illinois senator’s foreign policy views with those of Nazi appeasers in the years before World War II, though he did not mention any names. Obama strongly criticized the president for the remarks Friday, calling them “the kind of appalling attack that’s divided our country and that alienates us from the world.”
Read it all.
Democrats should be heartened by Obama’s response. He shows here that he can not only respond quickly, but eloquently and with some humor as well. He used Bush’s comments to further tether McCain to Bush and use it as an argument for a change not only in policies but in the tone and seriousness of discussion of issues.
UPDATE: The Los Angeles’ Times Top of the Ticket blog has an interesting take on it — and “update” comments from McCain indicating that the presumptive GOP nominee is indeed saying “me, too” to Bush’s comments.
Signaling he’s not about to let the “appeasement” issue die, Barack Obama moments ago scored President Bush and John McCain on foreign policy. Speaking at a forum on agricultural issues in Watertown, S.D., Obama slammed the Republicans for contending that he was willing to negotiate with terrorists.
McCain is once again squarely aligning himself with Bush:
McCain’s spokesman, responds. “It was remarkable to see Barack Obama’s hysterical diatribe in response to a speech in which his name wasn’t even mentioned. These are serious issues that deserve a serious debate, not the same tired partisan rants we heard today from Senator Obama. Sen. Obama has pledged to unconditionally meet with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — who pledges to wipe Israel off the map, denies the Holocaust, sponsors terrorists, arms America’s enemies in Iraq and pursues nuclear weapons. What would Sen. Obama talk about with such a man? It would be a wonderful thing if we lived in a world where we don’t have enemies. But that is not the world we live in, and until Sen. Obama understands that, the American people have every reason to doubt whether he has the strength, judgment and determination to keep us safe.”
opinions powered by SendLove.to
24 Responses to “Obama Responds To Bush’s “Appalling” Charge Of Him Wanting Terrorists “Appeasement” (UPDATED)”
[...] The Greg Knapp Experience wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptObama Responds To Bush’s “Appalling” Charge Of Him Wanting Terrorists “Appeasement” May 16th, 2008 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief Democratic Senator Barack Obama has responded to President George Bush and presumptive Republican nominee Senator John McCain — calling Bush’s suggestion that he favored “appeasement” of terrorists “appalling” and blasting McCain’s agreement with Bush on the issue. He called the attacks “dishonest and divisive” and accused McCain of “hypocrisy” for going after [...]
[...] McCain Blogs wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptObama Responds To Bush’s “Appalling” Charge Of Him Wanting Terrorists “Appeasement” May 16th, 2008 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief Democratic Senator Barack Obama has responded to President George Bush and presumptive Republican nominee Senator John McCain — calling Bush’s suggestion that he favored “appeasement” of terrorists “appalling” and blasting McCain’s agreement with Bush on the issue. He called the attacks “dishonest and divisive” and accused McCain of “hypocrisy” for going after [...]
[...] Political Punch wrote an interesting post today on Obama Responds To Bushâ??s â??Appallingâ?? Charge Of Him Wanting…Here’s a quick excerptDemocratic Senator Barack Obama has responded to President George Bush and presumptive Republican nominee Senator John McCain — calling Bush’s [...]
Obama is going to clean McCain's clock in November. Everytime I hear them talk I only become more convinced.
[...] The Moderate Voice – Domestic and international news analysis, irreverent comments, original reporti… wrote an interesting post today on Obama Responds To Bushâ??s â??Appallingâ?? Charge Of Him Wanting Terrorists â??Appeasementâ?? (UPDATED)Here’s a quick excerptObama Responds To Bush’s “Appalling” Charge Of Him Wanting Terrorists “Appeasement” (UPDATED) May 16th, 2008 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief Democratic Senator Barack Obama has responded to President George Bush and presumptive Republican nominee Senator John McCain — calling Bush’s suggestion that he favored “appeasement” of terrorists “appalling” and blasting McCain’s agreement with Bush on the issue. He called the attacks “dishonest and divisive” and accused McCain of “hypocrisy” for g [...]
Well, at least he preaches well to the choir.
It would probably help people figure out if Bush was referring to him in his criticism if we actually knew what Obama's position on negotiations really is. Since I've asked about seven different times and haven't gotten a response, I still don't know what his position is or what his supporters think his position is.
This part is actually breathtakingly ballsy- as the accusation aimed at McCain is based on a misrepresentation of what McCain said, and in the same sentence that Obama repeats that disingenuous attack on McCain he's using the same to say that McCain is hypocritical about claiming to run a clean campaign. Incredible, really.
The main problem is the conflation of negotiations with appeasement. Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler handed over half of Czechoslovakia to the Nazi's. There's no evidence that talking to Hamas would hand over half of Israel or lead to our defeat by terrorists.
Bush's rhetoric is the same old scare tactics that the GOP has used for the last 8 years. It is becoming less and less effective on the voting public. The more McCain chooses to agree with Bush, the easier it will be for the Democrats to tie them together in the fall.
CStanley,
Have you even followed what McCain has been saying?
Long before Bush went to Israel, McCain has been shopping around the Hamas=Obama line.
Twisting, spinning and misrerepresentation was the core of McCain's campaign against Romney. It's what he has done and what he is doing, all the while claiming he is the straight shooter.
While he is not alone in playing smear politics, neither does he deserve special dispensation, or consideration..
These conflicts in interpretation don't pop up out of the blue.
Context, context, context.
Bush has a long history of characterizing Dems as the appeasers, the traitors, the friends of terrorism, especially during election times.
He makes a speech now without naming Obama, although several staffers are reported (on both CNN and MNBC) to have said this was thw unspolen intent.
Although Bush doesn't speak the name Obama, McCain immediately picks up the ball and does so loud and clear. It was, and continues to be be,a lovely double play, but the ball is clearly visible as it flies back and forth between Bush and the not-Bush candidate.
Hitler has already been injected in the rhetoric, so we have 9/11 to look forward to.in the near future.
The experience of Bush's presidency, with his political maneuvers is as much a part of this indiviual event as anything currently said or not said.
Context, you know.
Long before Bush went to Israel, McCain has been shopping around the Hamas=Obama line.
As far as I know, the first time he brought it up is when a Hamas leader endorsed Obama. I suspect if someone questionable endorsed McCain, then Obama's camp would have responded similarly.
I don't see how that context, whatever your feelings on it, affect whether or not McCain's actual words about Hamas should be distorted. For all the context you see about how the GOP plays the game, I see the same from the opposite side- that a liberal columnist twists McCain's words and then Obama picks up the ball and runs with it. What I find particularly bold is to do so at the same time while he's criticizing McCain for hypocrisy about honest campaign tactics.
CStanley,
We differ(as has been true across many topics) , on basic philosophical grounds..
You want to take a snippet in time, a few phrases, to either condemn a person (Wright) or to exhonorate a person (MCain).
I think that ithis approach distorts reality, in the same way that looking at only the nose distorts understanding of the face.
runasim, you're problem appears to be that you are that one person that P T Barnum said was born every minute.
An observation:
Personal insluts are the alat resort when logical reasoning fails.
Bush's comments are aimed towards any Democrat who hasn't voted with him on every issue that his administration considers to relate the the “War on Terror”. Every one of his supporters know this but try to pretend otherwise in public.
Jim is right. The phrase “some say” is an attack against all domestic opponents, including Obama and everybody else.
Bush and McCain should be made to pay for their reckless rhetoric whether or not it was directly aimed at Obama.
Elrod, it makes a lot more sense if you parse it as a repudiation of Jimmy Carter, but of course politically it makes more sense for Democrats to take it as a personal insult (except that this may backfire because many of us see that this means that the Dems feel that they own this criticism- in many ways it would seem better to say, “Nothing to take personally about his criticism because he obviously wasn't talking about me.”)
Elrod, it makes a lot more sense if you parse it as a repudiation of Jimmy Carter, but of course politically it makes more sense for Democrats to take it as a personal insult (except that this may backfire because many of us see that this means that the Dems feel that they own this criticism- in many ways it would seem better to say, “Nothing to take personally about his criticism because he obviously wasn't talking about me.”)
CStanley,
Nce of you to advise Democrats on strategy.
How did that approach work out for Kerry?
Assuming that Carter was the prime target in the speech, Tt doesn't make his insertion of US politics into Israel's anniversary any more palatable.
An American president swiping at other Ameicans in a foreign country is ugly. it besmirches the face of America abroad.
By using words like appeasemen while bringing up Hitler's ghost, he also put another nail in the coffin of the peace negotiations.
His legacy, indeed.!
More violence in Israeli territories and more divisiveness at home.
All in the name of the Nov. election, I have no doubt.
CStanley,
Nce of you to advise Democrats on strategy.
How did that approach work out for Kerry?
Assuming that Carter was the prime target in the speech, Tt doesn't make his insertion of US politics into Israel's anniversary any more palatable.
An American president swiping at other Ameicans in a foreign country is ugly. it besmirches the face of America abroad.
By using words like appeasemen while bringing up Hitler's ghost, he also put another nail in the coffin of the peace negotiations.
His legacy, indeed.!
More violence in Israeli territories and more divisiveness at home.
All in the name of the Nov. election, I have no doubt.
The amazing thing about the progressive left is that they have started a new strategy.
That strategy consists of redefining all political terms that might reflect negatively on their main man. Thus we are now in the redefining mode of the word appeasement. Talking is not appeasement. Yet the parallels between Neville Chamberlain and what Barak Obama has said he will do are remarkable and they beg to be compared.
Neville Chamberlain went to Hitler and negotiated with him personally.
From Barak Obama's website……….Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions.
and
Talk to our Foes and Friends: Obama is willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe. He will do the careful preparation necessary, but will signal that America is ready to come to the table
Appeasement is the act of concession for the sake of an agreement. Barak Obama will govern to his base.
His base wants out of Iraq and so we will leave Iraq. His base wants to negotiate with everyone in sight and so Barak Obama as his website says that he will personally TAKE CHARGE and sit down and negotiate with everyone in sight.
Look to the base. The base defines the President. Presidents govern to their base. Barak Obama said that he intends to MAKE the Republicans see things his way. He has no intention of governing to those who do not see things his way.
So it is the base. The base is what will define Barak Obama as president. If you want to see what kind of president he will be, just look to his base.
The amazing thing about the progressive left is that they have started a new strategy.
That strategy consists of redefining all political terms that might reflect negatively on their main man. Thus we are now in the redefining mode of the word appeasement. Talking is not appeasement. Yet the parallels between Neville Chamberlain and what Barak Obama has said he will do are remarkable and they beg to be compared.
Neville Chamberlain went to Hitler and negotiated with him personally.
From Barak Obama's website……….Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions.
and
Talk to our Foes and Friends: Obama is willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe. He will do the careful preparation necessary, but will signal that America is ready to come to the table
Appeasement is the act of concession for the sake of an agreement. Barak Obama will govern to his base.
His base wants out of Iraq and so we will leave Iraq. His base wants to negotiate with everyone in sight and so Barak Obama as his website says that he will personally TAKE CHARGE and sit down and negotiate with everyone in sight.
Look to the base. The base defines the President. Presidents govern to their base. Barak Obama said that he intends to MAKE the Republicans see things his way. He has no intention of governing to those who do not see things his way.
So it is the base. The base is what will define Barak Obama as president. If you want to see what kind of president he will be, just look to his base.
Neocon,
Appeasement is not sitting down personally with the leader of another country. I suggest you research the definition and historical context.
Neocon,
Appeasement is not sitting down personally with the leader of another country. I suggest you research the definition and historical context.