Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Kerry tears into Bush on “appeasement” smear

By

So, our child-President insinuated to the Israeli Knesset that Obama wanted to “appease” terrorist groups. Sen. Kerry isn't having any of that:

 … First, it's absolutely shameless that an American President would use a speech in front of a foreign government to launch such a petty political attack. President Bush has abused the dignity of the office in ways that make especially ironic his long ago pledge to “restore dignity and integrity to the Oval office.”

… The Bush/McCain Republican Party is heading straight into the gutter with this campaign, and, while I can't say I'm surprised, it's always shocking to see how low they will go. 

Put it this way: I actually welcome Mr. 28% weighing in on the Presidential race. Whatever he says, people are now correctly primed to believe the opposite. 

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. Bush did not tear into Obama.  Bush made a statement that world leaders have been making since the mistakes of Neville Chamberlain were learned.  That you must meet aggression with force and that open ended talking is not going to get you anywhere.  If Obama thinks he meant him then maybe Obama is really a closet appeaser.  Bush never mentioned Obama.  It was a pretty much the same statement that he has been making since 9/11.  Trumping this up doesn’t help you because I think the American people realize you can’t negotiate with terrorists.  The reaction your side is having tells the American people that Obama wants to do that.  Not smart.  But hey have at it.

    • “Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along,”

      <

      p>When bush uses “Some” it is almost always referring to a Democrat/ or the Party in general

    • Or, for that matter, the CNN report that he made repeated reference to?

      <

      p>CNN reports that presidential aids admitted the speach was aimed at Obama. Don’t think it was? Take it up with Bush’s people.

    • These “lessons learned” do not explain why the populations of Jordan, Pakistan, and Indonesia have switched to becoming overwhelmingly anti-American.

      <

      p>One test of a policy is its results — not its intentions or its charming resonance with the failures of mid-century British Conservative (!) prime minister.

    • … at least according to some Whie House aides.
      From Salon:

      <

      p>

      To many observers, this seemed like a reference to Obama and his stated position about negotiating with countries like Iran. CNN’s Political Ticker blog has reported, “White House aides privately acknowledged the remarks were aimed at the presidential candidate and others in his party.” At a briefing, though, White House press secretary Dana Perino denied that Bush’s remarks were aimed at Obama. …

      <

      p>Sounds like they’re trying to put the cat back into the bag after the comments didn’t play so well.

      <

      p>I think we can look forward to much much more ‘foot in mouth’ entertainment because this guy doesn’t know when to shut up while he’s behind.

  2. It may be more accurate that Bush had someone like Mr. 9% Jimmie Carter in mind.  By overreacting, you are playing right into their hands.

    • … I assume you’re refering to the percentage of his brain he’d have to use to think circles around our current president. Because Jimmy’s approval rating was never 9%. In fact ol’ Georgie boy can only dream of having an approval rating as high as Jimmy’s (as pathetic as poor Jimmy’s was).

  3. dubya’s hack job straw man arguments are too old and tired to matter anymore.

    <

    p>it’s like saying that he stood up and defied all of the people who wished that terrorists had hijacked cargo planes of apple pie to crash into his daughters wedding.

    • Now anyone that doesn’t want to “kick ass” in the Mideast is an isolationist.

    • because disapproval of congress is coming from both the left and the right, more so (I’m guessing) than Bush detractors are coming from the left and the right. Plus, they need to come up with a category beyond “strongly diapprove” to really capture the spirit of antipathy out there.

      • between more dems and less republicans.  Maybe after November you guys will be rocking single digits.  

        • Maybe there’s a real point in here somewhere. I’ll try to find it.

          <

          p>If you’re saying that people are pissed off at a Democratic Congress that wouldn’t end the war, well, you’d be absolutely right. And honestly, I’d probably be one of those who said Congress was performing inadequately.

          <

          p>But for as much as people don’t like what’s going on, they know why things are the way they are. They know who’s been President, and who’s had Congress long enough to give us what we have. They know the problems started before 2007. They know who’s to blame.

          <

          p>The only solution for the GOP is to separate themselves from the Bush legacy, with extreme prejudice. And it’s not even going to work this year.

          <

          p>Don’t take my word for it! Here’s GOP Rep. Tom Davis (VA):

          “The loss of three straight special elections, in once solidly Republican districts, cannot be explained simply by ‘bad candidates’ or by being out organized,” Davis wrote in a private memo to House Republican leaders, a copy of which was obtained by Reuters.

          “They (the losses) are canaries in the coal mine, warning of far greater losses in the fall, if steps are not taken to remedy the current climate,” Davis said. “The Republican brand is in the trash can.”

          <

          p>I don’t mean this as concern-trolling, but it’s going to be up to the non-insane wing of the GOP (that’s you) to revive it, to rescue it from the crooks, sycophants and ignoramuses that have brought it so low. It’s gonna be hard, necessary work.

  6. Obama hasn’t had much to say about this lately – I thought he’d begun to move towards the sensible center and away from the Farrakhan crowd.

    <

    p>I liked what the White House said – that Obama thinks the world revolves around him.  Because I don’t think this statement would have landed on him if he hadn’t begun shreiking.  Now – he owns it.  And on Isreal’s 60th birthday, a LOT of people agree with the assessment that nothing will pacify the Muslim radicals except the extermination of the Jewish state.

    • between a middle eastern ‘road map’, that ostensibly takes into account the will of the palestinian people, and enabling the destruction of israel.

    • McCain himself tried to push this today, probably not the smartest thing to do is jump on the George Bush bandwagon, via MyDD. Taking the lead from someone who has not done a single thing right is not the brightest thing he could have done.  What a dimwit.  

      <

      p>Obama’s response:

      <

      p>

      Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor also weighs in: “It is the height of hypocrisy for John McCain to deliver a lofty speech about civility and bipartisanship in the morning and then embrace George Bush’s disgraceful political attack in the afternoon.  Instead of delivering meaningful change, John McCain wants to continue George Bush’s irresponsible and failed Iran policy by refusing to engage in tough, direct diplomacy like Presidents from Kennedy to Reagan have done.”

  7. Repubs, watch at your own risk.
    Progressives, grab a cold one and enjoy!

    <

    p>

    <

    p>”What did Chamberlin do?”
    “What did Chamberlin do?”
    “What did Chamberlin do?”
    “What did Chamberlin do?”

    • That’s the GOP’s problem.  Revive the brand?  Too far gone for that.  Waaayyyyyy too far gone.  Maybe it was possible after 06, but not anymore.

    • The endless talking heads…

      <

      p>That said, this was a pretty good nailing.  Matthews was wrong about the Cole (it happened under Clinton), but spot on about the difference between engagement and appeasement.

Archives