"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," Bush said at Israel's 60th anniversary celebration in Jerusalem. - CNN
Pictured Below, A US President and Two Terrorist Radicals
Pictured Below, a US President, the President of Egypt (who participated in the military coup known as the Egyptian Revolution of 1952 which overthrew King Farouk I), and a former leader of the Irgun, an Israeli group who were responsible for the King David Hotel bombing (91 people were killed, most of them staff of the secretariat and the hotel: 28 British, 41 Arab, 17 Jewish, and 5 others), the Deir Yassin massacre (between 107 and 120 villagers killed), and the hanging of two British sergeants who were guards at the Acre Prison. (The British Security Service MI5 placed a 'dead-or-alive' bounty of £10,000 on his head after Irgun threatened 'a campaign of terror against British officials', saying they would kill Sir John Shaw, Britain's Chief Secretary in Palestine.)
It seems that bush just doesn't know what he is talking about.
Note: There are several Nobel Peace Prize laureates in the above pictures. The only US citizen among them now builds houses. (Another US citizen pictured above won a Grammy, but so did Britney Spears, so that's not really a big deal.)
Posts: 17034 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Could Bush have been aware of the headline events in Iraq when making that speech? Is Bush spending the dying months of his presidency in a bubble? Or does he just say what sounds good, whether or not it connects with reality?
'As the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported, Israel and Syrian negotiators met in secret from September 2004 to July 2006 and reportedly agreed on the main points of a peace agreement. And there have been reports of interest on both the Israeli and Syrian side to meet to conclude a formal agreement this year...'
Governments negotiate with enemies and terrorists all the time. Why? Because it works - the alternative approach of attempted 'obliteration' by invasion, cluster bomb or missile has been a catastrophic failure:
'...At every step of the way, the Bush administration has not missed an opportunity to bolster Iran's position in the Middle East. It destroyed Iran's principal adversary in Saddam Hussein, and then it ended up backing pro-Iranian forces in Iraq's new government...
...The administration's efforts to isolate the Hamas elected government in the occupied territories led to the predictable outcome of strengthening Iran's support for Hamas...
...efforts to isolate Hezbollah in Lebanon and backing of Israel's disastrous war in Lebanon, we live with the result that Hezbollah is stronger than ever--witness the latest clashes in Beirut...'Bush Defames Obama on Middle East
You have to imagine that the comment was added by some low-level staffer who thought it would be a bit of a wheeze - or maybe Bush crayoned it in himself, without running it by his handlers.
I wonder if bush would understand the irony of speaking out against terrorism in Israel on their anniversary. Surely someone in his support group knows enough history to know that one of the biggest reasons the British left the Holy Land when it did was that the Government was no longer willing to put up with the acts of terrorism against it by the various Israeli gangs. But perhaps not. No one in his administration has to date understood or demonstrated much knowledge of the Middle East.
Posts: 17034 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
The man on our left in your bottom picture, Anwar Sadat, was also Time's Man of the Year in 1977. He was largely ostracized in the Arab and Islamic world for his treaty with Israel. Tragically, Sadat was assassinated under a fatwah approved by Omar Abdel-Rahman, convicted in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
Sadat the Sinister with Reagan
Posts: 7742 | Location: in the backwoods of North Carolina | Registered: 06-07-02
Apparently, there's debate among politicians of the right in light of failures in Iraq and elsewhere. It seems they're wondering - finally - whether or not bombing people should be the foreign policy approach of choice:
'"Iraq is the great wreck and failure of this presidency, the great enduring shadow on our party," writes David Frum in Comeback, words it undoubtedly pained him to pen and that some of his comrades will surely see as coming too late. Frum is the neoconservative widely credited with having coined the phrase "axis of evil" (he actually called it the "axis of hatred"). In 2003 he wrote a National Review article titled "Unpatriotic Conservatives" in which he declared that paleoconservatives who did not support the war "have turned their backs on their country. Now we turn our backs on them." And so it is all the more striking to hear Frum announce that conservatives must "turn a new page" in foreign policy. What he means is that they should not feel ashamed to join the diplomacy-adoring appeasers on the left: "We should make clear that we as Republicans and conservatives are ready to go the extra mile on negotiation. Direct talks with Iran? Why not?"'Is The Party Over
Was Bush maybe referring to this kind of thing? Why would he think it appropriate to air his party's dirty laundry at Israel's birthday bash?
"It shows naivete and inexperience and lack of judgment to say that he wants to sit down across the table from an individual who leads a country that says that Israel is a 'stinking corpse,' that is dedicated to the extinction of the state of Israel. My question is, what does he want to talk about?"McSame chips in.
Who was President when 'The big breakthrough came at the end of 2003 when the US and British governments announced that the Libyan authorities - after months of secret negotiations - had agreed to disclose and dismantle their nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programmes....'
[QUOTE]Originally posted by DorianGreyed: It seems that bush just doesn't know what he is talking about. [QUOTE]
The truth be known President Bush knows exactly what he is talking about. I find it interesting Barack Obama, though not even mentioned in this speech, took it that the President was speaking directly about him. It might appear that Obama stepped into this one. Because his lack of experience in this area shows.
Posts: 2277 | Location: Martinsville, IL | Registered: 06-03-02
Shortly after Obama spoke out, bush's aides said that the comments were about him.
White House officials denied Obama was a target of Bush's remarks. But privately, White House aides indicated the criticism was aimed at various Democrats, including Obama and former President Jimmy Carter.
Discussing the remark, White House Counselor Ed Gillespie told reporters Friday, "We did not anticipate that it would be taken" as a slam against Obama "because it's kind of hard to take it that way if you look at the actual words of the president's remarks, which are consistent with what he has said in the past relative to dealing with groups like Hezbollah and Hamas and al Qaeda, relative to standing by Israel, relative to concerns about Iran developing the prospect of a nuclear weapon."
Gillespie side-stepped a question about whether the president believes Obama is advocating negotiating with terrorists and radicals. He said the White House wants to stay out of the presidential campaign.
"The president is stating American policy and his policy toward Iran and toward Hezbollah and toward al Qaeda," said Gillespie, adding, "We are happy to allow for Senator Obama and others to express their own points of view on these things." - CNN --------
Please explain how bush can say that you don't talk to people when you have just been shown examples of situations in which a US President actually did speak to such people and examples of the US talking to such people during bush's administration. Please explain how two of bush's administration (Gates and Rice) have said, prior to bush's comments, that we needed to talk to those people. Until you do, your comment that "The truth be known President Bush knows exactly what he is talking about" makes as little sense as bush's, and both he and you show little knowledge of what has and is happening in the real world with regard to this subject.
Posts: 17034 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
DG-I would suggest you do some studying up on the subject because you have not shown any knowledge in this whatsoever. Because what you suggest makes no sense at all.
Posts: 2277 | Location: Martinsville, IL | Registered: 06-03-02
Perhaps Bush forgot that his ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, has been holding talks about Iraq with an Iranian counterpart. If so, there were Knesset members who could have reminded him. Israelis are intensely aware of the strategic gifts that Bush bestowed on Iran by toppling Saddam Hussein's regime and empowering Iran's Shi'ite proteges in Iraq. Indeed, few have done more to enable Iran than George W. Bush.
On the matter of negotiating with radicals and terrorists, somebody on Bush's staff ought to remind him that among his few foreign policy achievements are the agreements his diplomats negotiated with Libya's Moammar Khadafy and Kim Jong Il of North Korea. Taking nuclear weapons out of the hands of those old terrorists has meant talking to them - and giving them some things they wanted badly. - Boston Globe - Oops!
"The Bush administration is serving as a proctor for the first direct high-level peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians since talks broke down amid violence more than seven years ago " - Fox News - Oops!
The US and Iranian ambassadors in Baghdad, however, have held discussion over US concerns that Iran is provoking violence in Iraq - charges Iran denies. - M&C.com - Oops!
In an apparent effort to distance itself from the neoconservative thrust of President George W. Bush's first four years-and in unspoken acknowledgement that the preemptive, go-it-alone posture crashed in the wake of the Iraq War-the administration has allowed Rice to attempt to repair relations with key allies in Europe and elsewhere, offer negotiations with "enemy" states like Iran, and pursue multilateral diplomatic efforts in the face of North Korea's provocative missile tests in July 2006.
Commenting on the administration's restrained response to those tests, Time magazine observed in mid-July: "Under the old Bush Doctrine, defiance by a dictator like Kim Jong Il would have merited threats of punitive U.S. action-or at least a tongue lashing. Instead, the administration has mainly been talking up multilateralism and downplaying Pyongyang's provocation. As much as anything, it's confirmation of what Princeton political scientist Gary J. Bass calls 'doctrinal flameout.' Put another way: cowboy diplomacy, RIP" (July 17, 2006).
For these disgruntled hardliners, Rice and the State Department seem to be the real villains, as CSP suggested in a disparaging commentary posted on its website after Rice's offer of direct negotiations with Iran in May 2006: "In the face of intensifying Iranian intransigence and provocations, President Bush has decided to adopt the recommendations of appeasement-prone subordinates . The decision announced by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice today that the United States would be prepared to participate directly-as opposed to through European and United Nations proxies-in negotiations with the terrorist-sponsoring mullahocracy in Tehran, if only it will promise to suspend its nuclear weapons activities, will only reward and lead to more of such behavior." - Right Web - Oops!
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Thursday that verifying any North Korean nuclear declaration would take time and suggested Washington may drop some sanctions on Pyongyang before this is complete.
Separately, a senior U.S. official said an American team would visit North Korea next week to discuss how to verify the “complete and correct” accounting of its nuclear programs that Pyongyang was due to deliver by Dec. 31. [Reuters, Arshad Mohammed] - FreeKorea.us - Oops!
Since Arafat appointed Mahmoud Abbas, his deputy of 40 years, PA prime minister in 2003, the US has upheld Abbas as a man of peace, a moderate and a respectable leader that the Bush administration wishes to strengthen. To this end, the Bush administration has overlooked Abbas's clear support for terrorism. It has excused his constant appeals to merge his Fatah terror group with Hamas and Islamic Jihad. It has ignored the fact that his Fatah terror group has committed more acts of terror than Hamas and that Fatah's involvement in terror and the sophistication of its attacks has only increased since Abbas replaced Arafat after the latter's death in November 2004.
During her visit last week, at Abbas's request, Rice was scheduled to meet with Fatah commander Hussein a-Sheikh in the American Consulate-General in Jerusalem. The meeting was cancelled at the last minute when Israeli activists demanded that Sheikh, who was directly responsible for the murder of dozens of Israelis and several American nationals, be arrested by Israel police upon arrival at the consulate. Yet, Rice still met with other Fatah leaders, like Muhammad Dahlan who has been directly implicated in the murder of Israelis in terror attacks perpetrated by men under his command. - History's Dangerous Repetition By Caroline Glick Jerusalem Post | Thursday, October 12, 2006 - Oops!
Actually, as it happens, there is a glaring inconsistency in Bush's rhetoric about negotiating with terrorists. Leaving aside his negotiations with "evil" North Korea, Bush's only tangible accomplishment in the Middle East is the U.S. breakthrough with Libya. Bush's people secretly negotiated with Colonel Gadhafy--a long-standing state-sponsor of terrorism--and convinced him to abandon Libya's nuclear weapons program. This is a matter of public record--I've heard the full story myself in detail from the mouth of Gadhafy's son, Seif al-Islam. An American embassy is open again in Tripoli. Gadhafy is busy building luxury vacation resorts rather than nuclear bombs. If that's appeasement, maybe we need more of it. - Time, Inc Oops! Now everybody's doing it!
Interview With the New York Daily News Editorial Board Secretary Condoleezza Rice New York, New York June 8, 2007
Rice: "....for instance; that it has been very interesting to see Hamas trying to come to terms with no longer being, really a resistance movement, but having to deal with politics...." "A moderate Palestinian friend of mine said, "You know, they used to be the great resistance, running the streets with their faces covered and going after Israel. And now, they look like a bunch of politicians who also can't make the sewer system work." " - http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2007/06/86255.htm - Huh? The Sectretary of States said that Hamas is a "resistance movement" rather than a terrorist organization? Hooray! Now we can talk to them!
Here, an insider speaks of bush's knowledge regarding foreign policy -
And according to the Washington Post's Jim Hoagland, he complains privately that his boss is uninterested in foreign policy. When told that previous secretaries of state had an hour alone every week to talk foreign policy with the president, Powell is reported to have asked, "But what would I do with the other 55 minutes?" - http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/0...01/550afrhr.asp?pg=2 From the August 26/September 2, 2002 issue: The State Department "breaks ranks" with the president. by William Kristol 08/26/2002, Volume 007, Issue 47
So the question now becomes "What doesn't bush know, and when didn't he know it?"
So who has been assigning US officials to talk to those people since bush says you shouldn't? Has Cheney been overstepping his authority?
LR, it appears that only you and bush don't know that the US has been talking to appeasing those people for decades.
Posts: 17034 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
An old legal tactic in the US that I read about years ago -
When the law is on your side, bang away at the judge. When the facts are on your side, bang away at the jury. When neither are on your side, bang away at the table.
LR, I hope it isn't too sturdy a table; I wouldn't want you to injure yourself.
Posts: 17034 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Quote "President Bush launched a sharp but veiled attack Thursday on Sen. Barack Obama and other Democrats, suggesting they favor "appeasement" of terrorists in the same way some Western leaders appeased Hitler in the run-up to World War II."
Unlike his grandfather, Prescott Bush who did business with Hitler, during the Second World War. Business-yes, appeasement-no.
Some interesting facts about Prescott Bush, from Wikipedia -
In 1913, he enrolled at Yale University, continuing a family legacy; four subsequent generations of Bushes have been Yale alumni. Prescott Bush was admitted to the Zeta Psi fraternity while at Yale and Skull and Bones secret society.
After graduation, Bush served as a field artillery captain with the American Expeditionary Forces (1917-1919) during World War I. He received intelligence training at Verdun, France, and was briefly assigned to a staff of French officers. Alternating between intelligence and artillery, Bush came under fire in the Meuse-Argonne offensive. In what became a controversy, Bush wrote home about receiving medals for heroic exploits, and his letters were later published in Columbus newspapers. However, Bush retracted statements made in his letters a few weeks later when it was revealed that he, in fact, had not received such medals. The retraction was made in a cable in which Bush stated that his earlier letter had been written "in a spirit of fun" and was not intended for publication.[1]
Bush was a typical New England Republican of his time; as a former banker, he was a pro-business conservative, but held many positions today considered socially moderate. He was involved with the American Birth Control League as early as 1942, and served as the treasurer of the first national capital campaign of Planned Parenthood in 1947. Bush was also an early supporter of the United Negro College Fund, serving as chairman of the Connecticut branch in 1951. --------- The Bush-Nazi links are really not clear, and may, in fact, be almost meaningless. The links below have some information. Judging by all that he was, Prescott Bush seems to be a more principled man than his grandson. In any case, the grandson should choose his words more carefully, but then, we all have known that for some time.
Originally posted by DorianGreyed: The Bush-Nazi links are really not clear, and may, in fact, be almost meaningless. The links below have some information. Judging by all that he was, Prescott Bush seems to be a more principled man than his grandson. In any case, the grandson should choose his words more carefully, but then, we all have known that for some time.
We've all had a bit of fun with this issue, but it's not going away quickly. Recall that Democratic opponents first called Obama's remarks "irresponsible."
What Obama will have to answer to is why he would have talks with terrorists with no pre-conditions, and what he hopes to ask them, tell them, and gain from such a meeting.
When JFK first met with Kruschev, the Russian leader thought him to be weak and moved missiles into Cuba. Kennedy's "brinksmanship" as a response was certainly no weak maneuver and may be debated in politics classes for years to come. But the perceived weakness may have precipitated the entire event. We must always negotiate from a position of strength.
Posts: 7742 | Location: in the backwoods of North Carolina | Registered: 06-07-02
AnswerPool.com 
