AMERICAblog: Israel is negotiating with Hamas. When will McCain and Bush denounce them?
Bush_Bites
· 1 year ago
McCain and Bush are calling Israel a bunch of "appeasers."
Shame on them.
vwcat
· 1 year ago
appeasers!
michaelt
· 1 year ago
SERIOUSLY, there is way too much time being spent micro analyzing whatever the right says. we need to stop.
yes they say some crazy shit, but that's only because that's all they have. we need to stop reacting and start pro-actively calling these ineffective criminals out for what they are.
the door is wide open, we just need to walk thru.
AngryOne
· 1 year ago
Just 48 hours after jumping on the Bush appeasement bandwagon, John McCain is probably regretting his leap. First, it was revealed that the tough-talking Republican presidential nominee was for negotiating with the Hamas government in the Palestinian territories before he was against it. Then Americans learned that in 2003, Mr. Straight Talk favored engagement with the terror-sponsoring state of Syria. Now in his accusations against Democrat Barack Obama, John McCain conveniently forgot Ronald Reagan's dealings with Tehran during the Iran-Contra scandal. Given his defense of the Reagan administration at the time, McCain's selective amnesia comes as no surprise.
Well, it's not like Hamas is some kind of democratically elected government.
Oh, wait...
Oops!
Cpeterka
· 1 year ago
McCain is so, so STUPID. Right Now at http://news.google.com it's lead story is... McCain will Question Obama's views on trade policies. ... What an idiot... telegraphing his punches. All Obama needs to do is come out with a statement about McCain's mistakes on trade policies.
What an Idiot., are all his lobbyist advisors out at a luncheon ?
blackwolf
· 1 year ago
The media has no ball! Talking heads discussing the issues of the day with talking heads. I can't put my finger on it yet, but there's a slight breeze, like the first autumn winds. Come on folks, you know what I'm talking about. Help me out here!
Obama's run for the White House is causing the country to look at how politics is played. The media is taking a lot of hits because people are tired of the same old BS. Damn! I can't put my finger on it, but there's a shift in the "force".
osage
· 1 year ago
Once the debates start, these are the kind of lies that McCain needs to be confronted with. Democrats have to keep him on the defensive. Defending his flip-flops, his war-mongering, his economic ignorance, his disastrous tax plan, his campaign funding, his support of Bush's failed policies and his wife's refusal to divulge how she pays for McCain's lifestyle of private jets, private fishing lakes and nine different homes. Someone should ask him, point blank. how he can represent himself as a man of the people when he lives a life of obscene luxury and privilege that is beyond the experiences of 98 percent of the American people. What policies has he created and or supported that benefitted the 98 pecent of Americans who don't have household staffs catering to their every need in nine freaking homes!
graeme
· 1 year ago
So I see that the Israeli government listened carefully to the sage advice of Bush. At least they waited for him to leave the country before they headed off in the opposite direction of his foreign policy wisdom - a prudent move when dealing with war criminals.
JMOHR
· 1 year ago
There are several points to be made here against the following statement by President Reagan:
"A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not. As the Tower board reported, what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages."
1. McCain points out that Iran announced the release of the hostages 20 minutes after Reagn was sworn into office. McCain's intent with this statement was to make it look like Reagan was such a threatening force that Iran capitulated immediately. However, if the release of the hostages was the result of an arms for hostages deal, then Reagan's administration had to have been involved in substantive negotiations prior to assuming office. Reagan's administration was not only guilty of appeasement but also of undermining the foreign policy of a sitting US President. Sounds like treason to me.
2. McCain damn well knew what happened during the Reagan administration and defended the actions taken by administration officials in what became known as Iran Contra. This is a twofer since we have both appeasement with an enemy and also a direct violation of US law by the Reagan administration.
3. This makes an excellent dilemma for McCain. Did McCain just lie about the Reagan administration and its arms for hostage deal with the Iranian government? Is McCain just suffering from memory loss that is not consistent with the mental agility and acuity that we seriously need from a Commander-in-Chief?
4. McCain's support for the arms for hostage dealings of the Reagan administration demands that McCain answer why he supported negotiations by the Reagan administration Iran at the very time that they were holding our citizens hostage?
But this will require a strong, decisive and united Democratic party.
KarenMrsLloydRichards
· 1 year ago
Bush didn't get the anticipated applause lines during that portion of the speech to the Knesset, right? Also: is it just me or did the trademark smirk occur after the Senator Borah quote?
JMOHR
· 1 year ago
Now, we do have to prepare for the real arguments concerning negotiations with Iran that will come from McCain. McCain will argue that the real problem was Obabma's statement concerning his role in meeting with the leaders of Syria and Iran without precondition.
This is a legitimate line of attack for Republicans. However, it is being buried by the appeasement discussion. McCain's argument will be that a president speaking with the Iranian leader would give him too much legitimacy especially since he has publicly called for the destruction of Israel. Our counter point would be that direct talks would not be a first step. There would be lower level talks that would define issues and probably get the concessions that we need before high level talks. We have lower level talks going on now. However, the Bush position of no negotiations until Iran first agrees to a laundry list of preconditions has hampered progress. First, Iran would not be able to make all the concessions prior to any meetings without being humiliated. Second, lower level talks without such conditions are already taking place on certain issues. We would be better served by noting this and simply tailoring our policy to meet reality.
The real thrust of the argument should be where we were with Iran prior to and after the famous Axis of Evil speech by Bush.
1. Prior to the speech, we had great sympathy from the Iranian people for the 9/11 attack. Indeed, they were out in the streets supporting us.
2. Prior to the speech, the Iranian government openly supported the US and assisted with intelligence on AQ. Indeed, it was a common interest since AQ was opposed to their Shiite government.
3. Iran had elected a moderate government,. Constrained by the religious hard liners, it was nevertheless growing in popularity and power.
4. After the Axis of Evil speech, Iranian nationalism grew. Bush made it clear that he not only wanted policy changes but regime change as well.
5. The moderate government was replaced with the hard line president that we have now.
6. Our failure to have opened negotiations with Iran concerning occupation and border issues has merely exacerbated our problems and created a hostile enemy as opposed to a neutral party cooperating on common issues.
This is a difficult argument to make. However, it must be done and can be simplified. Eg. Television add with pictures of pro US demonstrations in Iran and then a shot of Bush calling Iran evil followed by a list of what has gone down hill since, From there we make the argument that we should follow the examples of all past presidents of engaging in diplomacy.
jr
· 1 year ago
cons will memory hole this. They can't think outside of their index card talking points
Mike_G
· 1 year ago
There is only one possibility to this conundrum in the Bush comic-book worldview -- the Israelis are Nazi-appeasing anti-Semites.
All Comments
Shame on them.
yes they say some crazy shit, but that's only because that's all they have. we need to stop reacting and start pro-actively calling these ineffective criminals out for what they are.
the door is wide open, we just need to walk thru.
For the details, see:
"McCain Defended Reagan, North During Iran-Contra Scandal."
Oh, wait...
Oops!
Right Now at http://news.google.com it's lead story is...
McCain will Question Obama's views on trade policies.
...
What an idiot... telegraphing his punches.
All Obama needs to do is come out with a statement about McCain's mistakes on trade policies.
What an Idiot., are all his lobbyist advisors out at a luncheon ?
Obama's run for the White House is causing the country to look at how politics is played. The media is taking a lot of hits because people are tired of the same old BS. Damn! I can't put my finger on it, but there's a shift in the "force".
"A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not. As the Tower board reported, what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages."
1. McCain points out that Iran announced the release of the hostages 20 minutes after Reagn was sworn into office. McCain's intent with this statement was to make it look like Reagan was such a threatening force that Iran capitulated immediately. However, if the release of the hostages was the result of an arms for hostages deal, then Reagan's administration had to have been involved in substantive negotiations prior to assuming office. Reagan's administration was not only guilty of appeasement but also of undermining the foreign policy of a sitting US President. Sounds like treason to me.
2. McCain damn well knew what happened during the Reagan administration and defended the actions taken by administration officials in what became known as Iran Contra. This is a twofer since we have both appeasement with an enemy and also a direct violation of US law by the Reagan administration.
3. This makes an excellent dilemma for McCain. Did McCain just lie about the Reagan administration and its arms for hostage deal with the Iranian government? Is McCain just suffering from memory loss that is not consistent with the mental agility and acuity that we seriously need from a Commander-in-Chief?
4. McCain's support for the arms for hostage dealings of the Reagan administration demands that McCain answer why he supported negotiations by the Reagan administration Iran at the very time that they were holding our citizens hostage?
But this will require a strong, decisive and united Democratic party.
This is a legitimate line of attack for Republicans. However, it is being buried by the appeasement discussion. McCain's argument will be that a president speaking with the Iranian leader would give him too much legitimacy especially since he has publicly called for the destruction of Israel. Our counter point would be that direct talks would not be a first step. There would be lower level talks that would define issues and probably get the concessions that we need before high level talks. We have lower level talks going on now. However, the Bush position of no negotiations until Iran first agrees to a laundry list of preconditions has hampered progress. First, Iran would not be able to make all the concessions prior to any meetings without being humiliated. Second, lower level talks without such conditions are already taking place on certain issues. We would be better served by noting this and simply tailoring our policy to meet reality.
The real thrust of the argument should be where we were with Iran prior to and after the famous Axis of Evil speech by Bush.
1. Prior to the speech, we had great sympathy from the Iranian people for the 9/11 attack. Indeed, they were out in the streets supporting us.
2. Prior to the speech, the Iranian government openly supported the US and assisted with intelligence on AQ. Indeed, it was a common interest since AQ was opposed to their Shiite government.
3. Iran had elected a moderate government,. Constrained by the religious hard liners, it was nevertheless growing in popularity and power.
4. After the Axis of Evil speech, Iranian nationalism grew. Bush made it clear that he not only wanted policy changes but regime change as well.
5. The moderate government was replaced with the hard line president that we have now.
6. Our failure to have opened negotiations with Iran concerning occupation and border issues has merely exacerbated our problems and created a hostile enemy as opposed to a neutral party cooperating on common issues.
This is a difficult argument to make. However, it must be done and can be simplified. Eg. Television add with pictures of pro US demonstrations in Iran and then a shot of Bush calling Iran evil followed by a list of what has gone down hill since, From there we make the argument that we should follow the examples of all past presidents of engaging in diplomacy.