Tuesday, May 20, 2008

Barack Obama on Foreign Policy

The president crossed the line of mixing partisan domestic politics with foreign policy when, in front of the Israeli Knesset, he attacked Democrats by making untrue and disparaging comments about Democrats and Barack Obama. John McCain's "Double Talk Express" wasted no time in echoing Bush. They know what they say is false, but like many Republicans, they believe the way to victory is through fear, division, distortion, hate, and lies. All this coming from an administration whose foreign policy failures are legion.

Barack Obama sets the record straight:

4 comments:

Mason said...

That was awesome. Thank you for posting that clip. I have trouble imagining how any right-thinking American could watch that and still throw their support behind McCain on issues of foreign policy.

Right Way said...

A few thoughts...first, the President never mentions Barack Obama. He didn't mention other Democrats, or the Democrat Party, or liberals, or those in the US, or anything of the sort. I believe the words he used were "some people." Also, it wasn't an attack on Democrats...it was an attack on those that seek appeasement. It seems like Dems are the ones that are making the connection between themselves and that philosophy. Why is it that Bush doesn't mention any names or parties and you assume he's talking about you and you're candidate? Hmmm...he could've been referring to appeasers in Israel, for all you know.

And, while we're on the subject, was it ok for Pelosi to hang out with the Syrians, deliberately undermining US policy and lying about delivering a message from Israel to boot? What about when Carter goes overseas and blasts the Bush admin...is that acceptable?

Why not at least post the text of the President's speech so folks can see what exactly he said?

Belle Rose said...

Give me a break-we all know the targets of Bush's remarks. They were repeated in the MSM ad nauseum. John McCain certainly knew as evidenced by the fact that he piggybacked right on Bush's words in his attacks on Obama. There has been a long tradition in American politics of leaving partisan battles at the shore. For Bush to take it into the legislative body of another nation was way beyond the pale.

If his attack was on appeasers, the president was badly misinformed (not the first time). I know of no major office holders of either party advocating appeasement.

Speakers of the House, and indeed individual members of Congress, have often engaged in foreign policy initiatives, usually irritating the White House. Remember Richard Lugar forcing Reagan's hand in Reagan's support of the dictator Ferdinand Marcos? So, one may disagree with Pelosi's motives, but there is certainly ample precedent.

~~

I didn't mention any names or bloggers in the above post, so "right way" if you think I'm talking about you or any other Bush/GOP/neocon apologists, it is you making the connection . . .

h/t Cobalt6 for the video

Coarse Cracked Corn

right way said...

- Give me a break-we all know the targets of Bush's remarks.

How did you know, if he didn't say?

- There has been a long tradition in American politics of leaving partisan battles at the shore.

Except when Democrats do it, right?

- For Bush to take it into the legislative body of another nation was way beyond the pale.

Take what? Thoughts on appeasement to the legislative body of an ally that deals with the threat of terrorism every single day?

- If his attack was on appeasers, the president was badly misinformed (not the first time). I know of no major office holders of either party advocating appeasement.

Again, who are you to say he was referring to any "office holders" here? And why do appeasers have to hold office in order for him to suggest their views are misguided?

- So, one may disagree with Pelosi's motives, but there is certainly ample precedent.

Let's see if you still feel that way should a Republican do the same under a possible President Obama.

- I didn't mention any names or bloggers in the above post, so "right way" if you think I'm talking about you or any other Bush/GOP/neocon apologists, it is you making the connection . . .

You still mentioned my name, when talking about NOT mentioning it. Good one...I guess. And a Bush apologist? Please...isn't it funny how you Dems jump up and immediately start believing you and your candidate were the target? "Oh, everyone knew who he was talking about?" WHY IS THAT??? Why did everyone know that, in a speech about appeasement in which he names no one, you knew exactly who he was talking about. Hmm...