Peace, Love And Misunderstanding

Joe Lieberman addresses his own party via the WSJ today.

How did the Democratic Party get here? How did the party of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy drift so far from the foreign policy and national security principles and policies that were at the core of its identity and its purpose?

Beginning in the 1940s, the Democratic Party was forced to confront two of the most dangerous enemies our nation has ever faced: Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. In response, Democrats under Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy forged and conducted a foreign policy that was principled, internationalist, strong and successful.

A great Democratic secretary of state, Dean Acheson, once warned "no people in history have ever survived, who thought they could protect their freedom by making themselves inoffensive to their enemies." This is a lesson that today's Democratic Party leaders need to relearn.

Translation: "The elitist but only relatively powerful lost in the 60's far-Left has hijacked the foreign policy discussion within the now Weak and Dumocrat Party, leaving them seriously at odds with both their own history and the American mainstream. I could never vote for a weakling like Obama who can't even stand up to the loons in his own party, let alone some terrorist leader."

Comments

[seekeronos]

Speaking of Obama, here is a interesting piece that has been spreading over the internet tubes like wildfire:

#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#
#
# LONG QUOTATION FOLLOWS :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
#
#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#

Ken Blackwell - Columnist for the New York Sun
It's an amazing time to be alive in America . We're in a year of firsts in this presidential election: the first viable woman candidate; the first viable African-American candidate; and, a candidate who is the first front-running freedom fighter over 70. The next president of America will be a first.

We won't truly be in an election of firsts, however, until we judge every candidate by where they stand. We won't arrive where we should be until we no longer talk about skin color or gender. Now that Barack Obama steps to the front of the Democratic field, we need to stop talking about his race, and start talking about his policies and his politics.

The reality is this: Though the Democrats will not have a nominee until August, unless Hillary Clinton drops out, Mr. Obama is now the frontrunner, and its time America takes a closer and deeper look at him. Some pundits are calling him the next John F. Kennedy. He's not. He's the next George McGovern. And it's time people learned the facts.

Because the truth is that Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate. He is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, or Mrs. Clinton. Never in my life have I seen a presidential frontrunner whose rhetoric is so far removed from his record. Walter Mondale promised to raise our taxes, and he lost. George McGovern promised military weakness, and he lost. Michael Dukakis promised a liberal domestic agenda, and he lost.

Yet Mr. Obama is promising all those things, and he's not behind in the polls. Why? Because the press has dealt with him as if he were in a beauty pageant.. Mr. Obama talks about getting past party, getting past red and blue, to lead the United States of America . But let's look at the more defined strokes of who he is underneath this superficial 'beauty.'
Start with national security, since the president's most important duties are as commander-in-chief. Over the summer, Mr. Obama talked about invading Pakistan, a nation armed with nuclear weapons; meeting without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who vows to destroy Israel and create another Holocaust; and Kim Jong II, who is murdering and starving his people, but emphasized that the nuclear option was off the table against terrorists - something no president has ever taken off the table since we created nuclear weapons in the 1940s. Even Democrats who have worked in national security condemned all of those remarks. Mr. Obama is a foreign-policy novice who would put our national security at risk.

Next, consider economic policy. For all its faults, our health care system is the strongest in the world. And free trade agreements, created by Bill Clinton as well as President Bush, have made more goods more affordable so that even people of modest means can live a life that no one imagined a generation ago. Yet Mr. Obama promises to raise taxes on 'the rich.' How to fix Social Security? Raise taxes. How to fix Medicare? Raise taxes. Prescription drugs? Raise taxes. Free college? Raise taxes. Socialize medicine? Raise taxes. His solution to everything is to have government take it over. Big Brother on steroids, funded by your paycheck.

Finally, look at the social issues. Mr. Obama had the audacity to open a stadium rally by saying, 'All praise and glory to God!' but says that Christian leaders speaking for life and marriage have 'hijacked' - hijacked - Christianity. He is pro-partial birth abortion, and promises to appoint Supreme Court justices who will rule any restriction on it unconstitutional. He espouses the abortion views of Margaret Sanger, one of the early advocates of racial cleansing. His spiritual leaders endorse homosexual marriage, and he is moving in that direction. In Illinois , he refused to vote against a statewide ban - ban - on all handguns in the state. These are radical left, Hollywood , and San Francisco values, not Middle America values.

The real Mr. Obama is an easy target for the general election. Mrs. Clinton is a far tougher opponent. But Mr. Obama could win if people don't start looking behind his veneer and flowery speeches. His vision of 'bringing America together' means saying that those who disagree with his agenda for America are hijackers or warmongers. Uniting the country means adopting his liberal agenda and abandoning any conflicting beliefs.

But right now everyone is talking about how eloquent of a speaker he is and - yes - they're talking about his race. Those should never be the factors on which we base our choice for president. Mr. Obama's radical agenda sets him far outside the American mainstream, to the left of Mrs. Clinton.

It's time to talk about the real Barack Obama. In an election of firsts, let's first make sure we elect the person who is qualified to be our president in a nuclear age during a global civilizational war.
#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#

This has been circulating around in emails and Snopes.com is currently verifying this, but I think it basically jibes with what Sen. Obama has to offer this country.

[seekeronos]

Found it!

The full article is here:\

http://www2.nysun.com/opinion/beyond-obamas-beauty/

[IslamoLlama]

"-- In an election of firsts, let's first make sure we elect the person who is qualified to be our president in a nuclear age during a global civilizational war. --"

Just out of curiosity, assuming we plan on living in a nuclear age until we enter some sort of New Dark Age in which we've forgotten how sub-atomic particles work and recognizing that fact that we've been continuously at war with at least one country since WW2, exactly when would it be appropriate to elect Barack Obama over John "Can't tell the difference between Sunni and Shia" McCain?

"-- Translation: "The elitist but only relatively powerful lost in the 60's far-Left has hijacked the foreign policy discussion within the now Weak and Dumocrat Party, leaving them seriously at odds with both their own history and the American mainstream. I could never vote for a weakling like Obama who can't even stand up to the loons in his own party, let alone some terrorist leader." --"

OMG! DemonCrats are too radical! The Nancy Pelosi Party is infecting our country with San Fransisco Values! (read: teh gh3y!) The Weak and Stupid Majority Party is being hijacked by the even weaker and stupider fringe leftist peacenik atheist cult! Obama is too weak and stupid to take over the weak and pathetic party and will therefore definitely lose the election in November. Then the GOP will rise again! It'll be 2002 all over again, baby! Yeah, baby, yeah!

Whatever is in the Kool-Aid Dan is drinking, I freak'n want some.

[Lala]

Ed Koch's column on www.jewishworldreview.com

Excerpt

Recently, President Bush went to Israel to celebrate its 60th birthday as a nation and addressed its parliament, the Knesset. He said, "Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have an obligation to call this what it is: the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

Bush's remarks were heavily criticized by leading Democrats, particularly Barack Obama, who said, "Now that's exactly the kind of appalling attack that's divided our country and that alienates us from the world."

Really? Is it wrong to call the philosophy supporting negotiating at the highest levels — President to President without pre-conditions — with the terrorists and radicals by its rightful name — appeasement?

The President was accurate in my opinion in recalling the specter of Neville Chamberlain's pre-World War II efforts to satisfy Adolf Hitler. Those efforts responded to Hitler's siren call that all he wanted was the Sudetenland, with Chamberlain responding, "yes," and returning to Britain waving a paper and announcing, "peace in our time." Must we really learn the terrible lesson of Munich all over again seventy years later?

[Worst President Ever]

Much scarier is that McSame is the most Conservative major party candidate. After all, look what the conservatives have given us, and McSame's essentially promised to by Bush III.

1. Iraq
2. A busted budget
3. Attacks on our civil liberties.
4. A falling dollar and lousy economy

[SacTownMan]

I'll take Mc Cain's Shite / Sunni gaff, that he immediately corrected over Barry's favorite hit list. Michelle had them up today on her site. Too funny. Man is the "uniter" really that stupid or does he just need the big crowds and teleprompter to guide him?

Let's see there's the "president of Canada" or the "I've traveled to all 57 states!"

Michelle does a much better job than I can:

http://michellemalkin.com/

Joe Lieberman is a true patriot and one of the last of the real democrats. The left wing of his party fed on him like the parasites they are. They backed the anti-war chump and Joe crushed him as an independant. This is the guy that was Gore's VP mate just 4 years ago!

If Lame-O had read the article Dan linked he would have been enlightened (and I'm sure that's no easy task as witnessed by anyone with an I.Q. above 80).

I don't agree with many of Lieberman's liberal positions but I completely respect his integrity and honesty. These are traits that are sorely lacking with today's democrats and was the focus of his article. In a party with "the king of pork" John Murtha, Congressman "Is it cold in here" Jefferson and the worst "congressional rating in history" leadership of Pelosi and Reid he hit the nail squarely on the head.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- Really? Is it wrong to call the philosophy supporting negotiating at the highest levels — President to President without pre-conditions — with the terrorists and radicals by its rightful name — appeasement? --"

Hey, let's play the Chris Matthews game.

Lala, can you tell us how Chamberline appeased Germany? Explain what exactly Neville Chamberlain did that qualified as "appeasement" please, kthx!

[Lala]

Who is Chamberline?

[SacTownMan]

The resident Bush hater strikes again. You'll never guess the subject this time, can you? Anybody?

Let's see were there any of the worn out talking points this time?

1. Iraq - check

2. A busted budget - check

3. Attacks on our civil liberties. - check

4. A falling dollar and lousy economy- double check

"Much scarier is that McSame is the most Conservative major party candidate. After all, look what the conservatives have given us, and McSame's essentially promised to by Bush III."

What's really scary is that anyone with any knowledge of the facts would call McCain a conservative - are you that high?

Oh yea I almost forgot the "Bush's third term" reference - check

Next time please include the "Bush lied, troops died" line to be consistant.

Major newsflash******** Did you hear that McCain plans to keep us in Iraq for 100 years?

[Worst President Ever]

Right, the guy that claims he's best equipped to deal with Iran doesn't know Iran is actually Shiite and Al Qaeda Sunni. And that they really don't like each other.

Or there's his famed "100 years in Iraq" statement he's now pared back to just five. Next, I'm expecting to hear about his "Secret Plan to End the War".

Or his comforting claim that there “are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhoods, today.”

That's if your neighborhood requires an escort of 100 soldiers, three Blackhawk helicopters, and two Apache gunships.

And then his confusion about who the real leader of Iran is - hint, it's not Ahmadinejad.

[Worst President Ever]

Actually, I copied those from a post Seek made in another thread and reworded them a bit. But I agree with them. And thanks for pointing out that Bush Lied.

And yes McCain is a conservative, but I got a feeling only a right-wing uber-fanatic would satisfy SacTownMan's cravings.

The liberal Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) gave McCain a score of 15 percent in 2006 for his votes on 20 issues, including extending the Bush tax cuts

The American Conservative Union gives McCain a lifetime score of 82.3 percent.

The National Federation of Independent Businesses gave McCain 100 percent grades for his votes in the 110th and 109th Congresses on issues like tax write-offs for small businesses and giving the president line item veto power over minimum wage increases

[N. O'Brain]

Why would one of your posters name himself after Jimmy Carter?

[Lala]

Was that the show where Matthews said the Cole incident was on Pres. Bush's watch?

[Lala]

Obama thinks Afghanis speak Arabic

Obama thinks Canada has a President

Obama thinks the US is comprised of 58 states, or more

Obama followed a rock band in Portland

There's another big gaffe about a nuclear clean up site, hmm, what was it, he voted on it but didn't know what it was.

Now there's stories about his temper coming to light.

[Worst President Ever]

The Straight Talk Express seems to have gotten off the tracks:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c

[Lala]

flip, flop

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121138015871010703.html?mod=Best+of+the+Web+Today

Obama Ran on 'Bomb Iran'
Blogger Lance Adams unearths a 2004 Chicago Tribune article depicting Barack Obama--then a candidate for U.S. Senate--striking a much more hawkish tone toward Iran than he has done recently:

"In light of the fact that we're now in Iraq, with all the problems in terms of perceptions about America that have been created, us launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in," he said.

"On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. . . . And I hope it doesn't get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I'd be surprised if Iran blinked at this point." . . .

Obama said that violent Islamic extremists are a vastly different brand of foe than was the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and they must be treated differently.

"With the Soviet Union, you did get the sense that they were operating on a model that we could comprehend in terms of, they don't want to be blown up, we don't want to be blown up, so you do game theory and calculate ways to contain," Obama said. "I think there are certain elements within the Islamic world right now that don't make those same calculations. . . ."

This is quite a contrast to Obama's recent comment, which we noted yesterday:

"Iran, Cuba, Venezuela--these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying we're going to wipe you off the planet."

Perhaps Obama, running in the primaries, is cynically appealing to the faction within his party that is reflexively sympathetic to America's enemies. Or perhaps he reckons that the public mood has changed since 2004 and Americans in general are more skittish about military action.

In any case, Republicans should not merely assume that Obama's current pro-appeasement position will last through the fall election. He's changed his mind before, and he can change it again.

[Worst President Ever]

Obama said talk to them not capitulate. Or don't you understand the difference?

"Senator Chuck Hagel, speaking to a small gathering at the residence of the Italian ambassador, took umbrage with several positions taken by the McCain campaign, including the Arizona Senator's criticism of Obama for pledging to engage with Iran. Engagement is not, and should not be confused for, capitulation, he argued."

"I never understand how anyone in any realm of civilized discourse could sort through the big issues and challenges and threats and figure out how to deal with those without engaging in some way...."

[Lala]

flip, flop, flip
*

Obama backs off from pledge to talk with Iran
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/22/barackobama.usforeignpolicy?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

[Worst President Ever]

Why talk to somebody when war has been such a booming success for us. How much is Iraq costing us a month again? Let's start another war we don't have the army to fight, the money to fund, or the public in favor of.

When you talk about flip flops, you gotta start with the King: Senator McSame. He's flipped then flopped on pretty much every major issue - the war, taxes, his knowledge of economics, whether we're better off after the last eight years, lobbyists on his campaign. The so-called straight-talker is actually the BS-talker.

And what's the deal with not releasing his wife's taxes? What's he hiding?

[seekeronos]

Between the bullet-dodging Hillary, flip-flopping socialist Obama, and bad-tempered RiNO McCain...

Yuck.

Vote Constitution!

Vote Chuck Baldwin in 2008!

[SacTownMan]

"I'm expecting to hear about his "Secret Plan to End the War"

Pisst.... It's no secret he wants to win!!! It ain't rocket science pal!

Funny how ever since the surge started the number of doom and gloom stories have faded away.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=401

McCain was one of the few voices that called for the surge stategy and he was right. Even the New York Times is starting to write stories about the success there.

It's to bad the press doesn't devote the same amount of energy writing about about the sacrifices our troops make everyday. Sorry nothing to see here ... move along!

[IslamoLlama]

So, after long hours to contemplate and several posts later, Lala still is unable to explain how Neville Chamberlain appeased Hitler.

Knowledge of History = FAIL!

But thanks for playing, maybe next time.

"-- "I'm expecting to hear about his "Secret Plan to End the War"

Pisst.... It's no secret he wants to win!!! It ain't rocket science pal! --"

Man, if only President Bush had wanted to win back in 2003, this could have been much smoother and simpler. I mean, we had all the other basic steps of an occupation down.
1) Invade non-hostile sovereign nation
2) Install highly unpopular US-puppet government
3) Loot Iraqi treasury, give money to political cronies
4) Loot US treasury, give money to political cronies
5) Round up thousands of political dissidents, alleged political dissidents, warm bodies, and through them in contractor-run torture prison
6) Stand around all slack jawed and confused when civil war broke out.

if we'd only proceeded to 7) Want to win, we could already be at 8) Occupy country at tax payer expense and military contractor gain for the next 100 years.

It's be just like the Korea model - ie A giant fucking waste of their time and my money.

[Lala]

I don't know who Chamberline is.

But, please tell us again about Bill Ayers being an eco-terrorist. That one was so good I saved it.

quote

Crawlspace, no! You've violated the sacred civil discourse provision of the site! Everything you say is now evil and wrong! OMG! What have you done!?

But seriously, SacTownMan is off his meds. Aside from crapping his pants over Obama's preacher while secretly beating off to Pastor Hagee speeches, he seems to be unable to distinguish between embarrassing but true articles against McCain (hey, look, he did associate with lobbyists a great great deal and he has cheated on his first wife a number of times... hmmm...) and actual irrelevant hit pieces against Obama (OH NO! He once had a conversation with a college professor who was a radical eco-terrorist 40 years ago! Obama is going to blow up America!)

Never mind that McCain's gas tax holiday is fiscally irresponsible trash. Never mind that Obama's Iraq policy is perhaps the sanest of the trio. Please ignore their collective energy policies or health care proposals. Let's all sit around and talk about bullshit character issues.

Sac, you're so busy hating on the media, you've totally missed the massive blowjob they've been giving John "BBQ" McCain. Really, you should turn on some Glenn Beck or flip over the Scarbourgh Country. You'd like it over there. Very wingnutty.

Posted by: IslamoLlama | Friday, May 02, 2008 at 05:01 PM
unquote

[Fred Beloit]

Unfortunately, the appealing but uninformed, unqualified and slippery candidate from Chicago appealed to Kennedy's meeting with USSR leader Khruschev as an example of how the Good King of Camelot showed that negotiations were the way to go with the rough trade. But the NYT reminds us of what happened at that "negotiation".

Kennedy was advised not to meet with the Soviet dictator by his own Secretary of State.

"But Kennedy went ahead, and for two days he was pummeled by the Soviet leader. Despite his eloquence, Kennedy was no match as a sparring partner, and offered only token resistance as Khrushchev lectured him on the hypocrisy of American foreign policy, cautioned America against supporting “old, moribund, reactionary regimes” and asserted that the United States, which had valiantly risen against the British, now stood “against other peoples following its suit.” Khrushchev used the opportunity of a face-to-face meeting to warn Kennedy that his country could not be intimidated and that it was “very unwise” for the United States to surround the Soviet Union with military bases."

Being a far Leftist himself, Khruschev was very familiar with the use of the litany-of-false-charges debating tactic (see Mollama's and Harpo's contributions here). Deliver a rapid-fire hitlist of outrageous accusations, each of which would require a rather extensive and complicated rebuttal.

Read the rest of today's unusually fair (for them) editorial.

[Fred Beloit]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/22/opinion/22thrall.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

[Fred Beloit]

See how Bushhitler's decisions have made the world LESS SAFE from terrorism:

"B.C. researchers find decline in global terrorism, question previous data

18 hours ago

VANCOUVER — A group of researchers from Simon Fraser University says global terrorism is on the decline, despite previous data and public perceptions that suggest otherwise.

The university's Human Security Report Project says fatalities from terrorist attacks around the world have, in fact, decreased by 40 per cent since 2001."

[Fred Beloit]

Eeeeeeeeeeeeoooooooooooouuuuuuuuuuu. The blogomouth on this pig Moe. He makes me seem like Little Lord Fauntleeeroy. And this person is a member of the bar? For shame.

[Fred Beloit]

Moellama say: "It's be just like the Korea model - ie A giant fucking waste of their time and my money."

Potty-mouth Moe, it's be just like you to say you don't like either Dem candidate because they won't insist on an immediate pullout from North Korea. Oh, you are not saying that? Why not?

[Fred Beloit]

Oops, I meant SOUTH Korea. We aren't in or over North Korea. Not yet.

[Worst President Ever]

So when do two nations talk? Since your side seems to define any discussion as "appeasement" and "capitulation" which leaves little room other than escalating confrontation until one side, hopefully, backs down.

Note that even now Israel is in "discussions" with Syria. Does anyone really believe that's appeasement and somehow Israel is going ot capitulate to Syrian demands.

[Fred Beloit]

Mr Ever say: "Note that even now Israel is in "discussions" with Syria."

Tell us how based on history this will lead to peace or have any other positive result, Mr Ever. What are they saying to each other, do you suppose? Exactly how have the years of talks brought peace to the region? What has either side gotten out of it? Israel offered land for peace and more to Arafat and in return got a Hell No for their trouble. Let the talks go on. Let's have more talks. The Hezzies love to talk. Are they invited?

[IslamoLlama]

So Lala has given up on even Wikiing up Neville Chamberlain, in a vain attempt to cover his ignorance. Big points, kiddo.

Thank you for the relevant quote, though. It's nice to know I stick around in your head and on your hard drive. Read it every night before you go to sleep. You might learn something.

[Fred Beloit]

Mr Ever: "...your side seems to define any discussion as "appeasement" and "capitulation"..."

Now see this is the base BS your side, and you are the foremost example here, always indulges itself in (Guess you were hurt when I didn't mention you, so you jumped in to make your case to be included...sorry, you certainly deserve to be included). Now I have to spend time attacking this absurd and ridiculous lie that we think every discussion is appeasement. Isn't the government talking with NORTH Korea? With Libya? Ahmadinejad would outmatch Obama.

Why do I say that? Because Ahma would lead off with a rapid-fire hitlist of absurd charges (some of which reverend Wright would have taught Obama to agree with). And how would the Israelis feel with these two behind closed doors in a little tete a tete? Worried as hell, of course with their very existence at stake..

[IslamoLlama]

"-- Potty-mouth Moe, it's be just like you to say you don't like either Dem candidate because they won't insist on an immediate pullout from North Korea. Oh, you are not saying that? Why not? --"

Baby steps, Fred. You've got to pull out of one clusterfuck at a time.

Of course, Ron Paul was talking about pulling our troops out of Germany, Japan, and S Korea. His policy positions didn't get much love around here. When Obama finally releases his position on the occupation of South Korea, I'll be first in line to read it. When a debate moderator gets around "OMG! PASTOR!" "OMG! LAPEL PIN!" questions to discuss long term US Foreign Military policy, I'll tune right in.

Until then, I've got John McCain's endless war platform and Barack Obama's rational use of military forces policy. Of course, I'm talking about actual issues. You've written off Barack because of his skin color. So we're on totally different wave lengths here. I wouldn't expect you to understand.

[Fred Beloit]

There is a video but I could only get the audio in this version.

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/neville-chamberlain-praises-britains-munich-pact-with-germany/3197493478

[Fred Beloit]

The appeasement was defined in the Munich Pact. From Wiki:

"The Munich Agreement (Czech: Mnichovská dohoda; Slovak: Mníchovská dohoda; German: Münchner Abkommen) was an agreement regarding the Sudetenland Crisis among the major powers of Europe after a conference held in Munich, Germany, in 1938 and signed in the early hours of September 30. The purpose of the conference was to discuss the future of Czechoslovakia in the face of territorial demands made by German dictator Adolf Hitler. The agreement, signed by Nazi Germany, France, Britain, and Italy permitted German annexation of Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland. The Sudetenland was of immense strategic importance to Czechoslovakia, as most of its border defenses were situated there."

QED

[Fred Beloit]

You left out something here Pottymouth. I've inserted it for you:

"You've got to pull out of one [Democraticic Truman] clusterfuck at a time."

But of course that is a bit unfair. Perhaps you don't recall that one fine day North Korea up and attacked South Korea. This could have been a model for Saddam's...excuse me, the late Saddam's invasion of Kuwait.

[Fred Beloit]

"Baby steps, Fred."

Baby steps? You talk to me of "baby steps" when you overload every one of you comments with outrageous lies, just like, well just like Khrushchev...see below.

[Lala]

Fred,
This is much better than Wiki which is very superficial and unreliable

http://www.otr.com/munich.shtml

[Worst President Ever]

I'm betting Fred was against those talks - especially the Korea ones. But they're apparently going pretty well. And that's a helluva lot better than going to war. Course, it wasn't long ago President Bush condemned any talks with them. Kindof like what he's saying now with Iran.

There's always the risk you'll be out-negotiated. But if you go to war, you also risk things like Iraq, where pretty much zip, nada, zilch has gone as advertised or according to plan.

I'm sure Israel understands the risks and benefits of negotiating with Syria far better than either of us.

[Fred Beloit]

What do the Kosack Dems and their inexperienced leader offer us anyway. They deserve a debate. Here is what they offer:

-Unreasonably high taxes to pay for the costs of additional social programs and for which they previously provided us with deliberately low-balled cost estimates. It should be recalled that the social programs already passed and unrestrainable are projected to bankrupt the nation and impoverish our children and grandchildren.

-Attempts to buy off enemy nations and non-national armies. These attempts will cost us dearly but will still fail.

-Federal judges who will redefine the English language to suit their personal political and social preferences and take advice equally from foreign laws and legal decisions along with the constitution.

-Continued elevation of the powers of lawyers in general and tort lawyers in particular to extort and steal money from legal companies and individuals who have done nothing wrong. The lawyers, with encouragement from the Left, will insert themselves into every kind of activity from school yards to bawdy houses to churches and back again. They are already causing a shortage of doctors in the country and other nasty problems.

-They will destroy our hard-won liberties by increased powers at every level of government to determine how we live our lives, educate our children, eat, sleep, what we can listen to on the radio (hint, Frankenstein), watch on television, read, what we can drive, what fuel to use, what we may do with our property, whether we will be allowed property and, if so, what kind and on and on.

-They will arrange for trials for every enemy soldier captured on the battlefield and provide them with dream-team, high-cost lawyers paid for by the ACLU, Sorros, and other useful idiots. The government will choose to release them rather than take these savages through a US-style criminal court system designed to protect the rights of Americans.

They will insist that women be placed in infantry, artillery and armored units to fight in combat and then cry when some of these woman are taken prisoner. They will weaken the military by financial neglect and weaken the morale of the military.

(To Be Continued)

[Lala]

flip, flop,flip, flop

more Obama positions

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/05/yet_more_obama_positions_on_ir.html

[Worst President Ever]

The new GI bill passed today. Obama voted Yes, McCain didn't vote. Guess he couldn't find time to support the troops. Where was he: attending a fundraiser in California. The Straigh Talk Express derails again.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00137

[Fred Beloit]

"

[Fred Beloit]

Mr Ever say: "The new GI bill passed today. Obama voted Yes"

Of course he did, Ob's a Dem and it is vote-buying time. Dems always vote to spend money. Why not? It isn't their money. It would have taken guts to vote no as McCain did. Ob doesn't seem have them. But he could have voted "present" as usual.

I support the troops, while they are troops. When they are no longer troops, they are vets. Vets are civilians. Ask me, I'll tell you. When a benefit for vets is too good, troops will no longer want to be troops but vets. Right now we need troops more than vets.

[Fred Beloit]

Oh oh. My mistake. McCain didn't vote. Nevermind the part about McC.

[Fred Beloit]

But here is more jive- talking about talking from Obama, thanks to little green footballs:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080522/ap_on_el_pr/obama_diplomacy_fact_check

[Worst President Ever]

"jive- talking"

Careful Fred, your racism is starting to show.

[Southern Values]

“I support the troops, while they are troops. When they are no longer troops, they are vets. Vets are civilians. Ask me, I'll tell you. When a benefit for vets is too good, troops will no longer want to be troops but vets. Right now we need troops more than vets”

Real nice there Fred. You put these guys, who volunteered to serve, through a meat grinder with a reasonable chance of getting killed, a good chance of getting seriously wounded and a very good chance of PTSD and you can’t see your way past a narrow focus of the war to do what’s right.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- The appeasement was defined in the Munich Pact. From Wiki: --"

We have a winner! Chamberlain actively moved to give up territory to Nazi Germany.

So now the question arises, what territory do you expect Barack Obama will be ceding to Iran? If you are suggesting that Obama is going to turn over Kurdistan to Turkey or hand Bagdad over to Tehran, I'd like to see a bit of validation of this premise. So far Obama has suggested "having talks". No one is at the table, nothing is on the table. Perhaps a well-informed political pundit (or - hell - even Chris Matthews) could get around to asking Obama what would be "on the table" in a deal with Iran. Perhaps - if some journalist wanted to really bust a ball and go the extra mile - we could find out what would be "on the table" from the Iranian leadership.

Then, and honestly only then, could we talk about "appeasement". If Obama wanted to flip large chunks of Iraq over to Iranian control, I'd be right behind you guys in calling that "appeasement". But, again, that's raw speculation based entirely on the "Democrats are fat stupid wimps" GOP stereotype. Even then, the GOP hasn't accused Obama of ceding territory, they've accused him of "talking with our enemies". They are, effectively, trying to sabotage any diplomatic effort by Democratic politicians before it begins irregardless of outcome. It's rather pathetic, deeply partisan, and wholly unpatriotic. But its the only card they've got to play, so I'm not surprised they're playing it.