Dems fire back at Bush on 'appeasement' statement

[nhboy (Premo)]

"JERUSALEM (CNN) -- Democrats on Thursday condemned President Bush's insinuation that they would be appeasing terrorist states by holding talks, with one going so far as to call his remarks "bulls**t."

President Bush called the idea of negotiating with terrorists a "foolish delusion."

Joe Biden, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said that if the president disagrees so strongly with the idea of talking to Iran, then he needs to fire his secretaries of state and defense, both of whom Biden said have pushed to sit down with the Iranians.

"This is bulls**t. This is malarkey. This is outrageous. Outrageous for the president of the United States to go to a foreign country, sit in the Knesset ... and make this kind of ridiculous statement," he said.

"He's the guy who's weakened us. He's the guy that's increased the number of terrorists in the world. His policies have produced this vulnerability the United States has." Video Watch more of Biden's comments »

Biden later told Wolf Blitzer on "The Situation Room" Thursday that he didn't mean to use a curse word.

"I shouldn't have used that word. I came off the elevator and was confronted with what had happened, and I responded. ... I should have just said 'malarkey,' but the essence of what I was saying is absolutely accurate. This is outrageous."

Dems fire back at Bush on 'appeasement' statement - CNN.com

I just wish we could hear some rational debate on this subject. Granted there is no guarantee that talks with Iran and Syria and others will have any impact at all, but there's no guarantee that they won't either. I think the polarization of this issue by both sides is a dis-service to the United States.

I think the only way to guarantee that a situation never gets resolved using diplomacy and tact is to never try to resolve it using diplomacy and tact. If those don't work, we've always got other options, but what does it hurt to try? The Republican response to that is "we legitimize these governments and terrorists when we talk to them!" That may be true, but as we leaned with OBL we also legitimize them when we attack them, and draw huge levels of support to them, so what's the difference?

[Kerad (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Bruzilla

I just wish we could hear some rational debate on this subject. Granted there is no guarantee that talks with Iran and Syria and others will have any impact at all, but there's no guarantee that they won't either. I think the polarization of this issue by both sides is a dis-service to the United States.

I think the only way to guarantee that a situation never gets resolved using diplomacy and tact is to never try to resolve it using diplomacy and tact. If those don't work, we've always got other options, but what does it hurt to try? The Republican response to that is "we legitimize these governments and terrorists when we talk to them!" That may be true, but as we leaned with OBL we also legitimize them when we attack them, and draw huge levels of support to them, so what's the difference?

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Bruzilla

I just wish we could hear some rational debate on this subject. Granted there is no guarantee that talks with Iran and Syria and others will have any impact at all, but there's no guarantee that they won't either. I think the polarization of this issue by both sides is a dis-service to the United States.

I think the only way to guarantee that a situation never gets resolved using diplomacy and tact is to never try to resolve it using diplomacy and tact. If those don't work, we've always got other options, but what does it hurt to try? The Republican response to that is "we legitimize these governments and terrorists when we talk to them!" That may be true, but as we leaned with OBL we also legitimize them when we attack them, and draw huge levels of support to them, so what's the difference?

...does no one any service using rank comparisons and Nazi analogies. If he'd care to look around and take stock we wiped out Saddam's conventional forces in 1991 and wiped him out about a decade later. There is no Nazi war machine. There is no Hitler. The questions are 'now what'?

Certainly, the USSR, Poland and France would have had a hell of a lot to say about what went on in Germany post 1939 had there been preemptive war on Hitler. And, I'd like to point out, we would have been totally out of place to have been the ones to wage preemptive war on Germany. We're totally out of place doing it today in a region even farther from us than Central Europe, both physically and, especially, culturally.

Bush put aside everything but his own determination in invading Iraq. He should have put aside everything but his own determination and got on with the job. He chose otherwise. He doesn't do nuance any better than he does history. He has no business interjecting his opinions in this issue any more. he had his chance and this is where we are. He needs to just keep shop for the next 7 months and have the placed prepared to turn over to new management.

[SamSpade]

Crybabies. This is why they'll never be poster boy for manliness.

Can we put this thing in perspective? This is a frickin' tempest in a teapot. He's talking to the Knesset in a nation that knows full well you don't negotiate from a position of weakness and you're a fool if you think "if I just TALK to them, this would all go away" and as an example, he references a REPUBLICAN SENATOR from the 1930's who naively said that the Polish invasion might have been averted if people had just TALKED to Hitler.

Bush's point was one that can hardly be disagreed with - you don't talk it out with these guys. You kick their ass up and down the block and wait for them to come talk to YOU. You "talk" when *you're* the one holding the gun.

There's a whole gamut of folks who want to "talk" to Chavez - to Ahmedinijad - to Jong Il - but they're whistling in the dark. You do NOT go to the table with "pretty please". If you do, you get the kind of deal Carter made with Jong Il. Please, please don't develop nukes and we'll give you some nice consolation prizes. Call me crazy, but that's Nazi appeasement. What did we get? Nukes. And a less empty wallet. Oh and a Nobel Prize for Jimmy.

Maybe Obama thinks every word Bush says is about him, but he's full of himself. Bush isn't running for President, and there's a serious lack of motive for taking shots at him in Israel.

[molake]

Originally Posted by Bruzilla

but what does it hurt to try?

because you make the appearance that the madman thugs are legitmate world leaders

they are murderers ... kind of like having dinner with Jeffry Dahmer. Jeff is not your ordinary dinner guest ... if you know what I mean.

I suppose, you could have sit down with Jeff, and ask him not to kill people then eat them afterwards. Doubt he would take your advise though.

Jeff was hungry ... and mad ... just like Ahmadinejad

[cwo_ghwebb]

Originally Posted by molake

because you make the appearance that the madman thugs are legitmate world leaders

they are murderers ... kind of like having dinner with Jeffry Dahmer. Jeff is not your ordinary dinner guest ... if you know what I mean.

I suppose, you could have sit down with Jeff, and ask him not to kill people then eat them afterwards. Doubt he would take your advise though.

Jeff was hungry ... and mad ... just like Ahmadinejad

I just luv the indignation of the Socialists. An appeaser is an appeaser, if one likes that position fine, just don't get all huffy and "How Dare You!" attitude when someone with common sense calls you what you are. Poor babies, awfully thin skinned, can't bear the truth. Suck it up, folks, you're big girls and boys now.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by molake

because you make the appearance that the madman thugs are legitmate world leaders

they are murderers ... kind of like having dinner with Jeffry Dahmer. Jeff is not your ordinary dinner guest ... if you know what I mean.

I suppose, you could have sit down with Jeff, and ask him not to kill people then eat them afterwards. Doubt he would take your advise though.

Jeff was hungry ... and mad ... just like Ahmadinejad

...about this, just think about it for one minute;

Iraq did NOTHING to the US. The worst thing they ever did was invade Kuwait, which was a part of Iraq not too many years ago. Iraq never attacked us. We've sent armies over their twice, wiped out their military, twice, and killed many 100's of thousands of Iraqi's. We've invaded and occupied their country. We've seen to the execution of their leader who is no more or less legitimate than any other despot in the region and for what?

For oil? For 'freedom'? We've invaded and overthrown for 'liberty'? Hell, now that we absorb oil in excess of $125 a barrel, there's not even a national energy interest.

Look at what we've done. Are we just in this? Are we right? What makes our president and what he's done, with out support, some kind of noble endeavor? Where is the good in what we've done? Where is the right of the US to impose our will on others given our creed of freedom and liberty?

I feel sick for what we've become; invaders. We don't even have the saving grace of being good at this nation building garbage.

[wintersprings]

"Bush's point was one that can hardly be disagreed with - you don't talk it out with these guys. You kick their ass up and down the block and wait for them to come talk to YOU. You "talk" when *you're* the one holding the gun."

I agree. There are just some bad guys out there, that you have to kill. There is no option.

When will the Dems figure this out. That had 8 years under Clinton doing nothing....Gee guys that worked out real well. Change happened after 9/11 with Bush.

Change

Change

Change

[wintersprings]

"Iraq did NOTHING to the US."

Yea...nothing

Plotted to kill a US (x) President (An act of war)

Shot at US Planes enforcing the No Fly Zone (An act of war)

Do I really have to go on

Yea...nothing