Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Public-Grooming Postcard from ... | If I May Intrude... »

Thursday, May 15, 2008

“Does the President Have no Shame?”

posted by on May 15 at 10:24 AM

Jewish Congressman Rahm Emanuel responding to President Bush, who stood before the Israeli parliament today and said, in a comment that was widely interpreted as a swipe at Barack Obama:

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 heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: “Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.” We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

Obama as Nazi appeaser? The Obama campaign’s response:

George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president’s extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel.

Also: Sen. Joe Biden calls bullshit, literally.

And McCain agrees. With Bush.

RSS icon Comments


Rahm is so fucking smokin' hot. Grrr.

Posted by Mr. Poe | May 15, 2008 10:39 AM

gotta love the real life Josh Lyman

Posted by vooodooo84 | May 15, 2008 10:44 AM

Obama said other presidents talked to America's enemies. FDR did not talk with Hitler, he said WW2 was for unconditional surrender. So Obama's statement is not 100% accurate.

In the Cold War, we did talk to the USSR. Instead if reacting with horror and cries of shame, it might be better to explain that Bush's reaction is factually wrong -- we do have a history of talking with our enemies who are not in a hot war of aggression with our allies. What Iran is doing in supporting groups active in Lebanon Iraq etc. is pretty much like what the USSR did in supporting Cuba w/ putting missiles there, trying to take over Greece in 1949, pressuring Berlin, etc. In the entire period of WW2 thru the fall of the USSR we talked with the Soviet Union.

Crying "shame" jumping to denouncment, etc. is politic-y.

Explaining what our real history is w/ use of force, diplomacy and when we talk and when we don't, would be a real change.

Posted by PC | May 15, 2008 10:47 AM
Posted by skye | May 15, 2008 10:47 AM

Does this mean the Republican presidential campaign has been officially Godwinned? A little early, isn't it?

Posted by Beguine | May 15, 2008 10:54 AM

Biden for Veep.

Posted by heywhatsit | May 15, 2008 10:57 AM

Yeah, good thing Kennedy didn't talk to the Russians in 1961, I would have preferred nuclear war to that silly Cuban Missile Crisis.

And I guess talking to North Korea didn't work either, or Libya, or...

Posted by calvin | May 15, 2008 10:58 AM

Interesting to see CNN struggle with Biden's "bullshit" comment. On CNN's front page the headline is "bullsh*t". But for the headline of the Ticker post inside the naughty naughty naughty word is there in all its glory. Tell it Bid*n tell *t!

Posted by Barak Gaster | May 15, 2008 10:59 AM

In a post 9-11 world you do not have to be rich and famous to be under the watchful of of suspicious actions that can be deemed subversive to the United States of America.

It is my opinion, like many other peoples opinion in the world that George W. Bush and his Administration worked and continue to work hard at whitewashing their official and secret actions during their tenure of control of the Office of the President of the United States of America.

I do not believe it should be a reflection on either Senators Obama or McCain or Cinton as to the relationship of hearsay at this point and interpretation of political manuvers for newspaper headlines and quick quotes and sound bites.

We all know how the political machine loves contraversy.

All an art student has to do today to include themselves in suspicious actions if they are singled out or groups of peoples activities singled out and identified is look up the old and new artisits published works on the holocost,

and interpretive stances of individual reasonings and investigations from a students perspective,

include volital discourse between differing subsets of groups of people congrigating and that student can in this day and age find themselves ostricized for being

" out of fashion " for what is politically p.c. or "hip".

I did just that recently with a book on puppets and dolls made of Hitler, and let me tell you personally... it has affected my dreams.

Posted by daniellbennettkieneker | May 15, 2008 11:04 AM

If Bush wants to see comparisons with appeasement... then who is it threatening who? Nobody in their right mind thinks Iran poses the kind of threat to the world Isreal wants us to believe. This is the same old politics of fear. It was his invasion of Iraq that gave Iran the impetus to take a stronger role and Bush's refusal to be evenhanded has further strengthened Tehran and Syria. He is the main threat to peace.

Posted by Vince | May 15, 2008 11:29 AM

Did Bush get that middle east peace deal done yet? The one he was sure he could get done?

Posted by Lloyd Clydesdale | May 15, 2008 11:36 AM

Yet another example of why GWB should shut up and just smile for the camera.

Posted by Fly-Over Illinois | May 15, 2008 11:57 AM

i fucking love Biden.

Posted by happy renter | May 15, 2008 12:46 PM

No, GWB shouldn't shut up. He should never stop talking. Democrats should try their hardest to get his face and voice on TV as much as possible, and get McCain to agree with him as much as possible. Bush is smallpox these days, he's bird flu, and McCain's sick with it.

Posted by Fnarf | May 15, 2008 12:56 PM

Fnarf is right. Democratic victory depends on our 28%-approval-rating-sporting president's smirking mug and phony Texas drawl being everywhere for the next six months. Tell us more, Bush! More!

Posted by tsm | May 15, 2008 1:16 PM

Agreed, @14. The more that dimwit runs his mouth and shows how stupid he really is, the less support the Rs will have come November. It's really unbelievable that a man so clueless could rise to the position that he did.

Posted by Justin J | May 15, 2008 1:22 PM

And can we all agree that it is not appropriate to play politics while speaking from inside another country's legislature?

Bush knows nothing of decency, but seriously.

It's like trashing your frenemy during a commencement speech.

Posted by nolaseatac | May 15, 2008 1:25 PM

I respectfully disagree with @14, GWB is an im-bare-ass-ment and no matter how stupid he sounds to people with working brain cells, the more jibberish he spews the more he people who are easily deceived begin to gravitate towards him.

Posted by Fly-Over Illinois | May 15, 2008 1:31 PM

I don't see what all the fuss is about. GWB didn't mention Obama by name. And actually, Bush has a valid point. Diplomacy is good with evil nations, but 1:1's with their evil leaders is bad. Mr. Obama is being over sensitive, and that only calls attention to his deficit of experience and good judgment.

Posted by raindrop | May 15, 2008 1:39 PM

With a name like Rahm, he's gotta be good, Mr. Poe.

Posted by NapoleonXIV | May 15, 2008 1:48 PM

McCain is mis-remembering middle eastern history and politics again. On the NYT blog he says:

“I believe that it’s not an accident that our hostages came home from Iran when President Reagan was president of the United States. He didn’t sit down in a negotiation with the religious extremists in Iran, he made it very clear that those hostages were coming home.'’

A quick google turned this up: "After the election, with the assistance of Algerian intermediaries, successful negotiations began. On Jan. 20, 1981, the day of President Reagan's inauguration, the United States released almost $8 billion in Iranian assets and the hostages were freed after 444 days in Iranian detention; the agreement gave Iran immunity from lawsuits arising from the incident."

So a) Reagan was not president when the hostages were release, and b) there very clearly was a negotiation (which presumably he and his transition team were involved in) that included $8 billion unfrozen assets and legal immunity.

Posted by wrong again | May 15, 2008 4:12 PM

Absolutely @21. That was called Iran Contra, and basically Reagan funnelled money to Iran through arms deals so that the hostages would be released right around his inaugration. There is no greater example of appeasement by a President in American history. Absolutely f'ing garbage, complete re-writing of history.

Posted by left coast | May 15, 2008 5:02 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).