http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1210837 ... lenews_wsj

Apparently under the impression that he is still relevant, or that he has ANY credibility left in foreign policy, Bush falsely accused Obama and Dems of wanting to negotiate with terrorists - which is apparently what Bush thinks Chamberlain did.

Of course, Obama has said specifically that he would NOT negotiate with terrorists, but Bush has never really had much use for facts or reality.

I hesitate to post this since Bush has repeatedly made these exact same statements for the past six years. But he did say it today, and in response, McCain enthusiastically agreed with him, mucking up history along the way. McCain strangely and falsely used Reagan as a shning example during the Iran hostage crisis, even though Reagan's almost only participation in that event was announcing the successful return of the hostages.

I think McCain's response actually helps Obama. It continues to conflate the two and their similar foreign policy visions. McCain IS Bush on the middle east.

McCain would serve himself well never to mention Reagan and Iran in the same sentence again, before American suddenly remember something.

Are you saying that Chamberlain and Daladier did not negotiate with terrorists, or at least a terrorist state?

UPDATE: Turns out that both Sec of Def Gates has been urging Bush to negotiate with Iran. So maybe he was actually talking about terrorist appeasers in his own administration. Or maybe he's talking about HIMSELF, since he urged his own ambassador in Iraq as well as Condeleeza Rice to negotiate with Iran as well, and in fact, blamed IRAN for not wanting to talk to THEM.

Or maybe he's just a colossal lying hypocrite.

UPDATE II: Actually, Gates talked about negotiating with Iran YESTERDAY.

"We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage . . . and then sit down and talk with them," Gates said. "If there is going to be a discussion, then they need something, too. We can't go to a discussion and be completely the demander, with them not feeling that they need anything from us."

Bush is such a stupid fucking child.

I loved the interview he had this weekend where he revealed he stopped playing golf in 2003 because he felt seeing their leader having leisure while they're fighting a war would be unfair to the troops, and that he's very excited to start emailing his friends again next year once he doesn't have to worry as much about security measures.

Swell guy

Chris Matthews asks a right-wing radio host, who defended Bush's comments, to explain what exactly Chamberlain did. This is just too funny:

MATTHEWS: You don’t know what you’re talking about, Kevin. You don’t know what you’re talking about. Tell me what Chamberlain did wrong.

JAMES: Neville Chamberlain was an appeaser, Chris. Neville Chamberlain was an appeaser, all right? […]

MATTHEWS: I’ve been sitting here five minutes asking you to say what the president was referring to in 1938 at Munich.

JAMES: I don’t know.

MATTHEWS: You don’t know, thank you.

These right-wing idiots simply parrot the talking points of the administration without even knowing the history or what they're talking about. They are cheap, empty microphones. What a bunch of idiots.

Well Nazi Germany wasn't really a terrorist state but a hostile state and there is a big difference. Calling Germany a terrorist state is like calling the Roman Empire a terrorist state because they did horrible things to the Christians. Really Terrorists states are a recent thing so that is just a wrong terminology. Second, they did negotiate with Germany and that was the problem. Obama wants to talk to Iran which is fine as long as he doesn't give them anything which is what he has been saying.

Jedi, you and your reality and facts have no place in the delusional neocon world! Begone with ye!

LOL I know that will be the argument :p

I'd agree with his statement...

Nazi Germany sought to instill fear within a whole segment of its population. It also targeted them for wholesale destruction. Just because Nazi Germany had the potential for mass destruction, which most terrorist states nowadays do not, doesn't mean that the Nazi's weren't terrorists, albiet a European variety. Perhaps you don't consider the Nazi's a terrorist state because of some belief in European superiority and power in comparison to modern terrorists states which tend to be more backwards and theological in nature.

As to the Romans, I find it difficult to call them a terrorist state, because, like you said, terrorists states are a modern invention. Also, the Roman's sought to harm Christians within whereas terrorist states seem to want to inflict injury on those outside the nation.

Beeble, what are you even talking about? I made no mention about Obama wanting to have a dialogue with Iran; you're conflating my view with whatever the "neocon" view is. I have no problem with that and think it is a good idea, at least facially. Sometimes your outright hatred can blind you.

Germany's goal wasn't terror though it was world domination. Terror states generally don't have goals like that. Also like you said the idea is a modern invention of the last 40 years. Germany doesn't fit that model at all. And it has nothing to do with European superiority here. I just don't think there were any true terrorists states until post ww2.

That is NOT the definition of a terrorist or a terrorist state, unless you want to classify just about every wannabe imperial power as one just so you can apologize for Bush's idiotic smear on Obama.



The irony meter is exploding again. Up until this comment, I haven't even addressed you, knowing as I did that you would try to redefine terrorism to incorporate the Nazis just so Bush's smear of Dems wouldn't sound so insanely stupid.

The Nazis were imperialists, not terrorists. And Chamberlain's appeasement wasn't simply talking to the Nazis, it was giving them the Sudetenlan. Bush is a half-wit.

Nazi Germany was a state. Terrorism is not a state, it is a state of mind.

Adolf Hitler was elected democratically, and used patriotism to clobber his opposition into submission. Sound familiar? If anything, the closest analogue to Hitler would be George Bush and the current administration's attempts to circumvent American democracy. The Gestapo would've violated the Fifth Amendment too.

Keep in mind that creeping fascism is THE reason I have come to loathe the Bush administration so harshly. The Orwellian tactics our government has used to manipulate the American populace, especially after 9/11, are an inexcusable insult to American values.

I'm taken aback when people brand me a "liberal" for voicing the above opinions. Since when the American values of liberty and transparency become "liberal" values? Self-proclaimed "conservatives" are so off-kilter in their defense of fascist thinking, I'm not sure how to regard them.

I completely agree with that statement which is why we need Obama to win otherwise our govt becomes more like the one in 1984.

9/11 was a real missed opportunity. With Americans willing to sacrifice everything in love of our country, Bush told us to hate the world and go shopping. In an age of unprecedented peace, Bush told the American people that the world is a scary place filled to the brim with enemies. Do you remember this image?



Plays along with the administration stance, no? Everyone hated us for the freedoms our government were about to eliminate?

How many people remember this image?



That is Beirut. Home of Hezbollah.

What about this image?



That is Tehran. Tehran of the "Axis of Evil". Twenty thousand fucking IRANIANS held a candlelight vigil and prayed for the souls of the American victims. The Muslim world was on OUR side after 9/11, until Bush told them to fuck themselves.

Now, let's talk about lost opportunity. Even to this day, macho fuck-the-worlders label me a "liberal" for understanding basic human truths like this.

Just above, you quoted Jedi Master Carr, who was talking about me. You then mentioned "neocons." I think my inference was fair so perhaps your "irony meter" needs to be recalibrated.

It is possible to be a terrorist and an imperialist.

Catchy, have you coined that proposed aphorism?

I'm trying to figure out which is more lame. Your invoking of the judicial activism canard in order to justify right-wing attacks on gay marriage, or your redefinition of terrorism to justify Bush's insanely idiotic smear on Democrats.

That's a tough one. They're both equally pathetic and devoid of any intellectual honesty. I gotta go with the redefinition of terrorism to include the Nazis - a) because it's so stupid on its face, and b) because in the end you're only doing it to defend a half-wit shitbag president that you, for some inexplicable reason, continue to defend and support despite your laughable claims of being a Libertarian.

I'd hope not, cause I could swear I heard it somewhere else. Wouldn't want to be going senile.

Terrorists are everywhere. Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist. The EPR group that blew up Mexican pipelines are terrorists. Hell, the Chinese government consider Tibetan protesters to be terrorists. The British Empire deemed American freedom fighters terrorists. Terrorism is the state of mind where pissed off people go on the attack. As you can see, it's not even always bad.

You fight terrorism by marginalizing those that seek to harm us. Silence them and ignore them. Don't enable them by creating the greatest foreign policy debacle of the last twenty years. Now they've got a recruitment tool that never stops giving.

In order to critique my definition of terrorism (which I supplied above), perhaps you should supply your own, so that we can compare.

Skipping the "so stupid on its face" argument, I will go to B. I like how you call me out on being a libertarian while at the same time supporting political elites dictating public policy.

Heres some synonyms for "canard." cock-and-bull story, falsehood, falsity, fib, fiction, inveracity, misrepresentation, misstatement, prevarication, story, tale, and untruth.

Forgetting for a moment the utter preposterousness of Bush's comments. It turns out that he's not even competent at smear tactics. He just handed Obama a giant gift.

1) Democrats, including Clinton and other "neutral" Dems, have rallied to Obama's defense.
2) It pits Obama against BUSH, the most unpopular president in American history, instead of McCain.
3) It ties McCain directly to Bush at a time when McCain is trying to distance himself.
4) McCain's defense of Bush's statement exposes his similarities to Bush's failed and disastrous foreign policy, while also exposing McCain's hypocrisy and flip-flops on the issue.
5) It creates the impression in the minds of the public that Obama IS the nominee.
6) It allows to Obama to outline his own foreign policy and Bush's falsehoods.

McCain is talking himself into a corner, into becoming McBush. Sad, really. The one topic he needed to get the hell away from, he's openly inviting discussion on. He's actively reminding people like me (conservative foreign-policy realists) exactly what's wrong with today's Republican party (i.e., stupidity). He will not be able to win the debate sandwiched between Iraq and Bush.

I don't really need to invent my own defintion. Here's the dictionary definition of a terrorist:

"a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities"

It would take a mighty wedge to shove Hitler into that definition. It's probably the same wedge you use to shove pre-emptive war, torture, warrantless wire-tapping and the suspension of habeas corpus into your definition of Libertarian.

Small cells, hmm. Hitler. Small cells.

Remember that the terrorists' primary weapon is, not surprisingly, terror. They have no way of militarily defeating America, nor can they occupy our lands. Their attacks are only successful to the degree Americans become frightened and give up liberties in the name of security. The irony lies in how they defeated our freedoms through ourselves.