At least none of them mentioned “appeasement.” LOL! The GOP should thank their lucky stars (or perhaps lucky black holes) that the Dems could be so naive to at leave themselves with two choices neither of which are very electable. On the other hand, McCain just may be the type to feel the weight of the office to the point of ignoring most conservative ideology in favor of a better place for himself in the history books.
And now McCain is running suggesting he may well only be seeking one term. Interesting strategy – how Teddy Rooseveltian! Of course, Teddy changed his mind and lived to regret it.
I’m curious to hear about how the GOP feels about it’s chances on the Hill this November. As things look now, they’re in for a major stomping.
We can count on the Dems to make those choices Jersey.
We dont have to thank any stars.
You guys have bee n making some pretty poor choices for quite a while now.
McCain still leads in the polls on the national security issue next to Obama. And has gained slightly in the last day.
And as of yesterday Obamas lead over hillary has shrunk slighly.
Oh , and by the way, in case you forgot.
Your lovely little congress has suffered the lowest poll ratings of any congress in history.
Another point would be that even Hillary called Obama “naive” when he said he would sit down with our enemies with no conditions.
This guy is lost , he really is. I’ve never seen such a clueless candidate in all my 50 years.
Funny about that appeasement comment. When i first heard it I thought it was a reference to Jimmy Carter, and possibly some recent European leadership. Never did I equate it with Obama, especially since he said he thought Carter was wrong to talk to Hamas. I think by taking offense he actually equates himself with that position when many didn’t view him that way before. I thought he was silly tactically to take that reaction
Yea, If there was any bait there, Obama took it.
As soon as I heard it my first thoughts went with Pelosi and Carter. Only becuse their little stints have been most recent.
And since Israel is of the same position that we are when it comes to negotiating with radicals it only made prefect sense to bring it up at the 60th anniversary.
Today you got all the moonbats lit up and crying, Obama making speechs in rebuttal and yet you dont hear Israel or the Jews crying about anything.
All the while the hypersensative over reactionary left is saying that Bushs polticizing of the anniversary is sleazy , disgusting etc…
Israel got where its at by not kissing anyones a$$. So if anyone had a right to be offended it would be them. Instead, I believe it was a compliment to Israels policies.
Mean while when most normal people heard this statement they probaly just told themselves ” yea, hes got a good point”
I don’t think I was on this blog back then, Micky. Actually, the ‘06 sweep was even bigger than I predicted. This year could be a tsunami.
What was silly, Parrothead, was to use “appeasement” when all anyone else is talking about is talking There’s a huge difference between appeasement and talking. So, was Reagan appeasing the Soviets when he talked to them? Was Bush I appeasing the PLO when his administration talked to them? Was Nixon appeasing China when he (and Kissinger and Bush I) talked to them? Was Bush II appeasing the North Koreans when his administration talked to them?
Yeah. I didn’t think so.
No serious pol or pundit on the left or right has suggeested any appeasement of Hamas, Hezbollah, or Iran. Bush is a liar.
Talking is a form of “appeasement”
Stop playing sematics.
Bush said it precisely the way did because appeasment is what would be taking place if we gave these guys the luxury of sitting down with them.
If we did that it would amount to no more than a huge opportunity for radical sympathizers to say we are caving in.
“WE” get it ? “WE” get to make the demands and set the conditions.
It is “we” and our allies and soldiers that are being killed by these bastards.
As McCain just said , only a fool thinks that he can get anywhere with a regime that has wished Israel off the map and called it a stinking corpse.
It is we who will demand that they expose there nuke program and stop sending IEDs and weapons and meninto Iraq to kill our soldiers before we even entertain the idea of any negotiations or talks.
Good God man ? are you so unbelievably immersed in your idealogy that you cant see a blood a thirsty unappraoachable monster ?
JMJ;
“No serious pol or pundit on the left or right has suggeested any appeasement of Hamas, Hezbollah, or Iran. Bush is a liar. ”
No, you are the liar.
Who do you call Obama suggesting talks with no conditions ?
Who is nancy Pelosi trying to fool ?
And what the hell was Carter doing?
You are the liar simply by trying to insult our intelligence by attempting to place the word “Appeasment” in some other context and acting as if the morons you support dont want to “appease” our enemy.
Talks with China, the PLO and Russia had pre conditions. Which is exactly what Obama said he did not or would not require.
Please, stay with the facts
Bush is a liar. He used the 60th anniversary of Israel to spin GOP politics in the ‘08 elections with the worst sorts of hellishly dramatic connotations. He should be ashamed of himself, and his supporters should strongly criticize his remarks.
Bush is no more a liar than you are running for president.
What he said at Israel was not only appropriate, its was deserving and almost expected at that engagement.
It had everything to do with where Israel stands , how it got there. And reflects the policies that Isarael has always had.
If you will notice the connection to Israel was made with the comment that followed in reference to tanks rolling into Poland and also regarding a certain republican senator who said” If only had a chance to speak to Hitler.
He also labeled this desire as “foolish and delusional”
Even Hillary said Obamas position on Iran was “NAIVE”
You take the unimaginative and predictable childish approach of saying it was politisizing?
Connotation ?
I think its fine, and as a matter of fact I think it was brilliant to raise the subject since its only obvious that Obama wants to hide behind healthcare and the economy as long as he can.
Sheez, he couldnt even remember the names of our enemies without looking at the teleprompter.
Tell me jersey ?
Why are you so offended ?
If anyone should be offended it should be the Jews and Israeli citizens. Right ?
Do you here them bitching ?
So please, get of that over inflated moral soap box of yours.
Shouldnt the candidates be talking about this regardless of who brought it up ?
Bush is not seeking another term, but out going presidents have always been known to throw bones to the side they support. Its really quite normal.
In other words …
BIG EFFING DEAL !
President Bush was right on the money in his address before the Israeli Knesset.
He did not use the event to spin anything. That’s what JMJ does most of the time when he comments. For someone who NEVER plays fair, his egregious and nasty response to Bush’s take on unconditional talks with Iran is rather humorous.
Bush according to the White House had the great appeaser and LIAR Jimmy Carter in mind. The Senator he was referring to concerning appeasing the Nazis happened to be a Republican.
Bush has exuded stunning class during his Presidency. He is the prime reason I left the Democratic (or what I thought was…) Party. The response to his words yesterday by Democrats has sealed the deal for the next several years. When I changed parties the thought I may just switch back in the near future was never far behind. Not exactly on the agenda any longer. The comments these past few days by top Democrats has revealed just how deranged and indecent they are. The jig is up.
This nation owes our Commander in Chief a debt of gratitude. Unfortunately on this thread we get JMJ’s hateful and childish comments…
I have the same advice for him as I gave Mr. Obama; GROW UP….
“Bush is no more a liar than you are running for president.”
So then is he less a liar than I’m not running for president? LOL!
Bush used the Israeli anniversary to pimp cheap American politics and you guys just can’t find in yourselves the humph to admit he did it. I have never stood by any shmuck as you guys stand behind that endlessly backwards falling Bush. Amazing.
JMJ;
““Bush is no more a liar than you are running for president.”
So then is he less a liar than I’m not running for president? LOL!”
Jersey, its pretty bad when you crack yerself up and then LOL at your own joke.
But just for the hell of it , here goes.
I am 100% sure that you are not running for president.
I’m also 100% sure that Bush is no liar.
Since the odds are that you will ever come close to a candidacy, the same odds apply to Bush being a liar.
Now, take your stupid joke (or supposed joke0 and stick it back in one the holes it came out of.
Your position is weak and it shows when you scrape to the bottom of the barrel like that to point any kind of relevancy.
Stand behind shmucks?
Oh no no no my backwards delusional friend.
You most recently stood behind Carter ,with beaming pride.
Now ther is a smuck and a half.
As a matter of fact I will bet money that Carter was right on Bushs mind when he said what he said.
And of course theres this matter of you hyperventalating your disengenuous sympathy for Israel by some how acting as if you feel for them like they have been violated by Bushs statement.. What as stinking load.
like I said, but now I’ll put it into a question.
Do you hear Israel bitching ?
No ! You dont.
And that my friend is the bottom line whether you like it, beleive or care, It doesnt really matter.
I don’t stand beside, behind, or in the vicinity of Jimmy Carter. I just don’t like it when the unwashed lie about the slightly more washed. Bush is a liar. No one is talking appeasement. He’s a liar. Period.
JMJ;
“I don’t stand beside, behind, or in the vicinity of Jimmy Carter’
JMJ;
“Jimmy Carter is one of the finest human beings to ever be in the White house”
You said this Jersey. If you like I can go back into blacktygrrrs archives and dig it up with a time stamp.
Please, dont call one man a liar when its painfully evident that its you who are guilty of being a liar.
Tell me.
What was the lie that had anything to do with his speech in Jerusalem ?
Appeasement, literally: calming, reconciling, acquiring peace by way of concessions or gifts (the verb ‘to pay’ also goes back to the Latin ‘pax’ = peace). Most commonly, appeasement is used for the policy of accepting the imposed conditions of an aggressor in lieu of armed resistance, usually at the sacrifice of principles. Usually it means giving in to demands of an aggressor in order to avoid war. Since World War II, the term has gained a negative connotation in the British government, in politics and in general, of weakness, cowardice and self-deception.
A famous example is Neville Chamberlain’s foreign policy during the period 1937-1939, when he pursued a policy of appeasement towards Adolf Hitler’s expansionist ambitions.
If you actually bother to use the word in its proper context it clearly says “concessions or “gifts”
“Usually at the sacrifice of principles”
Our foreign policy is based on the priciple that we do not indulge terrorists with the gift of negotiations.
And trust me, if we sat down with them it would be a huge gift in the sense of embolding them and the entire radical middle east.
In this case, sitting down with aggresors who mean you harm would be a gift in their favor.
It clearly states that since WW2 it had gained a negative cocotation because of the man Bush mentioned in his speech. That would be Chamberlains failed attempts at appeasement. The tanks rolled into Poland anyway.
So who is the liar now ?
You need to grow up and realize that just because you say “period” it does not settle or prove anything young man.
You need to go into detail and give examples to bring your position any credibility.
And since your position never had an ounce of credibility you are stuck once again practically begging people to just take your word for it.
Since Bush didn’t specifically refer to anybody how could he be lying. He only reiterated the policy Israel established many year ago “we don’t negotiate with terrorists.” The truth is I think his main goal was to validate the approach Israel has taken for 60 years.
Of course they never admit to appeasement but that often has been the net result, and was the prime reason much of western Europe stayed out of Iraq in the first place.
But if you want some specific examples of appeasement how about Clinton strong arming Israel to give up the store in 2000 only to have Arafat refuse and launch the intifada. Or Jimmy Carter pulling the rung out form under the Shah and allowing Khomeini to come back into Iran and the result being US hostages taken at our embassy. This pales by the many European examples over the years.
Micky, I stand by what I said about Carter. He is undoubtedly one of the finest human beings to ever set foot in the White House, but that neither means I believe he was a good president or that I agree or agreed with many of his decisions. It only means that I believe he is a genuinely good-hearted human being. Bush, on the other hand, is an idiot and a liar and rarely do I ever agree with anything he says or does.
When Bush compared the appeasement of Hitler by Chamberlain, or the attempts by Nazi sympathizers in the United States and abroad to avert war with Nazi Germany, to American politicians and pundits who simply say that we need to sit down and talk to some of our common enemies, – to the Knesset on Israel’s anniversary, no less! – he employed about the sleaziest, lowlilest untruthful character assassination imaginable. That you guys can’t bring yourselves to critique that is beyond me. And ironically enough, it is a display of exactly the same sort of blind, sycphantic, oblivious, undeserved loyalty that gave rise to the Hitlers of the world in the first place. And on top of that, if a Democrat were to do what Bush did, you all would be screamong bloody murder! How blatantly hypocritical.
Parrothead, Bush lied because no serious politician or pundit in America espouses appeasement with any of the entities he cited. He’s a liar.
As for your examples with Clitnon and Carter, I will not even dignify such utter and complete ignorance of modern history with a further response. Typical conservative – no knowledge of history, just “parroting” the sleazy Limbaugh set.
JMJ;
“I don’t stand beside, behind, or in the vicinity of Jimmy Carter’”
Look Jersey, the more you yap the bigger your hole gets.
Quit while you’re ahead or you’ll end up in China.
You just make us B.S. and rules as you go along. Like a spoiled child not getting his way.
Now just quit with all the sick opiniated rhetoric and and answer my question.
Are the Jews and the Israeli upset ?
JMJ:
lowlilest untruthful character assassination imaginable. That you guys can’t bring yourselves to critique that is beyond me.”
Of course its beyond you, why is no one surprised ?
If it was such a reprehensable act why have the Israelis not said something?
Anytime you say you wont dignify something its about as honest as your made up sympathies for Israel.
Like the hateful child you are you are just using that disengenuous sympathy for Israel as a means to bash Bush.
I see right through you Jersey.
Your only interest is to put down Bush at any opportunity you can drum up, even if you have to fabricate that opportunity.
First of all I don’t even listen to Rush Limbaugh. I work during the day and don’t have time to listen to any thing on the radio. Any opinions espoused here are my own not parroted from ANYBODY.
I don’t blindly follow Bush, there are many things he has done wrong in his presidency, just as there were things Clinton did right. But to call him a “liar and an idiot” is completely disingenuous.
Bush never said that he was talking about serious “pundits or politicians in America.” You keep limiting that scope, he didn’t. The tendency toward appeasement is rampant all over Europe. Nobody uses the term appeasement but they take the approach that just giving them what they want will solve the problem. Their have been several negotiated agreements over the years and the Palestinians have not lived up to any of them. The simplest being the recognition of Israel’s right to exist. There is a difference in talking to China and Russia then the Palestinians. They were not terrorists merely enemy states.
As far as bush being an idiot. His academic record was far superior to “geniuses” like Al Gore and John Kerry. Why is it any republican president is considered a buffoon and every democrat considered a genius. The same was said of Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, George Bush. There are few who can match the intelligence or academic credentials of Condoleeza Rice.
Show me Jersey.
Show me what a democratic congressman had to say . (lol)
Its highly Unlikely that a florida congressmans writtings would show anywhere other than Florida. And last I recall US congressmen are required to be US citizens.
He is not a citizen of Israel now, is he ?
Robert Wexler is next to no one in this.
Semantics ?
Now your arguement ha gotten even weaker than origanally thought possible.
It was me who gave you an accurate description as to the meaning of the word “appeasment” And as to how it applies in this situation.
Which by way you were unable to controvert.
Dont talk to me about juvenile when its you who is the one who is making false arguements on behalf of a people you only pretend to care about so as to look like some kind of moral giant.
It is you who cannot accept the real context of the word . And its you who cannot except the real context of the presidents speech.
If you were really a mature individual you would stop your opitiful attempts to justify any of your BS by refering me to an American democratics feeble opinions and actully look at the Jewish newspapers to find out the truth. But most children cant handle the truth so they make up fairy tales.
Below is just one great example of how the Jews feel and it comes from one of there most popular subscriptions.
“Sometimes, when you’re knee-deep in the day-to-day, when you’re just struggling to get by, when you’re facing forces that seem so much bigger than you, there is a need for someone from the outside – someone bigger and more powerful – to come by, pat you on the back, tell you that you are not alone, and remind you both of your inherent worth and that it is all inherently worth it.
That is what the Bush did Thursday in the Knesset. ”
“By referring to an unnamed senator silly enough in 1939 to have thought he could have talked Hitler out of invading Poland and starting World War II, Bush also flicked a stinging jab at Democratic presidential hopeful Barrack Obama, who wants to talk to Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. “We have an obligation to call this what it is: the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history,” Bush said. ”
If you go to the link and read the entire article you will see that the overwhelming majority of Jews are quite pleased with Bushs speech.
Try reading the papers that matter young man, not just the ones you want to believe.
You talk a big game Jersey and yet you produce nothing.
Me and most people dont care what your precious little Florida democratic congressman has to say.
No you are not my mommy, shes worse than you.
Which can mean that you will only get worse with age.
You claim semantics on my part.
I produce the true meaning of the word and use it in its proper context and showed you with no sematics allowed how it supports Bushs use of it.
But hey ! It doesnt really matter if we cal it a discussion, a pow wow, or a rap session you and your moonbat buddys wouls till gather round and act like bush said something wrong.
Even if Bushs said ” engaging in dialogeu is a bad idea” this conversation would still be much the same because you guys seem to think you can talk your way out of anything.
This conversation right here proves that it doesnt work and that mindset to be not only foolish and delusional.
It lacks intelligence and maturity
As I have said several times I think much of his focus was on European leaders (and pundits) who last i checked were not “pundits or politicians in America.” Europe’s history of appeasement long predates WWII and has continued up to the present. I think i tis funny that you would assume it only refers to Americans. I thought it was only Republicans who thought everything revolved around the US. This liar stuff is BS. Are you saying Obama a liar for saying “McCain wants to keep fighting in Iraq for 100 years when that was clearly NOT what he said. I’d talk about Clinton but she has a WELL documented history of lying.
The fact what Bush said was true. In fact he NEVER accused ANY INDIVIDUAL of wanting appeasement. He said that approach “favored by some” amounts to appeasement. That is clearly true. I said the same thing of some of George H. W. Bush’s policies. Any statement that he accused anybody specifically of being an appeaser is a lie!
I don’t see anyone, in America or Europe, anyone of any serious stature, “appeasing” any of the entities Bush cited. Either he lied, he has no clue what he’s talking about, or, worse yet, he used the anniversary of Israel to politically fear-monger with the spectre of Hitler – and that, my fine friends, is just plain despicable.
Yea well unfortunatly Jersey many of the radicals we face today did inherit their doctrine from Nazis and Hitlers vision.
So not only is it “not” despicable. It should be expected at this occasion.
And please, drop your obsession with the “appeasement” word already.
I dont care what word you use. We all knew what Bush was talking about and basically what he was saying is that kissing anyone of these guys asses will not help.
But whithin all literal practicality the word “appeasement” fits perfectly if you go by the description found in most dictionaries.
As said by Winston Churchill:
“ An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile hoping it will eat him last. ”
So as you can see Jersey, I hardly can see how anyone ( except you) can come up with this wild accusation that Bush is lying when since at least WW2 we all know what this word means.
What would Obama say if he went to Iran ?
Please tell me what you think.
I guarantee you no matter what he says it will be a form of appeasement.
He does not need to meet with them if he is going to impose “harsh diplomacy” against them.
I assume the conversation will involve some kind of trade off.
Lets say its something as simple as letting us examine his nuke ambitions and sites in exchange for lifting sanctions.
Oh , wait a minute, we tried that and were basically flipped off.
Do you think he will stop sending bombs and the materials for IEDs into Iraq if we ask him pretty please ?
Even if we offer him a carrot that will set up the premise that America can be extorted from and bought.
Screw all that crap.
IMO Bush should pick up the phone and say ” hey bub, you got 24 hours to get yer sh**outta Iraq or we are gonna dust yer a** and whatever looks like it might have something to do with a nuke.”
Whats really dispicable is you overdrawing the sympathy for Israel just as a way to convey your hatred for Bush. You hatred for Bush is whats at the front of all this crap you spew. Not your love for Israel or your country.
Or as if you were following some highest order of ethics.
Now, could you please show me all the Jewish publications that are so outraged over Bushs speech at Jerusalem.
All the articles that I am so ineptly unable to find?
Please show me the outrage you on behalf of the Jews that you claim to be out there.
I have looked at the Jewish nespapers today and see nothing but praise for Bushs speech.
Oh, and by the way, you are right when you say;
“I don’t see anyone, in America or Europe, anyone of any serious stature, “appeasing” any of the entities Bush cited.”‘
Because anyone of any serious stature is actually a memeber of the cabinet and/or the administration.
The people Bush was talking about are the ones who are of no significant stature or ones who would like to be, such as presidential candidates and some idiot from the past.
Anyone with any stature is smart enough to know better.
Get it?
Early this morning as I was driving to work second thoughts concerning the veracity of my comments yesterday moved me to consider apologizing for their harsh nature…then I got home and read the comments which have followed…
I was right on the money!
Bush has been an absolute mensch! The same cannot be said for many of his bloodthirsty critics…Hah Hah….
Mensch means a real person…the genuine article…hence, “a person of integrity and honor.”
He’s also the guy who opens the door for the ladies too…but, it’s real, not put on…yes a gentleman…which is what President Bush has been as been. He’s treated many of his adversaries with greater respect than their behavior merits…
Jersey McJones said,
May 16, 2008 at 11:13 am
At least none of them mentioned “appeasement.” LOL! The GOP should thank their lucky stars (or perhaps lucky black holes) that the Dems could be so naive to at leave themselves with two choices neither of which are very electable. On the other hand, McCain just may be the type to feel the weight of the office to the point of ignoring most conservative ideology in favor of a better place for himself in the history books.
And now McCain is running suggesting he may well only be seeking one term. Interesting strategy – how Teddy Rooseveltian! Of course, Teddy changed his mind and lived to regret it.
I’m curious to hear about how the GOP feels about it’s chances on the Hill this November. As things look now, they’re in for a major stomping.
JMJ
micky2 said,
May 16, 2008 at 11:26 am
We can count on the Dems to make those choices Jersey.
We dont have to thank any stars.
You guys have bee n making some pretty poor choices for quite a while now.
Jersey McJones said,
May 16, 2008 at 11:59 am
LOL! Speaking of poor choices, how you guys doin’ in the polls these days? LOL!
JMJ
micky2 said,
May 16, 2008 at 12:14 pm
I thought you didnt believe in polls?
(lol)
McCain still leads in the polls on the national security issue next to Obama. And has gained slightly in the last day.
And as of yesterday Obamas lead over hillary has shrunk slighly.
Oh , and by the way, in case you forgot.
Your lovely little congress has suffered the lowest poll ratings of any congress in history.
Another point would be that even Hillary called Obama “naive” when he said he would sit down with our enemies with no conditions.
This guy is lost , he really is. I’ve never seen such a clueless candidate in all my 50 years.
Jersey McJones said,
May 16, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Oh, I’m not talking about the presidential fiasco – I’m talking about the Hill. You guys are in big trouble.
JMJ
micky2 said,
May 16, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Thats what you said when this congress got elected.
parrothead said,
May 16, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Funny about that appeasement comment. When i first heard it I thought it was a reference to Jimmy Carter, and possibly some recent European leadership. Never did I equate it with Obama, especially since he said he thought Carter was wrong to talk to Hamas. I think by taking offense he actually equates himself with that position when many didn’t view him that way before. I thought he was silly tactically to take that reaction
micky2 said,
May 16, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Yea, If there was any bait there, Obama took it.
As soon as I heard it my first thoughts went with Pelosi and Carter. Only becuse their little stints have been most recent.
And since Israel is of the same position that we are when it comes to negotiating with radicals it only made prefect sense to bring it up at the 60th anniversary.
Today you got all the moonbats lit up and crying, Obama making speechs in rebuttal and yet you dont hear Israel or the Jews crying about anything.
All the while the hypersensative over reactionary left is saying that Bushs polticizing of the anniversary is sleazy , disgusting etc…
Israel got where its at by not kissing anyones a$$. So if anyone had a right to be offended it would be them. Instead, I believe it was a compliment to Israels policies.
Mean while when most normal people heard this statement they probaly just told themselves ” yea, hes got a good point”
Jersey McJones said,
May 16, 2008 at 1:30 pm
I don’t think I was on this blog back then, Micky. Actually, the ‘06 sweep was even bigger than I predicted. This year could be a tsunami.
What was silly, Parrothead, was to use “appeasement” when all anyone else is talking about is talking There’s a huge difference between appeasement and talking. So, was Reagan appeasing the Soviets when he talked to them? Was Bush I appeasing the PLO when his administration talked to them? Was Nixon appeasing China when he (and Kissinger and Bush I) talked to them? Was Bush II appeasing the North Koreans when his administration talked to them?
Yeah. I didn’t think so.
No serious pol or pundit on the left or right has suggeested any appeasement of Hamas, Hezbollah, or Iran. Bush is a liar.
JMJ
micky2 said,
May 16, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Talking is a form of “appeasement”
Stop playing sematics.
Bush said it precisely the way did because appeasment is what would be taking place if we gave these guys the luxury of sitting down with them.
If we did that it would amount to no more than a huge opportunity for radical sympathizers to say we are caving in.
“WE” get it ? “WE” get to make the demands and set the conditions.
It is “we” and our allies and soldiers that are being killed by these bastards.
As McCain just said , only a fool thinks that he can get anywhere with a regime that has wished Israel off the map and called it a stinking corpse.
It is we who will demand that they expose there nuke program and stop sending IEDs and weapons and meninto Iraq to kill our soldiers before we even entertain the idea of any negotiations or talks.
Good God man ? are you so unbelievably immersed in your idealogy that you cant see a blood a thirsty unappraoachable monster ?
JMJ;
“No serious pol or pundit on the left or right has suggeested any appeasement of Hamas, Hezbollah, or Iran. Bush is a liar. ”
No, you are the liar.
Who do you call Obama suggesting talks with no conditions ?
Who is nancy Pelosi trying to fool ?
And what the hell was Carter doing?
You are the liar simply by trying to insult our intelligence by attempting to place the word “Appeasment” in some other context and acting as if the morons you support dont want to “appease” our enemy.
Talks with China, the PLO and Russia had pre conditions. Which is exactly what Obama said he did not or would not require.
Please, stay with the facts
Jersey McJones said,
May 16, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Bush is a liar. He used the 60th anniversary of Israel to spin GOP politics in the ‘08 elections with the worst sorts of hellishly dramatic connotations. He should be ashamed of himself, and his supporters should strongly criticize his remarks.
JMJ
micky2 said,
May 16, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Bush is no more a liar than you are running for president.
What he said at Israel was not only appropriate, its was deserving and almost expected at that engagement.
It had everything to do with where Israel stands , how it got there. And reflects the policies that Isarael has always had.
If you will notice the connection to Israel was made with the comment that followed in reference to tanks rolling into Poland and also regarding a certain republican senator who said” If only had a chance to speak to Hitler.
He also labeled this desire as “foolish and delusional”
Even Hillary said Obamas position on Iran was “NAIVE”
You take the unimaginative and predictable childish approach of saying it was politisizing?
Connotation ?
I think its fine, and as a matter of fact I think it was brilliant to raise the subject since its only obvious that Obama wants to hide behind healthcare and the economy as long as he can.
Sheez, he couldnt even remember the names of our enemies without looking at the teleprompter.
Tell me jersey ?
Why are you so offended ?
If anyone should be offended it should be the Jews and Israeli citizens. Right ?
Do you here them bitching ?
So please, get of that over inflated moral soap box of yours.
Shouldnt the candidates be talking about this regardless of who brought it up ?
Bush is not seeking another term, but out going presidents have always been known to throw bones to the side they support. Its really quite normal.
In other words …
BIG EFFING DEAL !
Brian said,
May 16, 2008 at 6:18 pm
President Bush was right on the money in his address before the Israeli Knesset.
He did not use the event to spin anything. That’s what JMJ does most of the time when he comments. For someone who NEVER plays fair, his egregious and nasty response to Bush’s take on unconditional talks with Iran is rather humorous.
Bush according to the White House had the great appeaser and LIAR Jimmy Carter in mind. The Senator he was referring to concerning appeasing the Nazis happened to be a Republican.
Bush has exuded stunning class during his Presidency. He is the prime reason I left the Democratic (or what I thought was…) Party. The response to his words yesterday by Democrats has sealed the deal for the next several years. When I changed parties the thought I may just switch back in the near future was never far behind. Not exactly on the agenda any longer. The comments these past few days by top Democrats has revealed just how deranged and indecent they are. The jig is up.
This nation owes our Commander in Chief a debt of gratitude. Unfortunately on this thread we get JMJ’s hateful and childish comments…
I have the same advice for him as I gave Mr. Obama; GROW UP….
Jersey McJones said,
May 16, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Micky,
“Bush is no more a liar than you are running for president.”
So then is he less a liar than I’m not running for president? LOL!
Bush used the Israeli anniversary to pimp cheap American politics and you guys just can’t find in yourselves the humph to admit he did it. I have never stood by any shmuck as you guys stand behind that endlessly backwards falling Bush. Amazing.
JMJ
micky2 said,
May 16, 2008 at 7:50 pm
JMJ;
““Bush is no more a liar than you are running for president.”
So then is he less a liar than I’m not running for president? LOL!”
Jersey, its pretty bad when you crack yerself up and then LOL at your own joke.
But just for the hell of it , here goes.
I am 100% sure that you are not running for president.
I’m also 100% sure that Bush is no liar.
Since the odds are that you will ever come close to a candidacy, the same odds apply to Bush being a liar.
Now, take your stupid joke (or supposed joke0 and stick it back in one the holes it came out of.
Your position is weak and it shows when you scrape to the bottom of the barrel like that to point any kind of relevancy.
Stand behind shmucks?
Oh no no no my backwards delusional friend.
You most recently stood behind Carter ,with beaming pride.
Now ther is a smuck and a half.
As a matter of fact I will bet money that Carter was right on Bushs mind when he said what he said.
And of course theres this matter of you hyperventalating your disengenuous sympathy for Israel by some how acting as if you feel for them like they have been violated by Bushs statement.. What as stinking load.
like I said, but now I’ll put it into a question.
Do you hear Israel bitching ?
No ! You dont.
And that my friend is the bottom line whether you like it, beleive or care, It doesnt really matter.
Grow up.
Jersey McJones said,
May 16, 2008 at 8:26 pm
I don’t stand beside, behind, or in the vicinity of Jimmy Carter. I just don’t like it when the unwashed lie about the slightly more washed. Bush is a liar. No one is talking appeasement. He’s a liar. Period.
JMJ
micky2 said,
May 16, 2008 at 10:05 pm
JMJ;
“I don’t stand beside, behind, or in the vicinity of Jimmy Carter’
JMJ;
“Jimmy Carter is one of the finest human beings to ever be in the White house”
You said this Jersey. If you like I can go back into blacktygrrrs archives and dig it up with a time stamp.
Please, dont call one man a liar when its painfully evident that its you who are guilty of being a liar.
Tell me.
What was the lie that had anything to do with his speech in Jerusalem ?
Appeasement, literally: calming, reconciling, acquiring peace by way of concessions or gifts (the verb ‘to pay’ also goes back to the Latin ‘pax’ = peace). Most commonly, appeasement is used for the policy of accepting the imposed conditions of an aggressor in lieu of armed resistance, usually at the sacrifice of principles. Usually it means giving in to demands of an aggressor in order to avoid war. Since World War II, the term has gained a negative connotation in the British government, in politics and in general, of weakness, cowardice and self-deception.
A famous example is Neville Chamberlain’s foreign policy during the period 1937-1939, when he pursued a policy of appeasement towards Adolf Hitler’s expansionist ambitions.
If you actually bother to use the word in its proper context it clearly says “concessions or “gifts”
“Usually at the sacrifice of principles”
Our foreign policy is based on the priciple that we do not indulge terrorists with the gift of negotiations.
And trust me, if we sat down with them it would be a huge gift in the sense of embolding them and the entire radical middle east.
In this case, sitting down with aggresors who mean you harm would be a gift in their favor.
It clearly states that since WW2 it had gained a negative cocotation because of the man Bush mentioned in his speech. That would be Chamberlains failed attempts at appeasement. The tanks rolled into Poland anyway.
So who is the liar now ?
You need to grow up and realize that just because you say “period” it does not settle or prove anything young man.
You need to go into detail and give examples to bring your position any credibility.
And since your position never had an ounce of credibility you are stuck once again practically begging people to just take your word for it.
parrothead said,
May 16, 2008 at 11:26 pm
Since Bush didn’t specifically refer to anybody how could he be lying. He only reiterated the policy Israel established many year ago “we don’t negotiate with terrorists.” The truth is I think his main goal was to validate the approach Israel has taken for 60 years.
Of course they never admit to appeasement but that often has been the net result, and was the prime reason much of western Europe stayed out of Iraq in the first place.
But if you want some specific examples of appeasement how about Clinton strong arming Israel to give up the store in 2000 only to have Arafat refuse and launch the intifada. Or Jimmy Carter pulling the rung out form under the Shah and allowing Khomeini to come back into Iran and the result being US hostages taken at our embassy. This pales by the many European examples over the years.
Jersey McJones said,
May 17, 2008 at 8:04 am
Micky, I stand by what I said about Carter. He is undoubtedly one of the finest human beings to ever set foot in the White House, but that neither means I believe he was a good president or that I agree or agreed with many of his decisions. It only means that I believe he is a genuinely good-hearted human being. Bush, on the other hand, is an idiot and a liar and rarely do I ever agree with anything he says or does.
When Bush compared the appeasement of Hitler by Chamberlain, or the attempts by Nazi sympathizers in the United States and abroad to avert war with Nazi Germany, to American politicians and pundits who simply say that we need to sit down and talk to some of our common enemies, – to the Knesset on Israel’s anniversary, no less! – he employed about the sleaziest, lowlilest untruthful character assassination imaginable. That you guys can’t bring yourselves to critique that is beyond me. And ironically enough, it is a display of exactly the same sort of blind, sycphantic, oblivious, undeserved loyalty that gave rise to the Hitlers of the world in the first place. And on top of that, if a Democrat were to do what Bush did, you all would be screamong bloody murder! How blatantly hypocritical.
Parrothead, Bush lied because no serious politician or pundit in America espouses appeasement with any of the entities he cited. He’s a liar.
As for your examples with Clitnon and Carter, I will not even dignify such utter and complete ignorance of modern history with a further response. Typical conservative – no knowledge of history, just “parroting” the sleazy Limbaugh set.
JMJ
micky2 said,
May 17, 2008 at 8:54 am
JMJ:
“Micky, I stand by what I said about Carter”
JMJ;
“I don’t stand beside, behind, or in the vicinity of Jimmy Carter’”
Look Jersey, the more you yap the bigger your hole gets.
Quit while you’re ahead or you’ll end up in China.
You just make us B.S. and rules as you go along. Like a spoiled child not getting his way.
Now just quit with all the sick opiniated rhetoric and and answer my question.
Are the Jews and the Israeli upset ?
JMJ:
lowlilest untruthful character assassination imaginable. That you guys can’t bring yourselves to critique that is beyond me.”
Of course its beyond you, why is no one surprised ?
If it was such a reprehensable act why have the Israelis not said something?
Anytime you say you wont dignify something its about as honest as your made up sympathies for Israel.
Like the hateful child you are you are just using that disengenuous sympathy for Israel as a means to bash Bush.
I see right through you Jersey.
Your only interest is to put down Bush at any opportunity you can drum up, even if you have to fabricate that opportunity.
Jersey McJones said,
May 17, 2008 at 9:05 am
Mciky, stop playing semantic games. It’s juvenile and makes you look like you don;t have a clue in the world where another’s position lay.
“Are the Jews and the Israeli upset?”
Plenty are. Try reading the papers. Robert Wexler summed it up well the other day.
JMJ
parrothead said,
May 17, 2008 at 10:13 am
First of all I don’t even listen to Rush Limbaugh. I work during the day and don’t have time to listen to any thing on the radio. Any opinions espoused here are my own not parroted from ANYBODY.
I don’t blindly follow Bush, there are many things he has done wrong in his presidency, just as there were things Clinton did right. But to call him a “liar and an idiot” is completely disingenuous.
Bush never said that he was talking about serious “pundits or politicians in America.” You keep limiting that scope, he didn’t. The tendency toward appeasement is rampant all over Europe. Nobody uses the term appeasement but they take the approach that just giving them what they want will solve the problem. Their have been several negotiated agreements over the years and the Palestinians have not lived up to any of them. The simplest being the recognition of Israel’s right to exist. There is a difference in talking to China and Russia then the Palestinians. They were not terrorists merely enemy states.
As far as bush being an idiot. His academic record was far superior to “geniuses” like Al Gore and John Kerry. Why is it any republican president is considered a buffoon and every democrat considered a genius. The same was said of Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, George Bush. There are few who can match the intelligence or academic credentials of Condoleeza Rice.
micky2 said,
May 17, 2008 at 10:15 am
Show me Jersey.
Show me what a democratic congressman had to say . (lol)
Its highly Unlikely that a florida congressmans writtings would show anywhere other than Florida. And last I recall US congressmen are required to be US citizens.
He is not a citizen of Israel now, is he ?
Robert Wexler is next to no one in this.
Semantics ?
Now your arguement ha gotten even weaker than origanally thought possible.
It was me who gave you an accurate description as to the meaning of the word “appeasment” And as to how it applies in this situation.
Which by way you were unable to controvert.
Dont talk to me about juvenile when its you who is the one who is making false arguements on behalf of a people you only pretend to care about so as to look like some kind of moral giant.
It is you who cannot accept the real context of the word . And its you who cannot except the real context of the presidents speech.
If you were really a mature individual you would stop your opitiful attempts to justify any of your BS by refering me to an American democratics feeble opinions and actully look at the Jewish newspapers to find out the truth. But most children cant handle the truth so they make up fairy tales.
Below is just one great example of how the Jews feel and it comes from one of there most popular subscriptions.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1210668649684&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
“Sometimes, when you’re knee-deep in the day-to-day, when you’re just struggling to get by, when you’re facing forces that seem so much bigger than you, there is a need for someone from the outside – someone bigger and more powerful – to come by, pat you on the back, tell you that you are not alone, and remind you both of your inherent worth and that it is all inherently worth it.
That is what the Bush did Thursday in the Knesset. ”
“By referring to an unnamed senator silly enough in 1939 to have thought he could have talked Hitler out of invading Poland and starting World War II, Bush also flicked a stinging jab at Democratic presidential hopeful Barrack Obama, who wants to talk to Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. “We have an obligation to call this what it is: the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history,” Bush said. ”
If you go to the link and read the entire article you will see that the overwhelming majority of Jews are quite pleased with Bushs speech.
Try reading the papers that matter young man, not just the ones you want to believe.
Jersey McJones said,
May 17, 2008 at 10:51 am
“Bush never said that he was talking about serious “pundits or politicians in America.””
Oh. So to whom was he then referring? Fred the Drunk Panhandler at the corner of 17th and Constitution? C’mon. Get real.
And all these shmucks are Ivy Leaguers. That’s why I get such a kick out of the sleazy “elite” tag – they’re all elites!
As for talking as opposed to appeasing, again, Bush is a liar.
Micky, be a big boy and read the papers. I’m not your mommy. I’ve read all sorts of articles decrying Bush’s speech-of-lies.
JMJ
micky2 said,
May 17, 2008 at 11:39 am
You talk a big game Jersey and yet you produce nothing.
Me and most people dont care what your precious little Florida democratic congressman has to say.
No you are not my mommy, shes worse than you.
Which can mean that you will only get worse with age.
You claim semantics on my part.
I produce the true meaning of the word and use it in its proper context and showed you with no sematics allowed how it supports Bushs use of it.
But hey ! It doesnt really matter if we cal it a discussion, a pow wow, or a rap session you and your moonbat buddys wouls till gather round and act like bush said something wrong.
Even if Bushs said ” engaging in dialogeu is a bad idea” this conversation would still be much the same because you guys seem to think you can talk your way out of anything.
This conversation right here proves that it doesnt work and that mindset to be not only foolish and delusional.
It lacks intelligence and maturity
parrothead said,
May 17, 2008 at 2:02 pm
As I have said several times I think much of his focus was on European leaders (and pundits) who last i checked were not “pundits or politicians in America.” Europe’s history of appeasement long predates WWII and has continued up to the present. I think i tis funny that you would assume it only refers to Americans. I thought it was only Republicans who thought everything revolved around the US. This liar stuff is BS. Are you saying Obama a liar for saying “McCain wants to keep fighting in Iraq for 100 years when that was clearly NOT what he said. I’d talk about Clinton but she has a WELL documented history of lying.
The fact what Bush said was true. In fact he NEVER accused ANY INDIVIDUAL of wanting appeasement. He said that approach “favored by some” amounts to appeasement. That is clearly true. I said the same thing of some of George H. W. Bush’s policies. Any statement that he accused anybody specifically of being an appeaser is a lie!
Jersey McJones said,
May 17, 2008 at 2:19 pm
I don’t see anyone, in America or Europe, anyone of any serious stature, “appeasing” any of the entities Bush cited. Either he lied, he has no clue what he’s talking about, or, worse yet, he used the anniversary of Israel to politically fear-monger with the spectre of Hitler – and that, my fine friends, is just plain despicable.
JMJ
micky2 said,
May 17, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Yea well unfortunatly Jersey many of the radicals we face today did inherit their doctrine from Nazis and Hitlers vision.
So not only is it “not” despicable. It should be expected at this occasion.
And please, drop your obsession with the “appeasement” word already.
I dont care what word you use. We all knew what Bush was talking about and basically what he was saying is that kissing anyone of these guys asses will not help.
But whithin all literal practicality the word “appeasement” fits perfectly if you go by the description found in most dictionaries.
As said by Winston Churchill:
“ An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile hoping it will eat him last. ”
So as you can see Jersey, I hardly can see how anyone ( except you) can come up with this wild accusation that Bush is lying when since at least WW2 we all know what this word means.
What would Obama say if he went to Iran ?
Please tell me what you think.
I guarantee you no matter what he says it will be a form of appeasement.
He does not need to meet with them if he is going to impose “harsh diplomacy” against them.
I assume the conversation will involve some kind of trade off.
Lets say its something as simple as letting us examine his nuke ambitions and sites in exchange for lifting sanctions.
Oh , wait a minute, we tried that and were basically flipped off.
Do you think he will stop sending bombs and the materials for IEDs into Iraq if we ask him pretty please ?
Even if we offer him a carrot that will set up the premise that America can be extorted from and bought.
Screw all that crap.
IMO Bush should pick up the phone and say ” hey bub, you got 24 hours to get yer sh**outta Iraq or we are gonna dust yer a** and whatever looks like it might have something to do with a nuke.”
Whats really dispicable is you overdrawing the sympathy for Israel just as a way to convey your hatred for Bush. You hatred for Bush is whats at the front of all this crap you spew. Not your love for Israel or your country.
Or as if you were following some highest order of ethics.
Now, could you please show me all the Jewish publications that are so outraged over Bushs speech at Jerusalem.
All the articles that I am so ineptly unable to find?
Please show me the outrage you on behalf of the Jews that you claim to be out there.
I have looked at the Jewish nespapers today and see nothing but praise for Bushs speech.
Oh, and by the way, you are right when you say;
“I don’t see anyone, in America or Europe, anyone of any serious stature, “appeasing” any of the entities Bush cited.”‘
Because anyone of any serious stature is actually a memeber of the cabinet and/or the administration.
The people Bush was talking about are the ones who are of no significant stature or ones who would like to be, such as presidential candidates and some idiot from the past.
Anyone with any stature is smart enough to know better.
Get it?
Brian said,
May 17, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Early this morning as I was driving to work second thoughts concerning the veracity of my comments yesterday moved me to consider apologizing for their harsh nature…then I got home and read the comments which have followed…
I was right on the money!
Bush has been an absolute mensch! The same cannot be said for many of his bloodthirsty critics…Hah Hah….
Jersey McJones said,
May 18, 2008 at 9:23 am
Bush? A mensch? Do you even know what that means???
JMJ
micky2 said,
May 18, 2008 at 10:50 am
EtymologyFrom Yiddish, from the German Mensch (human).
Noun, Singular
“mensch”
Plural
“mensches” or “menschen”
mensch (plural mensches or menschen)
“A person of integrity and honor.”
Seems right to me.
Brian said,
May 18, 2008 at 7:08 pm
You got it Micky!
Mensch means a real person…the genuine article…hence, “a person of integrity and honor.”
He’s also the guy who opens the door for the ladies too…but, it’s real, not put on…yes a gentleman…which is what President Bush has been as been. He’s treated many of his adversaries with greater respect than their behavior merits…
micky2 said,
May 18, 2008 at 8:52 pm
No biggy, its called a dictionary.