RJC in DC–Wisdom from the White House

I had the pleasure recently of attending the most recent leadership meeting of the Republican Jewish Coalition. This meeting was held in Washington, DC. It was held at the St. Regis Hotel on K Street, across the street from the White House. The initial plan was to meet people at the White House, but due to logistics, the members of the President’s staff came to the hotel instead.

There were fine minds as always, and it was an absolute thrill meeting Sir Charles of Krauthammer. Given the substance of these meetings, more than one day is required to give the events justice. Also, for reasons of confidentiality, some information is redacted. Nevertheless, below are some remarks from some of the speakers, all of whom contributed to a quality conference.

Senator John McCain was represented by his campaign manager, Rick Davis. While he acknowledged that 2008 could be a tough year, the Presidential race is up for grabs.

In speaking about our fine republican nominee, Mr. Davis stated that “John McCain’s life is about serving the Commander in Chief, not being one.”

“Some lament the length of Presidential races. The length of these campaigns is actually a good thing. Some people want it to be over, but in America our races get you into the soul of the person who would lead the free world over a two year period. We learn much about them, and this is positive.”

“Even with two years of studying, we cannot predict the future. We could not have predicted 9/11, or that President Bush would have become the most important foreign policy President of this century.”

“While he has raised less money, John McCain actually has more cash on hand than Hillary Clinton.”

“The key is to targe states that seem out of reach but are within reach. In 2000, George W. Bush had 11 target states. John McCain has doubled that. He has 22 target states. Also, California absolutely will be targeted. California usually is a place where republicans come, raise money, and leave. We will compete for California, forcing the other side to spend resources here.”

“John McCain has been underestimated throughout his life.”

The next speaker was President Bush’s Deputy Chief of Staff, Joel Kaplan. He is likable and funny. His remarks were mostly policy, but my question for him was about politics. The question was a softball regarding the President himself, but was meant to be a hardball question towards those that are supposed to be his defenders. 

“Mr. Kaplan, I am deeply concerned about the President’s poll numbers. Every day this guy is taking a battering from critics that I believe are not fit to lick his boots. What is being done to hit back hard so that 20 years from now people will know what a good, decent man he is?”

Again, this may appear to be a softball, but I am genuinely ticked off that the people that are his toughest critics are wrong, unfair, and often unkind.

Mr. Kaplan offered an acceptable answer.

“First of all, I am going to punt on this question, and let (White House Press Secretary) Dana Perino answer it. What I can tell you is that this President is guided by principles, not polls. Would he like to be popular? Of course, we all would. That does not change the fact that he is going to do what he believes is right. When he says he does not care about shaping his legacy, he means it. History will sort that out. He is going to do what he thinks is best for America in the long run. Others can obsess about polls. He is about principles.”

Mr. Kaplan then went on to tell an amusing story regarding a mistake in a transcript.

“A few weeks ago Dana Perino finished her daily briefing, and I read the transcript. A question was asked about the President being sapped of energy down the stretch. Ms. Perino responded that ‘The President will be absolutely fine, there’s a lot of Jews left in the White House.’ I beamed with pride, but felt this was a bit much. I went up to her and thanked her for her support, but wondered if she had overstated the role I and others had played. She told me that the transcript was a mistake, and that what she actually said was that ‘There’s a lot of juice left in the White House.'”

I found Mr. Kaplan after his speech. I told him point blank that, “I don’t care if the man’s polls drop to 10%. I know he’s right, and I know history will vindicate him.”

He thanked me, and let me know that he does relay messages of support to the President, and that the support absolutely helps. I finshed with one thought.

“I know he has an impossible job. Let him know I am praying for him.”

Mr. Kaplan told me to keep doing so.

White House Press Secretary Dana Perino was next.

“President Bush is gender blind. He is comfortable around strong women because he is surrounded by them. From his mother to his wife to his daughters to his Press Secretary, we are everywhere.”

“One problem with the internet is the coarseness of the public debate. I hope women can change that.”

“In the Middle East, women play a prominent role. Israel has women in power, and Mahmoud Abbas has a female Press Secretary.”

When asked about how she stands the daily grilling from the media, her answer was simple, yet sensible.

“The way to do well is to be more prepared than the reporters. Be prepared, consult more experts, and have more facts. Tough opinions can be countered with hard facts.”

“There has been a tidal wave of competition since 2000. Everybody wants to get the best dig in. Yet we are still here.”

“This may surprise some of you, but David Gregory is actually pretty fair. He is tough, but he asks fair questions.”

I remember David Gregory as the judgmental guy who got drunk and went on the air babbling nonsense. It is not fair to judge him by that one episode, but a man who asks tough questions sure did not want questions asked of him about that incident.

“Helen Thomas is exasperating. She wears her agenda on her sleeve. I now answer all her questions by starting out by mentioning her name. That way when the transcript comes out, everybody can point to one of her questions and know that she asked it. I will say, ‘Helen, now you know…’ She finally realized I was doing it and called me on it, but I still keep doing it.”

She was not interested in helping Barack Obama.

“I won’t give Obama advice because he might take it. Stop it Karl Rove. Don’t help them. They might listen.”

She then showed some self depracating humor.

“Obama has a glass jaw. I actually am not exactly sure what that means. I know it is a sports metaphor, and I just wanted to sound like I knew sports.”

She then turned to my earlier question of Mr. Kaplan.

“As for the person who asked about the President’s poll numbers, he is not dwelling on them. He is perfectly comfortable going on to the next chapter of his life after the next President takes over. He will go back to his ranch, and be perfectly content to live his life outside of Washington.”

Unlike democrats, who have a tendency to never let go, and think that they still are President, republican Presidents leave with dignity, and do what an ex-President should do…shut up and be quiet, and let their successor form their own path.

Her last comment was with regard to a rumor that the President has lost support in Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice.

“President Bush absolutely backs Condi Rice 100%.”

After her speech, when I met her, she stated that she would have somebody from her office contact me regarding an interview of her. I stated that I understood how busy she was. We shall see.    

The last speaker of the day was Richard Baehr from American Thinker. I have gotten to know him over the past year, and he is a friend. He is very solid on offering political analysis, and he does not sugar coat potential results.

“The democrats are having an internal debate right now on whether or not to give up on Florida. As close as Florida was in 2000, it is now fairly safe for the republicans. If the democrats give up on Florida, they would have to do a lot to win the White House. They would have to win Ohio. No republican has ever won the White House without Ohio. Another strategy that they would try to do is run the table of the four states of Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada. This is going to be tough because John McCain is a Westerner from Arizona.”

“One of the key hidden constituency group in this election is Asians. Republicans can do very well among this group. When Michelle Obama makes her remarks about America being unfair, and Asians are sitting at home with 1600 SAT scores and rejection letters, it bothers them.”

“California is not a lost cause. 35% of California voters belong to three groups that John McCain could do well with…Jews, Asians, and Hispanics.”

“Some would argue that republicans cannot do well with Jews, especially since George W. Bush was the best friend Israel ever had, and he still only received 25% of the Jewish vote. There are other reasons Jews did not support him. First of all, Jews did not like his father, and thought he would be like his father. Secondly, he wears his religion on his sleeve, and Jews are scared to death of religious Christians. They think that all Christians want to convert us. Most Jews that convert end up converting to nothing, not Christianity. Lastly, President Bush is a Texan, and Jews often sneer at Southerners. John McCain is a Westerner, and while he is a Christian, he does not go to Church that often or talk about his religious faith. Between that and his strong support for Israel, he could pick up more of the Jewish vote.”

In the coming days, the wisdom of Bill Kristol, and of course, Sir Charles of Krauthammer, will be offered.

Once again, the RJC made me proud to be a member of the leadership by putting on such a quality conference.



No Responses to “RJC in DC–Wisdom from the White House”

  1. Jersey McJones says:

    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.


  2. micky2 says:

    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.

  3. Jersey McJones says:

    LOL! Speaking of poor choices, how you guys doin’ in the polls these days? LOL!


  4. micky2 says:

    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.

  5. Jersey McJones says:

    Oh, I’m not talking about the presidential fiasco – I’m talking about the Hill. You guys are in big trouble.


  6. micky2 says:

    Thats what you said when this congress got elected.

  7. parrothead says:

    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

  8. micky2 says:

    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”

  9. Jersey McJones says:

    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.


  10. micky2 says:

    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 ?

    “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

  11. Jersey McJones says:

    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.


  12. micky2 says:

    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 …

  13. Brian says:

    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….

  14. Jersey McJones says:


    “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.


  15. micky2 says:

    ““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.

  16. Jersey McJones says:

    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.


  17. micky2 says:

    “I don’t stand beside, behind, or in the vicinity of Jimmy Carter’

    “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.

  18. parrothead says:

    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.

  19. 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.


  20. micky2 says:

    “Micky, I stand by what I said about Carter”

    “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 ?

    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.

  21. 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.


  22. parrothead says:

    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.

  23. micky2 says:

    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.

  24. Jersey McJones says:

    “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.


  25. micky2 says:

    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

  26. parrothead says:

    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!

  27. Jersey McJones says:

    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.


  28. micky2 says:

    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?

  29. Brian says:

    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….

  30. Jersey McJones says:

    Bush? A mensch? Do you even know what that means???


  31. micky2 says:

    EtymologyFrom Yiddish, from the German Mensch (human).

    Noun, Singular
    “mensches” or “menschen”
    mensch (plural mensches or menschen)

    “A person of integrity and honor.”

    Seems right to me.

  32. Brian says:

    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…

  33. micky2 says:

    No biggy, its called a dictionary.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.