LIARS: Why did it take them 24 hours to figure out who they were talking about?

[kpete]

Why did it take them 24 hours to figure out who they were talking about? Liars.

TimesOnline:

The White House now claims that President Bush's infamous remarks to the Israeli Knesset yesterday, likening those who propose direct talks with Iran and Islamist terrorist groups to the appeasers of Nazi Germany, were addressed not at Barack Obama but at Jimmy Carter.

This would be plausible, on its face, if it weren't for the fact that it's taken them a whole day to come up with it. President Bush may not be the world's most coherent speaker, but it's natural to be suspicious when it takes someone more than a day to figure out what he was talking about.

http://timesonline.typepad.com/uselections/2008...

[OwnedByFerrets]

1. Yes, and he is such a pertinent target to

address...:rofl: LIARS...and btw Monkeyboy SHUT THE HELL UP!!!

[dchill]

2. It's my deeply-held conviction...

that you have known for some time that "they" are LIARS. I also believe that all the MSM flacks, who deliver this story with a credibility-lending straight face, know it, too. (I'm talking to YOU, Wolf Blitzer.)

;)

[billdemo]

3. Because they weren't exactly lying

Because they weren't exactly lying, but they weren't exactly telling the truth either. Somewhere in between.

There is a major split between foreign policy experts in the democratic party. One faction, backing Clinton, favors strong policy on Iran and is very much against Iran going nuclear. The other faction, backing Obama, is in favor of negotiating with Iran, "appeasing" Iran and is less worried about Iran developing nuclear weapons.

Bush's message was intended for those foreign policy experts in the democratic party who were advocating "appeasement" as he called it. He was not singling out Barack Obama, but instead, the foreign policy experts who back Obama (namely Zbigniew Brezezinski, Obama's top foreign policy advisor.)

[HCE SuiGeneris]

4. No one is in favor of appeasement. Your RW talking point

does not belong here. Obama advocates for diplomacy.

[billdemo]

6. Well I would argue that his foreign policy team are in favor of that but

Well I would argue that his foreign policy team are in favor of that but I put it in inverted commas to indicate its what bush says.

BTW. I would be in the Hillary camp on this foreign policy issue. So I'm not right wing. I'm moderate democrat.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

8. Don't parrot Bush here as an argument, idiot.

[billdemo]

14. Can I disagree with Obama on one issue? Is that allowed???

[HCE SuiGeneris]

18. Your idea of foreign policy with regards to Democrats, is incorrect.

Diplomacy is needed and sought, the crap that you spew is RW nonsense in its isolationist intent.

[billdemo]

25. It has nothing to do with right wing. It's 2 factions of Democratic thinking.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

30. You have successfully hijacked at least 2 threads. Take your BS elsewhere.

You contradicted yourself below, again alluding to appeasement. WTF is public negotiation? Who is doing that? Stop making shit up.

[Ichingcarpenter]

28. You're not disagreeing with Obama, you are disagreeing with all Democrats

Therefore supporting the right wing agenda.

[billdemo]

29. I'm disagreeing with 50% of Democrats

[Ichingcarpenter]

31. Give me one quote from any Major Democrat that supports your bullshit

However, I can give you many rightwing idiots and Repuglican quotes
that support your stupidity.

[billdemo]

36. I said there is disagreement within the D party on Iran. You don't think thats true?

[Ichingcarpenter]

38. Name one...........

Go away Troll.

[billdemo]

42. All foreign policy experts backing Clinton

[annabanana]

53. respond to the above post please. . .n/t

[PassingFair]

58. ...and remember, Joe Lieberman doesn't count.... n/t

[seemslikeadream]

20. oh no that makes you the RIGHT WING of the Democratic Party

and us true Dems are trying very hard to rid our party of repubs

[billdemo]

26. Well 49% of the party voted moderate so...

[HCE SuiGeneris]

35. Mods. We have a 20% here. Can we clean up GD please?

[Beetwasher]

5. Stop Spamming Your Bullshit All Over This Board, You Dumb Fuck

You posted the identical thing in several different places already. Of course they were talking about Obama, you idiot.

Why can't you fuckwads be men and own up to your own fucking words instead of being weaselly douchebags who pretend they didn't mean what everyone knows they meant?

[billdemo]

7. I posted a similar answer to a similar post. You're missing the point of what I was saying...

Bush was criticizing a section of the democratic party not Obama specifically. Obama's foreign policy advisors were the real targets of Bush's comments.

And thanks for calling me "Dumb Fuck". Maybe that's why all the Hillary supporters are leaving this board.

[Ichingcarpenter]

13. Don't throw that Straw Dog out like that

It has nothing to do with Hillary. IT HAS TO DO WITH YOU!
Using Bush's and Karl Rove talking points.

[billdemo]

15. Bush is saying different to what I'm saying. I said he was lying.

[Marr]

21. Even if you accept that (transparently untrue) claim, it changes nothing.

It's not *who* he was criticizing. It's his insulting, baseless and just plain incorrect claims of "appeasement", and the fact that he was making these domestic political attacks not just on foreign soil, but in the Isaeli Knesset.

[billdemo]

23. Because Iran has said it is dedicated to the destruction of Israel

[Marr]

34. Further down the thread, you said diplomacy with a nation is not appeasement, but

that negotiating with terrorist organizations is. So I'm confused.

Are you saying Iran is a terrorist organization and not a country?

[billdemo]

39. Terrorist organizations or nations that advocate terrorism is what i should have said

[Marr]

40. I think you're trying to support the unsupportable.

I'll just repeat what I started with. Diplomacy is not appeasement.

[billdemo]

45. Here's what I'm not supporting

I don't want public diplomacy with Iran. I'd like US to use economic sanctions against Iran to force it to behave acceptably. Then start diplomacy.

[Marr]

46. That's a perfectly legitimate position.

Disagreeing with your position is not the same as being 'pro-appeasement', however.

[Beetwasher]

52. Well, You Are A Dumb Fuck If You Think Anyone Here Is Buying This Bullshit

"Obama's foreign policy advisors were the real targets..."

What's the fucking difference, Einstein? Then why did "unnamed" WH sources say that Obama was the target? Huh jeenyus?

Give me a fucking break.

[Richard Steele]

57. Bullshit. Everyone here understands EXACTLY what your "point" is. You're fooling no one.

nm

[malaise]

10. You're everywhere defending Bush's deliberate distortion of the meaning of appeasement

Let me buy a wreath for later.

[billdemo]

12. How do I make this clearer. I'm not defending Bush. I'm explaining foreign policy within the D Party

[malaise]

16. Bush deliberately invented a new meaning for the word

appeasement. Not one Democrat has defended his bullshit...not even Hillary whom you claim to support.

Gr.

[Marr]

17. You're using right-wing propaganda to "explain" it.

Diplomacy is not appeasement.

[billdemo]

22. But you're talking in very simplistic terms.

Diplomacy with a foreign power is not appeasement. But public negotiation with a terrorist nation is, i feel, appeasement. Negotiation with terrorists is usually done via back channels.

[Marr]

27. Please show me where any politician said we should negotiate with Al Qaeda.

Or any other terrorist organization, for that matter.

Hamas is the Palestinian ruling party, made so in elections that Bush himself insisted upon. If he's referring to Iran, which I don't doubt, that's a nation-- not a terrorist organization.

[billdemo]

32. Iran is sponsoring terrorists. Don't you remember Iran's history?

[Marr]

37. We are sponsoring terrorists.

Do you remember our own history? If I'm not mistaken, we just recently had new revelations of US-sponsored terrorism within Iran. One of the pentagon's former-general, media mouthpieces was on Fox News advocating more of it, in fact.

This isn't all black and white. Whether you suspect a nation is funding terror or not, talking with a nation's legitimate government is not the same as appeasement.

[billdemo]

41. I agree. In fact Obama's foreign policy advisor sponsored terrorists

Zbigniew Brezezinski sponsored radical muslim terrorists who later became the Taliban and part of Al Quaeda.

[Marr]

44. Don't forget Cheney, Rumsefeld, and a collection of Bush team members.

Past and present. Some of them are doing it *now*.

I've got to say it's odd that you would criticize Obama for having what many would consider a right-leaning foreign policy advisor, when your whole criticism of Obama seems to be that his foreign policy is too soft in comparison to Hillary Clinton.

I don't like the fact that he's got Zbigniew Brezezinski on board, is what I'm saying. I would assume someone more hard line would love it.

[malaise]

48. Appeasement or Diplomacy?

[annabanana]

54. Kevin James is that you?. . . .n/t

[seemslikeadream]

24. Hey malaise

[malaise]

47. LOL

:rofl: :rofl:

[Marr]

11. That is no different.

What is so difficult to understand about this? Your accusations of "appeasement" are incorrect, of course-- but even if we put that aside.. the larger issue is Bush playing domestic politics in a foreign setting. The people making excuses for this politician are the same ones who went out of their way to condemn the Dixie Chicks for something far less pointed, and they're just private citizens.

I don't expect a lot of consistency from reactionary Bushbots, but this whole line is just ridiculous.

[kentuck]

50. That would be called "quibbling".

Which would get you kicked out of most military academies...

[KSinTX]

55. My god! It's Kevin James. Where's Chris Matthews?

nt

[Marr]

9. How is that any better? How stupid are these people?

It's not that he was attacking a presidential candidate-- it's that he was making a domestic political attack *period*.

These people heap failure upon stupidity upon failure.

[billdemo]

19. Well, I take your point. Officially it wasn't but privately it was an attack on a way of thinking..

within the party. (one half of the party)

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## DON'T DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our second quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Whatever you do, do not click the link below!

[unapatriciated]

43. ...

[kentuck]

49. Typical lies ...

like those they have been spreading for 8 long years. Everybody thought he had WMDs. Mission Accomplished. The taxcuts are working. More people own their home than ever before in history. We have captured the #3 al Qaeda in Iraq. We are winning the war on terrorism...etc..etc...

[Ilsa]

51. So Bush is reduced to criticizing an 83 year old ex-president for

taking a brave, moral stand on a policy issue. At least, that's the new blowback.

[MisterP]

56. okay, that's actually WORSE. then again, what does Carter know about ME peace? n/t

[spanone]

59. lies don't come easy