|
Jerome
|
Interesting that Bush used the Israeli Knesset as a forum to attack an American candidate for president. I seem to recall the Republicans attacking Bill Clinton for allegedly attending an anti-war demonstration in England, claiming he was disloyal and unpatriotic for expressing displeasure over American policies in another country.
|
|
Tom Mariner
|
The President certainly could not have been referring to the Democratic Speaker of the House or the Democratic worst ex-President in History, both of whom had nothing better to do but encourage a vicious enemy.with a visit to a tinderbox to play American politics in a matter that belongs to the White House. But it is educational to see how quickly Senator Obama's cunning political operatives spun an inspirational foreign policy speech to bring him into a split screen with a sitting President. Obama may be an experience lightweight, but his handlers are long on the attack techniques that they feel will steal our attention away from his shortcomings.
|
|
Clear Vision
|
The President's statement made Senator Obama uncomfortable because it was too close to the truth. The Senator's resume is thin regarding foreign policy - he should be trying to learn and not mindlessly responding out of ignorance.
|
|
Don Carlson
|
Judged:
2
1
There you go again peddling leftwing mob-floggery as news. It is so brave of you (whoever you are) to be unafraid of Islamo-fascist terrorism---so long as a stalwart conservative president stands against it! I will be amused to measure your fear-quotient three years into an Obama presidency. Appeasement from Democrats? You betcha!
|
|
safety of israel
|
Judged:
1
1
it sounds like the obama campaign and the newsday editorial page have a guilty conscience. bush didn't name anyone but their guilty conscience tells them, "he meant us". in fact the obama campaign just had to let go of a fellow named robert malley who secretly meeting with hamas. of course the campaign maintained plausible deniablity about the matter. no one that cares even a little bit about the safety of israel could consider voting for obama.
|
|
Not Stupid
|
So, let's see. When Obama fires up the simple minded with statements critical of Bush's foreign policy, it's OK. But when Bush responds with a comment about the obvious foolishness of negotiating with terrorist morons, it's "tired," "troubling," and "political." Obama wants to "clarify differences" with people who blow up children when they don't get their way. Bush thinks that stance is foolish, and I agree wholeheartedly. Gosh, maybe we could send Jimmy Carter to "negotiate" a handover of billions of dollars with absolutely no positive results. Hey, it worked with North Korea!
|
|
Trainwreck
|
The president said what needed to be said. I guess for the dhimmicrats, the truth hurts. What blather will they use to get hard-core dictators to change their evil ways? I got it! Just send Obama there to tell them that change is good. Carter went to North Korea to convince the North Koreans to stop their nuclear program. They agreed, but started it up again anyway several years later. Unfortunately, Newsday won't get it, nor will the democrats, until another 3,000 civilians are murdered by muslim terrorists (oh, wrong phrase; as per state department guidelines, "violent extremists who mis-interpret Islam")
|
|
Barbara Brown
|
Judged:
1
1
President Bush is not promoting fear he is speaking the truth. The Democrats are squealing like pigs because they know they're weak on the issue of fighting terrorism and if they yell loud enough the liberal press will fall in line as usual. I guess the truth really does hurt!
|
|
|
|
Southbound
|
Judged:
1
1
Sounds like everyone reading the paper is on to the Newsday/Obama campaign against reality. All of your readers see right through your liberal ignorance of something that has been taught to us by history again and again. How did the Jimmy Carter negotiations with the Iranians work out? Even Bush's so-called 'successful' negotiations with the North Koreans were a lie. After 'success' it turns out that they were building a reactor in Syria! They say one thing to your face and then do another. I'd guess that Obama and Newsday also believes that the Iranian Hitler wants to produce electricity too! Newsday is hopelessly out of touch with its readers. We understand the threat to western civilization posed by Islamic extremists. Too bad you and Obama don't.
|
|
Hector Luis Bush
|
Judged:
1
1
Whats a more "tired troubling tactic?" How about not even owning up to your own name Barack HUSSEIN Obama? Another tired troubling tactic is getting endored by Hamas!
|
|
Bret
|
Obviously, the truth hurts. Almost every Democrat is weak on defense. They have no clue what is going on in the world. After all the attacks on us (WTC 1993; 9/11, **** they don't get it. They think talk is the answer. Appease our enemies. They tried that with Hitler and we saw what the results were. What amazes me, is how Jews can support the Democrats. None of them support Israel. The only friends Israel has are Conservatives. When they realize that, they'd vote Republican. Like me. I realized that years ago.
|
|
Daily News
|
Middle name Hussein is only one reason terror thugs like Barack Obama Friday, May 16th 2008, 4:00 AM Barack Hussein Obama wants it both ways. Any American who uses his full name is trying to scare voters, his wife charges. But Obama says he understands why Islamic terror group Hamas looks at his middle name and trusts him. Ditto for his plan to meet with Iran's madman president and other rogue leaders. Obama sees his open-door policy as evidence he will end President Bush's "cowboy diplomacy." When Bush slammed that plan Thursday as "appeasement," Obama accused him of a "false political attack." It's a legitimate attack, because Obama's kumbaya foreign policy is dangerous. And his name, including the Hussein part, is fair game because Obama has declared it an international advantage. He can want it both ways, but he can't have it. The trouble started when Hamas adviser Ahmed Yousef said, "We like Mr. Obama" and added, "we hope he wins the election." That's an endorsement, plain and simple. When John McCain jumped in, promising to be Hamas' "worst enemy," Obama got huffy and accused McCain of "divisive fear-mongering." That's par for the Obama course. Michelle Obama once said anyone using her husband's full name is throwing the "ultimate fear bomb. When all else fails, be afraid of his name." Maybe we should be afraid. Consider what Obama says in an interview in the current Atlantic magazine. Asked by writer Jeffrey Goldberg if he was "flummoxed" by the Hamas support, Obama responds no and says: "It's conceivable that there are those in the Arab world who say to themselves,'This is a guy who spent some time in the Muslim world, has a middle name of Hussein and appears more worldly and has called for talks with people, and so he's not going to be engaging in the same sort of cowboy diplomacy as George Bush,' and that's something they're hopeful about." He adds: "That's a perfectly legitimate perception as long as they're not confused about my unyielding support for Israel's security." In fact, there is confusion. Some of it goes to his long relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whose church magazine printed anti-Israel views. There is no evidence Obama objected. The Atlantic interview adds to the confusion. While Obama stresses the importance of Israel to Jews, he also seems to parrot liberal nonsense that blames the entire Mideast conflict on Israeli settlements. He even links Israeli parents' concern for their children's safety to settlements, posing the question: "Is settlement policy conducive to relieving that over the long term, or is it just making the situation worse?" WRONG QUESTION. The right one is why should Israel or anyone else meet with Hamas, which won't recognize Israel's right to exist and fires rockets into civilian areas? Hamas' vow to destroy Israel has nothing to do with settlements or borders. One question has been answered, though. Now we know why Hamas prefers Barack Hussein Obama. He's told us himself.
|
|
Rick Adams
|
Just another article by someone who believes that there is not evil in the world..........just "miss guided individuals" who would listen to reason.
|
|
Just Saying
|
Bush said nothing wrong. He spoke about how appeasement in the 1930's encouraged Hitler, and led to World War 2, which is an historical fact. Looks like Obama and the Dems are a little thin-skinned, and overly sensitive on this topic. Why are they so defensive? Could it be that the President's words hit a little too close to home? If Obama wins, it'll be amusing to see how well his "talks" with Iran, Syria, North Korea, etc. go. While he's at it, maybe he can also chat with Osama bin Laden. However, it might be a little difficult to carry on a conversation after his throat has been cut by that fundamentalist Muslim fanatic! After all, isn't Obama considered an infidel like the rest of us? Seriously, does anyone really believe that you can have any meaningful talks with fanatical enemies who are dedicated to the propagation of their religion, and the destruction of all others?
|
|
Jim from Middle Georgia
|
Judged:
1
safety of israel wrote: it sounds like the obama campaign and the newsday editorial page have a guilty conscience. bush didn't name anyone but their guilty conscience tells them, "he meant us". in fact the obama campaign just had to let go of a fellow named robert malley who secretly meeting with hamas. of course the campaign maintained plausible deniablity about the matter. no one that cares even a little bit about the safety of israel could consider voting for obama. anyone and everyone knew exactly what was said and what was meant. This is the standard right wing playbook. Can't blame Bush for using it- it worked so well in th epast.
|
|
Jim from Middle Georgia
|
Judged:
1
1
Daily News wrote: Middle name Hussein is only one reason terror thugs like Barack Obama
Friday, May 16th 2008, 4:00 AM
Barack Hussein Obama wants it both ways.
Any American who uses his full name is trying to scare voters, his wife charges. But Obama says he understands why Islamic terror group Hamas looks at his middle name and trusts him.
Ditto for his plan to meet with Iran's madman president and other rogue leaders. Obama sees his open-door policy as evidence he will end President Bush's "cowboy diplomacy." When Bush slammed that plan Thursday as "appeasement," Obama accused him of a "false political attack."
It's a legitimate attack, because Obama's kumbaya foreign policy is dangerous. And his name, including the Hussein part, is fair game because Obama has declared it an international advantage.
He can want it both ways, but he can't have it.
The trouble started when Hamas adviser Ahmed Yousef said, "We like Mr. Obama" and added, "we hope he wins the election."
That's an endorsement, plain and simple. When John McCain jumped in, promising to be Hamas' "worst enemy," Obama got huffy and accused McCain of "divisive fear-mongering."
That's par for the Obama course. Michelle Obama once said anyone using her husband's full name is throwing the "ultimate fear bomb. When all else fails, be afraid of his name."
Maybe we should be afraid. Consider what Obama says in an interview in the current Atlantic magazine.
Asked by writer Jeffrey Goldberg if he was "flummoxed" by the Hamas support, Obama responds no and says: "It's conceivable that there are those in the Arab world who say to themselves,'This is a guy who spent some time in the Muslim world, has a middle name of Hussein and appears more worldly and has called for talks with people, and so he's not going to be engaging in the same sort of cowboy diplomacy as George Bush,' and that's something they're hopeful about."
He adds: "That's a perfectly legitimate perception as long as they're not confused about my unyielding support for Israel's security."
In fact, there is confusion. Some of it goes to his long relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whose church magazine printed anti-Israel views. There is no evidence Obama objected.
The Atlantic interview adds to the confusion. While Obama stresses the importance of Israel to Jews, he also seems to parrot liberal nonsense that blames the entire Mideast conflict on Israeli settlements.
He even links Israeli parents' concern for their children's safety to settlements, posing the question: "Is settlement policy conducive to relieving that over the long term, or is it just making the situation worse?"
WRONG QUESTION. The right one is why should Israel or anyone else meet with Hamas, which won't recognize Israel's right to exist and fires rockets into civilian areas? Hamas' vow to destroy Israel has nothing to do with settlements or borders.
One question has been answered, though. Now we know why Hamas prefers Barack Hussein Obama. He's told us himself. I notice when there is nothing to say, the right wing waterboys tend to shout his middle name as if that means he is a muslim. Also the **** flag pin non issue. I didn't think I would see the day when both the right wing and Hilary would be using the same sleaze of Hilary in that his middle name means he is a muslim when they kno0w for a fact he isn't. The settlement question is the correct question. I wonder if your back hurts from jumping at Israle's beck & call.
|
|
Gail
|
Just Saying wrote: Seriously, does anyone really believe that you can have any meaningful talks with fanatical enemies who are dedicated to the propagation of their religion, and the destruction of all others? True, sounds like you are referring to right-wing Christians to me. Perfect description of them.
|
|
ace
|
Judged:
1
1
Bush telling the Israeli's about Hitler? They've emulated him for the last fory years. A perverse state with a perverse visiting foreign leader. Why doesn't he stay there?
|
|
Bob
|
Judged:
1
1
Just because Chicago Tribune owns Newsday does not mean they have to cheer for Obama every single time. I am no Bush fan, but this should not be even an issue unless "the truth hurts"! Negotiating with terrorists and terror supporting states will lead nowhere. Just look at North Korea. After all the hoopla we are at the square one with nuclear technology sold for cash to only God knows which rogue regimes. Yet we still feeding N Korean population with our tax dollars!
|
|
Bob
|
Gail wrote: <quoted text>
True, sounds like you are referring to right-wing Christians to me. Perfect description of them. One question: why do we have so many religions in this country while Islamic countries do not allow for others to practice their beliefs freely? No "Christian right wingers" there....
|
Olympics
Judge it!
