Apparently Obama saw himself. This may be why:
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080515/NEWS05/80515096/1007/NEWS

The only error George W made was in NOT saying he was speaking about Hussein Obama. And it would have been so much better if he would have named the other Democratic “pansies” like Daschle, Biden, Kennedy (pre-seizure), and Howard Dean. You foolish people want to talk with Hamas or Al-Quaida, fine, I think I’ll stand over here so when they blow themselves up, enroute to the virgins, they’ll be taking pieces of your appeased body and not mine. How naive and stupid can you be? Whenever I hear politicans say they are “outraged” about this, that or something else, my response is simply, who cares if you are outraged.

Like I am going to change the way the country is protected because some Democratic socialist is outraged.
The more outraged Democrats I can count means I am doing a whole lot of good.

conrwing

It dosen’t take much to get under liberals skins, just the truth.

Obama, a highly skilled athlete had to walk away from professional football because he thought the opponents huddled only to talk about him.

Okay, here’s a little truth for you!

You have no idea what “appeasement” is, do you? Neville Chamberlain signed the Munich agreement with Hitler in 1938, which allowed Hitler to occupy part of Czechoslovakia in exchange for peace with Britain. That’s “appeasement”.

White House sources told NBC news’ John Yang that “the shoe fits the Democratic front runner”. Is it no wonder Obama feels that Bush was talking about him?

John McCain discussed talking to Hamas 2 years ago in an interview with James Rubin (below):

RUBIN: Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the way they have in the past, working with the Palestinian government if Hamas is now in charge?

McCAIN: They’re the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so…but it’s a new reality in the Middle East.

This isn’t “appeasement” either, but actually advocates talking with Hamas and others, not unlike what Senator Obama has said. I wonder why that hasn’t been making the news?

Take a big sip of the truth, folks. Hopefully your bodies won’t reject it as usual.

Glad to see Russ is here to offer off the truncated clip of Rubin and McCain. The libtards seem to enjoy doing this with McCain.

Here is more of the interview to shed some light on it:

“They’re the government and sooner or later we‘re going to have to deal with them in one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas is because of their dedication to violence and the things they not only espouse but practice, so, but it’s a new reality in the Middle East. And I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and a decent future then they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that.”

Rubin: “So should the United States be dealing with that new reality through normal diplomatic contacts to get the job done for the United States?”

Sen. McCain: “I think the United States should take a step back, see what they do when they form their government, see what their policies are, and see the ways that we can engage with them, and if there aren’t any, there may be a hiatus. But I think part of the relationship is going to be dictated by how Hamas acts, not how the United States acts.”

Richard

I was concerned as soon as I found out about his voting record in Il. Then became even more more concerned when his wife made her statements, Rev Wright made his statements, his buddy on trial, his other buddy a Weatherman terrorist, and a list of statements he has made.

Then to top it off, the most liberal voting record in the senate. This country is going to be in deep doo-doo, if Obama is elected.

For those readers who don’t know, “Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum” is Latin for “if you seek peace, prepare for war.” It is sometimes referred to as the motto of the Roman Legion. The writer in these posts using that name doesn’t, I believe, properly take the motto to heart. He is more of a “si vis bellum para bellum” type. Diplomacy was a vital aspect of Roman rule, and it was effective because of the strength of their armies. I don’t think they were “afraid” to talk to anyone. Barack Obama has never suggested that he wants to “appease” or give in to any of our opponents, just that he is not afraid to talk. We should be happy to meet with any nation, party, or organization in the world and, from a position of strength, state our case and hear theirs. What in the world is the problem with that?? What are all you neo-cons & neanderthals afraid of?

JD, if you don’t have a comment that is relevant to this letter, just shut your pie hole.

mombo

You must not have read the whole letter Mr. Dierker wrote. He stated “Makes me even more concerned about this guy becoming President.”
I am not allowed to agree, and state other concerns? Free speech, even if you want to supress any opposed to your views!

If you don’t like to be reminded about how far left and radical Obama is, that is your problem, not mine.