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.

I heard the President’s speech on T.V., I did not hear him mention Obama or any other Democrat. This must be a case of if the shoe fits, wear it.

The best thing that can happen to Obama and the democrats is for Bush to keep talking…about anything. Bush is held with so little regard by almost 3/4 of the voters is our nation that the mere mention of his name is enough to secure a democratic landslide. His thoughts are no longer of any importance. Most of us just wish he would go away. McCain’s biggest problem is distancing himself from Bush. Bush does McCain no favors by speaking out thereby forcing a McCain comment. McCain has the same problem with Bush as Humphrey had with Johnson is 1968.

citizen smith:

“The best thing that can happen to Obama and the democrats is for Bush to keep talking…about anything. Bush is held with so little regard by almost 3/4 of the voters is our nation that the mere mention of his name is enough to secure a democratic landslide.”

Your analysis is flawed. Here’s one Conservative voter and know I speak for many others who hold Bush in low regard. He and many of the Republican Congresspersons (held in even lower esteem) spent taxpayer money like Swedish Socialists and or Democrats because polls and the mainstream media told them it was important to “get along” with your opponents.

But not on my dime, Bunky. If they’re going to spend like Democrats, there’s no difference in the parties and Obama will have to slide that land without my vote.

The saddest thing revealed by the contributions to this thread is the fact that there are still people who think that there is nothing wrong with the direction in which this country has gone in the last seven years. JD, Sage, Centrist, Mr Bellum et al see no reason to change the way things are now.

Fortunately, as pointed out by many others on this thread, there are far, far more people who believe that things can be better; who believe that the Founding Fathers knew what they were doing when they entrusted us with the power to remove those who do not lead well. And that is the kindest way to describe the performance of Bush, McCain and the Republican party.

Step one: vote for Obama. Step two: vote Democratic for House and Senate elections. Step three: let your representatives know what you think - there’s a reason it’s called the Democratic party!

Mr Walsh

You must not read posts completely, or you are not able to comprehend what is written. I have said numerous times, that Bush has screwed up, but the way to rectify his screw ups, is not to tax everyone to death or surrender in Iraq.

The dems may win more seats, and Obama may win. If that happens, it will be another Jimmy Cater disaster.

What I think is funny and hypocritcal about Obama is that he and the democrats are telling the republicans to lay off his wife Michelle and and quit attacking her because she had beens stumping for her husband. Funny this idiot liberal could make this statement since he attacked Fred Thompson’s wife when she stumoped for him before he withdrew. THis is the same Barack Obama who attacked Fred Thompson’s wife. Barack, as long as your wife continues to open her big fat mouth tearing down our nation at every turn, she is fair game like any spouse of a candidate is and for the lib democrats to call the republicans dirty because of this–what a joke. Barack if you don’t want the attacks to continue against your wife, then either tell her to shut the hell up or withdraw your butt from the race. This is a presidential race and apparently you can stand the heat of it. So shut and quit your stupid whining.

Weiss is your typical liberal. Has a very difficult time of telling the entire story. Next time Weiss, don’t edit the comments or you might have a hard time swallowing the truth. If Mr. Bush wasn’t referring to Obama and the democrats, I sure wish he had. He was telling the truth about them. They are nothing but appeasors.

Great, JMP. I’m glad to hear that the candidates’ wives are fair game. Let’s look at McCain’s marriage (it’s his second).

McCain had an affair with his current wife while still married to his first wife (while he was in Vietnam, wife #1 was in a terrible car accident that left her partially disabled). He found Mrs. #2’s youth and millions of dollars irresistible. She went on to run a charity that provided assistance to the unfortunate, then stole drugs from it to support her own habit.

I’ll put Michelle Obama up against this tart any time.