For GOP only

[YASNY]

Seriously, after all of the things I have seen GWB called and compared to over the past 7.5 years, there is some nerve being pissed off about this. Every day on the campaign trail stuff is said similar to this. Maybe if both of the Dems whole platform wasn't based off of Bush's term, they woudl have some room to complain. Now Bush does the samething and all of the sudden he is bad for it? Yeah, nothing is going to change if Obama wins, because he is the exact same politician as Hillary and George... An opportunist looking to make something out of anything. Change my ass.

 

 

I think it's strange the GWB didn't mention a party nor a person, yet the Dems/libs are screaming bloody murder. I think this is simply a case of the shoe fits and they have to wear it. It's also a case of the Dems/Libs feel they are particularly vulnerable on Nat'l defense so they pull every Democrat, currently relevent or not, that they could find to spin the s*** out of this.

[BigSqwert]

I think it's strange the GWB didn't mention a party nor a person,

 

Who was he referring to?

 

It's also a case of the Dems/Libs feel they are particularly vulnerable on Nat'l defense

Based on his approval rating I will have to disagree.

Edited May 16, 2008 by BigSqwert

[YASNY]

Who was he referring to?

 

 

Based on his approval rating I will have to disagree.

 

Ask him. I'm no mind reader. Could have been Carter.

 

Agree to disagree.

[southsider2k5]

Who was he referring to?

 

 

Based on his approval rating I will have to disagree.

 

That's what I can't wait to return to... 4 years of approval ratings running the country again.

 

[YASNY]

That's what I can't wait to return to... 4 years of approval ratings running the country again.

 

Like the current congressional approval ratings.

[EvilMonkey]

Who was he referring to?

 

 

Based on his approval rating I will have to disagree.

I already posted earlier a very likely choice, Jimmy Carter. But if anyone else wants to self identify with his words, go for it. Very appropriate considering he was in Israel and Mr. carter had recently been there talking to terrorists.

[BigSqwert]

I already posted earlier a very likely choice, Jimmy Carter. But if anyone else wants to self identify with his words, go for it. Very appropriate considering he was in Israel and Mr. carter had recently been there talking to terrorists.

The same terrorists McCain suggested we should talk to.

 

Perhaps Bush was referring to McCain?

Edited May 16, 2008 by BigSqwert

[southsider2k5]

The same terrorists McCain suggested we should talk to.

 

Hmm I wonder why John McCain isn't having all of his surrogates cry about this on the campaign trail then?

[BigSqwert]

Hmm I wonder why John McCain isn't having all of his surrogates cry about this on the campaign trail then?

Because he flip flopped on this issue.

 

He was for talking to Hamas before he was against it.

Edited May 16, 2008 by BigSqwert

[EvilMonkey]

Because he flip flopped on this issue.

 

He was for talking to Hamas before he was against it.

Who said that "deal with them, one way or another" means talking to them?

[YASNY]

I've been in the Buster for 15 or 20 minutes. That'll be enough for a while it seems. You guys have fun.

[lostfan]

Like the current congressional approval ratings.

I really don't think Congressional approval ratings mean much of anything. First off even though there is a majority of Democrats (for like a year and a half though) there are still 535 of them altogether from all over the place. Secondly, the approval ratings have been low for a while anyway which is why the Dems took the majority in the first place. Since things haven't changed much (i.e., the war has not ended, and the economy is still headed down) the approval ratings are still low. Hypothetically, if the GOP takes control of Congress again, people are still going to be pissed off as long as there's something to be pissed about. They don't care who the majority is. But if everything in the country returns to roses and sunshine the ratings will go back up. It's got very little to do with who was elected in 2006.

[BigSqwert]

Who said that "deal with them, one way or another" means talking to them?

 

"I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas...but it's a new reality in the Middle East."

 

Are you seriously going to play dumb on this one?

[southsider2k5]

Because he flip flopped on this issue.

 

He was for talking to Hamas before he was against it.

 

Or he doesn't have the attack machine in place that Obama does...

 

Either way, its incredibly two faced. Both of the Democratic candidates are out there every single stinking time they open their mouths saying stuff like this about George Bush. I guess they are the only ones allowed to make callous and calculated shots at people? Please. They should be embarassed. All Biden is doing is trying to impress someone so they will put him on the ballot in November as a VP candidate.

 

Obama lies every single time he gets up there and says he is going be different. He is already running the same proxy attack machine that both Clinton and Bush have run for decades now.

[EvilMonkey]

Are you seriously going to play dumb on this one?

Well, I was looking for a half-green font (which would come in very handy alot of times), but I couldn't find one.

[EvilMonkey]

Are you seriously going to play dumb on this one?

Well, I was looking for a half-green font (which would come in very handy alot of times), but I couldn't find one.

[kapkomet]

My rebuttal is fine, say people are soft on terrorism. I don't have a problem with that. But I do have an issue on GWB going to the Isreal parliament and saying stuff comparing things to WWII. Different time, different place, different ideology. To say the Dems are "soft on terror" is a misnomer anyway, because they're not, but they scream they are just to placate the peace loonies on the far left. It's all one big lie and sham - to which I say the Democrats are far worse liars then any party ever seen because they don't intend to change a thing - but they bald face lie about it anyway.

 

Either way, I wish that Bush wouldn't have chosen to carry that message in Isreal.

[southsider2k5]

Could this be the bomb that Hillary hinted about a little while back?

 

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/05/15/wi...from-the-train/

 

I now have it from two three sources close to senior Republicans that they have video dynamite–Michelle Obama railing against “whitey” at Jeremiah Wright’s church. Republicans may have a lousy record when it comes to the economy and the management of the war in Iraq, but they are hell on wheels when it comes to opposition research. Someone took the chance and started reviewing the recordings from services at Jeremiah Wright’s United Church of Christ. Holy smoke!! I am told there is a clip that is being held for the fall to drop at the appropriate time. The last thing Barack and Michelle need is a new clip that raises further questions about her judgment and temperament. Here’s what the Republicans are currently using in Tennessee:

 

When the ugly video tapes about Jeremiah Wright’s racist ravings first broke Barack Obama told us he could no more disown Jeremiah Wright than his own Grandmother. Well, we all know how that turned out. So will Barack stand by Michelle when the tape emerges of her verbally attacking “whitey?” Republicans, who are otherwise gloomy about prospects in November, recognize that this recording will create real problems for Barack and give them a shot at the White House. It is their October surprise.

 

Does Barack have an obligation to tell the Democrats, super delegates in particular, about this tape? Did Barack and his campaign do their basic homework and identify this tape as a potential problem? And, more importantly, do they have a copy? Probably better to deal with this issue before the convention rather than wait for October. What do you think?

[southsider2k5]

The most interesting part for me is the comments from the Israeli newspaper. They sure didn't seem bothered by this, in fact they wanted to hear MORE talk like that.

 

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard...rael-themselves

 

Photo of Noel Sheppard.

By Noel Sheppard | May 16, 2008 - 12:41 ET

 

Thursday May 15, 2008, American media hit a new low. To paraphrase Michelle Obama, I have never been less proud of my country.

 

On the occasion of Israel's 60th anniversary, President George W. Bush gave one of the greatest speeches of his career.

 

Yet, America's media could only see this event through the tiny prism of the upcoming presidential election, and thereby totally ignored virtually everything that was said by the most powerful man in the world to one of our nation's greatest allies.

 

From a speech that lasted over 20 minutes -- interrupted eight times by applause from Israeli Knesset members -- America's media exclusively reported 83 words they felt insulted the candidate for president they have been unashamedly supporting for over a year.

 

Everything else in the President's stirring and emotional address went completely ignored, so much so that the other 2,400 words were totally irrelevant, as was the signficance of the day and the moment.

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

 

The President spoke of the founding of Israel, and America being the first nation to recognize her independence.

 

American media didn't care.

 

The President spoke of the history of the Holy Land, and the miracle that was the creation of a democracy in the center of a region violently opposed to such a political structure.

 

American media didn't care.

 

The President spoke of "the matchless value of every man, woman, and child," how "democracy is the only way to ensure human rights," and the sad reality that "the United Nations routinely passes more human rights resolutions against the freest democracy in the Middle East than any other nation in the world."

 

American media didn't care.

 

The President spoke of religious liberty being "fundamental to a civilized society" while condemning anti-Semitism.

 

American media didn't care.

 

The President spoke of nations having "a right to defend themselves," "that no nation should ever be forced to negotiate with killers pledged to its destruction," and "that targeting innocent lives to achieve political objectives is always and everywhere wrong."

 

American media didn't care.

 

The President spoke of the fight against terror and extremism as being "the defining challenge of our time...a clash of visions, a great ideological struggle."

 

American media didn't care.

 

The President spoke of folks that "suggest if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of the enemies of peace, and America utterly rejects it."

 

American media didn't care.

 

The President spoke of freedom yielding peace, and how we "must stand with the reformers working to break the old patterns of tyranny and despair...give voice to millions of ordinary people who dream of a better life in a free society," and above all, "have faith in our values and ourselves and confidently pursue the expansion of liberty as the path to a peaceful future."

 

American media didn't care.

 

The President spoke of the Middle East 60 years in the future:

 

Israel will be celebrating the 120th anniversary as one of the world's great democracies, a secure and flourishing homeland for the Jewish people. The Palestinian people will have the homeland they have long dreamed of and deserved -- a democratic state that is governed by law, and respects human rights, and rejects terror. From Cairo to Riyadh to Baghdad and Beirut, people will live in free and independent societies, where a desire for peace is reinforced by ties of diplomacy and tourism and trade. Iran and Syria will be peaceful nations, with today's oppression a distant memory and where people are free to speak their minds and develop their God-given talents. Al Qaeda and Hezbollah and Hamas will be defeated, as Muslims across the region recognize the emptiness of the terrorists' vision and the injustice of their cause.

 

Overall, the Middle East will be characterized by a new period of tolerance and integration. And this doesn't mean that Israel and its neighbors will be best of friends. But when leaders across the region answer to their people, they will focus their energies on schools and jobs, not on rocket attacks and suicide bombings. With this change, Israel will open a new hopeful chapter in which its people can live a normal life, and the dream of Herzl and the founders of 1948 can be fully and finally realized.

 

This is a bold vision, and some will say it can never be achieved. But think about what we have witnessed in our own time. When Europe was destroying itself through total war and genocide, it was difficult to envision a continent that six decades later would be free and at peace. When Japanese pilots were flying suicide missions into American battleships, it seemed impossible that six decades later Japan would be a democracy, a lynchpin of security in Asia, and one of America's closest friends. And when waves of refugees arrived here in the desert with nothing, surrounded by hostile armies, it was almost unimaginable that Israel would grow into one of the freest and most successful nations on the earth.

 

Yet each one of these transformations took place. And a future of transformation is possible in the Middle East, so long as a new generation of leaders has the courage to defeat the enemies of freedom, to make the hard choices necessary for peace, and stand firm on the solid rock of universal values.

 

American media didn't care.

 

No, none of this was important to Obama-loving press members, who in an effort to frame the President's 2,500 words into a soundbite that would embarrass him while giving the junior senator from Illinois and fellow Democrats fodder to elucidate their foreign policy vision, ended up stealing this marvelous speech from the American people.

 

In so doing, our press disgraced our nation, our one true ally in the Middle East, and themselves.

 

As you ponder whether this is too harsh, consider how Agence France Presse reported this speech to its readers in an article entitled "Bush Basks in Israel's Love" (emphasis added):

 

Facing dismally low approval ratings at home, US President George W. Bush basked for three days in near-adulation as he joined Israel's 60th anniversary festivities.

 

Bush, who was to head on to Saudi Arabia on Friday, returned the favour, hailing the close US ally as a mighty democracy where liberty and justice thrive.

 

Just about every moment appeared to be devoted to mutual expressions of admiration and friendship, which also offered Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert a respite from the latest police graft investigation against him.

 

His speech to the Knesset, the Israeli parliament, drew him standing ovations and earned him ecstatic praise from right-wing parties.

 

The Jerusalem Post published a piece entitled "If Only Israel's Leaders Would Speak as Bush Did" (emphasis added):

 

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. [...]

 

Were that Israel's own leaders would speak in similar terms; were that Israel would believe as much in itself. [...]

 

When, during our current bout of self-doubt and fear, was the last time an Israeli leader stood up and with a conviction that made you believe he meant it, not that he was just mouthing tired phrases, said - as Bush did Thursday - "Masada shall never fall again."

 

And then, even more importantly, Bush added, "Citizens of Israel: Masada shall never fall again, and America will always stand with you."

 

Words? Maybe. But they are important words, because if ever this country is again to take another calculated risk for peace, it will have to know that the US stands completely behind it.

 

Words? Maybe. But if ever the Arab world will ever come around to accepting Israel's existence, it will have to know that it cannot drive a wedge between Jerusalem and Washington.

 

The speech, at parts elegantly phrased, also echoed sentiments many of us feel, but rarely hear aired outside the shtetl. [...]

 

Remember, Bush didn't have to utter these thoughts: his political carrier is over, he no longer needs the Jewish vote or campaign support - further proof he actually meant what he said.

 

Sadly, American media didn't hear any of that. Instead, this is all that got through their bias filters:

 

Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

 

The rest they stole from us, and for this we are owed an apology that certainly will never come, for instead of Americans being proud of the job our President did representing our nation on this historic visit, this day will live in infamy rather than immortality.

 

How truly sad we've come to this.

[mr_genius]

Even though he thinks we should meet with Hamas?

 

 

find a real news source or do us a favor and stop posting in this thread

[BigSqwert]

 

find a real news source or do us a favor and stop posting in this thread

Who cares which site posted it? It's video footage of McCain.

[mr_genius]

Bigsqwert, if you are going to post in the GOP ONLY thread...

 

please be advised that linking to Rosie O'donnell's blog, the huffingtonpost, 9-11 was an inside job sites, the dailykos, ect will not be taken seriously. You are just being a troll.

[BigSqwert]

stop posting in this thread

Congrats! I didn't realize you became a moderator on Soxtalk.

[BigSqwert]

Bigsqwert, if you are going to post in the GOP ONLY thread...

 

please be advised that linking to Rosie O'donnell's blog, the huffingtonpost, 9-11 was an inside job sites, the dailykos, ect will not be taken seriously. You are just being a troll.

It is video footage from a Washington Post interview. Why can't I post it? Who made you the boss?

Edited May 16, 2008 by BigSqwert

[mr_genius]

It is video footage from a Washington Post interview. Why can't I post it? Who made you the boss?

 

He trashes Hamas in that video, BigSqwert.

 

Edited May 16, 2008 by mr_genius