Place Matters

I think Haggai and Kevin Drum need to rethink their blasé attitude toward the time and place at which president Bush decided to foray into presidential politics with attacks on Barack Obama.

Kevin writes that "24/7 cable news has made the distinction of where something is said mostly obsolete and the symbology of showing a united front on foreign soil little more than a quaint relic of an earlier age." I'd say this is true insofar as we're saying Bush should feel no compunction about saying something in Israel (or some other country) that he'd be comfortable saying in the United States. But I do think there's a difference when you're talking about using the Israeli parliament as the setting for your speech. Basically, when you do that you're dragging foreign government officials into our domestic political dispute. It's not the greatest outrage in the world, but it's not really an appropriate way for the president to conduct himself or the country's foreign policy.

Comments

Thanks, Matt, quite correct. He was clearly "dragging foreign government officials into our domestic political dispute." That's wrong.

Posted by David in NY | May 16, 2008 4:43 PM

Kevin Dumb doesn't know any better, never does he make sense discussing foreign matters of just about any kind.

Posted by onceler | May 16, 2008 4:44 PM

It's not the greatest outrage in the world, but it's not really an appropriate way for the president to conduct himself or the country's foreign policy.

Right. But what's one more line to cross at this point?

Posted by Pooh | May 16, 2008 4:45 PM

He went before the Israeli parliament on the birthday of Israel and basically declared his likely successor as being on par with a holocaust enabler. It certainly isn't within any kind of norms the American people should accepting.

Posted by matthewcc | May 16, 2008 4:52 PM

At a time when the Intelligence Community is desperately trying to recruit from within the Islamic immigrant community and abroad -- in order to deal with the Al Qaeda fanatics in the Islamic World -- George Bush, John McCain and John Hagee SABOTAGE that effort -- and the War on Terror --by showing the Islamic World that the USA is led by similar fanatics.

See http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080516/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/cia_recruiting_immigrants

Posted by Don Williams | May 16, 2008 4:54 PM

Plus, phasing out the water's edge rule at this exact time smacks of I don't know, appeasement?

Posted by matt | May 16, 2008 4:59 PM

Anyone remember this?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/benedetto/2005-11-18-benedetto_x.htm

Posted by M.O. | May 16, 2008 5:00 PM

Bush didn't mention Obama's name at all during his speech in Israel. Obama's just picking a fight with an unpopular president to rile up his base and distract from the foolishness of his position that he'd negotiate with any foreign leader without preconditions. That was an obvious gaffe the first time Obama said it, and he's been rolling with it, instead of being honest and admitting it was a mistake.

Posted by Fred | May 16, 2008 5:04 PM

I can't feel worse about Bush, but this makes me feel worse about Israel.

I'd be happy to give everyone in the Bush administration the choice between prosecution and asylum in Israel, Saudi Arabia, or China.

Posted by John Emerson | May 16, 2008 5:06 PM

Fred, it was a transparent attack on Obama, which the Bush people admitted:

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/obama_camp_white_house_has_its.php

Posted by matthewcc | May 16, 2008 5:08 PM

Anyone remember this?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/benedetto/2005-11-18-benedetto_x.htm

Posted by M.O. | May 16, 2008 5:18 PM

If American politicians think that we foreigners should be involved in your elections, we will be happy to comply.

Posted by Hans B | May 16, 2008 5:19 PM

For you, Obama Dear:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7B7bVD_DkM4

It's not about you, but it sure did strike a nerve, no?

Posted by Carly Simon | May 16, 2008 5:20 PM

Interesting how all the conservative commentators are also writing this off – no big deal, why should anyone care if Bush made his speech in Israel….Funny, one of the many outrages Pres. Clinton was accused of was having made an anti-Vietnam speech in England, while a private citizen, not an elected official.
Let’s review: it is wrong for a private citizen to be critical of an existing government policy while on foreign soil but perfectly acceptable for the President to be critical of what he claims will be a government policy under a possible future government while on foreign soil.
Glad we got that all cleared up.

Posted by Bob | May 16, 2008 5:25 PM

Right. But what's one more line to cross at this point?

Outrage fatigue? Pooh invokes an interesting question. Who cares what the guy says anymore? His credibility at home is almost gone. Does anybody else in the world care at all? I don't know what W's poll numbers look like in Israel, but is getting slammed by Bush a bad thing? It's like Uwe Boll insulting your movie. Free publicity that won't alter anybody's opinion, or at least not negatively.

Posted by RoboticGhost | May 16, 2008 5:29 PM

Israel and the US Jewish Lobby are obviously the main problem that our country has in its relations with the rest of the Middle East. Let's try not to appease Israel for a change. Or better yet, lets bomb the shit out of them instead of Iran.

Posted by mujahed | May 16, 2008 5:39 PM

Fred, it was a transparent attack on Obama, which the Bush people admitted:

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/obama_camp_white_house_has_its.php

Posted by matthewcc | May 16, 2008 5:42 PM

Marc Ambinder got an email from a well-connected Republican who wrote the following:

"Why is no one talking about the HUGE opportunity that Obama let pass him by? He could have publicly declined to comment on the President's comments citing the long standing custom of not criticizing a sitting president while abroad. He looks presidential and post-partisan. Then hold a presser in front of the gates of Andrews when the President arrives home. The second Air Force One touches down, unleash the attack. I thought he was supposed to be a new kind of politician, but he played right into the hands of McCain. Somewhere McCain is smiling about all the Jewish votes he just secured in Florida. This could not have been teed up more perfectly, yet Obama's camp found a way to slice it into the woods."

I wish I could post a comment in response to this ridiculous spin. This person is saying that Obama's response is old politics because he is supposed to be post-partisan and should have responded when the president arrived in this country. The problem with this writer's contention is that Bush was the first to break this custom by impugning Obama's character. Since Bush broke the protocol and McCain did nothing about it, it's fair game. What amazes me about these Republicans is that they always expect Democrats to turn the cheek whenever they impugn their character. These Republicans can dish it but they can't take it.

Posted by Micheline | May 16, 2008 5:45 PM

Marc Ambinder got an email from a well-connected Republican who wrote the following:

"Why is no one talking about the HUGE opportunity that Obama let pass him by? He could have publicly declined to comment on the President's comments citing the long standing custom of not criticizing a sitting president while abroad. He looks presidential and post-partisan. Then hold a presser in front of the gates of Andrews when the President arrives home. The second Air Force One touches down, unleash the attack. I thought he was supposed to be a new kind of politician, but he played right into the hands of McCain. Somewhere McCain is smiling about all the Jewish votes he just secured in Florida. This could not have been teed up more perfectly, yet Obama's camp found a way to slice it into the woods."

I wish I could post a comment in response to this ridiculous spin. This person is saying that Obama's response is old politics because he is supposed to be post-partisan and should have responded when the president arrived in this country. The problem with this writer's contention is that Bush was the first to break this custom by impugning Obama's character. Since Bush broke the protocol and McCain did nothing about it, it's fair game. What amazes me about these Republicans is that they always expect Democrats to turn the cheek whenever they impugn their character. These Republicans can dish it but they can't take it.

Posted by Micheline | May 16, 2008 5:47 PM

Let's not get caught up in a pointless debate about whether this was an attack on Obama or not (although it obviously was) or whether the location of the comments made them inappropriate (although it obviously did), and let's focus on Fred's if-I-say-it-enough-times-maybe-it-will-be-true argument that engaging in talks with our enemies is a "gaffe." ON THE MERITS, Fred's and McCain's and Bush's position is idiotic and contrary to the behavior of basically every pre-W president (including Reagan and Nixon). This is the point that matters. "We must never negotiate out of fear, but we must never fear to negotiate."

Posted by Led | May 16, 2008 5:49 PM

Matt is right. This is absolutely insane.

The sitting President of the United States just went to Israel, stood on the floor of the Knesset and said to the nation's leaders that if the guy from the other party wins the upcoming American election, it's going to be WWII all over again.

Why would he do this? What exactly does he expect the Israelis to do with this information?

Were I a leader in the Knesset I would, quite frankly, take it as an invitation for my country to get involved in the internal politics of the United States, to ensure that this outcome--one that the President is warning me would lead to the destruction of my nation--does not occur.

After all, why would the President of the United States on the anniversary of my nation's founding stand on the floor of the Knesset and draw terrifying parallels to the war that nearly exterminated my people if he did not want us to do something to stop it?

Fortunately for us, the Israelis are not stupid. They do not believe Bush. They know he is just posturing politically.

But really, should our foreign policy be depending on our allies believing they should not take our President's warnings seriously? That he's just posturing politically?

This is simply not how grownups run the world. They do not go to foreign nations and make hysterical and hyperbolic accusations about their domestic political opponents. And, much more importantly, they do not EVER stand on the floor of a foreign Parliament and open the door in any way to any nation even thinking they should become involved in our electoral process.

Posted by anonymous | May 16, 2008 6:02 PM

I don't think I'd seen anyone making a distinction between saying what he did in a foreign country vs. saying it in that country's parliament, until MY explicitly did so in this post, so I guess my post came off as sort of blase in that sense. I was referring to all the "foreign soil/water's edge" stuff that a lot of people were going on about, where MY apparently agrees with me in some circumstances.

Now, the combination of Bush's stupid demagogy with the parliamentary setting does arguably make it worse, but what about the hypothetical I discussed in the thread over at the AmFoot blog? Let's say it was a speech in which the president (maybe one we agreed with) drew actual, substantive contrasts with his political opposition, rather than engaging in brainless insults. Should that really be off limits?

If we think it depends on the case, or that the devil is in the details, I guess that's fair enough, but I'm not sure there should be a blanket rule against saying anything that could fairly be considered "critical" of your domestic opponents in front of a foreign governing body.

Posted by Haggai | May 16, 2008 6:16 PM

Why did he do it? Simple reason - Jewish voters in the US. Non-Jewish voters won't pay particular attention to what a visiting US president says to the legislature when visiting a foreign country - but Jewish voters who follow Israeli politics would sure be paying attention. Basically Bush said things there to target the Jewish vote that he couldn't necessarily say here. The Israelis should feel very used.

Posted by Ethel-To-Tilly | May 16, 2008 6:35 PM

Ethel-To-Tilly,

You are on point. It was a way to address the Jewish vote but the Republicans don't know who they are dealing with.

Posted by Micheline | May 16, 2008 6:43 PM

Re mujahed

"Let's try not to appease Israel for a change. Or better yet, lets bomb the shit out of them instead of Iran."

Better yet, drop 15 megaton bombs on whatever country fucktard mujahed comes from.

Posted by SLC | May 16, 2008 6:57 PM

Since Bush did not mention a party or a specific person, the fact that the Democrats and the left have taken it as an attack says a lot more about your insecurity than it does about anything else.

So here's a question: why did Obama think it was about him? Is there something about his take on foreign affairs that he thinks resonates with 1930's appeasement?

Posted by James Robertson | May 16, 2008 7:01 PM

James Robertson
So if Bush wasn't referring to anyoe then what is the point of Bush mentioning this. This talking point by the Republicans is illogical.

Posted by Micheline | May 16, 2008 7:28 PM

Re James Robertson's comment "Since Bush did not mention a party or a specific person,"
-------------
As I noted before, it's two-faced for Bush to criticize "appeasement" when Bin Laden is walking around making Videos Seven years after 3000 US citizens were killed.

And "appeasement" doesn't fully describe the way Bush has kept his lips pressed firmly to ass of the Saudi Royal Family in the past 7 years.

Appeasement, however, doesn't describe the act of Bush criticizing someone but then not naming that person so the person can respond.

"Cowardly" is a better adjective,no?

Posted by Don Williams | May 16, 2008 7:29 PM

I love how ridiculous Fox News is, trying to imply that the President was talking about people in general.

Remember that, next time I post saying, "Some presidents are absolute idiots" and I back it up with, "I meant school council presidents." :P

Posted by LnGrrrR | May 16, 2008 7:34 PM

So if a politician denounces the theory of appeasement, Democrats and the Left will get offended?

Pray tell, why should Democrats be offended? is there something about Democratic policies that Democrats think can be related to appeasement?

Posted by James Robertson | May 16, 2008 7:36 PM

James Robertson,

It's all about context. It is known that Obama stated that he would meet with leaders of sovereign states who are enemies of the US so therefore it would not make sense for Bush to make such comment in the abstract. This talking point is about CYA. Bush and company did not anticipate the onslaught they received by the Democrats.

Posted by Micheline | May 16, 2008 7:58 PM

James Robertson,

It's all about context. It is known that Obama stated that he would meet with leaders of sovereign states who are enemies of the US so therefore it would not make sense for Bush to make such comment in the abstract. This talking point is about CYA. Bush and company did not anticipate the onslaught they received by the Democrats.

Posted by Micheline | May 16, 2008 7:59 PM

And Bush wanted to denounce this stance, he could have done it without bringing appeasement. His language was so inflammatory that it was counterproductive.

Posted by Micheline | May 16, 2008 8:01 PM

Sorry for not looking at what I wrote. It should read:

Even if Bush wanted to denounce this stance, he could have done it without bringing up the word appeasement or Nazi. His language was so inflammatory that it was counterproductive.

Posted by Micheline | May 16, 2008 8:05 PM

We are currently giving money, sometimes at any rate when they remember to write the checks, to Sunni groups in Iraq often identified as Awaking Counsels who were responsible for 80% of US casualties prior to 07. As a linchpin of our counter insurgency strategy we are working with, talking with and giving money to people who were terrorists months earlier.

Setting aside arguments of if this sort of classic counter insurgency tactic is apropos in this case one has to admit that by pursing it here we are "negotiating with terrorists". Terrorists who have killed perhaps 2000 Americans, where as Hamas has killed approximately none.

Posted by rapier | May 16, 2008 8:05 PM

so what your saying is....bush was a boor? naaaaaah matt u cant make me believe that even with all yr lucid opining.

Posted by maeniel | May 16, 2008 8:07 PM

We are currently giving money, sometimes at any rate when they remember to write the checks, to Sunni groups in Iraq often identified as Awaking Counsels who were responsible for 80% of US casualties prior to 07. As a linchpin of our counter insurgency strategy we are working with, talking with and giving money to people who were terrorists months earlier.

Setting aside arguments of if this sort of classic counter insurgency tactic is apropos in this case one has to admit that by pursing it here we are "negotiating with terrorists". Terrorists who have killed perhaps 2000 Americans, where as Hamas has killed approximately none.

Posted by rapier | May 16, 2008 8:07 PM

Fred, attempting to defend his idiotic choice for President, rewrites Bush’s clear meaning. Is Fred too stupid to notice that Bush was attempting to smear Obama? No. Fred isn’t quite as stupid as some, but he is a dishonest person willing to do whatever it takes to ensure that the brutal policies of the Republican goons are continued.

And then we have the monumentally dishonest James Robertson who would have us believe that Bush is attacking "appeasement." James Robertson is the kind of nitwit who will tell people that Bush never said we went to war to eliminate WMDs. Face facts you witless thug - Obama isn't as stupid as you want us to be. And Bush isn't as smart as you imagine. He's not even as smart as you - but that's not really saying much for you.

Posted by Circus Freak | May 16, 2008 8:48 PM

who gives a fuck what Shrub says no matter where he is

Posted by ghost of Molly Ivins | May 16, 2008 9:10 PM

Obamatons -- Matt included -- have walked into a trap of their own making on this one. You guys (and Obama himself) assume Bush was talking about Obama, because of the "appeasement" part of the speech. But you seem to have forgotten the line that proceeded that part:

“Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals.”

Since Obama has explicitly said he wouldn't negotiate with terrorists (remember?), you aren't doing him any favors by saying that this line referred to him. The obvious reference seems to be to Jimmy Carter, who of course recently met with the leader of Hamas in Damascus.

By launching a hissy fit about this speech, Obama (and you Obamatons) are blurring the lines between Obama's views on foreign policy and Carter's. Nice work, geniuses.

Posted by Fred | May 16, 2008 9:58 PM

Fred's half right; he's just got the agency all mixed up.

Bush's attack was made with the deliberate intent to blur the lines between Obama and Carter, which why you have White House officials leaking on background that Obama and Carter were targets. That's also why the press was covering this as an attack on Obama well before Obama's campaign said a single word about it.

And McCain made it explicitly about Obama in his comments on the campaign bus.

Obama's choice was to look defensive and throw Carter under the bus or to come out swinging for Bush and look fairly tough.

Posted by southpaw | May 16, 2008 10:34 PM

Fred and the rest of the Bushbots are just playing at being stupid. They know that Bush has destroyed the Republican brand on foreign policy (though, anyone with more brains than a slice of overcooked watermelon already knew that the Republican brand on foreign policy was just "bomb, bomb, bomb; bomb, bomb someone" and has always been pure jingoism for domestic political gain). They know that Bush's only skill is at politics, and they know that Bush knows little more than attack politics.

They just want to pretend there's something else there. Otherwise the gravy train of warmongering and the entertainment they derive from knowing brown people are dying will go away.

Mindless Bushbots like Fred are not interested in giving good political advice. They want Obama to lose and for John "100 years of war" McCain to come and save the poor war profiteers.

Posted by Circus Freak | May 16, 2008 10:59 PM

Now who has their "Head in the Sand", Matthew. Hamas's political director endorsed your candidate. Palestinians in Gaza are doing phone banks for him. His lifelong pastor sings their
praises. Daniel Ortega says good things about
him. The FARC apparently according to Interpol vetted records; see him as a good partner, in order to further the overthrow of the elected govt. of Colombia. One references Senator Borah
as an analogue; for his isolationist views (and
subsequent discovery of Nazi funds in his background is an inexact parallel; Sen. Nye who's
committee under American interventions; partially under his aide; Alger Hiss, is a better match.

Posted by narciso | May 16, 2008 11:03 PM

subsequent discovery of Nazi funds in his background is an inexact parallel

I'll say.

More directly, narciso, (a) think before you type and (b) go back to your hole.

Posted by southpaw | May 16, 2008 11:10 PM

Re James Robertson's comment "So if a politician denounces the theory of appeasement, Democrats and the Left will get offended?"
-----------
No, what offends us is that your despicable Whore of a President has killed 4000 of our soldiers grabbing oil for his rich patrons, has let Osama Bin Laden walk free, has stolen $3 Trillion out of Social Security to pay for the above, and has Lied through his teeth to the American voters on multiple occasions.

Yet somehow stupid cocksuckers like you think you and your Whore of a President have the moral authority to criticize us.

And what REALLY offends us is that you think you and your Whore have the right to wear the American flag. And to pretend that you are Americans.

Posted by Don Williams | May 16, 2008 11:12 PM

"Bush's attack was made with the deliberate intent to blur the lines between Obama and Carter..."

You are crediting the Bush administration with a level of subtlety most critics don't believe it has, but this is an interesting theory.

"Obama's choice was to look defensive and throw Carter under the bus or to come out swinging for Bush and look fairly tough."

Obama was presented with no such dilemma. The smart thing for him to do would have been to ignore the speech, and not jump in assuming he was its target. When the press asked him about it, the smart response by Obama would have been to say that the speech must not have been referring to him, because, after all, he wouldn't negotiate with terrorists. When the press questioned him further, about the appeasement part, then the smart thing would have been to explain the difference between negotiation and appeasement, and emphasize that while he would be willing to talk with our enemies, he wouldn't be willing to try to buy them off with the Sudetenland.

That would have been the smart approach. Obama took the stupid approach, unwittingly positioning himself as a Carter clone in the process.

Posted by Fred | May 16, 2008 11:20 PM

By extrapoplation, Old Fart Fred is telling us to ignore his fucktarded trolling. I quite agree.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 16, 2008 11:28 PM

Kevin and the rest should not be so urbane blasé about unmitigated inept, dishonest and corrupt leadership, particularly where George would love to go out after leveling Iran, seeing himself as the Messiah. And the Neocons continue to play him and his limited intellect and twisted ego like a fiddle.

Little George really does think in comic book terms… good guys and bad guys, and guys like himself-- rich stupid guys that are bored and just pissed off that he has to listen to details like body count deaths and stuff like that. Much better to go for a bike ride or to bed after popping one of his wife’s Oxicotin, now that he is just a dry drunk.

Integrity and principals matter. So do duty and loyalty based on the obligations of one's position... in this case the fucking President! If George Washington and the rest of our great Presidents had George Bush’s attitude, we would have lost our constitution long before the last 8 years, when we did lose it.

On a basic level, what George did is equivalent to a guy making obscene jokes about his wife with his buddies. Maybe good for a laugh and short term gain, but it irrevocable erodes the marriage and the guys' reputation.

Posted by Dolf | May 16, 2008 11:38 PM

Matt: "Basically, when you do that you're dragging foreign government officials into our domestic political dispute."

I disagree. First of all, Israel hasn't been "dragged" into anything. They are a MAJOR influence on US foreign policy in the Middle East.

To use a phrase another poster used in another context, the US "can't take a shit" without asking Israel where and when. Certainly the US Congress can't, and neither can the three Presidential candidates.

In fact, it is precisely what our domestic political dispute is ABOUT - whether the US should allow itself to be "dragged" into foreign wars for the sole benefit of oil companies, the military-industrial complex, and some fanatical religious zealots in some tiny country in the Middle East and their billionaire supporters in this country.

Having the President engage in the rhetoric he engaged in merely emphasizes that, as Ariel Sharon once said, Israel OWNS the US political leadership.

http://www.mediamonitors.net/khodr49.html

"On October 3, 2001, I.A.P. News reported that according to Israel Radio (in Hebrew) Kol Yisrael an acrimonious argument erupted during the Israeli cabinet weekly session last week between Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his foreign Minister Shimon Peres. Peres warned Sharon that refusing to heed incessant American requests for a cease-fire with the Palestinians would endanger Israeli interests and "turn the US against us. "Sharon reportedly yelled at Peres, saying "don't worry about American pressure, we the Jewish people control America."

"The Israelis control the policy in the congress and the senate."

-- Senator Fullbright, Chair of Senate Foreign Relations Committee: 10/07/1973 on CBS' "Face the Nation".

"I am aware how almost impossible it is in this country to carry out a foreign policy [in the Middle East] not approved by the Jews..... terrific control the Jews have over the news media and the barrage the Jews have built up on congressmen .... I am very much concerned over the fact that the Jewish influence here is completely dominating the scene and making it almost impossible to get congress to do anything they don't approve of. The Israeli embassy is practically dictating to the congress through influential Jewish people in the country"

-----Sec. of State John Foster Dulles quoted on p.99 of Fallen Pillars by Donald Neff

The long history of bipartisan Congressional support for Israel led former Secretary of State James Baker to call the Congress "The Little Knesset" after Israel's Knesset (parliament) in Jerusalem."

And Matt is worried that Bush speaking in Israel is dragging them into our domestic political problems?

ISRAEL IS our domestic political problem!

Along, of course, with the oil companies, and the military-industrial complex, and corrupt politicians, and corporate control of the state.

As for Fred and his obtuseness, he needs to listen to one of his heroes, Kevin James, on Matthews news show yesterday, who specifically agreed that Bush was talking about Obama, whether he mentioned Obama or not, when Matthews specifically asked him if he thought Bush was referring to Obama.

And both Obama and Clinton are pandering to Israel. Obama has opened a Web site - in Hebrew, no less - IN ISRAEL to curry favor with the Zionist freaks. Clinton is babbling about "obliterating" a country of 75 million people in order to curry favor with these jerks.

If that doesn't demonstrate how much this country is being controlled by this little pissant group of religious and fascist freaks in another country, I don't know what does.

It's time to make a decision: between "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" and "bomb, bomb, bomb Israel", we'd better start thinking about the latter. Leaving a nuclear-armed bunch of religious freaks who are regularly invading their neighbors is not a good idea in the modern world. If that notion is good for Iran, then it's good for Israel.

And we don't have to bomb Israel. Just start a worldwide boycott of their economy. Their little economy would evaporate in six months. You want sanctions on Iran? You think sanctions work? Put them on Israel! They'll work a lot faster there than on Iran.

Cut the umbilical cord between the US and Israel. Now. Before more thousands of Americans die for Israel.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 16, 2008 11:44 PM

Pseudomonas,

I like your newest definition: posting an insightful analysis = "trolling". I'll take your apparent inability to refute my last comment as an implicit acknowledgment that it was right.

Posted by Fred | May 16, 2008 11:48 PM

Fred, you can imagine you are right all you want. The truth is Bush attacked Obama. You want us to ignore it because that strategy, on the part of Kerry, helped you and your warmongering asshole buddies keep Bush in the position to keep wasting money on killing brown people.

Luckily, this Democratic candidate doesn't take advice from those who despise him and would rather John of the 100 years be elected.

Posted by Circus Freak | May 17, 2008 12:02 AM

Circus Freak,

You forgot to put a Q.E.D. after your elegant refutation.

Since you've resoundingly defeated me in this debate (what chance did I have against your obviously formidable intellect?), I'm going to run out for a late dinner.

Posted by Fred | May 17, 2008 12:19 AM

When you return from your dinner, Fred . . .

You are crediting the Bush administration with a level of subtlety most critics don't believe it has, but this is an interesting theory.

I don't think it's particularly subtle. The president makes a speech invoking the Nazis on the floor of Israel's legislature; then his aides say (and presumably, they're not freelancing on something this sensitive) that it was directed at Carter and Obama. That's about as subtle as a 2X4 to the face.

Obama was presented with no such dilemma. The smart thing for him to do would have been to ignore the speech, and not jump in assuming he was its target.

Again, unless several journalists independently fabricated the same exact message, White House staff identified Obama as the target (NBC, CNN), so this kind of like "assuming" the pope is catholic.

the smart thing would have been to explain the difference between negotiation and appeasement, and emphasize that while he would be willing to talk with our enemies, he wouldn't be willing to try to buy them off with the Sudetenland.

“In the Bush-McCain worldview, everyone who disagrees with their failed Iran policy is an appeaser,” Mr. Obama said. He added: “I believe we need to use all elements of American power to pressure Iran – including tough, principled and direct diplomacy.” (NYT)

Not exactly the Fred line, but it seems pretty close. One difference: It lacks the wet noodle quality that generally runs through your advice to Democrats.

In the same spirit, I'd suggest that Bush, McCain, and their fellow Republicans refrain from attacking Obama's reaction and look inward. A good first couple steps would be:

(1) explain the difference between diplomacy and appeasement,
(2) affirm that no Democrat has supported anything like appeasement,
(3) apologize if their statements or the statements of their staffs has left that impression,
(4) promise to fire anyone who describes Obama's policies in such fear-mongering terms in the future.

That would certainly help to clear up any confusion that has arisen on the Democratic side.

Posted by southpaw | May 17, 2008 1:40 AM

Fred, since you have never posted anything of substance on this it's hard to be bothered defeating your elegant arguments. Fred: "Ooh, you're falling into the trap we set. Don't do that."

What brilliance, what wit, what a fucking moron.

Posted by Circus Freak | May 17, 2008 4:02 AM

Once again Obama has abandoned a campaign pledge.
He and his ObaIdiots made such a huge deal out of how righteous was his promise to meet with "enemy" heads of state without precondition and then they absolutely savaged HRC when she pounted out how fatuous that notion was (and of course the pundidiocy [yes Matt, you too!] piled on HRC as well) and now, NOW Obama is desperately trying to pull his poodle skirt out of the mud.

We'll just flush that promise down the memory hole also, right Hussein?
Just like your division a month promise... oh, and your 1000 bucks a sucker plan...
What is most amusing is how Pavlovian was Obama as he rose to the bait.
All that matters to him is the threat to his already precarious position with Jewish voters. His word? Ha Ha Ha!

Before this is over Obama will have tossed every constituency under the bus at least once.
We saw his treatment of gays in SC...
He actually calls female reporters "sweetie"...
He and BreckBoy have a little "boys only" clubhouse for their circle jerk...
And this is the best the "progressives" can do?

Posted by JTHB | May 17, 2008 6:30 AM

JTHB,

Are you a true Democrat? If you were one you would have the one for all and all for one mentality. This is not only an attack on Obama but all Democrats. Democrats lose because we fail to get this.

Posted by Micheline | May 17, 2008 7:23 AM

Give Kevin Drum his due. If a Democrat (think Pelosi say) criticized Bush et.al. from the Israeli Knesset the right wing nuts would go bananas, there would be resolutions in congress condemning this...yes...resolutions in congress. And demands for apologies.
It is good (yes comforting at night) that liberal pundits are so very judicious. Yes. That's what we need. Judicious pundits. Another Colmes is born. Hallelujah.

Posted by della Rovere | May 17, 2008 8:23 AM

Fred, that's the most nakedly disingenuous thing you've said here. You sometimes give the impression that you're not the same kind of party-line tool that Al is. Or else I just haven't heard it in you all the time. Obviously I was mistaken. My bad.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | May 17, 2008 9:33 AM

That's the funny thing. Fred imagines that flat our lying is a brilliant form of argumentation. That somehow a simple recitation of pure nonsense should be rebutted point by point. Sure that's childish, but that's all that's left for the mindless Bush supporters.

In the real world, only mockery is appropriate for those like Fred who pollute the discourse with their dishonesty.

Posted by Circus Freak | May 17, 2008 10:49 AM

It seems to me the real story here is that John Kerry never could bring himself to say Arabs might be incapable of democracy.

By calling the McCain fellow "naive" the Obama one was implying just that and announcing - apparently - a new Confederacy of the mind for his Democratic Party.

Posted by Linus | May 17, 2008 12:27 PM

McCain is naive because he thinks that the answer to every question is to "bomb, bomb, bomb; bomb bomb" them into bloody shards of ex-human beings.

The problem isn't that "Arabs might be incapable of democracy," something John Kerry didn't say because it is assinine racist tripe, the problem is that rational people think planting hundreds of bombs in their capitol city in an attempt to assassinate their leader is rightly called terrorism. Terrorism isn't really a way to bring Democracy to a nation, and Bush's war on the people of Iraq is hardly distinguishable from terrorism.

Posted by Circus Freak | May 17, 2008 12:57 PM

I can't wait for Gordon Brown to come here on the 4th of July and give a speech to both houses of Congress where he proceeds to bash Cameron.

Posted by Baron von Underbite | May 17, 2008 1:29 PM