Barack Obama not about to appease President Bush or John McCain

Signaling he's not about to let the "appeasement" issue die, Barack Obama moments ago scored President Bush and John McCain on foreign policy. Speaking at a forum on agricultural issues in Watertown, S.D., Obama slammed the Republicans for contending that he was willing to negotiate with terrorists.

"They're trying to scare you and trying to keep you from seeing the truth," Obama told a cheering crowd packed into an agricultural arena. "And the reason is, they can't win a foreign policy argument on the merits."

Our colleague, Nicholas Riccardi, was in the arena, and reports the crowd booed as Obama described how Bush criticized him during his speech to Israel's Knesset. "That's the sort of appalling attack that divides our country and alienates us from the world," Obama said.

The audience booed again as Obama said that McCain, after a morning speech pledging bipartisanship and civility, "jumped on a call with a bunch of bloggers and said I wasn't fit to protect this country that I love.... So much for civility."

Tough talk won't be enough to push Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions, Obama said, adding that "tough" negotiations could make a difference. "I'm running for president to change course," Obama said, "not to continue George Bush's course."

Obama put the war front and center, arguing that it has left the nation at greater risk, and jabbed McCain for projecting a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq by 2013. Obama recalled an offhand remark by McCain in New Hampshire that he'd be happy to have troops in Iraq for 100 years, a line Democrats have used against him ever since.

"I think he noticed it wasn't polling well," Obama said.

UPDATE: Tucker Bounds, McCain's spokesman, responds. "It was remarkable to see Barack Obama’s hysterical diatribe in response to a speech in which his name wasn’t even mentioned. These are serious issues that deserve a serious debate, not the same tired partisan rants we heard today from Senator Obama. Sen. Obama has pledged to unconditionally meet with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- who pledges to wipe Israel off the map, denies the Holocaust, sponsors terrorists, arms America’s enemies in Iraq and pursues nuclear weapons. What would Sen. Obama talk about with such a man? It would be a wonderful thing if we lived in a world where we don’t have enemies. But that is not the world we live in, and until Sen. Obama understands that, the American people have every reason to doubt whether he has the strength, judgment and determination to keep us safe."

--Scott Martelle

Comments

[ApostasyUSA]

McCain did an interview contradicting his "CURRENT" position:

McCain for the British network Sky News's "World News Tonight" program. Here is the crucial part of our exchange:

I asked: "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 answered: "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. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that." ...

Given that exchange, the new John McCain might say that Hamas should be rooting for the old John McCain to win the presidential election. The old John McCain, it appears, was ready to do business with a Hamas-led government, while both Clinton and Obama have said that Hamas must change its policies toward Israel and terrorism before it can have diplomatic relations with the United States.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/16/rubin_accuses_mccain_of_hypocr.html

Mc-Change at will???

[JTS]

It's becoming obvious that the Republicans have almost no issues that they can run on with strength. Look for McCain's civil campaign to consist almost entirely of personal attack.

[mesabi]

To Barack Obama: "the lady doth protest too much..."

[erik]

mccain never suggested that obama was supporting hamas he just raised the question what is it about barack obama or his platform which is so appealing to all of our nations enemies. this isn't just hamas who likes obama in the fall its putin, chavez, iran and north korea. obama is quick to call any criticism of his campaign "dirty politics" the guy is a joke.

[DS]

McCain is a weak candidate. His arguements makes no sense and borderline sleeze. Everything he states is full of hypocracy and contradictions.

Not to mention he just a nasty guy, hot headed, stubborn and loosing his bearings.

[Jim Downs]

Obama cannot win on this issue. The American people eventually will conclude they cannot trust him. He is the most left wing member of the Senate -- isn't that something? -- and he hates American nationalism -- read that patriotism -- in any form. He has to attack Bush and McCain because he must, and will, confuse the American people. And, of course, with the aid of the liberal media.

[Alejo Montalva]

The Usa Joker #1 is living, the smart supreme court president,the impostor president, the one that bankrupt the country with his wars and company defenders like white water, but the stupid #2 want to perpetuate the army in foreing land. this crooks repus are going crazy worst than crazyreagan, crooknixon and the rest of oli company exexutive's makind profits with the poors.They forget that Jesus said that is more easy for a cammel to go the eyes of a nedle than a reach be part of the Kindom of God soon to come to us.

[BobHora]

It's hard to keep up with the Obama position on Iran.

First he said that he would meet unconditionally with the radical terrorists running the country.

Then the position evolved to meeting them "without pre-conditions", however that differs. Now, if I'm not mistaken, he is saying he will not meet with Iran until they suspend their nuclear development program.

That, of course, is the George Bush position.

Foreign policy, by his own boasting, is Obama's strong suite. Yet he's sounding more and more like Bush. I guess for that matter, he's also looking more like George too, what with his brand new American flag lapel.

Lord help this country should we every wake up with Mr. Obama in charge.

[Allan, CA]

I agree with President Bush we should not be negotiating with terrorists. Let's see, back in the 80's the Reagan-BUSH administration (His daddy.) sold arms to Iran, that helped them in there war with Iraq, and also included the release of American and European hostages held in Beirut. Then the profits of those arms sales were used to illegally fund the contras. Remember that little diddy. Selling arms to terrorists, and negotiating the release of American hostages. Where was the prodigal son then? Did he oppose such a policy? Gimme a break. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds.

[Jeff in Orlando]

I heard the President's comment regarding not wanting to talk with terrorists or rogue governments. He didn't mention Obama. Obama has stated he would talk with our enemies without preconditions. He didn't say if he did he would appease them. Either Obama is too touchy or he is using this to pick a fight with Bush and McCain. It also shows any opinion that doesn't fit into the Democrat line of thinking is not just to be criticized but to be condemed. A simple "I don't agree with the President" would have been sufficient to make his point. I can already see during the Presidential campaign, the Democrat position will be to condemn every statement Mccain says and to insinuate any critcism of Obama as racist. The goal will be to stiffle and censor McCain's positions. In the liberal world, there is only one position and it is theirs. So much for free speech in King Obama's world.

[Mike in Sac]

This was clearly directed at Obama and an attack on him. Does Bush even know what appeasement is, what it means? It is not appeasement to engage in diplomacy. Appeasement is giving away things, such as territory, to appease an agressive adversary or to get them to stop hostilities. Talking to people and engaging in diplomacy works. Fearing diplomacy is weak as is only relying on the threat of brute force or war as your only platform for diplomacy.

Bush and McCain really have few bullets against Obama. They are still searching for what can wound him. Good luck because Hillary tried everything in your Republican playbook and it did not work.

I hope that Bush keeps yapping. The more Obama fights with him the more he can connect McCain to that fight. His fight is against "them". They lose big time as it ties McCain to Bush inextricably. Keep yapping Bush, better yet respond. Try to take on Obama! Come on wimp! LOL

I predict OBAMA is going to win in 08

[rth]

I'm ok with politicians attacking ideas or positions, which I feel is what Bush did, and I'm even ok with politicians who are in a campagin attacking positions and ideas of their opponets which is what I feel McCain did. But when Obama says "They're trying to scare you and trying to keep you from seeing the truth," I don't think he is attacking ideas or positions, he is attacking people, which I feel is wrong.

Please tell me what I am missing, because Obama just took a nose dive in my respect for him.

[fkgaza]

Obama and Jimmy Carter in 2008!

[Travis D]

What I wouldn't give for an unbiased source of information related to our candidates for President.

[ericmiami]

The Republicans have nothing. The Emperor has no clothes. The McEmperor has no clothes. It's going to get mighty cold for them by November.

[Alan]

This like most media out there are pandering to the Obama debacle. Apparently any drivel that he spews is "discussing the issues". While any attempts to point out his naivety is viewed as "slander" and "uncivil"!
Naiviety is an issue.........

LATimes is no different. Following the same media hogwash parade. Notice that News media is now simply media - a step above gossip magazines but not quite NEWS because it is filled more with opinion than facts.

[alemaro]

Wow, why did republicans choose John McCain to run for President? LOL Apparently, Barack Obama wanted in on this discussion whether George was talking about him or not. Perhaps Sec'y of State Condoleezza Rice could talk more with Iran. Get that nation under our control.

[michael the conservative]

I expect my president to communicate -- even visit -- with every leader, no matter how vile, of every country relevant to the interests of my nation.

The current policy of "maybe if I ignore them they'll just go away" isn't one of leadership, but of wishful thinking.

Perhaps when we have a president -- no matter what the party -- who takes on tough tasks instead of leaving them to his successors, we can leave some of our current crises behind us.

[Mark]

George W. McCain is such hypocrite. He was for talking to Hamas before he was against it. And Bush's speech was - not surprisingly for the man who convinced 70% of America that Saddam attacked us on 9/11 with his nightly innuendo campaign - utterly dishonest. Appeasement, as Chris Matthews pointed out yesterday, involves *giving* someone something (like Czechoslovakia was given to Hitler), as opposed to merely opening diplomatic discussions. This is why we are so hated in the world, why we have zero credibility, and why we are mired in Sen. McCain's Hundred Years War in Iraq. This kind of dishonest demagoguery by our leaders has serious, dire consequences. I hope Americans have grown beyond falling for this sort of thing.

But I have long since stopped expecting straightforward honesty on foreign policy issues from either of these two men.

[Jake in Salt Lake]

McCain has also reversed his foreign policy on intervention as well. The rhetoric that he uses to justify a continued presence in Iraq, nation-building, doesn't mesh with what he used to say. John McCain, who recently said we might be in Iraq for “maybe 100 [years],” had this to say about U.S. intervention in Somalia in 1993:

"There’s no reason for the United States to remain [in Somalia]. The American people want them home. I believe the majority of Congress wants them home. Our continued military presence allows another situation to rise, which could then lead to the wounding, killing or capture of American fighting men and women. We should do all in our power to avoid that. What should be the criteria is our immediate, orderly withdrawal. And if we do not do that and other Americans die then I say that the responsibilities for that lie with the Congress who did not exercise their authority under the Constitution. For us to get into nation-building, law and order, etc., I think, is a tragic and terrible mistake."

[EGP]

How do you undertake a personal attack without mentioning the name of the person being attacked. I think someone has a gulity conscience.

The real question is what will Obama say to Iran's leaders. He said he is willing to negotiate. What is he willing to give up in these negotiations. Isreal?

[LC]

Obama is only stirring the hornets nest(media) with his latest remarks. The reality is that he simply has no leg to stand on when it comes to national security. He has no experience on top of that.

Obama is a fool pandering to the masses of fools.

[Richard]

Sen. Obama doesn't protest too much. In fact he is doing exactly what needs to be done. Attack McBush with all he has. Point out the Republican foreign policy has been a disaster and then ask the obvious question, "Who is Bush to offer any comment on somebody else's policy?" Bush has shown himself to be a complete incompetent.

It is obvious the Obama camp intends to attack and counter any assertions of weakness from the people who gave us the Iraqi quagmire. Bless him. It's about time the Democrats called the Republicans on their lies.

Now, attack some more Sen. Obama. And if somebody says he protests too much, tell 'em they ain't seen nothing yet.

[dave]

the reason why both obama and mccain can be seen to randomly change their positions like a chameleon might be observed to change its colors, is that they lack all principle and orientation. their speeches are mainly lies and hollow phrases, the only consistent, underlying message being that they'd say or do about anything to get elected, and do not care about the people, nor even about the issues. the only sincere and worthy candidate for PRESIDENT, RON PAUL consistently acts in accordance with his constitutional message, says what he means, and means what he says.

[Clarke D]

I think Obama is a leader we can beleive in. The fact that he took no corporate money during the Democratic campaign shows that he has the peoples interest's at heart. I'm glad he's not letting these scare tactics from Bush and McCain go unchallanged. I'm also glad that the triangulating, flip-flopping, pandering ways of the DLC are coming to an end.