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

[bob]

Americans elected a moron twice
and when you think things could not get worse Bush is speaking out digging his own grave making things even worse hard to believe but it is possible he is the living proof meanwhile you have MCCain coming out of retirement...
Thats the kind of guy republicans wants us to believe will save the country .......lol
sorry America....

[jy2008]

If this issue is so important why not open serveral polls and get public opinions.

It should be very interesting to see where people stand on this issue.

Some questions are like

Should US supports Israeli
and why or not?
Should US acts strongly to control oil resource and why or not?
Should US negotiates terrorists and radicals
and why or not?
.................
.................

Such issue is complicated and may not have straight and simple answer.

But that is how all live in this imperfect world.

If everyone is selfishless and
if everyone is willing to sacrifice self for others
we do not need government and
we do not need law.

So for now, make no mistake,
stand up for yourself and
stand up for America

[haybarn]

McCain/Bush not only fail to learn from their mistakes, but also from successes. Omar Qaddafi, known to support terrorism (e.g. Lockerbie) is now almost unheard from in world affairs. Was it appeasement that brought this about? A military attack? "No" to both. It was diligent, steely diplomacy. Both would have everyone believe that no conservative administration has ever used diplomacy with our enemies, only "wimpy. appeasing liberals".

[captbilly]

What is it about a well spoken and resonable man that causes conservatives so much anger. I am registered independent, ex USAF pilot, Ivy League grad, father of two. I don't see how anyone can argue that what the US has been doing so far with Iran, Hamas, Fatah, Al Qaeda, Korea, etc. has been working.

Korea developed nuclear weapons, Iran is well on their way, Al Qaeda successfully attacked the US and thier leader is still on the loose. What can the conservatives point to that they see as a success. Al Qaeda is bankrupting our military as successfully as if they were a superpower. Do conservatives think that is teaching them a lesson? Chest pounding is great if you are an ape,, but in the more complex human world negotiations and restraint is more likely to get you what you really want.

Until we decide that we would be justified in unleashing our full arsenal on one of the enemies, we must understand that the only alternative is a compromise. You can't make a compromise without letting the other side know what the compromise is.

I do think that we would be justified in unleashing our military on Bin Ladin, but Bush let him go in favor of some crazy stunt that only an idiot could have believed would work. Iraq was the stupidest military action that the US has ever engaged in. For some reason that I cannot fathom, McCain still believes that we can win an insurgent war in Iraq. I thought that he more than most would understand the unnacceptable cost of a confllict much more difficult than even Vietnam.

[DAK]

There's a difference between maintaining some diplomatic contacts, which the Bush administration is apparently doing with Iran (and leading some critics to call him a hypocrite), and indulging them with a face-to-face meeting of leaders (as Obama has suggested). Obama should defend the difference in approach instead of whining at the criticism.

[Sam]

Remember Senator Prescott Bush.

[troubled]

It's ashame Obama did not get this angry over
Rev. Wrights comments!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[MsSwin]

Bush may find his hitler remarks backfiring on him considering his own family history of appeasement and support for Hitler:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8783

http://newsmine.org/archive/cabal-elite/families/bush-dynasty/bush-family-fortune-from-nazis-dutch-connection.txt

http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/012303A.ma.dead.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0925-01.htm

http://ecosyn.us/Bush-Hitler/Bush-Hitler.html

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/ROG309A.html

[MsSwin]

Bush may find his hitler remarks backfiring on him considering his own well documented family history of appeasement and support for Hitler.

[Suzanne Gorenfeld]

Mr. Bounds' is an intentional mistranslation of the statement of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad --- The more nearly correct translation is that the current Israel militant and racist expansionism into others' territory, and Israel's current oppressive regime, must be changed by Iran. Further, Mr. Ahmadinejad is not alone in objecting to Israel's using the European Holocaust as rationalization for landgrabbing racism and oppression against Palestinians and others in the Middle East. As to the truthful translation of the words of Ahmadinejad, see www.therealnews.com "Iran and Israel: Lost in Translation?"

[John]

Lol@ 'hysterical diatribe.' Stick a fork in the GOP, it's done.

[InspiredinFlorida]

It seems Mitt Romney didn't get the memo about how the question was asked, about American diplomats working with the Palestinian government with Hamas now in charge.

He was just on CNN saying John must have meant 'dealing with them' as is 'punishment'.

I can hear McCain singing to the Beach Boys, 'Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb bomb Iran.

Yeah...that'll work.

[John]

Don't forget, Bush dismantled all of the Clinton Era diplomacy with Iran and N Korea, labeled them part of an Axis of Evil, and sat back and did nothing while they responded. Bush has shown the world that the US will go to war whether justified or not, if you were Iran, what would you have done...

[InspiredinFlorida]

Obama isn't giving anything up, as in 'Appease.' He never said he's appease Iran. He is a staunch defender of Israel.

President Bush was in Saudi Arabia yesterday, pretty much begging for OPEC to release more oil to drive down our gas prices. He was rebuffed. Saudi Arabia is a ‘friend.’

Hmmmm…with friends like that…well, you get the picture.

Bush has morphed the role of the US from being the leader of the free world, to the MANAGER of the whole world, simply based on authoritarian control by military might. The problem with that is, it’s a short term solution in protecting the homeland, because our enemy’s response will be to match that military might. So if anything, this type of authoritarian control has made Israel less safe, as well as the US.

Now we can’t get help from our ‘friends’ in the Middle East either. I may have to quote Dr Phil. ‘ How’s that workin for ya ?

World Leaders have followers, not subordinates. Our ‘friends in the Middle east will NEVER be subordinate to the US. And following is always a voluntary activity.

If the President of the US wants to lead, he/she must not appear to fear giving up formal authoritarian control through negotiating with friends and enemies alike in a win-win mindset. When negotiating, a leader seeks to make deals that help everyone. In cases where this is not possible, it is best to have the mindset from the outset that you will walk away from the deal ("win-win or no-deal").

But how can it be possible to determine a deal is NOT possible, if the leader doesn’t seek first to understand, and THEN be understood.

Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice.

If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.

In other words, a win-win, or no deal.

It’s time for the US to take on foreign policy matters as proactive, rather than reactive. It’s time for the leader of the US to sell, not tell.

Israeli statesman Abba Eban once said, "Men and nations behave wisely, once they've exhausted all other alternatives."

[Tim_CA]

Really gettin' tired of Obama's 3rd grader-esque rants on this. The more the little junior senator talks, the more we realize that he's in WAY over his head.

Mr. Bounds put it best...."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."

Again thats...."unconditionally meet with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad" .....Your words little man!!!!!

Whine and carry on all you want...it certainly doesn't chage the fact that you're dangerously under-qualified.

[Edward]

More garbage from the noise making, cheer leading, lap dogs, who supported those whose policies threw our country into the sludge of international disdain, for their own monetary and political gain.

No doubt another self-righteous, self-serving, anti-constitutionalist, hoping to deny someone their god given rights to equity and fair treatment, so he may continue to feel better than someone...anyone! What's your particular issue to lean on for preferentail exclusion, mister? Abortion? Gay Rights? Education? Social Security?

Are you really sure you want this guy to be your president? Just in time to serve over another banking crisis?!

As McCain likes to say, it's "just a fact:"
1. McCain received $112,000 (a lot of money back then!) by 1987 from Keating and Keating's relatives and employees to McCain's Senate campaign, more than any of the other Senators.
2. McCain's wife and her father had invested $359,100 in a Keating shopping center in April 1986, a year before McCain met with the regulators.
3. The McCains, sometimes accompanied by their daughter and baby-sitter, had made at least nine trips at Keating's expense, sometimes aboard the American Continental Corporation (parent of Lincoln) jet.
4. Three of the trips were made during vacations to Keating's opulent Bahamas retreat at Cat Cay.
5. McCain also did not pay Keating for some of the trips until years after they were taken, after he learned that Keating was in trouble over Lincoln.
6. Lincoln Savings and Loan's collapse is said to have cost taxpayers $3.4 billion

Duke Cunningham was an American hero too but you don't see him running a presidential campaign from prison.

dh

[Stu Mills]

The Bush administration and John McCain are not only talking with Al Qaeda in Iraq but they are paying them off; and they backed off their pursuit of Bin Laden so that they could go to war with Iraq – isn’t that appeasement of the terrorists who attached us on 9/11. And they boast it is working. So why is it so shocking to suggest stronger diplomatic efforts with Iran? Especially since Iran offered to help us against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan after 9/11. This debate on terrorism is becoming increasingly irrational and hurting our self interest. Other countries are moving on to bigger and better things.

[TB]

Our strategy has been flawed, no doubt. We go into Iraq, under fabricated stories, and establish a Shiite regime packed with folks who took refuge in Iran for decades, and are now sympathetic to Iran. The biggest beneficiary of current strategy has been Iran, so much for experience/qualification. We did not even get the oil we went for, so we beg Saudis to increase output. We encouraged Palestinians to have elections, and hamas won it, then we try to isolate the winners!! We support monarchs and dictators in middle east yet vow to spread democracy by invading a small country without a plan to follow through, so much for experience.
Change in thought process is required, same old nonsense is not working. There will be a lot of talk to deflect from the failings of current strategy, lets not get fooled by that.

[LC]

HEY 'STU MILLS'...everything you wrote is ENTIRELY UNSUBSTANTIATED!

LAY OFF THE S-P KOOL-AID!

[Edward]

Tim_ca

It's intractability that got us here, Tim

Distance gives you no venue in which to impress upon your adversary the stark nature of his impending potential demise.

Personally I'd lean across the table and with the full authority and support of the citizens of the US and the full might and power of the US military make damn sure he understood just how small he is and how big and committed we are. Let him know the stark "reality" of the situation. I'd say that would do the trick.

There's no better way to do that then looking him right in the eye, and watching him shrink, personally and diplomatically, upon the realization of the true power behind those words.

Yes, I want a "Face to Face" with Akmadinajad; personal, up close, and I want him to know that neither he nor his country, nor his family, are safe, as long as he continue to threaten the region.

Still think it's a weak argument?

dh

[Suzanne Gorenfeld]

This is wink-wink, nudge-nudge, of course: Quote -
"President Bush was in Saudi Arabia yesterday, pretty much begging for OPEC to release more oil to drive down our gas prices. He was rebuffed. Saudi Arabia is a ‘friend.’"
Mr. Bush and the rest of his oil friends have long-standing relationships with the House of Saud (from which Ben Ladin comes as cousin, by the way--which could account for the Ben Ladins not being held to account). And his oil friends have made obscene profits.... And of course Mr. Bush is silent.
There is a BIG difference between a friend of oil and defense countries, and a friend of the U.S. And obviously a BIG difference between friends of Mr. Bush and friends of the U.S. --- Hence all of his phoney noise about "patriotism" ---

[moi61537]

Wait a second here. Did Obama read the speech? There's no mention of him. The quote is about Borah and that appeasement by Chamberlain and others led to a horrific war. Churchill wrote of this in the Gathering Storm and Shirer pointed out in his book on the Third Reich that 1936 was a good year to stop Hitler.

Obama's response reminds me of Carly Simon's song, "You're so Vain". There's a verse in it about the vain one thinking the song was about them.

I'm really shocked by Obama's response. The shoe must fit.

[Suzanne]

Correction to above statement: "There is a BIG difference between a friend of oil and defense COMPANIES, and a friend of the U.S. And obviously a BIG difference between friends of Mr. Bush and friends of the U.S. --- Hence all of his phoney noise about "patriotism" ---

The ultimate "PROTECTIONISM" is the use of the armed services to concentrate further power into an anti-democratic and monopolistic institution such as the oil industry. If you will look at the Cheney documents, "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oil" you will see that the Iraq War is about MONOPOLY and among the evidence is that the so-called "COALITION OF THE UNWILLING" are those nations that had entered into Memoranda of Understanding or other oil contracts with Saddam Hussein.

Since when is building oil cartels, and allowing our armed forces to be used for no other reason than to gain obscene profits and power, through war aganist a country that did not attack us, in the interest of the United States?

Since when is obscene concentration of power into the hands of the oil and defense industries, democratic, or economically democratic?

[John]

The Bushies would instigate every country on Earth into war if they could. This entire thing is about the transfer of wealth from the People to the Few. Bush and Cheney are trying to bully the World into submission. When that's your plan, you create a tremendous amount of hostility in the process. Kudos to Obama for consistently pointing out the fact that Bush created the problem and deserves 99% of the blame.

[Suzanne]

The Iraq war is Mr. Bush's ultimate protectionism on behalf of his friends the oil and defense industries. And how deep is the hypocrisy: Mr. Bush says there will be no protectionism, because it will cut off American jobs!
Mr. Bush says there will be no protectionism to safeguard American offshored tech jobs..and no protectionism to retain the entire U.S. economy's manufacturing sector, but Mr. Bush is a protectionist for his friends' steel companies.... and with the war on Iraq keeping Iraqi oil off the market, Mr. Bush's oil and defense friends have made obscene profits and consolidated their economic power--- by eliminating the competition for Iraqi oil, whom Mr. Bush (or Mr. Rove) call the "coalition of the unwilling" --those countries who had, until this war, oil exploration and oil development memoranda of understanding and contracts with Saddam Hussein's government--- leaving (what a surprise!) EXXON and CHEVRON to monopolize the oil in Iraq.