"The reason for that is his policy. He wants to negotiate with the terrorist-funding, nuclear-aspiring, holocaust-denying, Israel-threatening dictator of Iran."
Said John "I will be Hamas's worst nightmare" McCain.
April 27, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
17 comments:
They're just looking for an excuse to make peace!
I have issues with McCain but he's dreamy on foreign policy.
Hamas, Hezbollah, and FARC are all agreed: terrorists need messiahs too.
Obamessiah: President For Life!
“I have already condemned my former pastor’s views on Israel in the strongest possible terms, and I certainly wasn’t in church when that outrageously wrong Los Angeles Times piece was re-printed in the bulletin.” - Barack Obama
blake said...
They're just looking for an excuse to make peace!
knoxwhirled said...
I have issues with McCain but he's dreamy on foreign policy.
x2.
Obama has enough endorsements already. I think Hamas should have backed Ralph Nader.
Hmmm... why would a terrorist organization that knows the power of America's Israel lobby http://www2.nysun.com/article/65411
endorse an American Presidential candidate? Don't they realize that that would be a kiss of death?
Then Brer Rabbit started talking mighty humble.
"I don't care what you do with me, Brer Fox, says he, "Just so you don't fling me in that briar patch. Roast me, Brer Fox, says he, "But don't fling me in that briar patch."
"It's so much trouble to kindle a fire," says Brer Fox, says he, "that I expect I'd better hang you," says he.
"Hang me just as high as you please, Brer Fox, says Brer Rabbit, says he, "but for the Lord's sake, don't fling me in that briar patch," says he.
"I don't have any string, " says Brer Fox, says he, "Now I expect I had better drown you, " says he.
"Drown me just as deep as you please, Brer Fox," says Brer Rabbit, says he, "But please do not fling me in that briar patch, " says he.
"There's no water near here," says Brer Fox, says he, "And now I reckon I'd better skin you," says he.
"Skin me Brer Fox," says he. "Snatch out my eyeballs, tear out my ears by the roots," says he, "But please, Brer Fox, don't fling me in that briar patch, " says he.
Of course, Brer Fox wanted to get Brer Rabbit as bad as he could, so he caught him by the behind legs and slung him right in the middle of the briar patch. There was a considerable flutter when Brer Rabbit struck the bushes, and Brer Fox hung around to see what was going to happen.
By and by he heard someone call his name and 'way up on the hill he saw Brer Rabbit sitting cross-legged on a chinquapin log combing the tar pitch out of his hair with a chip. Then Brer Fox knew he had been tricked.
Brer Rabbit hollered out, "Born and bred in the briar patch. I was born and bred in the briar patch!" And with that he skipped out just as lively as a cricket in the embers of a fire.
Are we going to have a policy of no longer negotiating with countries that fund terrorism, deny the holocaust, and threaten Israel? If so, where will we get our oil?
U.S. Imports by Country of Origin
Almost 5 billion barrels annually accounting for about half the trade deficit. 55% vs 45% Non-OPEC to OPEC
Oh, I see FLS has figured it out - Hamas really wants McCain to win, so they have endorsed Barack. Because of course, we all know that McCain will kowtow to Islamic radicals while Barack will be their worst nightmare. Yeah, that's the ticket.
Under this sort of logic, Abraham Lincoln must have been a Communist, because Karl Marx thought his re-election was a good thing.
Why is it OK for McCain to associate Obama with Hamas, but North Carolina Republicans cannot associate Obama with Wright?
Its not okay.
McCain went loopy over the NC ad. A reminder of all the times he's stabbed the GOP in the back.
Obama didn't seek an endorsement from Hamas, so this is a weak play by McCain.
McCain, on the other hand, will stamp his foot and hope that calling people names will solve the world's problem.
Don't they realize that that would be a kiss of death?
If Hamas had even the slightest degree of political acumen they wouldn't blow up Israeli children.
Are we going to have a policy of no longer negotiating with countries that fund terrorism, deny the holocaust, and threaten Israel? If so, where will we get our oil?
Further on oil The rise of the new energy world order , as this is a critical to this country being able to maintain its present living standard, and to which no candidate has been pressed or has adequately addressed and as president will face the possibility of conflict over shrinking supplies.
From where will future energy sources come? Clean coal, nuclear energy, oil exploration in US waters? This takes years to develop. Wind and solar can't do it all.
peter hoh said...
Are we going to have a policy of no longer negotiating with countries that fund terrorism, deny the holocaust, and threaten Israel? If so, where will we get our oil?
A policy of "no negotiations with terrorists, human rights violators, EVER!!" makes sense as long as you are committed to killing every terrorist in a movement or "regime change" of any nation using proxies you disapprove of.
But that stupid slogan was adopted by people (From AIPAC, the Left, Cuban Exiles, AND the Hard Right) that approvingly cited it, post-Munich Olympics, as wise Israeli policy America should emulate.
"They know how to deal with terrorists! Look at their success over the last 25 years!"
Which ignored that Israel's mouthed words were just window dressing and their silent practice of negotiating, setting one band of Islamic thugs against another was their real policy.
Foreign policy Realism dictates that we look to negotiate, to recognize and exploit openings that our in our vital interest and our ally's interests. But not negotiate out of weakness or just negotiate for the sake of endless talk and photo ops that get nothing done.
Realpolitik and balance of power, the effort to transform enemy policy onto different paths, still makes sense after LBJ started it and Nixon mastered it in the 60s.
Bush I was almost as good at it as Nixon was. Clinton too, had his moments. All were open to talk, but all realized the stupidity of endless dialogue on pressing issues and had no hestitation to bomb the fuck out of a terror group or country that was jerking us around in talks.
Basically unless you aim to kill everyone in a terrorist group or "terror-sponsoring nation" or worse, give them ACLU types and a deluxe civilian trial - you should talk.
Last I checked, Nixons toasts with the greatest mass murderer in history served our interests. Bush I and Clinton helped rationalize a post-Soviet world. Bush II - "I talk by ultimatums and to the people neocons say I should talk to, only" was ummm...not as successful...
The cautions are not just pig-headed people that won't talk to Raoul or Mahmoud or Sheikh Nasrallah....but also trusting fools like Jimmy Carter who believe just talking for talking sake makes him look good and shows his moral superiority to someone not grovelling to bad guys and being made a fool of.
And Nixon's lesson is that you never flit about as National Leader to simply spontaneously talk with an evil overlord about issues and achieving agreements or at least deliver soaring speeches that end up accomplishing nothing - not without years or months of prep by lower-level officials on both sides, with consensus achieved or almost achieved before any leader-to-leader high-level summitry and progress in Detente is worthwhile.
Hillary gets it, I think. Obama doesn't. And, I have my doubts about McCain having the nimbleness and judgment to exploit openings or make such openings happen. He is all too "absolutist", my way or the highway, backroom deals kind of guy.
Post a Comment