Of course Obie also says that Israel is a “constant wound”, a “constant sore”.

In a blogpost about taking someone out of context, you post a response quoting someone out of context.

I apologize for misrepresenting McCain on his Hamas statement. It is now apparent he and Obama have the exact same view on dealing with Hamas. So that makes immigration, green house emmision caps, and Hamas the issues where they agree.

The U.S. needs a foreign policy that “looks at the root causes of problems and dangers.” Obama compared Hezbollah to Hamas. Both need to be compelled to understand that “they’re going down a blind alley with violence that weakens their legitimate claims.”
-Senator Obama

***

“It has always seemed to me that in dealing with foreign countries we do not give ourselves a chance of success unless we try to understand their mentality, which is not always the same as our own

“We should seek by all means in our power to avoid war, by analyzing possible causes, by trying to remove them, by discussion in a spirit of collaboration and good will. I cannot believe that such a program would be rejected by the people of this country, even if it does mean the establishment of personal contact with the dictators.”
-Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain

They sound rather similar don’t they?

h/t - networdblog

Since the deal did not involve direct or indirect contact with the hostage-takers/terrorists in Lebanon (most likely Hezbollah), it was consistent with the stated policy of no negotiation. In being a straight business deal, the Iranians asked if they could anything as a “thank you” of sorts for finding a customer. The reply was “yes” and that would be a release of all western hostages in Lebanon. Also, if they could dissuade their proxy clients in Lebanon from engaging in that type of activity from this point on. Iran’s reply was positive.

So when the western hostages were released in Lebanon, because of the nature of the deal, you haven’t seen anymore hostage taking like this against westerners since then.

Obama would say this represents the kind of direct contact at the highest level since it required Reagan’s approval of the deal. It would be consistent with his stated position of “meeting anytime, anywhere to resolve common issues.” The difference is the level of contact. Obama would have the contact at the presidential level (see #6, #7). And, suppose an Obama administration comes into intelligence that Iran was ready to launch a nuclear strike directly or through their Hezbollah client. What argument would Obama use to talk them out of it? “You can’t do that … because you will find yourself hopelessly isolated.” Or perhaps, “We will use the appropriate force necessary to respond.” We’ve already used those arguments, and they haven’t worked. Similarly stated by Mike (#9), what will be discussed in such a meeting?

In history, much like our elections, we have to support the lesser of two evils. Just as we supported Saddam over Iran in the past. However nothing is static. Circumstances and events change over time. The climate does not remain the same from year to year. And former friends or allies can turn into enemies and then back to allies. Witness Pakistan and the UAE, for example.

Just like the global Islamic jihad movement coordinates with other rival groups to accomplish a specific shared goal, they return to infighting at a different time. You must learn not to be so anal thru life. The sun does not rise at the same time every day.

INRE Bush in Israel. Considering the audience must be quite concerned with what the next POTUS suggests he will do, Rubin, from Israel Insider may have been reflecting the mood in Israel just the day before Bush made his comments. Quite prescient, really. And perhaps more insight as to why that was included in Bush’s speech.

When Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama says he will negotiate with Syria and Iran over Iraq’s future, he signals every Persian Gulf regime to cut its own deal with Iran. When his stances convince Hamas that he’s the guy for them; when Iran and Syria conclude they merely need stand defiant and wait until January 21 for any existing pressure vanishes, the U.S. position in the Middle East is being systematically destroyed.

Note that this does not make Obama the candidate favored by Arabs in general but only by the radicals. Egyptians, Jordanians, Gulf Arabs, and the majorities in Lebanon and Iraq are very worried. This is not just an Israel problem; it is one for all non-extremists in the region.

If the dictators and terrorists are smiling, it means everyone else is crying.

I suggest that Bush was assuring an ally under verbal and physical assaults daily that the US has no intention of abandoning them, nor working deals with their enemies. At least as long as His Messiahship doesn’t make it into the Oval Office.

However for BHO to be so indignant, taking fire for his stated stance of talking to enemies, is absurd. If the shoe fits…. and if he believes this is the way to go… he should not be crying foul.

However it’s quite evident that the Israelis do not like Obama’s foreign policy ideas.

For the DNC to whine is laughable. Where were they when Congressmen/women visited Iraq and bad mouthed the President and OIF in the early years… and continued? Where were they when Pelosi visited Syria and Tehran?

As usual, forked tongue politics by sleazy elected officials.

“We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you.”

Hezbollah.

That’s the group that the Obamessiah says has “legitimate claims.

Of course Obie also says that Israel is a “constant wound”, a “constant sore”.

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/president-obama-words-2044703-bush-talking

This will be the fault line in the post-Bush war debate over the next few years. Are the political ambitions of the broader jihad totalitarian, genocidal, millenarian – in a word, nuts? Or are they negotiable? President Bush knows where he stands. Just before the words that Barack Obama took umbrage at, he said:

“There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain away their words. It’s natural, but it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously.”

Here are some words of Hussein Massawi, the former leader of Hezbollah:

“We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you.”

I had forgotten that quote from Hamas. How do you negotiate with people whose goal is to kill you? What do you do? Offer to let them kill only 10,000 of your citizens as a compromise?

Democrats have NEVER said what they would negotiate about. Only that they would negotiate. Steyn makes it clear that this does nothing more than provide the evildoers with a figleaf of respectability as they continue on with plans to reach their goal, which is DEATH TO AMERICA!

How do you negotiate with that?

You don’t. You DEFEAT IT!

Mark Steyn: Ninny Pity Party, Read the rest at “FREEREPUBLIC” it is too good.

As has already been said in here, there have been talks with Iran. The Iran government, who trains, funds and supplies the animals that attack our troops do not deserve to be legitimized by a sit down with ANY president of the United States, and won’t be unless the idiot makes it to the Oval.

Here’s the transcript of the April 18, 2003, episode of NBC’s “Today” show.

LAUER: Let me ask you about Syria.

Mr. McCAIN: Sure.

LAUER: They have denied possessing weapons of mass destruction, they’ve also denied harboring any senior members of the Iraqi leader. The US administration says they have evidence to the contrary. How would you proceed with that situation?

Mr. McCAIN: I think it’s very appropriate that Colin Powell is going to Syria. I think we should put diplomatic and other pressures on them. It’s also a time for Mr. Asad Bashar to realize that he should be more like his father was. I think he’s too heavily influenced by a lot of the radical Islamic elements and–and militant groups.

LAUER: Do you think Syria meets the criteria set forth by the president in his post-9/11 address to Congress that they pose an imminent threat to the US in that they are either sponsoring or harboring terrorists?

Mr. McCAIN: I think they’re–they’re sponsoring and harboring terrorists. I think they have been occupying Lebanon, which should be free and independent for a long time, but I don’t think that that means that we will now resort to the military action. We–we can apply a lot of pressure other than military–than the military action. So what I’m saying, we’re a long way away from it.

LAUER: Under what circumstances–under what circumstances would you back military action?

Mr. McCAIN: When we’ve exhausted all other options. And we have a lot of options to–to exercise. And I’m glad Colin Powell’s going there, but the Syrians have got to understand there’s a new day in the Middle East.

So, let’s review. Yesterday, John McCain insisted that Obama’s willingness to negotiate with rival heads of state reflects “naivete and inexperience and lack of judgment.” Since then we’ve learned:

* McCain has publicly said he believe the U.S. should engage Hamas diplomatically and recognize Hamas a legitimate government;

* and McCain has publicly said he thinks it’s fully appropriate for the U.S. to engage Syria diplomatically, despite his own assertions that Syria is “sponsoring and harboring terrorists”;

To hear John McCain tell it, Barack Obama is irresponsible for his willingness to engage a state sponsor of terror like Iran. McCain’s attacks have all kinds of substantive flaws, but more importantly, McCain seems to keep running into trouble due to comments he’s made before.

-the carpetbagger report

Flip flop flip flop flip flop…..