Alas, poor Amy is as uninformed as always. Word from inside the White House has already confirmed that Obama was the target:

On the record, White House officials issued disingenuous denials that Bush was talking about Obama. But on background, they admitted as much.

CNN's Ed Henry reported that "White House aides privately acknowledged the remarks were aimed at the presidential candidate and others in his party."

Sasha Issenberg writes for the Boston Globe: "White House officials indicated that the criticism applied to Obama."

Brian Williams reported on the NBC Nightly News that "it was clear to those listening that it was in part to make a point about Barack Obama back home." NBC correspondent John Yang then added: "Privately, White House officials said the shoe fits the Democratic frontrunner."

Try to keep up, Amy. You're just embarrassing yourself.

Hey, if the shoe fits, wear it.

The democrats have been politicizing the war in Iraq for 5 years emboldening the enemies of the US with their irresponsible and hysterical cries for surrender.

If Obama gets elected he'll find out that governing and making speeches are two different matters.

Actually not. That article is not an unbiased news source. When a "journalist" uses terms like "disingenuous denials", it is not unbiased. Ed Henry may have some inside information but I'm not sure why he isn't disclosing the "private" acknowledgement. Sasha Issenberg's comment that the "White House officials indicated that the criticism applied to Obama" isn't news. Of course it applies to Obama and many other Democrats. He didn't mention Obama but of course Democrats have an ego problem and think everyone is talking/thinking about them. I guess next time Obama says something like "You know how women are" he's talking directly to me!

Brian Williams had no news to report, just conjecture. Your quotes didn't disprove anything I said. The speculations of leftist media types don't make a confirmation.

Besides, we know what STRONG denials from the White House look like: Bill Clinton and Monicagate. The White House's denials about this cannot be contradicted by fact.

But if they could, so what? The comments are correct either way! Why do you think Obama took it so personally?

Mark Levin just played the quote from Obama in 2007 where he was asked if he would sit down with the leaders of Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, Cuba or Syria and talk with them without conditions in his first 100 days in office. His reply? "Of course I would." Even Mrs. Clinton repudiated that stance as "naive".

The president knows more about this than Obama ever will. All benefit of the doubt should go to the man who has spent 16 years as chief executive of a major state and the US. Obama's puny resume doesn't stack up to a 2-term war time president. The world is too dangerous to trust to a rookie who couldn't even detect the nasty black nationalism of his pastor for 20 years.

Actually not. That article is not an unbiased news source. When a "journalist" uses terms like "disingenuous denials", it is not unbiased. Ed Henry may have some inside information but I'm not sure why he isn't disclosing the "private" acknowledgement.

Uh, excuse me... but he did. Plugging your fingers in your ears and going LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA doesn't cut it, Amy.

As usual, wingnuts like you ignore inconvenient facts. Go ahead and pretend that everyone who provides facts that contradict your views with you is dishonest or biased. I'm sure it brings you great comfort in your tiny little world.

The comments are correct either way!

False. You don't understand what appeasement is, Amy. And you're certainly ignorant of the Bush administration's own history of negotiating with rogue states.

As usual, wingnuts like you ignore inconvenient facts.

At least Amy can argue with facts and not have to resort to the schoolyard name-calling tactics used by some.

Here's what meatbrain linked to above:

The morons of the right forget who the Appeaser-In-Chief really is
Friday, May 16th, 2008 in Political Animals

Yes, assclowns, I’m talking to you: Kit Lange, “TA”, Susan Duclos, Jim Hoft, Mike and Curt, and all you other ignorant wingnuts… there’s not a one of you who knows or understands history.

Gee. How could anyone argue with logic like that?

How could anyone argue with logic like that?

Didn't have the guts to quote the bit about the Bush administration negotiating with states that support terrorism, didja, Johnny?

Democrats immediately jumped on the victim bandwagon. Bush didn't mention anyone's name, except for Netanyahu who years before had warned against appeasement. There are also plenty of Republicans to whom the criticism could be applied, but Democrat victocrats recognized themselves very quickly whether intended or not.

Johnny, I'm not sure whether to delete meatbrain's comments for violating the ROE or let them stand for the fine example that they are of leftist inability do to anything but act like a 2nd grader on the playground.

MB, why not just post the facts you have about the Bush administration negotiating with state sponsored terrorism?

Did you read the part of my entry about "reconcilables" and "irreconcilables"?

DELETED

DELETED

meatbrain, learn to talk to a lady and you're comments will remain. Otherwise, I uphold my ROE and happily delete condescending comments such as yours.

Try again?

meatbrain,
should the president meat Iran without pre-condition?

DELETED

It's interesting that the Obama campaign thought this applied to him, when my first thought went to Jimmy Carter and his recently completed Hug a Terrorist World Tour.

Or that the reference wasn't merited when President Bush was speaking to the people of a country that were created out of the ashes (figuratively and metaphorically) that resulted from the appeasement of the thirties and is threatened by appeasement on the world stage today.

I think they were looking for a fight to prove something. Unfortunately, when you go looking for a fight, you should make sure you know how to hit what you aim at.

Perhaps Senator Obama should try taking some boxing lessons before he jumps in the ring on this issue again.

I guess meatbrain wants to be banned.

airforcewife, right on the money. It points to an egomaniacal attitude that is usually reserved for people like Hillary or Al Gore. Jimmy Carter would be the obvious person to come to mind, but in reality Bush was talking to Israel, not a domestic audience as Obama asserted, because if any country has struggled with how to deal with terrorism it is Israel. Netanyhu resigned from the Israeli cabinet a few years ago because Sharon was too appeasing. There is no need to read Obama into the comments by the President.

But if the shoe fits, so be it.

I've posted the answer to your question, Amy -- and for doing so, you threaten to ban me.

What, exactly, are you so afraid of?

No, actually, if you can't figure out that name calling the host is a violation of ROE I don't know what to tell you.

Go ahead and repost the link without the namecalling.

http://time-blog.com/middle_east/2008/05/obama_appeasement_or_engagemen.html

There. Now delete it, Amy. You know you can't abide the inconvenient facts.

Or call the author 'biased'. After all, you get to call other people names.

Mr. Meatbrain:
If you think a Time Magazine reporter's blog that advocates Jimmy Carterism as a plausible foreign policy option in the 21st century constitutes an 'unbiased' report of the 'facts', you are mistaken.

The author grossly underestimates the awe with which Arab leaders hold Mr. Bush in after delivering massive blows to terror regimes (Afghanistan) and dictatorships (Iraq). In fact, Muamar Ghadafi told the Arab League this spring, "America deposed an Arab head of state who was subsequently hung - you could be next". While that is not the type of prestige most desirable, in a world endangered by terrorists and tyrants, it is highly effective in establishing the credibility of American force. If Obama wants to deploy Jimmy Carter's foreign policy, let the reader recall that the Iranians held Americans hostage for 444 days in 1979-80 (Carter adminstration) until a republican president who also enjoyed the credibility of delivering force took office.

The Berlin Wall did not fall through "personal diplomacy" but through real and unambiguous threat of lethal force and economic investment in the military-industrial complex.

Democrats imagine a world where everyone is simply misunderstood or legitimately indignant; President Bush said in his remarks to the Knesset that he wished the world were a peaceful place. Democrats need to wake up and realize who we are dealing with around the world and that American prestige has less to do with pleasing our enemies than it has with defending our friends.

Shorter Johnny:

LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA ...

Did the Bush administration negotiate with Gadhafy? Yes or no?

Did the Bush administration involve Fatah in the Annapolis peace process? Yes or no?

Did the Bush administration offer to negotiate with Iran? Yes or no?

You know, meatbrain, I don't care if it was aimed at "the presidential candidate and others in his party." or anything else that was said about it. If aim was takenat all, it wasn't aimed only at them but all appeasers, including those who sit in the U.N., including most of Europe. He couldn't help but hit the target since it is such a broad one.

What you and the Democrats are saying is the President has a duty to coddle people to whom the the description fits. It doesn't matter that it's the truth. The only thing that matters is that it offends you. If the truth offends you and that's all you care about, I feel sorry for you.

meatbrain, are you twelve years old?

Because you are taking the argument tactics of the middle schoolers I used to teach. You are asking for questions without any contextual background - background I think you may be missing yourself.

You are doing the equivalent of asking someone who killed their attacker, "But did you fire the gun?" As if that answer ends the discussion.

Do you truly THINK? Or do you merely parrot?

The stink of FEAR is strong in here. None of you are willing to answer three simple questions:

Did the Bush administration negotiate with Gadhafy? Yes or no?

Did the Bush administration involve Fatah in the Annapolis peace process? Yes or no?

Did the Bush administration offer to negotiate with Iran? Yes or no?

Run away again...

What you and the Democrats are saying is the President has a duty to coddle people to whom the the description fits.

I haven't said that. Obama hasn't said that. Who exactly has said that, Steph? Name them. Provide the exact quotes.

What? You can't? That figures. When all else fails, the wingnut lies.

Here are some of the beautiful things that your so called beloved "ally" is responsible for and dont want you to see.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tW1-_JmXQt0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynWjYHP91gA&feature=related

"The only thing worse than ignorance is the falsifying of knowledge"

The above comment was posted by me....

meatbrain,

The answers to your questions:

1) "Did the Bush administration negotiate with Gadhafy? Yes or no?"

Yes. After the bombing of Bahgdad, Qadaffi dropped his nuclear and bio weapons programs and accepted Bush's invitation to negotiate. The pre-conditions to negotiate had been met.

2) "Did the Bush administration involve Fatah in the Annapolis peace process? Yes or no?"

Yes. After a November 2006 poll showed that 61% of Palestinian Gazans supported Abbas's Fatah and recognized Fatah as the legitimate PA government. Fatah announced they wanted direct talks with Israel to establish peaceful coexistence with the Jewish state. The opposing party, Hamas, was not invited because they lost the election and fouoght against talks with Israel. By advocating direct talks with Israel, Fatah fulfilled the preconditions for negotiating.

3) "Did the Bush administration offer to negotiate with Iran? Yes or no?"

Yes. If Iran would shut down its nuclear program and open the country and facilities to inspectors, then talks and negotiations could begin, not before. Iran has not met the preconditions, so no deal.

Note, of your three questions, meatbrain, the first two have resulted in negotiations because of the unwavering position of strength maintained by George Bush. In the third question, Pres. Carter negotiated with Iran from a position of 'malaise' resulting in the taking of Americans as hostages for 144 days until tough talking action figure Ronald Reagan took charge. Only then did Iran fold in the face of a strong President with a strong military and a strong mandate.

Your phrasing was interesting. Qs 1 & 2 admit that Bush did, in fact, negotiate, something he's been accused repeatedly of not doing. The third Q acquieses to the proposition that Bush did, in fact, suggest and offer negotiations, something he has been repeatedly accused of not doing.

So the Bush administration negotiated with or offered to negotiate with terrorists -- an action he termed a "foolish delusion". Thanks for clearing that up.

I don't recall the U.S. negotiating with Qadaffi. After he dropped his WMD program what's left to negotiate? As soon as Iran drops its nuke program we should negotate with them as well.

I'd point out that Qadaffi/Libya wasn't killing U.S. soldiers by the hundreds as Iran is.

Here's an idea, meatbrain; why not make your own case rather than asking us a bunch of questions?

He isn't anymore capable of making his own case than mudkitty. They are simply baiters who fancy themselves as masters of the practice.

Although I have sources for all of the answers, notice the gentleman did not challenge any of the answers which clearly put him in the position of having been wrong. He only reaffirms that Bush has done what the opposition claims he does not do as if that's some kind of victory for him. Or more likely, it's a childish game of 'made ya look!'

I don't recall the U.S. negotiating with Qadaffi.

What you do or do not choose to recall is irrelevant, Amy. The fact is that the Bush administration did in fact conduct negotiations with Libya.

After he dropped his WMD program what's left to negotiate?

The US entered negotiations with Libya prior to Libya's agreement to end their WMD program:

"CIA and British intelligence officials met with Gadhafi and other senior Libyan officials as the three governments negotiated the deal under which the Libyan government would give up its weapons of mass destruction programs, U.S. officials said. CIA officials also visited key sites in Libya during a nine-month period of negotiations that started with meetings in various European capitals."

I'd point out that Qadaffi/Libya wasn't killing U.S. soldiers by the hundreds as Iran is.

That is also irrelevant to the accusations made against Obama, for saying that he'd do just what the Bush administration has already done. But please, keep throwing out those red herrings. They don't do a thing to conceal your ignorance of history, but they are amusing.

Here's an idea, meatbrain; why not make your own case rather than asking us a bunch of questions?

My questions have made the case I wanted to make: you and your kind are ignorant of recent history, and easily misled by that ignorance into making ridiculous accusations.

I'll decide how I choose to make my points, thank you. You get no say in the matter, Amy.

Although I have sources for all of the answers, notice the gentleman did not challenge any of the answers which clearly put him in the position of having been wrong.

Um, what? Your answers supported my case. You admitted that the Bush administration did in fact negotiate with states that support terrorism. Duh.

He only reaffirms that Bush has done what the opposition claims he does not do as if that's some kind of victory for him.

And now you're making crap up out of thin air, Red. What opposition claims that Bush has not negotiated with states that support terrorism?

If Iran ditches its WMD program, we should then negotiate that they stop killing American troops. I think McCain asked the right question: "What does Obama want to negotiate with Iran?"

The fact that Iran is killing U.S. is not irrelevant. The Democrats' argument is that Reagan talked with the Soviet Union so why shouldn't we talk with Iran? We're talking with North Korea so why shouldn't we talk with Iran? The common denominator is that only Iran is killing American troops. I also don't recall N. Korea or Russia vowing to wipe Israel off the map. Those are significant distinctions and only dismissed by those who want to use the an argument of moral equivelency without noting the distinctions.

From Dick Morris:

Obama: Wrong on Iran

President Bush is absolutely right to criticize sharply direct negotiations with Iranian President Ahmadinejad. Barack Obama’s embrace of the idea of direct negotiations is both naïve and dangerous and should be a big issue in the campaign.

The reason not to negotiate with Ahmadinejad is not simply to stand on ceremony or some kind of policy of non-recognition. It is based on the fundamental need to topple his regime by increasing the sense the Iranian people have — that he has isolated Iran from the rest of the world, to its severe and ongoing detriment.

The Iranian regime is almost entirely dependent on oil and gas revenues to pay for the vast program of social subsidies with which the government buys domestic support. Gasoline costs 35 cents a gallon in Teheran. Bread and all other staples are subsidized from public funds. But 85 percent of all government revenues come from oil and gas exports. There lies the regime’s vulnerability.

Iran is sitting atop the second largest oil reserves in the world. Only Saudi Arabia has more. But it can’t get at them. It lacks the foreign investment and technology necessary to increase, or even to sustain, its petroleum output. Under the Shah, Iran pumped upwards of six million barrels of oil a day. Now, Iran generates fewer than four million daily barrels. With domestic consumption of energy increasing at 10 percent a year — due in part to the massive subsidies which hold the price down — Iran is expected to see its oil exports cut in half by 2011 and entirely eliminated by 2014. If Iran cannot export oil, it cannot pay for social peace and the regime could be in dire trouble.

Without subsidies, the Iranian people, half of whom are under 30 and only 40 percent of whom are ethnically Farsi, will become restive and resentful. Already, many complain that Ahmadinejad’s policies have led to global isolation of Iran and stymied economic growth and social upward mobility. While opinion surveys in Iran indicate that the people support the nuclear aspirations of the regime, they are not willing to pay a price of international isolation.

If a President Obama were to meet with President Ahmadinejad, it would send a signal to the Iranian people that they are not isolated but that the rest of the world has come to respect them and to have to deal with them. The leading argument for toppling the current regime will have been fatally undermined.

But if the West sustains a policy of economic sanctions, curbs on foreign investment, and diplomatic isolation, the Iranian regime’s days are numbered.

Official United Nations sanctions are having some effect on Iran but the real power lies in cutting off investment by foreign companies, particularly in the banking and energy sectors. American companies are already prohibited from doing business there, although General Electric may be seeking ways around this prohibition through foreign subsidiaries.

Frank Gaffney, formerly of Reagan’s Pentagon, has pioneered the use of private economic disinvestment in companies that do business with Iran, Syria, North Korea, or Sudan. On his Web site, he has identified almost 500 companies that do business with these terror sponsoring nations. They include such international powerhouses as Sieman’s, Shell, Repsol, BNP Paribus, and Hyundai. He has crafted a terror free mutual fund which can earn good returns while avoiding investment in any of these companies.

Missouri Treasurer Sarah Steelman — now running for governor — pioneered disinvesting pension funds in these companies. Now California, Florida, and Louisiana have followed suit.

We need to let these policies work and global isolation of Iran is the way to do it. Negotiating with Ahmadinejad would simply boost his domestic stature and enhance his political stability, the exact opposite of what we should — and must — be doing.

Indigo Red, terrific answers. Allow me to email you a beer!
;-)

What you and the Democrats are saying is the President has a duty to coddle people to whom the the description fits.

I haven't said that. Obama hasn't said that. Who exactly has said that, Steph? Name them. Provide the exact quotes.

What? You can't? That figures. When all else fails, the wingnut lies.

Just because you didn't say it in exact words, doesn't mean you didn't say it. That's my opinion of your whining because the president said something you and the Democrats didn't like. You took it personally.

So what? You're offended. Get over it.

Meatbrain, it is what they do in here because it is what they want to believe or make the case for.... Amy included and that is why she deleted you... She will let others call you names, etc... Because you are going against the grain but as soon as you say one little thing she will delete you... That is how she is and hence the name "Rules of Engagement" or "ROE's"...

You people need to wake up and stop making it as simple as Republican or Democrat... Liberal or COnservative... It is about what's right for the AMERICAN PEOPLE!!!

Watch this... So Amy, Dick Morris is an unbiased opinion?? You wan tto quote him as a resource as her has no vested interest in any politics right now? Is that what you are saying? UNBIASED DICK MORRIS?

Just want to be clear here... By the way, since when can people not ask questions? Meatbrain made his point very clear by asking those questions. Good job Meatbrain and yes they did make yur point for you!!

Thanks, Johnny. We'll drink a beer together.

Here's a personally interesting observation: those who don't like what I have to say, ALWAYS call me Red. Those with whom I share basic values ALWAYS call me Indigo or Indi. Odd that.

I think McCain asked the right question: "What does Obama want to negotiate with Iran?"

And the answer is easily available. Do you know where to find it, Amy?

Those are significant distinctions and only dismissed by those who want to use the an argument of moral equivelency without noting the distinctions.

Those are post hoc rationalizations used merely to cover for the fact that the Bush administration has offered to negotiate with Iran.

Amy, what high-ranking member of the Bush administration recently advocated talking with a hostile country that, according to you, attempts every day to KILL U.S. SOLDIERS?

"We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage with respect to the Iranians and then sit down and talk with them. If there's going to be a discussion, then they need something, too. We can't go to a discussion and be completely the demander with them not feeling that they need anything from us."

Just because you didn't say it in exact words, doesn't mean you didn't say it. That's my opinion of your whining because the president said something you and the Democrats didn't like.

Nope. What you claimed was a flat