In Speech Before Israeli Parliament, Bush Compares Democrats To 'Nazi Appeasers', page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 15 times

reply posted on 15-5-2008 @ 03:03 PM by vor78

reply to post by TheBandit795

Not really. He and his grandfather are not the same person. Should you be held forever liable for the actions of your ancestors?

I would think not.

reply posted on 15-5-2008 @ 03:32 PM by TheBandit795

Well, has he publicly rejected or condemned his grandfather's morals and way of handling business in those days?

[edit on 15-5-2008 by TheBandit795]

reply posted on 15-5-2008 @ 03:37 PM by pavil

Why exactly should Israel or for that matter the U.S. negoatiate with HAMAS while their charter still calls for for the Destruction of Israel and that any Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors? What exactly am I not seeing? The most reasonable Statement from HAMAS is tha they would agree to a 10 year ceasefire, what exactly happens in year 11? You keep believing that HAMAS will change their tune simply by trying to reason with them, I will wait till the hear the tune changed by them first before I would negoatiate anything.

The first step needs to be Hamas acknowledgement of Israel's right to peacefully coexsist. What sense is there in negoiating with someone who only wants your destruction? I fail to see the incentive in that, enlighten me.

reply posted on 15-5-2008 @ 03:38 PM by kosmicjack

Originally posted by lonewolf37
To watch the American people sway back and forth like wheat in a field on a breezy day sickens me. Right after 911 we decided to go into Iraq. I say we because congress and the senate voted overwhelmingly to do so. Bush made his speech about going after anyone who harbored or assisted terrorists and he had one of the highest popularity ratings in the history of the presidency. But now that the war has drug on long enough that we are not 'comfortable' with it anymore his ratings go to the lowest in history. Do you know what the word fickle means?

Have you been living under a rock? The support for the war was based on "intelligence" which turned out to be a bunch of bulsh@t lies. Pardon us sheep for waking up.

reply posted on 15-5-2008 @ 03:40 PM by kosmicjack

reply to post by vor78

Well... Bush should then - Obama style - renounce and reject his grandfather. I'll settle for nothing less.

reply posted on 15-5-2008 @ 03:45 PM by vor78

reply to post by TheBandit795

Why should he? Unless he were specifically asked about it, he probably considers it so irrelevant that it rarely if ever crosses his mind.

Again, you're basically asking him to be responsible for something that his grandfather did, something that he had absolutely no choice or power over.

reply posted on 15-5-2008 @ 03:46 PM by vor78

reply to post by kosmicjack

Yet Obama had a choice of whether to attend that church or not. GWB had absolutely NO choice in who his grandfather was.

reply posted on 15-5-2008 @ 03:50 PM by RomanMaroni

In Bush's defense, he was speaking to his bosses. He was just letting them know he is still firmly behind whatever Israel wants us to do, and anyone who disagrees is a Nazi. Just wanted to let Israel know that as long as he is President, Israel is still in charge. You're either with us or you're with the Nazi's.

Nothing will change after he is gone, and they know that. Remember we voted in "change" in '06. Look at how much everything has changed with the Democrats. Bush was just solidifying his place after he is gone.

reply posted on 15-5-2008 @ 03:53 PM by kosmicjack

reply to post by vor78

Then it ought to be much easier to denounce, as it is supposedly no reflection on him and beyond his control, why should it matter? I won't hold my breathe.

reply posted on 15-5-2008 @ 04:03 PM by vor78

Originally posted by kosmicjack
reply to post by vor78

Then it ought to be much easier to denounce, as it is supposedly no reflection on him and beyond his control, why should it matter? I won't hold my breathe.

Read what you just typed. If that's true, there's absolutely NO REASON for him to even waste his time denouncing it.

reply posted on 15-5-2008 @ 04:11 PM by kosmicjack

reply to post by vor78

Call it the Obama principle - If he doesn't denounce it, why that must mean he supports it!

reply posted on 15-5-2008 @ 04:14 PM by vor78

reply to post by kosmicjack

The two situations simply aren't comparable. One had a choice, one did not.

reply posted on 15-5-2008 @ 04:58 PM by Gatordone

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective

While delivering an address before the Israeli parliament commemorating the 60th anniversary of Israel, President Bush said that Sen. Barack Obama and Democrats favor a policy of appeasement toward terrorists. CNN reports that Bush was comparing Obama to “other U.S. leaders back in the run-up to World War II who appeased the Nazis.”

In his speech, Bush said, “As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: ‘Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.’ We have an obligation to call this what it is – the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”

(visit the link for the full news article)

First of all, you hypocritical "deny ignorance" crowd...

If you actually read the speech instead of reading what CN frickin N tells you it said, you would immediately notice that the President started with:

"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," the President said to the country's legislative body, "We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is –- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

Now what exactly did he say that was so outragious? If you think he was talking about Obama then he could have been talking about any number of politicians in the world! The democrats immediate and aggressive defensive stance is very telling.

It's true what they say, "Want to piss off a conservative? Lie to him. Want to piss off a liberal? Tell him the truth."

reply posted on 15-5-2008 @ 05:00 PM by AnOldFriend

Originally posted by vor78
reply to post by kosmicjack

The two situations simply aren't comparable. One had a choice, one did not.

Whether they had a choice or not is really not the point. They were both associated with people who said and or did what a lot of people consider despicable. And some people like to assume that the people being effected by the actions of associates if not denounced then they may well be in favor or at least indifferent of what they did or said. So the best course of action in a case such as this is to state your own opinion on the matter.

reply posted on 15-5-2008 @ 05:06 PM by xmotex

It's true what they say, "Want to piss off a conservative? Lie to him. Want to piss off a liberal? Tell him the truth."

Oh goody, more partisan BS, just what the world needs.

It's clear that Bush was speaking metaphorically about Obama stating he's willing to talk to Iran, even Bush's own aides and supporters are admitting it now, haven't you received the latest "talking ponts" memo yet?

Joe Biden, who I'm not generally a huge fan of, called it pretty clearly.
He also pointed out how Bush was perfectly willing to negotiate with North Korea, a country that is both far more repressive than Iran and a far more credible threat to the US.

reply posted on 15-5-2008 @ 05:09 PM by vor78

reply to post by AnOldFriend

No, choice is entirely the point. The man is not responsible for what his grandfather did before he was born. There is absolutely no need or reason for him to distance himself from it.

As for Obama, I really couldn't care less about that story, but in his case, he made the choice to associate with him.

There's a close association in both circumstances, but that one difference, having a choice, is an enormous one. Just think about it objectively for a moment.

reply posted on 15-5-2008 @ 05:27 PM by kattraxx

Bush is a moron who was pandering to his audience.

When a post begins with Republican this, Democrat that, I quit reading because it's obviously clueless.

I wasn't posting on ATS then, but for the record, I was against that war from day one, and never for one second bought that bs "intelligence" lie. Pretty certain I have a government file that proves it too, haha.

And no, I wouldn't condone the torture of anyone, even if they were directly responsible for the murder of a loved one. Or myself, for that matter. You probably wouldn't understand why not.

reply posted on 15-5-2008 @ 05:37 PM by jpm1602

First he gave up golf. Next he misses emaling his buddies. (Please). Now anyone who promotes discourse in a Nazi. Does anyone out there now dismiss the fact that this guy is seriously delusional if not outright mad?

reply posted on 15-5-2008 @ 06:22 PM by whatsup

Hard to believe that there is still a solid 30% that will support this tyrant no matter what. Just what kind of rocks do these people crawl out from?

Here is an excellent Olberman commentary on Bush..
www.msnbc.msn.com...

[edit on 15-5-2008 by whatsup]

reply posted on 15-5-2008 @ 06:48 PM by johnsky

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by johnsky

You I really don't understand the continued disgust at the use of torture on terror suspects. The traditional method of questioning used by police forces would simply not work on fanatics who that the authorities' hands are tied behind their backs by legislation. Would you not agree that if a suspect gave information whilst being tortured that prevented one of your loved ones being killed that it is a nesessary 'evil'?

It's not that I'm opposed to use of force... but you can't get anything with torture you don't already have.

Essentially, when you torture someone, the whole premise is to get them to say something you want... either a confession, or admittance of specifics.
This is done by telling the torture victim that he/she will be set free from the torturing if they confess, and if they don't, the torture will continue.

Remember, these are suspects, anyone will confess to something they know they didn't do just to get the torture to stop.

So, even once the confession is given, there's still no way to know if the person who confessed was actually guilty... they're just saying what you want them to say, to get the torture to stop.

The scary part is, Innocent people are more likely to confess under torture, than the actual guilty parties.

It yields NO information. (If it did, don't you think they'd at least have some form of lead on Osama?)

No, all it does is creates enemies, hurts random people, and sets a precedent for more torture to be used in the future... the likelihood being on your own citizens, and political opponents.

There are REASONS torture is 100% illegal under international law.
And unfortunately, the US is ignoring them.

Oh well, they will be met with the repercussions. There's no way to avoid them really.

Wanna know whats kinda sad?
The service men and women who are involved with torture are expendable in the eyes of the government.
If members of the government and key superiors come under questioning for their use of torture, I can guarantee you those men and women working the prisons will be killed to cover the governments interests... they intentionally set it up so there are no paper trails leading back... if some prison guard is capable of pointing out who issued the orders... they become a problem, and would be eliminated swiftly.

There will be an international court hearing on the matter. How many they get their hands on, and when, are the questions.

If you want to learn about why not to torture, just pick up a history book and learn what happened to other nations who have used torture in the past.