Why Are the Democrats So Touchy?

The Democrats are up in arms over remarks that President Bush made while in Israel celebrating that country’s 60th anniversary. The President was speaking about terrorists, an appropriate subject given who surrounds Israel, when he made remarks that got the Democrat’s panties in a wad:

In his speech, Bush said: “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 Crypt

Immediately the Democrats assumed that Bush was taking a veiled swipe at Obama who has advocated talking to terrorists. In fact, many people and countries have held this particular belief. France and Germany believed that talking was in order as did many Democrats as they moved to distance themselves from their vote to go to war. I would be remiss if I did not mention Jimmy Carter (who would be a more likely target) and his terrorist ties. But it was Obama, they say, who was attacked.

Why are the Democrats so touchy? Is it because they know that Obama lacks foreign policy experience? Why did they assume that Bush was talking about him when there are so many to whom the statement applies? Obama immediately went on the defensive and was supported by Joe Biden (a man with a great deal of foreign policy experience), Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, and Rahm Emanuel who all criticized the President. I think they are a bit touchy because they know that Bush was right and Obama is wrong. They took it to heart because that is what Obama believes and has said.

Two other interesting pieces from the article:

The White House insists that Bush was “referring to a wide range of people, not any single person.” But Obama’s campaign says it appeared to be a swipe at him, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that Bush’s remarks were “beneath the dignity of the office of the president and unworthy of our representation” at the celebration of Israel’s 60th anniversary.

~snip~

As Pelosi was speaking, House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel issued a statement in which he said: “The tradition has always been that when a U.S. president is overseas, partisan politics stops at the water’s edge. President Bush has now taken that principle and turned it on its head: for this White House, partisan politics now begins at the water’s edge, no matter the seriousness and gravity of the occasion. Does the president have no shame?”

The President was completely correct and Speaker Pelosi’s reaction only confirms my suspicion that she knows Obama is weak in that area and that he is wrong on the subject. They know he is weak and they are trying to protect him. Emanuel is way out of line. Pelosi and an endless line of Democrats have gone to exotic places like Syria and talked badly about President Bush’s policies. Pelosi broke the law by performing the job of the State Department, an Executive Branch department.

I would let Adam down if I did not take my obligatory swipe at Bill Clinton. He did his protesting in a foreign nation as a college student and has not been shy in his criticisms of our current president regardless of where Bill happens to be at the time.

There was a story earlier that indicated the Republicans would attack Obama on his lack of foreign policy experience. From the visceral reaction to the President’s statement I’d say they might be on to something.

Related story:
My Way News

Big Dog



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

14 Responses to “Why Are the Democrats So Touchy?”

  1. James says:

    George Bush spoke nothing but the truth and stated facts to our Israeli friends regarding appeasers. Where was the outrage and protests from the Democrats and the media when those morons Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton said horrible and disparaging things about our President and country while they were on foreign soil? The silence was deafening. Once again with these liberals …double standards.

    Jamess last blog post..The GOP And The Polar Bear

  2. Jo says:

    Truth hurts … they are so transparent in their remarks and reactions.

    Jos last blog post..Friday Feast #191

  3. […] The laughably bombastic “Big Dog” demonstrates just how benighted he is: […]

  4. Adam says:

    The main thread here is that Democrats are united on this subject and they won’t act like cowards in the face of the Bush administration’s straw men anymore.

    It’s going to be rough next couple of years for the GOP. Don’t fret though. Our 28% approved President is in office for another 8 months or so…enjoy it while it lasts.

    Adams last blog post..A Hillary Clinton Stalwart?

  5. Big Dog says:

    Adam,
    how are they united? They are in the majority and could end funding but they have not. They promised that if we put them in charge they would get us out and they have not. Some of them have family members making a fortune on military contracts.

    They are not united and their attack on Bush for his comment shows they are touchy on the subject.

  6. Joe says:

    Here’s the deal guys: On the very day that President Bush was in a foreign country slamming an American candidate for the presidency, his own Secretary of Defense, William Gates, was calling for US talks with Iran. Not only that, Secretary of State Condi Rice also called for these talks and, get this, just last week US Ambassador to Iraq Crocker admitted in Congressional testimony that the Bush Administration has already met with Iran for diplomatic talks three times and plan a fourth meeting soon. So the Bush Administration is already doing the very thing Bush is slamming Obama for. And Bush has the gall to call Obama’s plan to meet with Iranians once he’s president Nazi appeasement? You may be unaware of the fact that Bush’s own grandfather was caught funding the Nazis during World War II or you may choose not to believe it. So be it. I think it is rather hypocritical of him to make this particular charge before the Israeli Knesset after all that Jews suffered under the Nazis.

    Here are some more facts: First Neville Chamberlain was the head of the Conservative Party in Britain, not the Liberal or Labour Parties. The Conservative Party. Second Appeasement was not that he TALKED to Hitler, it was that HE AGREED TO GIVE AWAY HALF OF CZECHOSLOVAKIA TO NAZI GERMANY.

    A year ago Senator McCain said that the US needs to meet and talk with Hamas because they were the elected government in Gaza.

    What Obama said he would do as president is what President Bush is already doing it’s just that President Bush thinks the American people are too stupid to know that. And he knows that the Corporate-owned Mainstream Media won’t bother reporting it.

    We are all Americans, aren’t we? We want what’s best for the United States, don’t we? The President of the United States in a foreign country before their parliament calling a candidate for the office of President of United States a Nazi appeaser for doing exactly what he is doing is bad for our nation. It makes us look bad, dishonest, and quite frankly scumballs. I for one do not like it when the United States is humiliated like that. Please be an American first and a Republican second and think about this. We are all Americans. Let’s do what’s best for America and not for a particular political party.

    Thank you.

  7. Big Dog says:

    Joe,
    Maybe you heard something different than I did. President Bush did not mention Obama and there are a lot of people to whom that statement could apply.

    I certainly did not hear the President call anyone a Nazi. The only people who use that word are the liberals when they call Bush one.

    You might have valid points but they get washed away in your obvious distortion of the facts.

  8. David M says:

    The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the – Web Reconnaissance for 05/16/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.

    David Ms last blog post..Web Reconnaissance for 05/16/2008

  9. Big Dog says:

    A smarmy blogger wrote a hit job on me for this and he said that the White House is admitting that Obama was one of the intended targets.

    Of course Obama is included in the list of people that the president was referring to. He was not the ONLY one. Obama took it as a personal attack when he was one of many who was attacked.

    The title of his linked piece shows that: Perino: Bush’s Comments Were Not ‘Aimed’ At Obama, But Do ‘Include’ Him»

    This is exactly what I said. Obama and the Dems took it as an attack on Obama and ONLY Obama. It was an attack on all who feel this way. He was INCLUDED.

    I did not hear France or Germany complain as part of the group.

  10. Joe says:

    BigDog, don’t give me an “it all depends on what your definition of the word is is” lawyerly parsing of words. It’s really beneath you. Don’t get all Bill Clinton-like on me. We are both adults. We both know what President Bush was saying. Paralleling calls to engage in negotiation talks with Iran (which the Bush Administration to its credit is already doing) with Nazi appeasement is calling those who recommend talks with Iran Nazi appeasers. Senator McCain realized that when he said today that President Bush was right to equate such calls with Nazi appeasing. He won’t even admit that his own administration is doing what he’s condemning.

    I will give you credit that you recognize the hypocrisy in equating these when McCain called for talks with Hamas in 2006 and the Bush Administration is and has been in talks with the Iranians. At least I think you recognize that. I’m hoping you do. But let’s not pretend that the President was not paralleling calls to talk to Iran with Nazi appeasement. President Bush brought up Nazi tanks crossing into Poland in 1939 and appeasement, not me. Don’t forget that.

    “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. 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.” –President G.W.Bush

    Again the appeasement of Chamberlain was not that he talked to Hitler, but he gave away half of Czechoslovakia to Hitler thinking that would appease him and prevent the war.

    I call upon your sense of honor and patriotism in looking at this.

    Thank you for your time and attention.

  11. Big Dog says:

    Joe,
    The fact is he was talking about a lot of people. I just don’t think he was equating the whole mess to Nazis. I think he was equating it to an event in history.

    It might have been better had he said German tanks but nonetheless, he was not specifically talking about Obama and I don’t believe he was equating Obama to Nazis.

    We have been talking to terrorists for decades and they are still hell bent on destroying Israel and attacking us.

    As I recall, talk did not work to well with regard to Iraq either.

    Regardless, why would the Dems take it so personally when a lot of people fit the bill?

  12. Scott says:

    Actually Joe you are completely wrong, and you obviously share B.O.’s lack of understanding of foreign policy. Here’s why.

    Though our government has called for talks with Iran to resolve this it is a far cry from “face to face talks” with the Iranian President, Hamas leaders, etc. If something can be resolved diplomatically it should be, if we didn’t the Democrats would sure be screaming that Bush is a bigger warmonger than they already do. Not only that but if our government doesn’t attempt diplomatic resolutions first they have failed their citizens who are in the military and their families.

    You see in the world of foreign policy a visit from the President, Queen, Prime Minister, or whatever the head of the state of a nation is called is considered an honor. It is a sign of friendship, trust, support, and often solidarity. Why do you think that people think Bush should not attend the ceremonies in Beijing? Because his visit in political circles is seen as being supportive of China and its policies.

    It is fine to have talks with rogue nations, even nations that are your enemies but talks are preformed by lesser officials not the head of state. However you do not honor terrorists, rogue nations, or your enemies with a visit by the head of state. There are other subtleties to diplomacy but I won’t get into those.

    BTW I found this lovely definition of PC. I don’t know who to give credit to but it’s not mine.

    “Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

  13. Joe says:

    BigDog, I guess I wasn’t making myself clear. I apologize. I’ll try to be more clear. No, President Bush wasn’t comparing Barack Obama to the Nazis, he was comparing him to British Conservative Party leader Neville Chamberlain who not only met with and talked with Hitler he tried to appease Hitler by giving him half of Czechoslovakia in hopes that Hitler wouldn’t invade Poland. It was a serious mistake to give Hitler anything let alone half a country. And History recalls this. And talking to terrorists has worked: the British talked with and negotiated with the IRA and Protestant Paramilitary Terrorist groups in Northern Ireland and by getting the groups to talk together and each give in some part that the others wanted they created a lasting peace in that part of the world. President Reagan (even before becoming president) negotiated with Iran and while it wasn’t always good it did lead to the release of the American hostages. The Bush Administration is engaging in negotiations with North Korea and some progress has recently been made. The Bush Administration even had some informal talks with Syria, a step I applaud if it will lead to a safer Lebanon and Israel. Israel is in talks with Syria offering them the Golan Heights in exchange for assurances of peace and a withdrawal of support for Hezbollah. So even when dealing with enemies and dangerous enemies at that advancement of peace can be made. The Bush Administration has wisely realized this and that’s why they are meeting with Iran. But they still pretend that they are not for political purposes. Telling the American people that they are not doing something that they are and condemning others of it is hypocritical and certainly shouldn’t be done from the floor of another countries parliament.

  14. Big Dog says:

    I got it now Joe. I agree with Scott though, there is no way a leader should be doing the face to face with the enemy. That is what diplomats are for and sure, we try diplomacy. Diplomacy without strength is not a good position. I am not sure that he said we are not doing something that we are but I am not a mind reader. I think he is addressing presidents (past, present and future). I can’t imagine he would believe that we don’t know diplomats talk to other countries.

    As for Israel, they keep giving up land in return for peace and the peace never comes.