Video: Obama engages McCain via Bush’s comments

Following President Bush’s comments yesterday concerning appeasement of terrorists, etc.., Barack Obama took the opportunity to engage in the debate firing some shots at McCain, attempting to link his policies to those of the Bush administration.

First, video of Obama making his statements concerning McCain and Bush:

In response, McCain responded addressing Obama’s accusations.

First, he mentioned Obama during an address to the National Rifle Assoaiction where he called his policy toward Iran “reckless.”:

McCain also made some more statements on the topic:

Finally, a report on it from the New York Times:

WATERTOWN, S.D. — Senator Barack Obama responded sharply on Friday to attacks on his foreign policy, linking President Bush and Senator John McCain as partners in “the failed policies” of the past seven years and criticizing them for “hypocrisy, fear peddling, fear mongering.”

Confronting a major challenge to his world view, Mr. Obama tried to turn the tables on his critics, saying they were guilty of “bluster” and “dishonest, divisive” tactics. He cited a litany of what he called foreign policy blunders by the Bush administration and accused Mr. McCain, the presumed Republican nominee, of “doubling down” on them.

“George Bush and John McCain have a lot to answer for,” Mr. Obama said at a midday forum here, listing the Iraq war, the strengthening of Iran and groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, Osama bin Laden’s being still at large and stalled diplomacy in other parts of the Middle East among their chief failings.

“If George Bush and John McCain want to have a debate about protecting the United States of America,” Mr. Obama said, “that is a debate I am happy to have any time, any place.”

His defiance and disdain for Mr. Bush’s record appeared to be a signal that he will push back against efforts to define him or his record as weak on terror or accommodating to foreign foes, a strategy Republicans used successfully against Senator John Kerry in 2004.

To me this seems like Obama attempting to portray himself as the nominee taking a stand on the issue. Clearly he has to show votes he’s willing to engage and fight McCain until November. I think it was a good move to start the foreign policy discussion now since that is the area where Obama’s credentials are far weaker than McCain. Obama needs to build a stronger position in that area and the only way he can do it is make McCain defend his positions. Likewise, McCain will be attempting to let Obama show his inexperience in this area.

  • Sam

    The las video made me very scared of McCain. He is running for president and can’t think of a single topic to talk with Iran about besides the bad things they’ve done. What about talking about their food situation, economy, or any other facet of their country in order to build up basic relations. We still talked with the Soviets, even when they were are mortal enemies. Imagine if we used the type of diplomacy that we use today with the Soviets during the cold war. This is almost childish, not talking to someone because you don’t agree with them.

  • Frank

    OMG McCain is really unqualified to be president.

    – The reason Ahmedinejad gets elected is beceause of americas agressive behaviour in the region. Bashing America gets you elected.
    – Same goes for Hamas. The reason the get elected is beceause they provide the poor (uneducated, bitter) people whos familys and houses have been bombed by Israel with water and food.
    – Americas behaviour has made sure that many moderate muslims have become extremists. Think for one second, if youre friends or family havent been bombed by america, israel or’any other ally, someone else you know or you can identify with has.

    – McCain does not want to legitimize Hamas by talking to them beceause they killed many innocent Israeli’s.
    ……….uhhhhh………
    You see the parralel here mister McCain? Let me rewrite the sentence.
    ‘Hamas doest want to legitmize Israel by talking to them becease they killed many innocent palestinians.

    Newsflash John,
    People arent just evil beceause they like to be bad. They become extreme beceause their freedom, future or other possesions are being treathened.

    As for you, try spending the 800 billion that you spent on defence, on taking care of your own people.

  • bdjnk

    The speech that Obama gave contained no hint of what he thought would be the correct way of dealing with countries who sponsor terrorism and encourage the murder of civilians. Instead, it was filled with powerful yet mindless rhetoric.

    First he made it very clear that the statements of Bush and McCain were unwarranted attacks on, not only against him, but against every democrat. He was quite obviously trying to foster an animosity towards the republicans among his followers and anyone else who would listen.

    This was a blatant misrepresentation of Bush and McCain’s remarks.

    Then Obama goes on to slam the republicans for every aspect of political power Muslim terrorists have achieved. As though the actions of president Bush are the driving forces behind Muslim extremist governments.

    This is absurd for many obvious reasons.

    Despite the fact that Obama is spouting utter nonsense, the authority with which he gives it over is almost enough to make him sound sane. And that is the most frightening thing about him.

  • Obama is really pushing the “McCain-Bush” unity to the detriment of McCain. Likewise, McCain is misrepresenting Obama’s position of foreign diplomacy. Obama never said he would meet with dictators unconditionally, but McCain nonetheless stated “unconditional” over three times about Obama in his speech.

    Each candidate is pushing soundbytes that manipulate each others’ records. Wonderful…

  • Babs

    Michael, I respectfully disagree with you, Obama DID say he would meet with “no pre conditions” during a debate. Nate has posted the video twice here on site. McCain has misrepresented nothing that I can see here on this one. Not that they haven’t done it to each other, especially Obama with his 100 year rhetoric, but not this time. Obama said it definitively “I would”.

  • Stalin

    I have a question and I’m being serious. What conditions do you put on negotiations with someone like Aha;sldkfjad? Do you require UN countries to be present or the IAEA? Do you tell him that he can’t say anything negative about Israel? Do you require him do stop enriching uranium first? I’m trying to understand what the real difference would be between conditional and unconditional talks or is this all rhetoric?

  • Babs

    Well, Stalin, I noticed in Obama’s interview with Russert he almost answered that question, except that he called it “preparedness”. His definition of “preparedness” on talks with these people, which he says he will invoke, is the same thing as pre-conditions defined IMHO. So it would seem the original statement that he would meet without preconditions was a mispeak. Just how I read it.

  • Frank

    bdjnk,

    you said:
    ‘Then Obama goes on to slam the republicans for every aspect of political power Muslim terrorists have achieved. As though the actions of president Bush are the driving forces behind Muslim extremist governments.

    This is absurd for many obvious reasons.’

    Can you name these obvious reasons?

  • Babs

    Frank, in asking reasons why it’s absurd are you saying that you agree that the “actions of president Bush are the driving forces behind Muslim extremist governments”?

  • IndiMinded

    Babs, in asking him to answer that, are you agreeing that this is an accurate summation of what Obama said?

  • bdjnk

    Sure Frank,

    First point. There were governments run by Muslim extremists with an agenda of murder and terrorism long before Bush was in power.

    Second point. Muslim extremist are striving for power in their own right and have no need nor desire to rely on Bush. Not even as someone to rally against. The fact of the matter is that in their eyes every westerner is equally an infidel, fit only to be slaughtered.

    Third point. In my experience dealing with Arabs and people in general, I have found that they respect strength of ideals. Political posturing and compromise are seen as signs of weakness and a lack of conviction. If Bush has anything positive, it’s his commitment to what he thinks is right.

    Fourth and last point. Bush does not benefit from power in the hands of Muslim fanatics, nor from their general existence. If he thought speaking with them would help the situation he would do it. However, most of the world is coming to the realization that the extremist’s dedication to their destruction precludes productive dialog.

  • Michel

    Well, with these statements by McCain and Bush, Obama apparently will lose the jewish vote. (or will he?)

    http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/05/19/jewish_voters/

  • Babs

    IndiMinded, I don’t know if that’s an accurate statement or not, I just found it odd that Frank not only accepted it, but challenged the absurdity of it.

  • Babs

    Stalin, I said above that Obama defined preparedness and preconditions as essentially the same. My bad, he does make a distinction. A collection of quotes from him on the definition issue here:

    http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/30015_Obama_Waffle_Watch#headline

  • Frank

    bdjnk, you said this

    “First point. There were governments run by Muslim extremists with an agenda of murder and terrorism long before Bush was in power.”

    True. But Bush’s policys has made to world and especially the middle east mor anti west the ever.

    “Second point. Muslim extremist are striving for power in their own right and have no need nor desire to rely on Bush. Not even as someone to rally against. The fact of the matter is that in their eyes every westerner is equally an infidel, fit only to be slaughtered”

    Thats what muslim extremists think indeed. That is not wat the majority of muslims think. The problem is that the policys of Bush and McCain breed more terrorits everyday. If i where a moderate muslim living in Iran i would not like Ahmedinejad. But Americas constat treaths to bomb my country would make me support my anti-american leader. To moment you would bomb my hometown i would become a terrorist to.

    The people born in palestinian territories have always known occupation by Israel and Americas support for Israel. Entire generations have grown up under extreme poverty and attacks form Israel.

    So the key is to stop breeding more terrorists everyday by stopping pointless wars (wars are always pointless imho) and spendiing those dollars on improving the quality of life in those areas. In stead of giving Musharraf 10 billion to find Bin Laden they should give him 10 billion to take care of his people. Wealthy people in the middle east have no interest in seeing Americans die. Poor people do.

    “Third point. In my experience dealing with Ar
    abs and people in general, I have found that they respect strength of ideals. Political posturing and compromise are seen as signs of weakness and a lack of conviction. If Bush has anything positive, it’s his commitment to what he thinks is right.”

    You obviuously dont know anything about the middle east. What a ridiculous statement to say the compromise is a sign of weakness. Many times Israel and Palestine have signed a compromise resulting in UN resolution. Israel has always ignored these UN resolutions.

    “Fourth and last point. Bush does not benefit from power in the hands of Muslim fanatics, nor from their general existence. If he thought speaking with them would help the situation he would do it. However, most of the world is coming to the realization that the extremist’s dedication to their destruction precludes productive dialog.”

    Bush got re-elected beceause of their existence. Politics of fear remember?

    So beceause he knew talking to them wouldnt help he just started attacking the country? What a ridiculous way of thinking.
    The other option to talking is war. Has that helped? Has the war been succefull in any way? NO

    Bush policys have FAILED, and that dumb senator from Arizona wants to continue!
    What does he expect, that someday these people will say ‘well since you stayed this long in Iraq we will give up’?
    War doesnt work and the Iraq war is a perfect example of that fact. Simply saying that talking isnt the solution while defending the military one is ridicolous.

    I really dont understand why someone whote vote for McCain who has no intelligence at all when it comes to foreign policy.

    People, The conservative way of doing things have failed. Undestand that. Give liberals a chance.

    AAH look out a liberal with crazy ideas. Lets just keep on sending oung kids into their deaths every year.

  • Babs

    Frank, every action has a separate and equal reaction. The terrorists acted, we reacted. Why don’t you try telling the terrorists they should lay down their arms and aspirations to kill us, we could them lay down ours, and all sit around the campfire singing Kumbaya. I’m not opposed to the “no war” stance, I just think the terrorists should go first. Have you tried out your theories on them? Are they buying it?

  • Stalin

    Frank,

    You are pretty naive to think that if we bury our heads in the sand that we will just be left alone. Check out the State Departments list of terrorist attacks from 1961-2003. You will see how many of those occured prior to 9/11 and prior to Bush. Terrorism is not a new phenomenon.

    http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/5902.htm

  • Frank

    Babs and Stalin,

    Im not saying that terrorits arent a threat to the safety of our country. Im saying that we should make sure that their support doesnt grow constantly. This means getting out Iraq, be more critical of Israels actions in the region and stop threatening Iran with an invasion.

    Osama bin laden is an evil guy, should be put to justice and their way of achieving their goals is violence wich is bad. But the reason they attacked america is beceause of our support of dictators in the region and americas constant meddling in their internal affairs.

    You said that they acted and we reacted. But why should we invade Iraq and Afghanistan to find one guy? 4000 dead american soldiers and 100000+ innocent dead Iraqis. Just to find Al Qaida?
    Looking at this logic Iraq would have to right to invade America. What would you think if Iraq bombed your familiy beceause of George Bush?

    Terrorism is certainly not a new phenomenon. America and europa should investige why people become extreme instead of just killing innocent people beceause somewhere in the area an terrorist was spotted.

    You should also think about your defenition of a terrorist. When does a freedom fighter become a terrorist?

    Last,
    The Bush/McCain policy doesnt work for sure. Lets try Obama’s.

  • Stalin

    Frank,

    We did not invade Iraq to find UBL. I don’t know if I can have a productive debate with you if that’s what you really believe.

  • Frank

    Stalin,

    And surely, you can correct me if im wrong.
    The two reasons Bush invaded Iraq was beceause they thought they had WMD’s (waging a war on an assumption is retarted but so is Bush) and they where connected to Bin Laden.

    That is one of the reasons support of the war was high in 2003. People wanted to get revenge for 9/11

  • Stalin

    Frank,

    The war happened because according to US, British, German, and Russian intelligence, Saddam had WMD’s and wasn’t cooperating with UN resolutions. There were some who suspected that Iraq was supporting al-Queda, but this was most certainly not a hunt for UBL. He was thought to have been in Afganistan. See battle at Tora Bora

  • Michel

    I completely agree with Frank’s point of view. And Stalin, if you don’t mind me intervening, I think that you should be able to engage in a productive debate anyway. Just point out that mistake of his (Osama’s supposed location always was Afghanistan, never Iraq) and the proceed to talk about the rest of his arguments. You CAN have a productive debate with him, you just have to point out that mistake and keep going. That sentence doesn’t invalidate the rest of his opinions.

  • Frank

    Stalin,

    I indeed wrote that America invaded Iraq to find UBL. I meant that they invaded becease of their widespread chase on al qaida. Iraq had ties to Al Qaida according to the bush administration.
    I give you an Obamapology 😉

    I have an extra question,
    Looking back, was the war looking at the lifes lost and the money spent worth executing?

  • Stalin

    Frank,

    That is an impossible question to answer at this point. We still don’t know the ultimate outcome of the war and more importantly we will never know what would have happened had we never invaded.

    Michel:

    Shut the **** up. I am not going to take lessons on debate from a terrorist sympathizer.

  • Babs

    “But the reason they attacked america is beceause of our support of dictators in the region and americas constant meddling in their internal affairs.”

    You’re saying the terrorists perpetrated 9/11 because we meddled in the terrorists affairs? And their affairs are what? Killing us? I don’t follow your line of thinking on that statement at all, Frank. Maybe I’m misunderstanding it.

  • Frank

    Stalin,

    So you agree with McCain opinion that this war can be won?
    Wat does winning mean in this context?

    And who is the terrorist sympathizer?

  • Frank

    Babs,

    First, the terrorists (Al Qaida in this case) are evil people who do bad things and use islam as an excuse for their actions.

    Second, Bin Laden said that. Im not justifying it. Dictators in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan do not respect human right, have no freedom of the press and dont have freedom of speech. To the west they say: ‘just support us otherwise the ‘terrorists’ will come to power. Supporters of Al Qiada are mostly poor people who go to the mosk to find their peace. In some mosks they are indoctrinated with the doctrine that the west is responsible for their suffering beceause they support their dictators.

    Americas support for Israel and dictators in countrys like Saudi Arabia has led to many people hating America. So yes their is an explenation for 9/11.
    Therefore invading Iraq and threatening Iran isnt adding to the safety of Americans.

    Thats why i dont understand McCains policy. War has no winners, only losers.

    Sorry for the long story babs, did i clearify myself enough?

  • Stalin

    Frank:

    Technically, the war in Iraq has already been won. However, I think you are speaking of the insurgency and yes it can be won. If you are speaking of the larger war on terror, I don’t think that war will ever be won because terror can be carried out by one individual. However, that does not mean that we let down our guard.

    You say that war has no winners. Well, I think that there are many people around the world who are NOT speaking German or Japanese that might disagree with you.

  • Stalin

    We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.
    – Edward (Ted) Kennedy

  • Babs

    Ok, Frank, I get you. You were quoting Bin Laden, but you appeared to portraying it as your own belief. But you do not personally prescribe to the theory, correct?

    Stalin, you’re good. 🙂

  • Frank

    Stalin

    Technically, the war in Iraq has already been won. However, I think you are speaking of the insurgency and yes it can be won. If you are speaking of the larger war on terror, I don’t think that war will ever be won because terror can be carried out by one individual. However, that does not mean that we let down our guard.

    Stalin, when do you say, okay enough its time to go home. Nobody says you should let down your guard. Make sure the CIA and the FBI get the intelligence so that any atack can be neutralized.

    “You say that war has no winners. Well, I think that there are many people around the world who are NOT speaking German or Japanese that might disagree with you”

    Europeans are exactly the ones who say that war has no winners. Yes, the allied forces (USA, UK, Canada and the rest of europe) beat Germany. But are they glad it happened? Is there any american that is glad that it happened? Millions of lifes were lost and the complete infrastructure of europe was destroyed. Can you consider this a victory?
    World war 2 just as any other wars only resulted in innocent people dying. Nothing more nothing less.
    So if your saying that war is ever a good instrument of policy your very wrong.

  • Frank

    Babs,

    You are correct. But i do believe that George Bush is not much better then Bin Laden.
    – They both are responsible for the death of thousands innocent American people.
    – They both think violence solves anything
    – They both dont believe in talking to each other.
    – They have no respect for human rights
    – They use fear to rally people behind there cause
    – UBL doesnt legitimize Israel beceause of their violent behaviour. Bush doesnt legitimize Hamas beceause of their violent behaviour

    This may sound extreme, but the Bush administration is really filled with religious fanatic lunatics who have done nothing for the American people. ‘just cut taxes, then they will shut up’
    McCain isnt a monster like Bush and Cheney are and he actually seemed to care about the american people. But what i dont understand is why he wants to continue policys that have failed over and over.

  • Michel

    “Shut the **** up. I am not going to take lessons on debate from a terrorist sympathizer.” – Stalin

    Yeah, those are the words from a Bush sympathizer. Living proof that even dead brains can type.

    I don’t know why I even bother to speak to you. I won’t say anything. If you didn’t notice Frank is already putting you in your place. You reap what you saw. Get used to it. 🙂

  • Michel

    “McCain isnt a monster like Bush and Cheney are and he actually seemed to care about the american people. But what i dont understand is why he wants to continue policys that have failed over and over.” – Frank

    It’s called political lack of sight. Others call it ineptitude. Some others call it senility. And the last ones call it sensible policies. I’m with the first ones. The last ones… well, you’r dealing with two or three of them here.

  • Stalin

    Michel and Frank:

    Are you Americans? Please give me a yes or no answer. You see, I have noticed from your dialog that you don’t sound like you are American. Not only does your rhetoric sound anti-American, but the way you structure and spell your words are suspect. So I ask you. Are you Americans?

    And I’m proud to be an American,
    where at least I know I’m free.
    And I won’t forget the men who died,
    who gave that right to me.
    ~Lee Greenwood

  • Michel

    No, Stalin, I’m actually chinese and I’m trying to bring down your country’s political conscience, starting from this very blog. Run from the yellow peril!

    🙂 You’re a joke.

  • Stalin

    Michel,

    Sadly, as you have demonstrated over the past week, you are a joke. A very bad bad joke. I like that Cuban flag next to your name. It all makes sense now.

  • Hello, Hi, Hey, great article, post, blog, I, we love, like, loved, liked it !!!

  • Great article.

    Check out http://www.kindlefiretab.com for great news, reviews and deals on tablets

  • fantastic blog great information thanks