Bush compares those who would talk with Iran to Nazi appeasers: Democrats are not amused (video)

Transcript

VOICE OF CARLO BASILONE: US President George W. Bush launched what many say was a political attack against Democratic front-runner Barack Obama on Thursday when he addressed the Israeli Parliament. Though he didn't name names, the statement seemed to be directed at Senator Obama's willingness to meet with leaders of Iran and Syria, among others.

(CLIP BEGINS)

GEORGE W. BUSH, US PRESIDENT: Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they had been wrong all along. We've heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared, "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all 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.

(CLIP ENDS)

White house spokespersons denied that the Knesset remark was aimed in any way at Obama, but leading Democrats were furious and struck back at Bush.

(CLIPS BEGIN)

JOSEPH BIDEN, US SENATOR (D-DE): This is bullshit. This is malarkey. This is outrageous, outrageous for the president of the United States to go to a foreign country, sit in the Knesset, and make this kind of ridiculous statement. He's the guy that's weakened us. He's the guy that's increased the number of terrorists in the world. His policies have produced this vulnerability the United States have—his intelligence community has pointed that out, not me. The NIE has pointed that out. And what are you talking about? You know, is he going to fire Condi Rice? Condi Rice has talked about the need to sit down.

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: You know, we have a protocol, sort of a custom informally around here that we don't criticize the president when he is on foreign soil. One would think that that would apply to the president, that he would not criticize Americans when he is on foreign soil. I think what the president did in that regard is beneath the dignity of the office of president and unworthy of our representation at that observance in Israel.

REPORTER: Mrs. Speaker, you referred to refocusing—.

PELOSI: And I would hope that any serious person would disassociate himself from the president's remarks.

(CLIPS END)

PEPE ESCOBAR: A sitting US president addresses a parliament in foreign soil and compares a candidate of the opposing party to appeasers of Nazi Germany. What's significant is that this president, referring to Iran, was contradicted by his own secretary of defense. Robert Gates is saying the US should, and I quote, "develop some leverage, and then sit and talk to Iran, and not bomb Iran."

DISCLAIMER:

Please note that TRNN transcripts are typed from a recording of the program; The Real News Network cannot guarantee their complete accuracy.

President of Liblogs suggests bombing Iran's nuclear reactors

Bombing is fun!

Jason is at it again. This time he suggests it's time to bomb Iran. Why? Because British Marines were seized in disputed waters near Iran.

He doesn't think; "hmm, what ARE British marines doing in disputed waters, are they trying to provoke Iran into war?" No, his little brain works a bit different, and he presumably made the following unconscious think pattern, somewhere inside that little head of his.

A. British Marines were "kidnapped" by the Islamic forces.
B. This is an "act of war!"
C. Let's "bomb" the hell out of "them".

Of course it wouldn't be Cherniak if he didn't package it the MSM way. Simplifying the issue (leaving out the fact that the waters are disputed) and asking questions to back-up a a favoured position are some of Jason's favourite techniques.

A: Isn't [Iran's kidnapping of British seaman] an act of war?
B: Perhaps the response will be to bomb military targets such as nuclear reactors?

Canadian Observer suggests petitioning Jason Cherniak to enlist for military service. The only question remains: will Jason serve Canadian, American or Israeli Armed forces?

Other posts criticizing Jason Cherniak:
- Oh! What a Lovely War!
- Dion’s Blog Campaign Co-Chair Calls for Bombing of Iran
- Bending the Pretzel

--------

Update: Due to a Google glitch the comments section seems to have disappeared...

Wesley Clark: US planned to take out seven countries in five years (video)

See it yourself:




General Wesley Clarke about the US plans for future wars:

About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in.

He said, “Sir, you’ve got to come in and talk to me a second.”
I said, “Well, you’re too busy.”
He said, “No, no.” He says, “We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.”

This was on or about the 20th of September.

I said, “We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?”
He said, “I don’t know.” He said, “I guess they don’t know what else to do.”

So I said, “Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?” He said, “No, no.” He says, “There’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.” He said, “I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down governments.” And he said, “I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.”

So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan.

I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?”

And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” -- meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office -- “today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.”

Wesley Clark about the Middle East and the America's interests in the Middle East:

The truth is, about the Middle East is, had there been no oil there, it would be like Africa. Nobody is threatening to intervene in Africa. The problem is the opposite. We keep asking for people to intervene and stop [the wars in Africa].

There's no question that the presence of petroleum throughout the [Middle East] has sparked great power involvement. Whether that was the specific motivation for the coup or not, I can't tell you. But there was definitely -- there's always been this attitude that somehow we could intervene and use force in the region.

Whole Article: Democracy Now!