Alabamian.net

Only yesterday President Bush took what appeared to most onlookers as a swipe at presidential candidate Barack Obama for his stated willingness to hold talks with Iran, saying that talking with the Iranians would be akin to Chamberlain’s appeasement of the Nazis. Granted, he didn’t come right out and mention Obama by name, but officials in his administration, speaking to the press on background, confirmed it to reporters.

"Did we know this could be construed as being about Obama? Yes, of course," a White House source told ABC News.

It seems, however, that the blowback from Bush’s remarks has been so intense that he and his administration have backpedaled and are claiming no foreknowledge of how Bush’s comments would be construed. Ed Gillespie, speaking to reporters in Saudi Arabia, today said that the administration’s words were aimed at former President Carter and not Senator Obama.

"We did not anticipate that it would be taken that way, because its kind of hard to take it that way when you look at the actual words."

Cheapshot accomplished.

BUSH’S ‘NAZI’ SWIPE AT OBAMA

Obama Takes Issue With Bush Foreign Policy Speech

The White House Changes Targets

Get the Flash Player to see this player.

John McCain has made a point in recent weeks of criticizing Barack Obama because Hamas endorsed him, despite the fact that Obama has no control over what Hamas says or does and that he has stated on record that he is not open to holding talks with the group.

"We must not negotiate with a terrorist group intent on Israel’s destruction," Obama said.
"We should only sit down with Hamas if they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel’s right to exist, and abide by past agreements," he added.

That hasn’t stopped McCain from taking the opportunity to raise funds by smearing his opponent as a terrorist appeaser.  The John McCain of 2008 is against holding talks with Hamas.

"It is a grave and dangerous mistake for an American leader to meet with a terrorist organization like Hamas."

Yet, in 2006, John McCain was open to diplomacy with the newly elected Hamas government.

"They’re the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it’s a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that."

Which John McCain are we to believe?  The John McCain who was for talking to Hamas or the John McCain who is against talking to Hamas?  Either way, what is clear is that John McCain’s attacks on Barack Obama concerning Hamas are untruthful, disingenuous and hypocritical.

Hypocrisy on Hamas

Get the Flash Player to see this player.

Today, while speaking at the Knesset in Jerusalem, President Bush proved that there is no level to which he will not stoop.  Breaking long-standing American tradition, he took a cheapshot at a domestic political rival while on foreign soil.  Bush compared those who would engage in diplomacy with America’s enemies to Nazi appeasers.

More than a cheapshot, it is so blatantly ignorant and hypocritical as to be comic.  Only this morning the Washington Post reported that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates thinks we need to engage Iran diplomatically.

"We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage . . . and then sit down and talk with them," Gates said. "If there is 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."

Does that mean the man Bush chose to replace Donald Rumsfeld falls into the category of ‘Nazi appeaser’?  What about Bush himself?  Has his administration not been engaged in diplomacy for several years now with North Korea - a nation Bush himself designated a member of the ‘Axis of Evil’?  I guess that makes Bush an appeaser as well.  Doubly so when you consider that his administration negotiated with Muammar Gadaffi, responsible for the terror bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, in order to get him to give up his nuclear weapons program.

Even more distressing is that Bush and those who lend credence to his vacuous argument have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to the meaning of appeasement.  Neville Chamberlain is not known as an appeaser because he engaged Hitler diplomatically.  Chamberlain’s great error was not talking to the Nazis.  His mistake was in ceding territory - specifically, half of Czechoslovakia - in an mistaken attempt to satiate Hitler’s expansionist appetites.  It wasn’t engaging Hitler diplomatically that emboldened him.  It was the show of weakness by Chamberlain in acceding to Hitler’s desire for new territories that led the Nazi regime to believe it could take what it wanted unopposed.

The long and short of this story is that, once again, Bush is engaging in his typical election year politics of fearmongering.  "Vote for a Democrat and die!", Bush threatens.  Nevermind, we are told, that President Bush’s policies have made us less safe and our enemies stronger and more numerous.  Nevermind that Bush has said repeatedly that he doesn’t want to become the ‘Pundit in Chief’ by injecting himself into the 2008 election.

President Bush, you, sir, are a putz.

Gates: U.S. Should Engage Iran With Incentives, Pressure

Doris Smith of Charleston, West Virginia, stopped at Tudor’s Biscuit World to get a bite to eat before standing in line to get tickets to a Barack Obama rally and instead ran into Hillary Clinton.

"Oh, I didn’t want to do this," Smith said, embarrassed, wearing an Obama T-shirt as Clinton walked into the restaurant. "I didn’t know she was going to be here."

No need for embarrassment, Doris - you’ve provided us with one of the most deliciously ironic photographs of the battle for the Democrat party nomination!

Play of the Day: Clinton’s rise and shine surprise

According to James Pethokoukis, writing for U.S. News & World Report, Mike Huckabee tops John McCain’s short list for Vice President.

At least that’s the word from a top McCain fundraiser and longtime Republican moneyman who has spoken to McCain’s inner circle. The fundraiser is less than thrilled with the idea of Huckabee as the vice presidential nominee, and many economic conservatives—turned off by the populist tone of Huckabee’s campaign and his tax record as governor—are likely to share that marked lack of enthusiasm.

A war-mongering, ass-kissing, sellout to Bush and a bible-thumping wannabe theocrat?  Good luck with that in November!

Source: Huckabee Tops McCain’s Veep List

The Faux Patriots Club has reared its ugly head again.  For those of you unfamiliar with this club, its main concern is making sure that people understand what being a Good American™ is all about: waving plastic flags made in China, prominently displaying lapel pins, hating all things French and reciting the pledge with more feigned emotion than your neighbors.

It seems that three eighth-graders at Dilworth-Glyndon-Felton Junior High School in northwestern Minnesota failed to understand that in the ‘Land of the Free’ standing during the Pledge of Allegiance is mandatory.

"These three [students] didn’t, and they got caught," said Mel Olson, the district’s community education director. He said he backs the punishment, "being a veteran and a United States of America citizen, absolutely." Olson served in the Marines in Japan during the Vietnam War.

Mr. Olson fought against those dirty, godless, communist bastards to ensure compulsory love of country would not perish from this earth. 

Freedom means doing what you’re told, baby.

3 suspended for not standing for Pledge of Allegiance

Get the Flash Player to see this player.

It looks as though Obama has finally delivered the knockout blow to Hillary according to Tim Russert.  Lending credence to his view is the fact that Hillary has canceled all of her appearances for tomorrow.  Could it truly be over?

Pope Benedict XVI offered a mea culpa of sorts for pedophile priests in the Catholic Church, saying "It is a great suffering for the church in the United States and for the church in general and for me personally that this could happen.  We are deeply ashamed and we will do what is possible that this cannot happen in the future."

His apology might have merit if not for the fact that the Pope himself took part in the cover up, placing the Church ahead of the children being victimized by pedophiles in the priesthood.

In 2001, while he was a cardinal, he issued a secret Vatican edict to Catholic bishops all over the world, instructing them to put the Church’s interests ahead of child safety.

Five years ago he sent out an updated version of the notorious 1962 Vatican document Crimen Sollicitationis - Latin for The Crime of Solicitation - which laid down the Vatican’s strict instructions on covering up sexual scandal. It was regarded as so secret that it came with instructions that bishops had to keep it locked in a safe at all times.

This so-called man of God put the political interests of the Catholic Church ahead of the well-being of innocent children.  He is a scumbag and deserves the censure of good people everywhere.  It particularly made me ill to see my government, under President Bush, kissing this man’s ass today at a White House ceremony.

Pope ‘deeply ashamed’ of church sex scandal

Pope ‘led cover-up of child abuse by priests’

Geraldine Ferraro has ignited a political controversy with a remark she made last week in a telephone interview with the Daily Breeze, based in Torrance, California.

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she continued. "And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

Apparently, Ferraro thinks the only reason Barack Obama has performed as well as he has in this campaign is because he’s black and white people are trying to assuage some sense of collective guilt over the nation’s history of slavery and oppression.  Otherwise, Ferraro implies, he would have been laughed out of the race long ago.

Some might be inclined to overlook Ferraro’s statement as a simple case of poor wording from the nation’s first female vice presidential candidate who is also a strong supporter of Hillary Clinton.  Not so fast.  This isn’t the first time she’s made a disparaging remark about a black presidential candidate.  What’s even more ominous is that her previous comment about Jesse Jackson, in an interview with the Washington Post during Jackson’s 1988 presidential bid, is almost identical to what she had to say about Barack Obama.

…And former representative Geraldine A. Ferraro (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday that because of his "radical" views, "if Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn’t be in the race."

Geraldine Ferraro seems to think the only possible reason a black man can perform well in the race for the White House is the color of his skin combined with mobs of white people on a guilt trip.  Even worse, when called to answer for her remarks, she claimed that she was the victim of racism and lamented that it’s O.K. to be sexist but not to be racist.

"Racism works in two different directions. I really think they’re attacking me because I’m white. How’s that?"

“It’s O.K. in this country to be sexist,” she said then. “’It’s certainly not O.K. to be racist."

Personally, I think what’s happening here is that Ferraro is seeing Hillary Clinton losing to Obama and it’s reviving her long held anger and bitterness over her own failed campaign.  As a result, her verbal filter has slipped and she has revealed herself for the stealth racist she has always been - the type of Democrat who just love, love, loves black people provided they don’t get uppity and remember their place.

Geraldine Ferraro lets her emotions do the talking

Ferraro defends controversial comments on Barack Obama

Ferraro’s Obama Remarks Become Talk of Campaign

A Ferraro flashback

Tripp Isenhour, professional golfer, is looking at possible jail time for deliberately killing an endangered red-shouldered hawk by repeatedly firing off line drives at the hapless bird until it was struck in the head and died.

"As soon as this happened, I was mortified and extremely upset and continue to be upset," Isenhour said in a statement issued through his management company, SFX Golf. "I want to let everyone know there was neither any malice nor deliberate intent whatsoever to hit or harm the hawk. I was trying to simply scare it into flying away."

No malice?  No deliberate intent?  That’s impossible to believe, given that Mr. Isenhour fired over a dozen shots at the bird, ten of which - including the kill shot - were from a distance of only 75 yards.  Why did he kill the bird?  What unforgivable offense warranted this bird’s execution?  Simple.  The bird had the nerve to interrupt the filming of an episode of "Shoot Like A Pro" by squawking and forcing another take.  The bird had to die for behaving like a bird in Mr. Isenhour’s presence.

Say hello to Michael Vick for me, Tripp.

Pro Golfer Apologizes for Killing Hawk 

Pro golfer Isenhour faces charges after killing bird with ball