Gay Patriot Header Image

Obama, Appeasement and Media Bias

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 8:45 pm - May 18, 2008.
Filed under: 2008 Presidential Politics,Liberals,Media Bias

Another sign of the Democrats grasping at straws in their eagerness to attack Republicans is their attempt to read an attack on the likely Democratic presidential nominee in President Bush’s address last Thursday to the Knesset in Jerusalem.

Yet, in that speech, the president made no reference to Barack Obama nor to the Democratic Party, mentioning the name of only one Democrat, former President Harry S Truman and then in a mostly favorable context. So, what was the reference which so excited all the leading Democrats as well as a growing list of left-wing bloggers, ever looking to be offended by conservatives’ comments and Republican remarks? Well, you see, the president faulted those (“some” was his exact word) who would “negotiate with the terrorists and radicals,” likening them to Nazi appeasers.

New York Times reporters Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Jim Rutenberg observe that the president’s remarks have been “widely interpreted as a rebuke to Senator Barack Obama,” who has advocated greater engagement with countries like Iran and Syria.”

Note the clever use of the passive here. “Widely interpreted” if your idea of a broad-range of interpretation includes Democrats and their supporters in the mainstream media.

And the Democrats have been quick to allege that Obama was the target of these remarks. As the Wall Street Journal put it, “the party’s top four Democrats [have] come roaring out of the blocks in unison.” Even Joe Biden joined in the fun, using an expletive to fault the president for saying something he didn’t say.

Given the speed of the new media, that due to my focus on gay marriage last week, I’m only getting to this now, it seems that other bloggers and pundits have already said pretty much all that I wanted to say about this, but it so amused me to watch the Democrats outraged over something that wasn’t said, that I just had to chime in. They really are grasping at straws to find offensive Republican statements.

But, it does say something about Barack Obama’s prickliness that, as James Taranto put it, when he and his supporters “hear the president talking about countenancing hatred, appeasing terrorists and breaking ties with Israel, they think: He’s talking about us!


Dealing with Disingenous Democrat James Rubin

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 6:54 pm - May 18, 2008.
Filed under: 2008 Presidential Politics,Liberal Hypocrisy

In his Op-ed Friday in the Washington Post, former Clinton administration official (and current husband of CNN’s Christiane Amanpour) James Rubin castigated presumptive Republican nominee John McCain for his hypocrisy in pointing out that his likely fall rival for the White House, Barack Obama, received the endorsement of a Hamas official while back in 2006, McCain had said that sooner or later, the United States was going to have to “deal with” the Palestinian terrorist organization.

Rubin contends McCain’s words meant that the Arizona Senator was “ready to do business with a Hamas-led government,” that the Republican wanted to work with terrorists. But, as Jim Geraghty reminded us on Friday “‘Deal with them’ could easily mean undermine or work around.

So, in order to see what McCain meant by “deal with,” we need to look at his remarks in context to see what exactly he means. Rubin contends here was “no conditionality” in the Senator’s responses. His words notwithstanding, a review of the record shows there was considerable conditionality in his comments.

First, as I noted in my previous post on the topic, McCain said the relationship between our nation and Hamas would be dictated in part “by how Hamas acts, not how the United States acts.” After finishing that post and finding even more of the Senator’s comments that day on line, I learned he had also said “It’s very, very important though that they [Hamas] renounce this commitment to [this extinction of state of Israel].

Even as the context clearly shows how wrong Rubin was to accuse the presumptive Republican nominee of hypocrisy, he goes on the air faulting McCain for having the “nerve so say that Obama was the preferred candidate of Hamas.” Um, Jamie, a Hamas official said that very thing.

But, I guess facts don’t matter to a Democrat when you’re attacking a Republican. McCain made clear in the statements cited above as well as in other states contemporaneous to the Rubin interview his belief that “Hamas must change itself fundamentally – renounce violence, abandon its goal of eradicating Israel and accept the two-state solution.” Sounds like some pretty big conditions to me. And Democrats keep trying to spin this as some kind of McCain flip-flop. Amazing.


How do Democrats Define a Smear?

When a Republican (or someone opposing a Democrat) raises facts about what a Democrat has said or done but which he would rather not be made public.

Remember, a Democrat will define it is “dirty campaign tactics” when a Republican criticizes him for garnering the support of unsavory characters, yet it is perfectly legitimate to fault the Republican for garnering the support of considerably less unsavory characters.

President Evokes Religion In America’s War Goals

I can’t believe that the President of the USA delivered a prayer (!!) to the American people during this worldwide conflict and it was broadcast nationwide!   And how come it hasn’t received the attention and scorn from the US Mainstream Media and Liberals across the board?? 

Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity.

Lead them straight and true; give strength to their arms, stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith.

They will need Thy blessings. Their road will be long and hard. For the enemy is strong. He may hurl back our forces. Success may not come with rushing speed, but we shall return again and again; and we know that by Thy grace, and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph.

They will be sore tried, by night and by day, without rest — until the victory is won. The darkness will be rent by noise and flame. Men’s souls will be shaken with the violences of war.

For these men are lately drawn from the ways of peace. They fight not for the lust of conquest. They fight to end conquest. They fight to liberate. They fight to let justice arise, and tolerance and goodwill among all Thy people. They yearn but for the end of battle, for their return to the haven of home.

Some will never return. Embrace these, Father, and receive them, Thy heroic servants, into Thy kingdom.

And for us at home — fathers, mothers, children, wives, sisters, and brothers of brave men overseas, whose thoughts and prayers are ever with them — help us, Almighty God, to rededicate ourselves in renewed faith in Thee in this hour of great sacrifice.

Can you believe that this President is so under the influence of the Religious Right that he would dare utter these words and that they would be broadcast to the whole nation!  I mean, yeah, the country was attacked and now involved in a global fight against a radical fascism.  But how dare the President evoke “saving our religion” and whose job is it of ours to relieve suffering in other nations under a dictator’s rule?

But not a peep from the media when the President made this address!!!  How could they miss it???

Ooops.  I forgot… this prayer, broadcast across America on radio in 1944, was from President Franklin Delano Roosevelt as he informed the world about the D-Day invasion of the European coast.

This is simply a short American history lesson today for you liberal Bush-haters out there.

I wonder if a President Obama would dare use these words in a speech?  Or if he would even launch a counterattack at all?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)