Yesterday, I predicted that Democrats would throw a hissy fit over President Bush’s statement. Here’s what I said yesterday:

President Bush warned in an interview Tuesday that the Democratic presidential candidates’ plans to withdraw abruptly from Iraq could “eventually lead to another attack on the United States” and would “embolden” terrorists.

In a White House interview with Politico and Yahoo News, a president’s first for an online audience, Bush said his doomsday scenario for a premature withdrawal “of course is that extremists throughout the Middle East would be emboldened, which would eventually lead to another attack on the United States.”

“The United States pulling out of Iraq or pulling out of the Middle East or not maintaining a forward presence would send all kinds of signals throughout the Middle East,” he said in the Roosevelt Room. “And it would shake everybody’s nerves, and it would embolden the very same people that we’re trying to defeat.

Now Nancy Pelosi is saying that his comments are “beneath the dignity of the office.”

Referring to Sen. John McCain, Pelosi said: “I would hope that any serious person that aspires to lead the country, would disassociate themselves from those comments.”

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?”

In other words, President Bush nailed the Democrats right where it hurts. What’s worse is that Rep. Emanuel is being a hypocrite. If politics stops at the water’s edge, then why are Democrats playing politics with funding the Iraq war to appease the lunatics in their party?

If US politics end at the water’s edge, then what were Democratic Whip David Boniors and Rep. Jim McDermott doing in Baghdad right before the war? Rahm Emanuel would be wise to remember that Rep. McDermott said that he’d trust Saddam more than he trusts President Bush.

If US politics end at the water’s edge, then what was Nancy Pelosi doing during her trip to Syria? Let me rephrase: What was Nancy Pelosi doing during her trip to Syria other than lying about Israel’s desire to restart talks with Syria? Did she think that the Speaker of the House was part of the Executive Branch? She must’ve thought that because she obviously thought she was the SecState.

To be blunt, Rahm Emanuel and Nancy Pelosi’s comments are contemptible and dishonest.

Technorati Tags: President Bush, Foreign Policy, Syria, Rahm Emanuel, Nancy Pelosi, Appeasement, Defeatocrats

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

1. Awesome, Bush is campaigning for Obama and making things fun for McCain. And by fun I mean forcing McCain to either distance himself from Bush or agree with him.

   But anyway, let’s review some history now. Nixon, a Republican, negotiated with the Chinese and ended that front in the Cold War. Reagan, another Republican, met with Gorbachev of the Soviet Union and saw the end of the Cold War under his presidency. And Americans have supported Bush’s foreign policy so much, they gave him the honor of calling him the worst president ever.

   Obama ‘08.

   Comment by Liem — May 15, 2008 @ 12:44 pm

2. OMG, your candidate is from the future: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tB3BNgdfEkI

   Comment by Liem — May 15, 2008 @ 12:53 pm

3. It’s laughable…San Fran Nan’s statements coming from the lady who’s led Congress’s rating to be lower than that of Bush!

   Oh, and Liem, I wouldn’t put China or the USSR in the same terrorist league as Iran.
   Hell, Obama can’t even figure out what languages are spoken in Afganistan.

   Obama= “useful idiot” (K Marx)

   Comment by GF — May 15, 2008 @ 10:17 pm

4. Gorbachov was not a religious lunatic hell bent on destroying Isreal and the United States any way he could. Mao and Deng were not of the belief that they were appointed by God to convert the world to Communism.

   Nor did any of those three think that the United States was a vile infestation of Allah’s paradise, unlike a few of so called Americans do at this very minute.

   Gorbachov knew that even though he had nuclear weapons, to use them would be catastrophic to his own country as well as his enemies.

   Communist China has never declared itself the solution to the worlds problems, it considers itself, as China has for centuries, as the Suzerain of its part of the world.

   Islam, believes it does indeed hold the solution to the worlds problems, and therefore holds that it is in mankinds interest to be converted and subdued under Islamic law. It is not any more absurd to think that any western democratic leader would have some personal charm that would dissuade them from such belief, than it was for Rumsfeld to think they were loosers without vision. Of course they have vision. If anything here, the boot is on the other foot.

   Lets face it, western leadership right now sucks. Thanks to political correctness and moral relativism, we have no idealogical bearings at all, while Islam is an absolute moral system with no room for compromise. Diplomatically and militarily, as long as this Islamic revival has been going, no one, Democrat or Republican, American or European, has been able to come up with a coherent military or diplomatic strategy to handle it. Our own egostistical competitiveness, hysterics, and academic apologists for unbelieveable brutality and sadistic measures have not contributed a thing to forming one.

   Comment by T. A. Gray — May 16, 2008 @ 8:22 am

5. The thing with your interpretation of the Cold War against China and the USSR is that you’re looking at it in retrospect. Isn’t that why the US intervened in wars in Korea and Vietnam?

   And the thing with your interpretation of Islam is it’s oversimplified. You talk as if Islam is some monolithic group who ought to be feared because they are unified and in reality, they’re not. I find it entirely comical when conservatives try to make the point that Muslims hate us for our values and freedoms. I know you’re an intelligent guy, TA Gray, so I’m surprised you buy into that hype.

   My biggest problem with conservative interpretation is that you don’t seem to understand Islam or even want to. Not only that, it seems you agree with Bush in that we shouldn’t talk to the enemy, you know, in trying to understand them. So therefore it’s much easier to vilify them because well, they’re not easy to understand. In fact, it’s much easier to invade.

   Obama will talk to these enemies of ours because he needs them to understand that he is not Bush. That doesn’t count as appeasement. Appeasement is giving Hitler parts of Czechoslovakia. Talking is what intelligent adults do.

   Comment by Liem — May 16, 2008 @ 9:46 am

6. How do you suggest I look at it? Im not a soothsayer. What is Ahmedinajab’s reaction going to be to Obama saying, Look, Im not George Bush. “Oh, thanks mate, thats a great relief”.
   Surely you are not so niave as to think an afternoon, or many afternoons of tea and pleasant conversation are going to disuade him that Isreal should be vaporized, and we are not the scum of the earth.
   How many years now have we been talking to Palestinians who cant even agree to moving ten miles down the road?

   Yes Kennedy and Nixon and Reagan talked, and but they talked from positions of strength, Reagan in particular, not only talked, he confronted, he threatened, he bullied, he put missiles in Germany to counterbalance Soviet SS20’s, he developed “Starwars” as his critics ridiculed it, talked tough, and backed it up with tough action, and built up the military and Fleet Readiness from the piss poor pathetic levels Carter left him. All the while, timorous Democrats in Congress and the hysterical handwringers in the press were predicting the end of western civilization at the hands of the a cowboy actor.

   Is Obama prepared to back up his talk with action? Somebody needs to ask him that.

   “The west calls for freedom and liberty, Islam rejects such liberty. True liberty is allegiance to Allah”. - Sheikh Mohammed el Tabetabi in Bagdad, 2003

   Islam is advancing to a steady plan, America will be destroyed. - Suleiman al Omar, June 2004.

   Now please explain to me what I dont seem to want to understand about Islam. I only spent two years with the Peace Corps in India and Pakistan, in 66 to 68, so maybe I missed something.
   .

   Comment by T. A. Gray — May 16, 2008 @ 6:37 pm

7. In an increasingly globalized economy, Bush has definitely not destroyed America, which is a pretty difficult goal for even him to achieve. That said, I find it extremely hard to believe that he’s strengthened this country. What Obama will do remains to be seen, but it’s pretty obvious McCain will be the same as Bush.

   I find the fact that you’ve done the Peace Corps thing to be downright awesome, but that’s like saying I went to Austin, TX and I know what all Americans are like. There are a billion-plus Muslims in the world and you’ve quoted two of them. With simple minded views like that, we can have the rest of them hate us too.

   Comment by Liem — May 17, 2008 @ 10:14 am

8. Not being simple minded at all.
   Yes, I read Mueller’s article in Foriegn Affairs as well. And no, Im not necessarily buying into the Bush idea that it’s all a giant megalithic plot. My problem with Mueller is, he failed to note, even though there are differences within Islam among all those groups, and among all Moslems in general, the unifying force that is the Quiran, by whatever interpretation is given it.

   It wouldn’t much to bring them all together.

   Its sort of like Buddhism as far as that even though there is no Vatican in either faith to keep the doctrine in line with scripture, the strength and vitality of the Quiran itself as a unifying force is no less strong than all the Sutras and Teachings of Buddha is to that faith, or the Bible is to Christianity for that matter.

   The two quotes that I gave were from two different Imams, in different sects, one a Wahabi, the other a Shiite; they may have different political goals, but I’d bet they are both right on point in terms of their faith. I factor regrettably missing in the west these days.

   These guys know what they want, and how they intend to get it, and they dont care how enlightened, caring, sensitive, brave clean and reverent Senator Obama is.

   And I have to tell you, when I compare Obama and his experience to any legitimate Chief of State over there. I dont have a warm fuzzy at all that he even knows any more than Bush what he’s getting into. And after this week he just looks out of his league.

   Comment by T. A. Gray — May 17, 2008 @ 1:07 pm

9. For every Muslim radical like the ones you quoted, there have been plenty more Muslim leaders who have denounced their methods of terrorism.

   You’ve vaguely hinted at what you think the Quran means for these billion-plus Muslims. Could you tell me your interpretation?

   And just out of curiosity, are you Christian?

   Comment by Liem — May 17, 2008 @ 3:48 pm

10. What Im saying is, from my experience, the Quiran is as much a sacramental as it is scripture. Other religions have ritual ceremonies, sacraments, sermons, penitential rites, etc etc etc, and about 40 eleven ways of interpreting all of that. Moslems have a few high Holy days, a penitential season of fasting and prayer (Ramadan), Sermons from his Imam, and reading and listening to the Quiran, over and over and over. I’d venture to say a religious and faithful Moslem knows it inside and out few times times better than any fundamentalist Christian ever thought of knowing his bible. There’s not a problem or a question in life that he cant find an answer or solace from on his holy book. There are no statues, crucifixes, icons or artwork to distract him inside a mosque outside of a few stylized stained glass windows. So reading the Quiran and listening to his Imam sermonize is a sacarament in itself. Its his Eucharist, Dharma lesson, adoration Sabbath and Evensong all in one.
    That is power, unifying Spiritual power, it’s in their blood. If you dont know the Quiran, and what it means to these people, you’d better think twice about how you deal with them. Secularists and atheists overlook that often if not everytime! Big mistake in my opinion.

    That’s why Jefferson read the Quiran before he went after the Dey in Tripoly. Wasnt because he wanted to show how open minded he was, he wanted to know his enemy!
    Obama may have had some exposure to that, and if he has, good for him, but he needs to get his shit in one sock, and be prepared to back up what he says with strength, not some half assed touchy feely bs.

    And yes Im Christian, Roman Catholic (Mass in the old Latin rite, thank you) and my bride belongs to a Taiwanese sect of Buddhism.

    Comment by T. A. Gray — May 17, 2008 @ 10:18 pm

11. So you’re saying Jefferson knew back in 1800 that Muslims were out to get us because they hated our values and freedoms?

    Comment by Liem — May 18, 2008 @ 11:19 am

12. Come on Liem. Cut the crap.
    You know what what I’m talking about.

    Comment by T. A. Gray — May 18, 2008 @ 4:17 pm

13. On second thought, despite your gotcha game, your closer to the mark than you think. The Tripolitans weren’t exactly jealous but they did know American merchant ships were bringing a lot of exports out of the Mediterranean, and that their owners were getting pretty wealthy from all the trade.

    The Brits were perfectly happy to pay the ransom as their Navy under Adm. St. Vincent and later Nelson were preoccupied with bottling up France and Spain’s fleets. So Decatur and Preble were given the task of burning one of our own captive frigates, the Philadelphia, and wreaking havoc with their inferior force. Wasn’t much, but it was enough for the Dey to realize he was dealing with someone who wasn’t afraid to fight. (hint, hint)

    Id be careful though about placing 20th century values on 18th century Caliphs.

    Comment by T. A. Gray — May 18, 2008 @ 5:07 pm

14. I think it’s a joke to continuously throw out caustic messages about how Muslims should be something to be feared. By selectively quoting extremists, you build a policy that affects all Muslims. I don’t buy for a second that all Muslims interpret the Quran universally and to infer that they all hate us and our freedoms is just plain retarded.

    Comment by Liem — May 19, 2008 @ 2:02 am

15. Your doing the same thing, picking and choosing others comments and then spinning them to fit your arguments. I didnt say all Muslims interpret the Quiran the same way. I said it was a unifying force among the faith. See to your own inferences.

    I dare say I dont agree with most of your political ideas. Handle it.

    Comment by T. A. Gray — May 19, 2008 @ 7:27 am