Yesterday, Barack Obama had a snit fit over being called an appeaser of terrorists. According to Marc Ambinder’s post, the real target of President Bush’s speech was Jimmy Carter. Here’s what Ed Gillespie told reporters:

“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….There was some anticipation that someone might say you know its an expression of rebuke to former President Carter for having met with Hamas. That was something that was anticipated but no one wrote about it or raised it.”

Here’s what Dan Froomkin is reporting in today’s Washington Post:

Q. “Ed, can you talk to us a little bit about yesterday’s speech and how much the White House may or may not have anticipated the reaction that ultimately occurred, where people interpreted this as a reference to Barack Obama?”

Gillespie: “We did not anticipate that it would be taken that way, because it’s kind of hard to take it that way if you look at the actual words of the President’s remarks, which are consistent with what he has said in the past…There was some anticipation that someone might say, oh, it’s an expression of, a rebuke to former President Carter for having met with Hamas. That was something that was anticipated. No one wrote about that or raised that as a question.”

By continuing this argument, Democrats and the media are essentially admitting that Barack Obama’s foreign policy isn’t substantially different than that of Jimmy Carter’s disastrous foreign policy history. The outrage has been loud and sustained because President Bush’s words could’ve fit most Democrats in Congress, with Joe Lieberman being the sole exception to President Bush’s description.

For all the Democrats’ whining, they’re teling the world that they’re a bunch of pacifists. Once you get past Jimmy Carter’s meeting with Hamas, there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between Jimmy Carter and Sen. Obama. Even then, the difference is nuanced, not night and day.

In his multitude of clarifications, Sen. Obama says that he wouldn’t meet with “Hezbollah and al-Qa’ida”. I don’t doubt that. While he won’t meet with these terrorist organizations, he’s said on a number of occasions that he’d meet with the nations that sponsor them. I don’t think that that’s a position he’ll be keeping for very long.

Technorati Tags: Obama, Inexperience, Ahmadinejad, Hezbollah, Jimmy Carter, Hamas, Defeatocrats, Appeasement, John McCain, National Security, President Bush, Election 2008

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

1. Hey, when the shoe fits…

   Comment by Cop the Truth — May 17, 2008 @ 10:15 pm

2. For years now the libs/socialists/nutwings have called conservatives, nazis. But those of the terrorist ilk were in bed with the nazis in the 20th Century and long for the day when they will rule as the nazis dreamed of doing.

   Well, look who’s longing to bed down with the terrorists/nazis: Hussein, Nancy, Teddy (in his more sober moments - juiced, he still dreams of the action he left to drown years ago), Dingy Harry, etc., etc.

   Not one of the wet dreamers wishing to create a nazi socialist world is a conservative.

   And once again, they’ve used self-descriptive paint to define the only opposition that keeps them in check…

   Comment by Carlos — May 18, 2008 @ 11:04 pm