7 thoughts on “Where’s Kirk’s Statement About How Israel is Talking to Terrorists

  1. Obama said unconditional talks.

    Israel took out Syraia North-Korean nuke reactor fist, then you can be these talks have some conditions… like talk serious or face more consequences!

    If Obama would endorse this Israeli strike first, then talk approach… well, then we would have some real news (and boldness) from Obama….

  2. Funny, I don’t remember Reagan taking out Vladivostok or St. Petersburg with some nukes before meeting with Gorbachev….

    Conservatives can’t both claim that Reagan ended the Cold War and that talking rather than shooting is somehow bad.

    Which is it, Mr. Baar?

    PS: The Israeli air strike was on 6 Sept 2007. The Turkish mediated Israeli-Syrian talks began months before that in February 2007.

    So, no, Israel did not take out the half-built Syrian nuclear reactor first.

  3. Reagan deployed the Pershing. I was there and remember the anti-war demos and the panic that Reagan was going to launch WWIII.

    Israel talks but from a position of strength and the demonstrated willingness to use power. So did Reagan.

    Obama made the rookie error reacting to Bush’s knesset speech. He should have agreed and said yes Borah’s appeasment for was a very bad thing, and here is what my administration would do today.

    Instead he got stuck in defending a negative no one attributed to him in the first place.

    It doesn’t speak will for our Senator that he let himself get boxed in this way.

  4. Bill,

    You’re one of a very small group of people who’s thinking is so out of the box (and that’s putting it very politely) on that despicable, Godwin’s Law speech Bush gave in the heart of Israel on the anniversary of that nation’s modern birth.

    Quite a feat.

    Care to actually comment on the fact you based your original argument on a blatant error? I see you’ve modified your argument to now look over your mistake, but that doesn’t change the fact you made it.

  5. PS Bill – You wrote: “Instead he got stuck in defending a negative no one attributed to him in the first place.”

    If you honestly think Hillary hasn’t been pounding Obama for his comments since he made them you really are more out of the loop than one would think possible. Bush and McCain are just piling on Sen. Clinton’s clearly failed electoral strategem. (I say “clearly failed” because most Americans actually think that the Kennedy/Nixon/Reagan legacy of talking to people to knock them into shape, rather than bomb-first/ask-later, is a good idea…)

  6. Rob… just because you’re getting pounded, is no reason to take the bait, and get yourself hooked. That’s exactly what Obama did. He could have agreed with Bush and then simply explained to the world why today is different and here is what an Obama Foreign Policy would be.

    Obama is pretty mum on Foreign Policy it seems. Here’s from Der Speigel’s Ralf Beste writing Obamamania Infects Germany,

    McCain is not an unknown quantity in Germany, either. As a dyed in the wool trans-Atlanticist, he regularly participates in the annual Munich Security Conference. The senator has a reputation there for his sharp attacks against German politicians — his fits of rage are feared and his political positions are known because of the numerous debates he has taken part in.

    Obama, though, is less known. The best even the most dialled-in US experts in Berlin have managed is a handshake with the senator. He routinely denies requests from members of the German parliament to visit with him in Washington. Most of the information they have on Obama comes either from YouTube films or the papers. “Obama has no relationship with Europe whatsoever,” said Hans-Ulrich Klose, the foreign policy spokesman for the center-left Social Democrats.

    Obama’s gotta get out more.

  7. Bill Baar,

    Your display of a circular, yet hollow, argument which I’ve disproven with little things like “facts” is hardly “getting pounded.”

    And just because you choose to ignore the specifics of what Sen. Obama has described in his position papers (on foreign policy or otherwise) doesn’t mean that information has magically disappeared; it just means you’re ignoring it.

    PS: Obama is running for President of the United States of America, not Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany.

    That said, thank you for acknowledging Sen. McCain’s anger-control problem. Do we Americans really want someone who flies into “fits of rage” to have his finger on The Button? Whether yelling at Germans in otherwise civil debates on trans-Atlantic security or calling his wife a c— because she tousles his thinning hair, Sen. McCain’s “fits of rage” are indeed well-known, even if they are quite readily ignored by the lap-dog media.

Comments are closed.