Welcome to PatsFans.com

Defense Secretary Robert Gates: Appeaser?

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by weswelker#83, May 16, 2008.

  1. weswelker#83

    weswelker#83 Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2007
    Messages:
    4,535
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    Defense Secretary Robert Gates proposed talking with Iran the very same day Bush attacked Obama for suggesting the exact same thing.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/05/14/ST2008051404020.html


    HAHAHAHA What a freaking JOKE ! hahahahahaha
    :rocker:


    Not only that Sec. of State Condi Rice also called for these talks and, get this, just last week US Ambassador to Iraq Crocker admitted in Congressional testimony that the Bush Administration has already met with Iran for diplomatic talks three times and plan a fourth meeting soon. So the Bush Administration is already doing the thing Bush is slamming Obama for. And Bush has the stupidity to call Obama's plan to meet with Iranians once he's president Nazi appeasement? After Bush's own grandfather was caught funding the Nazis during World War II! What an complete ass-clown and liar!
    Last edited: May 16, 2008
  2. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,800
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    unbelievable......


    how many people are still on this crazy train? (free Kool-aid in the caboose)
    Last edited: May 16, 2008
  3. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,624
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +125 / 7 / -13

    Bush never mentioned BHO. Apparently the BHO campaign took offense becuase they recognzed the weak frreign policy approach of their candidate.

    Tyring to paint the Bush administration as appeasers is crazy, but nothing new from your quarter.
  4. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    Did you even read the linked article?

    "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."

    In the meantime, Gates told a meeting of the Academy of American Diplomacy, a group of retired diplomats, "my personal view would be we ought to look for ways outside of government to open up the channels and get more of a flow of people back and forth." Noting that "a fair number" of Iranians regularly visit the United States, he said, "We ought to increase the flow the other way . . . of Americans" visiting Iran."
  5. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,624
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +125 / 7 / -13

    Given the RECORD of the Bush admin over 7+ years, is there any credible way to call them appeasers of terrorist? Who cars what the article says if the Bush admin were to talk to anyone it would not be from a position of appeasement over the past 7 years.

    What a joke. This hysteria can only means the dems recognize that Obama would be an appearer, Chavez, Iran and Hamas are looking forward to an Obama admin, they know a chump when they see one.
  6. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,800
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    I believe you can answer that question by asking if we have captured or killed Osama Bin Laden.

    would you consider invading Iraq appeasing Al Qaeda? How about bombing Iran?

    would you consider having Bin Laden triangulated in Afghanistan then leaving to invade Iraq...appeasing?

    I bet you don't.
  7. otis p. driftwood

    otis p. driftwood Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,271
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Someone show me where GWB said "Barack Obama" in his comments.

    And there is a difference between "appeasing" and "talking".

    I'm confused though...you guys (well, HD anyway) are pissed off that the Administration isn't even talking to Iran, then we find out that not only they are, but they want to talk more, and you don't like that either?

    Good God. And you wonder why I worry about you guys?

    :D
    Last edited: May 16, 2008
  8. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,800
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    I say its more important to understand your enemy. Its important to talk. Thats why so many people in the administration are in favor of talks with the Iranians.


    but Bush is sending......"mixed messages" and blaming democrats for his failed public statements about Iran. Thats the makings of a grade-A ********* in my book. Not only is he undemining the future peace efforts of the next POTUS, but he is also calling Condi Rice, and Gates pieces of $h!t terrorists, and seems to not even know it.

    so, a.paul....


    so we are clear....


    I am in FAVOR of talks, and against WAR. Thats my position.

    I don't give a fukc if they are talking about the first season of Seinfeld...as long as their is a dialog and attempt at undestanding.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>