ABOUT FIRST READ

First Read is an analysis of the day's political news, from the NBC News political unit. First Read is updated throughout the day, so check back often.

Chuck Todd, NBC Political Director

Mark Murray, NBC Deputy Political Director

Domenico Montanaro, NBC News Political Reporter



First thoughts: Bush's gift to Obama

Posted: Friday, May 16, 2008 9:16 AM by Mark Murray
Filed Under:

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro
*** Bush’s gift to Obama: When President Bush -- thousands of miles away in Israel -- decided to fire his thinly veiled shot at Obama yesterday, it was a giant gift to the Illinois senator and his campaign. Why? One, it essentially kept Clinton on the sidelines just two days after her big West Virginia victory. Two, Obama’s opponent was no longer Clinton or McCain, but the man with the 27% job-approval rating. And three, it rallied Democrats to Obama’s side. Even neutral Dems, like Joe Biden, Rahm Emanuel and Harry Reid, quickly leapt to Obama’s defense. Some Democrats might be deeply divided right now. Pro-choice women are angry at NARAL’s endorsement of Obama; Clinton supporters are upset that Obama is looking like the eventual nominee; and some African Americans are unhappy with the Clintons. But what’s the best way to unify them all? Give them an excuse to turn their attention to Bush. And this will all play out another day -- and will likely extend into the weekend -- as Obama will respond this afternoon to Bush at his rally with Tom Daschle in South Dakota, NBC’s Andrea Mitchell reports. Obama will react to both what he considers Bush's politicization of foreign policy and the substance of Bush's attack.

*** The power of Bush: Regardless of whether you believe Bush yesterday did the right thing or not as far as the unwritten rules of partisan politics, it is a reminder of how the president can toss an issue grenade into the middle of the campaign and change the narrative in a nanosecond. But we have to ask: Did anyone in McCain's orbit get a head's up on this? After all, Bush’s remarks -- and then McCain’s response to them -- overshadowed McCain’s big “2013” speech that he gave to put more room between himself and Bush. They also undercut that very speech after McCain essentially agreed with Bush’s assessment. As the Obama campaign pointed out, McCain delivered “a lofty speech about civility and bipartisanship in the morning, and then embrace[d] George Bush's disgraceful political attack in the afternoon.” Now, McCain’s past (and possibly contradictory) statements on Hamas are gaining fresh scrutiny today with an op-ed by Jamie Rubin in today's Washington Post.

*** Understanding the reality: Another example of how unifying Bush’s speech yesterday was: Clinton also leapt to Obama’s defense, even though she has disagreed with him on this issue of negotiating with unsavory world leaders without preconditions. "This is the kind of statement that has no place in any presidential address, and certainly to use an important moment like the 60th anniversary celebration of Israel to make a political point seems terribly misplaced,” Clinton said. But earlier in the day, as NBC’s Ron Allen pointed out, Clinton gave few hints that she’s still fighting for the nomination. “Maybe we're getting a bit ahead of things, maybe its just the place and time, maybe its that we're all looking for clues about her intentions, but the vibe feels different,” Allen wrote. And as a top Clinton aide told NBC’s Mitchell: "People understand the reality, but they are still loyal to her." It’s striking how the Edwards endorsement, and then Bush’s volley from Israel, quickly changed the subject after Tuesday night’s contest in West Virginia.

*** Johnny Got His Gun: Meanwhile, McCain is making news on a couple different fronts today. First, despite not always being on the best of terms with the National Rifle Association, McCain speaks at the organization’s annual meeting in Louisville, KY. “Senator McCain has asked us to come and speak, and our members are looking forward to hearing what he has to say,” the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre told the Louisville Courier-Journal earlier in the week. “We've had some disagreements with him in the past as everyone knows. We're not foolish enough to ignore the vast numbers of areas in which we agree McCain has been a friend of the Second Amendment.”

*** Why didn’t they do this two months ago? The other McCain news is that the campaign is paying more attention to his campaign’s links to lobbyists. After two staffers had to resign because of their ties to lobbying Myanmar, campaign manager Rick Davis “e-mailed to McCain's entire staff a memo entitled ‘McCain Campaign Conflicts Policy’ -- Effective Today" that includes a questionnaire asking about previous professional activities,” the Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder reported. “One of the questions asks: ‘Have you ever lobbied for a foreign government?’” The Politico’s Ben Smith added that McCain's campaign “asked a prominent Republican consultant, Craig Shirley, to leave his official campaign role and released a new conflict of interest policy Thursday after a Politico inquiry about Shirley’s dual role consulting for the campaign and for an independent ‘527’ group opposing the Democratic presidential candidates.”

*** Five big turning points: In the latest Atlantic Monthly, Josh Green profiles Obama’s record-breaking fundraising machine. “[W]henever I think about the quarter billion dollars he has raised so far, the image that leaps to mind is Scrooge McDuck diving joyously into his piles of gold,” he writes. But in our final installment of the big -- yet underappreciated -- turning points in the Obama-Clinton, we remind you about this: It was Clinton, not Obama, who had the fundraising edge heading into the 2008 contests. At the end of last year, Clinton had nearly $38 million cash on hand. And although that amount included the $10 million transfer from her Senate campaign account, as well as lots of money that could only be used in the general election, it eclipsed Obama’s $18.6 in the bank. But once we entered the New Year, the rest was history: Obama went on to raise a million (or more) a day, while Clinton, although still raising plenty of money, ran out of cash and is now more than $20 million in debt. This turning point -- when Clinton went from money leader to being essentially broke -- can’t be overstated. And it’s also worth noting that this is the second-straight cycle that the candidate who raised the most money heading into the nominating contests (Howard Dean won that honor in ’03) will probably not be the nominee.

*** Delegate count: Just when we thought this superdelegate stuff couldn’t get any weirder, Indiana Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D), who had told NBC’s Mike Viqueira after the Indiana primary that he’d cast his superdelegate vote for Clinton because she won his district, revealed that he actually voted in the PRIMARY for Obama. He said he’s still going to vote for Clinton at convention, so for now, we’ll leave him in Clinton’s column in the NBC NEWS count. PLEDGED: Obama 1599 to 1447; SUPERDELEGATES: Obama 291.5 to 276.5; TOTAL: Obama 1,890.5 to 1,723.5.

*** On the trail: Clinton is in Oregon, where she campaigns in Springfield and Salem before heading to Portland to participate in a televised town hall with undecided voters; McCain stumps in West Virginia and then travels to Louisville, KY, where he speaks at the National Rifle Association’s annual meeting; and Obama is in South Dakota, where he holds a rural town hall in Watertown and attends a rally in Sioux Falls. Also, Bill Clinton makes five stops in Kentucky.
 
Countdown to Kentucky and Oregon: 4 days
Countdown to Election Day 2008: 172 days
Countdown to Inauguration Day 2009: 249 days
 
Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone. 

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

The msm, as usual, is missing the mark on this one.  I believe most people, whether they favor Bush or not, agree with his statement.  I think most Americans are smart enough to understand that appeasement is a very dangerous strategy, especially when dealing with individuals who would not hesitate to lie and cheat to get their way.  Bush's statement was indeed very general and it is a stretch to say that he was aiming it at any one person, as opposed to the left overall.  In the end, though, so what if he was speaking specifically about Obama?  Is Obama above criticism?  Isn't it Bush's job to speak out when he sees dangerous philosophies being endorsed by candidates for the presidency?
Those who do not study history, are condemned to repeat it. Obama and the Democrats show again and again that they are incapable of learning from recent (or even older) foreign policy errors.
Dana Perino must have a tough time waking up every day.  As she's brushing her teeth in the morning, she has to say to herself, "I will spend my day lying."
President Bush doesn't have to apologize for anything he said, he's not running for reelection. Just a bunch of hybe from the Obama camp. If Bush is not scared of the terrorist around the world, he sure is heck ain't scared of Obama and the Democrats. This Texan is/has been in the Middle East numerous times.
President Bush said exactly what he wanted to. Speech writers that do this stuff for a living have been writing, rewriting, correcting, changes and more changes for days / weeks now. Plenty of staff writers to analyze and proof read each and every word.
Obama followers and all the Democrats sounding as if their so outraged by Bush's comments. Please spare me, what's outrageous is their sorry exaggerations.
Wow... talk about overreaction.  The media is so unsure of their candidate that any perceived slight gets an instant overreaction.  The great unwashed masses most likely would not have heard Bush's speech and if they did they wouldn't have connected those statements to be a slam against obama.  Now they do, thanks to the media.  The media will probably be doing a lot of this 'swat team' action because many of them thought that Kerry did not answer back to the Swift Boat Veterans soon enough or forcefully enough.  They think voters were deceived by the Swift Boaters because of a weak response, not because they were believable.  The media is not about to let this happen again.

Obama! You're so vain. You probably think this song is about you.
Exciting political news this Friday morning:

~Finally, someone in the media besides Keith Olbermann (Matthews) takes aim at a stupid, uninformed, lunatic right wing moron;

~The entire Democratic Party and most of the media finally taking a stand against President Bush’s nonstop historical inaccuracies;

~Congress is going after the architect Karl Rove and threatening to throw him in jail;

~The Clinton campaign sees the writing on the wall, which means the primaries are winding down.

~Barack Obama is going to make a speech today, attacking the dreadful Bush/McCain foreign policies over the last 7 years.

Folks, we have a nominee. We've been waiting a long, long time for this day.

Change is coming. I can feel it.
"Warmonger" Bush's despicable statement yesterday slamming Obama and others for wanting to negotiate with terrorists had discrepancies.

He talked about a Senator who said he might have talked Hitler away from attacking Poland.  That was a limp wristed anti-war republican Senator, the Peace Pansies of the Greatest Generation.

Next he talked about what kind of clever argument one could use to get terrorists to listen.  "Warmonger" Bush used cold hard cash, our taxpayer money, to bribe the Sunni terorists, with American blood on their hands, to fight Al Qaeda.

Just keep the hypocrisy coming and Obama will turn the electorate map a deep shade of Blue!

Go Obama 08/12!
Hitler was not even as brazen as Ahmadenijad to announce to the world that he intended to exterminate Jews. So what exactly is Obama going to negotiate when he sits down with Ahmadenijad? A part of Israel, all of it? So what is so controversial about Bush comparing Ahmadenijad to Hitler? The atmosphere of appeasement in the 1930s, and the isolationist tendencies of the country at that time, draw a reasonable comparison with the times now.

Bush is rightly indicating that Iran's position signals danger, which will not go away by imagining the Iranian government is as interested in peace and coexistence as the Americans are.

The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) promised Thursday that his administration “will set a new standard for transparency and accountability,”
----------------------------------------------------

Well, at least the transparency part is working-people are beginning to see right through him.
"Lame Duck" Bush showed his power yesterday, making sure to be thousands of miles away before cowardly attacking Barack Obama.

"Hypocrisy" McCain jumped in on dogging Obama about negotiating with the enemy yet I saw a news story today that he had the exact opposite position in 2006 that he's spouting now.

It's long past time to get the liars and lobbyists out of our government, we've seen what a mess the repugnant ones can make of our great democracy.

Go Obama 08/12!
What is interesting is that you don't see a single Jewish Senator or Congressman commenting. We have to  heard from Schumer, Koch, Bloomberg, Frank, Weiner,  or Feinstein. Cat got their tongues? There will be a  mass exodus of Jews form the Democratic Party.

"Lame Duck" Bush showed his power yesterday, making sure to be thousands of miles away before cowardly attacking Barack Obama.

"Hypocrisy" McCain jumped in on dogging Obama about negotiating with the enemy yet I saw a news story today that he had the exact opposite position in 2006 that he's spouting now.

It's long past time to get the liars and lobbyists out of our government, we've seen what a mess the repugnant ones can make of our great democracy.

Go Obama 08/12!
Barack Obama is the next Neville Chamberlain.
"Pro-choice women are angry at NARAL" should read "traditional feminists" and not "pro-choice women".  Emily's List's sole purpose is the promotion of Democratic WOMEN into political office.  They could care less how pro-choice a man is, even if that man (Obama) actually has a STRONGER pro-choice record.  They didn't care that NARAL endorsed before the end of the primaries, because Emily's List endorsed Hillary LONG before the end of the primaries.  They cared that NARAL endorsed a man.
I hope George Bush continues to keep give us, (Democrats) treats that have been gift-wrapped.

Also, the is now NO WAY that John McCain can attempt to separate himself from GWB from this point forward. I'd say they are Siamese Twins!  
Of course Barack Obama can talk some sense into these terrorists! He was a "community organizer" for heavens sake! The man has street cred!

 Politicians are political, so Pres. Bush's comments and the reactions to them are spot on. DIPLOMACY and APPEASEMENT are not the same.

 Another angle: Do you think while the administration
is constantly talking to Israel's reps. and members of the Knesset, press, etc. that Israelis have voiced alarming fear of the current circumstance in their backyard-Iraq, Iran, Hamas...-more than usual? Could
this have also been Pres. Bush's way that nothing less or more than a Hitler will keep the U.S. from keeping Israel safe? An assurance if they've voiced concern
over (ERRONEOUS) reports that the new candidates for pres. here will talk to terrorists? After all, ISRAEL can't just get on Air Force One and fly thousands of miles away. And we do tend to think it is ALL about the
campaign and the candidates. Governing and foreign policy are more serious than anyone's campaign or nominee.

The Pres. also showed he can still flex a muscle-WV, HRC, super delegates knocked right out of the picture.
Did anyone else see Matthews slam Conservative Radio Talk Show Host #37 yesterday on Bush's "Chamberlain" stretch?  Hysterical.  As Matthews noted, there is a different between talking and appeasing.

On another note, as an Obama support, I implore my fellow Obama supporters to stop with the "bad winners" type of language.  We should take a cue from Obama.  Act like you've been there before, show some class.  Besides, the only way to beat McCain, a formidable candidate in my estimation, is to have a united Democratic party.
My Fellow Americans:

Lend me your ears.  How much of a shame it has become that the leader of the free world decides to wage war on his own country.  

To land in a foreign country and blast negative comments towards another part of it's own government.

This is admonition in the worst form; some could wonder if it's treason.  Will, maybe that's a bit too far...but yet one can think about it.

Then I think to myself ..what a mess the attackers of 911 has created.  The terrorists has already won.  

They used two weapons - planes and fear.  Their purpose as far as I knew, they wanted to strike the symbols of our might.  WTC and the Pentagon...Financial Power and Military Might.  

Their goal was for our destruction and to destroy our way of life.  

They are accomplishing that; but not by themselves, but with the help and the mighty power of fear.

It was fear that caused the Republican Party to strip us of how liberties; it was fear that caused them to wage war on 1 country and then another.

It was fear that caused this administration to ease drop on it's our people...to develop the Patriot Act has an excuse to quail and prevent any Patriotic American from spreading the truth and the nasty well of the GOP.

Fear was used as the weapon by the GOP to monopolies the oil prices; thereby the gas and food prices...then there is greed. The terrorist knows who greedy we can become. so the GOP continued to use fear, to use as a calices to change, create or ignore laws that would or would not benefit the GOP and it's base  

No terrorist organization...caused millions in our country not to have healthcare.   Nor, did they cause the gas and food prices to go up.  Nor did they misled us and lie to us. Nor did they take our liberties, nor did they create Abdu Grub (the terrorist prison) nor did they allow hundreds of thousands to lose their home; tens of thousands to lose their jobs, nor did they invade a country and are responsible for thousands of death.. Nor did they cause the deficit to break records and will become a liability to our children and their children.

Nor did the overstretch our military and caused them to be weaker more than ever before;

There are plenty more the GOP has done to this country that the terrorist had nothing to do with (in the first person sense).  

YOU THINK ABOUT IT....THE GOP has become in a funny sort of way the Terrorist’s  WAR MACHINE...the terrorist are winning; by using U.S. against U.S.   NOW. the GOP still wants to use "fear" for the next 4 years to continue us down this same road of destruction designed and planned by the people that we think are our enemy.

It’s time for American to end this fight; we need to vote a Democrat in every governmental office of the land.

Thank you and God Bless America.
Appeasment is not what Obama favors.  Again, the Republicans are taking it upon themselves to place false lables on the Democrat's nominee.  Obama merely said, he would first try one on one dialogue with these people.  And if that didn't work, he would not hesitate to strike at them if the need arises.  This is not appeasement as that word is used to describe pre-WWII Europe.  

Republicans suck, plain and simple!
Paul Timmons - I disagree.

True, appeasement has it pitfalls, but I think most people are smart enough to see how the Chamerlain analogy has been over-used for decades.

Was it appeasement when Nixon went to China? Or when Reagan among others negotiated arms with the Soviets?

To label any discussion with someone other than our closest friends as appeasement basically puts us on a road in which we'll never talk to anyone again except our NATO allies and a few others.

Had there been more discussion with Hussein's government prior to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, there's a good chance that invasion wouldn't have happened, and a whole string of events might have been avoided. As a reminder, our ambassador at the time was an H.W. Bush appointee with no diplomatic experience who in 1990 missed what the Iraqis thought was a clear signal of their intent to invade. The Iraqis thought they had an understanding with the U.S. that the invasion, while not desirable to us, wouldn't lead to the type of response it did.
The overall tone of this illustrates that the shift has begun. Democrats are already beginning to gradually close the rift and focus on what they truly seek: a Democrat in the Oval Office and an end to disastrous neocon policies.
All of you so far are way off on this: in 60 years, no American president has made such outrageous statements, it isn't done. Bush is a disgrace to this country and to the memories of the men and women lost to the stupid war. Thank GOD that the Democrats will prevail in the fall and rectify what Bush and his cronies have wrought. It is my deepest wish that he and the whole lot of them be arrested for war crimes!
'..."They're the government; sooner or later we are
going to have to deal with them, one way or another
...'

Dear John ........


From Huff Post:

'...Exclusive Video:
McCain Was For Talking To Hamas Before He Was Against
It...

May 15, 2008 10:58 PM

Two years ago, in an interview with James Rubin for
Sky News, Sen. John McCain expressed a willingness to
negotiate with the terrorist group Hamas -- the very
group that McCain has been relentlessly using to smear
Sen. Barack Obama over the last several weeks.

Rubin has written an op-ed in Friday's Washington Post
about his exchange with McCain, and The Huffington
Post has obtained exclusive video. Here's the key
excerpt:


RUBIN: "Do you think that American diplomats should be
operating the way they have in the past, working with
the Palestinian government if Hamas is now in charge?"


McCAIN: "They're the government; sooner or later we
are going to have to deal with them, one way or
another, and I understand why this administration and
previous administrations had such antipathy towards
Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the
things that they not only espouse but practice, so . .
. but it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think
the lesson is people want security and a decent life
and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was
not giving them that."...'

The video:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/15/exclusive-video-mccain-wa_n_102031.html

The probelm with the 'gift' is that, once again, Obama did not counterpunch hard enough.  Virtually every Dem that came to his defense looked stronger, especially Joe Biden.  

Obama needs to grow a pair fast. Sitting in the Oval Office with his 'present' (instead of 'veto') pen scares the crap out of me.
"Now, McCain’s past (and possibly contradictory) statements on Hamas are gaining fresh scrutiny today with an op-ed by Jamie Rubin in today's Washington Post. "

Possibly?!

How about "definitely"?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/15/exclusive-video-mccain-wa_n_102031.html
CHUCK TODD !

Please take the lead on this! I don't understand why this is not being shown in the Media. McCain said similar things about meeting with Hamas. So, he's either a hypocrite , confused and has memory loss or he's a liar. look at this.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/15/exclusive-video-mccain-wa_n_102031.html

If this were a Democrat , it would be posted everywhere and played non stop all day long! C'Mon you guys !

While we are on the subject of President George W. Bush's comments about Nazi "appeasement" before WWII, lets examine the connections that Bush's own family had with Nazi financiers:

George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.
The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly Files in the US National Archives indicate that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.

His business dealings, which continued until his company's assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz.

The evidence has also prompted one former US Nazi war crimes prosecutor to argue that the late senator's action should have been grounds for prosecution for giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Declassified documents from the National Archives show that even after America had entered the war and when there was already significant information about the Nazis' plans and policies, he worked for and profited from companies closely involved with the very German businesses that financed Hitler's rise to power. It has also been suggested that the money he made from these dealings helped to establish the Bush family fortune and set up its political dynasty.

Remarkably, little of Bush's dealings with Germany has received public scrutiny.

Brown Brothers Harriman (BBH), acted as a US base for the German industrialist, Fritz Thyssen, who helped finance Hitler in the 1930s before falling out with him at the end of the decade. The Guardian has seen evidence that shows Bush was the director of the New York-based Union Banking Corporation (UBC) that represented Thyssen's US interests and he continued to work for the bank after America entered the war.

Bush was also on the board of at least one of the companies that formed part of a multinational network of front companies to allow Thyssen to move assets around the world.

Thyssen owned the largest steel and coal company in Germany and grew rich from Hitler's efforts to re-arm between the two world wars. One of the pillars in Thyssen's international corporate web, UBC, worked exclusively for, and was owned by, a Thyssen-controlled bank in the Netherlands. More tantalising are Bush's links to the Consolidated Silesian Steel Company (CSSC), based in mineral rich Silesia on the German-Polish border. During the war, the company made use of Nazi slave labour from the concentration camps, including Auschwitz. The ownership of CSSC changed hands several times in the 1930s, but documents from the US National Archive link Bush to CSSC, although it is not clear if he and UBC were still involved in the company when Thyssen's American assets were seized in 1942.

Three sets of archives spell out Prescott Bush's involvement. All three are readily available, thanks to the efficient US archive system and a helpful and dedicated staff at both the Library of Congress in Washington and the National Archives at the University of Maryland.

The first set of files, the Harriman papers in the Library of Congress, show that Prescott Bush was a director and shareholder of a number of companies involved with Thyssen.

The second set of papers, which are in the National Archives, are contained in vesting order number 248 which records the seizure of the company assets. What these files show is that on October 20 1942 the alien property custodian seized the assets of the UBC, of which Prescott Bush was a director. Having gone through the books of the bank, further seizures were made against two affiliates, the Holland-American Trading Corporation and the Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation. By November, the Silesian-American Company, another of Prescott Bush's ventures, had also been seized.

The third set of documents, also at the National Archives, are contained in the files on IG Farben, who was prosecuted for war crimes.

A report issued by the Office of Alien Property Custodian in 1942 stated of the companies that "since 1939, these (steel and mining) properties have been in possession of and have been operated by the German government and have undoubtedly been of considerable assistance to that country's war effort".

Prescott Bush, a 6ft 4in charmer with a rich singing voice, was the founder of the Bush political dynasty and was once considered a potential presidential candidate himself. Like his son, George, and grandson, George W, he went to Yale where he was, again like his descendants, a member of the secretive and influential Skull and Bones student society. He was an artillery captain in the first world war and married Dorothy Walker, the daughter of George Herbert Walker, in 1921.

In 1924, his father-in-law, a well-known St Louis investment banker, helped set him up in business in New York with Averill Harriman, the wealthy son of railroad magnate E H Harriman in New York, who had gone into banking.

One of the first jobs Walker gave Bush was to manage UBC. Bush was a founding member of the bank and the incorporation documents, which list him as one of seven directors, show he owned one share in UBC worth $125.

The bank was set up by Harriman and Bush's father-in-law to provide a US bank for the Thyssens, Germany's most powerful industrial family.

August Thyssen, the founder of the dynasty had been a major contributor to Germany's first world war effort and in the 1920s, he and his sons Fritz and Heinrich established a network of overseas banks and companies so their assets and money could be whisked offshore if threatened again.

By the time Fritz Thyssen inherited the business empire in 1926, Germany's economic recovery was faltering. After hearing Adolf Hitler speak, Thyssen became mesmerised by the young firebrand. He joined the Nazi party in December 1931 and admits backing Hitler in his autobiography, I Paid Hitler, when the National Socialists were still a radical fringe party. He stepped in several times to bail out the struggling party: in 1928 Thyssen had bought the Barlow Palace on Briennerstrasse, in Munich, which Hitler converted into the Brown House, the headquarters of the Nazi party. The money came from another Thyssen overseas institution, the Bank voor Handel en Scheepvarrt in Rotterdam.

By the late 1930s, Brown Brothers Harriman, which claimed to be the world's largest private investment bank, and UBC had bought and shipped millions of dollars of gold, fuel, steel, coal and US treasury bonds to Germany, both feeding and financing Hitler's build-up to war.

Moral: A President whose family has ties to Nazi financiers has a lot of gall standing in front of a Jewish auduience in Israel comparing current American politicians to Nazi Appeasers.
Does anyone really care what GWB says anyway?

I mean, everyone knows this guy is a complete joke.

Who cares what he says.

Don't know about all of you, but I stopped taking serious anything out of GWB mouth a LONG time ago.

At least we only have a short time left to deal with GWB and his GOP minions.

McSame is toast.

Obama 08
Bush was probably talking about Jimmy Carter but now that Obama has jumped at the charge (he's so vain), let the games begin.
Go ask the Brits how they feel about pacifism. Ask them how they feel about Neville Chamberlain.
Bush, I'm sorry to say is correct about this one, and Obama is completely out in left field.
The GOP is a bunch of idiots...
McShame...
didn't we sit across a table to end Vietnam, to end the Korean conflict, to end WW2...
What is your logic...?
Is it your life goal to continue war...

If you so wanting war...go pickup a gun and get to front lines yourself...don't keep creating turmoil
so you can send others off to die..you hypocrit...
You have no love in your bones..I feel sorry for you...
Dictionary.com defines appeasement as:to bring to a state of peace,quiet, ease, calm, or contentment;

I think a state of peace in the Middle East would be a good thing.

If Bush meant this definition - to yield or concede to the belligerent demands of (a nation, group, person, etc.) in a conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles - then he obviously doesn't understand the meaning of appeasement. TALKING is not appeasement.
 Does the media look at Obama and see a halo above his head?  Can nothing be offered as a valid point of discussion regarding his policies?  When I heard Bush's remarks, the person I thought he must be referring to was Jimmy Carter.  Why are Obama's people so sensitive to ANY perceived slight?   This is going to be a long campaign if someone can't make a single comment without fear of the Obama camp misinterpreting it and imagining 'attack' where there is none.
Disenfranchised Florida voters are planning on attending Obama's May 21st Tampa rally and turn their backs on him... just like he is doing to them..
Once upon a time there was a place called America, a land of abundance and dreams, of people with ideas so lofty and labors so fruitful that their success and benevolence could scarcely be contained.

But, because America was a reality and not fiction, its very survival was threatened from within by persons inflicted with greed and cynicism and lust for power. The price of greed was the denial to many of the basic necessities of life. The fulfillment of lust for power was unnecessary, unprovoked and unconscionable war. Many of noble spirit and pure heart believed their own sacrafice would bring America security. Their death and disfigurement came, instead, in a war that brought the burden of enormous debt, economic crisis, military exhaust and global disdain that compromised every facet of national security.

Then came 2008, and survival was still an option.

I am John McCain, and I DISAPPROVE this message.
Silly me, I thought he was talking about Jimmy Carter who has been insistent on interferring with every administration's foreign policy since he was voted out of office.  Does everyone jumping to Obama's defense mean "guilty conscience".?
I think Republicans should pick up a dictionary - judging from most of what I read and hear (like that wonderful beat down Chris Matthews gave that right-wing radio tool), none of them knows what the word "appease" means. Nothing the Democrats have suggested can be described as "appeasement".
you idiots don't even know what appeasement is. Let me spell it out for you:

Its alleged practitioners are usually held to be willing, in an ignoble or cowardly fashion, to sacrifice other people's territories or rights in an attempt to buy off an aggressor or wrong-doer. Moreover ‘appeasement’ is supposed never to succeed for long: the aggressor always returns demanding further concessions. And the implication is usually that refusal to ‘appease’ would, by contrast, have a happy ending as in any morality play.

How would what Barack has suggested amount to Appeasement? He is not giving anything away. He is talking to our enemies just like George Washington did with the English all the way to Ronald Reagan with Gorbachev. This isn't a new idea "talking to your enemies". It only seem that way because of Bush shoot first, shoot second, and see if everyone is dead. Even the Israelis want a dialog. They are the one's we are suppose to be protecting right? I'm glad you idiots aren't in charge.  
Bush knows one thing....killing..
and that's giving him to much credit
Since when did talking become appeasement.  Bush and the republicans still have not learned that going out half cocked, guns blazing only lands us in situations say like the war in Iraq. I don't understand how so many people are hungry for more war and do not even want to discuss the possibilities of peace. Even more strange is that republican claim a hold on religion. Do they forget that Jesus was always on the side of peace.  It is very dangerous to stereotype, label, and then actively spew hateful statements against groups of people that you have not ever had a conversation with. I think that xenophobia underlies much of the republican rhetoric.  

One more thing, didn't George Bush and his people sit down with Kim Jon Il who actually tested two nuclear weapons.  Whereas, Iran, given in a report by the FBI has stopped trying to make nuclear weapons since 2003. Moreover, none of the weapons found in Iraq have been traced to Iran, given in another government report. Let us please think about the facts and stop being so thoughtlessly stubborn.

By the way, the "Straight Talk Express" has a few flats.
Bush has done nothing right in his entire presidency.
This is just the kind of bone head statement I expect from him. Does he forget that 911 happened on his watch? Does he realize how many countries have lost respect for us in his term? Does he remember that before he got in office the economy was good? My company was booming. My son in laws still had their jobs here in America. We were not paying $10.00 to fill a push mower gas can. Over 4,000 more young men and women were still alive. He has been a cancer to America. While I am not an Obama supporter, Bush was wrong to make that statement.
Appeasement is overused foreign policy catch word that often is either misused or a case of distortion of facts to create drama.

Just because you talk to your enemies does not mean your going to appease their wishes.

What happened with Hitler clearly was Appeasement.  But what Barack is saying is not necessarily appeasement.

Talking with Hama's or Iran is no different than talking with NK about moving away from the nuclear weapons program.

I think McCain and Bush are going to regret this assertion.  It ties them closer together at time when Bush popularity is at all time low.
Bush knows one thing....killing..
and that's giving him to much credit
First Read,

Please adjust your delegate count to include Jack B. Johnson of Maryland, who switched from Clinton to Obama. He is a pledged delegate, not a super, you should be jumping all over this, but I havent seen my posts show up once.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/12/AR2008051202554.html?hpid=topnews
It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas!

Hey, Dub and McFlipflop, look at the bright side...at least Kevin James will always have your back!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
QUESTION:  regarding the pledged delegate count, is FIRST READ factoring in the 8 pledged Edwards delegates that have publicly stated they will vote for Obama?  If not, why not?
I, for one, firmly believe that there is no larger terroist organiztion in the world than the American Republican Party.  What is a terrorist?  A person or group who uses fear to try to accomplish an agenda.  The republican party can not deliver on solutions( because they create the problems), so they maniputlate the poor, uneducated millions  with fear.
Isn't it interesting that Osama Bin Lauden is only important around election time? What a funny hee-haw joke. The sleazy republican rhetoric doesn't impress me at all - it is laughable.  MOST of the people I know are having a hard time keeping their RPM's down while we wait for the starting shot that signals we can zoom to the polls and mark our ballot for Senator Obama!
Obama NEVER USED THE WORD APPEASEMENT!!!

Its the republicans who are using the term.

Obama's stand on this is to try something never done before...sit people like Chavez and Iran's leader down, and stare them right in the face and say, in essence, cut the nonsense already...and if they don't, then he'll make them pay.  That doesn't like appeasement.


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=1029646

First Read e-mail alerts


Sign up for First Read alerts
The first place for key political news and analysis

Syndicate This Site

Add First Read to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google