Remember what happened after Senator Barack Obama’s close friend of twenty years and former Pastor Jeremiah Wright spewed at the National Press Club the racism and anti-Americanism for which he’s long been known?
The Senator responded: "That's enough. That – that's a show of disrespect to me."
That “disrespect” and some falling poll numbers was enough to get the "Change you can believe in" candidate to change his position on Wright from “I could never abandon him” to “I know thee not, old man.”
Now today Mark Steyn tells us about President Bush’s just completed visit to Israel which Obama believes included “a show of disrespect “ to him.
Here’s Steyn - - -
... President Bush was in Israel the other day and gave a speech to the Knesset. Its perspective was summed up by his closing anecdote – a departing British officer in May 1948 handing the iron bar to the Zion Gate to a trembling rabbi and telling him it was the first time in 18 centuries that a key to the gates of the Jerusalem was in the hands of a Jew.
In other words, it was a big-picture speech, referencing the Holocaust, the pogroms, Masada – and the challenges that lie ahead. Sen. Obama was not mentioned in the text. No Democrat was mentioned, save for President Truman, in the context of his recognition of the new state of Israel when it was a mere 11 minutes old.
Nonetheless, Barack Obama decided that the president's speech was really about him, and he didn't care for it. He didn't put it quite as bluntly as he did with the Rev. Wright, but the message was the same: "That's enough. That's a show of disrespect to me."
And, taking their cue from the soon-to-be nominee's weirdly petty narcissism, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Joe Biden and Co. piled on to deplore Bush's outrageous, unacceptable, unpresidential, outrageously unacceptable and unacceptably unpresidential behavior.
Honestly. What a bunch of self-absorbed ninnies. Here's what the president said:
"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is – the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."
It says something for Democrat touchiness that the minute a guy makes a generalized observation about folks who appease terrorists and dictators the Dems assume: Hey, they're talking about me. Actually, he wasn't – or, to be more precise, he wasn't talking only about you.
Yes, there are plenty of Democrats who are in favor of negotiating with our enemies, and a few Republicans, too – President Bush's pal James Baker, whose Iraq Study Group was full of proposals to barter with Iran and Syria and everybody else.
But that general line is also taken by at least three of Tony Blair's former Cabinet ministers and his senior policy adviser, and by the leader of Canada's New Democratic Party and by a whole bunch of bigshot Europeans.
It's not a Democrat election policy, it's an entire worldview. Even Barack Obama can't be so vain as to think his fly-me-to-[insert name of enemy here] concept is an original idea. ...
Steyn’s entire column’s here.
My bumper sticker suggestion - - Obama: Narcissism You Can Believe In
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Obama: Narcissism You Can Believe In
Posted by JWM at 11:00 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
John, isn't the "disrespecting me" position one which is the hallmark of the victimology culture? I had never heard of "dissing me" until some black rappers began using the term. In looking at Obama's behavior from a distance, it seems that his "disrespecting me" is nothing more than his adapting the standard victim position to his political campaign. Thus, ANY comment from his political rivals (those that cannot be attributed to racism- the best bugaboo he can accuse others of) is labeled as "disrespecting me."
Great ploy- and the MSM LOVES it!
1) The "disrespect" Obama spoke of wasn't Wright's commentary on whites; it was Wright's claim that Obama was lying/insincere/political when he made prior comments disagreeing with Wright. Yes, that counts as disrespect.
2) In an account I read, Bush's staff confirmed to the reporter that his comments on appeasement were, in fact, referring to Obama (Sorry I can't reference it offhand -- WaPo, NYT, or LATimes). Therefore, it is appropriate for Obama to respond accordingly.
Found it:
CNN’s Ed Henry reported that, while “President Bush never uttered the words Barack Obama,” his White House sources tell him it was clearly intended to be a partisan shot:
White House aides are acknowledging that this was a reference to the fact that Sen. Obama and other Democrats have publicly said that it would be ok for the U.S. President to meet with leaders like the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad.
Anyway, and this is getting tedious, Obama never claimed that Bush's statement was about only Obama. He actually said, “On a day when we were supposed to be celebrating the anniversary of Israel’s independence, he accused me and other Democrats of wanting to negotiate with terrorists, and said we were ‘appeasers’ - no different from people who appeased Adolf Hitler.” Which pretty well nullifies the narcissism charge.
Let me get this straight, Obama has divined that President Bush was referring to his appeasement statements, but he could not divine that Rev. Wright was preaching hatred for white Americans.
Bush’s press secretary said he was not referring to Obama, and unless these Bush Derangement Syndrome writers are mind readers , they are clearily pressing on with their Obama Tankism.
Liz Trotta on Fox News said today that President Bush had every right to make the speech he did, and this mock outrage is getting old, very fast.
You got that right Liz, what doesn’s offend Obama? I guess his pastor saying GD America for twenty years doesn’t, go figure!
It is amusing that we get stories that are negative towards Obama and they are spun as not really about Obama. Then we get something positive about Obama and it is spun as not really positive. Any favorable comparison (like the JFK post) misses the mark while many unfavorable articles (like the many Rev. Wright posts) are spot on.
All the while saying that Obama has the media in his hip pocket despite the daily and constant attacks against him. I agree with several of the posters on this topic, Bush was talking about Obama, he interjected partisan politics in a speech where that did not belong.
Rougemont,
I do wish that Obama would just make a list of what we may and may not talk about. Michelle Obama's comments are off limits, Rev. Wright is off limits regarding Obama's 20 year tenure at the church, etc. Any questions about Obama are racist and any disagreements with his campaign are disrespectful.
Enough already, just give us a list of what we CAN talk about, Senator Obama!
According to a very reliable source who has requested to remain anonymous, here are the subject areas we are permitted to cover in any stories about the "Annointed Couple:"
o we may comment on how beautiful/handsome, dedicated, brilliant, humble, and wonderful Mr. & Mrs. Obama are;
o we may report the changes that will occur miraculously on Jan 20, 2009, but we may not speculate on how these changes can be accomplished;
o we may comment on how unfair and partisan the Republicans are, but may not make reference to any partisanship on the part of the Democrat Party;
o We may describe the stable in which Mr. Obama was born due to the racism of the innkeeper who denied his devoted parents a room.
I hope this clears everything up.
Tarheel Hawkeye
Red Mountain,
Co-Sign!
"Obama: Narcissism You Can Believe In"
Wonderful!
Continuing in the narcissistic vein, why do these apparent appeasers please themselves with the delusion that they alone possess the silver tongue that will bring the Irans and Syrias into line?
"My word is enough."
Who are they kidding?
Red Mountain/Rougemont & Justice58:
Tangent!
Even neophytes understand what's happening when the MSM twists the President's and/or McCain's words. The purpose is to highlight an unjust injury suffered by the offended, 'hurt' paragon of virtue himself. Oh, the outrage this political season!
The real question is, can Barack Obama take it like a man?
Is his motto, "Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee, cry like a baby?"
I am finding it interesting how Obama's spokespeople CONTINUALLY change and redefine what the man just said a few hours ago. Obviously, he consistently "misspeaks" himself- either that, or the rest of the English speaking world just doesn't understand that what he says is not really what he just said!
Bush's words weren't twisted! It was politics at play.But ever so shameful on foreign soil! If you're waiting to see what kind of man Barack is----just hold on until he's the official nominee!
It will be over after about 2 debates with McSame! Barack will be laying the smackdown!
John -
Bravo on your fine posting. To anonymouses at 2:18 and 2:52 PM, the quotes you cite from the MSM do not mean a thing. After the Duke/Durham/lacrosse hoax, the MSM is not to be believed. That is especially so when it comes to the President because they collectively suffer from "Bush Derangement Syndrome." Hence, anything they write or say about the President is suspect.
As for anonymous at 2:52, he quotes Obama as saying: [Bush]"accused me [Obama] and other Democrats of wanting to negotiate with terrorists, and said we were ‘appeasers’." Did the President mention Obama or Democrats? He didn't. But then people who would do just what the President said they would do, will take umbrage when being outed.
Finally, dittoes to Tarheel Hawkeye, Archer05,Anonymouses at 11:55 AM and 11:19 AM and others with like minded comments.
Jack in Silver Spring
Post a Comment