What did Bush mean?

There has been a big controversy this week about some remarks George Bush made while addressing the Knesset on Israel's 60th anniversary. Bush 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," Bush said. "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."
This was in the context of how World War 2 and the Holocaust manged to happen under the noses of the Western World. in no way do I think this relates in any way to Barack Obama. He is talking about the failed tactic of appeasement in history, and is talking about it in a general way. I really don't think Bush inserted a cryptic reference to Barack Obama in a speech before the Israeli Knesset. Of course if you believe that: Bush orchestrated 9/11, fought the Iraq War for Cheney and his friends in Halliburton, is a puppet for Karl Rove etc..., than it's not hard to believe he would do this. It is interesting to wonder why Obama got so defensive over a remark that wouldn't have been newsworthy had he not brought it up. Who knows? Maybe he realizes that his promised foreign policy isn't going to work and he's getting defensive.
Today I was reading an article about Obama and the Jewish vote and somebody started an article like this
"Some political attacks come in subtle forms, with a hidden, "dog whistle" message audible only to the voters who are supposed to hear it. And then there was President Bush's speech Thursday -- yes, the speech to Israel's parliament on the nation's 60th birthday in which he indirectly compared Barack Obama to both infamous appeaser-of-Hitler Neville Chamberlain and to a famous Nazi sympathizer." This is a very dishonest way to start an article as it ignores the debate that has gone on about these words.
A far more likely person that was being alluded to was Jimmy Carter, who spoke to Hamas on his last trip to the Middle East.
Others have also said that the Bush administration wants to talk to Iran and Hamas to so they're being hypocrites. This is a weak argument because there is a difference between a low lever bureaucrat in the state department talking to an Iranian official than Barack Obama talking to Ahmadinejad with no strings attached.
Plus-Does anybody think that Bush writes his own speeches?


Many have blasted John McCain for his vision of what the world will look like in 2013. Is his vision any more unrealistic to all the crud that Barack Obama is talking about. One could half accept that Obama will usher in the Messiah with all of his promises. McCain also had a good idea in his speech by saying that he would go before Congress to be questioned like the P.M does here in Canada. I think this would be a very good thing as it would allowed the public to see what's going on in the President's mind. Maybe if this had implemented before there wouldn't be so many crazy accusations running around.


The Supreme Court of California recently ruled that Gay marriage could be done there by a 4-3 vote. Many called it a historic day for Gay rights, but it got me wondering why the Supreme Court has the power to implement this. The legislature never passed a bill about this subject, and in 2000 a referendum for bringing in gay marriage failed 61-39. If the public is against this, what right does the court have to implement this? Recently in Canada the Supreme Court opposed a part of a crime bill that Harper planned to introduce. It will be interesting to see how much power courts will have in the next few years.


I soon plan on writing my highly opinionated view of Bush's presidency.