Bush, Obama, and the Hitler Card
Just when you thought the Bush-Cheney administration could stoop no lower in foreign policy, the president has played the Hitler card in this presidential race.
The venue for this outlandish move wasn't in Washington or even the ranch in Texas but before the Knesset in Jerusalem. The Jewish state, and the important Jewish electorate back home, are naturally sensitive to any references to Nazi Germany.
Bush was speaking of appeasement against those who would negotiate with terrorists. The White House spokeswoman, with a straight face, claimed the reference was not to Sen. Barack Obama.
Sen. John MCain, the presumptive GOP nominee for president, wasn't listening to this disclaimer. He pointedly ripped Obama for being willing to sit down with the leaders in Iran despite their wacky views.
The Democrats reacted quickly. Obama called it a political stunt. Bush was reminded that his first secretary of state, Colin Powell, had said we should be at least willing to talk to Hamas.
Powell was the man Bush courted so strongly to come to the State Department eight years ago and then virtually ignored his advice in favor of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.
The best response to Bush came from Sen. Joseph Biden, Democrat of Delaware and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Biden said it was an outrage that Bush would play presidential politics overseas, calling his appeasement statement "bull----."
This should put Obama on notice that the Republican smear machine will go after him on everything. Immediate responses will be essential if he is to survive.
Back in 2004, Sen. John Kerry promised to respond immediately to any attack on him or his record. He dilly dallied when the Swift Boat veterans questioned his Purple Hearts in Vietnam, and Kerry paid the price. Remember this came from a group backing a man who escaped service in Vietnam in the Texas National Guard.
Fasten your seat belts, all voters from Vermont to California; it is only May and Adolph Hitler has already made it into this election seven months away.
Tags: Democrats | presidential election 2008 | Republicans | Barack Obama | George W. Bush
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (3)
Reader Comments
surprized?
why are we shocked at the level bush and the republican party as a whole, will stoop to maintain a republican in the white house? this is modern day politics in america? don't forget that accusations are enough these days. bush can say whatever he wants because he, personally, has nothing to lose but for sen. mccain to stoop so low as to bring barack obamas name into this is sad. this is the republican party's doing. not one mans views. i wish mike bloomberg was running as an independant. he would get my vote because he is a businessman first and would not bend to special interest groups and lobbyists who have a bottomless pocket to reach into and buy what they want for their own gain. we as americans have lost sight of the big picture. our future is uncertain because we cannot stand together as a nation. as a new parent i am very concerned about the direction in which this country is being led. enough with being concerned about foreign policy. we need to start at home in stead of letting the u.n. decide what "we" should be doing
How are you guys so sure Bush was talking about Democrats, let alone Barack Obama? There are several people, including European nations and Republicans, that happen to believe talking to Iranians would be beneficial, so he could've been talking about them. How arrogant that you guys will automatically associate Bush's comments with your candidate and your party.
But, it must be said. Why are you guys so up in a tizzy about Bush's comments? Maybe it's because the shoe fits. The easiest way that Barack Obama could've addressed this issue was to A) either ignore Bush's comments and, if he thought they were addressed to him, have some surrogates address them, but he stay out of the fray or B) agree with the President, but state his reasons why talking to Iran would lead to a successful outcome. By doing A, he would be showing that he is at least trying to practice a different type of politics by staying above the fray and by doing B he would be showing that he is trying to unify the country and providing a new direction (and he wouldn't do it anyway, since giving the President any credit for anything he does is anti-liberal and anti-Democratic). Yet, he decided to do the complete opposite and engage in partisan politics by attacking the President.
And John Mashek...
This is not a "smear" on Barack Obama. Barack Obama said he would meet with Iran without preconditions in the YouTube debate last year and he brags about it on his website. Now here's a "smear": your candidate Barack Obama is wearing a flag lapel pin, trying to play his "patriotism" card. Now, I don't buy into this flag lapel pin crap, but apparently he now is.
Add your thoughts
All comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.advertisement
John W. Mashek covered politics in Washington for four decades with U.S. News & World Report, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and the Boston Globe. His primary beats were Congress, the White House, and national politics. He covered every presidential election from 1960 to 1996. He was a panelist in three televised presidential debates in 1984, 1988, and 1992.