:coolman:  Amen!!

Yes -

If Obama wins, I trust that Clinton will be supportive of him and let it be known that infighting among the Dems cannot happen. I dreamed the other night that I sat down after dinner with John McCain. I told him I liked him as a person, wanted to support him eight years ago, but didn't like the way his politics have changed since then. He listened thoughtfully. When I was done, he did not rebut or argue; instead, he asked me what I was doing to act on my beliefs. He encouraged me to be a social and political activist. It was pretty cool.

I think it would be awfully difficult to come to any kind of agreement with someone whose goal is our complete destruction or conversion, though I do agree it is important to keep lines of communication open. 

Just to let you know the Bush administration denies that the comment was aimed at Obama.  Personally, I think it was aimed more broadly at the democratic party in general.

Oh since when is anything Bush says Not outrageous and offensive? Honestly, he and his cronies are like children. They just lash out at anything they can't understand or control.

Besides, appeasement is capitulation, giving if without mutual benefit. Compromise is the word Bush was looking for, and there's nothing ever wrong with compromise, unless you're a republican...

Ah, the wonderful world of politics. (:

mmmmm, yes.

I wonder if stupid Bush thought Reagan was an appeaser? God, I've just got to shake my head...

When I was in management school, we were told that to get people to do something, we have to answer the question for each of them: WIIFM (What's In It For Me?)  That, as you note, requires communication... I hear you.

I agree with you. He and his cronies are just warmongers.

:wave: Hey, thanks for sharing this re: the latest from the "Shrub". Doesn't make any difference to me whether he had Obama specifically in mind or not when he made his statement and comparison to Chamberlain. It could have been aimed at the democratic party in general; but still it's politically charged -- as who's considered the front runner for the democratic party?

I absolutely agree that our head of state and others in a position to do so, should meet and talk with world leaders, even as they are enemies. It is absolutely necessary to communicate with them, but the goal is not to appease. To equate such a meeting with appeasement is ridiculous. Yes, trying to reach an understanding of what is good for all is admirable, and it has to be tried. Since these leaders may not care for the good of all, but only for their own agenda, it may not be possible to do. However, the meeting and attempt is a valid entry for dialogue. In the course of meeting/dialogue, if one is a skilled communicator (which is mostly the ability to listen and to understand before responding), one may get a fix on the leader's true intentions, if for no other reason than to acquire an up close and personal knowledge/understanding of "the enemy".

~~Blessings 'n cheers :goodjob:

It is so like Bush to not want to meet with anyone that he considers to be on the 'other' side. He has blinders on and his mantra is "kill the terrorists", and/or "war, war, war". I can't wait to get him out of office and hopefully a Democrat in power with a less leathal agenda.

This blog said everything I thought when I heard this latest stuff. Another Bushism!