The Politics of Appeasement
The big furor of the day among Democrats seems to have been the President's remarks about Barack Obama wanting to appease terrorists. Democratic leadership are all up in arms about the President saying this, but there is just one problem: What the President said is the truth-and I am not a great fan of the Bush Administration.Regardless of how one might feel about the Iraq War (and readers will remember that I was against the war when it began and I've made that clear here dozens of times), the people that Senator Obama somehow thinks he can talk to are people who hate America for America's sake-they detest what America is about as a principle, and they felt that way long before the invasion of Iraq. The people who piloted civilian aircraft into the World Trade Center are the same folks who attempted to destroy that building when Bill Clinton was President. Their hatred of our nation and all that we stand for completely transcends political parties or ideologies. They do not care if the President is Bill Clinton, George Bush, or Barack Obama, when these people say "death to America," they intend to do their part to bring that about.
Barack Obama says he would like to negotiate with Hamas. This is a group of people whose ultimate goal is to kill as many Jews as possible, and the Jews they do not kill they would like to drive into the sea. Rather than a "two-state solution" to the Palestinian question, Hamas sees a one-state solution that doesn't involve Israel, and involves the extermination of Israelis. Senator
There is a very legitimate argument-one that I have made in the past-that the United States would be better off to withdraw ourselves from Middle Eastern affairs completely and let the situation play out as it will. We should, I believe, give no aid to Israel in the form of money, equipment, or manpower-but we should also give no aid or comfort to the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, or any of the Arab or Muslim regimes in the region. The United States should be, where the Near East is concerned, a neutral power.
Even if the United States were to adopt this approach, it would not likely change the attitude of Hamas, Al Qaeda, or the regimes that support these groups-they would still hate America because America would stand in the way of the world-wide Caliphate that they seek to establish. Barack Obama thinks he can negotiate with people bent on killing Americans and destroying our way of life.
The Democrats can play a sort of pseudo-unity game now because of the President's comments, but they are deluding themselves if they do not think that Barack Obama's policy of negotiating with, and perhaps even appeasing terrorists will not come up again between now and November-it will, it should, and the American people will levy judgement upon it.
As for the Democrats accusing the Republicans of lobbing a "political attack" at Obama-get real, this is an election. We are here to wage a political campaign, not to hold your hand and sing Kumbuya. There will be plenty of time after November to shake hands and praise the goodness of the process. Until that time, y'all are fair game.
Labels: Conservatism, Democrats, Foreign policy, Presidential Election, Republican Party
posted by Deacon David Oatney @ 9:32 AM
10 Comments:
Talking to and appeasing to are two different things.you should invest in a dictionary.It seems people are using words they do not understand,elitist,divisive,and appease.Look up terrorism,it has nothing to do with bombs or killing.
Groetzinger,
You are pointing out manifestations of reality. Reality does not count in GOP land, only winning. And if winning means lying they'll lie knowing that most of those that repeat the lies don't know they're repeating lies.
Oh and by the way, changing the menaings of words or using words outside their definitions is a common technique of propaganda. It's what "New Speak" was all about in George Orwells's 1984. Remember, those jerks are sameones that told as all about WMD's, mushroom clouds and so on; should we really expect them to to be honest about 'talking to' vs appeasment?
President Bush is a failure, let alone his foreign policy. McCain's only hope is to hang on to the GOP base, which he can only do by supporting Bush's failed policies. This will become more and more clear as we move toward the general election in November.
At this stage of the election, its always something of a hoot to watch the two parties lob inane accusations at each other. Its kinda like watching a professional basketball game-----the first 55 minutes is meaningless, the decision will be made in the last five minutes---and in Presidential elections, nothing happens til after labor day----however for what its worth, this being my 13th presidential elction in which I am registered and will vote----what should be a Democratic Party win, appears to be kinda self destructing-----Obama's lack of experience, (his gaft of saying he would talk with terrorists), Hillary, obvously losing, but out there spending the party broke---and making herself appear something of a shrew in the process.-----Frankly kinda bored with the whole process, and the silly posturing and fight for 30 second sound bites----to bad we don't have a "None of the above" box to check.
Interesting 3 libs with nothing to say. Sounds normal.
And a Rep. Con. with a divisive comment!Par for the course.
Ironic... what little success Bush has been able to claim with "the surge" in Iraq came from his own General's policy of talking with the very Sunni insurgents and terrorists who were killing Americans only months earlier. Not only did the US negotiate with the insurgents, the US armed them - and that's appeasement. I guess any small "success" in Iraq must be a "foolish delusion." Just reported yeterday, the US is resuming appeasement of N. Korea with food shipments.
Today, CNN reported on the abject hypocrisy of Bush's statements:
" It's also somewhat ahistorical. The president has authorized American diplomats to talk to the Iranians in Iraq. They talked to them in Afghanistan. They talked to them in Bonn, Germany, during the founding of the Afghan government during which the Iranians and Americans worked together. The president's own Secretary of Defense is right now arguing that we should be talking to the Iranians. We talked to the Soviet Union and China while they were forming revolutions all over the world and most recently, let's remember, that David Petraeus has talked to the Sunni insurgents and terrorists who were killing Americans only months earlier. And that - a large part of the success of the surge has been the willingness of Petraeus and the American military to talk to the people who they once called terrorists and insurgents."
None of this hypocrisy is surprising from an incompetent president who is a proven liar, who uses the rhetoric of fear to influence politics, or from McCain who proposes the continuation of a dangerous and isolationist foreign policy.
To be clear, Barack Obama would not negotiate with Hamas. He has said he would try to talk with Iran and Syria.
He has been 100 percent clear he would not talk with Hamas without their recognition of Israel.
I'm Jewish, I'm pro Israel and I'm pro Obama, and know the facts about his position about Israel and her neighbors.
However--
From 2006---McCain is for negotiating with McCain. Interview with Jamie Rubin:
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."
Ps--Meant McCain is for negotiating with Hamas.
Sure...I'm happy to provide the proof.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icooZ4PTM60
Apeasement huh? Bush claimed it has not worked so far. This puzzles me. When did the US ever make any attempts at appeasement?
Would Bush be referring to the Reagan Administration selling weapons to Iran back in the 1980s? If so, he is indeed right. That did not work. As a matter of fact, much of what Ronnie and crew pulled back then in the Mid East is directly responsible for much of the madness today. Or would he be referring to our continued brown nosing of the House of Saud. The only thing that has done is keep oil flowing. Of course that may be all that is really important. After all Hummers need love too.
Appeasement. What a useless and stupid word. Just more garbage from one party to stir up election emotions.
Post a Comment
<< Home