I don’t buy the argument circulating on righty blogs that because Bush didn’t specifically name anyone in his “appeasement” remarks before the Israeli Knesset he was not really talking about Obama, or Democrats. It’s pretty disingenuous not to acknowledge who exactly Bush had in mind when making the comment. Indeed, the American people know full well who Bush was referring to because they believe the same thing about Democrats and Obama – that they are hopelessly naive when it comes to the true nature of our enemies and that Obama’s careless remarks about meeting with those nations who harbor us ill will without preconditions smacks of nothing less than a Chamberlainesque eagerness to engage in diplomacy simply for diplomacy’s sake.
The fact that everyone knows who Bush was referring to and the fact that the substance contained in the remark reflects the widely held belief of a very large percentage of voters should have given Obama an opening to retract the remark and share his thoughts on engaging Iran, Syria, and other terrorist supporting nations in a useful dialogue.
Instead, Obama and the Democrats hit the ceiling, calling Bush every name in the book and whining about their hurt feelings. Their reaction reminded me of a line from the movie All The Presidents Men where the Washington Post has published an article accusing the White House of wrongdoing and the reaction to that article from the Nixonites. Ben Bradleee observes “They doubt our ancestry, but they don’t say the story isn’t accurate.”
Obama called Bush’s words “an appalling attack,” “dishonest,” divisive, “fear-peddling,” fear-mongering,” but for some reason, never got around to responding to the substance of Bush’s charge; that Obama and the Democrats cannot be trusted with running American foreign policy because their outlook on the world is is based on false assumptions about, our friends, our allies, our role in the world, and most of all our deadly enemies.
Bush actually did Obama a favor. He gave him a golden opportunity to lay out his “realistic” ideas on American foreign policy so that it would get the widest possible hearing. The problem, as Obama and the Democrats well know, is one of perception – a perception they try their best to finesse rather than tackling head on. It’s not about talking tough and making threats. It is about calling our enemies, well, enemies . They could try that for starters.
And it doesn’t help when Obama gives an interview to David Brooks of the New York Times and talks about satisfying the “legitimate grievances” of Hamas and Hizbullah as if giving one inch to those terrorists wouldn’t put our “friends” (another word the Democrats have a hard time annunciating) in Israel and Lebanon in danger. To even recognize those terrorists have anything “legitimate” in the way of an agenda is as close to appeasement as you can get without going over the line.
After all, that was Chamberlain’s problem. He believed (like Seattle Times editor Bruce Ramsey) that all Hitler wanted was to unite the “German speaking people of Europe” under one flag. The problem, of course, is that those pockets of German speakers lay outside of Germany’s borders – in fact, had always been separate from Germany – and therefore made Hitler’s claim on the Sudetenland and Danzig illegitimate if Chamberlain had bothered to check.
Actually, it wouldn’t have made any difference. Chamberlain was bound and determined to give Hitler everything he wanted in what has to be considered the most spectacular misjudgement in the history of diplomacy. The British Prime Minister believed there was a limit to Hitler’s appetite for conquest. Too late, he realized the truth.
As far as Obama, he seems to have an enemy identification problem – as do most Democrats. They reserve their harshest criticism for their own president while taking it relatively easy on the beasts and thugs who should come in for the bulk of their disapprobation. Do they have a clue how warm and fuzzy that makes people like Hugo Chavez or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad feel? With their over the top, exaggerated, bitter attacks on Bush’s policies and Bush the man, (deserving of plenty of criticism but not the personal hatred thrown his way by so many in the Democratic party), the Democrats play directly into the hands of our enemies.
Do they think the American people haven’t figured this out already? Evidently no. So instead of responding to Bush like adults, Obama and the Democrats whine about how Bush hurt their feelings by calling them “appeasers” which he didn’t but for the sake of Democrat’s high blood pressure, we’ll grant them that small point.
And the obedient servants of Obama and the Democrats in the media are beside themselves with joy. Here is a Democrat who “hits back.” Here is a Democrat who won’t take these “smears” lying down. The media is so pleased at Obama’s tantrum that they can barely contain their glee.
But while they are hugging themselves perhaps they should ask why the candidate couldn’t have hit back and rebutted the charges made by President Bush? Substantively, the charge is still out there, hanging over the campaign and the Democratic party. And until someone, somewhere in the party starts talking about defending America’s vital interests in a way that doesn’t sound like we would sacrifice some of them on the altar of being well thought of by the rest of the world, Obama and the Democrats will continue to have their national security bona fides called into question.
9:43 am
rick,
you nailed it! but me thinks obama doesn’t have to respond, the media is responding for him. take msnbc today, they have been totally subjective (nothing objective about them) in defending obama, no substance, no objective story, just emotion. much like the mook that tried to attack you yesterday, all emotion no substance. this is the issue with charismatic leaders/movements, it seems people enjoy being told what to do (half of todays population) or how to do it, without having to think for themselves (much like my students). it is easily predictable then for you and i to know exactly who they will vote for (though admittedly this is how bush got in office and stayed in office). it all works in cycles same with climate change. one will do and another will undo, hard to undo supreme court justices though…
10:55 am
While Obama tries to distance himself from the endorsement of a leading Hamas official, and feign his indignation of the “perceived” insult lobbed at him by President Bush, Obama quietly (secretly) meets with the leading Michigan Imam, Hassan Qawini.
Who is Qawini, you ask?
He is the Imam of Michigan’s (and America’s) largest mosque who while denouncing the actions of the 19 highjackers has invited Louis Farrakhan to speak at the mosque and called Farrakhan a “brother” and a “freedom fighter”. His mosque has held support rallies for Hezbollah and he remains in contact with Hezbollah spriritual leader Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadllah who issued the fatwa that brought about the bombing of the Marine barracks, killing over 300 U.S. Marines and also the bombing of the U.S. embassy that killed many civilians.
Qawini is an Iraqi who claims to have fled Saddam’s evil regiem (yet his father, also an imam, remained) went to Iran and adopted the “12th Imam” religious beliefs that Amjustajollyjihad shares. Qawini has also written a book, American Crecent, explaining how Muslims in America should adhere to their faith in their new nation and also how America will benefit greatly from Islam. It should be no shock to anyone that Qawini’s book was recently reviewed in the NYTs. BY OBAMA’S GOOD FRIEND, RASHID KHALIDI.
Qawini requested a meeting with Obama but was not on the short list (20) of those who were scheduled to meet with Obama. Instead, the Obama campaign made arrangements for Qawini to meet “privately” with Senator Obama.
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080515/NEWS05/80515096/1007/NEWS
I don’t remember Obama requesting a private audience with the Pope on the Pope’s recent visit to the U.S. considering the number of Catholics in the United States.
11:37 am
None of you remember the USS Liberty. You are as much appeasers as anyone.
Um…maybe if you explained how the Liberty incident – where Israeli planes fired on an American ship – has anything to do with this post, then perhaps you wouldn’t look like an idiot by leaving such a cryptic comment.
ed.
12:28 pm
I thought it was very clear that Bush meant Jimmy Carter
12:32 pm
Rick
I think you are spot on about Bush deseving much criticism. In fact, I have said many times before and still think the man should be impeached, however, the over the top hatred thrown his way by many in the media and the Democratic party is unwarranted and serves primarily to embolden our enemies.
As for who Bush’s speech was directed at, there are plenty of people who hold the views that Obama holds. Some of them are likely in the Israeli Knesset. I think it surprised President Bush to learn that this was directed at Obama. Frankly, I don’t see many Americans wanting to confront our enemies. think it is highly likely that they will vote for the candidate who tells them they don’t have to.
This was a brilliant political move by Obama. He took a speech that was not even directed at him and makes it seem as though he is being attacked by an unpopular, lame duck, figure head preisdent. This is bound to help him in the polls.
Finally, Bush seems to be quite the hypocrite. He gives a speech warning against appeasement yet he seems to be the appeaser in chief. This man gives a speech before the Israeli Knesset while expecting Israel to cede land that the country desparately needs for its national defense to create another terrorist supporting state of “Palestine.” To this end tremendous pressure has been brought to bear agains Israel. At best, these actions are inconsistent with the speech that was recently given. At worst, President Bush is a hypocrite.
12:50 pm
President Bush was talking about gutless appeasers.
If Jesus Obama feels he is a gutless appeaser (and he is) then Mr.Bush was indeed referring to him.
Obama isn’t qualified to run a lemonaide stand. He is a phony and he is a week kneed Marxist wannabee.
1:10 pm
It really doesn’t matter who Bush had in mind. The first person to jump up and say “he’s talking about me” wins the prize. The more I see, the more I realize how inexperienced Obama is. His political sense is just as naive, afterall he’s never faced a real campaign.
2:27 pm
When you throw a rock over the fence, the dog that howls is the one that got hit by the rock. Seems that the Democrats, who jumped up and said “how dare the President say that” were responding to what they know to be true, they would sell this nation down the river with their “peace at any price” policies.
3:36 pm
I don’t know about appeasement, but I have a strong hunch that Obama’s grandfather did not provide financial backing for the Nazi party. George Bush’s grandfather? Pretty well documented that he did through business arrangements with known Nazi supporting German corporations. Overall it would appear better to be a Nevell Chamberlain than a Prescott Bush. A misguided politician beats a traitor any day of the week.
What in the name of all that is good and holy does George Bush’s GRANDFATHER have to do with this? It is gratuitous smear having nothing whatsoever to do with the subject at hand – a subject you wanted to drop like a hot potato because you can’t answer to any of the specific arguments in the post.
You think that adds anything to the debate? And just to clear one thing up, a traitor is someone who aids the enemy in time of war – you know, like liberals do all the time. (How’d you like that gratuitous smear, asshole?) Prescott Bush made those investments before we were at war with Nazi Germany. That makes him a greedy capitalist pig, not a traitor.
ed.
5:02 pm
Obama has responded, “If George Bush and John McCain want to have a debate about protecting the United States, that is a debate that I’m happy to have anytime, anyplace.” Obama goes on to “condemn [the Bush] administration for not capturing Osama bin Laden.”
If Obama is really serious about having national security debates, then he’s even more stupid than I thought humanly possible. Hell, The Obamster still doesn’t realize that, like a big, fat, juicy fly, he’s flown right into a Republican spider web. I’m telling y’all, 10 minutes into a national security debate with McCain, Obama will be stammering, stuttering, and squealing, “Help meeeeeee, help meeeeeeee!” just like that dude in “The Fly.”
President Bush wasn’t thinking specifically of Obama in his appeasement comments, but I’ll bet Dubya is carrying a little self-satisfied smirk right now, and has an extra spring in his step, knowing that he punched Prince Charming’s buttons—and Prince Charming knows he knows!
6:02 pm
Did anyone see the Conservative radio host on Chris Matthews who didn’t know who Neville Chamberlain was and had never heard of the Munich Accords? Yes he was calling Obama an appeaser. Or the US Representative who wants the ten commandments in courthouses, but himself couldn’t name more than three of them?
My fear is that if we don’t start calling people’s bluff when they compare Democrats to Nazi’s and Nazi’s appeasers, we will embolden them to continue lying.
The whole idea that talking to your enemies is a bad idea, is itself a bad idea. The best diplomatic solutions rarely come out of the end of a gun. And if all you have is a gun, as this administration appears to have, every thing looks like a target.
The fact is we have no real effective foreign policy beyond tough sounding soundbytes and policy papers written by much discredited neocon institutions by people who have never left the country. And we won’t until we have a new president.
But really. Enough with the “appeasement” lectures. It’s insulting. Especially at a time when not talking to our enemies cost lives.
6:27 pm
“What in the name of all that is good and holy does George Bush’s GRANDFATHER have to do with this? It is gratuitous smear having nothing whatsoever to do with the subject at hand – a subject you wanted to drop like a hot potato because you can’t answer to any of the specific arguments in the post.”
Umm, George Bush mentioned Nazi appeasers in 1939 and his grandfather aided the Nazis by financing them? If you do not see this as relevant them disingenuous would be a compliment.
And by the way, Article 3, in Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution states in part:
“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, OR (emphasis added) in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”
If you do not think financing an enemy is not Aid and Comfort, then again you fall short of any rational understanding. P. Bush’s ongoing dealings with the Nazis after they began military actions are a matter of record so mentioning that is hardly a smear.
And gratuitous smears? Facts are neither gratuitous nor smears. And with your track record of cheap attacks that you call “red meat” for a right wing audience, I would be very careful pissing into that particular fan.
7:24 pm
I thought the President was at least throwing an elbow at Barack Hallow Man Obama.
Check the photo-composite on my blog and see if Barack thought so also.
8:16 pm
I have seen McCain three times on TV this week and every single time he made a major factual error in his reporting the facts.
Not the least of which is distinguishing Sunni from Shia
McCain could not more beat Obama in aa debate than he can escape his own words and previous voting record.
Anyone who thinks we should stay in Iraq is going to lose, in particular, the Republican Party.
PS nothing is hanging over the heads of Democrats.
something is hanging over the heads of Conservatives
9:16 pm
#12 another wishful kool-aid drinking obama apologist heard from with nothing of a substantive nature he can add to the debate. Why not rationalize what the Clinton administration did for national security by selling technology to China or tell us how Pinch and his cretinous editors at the NY Times are so patriotic even though they give hope to the Islamofascists and contribute to US deaths in Iraq? I’d like to see plenty of so-called patriotic moonbats prosecuted to the fullest extent, including kakaheads like Jimmy Carter and the Hollywood elite that goes around sucking up to dictators while badmouthing their own country in foreign lands. If Bush really were so evil and violating the constitution, you’d think he would have made piggy Mikey Moore disappear by now. Nice to see that swine is making another propaganda movie to speak to his far left choir of mutant mooretards. Normal people see what a Goebbels he really is.
Would love to see the trolls here try their BS over at Chas. Johnson’s blog. You’d think they’d be busy enough pontificating at insane asylums such as BU, Huff and Kos. In any case, stiff libs can’t handle the truth, such as hero Kerry’s treason in Paris, magic hats, Xmas in Cambodia under Nixon’s “watch” and blatant lies about his fellow GIs.
10:31 pm
still liberal, perhaps you have forgotten that Joseph Kennedy, while Ambassador to Great Britian, was such a Hitler supporter that the British kicked him out?
yep, that was Tubby Teddy’s dad.
10:52 pm
I’m with Dennis D. The first person who came to mind was Carter. Wasn’t he just over there making nicey-nice with Hamas and Hezbollah??
3:00 am
in response to “Bush didn’t specifically name anyone in his “appeasement” remarks”
Oh yes he did. Who else in todays world has been talking about sitting down and negotiating with Iran? Bush was directly speaking of Obama and you all know it. All Bush has been doing is attacking and look where we are 8 years later, high gas prices, housing foreclosures, many many popular retail stores are moving over seas and hurting are US malls thanks to Bush. I hope Bush spends the rest of his life behind bars for treason. He sold out America.
5:38 am
If Obama had the least bit of sense he would have agreed with Bush that appeasement doesn’t work and let it go. By jumping up and going ballistic all he did was stamp Obama=appeasement in people’s minds.
9:07 am
“everyone knows who Bush was referring to”
Bush made no overt reference to anyone. It’s not at all disingenuous to point that out. We might presume he was referring to Democrats because he is, after all, a Republican. We’re probably even right in that presumption. But there’s nothing at all disingenuous in ‘innocent until proven guilty’. That’s PROVEN, not PRESUMED.
It’s true that the sensitivities about this exist because of widespread public perception re Democrats. Still, your opening statement cries for reworking. (Too late NOW, I suppose.)
11:56 am
16retire05 Said:
10:31 pm
still liberal, perhaps you have forgotten that Joseph Kennedy, while Ambassador to Great Britian, was such a Hitler supporter that the British kicked him out?
yep, that was Tubby Teddy’s dad.
No I have not forgot that fact. Joe Kennedy should have been tried for his crap as well. But I haven’t heard Teddy beating McCain with a Nazi stick as Pressie’s grandson did.
1:16 pm
Imagine this scenario:
A key regional player supports a terrorist group hoping to overthrow a flawed, though friendly to the U.S., government. They provide arms, funding, and training to this terrorist group. The U.S. has called them out for doing it, said they should be ostracized, and refuses to recognize them. Yet, our President says we should talk with them while the war is still being fought and, indeed, makes that trip. His apologists point out it is probably the highlight of his presidency and, in fact, maybe any presidency. President Obama traveling to Iran? Obviously not. It was Nixon traveling to China in 1972. You could paint the same scenario using the Soviet Union. And remember—we KNEW they both had nuclear weapons.
Obama made the mistake of saying he would meet with these people without preconditions. But if you believe anyone in the State Department would let him do that you’re wrong. The refreshing difference we see with someone like Obama is the change from the belligerent bully who has occupied the White House for 7+ years. We forget that past presidents of both stripes have met with our avowed enemies to both resolve issues and keep them in check.
China=Iran? Not hardly. Nixon was going for the gold – attempting to outflank the Soviets and alter the world balance of power. Talking to Iran hardly rises to that level.
Besides, setting up the strawman that Bush or anyone else doesn’t want to talk to Iran is just not working anymore. We have preconditions for talks with Iran; stop their enrichment activities, halt their support for Shia militias hostile to the US in Iraq, and stop funding terrorism. Obama said he wanted to meet with Iran without establishing that country’s seriousness in carrying on negotiations. That is stupid, foolish, and naive beyond belief – almsot as bad as what he said yesterday – that “Iran was not a threat” to the United States. It doesn’t matter what the state department would or wouldn’t “let” him do. He’s the fricking president for god’s sake! The fact that he made the statement shows an extraordinary shallowness and inexperience that disqualifies him from being president.
Your brother Rick
3:45 pm
#22, Bush’s administration has met with several of the world’s bad leaders. So if a Pres. Obama would merely meet them with preconditions about nuclear progress and regional interference, among a few other preconditions, it would not be very different from the current administration. The “mistake” he made is critical to understanding his judgement vis a vis foreign relations. Making use of organizations of which we are members to dialogue with our enemies in multilateral negotiations has been done by this administration. Bilateral negotiations have also occurred. The big difference between them is the preconditions comment. Which Obama has buttressed with talking about legitimate grievances.
#9,.,.,#21, it is great to bring up his grandfather. Classic red herring. How this relates to the original post is a little arcane. I think it much more of indictment of Bush that he is as willing to negotiate as he is than that his grandfather invested with the Nazis, not because his grandfather’s actions were unimportant, just irrelevant to this discussion. Arab/Israeli peace is still a distant dream.
I think Bush was casting a wide net. His comments included Pres. Carter, some people in the Knesset, leaders in Pakistan, large swathes of Democrats, well meaning centrists—cosmopolitans from around the world. He was probably thinking about Sen. Obama, who knows, but I think he knows enough about the world to know it is a problem not isolated to just Obama.