Nathan Moore's Thoughts
Bush on Appeasement: Barack Chamberlain Snaps Back
President Bush chides Democrats for their unconditional surrender stance on the war in Iraq, comparing it to the appeasement of the Nazis. Obama strikes back, calling Bush’s comment the “politics of fear.”
How… trite.
George W. Bush is right
Speaking before the Knesset, Bush said that “some people” believe the United States “should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along.”
“We have heard this foolish delusion before,” Bush said. “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.”
Understandably, Barack Obama doesn’t like his policies being aptly compared to one of the largest strategic blunders in world history. But then, the truth often hurts. If Obama has a better description of his Iraq withdrawal plan, based in reality and not fueled by hopeful irrationality, I would sure like to hear it. The sadness is that there is no other accurate description of it. One certainly cannot say he strongly opposes the terrorist forces in Iraq while advocating that we cease confronting them. Instead, he wants to “talk” with those who are uninterested in reason. With Obama, it’s as if that “positive parenting” nonsense would become our foreign policy.
Anyhow, not to say Obama supports Hamas, but there are certainly good reasons Hamas supports him.
Technorati tags: barack obama, road to the white house, politics, Iraq, Del.icio.us tags: barack obama, road to the white house, politics, Iraq, LiveJournal tags: barack obama, road to the white house, politics, Iraq
UPDATE More Democrats act indignant
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that Bush’s remarks were “beneath the dignity of the office of the president and unworthy of our representation” at the celebration of Israel’s 60th anniversary.
…
As Pelosi was speaking, House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel issued a statement in which he said: “The tradition has always been that when a U.S. president is overseas, partisan politics stops at the water’s edge. President Bush has now taken that principle and turned it on its head: for this White House, partisan politics now begins at the water’s edge, no matter the seriousness and gravity of the occasion. Does the president have no shame?”
Both are peculiar things to say, especially from leaders of the legislature, which remains significantly less popular than the president. If anyone knows what it means to be “beneath the dignity of the office”, it would be Nancy Pelosi, the most incompetent House speaker in recent memory, whose recent field trip to Syria makes her seem more than just a little bit ridiculous. Second to all that, I am sure that Congressman Emanuel realizes that the president is the commander-in-chief and chief diplomat. Encouraging one of our staunchest allies of his commitment to the region, and his hatred of appeasement, can only be a good thing. If that makes you feel bad, tough luck.
All the same, I find this amusing. When wimps are called out for being wimps, they get mad. Certainly they can find a way to channel that rage, and in the process, stop being wimps. These Democrats are rightly noted for their appeasement tendencies and they feign the most comical of outrage. You wanted to leave Iraq yesterday? That is called surrender. Or the redeployment of courage, or whatever euphemism you can concoct to hide the bitter tasting truth that today’s Democrats haven’t the stomach to fight for much of anything.
May 15th, 2008 at 11:02 am
Lets see, under George “Churchill” Bush we have seen the worst terrorist attack ever on American soil, we have seen him allow the perpetrators of these attacks to build a safe-zone in the mountains of Pakistan and Afghanistan, he started a seemingly never ending war with a country that did not attack us nor did they pose a legitimate threat to us, we have seen a complete nosedive among people around the world in their respect for us, we have seen a 500% increase in the price of oil since starting his war to “stabilize” the middle-east.
Yeah, that’s who we need to be taking foreign policy advice from, George W. Bush. I wish Churchill’s heir had cracked a history book that was written after 1948, because maybe he would’ve seen the danger in going into an unfriendly region half-cocked, without a strategy or an exit-plan.
May 15th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
[...] verbal excrement, read this from our good friend and part time contributor to Tennesseefree.com, Nathan Moore. Understandably, Barack Obama doesn’t like his policies being aptly compared to one of the [...]
May 15th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Back to the facts Sean……Iraq was authorized by both parties and Bush with the intelligence, (I use that word loosely), available at the time, both parties were responsible for that one!
….Clinton had the oportunity to take Bin Laden in his term. Apparently it did not seem to be the thing to do.
… Disagree that the respect has changed, probably was not that great before Bush.
….Appeasement has never worked throughout history that I can see. You can give me an example it you have one.
… Are you sure oil was only $25/barrel back then? Gas sure has not gone up 500% …That would make it around $12/gal., wouldn’t it?
… Bought gas under $2/gal a few years back, Bush was in office, wow,how could that have happened?
There is a lot more to it then the “Let’s all just get along” policy that B.O. is spouting.
I agree that Bush has been a disappointment, good intentioned, but a disappointment, but increased taxes, appeasement, and the apparent bad judgement of character exhibited by B.O. is surely not the answer.
May 15th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Nathan Moore smears Obama, playing the tired fear card again. Under the president Nathan Moore voted for twice, al Qaeda has grown stronger and Iraq is a mess. What does that tell you about the credibility of his opinions and that of the worst president in American history?
May 15th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
You say al Qaeda is stronger?
Surely, you jest - or if not jesting, must be drunk. I suppose I may have missed all those attacks on our soil since September, 2001, but I very much doubt it.
May 15th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
…..”whatever euphemism you can concoct to hide the bitter tasting truth that today’s Democrats haven’t the stomach to fight for much of anything.”
You’re wrong here, the Dems remind me of other political parties in the world that were more interested in “fighting” for the “Party power” ,with the interest of the country as an afterthought, but they were in Europe and Asia, must be something different, or is it?
William… The approval ratings of congress must mean there are even more problems there, don’t you think?…whoops, they are controled by the Dems…those disapproval ratings must be some right wing conspiracy, don’t you think?
May 15th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Holy crap are you dumb. Why do so many Bushies suffer from a simple lack of knowledge? Can’t you read?
I’m not saying al Qaeda is stronger, our own government says al Qaeda is stronger! Idiot:
From the report:
“we found broad agreement that al Qaeda had established a safe haven in the FATA [Pakistani tribal lands] and reconstituted its attack capability. In particular, the unclassified versions of the 2007 NIE and 2008 Annual Threat Assessment state that al Qaeda has regenerated its attack capability and secured a safe haven in Pakistan’s FATA. These conclusions are supported by a broad array of sources, including Defense, State, and senior U.S. embassy officials in Pakistan.”
Unbelievable.
May 15th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Read it for yourself, the report title might give tyou a clue”
The United States Lacks Comprehensive Plan to Destroy the Terrorist Threat …
http://www.hcfa.house.gov/110/GAO041708.pdf
May 15th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Appeasement has never worked throughout history that I can see. You can give me an example it you have one.
Define “appeasement”? If negotiating with people who aren’t ideologically identical is the definition, then Nixon reconciling with Mao was pretty successful.
May 15th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
All you need to know is, Democrats lose wars.
‘Nuff said.
May 16th, 2008 at 12:50 am
As a final slam dunk on this stupid “appeasement” fear mongering rhetoric designed for the ignorant and weak-minded …
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 are 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.“
May 16th, 2008 at 7:40 am
Googled “appeasement”… from Wikipedia……….Appeasement, literally: calming, reconciling, acquiring peace by way of concessions or gifts (the verb ‘to pay’ also goes back to the Latin ‘pax’ = peace). Most commonly, appeasement is used for the policy of accepting the imposed conditions of an aggressor in lieu of armed resistance, usually at the sacrifice of principles. Usually it means giving in to demands of an aggressor in order to avoid war. Since World War II, the term has gained a negative connotation in the British government, in politics and in general, of weakness, cowardice and self-deception.
May 16th, 2008 at 7:44 am
As said by Winston Churchill[1]:
“ An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile hoping it will eat him last. ”
May 16th, 2008 at 9:09 am
Talk about appeasement…
“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.”
May 16th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Guys, go to the holocaust museum in D.C., stand in that round room, and look down at the shoes of the victims, young and old, men and women, work shoes, and dress shoes. Then talk to the man in Iran who says it never happened.
Watch the news of Burma, a government that is letting thousands die each day for what? How do you dignify their authority.
The genocide in the Sudan, we must need to have a chat with those guys.
Stalin was a great guy to chat with, he killed more of his own people than Hitler.
Maybe if Bin Laden would only apologize, we could all get along.
Can you reason with radical islam? Is there anything on the table that you could offer them? Heck, they don’t even accept that we exist as equal human beings, change that, human beings period.
Yes Sean, “deal with sooner or later”, deal with, not dignify.
May 16th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Rick,
You have to be numb in the mind to think John McCain was saying we should eliminate Hamas in that statement.
May 16th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
How is paying off the Iraqi Sunnis not appeasement?
Appeasement IS the current policy in Iraq.
May 16th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Sean.. where did eliminate come from?
May 16th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
The anti-appeasement part I have a problem with is for the US President “dignifying” the bad guys with a one on one across the table relationship.
Communication without dignification could provide intell or some other type of progress. I have a problem with the type of appeasement Chamberlin gave Hitler, the type Stalin got, and the such. Communication does not equate with appeasement,you would communicate in order to gain the advantage, and appeasement does not mean that you are communicating or gaining anything.
Also, H.B., buying intell is not what I’d call appeasement, or building schools and hospitals.
The word elected keeps coming up with you guys.
Hitler was elected, Saddam was elected, Stalin was elected, one way or another. Elected does not always mean the same thing as it does here, or does it warrant the same respect.
Heck, Bin Laden was probably elected by his peers!
May 16th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Rick:
Well, I’d say giving cash to the Sunni insurgents in order to bribe them into fighting on our side conforms to the definition of “appeasement” you yourself cited above.
May 16th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
H.B……I’d call the hiring mercenaries,a common used tactic in war, not appeasement.