Rookie mistakes again: Obama owns appeasement
posted at 2:00 pm on May 16, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
George Bush seems to have really rattled Barack Obama and the Democratic Party with his speech yesterday in the Israeli Knesset. Rather than ignoring Bush’s argument against appeasement, or adopting it, Barack Obama has declared that Bush intended his denunciation of appeasement as an attack on his campaign, even though Bush never even mentioned the nationality of modern appeasers in his speech. Obama lashed out in a speech today, calling Bush’s rhetoric “appalling”:
Barack Obama has called President Bush’s comments on appeasement “exactly the kind of appalling attack that’s divided our country and alienates us from the rest of the world.”
Obama criticized Republican rival John McCain and President Bush for “dishonest and divisive” attacks in hinting that the Democratic presidential candidate would appease terrorists.
Obama strongly responded Friday to the comments Bush made in Israel on Thursday and McCain’s subsequent words. Obama told a town hall meeting, “That’s the kind of hypocrisy that we’ve been seeing in our foreign policy, the kind of fear-peddling, fear mongering that has prevented us from actually making us safer.” …
Yesterday, Obama accused President Bush of “a false political attack” after Bush warned in Israel against appeasing terrorists — early salvos in a general election campaign that’s already blazing even as the Democratic front-runner tries to sew up his party’s nomination.
But Bush never mentioned any specific person in his speech today, and didn’t even specify that he was referring to Americans. Newsbusters has the full transcript, with this relevant part of the speech.
Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. 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.
Some people suggest if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of the enemies of peace, and America utterly rejects it. Israel’s population may be just over 7 million. But when you confront terror and evil, you are 307 million strong, because the United States of America stands with you.
No one in the US who runs for public office has suggested that the US break with Israel to appease terrorists. Obama certainly hasn’t suggested that, and perhaps apart from the really lunatic fringes of both Left and Right, that notion doesn’t get any oxygen at all here. Obviously, Bush wasn’t referring to American politicians in this passage, but instead politicians in Europe and elsewhere who have either an animus towards Israel or appreciation for dhimmitude. Nothing — and I mean nothing — in this speech points to any candidate or the Democratic Party, unless they identify themselves as the reference.
Obama and his surrogates drew those connections themselves. Instead of acknowledging the historical truth of appeasement’s failures, they chose to argue with it. Obama could have taken the smart route and embraced it to explain how he understands the lessons of appeasement, which is why his talks with Iran would not result in it. Instead, he got volcanically defensive, which suggests that even Obama sees the parallels between his everything’s-on-the-table approach and the Chamberlain diplomacy which resulted in dismantling Czechoslovakia.
And if Obama considers discussion of foreign policy “divisive”, then he should hie himself right back to Academia. Guess what, Senator? Presidential elections focus on foreign-policy principles, and if you can’t defend yours, then you have no business running for office.
Update: Newt Gingrich calls this a study in guilt:
Update II: Marc Ambinder reports that Bush meant to scold Jimmy Carter for his recent visit with Hamas, as Ed Gillespie explained to reporters in Saudi Arabia:
“We did not anticipate that it would be taken that way, because its kind of hard to take it that way when you look at the actual words. … There was some anticipation that someone might say you know its an expression of rebuke to former President Carter for having met with Hamas. that was something that was anticipated but no one wrote about it or raised it.”
And if one actually reads what Bush said, that interpretation looks a lot more likely than a supposed attack on Obama. Carter had just hugged Khaled Mashaal in Damascus and insisted that the US should open a dialogue with Hamas.
Barack Obama, meanwhile, continues to embarrass himself today at a presser on an attack that never was.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 [2] 3 »
Boy, you are one useful idiot. Of course the President was referring to anyone who talks about appeasement. If the demofascists want to own that position, fine. It was their tactical political mistake to jump in and claim the President was talking about barry. What a bunch of idiots the demofascists have running the show. Really is scary for the country.
You need to go back to the school of orwellian speak that you graduated from and get your money back.
peacenprosperity on May 16, 2008 at 2:53 PM
Every time I see that picture of Obama in a cowboy hat it gives me a really good chuckle!
Fred! should have told Obama about his silly “hat rule”.
I think this dust up created by the Obama campaign indicates how desperate they are, rather narcissistic actually.
But what I really enjoyed was watching his foreign policy advisor Susan Rice explain his position on talking to Iran and using the word negotiate to describe what they want to portray as a stern talkin’to.
Texas Gal on May 16, 2008 at 2:53 PM
The remorse doesn’t show. You do not slander the host of this site and expect to get away with it, you piece of filth.
mymanpotsandpans on May 16, 2008 at 2:54 PM
I have plenty of basis for calling Ed a liar unless he wants to play Clintonian word games with us.
“Nothing — and I mean nothing — in this speech [NOT OF COURSE ANY OF THE MULTIPLE OFF THE RECORD CONVERSATIONS WITH REPORTERS] points to any candidate or the Democratic Party, unless they identify themselves as the reference.”
jim m on May 16, 2008 at 2:54 PM
This is pure gold.
drjohn on May 16, 2008 at 2:55 PM
Or he was thrown something to play the aggrieved party with and will make some hay out of it.
Thanks to the Republican party’s dereliction of duty, it is looking like we may well find out.
MB4 on May 16, 2008 at 2:55 PM
And I’ve listened where almost everyday someone asks Dana to comment on the race, and she says without fail that the President isn’t going to comment on the race.
Spirit of 1776 on May 16, 2008 at 2:56 PM
Yeah, jim m is also the one that thinks McCain sold the US out to N. Vietnam after being tortured, or “cracked under pressure” as he puts it.
Rick on May 16, 2008 at 2:57 PM
And all this time I thought Bush was the cowboy. Silly me ;>)
Bigfoot on May 16, 2008 at 2:57 PM
I have a lot of reasonable doubt, thanks. I don’t think President Bush was speaking about Obama, but more as a collective and Obama is probably in there. I definitely think Carter is in there, as well he should be, the biggest appeaser of them all, and don’t forget he has the Nobel Prize (that is, don’t let him forget to mention it). At any rate, President Bush is right.
Glynn on May 16, 2008 at 2:57 PM
The Obama doctrine: Any attack on any liberal anywhere will be considered an attack by John McCain on B. Hussein Obama.
pedestrian on May 16, 2008 at 2:57 PM
What we have witnesses is hope and change in the world by a messiah.
Obama is the man to stand up to the rest of the world………………
then bend over and give them everything they want.
jukin on May 16, 2008 at 2:57 PM
In a funny way, this current flare-up reminds me of the furor surrounding Dan Quayle’s so-called “Murphy Brown” speech.
On May 19, 1992 then-Vice President Quayle spoke before the Commonwealth Club of California in San Francisco. Addressing the Los Angeles riots, which had occured earlier that year, Quayle spoke about the root causes of the riots and ticked off his list of possible remedies: economic stimulus plans for inner city communities, welfare reform, raising education standards, and above all pushing for more personal responsibility. In sum, a reasoned, fairly non-polemical speech.
Instead, the Left, and particularly the Hollywood Left, seized on a sliver of his address — two sentences from a fifty-one paragraph speech — where Quayle threw a passing barb at the TV show Murphy Brown, which supposedly glorified the issue of single motherhood. Quayle’s argument, in essense, was that the breakdown of the black family had helped exacerbate tensions in inner cities. Fathers, Quayle argued, were as important for raising children as mothers, and a show like Murphy Brown, which he assumed had argued the opposite, “doesn’t help matters.”
Instantly, the Left went rabid. Talking heads and newspaper columnists across the country were raking Quayle over the coals. Not content to merely defend Murphy Brown, they went further, demonizing Quayle for daring to suggest that a child raised by a father and a mother has a better chance of making it in society than a child raised by a mother alone.
Throughout all this, the ones who surprisingly kept a clear head on the issue were Bill Clinton, who was running for his first Presidential term, and his campaign advisor James Carville. People are arguing that traditional values are under assault right now… and they’re right, Clinton told the crowds. Carville, in his post-election book We’re Right, They’re Wrong devoted a chapter to the Murphy Brown debacle. In it, Carville questioned why Quayle’s comments caused such an uproar. Carville asked, when the Vice President of the United States argues that kids need fathers, too, not just mothers, why didn’t liberals simply say, “You’re absolutely right” and end the conversation there? What were Democrats thinking?
My reason for recounting the above, which is already familiar to many readers here, is to draw a parallel between Clinton’s reaction to the Murphy Brown speech and Obama’s reaction to Bush’s Knesset speech. Clinton had the common sense to affirm Quayle’s point, and more importantly, did not construe Quayle’s speech as somehow being intended as a personal attack on Clinton himself. (Given this is Bill Clinton we’re talking about, that’s extraordinary.)
By contrast, Obama could have simply signed onto Bush’s talking points in Israel and stated, “Democrats and Republicans alike are united on this issue. Terrorists and their abettors must not be coddled, must not be appeased. They must be fought.” In this way, Obama could have finally lived up to his promise of being a unifier.
Instead, Obama has once again seen fit to make himself the Christian in the arena, with Bush being the lion, all before the screaming bloodlust of the Republican crowds. Only on this occasion Obama was not pushed into the arena. He jumped in. The more Obama says, “Bush was obviously talking about me” the more he reminds people of his past statements regarding unconditional dialogue with our enemies. If anything, logic would seem to dictate that Obama would be anxious to distance himself from his words as much as possible.
To paraphrase the James Carville of a decade ago, what is Obama thinking?
DubiousD on May 16, 2008 at 2:57 PM
McCain: Failing under pressure for forty years.
New campaign slogan.
jim m on May 16, 2008 at 2:58 PM
Just heard Obama flipy flop on talking to Iran without Preconditions…
Rookie mistake. He now says that HE won’t talk to them without preconditions… like… uh… Bush says? But that Bush is WRONG on his policy…
My heads spinning, and I follow this stuff… the normal voter is going to listen to the volume from the Dems, not to the actual quotes and such…
Romeo13 on May 16, 2008 at 2:58 PM
I heard there were many off the record conversations with reporters who said Bush wasn’t referring to Obama because he doesn’t comment on the race. I guess that makes you a bald headed liar.
And what, about 13 years old?
ctmom on May 16, 2008 at 3:00 PM
Stringbean Obamalamadingdong better cut his losses and head back to the arugula bar.
whitetop on May 16, 2008 at 3:00 PM
Since the thread is about Obama…
This debate he called for needs to be done NOW. Let him bring his concept up on the stage and set the record straight.
What? Won’t happen? Of course not. He needs the next three months to get groomed and coached. He needs the next three months to turn the conversation away from security and back to the whoa-is-me-America platform he has been running on.
McCain….sic’ em. NOW!
Limerick on May 16, 2008 at 3:02 PM
Go back to my post where I had quotes from three reporters, ctmom, and tell me how I’m a bald faced liar. And no, I’m much older than 13. But I guess it’s a sign of success that you’re trying personal attacks since you’re unable to dispute the substance of what I’m writing.
jim m on May 16, 2008 at 3:03 PM
How can people let the media change the obama narrative. This is breathtaking I gotta say. He says he’ll sit down PERSONALLY with Iran and Syria with no preconditions. Now the media frames it as “his administration, aides, diplomats, etc.” will sit down and have discussions. Which is exactly what Bush has been doing. Obama has switched his POV to Bush’s and the media celebrates him. Craziness.
Butters on May 16, 2008 at 3:03 PM
Mubarak Hussein Ubama is not an appeaser!
He will not take no for an answer…he will stop at nothing in his quest to convert the USA to islam by force!
He will appease no jew or man of the book…but will destroy each and everyone of them…until the rocks call out to him…“look there is a jew hiding behind me..come and kill him”
SaintOlaf on May 16, 2008 at 3:03 PM
Nicely said.
Spirit of 1776 on May 16, 2008 at 3:04 PM
fixed it
Limerick on May 16, 2008 at 3:04 PM
So, Butters, you admit that Condi Rice and others from Bush’s administration have been sitting down and having discussions without pre-conditions?
jim m on May 16, 2008 at 3:04 PM
I fear you have shared a bit too much about your Newt fetish with us. :D LOL
ihasurnominashun on May 16, 2008 at 3:04 PM
Looks like the appeasers know who they are, huh? When Bush flings out a charge of appeasement, Obama acts like he’s an appeasement electro-magnet, sticking the charge to himself with all his force.
It’s pretty easy to trap the Democrats, huh? Bait, box, stick, string. Wait for Obama to take the bait and yank the string. Now he’s in the appeasement box, his natural home. Maybe tomorrow he’ll be thinking he wants out.
For all their talk about what super-geniuses they are, these donkeys sure are stupid.
Tantor on May 16, 2008 at 3:05 PM
Why would anybody think that Nancy Pelosi putting the garbage bag on her head and traveling to Syria could POSSIBLY be construed as appeasement???
I mean, RUMSFELD SHOOK SADDAM’S HAND AND STUFF!!!
benrand on May 16, 2008 at 3:05 PM
Oops, for some reason I thought you wrote…licks you in the nuts….and THAT was just wrong!!
ihasurnominashun on May 16, 2008 at 3:05 PM
Who in the hell cares if Bush was talking about Obama or not, and why in the hell is the White House issuing mea culpa after mea culpa?! Guess what, Senator Obama, we get to criticize you. Oh, I know, you and your minions will call us racists, or say we’re “appalling” and “divisive,” but we’re still going to criticize your bone-headed, neophyte plans for the nation. Grow the hell up you whining little national embarrassment. Jesus God Almighty. How much longer are we going to have to endure this freak show? And why the hell can’t Bush have the stones to simply say “If the shoe fits…” and be done with that pathetic little man? Is this really what we’ve come to? We can’t criticize a presidential candidate’s dangerous foreign policy plans because…because it makes him look bad?! Someone just shoot me now.
Rational Thought on May 16, 2008 at 3:06 PM
I hear that Michelle is devastated by all this. Just devastated.
Akzed on May 16, 2008 at 3:06 PM
That right there sums up the left perfectly…living in a false reality, which by definition would make them insane!
Liberty or Death on May 16, 2008 at 3:08 PM
Sitting down with them?
Are you kidding? They’re going to be partying in the white house daily praising the evil moon god allah!
SaintOlaf on May 16, 2008 at 3:08 PM
Who cares one way or the other if it was directed at Obama? What Bush was saying is what many of us believe, period (and happens to be the truth).
The Dems reaction makes them look weak and pathetic and exposes them for what they are. It reminds me of a scene from “The Meaning of Life”:
“I just wanna say this” and
“I just wanna say that” and
“Lemme tell ya this” and
“Lemme tell ya that”
But the Dems never actually do anything, just prattle on about nonsense…
yubley on May 16, 2008 at 3:09 PM
I don’t know why we all just can’t come out and say what we’re all thinking (including the Dhims, apparently).
Obama is an appeaser, wants to be an appeaser even if he won’t call it such.
Carter is one, Nancy is another. They all are.
Bush was right, and he had a GREAT venue to bring it to light.
That B. Hussein got so mad so quickly IS a study in the psychology of guilt.
Darksean on May 16, 2008 at 3:13 PM
Waaaay too much effort. All you need to do is put a bag of dog poo out in a big open space. Democrat will step in, works every time. This time Obama jumped in hip-deep.
RushBaby on May 16, 2008 at 3:13 PM
What Ed said.
Exactly. Yeah.
Bob's Kid on May 16, 2008 at 3:13 PM
Umm Jim M, let’s see if you can comprehend this. Obama says he will sit down without pre-conditions. He screws up. Now he and his surrogates (with help from the media, wait they are his surrogates), have back tracked and said that what he meant by “he” was his administration, aides, diplomats…and oh yeah he never said no preconditions..nope..youtube is lying…that’s not me.
So….Obama now says:
1. He will not meet with Iran and Syria personally, other administration officials will.
2. There will be pre-conditions.
And that differs from Bush’s policy how?
Butters on May 16, 2008 at 3:14 PM
I would suggest that in absence of Obama’s name being mentioned, there was reasonable doubt. Obama placed himself in the appeasment column with his response.
a capella on May 16, 2008 at 3:15 PM
Bush’s people are sitting down with N. Korea and other axis of evil types for informal discussions without conditions.
jim m on May 16, 2008 at 3:19 PM
Barack is an Obamanation. He should not be President…he is a Jimmy Carter Redux.
Recovering_Democrat on May 16, 2008 at 3:19 PM
One of the most interesting things about this whole situation???
Bush was talking about the TACTIC of Appeasement, and how it affected history, to a country whose people WERE affected by said appeasement.
He mentioned no names, no parties… and I really don’t think it was a shot at Obama, so much as the Carter type of mindset. There are MANY in the UN, and Europe, who think appeasement will work… as well as folks like Code Pink in our own country…
Dems bit, and are trying to now call him UnPresidential for talking to an ALLIE who, was once impacted by this exact same type of tactic?
He accused no one of anything…
Romeo13 on May 16, 2008 at 3:20 PM
Thanks for posting the Newt clip from H&C, Ed. I think everyone needed to see Newt totally wast Colmes on that issue.
RightWinged on May 16, 2008 at 3:20 PM
I find it incredible that someone would call Captain Ed a liar — this is a shameful and disgraceful smear; typical nonsense from folks of leftist persuasion who irresponsibly use words for emotional effect over truth.
You, Jim, should apologize, and then properly and respectfully make your point. If you can’t do that, then go to Daily Kos, HuffPo, or any other of the leftist sites play that childish game.
Richard Romano on May 16, 2008 at 3:20 PM
I am in total agreement with everyone here that said who cares if it offended Obama. The shoe does fit!! I wish Bush and others would step up to the plate and lay some more hard balls on these fools who think that they can talk to terrorists. Obama DID say he would, for cying out loud. What is he crying about now? He has the nerve to call the President dishonest and divisive???? Obama has GOT to be the most divisive figure to come along and a liar too.
This guy shouldn’t have a leg to stand on and should be shot down by every conservative that is left out there.
Unbelievable!!
Conservatives R Us on May 16, 2008 at 3:21 PM
Uh uh, wrong — there are preconditions, such as disarming and disabling nuclear facilities.
Richard Romano on May 16, 2008 at 3:22 PM
So, you don’t consider refusal to discuss anything with N. Korea without five other nations present and involved a condition???
Darksean on May 16, 2008 at 3:22 PM
Liberal guilt? Do you think so? Is it possible?
I’m beginning to think of the Obamessiah (PBUH) as the Jackie Chiles character (modelled after Johnnie Cochran of OJ fame) in “Seinfeld” whose tagline was “I am outraged!”. Yeah, so they’re both black. That’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about the manufactured indignation.
Paul-Cincy on May 16, 2008 at 3:24 PM
Condition One: Dismantle your nuclear program.
What part of condition one do you not understand?
It obvious that we have struck a very exposed nerve with the Dems and the MSM. This has them screaming bloody murder.
Good.
Limerick on May 16, 2008 at 3:24 PM
Michelle Obama:
“Bush is just plain mean.”
OhEssYouCowboys on May 16, 2008 at 3:25 PM
This is an important point. Once you reach a deal with a foreign government (or non-governmental group), or sign a treaty, you don’t really get to go back and make a speech to “clarify” what you really meant.
Big S on May 16, 2008 at 3:26 PM
Michelle Obama:
“If America had offered Obama a chance for a decent education, these mistakes would never have been made.”
OhEssYouCowboys on May 16, 2008 at 3:28 PM
oops, “Barack.”
OhEssYouCowboys on May 16, 2008 at 3:29 PM
BUT WHAT ABOUT NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN, WHAT DID HE DO, WHAT DID HE DO IN MUNICH??!?!?!?!?! YOU DON’T KNOW! YOU DON’T KNOW!!! DO YOU?!?!?!
benrand on May 16, 2008 at 3:29 PM
If reasonable doubt, then not much of it and in any case Obama has placed himself in the aggrieved party column.
MB4 on May 16, 2008 at 3:30 PM
I have found, unearthed really, a video of Michelle Obama laying into Honkies and Whiteys, some even with big Garlic Noses.
It’s a must SEE!!!!
LINK TO MICHELLE VIDEO
benrand on May 16, 2008 at 3:31 PM
I watched the Today Show this morning and they had this story on. I watched as they repeatedly said that Bush had called out Obama without even saying any names. I find this funny yet very disturbing.
Fazero on May 16, 2008 at 3:31 PM
I think other peoples responses have summed up that Jim and the word conditions are foreign to each other. When Condi goes into a meeting, N. Korea is always aware that the response will be, “OK, just as long as you disarm your nuclear capabilities.” You know “before” the meeting, there’s a “pre” - condtion. Before and Pre?
Ah Jim, I lured you into the exact response I wanted to show your utter lack of knowledge and naivety. You have now been Obama’d.
Butters on May 16, 2008 at 3:31 PM
You meanthe part of your post where you quote people who are quoting unnamed sources? You really want to use that as your basis for calling someone a liar?
“But he said that she said he heard someone say…..” hence the reference to being 13 years old. That is the kind of statement my 7th grader would use to defend a stupid remark.
ctmom on May 16, 2008 at 3:32 PM
Laughably false. Don’t you even remember the years of screaming the press has done because the Bush Administration wouldn’t sit down in bilateral talks with the Norks?
I believe Querrie tried to make it a campaing issue in 2004 even.
You actually may only be 13 years old.
funky chicken on May 16, 2008 at 3:37 PM
Oh, and please, please Democrat Party…I urge you to run ads just like jim m is pitching here about McCain. I quite enjoyed the landslide of 1984 and would love to see a repeat.
funky chicken on May 16, 2008 at 3:39 PM
Is our Obama lernin?
Apparently not, if the way he was drawn to this like a housefly to a turd is any indication.
thirteen28 on May 16, 2008 at 3:43 PM
Bush’s gift to Obama
When President Bush — thousands of miles away in Israel — decided to fire his thinly veiled shot at Obama yesterday, it was a giant gift to the Illinois senator and his campaign. Why? One, it essentially kept Clinton on the sidelines just two days after her big West Virginia victory. Two, Obama’s opponent was no longer Clinton or McCain, but the man with the 27% job-approval rating. And three, it rallied Democrats to Obama’s side.
Another example of how unifying Bush’s speech yesterday was: Clinton also leapt to Obama’s defense, even though she has disagreed with him on this issue of negotiating with unsavory world leaders without preconditions. “This is the kind of statement that has no place in any presidential address, and certainly to use an important moment like the 60th anniversary celebration of Israel to make a political point seems terribly misplaced,” Clinton said.
MB4 on May 16, 2008 at 3:44 PM
I can’t wait for Barry O. to hold a presser re valiantly defending himself against an alleged bunny attack in the middle of a lake………
ocbrat on May 16, 2008 at 3:45 PM
Barrack is a dumbazz punk who thinks he’s somebody just because there’s been a few fools who told him that he was. Obviously the punk will believe anything his handlers tell him.
Griz on May 16, 2008 at 3:52 PM
New slogan for Obama campaign..
“It’s All About Me”
Barack Obama 08
Mott on May 16, 2008 at 3:53 PM
Yet surprisingly, Bush received a standing ovation from the audience for his remarks. They sure seemed to like it. Go figure.
Badger91 on May 16, 2008 at 3:53 PM
I want someone with George Lucas type editing software to splice Obama and Ahmadinejad (which on my browser auto-spell check…is Shadiness and Headlines) shaking hands and waving to the crowds. I think that visual would get some people actually thinking about his comments. Imagine that clip being played on Al-Jazeera to the masses.
Butters on May 16, 2008 at 3:54 PM
This is like the crucial moment in a made-for-TV murder mystery. The killer says “I didn’t strangle him and then cut off his nose. I wouldn’t do something like that”. The detective replies, “We never said his nose was cut off”. Gotcha! The killer identifies himself. Just as the appeaser identifies HIMself. The appeaser, Obamessiah (PBUH).
Paul-Cincy on May 16, 2008 at 3:56 PM
Oh yeah I forgot the Al-Jazeera subtext, “The Great Satan crawling on all fours to the Mighty Iran.” I encourage others to think of a heading for this hypothetical meeting…
Butters on May 16, 2008 at 3:56 PM
I like how now the Republicans have switched the entire argument that “Oh no we weren’t talking about Obama. He must think we were therefore he must have to agree with the appeasement in order to disagree with it.”
I also like how we are completely forgetting the line:
Furthermore your whole article, Ed, completely ignores the fact that White House Staff and Advisor were asked by reporters who exactly the speech was referring to and if it were referring to Obama himself. The White House neither denied or acknowledged that, or gave up any other figures that they were talking about.
PresidenToor on May 16, 2008 at 4:04 PM
And why wouldn’t it be reasonable and logical for people to compare Obama’s stance on foreign policy as being similar to Chamberlain’s when (based on Obama’s own words on the campaign trail) he intends to talk to our enemies Hamas, Iran, et al without pre-conditions! If it sounds like a duck, it walks like a duck, then it’s a damn duck, unless of course you’re a liberal and you don’t want to call a duck a duck out of fear labeling them.
In other words Obama wants to talk to murdering animals that have no intention of abiding by ANY agreement they make and have not hidden what their true goals, agenda, and ideology are and that is to wipe Israel (little Satan) off the face of the earth and “death to America” (big Satan) not to mention it is in Hama’s charter that Israel be eliminated! So just how do you talk or negotiate with an entity that has in its charter, its ideology, its agenda, and its goal to eliminate certain people and nations?
Answer; you CAN’T and any attempt to do so will be viewed as weakness by our enemies, it will be used by our enemies as a stall tactic to buy more time to grow stronger and further their plans and therefore saying (as Obama does) we should “talk’ to our enemies without pre-conditions is in defacto APPEASEMENT in its most basic and obvious form!
So don’t blame Ed or bloggers for painting the Obamassiah as another Chamberlain, instead a more constructive use of your time and energy would be on why it is Obama has such an unrealistic and flawed view when it comes to foreign policy issues, views that are very reminiscent of Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler, especially considering appeasement (as history has taught most of us) is a dead end and will only result in more death and destruction.
Liberty or Death on May 16, 2008 at 4:06 PM
Sadly, when Her Majesty offers an opinion on anything now, the word, Tuzla, flashes before my eyes.
a capella on May 16, 2008 at 4:07 PM
Apparently, many people are.
baldilocks on May 16, 2008 at 4:09 PM
Let’s just call the kettle a spade and be done with it. If Barry Hussien says he wants to sit down, hold hands and sing Kumbaya with the terrorists then I’ll take him at his word and hope to God he doesn’t get elected. Nuff said.
Zorg on May 16, 2008 at 4:11 PM
Yep, I guess they don’t take kindly to being called what they truly are, appeasment puppets! After all, in leftard land it isn’t politically correct to call it the way it is even if it is the truth!
Liberty or Death on May 16, 2008 at 4:17 PM
Good thing Bush didn’t scratch his chin, there probably would have been a congressional investigation.
myamphibian on May 16, 2008 at 4:21 PM
Peddling fear? Hah! It’s the truth and the Dems can’t handle the truth because it distracts from their peddling sympathy for our enemies under the guise of “we want the world to love us”.
Dusty on May 16, 2008 at 4:22 PM
Tantor: “It’s pretty easy to trap the Democrats, huh? Bait, box, stick, string.”
RushBaby: “Waaaay too much effort. All you need to do is put a bag of dog poo out in a big open space. Democrat will step in, works every time. This time Obama jumped in hip-deep.”
OK, you have a point there. It’s like leaving a flaming bag of dog poop out in the park near the picnic tables, calling out the appeasers on a bullhorn that you had something for them, and Obama ran out there to stamp it out. Then he complains Bush addressed it to him.
Tantor on May 16, 2008 at 4:28 PM
Only in that barry is a post modern, moral relativating, wussy, self annointed elitist appeaser. In that case he was refferring to him.
peacenprosperity on May 16, 2008 at 4:31 PM
I didn’t say you were a liar, I said you were a useful idiot.
peacenprosperity on May 16, 2008 at 4:33 PM
You make that statement even though almost 50% of the country voted for gore and kerry!!?
Alot of people are idiots.
peacenprosperity on May 16, 2008 at 4:38 PM
John Bolton said it best, this morning on FNC:
President Bush hit the nail on its head, and now the nail is complaining.
petefrt on May 16, 2008 at 4:49 PM
It is obvious that the Dems know where there soft spots are and that they have prepared responses in the can regardless of where the comment comes from.
duff65 on May 16, 2008 at 4:53 PM
What an idiotic thing to say.
Here’s a newsflash for you Tom:
We have been comparing the Left to Neville Chamberlin and Nazi appeasers for a very, very long time, well before Obama was a twinkle in the Democrat Party’s eye, well before he was elected to the U.S. Senate.
As for talking to terrorists and radicals, we already have indisputable proof that Barry not only talks to them, he serves on boards with them, goes to their homes for fund raisers, works on projects like the Annenberg Challenge with them, and attends education conferences with them - conveniently arranged by Barry’s wife Michelle.
Buy Danish on May 16, 2008 at 4:57 PM
For a long time I have held that George Bush was the best Democrat I have even known, he is a saviour to a party who was down and beaten with no signs of recovery. Yet now after 8 years of his incompetent white house and his unwillingness to simply “vanish” into the night and allow his party to somehow start to rebuild, he finds yet another way to bring the GOP down to even lower levels.
The American people have had enough of the “scared straight” politics of this president and his party, and are rejecting it in districts all over this country that were long held as GOP strongholds. John McCain will be assuming the role of Bob Dole come November.
George Bush has become the Jimmy Carter of the GOP.
Captain, you disgrace yourself by not admitting such and continuing to “tote” the water for this right wing gasbag.
Monkei on May 16, 2008 at 5:00 PM
Great comparison and you make some excellent points!
Liberty or Death on May 16, 2008 at 5:01 PM
Heh. What a butt-sniffing little pansy you are.
Gingrich has this exactly right: Obama and the Demweenies are both too stupid and too guilty on the issue of appeasement to consider the possibility that this wasn’t about them.
Some aspects of BDS are really fun, and this is one of them.
Jaibones on May 16, 2008 at 5:02 PM
That was an interesting post. Obama reacted immaturely in predictable, knee-jerk fashion. A very good reason to keep the man away from the White House, where that type of behavior would be exceedingly dangerous.
Connie on May 16, 2008 at 5:03 PM
Jimmy Carter’s for appeasement of Islam supremacists and GWB is for defeating them. And that makes them just alike. I get it! /Jedi mind trick didn’t really work
baldilocks on May 16, 2008 at 5:05 PM
I hope that he was. He should have named Obama.
The Messiah protesteth too much. Either this is the biggest faux indignation, or the biggest guilt. Can’t have it both ways.
Obama’s site still clearly states his position - it is indisputable.
Entelechy on May 16, 2008 at 5:05 PM
I hope that he was. He should have named Obama in the speech.
Obama’s site still clearly states what he’d do, with no preconditions, and it’s indisputable.
The Messiah protesteth too much. Either this is the greatest example of faux indignation or the biggest guilt.
Entelechy on May 16, 2008 at 5:08 PM
Sorry for the double post - didn’t get one of those warnings and thought the gremlins ate my initial message.
Entelechy on May 16, 2008 at 5:10 PM
Oh allow me to point you in the RIGHT direction … Carter destroyed the Democratic party … Bush destroyed the GOP. Can you see the comparison Yoda?
Monkei on May 16, 2008 at 5:12 PM
DubiousD, good insight. Unlike Obama, Clinton and Carville had some social understanding of ordinary people and their concerns. Obama’s a product of the Liberal Left intelligentsia, inherited wealth hothouse, mixed with Black politics on Chicago’s South Side. He’s unable to understand instinctively what voters in the mass of the middle want.
The smart play as you suggest was to echo Bush’s words and even one-up him, announce any nuclear attack on Israel would be considered an attack on the US under his Admin. and would result in elimination of Pakistan (and Iran if they have nukes).
Bush called, Obama folded when raising was the right move, and is now whining. Rookie mistake. Capt. Ed nailed it.
whiskey_199 on May 16, 2008 at 5:13 PM
Ed, your title has legs: “Obama owns appeasement.” Now let’s drive it home.
petefrt on May 16, 2008 at 5:18 PM
Barry is just playing it by ear as he goes. He thinks he is oh so smart and will learn how to be president when he gets there.
TroubledMonkey on May 16, 2008 at 5:20 PM
My thoughts and feelings exactly…Bush and his administration have nothing to be defensive about when all they are doing is speaking the truth and if Obama and the left are offended by it because the truth hurts well then so be it!
We should start calling Obama the Candidate of Perpetual Victimhood much like the Islamist’s he wants to “talk” with as it seems they have this “victimhood” thing down pat!
Liberty or Death on May 16, 2008 at 5:21 PM
Comment pages: « 1 [2] 3 »