The fracas over the President's speech in Israel is one of the silly stories of the week. Bush uttered one of his standard denunciations against appeasement, likening people who recommend negotiating with "terrorists" and "radicals" with people from 70 years ago who thought they could have talked Hitler out of World War II. He's said the same thing innumerable times and so have many other Republicans. But now Senator Obama takes it as an attack on himself. He complains that Bush misrepresented his position, insofar as Obama has never called for negotiations with "terrorists." The White House press secretary was right to remind Obama that, despite the dizzying conditions of a presidential campaign, the world doesn't revolve him, and not everything that politicians say is directed at him. That may be, after all, why it seemed inaccurate to the senator.
Bush is also wrong, of course, to equate negotiation with appeasement. He misses the point of the myth of "Munich," the summit of 1938 when Britain and France appeased Hitler by letting him occupy Czechoslovakia. The problem with Munich wasn't that Britain and France negotiated with Hitler; the problem was that they capitulated instead of telling him that they would go to war if he crossed the Czech border. Telling Hitler that he would be attacked if he tried his stunt is "negotiation" just as much as telling him it was O.K. with you. Negotiation and appeasement are not one and the same thing. Those who equate the two either don't understand what negotiation is, or are uninterested in the concept. Americans, unfortunately, are used to demanding "unconditional surrender" without the bother of compromise, the murky middle ground between plain negotiation and abject appeasement.Convinced of their own right and righteousness, they consider it an injustice if they can't get their own way entirely in international dealings. Of course, just about every other country feels that way as well; that's why we have to negotiate with those we disagree with and sometimes make compromises with them. How long do Americans need to learn this?
To sum up, Obama was right to criticize the speech, but wrong to make it personal. Bush's sentiments would be equally misguided no matter who was running to succeed him, or if no one was.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
First things first: You're right wing!
(You have to check uspace's blog to get that.)
Ahmadinajad has had ample opportunity to say stupid and insane things, but that doesn't change the reality of Iran and its place in the Middle East. Other world leaders I could name have also said things stupid and inane, but no one says that they should be disqualified from diplomacy for that reason. Also, don't you suppose that Iraq's next-door neighbor has some interest in what happens there, at least as much if not more than our own faraway land? Don't you suppose that their mere presence requires them to be part of any regional negotiation, regardless of their president's eccentricities? Or do you share the Bushite viewpoint that it's America's job to occupy countries all over the world to prevent any other country from having a sphere of influence?
If you've read past this post on this blog, you know that I feel no obligation to defend the "dhimmicrats" (for those at home, dhimmis are "protected" subject people under Islamic law, so the implication is that Democrats are willing to capitulate to Islamic domination), but I must point out that Republicans (you'll excuse me if I don't offer some cute-stupid label for them) have been at least as often in bed with Islamic extremists as the other side. The present President literally takes the theocrats of Saudi Arabia in hand to show his love for them. That might be another instance of "folding" in your mind, but I don't see you calling his party the Hijablicans or something similarly silly. A double standard, perhaps?
Wow! What a moron. Of course, it's a dead giveaway that someone is infinitely stupid the minute they give credence to anything uttered by President Douche. Hey, funnyguy...just why is it that America should stick up for Israel? If you believe that book of lies called the old testament, then you have to admit, the Jews only get what's coming to them. According to their own history book, they attempted to commit genocide against almost every other tribe of people living in the region. If they are hated by the other semitic peoples of the Middle-East, it's only because they've earned it. I'm not saying that Israel as a nation shouldn't exist...the fact is, Israel as a nation does exist. I'm just saying that as a tax-paying, working class citizen of the USA, I don't see any direct benefit from supporting Israel.
Also, I noticed you didn't address the fact that your beloved GW is a butt-puppet of the Saudi royal family. If GW truly believes in democracy, then it isn't Iraq we should have invaded---it's Saudi Arabia.
Update: I noticed today an item in the news. Apparently, Israel is holding peace talks with Syria. Shouldn't Bush be on TV comparing the Jews to the Nazis for their willingness to "appease"?
Post a Comment