Quotes Of The Day: On Bush’s Appeasement Comments Delivered In Israel (UPDATED)

From the guy that call Mussharaf an ally even thought he's been shiedling Bin Laden for years this doesn't mean much. Hey Bush, remember Bin Laden? The guy you said we'd track down and kill, as well as any nation shielding him? Thought not.

Yes, certainly no Democratic leaders have gone to the Middle East in recent years and critisized the Bush administration.

God, the one-sided lying by the press, and the willingness of so many to buy into it, is truly depressing.

Is it unfair to point out that his father did more than just hold negotiations with Iran, he completed transactions with them.

Yes, certainly no Democratic leaders have gone to the Middle East in recent years and critisized the Bush administration.

Congressman Darrell Issa of California said U.S. President George W. Bush had failed to promote the dialogue that is necessary to resolve disagreements between the United States and Syria.

"That's an important message to realize: We have tensions, but we have two functioning embassies," Issa told reporters after separate meetings with Assad and Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/04/05/afric...

Traitor!

the willingness of so many to buy into it, is truly depressing.

Indeed!

Certainly appeasement is a danger, but it has nothing to do whether or not to talk to our enemies. Now, since the Nazi's are brought up, historical background must be examined. The powers that would become the Allies had a choice with Nazi Germany while in diplomatic negotiations: Either give Nazi Germany what it wanted, or not to do so. The former is appeasement, not the negotiations themselves.
And the argument that negotiating which such powers is trouble, and leads to disaster, is total crap. There is sufficient evidence, provided by scholarship on the subject, that if the Allies had not given Hitler anything he wanted that he would have backed down. Again, appeasement is in the choices made during diplomacy, not the diplomatic negotiations themselves.
Also, good diplomacy is an act in give and take. So appeasement is always part of it, but usually it is on both sides. Diplomacy and the threat of force go hand in hand, as per the words of TR "Speak softly and carry a big stick". If either is taken as the sole negotiating tool of 'diplomacy', then they are doomed to failure.

Again, appeasement is in the choices made during diplomacy, not the diplomatic negotiations themselves.
Right. But in this case, the choice has already been made to NOT give Iran the right to a nuclear program, because they've already been caught cheating and thus it makes no sense to negotiate terms of verification when they cheated on the last terms that they agreed to (NPT). Since that choice has been made, there's nothing further to discuss until Iran agrees to dismantle its nuke program.

In the Nazi Germany example, you seem to have no trouble seeing that the Allies shouldn't have ceded territory; why isn't it equally obvious that ceding nuclear capability to Iran may lead down a similar path?

And an exit question: if the Allies had done as you said they should have done, not cede territory, what else would they have negotiated about? If Germany asked for concessions and the Allies said no, wouldn't that have been the end of the road until one side or the other gave in? Germany would have had to have agreed to stop seeking territorial expansion before it could have approached the negotiating table on any other issue, no?

I think all of this reaction is rather amusing. From calling Bush's policies the worst in our history to refusing to being lectured by a man of his stature, I just have to ask: None of this would be possible without the support of all of the funding measures the Dems have passed...all in the name of not wanting to "appear" to dishonor the troops.

Say what you will about Bush; the guy can pretty much do what he wants. He has no legacy to cement or no real urgency to leave office in good standing. If the Dems really want to make hay out of all this, they should examine their own policies of allowing him to basically carry on with business as usual. As usual, it just seems to be one party going after the other. Why don't the Dems just stand up with a spine and end this thing? This seems to go hand in hand with Congress's latest approval ratings...Do something already.

"Yes, certainly no Democratic leaders have gone to the Middle East in recent years and critisized the Bush administration."

Oh, even trying to deliberately undermine as well as politicize foreign policy, such as with Pelosi's little trip abroad. Do any of the Usual Suspects remember that?

[sound of crickets chirping]


"God, the one-sided lying by the press, and the willingness of so many to buy into it, is truly depressing."

If we show depression or other normal reactions, or reiterate the truth, we just get attacked more from -- those who buy that stuff with more fervor than those who fought over Cabbage Patch dolls some years ago. [rolling eyes] I've already had dumb cheap shots slung pathetically at me when discussing appeasement earlier. (Ironically, the remark I made about the depth associated with Munich and 1930s appeasement that has been missing with 1960s-onward leftist tantrums and pathological behavior is timely, as I was moved to re-read the chapter in a book I got in St. Louis about historically crucial 1940s decisions, the chapter about appeasement and Chamberlain [as part of the background to Churchill's decision not to surrender or sue for peace with Hitler but continue fighting].) It's beyond the "USA [especially Bush] bad, poor Pallie terrorist scum good, sweet, innocent, and so misunderstood, we are threatening and making Iran do bad," etc., crowd.

"From the guy that call Mussharaf an ally "

Every normal American leader will do so, unless Musharraf were to give bin Laden money, weapons, etc., to use directly on the USA. It's the same reason we support the Saudi royal family. Despite what the naive or starry-eyed dupes on college campuses may believe, the alternatives to Musharraf and to the Saudis in today's world are as close to 100% as possible that they will of course be worse.

It's a dull ice axe with a rotten, weak handle that we're supporting in doing our part to arrest the slide; the alternatives amount to anything from lubricants to weights to rockets aimed down, not back up, the incline.

And no, you mental cases out there, Bush has not made it worse, it is not true that Everything Is Bush's Fault, and if we intervened and either faced widespread opposition or a flare-up of terrorism, or worse, if we were to succeed by Western standards, the lefties would be the first and loudest to shriek that it's bad and wrong. Meanwhile, if Musharraf (or the Saudis) were to lose power, and things get worse as normal people know they would, the same lefties would be the first to be outraged that We Didn't Do Something! [tm] to prevent it.

But in this case, the choice has already been made to NOT give Iran the right to a nuclear program, because they've already been caught cheating and thus it makes no sense to negotiate terms of verification when they cheated on the last terms that they agreed to (NPT).

Hello? First, it's not our choice. Iran has seen two of it's neighbors invaded and occupied.

And per the organization tasked with monitoring NPT compliance, they are in compliance!

Unlike non signatories like India and Pakistan.

In the Nazi Germany example, you seem to have no trouble seeing that the Allies shouldn't have ceded territory; why isn't it equally obvious that ceding nuclear capability to Iran may lead down a similar path?

Think about that for maybe .1 miliseconds! Is Israel in compliance? Is India? Is Pakisatan? Geez! This whole America rules the world and to hell with anyone who doesn't toe the line bullshit is getting not only incredibly expensive, but also tiring.

How about we think of ways to convince Iran not to go nuke? Which by the way, we've allowed lots of others to do.

Good God! This our way or the highway tactic has worked out so swell that many want to continue it.

Fortunately, most don't.

How many times does it have to be spelled out before a simple idea sinks in.?

Chamberlain's 'appeaseemtn' did not depend on whether or not he talked to anyone.Talking to your enemies (like Bush adm. members are talking to Iran right now) becomes appeasement only when you give up something foolishly without receiving equal value in return.

You can just as easily give something foolishy without speaking.
By refusing to talk with Iran when the timing was more propitious, the US has given Iran a lot of power in Iraq. .

bush and friends should think about that before criricizing others for trying to deal with problem countires with a full set of tools, instead of self-amputaing some of them at the gt-go.

Oh well, November is drawing near. It's time for Bush to bring out the old gimmicks.


GEESh!

Iran is stronger now than in 2000. Israel is weaker. Iran is our enemy. Israel is our friend. Central to the policy of the last 8 years has been refusal to talk to Iran, but to threaten and sometimes carry out war.

So why is it a bad idea for us to talk to Iran? The status quo has failed. And there are a lot more issues to discuss with Iran than nukes. How about Hezbollah?

Elrod: doing the opposite may have worked for George Costanza, but it doesn't make for a very good algorithm for political decisions.