Hardball Host Chris Matthews Obliterates Conservative Talk Show Host On Bush’s Obama “Appeasement” Charge (UPDATED)

As one who has, on occasion, called Chris Matthews "tweetie" I must (and am pleased to) credit Chris's insistence on 'an answer' from Kevin James. James's moronic performance will (IMO) be a very wide spread 'YouTube' and, on it's own, do much to sway moderate Republicans and Independents to a reasonable choice in the upcoming election.

Joe -

I am sorry, but I don't seem to be able to find a link to the text of the speech where Bush mentions Obama and appeasement.

Please provide that, so we can all judge for ourselves the full nature of Bush's transgression. So far, all I have found from that speech is a quote about appeasement not being a good idea, and talking about the folly of Senator back in WW II.

I have failed completely in my search to find a reference to Obama, or even Democrats in general, just a statement '(s)ome seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals'.

That of course is an irrefutably true statement. There are some who believe that. Those who are most aggrieved by this statement can only be so if they believe it is describing them, as no indication of who that 'some' are was provided by the speaker of the phrase, President Bush.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

1. "I don't seem to be able to find a link to the text of the speech where Bush mentions Obama and appeasement."

Bush:

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.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/05...

That's what all the temper-tantrum-throwing noise is all about.


2. Did Chris Matthews confuse who was our President when the U.S.S. Cole was attacked? Why is Matthews, routinely derided by Left and Right, now such a hero?

Of course the resident Bushophiles know that Dubya never, ever intimates without mentioning specific names that anyone who isn't kissing his posterior and agreeing with everything he and his cronies do is the only way to work against terrorism. This shows how much like their hero they are, incapable of learning anything over 7+ years and living in a fantasyland that bears no resemblance to reality. Gee, could we be reading posts from members of the 33%? I do believe we are.

Now AustinRoth, DLS, Matthews made darn sure, repeatedly, that he prefaced this whole "conversation" with Kevin James by asking who he thought Bush was talking about. James answered, repeatedly, that it was obviously Obama. That was no dogwhistle Bush used in the Knesset, it was a foghorn heard round the world, and of course in America's family rooms.

And unsurprisingly, James was clueless about what Chamberlain's "appeasement" actually was.

And somewhere in Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad laughs heartily as once again, Dubya does more for him than any of his own rambling diatribes could.

So Jim, your point is that you and the rest of the BDS crowd get to decide who means what, and when, despite what their actual words say? They mean what YOU say they mean, and nothing else?

Wow, George Orwell WAS the most prescient writer in history.

Mike - same question, with a different twist. Who gave Kevin James the right to be the authoritative 'interpreter' of that speech?

Any way you slice it, people are reading what THEY want to hear want into those words.

Furthermore, if so many people feel that it just MUST have been about Obama, then instead of 'what does that say about Bush', the real question is 'what does that say about Obama'?

Boy, I don't think I've ever een a more hysterical guest on TV.
If only he had made some sense in between run-on meltdowns, Mathews might have been able to ask him to respond to Biden's,interesting points:
about
> negotiating with N.Korea
> current US talks with Iran
> the deal cut with Lybia
and so one..

As it was, no sensible statement could be expected.

In this case, I agree with Pelosi. For Bush to make a campaign speech for the GOP while in Israel, and using the customarny fear and smear toctics (Hitler, again), truly was beneath the dignity the office of the POTIS deserves.

AR-

Several reporters on both CNN and MNBC cited Bush's staffers as saying ithe speech was about Obama,, .
As there will never be video clip proof of these conversations, you are free to guess whatever you like, just like the rest of us are doing.

BTW, where is your proof that Obama wasn't the intended target?

This business about demanding links and documnts is a common method of arguemntation , not argument, in some circles, and the reperition of the gimmick is becoming tiresomely transparent.

Austin, don't play games with me. Read my previous posts and news stories. I'm not going to repeat what I said in my posts and I stand by them. To help you out I will add links to both of my posts as a special note under this post.
Also, below is a link to a general google search. You might want to contact all of the headline writers and reporters who mistakenly jumped the gun and thought Bush was referring to Obama. In fact, the White House started out denying it was referring to Obama but in some later stories source basically suggested it most certainly was. Read my posts. I just won't be drawn into this kind of thing in comments. If you don't like my posts and insist that he was simply referring to no one in particular in the same week when he said something related to CNN, that is your right. Look at the links because I stand by those posts and am not going to rewrite them here in comments.
LINK TO GOOGLE
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bush+appea...

Joe -

Sorry, I am not 'playing games'; I am trying to make a few points:

1. No kidding that the entire left-wing MSM and blog community has claimed Bush 'smeared' Obama. But he did didn't. As someone who uses words for a living, you certainly understand and appreciate the difference between inference and accusation.

2. If indeed that aforementioned group is jumping lemming-like to the same conclusion, it again is more of a commentary about Obama than about Bush or what he said.

3. As I said in a different thread, where was the outrage when Democrats (Pelosi, Obama, Carter) went overseas and tried to high-jack foreign policy away from the Executive Branch?

Finally, to runasim - 'where is your proof that Obama wasn't the intended target?' Sorry, I know better than to try and establish a negative proof. Nice try, though.

Oh, the the 'demand' for a link was, of course, no such thing. I already knew, as all of you did, that no such link COULD exist.

Which was the point.

And Joe, it is not a matter of liking or disliking your post. I find this particular one intellectually dishonest, to be frank, and even though we don't agree much, rarely if ever would I make that statement.

However, as you have pointed out, you are not alone in your opinion, nor even in the minority, at least among the press.

The new catch phrase for the progressive left is appeasement is not about talking its about giving things away.

Suggestion?

Talk is good. Obama is going to talk. Neville Chamberlain Talked to Hitler and in the end gave away half of Czechoslovakia because in speeches he was a sympathizer with the German people because he felt that they had been treated to harshly by the victors of world war one.

So lets put this in perspective. Is then Barak Obama a sympathizer with the Palestinians? Syrians? Iranians? Will he sympathize with them for their apparent ill treatment by both the jews and the rest of the middle east for the last 2000 years.

What is on the mind of Barak Obama when he goes into talks with those people whom we have deemed our adversaries but whom Barak Obama might actually deem as having been mistreated and misunderstood?

When his talks become concessions then we will know. Agreements to end conflicts that give something away is appeasement. Especially when what you are giving away is NOT yours in the first place. In this case Neville Chamberlain gave away Czechoslovakia for peace. Will Barak Obama give away, Iraq? Afghanistan? Israel?

Austin, who was Bush referring to then?

Happy -

I don't presume to know. The phrase was 'Some seem to believe'. That, by definition, means more than one. And there certainly is more than one person that believes that, and it is a true statement throughout all of history.

There are politicians, statesman, columnists, activists, people of all walks that truly believe that appeasement and unilateral acts of goodwill towards tyrants and our enemies will impress them of our inherent worthiness to the point that they themselves will lay down their arms, reject evil, and become 'good neighbors'. (hint - I am not one of them).

I will even concede the point that Obama was possibly, and even likely, part of the larger group Bush referred to in his comments. But by his words he did not direct that at Obama solely, but rather that whole mass of naive idealists who would lead us down a primrose path, and who look to Obama as their potential standard-bearer.

Will Barak Obama give away, Iraq? Afghanistan? Israel?
reply

Can someone please pick my jaw off the floor for me?

Now, hold on a second Austin. Was Bush referring to actual people and if so, then to which people specifically? What I'm asking is, 'okay, if Bush was not referring to Obama, then who was he referring to?' The extension of that is who actually has, in the United States, a policy of appeasement (not diplomancy) towards Iran?

What I'm trying to get at here is the outrage is because Bush not only took a pot-shot at Obama, but mischaracterized him as Nelville Chamberlein's house of appeasement. However, if you say the statement is not about Obama, then who is he talking about? If the answer is people who have a policy of appeasement towards Iran that are part of the US government, then he is not talking about anyone.

He is talking about a mythical character.

Appeasement is quite literally giving someone else whatever they want so that they won't hurt you. Diplomacy is the act of developing mutual wants. The point of diplomacy is not to avert a threat, but to lay the foundations for influence and partnership. That is, quite literally, appeasement would be if Iran was actually capable of conquering another country, and we let them do it so that they wouldn't hurt us or our allies. Diplomacy is the act of sitting down with Iran and talking about nuclear policy, about the war in Iraq, about a whole host of things, and finding the places where our interests are common, and developing wants for Iran to see.

The President's flaw, then, is that if he is speaking about someone, then he is mischaracterizing what they are doing and confusing diplomacy with appeasement. If he is not, however, then he is simply speaking about a nothing; about no one.

Appeasement doesn't work, but not every country we ever meet is Nazi Germany. Negotiations and diplomacy sometimes work (see: Reagan/Soviet Union, Nixon/China, FDR/Soviet Union), and sometimes they do not. War sometimes provides resolution, but often times fails, at the largest cost (Vietnam, Iraq).

You cannot throw diplomacy or negotiations off the table, however, because they are preventative. They prevent the biggest plague on human beings in terms of money, progress and lives: warfare. No one wants World War II or World War I or a Civil War. It does not follow that we give up everything to prevent it. It does not follow, either, however, that we try nothing else.

American adults are dying in Iraq, and coming home and killing themselves here. They have massive injuries. They are being misdiagnosed to push them back into the field. There are very few looking out for them or their families, and all it appears to be is a minmizing of fiscal loss despite the fact that these soldiers are entitled to the full ride. The thing is, this is the cost of the war, and it is worth measures of diplomacy, negotations, and direct talks to prevent these costs.

HappySurge,
I figured it out. He's talking about the Israelis!

"Talk"...

I love it. Let's forget Reagan and the Soveits. Let's forget Nixon & China. Yes, we can't possibly "talk" to our enemies...

Come on, guys. Austin, though, you know what I'm getting at. This is a case where you say 'all right, yeah, that was pretty stupid' and move on, because there's not really a good case to be made.

If the President wanted to say he disagreed with Obama, he should point out why he disagrees with the President having direct talks, and then explain why that is valid. So, he'd not only say 'well, it legitimizes our enemies.' He'd say 'well, see, these other things don't.' Basically, there's an argument to be made, but it's not being pursued fully or honestly.

If the President could say 'these talks will have a negative impact on us, and here's why, and here's why the alternatives are less negative', then I don't think he'd get much flack for it.

Using a strawman, however, just makes his actual claims weaker.

It's like he's counting on people being stupid enough that only the sparknotes version of the discussion will do. He should invest some time into actually communicating his qualms to the American people in a way that doesn't assume we need abridged idiocy.

As an aside to the discussion here about the political games being played with this speech and the response, that "interview" was painful to watch. With the advent of the internet I've paid less and less attention to TV and radio, but if this interview and the things I hear on talk radio are any indication, political "discourse" has completely devolved into who can yell the loudest and interrupt the most. Are there any outlets left that provide political discussion where both sides actually listen to one another and have a civilized discussion? If so I'd be interested in knowing about them, because the Hardball / O'Reilly / whoever sort of "interview" is totally unbearable.

What is this 'both sides' business? Debate programs don't work on television because they're dishonest shoutfests or on PBS. See: Crossfire. The trouble is they don't have experts or master-thinkers operate shows and debates. They have party hacks. Bill Buckley & Noam Chomsky work because they hold political beleifs, but they are not themselves just political hacks defined solely by their allegiances. They are people who study this, who built their lives being experts on intelligently ascertaining issues.

If you want intelligent debates on issues, you'd literally have experts on those issues and in those fields answering and asking the questions.

No, but seriously Austin, you say 'I don't presume to know.' But the President isn't an abstract artist. We should know. Otherwise, we're conceding that what he says is as insignificant as garbage, where we shouldn't be bothered with the particulars of it.

What I'm basically saying is I have no problem with Bush attacking Obama, if he did it directly and accurately. He's got a fair place to disagree with Obama, but he has to do his argument justice if he is to do it internationally or even domestically. If his problem is not with Obama, he needs to point to whom he is actually referring. Otherwise, he's fighting a strawman that doesn't exist.

Austin:

There are times when the MSM takes a perspective one way (or another) on a given story, so as to spin it as they see fit. I'll grant you that. However, the only spin that can be given that White House aides told CNN that Bush was targetting Obama is to simply deny that it occurred, as you seem to be implying.

So, to clear up the fog, I ask you for a yes or a no: Is CNN lying about obtaining a statement from White House aides where they acknowledge that the President's remarks were aimed at Barack Obama?

I would say that Bush is an appeaser with regards to bin-Laden and terrorists. After all Bush said he wanted bin-Laden dead or alive and he would stop at nothing to stop him. But then Bush said bin-Laden was no longer important and he gave bin-Laden the rough border area of Afghanistan and Pakistan so bin-Laden could regroup. Then Bush went after a country whose military was practically neolithic after years of sanctions, no-fly zones, etc. under the first Bush and Clinton. And that country posed no threat to the US. And in order to drum up the intelligence to "prove" there was a threat Cheney had to open his own private intelligence agency who would only base it's conclusions on cherry-picked facts that agreed with its premise...

And Bush refuses to talk to our enemies. Yessiree..I'd say that Bush is the big appeaser and has put America at great risk....

BTW: of course Bush was referring to Obama. We've seen how Bush uses vague language to get around questions that he doesn't want to answer, and he has admitted to outright lying (I'm referring to his removal of Rumsfeld- you might recall that Bush said Rumsfeld had his full support then after the Nov. 2006 elections Bush sacked Rumsfeld. When Bush was asked about his support of Rumsfeld just a week, Bush replied that he knew the previous week that Rumsfeld was going to be sacked, but he gave the answer he did because he didn't want to discuss it. I didn't think it was ok for presidents to lie to the public because they didn't want to discuss something. He could have said any number of things, instead of an outright lie.

The only party in America Bush would feel the need to attack would be the Dems. and the highest profile Dem (and most direct threat to the Republicans) is Obama.

Peter -

I wasn't (and am not) aware of the WH aides' comments. If true (and I have no reason to doubt you), them that of course makes this an Emily Litella moment for me. (showing my age with THAT reference)

Let's look at how Senator Obama has negotiated in the past. As a community activist his normal operation was to demand things form the government and private business and the threaten to play the race card if he did not get what he want. As a state senator he normal operation was to demand things and threaten people with lawyers.

Look at how Senator Obama has response to his lack of support from blue collar whites. Instead of trying to identify their concerns and make proposals based upon their concerns, he just called them a bunch of racist and told them to get over it.

Bush doesn't directly mention Obama. It was an implied dig, the sort of sideways backhand that many politicos have mastered...leave just enough room open for interpretation, insinuation and innuendo.
Kevin James is an idiot. The kind of kid who grew up throwing spitballs inclass and slept through his 8am history class in college because he was hung over from a frat kegger the night before.

He confused GWB with GHWB...not hard to do since the apple falls not far from the tree- but in our case it was rotten.

AustinRoth:
3. As I said in a different thread, where was the outrage when Democrats (Pelosi, Obama, Carter) went overseas and tried to high-jack foreign policy away from the Executive Branch?


Oh, it was there. Coulter and her harridans were screaming for Pelosi's head! Oops that pesky memory hole.. fell in it again.

Appeasement is giving things away so the bullies don't stuff you into a locker tomorrow. Talk/negotiation is both parties walking away with something. This hysteria has to stop, common sense needs to come back from exile.
The greatest battle one is the one not fought.
Neocons and jackasses are all hot to pull triggers, shoot first and then leave the American taxpayer to clean up the crime scene.

Iraq is not "ours" to give away, it is not a province, protectorate or state. Go back to civics class!

Newsflash- we've had enough with your antics. at least in December you'll have a Democrat in the WH to bitch about- look forward to that.

Regarding the interview itself, the conservative talk show host (whom I'd never heard of, BTW) was a complete idiot and deserved the treatment that Mattthews gave him. However, I don't think for a minute that Matthews didn't put him on specifically because he is an idiot (I presume that Matthews wasn't unaware of why Neville Chamberlain is the poster child for appeasement- but that he knew he could make the conservative look really foolish because he was only spouting the talking points rather than really understanding the basis for the argument.) So why doesn't Matthews invite someone on who DOES understand it? Obviously, of course, because his goal is to strawman the conservative position as one that is based solely on ignorant black and white thinking that "talking = appeasement."

On Bush and whether or not he meant Obama- I think he most likely did, but he framed it as an "if the shoe fits" criticism. So the question is, do Obama supporters believe the shoe fits? If they don't then the criticism doesn't rightly go to Obama so why get so outraged over it? It'd add a lot more to the discourse if people would actually explain why they think talking with Iran without appeasement might be possible (which apparently is the position of Obama and his supporters), or why they don't think so at this time (which is Bush and McCain's position.)

Austin:

No worries. There are a number of issues where I have a distrust of the MSM as well, for the spin and poorly researched positions that I have seen them take in the past (on either party). Be it via omission, lack of context, or otherwise, loud voices within that group do not make it easy to see an issue even close to its entirety.

"If the shoe fits, put it on and kick yourself with it!" - Archie Bunker

CStanley,

Oh, c'm'on.
If a right winger makes a fool of himself, there must be a plot to set him up?
I'm not much for conspiracy theories based on nothing more than vague suspicions and vague 'possibilites'.

As a general rule,my own theory is that there is a plot behind all the screaming heads interviews on cable 'news". It's to enhance the viewership of the host, promote the host as a personlity, increase ratings for the station and increase profits for the owners.

Wow, I have never in my life seen blind, ignorant loyalty to talking points so perfectly demonstrated. That right there is why I ran left as soon as I started listening to politics. The guy doesn't even care about any details, just get those talking points out there as often as possible and repeat them loudly. Good god what idiots listen to him regularly?