An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« We’re not as racist as we’re afraid we are

Walking the Line, Sign of Hope »

George Bush’s “Appeasement” Gift to Barack Obama (UPDATED)

Posted by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief in Politics.
May 16th, 2008 | Comments

It isn’t even Christmas yet, and President George Bush has already given Democratic Presidential front-runner Senator Barack Obama a wonderful Christmas gift.

Gift wrapped even.

And, according to reports, Obama will send a strongly worded “thank you” (but not using those exact words) later today.

As we noted in yesterday’s posts, when President Bush used a setting in Israel — the kind of foreign-soil setting Republicans long said should never be used by American politicians for political denunciations of other American politicians — to basically accuse Senator Barack Obama of wanting to appease terrorists, it was the most thoughtful gift Bush could have given him. The White House originally contended it was all in Obama’s mind that Bush was referring to him, but by the end of the day it was clear officials made a point of telling reporters they were not denying that if the shoe fits…

The problem was: Bush had thrown out a similar shoe about Democrats on Tuesday to CNN, so all the talk from Bush defenders that it was Democratic paranoia or posturing didn’t make sense — except to a can of Jolly Green Giant string beans sitting on a shelf at a supermarket.

Now MSNBC’s First Read team of political experts has weighed in and they MUST be reading TMV. Because they, too, feel Bush gave Obama the perfect gift and Hillary Clinton a sock full of coal:

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.

Bush HAS proven that he is a “uniter not a divider” — in terms of Democratic party unity…

Even neutral Dems, like Joe Biden, Rahm Emanuel and Harry Reid, quickly leapt to Obama’s defense. Some Democrats might be deeply divided right now. Pro-choice women are angry at NARAL’s endorsement of Obama; Clinton supporters are upset that Obama is looking like the eventual nominee; and some African Americans are unhappy with the Clintons. But what’s the best way to unify them all? Give them an excuse to turn their attention to Bush.

The good thing about it for Democrats — and the bad thing about it for John McCain who sees the media oxygen sucked out from his breathing space — is that the story is FAR from over yet:

And this will all play out another day — and will likely extend into the weekend — as Obama will respond this afternoon to Bush at his rally with Tom Daschle in South Dakota, NBC’s Andrea Mitchell reports. Obama will react to both what he considers Bush’s politicization of foreign policy and the substance of Bush’s attack.

A recent poll showed that McCain is hurt more by being seen as an extension of Bush than Obama is hurt due to his association with his imflammatory-talking former pastor. If Obama is seen as battling and being demonized by the most unpopular President in American history — a President who acts as if he is President of a political faction rather than of all Americans — it won’t help McCain.

Question: Has Bush become to John McCain what Bill Clinton became in South Carolina to the Hillary Clinton campaign?

If so, McCain could have as much trouble controlling Bush’s comments as Hillary has in controlling Bill’s…

Stay tuned for Obama’s heavily-covered “thank you” to Mr. Bush later in the day………..

UPDATE: Be sure to read Dick Poleman’s MUST READ HERE about how Bush sandbagged McCain’s speech yesterday and could be an ongoing problem (as noted in our post above). Polman details the LARGE number of Republican policymakers and GOP figures who have also suggested opening a dialogue with Iran,

He also notes what we’ve noted: the White House later confirmed that Bush’s comments were aimed at Obama without using Obama’s actual name.

FOOTNOTE: There is indeed a difference between appeasement and dialogue. If you haven’t already, watch Chris Matthews HERE.

Ads by Project Wonderful! Your ad here, right now: $0

CStanley

There is indeed a difference between appeasement and dialogue.
So why is it that Obama's supporters aren't asked to explain what types of dialogue could be initiated with Iran without negotiations that would lead to appeasement? Most people do understand that 'talking does not equal appeasement' so showing one foolish conservative talk show host who doesn't know what he's talking about doesn't prove much beyond what we already know: a lot of talk show hosts are partisan hacks without any understanding of the issues.

But although most of us agree that talking does not equal appeasement, there is still room for honest disagreement about whether talking should take place in all circumstances, or whether high level negotiations should only take place after we know whether or not there's anything we're willing to negotiate. If the other party has already clearly shown that they won't cede certain things that are (or should be) unacceptable to us, then there's nothing to negotiate unless that party changes it's position on that item of concern.

We're already engaged in talks with Iran regarding Iraqi security, so the false perception that we 'refuse to talk to our enemies and thus miss out on opportunities to better understand them' is just a caricature of our actual current policy. The Bush administration has refused to negotiate unconditionally with Iran on higher levels because they've continued to pursue a nuclear program even after they were found to be violating terms of the NPT. But many Bush opponents either don't realize or fail to acknowledge that this doesn't mean that we don't have any diplomatic channels going with Iran at all- and that mischaracterization is as bad as the misrepresentation that Obama supporters feel is done to him when he's portrayed as an appeaser.

And I've dropped it several times in several threads now, but no one seems willing to discuss what Obama's position actually is vis a vis 'talking' to Ahmenidejad. Has no one noticed that he's reversed himself and his staffer now says his position is just like Bush's- or is no one willing to discuss their thoughts on this?:

“Let’s not confuse precondition with preparation,” said [Obama's communications director] Gibbs of any talks with Iran. “Obviously these meetings would be full of preparation. But we’re not going to sit down and engage Iran, unless or until they give up their nuclear weapons program.[”]

CStanley

crickets chirping in response to my last paragraph?

Can anyone explain to me what Obama's position currently is on presidential level diplomacy with Iran? If I take his communications director at his word, then how is that any different than Bush's position?

Davebo

"crickets chirping in response to my last paragraph?"

Poor blog eticquite. It's like you put up a comment, wait a whole hour, then stomp your feet whining that no one has responded.

You're better than that.

But to address your last point. Did you read the recent NIE on the status of Iran's nuclear weapons program?

Why isn't Bush visiting Tehran on this trip?

CStanley

Davebo- my impatience is because I've asked it repeatedly throughout the entire day in all of the various threads about this ridiculous nonstory- and each time it's ignored. Forgive my petulance though- it was only in an attempt to finally elicit a response.

And I see you've given me one, but not one that addresses what I'm asking. The question isn't why Bush isn't now going to talk to Ahmad, it's why is Obama's advisor now saying that Obama wouldn't do so?

runasim

CStanley,

The only one who can answer 'why' is Obama.
Try contacting his campaign HQ.

As far as I know, no one here is on his campaign staff, and the timing and ocntent of his statemetns are not controlled by the people of whom you are asking the question.

Try asking something that can have a rational reply.
Otherwise, your question might begin to look like a political smoke screen.

StockBoySF

"...there is still room for honest disagreement about whether talking should take place in all circumstances, or whether high level negotiations should only take place after we know whether or not there's anything we're willing to negotiate."

Oh that's absurd... Wouldn't we need to talk (and try negotiations) first to determine if further negotiations are possible?

NB: "high level" can mean negotiations at the highest level of the government (i.e. president to president) or "high level" can be just a reaching out and making a determination whether further negotiations, and a discussion of details, are possible. I'm not entirely sure what you mean, and so I can read your comment a couple different ways. But nonetheless, whether you mean high level negotiations, or making a high level determination that further discussion might be worthwhile, one still needs to talk at some level.

StockBoySF

"The Bush administration has refused to negotiate unconditionally with Iran on higher levels because they've continued to pursue a nuclear program even after they were found to be violating terms of the NPT."

Oh? It's ok for Bush to give nuclear technology, and go against treaties, with India, who we want as friends, but we refuse to talk to Iran because we just somehow "know" that their civilian nuclear program is a weapon's program in disguise? See the link to a WaPo article from Dec. 2006.

I'd also like to point out that even while the Bush administration was negotiating this agreement with India, several companies in India were sanctioned by the US for transferring either weapons or technology to Iran.... which was kept secret from Congress until after Congress voted on the deal.

BTW: India is not a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty.

So one the one hand the Bush administration doesn't want Iran to have nuclear weapons, but on the other hand, the Bush administration will deal with a country that it knows to be transferring nuclear technology to Iran (which, according to Bush supports terrorists), and keep that a secret until after Congress votes on it. The final icing on the cake is that India only has to open up its civilian nuclear programs/plants for inspection, but not its military.

Sorry that this seems off topic, but we're talking about appeasement and it seems that the Bush administration is being hypocritical.... especially when it seems reasonable to believe that the actions of the Bush administration with India will support Iran's nuclear program.... If I were the Bush administration, i would have insisted that India show proof that it was serious about non-proliferation (such as becoming a signatory to the NPT) and that India was able to keep its companies from transferring the nuclear technology. Instead Bush pushed this deal through Congress as an opportunity to bolster his "legacy". Talk about appeasement even if it is a little indirect, we are still potentially transferring nuclear technology (through India) to Iran.....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...

StockBoySF

"But we’re not going to sit down and engage Iran, unless or until they give up their nuclear weapons program.”

CStanley, can you please provide the source of this quote? I find it troubling and would like to know where it came from so I can put it into context.

runasim is right, we don't know "why" he said it.

But I did go to Obama's website and found this passage, which I assume is Obama's official policy.

"Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress."

Obama seems to be willing to offer certain benefits to Iran if they are willing to give up their nuclear program and support of terrorism. But he's not going to give Iran something for nothing. Obama is willing to discuss what it will take for Iran to give up it's nuclear programs.

I think the biggest difference is that Bush seemingly offers nothing to Iran if it gives up its nuclear program.

Though to be honest I'm not sure about this (I've never seen any , so any additional insight or thoughts would be welcome. This is an important issue and you're right to want to know the differences between Bush and Obama on this.

CStanley

Stockboy- thanks for taking my question seriously and expressing the concern that it is important to understand the various positions that the candidates are taking.

In looking for a link for you, I came across a reference to the quote on RawStory, and I think I see where my confusion (and I believe, the confusion of quite a few bloggers, too) about the quote. At Raw Story, I viewed the video clip from which this was taken and I realized that the transcript left out one word which changes the meaning entirely. Apparently Gibbs said "IF WE'Re not going to engage" not "WE'RE not going to engage." He was stating the Bush position there, not the Obama one- but since the transcipt omitted the word "if" it came across completely differently.

For me, it would have been better if Obama really was altering his position- but I assume for those who support him, it's heartening to know that his campaign advisor wasn't saying what I and others thought he'd said, based on the mistake in the transcript which was quoted.

CStanley

Oops, here's the link:
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Bush_compares_Oba...

where you can see the video and read the transcript (which has the word 'if' omitted.

blog comments powered by Disqus