« Poll: 48% Likely Voters Dissatisfied With Current Crop of Presidential Candidates
Do You Know the Tale of Brewster Kahle? »



Bush On Political Attack: Suggests Obama And Democrats Seek “Appeasement” Of Terrorists (UPDATED)

May 15th, 2008
By JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief


President George Bush has all-but-formally entered campaign 2008 today suggesting — from foreign soil yet — that the Democrats would want “appeasement” of terrorists, in language sharper than usual.

What you read below is one reason why many\independent voters who were once Republicans or voted Republican could well cast a massive protest vote in November. Many independent voters don’t agree with or look favorably upon political discussion that demonizes the other side and tries to push hot buttons. But it is also an indication why George Bush will go down as one of the most polarizing, partisan and divisive Presidents in all of American history:

In a particularly sharp blast from halfway around the world, President Bush suggested Thursday that Sen. Barack Obama and other Democrats are in favor of “appeasement” of terrorists in the same way U.S. leaders appeased Nazis in the run-up to World War II.

“Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along,” said Bush, in what White House aides privately acknowledged was a reference to calls by Obama and other Democrats for the U.S. president to sit down for talks with leaders like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

“We have heard this foolish delusion before,” Bush said in remarks to the Israeli Knesset. “As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American Senator declared: ‘Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of 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.”

The remarks seemed to be a not-so-subtle attempt to continue to raise doubts about Obama with Jewish-Americans. Those doubts were already stoked by Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, when he recently charged that Obama is the favored candidate of the terror group Hamas.

The downside: it is the “vote for us or die” tactic. The upside: it confirms that this theme wasn’t just a product of Vice President Dick Cheney or Karl Rove but came right from the top.

The upside for Republicans: it will give Rush, Sean, et. all a theme they can use throughout the campaign. See our post below on dissatisfied conservatives. This could also whip up conservatives and get them to the polls.

The downside for Republicans and upside for Democrats: This will unite Democrats more than former Senator John Edwards’ endorsement of Obama and will not play well with many independent voters who want to sweep away divisive, polarizing politics.

UPDATE: Obama immeidately responded and the White House then came back and say, why they certainly were not talking about Obama.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama accused President Bush on Thursday of launching a “false political attack” with a comment about appeasing dictators.

The Illinois senator interpreted the remark as a slam against him but the White House denied that Bush’s words were in any way directed at Obama, who has said as president he would be willing to personally meet with Iran’s leaders and those of other regimes the United States has deemed rogue.

The problem: this fits a pattern in what has been said before by others in the administration.

Obama responded with a statement, seizing on Bush’s remarks even as it was unclear to whom the president was referring.

“It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel’s independence to launch a false political attack,” Obama said in the statement his aides distributed. “George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president’s extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel.”

The White House comment also had a tone (read the last part) that is partisan in tone — which will confirm to all except Rush, Sean et. the intent.

“It is not,” press secretary Dana Perino told reporters in Israel. “I would think that all of you who cover these issues and have for a long time have known that there are many who have suggested these types of negotiations with people that the president, President Bush, thinks that we should not talk to. I understand when you’re running for office you sometimes think the world revolves around you. That is not always true. And it is not true in this case.”

More than anything, this will solidify Obama’s unification of the Democratic party. If Democrats perceive he is being singled out — even if Bush is not using his name — it will accelerate his front-runner status and move the Democratic battle fast track away from primaries to the campaign against John McCain and, quite clearly, the now-in-campaign-mode Bush White House.

UPDATE II: There is no doubt who Mr. Bush was referring to. On Tuesday he said this:

President Bush warned in an interview Tuesday that the Democratic presidential candidates’ plans to withdraw abruptly from Iraq could “eventually lead to another attack on the United States” and would “embolden” terrorists.

In a White House interview with Politico and Yahoo News - a president’s first for an online audience - Bush said his doomsday scenario for a premature withdrawal “of course is that extremists throughout the Middle East would be emboldened, which would eventually lead to another attack on the United States.”

“The United States pulling out of Iraq or pulling out of the Middle East or not maintaining a forward presence would send all kinds of signals throughout the Middle East,” he said in the Roosevelt Room. “And it would shake everybody’s nerves, and it would embolden the very same people that we’re trying to defeat.

George Bush is a serial demonizer.

UPDATE: Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman says Bush got it “exactly right.”



This entry was posted on Thursday, May 15th, 2008 at 7:12 am and is filed under Democratic Party, Terrorism, Elections, John McCain, Independents, Republican Party, Demonization, Negative Campaigning, Newsweek Blogitics, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Iran, Polls, Middle East, 2008 Elections, War On Terror, Independent Voters, Republicans, George W. Bush, Democrats, Politics. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 16 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    W is doing the same thing to the Demonocrats that the Dixie Chicks did to him. But, at least the Chicks are talented and good to look at. I doubt the Chicks approval ratings are at historic lows.
    • ^
    • v
    The Democrats strategy and certainly most notably Barak Obamas strategy mirrors very closely the appeasement policies that Jimmy Carter championed in the aftermath of the Vietnam war in which a nation was weary of itself. Weary of war and weary of politicians promising only to balk once action was required.

    So we are left with a idealistic foreign policy approach that is certainly championed by the progressive movement within the Democratic party. It is a similar idealistic approach that failed in the 30's. Failed in the 70's and there is no evidence that it will succeed in the 21st century.

    Idealistic foreign policy is what it is. Appeasement for the sake of agreements. It was tried by Bill Clinton with North Korea and we saw what the results turned out to be. When dealing with rogues who are idealistic in their own right it is very hard to replace their version of idealism for our version. This is what the world tried in the 30's, the 70's and now the 21st century and it will fail.

    I for one do not believe that it will work. I do not believe that GWB and his neocon approach to the world will or can work. I believe that the foreign policy of realism practiced by Bill Clinton and adhered to by Hillary Clinton is the right way to go in a world that is rapidly going mad.

    Realistic approaches to foreign policy are based in facts....not hopes and dreams and change and whatever BS Obama throws out there to continue to convince the voters as did Jimmy Carter that "If only I could talk to them".

    Dream on. It certainly is the basis for Idealistic foreign policy.
    • ^
    • v
    Diplomacy is not the same as appeasement. I suppose for Neocons, talk is cheap, but guns cost Billion$.

    Neocons don't want peace, they want world domination muahahahahaha!
    • ^
    • v
    Another reason why there is no such thing as BDS. Bush deserves nearly all the scorn heaped upon him.
    • ^
    • v
    Now hold on a darn second there. Jimmy Carter appeasement? You're right. You're right. Totally. Let's ignore that he intends to pursue the war in Afghanistan. Let's ignore that he has not taken military force in Pakistan to get Bin Laden off the table. Let's ignore that talking with people isn't the same as appeasing them....

    Obama isn't talking about appeasement, he's talking about actually meeting with our enemies. Do you know what the difference is? Bush hasn't actually met with them. It's not about fighting versus appeasement. It's about skipping diplomacy and going straight to war, or introducing yourself at the very least to the people you intend to bomb.
    • ^
    • v
    Mr. Bush has drawn Bigger out into the open. Now Bigger has to explain how, exactly, he intends to meet with the heads of Iran, Syria, North Korea, etc...."without preconditions" and without appeasing them. Bigger will finally have to offer some specifics, which I believe that he will be unable to do.

    Bigger ain't gonna get the keys to the car this time around.
    • ^
    • v
    As if Bush should be criticising ANYONE on how deal with international issues. Its not appeasement that is being sought, but a policy that works instead of making things wores which is all Bush seems to do. Sometimes you have to actually deal with people instead of shoot them.

    I know in his heart of heart Bush really would like to be FDR, valiantly leading a nation into battle against a world threatening power with utter moral justification. Unfortunately today is not the 1930's, and terrorists are a crimal organization of saboteurs not a mighty unified industrial nation capable of dominating the globe. Its really pathetic when he feels the need to couch everything in terms of the glory days when things were just so simple. I can't wait till we get a grown up in the Oval Office.
    • ^
    • v
    That Bush should be giving lessons on foreigh polityc to anyone is actually kind of funny. Sad and funny.

    The only progress he can report is with N.Korea, and that's because he decided to appease them by negotiating.
    • ^
    • v
    Negotiation is not appeasement.

    Agreed. If you negotiate from strength. The United STates and its allies negotiated from a position of strength. We had something the North Koreans needed and therefore it was not appeasement but rather negotiation in which both sides conceded to reach a consensus.

    The USA has no strength in this region. Has nothing the Iranians or anyone else in the region wants. We have nothing. These people in the middle east want Israel gone, want the USA out of the Middle east and they want to impose their own agenda in this region and there is nothing the USA can offer them that will change this.

    I ask all those who are swooning over Barak Obama's foreign policy to give me anything that he can give them in order to reach an agreement that will be anything less then apeasement?

    Pulling out of Iraq and turning the nation over to the Shia which is a minority of Arabs in the region is a victory for the region? No Its appeasement. Anything for a deal.
    • ^
    • v
    Neocon,

    RE:"The USA has no strength in this region. Has nothing the Iranians or anyone else in the region wants. We have nothing. These people in the middle east want Israel gone, want the USA out of the Middle east and they want to impose their own agenda in this region and there is nothing the USA can offer them that will change this.:"

    Following this very logic, then, there is nothing the US can do except impose its own will by occupying the entire ME, including Lebanon.
    That being impossible,, let's stop talking pie-in-the-sky and explore what actually can be done. in the real world.

    No one in the region wants Iraq to explode, not even Iran, because they are afraid of the spillover across borders. . At present, Iran can enjoy the benefits of Iraq's difficulties without assuming any responsibility for them. That uneven situation would change if the US were to leave, and Iran would be the one responsible. That already is one area ripe for negotiations.

    The Sunni nations are also hiding behind US skirts to avoid regional troubles froom affecting them. As long as the US acts like a protective parent enabling others in the region to avoid the responsibilities of adulthood, we are not acting like responsible allies to anyone and certainly not acting in the inrerests of the US.

    How you can say that the US has no power and in the same breath insist that we act as if we do, is beyond me..

    Here's the kicker. Terrorism can not be defeated by military force alone.
    That's been demonstrated over and dover and over.

    Negotiations DO NOT imply a refusal to use force. They imply not using force in ways that can only bakcfire, and prevent more effective tools from being used in the interim.

    This 'appeasement ' talk is nothing but sand thrown in the eyes to prevent clear vision.
    It rises with every election cycle.
    I guarrantee Cheney will have more to say as Nov. draws nearer.
    • ^
    • v
    I have removed two EXTREMELY long comments from this thread. Please refrain from posting "books" in the comments. Please use links and not post the entire contents of the article in comments. The commenter has been temporarily banned for 24 hours.
    • ^
    • v
    Thanks, T-Stell for removing the inppropraite.

    Having to scroll past so much nonsense can be irrittating.. and what annoys can not convince. A waste of time for everyone, the commenter included.
    • ^
    • v
    "Thanks, T-Stell for removing the inppropraite."

    Ditto.
    • ^
    • v
    " he's talking about actually meeting with our enemies"

    For what purpose? To achieve what, exactly?

    As I've posted before, parties like the Syrians will agree with us, then proceed to continue doing whatever they want to do. The Iranians cheat routinely on nuclear and other agreements. Why do so many people insist on remaining ignorant and insist on maintaining blind, fully superstitious and emotional faith in Feeling Good Together and Trusting The Other Party who has proven it cannot be trusted and who is misbehaving and acting against us and our interests?

    It goes beyond the rabid, stupid, Bush hatred and typical leftist anti-US-West disease. It really is as if people are that naive or starry-eyed they believe all can easily be well.

    [sigh]
    • ^
    • v
    Nixon and Reagan meeting with the godless commies in USSR and PRC produced nothing? Kenedy taking with Nikita through a third party didn't remove missiles from Cuba?
    • ^
    • v
    " he's talking about actually meeting with our enemies"

    For what purpose? To achieve what, exactly?


    Guess we better just kill em all. I'll meet you at the military recruiting station tomorrow. How does 10 am sound?

Trackbacks

close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus

« Poll: 48% Likely Voters Dissatisfied With Current Crop of Presidential Candidates
Do You Know the Tale of Brewster Kahle? »

By posting comments on The Moderate Voice you are acknowledging and agreeing to the following general comments policy:

(1) The Moderate Voice's comments are hosted by Disqus (http://disqus.com). If your comment doesn't appear immediately, please be patient since it is an off-site system.

(2) All e-mail received from readers by The Moderate Voice is considered intended for publication unless otherwise indicated in the initial message from the writer. Please do not send us attachments unless you contact us and we agree to it.

(3)The Moderate Voice reserves the right to edit all e-mail and posted comments for content, clarity, and length.

(4) Our comment space is reserved for comments that relate to a post's topic. You should not reprint lengthy text from your own works or those of others, including news articles. You MAY link to them.

(5) Comments that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material or violate the terms of service for this blog's host provider will be removed and the author(s) banned from future comments. Such comments also violate the very SPIRIT of this site -- which was created to encourage thoughtful and vigorous discussion among readers who may share differing viewpoints.

(6) All points of view are welcome on The Moderate Voice, with the following exceptions:

(a) Comments posted several times a day with the intent of dominating, re-directing or hijacking the thread by turning a discussion into the equivalent of a bitter shouting match.

(b) Comments posted several times a day that insult or call other commenters or blog writers names or repeatedly make the same point with the effect of or clear intent to annoy other commenters or blog writers.

(7) Name-calling, personal attacks, racist comments or use of profanity by any commenter, whether they are by persons who agree or disagree with the views expressed by The Moderate Voice will NOT be tolerated and will result in the deletion of the comment and the banning of the commenter's ISP address, without notice. In some cases a comment may be deleted and the writer will be given another chance. Commenters who virtually ASK The Moderate Voice to ban them by ignoring any warnings or daring TMV to ban them will quickly get their wish.

(8) Anonymous commenters should identify themselves with the same moniker, so readers know their comments are coming from a single individual. If they don't, they are subject to a banning.

(9)If we have problems with inappropriate or inflammatory comments from a commenter who it turns out gave a fake email address that person is subject to immediate banning.

(10) Quotes from material appearing on The Moderate Voice with attribution are allowed. Reprints are allowed only by permission from The Moderate Voice. You may request permission by e-mail.

(11) The Moderate Voice is a personal site. It is not the Government. It is NOT aligned with any political party. It is NOT promoting any specific candidate for office. It is not a public institution or a media organization. It is not a neutral site. It is intended to express and disseminate the authors' varying points of views. Writers on this weblog WILL take positions. It reserves the right to limit comments to those that, in its view, comport with its stated comment policy. Comments that do not comply are subject to deletion and banning of the author's ISP.

Disclaimer:

--Reading and posting comments at The Moderate Voice constitutes acknowledgment of and agreement to the terms outlined in this comment policy. This comment policy may be revised in part or in full at any time.

--All comments must comport with applicable state and federal laws. The Moderate Voice has no obigation to monitor, edit, censor, or take responsibility for comments. It may or may not act upon a violation of its comment policy once a suspected violation has been brought to its attention. Therefore, commenters are solely responsible for the content of their comments and should ensure that that their comments are lawful and fall within the stated guidelines of both The Moderate Voice and its hosting company.

--The Moderate Voice is not be responsible for injury or liability to any reader or commenter resulting from its own communications or those of commenters, that may be offensive, misleading, inaccurate, illegal, or otherwise unsuitable in the view of the reader. Readers and commenters further agree to indemnify and hold harmless The Moderate Voice from claims resulting from the use of any material appearing on The Moderate Voice which damages the reader, commenter or any other party.

--The Moderate Voice is not responsible for and might disagree with material posted in the comments section. While we strive for accuracy in our posts and DO correct errors, material posted by The Moderate Voice in its posts -- or those left by others in the comments section -- may or may not be accurate.

Read and Post at your own risk.