Thursday, May 15, 2008

A New Low For President Bush? No, Just More of the Same.

A lot of people are getting very angry today over this story, in which the President used a speech to the Israeli Knesset on the 60th anniversary of their independence to launch a rhetorical attack on the foreign policy worldview of many Democrats, including Sen. Obama among others. Comparing the policy of not thinking you can kill and blow up everyone we dislike engaging in diplomacy with America's foes as appeasement on par with Nazi sympathizers, he said "We have an obligation to call this what it is."

But seriously, how is this new? The President and his seemingly endless supply of conservative dead-ender supporters have been foaming at the mouth for years about how any distancing from the Bush/neocon foreign policy equals appeasements since the beginning (despite the President and others having admitted they were lying about the war for years). That's like being shocked if Bush demanded Democrats give him another 100 billion for Iraq to 'support the troops' or Sean Hannity having an aneurysm because someone didn't wear a flag pin. This type of empty rhetoric is all that they know.

The only truly surprisingly disgusting part about this is that he said this while giving what should've been an apolitical speech to a foreign government. But even that isn't shocking, as he has politicized every aspect of his job and the government.

Sen. Obama fired back, stating "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... Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power -- including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy -- to pressure countries like Iran and Syria."

The Philadelphia Daily News' Will Bunch was not as a polite (he's one of the angry folks I mentioned earlier), calling it 'political treason' and writing that-
As a believer in free speech, I think Bush has a right to say what he wants, but as a President of the United States who swore to uphold the Constitution, his freedom also carries an awesome and solemn responsibility, and what this president said today is a serious breach of that high moral standard.

Of course, there are differences of opinion on how America should handle Iran, and that's why we're having an election here at home, to sort these issues out -- hopefully with respect and not with emotional and inaccurate appeals. Not only is the president's comment a gross misrepresentation of Barack Obama's stance on the issue, but ironically, it comes just a day after his own Secretary of State, Robert Gates, said of Iran: "We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage . . . and then sit down and talk with them." Is Gates a Nazi appeaser-type, too? And Bush has been hardly consistent on this point, either. Look at his own dealings with oil-rich Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi, linked to deadly terror attacks like Pan Am Flight 103.

But what Bush did in Israel this morning goes well beyond the accepted confines of American political debate, When the president speaks to a foreign parliament on behalf of our country, his message needs to be clear and unambiguous. Our democracy may look messy to outsiders, and we may have our disagreements with some sharp elbows thrown around, but at the end of the day we are not Republicans or Democrats or liberals or conservatives...

...And you, Mr. Bush, are the leader of us all. To use a diplomatic setting on foreign soil to score a cheap political point at home is way beneath your office, way beneath your country, and way beneath the people you serve.

Time magazine's Joe Klein also had some strong words for The Decider-
On cue, Bush compares Democrats to Nazi appeasers in a speech to the Knesset. A question: Does anyone think that an "appeasement" policy that included the following factors

--using Iran's 2001 cooperation in Afghanistan as leverage for a more robust engagement strategy
--not invading Iraq
--not isolating Syria, thereby forcing it deeper into the Iranian sphere
--aggressively pursuing an energy independence and conservation strategy at home

would have worked any worse than the Bush policies that have led to the strategic aggrandizement of Iran? The man's arrogant cluelessness is simply astonishing.

And neither of them wore a flag pin while they assaulted Bush with these dangerous facts.

Wanna see the President's latest hissy fit for yourself? Enjoy.

2 Comments:

At 5:42 AM, Blogger USpace said...

.
The terrorist monkey can not be negotiated with. The only reason to maybe talk to Ahmadamadmonkey in say maybe Switzerland is to provoke him by debating his ideology and criticizing the hatred. Force him to say lots of stupid and insane things which would be widely publicized thus educating more people to his ideology's insanity. This, I am quite sure, Obama would never do.

Ouch, Obama and the poor little Dems were hit a little too close to home by what GW said. It's one of the best things Bush has ever said. Bravo! And he didn't even have to mention the Dhimmicrats or any body's name.

So sure, then he folded in Saudi Arabia, but what he said in Israel almost makes that OK.
.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
appease the appeasers

don't embarrass them
by calling them appeasers

.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe said
have a sit down with Hitler

he should have been sweet-talked
he had goodness within

.
Appeasement Talk Bothers Appeasers

Help Halt Terrorism Now!

USpace

:)
.

 
At 2:51 PM, Blogger BlueDuck said...

Your ranting about "Ahmadamadmonkey" and "Dhimmicrats" outs you as the Rhodes Scholar you are! It would appear that folks like you and Kevin James and Michelle Malkin graduated from the same school of foreign policy thought... meaning understanding history and complexities is out, chest-beating about screaming is in.

As I've written here, one of the reasons I am most anticipating an Obama presidency is for a return of sanity and intelligence to our foreign policy. Is it January yet?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home