At a time when Barack Obama is working overtime to shore up Jewish support, President Bush takes a shot at him direct from the Isreali Knesset:
JERUSALEM (CNN) – 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."
Keeping up his own campaign to fight charges that he's insufficiently supportive of Israel and/or soft on Iran, Obama's communications director, Robert Gibbs, was on the phone with CNN to rebut Bush's remarks--live, on air--minutes after he uttered them today.
Update (9:46 AM): Obama just released this statement in response to Bush:
“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. It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel. 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. 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.”
9
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
My first thought on hearing this news story was "Bush is bringing out that old appeasement chestnut." But, to my mind, there is a real question here about whether Obama's idealistic plans to hold "talks without preconditions" will turn out to be appeasement or worse.
The U.S. has made many mistakes, and we have many critics all over the world. But there are well-intentioned critics and ill-intentioned critics, and I think it is important not to give the ill-intentioned variety ammunition that can be used against us. We don't need to hang an international "kick-me" sign on us to expiate our past sins. We just need to make an effort not to repeat those past sins.
Obama has pledged to enlist the tools of diplomacy vigorously when dealing with enemies; he has not promised any sort of appeasement of Iran or other terrorists. What is wrong with that? That pledge is in keeping with the record of many American presidents--including Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan--who spoke with enemies to get them to back down, accept US demands, and otherwise avoid armed conflict. Certainly, that approach is preferable to a pre-emptive war doctrine that has cost the United States countless lives and achieved nothing.
Teddy Roosevelt had a "talk softly, carry a big stick" policy. Reagan had a "Let's talk this over" attitude. Kennedy had a "Talk Tough" policy. George W. Bush has a "I don't want to talk with you, I'll just beat you up!" policy.
Bush reminds me of Lucy Van Pelt who hits her little brother to "hit him back first." Reagan bankrupted the Soviets when they were in Afghanistan and China is bankrupting us now by supporting Iran with arms. Yet Bush wants to lend money to China when we are borrowing money from them to fight in Iraq.
Maybe if we had better diplomacy, we can get out of this useless war, work out a better trade deal with China and actually get a real "Fair Trade Agreement."
Let's be clear about what "appeasement" means. Appeasement is understood to mean "the policy of accepting the imposed conditions of an aggressor in lieu of armed resistance, usually at the sacrifice of principles." (Wikipedia) Obama has not suggested anything of the like. To sit and talk with your enemy to understand where they are coming from doesn't meet this definition. Moreover, Bush seemed to link his understanding of appeasement to Hitler, and the classical example of appeasement during that time was when Czechoslovakia was partitioned based on demands made by Hitler. Further, it is the U.S. that is the "aggressor" here. It is the U.S. that is making overt threats of violence if Iran's behaviors do not change. Therefore, it is not consistent with the definition of appeasement for the U.S. to initiate talks with a government whom we are threatening with violence.
There are legitimate criticisms to be made about Obama's policy prescriptions, but labeling it as appeasement is blatant demagoguery and obscures the real concerns that reasonable people may have.
How much was Bush's invocation of Hitler meant to get the attention of Jewish voters back home?
Between John McCain's seeking the support of pro-Israel pastor John Hagee more than any other televangelist, Obama sitting down with Jewish audiences to alleviate concerns about his Middle East policy, and Hillary Clinton trumpeting her rock-ribbed support for the Jewish state, God-o-meter can't remember an election in which Israel and Jewish concerns were so front and center.
God-o-Meter wonders: How much of this is to appeal to Jewish voters, who make up small but significant constituncies in certain swing states? And how much of it is meant to appeal to evangelicals and other non-Jewish religious voters who've come to see support for Israel as an important threshold issue?
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.