Diplomacy = Hitler Appeaser? (by Gareth Higgins)
President Bush's remarks, made last week in Israel, suggesting that anyone who wishes to talk with a violent enemy is the contemporary equivalent of a Hitler appeaser, are so wide of the mark, patronizing, and simply untrue that they must be challenged.
The fact that he used the emotive context of Israel's 60th anniversary celebrations as the background for these comments is an abuse of an already misused people. And implying that Sen. Obama wishes to appease terrorism is not only factually inaccurate, but morally troubling.
Why? Because this is to suggest that the only two options available to "good people" in responding to terror are to terrorise the terrorisers, or to cower in fear or denial. This has never been true. It does not become the president of the United States, a self-affirming follower of Jesus, to endorse the sport of violent revenge and the belief that there are certain people in the world who are so irredeemable that we should not talk to them. This aside, it is not politically efficient to suggest that terrorism can only be defeated by beating its proponents down.
I live in a place -- Northern Ireland -- where the government is now stewarded by two parties, both of whom could be caricatured as representing ancient warrior traditions. Their most recent manifestation, in the form of Irish Republican terrorism (the IRA) and militant Protestant fundamentalism, contributed to the horrors of my childhood, where political murder was a near-daily occurrence. After decades of terror, we did exactly what President Bush denounced last week -- we negotiated with each other and arrived at a settlement that sees former terrorist leaders share political power with those who consider themselves to be their victims. Successive U.S. administrations did not condemn this. In fact, the negotiations between terrorist leaders and constitutional democrats were chaired by former U.S. Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell. President Bush has visited Northern Ireland to endorse the process. He has shaken the hands of former terrorist leaders. He made a video appearance at an investment conference in Belfast two weeks ago, encouraging U.S. businesses to set up shop here and to work with, among others, the current representatives of the organizations responsible for our violent conflict.
His suggestion, therefore, that anyone who wishes to sit down and talk with terrorists is automatically the moral and political equivalent of a Hitler appeaser is not only historically false (in that we know for a fact that such negotiation at least sometimes actually does produce peace), but so absurdly detached from the reality of his own administration's practices that it suggests either a malevolent and politically expedient attention-grabbing propaganda opportunity, or that President Bush simply does not know the truth about Irish politics.
I imagine I will be criticized on at least two fronts for writing this. One, that I am singling out President Bush for no reason other than my personal antipathy toward him. To that I respond with the following: I believe President Bush is a human being in need of redemption, like the rest of us. I do not share much of his politics, but I have been willing to offer praise when he has made good decisions, such as his progressive engagement with HIV/AIDs in Africa. I also believe that his predecessor made terrible errors of judgment regarding violent conflict, not least in Rwanda, and might have been likely to make similar remarks had he been in office and in Israel last week. I hope I would have had the integrity to write this article about President Clinton were he seeking to make the same dishonest political capital.
The second criticism is more nuanced -- the suggestion that the Northern Ireland conflict is not comparable to that in the Middle East. To which I can only reply that the sectarian political divisions on this island have lasted for at least 800 years, and that the violence has at times been at least as barbaric as anything done by Hamas or al Qaeda. I think the real reason that people don't consider my home conflict comparable to others is quite simply racist: They think that Northern Irish Christians are more capable of persuasion than Middle Eastern Muslims. Or, more practically, they don't want to acknowledge that the distasteful and difficult journey traveled in Ireland may have broken the path that the rest of us need to travel too.
What is even more likely, President Bush's remarks mask what might be called another inconvenient truth. When historians uncover the background story to this moment in international relations, they will discover one of two possible facts -- either that the Bush administration is already secretly negotiating with terrorists, or that they really do believe their own propaganda. British military intelligence had a secret back channel to the IRA from at least the early 1970s. Without this, alongside the contribution of politicians, business and church leaders, and other forces, there would be no peace in Ireland today. It would be unthinkable if the U.S. authorities are not already, in some sense, talking to representatives of Hamas, Iran, North Korea, Hugo Chavez, Raoul Castro, and all the other members of whatever "axis of evil" we are told is most threatening at present. For to be honest, if the Bush administration is not engaged in dialogue with such as these, President Bush is both failing to heed the lessons of the history of conflict resolution, and, more seriously, to protect the American people.
Gareth Higgins is a Christian writer and activist in Belfast, Northern Ireland. For the past decade he was the founder/director of the zero28 project, an initiative addressing questions of peace, justice, and culture. He is the author of the insightful How Movies Helped Save My Soul and blogs at www.godisnotelsewhere.blogspot.com.
Add to:
Category: Islam, Middle East, Peace, Violence, War
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Unfortunately, the shoot-from-the-hip remarks are completely in line with Bush's character. He is incurious, amoral, opportunistic, disrespectful of expertise, and all politics with no substance. And he was re-elected with 87 percent of the white evangelical vote. Way to go!
Posted by: I and I | May 19, 2008 3:30 PM
The argument is not whether we should talk to terrorists (which, as Gareth suggests, we are probably already doing at some level). The argument is whether we extend diplomatic ties.
This is particularly important w/r/t the Middle East, where sitting at the big table with the United States represents power. It also represents a powerful public relations tool, insofar as such a meeting lends legitimacy.
The point is not to label Obama a Hitler appeaser (though argumentum ad Hitlerum is something politicians should veer from generally), but rather to point out that he is a bit green as it relates to foreign policy.
I suspect that, if elected, Obama will not be so quick to sit down with President Ahmadinejad. If he does, he will learn quickly why it was a bad idea. The issue now is why he doesn't yet seem to realize it.
Posted by: kevin s. | May 19, 2008 3:30 PM
garth. you should stick to movies. roger
Posted by: roger | May 19, 2008 3:37 PM
The argument as phrased by Bush was not, as Kevin S, says, whether to extend diplomatic ties, but it was talking. There were diplomatic ties between Germany and England when the appeasement was done. It was the giving of concessions to Hitler that was the appeasement, not the ties nor the talking. I think Gareth is exactly correct on all points. In terms of Obama's experience, it is not experience but judgement. Who is more experienced that Bush? Who has failed so miserably than Bush? Who wants to continue those failings? McCain.
Posted by: gmo2 | May 19, 2008 3:50 PM
"The argument is not whether we should talk to terrorists (which, as Gareth suggests, we are probably already doing at some level). The argument is whether we extend diplomatic ties."
No, the issue has to do with talking to terrorists. Bush has made that clear. Any attempt to provide a revisionist narrative to Bush's comments is patently false. By the way, the Bush family should know a lot about appeasing Hitler, since his grandfather, Prescott, did just that.
Posted by: JamesMartin | May 19, 2008 4:00 PM
"It was the giving of concessions to Hitler that was the appeasement, not the ties nor the talking. "
The comments related to Obama's statements that he would meet with leaders of rogue nations without qualification.
Bush began the statement noting that it is naive to suggest that there is some ingenious argument that is going to pursuade the terrorists to give up their arms. This is incontrovertible. Thus, the only purpose of meeting would be to bring concessions to the table.
"Who has failed so miserably than Bush? "
I'm not sure what this sentence is intending to communicate, but I think (whether or not you believe that Bush is a failure) Obama would be a catastrophe compared to Bush.
Posted by: kevin s. | May 19, 2008 4:07 PM
Your comments against George Bush are absurd. How many times have you prayed for him? Did your thinking solve your own countries religious war not many years ago?
Posted by: Ron Hobelman | May 19, 2008 4:28 PM
Kevin S. wrote:
The comments related to Obama's statements that he would meet with leaders of rogue nations without qualification.
Bush began the statement noting that it is naive to suggest that there is some ingenious argument that is going to pursuade the terrorists to give up their arms. This is incontrovertible. Thus, the only purpose of meeting would be to bring concessions to the table.,
The terrorists won't give up their arms if they feel there is no other way to pursue their (legitimate or not) goals. The "rogue states" have goals of their own, which are not equivalent to that of terrorists, interestingly. Of course, there is always that fraction of people who are irredeemable; however, as in Northern Ireland, hopefully they can be marginalized with time. Talking to someone doesn't mean making concessions. As JFK noted (paraphrasing), let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate. FWIW, when negotiating with someone, you're not fighting the same person at the same time. Peace is good, right? Of course, not appeasing means that negotiations are done with principle; outrageous proposals are rightly rejected, and so on.
As for Obama being worse than Bush, on what do you base that claim?
Posted by: Ngchen | May 19, 2008 4:30 PM
"Jaw jaw is better than war war".
A quote from the arch-appeaser Winston S. Churchill which makes me suspect that he might in this instance be on Obama's side.
Bush and Ahmedinejad are, to all appearances, one another's mirror-image. If the possible consequences for the rest of the world weren't so terrifying, one might say they deserve each other.
Posted by: Tony Dickinson | May 19, 2008 4:40 PM
Kevin: Who is a rogue nation? How does a nation obtain the status of rogue? Is it possible to be a rogue nation and a "most favored nation" re:trade policy? Please indicate which of these nations are "rogue": Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, Pakistan, Cuba, France, Colombia, Myanmaar, Zimbabwee
Pastor Jeff
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | May 19, 2008 4:40 PM
No one has mentioned the irony that after he made that speech, he got on his plane and flew to Saudi Arabia to meet with state sponsors of terror there.
Posted by: Karen | May 19, 2008 4:44 PM
Bush/McCain will not negotiate because they believe they are in a "war". Negotiation is inconceivable on the playing field constructed by Bush/Cheney. That's why we must "stay the course" for the sake of "victory" (surrender). Obama has the potential to start to change the playing field. That's why he is to be feared.
Pastor Jeff Staples
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | May 19, 2008 4:52 PM
My point exactly, Karen
PJ
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | May 19, 2008 4:56 PM
The value of talking to each other is that we begin to understand each other, and each others' needs and aspirations, better. Out of that understanding can come new ideas to resolve conflict peacefully.
And yes, some of those ideas might involve some concessions from the US. Provided they're the right concessions (i.e. giving up the vision of imperial power rather than giving up the vision of democracy), that would be no bad thing for the world.
Aggressive posturing towards Iran has given Ahmedinajad not just credibility but legitimacy in his own country. Something similar has happened with Hamas in Gaza and increasingly in the West Bank. Israeli aggression gave Hezbollah its opportunity to build strength for a bid for power in Lebanon. The invasion that was supposed to bring democracy to Iraq has put it in an even worse state than it was under Saddam. The old ways of threatening and force projection are not just plain immoral, they don't work. Time to start listening to what Jesus has to say about conflict...
Posted by: meurig | May 19, 2008 5:07 PM
Has anyone read David Brooks' recent column in the NYT on Obama and foreign policy? If I read the column correctly, Brooks grudgingly concedes that Obama can't be dismissed as a foreign policy pansy.
Brooks concludes the piece with this rather odd paragraph: "In the early 1990s, the Democrats and the first Bush administration had a series of arguments — about humanitarian interventions, whether to get involved in the former Yugoslavia, and so on. In his heart, Obama talks like the Democrats of that era, viewing foreign policy from the ground up. But in his head, he aligns himself with the realist dealmaking of the first Bush. Apparently, he’s part Harry Hopkins and part James Baker."
Harry Hopkins was tough as nails. During WW2 FDR used Hopkins as a kind of diplomatic trouble-shooter, in particular with Stalin. Obama could do worse than to have a bit of Hopkins and Baker in him.
Posted by: carl copas | May 19, 2008 5:12 PM
kevin s,
You come, make comments/talk on this blog. I don't see that, by talking, you are automatically making concessions to anyone else here. Nor, do I believe that by talking you automatically legitimize the views of those with whom you disagree. I've written George W about issues I disagree with him. I've written my Democratic governor about issues I disagree also. Jesus was severely criticized for associating with sinners and for being someone sinners were willing/wanting to be around. The self-righteous brought the sinner caught in the act; just to snare him. Jesus' condemnation was for those who refuse to see their own failings. His call to all is to live and stop the sin. Interesting, his accusers seemed, on that occasion, to acknowledge his call.
Igor
Posted by: Deryll | May 19, 2008 5:14 PM
"The terrorists won't give up their arms if they feel there is no other way to pursue their (legitimate or not) goals. "
And their goals are impermissible.
"The "rogue states" have goals of their own, which are not equivalent to that of terrorists, interestingly."
Which, in part, is the point.
"As for Obama being worse than Bush, on what do you base that claim?"
Well, he has said very little about foreign policy, so, as it is with most things Obama, we have to analyze what little we've got. Given that his proposal to meet with the leaders of Iran and North Korea without pre-condition is his most pronounced dissent from the status quo, this is as good a place as any to start.
In fact, other than closing Guantanamo - which, while it might make the political left feel victorious, will do nothing to advance the war on terror, to say the least - Obama primarily hopes to achieve his goals through diplomacy. His comments suggest that he doesn't even understand the fundamentals of diplomacy.
Given that he has no experience in this arena, and is unlikely to be able to tap a resevoir of former Clinton aides for guidance, on what grounds should I be optimistic?
"A quote from the arch-appeaser Winston S. Churchill which makes me suspect that he might in this instance be on Obama's side."
You draw this conclusion from seven words? Churchill was universally decried for opposing appeasement, but you think he would go along with the smooth-talking hipster on this one?
"Bush and Ahmedinejad are, to all appearances, one another's mirror-image. "
No, not to all appearances. Only through a very extreme ideological lens. One major difference? Bush will relinquish power next year and, if the elections dictate as much, so will his party.
Posted by: kevin s. | May 19, 2008 5:26 PM
Ha, Brother Gareth!
The parties represent one and the same glorious old Gaelic warrior tradition, the one in Scotland and in Ireland that rejoiced when the English were temporarily not invading them, because it freed em up to fight their natural enemies: the Irish in the case of the Irish, and in the case of the Scots, the Scottish. So put Scots back in Ireland, to 'pacify' it– baneful word!– and give them two shapes of the same religion to fight over– though the Calvinists, as the invaders, were the worse by far, and let the games begin!
Very much a parallel situation to the Jews moving back into Palestine and engendering this poor world's other long-standing fratricide!
As the son of a McClintock mother who had a great-grandfather Donahue, the griefs of Northern Ireland, poor bloody Ulster, have always broken my heart. I'm still incredulous and still holding my breath that the difficulties seem to be being resolved. God have mercy, and bless and save the Gaels!
Posted by: Ted Voth Jr | May 19, 2008 5:26 PM
" Nor, do I believe that by talking you automatically legitimize the views of those with whom you disagree. "
Coincidentally, I am not a sitting president.
We have a policy of not negotiating with terrorists. Obama agrees with that policy. Do you know why we have such a policy?
Posted by: kevin s. | May 19, 2008 5:29 PM
People, groups, and governments are not stagnent. One point that Gareth failed to make about NI is that people on both sides (including common people as well as leaders) changed their opinions on what were acceptable tactics based on the success (or failure) of those tactics.
Too many people talk about their adversaries in absolute and unchanging terms. Even if the opposing rhetoric is phrased in very harsh or absolute terms, that may not be 100% representative of their actual position. Even the Bush administration bluntly said no 2 party talks with North Korea, and then later did just that.
The point of talking to your adversaries is not necessarily to appease or even negotiate, but to understand and communicate each other's positions. Only then is there *hope* for resolution. Argument through public speeches and press releases is ineffective, its primary goal is to appease the public. Diplomacy is all about knowing your enemy, having the discussions behind closed doors where the truth is more likely to surface. Interviews with Saddam after his capture showed that he thought Bush's rhetoric was just a hollow threats and the US would not invade, possibly from the simple fact that his threats were very hollow. Better discussions and communications may have caused Saddam to really believe Bush's threats and maybe he would have backed down and saved us all a war?
Posted by: Doc | May 19, 2008 5:30 PM
Gareth:
I just read Diplomacy=Hitler Appeasers, and I agree with your premise. Diplomacy is never appeasement, when taken from a position of strength. What do I mean by that? Well, when faced with a conflict, you have two options. One, attack which has been Bush's first choice (Iraq). I won't include Afghanistan because there really was a reason to go in there. The second is the use of the art of diplomacy which you have highlighted in Ireland. A person who feels confident in his/her position (strength) will usually (if not always) use diplomacy/conflict resolution. Why? Because they know that through discussion each side gets to present their position. If they can convince the "other side" that they are right (or at least gain concessions) the conflict most often can be resolved. This does not mean that at times negotiation will fail and the conflict will not be resolved without another means (violent response). The first response should never be the last resort. I will not dispute the terrorists must be stopped. However, the Bush administration has done literally nothing to diffuse the "Axis of Evil" in the war on terrorism.
Posted by: Debbie Lackowitz | May 19, 2008 5:35 PM
"And their goals are impermissible."
And how do you know their goals without talking to them? Everyone knows that political Rhetoric is designed to raise the debate through extreme claims that usually are not followed through on, but make good press headlines. Carter in conversations with Hamas has gotten their main leadership to state that while they will not have diplomatic relations with Israel, there are willing to peacefully co-exist with the right agreements, yet Hamas still maintains a harsh public political position to appease their base. Talk is what is necessary to separate rhetoric from reality.
"We have a policy of not negotiating with terrorists."
Discussion with a terrorist is not necessarily a negotiation. The underlying premise of this theory is that if you reward a terrorist for their actions, they will repeat their behavior because it was successful. Discussion with a terrorist does not have to offer them anything, and in fact it may have the opposite effect of clarifying the consequences of their continued behavior. Historically it is very clear that the US often does hold discussions with terrorists, and sometimes negotiations, so this "policy" is more of a starting position than a strict rule. So to paint Obama as being contrary to mainstream politicians is purely election trickery.
Posted by: Doc | May 19, 2008 5:50 PM
"One major difference [between Bush and Ahmedinejad]? Bush will relinquish power next year and, if the elections dictate as much, so will his party."
Posted by: kevin s.
Sorry, Kevin, but that looks rather like a category error. What you describe isn't a difference between Bush and Ahmedinejad. It's a difference between the US and Iranian political systems. Both men are populist conservative ideologues who appeal to their respective power bases by using religious language. That remains true whichever lens you use - unless you're imitating Nelson at Copenhagen.
Posted by: Tony Dickinson | May 19, 2008 6:20 PM
I wonder, if the Allies had not appeased Hitler. I reckon that the war would have started a little earlier.
Posted by: Oak | May 19, 2008 6:36 PM
I thought by now Bush would be trying to redeem his miserable Presidency. Apparently not.
Posted by: Gordon | May 19, 2008 7:19 PM
The idiocy of the Hitler/appeasement analogy is to me a historian utterly disgraceful. I am surprised that so few people picked up on the point that the U.S. senator President Bush cited in his speech before the Knesset as his example of someone who thought he could have dissuaded Hitler had he just talked to him was none other than a prominent figure in his own beloved Republican party--Senator William E. Borah of Idaho. With 34 years of service in the Senate (he died in office), Borah was one of the most distinguished Republicans of the 20th century.
As for appeasement, that had nothing to do with "talking" to Hitler--a lot of people in high places talked with him in the 1930s. Appeasement was a policy that involved giving him what he wanted, even though this violated international agreements like the Treaty of Versailles and paid no attention to the interests of the people affected by such violations, in the vain hope that he could be satisfied and abandon his aims to secure German power in Europe by war. Why readers of this blog cannot grasp the foolishness of President Bush's statement and the defense of it by candidate McCain is a mystery to me.
Posted by: Richard Pierard | May 19, 2008 8:12 PM
kevin s: "We have a policy of not negotiating with terrorists."
Which has been broken by every president, Republican and Democrat, since Nixon. The terrorists know it; the rest of the world knows it; indeed everybody except the American general public, which habitually wallows in ignorance of anything outside U.S. borders, knows it.
Posted by: carl copas | May 19, 2008 8:34 PM
"As for appeasement, that had nothing to do with "talking" to Hitler--a lot of people in high places talked with him in the 1930s. Appeasement was a policy that involved giving him what he wanted, even though this violated international agreements like the Treaty of Versailles"
Absolutely correct. Furthermore, Neville Chamberlain, the notorious appeaser, was the leader of Britain's conservative party until his policies were discredited by history. Most people who had relatively rosy views of Hitler in the 30s were conservatives. If those same people had only seen through Hitler earlier, instead of treating him, along with Mussolini and Franco, as a desirable counterweight to left-wing extremism, World War II might never have been necessary.
Now, which unsavory dictatorships are we currently in bed with because "the enemy of my enemy is my friend?"
Posted by: Another nonymous | May 19, 2008 8:58 PM
Speaking of counterweights, weren't the conservative Shah, the conservative bin Laden and the conservative Sadaam all serving that capacity when we armed them? No wonder Sadaam was confused.
Kevin: Thank you for once again not responding to my questions. You may not be a sitting US president but I am not a rogue nation either.
Pastor Jeff
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | May 19, 2008 9:23 PM
"Bush and Ahmedinejad are, to all appearances, one another's mirror-image"
Posted by: The Patriot | May 19, 2008 9:28 PM
As Winston Churchill might have said, there is a certain type of blogging which with a response one should not dignify.
Posted by: Another nonymous | May 19, 2008 10:10 PM
While I probably don't like Bush as much as The Patriot does, he is spot on in everything else. It is truly disgusting to see many people on here state that Hamas is a worthwhile organization and state that Bush is no better than the Iranians. As someone stated above, Bush is going to leave next January voluntarily I don't think that the Iranian leaders that people here want to talk to would be so willing.
Some people here need to back off the partisanship and realize that the US has enemies out there and that not everything bad that happens in the world is our fault. This place would be better for it.
Posted by: MadHatter07 | May 19, 2008 11:01 PM
MadHatter -
What Winston and I object to is not the content of these recent posts, but the tone.
Think about this: The only weapon terrorists have is terror. If we're afraid, that means they're succeeding. If you're scaring other people, you're enabling them. That's far worse than talking to them in my book.
Posted by: Another nonymous | May 19, 2008 11:29 PM
The White House stated that Bush's comments were directed towards Carter, specifically. Carter was criticized by many for his talks with Hamas, a terrorist organization which has the destruction of Israel as an explicit objective. The comparison with negotiations with Hitler, who also called for the destruction of Jews, does not seems so unreasonable. I agree with Kevin that the only reason talking would ever occur would be for the possibility of negotiations--some sort of concession is always brought to the table as an option. It is never simply "talking."
Posted by: jesse | May 20, 2008 1:29 AM
"I think the real reason that people don't consider my home conflict comparable to others is quite simply racist: They think that Northern Irish Christians are more capable of persuasion than Middle Eastern Muslims."
Gareth,
The more I read comments on similar subjects in God's Politics (see Jim Wallis' Yom Haatzmaut and Al Nakba', for example) the more I am conviced that what you write above is at least part of the problem with AMERICAN politics.
Bush may say anything he wishes to say (however distasteful it may sound to some of us outsiders), about those ['PALESTINIAN TERRORISTS'] who kill innocent people because, after all, A GOOD ENOUGH PERCENTAGE of his evangelical brethren supporters in AMERICA wholeheartedly agree.
When you read stories like this on, say, Ekklesia, an England based Christian magazine, the comments seem to be from another Christianity (compared to many responses on God's Polutics).
Many of the bloggers opinions here are in stark contrast to positions taken by so many well meaning and well known clergymen, including those of the World Council of Churches that I am led to wonder what some people do know that the rest of the world doesn't ... I mean, the WCC has Christians in Israel and Palesstine who are familiar with exactly what is going on there and they all urge dialogue!
What is it about American politics that values the defending of self-appointed labels (i.e. conservative, liberal) by Christians so much that this adversarialism should be more important than solving problems, something that God has abundantly blessed you with the means to, at least, try?
I am frankly baffled.
God bless America (as Chris Rock would say!) and Northern Ireland and Iran and Israel and Palestine and Hamas - and American Conservatives and Liberals!
- Alu
Dar es Salaam
Posted by: Robert Alu | May 20, 2008 2:15 AM
"It is appalling and un American"
Yes I am - and I'm not ashamed. Winston Churchill was my fellow-countryman (though our lives overlapped by less than two decades).
Seen from this side to the Atlantic, and from a perspective which includes six years of world war fought on our own territory, and that of our immediate neighbours, Bush and Ahmedinejad are a Christian-Muslim Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Who, I wonder, is the crow?
Posted by: Tony Dickinson | May 20, 2008 2:51 AM
"What is it about American politics that values the defending of self-appointed labels (i.e. conservative, liberal) by Christians so much that this adversarialism should be more important than solving problems, something that God has abundantly blessed you with the means to, at least, try?" Robert Alu | May 20, 2008 2:15 AM
I'll venture a guess at that one, Robert. It is because we love war. We are intellectually lazy and embrace reductionist answers to complex solutions. We are fixated on immediacy/urgency and "final answers" (which may also explain that peculiar infatuation with dispensationalism) because our time is more valuable than others'. Hence war, brinksmanship/summitry, competition (witness the domination of our culture by sports and gambling) and the emphasis on violent solutions (guns, capital punishment and abortion). If you want an illustration of how this plays out in politics beyond Bush, check into McCain's foreign policy adviser's interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN. The fundamental notion is that it is beneath the dignity of the President to listen. I for one am glad to have a person confront the broken notions that have controlled US diplomacy throughout my lifetime.
This is why we lag in support for ecumenical and inter-faith dialogue organizations and may explain our disdain for the UN General Assembly and our preference for the Security Council.
I think your question is an important one and close to the heart of the matter. Thank you for your thoughtful posts.
Pastor Jeff
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | May 20, 2008 6:55 AM
Bush and Ahmedinejad are indeed mirror images. It's obvious for anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear. Bush's hardline rhetoric against Iran (i.e., "Axis of evil") gave Ahmedinejad his original "legitimacy."
Think of it this way: before the infamous "axis of evil" speech, Iran was willing to assist the US in ridding Afghanistan of the Taliban. Iran was tending toward moderation. After the speech, however, the hardliners in Iran once again asserted themselves and we got Ahmedinejad.
Each of them has become the reason and justification for the other's sabre rattling. Tony Dickinson is right: they're Tweedledum and Tweedledee.
Islam has never been a belief system allowing a free exchange of ideas and freedom of dissentters of Islam to live free and autonomous lives.
This comment only reveals its author's ignorance of Islam and its history.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | May 20, 2008 7:53 AM
kevin: "We have a policy of not negotiating with terrorists. Obama agrees with that policy.
I think it has always been an issue of how you define the term "terrorist" and to whom you include in your vision as being "terrorist". At one point many mistakenly saw all Palestinians as terrorist, but now we recognize that this simply isn't true, just as all Muslims arn't extremist.
A policy of not negotiating with true and proven Terrorist is one thing, but to have little or no interest in meaningful and purposeful dipolmacy with those that simply oppose our idealogy is absurd. I believe (yet may be wrong)Obama supports the prior but not the latter.
IMO a somewhat flawed view in this area is where President Bush has gotten the reputation of being self-righteous and contemptuous. Peace
Posted by: d.e.sharp | May 20, 2008 8:27 AM
If Mr. Obama is elected President of the United States, as seems possible or likely, about a day or less after he takes the oath of office, he will sit down to be briefed in detail by the members of our intelligence community, by the members of our Joint Chiefs of Staff, and by others who know what he does not, but what President Bush currently does. And I will bet dollars to doughnuts that, when he walks out of that briefing session, he will have begun to conclude that, since he now knows what he did not previously know, he cannot talk to Iran, North Korea, etc.
There are large differences between running for president and being the president. Candidates are often idealists - - presidents seldom are. The world does not allow for such things.
Posted by: joekc | May 20, 2008 8:30 AM
President Bush has seen too many Rambo, Dirty Harry and John Wayne movies.
Posted by: hootie1fan | May 20, 2008 8:41 AM
Tonight I came across this
"The Bushes and Hitler's Appeasement
By Robert Parry
May 18, 2008
The irony of George W. Bush going before the Knesset and mocking the late Sen. William Borah for expressing surprise at Adolf Hitler’s 1939 invasion of Poland is that Bush’s own family played a much bigger role assisting the Nazis.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/051808.html"
Is this is factual? If so, my comment is that those in glass houses should not throw stones. Who is holding the politicians to account, and asking what are they clothed in? We have been told to judge by the nature of their actions those who claim righteousness.
Posted by: JohnH | May 20, 2008 9:11 AM
"His comments suggest that he doesn't even understand the fundamentals of diplomacy.
Given that he has no experience in this arena, and is unlikely to be able to tap a resevoir of former Clinton aides for guidance, on what grounds should I be optimistic?"
Hi Kevin S,
Just curious, now:
Since candidate Obama has foreign policy advisors already why would he be counting on Clinton's 'reservoir of aides' if he becomes President?
A related question - who are Obama's foreign policy advisers? Are they any good, Kevin, anyone?
Third - can things get any worse than they are today?
The more I hear about the virtues of 'experience' the more I love Chris Rock's irreverent satire in 'Head of State'!
- Alu
Dar es Salaam
Posted by: Robert Alu | May 20, 2008 9:31 AM
I thought Bush's comments did have some merit. In particular, the comment about believing if we just come up with an ingenious argument, we will talk our enemies into renouncing their basic worldview and positions. Highly unlikely.
But, the old "appeasement" chestnut has simply become, IMO, a button that has been pushed too often, as has the reference to the Nazis and Hitler. Bring up appeasement, even if there is the possibilty that it might be true, and people simply stop listening.
If Bush was really trying to make a legitimate argument, rather than just playing politics, he needed to forget about talk of Hitler and appeasement and give a more specific and nuanced criticism.
Posted by: Alicia | May 20, 2008 9:56 AM
And, I might add, let people draw their own conclusions.
Posted by: Alicia | May 20, 2008 9:58 AM
Today is a Day in May-
I understand the sentiment behind your comment. However, I would like to add that I have lived the last 2 years of my life in a majority Muslim country, and I have had wonderful conversations in their local language about religion and foreign policy. Therefore, I do not agree with your comments. I believe that mostly these ideas come from American media that leans towards fanaticism in order to make the news more interesting. Or it is that we are only listening to the 1% of the Muslim population that has our attention. (However, like I said, I do understand your sentiment overall and it is a valid opinion - it just doesn't match my experience.) Thanks for reading!! And thanks for a thought-provoking post.
Posted by: Brian C. | May 20, 2008 10:08 AM
The comparison with negotiations with Hitler, who also called for the destruction of Jews, does not seems so unreasonable.
No comparison at all.
Hitler, for the sake of power, was looking for scapegoats, as many did in those days, and found one opportunity in the Jews. (Let's not forget that he killed six million other people besides Jews.)
Arabs, on the other hand, are themselves Semites who actually welcomed Jews to live in Palestine (and in fact a few had actually done so for centuries). The problem began when Western nations, primarily England, began to use their economic clout -- due to oil -- about a century ago to become politically dominant in the Middle East, and present day Israel is a constant reminder of what they consider Western domination. Bottom line, it's not the Jews themselves they hate; it's simply Israel. Louis Farrakhan, whom I almost never agree with, once made the comment that Israel was created "in violation of the Jews' own law," and some years ago I read a commentary from a Torah scholar who said essentially the same thing.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | May 20, 2008 10:53 AM
alicia, amigo, if bush's point is that we can somehow do some ingenious "out of the box" thinking & get the terrorists to lay down their weapons, he may as well be arguing with a paper cup, because no one is suggesting that all we really need is a mythical foreign policy 'good will hunting' or socrates to argue extremists into befuddlement.
it is simply about listening, hearing each other out. as someone alluded to earlier, "you are with us or against us," and "disarm or we will bomb you," is not diplomacy, & it doesn't give the other side an opportunity to save face, let alone the feeling of mutual respect, both of which are vital to the basic human psyche for positive compulsion. i think n. ireland (& hopefully soon, n. korea) is a great example for how peace is won, even when our own senses of pure justice are somewhat violated by the reconciling. i want to scream every time someone brings up talking to hamas or ahmedinajad, & the debate is shut down by "these people say israel should be wiped off the map." all the more reason we need to engage them! especially when one of them is trying to go nuclear! maybe what they want more than anything (or more importantly, what they will be willing to settle for) is recognition & clout (personally) & more justice for the palestinians (politically), but we won't know until we talk to them.
as a lawyer, i am in the business of negotiating & i can speak for its effectiveness, especially when the parties are miles & miles apart & in each ones' eyes, the other is an unreasonable monster. if i took opposing counsel for their initial offer & didn't engage strenuously in the negotiation process, i'd never settle anything & we'd duke it out in court w/ a big winner, a big loser, & a great big legal fee tab. but instead, we generally talk alot, including sometimes getting a mediator involved, & end up getting about 95% of disputes resolved with neither side really happy, but both sides able to live with the settlement and ultimately better off because they decided their own outcome. such is the way of things in a world where people bump into each other often & have their own agendas, their own narratives & their own world views.
Posted by: nad2 | May 20, 2008 11:33 AM
Patriot (aka Donny?)
"Your hatred for the USA is only outdone by your appeasement to terror"
Explain how this statement reflects Christ's love. If you are truly a Christian, I wouldn't know it from your attitude towards brothers and sisters in Christ. If you know the truth, then speak it in love, as we are all commanded as Christians. Otherwise, please refrain from participating on this site--you are reflecting poorly on my Savior.
Posted by: squeaky | May 20, 2008 11:52 AM
Pastor Jeff: "It is because we love war. We are intellectually lazy and embrace reductionist answers to complex solutions. We are fixated on immediacy/urgency and 'final answers' (which may also explain that peculiar infatuation with dispensationalism) because our time is more valuable than others'. Hence war, brinksmanship/summitry, competition (witness the domination of our culture by sports and gambling) and the emphasis on violent solutions (guns, capital punishment and abortion)."
Brilliantly put, Pastor Jeff. With your permission, I'm gonna steal some of this for my opening lecture in my course on history of U.S. foreign relations.
Patriot: "Your hatred for the USA is only outdone by your appeasement to terror."
An absolutely shameful statement about Don, who I've come to learn is a fine Christian and an extraordinary father. Be proud of yourself Patriot; swap high-fives all around with your hateful, hypocritical buddies who come on here to tear down people who are supposed to be our brothers and sisters in Jesus.
Posted by: carl copas | May 20, 2008 12:32 PM
I think we know where your head is
Well, PatriNOT, I think I know what to call this comment.
I gave specific reasons why it is clear that Bush and Ahmedinejad are mirror images of each other. But instead of trying to refute my comment with evidence of your own, you attack me personally.
I happen to be an English instructor, which means that occasionally I get to teach rhetoric and composition. In rhetorical circles, your comment is called argumentum ad hominem. It means attacking the person making the argument rahter than responding to the argument with reasoned counter-arguments. It means that you probably don't have a coherent and valid counter-argument. If this were a formal debate, you would have just lost.
This is a common tactic of the right. If they can't answer reasoned arguments they disagree with, they attack the person making them. (The left does it too, but not as systematically or effectively as the right.)
Give me reasons why you think I'm wrong and back them up with evidence, and I'll be glad to listen. But otherwise, you are nothing more than a noisy gong and a clanging cymbal.
Squeaky: "The PatrNOT" is NOT Donny. Donny never personally insults someone who disagreed with him. And he never uses inflammatory language.
Peace to all,
Posted by: Don | May 20, 2008 12:58 PM
Thanks, nad2. I'm not saying that I agree with how the Bush Administration has handled the "War on Terror" or the majority of the Bush Administration's foreign policy decisions. But Bush occasionally gets things at least partly right.
When Hamas offers a 10-year truce, the knowledge that Hamas would use that time to build up its forces and would still have the same purpose of wiping Israel off the map when the 10-year period had past should give anyone who is pro-peace pause.
The idea that somehow if we are hopeful that the hearts of Hamas leadership will change in the interim is just a foolish hope, in my opinion. Believing "no man is my enemy" doesn't make it so even if I continue to regard my enemy with compassion as he is planning my destruction.
And what about all the innocent bystanders who will die because I don't stand up to my enemy? George W. Bush has shown the downside of ill-considered action in Iraq, but not taking action when we should may also result in many needless deaths.
Posted by: Alicia | May 20, 2008 1:25 PM
"It is appalling and un American"
Posted by: The Patriot | May 19, 2008 9:30 PM
Accordingly, whether or not it is true, is irrelevant.
Posted by: canucklehead | May 20, 2008 2:24 PM
"Its a mystery because you are a bigoted left wing moonbat who has no clue"
"Thank you Don
I think we know where your head is
This is why the left will always be marginalized and mocked
Your hatred for the USA is only outdone by your appeasement to terror"
Posted by: The Patriot | May 20, 2008 11:15 AM
This is precisely the kind of "informed" rhetoric this blog needs. Patriot obviously has no clue as to who Richard Pierard or Don are.
What's the difference between uninformed patriotism and informed treason?
Posted by: canucklehead | May 20, 2008 2:32 PM
"And how do you know their goals without talking to them? "
Speeches, documents, charters and, most importantly, actions. Those speak louder than the propoganda we are likely to hear at a fireside chat.
"Both men are populist conservative ideologues who appeal to their respective power bases by using religious language. "
Now THAT is a category error.
Posted by: kevin s. | May 20, 2008 3:08 PM
"How does a nation obtain the status of rogue?"
Arming enemy combatants is a good start.
"Is it possible to be a rogue nation and a "most favored nation" re:trade policy?"
Yes.
"Please indicate which of these nations are "rogue": Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, Pakistan, Cuba, France, Colombia, Myanmaar, Zimbabwee"
All, save France and Colombia, which seem to be headed in a more pragmatic direction generally.
"Thank you for once again not responding to my questions. You may not be a sitting US president but I am not a rogue nation either."
They were rhetorical questions. Why not just make the point you are going to make?
Posted by: kevin s. | May 20, 2008 3:19 PM
"Since candidate Obama has foreign policy advisors already why would he be counting on Clinton's 'reservoir of aides' if he becomes President?"
He isn't counting on them. That was my point, and that is why I am worried.
"A related question - who are Obama's foreign policy advisers? Are they any good, Kevin, anyone?"
Not particularly. They are generally young and relatively inexperienced themselves, coming mostly from academic and think-tank circles. He has employed Richard Clarke, the counter-terrorism czar during the Clinton administration, which likely has more to do with his popularity among the far-left than his success at preventing terrorist attacks.
To the extent that we know where they stand on foreign policy, we can tell they will call for a smaller military, and not much else.
"Third - can things get any worse than they are today?"
Absolutely. The idea that the Iraq War represents the worst possible end result of our foreign policy is satisfying to those who dislike the president, but any objective obsever can tell you that it could be much, much worse.
"The more I hear about the virtues of 'experience' the more I love Chris Rock's irreverent satire in 'Head of State'!"
That was a terrible movie.
Posted by: kevin s. | May 20, 2008 3:44 PM
Don,
I think the Patriot is our old friend Marc, I think that's his name. I can't remember. But don't worry about him. It's the same tired crap he said and did before.
p
Posted by: Payshun | May 20, 2008 4:15 PM
He doesn't sound like Mark to me. Mark made reasoned arguments that were difficult for libs to argue against. I haven't seem that from Patriot.
Posted by: Jeff | May 20, 2008 4:36 PM
"Both men are populist conservative ideologues who appeal to their respective power bases by using religious language. " (Me)
Now THAT is a category error. (Kevin)
How, precisely?
Posted by: Tony Dickinson | May 20, 2008 4:37 PM
Dear Mr. Higgins
No complaints from me – you named it rightly on both accounts. Violence is violence is violence – not a person that really divides up violence into degrees. Thank you for a great response to our president - who is about to leave office with nothing but a unjust war going on only in “his” name.
Posted by: debbie in ohio | May 20, 2008 4:41 PM
kevin s: "He has employed Richard Clarke, the counter-terrorism czar during the Clinton administration, which likely has more to do with his popularity among the far-left than his success at preventing terrorist attacks."
I was not aware that Clarke was popular with the Nader/Chomsky/Zinn crowd. Where could i read more about that? I'm surprised that Clarke held a position of such responsibility in the Clinton administration, which was basically a centrist liberal presidency.
Indeed, Clinton once complained to his staff that no policy or legislation they had proposed would have been particularly offensive to the Eisenhower administration.
Jeff: "Mark made reasoned arguments that were difficult for libs to argue against."
LOL. Good one.
Posted by: carl copas | May 20, 2008 4:52 PM
Bush and Ahmedinejad are indeed mirror images. It's obvious for anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear. Bush's hardline rhetoric against Iran (i.e., "Axis of evil") gave Ahmedinejad his original "legitimacy." Don
Agree. Cut from the same cloth. Just on different ends of the spectrum.
Posted by: JamesMartin | May 20, 2008 5:02 PM
Mark made reasoned arguments that were difficult for libs to argue against.
Well, Mark made arguments. I don't know how reasoned they were--and he certainly didn't want to listen to anyone's reply to them--but at least they were arguments.
That's more than "The Patriot" is doing here.
D
Posted by: Don | May 20, 2008 5:13 PM
That Obama was so quick to apply Bush's comment to himself is telling. And that the media pundits were so quick to agree with Obama's assessment is telling too. Obama is the "star," self-proclaimed and media proclaimed. All must revolve around him. In reality, the senator to whom Bush referred was a Republican! Obama's staff apparently failed to do any fact checking.
And what is meant by "negotiation"? Negotiation is not a policy; it is a technique practiced to reach a reasonable compromise. Choosing to negotiate with terrorists would assign them legitimacy, which is unmerited.
And Obama appears to be double-minded. Recall that he criticized Jimmy Carter for meeting with Hamas leaders.
Posted by: judithod | May 20, 2008 5:22 PM
"How, precisely?"
As you were using the term, saying they are both conservative populists, when "conservative populist" means something entirely different in the context of Iranian politics is an error of category.
"I was not aware that Clarke was popular with the Nader/Chomsky/Zinn crowd. "
I was referring more to the Dailykos crowd, which knows nothing outside of his criticism of the president. I'm also not sure that Nader is in the same crowd as Chomsky and Zinn.
Posted by: kevin s. | May 20, 2008 5:36 PM
Question "How does a nation obtain the status of rogue?"
Answer (according to Kevin S) "Arming enemy combatants is a good start."
That puts the US firmly in the rogue catergory as they armed Saddam, the mujahedin and others who ultimately turned on their erstwhile funders...
And, on a private basis, far too many citizens of your nation, brought up on the myth of militant nationalism and the IRA as "freedom fighters" armed the enemies of the US' supposed ally Britain.
But it's OK... George W. is now coming to Northern Ireland in June to endorse our peace process... perhaps it was inspired by Gareth's column... Or perhaps he wants to advocate talking to certain terrorists but not others!
Posted by: David Campton | May 20, 2008 6:04 PM
That puts the US firmly in the rogue catergory as they armed Saddam, the mujahedin and others who ultimately turned on their erstwhile funders...
Not to mention others who turned not so much on their suppliers (the US and its arms dealers), but on their own people and even on democracy itself. The ARENA faction in 1980s El Salvador and the Pinochet regime in Chile come immediately to mind, as well as the Contra rebels in 1980s Nicaragua.
So, Kevin, do you have another idea for an empirical definition of "rogue nation"? Or is rogue status a rather subjective category; like beauty, is it mostly in the eye of the beholder?
D
Posted by: Don | May 20, 2008 6:42 PM
As you can see Kevin, my questions are never rhetorical. They are intended to understand the reasoning of the proponent of another viewpoint. By this I engage in drawing out the deep waters of wisdom and experience from the other party in the conversation. That can help not only the listener but the speaker to probe the presumptions of the discussion. I honestly want to know the process by which you arrive at conclusions and respect you as a brother in Christ. There is entirely too much one-up-man-ship in American discourse. I come to this blog to learn, not to win. Some may call that "negotiating".
Carl: What an honor. Of course. I'm sure you, like squeaky will develop the thought well beyond my meager mental limitations. A second salient point re: the American embrace of war, IMO, is the remoteness from our own soil of the impact of war. We are astonished and respond with "shock and awe" when we lose 4,000 of our citizens and two buildings in an attack on our soil. Consequently, that justifies the killing of tens of thousand innocent Iraqis. Why wouldn't we expect to see their trucks and homes plastered with "we will never forget" slogans? At the risk of sounding racist, the grace and mercy shown to the US by blacks and Muslims demonstrates that they are truly better people than we.
Pastor Jeff
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | May 20, 2008 8:41 PM
Your sanctimonious comments on America's immorality sicken me as do those of other elite leftists constantly spewing their hatred for our country.
As an African-American, I frankly would not even be in this country were it not for the "immorality" you apparently want to sweep under the rug. Calling attention to it may make some angry, but it's the gospel truth and we ought neither to forget about it nor ignore the consequences. But I do need to say this: We African-Americans love our country but refuse to worship it the way most conservatives expect or want us to -- and nor should we. Worship should be reserved only for God.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | May 20, 2008 11:31 PM
Cads,
It seems you are mistaking people expressing their opinions and criticisms of our government as "spewing hatred for our country." Disagreeing with our leaders and their decisions does not automatically mean someone is un-American and hates the government. In fact, most of the contributors who are giving their opinions sincerely hope for what is best for America.
As for "spewing hatred," of all the comments in the above discussion, yours seem to be some of the most hate-filled and unkind.
If you disagree with people, please do not attack them personally. Please explain--in a kind and rational way--what you disagree with and why you disagree.
Posted by: naomi | May 21, 2008 12:42 AM
Cads--I'm with Naomi...What constitutes "spewing their hatred for our country."?
I for one, express my concern over the war, Abu Grabe, the sins of our past, etc out of love for my country. For all our problems, this is still a great country, but I am not naive enough to think we are perfect. And it is those imperfections I call our leaders to task on--not because I hate our country, but because I love it and want it to be the best it can be. If you have children, do you dismiss their mistakes saying, "awe, they're good kids for the most part," or do you work to correct them and direct them on the right path?
"May God help Israel if we ever fail to honor our commitment to protect its existence. "
umm--are you telling us that the U.S. is more capable of keeping Israel safe than God is? If we fail to honor our commitment, do you really think Israel would fall? How sad that God would leave the success of that nation in the hands of the United States, rather than in His own hands. God help Israel indeed--as it should be.
Posted by: squeaky | May 21, 2008 1:29 AM
Kevin S,
I love 'Head of State'. I'll be going to the library to borrow it - again - tonight.
That "terrible movie" lifts my African spirits. I laugh and cry at the AUDACITY of it all and ... Never mind.
You have a way with words, Kevin, that's for sure.
And,
It must be gratifying to you to see that they catch the attention of so many here ...
But,
I am just curious, again. Apart from Richard Clarke, whose credentials you fail to give, who else is advising Obama? Who are these mostly young people? Are they up to the task?
Secondly, just curious, how come, when you cut and paste parts of others' comments to respond to here, you seem to pick the parts that you wish to contend and ignore direct questions that may be important to the one asking them of you - or answer questions that are not raised (as if they were)?
For example, when I ask if America's foreign policy can get any worse you talk about 'those who dislike the President' and say something about the war in Iraq.
THIS gives me a key to your thinking, I imagine.
You LIKELY argue the way you do based on likes and dislikes. So you keep looking for stuff that you don't like to make a big deal out of. Oh, I may be wrong. If so I am sorry.
Now,
I will tell you this, I saw Bush in Tanzania. I have never known that such a powerful man can be so down to earth. My heart was stirred when I saw his warmth towards poor African peasants, hugging them etc. He gave our poor little children 5 million mosquito bed nets - to prevent lethal malaria, the number one killer in Africa.
I like George Bush.
But,
THE bed nets cost what, 5 dollars each? And this is so typical of so many interventions that would change the lives of millions worldwide. They do not cost much.
The war in Iraq - just for example - costs what, a few million dollars a day? A Christian leader, with "in God we trust" on his currency, could do a world of good with much less ...
And that's not all. I really wish that it was just the war in Iraq. That, in itself is terrible enough to be blamed on one man. And, since we are on God's Politics I might point out that most Christian leaders opposed it from day one as did most of the rest of the world (Obama and mysellf included).
Terrorism is now a cost to the economies of some poor African countries where tourists are regularly warned against travel. It wasn't always so.
For seven years the Middle East peace process has stalled and Israel fought a needless war against Lebanon two years ago.
Iran, Russia and China are emboldened partly because of the failure that is Iraq and the reality that the US is tied down there.
US allies are apathetic about Iraq and may soon give up on the whole 'my way or the highway' thing, who knows?
The world is without leadership on crises such as Myanmar, Zimbabwe, Darfur, Somalia, Ethiopia (Ogaden) and so on ...
I think I begin to get the profundity of Pastor Jeff Staples' response to my question regarding the 'ills' of American politics. Thanks Pastor Jeff.
Yes, Kevin S, things can get much worse, theoretically, even 'objectively'.
But,
Who would you say is an 'objective observer'?
Oh, you don't mean yourself, surely?
Certainly the Dailykos is not, too (I think you say so). Please give me a couple of leads ... Where could I go to read an objective analysis of Obama's potentially damaging foreign policy?
By the way, I saw Obama live on television this morning, talking about how he has been dismissed as 'hype and too much hope', speaking eloquently and brilliantly about change and began to think of God's sense of humour ...
I mean, how could God make the American President so powerful, so immensely influential in world affairs - and then not make a way for all the citizens of the planet to elect him or her?!
Get it?
God bless you America (and everyone else)!
- Alu
Posted by: Robert Alu | May 21, 2008 1:34 AM
"He isn't counting on them. That was my point, and that is why I am worried."
I guess Bill Richardson doesn't count then.
Posted by: JamesMartin | May 21, 2008 5:57 AM
Thank you, Robert Alu, for so eloquently stating what so many of us think about the good vs. the evil that powerful people can do. You really bring a lot of "real world" perspective to this blog.
Posted by: JamesMartin | May 21, 2008 6:16 AM
Squeaky is right, our country is our child. We are all parents and need to pay attention.
Posted by: Oak | May 21, 2008 7:19 AM
"I suspect that, if elected, Obama will not be so quick to sit down with President Ahmadinejad. If he does, he will learn quickly why it was a bad idea. The issue now is why he doesn't yet seem to realize it." (posted by a kevin s.)
And of course you are way ahead of the game... since you already "realize it?"
I must say, with all due respect, the arrogance of this response is insufferable.
Posted by: jackfate | May 21, 2008 9:37 AM
Cads: "Further, I just can't stay where most who post seem to prefer Islamic fundamentalism and its followers over those having conservative viewpoints."
I went back to the top of this thread to see if I had missed a previous contribution by you on this subject, yet I found none. But what is troublesome is that I don't understand with any rationale your comment that I pasted here???
On a few other threads you have, at times offered input that I thought was thought provoking - so from that perspective only I regret your leaving.
Peace.
Posted by: d.e.sharp | May 21, 2008 10:59 AM
This is what Cads wrote on the "Churches a Haven After Immigrant Raids" thread on May 15:
***
I feel I'm arguing to a brick wall and wasting my time...Therefore, I've finally seen the light and will be joining Moderatelad on the sidelines, at least until June. I'm not saying I'm gone forever, but it's so frustrating, I've got to get away for awhile. Best to all.
Posted by: Cads | May 15, 2008 2:30 AM
***
Hey Cads, I told you you'd be back sooner than you think. You owe me a beer. Don't get in the habit of stomping out of threads with so much fanfare--it'll become addictive. (A conservative means what he says, right?)
Posted by: I and I | May 21, 2008 1:11 PM
kevin s: "I was referring more to the Dailykos crowd."
I've never read Dailykos, so don't know anything about that crowd.
Pastor Jeff: "Carl: What an honor. Of course. I'm sure you, like squeaky will develop the thought well beyond my meager mental limitations."
Hardly an honor Pastor J. Because of MY "meager mental limitations," I crib and steal other folks' stuff all the time for lectures! At least in this case, I can actually ask permission from the author. :)
Posted by: carl copas | May 21, 2008 1:41 PM
"What is it about American politics that values the defending of self-appointed labels (i.e. conservative, liberal) by Christians so much that this adversarialism should be more important than solving problems, something that God has abundantly blessed you with the means to, at least, try?" Robert Alu | May 20, 2008 2:15 AM
I would say it is because of what Walter Wink (and others) term "the myth of redemptive violence" which permeates our thinking in American society in general and politics and religion specifically. It is the idea that violence redeems, purifies and makes everything right again. You see it in movies, tv shows, cartoons, religion.... it is everywhere. We worship at the alter of violence. It is not so much that we "love" war, but it is that we love violence because we believe it to be redemptive. It takes a tremendous amount of courage to live nonviolently. (I am not talking about pacifism which sounds too much like "passive" to me. Active nonviolence is certainly not being passive in the face of violence and injustice but involves actively opposing it nonviolently—many times at great risk.)
Also, I add a quote from James Baker I just read on The Progress Report: "During an October 2006 appearance on Fox News, Baker stated emphatically, 'You don't just talk to your friends, you talk to your enemies as well. Diplomacy involves talking to your enemies,' adding, 'Talking to an enemy is not, in my view, appeasement.'"
Posted by: jackfate | May 21, 2008 2:00 PM
Jackfate -
Just to warn you, one of the regular conservative posters here is likely to jump in and denounce Wink's Myth of Redemptive Violence as a silly pet theory of the academic left. He's done it before. I'll act preemptively, therefore, to say that I think you're absolutely right.
Posted by: Another nonymous | May 21, 2008 3:37 PM
"We have a policy of not negotiating with terrorists. Obama agrees with that policy. Do you know why we have such a policy?"
Ah, Ronnie, we hardly knew ye.
Remember arch-conservative Ron Reagan's arms-for-hostages deal with Iran?
I knew you did!
Posted by: Neo Con | May 21, 2008 4:51 PM
Two things on Hitler and appeasement:
1. This was already posted by JohnH above:
............................
JohnH: "Tonight I came across this
'The Bushes and Hitler's Appeasement'
By Robert Parry
May 18, 2008
The irony of George W. Bush going before the Knesset and mocking the late Sen. William Borah for expressing surprise at Adolf Hitler’s 1939 invasion of Poland is that Bush’s own family played a much bigger role assisting the Nazis.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/051808.html"
Is this factual?"
......................
Yes it is, all of it!
And you will discover many more shocking facts in Parry's report.
Parry knows what he's talking about.
......................
2. Bruce Wilson has posted some video of John Hagee sermons and excerpts from Hagee's books,'Battle for Jerusalem'and others.
Hagee is a stalwart McCain supporter.
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/5/15/141520/281
Bruce Wilson: Yesterday I discovered an astonishing audio recording of a sermon, by controversial McCain endorser Pastor John Hagee, in which Hagee elaborates on his view that Hitler and the Nazis were divine agents sent by God to (with gruesome inefficiency it would seem) chase Europe's Jews towards Palestine. In his 2006 book "Jerusalem Countdown", Hagee proposed that anti-Semitism, and thus the Holocaust, was the fault of Jews themselves - the result of an age old divine curse incurred by the ancient Hebrews through worshiping idols and passed, down the ages, to all Jews now alive.
He also wrote that, "Most readers will be shocked by the clear record of history linking Adolf Hitler and the Roman Catholic Church in a conspiracy to exterminate the Jews."
Hagee and McCain have been pressed to explain a series of derogatory remarks the Reverend made about the Catholic Church, including his reference to the institution as "the Great Whore."
Holding to the belief that Armageddon will come to earth following the reestablishment of the Kingdom of Israel, Hagee has advocated an aggressive war against Iran and has opposed any Israeli military withdrawal from the West Bank.
McCain, at least in the public record, has sought to thread the needle with the Hagee association: distancing himself from the controversial comment while reaping the political benefits of the Reverend's endorsement. Appearing on ABC's "'This Week" in late April 2008, McCain criticized Hagee's past remarks on the Catholic Church, but said that, "I admire and appreciate his advocacy for the state of Israel, the independence of the state of Israel."
.....................
McCain should explain his association with John Hagee and Rod Parsley.
It should be interesting watching the media pundits and talk show hosts discuss McCain's unholy alliance with Pscho-Christian preachers.
Posted by: justintime | May 21, 2008 7:12 PM
"Or is rogue status a rather subjective category; like beauty, is it mostly in the eye of the beholder?"
Of course it is a subjective category. How could it be anything but? That said, the act of having once armed a country with which we are now at war does not qualify by any reasonable definition.
"It must be gratifying to you to see that they catch the attention of so many here ..."
Sometimes, if people are interested in discussing the issues. When it just turns into insult or tsk-tsking, it's kinda useless.
"Apart from Richard Clarke, whose credentials you fail to give, who else is advising Obama?"
I mentioned he was the counter-terrorism czar under Clinton. If you want a full bio, go to Google. I doubt he'll play much of a role if Obama is elected.
"Who are these mostly young people?"
Generally young and relatively inexperienced were my words. Here is a list for each nominee.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/documents/the-war-over-the-wonks.html
"Are they up to the task?"
Not from what I have seen.
"Secondly, just curious, how come, when you cut and paste parts of others' comments to respond to here, you seem to pick the parts that you wish to contend"
I suppose I could quote more of those with whom I agree.
"and ignore direct questions"
I have not done so, and have in fact been taken to task for failure to resist responding.
"or answer questions that are not raised (as if they were)?"
I do not do this.
"For example,"
You cite, as an example, an instance of my answering your question directly.
"when I ask if America's foreign policy can get any worse you talk about 'those who dislike the President' and say something about the war in Iraq."
That's a rather selective parsing of my answer, which I summarized with an emphatic "yes".
"You LIKELY argue the way you do based on likes and dislikes."
Moreso agreements and disagreements? How do you argue, or do you merely assert?
"So you keep looking for stuff that you don't like to make a big deal out of."
Are you saying that I look to make a big deal out of that which I don't like? Or are you saying I look for stuff out of which I don't want to make a big deal. This reads as the latter, but I think you may have intended the former. Either way, what is it to you?
"I like George Bush."
I like him too. You're right, I DO respond based on likes and dislikes.
But,
"And, since we are on God's Politics I might point out that most Christian leaders opposed it from day one as did most of the rest of the world (Obama and mysellf included)."
If Obama had been serving in the Senate at the time, he would have supported it. Whether the same goes for you, I have no idea.
"For seven years the Middle East peace process has stalled and Israel fought a needless war against Lebanon two years ago."
I'll agree the war was needless, but only insofar as Hezbollah's attacks were needless.
"Iran, Russia and China are emboldened partly because of the failure that is Iraq and the reality that the US is tied down there."
We would be either way. I do not subscribe to the narrative that suggests Saddam Hussein was just about to relinquish power and come to the table and open all his factories to weapons inspectors. I see no evidence whatsoever for the idea that Saddam would not have continued to be a lasting threat.
"The world is without leadership on crises such as Myanmar, Zimbabwe, Darfur, Somalia, Ethiopia (Ogaden) and so on ..."
But if we take leadership, it's the 'my way or the highway' thing, by definition. That's a bit of a Catch-22, isn't it? If we do nothing, we are callous. If we forge ahead, we are imperialists. George W. Bush is a mad bomber-man, and yet he has not dropped a single bomb in any of those nations.
Barack Obama, should he be elected, will face a similar dichotomy. The United States is expected to lead in terms of resources, but to follow in terms of policy. If he doesn't play nice, he'll be scolded by the international community.
How will he respond to this pressure? When he got caught ruminating on the importance of meeting with leaders, it suddenly became his policy. As opposed to simply saying he overstepped in the heat of a debate with Hillary Clinton, he codified his position with a blanket statement.
Ahmadinejad has successfully painted himself as the equivalent of a sitting United States president (see comments above). He managed to make the students of Columbia University look like angry partisans. If you don't think that guy knows how to exploit a public relations opportunity, you are desperately naive.
Obama is either similarly naive, or is cynical enough to pretend as much.
"Who would you say is an 'objective observer'?"
Well, you agreed that it could be much worse, so let's count ourselves both as objective observers, as far as that goes.
"Please give me a couple of leads ... Where could I go to read an objective analysis of Obama's potentially damaging foreign policy?"
This may surprise you, but I am not just parroting what I read in an op-ed or on a blog. A quick Google search reveals a fair amount of confusion over what his policy actually is.
Some think he is simply sprinkling the rhetoric of vision on top of a Clintonian foreign policy paradigm. Others take his "withdrawal" commentary and choice of advisors to indicate a minimalist approach.
His commentary on the Iraq war is telling. According to his piece in Foreign Affairs, he favors withdrawal, but that withdrawal can be suspended if political benchmarks have been reached. He says we should not have lasting bases in Iraq (he does not indicate why) but that we should continue training Iraqi soldiers (he does not indicate how).
This bifurcation leads me to believe that he doesn't really have an idea of what change will look like. His off the cuff remarks reinforce that idea.
"By the way, I saw Obama live on television this morning, talking about how he has been dismissed as 'hype and too much hope', speaking eloquently and brilliantly about change and began to think of God's sense of humour ..."
So he responds to accusations of being all about hype and hope by speak eloquently about change. I am left to hope, then, that he can dazzle our enemies with eloquence. That's the point.
"I mean, how could God make the American President so powerful, so immensely influential in world affairs - and then not make a way for all the citizens of the planet to elect him or her?!"
Have you read the Bible?
"Get it?"
I get it, but I disagree. You find disagreement to be problematic, for some reason. I don't understand this impulse.
Posted by: kevin s. | May 21, 2008 10:24 PM
Former NSC Official: Israel Ignored Bush's Knesset Speech
According to 29-year CIA veteran and former NSC official Bruce Riedel, Wednesday's announcement of joint peace negotiations between Israel and Syria revealed President Bush's diminished standing in Middle East affairs.
"Think of the irony," Riedel said. "George Bush goes to Jerusalem last week. He gives an impassioned speech about never dealing with nasty regimes [that sponsor terror]. He basically says 'don't make agreements that appease [them].' And less than a week later, the Israeli government announces it is engaged in peace negotiations with the Assad dictatorship in Syria. We're talking about a rather distasteful regime that likely had a hand in the murder of [former Lebanese Prime Minister] Rafik Hariri. I guess [Israeli Prime Minister] Ehud Olmert didn't think the speech was meant for him."
Bush and Condi are an irrelevant and embarrasing distraction for American diplomacy and the Middle East peace effort.
No one trusts them and except for neoconservative hardliners, no one even listens to them any more.
Posted by: justintime | May 21, 2008 11:21 PM
Kevin S,
I will resist the temptation to cut and paste ...
Whether or not I have read the Bible is irrelevant to the fact that an
official elected by the citizens of just one country has inordinate scope
well beyond his or her nation reflects a bit of Godly humour - to me.
It would, of course, not be so humorous if the leader wasn't passed off as
the Christian hope and supported by patriotic, erudite, well meaning nationals of his country - such as yourself.
I don't have to refer to the Bible to see the irony in the Syrian government negotiating with Israeli authorities - at the highest levels - a week after Bush was cheered in the Knesset - speaking out against such initiatives. Hilarious. I guess this should trouble your position regarding this topic ('Diplomacy = Hitler Appeaser?') quite a bit. Or, maybe, not.
You claim to get that? I rather doubt it ... Actually I would be disappointed if you did, which, I guess, means that I have no problem
with disagreement. [No anti-disagreement impulse at all: you need to re-analyse me].
No. It doesn't have to be funny to you.
For the record now, no, I haven't gotten round to reading the entire Bible yet.
In any event ...a round of applause to you! You win every round. I think I should stop playing these games. I just don't have your
convoluted reasoning, or debating, or arguing skills - not to mention all the cutting and pasting!
It's no longer fun.
Just curious now, Kevin S, but, do you represent the State Department? Anyway, as they say, let's (like the Israeli authorities and Bush on the matter of negotiating with Syria) agree to disagree, right?
And, please, let's have a good long laugh once in a while. Life can be serious, with a 3rd world war coming and all, but hey, God is in control, isn't he?
- Alu
Dar es Salaam
Posted by: Robert Alu | May 22, 2008 2:13 AM
"If Obama had been serving in the Senate at the time, he would have supported it. Whether the same goes for you, I have no idea."
I am curious as to how you know that, Kevin. Does the ambit of your ability to reason, now reach into hearts and mind of Obama? If it does, not only are you smart, but you can read minds. Impressive, truly impressive.
Posted by: JamesMartin | May 22, 2008 5:22 AM
Advice From White House Is Not Always Followed NYT May 22, 2008
“Bush’s rhetoric is completely disconnected from everything on the ground,” said Martin Indyk, head of the Brookings Institution’s Saban Center for Middle East Policy. “While he’s giving his speech against appeasement last week, Hezbollah was taking over control of the Lebanese government.”
The events in Lebanon, Mr. Indyk said, show that the administration ought to put more pragmatic considerations ahead of principle.
The Israel-Syria announcement, in particular, offers an interesting case study, because Israeli officials have said for months that the United States was the only obstacle blocking talks with Syria, which both Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Ehud Barak advocated.
In particular, Elliott Abrams, Mr. Bush’s deputy national security adviser, has cautioned against an Israeli-Syria negotiation, according to Israeli and Bush administration officials. Administration officials said they feared that such a negotiation would appear to reward Syria at a time when the United States was seeking to isolate it for its meddling in Lebanon and its backing of Hezbollah.
But a few weeks ago, Israeli officials told their counterparts at the State Department that they planned to begin the negotiations, which are being mediated by Turkey.
“They weren’t asking our permission,” one senior administration official said. Another Bush official characterized the Israeli announcement as “a slap in the face.” But he said that United States officials believed that Mr. Olmert made the decision with his own domestic political considerations in mind: He is facing several criminal investigations involving events before he became prime minister in 2006, but while he was serving in government. He has denied wrongdoing, and other experts said that Israel had its own compelling reasons to engage Syria: to blunt Hezbollah’s growing power in the region.
Elliot Abrams was a key player in the Iran-Contra affair.
During investigation of the Iran-Contra Affair, the special prosecutor handling the case prepared multiple felony counts against Abrams but never indicted him. Instead, Abrams entered into a plea agreement that ultimately led to a conviction without imprisonment on two misdemeanors of withholding information from Congress. He was fined $50, placed on probation for two years, and assigned 100 hours of community service. Abrams was pardoned by President George H. W. Bush as he was leaving office following his loss in the 1992 U.S. presidential election.
We have a former criminal and a leading neoconservative warmonger [he signed the letter drafted by the 'Project for a new American Century' urging Bush to invade Iraq] advising the Bush administration on US Middle East policy.
According to Jim Lobe in an article he wrote for Asia Times, Abrams has been working systematically to undermine any prospect for serious negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. "The Bush administration has done nothing to press Israel to deliver on its commitments, beyond Washington's empty rhetoric about a two-state 'political horizon'," Henry Siegman, the long-time director of the U.S./Middle East Project at the influential Council on Foreign Relations, wrote in the International Herald Tribune in February 2007. "Every time there emerged the slightest hint that the United States may finally engage seriously in a political process, Elliott Abrams would meet secretly with Olmert's envoys in Europe or elsewhere to reassure them that there exists no such danger," he complained.
This is why no one trusts the Bush administration.
Now no one is listening to them either.
Posted by: justintime | May 22, 2008 10:16 AM
"One major difference [between Bush and Ahmedinejad]? Bush will relinquish power next year and, if the elections dictate as much, so will his party."
Posted by: kevin s.
Sorry, Kevin, but that looks rather like a category error. What you describe isn't a difference between Bush and Ahmedinejad. It's a difference between the US and Iranian political systems. Both men are populist conservative ideologues who appeal to their respective power bases by using religious language. That remains true whichever lens you use - unless you're imitating Nelson at Copenhagen.
Posted by: Tony Dickinson | May 19, 2008 6:20 PM
I must agree with Tony as to where the difference lies in this case.
Call me a fatalist, if you will, but a change in administrations will not be enough to fix this mess we have created. Our nation is about to be humbled in a profoundly painful way.
Of course, there will still be those who blame the "liberals"--who advocate talking to our enemies before we come to blows, who called for energy independence 30 years ago through the development of alternative sources, who advocate economic justice for ALL Americans--for all our problems.
In our recent history, it is the "Conservative" adminstrations of Ronald Reagan and the Bushes Senior and Junior that have been "appeasers" through negotiations and military support of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Pakistan, and various groups of "resistance fighters"--including Osama bin Laden when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan.
Now let's consider the very real possibility that George Bush has the tools and power to declare Martial Law and cancel the elections. All he needs is an excuse, and he didn't need much of an excuse (just a few lies) to invade Iraq. So much for relinquishing power next year.
BTW, Sunny LA is a nickname for Lackawanna, NY, a small suburb just south of Buffalo.
Posted by: JCinSunnyLA | May 22, 2008 12:05 PM
"the Christian hope and supported by patriotic, erudite, well meaning nationals of his country - such as yourself."
When did I call him the the great Christian hope? You resist the temptation to cut and paste from what I actually said to attribute a viewpoint to me to which I do not adhere.
"For the record now, no, I haven't gotten round to reading the entire Bible yet."
It was a rhetorical question, indicating that numerous incidences of what you describe can be found therein.
"I just don't have your
convoluted reasoning, or debating, or arguing skills - not to mention all the cutting and pasting! "
You accused me of not taking the time to answer direct questions, and then deride me for taking the time to answer your questions.
You say you don't have time to cut and paste from my statements, but you apparently have time to ruminate on my motives for posting here.
"I am curious as to how you know that, Kevin. "
I know that he is politically ambitious, and that opposition to the war from the get go would never have seemed pragmatic enough at the time for a seriously ambitious Senator.
Posted by: kevin s. | May 22, 2008 1:24 PM
"I know that he is politically ambitious, and that opposition to the war from the get go would never have seemed pragmatic enough at the time for a seriously ambitious Senator."
Which is a long, judgmental and convuluted way of saying that you really don't know after all.
Posted by: JamesMartin | May 22, 2008 2:30 PM
Like his father before him, George W. Bush has a questionable understanding of history. (The fact that he can barely pronounce the words he uses hardly helps his cause.) Unlike his father, George W. Bush is given to fundamentalism. So I happen to believe that our president's comments about Ahmadinejad are based on his understanding -- whatever the truth of the matter -- of the threat posed by Iran and its president, and as such, must be taken with all possible seriousness.
Like his father, President Bush appears to be using the Hitler analogy to justify the military action he is contemplating taking, if he has not already decided. In other words, I think it would be a mistake to see those remarks strictly in terms of partisan politics. Have we learned nothing in the past several years?
One scary thing, again, is that Bush may not have the best information. When I listen to Bush, I am thinking, Is Iran the only nuclear threat to worry about? Would an attack on Iran lessen the chances of a nuclear attack on the West, or increase them? The really scary thing: Does Bush consider Iran such a threat (again, whether this is in fact true or not) -- or potential threat -- that he is willing to perhaps risk increasing the likelihood of a retaliatory, possibly nuclear, attack on the West?
Posted by: Paul | May 22, 2008 4:15 PM
If anyone is still reading this thread, google Chris Matthews + Kevin James and watch the resulting video. Thanks to Leonard Pitts for the reference, and for another blogger her for calling my attention to it.
Posted by: Another nonymous | May 22, 2008 8:04 PM
That is, *to* another blogger *here* for calling my attention to it. Just watch it; it puts this whole "appeasement" thing in an interesting perspective.
Posted by: Another nonymous | May 22, 2008 8:09 PM
That video was a great laugh.
I had never heard of Kevin James before.
What a basket case!
Why did Matthews put him on his show in the first place?
News is entertainment on Hardball.
Kevin James should be in the funny farm.
And what about all the nutjobs listening to his radio show?
Posted by: justintime | May 22, 2008 9:34 PM
I just watched the Matthews-James exchange. I'd never heard of Kevin James before, and I'm sort of glad. He makes Rush sound like a paragon of thoughtful, reasonable debate.
I wonder how many, like James, throw the word 'appeasement' around without understanding what it means, or talk about 'appeasing Hitler' without knowing what Neville Chamberlain did in Munich.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | May 22, 2008 10:20 PM
"Which is a long, judgmental and convuluted way of saying that you really don't know after all."
No. It is a way of saying that, based on my interpretaion of existing data, this is what I think to be true. The nature of opinion writing does not require us to begin each declarative with the phrase "in my opinion".
The same goes when you say that the Iraq war will end badly.
As far as the judgmental claim goes, I was asked to provide reasons why I believe that things might be worse under Obama. I gave several. By your definition of judgment, merely entering a voting booth and pulling a lever is an act of judgment.
Posted by: kevin s. | May 24, 2008 1:55 AM
Kevin James is a right-wing radio guy now? That is bizarre. Perhaps he is capitalizing on a latent Archie Bunker chic.
I can't load video at the time, but the first post I got was "Chris Matthews Pimp Slaps Kevin James". Why would I be interested in reading the opinion of one who uses the phrase "pimp slaps" unironically?
Posted by: kevin s. | May 24, 2008 2:00 AM
'...implying that Sen. Obama wishes to appease terrorism...'
Sorry - just couldn't pass this one up. Obama is so good at the 'victim' role - he is ready for the stage or one of Gareth's movies.
Bush never mentioned the US or any other country in his speech. He never mentioned an individual or Obama. He never mentioned a political party. But - yes, he was talking about BHO. (LOL)
I think Obama needs to find out that the world is a little bigger than he believes it is. But I will put BHO on my 'Chamberlain List' to see what he is willing to give away for world peace and who's signature he will accept on paper as truthful.
This is just too funny. What is sad is no mention of Memorial Day on this site - but are we suprised?
Blessings -
Posted by: moderatelad | May 27, 2008 12:35 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?