Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsJeb Bush flubs foreign policy with ‘appeasement’ talk
Steve Benen over at MaddowBlog takes Jeb "the smart one (??)" Bush to school on foreign policy concerning the international agreement with Iran:In a 17-second video clip, the Florida Republican raised eyebrows with his use of a specific word.
We need to have a deeper debate about this and the recognition that past is prologue. History is full of examples of, when you enable people regimes that dont embrace democratic values, without any concessions, you get a bad result. Its called appeasement.
.....
There are two broad problems with rhetoric like this, especially from a presidential hopeful whos struggled with foreign policy. The first is that Bush doesnt seem to understand that the international agreement does, in reality, include Iranian concessions. Indeed, that was the whole point of the difficult talks that dragged on for months if Iran didnt have to make any concessions, Iranian officials would have said yes quite a while ago.
But as anyone with even a passing familiarity with this story knows, Iran had to accept precisely what it was reluctant to allow: extraordinary and robust monitoring, verification, and inspection of their facilities from international inspectors.
As for Jebs appeasement talk does that count as a big-syllable word? the Republican candidate isnt doing himself any favors repeating cheap rhetoric.
By his reasoning, any set of negotiations with dangerous and undemocratic foes is a mistake. But to borrow a phrase, history is full of examples pointing in the opposite direction.
Jeb Bushs brother, for example, conducted nuclear talks with Libyas Muammar Gadhafi, someone who didnt embrace democratic values. Reagan conducted nuclear talks with the Soviet Union a rival superpower committed to the destruction of the United States, which had the technological capability to destroy us.
I realize that for some on the far-right, even these talks were considered outrageous betrayals, but Im curious whether Jeb Bush agrees. Were his brother and Reagan appeasing dangerous dictatorships with their nuclear talks, or is this a word Bush reserves for Democratic presidents?
Whether the former governor realizes it or not, sometimes, talking to foreign governments to advance U.S. interests is a good idea even when we dont like those foreign governments. Talking to allies is easy; talking to enemies is hard; and sometimes, real leadership means doing the latter.
We need to have a deeper debate about this and the recognition that past is prologue. History is full of examples of, when you enable people regimes that dont embrace democratic values, without any concessions, you get a bad result. Its called appeasement.
.....
There are two broad problems with rhetoric like this, especially from a presidential hopeful whos struggled with foreign policy. The first is that Bush doesnt seem to understand that the international agreement does, in reality, include Iranian concessions. Indeed, that was the whole point of the difficult talks that dragged on for months if Iran didnt have to make any concessions, Iranian officials would have said yes quite a while ago.
But as anyone with even a passing familiarity with this story knows, Iran had to accept precisely what it was reluctant to allow: extraordinary and robust monitoring, verification, and inspection of their facilities from international inspectors.
As for Jebs appeasement talk does that count as a big-syllable word? the Republican candidate isnt doing himself any favors repeating cheap rhetoric.
By his reasoning, any set of negotiations with dangerous and undemocratic foes is a mistake. But to borrow a phrase, history is full of examples pointing in the opposite direction.
Jeb Bushs brother, for example, conducted nuclear talks with Libyas Muammar Gadhafi, someone who didnt embrace democratic values. Reagan conducted nuclear talks with the Soviet Union a rival superpower committed to the destruction of the United States, which had the technological capability to destroy us.
I realize that for some on the far-right, even these talks were considered outrageous betrayals, but Im curious whether Jeb Bush agrees. Were his brother and Reagan appeasing dangerous dictatorships with their nuclear talks, or is this a word Bush reserves for Democratic presidents?
Whether the former governor realizes it or not, sometimes, talking to foreign governments to advance U.S. interests is a good idea even when we dont like those foreign governments. Talking to allies is easy; talking to enemies is hard; and sometimes, real leadership means doing the latter.
With Jeb Bush, it's always been 'his way or the highway'. With the catastrophic problems facing the world now, this is neither the kind of temperament nor intellectual grasp that will get him very far.
Aside from that, his entire dark money-funded campaign is a farce and an insult.
But, is it 'joyful' yet, Mr. Bush?
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
1 replies, 662 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (8)
ReplyReply to this post
1 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Jeb Bush flubs foreign policy with ‘appeasement’ talk (Original Post)
seafan
Jul 2015
OP
daleanime
(17,796 posts)1. Honestly, I see the republican voter's problem....
tRump isn't that much worst then any of the others.