Bush's appeasement malarkey

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2008/05/16/bushs_appeasement_malarkey/

Bush's appeasement malarkey
May 16, 2008

snip//

‘‘Some seem to believe,’’ Bush told the Knesset, ‘‘that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along.’’ He was comparing unnamed appeasers of today to isolationists who thought they could negotiate with Nazi Germany and keep the United States out of World War II. Bush implied that Obama would be just that naive.

In reality, the likely Democratic nominee seems inclined toward a tough and prudent statecraft in the mold of Bush’s father and his secretary of state, James Baker. It also seems to have slipped the younger Bush’s mind that his own policy for keeping nuclear weapons out of Iran’s grasp is to encourage diplomacy along with mild United Nations sanctions.

The diplomatic discussions have been conducted between Iran and key European allies, Britain, France, and Germany — with the explicit approval of Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Bush’s secretary of defense, Robert Gates, also favors talking to Iran. Does Bush consider Rice and Gates appeasers, too?

On the matter of negotiating with radicals and terrorists, somebody on Bush’s staff ought to remind him that among his few foreign policy achievements are the agreements his diplomats negotiated with Libya’s Moammar Khadafy and Kim Jong Il of North Korea. Taking nuclear weapons out of the hands of those old terrorists has meant talking to them — and giving them some things they wanted badly.

Maybe the worst thing about Bush’s Knesset attack on Obama is that it shows how oblivious Bush still is to his own failings. His unilateral military ventures, his disdain for international treaties and organizations, his refusal to negotiate with Iran when the regime in Tehran was eager to cut a deal with the United States — these mistakes produced the disasters that Obama or another successor will have to overcome.

dealing with the subject is that they do not explicitly explain the difference between diplomacy and appeasement and apparently millions of people do not know the difference. They cannot continue allow the Rethug spinmeisters to continue lying about the definition of concepts with a view to promote agenda laden talking points.

;)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x359788

:hi:

This has been their attitude from day one. That is why there are no consultations with Democrats in Congress. That is why they feel the need for a "Unitary Executive".. They Dictate, they don't talk...