The Democrats are up in arms over Bush's speech to the Israeli Knesset today because his criticism hit them square in the face. His accusation that Obama and his counterparts would appease Iran and other enemies is right on. This is why Biden, Pelosi, Obama, and others are so upset.
The venue was appropriate because appeasement of Hitler led to the Holocaust and ultimately to the creation of Israel after 6 million Jews were annihilated because of the inability of free nations to confront evil directly. Iran has promised another Holocaust and is seeking nuclear weapons to accomplish it.
Secondly, Obama can be labeled as an "appeaser" because he has stated that he will negotiate with Iran directly "without preconditions". What is there to negotiate with Iran? Can we say, "please stop sending Iraqi and Taliban insurgents"? Can we say "please stop funding terrorists in Lebanon, Gaza, the West Bank, Iran, Afghanistan, and elsewhere"?
There is nothing to negotiate with. The Bush administration has flat out refused to negotiate with Iran and they are right for doing so. What the Bush administration has offered is an appropriate carrot for non-governmental contacts with Iran as an olive branch. This has proven fruitless, so why would presidential communication change anything? It is stupid for Obama and the Democrats to even suggest this. The Democrats have a long history of appeasement since Jimmy Carter, Joseph Kennedy, George McGovern, and others who have been consistently on the wrong side of history. Obama is no different, just watch the video below to see how he would disarm the United States:
Sickened? Disgusted? Me too...
He wants to get rid of nuclear weapons without a missile defense system. What an amateur, this man is not fit for the Oval Office. A victory by Obama would endanger America and the entire free world. Obama never talks of freedom because he doesn't seem to value it too much and obviously has no clue on how to defend it. This is demonstrated by his willingness and eagerness to force America's defeat in Iraq. The fact is Al Qaida is in Iraq and we're beating them back more and more each day. Their last real stronghold is in Mosul, so why not win? Why choose defeat?
"We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is - the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history," Bush stated. That is Obama to a "t".
The Democrats have got away with pushing for appeasement long enough, and it's about time they get called on it. They repeatedly say that they support the troops while voting against funding them while they fight a war against terrorists. They say they want to win the war on terror while voting against vital intelligence programs that protect us at home. Please. They want retreat plain and simple.
Hillary called Bush's comments "offensive and outrageous". It is outrageous that Obama wants to negotiate with the world's leading sponsor of terror. It is outrageous that this man could become the next president after an endorsement from Hamas. Biden can swear up a storm, but he does so because Bush hit the bull's eye today.
It's long overdue.
May 15, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
If Bush actually accomplished something positive in the Middle East these comments would mean something. Unfortunately he has been a complete and total disaster in the region. Iraq was the biggest foreign policy mistake in a generation. He is in no position to give advice to others after failing so miserably in everything he has tried to accomplish. I would argue he has fumbled and is losing the war on terror.
Iran has become far stronger since Bush took power. Removing enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan made them a major regional power. Because the Iraq war was based on lies, few nations believe any intelligence reports on Iran. The world community cannot even agree on mild sanctions. The nation is probably a few months from being past the point of no return on nuclear weapons. America has already talked to Iran regarding Iraq so Bush's actions are not consistent with his message. Israel is also currently talking to Hamas through Egypt on the issue of a ceasefire and the kidnapped solider/Palestinian Prisoners.
Israel is no closer to peace with the Palestinians or the Arab world. They have never been under more threat with Hezbollah on one border, Syria on another, Hamas on another and Iran close to the bomb and financing terrorist interests. The Road Map has led to nowhere.
Bin Laden commented today on Israel's 60th birthday. Why is he still not captured or killed? McCain is willing to chase Bin Laden to the gates of hell, but unlike Obama he is not willing to go after him where he actually is, in Pakistan.
Iraq is a disaster with no end in sight. Turkey is also attacking Kurds. NATO is treading water in Afghanistan due to the resources diverted to Iraq.
Oil prices are through the roof and will only increase going forward. This is putting pressure on the American and global economy.
Lebanon has been lost to Hezbollah after a poorly executed 2006 war.
Hamas controls Palestine and it is becoming harder to marginalize them. Bush talks about appeasement while Israel negotiates with them.
Leaders in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan are nothing more than American puppets forced to oppress their people and ignore democracy. None of those countries are closer to democracy or respect for human rights. All of these leaders would not be in power if there were elections tomorrow. All gulf states are looking to cooperate on nuclear power threatening the whole region will be armed. "Moderate" Arab nations joining America and Israel against Iran is nothing more than fantasy. These regimes are in danger of being overthrown by extremists who are more popular on the Arab street.
A genocide remains in Sudan. Libya gave up their weapons program but in exchange we have legitimized a brutal dictator.
Russia and China are playing an increased role in the region as is the EU countering American interests.
America has lost hearts and minds in the Muslim world making it harder to push their agenda.
If Bush wants to help ensure Israel's security and bring peace to the Middle East; the first thing he should do is apologize for screwing up and resign immediately. In the meantime the world is counting the seconds until he leaves office and is hoping that whoever comes next is an improvement over the past 7 years of constant failures in the region. I do not see how anyone can be any worse regardless of who is elected.
McCain wants to follow the same path, that concerns me a hell of a lot more than the fact Obama may try a different approach.
Instead of going on the defensive, Democrats should simply highlight that Bush disagrees with them. The overwhelming majority of Americans disapprove of his policies and he is now considered the worst President in American history according to polls.
Darryl,
You're a nice guy, but you're as clueless on foreign policy as Obama is.
There has been a major accomplishment in the Middle East: Iraq has an elected government for the first time in decades.
Secondly: There are no Israelis in Gaza, and yet, the rocket fire continues.
This reveals that whatever the Islamist beef is with the West, the conflict will never end unless we defeat them completely.
We are not treading water in Afghanistan. It is a tough slog no doubt, but they too have an elected government for the first time in almost a half century. Women are free to vote, men can cut their beards.
Your defeatist attitude rings hollow and your lack of understanding of history regarding appeasement is surprising.
Iran may be stronger, but that is due to oil price increases, not Bush's foreign policy. Bush's speech was completely accurate in characterizing the Democrats as appeasers. They have done nothing but hamper the war effort, lower morale for the troops and the country, and remove the tools we use to fight Islamic fascists at home and abroad.
The world has agreed on sanctions on Iran which even Russia dn China voted for.
Peace is an idealist notion between Israel and the Arabs because the Arabs want to wipe the Jews out completely. They don't recognize Israel or it's right to exist. What is there to negotiate with Iran? Please inform me.
Oil prices are high because demand is growing without an increase in supply thanks to Democrats and other left wing enviro-wack jobs who prevent new drilling anywhere in North America.
Hamas does not control Palestine, they control Gaza thanks to Israel's retreat from there without "preconditions". It exemplifies the exact kind of appeasement you defend by Obama and others.
Lebanon hasn't lost to Hezbollah, they're being undermined by Iran and Syria, the very terrorists you want to "negotiate" with.
The only thing Bush should apologize for is not invading with 400,000 troops to get the job done right.
And more Americans disapprove of Congress than the President, so get your facts straight.
-Drilling in Alaska would reduce gas prices by less than one cent a leader.
-You ignored my comments on Saudi Arabia who today slapped Bush in the face. It is bad enough we have a double standard with these extremists, now today they don't even serve their purpose of stable and reduced oil prices for America.
-You ignored my comments completely on Bin Laden
-You ignored my comments on Libya and Sudan
-Call the situation what you want in Lebanon, but the pro-West government is no longer relevant. Any predictions on who would win if the people were allowed to vote?
-The Iraq government is there because of American troops. They are dysfunctional and have done nothing to take advantage of the surge. If American left tomorrow gains would be lost
-The elected government in Afghanistan favours talks with the Taliban
-Russia and China watered down sanctions on Iran to the point they became a joke and defeated their main purpose. As far as talking with them, that view is shared by many in Bush's own administration
-Hamas controls Gaza, Israel the West Bank
-Saying peace isn't possible is not a solution. The Gaza pullout was never based on any negotiations. It was done unilaterally and I agree it was a major mistake.
-Finally the fact Congress has a lower approval rating then the president doesn't change the fact that Bush has the lowest approval rating of any president in US history.
I stand by my statements. I am supporting Obama because he wants to change the course of Bush in foreign affairs. McCain is the vote for another Bush term.
Drilling in Alaska would provide enough oil for 60 million cars for 60 years, that's not insubstantial. It is part of a pattern of obstruction by the Dems to prevent domestic supply from rising to cater to their global warming-cult followers. 80% of offshore energy is offlimits to US producers, why? Democrats like Obama.
Bind Laden, why is he not capture? It makes me angry too, but I have no doubt that Bush would do a lot more than wimpy-Obamacarter ever would. Obama wants to neuter the US military, just look at his campaign promises on missile defense and nuclear weapons. His policies are assinine.
Libya disarmed because of the Iraq invasion and as a result of them getting rid of WMD programs, they got normalized relations. That's how "negotiation" should work. Carrots and sticks, not talks without preconditions.
Gaza is your classic case of appeasement, giving up something for nothing in return. And the result, rockets on Sderot. How is that any different from withdrawing from Iraq ASAP and then sitting down with Ahmadinejad?
I still haven't heard you say what would be worth discussing with Ahamindejad or Assad... so please enlighten me.
Oh and Sudan? China can be blamed for propping up that radical Islamic government.
Bush doesn't have the lowest ratings in history, Truman was in the 20's and history has treated him very kindly.
Jump on all the bandwagons you want, swoon with the MSM, and bask in the glow of Obama's rhetoric. It all rings hollow.
If he's elected, he'll be just like Jimmy Carter and you'll look foolish and naive for having claimed being a conservative and supported his socialist, left-wing, defeatist, naive, and government swelling policies.
There still hasn't been a Democrat saying "we oppose appeasement". All Obama would have had to do was say that he supported Bush's speech and he would have come out stronger. By arguing so vociferously, he has attached himself to appeasement. Bush's comments were spot on and I applaud him for it, just as the Israelis did.
If you want to talk about appeasement, Bush shows up in Saudi Arabia; a country that produced Bin Laden, most of the 9/11 hijackers, fails to recognize Israel, has the worst human rights record in the Middle East, is a state sponsor of terrorism and offers them nuclear technology? How does that make sense? Why would Saudi Arabia qualify for nuclear technology but not Iran? It is this type of double standard that has shot all American credibility in the region.
If you are a dictator who is friends with America, we call them moderate. If you are a dictator who opposes America we call them extremists. Iran and Saudi Arabia are both extremists and should be treated as such. If we can talk to the Saudi Royals, there is no reason we cannot talk to Iran.
What would I talk about:
Syria:
If Syria were to expel Hamas, get out of Lebanon, cut ties with Hezbollah, cut ties with Iran, and recognize Israel than I would be prepared to offer 100% of the Golan Heights returned to Syria. If this nation falls into the "moderate" camp it would be a major blow to Hezbollah, Hamas and it would isolate Iran completely. In this case peace has a price. If you don't pay the price, there will not be peace. Call it Jimmy Carter diplomacy but this is exactly what Israel is negotiating with Syria right now through Turkey.
Lebanon:
Negotiations are going to have to take place between the pro-West government and Hezbollah. I would attempt to negotiate with the Hezbollah a spot in government where they are accountable to the people and have a responsibility in shaping the nation according to the constitution. They should be forced to surrender their weapons to the army. They need to return the Israeli soldiers in exchange for Lebanese prisoners. The nation of Lebanon eventually has to sign a peace deal with Israel that is respected by Hezbollah for the good of both nations. 2006 showed us that attempting to defeat Hezbollah militarily will not work. The most recent events there, show that if Hezbollah is not given a formal veto in government, they will have one through the barrel of a gun. A peace treaty with Israel will take away their "justification" to maintain their arms. All foreign interests out of the country would be required to allow this nation to return to the positive direction it was heading before the recent war. Lebanon, like the UAE was a great example of what a moderate Muslim nation can look like. Call it Jimmy Carter diplomacy but this is what is happening right now with the Arab League mediating between the pro-West government and Hezbollah.
Palestine:
Everyone knows the end solution here. The West Bank, Gaza and part of East Jerusalem will make up a Palestinian state. There will be land swaps for settlements, water, and realities on the ground. Palestinian refugees will not be allowed to return to Israel. The Arab world will recognize Israel once a two state solutions takes place, sign peace treaties, form diplomatic relations and engage in trade and other cooperation that allows the region to finally prosper. Both peoples will have to approve the deal via referendum. Hamas will have to disarm, recognize Israel's right to exist and honour all peace agreements. In exchange, Hamas should be allowed to serve in government if elected. Peace will never be possible in this region until this conflict is solved. That is why George Bush is trying to force both Abbas and Israel to reach a deal involving borders by the end of his term. What Bush/Rice is trying to do now is no different than what Clinton and Carter have tried before him. The next President rather Obama or McCain will have to take the same course. McCain himself was open to talking to Hamas. Personally I think it was a huge slap in the face to democracy in the region to force elections after Arafat died, but then failed to recognize the results. Fatah is marginally different than Hamas and is also seen as corrupt among the local population. The fact Hamas controls Gaza means that they will have to be included in any peace negotiations, otherwise Abbas is signing cheques he know he can't cash. Call it Jimmy Carter diplomacy, appeasement or simply realize that Israel is talking with Hamas right now through Egypt.
Iran:
Right now there is nothing to negotiate accept their nuclear weapons program. Taking Syria out of the equation with a peace deal, solving the Israeli-Arab conflict and returning stability to Lebanon would all be blows major blows to Iran. We need tough diplomacy that has a carrot and stick approach. Give up nuclear weapons and stop supporting terrorists in the region in exchange for security guarantees, normalized relations and recognition of their role in the region is possibly where a deal could be made. Otherwise they need some tough talk so that they can calculate where the red line is. You cross this line and there will be a major military attack and regime change. The elected government in Iraq is talking with Iran right now.
I may look like an idiot and a fool for supporting "naive and foolish" Jimmy Carter like policies as a Conservative if it turns out Obama goes down that path and makes those type of mistakes.
On the flip side it will be a huge relief to be a Canadian Conservatives when we are no longer compared to that disaster George Bush South of the border who has screwed up the Middle East, the economy and failed on almost every initiative he has attempted.
President Obama could be the key to a Canadian Conservative majority and the end of that hidden agenda bullshit that is really some Canadians saying that Harper is too close to Bush.
I am rooting for Obama, but if Clinton or McCain ended up President; I think they would have to both work very hard to turn out worse than Bush.
Post a Comment