Whether Bush was referring to Obama or just people who actually believe in diplomacy as being Nazi appeasers, it was not cool for Bush to be political in a world format addressing the anniversary of the creation of Israel. It was really tacky to bring up Nazis in reference to people who simply have a different train of thought. He should have realized he was not only talking to only Israel or the US; but also to the world, it was just beneath the occasion to use that kind of language but typical of our "dead or alive" & "bring em' on" swaggering idiot of our commander in chief president. I can't wait to see the last of him; I only hope we are not going to be stuck with a guy who brings us such enlightening phrases like, "bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran." I want an appeaser if an appeaser in this day and age means actually using logic and reason when deciding foreign policy. Maybe then we wouldn't be stuck in a war costing us trillions of dollars just to save face with Al Qaeda.
Bush compared Obama to Hitler? Are you serious?
He didn't compare Obama to anyone, but if you were to claim he did, you ought to be saying he compared him to William Borah, right?
How do you think he compared him to Hitler?
That video shows that a radio host I've never heard of doesn't know what appeasement means, but it doesn't show that Bush misused the term.
Try again, or give up?
It was entirely appropriate to address the issue of appeasement before the Israeli parliament.
Arguably, the jews suffered the most from the very real appeasement of Adolph Hitler by European powers.
Israel, since it's inception, has faced enemies near and far who deny it's legitimacy as a nation, and, closest to home, who wish to eradicate it and its people entirely.
It is extremely important to Israel how the United States government interacts with its existential enemies.
Whether or not the positions criticized by Bush precisely fit the definition of "appeasement," we can be confident that the majority of Israelis believe they do, and they were the audience.
As to specifically who Bush was referring to when he criticized these positions --- If the shoe fits...
If the people who want to employ diplomacy, without preconditions, with Iran and Hamas don't consider it appeasement they are free to make their case and I assure you the press will cover it.
I do think, however, that it is legitimate to question whether or not Bush's thinking, as expressed in this speech, is consistent with our own foreign policy.
The fact that members of his cabinet may or may not have made contradictory statements may be a problem as respects a coherent public communication of our foreign policy, but does not, necessarily, reflect an incoherent execution of that policy. Irrespective of what Sec Gates may express about what he believes is required in terms of dealing with Iran, he is not in charge, and he is not about to launch talks without the approval of Pres Bush.
Obama has made a big issue of his not calling for talks with Hamas, and there is no evidence that he has, but again Bush did not single out Obama in his speech. Jimmy Carter did, however, engage in talks with Hamas, and it was more likely that if Bush had anyone in mind when he condemned such talks it was Carter, not Obama. The speech was not an attack against a single individual, but of the positions of a number of different individuals.
If a Democrat wants to go before the Israeli parliament and criticize, in general, policies for dealing with Iran and Hamas which are associated with the Bush administration, I've no problem. In doing so, he or she will have to explain why talking to Iran's president without preconditions, or talking to Hamas is the way to go. That would be interesting.
It was not appriopriate for the President of the United States to call people who have a different way of dealing with issues of terrorism, nazi appeasers on international television. Period.
Cycloptichorn wrote:Foxfyre wrote:Also, to the best of my knowledge, neither President Bush nor President Clinton are running for anything right now, but we can include their activities in the history when we assess what works and what doesn't.
I am interested, however, in whether McCain or Obama has the best grasp of effective fundamental diplomacy based on what we know works and what doesn't work. Somehow, I think McCain will come out better in that debate.
You think McCain has a better grasp upon
anything then Obama?
Seriously?
The Republican party doesn't even know what 'effective diplomacy' is. Bush's diplomatic efforts have been universal failures. McCain is from the same school of thought with the same advisers. Not hard to figure out how this one is going to go.
Cycloptichorn
In the first place the comparative term is "than" not "then".
In the second I suspect there are indeed some things that Bush understands better than Obama. Do you really think you could defend your rather unqualified proposition?
In the third, The Bush Administration's handling of an exceedingly complex diplomatic negotiation with North Korea, South Korea, Japan, and China, and the results they have so far achieved, have been wonderfully effective, particularly when compared to the rather more modest goals and successes of the Clinton Adninistration that preceded it. Moreover they are giving North Korea far less and getting much more for it.
This is merely one example, among several others that completely demolish your rather unbounded propositions above that they know nothing and have achieved only "universal failures". Such hyperbole doesn't do much to convince intelligent and reasonable observers here (and there are a few) to take you seriously.
georgeob1 wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:Foxfyre wrote:Also, to the best of my knowledge, neither President Bush nor President Clinton are running for anything right now, but we can include their activities in the history when we assess what works and what doesn't.
I am interested, however, in whether McCain or Obama has the best grasp of effective fundamental diplomacy based on what we know works and what doesn't work. Somehow, I think McCain will come out better in that debate.
You think McCain has a better grasp upon
anything then Obama?
Seriously?
The Republican party doesn't even know what 'effective diplomacy' is. Bush's diplomatic efforts have been universal failures. McCain is from the same school of thought with the same advisers. Not hard to figure out how this one is going to go.
Cycloptichorn
In the first place the comparative term is "than" not "then".
In the second I suspect there are indeed some things that Bush understands better than Obama. Do you really think you could defend your rather unqualified proposition?
In the third, The Bush Administration's handling of an exceedingly complex diplomatic negotiation with North Korea, South Korea, Japan, and China, and the results they have so far achieved, have been wonderfully effective, particularly when compared to the rather more modest goals and successes of the Clinton Adninistration that preceded it. Moreover they are giving North Korea far less and getting much more for it.
This is merely one example, among several others that completely demolish your rather unbounded propositions above that they know nothing and have achieved only "universal failures". Such hyperbole doesn't do much to convince intelligent and reasonable observers here (and there are a few) to take you seriously.
Oddly enough, I was at dinner with a group of conservatives last night, who to a man described our North Korea diplomacy as a failure. They were not happy with the Bush administration on this issue at all. In fact, I was arguing the counter position in sort of a devil's-advocate way. I guess that none of them knew what they were talking about either, eh?
No, I don't believe there is a single thing that Bush understands, that Obama doesn't. This isn't meant to put Obama up on a platform, but to get across the idea that Bush is
extremely unintelligent. He is not a smart man. He screws things up constantly, cannot pronounce words, cannot keep sentences straight, and shows only a juvenille understanding of complex situations. He pretends that simplifying problems leads to results, when it most certainly does not. He has lowered the level of discourse in America and frankly reflects terribly upon us every time he opens his mouth. A true embarrassment of a man.
Cycloptichorn
I have no idea of whom you dine with. Perhaps they are fools. I did not suggest there was universal agreement that our recent activities with North Korea have been successful - rather that they have been stunningly more successful than all that preceded it. Your comments are an attempt to evade the question here.
As for the relative understanding of Bush & Obama, you are merely spouting stuff you can't possibly know. There are many ways to describe that kind of activity. Think of one.
georgeob1 wrote:I have no idea of whom you dine with. Perhaps they are fools. I did not suggest there was universal agreement that our recent activities with North Korea have been successful - rather that they have been stunningly more successful than all that preceded it. Your comments are an attempt to evade the question here.
As for the relative understanding of Bush & Obama, you are merely spouting stuff you can't possibly know. There are many ways to describe that kind of activity. Think of one.
Have I not eyes to see? Have I not ears with which to hear?
You posit that it is impossible for people to make judgments of intelligence or character based upon REPEATED examination of the only information that we can get from another - their communication. You say I 'can't possibly know' that Bush is unintelligent. You are incorrect, sir, for I do know this; I have witnessed this time and time again, him proving this idea by his thoughts and actions.
I cannot say the same for Obama.
Therefore it is extremely difficult for me to believe that Bush is up to speed on anything, at all, that Obama wouldn't be.
As for North Korea, did they not set off a (crappy) nuke last year, or the year before? Does this not represent an advancement of their WMD program, something we have been working to stop? I almost think it does. Hardly what I would call a 'stunning success.'
Cycloptichorn
revel wrote:It was not appriopriate for the President of the United States to call people who have a different way of dealing with issues of terrorism, nazi appeasers on international television. Period.
It was inappropriate for Bush Administration staffers to single out people as having been referred to in that speech. They didn't single out Carter, they singled out Obama.
It was inappropriate for the Bush Administration staffers to purposely throw gasoline on the flames with that presumption if a mindset and not specific people was being referenced.
It is very obvious that this was the intended reaction orchestrated by the setting, the vague references to a specific mindset and the staffer's comments.
It still won't be enough to gift Hillary Clinton to the Republicans as the Democratic nominee.
georgeob1 wrote:I have no idea of whom you dine with. Perhaps they are fools. I did not suggest there was universal agreement that our recent activities with North Korea have been successful - rather that they have been stunningly more successful than all that preceded it. Your comments are an attempt to evade the question here.
"stunningly more successful"?
The 23 million slaves to Kim Jong Il, that haven't yet been tortured or starved to death, might be inclined to disagree... if they were allowed to think for themselves. Untold millions have already paid the ultimate price and their future looks no brighter. This can't be measured in terms of success. The civilized world has utterly and completely failed these people... and appear to have every intention of continuing to do so.
Bush is right. Appeasing
any of these A-holes is wrong.
That being said; I have no problem with the idea of a President Obama talking to anyone. It may be a good idea to look your enemy in the eye as you make it very clear what is and isn't acceptable. Talks do not necessarily mean appeasement.
Young, evangelical ... for Obama?
Not too impressed by this article - a very superficial dusting of the subject. But the trend it notes is worth noting. This is an interesting bit:
Quote:Polls have shown that young Christians aren't any less concerned about the "family values" issues that have traditionally driven Christians to the Republican camp. (In fact, a study by the Barna Group, an evangelical polling organization, shows young Christians are actually more conservative on abortion than their elders.) It's just that they're also concerned about issues such as social justice and immigration, issues traditionally associated with Democrats.
Judy Naegeli, 25, who works at a Christian philanthropy, says easy access to information about the world via social-networking sites, YouTube and blogs is the reason her generation is more concerned with social justice.
"It's changed our perspective. ... Each generation chooses their cause, and ours is AIDs in Africa, or poverty or social justice," she said.
Tyler Braun, 23, a Portland seminary student who opposes abortion and gay rights, said he'll probably vote for Obama because, since he'd would like to see U.S. troops leave Iraq.
Anika Smith, 23, who works for a think tank in Seattle, said she's concerned with the same issues, but she plans to vote for McCain:
"I'm worried about the war and the economy and social-justice issues. But, the abortion issue is still nonnegotiable."
nimh wrote:Young, evangelical ... for Obama?
Not too impressed by this article - a very superficial dusting of the subject. But the trend it notes is worth noting. This is an interesting bit:
Quote:Polls have shown that young Christians aren't any less concerned about the "family values" issues that have traditionally driven Christians to the Republican camp. (In fact, a study by the Barna Group, an evangelical polling organization, shows young Christians are actually more conservative on abortion than their elders.) It's just that they're also concerned about issues such as social justice and immigration, issues traditionally associated with Democrats.
Judy Naegeli, 25, who works at a Christian philanthropy, says easy access to information about the world via social-networking sites, YouTube and blogs is the reason her generation is more concerned with social justice.
"It's changed our perspective. ... Each generation chooses their cause, and ours is AIDs in Africa, or poverty or social justice," she said.
Tyler Braun, 23, a Portland seminary student who opposes abortion and gay rights, said he'll probably vote for Obama because, since he'd would like to see U.S. troops leave Iraq.
Anika Smith, 23, who works for a think tank in Seattle, said she's concerned with the same issues, but she plans to vote for McCain:
"I'm worried about the war and the economy and social-justice issues. But, the abortion issue is still nonnegotiable."
Not much of a trend. Perhaps some wishful thinking?
15% of young white evangelicals not identifying with the Republican party still means 85% do. That pretty much still constitutes a "shoo in" for the GOP with this group.
To sum things up here, there are nations and terrorist organizations that have made it very plain that anything short of total eradication and extermination of Israel, and perhaps Jews, is their goal.
I have a question, what is the purpose of talking with such people? We already know what they want to do. We either disagree with them, and in such a case there is nothing to talk about, and if we agree with them, then.........
Bush has been called stupid in many different ways, but he is at least not stupid enough to not understand the above simple facts. And he has made it plain that he supports our one good ally in the Middle East, which is Israel. I don't know about everyone else here, but I am not sure I know what Obama's true beliefs are in this regard. He has been caught with conflicting and ambiguous answers and associations with people that lend doubt to what he really believes.
North Korea is always the example thrown out there as an issue that liberals accuse Republicans of not showing enough attention toward, as opposed to Iraq, etc. I don't know what our options are, short of invading that country, which would be stupid, stupid, stupid. I think things are moving along okay, the best that can be expected, given the appeasement shown toward that situation by the Clintons.
Bush used the Nazi analogy to make the point that appeasement does not work, which is entirely appropriate to the future of Israel. It won't work for them either.
okie, another summation says there are powerful Israelis who call for the extermination of Palestinians. Most Israelis and Palestinians want a more dignified and peaceful solution.
Cycloptichorn wrote:As for North Korea, did they not set off a (crappy) nuke last year, or the year before? Does this not represent an advancement of their WMD program, something we have been working to stop? I almost think it does. Hardly what I would call a 'stunning success.'
Cycloptichorn
All they accomplished was a demonstration that they haven't solved the problem of designing a reliable ignition system for the bomb (this is 99% of the problem). They are underway with the dismantlement of their plutonium-producing reactor, and grudgingly, complying with their agreement to turn over design and production data; China is now directly involved in the negotiation (as it was not before 2000), and it is directly involved in a related strategic discussion with Japan and South Korea concerning the behavior of their unruly neighbor. We have withdrawn previous (pre 2000) promises to build them a power reactor, and are no longer sending Madeline Allbright over there to kiss Kim Jong Il's fat ass. (On second thought, that may be why he capitulated).
I would say that things are going stunningly well there.
