IF THE CAP FITS....
Did you read that Obama has been riled following comments made by President Bush in a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's statehood? Bush observed...
"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," the President said to the country's legislative body, "We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of 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 is right, of course, but Obama is not happy about this - despite the fact that nowhere does Bush mention him. Guily conscience got you, Hussein? His retort, demonstrating that alleged inspirational ability that so excites the MSM is as follows..
"It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel. Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power -- including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy - to pressure countries like Iran and Syria. George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the President's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel."
But Obama enjoys the support of Hamas, his spiritual mentor the Rev Wright is a cheer-leader for Hamas and Obama was forced to sack an aide, Robert Malley who did indeed talk to Hamas. Hamas seek to destroy Israel. So I'm afraid that putative oratorial eloquence or not, if the appeasers cap fits, wear it Obama.
David Vance
20 Comments
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (20)
I prefer to remember the actions of the terrorists and then I know where the barge-pole should go with regard to the "pragmatists"...
>>"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," the President said <<
But I hope you realise, David, that this is a position based on pramatics and not a principle. If the US stood to gain more from talking to certain terrorist groups than it stood to lose, it would do so.
As every government would.
I don't have to remind you of the policy of every govt. (UK; US, RoI) towards the peace process in NI. Don't be fooled by rhetoric: remember Major's barge-pole.
putative oratorial eloquence
are you ghost writing for mccann now david? :P
pragmatism is just another way of saying "the lawyers have taken over"
One of my favourite peices of pragmatism is when madeleine albright was asked if the death of half a million children in iraq was too high a price to pay for the embargo. she said no.
Am I bovvered?
DT,
I take it you have a source for that quote? half a million children? - sounds like a figment of someone's imagination...and Albright is not a Bush supporter either.
"remember Major's barge-pole...
Well have to ask Edwina Currie about that ;)
LOL, Colm. As Troll would say to a returning Monica: nice to see your back!
But actually it just occured to me that John Major's line was that talking to the IRA "would turn my stomach".
I think it was Bertie Ahern who said he wouldn't touch them with a barge-pole.
Noel
I'm going to scrape the barrel here... Do you think Major's barge pole turned Edwina's stomach ?
Colm, as JM always struck me as a rather backward type, she probably didn't have the guts to take it.
dont take my word for it ernest. here it is from the horses mouth.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=lK_QshS2EW8
the rest is up to you. even madeleine couldnt argue against the facts, she just decided to roll with the punches.
BTW the destruction around the world courtesy of the US doesnt start with the GOP and end with the Dems. The US is a one party (2 faction) state. Same as the UK. Politics in both is smoke and mirrors.
David, not to be a neb...but, the US deals with terrorist states, terrorist supporting states, state sponsors of terrorism, etc. all the damn time. Obama is lousy beyond belief, but Bush is disingenuous in his smug outrage.
(I'm seriously malcontent with all politicians lately)
Noel, I had to read that 3 times before it made sense...
Wasn't Mr Obama friendly with one of those US domestic 70's terrorists?
Daphne,
You are quite right, of course. The US has supported the institutionalising of IRA terror here where I live and should be ashamed of that. Also, on Israe, Bush has not got clean hands a la quartet!
>>Daphne,
You are quite right, of course. The US has supported the institutionalising of IRA terror<<
David, Daphne was talking about the US dealing with states supporting terrorism, etc.
Something somewhat different.
David - Obama may have his failings on foreign policy issues (and I believe he does), but I found Bush's political use of his speech given the occassion to be cheap.
Noel,
Daphne knows what I mean and I betcha she agrees.
Mahons,
Fair point. I think they are all cheap!
The US has supported the institutionalising of IRA terror here where I live and should be ashamed of that. Also, on Israe, Bush has not got clean hands a la quartet!
weak example, but then you knew that. try indonesia or nicuragua or columbia or guatemala or pakistan or afghanistan or saudi arabia or iraq.
fairly pathetic david.
Fair point. I think they are all cheap!
except if they sing your tune of course. then they are the model!
I keep asking myself the same question:
How come the wrong chaps are running the country, and the chaps who really know how to run the country are too busy cutting hair, driving taxis, and blogging?
Daphne: I think the distinction is being made between the Office of the President directly talking to terrorist, or terror heads of state like Ahmadinejad - which is what Obama said that he would do - and other govt. representatives talking to same.
The Office of the President gives a legitimacy to terrorists, that some other govt. official does not.
THe US talks all the time to Iran. But Bush does not talk to Ahmadinejad.