Was the president referring to Carter, not Obama?
Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats are up in arms at President Bush’s remarks yesterday in Israel that criticized those who want to appease terrorists. Although he wasn’t mentioned by name, Obama and others, such as Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, seem to think the president was referring to him specifically.
The Washington Times’ Jon Ward reports that Ed Gillespie, counselor to the president, told reporters aboard Air Force One today that he was “surprised and curious as to the reaction,” adding that the concern prior to the speech was that people would think the president’s comments were a slap at former President Jimmy Carter and his meetings with Hamas, not Obama and his foreign policy stance. Implying that the reaction by Obama and his fellow Democrats may have been driven by the media’s interpretation of the speech rather than the words in the speech itself, Gillespie went on to say, “We don’t necessarily live in a world where people just report what the president says, they have to report what they think it means.”




Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Special Student Discount for WORLD!








Click to Print
Include Comments










back to top84 Comments to “Was the president referring to Carter, not Obama?”
If the shoe fits?
Report comment to moderator
It does.
Report comment to moderator
KBells beat me to it. I was going to say he was referring to whomever it fits.
It seems the one who hollers the most is the one who was kicked.
Report comment to moderator
They cry like babies who got caught with their hands in cookie jar yet cannot ignore the truth as plain as the nose on their face.
They sound like children that need to taken out to wood shed to me. But, it is more serious than that, appeasing surrender monkeys will get you killed in the end every time.
Report comment to moderator
It would be inappropriate if he WAS referring to Carter. A sitting president does NOT go abroad and bash a former president!
Bush was out of line. It doesn’t matter who he was referring to. Using an international forum to make a domestic policy attack is wrong.
For this the Dixie Chicks were shunned! Are you telling me we can’t ask for better behavior from our president than we demand of our pop/country girl bands?
In any light, it’s an absolute win/win for Obama. Check out a speech he gave, and TV will no doubt reply all day.
http://tinyurl.com/44xrpc
He sounds great!
Report comment to moderator
How dare Presdient Bush criticize those who want to appease terrorists! What right does the President have to offer an opinion on the war and our strategy for dealing with it?
Whomever Bush was referring to, we don’t know specifically. But his point was spot on. And Obama was dead wrong to dishonestly specifically claim that Bush was indeed talking personally about him.
What Kbells said.
Report comment to moderator
How dare Presdient Bush criticize those who want to appease terrorists!
LOL, JM.
Report comment to moderator
Llama,
Watch the video. Tell me if Obama sounds like a child.
Report comment to moderator
What GWB should have said:
“Barack Obama is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life.”
Report comment to moderator
Luke – the Chicks should have just stuck to singing. They seriously misjudged their at home fan base. That was their mistake. And they badmouthed the president by name, personally. Their public merely voted with their pocketbooks.
You’re comparing apples and oranges.
I don’t want to hear about about politics or foreign policy or any global warning or other guilt trips from people I’m paying to entertain me, especially when they’re talking smack to a foreign audience on foreign soil. Whether or not they respect the man who holds the office, they can at least have some respect for the office.
I do however expect to hear it about policy from the politicians whose salaries my tax dollars pay, no matter where they are.
Report comment to moderator
Luke – It used to be that former Presidents did not go around the world attackingthe current President. President Bush has been the recipient of years of the breaking of that rule. It is only to be expected that a little flak would get returned. Bush has shown great restraint in generally not firing back.
Obama is way too sensitive about this – it makes it look like valid criticism.
Report comment to moderator
Klasko,
When Obama is president I’m going to hold you to that.
Are you saying it would be OK if he were, talking about Carter? This man has the lowest approval in the history of approval, and I have cautioned before on the standards we set for treating former presidents. It’s starting to look like it’s going to be open Bush season coming next February.
Report comment to moderator
KRM,
whether you think Obama is too sensitive or not isn’t really the big issue. What’s true, is that Obama has turned it into an opportunity to equate McCain to Bush, make the 2008 election a referendum on Bush’s foreign policies, and sound awesome doing it!
Report comment to moderator
Sounds to me, as with other bright ideas from the Bush folks, that they hadn’t anticipated the reaction well enough. With Obama’s vigorous pushback and that of other leading Dems, they have to find a way to back away. Not least, because it hurts McCain.
Here, I think McCain gets the short of the stick — a really short end, mind you. Bush’s original speech not only sucked the air out of McCain’s speech, but encouraged McCain to draft. So McCain is on record supporting Bush with the “Obama is an appeaser” line. Now, conveniently, Bush steps away, and McCain is caught holding the bag.
Great job you’re doin’ there…, as the President once said.
Report comment to moderator
8. Yes he does.
Report comment to moderator
harris, I think you are reading too much cmpaign hype into it. President Bush was in Israel honoring the 60th B-day of that county and was stating plain truth. If that sucks air out of McCain’s speeches or his campaign, then we need a new candidate. Actually, we do need a new candidate.
Report comment to moderator
Either Gillespie now is standing up and taking sides with Obama’s criticism against Bush’s foreign policy OR the White House now realizes that Bush’s remarks backfired and he wants to limit the damage by starting up a fight over the wording of the transcript.
As fugitives from justice go to ground, the GOP invariably goes to the dictionary to hide within the alternate meanings of the words that get them into trouble. Republicans are superb at this hide and seek, and the slow-talking Obama will need a staff of semanticists to engage in the interminably exhausting word chase.
LUKE #13 makes the power point: Bush tried a slick attack, but Obama took away control of the the president’s meaning, and forced McCain to come out and defend Bush. Wonderful. Obama is finally learning how to campaign.
As soon as they can, reporters are going to ask Bush point blank who the “appeasers” are and if one of them is Obama.
Obama’s ready for this! He’s been telling Jews in as many ways as he has fingers and toes how strongly he supports Israel. They’ve wanted to hear him tell again and again how much he loves Israel, and the idea and justice of Israel, the romantic thrill of the settlements, the premises of Zionism, and how little he cares about the paradoxes that shadow Israel’s determination to defend itself as it sees fit, and how slightly he regards the cost to American reputation overseas. Barrak has gone down on his knees to answer this kishke question: Convince me that you love me so that if you ever hurt me, I’ll know you didn’t mean to. Even the warmonger Martin Peretz is praising Obama’s “exhilarating experience with American Jews” and with their worries and dreams.
Report comment to moderator
“As soon as they can, reporters are going to ask Bush point blank who the “appeasers” are and if one of them is Obama.”
I think they should ask Obama that. Bush has already answered that question.
Report comment to moderator
“As soon as they can, reporters are going to ask Bush point blank who the “appeasers” are and if one of them is Obama.”
All he needs to say is what kbells said at #1. He can add by reminding the reporter that he is our Commander-in-Chief and he was stating policy. In so doing, he did not name any other candidate. He spoke for himself and EVERYONE knows where he stands on the issue. I respect that kind of clarity and we need it in our leaders.
Meanwhile, I expect Obama to continue to try to play every side he can while mis-interpreting others and without commiting himself definitively.
Report comment to moderator
The President is a walking disaster. Period. Complete failure. No tact. No honor. No dignity. Nada. He is an embarrassment to our great nation.
Report comment to moderator
“It’s starting to look like it’s going to be open Bush season coming next February.”
Wow…. This is one of the most ignorant statements I’ve ever seen on this blog. What the in the world do you think the last 8 years have been if not “open Bush season”?!!!!!
Unbelievable!
Report comment to moderator
I think Bush was actually talking about himself.
Hasn’t he always told Israel to not only ‘talk’ with their murderous neighbours, but to give them land and money too? Hasn’t he had the US in ‘talks’ with Kim Jong Il’s henchmen, hasn’t he always extolled the virtues of ‘engagement’ with the Communists of China and the despots of Saudi Arabia?
Report comment to moderator
diplomacy, talking, dialogue etc. cannot be equated to a policy of appeasement. After all, Nixon flew to China without pre-conditions and no-one will judge his move as appeasement. Its important to talk to all nations not just the ones you agree with, this does not indicate weakness but rather confidence. Weakness is indicated when you see only one solution and cannot properly execute it.
Report comment to moderator
Some historians believe that Nevill Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler (remember, Hitler called him a “worm” and duped him fully and he got the Sudetenland) emboldened Hitler at just the wrong time for all the wrong reasons. Hitler was then convinced that he could take what he wanted and others would roll over (some did, but thank goodness Churchill wouldn’t roll). It may be that without the incentive that Chamberlain gave to Hitler, many more lives would not have been lost and WW2, as we knew it, might have been avoided. But “what if” is an inconclusive game to play.
Report comment to moderator
so you played the game anyway …
Report comment to moderator
Obama’s policy that he would meet with the world’s worst terrorist supporter WITHOUT “pre-conditions, is ridiculous. This could embolden all the wrong people for all the wrong reasons. And it could discourage and undermine the decent underground who might be seeking internal change. Well intentioned negotiations can do great unintended harm.
Obama is showing his lack of experience.
Report comment to moderator
Luke – If Obama gets elected, I may not like him personally, but out of respect for the office, I will sho respect for the man who holds it. I did the same for Bill Clinton when I had no respect for him as a person. That’s way more than most people do these days.
Report comment to moderator
HRW wrote; “Its important to talk to all nations not just the ones you agree with…”
“All?” This is nonsense. We need leaders who are capable of thinking more deeply than this–leaders who weigh every case on its own merits rather than throwing the “all” blanket over this question. In many cases, including with regard to Syria, Iran, Korea and Venezuela, the best decision now is NOT to negotiate. These nation’s leaders do not need to be validated or respected internationally. Those whom they oppress will suffer much more if we meet with and validate extremely oppressive leaders.
The Clinton administration negotiated and talked with North Korea and it was a disaster–totally ineffective and a waste of time and money (maybe we made it worse).
Life is too short for pretense.
Report comment to moderator
US Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he thought more visits to Iran by private American citizens might help bridge differences between the two countries.”We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage with the Iranians and then sit down and talk with them,” he said, referring to general U.S. relations with Tehran.
Report comment to moderator
BYW Luke – Abraham Lincoln still holds the record for lowest approval rating while in office.
Report comment to moderator
Joel there is a difference between talk and negotiate
And since Venezuela supplies more oil to the US than Saudi Arabia I suggest you ignore it at your peril. Perhaps the medieval monarchy, monetary bagman of al-queda, and exporter of jihadists, Saudi Arabia should be ignored instead.
Life is too short to ignore the threats surrounding you.
Report comment to moderator
I really should preview when I use italics only talk and negotiate should be in italics
Report comment to moderator
US Defense Secretary Robert Gates must be an “appeaser of terrorists” according to Joel and President Bush.
Report comment to moderator
Meeting with terrorists without pre-conditions is like sitting down for a chat alone with a serial killer and no one knows where you are.
Report comment to moderator
Wow, NJL will forever hold the record for absolutely LAMEST simile EVER!
That’s just awful, just absolutely awful!
Report comment to moderator
The terrorists will kill you just as soon as look at you. So would Ted Bundy. Murderers are murderers. Evil is evil.
Report comment to moderator
actually terrorism is a political act. serial killers are psychopaths. murder is murder but the actors behind the murders are not the same.
Report comment to moderator
Ted Bundy worked for the RNC.
Report comment to moderator
George Bush’s grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.
Report comment to moderator
Check out the following video where McCain advocates meeting with Hamas
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gbys3J3nBPw
perhaps Bush was referring to McCain.
Report comment to moderator
JOEL MARK: I respect that kind of clarity and we need it in our leaders.
Bush’s comments were as clear as innuendo can be. Before the speech, the White House was telling reporters that Bush was going to engage with the campaign debate about talking with our enemies. Bush’s foreign policy makes a point of principle (in rhetoric at least if not in action) out of not talking to our enemies. Bush’s remarks about appeasers were interpreted widely as a rebuke to Obama. In fact, the White House said at the time it was aware that the remarks were going to be interpreted that way, even though Bush didn’t mention anyone by name.
What happened later is that the remarks made Bush look crazy and gave Obama an opportunity to look strong. Horrified at the mess, the White House then tried to backtrack from its engagement with the Obama campaign. McCain sent his foreign policy advisor out to deny (falsely) that he had ever advocated talking with Hamas, and that “dealing” with Hamas means anything at all including obliterating it. The recorded interview however shows that McCain was advocating talking with Hamas, not obliterating it.
Obama advocates greater engagement with countries like Syria and Iran. So do sec. def. Gates and many generals. Bush and McCain (the latter off and on) resist talking. Obama is thrilled to talk to anyone who will listen to his policy differences with Bush.
Bush will be forced, if he talks to reporters, to explain his historically ignorant reference to Nazi appeasement. Chamberlain gave Czechoslovakia to Hitler. Obama hasn’t advocated giving anything to Syria or Iran. Appeasement isn’t talking, it’s giving things away.
Report comment to moderator
Obama: No negotiations with Hamas
McCain: Negotiations with Hamas
Bush was clearly talking about John “Terrorist Appeaser” McCain.
Report comment to moderator
HRW wrote; “Joel there is a difference between talk and negotiate.”
So? Who said otherwise. Actually, sometimes there is a difference and sometime, not. It depends on a host of factors, includig who, where, when, why and so on.
In case you forgot, I was responding to your statement: “Its important to talk to all nations not just the ones you agree with…”
That is too broad-brushed a statement.
Report comment to moderator
HRW wrote; “terrorism is a political act.”
Yes, it’s a psychopathic, vicious, religious, calculated, heartless, attention-seeking, political act.
Report comment to moderator
Listen to Bush’s statement. Think for yourself. Forget what the rest of us say about whaqt he said, including the paniced allegations about reporter buzz surrounding the talk that Scroop Moth is throwing up.
This approach will make this silly kerfufle seem irrelevant. It is not a sin to actually listen to the President himself before concluding what he actually said.
Report comment to moderator
This episode reveals the hyper-sensitivity of Obama et al about being labeled as appeasers. The Democrats since McGovern have tended to soft thinking on national security issues; Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry were not able to convince people that they could be strong in defending legitimate American interests.
Obama’s position that he would talk to Ahmadinejad, Chavez, and other hard edged enemies without prior conditions, hoping to reason with them, is classic naivety. At some level he must know this; hence the defensiveness regarding Bush’s remarks in Israel.
Pres. Bush in commenting on the senator, who wished he could have talked to Hitler before the invasion of Poland, is spot on in concluding that history has shown this to be dangerous and foolhardy thinking.
Obama is a rookie senator with the most liberal Senate record. He has little understanding of the brutal game of international realpolitik. My guess is that he would get quickly burnt on the international stage and like Kennedy try to prove himself with some dubious international moves. Kennedy got burnt in a meeting with Khrushchev in Vienna and followed that with a foolish invasion of Cuba that was followed by Khrushchev sending missiles to Cuba, nearly involving the world in a nuclear holocaust.
Eisenhower, who as president didn’t involve America in war, was smart enough to threaten the Soviets with mayhem if they started anything. Only strong presidents who credibly threaten war against enemies are able to prevent wars. My guess is that a Pres. Obama would invite American enemies to dangerous games that would require us in the long run to fight a brutal and bloody war.
Meanwhile it becomes more and more clear that the Republicans in Congress are unable to face realities, which, along the with evangelicals who hate McCain, means that very likely our next president will be Obama.
Report comment to moderator
Bush has family ties to the Nazis, and McCain wants to negotiate with Hamas.
Report comment to moderator
JOEL MARK is flinching sympathetically from the sting of the salt that Obama has poured into George Bush’s self-inflicted wound: “I have enormous sympathy for the foreign policy of George H. W. Bush,” Obama told the enraptured David Brooks. What a snark!
OK, let’s listen to Bush. Then we’ll listen to Obama, o.k.?
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. 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.
Those treasonous American senators! Bush’s speechwriters deliberately mislead the public, of course, because talking to the enemy is not appeasing the enemy. Just as no American gave Czechoslovakia to Hitler, so no senator today wants to give Israel to the pretentious little Ahmadinejad.
Before the speech, the White House alerted reporters that the president was going to use his Knesset appearance to talk about an argument in the election to succeed him. It was going to be a big story, they said. Not since the 2006 election had the administration talked about “appeasement.” After the speech, however, Dana Perino denied that Bush was alluding to Obama. (Well, Dana, explain then why he omitted Obama, while he was delivering the rebuke?)
Here’s Obama:
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.
Make no mistake, Obama is going to express defiance and disdain for George Bush’s foreign policy.
Obama has said any high-level talks with Iran would have the primary intention of persuading it to end its support for terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, to end its aggressive stance against Israel and to cease its uranium enrichment program. Unlike Bush, however, Obama would not make the end of that program a precondition for talks.
Report comment to moderator
Why should Obama be so sensitive about a statement made by Bush? And since when does Bush not have the right to criticize someone else’s flawed ideas on foreign policy, whoever it is? It happens to him all the time and is, the way I see it, part of the political dialogue. The Republicans should not allow Obama the last word on this and follow it up. If he will be president, he (Obama) needs to learn to stand the heat.
Report comment to moderator
Obama can’t stand the heat He is an overly sensitive half-black man from a limited background with little sophistication or understanding of world realities. Unfortunately, he is rather clever at playing on thevulnerabilities of white liberal guilt.
Report comment to moderator
PETER LEAVITT: This episode reveals the hyper-sensitivity of Obama et al about being labeled as appeasers.
Pumpkin’s right that this episode reveals something about Obama. Before that, though, it revealed something about the boisterous Bush — that he’s like Mother Superior singing, “Obama’s not an asset to the Abbey!”
How do you solve a problem like Obama?
How you find a word that means Obama?
A flibbertijibbett! A will-o-the wisp! An Nazi APPEASER!
Many a thing you know you’d like to tell him!
Many a thing he ought to understand!
How can you stop the Blitzkrieg with a wand?
Obama’s having fun with this, pumpkin.
Report comment to moderator
Peter — Obama’s foreign policy couldn’t be any worse than Bush’s and in fact he will spend his first term cleaning up the mess Bush created. He will hardly have any freedom for new iniatives.
I’m rather amused that Bush has become the expert on the dangers of appeasement. His own family connections imply business relations with Germany well after Munich crisis in 1938. Something about stones and glass houses should be said.
Theron –
Obama isn’t sensitive to Bush — he’s just pointing out how wrong Bush is.
Peter —
number 50 is probably one of the most condescending arrogant and ignorant posts I’ve read from you in the last five years.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Mope, we’ve been through this “pumkpin” issue before. Were it not for the anonymity of the ether net, I would, after asking you to desist from using this term, slug you for for it.
As to Obama having “fun” for with being properly termed an appeaser, his frenetic response to Bush’s remark rather indicates an unsophisticated political rookie.
Report comment to moderator
Punkin loses his temper just like McCain? The nut doesn’t fall far from the tree.
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt [50]: this just doesn’t sound like you.
Substantively, two sides can be distinguished as to this lack of sophistication about world realities, as you have it. First, there is the question of whether Sen. Obama has the negotiating style able to to deal intense animosity on the other side. This is a matter of personal style. To deliver the goods, the successful negotiator will need to be tough, yes, but also shrewd and supple. Does the Senator possess this?
Here, I think you may be letting the presentational style get in your way. It’s possible to be so taken with the persona that one misses the reality underneath (compare how moderates and even liberals respond to Sen. McCain’s Straight Talk persona, even when the underlying policies are more “complicated”).
A second aspect of your concern about “sophistication” concerns his analytical abilities: does he see the situation correctly? Here, I think the short interview he gave David Brooks about Lebanon provides an insight into how he would address these situations. There is little there that can be labeled especially naive.
Lastly, I’m trying to think about what it was in Sen. Obama’s address that could be described as “over sensitive?” As a matter of straight politics, when the media are reporting that the President meant his words on appeasement for Sen. Obama, what option does he have except to respond? If he didn’t he would be tarred (by you and others) as a wimp. So the response was a necessity. So where is the over-sensitivity? In the timing? In the manner of speech (you’ve seen the response, right?) Or does this over-sensitivity lie in its substance, in its criticism of the McCain/Bush war policy?
On this last point, there is a criticism that can be advanced. But that is only because of the Republican congressional decision to abdicate its supervisory role — an abdication which Noonan has rightly pointed to in today’s WSJ.
Report comment to moderator
Why does Peter Leavitt resort to skin color in 50?
Report comment to moderator
Yes, why indeed did Peter find it necessary to point out Obama’s racial ancestry? It reveals the rot of racism that still lurks beneath the surface of conservative Christianity. I think by November we’ll see it unfold in all it’s “glory” on here if Obama is indeed the nominee.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir, you can hope. So far we’ve seen how poorly the Democrats deal with such issues. As I recall, back before you removed yourself from us for a while, you were trying in vain to prove that Christians are all ignorant bigots…and you made yourself look pretty bad in the process, to the point that several of us expressed relief when you finally left.
I do think you know better. All of us have various sins, and yes, for some that includes racism. But if you think conservative Christians, or conservative Republicans, are worse in this regard, methinks you haven’t been watching the news.
But we’ve been over this and over this, and I think our point was adequately made some time ago.
Report comment to moderator
Notice to fellow bloggers:
When Scroop Moth posts comments about me and my alleged sympathies, he/she does not have the slightest or remote idea of what he/she is talking about. He/she speaks for himself/herself only. And I can also admit, that I haven’t much of an idea what Scroop Moth is talking about.
Report comment to moderator
Sometimes, talking to an enemy is the same as appeasing them. Sometimes not. It depends on the situation and perceptions and deals involved. The President’s comments stand on their own, clear and solid. It’s a falsehood to claim that he or his speech writers were trying to mislead anyone. Rather, he was quite clear. Read his words in full context for yourself and take all the pundit and political candidate rhetoric about Bush’s comments with a grain of salt. And disagree with the Prez if you wish.
But Obama and his supporters are obviously not content with that. In my opinion, they are trying to poison the well. If Obama wants to speak for himself on his own policies, fine. But his comments about Bush’s comments and about Bush’s motives and intentions are built on distortions.
The President spoke for himself without mentioning others. He stated and illustrated his foreign policy with regard to dealing with terrorists.
By the way, we are currently at war with jihadists terrorists and the President’s policies matter.
Report comment to moderator
My remark at fifty is based on a recent reading of Obama’s book, Dreams of My Father, which makes clear that he is a hyper-sensitive young black man who since his Punahou Schoool years has identified primarily in a defensive way as a black man. This is why he chose Pastor Wright’s black racist church and until recently had no problem accepting Wright’s vile remarks about white people.
As to my own allegedly racist stance, I have for decades financially supported and taught in a black Christian school located at Roxbury Massachusetts. I have several close black friends whom I often share dinner at my and their homes and with whom I have shared the view that Obama is overly sensitive on the issue of race and seriously lacking in understanding of international realities. Some of these black friends are more critical of Obama than I am.
I apologize for the brevity of #50 which could understandably lead one to conclude that I am some sort of a racist.
Report comment to moderator
Whew! PeterLeavitt[61] now that sounds more like you.
A short question about Dreams of My Father: This was written in the early ’90s. What part do you give youth a say in it (albeit, an very ambitious youth)? That is are we necessarily the same person at 45 that we were at 30?
You’re right to look at character traits that you see continuing; I think it also appropriate to look at how he has handled this trait in the interim. As we age many can learn to manage their “deficits” or at least their public expression.
Report comment to moderator
JOEL MARK: The President spoke for himself without mentioning others.
That’s stupid, Joel. The President doesn’t speak for himself. He speaks for the office, and when he’s abroad he speaks for the United States. No man is an island, least of all the President. All his words have a context, and a direct and implied audience and target.
This president doesn’t speak by himself, either. He can’t, poor thing. He speaks words that are thought up, evaluated, and composed by his advisors, chiefly, as we know, his domestic political strategists (read Bob Woodward’s trilogy). In debates, he must speak the words that are prompted into his ear through a device on his back. He speaks words that his staff know about ahead of time, and talk about to the press before and afterwards.
The president said “some” today are like the US Senator who wanted to talk to Hitler, and like those who appeased the Nazis. Bush said this in the context of a political debate about talking to Iran and Syria. He criticized a historical American senator and unspecified others during a trip abroad. The White House knew the remarks would be sensational, and knew they would be interpreted widely as a rebuke of Obama — for if not of him, whom?
JOEL MARK: It depends on the situation and perceptions and deals involved.
Glad to see you admitting that words don’t speak for themselves but have complicated meanings that “depend” on contexts and interpretation. Attaboy, JOEL! In this instance, Bush himself provided the historical illustration of what he meant by appeasement, which was Hitler. Unfortunately for Bush, his choice of historical analogy is a bad one, because it doesn’t illustrate the harm of talking to the enemy, it illustrates the harm of giving sacrificial offerings to the enemy.
Bush could clear this up by telling the world that Obama and Gates and many US generals aren’t “appeasers” for advocating talks without previous guarantees of concessions, because they don’t intend to give Israel to Ajmadinejad like Chamberlain gave Czechoslovakia to Hitler. Bush committed a foul, and he needs to explain.
It’s not a trivial thing that Obama faults Bush for not conducting talks with Syria and Iran, and claims Bush has made America and Israel weaker. That’s a first-order premise for major debate. If Obama has misjudged his attack, then McCain will win. We’re witnessing mortal combat, and Obama is joyous.
JOEL, you are a man who expresses enormous sympathy with George Bush. It’s not just poor MOTH who thinks so. For a long time, your fellow bloggers have accused you of working for the White House (I say you’re in the pay of James Dobson). When Bush or Dobson are mocked, you strike out, every time.
Attacking his tower of strength, Obama says Bush has weakened us, and taunts Bush by praising the former president whom Bush strove hardest not to emulate — his own father. You should have picked up on that, JOEL. Obama taunting Bush!
Report comment to moderator
Isn’t PETER @53 cute when he threatens to punch me on the internets! And so hyperthenthitive! He may be a good boy, but anyone who pulls a punch on Scroop won’t pull out a plum. You’ll have to kill me, Pumpkin.
Report comment to moderator
Harris, the fact that until very recently Obama was comfortable with Pastor Wright indicates that his views on race haven’t substantially altered. Unlike black men, including Bill Cosby, Shelby Steele, and Thomas Sowell, who ask black young people to become better educated and more responsible, Obama tends to look to liberal government programs as the best solution for their problems. In 2007 he had the most liberal rating in the Senate.
On the issue dealt with on this thread, Obama has stated that he would meet without preconditions with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela and others. Hillary Clinton and most of the earlier Democratic candidates were severely critical of this stance. In my view Obama is a bright but quite inexperienced young man who would be in way over his head in the White House.
Report comment to moderator
History lesson: “Appeasement” does NOT mean expressing a willingness to talk.
Appeasement means giving away whole countries to tyrants in the vain hope it will satisfy them (see: Neville Chamberlain.)
However, the rightwingers have been throwing the word around so casually that, like “treason,” it’s lost its meaning.
You guys do a very good job with buzzwords, not so much with substance.
Like this:
Report comment to moderator
PETER LEAVITT @50 He’s an overly sensitive half-black man from a limited background . . .
PETER LEAVITT @61 As to my own allegedly racist stance, I have for decades financially supported and taught in a black Christian school located at Roxbury Massachusetts. I have several close black friends whom I often share dinner at my and their homes . . .
This is pathetically lacking in awareness, including the awareness of negation. Whether or not Peter’s stance is racist, it’s obscenely wide, and not gentlemanly.
Obama describes himself as a black man who had a white mother and grandparents. “Overly sensitive half-black man from a limited background,” is offensive. True gentlemen allow honorable people to define themselves as they chose. Pumpkin’s pseudo-aristocratic mindset was ripped to shreds centuries ago (didn’t Voltaire make something of Peter’s preoccupation with fractions in the opening pages of Candide?) and should have no place in America.
Disgusting.
Report comment to moderator
PETER LEAVITT: Obama has stated that he would meet without preconditions with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela and others.
False. Obama would talk to enemies without previously promised concessions.
Report comment to moderator
PETER LEAVITT: Obama’s book . . . makes clear that he is a hyper-sensitive young black man
Obama’s book has been so interpreted by Shelby Steele, an older man who obviously has racial sensitivities to project. Obama is a mature man.
Report comment to moderator
PETER LEAVITT: Obama has stated that he would meet without preconditions with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela and others.
Non false. That’s what I heard him say too.
Report comment to moderator
Obama has stated that he would meet without preconditions with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela and others.
Why is that wrong?
What do we gain by not talking?
Report comment to moderator
Here’s the video of Obama’s response of speaking with those leaders w/o preconditions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSFSUbMWenU
Report comment to moderator
JOEL MARK #70: Obama demands pre-conditions for talking to Hamas, for example. He was a sponsor of the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006, which calls on “members of the international community to avoid contact with and refrain from financially supporting the terrorist organization Hamas until it agrees to recognize Israel, renounce violence, disarm, and accept prior agreements, including the Roadmap.”
Otherwise, Obama is willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe. He will do “the careful preparation necessary,” but won’t require concessions in advance. Thus, he will signal that America is ready to come to the table, and that he is willing to lead, so that the world will be more willing to rally behind us.
Republicans are making something too broad out of Obama’s policy when they say he will talk “without preconditions.” That’s only true if it means without previous concessions from nations. Obama will talk without previous concessions. Republicans falsely imply that “without preconditions” means Obama will accept any circumstance under the sun contrary to diplomatic custom.
Report comment to moderator
JOANNEB #22: I think Bush was actually talking about himself.
No better point has been made in the last 50+ posts. JOANNEB references Bush administration talks with North Korea (a member of the axis of evil), China, and Saudi Arabia. It’s also a fact that Bush sent Ambassador Khalilzad to Iran to negotiate about Iraq, and Ambassador Crocker supports talking to Iran. Bush conducted months of negotiations with the terrorists in Libya. These negotiations advanced US security.
What do you call a president who goes to a green hill far away to invoke the worst crime in history to condemn conduct he has engaged in? Dishonest. When called out on his failures, Bush resorts to shameful displays of hypocrisy. He is a man of The Lie. Bush will be punished for ascending to God’s holy place in order to violate the commandment against bearing false witness.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth (#67),
What sense does it make to say we allow others to define themselves as they choose? So Michael Jackson might really be white? George W. Bush might decide to call himself a black woman, and you’d have to accept that as true?
That’s ludicrous. A man with a white mother is (at most) half-black, and it’s not offensive to call him half-black. He’s free to call himself black, for simplicity, if he chooses, but that doesn’t stop other people from being more precise. And it’s not offensive to be more precise, and more strictly accurate.
As far as “overly sensitive…from a limited background,” I assume those weren’t meant to be compliments. That doesn’t mean they’re offensive, or that they’re wrong. The man wants to be president. Those characterizations are nowhere near the worst that will be said about him!
Report comment to moderator
Scroop, see #72 about Obama’s willingness to talk without preconditions. Facts are stubbortn things.
Obama has too many close associations with anti-American angry people who always think we (the USA) are the bad guys both here and abroad. I am not for putting Obama in charge of the store. He seems to willing to talk to the worst leaders in the world and he may be willing to give away too much to thugs to appease them. The stakes are too serious today. That’s my take.
Report comment to moderator
TJ and JOEL MARK:
In fact, there is no clip of Obama saying the words, “without preconditions” in this regard. That terminology came from a questioner, not from Obama’s mouth. Obama demands “careful preparation” to produce the agenda, the precedence, and the behavior required by American diplomatic tradition for talks with an enemy. (The shape of the table is only one famous “precondition.”) Bush, not Obama, has departed from tradition by demanding prior promises of concessions before talks.
Obama’s plan to talk to our enemies is well understood, and his account of it doesn’t include the concept “without preconditions.” He has spelled out concessions he requires in advance from Hamas, for example, so Obama would contradict himself if he used the phrase “without preconditions.”
Notice, the questioner in the CNN debate qualified his use of the words “without preconditions.” He asked if Obama would display “bold leadership . . . in the spirit of” Anwar Sadat’s trip to Israel in 1982. That event was as highly prepared a diplomatic encounter as any in history. The questioner didn’t mean to say those talks occurred without preconditions of any kind, only without the precondition of previous concessions. You shouldn’t put the questioner’s terminology in Obama’s mouth, when he’s made his position so clear.
Report comment to moderator
Throughout this discussion, some of us have sought to convince the rest of you that negotiate and talk do not equate appeasement. We have also sought to point out the hypocrisy behind Bush’s statements as he and his Republican cohorts have talked to the “enemy” as a part of foreign policy. Perhaps the following video will help;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHliQNZcmi8
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl, when I read Peter’s comments regarding limited background and lack of sophistication I perceived a snub from one who perceived himself better than some immigrant working class kid attempts to be a leader. Forget the racial connotations, Peter’s comments were elitist drivel at its best — how dare this single mother’s kid presume to be an intelligent player in world affairs and he’s black to top it off — an uppity ….. to be put back in his place. Its this perception that led me to condemn his comments as the worst he’s ever written.
Report comment to moderator
CHERYL D. As far as “overly sensitive…from a limited background,” I assume those weren’t meant to be compliments.
“Overly sensitive half-black man from a limited background” is a vile phrase, and it’s insulting. Gentle people don’t employ that tone.
Report comment to moderator
. . . towards honorable people.
Report comment to moderator
Well, Scroop Moth, it’s his honor that’s possibly being called into question now, isn’t it? His ability to represent all of America enough to lead the nation is certainly being called into question, and agree or disagree with the phrase, the phrase deals with that issue. Sorry, “vile” is far too strong. “Uncomplimentary” says it well enough, and I’m pretty sure it was meant to be that.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop – you said, “Overly sensitive half-black man from a limited background” is a vile phrase, and it’s insulting. Gentle people don’t employ that tone.
I assume that you do not count yourself among the gentle people when you continue to insult a person on this blog by calling him a name he asked you not to use? Gentle people don’t do that either.
Report comment to moderator
I agree with Thearon’s comment in #49. Why should Obama take Bush’s speech personally? What we have here is Bush making a political statement in a very political geographic context and within a very political timeframe. Obama’s response (see segment quoted in #48) is equally political, i.e. meant to serve his own political goals. He uses the term engagement, rather than negotiate or appease, but none of the terms are spelled out by either speaker. We don’t know what Bush meant by negotiate or appeasement or what Obama meant by engagement with terrorists. I thought it rather humorous that Obama complained of Bush politicizing foreign policy. The line between politics and policy, to the extent one exists, is very thin and dotted. Foreign policy, like any policy, is conceived and brought forth in politics. Both men are playing on the fear factor: Bush, by playing the terrorist card, Obama, by referring to the politics of fear.
Fear will be a major theme of the remainder of the election campaign. Fear of Obama’s inexperience and liberal policies on the one hand and the fear that McCain will continue Bush’s policies, or worse, on the other. Let’s hope that we get beyond fearmongering and sound-bite pettiness and explore the character, thought, and qualifications of the candidates.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!