Obama's Journey Towards Appeasement

Wow, President Bush hit a nerve when he spoke to Israel’s Knesset.   Barack Obama and the usual suspects in the Democratic Party went ballistic.  So, what did Bush say that upset our liberal friends?  Bush spoke to Israel’s parliament on the 60th anniversary of the founding of the Jewish state, and as would have been expected, he pledged U.S. support for Israel and placed Iran on notice.  I am quoting much of President Bush’s speech, because it was a good speech, a speech that Churchill would have been proud to make.   "America is with you in breaking up terrorist networks and denying the extremists' sanctuary. And America stands with you in firmly opposing Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions. Permitting the world's leading sponsor of terror to possess the world's deadliest weapon would be an unforgivable betrayal of future generations. For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon," said Bush.

Bush’s speech could have been given by a European leader before one of the crusades.  “The fight against terror and extremism is the defining challenge of our time. It is more than a clash of arms. It is a clash of visions, a great ideological struggle… This struggle is waged with the technology of the 21st century, but at its core it is an ancient battle between good and evil. The killers claim the mantle of Islam, but they are not religious men. No one who prays to the God of Abraham could strap a suicide vest to an innocent child, or blow up guiltless guests at a Passover Seder, or fly planes into office buildings filled with unsuspecting workers. In truth, the men who carry out these savage acts serve no higher goal than their own desire for power. They accept no God before themselves.

President Bush goes on to make it quite clear that the U.S. and Israel are now together in the struggle against radical Islam.  “And that is why the founding charter of Hamas calls for the "elimination" of Israel. And that is why the followers of Hezbollah chant "Death to Israel, Death to America!" That is why Osama bin Laden teaches that "the killing of Jews and Americans is one of the biggest duties," said Bush.

“Then Bush turned his attention to the naïve among us.  “There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain away their words. It's natural, but it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously.  Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century.

“President Bush then goes on to utter those lines that caused a hysterical breakdown within the Democratic leadership.  “Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the 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 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.

“Some people suggest if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of the enemies of peace, and America utterly rejects it. Israel's population may be just over 7 million. But when you confront terror and evil, you are 307 million strong, because the United States of America stands with you,” said Bush.

“It is questionable whether Obama really took that much offense to President Bush’s comments or he simply saw this as a good opportunity to stir a national debate about the merits of face-to-face discussions with our adversaries in the Middle-East.  If that was Obama’s intent, then he has succeeded.  There are pros and cons to face-to-face discussions – and we will hear them all in the next few months.”

Questions: 

Is it wise to enter into sit-downs with the leaders of Hamas or Hezbollah?

Should our President meet with the President of Iran?

Obama has cited previous cases where U.S. Presidents have met successfully with our enemies.  He cites Reagan and Gorbachev, and Nixon and Mao as examples.  Did it work then and will it work now?

Comments

[Rook]

Is it wise to enter into sit-downs with the leaders of Hamas or Hezbollah?
No, it is foolish to negotiate with terrorists. That is why it is U.S. policy NOT to negotiate with terrorists. It was the same policy under every president after Carter, who tried to negotiate and failed miserably.
Should our President meet with the President of Iran?
No, the president of Iran promotes and supports terrorists and is, therefore, a terrorist himself.
Obama has cited previous cases where U.S. Presidents have met successfully with our enemies. He cites Reagan and Gorbachev, and Nixon and Mao as examples. Did it work then and will it work now?
Gorbachev and Mao were not terrorists, so meeting with them didn't violate U.S. policy. Nothing resulted from those meetings that wouldn't have happened any way. Economics was the ruling force in both cases, not nukes. With Iran you have a rogue state bent on terrorizing the non-Islamic world in an effort to force us all to either convert to Islam or die. Such fanaticism and disregard for the rest of the world cannot be tolerated. The thought of such fanatics having nukes at their disposal sends a cold chill up the spines of most intelligent people, but not Obama. Why is that? Is it because he is actually a Muslim and has nothing to fear from them? Or does he have sympathy for their cause because of his Muslim relatives and upbringing? Does Obama want to cut and run from the Middle East, abandoning Israel? Can we afford to take that chance? If the DNC is stupid enough to allow Obama to have the nomination he MUST BE DEFEATED in the general election or the U.S. is in BIG TROUBLE!

[98101]

Sit-downs with Hezbolah and Hamas?

That might appeal to someone who thinks they can have a life changing sit-down with a sociopath bent on breaking into their house with the intent to burgle and commit rape.

Meeting between US and Iran Presidents?

See above.

[Veritas]

No useful purpose is served by meeting with the leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah. Nothing that they would say or agree to would be binding upon them. Meeting with them could be interpreted by many as increasing the status of organizations that we wish did not exist.

A meeting between the President and the leader of Iran might be beneficial to both parties. It could serve the purpose of making both leaders fully aware of the position held by each country. Wars have been know to begin as a result of misunderstandings. It is remotely possible that it might provide a bridge for negotiations on matters of mutual interest. An exchange of views about differences, not negotiations, is a low risk venture with the potential of great benefits.

[Bogey]

White House spokesmen said Bush's "appeasement" comments were directed at Billy Carter, not Obama. However Hussein has such a childish guilt complex that he assumed he was the target. (Which he should have been). Just more proof that this immature "never done nothing" is not ready for the White House. And as for having a debate on foreign policy with Bush and McCain, he'd be eaten alive and shown for the fraud that he really is.

[Kate]

I really don't see a problem with any president sitting down and talking with our perceived enemies. I don't see communication as a bad thing.

[Rook]

Kate,
The subject is appeasement, not communication. Appeasement is the policy of accepting the imposed conditions of an aggressor in lieu of armed resistance, usually at the sacrifice of principles; or giving in to demands of an aggressor in order to avoid war. In other words, cowardly surrender.

[Kate]

Appeasement means giving into their demands. People can talk without giving into anything. They might find areas where they can agree.

[Bogey]

Kate: Please name me at least 1 instance where any free, democatic country gained mutual understanding...or even averted armed conflict...by sitting down and talking with people hell-bent on destroying us. You can go all the way back to 1780 when Jefferson tried to negotiate with Muslims who were hijacking, kidnapping and extorting commercial vessels in the Mediterranean. It wasn't until we built up a Navy and sent the first ever Marines into North Africa that peace was attained. There's those pesky Muslims again. They just need somebody to talk to.

[Bogey]

Pardon my mistake. I meant Jimmy Carter, not Billy Carter. Billy was the drunk, Jimmy the idiot.