Appeasement: Guilt-By-Analogy...When Guilt-By-Association Isn't Enough
Watch: Green and James on Hardball
I was the split-screen bystander on Hardball last night when Chris Matthews exposed Kevin James as the quintessential right wing slandering bloviator.
James was of course pathetic but his -- and Bush's and McCain's -- strategies aren't so funny. Basically, when you've lost an argument because facts and history aren't on your side, resort to unprovable guilt-by-association or, as in appeasement, guilt-by-analogy.
It was bad enough when McCain tried to link Hamas and Obama because Hamas said it preferred Obama. And if the Klan endorsed McCain because he wasn't the black guy, would McCain have a problem if someone said that McCain and the Klan are one and the same?
Then Bush makes his instantly famous appeasement attack at the Knesset on Obama. We've seen this movie before. Whenever conservatives can't win an argument on the merits, they attack some real or perceived enemy as Hitler. So Ho Chi Mihn was Hitler. bin Ladin was Hitler. Ahmadinejad was Hitler. Of course Hussein was Hitler. And anyone who does something to try to resolve conflict short of more war is Neville Chamberlain.
Beyond the fact that Mr. President 28% has next-to-credibility on much of anything, least of all in the Middle East, the attack on Obama is ridiculous.
As the late PM Yitzhak Rabin famously said, you negotiate not with your friends but your enemies. Was Israel -- with far more experience and its survival at stake in dealing with war and terrorism -- wrong to neogtiate with former enemy Egypt, with successful result...wrong to negotiate with former enemy Jordan, with successful result... now wrong to talk to Syria about peace in exchange for the Golan? Churchill rightly understood that at times of potential or actual conflict, it was better to "jaw jaw than war war."
Given where Bush's ready-fire-aim approach has gotten us in Iraq, it's good for the next president to pursue a strategy of common security when it comes to such inter-border problems as terrorism, pollution, AIDS and nuclear proliferation. Bush and McCain's military-first impulse has proven a calamity for America and the world because, to quote even a momentarily cogent Don Rumsfeld, "we can't kill them all."
Take Iran and Ahmadinejad, the newest "Hitler." Iran can't stop laughing at Bush's foreign policy. He attacks its long-time enemy Iraq, allowing Iran's Shia majority to have far more influence in a Shia-majority Iraqi government. And Bush at the same time provides an unpopular Iranian government with a convenient outside enemy to rally nationalistic support to its side. Which is why Secretary Robert Gates himself has advocated talking more to Iran. What an appeaser!
- FILED UNDER: Host Posts, Barack Obama, Foreign Policy, George W. Bush, Media, Right Wing Radio
- May 16, 2008








Appeasement 101.
Appeasement 101.
You let your enemies attack and invade other countries in the hopes they won't turn against you or your more important allies, or to keep an ally who acts badly but is your historical friend on your side.
It seems to me like:
1) Europe has done this with the US and Iraq. If Iraq goes, maybe Saudi Arabia won't turn off the oil spigot. So they make weak protest against the US. The US won't get mad at them and Saudi Arabia is happy.
2) The US has done this with Israel and the Palestinians, allowing them to gobble up the land of the dirt-poor Palestinian farmers. Israel stays happy.
Even if your ally attacks you or your allies. say nothing and make excuses for them.
1) Israel attacked a US warship and we did nothing.
2) Turkey attacked the Kurds in Iraq and we did and said nothing.
3) Pakistan and India are always fighting each other. They have nuclear weapons. We say nothing, but we threaten a non-nuclear country with obliteration because they talk big.
4) The Saudi, our "allies," fund all the same terrorist groups that Iran does. Plus, they are the ones who fund Al-Qaeda and are the ones whose citizens attacked us on 9/11. We ignore that fact and attack a country that had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda in order to appease the Saudis.
Talking to your enemies to try to prevent war is not appeasement. It's logical. Giving your enemies what they want is appeasement.
Obama has not appeased anyone. Bush is nothing but an imperialist and an appeaser. And so are many European countries, especially Britain.
- Email this page
By MichtouMay 16, 2008 - 8:29pmDoes talking to terrorist
give them world recognition? Would we simply give them the world stage that they desire?
I agree, talking is not a bad idea. But "talking", while the opposition is "killing", is a good tactic for Iran. We have to be careful not to be caught up in the diplomacy of "endless talk that leads to nothing". And in fact that is a tactic for that area of the world.
At some point, we might have to fight. Would that be acceptable?
Talking is a great idea. But you have to set parameters and time limits.
- Email this page
By 19thholeMay 17, 2008 - 10:33amIran is already on the world
Iran is already on the world stage. Our invasion of Iraq made them the number one power in the region (not counting us, but we don't belong there). Refusing to acknowledge their existence doesn't make them or their importance go away, it makes the US look like a petulant child.
Iran offered to help the US after 9/11. It captured Al Qaeda operatives and offered to turn them over. It asked for talks. The US refused both offers and then insulted Iran by calling them part of the axis of evil.
You say, "We have to be careful not to be caught up in the diplomacy of "endless talk that leads to nothing". And in fact that is a tactic for that area of the world." I say, don't confuse Israel and its actions with those of the rest of the Middle East. Israel won't resolve the Palestinian problem as long as those pesky Palestinians keep sitting on land they want. They have resolved their differences with Egypt and Jordan because it was to their benefit to do so. Talks do work.
- Email this page
By MichtouMay 17, 2008 - 11:08amThank You For Stating The Obvious.
19thhole wrote:
"At some point, we might have to fight. Would that be acceptable? Talking is a great idea. But you have to set parameters and time limits."
==========================
No Shit... Gee, I wouldn't have thought of that.
The biggest mistake people like you make is that progressives are sissies.
I'm a progressive... FUCK YOU... I'LL KICK YOUR ASS.
What do you think of that?
- Email this page
By A GMay 17, 2008 - 1:41pmBy A G May 17, 2008 - 1:41pm
I'm a progressive... FUCK YOU... I'LL KICK YOUR ASS.
What do you think of that?
LMAO!!!!! Missed you, A G.
:D
- Email this page
By roadgoddessMay 17, 2008 - 4:31pmBrilliant Show ... Ullman agrees!!!
KVH Rocks!!!
- Email this page
By SingSingMay 17, 2008 - 6:58pm