Bush blasts into Obama

[sportage]

CNN

JERUSALEM (CNN) ? In a particularly sharp blast from halfway around the world, President Bush suggested Thursday that Sen. Barack Obama and other Democrats are in favor of "appeasement" of terrorists in the same way U.S. leaders appeased Nazis in the run-up to World War II.

This is going to be a VERY dirty election! What has Bush got to lose?

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: sportage
CNN

JERUSALEM (CNN) ? In a particularly sharp blast from halfway around the world, President Bush suggested Thursday that Sen. Barack Obama and other Democrats are in favor of "appeasement" of terrorists in the same way U.S. leaders appeased Nazis in the run-up to World War II.

This is going to be a VERY dirty election! What has Bush got to lose?

Gotta agree, for once, with Dubya on this one. His approach has been flawless. Terrorism has become a thing of the past since his great successes in the ME :thumbsup:

 

[Dari]

Bush's solution to a fire: Throw gasoline on the fire because using water would just appease the arsonist.

 

[FuzzyBee]

I wonder who CNN has been talking to.

CNN version:

In a particularly sharp blast from halfway around the world, President Bush suggested Thursday that Sen. Barack Obama and other Democrats are in favor of "appeasement" of terrorists in the same way U.S. leaders appeased Nazis in the run-up to World War II.

"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," said Bush, in what White House aides privately acknowledged was a reference to calls by Obama and other Democrats for the U.S. president to sit down for talks with leaders like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

AP Version:

Democrat Barack Obama accused President Bush on Thursday of launching a "false political attack" with a comment about appeasing dictators.

The Democratic presidential candidate interpreted the remark as a slam against him but the White House denied that the comment was in any way directed at Obama.

...

The White House said Bush's comment wasn't a reference to Obama.

"It is not," press secretary Dana Perino told reporters in Israel. "I would think that all of you who cover these issues and have for a long time have known that there are many who have suggested these types of negotiations with people that the president, President Bush, thinks that we should not talk to. I understand when you're running for office you sometimes think the world revolves around you. That is not always true. And it is not true in this case."

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee
I wonder who CNN has been talking to.

well according to CNN's article:

White House aides privately acknowledged was a reference to calls by Obama and other Democrats for the U.S.

But I am skeptical. The white house (or white house aides) will catagorically deny that any statements made by GWB were in direct reference to Obama or the Dems. And his wording seems to suggest as much.

FURTHER

It benefits Obama and the Dems to come out and react the way they did. If they can inject GWB into the election dialogue as much and as often as possible then people will continue to associate McCain with Bush and I don't think McCain wants that.

If anyone is keeping score I think the Dems played dirty with this one.

BUT

why make such a high stakes political comment in a speech that is relatively innocuous?

 

[Lemon law]

If GWB&co were competent, these warning might have some validity. But as it is, GWB is up to his eyeballs in a shithole failure of their own making, making it thus difficult for any to believe that GWB is anything but a good reverse barometer. Whatever GWB does, do the opposite and you will almost certainly be right.

 

[senseamp]

Bush should not be attacking an American presidential candidate from overseas.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Bush should not be attacking an American presidential candidate from overseas.

Did you even read what I posted?

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Bush should not be attacking an American presidential candidate from overseas.

I took it as a warning for everybody, not just Obama. Remember Pelosi's little jaunt to Syria to meet with Assad? There are lots of other people out there who think that if we just sit down and talk with tyrants and fanatics then everything will be ok. Forgetting that talking with tyrants and fanatics rarely works because they never hold up their end of the bargain.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Dari
Bush's solution to a fire: Throw gasoline on the fire because using water would just appease the arsonist.

Water? More like gold lining the arsonist's pockets in hopes that he might not seek more gold from you.

 

[Thump553]

That's an ironic attack, as Bush's grandfather Preston Bush (also a politician) was long rumored to be a Nazi sympathizer and apeaser, at least prior to the start of WWII and his son's enlistment. Even then he tried to manuever George HW Bush into a cushy staff job, which George HW Bush would have nothing to do with.

Anyway, I would view an attack by this Bush as valuable as two Edwards endorsements. Bring it on, Georgie.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: senseamp
Bush should not be attacking an American presidential candidate from overseas.

I took it as a warning for everybody, not just Obama. Remember Pelosi's little jaunt to Syria to meet with Assad? There are lots of other people out there who think that if we just sit down and talk with tyrants and fanatics then everything will be ok. Forgetting that talking with tyrants and fanatics rarely works because they never hold up their end of the bargain.

Your simplistic view of diplomacy is worrying. No one ever said you talk and that would be enough to solve problems. Fuck it, what's the use in trying to explain this to you...

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: senseamp
Bush should not be attacking an American presidential candidate from overseas.

I took it as a warning for everybody, not just Obama. Remember Pelosi's little jaunt to Syria to meet with Assad? There are lots of other people out there who think that if we just sit down and talk with tyrants and fanatics then everything will be ok. Forgetting that talking with tyrants and fanatics rarely works because they never hold up their end of the bargain.

Your simplistic view of diplomacy is worrying. No one ever said you talk and that would be enough to solve problems. Fuck it, what's the use in trying to explain this to you...

Ahh yes. The perfect argument, "You're too stupid to understand the complexities of my argument. So, I'm going to dismiss you."

Ok, how about we look at history then?
- Chamberlin's appeasement of Hitler? In his speech, Bush even mentions a US Senator who said, "Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided." Somehow, I doubt that.
- Japan used talks as cover while they planned the Pearl Harbor attack.
- Israel has capitulated and appeased the Palestinians several times. When they gave Gaza back to the Palestenians, what did they get? Rockets launched at their schools and residential areas.
- The EU and UN has been talking with Iran and sending sternly worded letters. Yet Iran is still pushing forward with their nuclear ambitions and threatening Israel while funding Hamas, Hezbollah, and supporting insurgents and terrorists in Iraq.
- Madeline Albright and Clinton brokered a deal with North Korea and to provide them oil, food, and other things for a promise that North Korea wouldn't pursue nuclear weapons. North Korea broke that promise the next day.

And there are many many more examples of this.

I'm not saying that diplomacy should be abandoned and we should invade these countries. But, don't meet with tyrants and fanatics and expect to win them over to your point of view with mere words and expect them to hold up their end of a bargain. History has shown this. Otherwise you end up coming across like the US Senator who said, "Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler..."

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Thump553
That's an ironic attack, as Bush's grandfather Preston Bush (also a politician) was long rumored to be a Nazi sympathizer and apeaser, at least prior to the start of WWII and his son's enlistment. Even then he tried to manuever George HW Bush into a cushy staff job, which George HW Bush would have nothing to do with.

Anyway, I would view an attack by this Bush as valuable as two Edwards endorsements. Bring it on, Georgie.

Why do you idiots keep bringing that up?

JFK's dad liked the Nazi's too. Prior to Hitler going on the a rampage a lot of people in the US liked him because they saw him as a way to stop communism. It wasn't until Hitler starting swallowing other countries did they realize the threat he was to the world.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: senseamp
Bush should not be attacking an American presidential candidate from overseas.

I took it as a warning for everybody, not just Obama. Remember Pelosi's little jaunt to Syria to meet with Assad? There are lots of other people out there who think that if we just sit down and talk with tyrants and fanatics then everything will be ok. Forgetting that talking with tyrants and fanatics rarely works because they never hold up their end of the bargain.

Your simplistic view of diplomacy is worrying. No one ever said you talk and that would be enough to solve problems. Fuck it, what's the use in trying to explain this to you...

Ahh yes. The perfect argument, "You're too stupid to understand the complexities of my argument. So, I'm going to dismiss you."

Ok, how about we look at history then?
- Chamberlin's appeasement of Hitler? In his speech, Bush even mentions a US Senator who said, "Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided." Somehow, I doubt that.
- Japan used talks as cover while they planned the Pearl Harbor attack.
- Israel has capitulated and appeased the Palestinians several times. When they gave Gaza back to the Palestenians, what did they get? Rockets launched at their schools and residential areas.
- The EU and UN has been talking with Iran and sending sternly worded letters. Yet Iran is still pushing forward with their nuclear ambitions and threatening Israel while funding Hamas, Hezbollah, and supporting insurgents and terrorists in Iraq.
- Madeline Albright and Clinton brokered a deal with North Korea and to provide them oil, food, and other things for a promise that North Korea wouldn't pursue nuclear weapons. North Korea broke that promise the next day.

And there are many many more examples of this.

I'm not saying that diplomacy should be abandoned and we should invade these countries. But, don't meet with tyrants and fanatics and expect to win them over to your point of view with mere words and expect them to hold up their end of a bargain. History has shown this. Otherwise you end up coming across like the US Senator who said, "Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler..."

Your argument doesn't make sense. Just because diplomacy has failed in the past doesn't mean that we shouldn't always employ it... because it's free. Diplomacy frequently kept us out of a war with the Soviet Union. Diplomacy has been tremendously effective with China. Diplomacy isn't as flashy as a war and it very infrequently produces results as decisive, but all it costs us is a plane ride instead of an invasion. To take the stance of the Bush administration and just refuse to talk to people is retarded. Anyone who disparages a politician for engaging in diplomacy is retarded.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: senseamp
Bush should not be attacking an American presidential candidate from overseas.

I took it as a warning for everybody, not just Obama. Remember Pelosi's little jaunt to Syria to meet with Assad? There are lots of other people out there who think that if we just sit down and talk with tyrants and fanatics then everything will be ok. Forgetting that talking with tyrants and fanatics rarely works because they never hold up their end of the bargain.

Your simplistic view of diplomacy is worrying. No one ever said you talk and that would be enough to solve problems. Fuck it, what's the use in trying to explain this to you...

Ahh yes. The perfect argument, "You're too stupid to understand the complexities of my argument. So, I'm going to dismiss you."

Ok, how about we look at history then?
- Chamberlin's appeasement of Hitler? In his speech, Bush even mentions a US Senator who said, "Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided." Somehow, I doubt that.
- Japan used talks as cover while they planned the Pearl Harbor attack.
- Israel has capitulated and appeased the Palestinians several times. When they gave Gaza back to the Palestenians, what did they get? Rockets launched at their schools and residential areas.
- The EU and UN has been talking with Iran and sending sternly worded letters. Yet Iran is still pushing forward with their nuclear ambitions and threatening Israel while funding Hamas, Hezbollah, and supporting insurgents and terrorists in Iraq.
- Madeline Albright and Clinton brokered a deal with North Korea and to provide them oil, food, and other things for a promise that North Korea wouldn't pursue nuclear weapons. North Korea broke that promise the next day.

And there are many many more examples of this.

I'm not saying that diplomacy should be abandoned and we should invade these countries. But, don't meet with tyrants and fanatics and expect to win them over to your point of view with mere words and expect them to hold up their end of a bargain. History has shown this. Otherwise you end up coming across like the US Senator who said, "Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler..."

Your argument doesn't make sense. Just because diplomacy has failed in the past doesn't mean that we shouldn't always employ it... because it's free. Diplomacy frequently kept us out of a war with the Soviet Union. Diplomacy has been tremendously effective with China. Diplomacy isn't as flashy as a war and it very infrequently produces results as decisive, but all it costs us is a plane ride instead of an invasion. To take the stance of the Bush administration and just refuse to talk to people is retarded. Anyone who disparages a politician for engaging in diplomacy is retarded.

Wow, you just completely ignored my last paragraph, didn't you?

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Thump553
That's an ironic attack, as Bush's grandfather Preston Bush (also a politician) was long rumored to be a Nazi sympathizer and apeaser, at least prior to the start of WWII and his son's enlistment. Even then he tried to manuever George HW Bush into a cushy staff job, which George HW Bush would have nothing to do with.

Anyway, I would view an attack by this Bush as valuable as two Edwards endorsements. Bring it on, Georgie.

Why do you idiots keep bringing that up?

JFK's dad liked the Nazi's too. Prior to Hitler going on the a rampage a lot of people in the US liked him because they saw him as a way to stop communism. It wasn't until Hitler starting swallowing other countries did they realize the threat he was to the world.

I think it keeps being brought up because the Bush family hates jews.

didnt you know that?

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Thump553
That's an ironic attack, as Bush's grandfather Preston Bush (also a politician) was long rumored to be a Nazi sympathizer and apeaser, at least prior to the start of WWII and his son's enlistment. Even then he tried to manuever George HW Bush into a cushy staff job, which George HW Bush would have nothing to do with.

Anyway, I would view an attack by this Bush as valuable as two Edwards endorsements. Bring it on, Georgie.

Why do you idiots keep bringing that up?

JFK's dad liked the Nazi's too. Prior to Hitler going on the a rampage a lot of people in the US liked him because they saw him as a way to stop communism. It wasn't until Hitler starting swallowing other countries did they realize the threat he was to the world.

I think it keeps being brought up because the Bush family hates jews.

didnt you know that?

Wait. I thought this administration was controlled by the Jews?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: senseamp
Bush should not be attacking an American presidential candidate from overseas.

I took it as a warning for everybody, not just Obama. Remember Pelosi's little jaunt to Syria to meet with Assad? There are lots of other people out there who think that if we just sit down and talk with tyrants and fanatics then everything will be ok. Forgetting that talking with tyrants and fanatics rarely works because they never hold up their end of the bargain.

Your simplistic view of diplomacy is worrying. No one ever said you talk and that would be enough to solve problems. Fuck it, what's the use in trying to explain this to you...

Ahh yes. The perfect argument, "You're too stupid to understand the complexities of my argument. So, I'm going to dismiss you."

Ok, how about we look at history then?
- Chamberlin's appeasement of Hitler? In his speech, Bush even mentions a US Senator who said, "Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided." Somehow, I doubt that.
- Japan used talks as cover while they planned the Pearl Harbor attack.
- Israel has capitulated and appeased the Palestinians several times. When they gave Gaza back to the Palestenians, what did they get? Rockets launched at their schools and residential areas.
- The EU and UN has been talking with Iran and sending sternly worded letters. Yet Iran is still pushing forward with their nuclear ambitions and threatening Israel while funding Hamas, Hezbollah, and supporting insurgents and terrorists in Iraq.
- Madeline Albright and Clinton brokered a deal with North Korea and to provide them oil, food, and other things for a promise that North Korea wouldn't pursue nuclear weapons. North Korea broke that promise the next day.

And there are many many more examples of this.

I'm not saying that diplomacy should be abandoned and we should invade these countries. But, don't meet with tyrants and fanatics and expect to win them over to your point of view with mere words and expect them to hold up their end of a bargain. History has shown this. Otherwise you end up coming across like the US Senator who said, "Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler..."

Your argument doesn't make sense. Just because diplomacy has failed in the past doesn't mean that we shouldn't always employ it... because it's free. Diplomacy frequently kept us out of a war with the Soviet Union. Diplomacy has been tremendously effective with China. Diplomacy isn't as flashy as a war and it very infrequently produces results as decisive, but all it costs us is a plane ride instead of an invasion. To take the stance of the Bush administration and just refuse to talk to people is retarded. Anyone who disparages a politician for engaging in diplomacy is retarded.

Wow, you just completely ignored my last paragraph, didn't you?

No, not at all. Your argument was basically that history shows diplomacy rarely works and I was saying that in some of the most important cases in all of history diplomacy has worked wonders, and you pretty much ignored that.

The view that diplomacy doesn't (or rarely works) is a hallmark of the Bush administration's current policies and so I was just throwing in a dig at him at the end. I didn't mean to say that you believed that we should never use diplomacy and so I'm sorry if I came across that way.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Thump553
That's an ironic attack, as Bush's grandfather Preston Bush (also a politician) was long rumored to be a Nazi sympathizer and apeaser, at least prior to the start of WWII and his son's enlistment. Even then he tried to manuever George HW Bush into a cushy staff job, which George HW Bush would have nothing to do with.

Anyway, I would view an attack by this Bush as valuable as two Edwards endorsements. Bring it on, Georgie.

Why do you idiots keep bringing that up?

JFK's dad liked the Nazi's too. Prior to Hitler going on the a rampage a lot of people in the US liked him because they saw him as a way to stop communism. It wasn't until Hitler starting swallowing other countries did they realize the threat he was to the world.

I think it keeps being brought up because the Bush family hates jews.

didnt you know that?

Wait. I thought this administration was controlled by the Jews?

so jews hate themselves!?

great...we need Moonbeam to help sort this out!

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Queasy
Wow, you just completely ignored my last paragraph, didn't you?

No, not at all. Your argument was basically that history shows diplomacy rarely works and I was saying that in some of the most important cases in all of history diplomacy has worked wonders, and you pretty much ignored that.

The view that diplomacy doesn't (or rarely works) is a hallmark of the Bush administration's current policies and so I was just throwing in a dig at him at the end. I didn't mean to say that you believed that we should never use diplomacy and so I'm sorry if I came across that way.

I was speaking towards tyrants and fanatics. The Soviet Union and China are/were definitely evil empires but they weren't crazy enough that they couldn't be talked with at some reasonable level. Mostly because they knew we were plenty capable of giving just as much or more than we got and they had just as much to lose. Reagan also hammered the Soviet Union with "Trust but Verify". Talking with those two countries is on a different plane than Iran, Syria, North Korea, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc who already have a history of showing that they will talk with you one day and stab you in the back the next.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Queasy
Wow, you just completely ignored my last paragraph, didn't you?

No, not at all. Your argument was basically that history shows diplomacy rarely works and I was saying that in some of the most important cases in all of history diplomacy has worked wonders, and you pretty much ignored that.

The view that diplomacy doesn't (or rarely works) is a hallmark of the Bush administration's current policies and so I was just throwing in a dig at him at the end. I didn't mean to say that you believed that we should never use diplomacy and so I'm sorry if I came across that way.

I was speaking towards tyrants and fanatics. The Soviet Union and China are/were definitely evil empires but they weren't crazy enough that they couldn't be talked with at some reasonable level. Mostly because they knew we were plenty capable of giving just as much or more than we got. Reagan also hammered the Soviet Union with "Trust but Verify". Talking with those two countries is on a different plane than Iran, Syria, North Korea, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc who already have a history of showing that they will talk with you one day and stab you in the back the next.

Wait a minute, tyrants? You certainly can't argue that Stalin and Mao weren't tyrants and I would argue that they were crazier then ANY leader we are facing today. How many people did Stalin kill out of paranoia? How many people did Mao starve to death?

I fail to see how Iran, North Korea, or Syria are any different then China and the Soviet Union. Hamas and Hezbollah you can make an argument for them being different as they are not really a state power and so damage to the state means less to them... that I will give you. North Korea, Syria, and Iran have all behaved in classic nation state ways that are 100% rational however. If anything, we act insanely towards them.

They have seen the US acting belligerently, attacking and invading countries similar to them at will. Since they will never be able to match the US conventionally, their only option is nuclear weaponry to protect themselves from attack and invasion. Our two options are to prevent them from ever getting nukes (which is unlikely) or to convince them that nukes are not necessary through... you know... actually engaging with them. Nuclear freezes and such are very useful because they buy us some time for actual diplomacy and a normalization of relations to take place. They are not useful (or even really thought of) as a way to permanently end a country's nuclear ambition.

 

[naddicott]

I really don't see how talking, or agreeing to talk, with an enemy is suddenly equivalent to "appeasement". The two don't always go hand-in-hand.

Take the example of Churchill agreeing to talk with Hitler:

When in November 1932, shortly before Hitler came to power, and Churchill was in Munich doing some historical research about the First Duke of Marlborough, his ancestor, an intermediary tried to get him to meet Hitler, who was in Munich at the time and had high hopes of coming to power within months. Churchill agreed to meet Hitler, who was going to come to see him in his hotel in Munich, and said to the intermediary: "There are a few questions you might like to put to him, which can be the basis of our discussion when we meet." Among them was the following question: "What is the sense of being against a man simply because of his birth? How can any man help how he is born?"

In this case, Hitler didn't much like Churchill's questions, and decided not to go to the meeting, but the point being, Churchill demonstrated a willingness to talk, but not in a coddling/appeasing way.

I'm convinced that Bush doesn't really grasp the concept of non-amiable diplomatic meetings, or the possibility of shifting someone's else's positions with logic, evidence, and focus on shared interests - those tools don't seem to have ever budged his own positions after all.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Queasy
Wow, you just completely ignored my last paragraph, didn't you?

No, not at all. Your argument was basically that history shows diplomacy rarely works and I was saying that in some of the most important cases in all of history diplomacy has worked wonders, and you pretty much ignored that.

The view that diplomacy doesn't (or rarely works) is a hallmark of the Bush administration's current policies and so I was just throwing in a dig at him at the end. I didn't mean to say that you believed that we should never use diplomacy and so I'm sorry if I came across that way.

I was speaking towards tyrants and fanatics. The Soviet Union and China are/were definitely evil empires but they weren't crazy enough that they couldn't be talked with at some reasonable level. Mostly because they knew we were plenty capable of giving just as much or more than we got. Reagan also hammered the Soviet Union with "Trust but Verify". Talking with those two countries is on a different plane than Iran, Syria, North Korea, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc who already have a history of showing that they will talk with you one day and stab you in the back the next.

Wait a minute, tyrants? You certainly can't argue that Stalin and Mao weren't tyrants and I would argue that they were crazier then ANY leader we are facing today. How many people did Stalin kill out of paranoia? How many people did Mao starve to death?

I fail to see how Iran, North Korea, or Syria are any different then China and the Soviet Union. Hamas and Hezbollah you can make an argument for them being different as they are not really a state power and so damage to the state means less to them... that I will give you. North Korea, Syria, and Iran have all behaved in classic nation state ways that are 100% rational however. If anything, we act insanely towards them.

They have seen the US acting belligerently, attacking and invading countries similar to them at will. Since they will never be able to match the US conventionally, their only option is nuclear weaponry to protect themselves from attack and invasion. Our two options are to prevent them from ever getting nukes (which is unlikely) or to convince them that nukes are not necessary through... you know... actually engaging with them. Nuclear freezes and such are very useful because they buy us some time for actual diplomacy and a normalization of relations to take place. They are not useful (or even really thought of) as a way to permanently end a country's nuclear ambition.

I'm not arguing that Stalin and Mao weren't tyrants. I'm not arguing that we should abandon diplomacy even with tyrants and fanatics. I am arguing that if you go into talks with people like Iran, Syria, and North Korea you better be very careful how you do it, verify that they are living up to their end of the bargain, and not go for straight appeasement. Which is, what I think, is similar to what Bush was warning about in the linked speech.

Obama saw it as an attack on him but it could have just as easily been addressed to Pelosi, Carter, and many others.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Queasy

I'm not arguing that Stalin and Mao weren't tyrants. I'm not arguing that we should abandon diplomacy even with tyrants and fanatics. I am arguing that if you go into talks with people like Iran, Syria, and North Korea you better be very careful how you do it, verify that they are living up to their end of the bargain, and not go for straight appeasement. Which is, what I think, is similar to what Bush was warning about in the linked speech.

Obama saw it as an attack on him but it could have just as easily been addressed to Pelosi, Carter, and many others.

Bush's entire tenure in office has pretty much centered around the abandonment of diplomacy. Most of the states you mentioned (with the exception of North Korea after it was too late) he takes a stance of refusing all diplomacy until our demands are met. In light of this, I find it highly unlikely that he was advocating the stance you are attributing to him, as he has made no effort to implement such a strategy himself.

I view what you are saying as pretty much common sense diplomacy and I would certainly agree with it. You shouldn't be so focused on avoiding conflict as to give away the whole farm in doing so, but again... Bush's foreign policy doesn't seem to put much of a premium on common sense and I see no evidence that he thinks this way.