Bush blasts into Obama

[HomerJS]

The problem with Bush is he is too stupid to know what appeasment means. He just reads what is put in front of him.

Appeasment as linked to Neville Chamberlin was not just talking to Hitler but that he gave up Czechoslovakia. Obama has stated we need to talk to dictators in an effort to effect policy changes not give them what they want.

Now as the chimp in chief has defined appeasment let's look at some of his examples...

1. 15-19 of the 9-11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, we still talk to them.

2. Libya and Momar Kadafi a long defined sponser of terorism, we talked to him.

3. We talked to Kim Jong-IL.

4. Condi Rice says we should talk to Syria. I guess she'll be fired.

Bad mouthing the country on foriegn soil. Where have we heard that complaint before?

 

[PELarson]

Think about it. If the British Empire had sat down with those they thought where terrorists and radicals there would be.

Peace in North Ireland.
India would be free.
Not to mention they would have stopped trying to supress those rebellious thirteen colonies.:shocked:

 

[bamacre]

I tried to get some of this conversation going in this thread...
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...id=52&threadid=2186843

... but no one seemed to care. Probably the most important policy we have, too.

Ron Paul talked about this in his new book (which is pretty good so far, btw ).

Paul says that in regards to our foreign policy, there is no real debate between the two parties, only debate over the details of one common-ground policy.

Ironically for Republicans, it was Reagan who said, "Peace is not the absence of conflict, it is the ability to handle conflict by peaceful means."

Interesting quote (found here)...

"What's remarkable about this year's [2008] military budget is that it's the largest budget since World War II, but, of course, we're not fighting World War II," noted William Hartung, a defense expert at the World Policy Institute in New York.

For those that think the Dem's have the answer, remember, Clinton took the time to close military bases inside the USA while we today still have over 700 bases in over 130 different countries.

 

[sportage]

Well you know... this is JUST politics. GW Bush politics.
I see the trend here... McCain will claim his campaign "so pure it floats".
And all WHILE GW is the attack dog. JUST like kerry and swift boat.
GW stood by and said nothing while swift boats hammered at Kerry.
It worked. GW knows that and thus GW is on a roll.
And watch... all the while McCain will stand back "dont blame me".

Then, probably unlike kerry, Obama will shoot back directly at McCain, knowing all this krapola comes from and is on the behalf of mcCain, Obama will fire at McCain
and McCain will cry foul. "Obama is going negitive".

But...BUT...BUT... You (we) voters MUST be smarted than THAT (this time!!!!).

 

[toadeater]

Bush seems to have forgotten Iran-CONTRA. His daddy was in charge of that one.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Foxery
A guy with his reputation and approval ratings trying to slander the Democrats is nothing but great news for Democrats! Let's hope he does more.

Did you bother to read what Bush actually said?

He didn't mention any one by name but was talking in general. This speech is similar to ones he has been making for years. And it is an argument that people have been making for decades as well.

Go back to Reagan and his answer when asked about the Soviet Union.
"We win, the lose"

When everyone else wanted to talk to the Soviets and accepted the Soviet Union as a permanent part of the world Reagan went against that few and created a plan to confront and challenge the Soviet Union. And look at what happened...

A vital part of this was communication.

Bush doesn't understand the saying "keep your friends close, and your enemies closer". Because one engages in dialogue does not mean surrendering action. It does involve considering different shades of meaning, understanding how to "play" and prevent from being played in a meaningful sense. It requires wisdom.

Heh, maybe it's best that Bush remains unique in his policy of "hear no evil"

 

[Capt Caveman]

Bush should only be blasting Obama as the the majority of Democrats do not agree with Obama on this point.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

HomerJS said:

Appeasment as linked to Neville Chamberlin was not just talking to Hitler but that he gave up Czechoslovakia.

From JFK, - "Let us never negotiate out of fear.... but let us never fear to negotiate."

This lesson does "Not" equate to "never talk to your enemy". Always be willing to talk - you never know what sort of options may come about as a result. Chamberlain's error wasn't that he talked to Hitler - it was that he believed what Hitler told him.

Having said that...

There's a strong argument to be made - that in fact Neville Chamberlain knew exactly what he was doing and did it deliberately, even knowing that Hitler would break the Munich agreement and gobble up Czechoslovakia. What Chamberlain bought time for was the completion of the Chain Home radar system. Once the war actually began, it was Chain Home that allowed Fighter Command to defeat the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britian. Likewise, in the year between, the UK built up its forces (especially fighter forces).

After 1936, time was not on the side of the Axis - and Hitler knew it as well as Chamberlain. That was why he flew into a rage that the British "cheated" him out of his war at Munich. Hitler knew he had to strike fast; if war didn't come by 1940 or so, it would be on very unfavorable terms for Germany. And so the increasingly bold gambits and eventually, the assault on Poland.

It's entirely possible that Neville Chamberlain lost Czechoslovakia but won the war.

Furthermore, the narrative of Chamberlain as appeaser was promulgated first and foremost by a political screed published in 1940 called "Guilty Men" which was intended to force him out of office (although by the time it actually appeared, he had already left the premiership). This is not a work of scholarship, but a polemic, and its premises have been largely superseded by more nuanced understandings of the 1930s.

 

[Throckmorton]

Wait, wasn't Bush telling China to talk to Tibetans just a few weeks ago?

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

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...

Oh, so you talk and threaten sanctions. OH NOES!!! fanatics only understand one thing, their way or the highway.
At least Dubya had the balls to blow some shit up and show those towel headed fuckers that America won't stand by and let you attack us. The Dems would have just thrown money into buying off the terrorists.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

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...

Oh, so you talk and threaten sanctions. OH NOES!!! fanatics only understand one thing, their way or the highway.
At least Dubya had the balls to blow some shit up and show those towel headed fuckers that America won't stand by and let you attack us. The Dems would have just thrown money into buying off the terrorists.

Stop being stupid. The world doesn't need any more people who view our adversaries as cartoon super villains.

 

[tweaker2]

so bush is giving obama a lesson on how to deal with our enemies. HAAHAHAHAHAHA. yep, look at the FUBAR mess he's gotten us into by having things completely HIS WAY for six years, and he got the frick'in nerve to scold and school obama, YES, OBAMA, on the do's and dont's of diplomacy.

i wonder who actually thinks (given his miserable horrifying record on foreign relations) that bush actually is worth listening to in these matters.

how pathetic that such a screwup like bush would be given the opportunity to make himself and his party look even worse than ever.

i hope he keeps this up. i guess the 2006 elections didn't give him a hint of what the MAJORITY of the nation thinks of him and his policies, and what the MAJORITY of the nation will do to his party this election cycle because of his style of "leadership". pffft.

LOSER.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: tweaker2
so bush is giving obama a lesson on how to deal with our enemies.
LOSER.

Yeah , that has to be the funniest thing I have heard lately.
I wish they would take Obama up on his offer to debate with them about how best to protect the country. That would be an awesome debate.


I think we could have done better with Iraq if we had just paid everyone there to do what we want. It would be cheaper and save lives.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Oh, so you talk and threaten sanctions. OH NOES!!! fanatics only understand one thing, their way or the highway.
At least Dubya had the balls to blow some shit up and show those towel headed fuckers that America won't stand by and let you attack us. The Dems would have just thrown money into buying off the terrorists.

Is this a serious post? My sarcasm meter didn't move.

 

[JS80]

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.

I'm pretty sure it was the nuclear weapons that were pointed at each other not diplomacy that kept us out of war with the Soviets.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Queasy
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.

Why does Bush's Sec. Def. Gates think we should engage in talks with Iran, exactly like Obama is suggesting?

Why does GOP Presidential Nominee McCain think we should engage in talks with Hamas, exactly like Obama is suggesting?

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Queasy
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.

Why does Bush's Sec. Def. Gates think we should engage in talks with Iran, exactly like Obama is suggesting?

Why does GOP Presidential Nominee McCain think we should engage in talks with Hamas, exactly like Obama is suggesting?

McCain's quotes in context:

McCain answered: ?They?re the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it?s a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that.?

"Deal with them, one way or another" does not necessarily mean engage in talks or outright appeasement as Jimmy Carter has suggested.

McCain also said the following regarding Hamas in 2006:

In the wake of yesterday?s Palestinian elections, Hamas must change itself fundamentally - renounce violence, abandon its goal of eradicating Israel and accept the two-state solution. These elections are evidence that democracy is indeed spreading in the Middle East, but Hamas is not a partner for peace so long as they advocate the overthrow of Israel.

And the following in an interview with CNN

CNN?S BETTY NGUYEN: All right, let?s shift over to the global front. The Bush administration is reviewing all aspects of U.S. aid to the Palestinians now that Hamas has won the elections. And I do have to quote you here. A State Department spokesman did say this: ?To be very clear? ? and I?m quoting now ? ?we do not provide money to terrorist organizations.? What does this do to the U.S. relationship with the Palestinians?

MCCAIN: Well, hopefully, that Hamas now that they are going to govern, will be motivated to renounce this commitment to the extinction of the state of Israel. Then we can do business again, we can resume aid, we can resume the peace process.

Obviously, McCain is expecting Hamas to stop acting like a terrorist organization before we engage in diplomatic efforts with them.

As for Gates, the title of the linked article says it all "Gates: U.S. Should Engage Iran With Incentives, Pressure". Again, using pressure and incentives to make a lunatic state like Iran act right sounds reasonable and is not the kind of appeasement/wishful thinking that Bush referenced in his speech.

edit: btw, Bush's entire speech won praise according to the AFP and Jerusalem Post. Meanwhile, all the focus in the States is over how offended Obama and other Dems are from a 20-second sound bite where none of them were mentioned and the only Senator referenced was a dead Republican senator.

 

[JS80]

All these doves want to join a poker game full of sharks with huge chip stacks.

 

[jpeyton]

Actually what McCain and Gates are suggested are almost EXACTLY like what Obama is suggesting.

Of course, after yesterday's speech, McCain pulled a pair of Old Navy flip-flops out of his hat and condemned the same policies he supported.

I'm quite pleased that Bush and McCain seem adamant on having a debate with Obama on foreign policy; it's something they would both lose by a mile.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Queasy
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.

Why does Bush's Sec. Def. Gates think we should engage in talks with Iran, exactly like Obama is suggesting?

Why does GOP Presidential Nominee McCain think we should engage in talks with Hamas, exactly like Obama is suggesting?

McCain's quotes in context:

McCain answered: ?They?re the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it?s a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that.?

"Deal with them, one way or another" does not necessarily mean engage in talks or outright appeasement as Jimmy Carter has suggested.

McCain also said the following regarding Hamas in 2006:

In the wake of yesterday?s Palestinian elections, Hamas must change itself fundamentally - renounce violence, abandon its goal of eradicating Israel and accept the two-state solution. These elections are evidence that democracy is indeed spreading in the Middle East, but Hamas is not a partner for peace so long as they advocate the overthrow of Israel.

And the following in an interview with CNN

CNN?S BETTY NGUYEN: All right, let?s shift over to the global front. The Bush administration is reviewing all aspects of U.S. aid to the Palestinians now that Hamas has won the elections. And I do have to quote you here. A State Department spokesman did say this: ?To be very clear? ? and I?m quoting now ? ?we do not provide money to terrorist organizations.? What does this do to the U.S. relationship with the Palestinians?

MCCAIN: Well, hopefully, that Hamas now that they are going to govern, will be motivated to renounce this commitment to the extinction of the state of Israel. Then we can do business again, we can resume aid, we can resume the peace process.

Obviously, McCain is expecting Hamas to stop acting like a terrorist organization before we engage in diplomatic efforts with them.

As for Gates, the title of the linked article says it all "Gates: U.S. Should Engage Iran With Incentives, Pressure". Again, using pressure and incentives to make a lunatic state like Iran act right sounds reasonable and is not the kind of appeasement/wishful thinking that Bush referenced in his speech.

edit: btw, Bush's entire speech won praise according to the AFP and Jerusalem Post. Meanwhile, all the focus in the States is over how offended Obama and other Dems are from a 20-second sound bite where none of them were mentioned and the only Senator referenced was a dead Republican senator.

You're missing the problem with Bush's speech. Mainly that it was full of lies. It willfully misrepresented Obama's position in order to try and score cheap political points while addressing an important ally. It was childish and petty. And don't try to say because he didn't mention him by name that he wasn't referring to him... because you know that he was.

 

[nageov3t]

how can he have misrepresented Obama's position when he never even mentioned Obama?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: loki8481
how can he have misrepresented Obama's position when he never even mentioned Obama?

Are you seriously asking this question?

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
You're missing the problem with Bush's speech. Mainly that it was full of lies. It willfully misrepresented Obama's position in order to try and score cheap political points while addressing an important ally. It was childish and petty. And don't try to say because he didn't mention him by name that he wasn't referring to him... because you know that he was.

Obama's Official Campaign Site

Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior.

This being the Iran that is a state sponsor of terrorist groups across the Middle East like Hezbollah and Hamas.

Again though, Bush was not addressing Obama specifically. Taking in context with his full speech, it was a general warning. It is closer to a criticism of Jimmy Carter who recently met with Hamas than it is to Obama.

Only Obama's thin-skin (and his supporters) about his lack of foreign policy experience and his statement in the YouTube debate that he would meet Iran without precondition is causing this controversy.

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Queasy
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.

Why does Bush's Sec. Def. Gates think we should engage in talks with Iran, exactly like Obama is suggesting?

Why does GOP Presidential Nominee McCain think we should engage in talks with Hamas, exactly like Obama is suggesting?

Remember when McCain was asked about hamas. they had just won the election , They hadn't kicked out other aspects of their government, taken over Gaza, or started the current violence.

He was saying basically what the admin was saying at that time: "Newly elected government, give them a chance."

Two years later....they've been given a chance.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Actually what McCain and Gates are suggested are almost EXACTLY like what Obama is suggesting.

Of course, after yesterday's speech, McCain pulled a pair of Old Navy flip-flops out of his hat and condemned the same policies he supported.

I'm quite pleased that Bush and McCain seem adamant on having a debate with Obama on foreign policy; it's something they would both lose by a mile.

I don't see it.

The Bush administration has said it will talk with Iran, and consider lifting economic and other sanctions, only if Iran ends a uranium enrichment program the administration maintains is intended to produce nuclear weapons, a charge Iran denies. Although the U.S. and Iranian ambassadors to Baghdad met three times last year for discussions on Iraq, Iran has refused to continue that dialogue.

That is far different from Obama's stance that he will meet without precondition.