President Bush, marking the 60th anniversary of the founding of Israel, reminded the Knesset yesterday that the appeasement of evil is the route to catastrophe.
"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," he said. "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 - which has been repeatedly discredited by history."
How could anyone with even a Classic Comics understanding of history quarrel with that? Who could doubt that negotiating with terrorists is an exercise for fools? Who doubts that we've heard delusional appeasement talk all through history? Who would quarrel with the proposition that "the comfort of appeasement" has been repeatedly discredited by history? Where better to say this than to those who live with the risks and perils of appeasement of Islamist thugs in the Middle East?
Well, a lot of prominent Democrats, beginning with Barack Obama, that's who. The orator prince of the South Side of Chicago was reduced to splutter and slash. "It is sad ... this false political attack ... it's time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally in Israel."
Then he repeated the naive musings of inexperience that could be taken for appeasement talk, prescribing "tough, principled and direct diplomacy to pressure countries like Iran and Syria." Nancy Pelosi, the dowager queen of San Francisco Democrats, said the president's remarks were "beneath the dignity of the office" and Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the Clinton utility man, asked whether "this president has no shame." Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, ever eager to steal the cliches of others, couldn't decide whether to affect the voice of the barnyard or reflect the twitter of the ladies' tea room: The president's remarks were "[the effluvia of a bull]" or "malarkey."
A White House aide noted that the president had sounded similar warnings before, and if the president's hysterical critics wanted to identify the appeasers, they could look to Jimmy Carter and his passionate embrace of Syrians and Palestinian terrorists on his merry prankster appeasement tour of the Middle East, just now concluded. Mzz Pelosi demanded that John McCain disavow the president, presumably in the way that she and other prominent Democrats did not disavow the peanut farmer from Plains.
"The American senator" in the president's citation, who imagined that he could have led Hitler to the Lord with a few well-chosen words in 1939, was William E. Borah of Idaho, an isolationist Republican of the early 20th century, a ladies' man of Clintonian appetite and an orator with Barack Obama's reputation for spinning smooth appeasement talk. Sen. Borah, like Sen. Obama, thought his golden tongue would resolve all arguments in his favor, and, like Bill Clinton, imagined that his sexual prowess was irresistible. Sometimes it was. He left a small-town law practice in Kansas early in the century when he got a young woman "in the family way" and her male relatives suggested that he leave town on the next train. He departed for distant Idaho. Once elected to the U.S. Senate, he cut a wide swath of notoriety in Washington, where he conducted a long affair with Alice Roosevelt Longworth, whom delighted capital gossips called "Aurora Borah Alice." You might think Sen. Obama, Mzz Pelosi, Mr. Emanuel and Joe Biden would be flattered that the president cited someone of skills and appetites so familiar to them.
Telepathy or a guilty conscience?
The fact that Obama saw himself in what GWB said tells us all we want to know, I think
Barack Obama, today:
"He accused me and other Democrats of wanting to negotiate with terrorists, and said we were appeasers no different from people who appeased Adolf Hitler," said Obama. "That is what George Bush said in front of the Israeli parliament. Now that is exactly the kind of appalling attack that has divided our country and alienates us from the world. And that is why we need change in Washington, that is part of the reason I am running for president of the United States of America."
Let's go back and review the section of Bush's speech that triggered this apoplectic response:
That is why the founding charter of Hamas calls for the "elimination" of Israel. 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." And that is why the president of Iran dreams of returning the Middle East to the Middle Ages and calls for Israel to be wiped off the map.
There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain their words away. This is 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.
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.
Some people suggest that 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 our enemies, and America rejects it utterly. Israel's population may be just over 7 million. But when you confront terror and evil, you are 307 million strong, because America stands with you.
The whole prepared text can be found here.
That first sentence of Obama's response is flat out false. Bush offered no such accusation of Obama and other Democrats, unless they are using mental telepathy to identify those Bush refers to as "some."
Can Somebody Explain to Me ...
... how Obama sat in Wright's church for 20 years and managed never to hear anything, but hears 20 seconds of a Bush speech that doesn't mention him and perceives a shameful personal attack?
Obama Proves Bush Right-- Talks About "Legitimate Claims" of Hamas & Hezbollah
Well that took about 24 hours... President George W. Bush on Appeasement, May 15, 2008--
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.
Barack Obama on Appeasement, May 16, 2008--
"The U.S. should find a mechanism whereby the disaffected have an effective outlet for their grievances, which assures them they are getting social services... The U.S. needs a foreign policy that looks at the root causes of problems and dangers. (Obama compared Hezbollah to Hamas.) Both need to be compelled to understand that they're going down a blind alley with violence that weakens their legitimate claims(?)... If they decide to shift, we're going to recognize that. That's an evolution that should be recognized."
Ok... "legitimate claims?" Did Obama really say that? What kind of legitimate claims is Obama talking about?
-- The right to Jerusalem?
-- The right to never recognize the raping enemy?
-- The right to burn the Zionists?
OK, So What Are The "Legitimate Claims" Of Hezbollah And Hamas?
David Brooks chatted with Barack Obama on Hezbollah and Hamas, with eyebrow-raising results:
The U.S. needs a foreign policy that "looks at the root causes of problems and dangers." Obama compared Hezbollah to Hamas. Both need to be compelled to understand that "they're going down a blind alley with violence that weakens their legitimate claims."
He knows these movements aren't going away anytime soon ("Those missiles aren't going to dissolve"), but "if they decide to shift, we're going to recognize that. That's an evolution that should be recognized."
As a former community organizer himself I suppose Obama might admire the efficacy of the Hamas and Hezbollah street level operations. But what "legitimate claims" does he have in mind? Beats me. The Confederate Yankee and Noah Pollak of Commentary are also concerned.
But I have a Bold Suggestion - since Obama is backing away from his "I'll meet with any rogue fool without preconditions" pledge anyway, why doesn't he announce one pre-condition - any bad boy dictators or lunatics who want to meet with Obama must load onto YouTube a video of themselves singing a chorus of Kumbaya. That should be reassuring.
OBAMA MEETS WITH HEZBO TIED IMAM
Yes, Obama will spin this the way he is spinning his desire to meet directly with annihilationist Ahmadinejad. But so what? The meeting speaks for itself. By their acts we shall know him and so we know him.
Imam Hassan Qazwini, head of the Islamic Center of America, said in an email that he met with Obama at Macomb Community College. A mosque spokesman, Eide Alawan, confirmed that the meeting took place. During the meeting, the two discussed the Presidential election, the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the Iraq war, according to Qazwini....
The meeting with Obama came about after Qazwini had asked David Bonior, the former U.S. Rep. from Michigan, if he could meet with Obama during his visit. Qazwini was not selected to be part of a group of 20 people who met with Obama, but Qazwini later got a private meeting with Obama, Alawan said. "They gave him an opportunity for a one-on-one," Alawan said.
ZTruth has more on Qazwini: check out her post last March on Qazwini here. And go over to FrontPage. Schlussel here:
Qazwini is very open about his support for Palestinian homcide bombings, HAMAS, and Hezbollah. And he's a good friend of Hezbollah spiritual leader, Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah--the man who issued the fatwa to Hezbollah terrorists to murder over 300 U.S. Marines and U.S. Embassy civilians in cold blood. Qazwini's mosque has held rallies and celebrations in support of Hezbollah, and many of Hezbollah's biggest money-launderers and agents in America are his congregants.
When I went undercover to his mosque in 1998, he and others welcomed Nation of Islam chief racist Louis Farrakhan as "our dear brother" and "a freedom fighter." Qazwini applauded Farrakhan's anti-Semitic statements saying that Jews were the "forces of Satan" and that there needed to be a "jihad" on the American people.
Rove anticipates the Obama counter snark
Karl Rove launched a wide-ranging attack on Barack Obama during a speech at the National Rifle Association Convention Friday, blasting him for his recent comments calling some small town American's "bitter," and suggesting the Illinois senator is an effete politician unable to connect with a broad swath of Americans.
The comments, received enthusiastically by the large crowd in Louisville, Kentucky, are a likely sign Obama's words at a San Francisco fundraiser last month may be a major Republican talking-point should he capture the Democratic Party's nomination.
"You know in the age of Barack Obama I don't know exactly what to call you, because after all, as he said, because we're bitter and economically anxious, we `cling to our guns and we cling to our faith," Rove told the crowd to laughter and cheers. "You probably didn't know you hunted out of economic anxiety, and if gas was a $1.50 a gallon, you probably wouldn't be hunting," he continued. "You probably thought you hunted because you enjoyed the outdoors and companionship with family and friends."...
"We here have news for Barack Obama," Rove said. "The values of those people you diminished are the values of America. And those people don't like getting patronized, or viewed as an alien species, by a fellow who pretends to embody a new kind of politics, and especially by someone who wants to be president not of red states or blue states, but the United States." ....
"It is distracting to say in a Democratic primary when you are trying to cozy up to Moveon.org that an American flag on your lapel is a quote 'substitute' for true patriotism," Rove said. "Belittling all those who care to wear our country's flag, calling them false patriots, and then when you focus on the general election, like this week, start to showing up with an American flag on your lapel again. That's distracting." ....
"We know what he's going to say-- it's divisive, distractive, keeps us from coming together. After all, he says, we are the change we have been waiting for. what the heck does that mean?" "Does it mean we've been keeping ourselves waiting? Why was change late anyway? I don't get it. let me tell you what's divisive. It is divisive to undermine the Second Amendment, to undermine to constitution of the United States."
"It is divisive to say one thing and do another, to belittle the values of the people -- which is exactly what Obama was doing in San Francisco. Our answer is no we won't."
(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)