Bush's 'Appeasement' Comments Honored Ailing Israeli Leader

Obama made a rookie political mistake. By so quickly responding with fury as he did, he drew attention to the possibility that the remark might be applicable to his position. Worse his response shows he him self understands his support of talk without conditions borders on appeasement.

How might Bill Clinton have responded? He would wait until asked. And then say something like, well I have to agree, we can never negotiate with radicals or terrorists. I just wish he (Bush) would talk to legitimate heads of state. HT Big Lizards.

In the speech Obama's name was mentioned not. Obama did his own damage by creating the association in the public mind.

With regard to President Bush's speech before the Israeli Knesset, the Jerusalem Post's Herb Keinon wrote this: "Sometimes, when you're knee-deep in the day-to-day, when you're just struggling to get by, when you're facing forces that seem so much bigger than you, there is a need for someone from the outside - someone bigger and more powerful - to come by, pat you on the back, tell you that you are not alone, and remind you both of your inherent worth and that it is all inherently worth it.

That is what the Bush did Thursday in the Knesset."

Barack Obama heard told this: "Bush says I am an appeaser."

Nowhere in President Bush's speech did he mention Democrats or Obama. Yet, Barack Obama, that "brilliant" Harvardite, said President Bush called him and Democrats appeasers.

President Bush, a historian by education, analogized from today's terror situation to 1939, and his analogy was perfectly apropos. Within it may have been a fine trap into which the Democrats stepped. While the President did not state that Obama and the Democrats are appeasers, he left it entirely up to them to infer that his statement addressed their policy position. The result was that the cap fit, and they wore it. The Democrats proceeded to call themselves appeasers and so drew the world's attention to their foreign policy positions, particularly those of their weak candidate Obama.

The man whom the media has glorified for his high flown rhetoric (has anyone ever really listened to the illogical and disconnected ideas that flow from Obama?) responded not with congratulations to Israel, but with outrage and contumely. Unfortunately for the U.S. and Israel, a rhetorical war is the only kind of conflict Obama is prepared to wage; even with respect to that, he lacks the wit to discern when he should keep his mouth shut or brush aside media flights of fancy (he could have passed it off as this) with an amusing turn of phrase. Instead, the media's not-too-brilliant darling Barack Obama may have been hoodwinked into vociferously attaching the appeasement label to his own positions. No doubt what galls Obama is that he may have been had by a man the media and Democrats delight in disrespecting as an intellectual lightweight.

I wish I could argue that Obama has any kind of knowledge of history, but I cannot because he has not demonstrated it. What need does a messiah have to acquaint himself with details? Had Obama read history, he would never have articulated the foreign policy position that he has. Had Obama been genuinely given to deep intellectual thought, if pressed to respond, his response might have addressed the full context of President Bush's speech and not just the media sound bite. Had Obama been less thin-skinned, he would have swallowed his faux ire and not stuck a KICK ME, I'M AN APPEASER label on his back. Had Obama been what this country really needs in a president, he would not have his absurd stated foreign policy goal of talking to thugs and terrorist supporters without pre-condition. Since he lacks the specified qualities, Obama has done for himself what the GOP and McCain could not have successfully done: he has drawn a parallel between Neville Chamberlain, the symbol of Western appeasement leading up to WWII, and himself. He has drawn a parallel between an egotistical and anonymous appeaser of a U.S. senator and himself. Had Obama had the wit to be gracious, he would not be receiving airplay, which neither he nor his party wants, which will fix him in the public's mind as an APPEASER.

This whole media situation--intended to insult President Bush and minimize his status--reveals Obama's weakness, his ignorance, his disrespect for President Bush, his utter lack of a sense of irony, and his appalling naivete which makes him unsuited to lead this nation to anything else but ruin.

President Bush remarks continued..."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."

"Some people" would seem to include many member nations of the UN that have been consistently hostile to Israel. Those who proclaim that we need to adjust our attitudes to reject "cowboy diplomacy" and conform to an international consensus would seem to fit into the "some people" category too.

Mr. Obama, if the shoe fits wear it!

How can Obama still be harping on this? Who is giving him such bad advice? Can he really not see how ridiculous this argument makes him seem? I cannot for the life of me, understand how any Jews (regardless of their membership in the Democrat Party) can vote for this man! His lack of understanding scares me more than I can say.

BHO and the other leftists continue to label W as a "fearmonger". Well I am fearful, fearful of a BHO presidency where he has indicated he will surround himself with pacifists and appeasers; many leftovers from the Carter years. If we are preceived as weak and without conviction by our enemies we will be in great danger. Just like at home. If your children think you are without conviction, they will run right over you.

Appeasment does not work. We appeased the USSR after WWII and instead of driving them back inside their borders we condemned Eastern Europe to 60 years of communist hell; we appeased the communists in order to end the Korean War and look at the suffering there today; Carter appeased the mullahs during the Tehran embassy fiasco and look what that got us; and the grandaddy of then all-the appeasement of Germany leading up to WWII.

Call it whatever you want;courage of your convictions, cowboy diplomacy, threats of military action; whatever; it works.

"By so quickly responding with fury as he did, he drew attention to the possibility that the remark might be applicable to his position."

That's exactly what I thought. Now why in the world would Obama think that??

He also had the audacity (!) to claim he has never suggested negotiating with terrorits. Yet, Isn't Iran considered a terrorist, rogue state by our own State Department? Or am I missing something?

This feigned outrage by the Dems has long been planned. They are looking for any opporunity to tie McCain to Bush, and make this election about Bush Vs Obama. So they jumped on this opportunity according to their script, even though Obama was not even mentioned. First out came the noisemakers like Kerry and Pelosi claiming that Bush was out of bounds, then came McCain's predictable comments supporting the President, followed by Obama blasting the Bush/McCain policy as a failure. For Obama, it is mission accomplished.

The dems and Obama will keep up this Bush/McCain tie up at every opportunity throughout the campaign. This has nothing to do with foreign policy, it is a pure, predictable, and planned strategy by the dems. Don't be fooled.

One of Obama's principle charges was that Bush was taking politics beyond the nations shores.

This is a classic democrat strategy of using their advantage in controlling drive-by-media echo chamber.

First they accuse the republicans of doing something, then they let the echo increase to excruciating volumes, then they start doing it themselves.

Sadly, he can rest assured that the MSM will never expose how he and the democrats have cravenly used "politics beyond our nations shores" in their unrelenting war against the military.

Helen: Your entire comment was great. The last srntence says everything we need to know abot Obama.

I heard a fantastic quote in regards to this speech.

"When you toss a rock over the fence, the first dog that barks is the one that got hit."

In this case, that barking dog would be Obama. His instant response to Bush's statement only suggests that he's very well aware of his position to seek talks with leaders with terrorist ties.

Funny how not a single democrat has accused Bush of being wrong with his statement, only that it was an attack.

All you have to know is that Bush's comments were greeted with hearty, enthusiastic applause by the members of the Knesset. They know they are in the sights of Hamas, Hezbollah and all the other nut-job terrorists. Is Bush the only adult who gets it?