Reactions to story from Flopping Aces

• 

  Give ‘em Hell, Bushie!

  http://redstaterighthand.wordpress.com/2008/05/19/give-em-he...
  109 days ago in Red (State) Right Hand · Authority: 4

  President George W. Bush seems to be feeling his oats. As a lame duck president that doesn’t have to worry about those pesky elections, he is taking bold stances on foreign policy that are absolutely right and long overdue. In a speech to the World Economic Forum in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, Bush took the opportunity to criticize the human rights records of Arab countries: “Too often in the Mideast, politics has consisted of one leader in power and the opposition in jail,” Bush said. “America is deeply concerned about the plight of political prisoners in this region, as well as democratic activists who are intimidated or repressed, newspapers and civil society organization that are shut down and dissidents whose voices are stifled.” The comments referred to Egypt, which arrested hundreds of members of the Muslim Brotherhood just prior to April elections.  Bush also challenged the Islamic practice of executing people who convert from Islam to other faiths, while contrasting it the religious freedom guaranteed by true democracies: “In our democracy, we would never punish a person for owning a Koran, and we would never issue a death sentence to someone for converting to Islam. Democracy does not threaten Islam or any other religion. Democracy is the only system of government that guarantees their protection.” In addition, Bush challenged Arab countries to promote greater equality for women. This comes only a few days after Bush caused a stir among paranoid Democrats with this phrase, uttered at the 60th birthday celebration of the the state of Israel: “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. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: “Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all 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.” Democrats went into a tizzy, thinking that the comment was directed at Barack Obama, who has declared on many occasions that he would meet with leaders of terrorist-supporting regimes like Iran without preconditions.  The White House firmly maintains that the comment was not directed at anyone in particular, but Obama and the Dems’ knee-jerk sensitivity to this issue illustrates how even they know in their hearts that Bush is right, and it’s driving them crazy. To all of which I say, “Give ‘em Hell, Bushie!”  It makes me proud to be an American when I see our President going out and challenging world leaders while promoting freedom and democracy around the world, especially when it is in front of a somewhat less-than-receptive audience.  Way to go!  This is the kind of bold rhetoric that I’d like to see more of, not only from Bush, but also from our Republican presidential nominee.  I think John McCain is starting to get the message.  Check out what he said in reaction to Obama’s position and the Dems’ hissy fit: “I think [it] is an unacceptable position, and shows that Senator Obama does not have the knowledge, the experience, [or] the background to make the kind of judgments that are necessary to preserve this nation’s security.” Well said.  Now that’s “straight talk.”  Let’s hope we hear a lot more of it as the campaign rolls on. Matt Latham Hat Tips:  Jerusalem Post New York Times Flopping Aces Related Articles: Jerusalem Post - Bush speech sparks US-Egypt tension New York Times - Bush’s Speech Prods Middle East Leaders Flopping Aces - Reaction to Bush Appeasement Speech American Thinker - Obama Tells 75,000 Oregonians Iran is “not a threat” to US WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance
• 

  Politicizing Foreign Policy?!?

  http://hammeringsparksfromtheanvil.blogspot.com/2008/05/poli...
  113 days ago in Sparks from the Anvil · Authority: 38

  “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.” -President Bush before the Israeli Knesset in a speech to celebrate Israel's 60th Birthday So what exactly did he say that was so terrible? The Obama campaign released a statement sharply criticizing Bush for these statements. “It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack,” it said. “George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the President's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel." Obama has said several times while campaigning for the Democratic nomination he would meet with “friends and foes” of the United States, a position his rivals, including Hillary Clinton, have scolded him for holding. “It’s time to end the politics of fear,” is one of Obama’s favorite responses criticisms pertaining to his open negotiation philosophy-- a refrain repeated in his Tuesday statement. The White House contends the President’s “appeasement” reference was not specifically directed towards Obama. “There are many who have suggested these types of negotiations with people that the president, President Bush, thinks we should not talk to,” White House Press Secretary Dana Perino told reporters in Israel. “I understand when you’re running for office you think sometimes the world revolves around you” Perino said. “That is not always true and it is not true in this case.” Ouch. Newsflash for Senator Obama: President Bush isn't running in '08; here's your political rival. Here's my favorite part with rousing applause: "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. Israel's population may be just over 7 million. But when you confront terror and evil, you are 307 million strong, because the United States of America stands with you." Blogging: Flopping Aces/Mike's America
• 

  The morons of the right forget who the Appeaser-In-Chief really is

  http://thinkingmeat.net/2008/05/16/the-morons-of-the-right-f...
  112 days ago in ThinkingMeat · It’s meat! And it thinks! · Authority: 19

  Yes, assclowns, I’m talking to you: Kit Lange, “TA”, Susan Duclos, Jim Hoft, Mike and Curt, and all you other ignorant wingnuts… there’s not a one of you who knows or understands history. George W. Bush, speaking before the Israeli Knesset, made the following statement: 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. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: “Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all 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. First off: The act of talking to another state, even an enemy, is not ‘appeasement’. It’s called ‘diplomacy’. Any discussion of ‘appeasement’ in the context of Nazi Germany inevitably brings to mind the actions of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. Chamberlain did, indeed, employ appeasement in his dealings with Hitler — but not in the act of talking to Hitler. The actual act of appeasement was the signing of the Munich Agreement, which ceded part of Czechoslovakia to Nazi Germany. It’s a good bet that Bush and the yammering herd that adore him have no real grasp of this historical reality. Let’s see who has been appeasing terrorists in the last several years: Appeasement is surrendering vital interests to bullying and threats. That is what George Bush did in early 2001 when he removed the US Navy from Bahrain when intelligence had picked up al-Qaeda chatter suggesting attacks. That is what he did when, having received the report that the prior attack on the USS Cole was al-Qaeda directed, he decided (if one believes this testimony is even plausible) “not to swat at flies” as National Security Director Rice described their policy of not retaliating for that attack. At all. Having thus appeased al-Qaeda by scadaddling from Bahrain because of cellphone chatter, and by leaving unaddressed the USS Cole attack, bin Laden must have viewed Bush as the “Appeaser-in-Chief”. When he mustered no response to pre-warnings about an attack on the United States — contrasted with the Clinton Administrations attention to millenium day attack threats that they thwarted — bin Laden had freedom to operate. And, then Bush proved himself to bin Laden as a complete patsy by not sending 600 Army Rangers to capture bin Laden when they had him surrounded at Tora Bora. Ooooooo, appeasement bad... unless it is Bush doing it. There will, of course, be those poor souls, bereft of the skill or critical thinking, who insist on confusing diplomacy with appeasement. Well, if we adopt that standard, who has been engaging in ‘appeasement’? That’s right… George W. Bush: Actually, as it happens, there is a glaring inconsistency in Bush’s rhetoric about negotiating with terrorists. Leaving aside his negotiations with “evil” North Korea, Bush’s only tangible accomplishment in the Middle East is the U.S. breakthrough with Libya. Bush’s people secretly negotiated with Colonel Gadhafy — a long-standing state-sponsor of terrorism — and convinced him to abandon Libya’s nuclear weapons program. This is a matter of public record — I’ve heard the full story myself in detail from the mouth of Gadhafy’s son, Seif al-Islam. An American embassy is open again in Tripoli. Gadhafy is busy building luxury vacation resorts rather than nuclear bombs. If that’s appeasement, maybe we need more of it. Another case is the one that concerns the Palestinian group Fatah and its late leader, Yasser Arafat. When Bush took office in 2001, he chose to abandon Clinton’s policy of mediating the Israeli-Palestinian dispute or dealing with Arafat. The next six years saw some of the worst violence in the history of the conflict and the rise of the Islamist group Hamas. After all that damage was done, Bush decided to engage Fatah once again — launching the intensive last-ditch Annapolis peace process. After all the tragic dead-ends, it seems Bush decided that negotiations were worth pursing after all. For his part, McCain is eager to show his disdain for including Hamas in talks. He ridicules Obama for having been “endorsed” by Hamas — an unworthy cheap shot distorting sympathetic comments expressed by a Hamas official. Yet the idea is a far cry from appeasement. In a Haaretz poll in February, 64% of Israelis themselves said they favored talking to Hamas. Then there’s the case of Iran. Bush calls Iran’s leaders part of the “axis of evil” and with McCain’s chiming in with support suggests that Obama is another Neville Chamberlain for indicating that he would talk with them. Maybe Bush forgot that he has sent State Department envoys to negotiate with Iranian counterparts on several occasions, related to the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. In addition, Condi Rice has officially offered Iran high-level negotiations with the U.S. on one condition: it halts its uranium-enrichment program. Woah. George Bush is just an appeasin’ machine. Where’s the outrage, wingnuts?
• 

  In the final reckoning, the appeasocrats will always always get more killed than the churchillicons

  http://guilianiguiliani2008.blogspot.com/2008/05/in-final-re...
  113 days ago in WAKE UP, OVENLOADERS · Authority: 2

  President Bush Speaks the Truth of Appeasement in Israel Democrats are outraged! You can usually tell when President Bush hits the bullseye of truth. Democrats erupt into childish fits. They don’t like it when the President points out how little they have learned from the lessons of history and how dangerously misguided liberal policies are. When President Bush told the Israeli Knesset “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,” Obama and friends went into attack mode. Obama made a statement stressing the need for tough diplomacy (talk). Nancy Pelosi (whose visit to Syria a year ago encouraged the current killings by Hezbollah in Lebanon) said that President Bush’s remarks were “beneath the dignity of the office.” This is the same woman whose sense of dignity permits Code Pink circus freaks to run wild through the halls of Congress. Senator Joe Biden (D-DE), demonstrating the dignity of his office called President Bush’s remarks “bullshit.” Here are President Bush’s remarks in context: Excerpt from: President Bush Addresses Members of the Knesset The Knesset Jerusalem White House transcript May 15, 2008 …The fight against terror and extremism is the defining challenge of our time. It is more than a clash of arms. It is a clash of visions, a great ideological struggle. On the one side are those who defend the ideals of justice and dignity with the power of reason and truth. On the other side are those who pursue a narrow vision of cruelty and control by committing murder, inciting fear, and spreading lies. This struggle is waged with the technology of the 21st century, but at its core it is an ancient battle between good and evil. The killers claim the mantle of Islam, but they are not religious men. No one who prays to the God of Abraham could strap a suicide vest to an innocent child, or blow up guiltless guests at a Passover Seder, or fly planes into office buildings filled with unsuspecting workers. In truth, the men who carry out these savage acts serve no higher goal than their own desire for power. They accept no God before themselves. And they reserve a special hatred for the most ardent defenders of liberty, including Americans and Israelis. And that is why the founding charter of Hamas calls for the “elimination” of Israel. And 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 away their words. It’s 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 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. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: “Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all 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. (Applause.) We don’t need to go back to the Second World War to find that appeasement fails. The Middle East is littered with examples. Obama criticized Bush, while praising President Reagan’s “tough, principled, and direct diplomacy - to pressure countries like Iran and Syria.” I’m currently reading former Reagan Secretary of State George Shultz’s memoir “Turmoil and Triumph” (it’s only 68 cents at Amazon, even Democrats bitter over their economic circumstances can afford it). Again and again Secretary Shultz describes how progress in the Middle East was undermined by attitudes of appeasement and weakness expressed by the usual withdrawal and surrender crowd in the United States. Shultz makes it clear that our failure in the Middle East resulted from a policy that perverted Teddy Roosevelt’s “speak softly and carry a big stick” to “speak softly and tie the big stick behind your back.” Currently in Lebanon, Hezbollah is running rampant at the direction of and with funding, training and arms supplied by Syria and Iran. You might not have heard about the conflict with many many innocents killed because the media which focused almost exclusively on Hezbollah casualties when Israel defended itself two years ago isn’t interested when Hezbollah is killing Lebanese. Since Israel pulled out of Lebanon after being attacked, the United Nations was supposed to step in and address the danger of armed Hezbollah militias. Yet, nothing was done. Nothing but talk. Nothing but appeasement. Clearly, President Bush’s speech in Israel has the ring of truth. We’ve all seen it with our own eyes for decades. To borrow a Reagansim: Peace does not come without strength and the will to use it. There is no question that Democrats do not understand the benefits of a strong military with the will to use it to advance the cause of peace. The consequence of their appeasement is the very death and war they claim to wish to prevent.

Advertise on Technorati

Advertise on Technorati