What’s Behind the 'Appeasement' Kefluffel?

The New Media Journal ^ | May 20, 2008 | Ted Belman

[NewMediaJournal]

Reuters recently reported that Democrats were outraged by President Bush’s remarks:

“America stands with you in breaking up terrorist networks and denying the extremists sanctuary. And America stands with you in firmly opposing Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions. Permitting the world’s leading sponsor of terror to possess the world’s deadliest weapon would be an unforgivable betrayal of future generations. For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon...”

“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 in 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...”

This outrage is without merit.

This issue, namely the different approaches to national security, has been at the forefront of the debate between the GOP and the Democrats throughout Bush’s presidency. It is only natural that Bush defends his approach and record. Obama can’t bash Bush’s approach throughout his campaign and not expect a comeback.

[snarks_when_bored]

What’s Behind the 'Appeasement' Kefluffel?

It's 'kerfluffle'...

[Williams]

The left has an agenda to protect Syria and Iran, this was evident when we invaded Iraq. It makes no sense but that is the left.

[Always Right]

Obama can’t bash Bush’s approach throughout his campaign and not expect a comeback.

Obama and Democrats can call Bush any and every name. But for Bush even to imply that the policy that many Democrats advocate is an unforgivable sin. How can liberals even make these arguments with a straight face.

[PGalt]

Thanks for posting. Interesting information. Kurtzer, Ross & Obama jumped the shark.

[redpoll]

Any Leninist would recognize what the Democrats are doing. It’s called agitation propoganda, sometimes called “agitprop” for short. Agitprop is designed to inflame emotions and distract the “masses” from focusing on the issues at hand. Instead of discussion about appeasement, the discussion is changed to Bush’s supposedly uncouth remarks attacking a candidate. It doesn’t matter if the agitprop is true, possibly true, or an outright lie - all that matters is that the “masses” are directing their emotions in the direction desired by the ruling party.

It’s sad, really.

[Random Access]

Democrats are not in favor of appeasement. They strive for unconditional surrender. Appeasement is far too aggressive for them.

[Paperdoll]

Democrats were outraged? What Democrats? You mean those anti-Americans who meet under the dome in Wa. D.C.? There are no more Democrats. There are no more Republicans. There are only anti-American Redemocans, better known as suicidal Socialists slyly leading the sheeple to the edge of the cliff.

[caseinpoint]

Close. I think it’s kerfuffle, without that first “l”.

[ishabibble]

From the article:

>>Obama responded in an e-mail to reporters, saying it is sad that President Bush would use Israel’s 60th anniversary to launch a false political attack:

>>“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.”<<

HAS NOT SUPPORTED “ENGAGEMENT” WITH THE TERRORISTS? What do you call a@@kissing to Iran, with no preconditions? As John Bolton said last night on H&C, Barry now calls it “preparation” so he has simply changed the wording.

Barry wants to grovel before the Islamic Jihad. Say WHATEVER you want about John McCain, he's not going to EVER give in to those Muslim b@stards.

[snarks_when_bored]

Close. I think it’s kerfuffle, without that first “l”.

Nope:  Kerfluffle

[Jeff Chandler]

Actually, “kerfluffle” is probably too strong a word. This is a “brouhaha”.

[nathanbedford]

I posted this yesterday. It represents my view of, What’s Behind the 'Appeasement' Kefluffel?:

Why has no one said the truth about the Democrats overreaction to President Bush's appeasement speech before the Knesset?

The truth is there is nothing new in the speech. Nor was it new because the President of the United States made a speech against appeasement while he was abroad. But the Democrats are right, it is not what President Bush said but where he said it. The problem was not that he was abroad, the problem is that he was abroad in Israel.

President Bush's speech blew away the gauzy illusions with which Democrats had contrived to obscure the fact that there foreign policy, which amounted to appeasement, directly imperils Israel. The Democrats reacted like scalded cats to this shaft of truth because their party is nothing but an amalgam of special interest groups, especially racial and ethnic interest groups. The President needed not say more than the truth and he threatened to drive a wedge between Democrats and their most important constituency. Not important for its numbers, although their numbers can tell in industrial states and in Florida and California, American Jews are important for their influence and contributions. No group supplies more money and more intellectual candlepower to the Democrat party than do American Jews.

The Democrats' hysteria, not limited to Barak Obama, included all the luminaries and big mouths who could find a microphone including Senators Dodd, Biden and even former Senator Daschle. N B: the most prominent spokesman leapt to the defense of Obama, including Obama himself, were themselves not Jewish. One can only surmise that this was not accidental. Their hysteria was justified, not by the facts of the matter, but by the implications for the Democratic Party. President Bush by merely stating commonplaces about appeasement threatened to drive a wedge between the Democrat party and its most important constituency group. These Democrats are well advised to be nervous because their position with respect to their Jewish constituents has been anomalous since they broke with America and Israel over the war in Iraq. Ultimately, such a rift, if it becomes complete could undo the Democrat coalition entirely as it dissolves the glue that holds these disparate groups together.

It is also significant that their nominee, who voted against the war and who speaks loudly against it every chance he gets, is also associated with a church with flagrant anti-Semitic doctrine. Obama himself is tainted by his relationship not just with his anti-Semitic, anti-Israeli minister, but by his association, direct or indirect, with the anti-Semite, Minister Farrakhan. So Obama is vulnerable on the issue of anti-Semitism. These Democrats were terrified that the Jewish community in America would begin to see that there traditional affinity to the Democrat party is unrequited by their nominee.

Hence, the reaction was so disproportionate to the imagined affront. It was critical that the matter be nipped in the bud and treated as a trespass of good sportsmanship by the president rather than the searing indictment it could become if the Jewish community reflected on the matter and concluded that the interests of Israel and, indeed, their own interests as Jews, require them to reconsider their support of the liberal side.

[snarks_when_bored]

Actually, “kerfluffle” is probably too strong a word. This is a “brouhaha”.

(grin) But could it really be no more than a to-do?

[EagleUSA]

This issue, namely the different approaches to national security,.....
:::::::
Actually ONE is an approach to NATIONAL SECURITY...the other is WEAK APPEASEMENT, CAPITULATION, AND NATIONAL COWARDICE underlined by a total disinterest and understanding of the concept of national defense and its necessity.

Extremely dangerous and potentially disasterous.

[caseinpoint]

Interesting. I think we have a conflict of dictionaries:

Webster’s New Millennium™ Dictionary of English - Cite This Source - Share This Main Entry: kerfuffle
Part of Speech: n
Definition: disorder, commotion; also written curfuffle, kafuffle, gefuffle

Your source is an urban dictionary. Is that an authoritative one on the English language or a compendium of modern usage? I think we are both right.

[babble-on]

Its somewhere between a Rochambeau and a panjandrum

[expatpat]

The left has an agenda to protect Syria and Iran, this was evident when we invaded Iraq. It makes no sense but that is the left.

Perhaps there is an incentive via Arab and Iranian money....

[snarks_when_bored]

There are examples of both spellings out there. I find 'kerfluffle' to be the appropriate spelling for at least two reasons: (1) it's slightly more difficult to pronounce than 'kerfuffle', lending some weight to its sense; and (2) it contains the word 'fluff', which can mean both (a) "something of no consequence", and (b) "an error or blunder".

That's my case, caseinpoint...

[caseinpoint]

Well, at least we agree the original headline was in error. ;o)

[snarks_when_bored]

Its somewhere between a Rochambeau and a panjandrum

When thesauri attack!

Or:  When thesauruses attack!

[snarks_when_bored]

Cry the beloved consensus!

[dighton]

Watch out when it escalates to donnybrook.

[snarks_when_bored]

Watch out when it escalates to donnybrook.

In the empire of the pismire, the queen is king!

I have no idea why I wrote that, what it means, or how it relates to your post. What the hey...

[caseinpoint]

LOL Boy did that bring back high school English memories.

[ssaftler]

Nope: Kerfluffle

Close but no cigar. Kerfuffle describes this non-tussle better than Kerfluffle.

In reality, where in Dubya's speech does he accuse any SITTING senator, Republican or Democrat, of consorting with the enemy? His reference was to "a senator" back in the 1930s.

As usual, Mr. Thin-Skin is overreacting.

[shineon]

They got tired of the word “flap”. You can only quell a flap so many times.

[capydick]

Obama can’t bash Bush’s approach throughout his campaign and not expect a comeback.

Well - Barry and his media whore's dont want a comeback. They just expect to bash President Bush and have their comments taken as Gospel.

[cyberella]

Awesome video:

The same kind of terrorists who support Obama did this:
http://www.frugalsites.net/911/attack/
Never apologize for them.
Never appease them.
Never forget.

[cyberella]

Awesome video:

The same kind of terrorists who support Obama did this:
http://www.frugalsites.net/911/attack/
Never apologize for them.
Never appease them.
Never forget.

[cyberella]

Awesome video:

The same kind of terrorists who support Obama did this:
http://www.frugalsites.net/911/attack/
Never apologize for them.
Never appease them.
Never forget.

[FFranco]

Through the great foresight of President Bush, we can expect an attack on Iran before the end of his term to wipe out their nuclear capacity and the bases used to support the Iraq insurgency. I would not be surprised if this were not followed up with an attack on Syria to destroy their capacity to interfere with our Iraq operations.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

I like John Bolton's comment...see this thread for more:

John Bolton on Appeasement

The Comment:

“I think President Bush hit the nail on the head in Jerusalem, and I think the nails are complaining now”.

[x]

Some of the flak which landed on the senator was directed against his lobbyists, whose arrival to woo Israeli and Jewish support was timed to coincide with the presidential participation in Israel’s anniversary celebrations.

Bush felt that his gesture to honor Israel had been used for internal American political sparring and he struck back.

According to DEBKAfile’s political sources, Bush was furious when he found out that both Obama and Hillary Clinton had sent representatives to the international conference in Jerusalem to solicit campaign supporters in Israel.

That's a stretch. Is that story really worth the pixels it's printed in? A President of the United States has a lot of ways to make his displeasure known short of inserting it into a speech before a foreign parliament.

[astounded]

I’m thinking “dust-up”, the ever popular “tiff”, or the revealing “tempest in a teapot”...

Or, it could be “snit”, which goes well with twit,which is what Obama is.

[snarks_when_bored]

I like that:  Obama had a twit snit.

[hildy123]

President Bush hit a nerve when speaking to the Israeli Knesset earlier this month to commemorate the 60th anniversy of Israel. The Democrats were enraged. There reaction tells me that President Bush said something right. Let’s go back in time to figure out why the Democrats are so incensed about his speech. In September 1938 British Prime Minster Neville Chamberlin, French Prime Minister Edouard Daladier, Reich Fuehrer Adolf Hitler and the “Duce”, Bonito Mussolini negotiated the Munich Accord to avoid war. The accord required Czechoslovakia to grant the Sudetenland back to Germany and in return, Hitler would not attack Czechoslovakia.
Incidentally, the Czechoslovakian government was neither invited nor consulted, at Hitler’s request. On September 29, 1938, the Munich Accords was signed. Germany was granted the Sudetenland. On March 15 1939, Germany invaded and conquered the rest of Czechoslovakia and the world did nothing. This was the pre-curser to World War 2 and the resulting Holocaust.

Fast forward to President Bush’s speech in Israel. Quote “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”. U.S. Senator William Borah –R-Idaho.
That’s right a Republican said that. Fortunately, we have learned from our mistakes, the Democrats have not. Vietnam! Barack Obama has repeatedly said, he would talk with these despots around the world without pre-conditions. He claims that open dialogue would be better than war. I would like to agree but that is not reality. When you have dialoged with the likes of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad you have appeasement and simply a delaying effect to war that benefits the enemies of America and Israel.

As President Bush stated historical fact the Democrats when into orbit they defended Barack Obama and the party from the allegations of appeasement even though, Barack Obama’s name was never brought up, even once. It struck a nerve with the party of appeasement and defeat.

President Bush had every right, before the Israeli Knesset, to invoke the invalid doctrine of appeasement, since, it allowed the Holocaust to continue unabated and lead to the founding of Israel 60 years ago. It was a piece of history particularly apropos to the audience. That some take exception to that puts them in league with the perpetrators of the Holocaust.