Posted on 05/19/2008 5:25:44 PM PDT by crazyhorse691
The president makes a clumsy reference to Nazi Germany before Israeli lawmakers Monday, May 19, 2008
E xquisitely timed, this was not.
Politicians and commentators do a disservice to history when they evoke the Third Reich to make political points, as if American policy questions can be equated to state-sponsored genocide. Such comparisons dull the uniqueness of the horrors visited upon Jews, gypsies and others during the dark years between Kristallnacht and the Allies' capture of Berlin.
But there stood the POTUS, on the 60th anniversary of the founding of the state of Israel, addressing that country's national parliament, groping for the comparison that would illustrate his disdain for American diplomatic initiatives in the Middle East, efforts proposed at various times by politicians from Barack Obama to John McCain.
"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," the president declared. "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."
Perhaps the president and his speechwriters thought Israelis would welcome the analogy to the terrible era that led directly to the founding of the Jewish state. But more likely, he wanted to talk tough at the expense of some domestic critics.
Sadly, his misguided comments have bolstered the impression that he has little understanding of the differences among Adolf Hitler, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Attila the Hun, Professor Moriarty and the Joker.
Tastelessness aside, it's worth considering who made these remarks condemning diplomacy. He is a president who seized upon a terrible American tragedy almost seven years ago as a pretext for invading a country that had nothing to do with the attacks of Sept. 11. He sent American troops into two countries to help topple a pair of contemptible regimes, but uncorked a cauldron of violence and ethnic hatred that has taken scores of thousands of lives and radicalized hundreds of thousands.
And he will leave office in January with no lasting solution to the damage that occurred on his watch. Apparently, that's preferable to having a direct conversation with regimes of which we disapprove.
McCain, the Republican nominee-in-waiting, has, in the past, urged conversations between America and Hamas. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has urged "unofficial" discussions between America and Iran. And of course, Democrats like Obama have recommended opening a dialogue with Ahmadinejad.
Mr. Bush, you've said enough. Don't you have business back home on the ranch?
When you get this kind of reaction you know that you hit a nerve.
Leftist panty-waists are all twisted over the reference to the late 1930s and appeasement of Hitler, as though it’s way out of line. In reality, Hamas & Hizbullah & Iran’s leaders and their fellow jihad-scum are far MORE openly genocidal toward the Jews than was Hitler in the late 30s (he mostly had to disguise his intent and did not usually publicize the Holocaust for fear of arousing opposition). Sure, the jihadists do not now have the kind of forces that Hitler had, but their intentions are similar and the comparison with the inappropriateness of appeasement is quite on target.
Bush never used 911 as a pretext for invading Iraq. The author(s) is a moron.
“He is a president who seized upon a terrible American tragedy almost seven years ago as a pretext for invading a country that had nothing to do with the attacks of Sept. 11. “
Wonder what they would be saying if W didn’t remove Saddam. I think they’ll get a hint when Obambi is staring down the barrel of an Iranian nuke and trying to talk Israel into trusting him to handle it.
Oh, please.
If it was President Bill who said the exact same thing, you would be creaming your jeans over it.
“And he will leave office in January with no lasting solution to the damage that occurred on his watch.”
I think conquering two countries and replacing their repressive regimes with democratic governments is a Real Solution and a solution that needs to be applied to all oppressive governments in the Middle East and the World.
I doubt Barry O. has the b@lls to even try.
This Lefty moron is stating the truth about the Democrats response to Islamic terrorism. After the 9/11 attacks, if Gore was President he would have talked to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. He would have invited them into the Oval Office where he would have gotten down on his hands and knees and had them whip him as he screamed, “I am a dirty Infidel!”
3rd Grade P’sOS!
Oh please. The Democrats have even called Bush Hitler incarnate. An oblique reference to appeasement which did not even mention Hussein has their panties all in a wad. Must have hit close to home!
Now you know what terrorists loved the Portland area. The police couldn’t find them but the local sheriff did.
And this explains why 70,000 mentally ill people turned out for Barack Bananarama.
God, spare the land but get rid of Oregonians. They are worthless, and take Seattle and California with you too.
We will charge it off to saving the environment.
Meanwhile Obama responds by making numerous analogies that are either off point or downright fictitious. He claims to be following in the footsteps of FDR, JFK, Nixon and Reagan in being willing to meet without conditions with our enemies. What on earth is he talking about?
FDR never met with Hitler, Mussolini or Tojo. True, we normal diplomats were meeting with the Japanse in the fall of 1941, and FDR did send a personal letter to the Emperor pleading for peace and an end to Japanese aggression. That negotiation was sadly interrupted on Sunday, Dec. 7 1941. Perhaps Obama is confusing FDR's meetings with Stalin. However Stalin was at the time an ally, not an enemy. The cold war would not start until 2 years after FDR's death.
Kennedy did meet early in his term with Kruschev. Soon thereafter Krushchev decided to place nuclear missiles in Cuba. The summit was apperently not terribly successful in persuading Premier K. to end his hostility to the west.
Nixon did indeed meet with Mao, but only after careful preparation, and with a specific goal in mind. Soviet and Chinese troops had recently fought a border war, and Nixon realized an opportunity to split the communist world. He know what to expect, what he wanted to achieve, and what he was willing to give to get it (ending recognition of Nationalist China as the legitimate government. Nixon was engaging in high stakes real politik, not “let's get together and talk things over” optimism.
Ronald Reagan? Remember those early Reagan summits with Soviet leaders? Breshnev? Chernenko? Yuriup Andropov? No? Not surprising. All three died in office without every meeting with Reagan. In fact the Democrats weeped and wailed and tried to make the fact that Reagan didn't meet with them an issue in 1984. Of course, Reagan did eventually meet with Gorby, but only after a strategic victory had been achieved in the Cold War, and he determined he was dealing with a stable leadership that was not ready to abandon it's intransigent hostility.
If anyone has shown themselves historically ignorant, it is Obama; not to mention the editors of the Oregonian.
Groping was the previous President you Oregonian twits.
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.
I think you are fooling yourself on that statement.
The formal pretext for Iraq was WMD's. There is all manner of speculation on what his true motives were: Oil, revenge etc, but it is just OPINION. Bush Admin publicly denied any connection between Saddam and 911 prior to the invasion and also afteward. It may be true that Bush really did think there was a connection, but his formal reasoning for the invasion was not 911. The moronic author states his OPINION as fact.
Ok. In that sense you are correct.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.