"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."
Although I think it was clear that the Present was making a political point, as long as everyone seems to be nit-picking what Buchanan said, I'll do the same.
No, Mr. President, Negotiating and appeasement are not the same. Buchanan was correct in making this point. Mr. President, you, your father, and many Presidents before have negotiated with terrorists and terrorist supporting countries. Were you just trying to give us the "false comfort of appeasement"? Did all of you think "some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along"?
Negotiating certainly does not imply "that the adversary has both legitimacy and legitimate claims". Prison guards negotiate with rioting prisoners. Police negotiate with hostage takers. Countries negotiate over many things including war and peace. There are no implications of legitimacy or legitimate claims, only an acceptance that the parties can do harm.
Some of you seem to be against any negotiations because either we, as a Country don't seem to be very good at it (just look at our negotiated "free" trade agreements) or that negotiations usually don't work. Both points are valid but not determinative.
Some of you seem quite upset because you have a visceral dislike of Buchanan or an emotional tie to the President. Neither of these lead to valid points in an argument.
I believe the President was flat out wrong in insinuating negotiation is the same as appeasement. I believe he was wrong in using the flaccid "Nazi" comparison when negotiating with Hitler was not the problem, making stupid agreements with him was. Buchanan was correct in pointing out both of President Bush's "mistakes".
I don't have a problem with the President saying what he did as he is a politician making a political point. I don't have any problem with what Buchanan said as he is a political commentator commenting on a political statement. Personally, I am not a huge fan of either one of them.
I addressed Pat’s appologist attitude with regard to Hitler’s actions in WWII. As for negotiating with terrorists, I DO NOT support that in any way shape or form. Not no, but HELL NO.
During negotiations, compromises are made. That means you give up part of your demands in the interest of peace. If you position was solid to begin with, you shouldn’t give up anything in the intest of peace. To do so would mean that future terrorism was a justified and proven method of political gain.
Want to force capitulation from 1 to 100%, just blow up some children. Want the world to buy off on servitude to terrorism, blow up a cruise ship, drop some people off a building, vaporize a market-place.
I’ll never back rewarding this in any fashion.
If we’re talking about the leaders of terrorist states, I say take them out with smart bombs. Put it on the record that the survival rate of terrorists and their sympathizers is less than thirty days after they are found out. That’s the only tactic to take.
Beyond this, the problem with taking a guy out of a spider hole and negotiating with him, is that you also grant him equal stature. If you have a President negotiating with some unknown terrorist by name, you have a President who has lost stature and a terrorist who has just gained stature.
The very act of negotiating grants parties equal status at the table. I am a world class terrorist. I just got the President of the United States to agree to negotiate with me man to man.
I’ll never buy off on that. Making some vile Satanic proxy a hero all over the Middle-East or throughout Asia is not my idea of limiting the power of terrorists.
Some of you seem quite upset because you have a visceral dislike of Buchanan or an emotional tie to the President. Neither of these lead to valid points in an argument.
There are some Bushbots, but I'm not one of them. I debated for (thanks to the timely intervention of Scott McConnel) and voted for Pat in 2000. I am no fan of Jorge Arbusto's democratization delusion.
The simple fact is that Pat has lost it.
Exactly. And therefore, in a classic bargaining game, negotiating may provide an alternative in the interest of bot parties to the mutual immolation that can be implicit in refusing to negotiate, as happened in WWII, through refusal to negotiate, and as we avoided in the Cold War through negotiation.