Fausta's blog

Faustam fortuna adiuvat
The official blog of Fausta's Blog Talk Radio show.

Saturday, May 17, 2008

The party of appeasement

At Real Clear Politics and Hot Air, Ed Morrissey points out Rookie mistakes again: Obama owns appeasement
No one in the US who runs for public office has suggested that the US break with Israel to appease terrorists. Obama certainly hasn't suggested that, and perhaps apart from the really lunatic fringes of both Left and Right, that notion doesn’t get any oxygen at all here. Obviously, Bush wasn't referring to American politicians in this passage, but instead politicians in Europe and elsewhere who have either an animus towards Israel or appreciation for dhimmitude. Nothing - and I mean nothing - in this speech points to any candidate or the Democratic Party, unless they identify themselves as the reference.
Let's see why:

The Democrat party has a long history of appeasement. You can look back to Jimmy Carter's entire administration, Madeline Albright's meetings with Arafat and Kim Jong-il, and many other instances. Let's not forget Nancy Pelosi's Hermes tour of Damascus. More recently, Jimmy Carter's "give Hamas a chance" tour and Bill Richardson's heartwarming handshake of Chavez continue to show you that the Dems can't stop loving the murderous thug-du-jour. As the Wall Street Journal said,
When the party's top four Democrats come roaring out of the blocks in unison, something has hit a nerve.
In this particular instance of Pres. Bush's speech, however, Marc Armbinder reports that President Bush was referring to Carter's Hamas junket when talking about appeasement. Noel Sheppard posted the entire transcript of Pres. Bush's speech.

Obama took it personal. Thick skin doesn't wear well on presidential candidates.

But the important thing here is that Obama himself has declared that he would hold unconditional face-to-face talks with Iran and that Hamas and Hezbollah have legitimate grievances (h/t Pamela); and that now he's saying that he's under "a false political attack" and that discussing his foreign policy is "dishonest and divisive" (emphasis added):
"I'm a strong believer in civility and I'm a strong believer in a bipartisan foreign policy, but that cause is not served with dishonest, divisive attacks of the sort that we've seen out of George Bush and John McCain over the last couple days,"
Absolutely not: Discussing where any Presidential candidate stands on foreign policy is an essential issue of a campaign, as it has world-wide repercussions.

The Obama campaign doesn't want people to discuss why Hamas is Betsy asks,
Why isn't it a legitimate question to ponder why Hamas supports Obama?
After all, Hamas is phone banking for Obama:


Indeed, we should be asking why do the Palestinians like Obama so much.

Ed says that the Obama campaign's made a rookie mistake in taking offense at "appeasement" charges. Or you can say that the Obamanians have identified themselves with appeasement to the point that when the word is mentioned, they hear their names called.

UPDATE
Via Patrick, Madeline Albright's 'Gossip Buddy' Drastically Misinterprets McCain

Digg!

Share on Facebook

Labels: , , , ,

5 Comments:

At 8:57 AM, Blogger Obi's Sister said...

This whole snit-fit is just astonishing. Maybe this will be what begins to sink his ship. If he can't see that a thinly veiled reference to SOMEONE ELSE is NOT about HIM, then I have no confidence in his potential presidency. Send him back to study hall!

 
At 9:17 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

As to Chavez-Richardson, see this interesting article on Chavez in a recent Foreign Affairs.


http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080301faessay87205/francisco-rodriguez/an-empty-revolution.html

 
At 10:53 AM, Blogger RHM said...

"Why isn't it a legitimate question to ponder why Hamas supports Obama?"

It's perfectly legitimate. I just don't think it has the punch you want it to have. It's reminds me of the 2004 elections when Republicans played up the notion that "Al Qaeda prefers Democrats".

Hate him for his policies, his actions, his wife etc. But it's empty to paint Obama as the "candidate of choice for our enemies". But, hey, at least it's not as bad as those who honestly think he is some sort of "Muslim Manchurian Candidate".

There's no need to feed speculation about "alleged connections". There are already plenty of reasons to dislike Obama. I do appreciate your perspective, however.

 
At 1:42 PM, Blogger Jungle Mom said...

The man is down right scary!!! His whole party is scary!

 
At 6:50 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Barack Obama is LOOKING FORWARD to debating McSame on foreign policy and national security. Why shouldn't he be? McSame supported every Bush policy and decision that have made Al Qaeda, Hamas and Iran EVEN STRONGER and MORE THREATENING enemies and that have weakened ours and Israel's national security.

80% of the American people have had it with Republican incompetence, arrogance, immorality, and greed. They are finally getting that Bush/Cheney/Rove has failed them in every way possible. Except for tax breaks for the elite, Bush hasn't done one good thing for the American people. Americans are through voting against their own economic best interests.

McSame is TOAST. That's part of Bush's legacy of being the WORST president in the history of our country.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home