News Beneath the dignity of the Office of the President

[ThomasT]

That doesn't sound beneath the dignity of the Office of the President to me.

Bush himself is beneath what we would like the dignity of the Office of the President to be if it actually had any dignity, which after Reagan, Clinton, and Bush it doesn't any more.

A particularly ironic statement is:
" ... 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."

Of course Bush is characterizing himself and his regime as "those who defend the ideals of justice and dignity with the power of reason and truth."

But we all know that he and his group are actually "committing murder, inciting fear, and spreading lies."

The reason that Palestinians and Iraqis despise the United States and Israel is not at all complicated. The U.S. and Israel have stolen or destroyed their homes and their homelands and murdered their friends and relatives.

The fact that Bush hasn't been impeached is a testimonial to the complacency and hypocrisy of the American people.

 

[Art]

Some of Bush's mutterings would be funny if they weren't so tragic. Following on from his fawning diatribe to the Knesset he gave a speech in Egypt criticising his hosts

Winding up a five-day trip to the region, Bush took a strikingly tougher tone with Arab nations than he did with Israel in a speech Thursday to the Knesset. Israel received effusive praise from the president while Arab nations heard a litany of U.S. criticisms mixed with some compliments.

"Too often in the Middle East, politics has consisted of one leader in power and the opposition in jail," Bush said in a speech to 1,500 global policymakers and business leaders at this Red Sea beach resort. That was a clear reference to host Egypt, where main secular opposition figure Ayman Nour has been jailed and President Hosni Mubarak has led an authoritarian government since 1981.

The oppressed opposition being in the main the Muslim Brotherhood whose credo is

Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.

Egypt had planned elections for 2005 but abandoned them because of the strong support for this group.
Hmmm just the sort of party the US would want in power in Egypt

He then added

"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 organizations that are shut down and dissidents whose voices are stifled," Bush said.

Hmm Guantanamo Bay ring a bell??

Then this Gem

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, on Air Force One with Bush returning to Washington, said there were serious peace negotiations going on in private and that she expected them to intensify in the months ahead. She said Bush inserted the wording in the speech that "I believe" the Palestinians will build a democracy, as a sign of his confidence that will happen.

Perhaps someone should tell Bush the Palestinians had free and democratic elections but the US didn't like the results.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hkf--m78S6F3LZAcz4sVHGGCQSTgD90OCSSO0

All in all Bush seems to have completely lost touch with reality (assuming he ever was in touch).

 

[chemisttree]

I guess I'm feeling pretty complacent...

 

[Art]

You mean the unofficial 'talks' through a third party? I thought it was http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79BAFC32-1E08-490B-B3E3-A846D8254413.htm" but maybe not. Either way, I don't think that counts as 'dialogue'. Telling a mediator to say, "Before we talk you have to do this and that," doesn't equate to 'talks' in my mind.

Do you have a reference for the Egytian mediation?

My mistake, I meant the talks you now admit to but claimed were lies, were being mediated through Turkey as referenced in the links I provided. .

 

[seycyrus]

Bush himself is beneath what we would like the dignity of the Office of the President to be if it actually had any dignity, which after Reagan, Clinton, and Bush it doesn't any more.

A bunch of opinionated claptrap.

A particularly ironic statement is:
" ... 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."

So, you are saying that Al-Quaida is actually the purveyor of justice and dignity. that's a bunch of bs.

The reason that Palestinians and Iraqis despise the United States and Israel is not at all complicated. The U.S. and Israel have stolen or destroyed their homes and their homelands and murdered their friends and relatives.

Oh yeah, that's right. And to show us just how much they hate us, the go around and murder their friends and relatives.

Let's strike at the US! Where's the nearest civilian supermarket?

Such obvious stupidity.

 

[chemisttree]

The oppressed opposition being in the main the Muslim Brotherhood whose credo is...

Egypt had planned elections for 2005 but abandoned them because of the strong support for this group.
Hmmm just the sort of party the US would want in power in Egypt

Just a touch-up here, Art. Bush was referring to Ayman Nour, head of the secular liberal party, Al-Ghad. I believe that the Muslim Brotherhood is an illegal organization in Egypt.

 

[Art]

Just a touch-up here, Art. Bush was referring to Ayman Nour, head of the secular liberal party, Al-Ghad. I believe that the Muslim Brotherhood is an illegal organization in Egypt.

They stood as independents in the canceled 2005 elections and were by far the best supported opposition group.

In reference to Ayman Nour you're not suggesting it's okay if Egypt suppresses some opposition groups but not others are you?? Such a view would hardly represent freedom and democracy.

 

[Gokul43201]

Oh, I thought we were calling people 'virtually illiterate' if we didn't like them.

That's a pretty bizarre definition!

There is no evidence that James is 'virtually illiterate' in this clip.

Okay, what do you call it if a political commentator appearing on TV to talk about a speech involving the appeasement of Hitler shows not a shred of knowledge about the Munich Treaty, the Sudetenland problem, the prevailing opinion on Versailles or anything related to what actually was talked about in 1938, by the appeasers?

He actually answered it about half way through the 'interview'. James said that talking to Hitler enabled, energized and made it easier for Hitler to advance in the ways that he advanced. "It was appeasement", "He's talking about appeasement", "He was an appeaser, Chris," he said. All true.

It may all be true, but absolutely none of it answered the question.

Chris: James, what is two times three?
James: Chris, he enabled and energized and enabled...and energized! That's what he did Chris. It's all about appeasement. He was an appeasing appeaser, Chris.
Chris: James, can you tell me what two times three is?
James: I won't let you box me in, Chris. I know what you're trying to do here. And he was an appeaser.

When James finally uttered the words "I don't know..." Matthews immediately cut him off. He had his soundbite and nothing else mattered.

Yes, Matthews was being too kind to him. I think it would have been more accurate for it to have ended with James never acknowledging that he was ignorant about the subject he was appearing on TV to talk about (and that's what he went on to do with his follow up about what he didn't know.)

What is to be gained by talks with the likes of these? Remember, Bush's statement was specifically aimed at negotiations with terrorists and radicals. Iran, Hezbollah and Hammas are well-described by those terms.

So were the jihadis of Afghanistan in the 80s, Ferdinand Marcos, Mao Zedong, "Dear Mr. Chairman" Kim Jong Il and Saddam Hussein (all of whom were "appeased" by Republican Administrations).

I'm so waiting for Bush to fire Bob Gates this week, for urging that we find ways to sit down and talk with Ahmedinejad. Can't have an appeaser for Sec Def, can we?

 

[drankin]

Should we talk to terrorists? Seems reasonable enough, but to what end? Convince them not to terrorize?

Should we negotiate with terrorists? It's been our long standing policy that we do not. Should that change? If so, why now?

And please, no nonsense about how WE are terrorists. The distinction is pretty clear and the argument naive.

 

[mheslep]

Winding up a five-day trip to the region, Bush took a strikingly tougher tone with Arab nations than he did with Israel in a speech Thursday to the Knesset. Israel received effusive praise from the president while Arab nations heard a litany of U.S. criticisms mixed with some compliments.

"Too often in the Middle East, politics has consisted of one leader in power and the opposition in jail," Bush said in a speech to 1,500 global policymakers and business leaders at this Red Sea beach resort. That was a clear reference to host Egypt, where main secular opposition figure Ayman Nour has been jailed and President Hosni Mubarak has led an authoritarian government since 1981.

Hmmm just the sort of party the US would want in power in Egypt

US State Dept. has been after Eygpt for this jailed parliamentarian; even the news link you post says Pres. Bush was specifically referring to a secular figure. You should retract that part.

Then this Gem Perhaps someone should tell Bush the Palestinians had free and democratic elections but the US didn't like the results.

Nor did the EU, who also cut off funding to the Palestinian govt. given its continued clear statements that Israel can not be allowed to exist. Again you should retract.

 

[mheslep]

"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 organizations that are shut down and dissidents whose voices are stifled," Bush said.

He then added Hmm Guantanamo Bay ring a bell??

Yes, yes they're untold thousands of democratic activists, newspaper owners, and civil society members locked away in Guantanamo.

 

[chemisttree]

That's a pretty bizarre definition!

So you really do think he is virtually illiterate? That's pretty bizarre!

Okay, what do you call it if a political commentator appearing on TV to talk about a speech involving the appeasement of Hitler...

Do you need to know the history of the Munich Treaty of 1938 to know that the American Senator's statement regarding Hitler amounted to the false comfort of appeasement? This statement, made as Hitler had already gobbled up Czechoslovakia and was at that moment moving in Poland? Do you really need to know what Chamberlain did wrong in 1939? (it was 1938, BTW) That's just pathetic hit piece journalism.

...shows not a shred of knowledge about the Munich Treaty, the Sudetenland problem, the prevailing opinion on Versailles or anything related to what actually was talked about in 1938, by the appeasers?

And you think this important, WHY? Perhaps James is not such a good political commentator. I certainly wouldn't refer to him regarding history but that is not 'illiterate'. So, why did you call him virtually illiterate again? Because he didn't know what Chamberlain did wrong in 1939? That was the question, you know. "What did Neville Chamberlain do wrong in 1939?" was the question. He wasn't asked, "What is meant by 'appeasement'?" Only later did Matthews correct himself and stammer, "...or 1938?" Why did Matthews ask a totally unimportant question regarding James' historical knowledge of the term 'appeasement' and how it referred to what Chamberlain did wrong in 1939 (errr... 1938)? Anyway, that's pretty far from what I would consider to be 'virtually illiterate' so naturally I assumed that it was meant to be a pejorative.

It may all be true, but absolutely none of it answered the question.

Oh, but it did. Just not to Matthews' (or your) satisfaction. Was it more important to know what Chamberlain did wrong in 1939 (errrr... 1938) or that appeasement is giving something to your adversary to keep him satisfied?
Matthews could have asked, "What do you think Bush meant by 'the false comfort of appeasement' when he called the American Senator's statement, "If I had only talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided" the "false comfort of appeasement?" But that probably would have been a little too 'fair and balanced', eh?

Yes, I think it would have been more accurate for it to have ended with James never acknowledging that he was ignorant about the subject he was appearing on TV to talk about (and that's what he went to to do with his follow up about what he didn't know.)

He said that ""I don't know what the President (Bush) was referring to when he talked about what was being said in 1939." (errrr... 1938) You think that this meant that he didn't know why Chamberlain was an appeaser? Perhaps you believe that it is most important that the commentator not actually comment on Bush's statement but on the history of Chamberlain's utter failure as a leader and negotiator? Yeah, that's the part that's important... the history of the Sudetenland problem and the treaty that resulted in the labelling of Chamberlain as an "appeaser" and his self-described methods "appeasement". Quite histrionic, if you ask me...

 

[Art]

Yes, yes they're untold thousands of democratic activists, newspaper owners, and civil society members locked away in Guantanamo.

You're missing the point. It doesn't matter what their politics are it is the principle of arbitrarily locking up people who disagree with your pov whatever that may be.

 

[chemisttree]

They stood as independents in the canceled 2005 elections and were by far the best supported opposition group.

In reference to Ayman Nour you're not suggesting it's okay if Egypt suppresses some opposition groups but not others are you?? Such a view would hardly represent freedom and democracy.

Yeah, I know. But just a note... the Muslim Brotherhood was outlawed for plotting an assination on then President Nasser, right? And they have been outlawed ever since? Things are a bit different over there than they are in the West. Imagine... outlawing a group bent on the establishment of sharia law throughout all the muslim lands and the whole world. I could live with a little repression aimed at those guys...

 

[lisab]

Yes, yes they're untold thousands of democratic activists, newspaper owners, and civil society members locked away in Guantanamo.

So if we hate a person enough, it's OK to subvert our Constitution and lock them up -- with no due process?

 

[turbo]

Appeasement. Ah yes, talking with enemies - something that the Republicans excoriate the Democrats for suggesting. Anybody here old enough (or objective enough) to remember when Reagan et al stole advanced weaponry from the US arsenals to sell to Iran in return for the release of US hostages? George H W Bush knew nothing about the whole affair. (Right!) That went far beyond "talking to terrorists". Of course, W's grandfathers were financiers for the Nazis, but he probably "forgot" that too. Bush's politicization of his Israel visit is beneath the dignity of the presidency, but it certainly is not beneath him. Little is.

 

[Art]

US State Dept. has been after Eygpt for this jailed parliamentarian; even the news link you post says Pres. Bush was specifically referring to a secular figure. You should retract that part.

Already answered. Read post #57

Nor did the EU, who also cut off funding to the Palestinian govt. given its continued clear statements that Israel can not be allowed to exist. Again you should retract.

And this relates to my post how? I'm not saying he or anyone else has to like the result I am merely pointing out the Palestinians already carry out democratic elections which based on his comments Bush apparently isn't aware of.

 

[mheslep]

You're missing the point. It doesn't matter what their politics are it is the principle of arbitrarily locking up people who disagree with your pov whatever that may be.

You're changing the point. You clearly implied Pres. Bush's clear )and commendable) statements about Egypt locking up one of its own Parliamentarians or other democratic activists was the same thing as what is going on Guantanamo, when it clearly is not. Combatants (at least suspected) have been locked up in Gmo, and not just arbitrarily and not just because they disagree w/ 'pov'. I'd personally like to see Gmo shut down since as a POW camp it is too ambiguous to define the end of a war w/ non-state actors. None the less your comparisons are distorted.

 

[Gokul43201]

So you really do think he is virtually illiterate? That's pretty bizarre!

For a political commentator to not know some of the basic history of WWII is in itself pretty shocking, and disgraceful. But to appear on TV, knowing nothing about the subject involved and choosing not even to read up about it in order to not appear ignorant...that suggests that he either can not read, or chooses not to (maybe he is a masochist, or perhaps he thinks preparation is over-rated?).

Oh, but it did. Just not to Matthews' (or your) satisfaction. Was it more important to know what Chamberlain did wrong in 1939 (errrr... 1938) or that appeasement is giving something to your adversary to keep him satisfied?

I see it is more important to you that Chris made an error about the year of the Munich Accord than that the person talking about it didn't have a clue about what it was even about?

James' keyword salad was simply pathetic, in my opinion, and I guess we'll just have to disagree about that.

PS: I notice no one here is calling Robert Gates an appeaser...or Rumsfeld, or Nixon, or Reagan, or Bush!

 

[Art]

You're changing the point. You clearly implied Pres. Bush's clear )and commendable) statements about Egypt locking up one of its own Parliamentarians or other democratic activists was the same thing as what is going on Guantanamo, when it clearly is not. Combatants (at least suspected) have been locked up in Gmo, and not just arbitrarily and not just because they disagree w/ 'pov'. I'd personally like to see Gmo shut down since as a POW camp it is too ambiguous to define the end of a war w/ non-state actors. None the less your comparisons are distorted.

Maybe you should read my post and the link I provided before responding and so save us both a lot of wasted time. Bush never mentioned Ayman Nour. He actually said

"Too often in the Middle East, politics has consisted of one leader in power and the opposition in jail,"

and in Egypt the main opposition party is the Muslim Brotherhood.

I'm baffled why you think there is much of a difference between Egypt locking up people it thinks threaten it's way of life and the US doing it? If anything at least Egypt goes through the motions of putting these people on trial whereas the US hasn't. It's probably also worth noting these suspected 'combatants' held in Guantanamo were largely picked up in their native country fighting against an invading army on behalf of their legitimate (at that time) government. Is patriotism now a crime for non-US citizens??

 

[chemisttree]

Maybe you should read my post and the link I provided before responding and so save us both a lot of wasted time. Bush never mentioned Ayman Nour.

Art, we know what you posted. The story you posted clearly identifies Nour as the reference Bush intended. YOU are re-interpreting his meaning to mean the Muslim Brotherhood as the main opposition party in Bush's statement. This is factually incorrect since the MB cannot legitimately hold office in Egypt since it is an outlawed organization. It cannot be an opposition party by definition (in Egypt).

You are correct in saying that the MB 'secret' members might run as Independents but what is your source of information for that statement? Can such as statement be proven?

 

[mheslep]

So if we hate a person enough, it's OK to subvert our Constitution and lock them up -- with no due process?

Strawman, and a silly one.

 

[lisab]

Strawman, and a silly one.

I wish. In fact, it's exactly what we've done.

 

[Art]

Art, we know what you posted. The story you posted clearly identifies Nour as the reference Bush intended. YOU are re-interpreting his meaning to mean the Muslim Brotherhood as the main opposition party in Bush's statement. This is factually incorrect since the MB cannot legitimately hold office in Egypt since it is an outlawed organization. It cannot be an opposition party by definition (in Egypt).

You are correct in saying that the MB 'secret' members might run as Independents but what is your source of information for that statement? Can such as statement be proven?

The author covering the story interpreted it as a swipe at Egypt about Nour however as I pointed out Bush didn't specify what he was talking about (and probably didn't know himself as it seems unlikely his speech writers would bother trying to explain it to his limited intellect) but regardless the point remains you can't only support the non-oppression of opposition parties when they happen to agree with your world view. At least not if you want to be considered sane and reasonable. Democracy is about choice but democracy based on a choice of agree with me or else isn't exactly what it's supposed to be all about.

As for your contention the MB cannot hold seats in Egypt, well they actually do so you are factually wrong. They cannot run under the MB flag but they make no secret of their affiliation. You can even read about them on their English language website http://www.ikhwanweb.com/SectionsPage.asp?SectionID=67

 

[mheslep]

I wish. In fact, it's exactly what we've done.

Regardless of what you think has been done, equivocating my statement w/ some distortion of it so that it appears false is still a strawman:

wiki

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B ignores X and instead presents position Y. Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Person B draws a conclusion that X is false/incorrect/flawed.

 

[mheslep]

...It's probably also worth noting these suspected 'combatants' held in Guantanamo were largely picked up in their native country fighting against an invading army on behalf of their legitimate (at that time) government.

Art, simply, no they are largely not natives. Theywere the invaders. Of the ~500 detainees, they're largely Saudi, Yemeni, Pakistani, Morrocan, Algerian, Jordanian, etc, etc. There are also ~50 some Afghans, most of whom have now been released, but I don't hold that the Taliban was a legitimate anything.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/nationalsecurity/gitmoarchive.html

 

[turbo]

The Taliban were made up of groups that were actively recruited by the US, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to fight the Soviets in a proxy war. It wasn't until the Taliban began to persecute Afghanis (especially women) with a very restrictive form of sharia that the US broke with them. Short-term political convenience breeds some very nasty, messy, alliances.

Many of the people in Gitmo were turned in for bounties, and have been held for years with no charges and no access to legal defense. Many of those people may be Muslim fundamentalists and some of them may in fact be guilty of crimes, but the fact that the US government has not been able to make cogent legal cases against them argues against that.

 

[quadraphonics]

Many of those people may be Muslim fundamentalists and some of them may in fact be guilty of crimes, but the fact that the US government has not been able to make cogent legal cases against them argues against that.

Not that I have any urge to defend Guantanamo, but the difficulty in making cases has more to do with the inadmissability of the evidence against these guys than it does with their actual guilt. I can't see why the government would continue to hold people it didn't truly believe were guilty, considering that they've already released over half of all of the detainees that were ever sent there without any charges.

 

[lisab]

Regardless of what you think has been done, equivocating my statement w/ some distortion of it so that it appears false is still a strawman:

wiki

That line of reasoning doesn't work because your original comment (what I was referring to) was sarcasm:

Yes, yes they're untold thousands of democratic activists, newspaper owners, and civil society members locked away in Guantanamo.

 

[turbo]

Not that I have any urge to defend Guantanamo, but the difficulty in making cases has more to do with the inadmissability of the evidence against these guys than it does with their actual guilt. I can't see why the government would continue to hold people it didn't truly believe were guilty, considering that they've already released over half of all of the detainees that were ever sent there without any charges.

Does the inadmissibility of evidence have anything to do with sleep-deprivation, prolonged restraint in stress-positions, water-boarding, exposure to extremes of heat and cold, etc? Gosh, we are the white knights of the world, aren't we?

 

[drankin]

Does the inadmissibility of evidence have anything to do with sleep-deprivation, prolonged restraint in stress-positions, water-boarding, exposure to extremes of heat and cold, etc? Gosh, we are the white knights of the world, aren't we?

Should we just let them all go then?

 

[turbo]

Should we just let them all go then?

Do we keep them all in endless detention with no charges filed and no access to legal defense. The ball's in your court.

 

[drankin]

Do we keep them all in endless detention with no charges filed and no access to legal defense. The ball's in your court.

It's a tough situation. They have access to legal defense, but the question is on what foundation of law are they tried and defended? It can't be American law because they aren't in America and they aren't Americans. We can't try them as we are accustomed and we can't just let them all go lest they come back and try to kill us. If we did try them the way we are accustomed, it would be a farce, the legal foundations would be made up on both sides. Hopefully the next administration helps bring a rational approach and solution on how to deal with this in a way that doesn't let murders loose and doesn't keep innocents locked up.

Nowadays it's better than a typical American prison over there. But, it's still a prison.

 

[Art]

Art, simply, no they are largely not natives. Theywere the invaders. Of the ~500 detainees, they're largely Saudi, Yemeni, Pakistani, Morrocan, Algerian, Jordanian, etc, etc. There are also ~50 some Afghans, most of whom have now been released, but I don't hold that the Taliban was a legitimate anything.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/nationalsecurity/gitmoarchive.html

The foreign fighters were not invaders they were allies of the then official Afghan gov't forces. There are 50 Afghanis left in detention but hundreds were held there at the beginning tortured and then released.

For example dangerous Afghan terrorists such as these

PESHAWAR, Pakistan - Badr Zaman Badr and his brother Abdurrahim Muslim Dost relish writing a good joke that jabs a corrupt politician or distills the sufferings of fellow Afghans. Badr admires the political satires in "The Canterbury Tales" and "Gulliver's Travels," and Dost wrote some wicked lampoons in the 1990s, accusing Afghan mullahs of growing rich while preaching and organizing jihad. So in 2002, when the U.S. military shackled the writers and flew them to Guantanamo among prisoners whom Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declared "the worst of the worst" violent terrorists, the brothers found life imitating farce.

For months, grim interrogators grilled them over a satirical article Dost had written in 1998, when the Clinton administration offered a $5-million reward for Osama bin Laden. Dost responded that Afghans put up 5 million Afghanis -- equivalent to $113 -- for the arrest of President Bill Clinton.

"It was a lampoon ... of the poor Afghan economy" under the Taliban, Badr recalled. The article carefully instructed Afghans how to identify Clinton if they stumbled upon him. "It said he was clean-shaven, had light-colored eyes and he had been seen involved in a scandal with Monica Lewinsky," Badr said.

The interrogators, some flown down from Washington, didn't get the joke, he said. "Again and again, they were asking questions about this article. We had to explain that this was a satire." He paused. "It was really pathetic."

It took the brothers three years to convince the Americans that they posed no threat to Clinton or the United States,

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationw...1,0,1261397.story?coll=ny-worldnews-headlines

 

[mheslep]

...they were allies ... There are 50 Afghanis left in detention but hundreds were held there at the beginning tortured and then released.

Allies? Can you provide a source that says 'hundreds' of Afghanis were tortured at Gmo?

Nevermind. Your proposition has grown thin, and your holding it up with sophistries.

 

[Poop-Loops]

I guess if the speech is good and you don't like the president then it's bad despite how good it is.

I guess if the speech is bad and you are infatuated with the president then it's good despite how bad it is.

 

[drankin]

I guess if the speech is bad and you are infatuated with the president then it's good despite how bad it is.

That doesn't apply to me because I'm not a big fan of Bush. But it was a good speech.

 

[Poop-Loops]

That doesn't apply to me because I'm not a big fan of Bush.

Uh huh.

 

[Gokul43201]

That doesn't apply to me because I'm not a big fan of Bush. But it was a good speech.

I've asked this more than once now, and have gotten no answers, so I'll ask again...especially since you like the speech so much.

Which of the following people are appeasers?

Bob Gates, Colin Powell, Condi Rice - for wanting the US to engage in negotiations with Iran,

McCain - for wanting to engage in diplomacy with Hamas after their election victory in Palestine,

Bush - for talking to Kim Jong Il just after the announcement that they had violated the Agreed Framework,

Reagan, Bush Sr., Rumsfeld, et al. - for their support of Pinochet, Marcos, the fascist junta of Argentina, the drug trafficking contra in Nicaragua, Saddam Hussein, the apartheid government of South Africa, military regimes in Nicaragua and Guatemala that carried out civilian massacres, etc.

Nixon & Kissinger - for meeting with Mao

 

[chemisttree]

The greatest thing that Bush said in the speech was,

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.

 

[Poop-Loops]

The wrench in the works, of course, is how you define a terrorist.

 

[lisab]

The greatest thing that Bush said in the speech was,

Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals

Sounds like his speech writer was straight from Faux News. I hear that a lot on that channel; a "journalist" sets up a "some say" construct and then shoots it down with some right-wing rant.

 

[seycyrus]

Sounds like his speech writer was straight from Faux News. I hear that a lot on that channel; a "journalist" sets up a "some say" construct and then shoots it down with some right-wing rant.

As opposed to the straight from the hip news on CNN or MSNBC?

HAHAHAHAHAHAH!

What time and what channel are you going to be watching tonight? Let's compare notes.

 

[BobG]

Matthews could have asked, "What do you think Bush meant by 'the false comfort of appeasement' when he called the American Senator's statement, "If I had only talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided" the "false comfort of appeasement?" But that probably would have been a little too 'fair and balanced', eh?

Damn! That would have been a tougher question than the one Matthews actually asked!

Of all the people to quote, William Borah has to be one of the strangest. If anyone using that quote could describe what Borah meant, I'd be pretty impressed. Borah had the nickname, "The Great Opposer", and seemed to get more pleasure from opposing whatever the prevailing sentiment was than to actually stand for something.

He was a Republican, a Communist sympathizer, a supporter of FDR's New Deal, an opponent of the League of Nations, and a supporter of revising many of the terms of the Treaty of Versailles (which might have been what he meant in the quote, but, if so, he must have meant if he could have talked to Hitler about 10 years prior to the invasion of Poland).

Aside from annoying his fellow Republicans, Borah's main legacy was allegedly fathering Teddy Roosevelt's grand daughter, Paulina Longworth (actually, that was probably pretty annoying to Alice Longworth's husband).

Years from now, I guess people will be quoting Ron Paul in the same vein that Bush uses Borah quotes.

 

[BobG]

Maybe Obama could respond with his own Borah quote from the post World War I era:

"Everybody is in favor of the Constitution when it favors them, but too many are willing to trample upon it when it gets in their way. The war disclosed that the great principles and guarantees of the Constitution are vital to a free people and at the same time are easily disregarded in an hour of passion or crisis."

With the next salvo in the war of Borah quotes being:

"No more fatuous chimera has ever infested the brain than that you can control opinions by law or direct belief by statute, and no more pernicious sentiment ever tormented the heart than the barbarous desire to do so. The field of inquiry should remain open, and the right of debate must be regarded as a sacred right."

Hmm, that quote might fit better into John Kerry's style of speaking.

 

[Poop-Loops]

John Kerry would completely butcher the quote and you'd end up with a story of a man running out of ice cream.

 

[mheslep]

Sounds like his speech writer was straight from Faux News. I hear that a lot on that channel; a "journalist" sets up a "some say" construct and then shoots it down with some right-wing rant.

Like you just did here for instance w/ the nondescrip 'a journalist sets up' construct.

 

[Poop-Loops]

Like you just did here for instance w/ the nondescrip 'a journalist sets up' construct.

Yes, except she doesn't get paid to provide non-biased news coverage of events happening around the world.

But we can ignore that. Yes, she is just as horrible.

 

[wildman]

The greatest thing that Bush said in the speech was,

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.

By Poland it was too late. Talk doesn't always work. However, if the French and Germans had talked 25 years earlier (before WW I), we might had avoided the whole mess.

 

[seycyrus]

Yes, except she doesn't get paid to provide non-biased news coverage of events happening around the world.

But we can ignore that. Yes, she is just as horrible.

If her off-handed remark was directed at Oreiley, then I must point out that Oreiley is of course NOT paid to provide non-bias. He is there to give an opinion.

If you are talking about the other news people, I must yet again ask you when you will be watching so we can compare notes.