Beneath the dignity of the Office of the President

[russ_watters]

In order to defend this nonsensical line of "argument", this is what they have to resort to:
http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/OBAMA_MCCAIN?SITE=CASDT&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2008-05-16-17-03-08

So which is it? Does Obama believe we have no enemies, or does he propose that we talk to them?

C'mon, Gokul, that's a really bad argument, and it is pretty obvious why: It is an easy word game to play where one person can use the word "enemy" (his definition for what he's describing) while saying the other person doesn't really recognize them as enemies. That's not a contradiction and it is not useful to try to pick apart the wording. Interpret! (like Bob did), what is actually meant by these statements.

So: more importantly than trying to pick apart the word games of politicians, is the simple logic that a person who would negotiate with an enemy must obvoiusly believe that it is possible that by the end of the negotiation they won't be enemies anymore.

 

[russ_watters]

We should always talk first.

What does "first" mean in this context? How many times should we talk to someone before "first" is satisfied?

And "first" implies there is a "next". What comes next? Saying we shouldn't talk to a terrorist, doesn't automatically imply the alternative is invasion. Heck, these days, a single stealth fighter or Tomahawk cruise missile can fix a lot of problems.

If for no other reason than it is CHEAP.

Is it? How much money has the US spent trying to prevent Israel from being overrun these past 60 years?

Talk should come first. If the Germans and French had talked at the beginning of World War I, then Hitler would never had come to power...

If only talk could actually solve everyting. Quite clearly, it can't.

 

[russ_watters]

There is something that has been missed here about the title/quote from Pelosi. The Democrats do need to be aggressive in the only type of war people have any confidence they can fight: the war of words. That's what motivated Peslosi's statement (and Obama's). It is a plain fact that the Democratic party has an image problem when it comes to dealing with foreign policy/security/terrorism, etc. So they have to attack these words as aggressively as they can and their supporters and media puppets have to try to convince people that they are tough enough. Trouble is, this is not an issue Democrats have won in decades, so they're in a catch-22: ignore the issue, and people will believe they are soft. Attack the issue, and it reminds people that people believe they are soft.

 

[mheslep]

Cerry picking? Can you name two cherries that are bigger than the Iraq War and the war in Afghanistan? Let's forget the alien...it is my own personal opinion that Bush policies have aided Ahmedinejad more than any other influence I can think of among recent times.

Yep, certainly there's a good argument that Iran has been helped by the removal of the Bathists and the Taliban, both long time hostiles to Iran, though its also possible that the Iranian mullahs might have more of a challenge to their long term power by way of a stable democratic state next door than a gun toting thug. We'll see. I don't take issue with that (here, at this time). Rather it is your original statement I challenge:

...easily mistake Bush for an Ahmedinejad appeaser

I think you'd have a hard time finding any war in any time that did not indirectly aid some third party, the third party often being antithetical to both the primary combatants. WWII had many such. Stalin was likely saved by the Allied invasion of Europe. Even though he was well into his own mass murders and terrors at the time, I don't think the invasion qualifies the Allies as appeasers. Then, even a casual look (by an alien or Gokul) at Bush Iran policies would include :

o http://www.state.gov/t/isn/rls/fs/102891.htm", the fifth resolution imposing sanctions on Iran in which the US was either a sponsor or a strong supporter.
o http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2007/oct/94193.htm"
o Non-stop US calls on Iran to respect the rights of its citizens and to stop the silencing, jailing, and torture du jour:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2006/71787.htm
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2008/jan/99632.htm
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2007/dec/98116.htm
...
Finally there was the 'Axis of Evil' State of the Union speech, specifically naming Iran as nuclear rogue, terrorist exporter, and oppressor of its own people.

 

[wildman]

Russ,

Talk can't solve everything. Obviously. However, as I said before, IT IS CHEAP. You don't lose anything by trying it. Some people won't listen or want war . That is the case in Hamas. Hamas wants the destruction of Israel and they will not listen. However, that doesn't mean that Israel doesn't gain by trying to work with the Palestinians in general. And how do you know that the Germans and the French couldn't have solved their problems by talking? YOU DON'T KNOW and to imply that you do is silly.

It is amazing to me how the neocons think that going straight to the most expensive solution (war) is somehow smart. You all think that we should just have big money burning exercises. I mean it is great for the execs in the company I work for. They have been burning money like crazy. But it is crazy.

Russ, I am also a bit confused about the Israel example. How is that an example of how talk doesn't work? That is more an example of how war is very expensive, because there has been one war after another there instead of talk. No one there is serious about talk. It is all a front. We aren't either.

Finally, I state again. Talking doesn't always work. But at least it is cheap.

Russ answer this: Let's say you have very limited money (which believe it or not, we do have limited money). You have a leaky pipe. You can fix it yourself (risky but cheap) or you can immediately call the plumber (expensive but sure). Doesn't it make sense to try it yourself first (talk) instead of always calling the plumber (war)?

 

[mheslep]

...Finally, I state again. Talking doesn't always work. But at least it is cheap.

Wildman: In furtherance of routine talks, would you have the US reestablish an embassy in Iran?

 

[wildman]

I think that some kind of diplomatic presence would be appropriate. What level would be best? I am not qualified to answer that question.

 

[seycyrus]

Russ,
Talk can't solve everything. Obviously. However, as I said before, IT IS CHEAP. You don't lose anything by trying it.

I am obviously not Russ. But as he has pointed out, how much talk is enough? You can always say we didn't talk *enough*.

doesn't gain by trying to work with the Palestinians in general. And how do you know that the Germans and the French couldn't have solved their problems by talking? YOU DON'T KNOW and to imply that you do is silly.

Appeasement was tried with Hitler. It failed.

You are proposing that we didn't talk to Hitler enough? When do you think we should have stopped talking and actually done something?

Tt is amazing to me how the neocons think that going straight to the most expensive solution (war) is somehow smart. You all think that we should just have big money burning exercises. I mean it is great for the execs in the company I work for. They have been burning money like crazy. But it is crazy.

So full of logical fallacies, that I don't even know where to begin.

Russ answer this: Let's say you have very limited money (which believe it or not, we do have limited money). You have a leaky pipe. You can fix it yourself (risky but cheap) or you can immediately call the plumber (expensive but sure). Doesn't it make sense to try it yourself first (talk) instead of always calling the plumber (war)?

Yeah, you assign the choices in a certain light and then we are supposed to be surprised when the obvious choice is what you select? C'mon.

Here's a better example. Let's say you have a leaky pipe that is dripping water and destroying all your furniture. Isn't it better to to take some action (fix the pipe) then to talk to a plumber about it for years and years?.

 

[lisab]

Appeasement was tried with Hitler. It failed.

You are proposing that we didn't talk to Hitler enough? When do you think we should have stopped talking and actually done something?

You are confusing talk with appeasement...totally different things.

appeasement: to buy off (an aggressor) by concessions usually at the sacrifice of principles
diplomacy: skill in handling affairs without arousing hostility

The US is not going to agree to appease anybody by being diplomatic.

A good way to judge if we should change our tacts when dealing with people we don't agree with: Consider how we do it now. How's it working for us? Look at where we are now in the world, after eight years of conducting ourselves using the neo-con rules. Compare that to our position in the world in previous decades (under both Democrats and Republicans).

The neo-con way of dealing with the world just isn't working for us.

 

[Gokul43201]

C'mon, Gokul, that's a really bad argument, and it is pretty obvious why: It is an easy word game to play where one person can use the word "enemy" (his definition for what he's describing) while saying the other person doesn't really recognize them as enemies. That's not a contradiction and it is not useful to try to pick apart the wording. Interpret! (like Bob did), what is actually meant by these statements.

Pick apart? Interpret? What thirteen ways are there to interpret and pick apart the statement that a triangle has four sides?Let's look at the words again and see what possible interpretations there are, since I can't imagine what interpretation I should have applied:

"It would be a wonderful thing if we lived in a world where we don't have enemies. But that's not the world we live in. And until Senator Obama understands that reality, the American people have every reason to doubt whether he has the strength, judgment and determination to keep us safe," McCain said in a speech to the National Rifle Association in Louisville, Ky.

1. We do not live in a world where we have no enemies.
2. Obama does not yet understand this reality.

ERGO, Obama thinks we live in a world where we do have no enemies.

Are we agreed on what McCain is saying? Have I done any unfair picking apart, misinterpreting or bad arguing?

 

[seycyrus]

You are confusing talk with appeasement...totally different things.

Appeasement usually involves talk. The comment under discussion was Hitler and our "failure' to talk to him "enough". At what point do you think we should have stopped talking?

A good way to judge if we should change our tacts when dealing with people we don't agree with: Consider how we do it now. How's it working for us? Look at where we are now in the world, after eight years of conducting ourselves using the neo-con rules.

There was plenty of talking to Iraq. Regardless of the efforts by many to spin it otherwise, the US did NOT go to atack Iraq all of a sudden one morning.

The US also has had great fortune in negotiation with N. Korea over it's nuclear program in the last 8 years. Much greater than before, when they just lied to us and developed a reactor anyway. That *talk* failed.

It is a complicated issue. One that merits consideration above that of simple labeling.

 

[chemisttree]

And now we have virtually illiterate hacks coming up with idiocy like this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24672043#24672043

Wow! What an illeterate hack that Chris Matthews is! Did you see him asking the question and then SHOUTING DOWN his guest every time he tried to answer?

Great example!

Anyone who thinks that Chamberlain did nothing wrong (because talk is CHEAP) has an unfortunate history lesson in their future.

Lesson 1. Read and understand the following:

First of all I must say something to those who have written to my wife or myself in these last weeks to tell us of their gratitude for my efforts and to assure us of their prayers for my success. Most of these letters have come from women -- mothers or sisters of our own countrymen. But there are countless others besides -- from France, from Belgium, from Italy, even from Germany, and it has been heartbreaking to read of the growing anxiety they reveal and their intense relief when they thought, too soon, that the danger of war was past.

If I felt my responsibility heavy before, to read such letters has made it seem almost overwhelming. How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas masks here because of a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing. It seems still more impossible that a quarrel which has already been settled in principle should be the subject of war.

I can well understand the reasons why the Czech Government have felt unable to accept the terms which have been put before them in the German memorandum. Yet I believe after my talks with Herr Hitler that, if only time were allowed, it ought to be possible for the arrangements for transferring the territory that the Czech Government has agreed to give to Germany to be settled by agreement under conditions which would assure fair treatment to the population concerned. . . .

However much we may sympathize with a small nation confronted by a big and powerful neighbor, we cannot in all circumstances undertake to involve the whole British Empire in war simply on her account. If we have to fight it must be on larger issues than that. I am myself a man of peace to the depths of my soul. Armed conflict between nations is a nightmare to me; but if I were convinced that any nation had made up its mind to dominate the world by fear of its force, I should feel that it must be resisted. Under such a domination life for people who believe in liberty would not be worth living; but war is a fearful thing, and we must be very clear, before we embark upon it, that it is really the great issues that are at stake, and that the call to risk everything in their defense, when all the consequences are weighed, is irresistible.

For the present I ask you to await as calmly as you can the events of the next few days. As long as war has not begun, there is always hope that it may be prevented, and you know that I am going to work for peace to the last moment. Good night. . . .

excerpt of Chamberlain's address to the British people, September 27, 1938

http://www.historyguide.org/europe/munich.html

Lesson 2. Learn what the phrase "Those that don't understand History are destined to repeat it," truly means.

Truly mind-boggling than anyone would find that Mathew's position on this is anything but disgusting!

 

[lisab]

Appeasement usually involves talk. The comment under discussion was Hitler and our "failure' to talk to him "enough". At what point do you think we should have stopped talking?

No, no, no - you're not getting what appeasement really is. Chamberlain appeased Hilter when gave him Sudetenland (a region of Czechoslovakia) in 1938.

Appeasement is not simply talking. To say we should not talk to people we don't agree with because "appeasement usually involves talk" is like saying that since choking to death usually involves eating, we should not eat. Ridiculous logic.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Wow! What an illeterate hack that Chris Matthews is! Did you see him asking the question and then SHOUTING DOWN his guest every time he tried to answer?

Great example!

Chris Matthews is illeterate? Kevin James never tried to answer the question until the end of the interview when he finally admitted that he didn't know the answer. Matthews did what it took to prevent James from evading the question.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

When Bush spoke of appeasement, it was to an Israeli audience. They certainly don't want to be told that they must give Hamas something in order to achieve peace. Obviously, Bush was criticizing Carter's meeting with Hamas. However, the analogy is not apt. Carter did not offer Hamas anything, nor did he have anything to offer. He just wanted to talk.

 

[seycyrus]

No, no, no - you're not getting what appeasement really is. Chamberlain appeased Hilter when gave him Sudetenland (a region of Czechoslovakia) in 1938.

Yes, I do. You are the one who continue to avoid trhe fact that I was referring to the senator who supposedly thought that more *talk* with Hitler would have solved anything.

Appeasement is not simply talking. To say we should not talk to people we don't agree with because "appeasement usually involves talk" is like saying that since choking to death usually involves eating, we should not eat. Ridiculous logic.

Please show me where made that connection.

My point is that talk is not always beneficial. It depends on the intent and consequences of the talk.

 

[Art]

Wow! What an illeterate hack that Chris Matthews is! Did you see him asking the question and then SHOUTING DOWN his guest every time he tried to answer?

Great example!

Anyone who thinks that Chamberlain did nothing wrong (because talk is CHEAP) has an unfortunate history lesson in their future.

Lesson 1. Read and understand the following:

http://www.historyguide.org/europe/munich.html

Lesson 2. Learn what the phrase "Those that don't understand History are destined to repeat it," truly means.

Truly mind-boggling than anyone would find that Mathew's position on this is anything but disgusting!

People have a very simplistic view of how WW2 began. It was a lot more complicated than nasty Hitler invaded poor little Poland.

Britain's so called 'appeasement' began in earnest in November 1937 when Lord Halifax, representing the British gov't who were quite sympathetic to Germany's desire to reclaim territory confiscated after WW1, positively encouraged Hitler to expand eastwards.

Sir Neville Henderson, Britain's ambassador to Berlin went so far as to request a confidential talk with Hitler where he said "Britain was much in sympathy with Hitler''s desire for 'change in Europe'"

Britain in September 1938 rejected a mutual defense pact offered by Russia to protect Czecho-Slovakia and when Germany invaded to regain the Sudetenland Poland helped itself to a slice of Czech territory too. Poland who at that time were defacto allies of Germany then overplayed it's hand by refusing to return the port of Danzig to Germany and by not allowing Germany free movement through the polish corridor to East Prussia.

Chamberlain then did a remarkable about face and threatened Germany with war if they invaded Poland. To this day nobody knows why such a drastic change in policy happened in such a short time but the effect was it emboldened Poland and made it even more determined not to return the territory it expropriated from Germany after WW1 and so made war inevitable.

It's hard to know what lessons there are to learn from this as Britain's initial motives are unclear but talking wasn't the problem per se, it was what was said during the talks with Hitler being given the 'wrong' message time after time.

A similar situation precipitated Iraq's invasion of Kuwait when Saddam thought he had been given the green light to invade Kuwait by the American ambassador April Glaspie when she said "we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts" and that the U.S. did not intend "to start an economic war against Iraq"

This too did not amount to appeasement but again is an example of Machiavellian politics with unclear motives.

One can understand why politicians like to reduce the causes of war to simple little slogans (good vs evil) (freedom vs slavery) (talk = appeasement) etc, but I'd have thought the people who post here would be more intelligent than the masses and so would dig a little deeper.

 

[chemisttree]

Chris Matthews is illeterate?

Oh, I thought we were calling people 'virtually illiterate' if we didn't like them. There is no evidence that James is 'virtually illiterate' in this clip.

James never tried to answer the question until the end of the interview when he finally admitted that he didn't know the answer. Matthews did what it took to prevent James from evading the question.

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. Matthews continued to harangue him "What did (Chamberlain) HE DO WRONG IN 1939? WHAT DID HE DO? WHAT DID HE DO IN 1939? Or 1938?"

When James finally uttered the words "I don't know..." Matthews immediately cut him off. He had his soundbite and nothing else mattered. What James went on to say just after that was, "I don't know what the President (Bush) was referring to when he talked about what was being said in 1939." (In 1939, Hitler took the rest of Czechoslovakia.) Did James know the history of the 1938 Munich agreement? Probably not. Did he know what was meant by 'appeasement'? Absolutely. Matthews then goes on to lecture James as to the definition of ''appeasement' and 'talking'. This is a useless distinction since 'talking' (diplomacy?) is only successful if it ends with an agreement. Those are the ends to the means. How useful is it to talk to an enemy who continues his transgression while fixing the other party into inaction?

I noticed that Matthews didn't ask the other guest (Mark Green, President of Air America Radio) any history questions. A great one would have been, "WHAT HAPPENED IN 1939 that Bush was referring to?" and then interrupt him a dozen times (Oops! that was 26 times by Matthew's own admission) as he tries to answer. What Matthews did eventually ask Green was, "Mark Green, help him out here with SOME history, this is pathetic... he doesn't even know what Chamberlain did in Munich!" Was that a question? Or an invitation to pile on? Green's diatribe mentions that Israel is currently in negotiations with Syria on the Golan. This isn't true but that wouldn't be a first for Mark Green!
Here is the unedited version.

But James was right and Matthews was wrong in that England and France should never have allowed the situation to get as far as the Czech annexation in the first place. Germany was already in violation of two treaties (Versailles and St. Germain) and Chamberlain wanted to talk to them with the intent to negotiate another. No, talking with Germany led nowhere and there was plenty of history to prove that would continue to be the case. This is just what we have in the case of Iran, Hezbollah and ESPECIALLY Hamas. Hamas leader Khalid Meshaal has stated,

We say to the West that you have been beaten in Palestine and the defeat has already begun. Israel will be vanquished, and all those who have supported and continue to support it will also be vanquished. America will be defeated in Iraq. The nation of Muhammad will triumph in Palestine and Iraq and on all Arab and Muslim soil. Tomorrow, our nation will rule the world; this is a fact. Tomorrow, we will rule the world.

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.

 

[Art]

Green's diatribe mentions that Israel is currently in negotiations with Syria on the Golan. This isn't true but that wouldn't be a first for Mark Green!

Israel and Syria are in dialogue with each other re a peace agreement, with Egypt acting as mediators, according to Israel, Syria and Egypt

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan paid a visit to Damascus late last month. He confirmed that Syria and Israel had asked Ankara for mediation, adding that such efforts would start at a low level before bringing the leaders together if successful.

http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90777/90854/6413332.html

The U.S. government has asked Turkey to increase efforts to advance negotiations between Israel and Syria, according to a report published by the London Arabic daily Al-Hayat on Saturday.

According to the report, the U.S. request comes in light of the recent political crisis in Lebanon, and U.S. assessments that peace between Israel and Syria will help distance the country from Hezbollah.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/984337.html

 

[chemisttree]

Israel and Syria are in dialogue with each other re a peace agreement, with Egypt acting as mediators, according to Israel, Syria and Egypt

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?

 

[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.