What does it say about a candidate who calls Obama an "appeaser"? [Archive]

BobLibDem

12-08-2011, 06:28 PM

Not everyone who uses the term has a freaking clue. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WR2_8D7tYxk) When candidates use it, they're putting their ignorance on full display. Unless Obama puts on a cheerleader skirt and prances around shouting USA USA while shaking pompons, they're going to accuse him of being an unAmerican Marxist Kenyan Socialist Muslim who doesn't support Israel, apologizes for America, and is trying to disarm America. Appeasement is a weak attempt to evoke the images of Neville Chamberlain and Hitler. Foreign policy has actually become Obama's wheelhouse and I don't think they're going to get fastballs by him. How many brown Muslims does Obama have to kill before the crackers get off his back?

Onomatopoeia

12-08-2011, 06:51 PM

How many brown Muslims does Obama have to kill before the crackers get off his back?Umm...all of them?

Foggy

12-08-2011, 07:06 PM

...Unless Obama puts on a cheerleader skirt and prances around shouting USA USA while shaking pompons...

I would pay good money to see that... actually I would pay bad money too.

:D

Balance

12-08-2011, 07:34 PM

Not everyone who uses the term has a freaking clue. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WR2_8D7tYxk) When candidates use it, they're putting their ignorance on full display. Unless Obama puts on a cheerleader skirt and prances around shouting USA USA while shaking pompons, they're going to accuse him of being an unAmerican Marxist Kenyan Socialist Muslim who doesn't support Israel, apologizes for America, and is trying to disarm America.
Silly Bob. They'd accuse him of all that even if he wore the skirt, and they'd tack on "Gay Crossdresser" in an effort to hide the fact that they were turned on by it.

BrainGlutton

12-08-2011, 08:11 PM

Umm...all of them?

Including himself.

Ludovic

12-08-2011, 08:22 PM

unAmerican Marxist Kenyan Socialist Muslim
You mean "unAmerican Marxist Kenyan Social Christian Muslim".

kaylasdad99

12-08-2011, 10:56 PM

Splitter!

Typo Knig

12-09-2011, 06:29 AM

What does it say? That they are going to get Pwned in 15 seconds http://my.barackobama.com/page/share/appeasement?source=20121208_FB_BO_press

Revtim

12-09-2011, 08:15 AM

Well, it says he's a liar, unless he can come up with an example.

Euphonious Polemic

12-09-2011, 08:37 AM

If by "appeaser" they mean "appeasing enemies of the United States", then I would say that that candidate is using the Rovian strategy of taking your enemies strength and turning it on it's head by lying about it outrageously.

If someone is a teetotaler, accuse them of being an alcoholic. If someone is strong in a particular area, accuse them of being weak.

This will serve the purpose of confusing the public, as they will often think: "well there must be something behind the accusations - the candidate would not lie that hugely and blatantly about the president unless they had some kind of proof.

Simplicio

12-09-2011, 08:43 AM

Its just a cowardly way of invoking Hitler without using the word "Hitler" or "Nazi". Appeasement in the US is almost always the term associated with Chamberlin's attempts to avoid WWII. Hence Obama is Chamberlin and whatever he's being accused of appeasing are Nazis.

Because in American political debate, everyone and everything is Hitler.

Here's (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YK0d8ENS__c) the only good thing that has ever happened on cable news, where someone actually takes a political flack to task for this.

RTFirefly

12-09-2011, 10:23 AM

For the neocons, it's always 1938, and the Dems are always Neville Chamberlain. The only thing that changes is who's playing Hitler this week.

Was Obama appeasing Muslim dictators when he didn't try to rock their boats, or was he appeasing the Muslim Brotherhood and other radical Muslim parties by pushing the dictators out of power? It could have been played either way, depending on events, and of course they did play it both ways at different times.

BrainGlutton

12-09-2011, 11:17 AM

For the neocons, it's always 1938, and the Dems are always Neville Chamberlain. The only thing that changes is who's playing Hitler this week.

Well, that would be Obama, wouldn't it?

yorick73

12-09-2011, 11:32 AM

His own answer (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57339492-503544/obama-ask-bin-laden-if-im-an-appeaser/) is good enough:

Actually, his answer was idiotic. The reporter was asking about the appeasement charges WRT the middle east and Israel. That is specifically what the Republicans were speaking about.

Lobohan

12-09-2011, 11:44 AM

Actually, his answer was idiotic. The reporter was asking about the appeasement charges WRT the middle east and Israel. That is specifically what the Republicans were speaking about.His answer was fine. I understand why you wouldn't like it, because it makes the nonsense talking points on FOX sound stupid, but that doesn't make it idiotic. Showing that we effectively pursue our national interests is far more valuable than invading countries that insulted our president's dad.

Name specifically what Obama has done to warrant an appeasement charge? The foreign policy posture of the US is far, far better than the belligerent drunk with a gun* position held by the Bush administration.

*As in, "Keep your head down, there is a belligerent drunk with a gun screaming incoherently outside."

CaptMurdock

12-09-2011, 12:01 PM

Actually, his answer was idiotic. The reporter was asking about the appeasement charges WRT the middle east and Israel. That is specifically what the Republicans were speaking about.

Oh, bull cookies. The Republican Special Olympic team currently running for Head Fecktard is incapable of "specifics." They're trying to hang the "God Damn America!" noose around his neck, and bless 'im he's having none of it.

yorick73

12-09-2011, 01:38 PM

His answer was fine. I understand why you wouldn't like it, because it makes the nonsense talking points on FOX sound stupid, but that doesn't make it idiotic. Showing that we effectively pursue our national interests is far more valuable than invading countries that insulted our president's dad.

Name specifically what Obama has done to warrant an appeasement charge? The foreign policy posture of the US is far, far better than the belligerent drunk with a gun* position held by the Bush administration.

*As in, "Keep your head down, there is a belligerent drunk with a gun screaming incoherently outside."

You don't seem to even know what the question was about. They were referring to Obama's appeasement of Palestinians and their supporters throughout the middle east by demanding that the 1967 line is the starting point of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. Of course they also referred to Obama's lack of leadership in making sure Iran does not get a nuke.

Our foreign policy posture has generally been one of genuflection since Obama's inauguration.

Lobohan

12-09-2011, 02:20 PM

You don't seem to even know what the question was about. They were referring to Obama's appeasement of Palestinians and their supporters throughout the middle east by demanding that the 1967 line is the starting point of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.With agreed upon swaps. You forget about that part? Which, by the way, means the border is up for negotiations.

Of course they also referred to Obama's lack of leadership in making sure Iran does not get a nuke.Nonsense. What specifically has Obama not done to push Iran away from nukes?

Our foreign policy posture has generally been one of genuflection since Obama's inauguration.Again, utter nonsense. I expect you to have some facts, not talking points that you can't support. You are repeating something which is not true. (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/sep/22/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-repeats-claim-obama-went-around-world-/)

Vinyl Turnip

12-09-2011, 02:23 PM

Our foreign policy posture has generally been one of genuflection since Obama's inauguration.

It's true. I mean, we've barely waged "preemptive war" on any new countries since Obama took office!

Escalating the existing conflicts? Ratcheting up the secret bombing campaigns? The whole world as a battlefield? Yeah right, you hippie pussy!

BrainGlutton

12-09-2011, 02:27 PM

You don't seem to even know what the question was about. They were referring to Obama's appeasement of Palestinians and their supporters throughout the middle east by demanding that the 1967 line is the starting point of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.

That is not appeasement, that is Obama's position on the issue. He gets to have one unfavorable to Israel without it being essentially appeasement of anybody, you know, and if anybody feels appeased, so much the better.

Of course they also referred to Obama's lack of leadership in making sure Iran does not get a nuke.

He has done nothing to appease them on the matter. Not taking aggressive action is not appeasement.

Our foreign policy posture has generally been one of genuflection since Obama's inauguration.

If I stop ramming my knee into your guts repeatedly but continue to hold you in a a hammerlock until I'm sure it's safe to let go, I am not genuflecting to you.

yorick73

12-09-2011, 04:28 PM

With agreed upon swaps. You forget about that part? Which, by the way, means the border is up for negotiations.

Did you fail to read the words "starting point"?

Nonsense. What specifically has Obama not done to push Iran away from nukes?

Well, he opposed the Senate sanctions package on Iran just a few days ago for starters. I think he should have had the courage to support the Persian spring in Iran.

Again, utter nonsense. I expect you to have some facts, not talking points that you can't support. You are repeating something which is not true. (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/sep/22/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-repeats-claim-obama-went-around-world-/)

I love the way you respond to something I didn't say and then attack it...with a link! I was referring to the administration abandoning the missile defense complex in Poland, abandoning an ally in Egypt, weakness in Iran and Pakistan, and appeasement of China by not supplying Taiwan with new F16s just to name a few.

yorick73

12-09-2011, 04:32 PM

That is not appeasement, that is Obama's position on the issue.

Correct. His position is to appease our enemies.

If I stop ramming my knee into your guts repeatedly but continue to hold you in a a hammerlock until I'm sure it's safe to let go, I am not genuflecting to you.

Your sentence is correct but does not reflect the Obama administration's foreign policy stance. Your analogy is flawed.

Damuri Ajashi

12-09-2011, 04:49 PM

You guys are all Obama appeasers.

BobLibDem

12-09-2011, 05:28 PM

You don't seem to even know what the question was about. They were referring to Obama's appeasement of Palestinians and their supporters throughout the middle east by demanding that the 1967 line is the starting point of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. Of course they also referred to Obama's lack of leadership in making sure Iran does not get a nuke.

Our foreign policy posture has generally been one of genuflection since Obama's inauguration.

Jesus titty-fucking Christ on a pogo stick! Bush called for negotiations to start with the 1949 borders. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6W73v4p6Yyg) If calling for the 1967 borders as a starting point is "genuflection", what the fuck is starting with the 1949 borders?

Bryan Ekers

12-09-2011, 05:33 PM

Statesmanlike.

12-09-2011, 06:10 PM

BrainGlutton

12-09-2011, 06:48 PM

Not only that, but in August, Netanyahu shifted his position and agreed to the pre-1967 borders as a starting point for negotiations. Is Netanyahu an appeaser?

ETA: http://news.yahoo.com/tv-israel-agrees-negotiate-over-pre-67-lines-185815284.html

I dunno, but I recall that somebody thought Rabin was.

yorick73

12-09-2011, 06:53 PM

Jesus titty-fucking Christ on a pogo stick! Bush called for negotiations to start with the 1949 borders. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6W73v4p6Yyg) If calling for the 1967 borders as a starting point is "genuflection", what the fuck is starting with the 1949 borders?

It never fails to amaze me how this kind of nonsense takes hold and travels around to all the usual sites. "Bu..Bu..Bu..But Bush said it too!"

Here..read up on Obama's shift on middle east policy...from the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/understanding-obamas-shift-on-israel-and-the-1967-lines/2011/05/19/AFPRaT7G_blog.html). You can also check out this page (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/mailbag-answering-readers-questions-on-paul-ryan-and-1967-lines/2011/05/26/AGgcz3BH_blog.html) if you are still confused.

BrainGlutton

12-10-2011, 03:16 PM

Well, Gingrich, at any rate, apparently does not want to appear an appeaser. (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2011/12/201112108493783540.html)

Republican White House hopeful Newt Gingrich has stirred controversy by calling the Palestinians an "invented" people who could have chosen to live elsewhere.

The former House of Representatives speaker, who is the frontrunner for the Republican nomination for the 2012 presidential race, made the remarks in an interview with the US Jewish Channel broadcaster released on Friday.

Asked whether he considers himself a Zionist, he answered: "I believe that the Jewish people have the right to a state ... Remember, there was no Palestine as a state. It was part of the Ottoman Empire" until the early 20th century,

"I think that we've had an invented Palestinian people who are in fact Arabs, and who were historically part of the Arab community.

"And they had a chance to go many places, and for a variety of political reasons we have sustained this war against Israel now since the 1940s, and it's tragic."

FTR, the Palestinians have always lived there, under whatever name. They are simply the descendants of all the peoples who have ever lived in or invaded or colonized Canaan, including Canaanites, Hebrews/Israelites/Jews, Philistines, etc., and Arabs and Turks. They are the cousins of those now called Jews, but their ancestors never left. DNA studies bear this out. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people#DNA_and_genetic_studies)

Leaper

12-10-2011, 03:33 PM

Correct. His position is to appease our enemies.

The Palestinians are our enemies? When did that happen?

BrainGlutton

12-10-2011, 06:12 PM

The Palestinians are our enemies? When did that happen?

When we decided to be Israel's friend.

CaptMurdock

12-11-2011, 07:57 PM

It never fails to amaze me how this kind of nonsense takes hold and travels around to all the usual sites. "Bu..Bu..Bu..But Bush said it too!"

Here..read up on Obama's shift on middle east policy...from the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/understanding-obamas-shift-on-israel-and-the-1967-lines/2011/05/19/AFPRaT7G_blog.html). You can also check out this page (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/mailbag-answering-readers-questions-on-paul-ryan-and-1967-lines/2011/05/26/AGgcz3BH_blog.html) if you are still confused.

So, in other words, you're not going to answer his question? How typical.

Khethil

12-11-2011, 08:02 PM

Its all part of this poisonous political climate we're in. Any kind of compromise (which used to be a good thing) is looked upon as weak. Any recognition of other sides of any story is looked upon as traitorous (which used to be called 'a wide perspective). By extension, "appeasement" is just another inflammatory term used to insult and cast the specter of contemptible timidity.

... and since it increases divisiveness and hate amongst our own, the media is having a field day and many are just following along; all in lock step. Let your hate flow!!

*sigh*

yorick73

12-11-2011, 08:18 PM

So, in other words, you're not going to answer his question? How typical.

Are you incapable of reading? The links provided address this issue. Please click on the first one, read it, if still confused click on the second one. Does that help?

Typo Knig

12-11-2011, 09:35 PM

yorick73 that was not appeasement - that was an attempt to re-start stalled negotiations. About as ineffective as a speech telling the NBA owners you want them to give the players more money. If you look in the dictionary under "Non-starter" you ought to see a picture of Obama's plan for the Middle East. Obama's speech presented a plan that everyone instantly ignored, but not a plan of appeasement.

I must add that as an American and a Jew I am at my limit with the strain of *US* politicians and voters who act as if the US must give Israel anything it wants, anything it says it wants, or anything it might possibly want in the future - no matter how boneheadingly counter to Israeli interests it might be. Let alone to US interests. Israel is a great country with a lot going for it, but it is governed by humans who make mistakes. We as their allies have a role in pointing out their mistakes, as our allies have done for us on occasion. For Israel's sake I hope their leaders listen better than ours have. Which brings us back to GWB and LBJ, and now I'm all dizzy.

CaptMurdock

12-12-2011, 12:42 AM

Are you incapable of reading? The links provided address this issue. Please click on the first one, read it, if still confused click on the second one. Does that help?

From the first link:

Originally posted by a Washington Post blogger:
A number of readers have asked about a statement made by George W. Bush in 2005: “Any final status agreement must be reached between the two parties, and changes to the 1949 Armistice Lines must be mutually agreed to.”

I purposely did not include this in my list because in the annals of diplomacy it is considered a relatively unimportant statement.

Translation: This undercuts my entire argument, so I'm going to try to ignore it.

So, yeah, I can read. Big time.

BobLibDem

12-12-2011, 07:00 AM

From the first link:
Translation: This undercuts my entire argument, so I'm going to try to ignore it.

So, yeah, I can read. Big time.

BINGO! Here's how to interpret presidential statements from a right wing perspective:

Bush: "Negotiations should have the 1949 borders as a starting point." This is an unimportant statement to be ignored.

Obama: "Negotiations should have the 1967 borders as a starting point." This is proof positive that Obama is an appeaser and is a gaffe of the highest magnitude, never to be forgiven.

Damuri Ajashi

12-12-2011, 08:55 AM

There seems to be an effort by conservative American Jews to coopt the entire Jewish American population. I hope it doesn't work.

Spoke

12-12-2011, 10:35 AM

I think he should have had the courage to support the Persian spring in Iran.

...abandoning an ally in Egypt...
So...wait... We should support the Persian spring but not the Arab spring? Explain why Iranians are deserving of freedom but Arabs are not.

yorick73

12-12-2011, 11:01 AM

From the first link:

Translation: This undercuts my entire argument, so I'm going to try to ignore it.

So, yeah, I can read. Big time.

I guess I should have asked if you can read for comprehension. How you cannot understand the difference is beyond me. Here is the rest of the comments that you deceptively left out:

I purposely did not include this in my list because in the annals of diplomacy it is considered a relatively unimportant statement. It was made at a news conference with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, not in a speech or in a letter (where, by contrast, the language is more carefully formulated.) It is essentially a restatement of the 2004 letter, with perhaps a bit more emphasis on “mutual agreement,” designed to please Palestinian ears.

At the time, it was considered an insignificant statement, by the Americans and the Palestinians — and the reporters. I looked back at the 29-paragraph article I wrote on the news conference. It mentioned the sentence in the last paragraph and did not focus at all on the phrase “1949 Armistice Lines.” The New York Times report on the same news conference did not mention Bush’s comment at all.

For diplomatic purposes, speeches and letters will almost always trump remarks at news conferences. The context is also important. As seen by the reporting at the time, no one thought Bush’s comment was remarkable or significant, in contrast to the reception that Obama’s statement on Thursday received. That’s because it was considered simply a restatement of the 2004 letter — which was considered the most explicit description of U.S. policy. Analysts who are citing this as evidence of little difference between Bush and Obama are deceiving themselves.

Bolding mine.

You are falling into the same trap as BobLibDem. Neither of you seem to understand the difference between Bush making a remark at a press conference with Abbas and a carefully worded speech designed to mark a shift in official US policy. All you really have is "But Bush said it too!"

BobLibDem

12-12-2011, 11:26 AM

yorick73

12-12-2011, 12:45 PM

Let me get this straight, what Bush said was essentially a "restatement of a 2004 letter" which was "the most explicit description of US policy", but we get to ignore it completely? For the record, I'm not excusing Obama on the "Bush did it too" rationale. I'm merely saying that there was not a radical shift in US policy as expressed by Obama, as you seem to be hell-bent on proving.

Have you read the 2004 letter? It clearly states that a return to the 1949 line is unrealistic. Here is the relevant part (http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/Reference+Documents/Exchange+of+letters+Sharon-Bush+14-Apr-2004.htm):
As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.

So, yeah, Obama's very carefully chosen words did signal a major shift in US policy.

BobLibDem

12-12-2011, 12:59 PM

You still seem to be drawing a distinction without a difference. Bush stated in his 2004 letter "it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949", which is not incompatible with using the 1949 lines as a starting point. Neither is it incompatible with using the 1967 lines as a starting point. None of what Bush or Obama said contradicted the other. So what's the big deal? Did Bush expect Israel to retreat to the 1949 line? No. Did Obama expect Israel to retreat to the 1967 line? No. Is there anything wrong with starting negotiations at either line? No.

I do agree that Obama's words are likely to be more carefully chosen and should be taken more seriously than Bush's. But to call Obama an appeaser is simply moronic.

kaylasdad99

12-12-2011, 01:19 PM

Will withhold my own opinion in the interest of discussion.
For how long will you withhold it?

yorick73

12-12-2011, 01:52 PM

You still seem to be drawing a distinction without a difference. Bush stated in his 2004 letter "it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949", which is not incompatible with using the 1949 lines as a starting point. Neither is it incompatible with using the 1967 lines as a starting point. None of what Bush or Obama said contradicted the other. So what's the big deal? Did Bush expect Israel to retreat to the 1949 line? No. Did Obama expect Israel to retreat to the 1967 line? No. Is there anything wrong with starting negotiations at either line? No.

It's the distinction that you refuse to understand. In a letter from one head of state to another, as well as official statements made by the president concerning policy, every word is weighed and every sentence is parsed. These are very carefully written. You simply cannot compare that to a comment made at a news conference when all other evidence of official US policy suggests otherwise.

BobLibDem

12-12-2011, 02:02 PM

yorick73

12-12-2011, 02:51 PM

Bush was not speaking off the cuff at a news conference, he was making a prepared speech (http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/01/20080110-3.html) in Jerusalem. Was the Bush White House careless in their speechwriting? Did Bush frequently travel to other nations and say things he did not mean? Did Bush ad lib this speech? Do you not thing every word was carefully chosen?

I was referring to his 2005 remark. Bush said absolutely nothing significant in the 2008 speach. Here is the relevant part:

Achieving an agreement will require painful political concessions by both sides. While territory is an issue for both parties to decide, I believe that any peace agreement between them will require mutually agreed adjustments to the armistice lines of 1949 to reflect current realities and to ensure that the Palestinian state is viable and contiguous. I believe we need to look to the establishment of a Palestinian state and new international mechanisms, including compensation, to resolve the refugee issue.

He is saying that the 1949 lines are not a realistic starting point. Obama is saying the exact opposite (WRT the 1967 line)

BobLibDem

12-12-2011, 02:57 PM

Chronos

12-12-2011, 03:29 PM

Statements made at press conferences aren't official statements? I thought that was the whole point of a press conference.

yorick73

12-12-2011, 03:38 PM

So in your parallel universe, "mutually agreed adjustments to the armistice lines of 1949" is oh so totally different than using the 1949 lines as a starting point. As long as you insist on viewing everything through prisms designed to make Bush look good and Obama look bad, there isn't much I can do. If someone else cares to pick up the torch, go for it. I've done my part.

Nice attempt to bow out of an argument without admitting that you are wrong. But wrong you are.

Yes...they are completely different. Actually, the exact opposite. Bush is clearly saying that the 1949 lines are not a starting point given the current realities. Obama says that the borders should be based on the 1967 lines with agreed swaps. I realize the nuance escapes you. I'm not asking you to take my word for it. The press claimed that it was a major shift in US policy.

CaptMurdock

12-12-2011, 03:39 PM

I guess I should have asked if you can read for comprehension. How you cannot understand the difference is beyond me.

I read it for comprehension just fine. As others in this thread have pointed out, what's "beyond you" is that Obama's speech is not "appeasement." You trying to say Bush's remarks are "off-the-cuff" or somehow "don't count" because they undercut your argument is intellectually disingenuous. (The bolded part of the post about Bush's remarks being considered an "insignificant statement" -- that's according to the blogger. You'll forgive me if I don't take that as Gospel.)

yorick73

12-12-2011, 04:23 PM

I read it for comprehension just fine. As others in this thread have pointed out, what's "beyond you" is that Obama's speech is not "appeasement." You trying to say Bush's remarks are "off-the-cuff" or somehow "don't count" because they undercut your argument is intellectually disingenuous.

I've already explained the difference between a remark at a news conference and a speech or letter. The 2008 speech cited in this thread is consistent with the 2004 letter. You can claim that the statements are identical (which they obviously are not) but you have to wonder where all the news was about our shift in policy. Do you think the media were covering for Bush?

(The bolded part of the post about Bush's remarks being considered an "insignificant statement" -- that's according to the blogger. You'll forgive me if I don't take that as Gospel.)

Still not doing your homework. From the Bio (http://www.washingtonpost.com/glenn-kessler/2011/03/02/ABzNymP_page.html) on the author:
In an award-winning journalism career spanning nearly three decades, Glenn Kessler, who writes “The Fact Checker” column, has covered foreign policy, economic policy, the White House, Congress, politics, airline safety and Wall Street. He was The Washington Post’s chief State Department reporter for nine years, traveling around the world with three different Secretaries of State. Before that, he covered tax and budget policy for The Washington Post and also served as the newspaper’s national business editor. In 2007, St. Martins Press published his widely acclaimed book on Condoleezza Rice, The Confidante. Kessler appears frequently on television and has lectured widely on U.S. foreign policy.

Now, you may not take the "blogger's" word as gospel but let's stop pretending this is some kid in pajamas who lives in his mom's basement.

Nancarrow

12-12-2011, 06:32 PM

Euphonious Polemic

12-12-2011, 07:09 PM

(j/k for the yucks)

Actually I'll be seriously impressed with the pubs if they can pull off 'Obama is Hitler' AND 'Obama is an appeaser' at the same time.

Why not? Last election they painted him as a Muslim who also had a crazy Christian pastor.

Marley23

12-12-2011, 11:28 PM

I was referring to the administration abandoning ... Poland

(j/k for the yucks)

Actually I'll be seriously impressed with the pubs if they can pull off 'Obama is Hitler' AND 'Obama is an appeaser' at the same time.
I don't think you technically broke our rules on quotes here, but please don't do this again. It creates a misleading impression of what yorick73 said.

CaptMurdock

12-12-2011, 11:34 PM

I've already explained the difference between a remark at a news conference and a speech or letter. The 2008 speech cited in this thread is consistent with the 2004 letter. You can claim that the statements are identical (which they obviously are not) but you have to wonder where all the news was about our shift in policy. Do you think the media were covering for Bush?

Not the point. You're trying to make "Obama's sudden and dramatic shift in policy" sound like he's handing the keys to America to any Middle East dictator with a funny-sounding name. And, as has been pointed out ad naseum, this "shift" is neither sudden or dramatic, because there is precedent, whether you like it or not.

Still not doing your homework. From the Bio (http://www.washingtonpost.com/glenn-kessler/2011/03/02/ABzNymP_page.html) on the author:

Now, you may not take the "blogger's" word as gospel but let's stop pretending this is some kid in pajamas who lives in his mom's basement.

I don't care if he's Woodward & Bernstein's secret love child. He does not get to be the sole arbiter of what constitutes "an insignificant statement" on foreign policy.

Spoke

12-13-2011, 12:01 AM

yorick73, maybe I missed it. Did you ever explain why we should support freedom for Iranians, but not for Arabs?

yorick73

12-13-2011, 12:49 PM

Not the point. You're trying to make "Obama's sudden and dramatic shift in policy" sound like he's handing the keys to America to any Middle East dictator with a funny-sounding name.

Nice bit of hyperbole there.

And, as has been pointed out ad naseum, this "shift" is neither sudden or dramatic, because there is precedent, whether you like it or not.

Yes. The precedent is Hillary Clinton's warm-up remarks leading up to Obama's.

I don't care if he's Woodward & Bernstein's secret love child. He does not get to be the sole arbiter of what constitutes "an insignificant statement" on foreign policy.

As I said, you don't have to take his word at all. But you were trying to impugn his character and dismiss his analysis by calling him a "blogger" as though he were some kid in his mom's basement. So now you say you don't care who he is, but you still aren't going to believe him because you don't like what he says. Got it.

yorick73

12-13-2011, 12:51 PM

yorick73, maybe I missed it. Did you ever explain why we should support freedom for Iranians, but not for Arabs?

You seem to be the only person speaking about freedom. Care to elaborate or actually ask a question about something I said?

CaptMurdock

12-13-2011, 05:30 PM

Nice bit of hyperbole there.

Oh, you wanna talk "hyberbole" now? Ahem...

Originally posted by Mitt Romney
Yesterday, Mitt Romney at the Republican Jewish Coalition Forum here in Washington lambasted Mr. Obama for adopting a foreign policy of "appeasement" that "betrays a lack of faith in America."

Give him your "hyperbole" line.

Yes. The precedent is Hillary Clinton's warm-up remarks leading up to Obama's.

Nice deflection, but, no.

As I said, you don't have to take his word at all. But you were trying to impugn his character and dismiss his analysis by calling him a "blogger" as though he were some kid in his mom's basement. So now you say you don't care who he is, but you still aren't going to believe him because you don't like what he says. Got it.

Try not to put words in my mouth; you don't know me that well. The reason I don't believe him is, he's one paid mouthpiece for the Washington Post trying to shore up an op-ed piece. Again, he's neither a diplomat nor a potentate.

yorick73

12-13-2011, 07:55 PM

Oh, you wanna talk "hyberbole" now? Ahem...

Give him your "hyperbole" line.

And you accuse me of deflection? :)

Nice deflection, but, no.

Says you? CNN (http://articles.cnn.com/2011-05-19/politics/obama.israel.palestinians_1_israel-palestinian-conflict-borders-settlements?_s=PM:POLITICS) reported that "Obama became the first president to formally endorse the policy" and the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/20/world/middleeast/20speech.html?pagewanted=all) calls it a "subtle, but significant shift, in American policy."

The LA Times (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/20/nation/la-na-netanyahu-obama-israel-20110521) said "Obama became the first president to publicly announce the 1967 formula, which is the equivalent of touching the third rail in Israeli politics."

The part that you fail to understand is the huge difference between unofficial and official US policy.

Try not to put words in my mouth; you don't know me that well. The reason I don't believe him is, he's one paid mouthpiece for the Washington Post trying to shore up an op-ed piece. Again, he's neither a diplomat nor a potentate.

Much better. At least there was some substance in that reason. Nonetheless, did all of those other media outlets I quoted above forget about Bush's statement or was it, maybe, "insignificant".

Spoke

12-13-2011, 08:02 PM

You seem to be the only person speaking about freedom. Care to elaborate or actually ask a question about something I said?

I did ask and you ignored the question. You're the one who was playing games with phrasing.

Here's what you said:

I think he should have had the courage to support the Persian spring in Iran.

...abandoning an ally in Egypt...

We see what you did there. If the Iranians go to the streets it is a "Persian spring," and we should support it.

But if the Arabs go to the streets, well, hmm, you don't seem to be calling that the "Arab spring." (Why not, I wonder?) And I guess we shouldn't support the Arabs if they go to the streets to demand democracy. Instead we should (let's see, how do you put it...) oh yes, support our "ally" (by which you presumably mean we should have stood behind the dictator Mubarak).

Please explain why Americans should support democracy in Iran, but not in Egypt.

yorick73

12-13-2011, 08:26 PM

I did ask and you ignored the question. You're the one who was playing games with phrasing.

Here's what you said:

We see what you did there. If the Iranians go to the streets it is a "Persian spring," and we should support it.

But if the Arabs go to the streets, well, hmm, you don't seem to be calling that the "Arab spring." (Why not, I wonder?) And I guess we shouldn't support the Arabs if they go to the streets to demand democracy. Instead we should (let's see, how do you put it...) oh yes, support our "ally" (by which you presumably mean we should have stood behind the dictator Mubarak).

Please explain why Americans should support democracy in Iran, but not in Egypt.

Nice bit of hand-waving on your part. You are the only one using terms such as "freedom" and "democracy". Revolution is not synonymous with either term. We need to be concerned with whatever outcome is best for the US. Period. I'll take a dictator who is friendly to the US over the Muslim Brotherhood any day.

Spoke

12-13-2011, 08:33 PM

Nice bit of hand-waving on your part. You are the only one using terms such as "freedom" and "democracy". Revolution is not synonymous with either term. We need to be concerned with whatever outcome is best for the US. Period. I'll take a dictator who is friendly to the US over the Muslim Brotherhood any day.

Ah, so then your use of "Persian spring" to describe the Iranian protests was just a cynical bit of emotional manipulation on your part. Ditto your use of "ally" to describe Mubarak.

Got it.

yorick73

12-13-2011, 09:17 PM

Ah, so then your use of "Persian spring" to describe the Iranian protests was just a cynical bit of emotional manipulation on your part. Ditto your use of "ally" to describe Mubarak.

Yes.

BrainGlutton

12-13-2011, 09:44 PM

I'll take a dictator who is friendly to the US over the Muslim Brotherhood any day.

The MB are more like Europe's Christian Democrats, they're not going to make Egypt like Saudi Arabia.

Spoke

12-13-2011, 10:40 PM

The MB are more like Europe's Christian Democrats, they're not going to make Egypt like Saudi Arabia.

I hope you are right. But I am not so sure about it.

Copts face violence in Egypt (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/A-New-Crisis-for-Egypts-Copts.html).

CaptMurdock

12-14-2011, 12:48 AM

And you accuse me of deflection? :)

Yes.
CNN (http://articles.cnn.com/2011-05-19/politics/obama.israel.palestinians_1_israel-palestinian-conflict-borders-settlements?_s=PM:POLITICS) reported that "Obama became the first president to formally endorse the policy" Let's see what else it says:

Originally posted by CNN:

President Barack Obama on Thursday made official the long-held but rarely stated U.S. support for a future Palestinian state based on borders that existed before the 1967 Middle East war.

In the past, the United States has unofficially backed a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict based on the borders in place prior to the war 44 years ago in which Israel seized the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights and Sinai Peninsula.

Wow. That looks like... this isn't something Barack Obama thought of one day with his feet up in the Oval Office. It sounds like something the United States has "unofficially" "rarely stated" but "long held" as a viable solution. :eek: Why, this could go back to GW Bush... maybe even to Bush the First... who knows?

and the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/20/world/middleeast/20speech.html?pagewanted=all) calls it a "subtle, but significant shift, in American policy."

Let's look some more:
Originally posted by The New York Times
At one level, by putting the United States on record as supporting the 1967 borders as the starting point for negotiations over a Palestinian state, Mr. Obama was simply endorsing reality: Middle East analysts say a new state would inevitably be drawn on the basis of Israel’s boundaries before the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, which created the contours of today’s Middle East.

Great Balls a'Fire Sale, the man is calling in experts!! Is there no end to his perfidy??:eek::eek:

The part that you fail to understand is the huge difference between unofficial and official US policy.
Some people would call that "leadership."

BrainGlutton

12-14-2011, 07:26 AM

I hope you are right. But I am not so sure about it.

Copts face violence in Egypt (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/A-New-Crisis-for-Egypts-Copts.html).

That's a matter for concern, but I don't see the MB involved anywhere.

BrainGlutton

12-14-2011, 07:35 AM

Putting Egypt in context: The MB and their Freedom and Justice Party, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_and_Justice_Party_(Egypt)) which led the polls (with 36% of the vote) in the first phase of post-revolution elections, are the moderate Islamists there. The extremists are Al Nour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Nour_Party) (got 24%).

yorick73

12-14-2011, 12:38 PM

Wow. That looks like... this isn't something Barack Obama thought of one day with his feet up in the Oval Office. It sounds like something the United States has "unofficially" "rarely stated" but "long held" as a viable solution. :eek: Why, this could go back to GW Bush... maybe even to Bush the First... who knows?

Let's look some more:

Great Balls a'Fire Sale, the man is calling in experts!! Is there no end to his perfidy??:eek::eek:

Some people would call that "leadership."

You really don't seem to have a handle on what you are talking about. I'm not sure you realize that we have been talking about official versus unoffical US policy the whole time. The degree of naivete exhibited in your comments is...well...expected at this point. Do you really not understand the difference between offical and unofficial US policy? Haven't you wondered why this change was reported on at all?

Do you think it would make the news if we "officially" recognized Taiwan? Why? We obviously "unofficially" recognize Taiwan. What's the big deal?

This official change in US policy signals that we are shifting toward the Palestinian position. You may not think that is too big of a deal but the Middle East would disagree with you. The official statement was meant to be an elbow in the ribs of Netanyahu. Should you have any doubt about that just remember the way Netanyahu was treated by Obama last year when they met at the White House.

BrainGlutton

12-14-2011, 12:57 PM

This official change in US policy signals that we are shifting toward the Palestinian position.

Well, that's a good thing, at least the way you say it.

yorick73

12-14-2011, 01:46 PM

Well, that's a good thing, at least the way you say it.

It might be a good thing if the PA, at the very least, recognized Israel's right to exist.

BrainGlutton

12-14-2011, 04:24 PM

It might be a good thing if the PA, at the very least, recognized Israel's right to exist.

[shrug] So it would, but an independent Palestine, even one that has its own army and controls its own borders with Jordan and Egypt, will never be a serious military threat to Israel.

yorick73

12-14-2011, 05:24 PM

[shrug] So it would, but an independent Palestine, even one that has its own army and controls its own borders with Jordan and Egypt, will never be a serious military threat to Israel.

Why the hell would Israel want to bargain at all with a people that do not even recognize her right to exist? You do realize that Israel will give up land in exchange for....well, for nothing.

Typo Knig

12-14-2011, 05:43 PM

Why the hell would Israel want to bargain at all with a people that do not even recognize her right to exist? You do realize that Israel will give up land in exchange for....well, for nothing.

Which has been the exact complaint of those who oppose "land for peace" deals since the beginning. Nothing new there. Also, didn't the PA officially recognize Israel's right to exist? I could be mis-remembering, and they probably didn't mean it if they did. But Israel has negotiated with the PA in the past, and will do so again.

In what way is the US advocating a land for peace deal "appeasement"? All of the mentions of US Middle East policy - and policy shifts - in this thread have been proposed starting points for negotiations. Obama did not even mention the possibility of a reduction is US support for Israel. He's not trying to appease anyone. The policy shift was an attempt to get people to the negotiating table and get them talking.

As many US Presidents have learned, if people don't want to talk, you can't make them. That's why it was IMO a dumb attempt to restart negotiations. It still wasn't appeasement.

CaptMurdock

12-14-2011, 05:55 PM

In what way is the US advocating a land for peace deal "appeasement"?

Obviously, in the way that anything the U.S. is doing that isn't diplomatically fellating Israel is "appeasement." :rolleyes:

But don't ask me. Apparently, I don't have a handle on what I'm talking about.

BrainGlutton

12-14-2011, 06:21 PM

Why the hell would Israel want to bargain at all with a people that do not even recognize her right to exist?

Because they're used to it. They have been bargaining, when not fighting, with all their hostile, expressly anti-Zionist neighbors since 1948; it is a condition of their national existence, to deal with people opposed to it. What's one more hostile neighbor?

You do realize that Israel will give up land in exchange for....well, for nothing.

In exchange for getting rid of it and not having to police it any more. In the long run, that's the best use Israel is ever going to get out of that land. I dunno what the Israelis were thinking when they grabbed the WB and decided to keep it and colonize it, but they'll never outnumber the Palestinians there, not if they plant settlements for 50 years more, and it will never really be theirs. (And why should it be? The Palestinians are not a bunch of squatters who moved in while the Jews were away, they are the Jews, the ones who never left and eventually yielded to conversion pressure; they're also the Canaanites, the Philistines, the Arabs, the Turks, everybody who has ever lived in Canaan/Palestine/Wherever; and they're just living where their ancestors have always lived.)

ElvisL1ves

12-14-2011, 06:51 PM

Why the hell would Israel want to bargain at all with a people that do not even recognize her right to exist? Why would Palestine want to bargain at all with a people that do not even recognize her right to exist? :dubious:

Alessan

12-15-2011, 01:37 AM

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton;14566684
In exchange for getting rid of it and not having to police it any more. In the long run, that's the best use Israel is ever going to get out of that land. I dunno what the Israelis were thinking when they grabbed the WB and decided to keep it and colonize it, but they'll never outnumber the Palestinians there, not if they plant settlements for 50 years more, and it will never really be theirs. [/QUOTE]

Israel took the West Bank because that was where the Jordanian army was; they simply pushed their enemy back until the reached a natural (and internationally recognized) border at the Jordan River. After that, they held it simply because nobody was willing to negotiate with them for its return.

As for the settlements - you're making the mistake of assuming some master strategy, when no such thing existed. The Israeli Knesset is no more capable of implementing long-term plans than the U.S. Congress is. Read Tuchman's "The March of Folly" if you haven't yet; its central thesis is pertinent to the situation. The settlements, in a way, are a lot like America's involvement in Vietnam - one damn thing leading to another, with no-one in power seeing the forest for the trees.

yorick73

12-16-2011, 11:27 AM

Which has been the exact complaint of those who oppose "land for peace" deals since the beginning. Nothing new there. Also, didn't the PA officially recognize Israel's right to exist? I could be mis-remembering, and they probably didn't mean it if they did. But Israel has negotiated with the PA in the past, and will do so again.

I think the PA might have paid lip service to Israel's existence at some point but they routinely engage in double talk depending on their audience. PA's ambassador to India (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/150323) denies that Israel has a right to exist. In a more muted speech, a close Fatah associate of Abbas (http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=223181) said that Fatah has never recognized Israel's right to exist.

In what way is the US advocating a land for peace deal "appeasement"? All of the mentions of US Middle East policy - and policy shifts - in this thread have been proposed starting points for negotiations. Obama did not even mention the possibility of a reduction is US support for Israel. He's not trying to appease anyone. The policy shift was an attempt to get people to the negotiating table and get them talking.

The very term "land for peace" implies appeasement. The US has had, in recent memory, an attitude of appeasement in any peace deal. Obama just went further down that road by formally stating that the 1967 line should be the starting point. Offering land in order for the other side to stop bombing your civilians is appeasement.

yorick73

12-16-2011, 11:39 AM

Because they're used to it. They have been bargaining, when not fighting, with all their hostile, expressly anti-Zionist neighbors since 1948; it is a condition of their national existence, to deal with people opposed to it. What's one more hostile neighbor?

That a great rational.

In exchange for getting rid of it and not having to police it any more. In the long run, that's the best use Israel is ever going to get out of that land. I dunno what the Israelis were thinking when they grabbed the WB and decided to keep it and colonize it, but they'll never outnumber the Palestinians there, not if they plant settlements for 50 years more, and it will never really be theirs. (And why should it be? The Palestinians are not a bunch of squatters who moved in while the Jews were away, they are the Jews, the ones who never left and eventually yielded to conversion pressure; they're also the Canaanites, the Philistines, the Arabs, the Turks, everybody who has ever lived in Canaan/Palestine/Wherever; and they're just living where their ancestors have always lived.)

Both the West bank and Gaza strip are strategically important to Israel. The plan has always been to wipe Israel off of the map. Negotiating a slimmed down Israel only starts this process.

BrainGlutton

12-16-2011, 12:24 PM

Both the West bank and Gaza strip are strategically important to Israel. The plan has always been to wipe Israel off of the map. Negotiating a slimmed down Israel only starts this process.

When my brother worked for an Israeli company, an Israeli once remarked to him, "wanting to expand your territory so you can have more territory is like wanting to get cancer so you can have more cells."

yorick73

12-16-2011, 01:07 PM

When my brother worked for an Israeli company, an Israeli once remarked to him, "wanting to expand your territory so you can have more territory is like wanting to get cancer so you can have more cells."

Just out of curiosity...was the Israeli just referring to expansion for the sake of expansion versus strategic need or was he opposed to Israel occupying these areas at all?

I've known a few Israelis personally through the years and all of them had the opposite view of your brother's acquaintance. No question there is a diversity of opinion on even this topic in Israel.

G-SE

12-16-2011, 01:09 PM

Oh, bull cookies. The Republican Special Olympic team currently running for Head Fecktard is incapable of "specifics." They're trying to hang the "God Damn America!" noose around his neck, and bless 'im he's having none of it.

You should learn from your dear leader that it is not politically correct to make fun of the Special Olympics.

CaptMurdock

12-16-2011, 01:17 PM

You should learn from your dear leader that it is not politically correct to make fun of the Special Olympics.

Frankly, Scarlet, the Special Olympians could make fun of the Republican candidates this cycle. So, I'll thank you to keep your "dear leader" jibes to yourself.

BrainGlutton

12-16-2011, 02:31 PM

Just out of curiosity...was the Israeli just referring to expansion for the sake of expansion versus strategic need or was he opposed to Israel occupying these areas at all?

[shrug] Dunno, it's just something my brother told me once years ago.

BrainGlutton

12-16-2011, 02:36 PM

You should learn from your dear leader that it is not politically correct to make fun of the Special Olympics.

Don't make me do this (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=14573539#post14573539) again.

Typo Knig

12-16-2011, 03:22 PM

... The very term "land for peace" implies appeasement. The US has had, in recent memory, an attitude of appeasement in any peace deal. Obama just went further down that road by formally stating that the 1967 line should be the starting point. Offering land in order for the other side to stop bombing your civilians is appeasement.

Help me out here - is there any sort of negotiation that might appraoch peace in the Middle East that is not "appeasement" to you?

yorick73

12-16-2011, 03:54 PM

Help me out here - is there any sort of negotiation that might appraoch peace in the Middle East that is not "appeasement" to you?

Yeah...the Palestinians should stop the fucking bombing of civilian population centers as a prerequisite to starting negotiations. Otherwise you are doing nothing more than appeasing terrorists.

Typo Knig

12-16-2011, 10:06 PM

Yeah...the Palestinians should stop the fucking bombing of civilian population centers as a prerequisite to starting negotiations. Otherwise you are doing nothing more than appeasing terrorists.

Sure - but who has enough control over all of the Palestinians to make that happen? And I think the Palestinians might have a word or two about bombing of their civilians. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not only terrible in itself, but it's used as the driving excuse for much other strife and violence all over the world. Are we going to try to get the two warring factions to the table to attempt to end it peacefully, or are we going to call every single attempt "appeasement" and let it be derailed?

You and I are just talking on the Internet. For political leaders this matters, and lives are in the balance.

BobLibDem

12-16-2011, 11:07 PM

Was the "land for peace" deal between Egypt and Israel appeasement? Egypt got the Sinai back and Israel retreated to the 1967 borders in that area, Egypt and Israel have not been at war since. Where was the American right-wing angst over that? Oh that's right, the president was white at the time.

yorick73

12-17-2011, 05:16 PM

Sure - but who has enough control over all of the Palestinians to make that happen? And I think the Palestinians might have a word or two about bombing of their civilians. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not only terrible in itself, but it's used as the driving excuse for much other strife and violence all over the world. Are we going to try to get the two warring factions to the table to attempt to end it peacefully, or are we going to call every single attempt "appeasement" and let it be derailed?

You and I are just talking on the Internet. For political leaders this matters, and lives are in the balance.

Groups within the Palestinian territories, including Fatah, are shooting missiles into population centers where civilians live. If that cannot be controlled by those who want statehood then they should not be allowed to even sit at the table.

yorick73

12-17-2011, 05:20 PM

Where was the American right-wing angst over that? Oh that's right, the president was white at the time.

Ah, the last tactic of someone losing an argument. Actually you bowed out some time ago but, I guess, you thought you would pop back in to call your opponents racist. No big surprise. Very intelligent. :rolleyes:

BobLibDem

12-18-2011, 12:43 PM

Ah, the last tactic of someone losing an argument. Actually you bowed out some time ago but, I guess, you thought you would pop back in to call your opponents racist. No big surprise. Very intelligent. :rolleyes:

No need for me to belabor the obvious.

Snowboarder Bo

12-18-2011, 10:47 PM

He is saying that the 1949 lines are not a realistic starting point. Obama is saying the exact opposite (WRT the 1967 line)

I just read thru this thread, and I cannot understand how you can make the claim that Bush is saying they are not a realistic starting point when the very words quoted from the speech clearly indicate that it is a starting point. If it is not a starting point, how is it that both sides should agree to adjustments to it?

I know this point was being made awhile ago, but I can't understand the leap that yorick73 seems to be making.

bengangmo

12-19-2011, 01:07 AM

Sure - but who has enough control over all of the Palestinians to make that happen? And I think the Palestinians might have a word or two about bombing of their civilians. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not only terrible in itself, but it's used as the driving excuse for much other strife and violence all over the world. Are we going to try to get the two warring factions to the table to attempt to end it peacefully, or are we going to call every single attempt "appeasement" and let it be derailed?

You and I are just talking on the Internet. For political leaders this matters, and lives are in the balance.

More to the point - until such time as you have a "strong", viable, internationally accepted country, with a govt that has broad based local and international support - how is that ever going to change?

BobLibDem

12-19-2011, 07:29 AM

If I may digress from the brickeresque parsing of Obama's and Bush's starting points for negotiations, the "appeasement" yammerers are the same lot that harp on Obama's "apology tour". Reading the texts of Obama's speeches on foreign soil, I honestly don't have a clue as to what they're talking about. Unless of course, "apology" translates in Rightese as saying anything but "Hooyah! We're bad ass muthafuckahs and if you're not for us, you're against us and we'll kick your ass!"

CaptMurdock

12-19-2011, 03:26 PM

Damuri Ajashi

12-27-2011, 01:15 AM

People are acting like Obama proposed 1947 borders as a starting point for negotiations. Obama's foreign policy credentials are fucking impeccable. He may not be genuflecting to the conservatives in Israel as much as some would like (and conservatives here certainly like to point it out) but its hard to paint a guy that routinely invades Pakistani airspace, kills Osama bin laden, brings down Qaddafi, etc. as appeasing the fucking Palestinians. What does Obama have to fear from the Palestinians? If international terrorists don't scare him why would anyone think that these guys living under the miltia5ry control of the Israelis scare him.

Isn't it possible, that he is taking the position he is taking because he believes that is the correct position and not because he is trying to appease someone?

I mean you might as well accuse Doug Feith of being an Israel appeaser. Obama's position on the Israel conflict may not be as onesided as his predecessors but its been a long time coming.