Will withhold my own opinion in the interest of discussion.
It might depend on whom Obama is accused of “appeasing”: Republican diehards in the Congress, or Muslim terrorists. I can see both accusations being made, though by different people.
His own answer is good enough:
[QUOTE=Obama]
Ask Osama bin Laden and the 22-out-of-30 top al Qaeda leaders who’ve been taken off the field whether I engage in appeasement. Or whoever is left out there, ask them about that.
[/QUOTE]
Not everyone who uses the term has a freaking clue. 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?
Umm…all of them?
I would pay good money to see that… actually I would pay bad money too.
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.
Including himself.
You mean “unAmerican Marxist Kenyan Social Christian Muslim”.
Splitter!
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
Well, it says he’s a liar, unless he can come up with an example.
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.
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 the only good thing that has ever happened on cable news, where someone actually takes a political flack to task for this.
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.
Well, that would be Obama, wouldn’t it?
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.”
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 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.