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

[Damuri_Ajashi]

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

[Spoke]

@yorick73

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]

@CaptMurdock

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:

@Washington Post Blogger

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]

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.

[yorick73]

@BobLibDem

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:

@2004 letter

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]

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]

@Linden_Arden

Will withhold my own opinion in the interest of discussion.

For how long will you withhold it?

[yorick73]

@BobLibDem

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]

Bush was not speaking off the cuff at a news conference, he was making a prepared speech 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?

[yorick73]

@BobLibDem

Bush was not speaking off the cuff at a news conference, he was making a prepared speech 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:

@Bush

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]

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.

[Chronos]

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

[yorick73]

@BobLibDem

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]

@yorick73

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]

@CaptMurdock

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?

@CaptMurdock

(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 on the author:

@Washington Post

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]

[QUOTE=yorick73, post 24]
I was referring to the administration abandoning … Poland
[/QUOTE]

(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.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@Nancarrow

(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]

@Nancarrow

@yorick73

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]

@yorick73

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 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]

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