Comments on: The Politics of Appeasement

By: utsu

utsu — Sun, 18 May 2008 09:44:00 +0000

Hey, wait, isn’t McCain closely associated with some dude named Black who does business with crook and Iran-consort Chalabi? Didn’t Chalabi give the US government all that fake pre-invasion intel?

The speech was not a sincere expression of worry regarding the implications of Obama’s approach. It was hypocritical and therefore part ofthepolitical arena. Democrats have had to take generalized slander in this area for so long, and the fact that they make an "en masse" rejection of Bush’s latest mewing proves that they are not going to allow sub-standard scare tactics to sway them.

By: utsu

utsu — Sun, 18 May 2008 08:20:34 +0000

"It was a good, intelligent speech about foreign policy, with reminders, on the 60th anniversary of the founding of Israel about the horrors and failures of appeasement."

Seems like non-appeasement for the sake of it has ruined the middle east in every aspect. Also, seems that Bush is a bit prone to appease dubious allies whenever they ask by removing troops (Saudi Arabia).

The speech was hypocritical and can’t convince due to the source. It should be politicized and shunted out of history. Bush is not allowed to be treated seriously.

By: Bill W

Bill W — Sat, 17 May 2008 12:43:18 +0000

Weak cheese Utsu. It was a good, intelligent speech about foreign policy, with reminders, on the 60th anniversary of the founding of Israel about the horrors and failures of appeasement. The democrats chose to politicize it and do it en masse.

If it WAS compatitble then that is all he would have had to say - the fact that he didn’t says a lot.

how you take that as cowardly sniping is beyond me.

By: utsu

utsu — Sat, 17 May 2008 05:34:27 +0000

"Why would all of the democrats get so upset? Because they each had taken part in this appeasement and the recognized themselves in those comments."

Because Bush is a sniping coward who can’t say shit about intelligent, long-term foreign policy.

"What Obama should have said is "I agree with the president 100% - no appeasement to terrorists, we stand firm with Israel"."

This is not incompatible with Obama’s sensible positions, which is why he defended himself with some fervor.

By: Bill W

Bill W — Sat, 17 May 2008 03:31:47 +0000

If the shoe fits, wear it. Bush did not point anyone out by name (as was misreported in many news outlets) nor did he even say Iran, although he easily could have.

Why would all of the democrats get so upset? Because they each had taken part in this appeasement and the recognized themselves in those comments.

What Bush said was undeniably true, and had nothing to to with politics - it was the 60th anniversary of the birth of Israel what the hell else was he going to talk about except the seeds that sowed the holocaust and the ongoing threats to Israel.

What Obama should have said is "I agree with the president 100% - no appeasement to terrorists, we stand firm with Israel".

That would have gone a lot further to win American’s trust than the manufactured outrage.

By: HiFly

HiFly — Sat, 17 May 2008 00:27:25 +0000

Bush is completely irrelevant at this point currently leading as the most unpopular president in US history, and its about the only way he can make the news anymore is to compare Democrats who offer a different viewpoint than his "Flawed" one as less american.

By: utsu

utsu — Fri, 16 May 2008 22:39:00 +0000

Bush harmed his cause and, by extension, McCain. Obama can wave Bush’s slap away - it energizes all Obama supporters, because unlike you they see that Bush or McCain doesn’t have a plan on the scarerrists. They have posturing, and fear-mongering.