“I guess President Bush must think Defense Secretary Robert Gates is an appeaser of terrorists. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, too. And U.S. Ambassador to Baghdad Ryan Crocker,” wrote columnist Trudy Rubin. She noted that all three support having direct talks with Iran, as Barack Obama does. “What makes the president’s remarks even more hypocritical is the abject failure of his own Iran policy,” she wrote. “No one has strengthened Iran’s hand more in the Mideast region than George W. Bush.”
Rubin argued that John McCain is hypocritical, too. “There is no way Iraq can be stabilized and U.S. troops withdrawn safely without the cooperation of Tehran,” she wrote. “McCain is fooling himself and the public if he thinks he can avoid the issue of talks.”
FYI: In case you haven’t seen it, here is the video of “Hardball” host Chris Matthews trying to get talk-radio host Kevin James to explain what former British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain did wrong.
55 Comments
Once again I ask 2 questions: 1)Why does McCain (notice I didnt say Dubya) think that talking with Hezbolah or Iran is similar to signing the Munich Pact? 2) What “Pre-conditions” did Richard Nixon ensure before going to China that are supposedly not going to be ensured regarding Iran? 3)
oops, just 2 drop the 3)
Sometimes ” I don’t know” is the best answer!
3) might be the Iranian president boogeyman is just a figurehead, a reason that the U.S. declined to have direct talks with him before. He does not wield the political power for Iran.
If you want to throw political stones about statements concerning the middle east, lets take a long hard look at how McCain can’t understand the difference between Shia, Sunni, Iran, and alqeada.
If you are interested in anything besides starting war, then you have to have open communications with Iran and the other bordering countries. Duh.
I don’t know who Kevin James is, but if I were to make an assumption from his performance, I’d say he’s a clueless RW talk show host. Bet he’s pissed he didn’t have control of the micraphones!
I
Would Senator Clinton actually have to pass her D.C. bar exam first?
wrong thread…
If you are interested in anything besides starting war, then you have to have open communications with Iran and the other bordering countries. Duh.
But McCain IS only interested in starting war. His spiritual advison Parsley wants Holy War Armageddon to bring on the Second Coming. And John McCain sings “Bomb Iran”
I counted 15 times Matthews asked the question. Does that sound right?
Profound philosophical question for our RW friends. Would bush and Denny Crane McCain think that Mathews conversation with Kevin James could be classified as appeasment to the RW?
Chris Matthews was try to muddy the waters and the reference to Neville Chamberlain and his dealings with Hitler was characterized by Winston Churchhill as “The general policy of appeasement.”
Here’s an example of Chamberlain’s appeasement policy:
Chamberlain stood by without objection, while Adolph Hitler illegally annexed Austria and Czechslovokia.
Here’s what Chamberlain’s response was:
How horrible, fantastic 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. I am myself a man of peace from the depths of my soul.
Chamberlain when smacked in the face with obvious signs of naked agression by Hitler chose to be an appeaser. Shortly after Chamberlain’s speech, Hitler attacked and invaded Czechslovokia and then of course, the Blitzkrieg (lightning war) on Poland.
A long time personal friend of Chamberlain and a Lord in the House of Commons, Leo Amery, delivered this speech to Chamberlain.
You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go.
Even after that stinging rebuke, Chamberlain still sat on his hands. In the meantime, Germany invaded the Netherlands, Belgium and France.
Finally, after admitting to his failure on the policy of appeasement, on the evening of 10 May 1940, Chamberlain tendered his resignation to the King and formally recommended Sir Winston Churchill as his successor.
What President stated in his speech was a lesson that history has taught us. You can use a policy of appeasement when it comes to “war-lording” tyrants.
These tyrants can be given no quarter, no second opportunities nor should they be appeased in any way.
If the truth stung the Obama camp, then so be it, they should be stung.
Those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.
reference: Wiki, et al
Hypocritical Repukes? Who could have imagined it!
Just another sign that Repukes never actually believe the shit they shovel. All convictions are merely tactical–except that one that they must, invariably, remain in power.
Chris Matthews was try to muddy the waters and the reference to Neville Chamberlain and his dealings with Hitler was characterized by Winston Churchhill as “The general policy of appeasement.”
Here’s an example of Chamberlain’s appeasement policy:
Chamberlain stood by without objection, while Adolph Hitler illegally annexed Austria and Czechslovokia.
Oh give me a break. Actually that was Matthews’s exact point!
“What Neville Chamberlain did wrong was not talking to Hitler, but giving away half of Czechloslovkia!”
If it’s not in the video above (I saw it live), it’s here, at 6:58:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHleE7dfp28
Moron.
I still don’t see the similarities Regular. Israel has arguably the 18th largest Army in the World. Iran ranks somewhere in the low 20’s (just smaller than Argentina) Israel can defend themselves against Iran just fine. East Europe was nothing compared to the German Army. How is Israel now in the same type of situation that Czechosolvakia was in during the 1930s?
All you have is a concept, an argument for appeasement. There is no Tehran pact similar to the Munich pact. I can only infur that in your opinion, talking with Iran is like signing the Munich Pact. How does history provide evidence of that?
P.S. It is , unsurprisingly, in the video above.
All you have is a concept, an argument for appeasement. There is no Tehran pact similar to the Munich pact. I can only infur that in your opinion, talking with Iran is like signing the Munich Pact. How does history provide evidence of that?
You may want to swallow some mineral oil to get that “infur” out of your throat.
Iran is a known agressor in the Middle East region. They supply arms, equipment and other weapons of wars to militant groups to change the internal affairs of other countries.
True, this is not naked agression like Hitler’s, but it is even more dangerous because it is more subtle.
Iran’s agression is by definition a philosophical and ideological view driven by religious doctrine to secure territories and envelope populations in order to force them to commit to Iran’s world view.
Now I ask you, how is talking to a group whose world view, ideology, purpose and relgious practice dominate every aspect of their mindset going to help?
If you try to use Western thought in any manner, you will not be listened to. You will first be considered an infidel and your thoughts unclean.
How do you talk to a group of people who have absolutely nothing in common with your philosophies that you consider reasonable and appropriate?
Combine that with Iran’s intent to turn the Middle East into a Shiite haven, then you have an intolerable situation.
People of that ilk, the Iranian leaders and those who oppress their own people’s freedom only understand one thing - power and the use of power.
They will yield to power and nothing else. Iran, the same as Iraq much change their religious views to adapt themselves to a modern world.
You are dealing with mindsets that are tribal and centuries old. Change for these societies come within. The catalyst in this type of situation is power, not talk.
Does Iran occupy any part of neighboring countries? Does Israel?
Didn’t Reagan talk to the Soviets? Didn’t Nixon go to China? Might that have made sense?
You can talk to them without giving away the store. And, as noted above, BUSH’S OWN ADMINISTRATION AGREES!
Iran, the same as Iraq much change their religious views to adapt themselves to a modern world.
Become Christian Creationists?
McCain’s (and Muslim-hater Regular’s) foreign policy:
“We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/coulter/coulter.shtml
Iran, the same as Iraq much change their religious views to adapt themselves to a modern world. Become Christian Creationists?
To become non-aggressors like other Arab countries that play well with their neighbors and don’t interfere with the internal affairs of other nations.
You are starting to sound like Kevin James, Regular. You just say the same things over and over again.
What will talking to them accomplish? If nothing else, at least it will show the world that these people can make an a$$ of themselves. At least then the rest of the world won’t think that WE are the a$$es. But that’s not the question.
How is talking with Iran appeasing? What will we give up? In the Munich Pact, Czechoslovokia was given up. What will be given up by talking with Iran?
Like how the US plays well and doesn’t interfere?
The appeasement analogy/arguement is at its best weak and totally misleading.
The appeasement analogy/arguement is at its best weak and totally misleading.
That said, I am glad bush never held direct talks with leaders he considers foes, it would have been humiliating for America.
Agreed Phanton. That is why Robert Gates doesn’t subscribe to it.
oh and Regular. Here is another good reason to talk with Iran. The rest of the world just might get the idea that we TALK to people before going to war with them.
How is talking with Iran appeasing? What will we give up? In the Munich Pact, Czechoslovokia was given up. What will be given up by talking with Iran?
Go ahead and talk, see what it will get you. Ask them nicely to not interfere with the affairs of Palestine and Lebanon and supply Hamas with missiles to fired at Israel.
Ask them nicely not supply IED to Iraqi insurgents that kill our troops.
Oh wait, we’ve already done that and they are still doing it.
What else ya got for Iranian talking points?
VET - Gates is an Osama-loving Islamic Commie.
Regular: So you are finally going to concede that we don’t really give anything up by talking with Iran? Lord, it’s going to rain.
If you think talking with Iran is useless, fine, you go ahead and think that. Just as long as you finally concede the fact that nothing is given up by doing so.
VET - talking to the Commie Russians didn’t do any good. They still launched their nukes at us!
and don’t interfere with the internal affairs of other nations.
Sounds like good advice. Maybe we should follow it.
Bush won’t be having direct talks with anyone. No one wants to talk to him. He belongs in jail.
“He belongs in jail.”
But he can still talk through the little grill in the wall in the visiting room.
well Ben, Apparantly Reagan set some preconditions before he went. Nixon did as well. That brings me to question 2 (scroll up) what were these so called
“preconditions” that Barack Obama is irresponsibly forgoing?
McBush just “rejected” his Rev. Hagee’s endorsement? What does that mean? And Sam Brownback? Does he now feel remorse and regret for having spent the last year cultivating Hagee?
And how can Sam, and his coworker Pat Roberts, look themselves in the mirror everyday knowing they helped sell an unjust war (based on Catholic doctrine and the Pope’s own words)?
How about “You must unconditionally surrender to our occupation forst”? And “give us all your oil”?
first - can’t type
Does that mean McLame was ‘for’ Hagee before he was ‘against’ him?
FLIP
FLOP
And for Sam … just plain FLOP
Kansasdem. McCain rejected Hagee? Cool. I guess the election cycle is far enough along that McCain can grow his pair back and tell the Religious Right ” SIT AND SPIN” Will you post a link for that? I would so enjoy reading it.
Actually it took someone finding a speech of Hegee’s where he said that Hitler was a hunter that God used to drive the Jews to the homeland of Israel. Now Hegee has denounced Mc Cain too saying he would hate to be a blinding factor in the campaign.
Now all that McCain has to do is denounce Parsley.
Oh and BTW, not too hot on HIllary on the court.
Whoops. Gen. Petraeus has just joined the Appeasers Club. Good company. Look who’s in; look who’s not.
By comparison, the populations of the following countries:
Israel: 6.4 million,
Iraq: 21 1/2 million,
Iran: 65 1/2 million.
I believe we should have learned by now the dangers of attacking Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Also many Iranian students are attending schools in Wichita, Kansas and across our country. I have met a few and found them very bright and well mannered.
Even as a moderate Republican, I see the fallicy of electing politicians with minimal education and track record of substantial success. Experience running a baseball team was pitifully inadequate.
I’m convinced most countries want to emulate the United States, not destroy us. If maverick leaders arise in some countries, we must deal with them individually and not bomb the country.
Could we have taken out Hitler in 1938 … probably.
Is Israel a bunch of Nazi appeasers like Bush suggests since they are negotiating a peace deal with Syria?
Re: Robert Gates, secretary of defense. Graduate of Wichita’s East High School reputedly with straight “A”’s. His brother was later principal of Wichita’s Southeast High School.
At this point, I predict Bob Gates will be a vice-presidential candidate four years for now. He’s got far better qualifications for president than any candidate we have running today.
M-P - and I hope the talks succeed - for BOTH sides. BOTH countries will benefit from a cessation of hostilities. And Turkey might have another motive: Peace in the Levant region could be very good for their economy as well as all of the economies of the region.
bth,
I think there is a good chance the talks will be successful. The United States wasn’t invited to the talks so it’s clear they want peace since the U.S. would just go there to disrupt the talks and promote violence.
I hope so. It seems that Assad (the younger) is a pragmatist. If Syria can forge ties around the Mediterranean they can prosper.
Regular: One more kick at this cat. Churchill made his comments on appeasement while sitting as an opposition Member of Parliament. Under their system of government it is the duty of the Loyal Oppostion to critize with all the fury, caustic,sarcastic comments and downright stretching of the truth they can muster all government policies. Being a Liberal at the time of his appeasement comments (he had been a Conservative and First Sea Lord))he derided Chamberlain constantly, but when invited to join the Cabinet he crossed over to sit on the government side and became a Conservative…..again and of course, stopped bitching. Gotta wonder about convictions here vs. opportunism. What motivates a comment sometimes carries more weight than the comment itself.
If we talked with Iran and said “OK, we will let you annex Iraq” then perhaps the Chamberlain analogy might make sense. Just like if THEY said to us that WE could annex Iraq - but in reverse.
bth: If we said to Iran OK, you can annex the Sunni parts of Iraq but not the Shia areas, that might be a comparison. The Shia would have the backing of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan etc. all of whom are Shia countries and who care nothing about the Sunni portions of Iraq. This would create a balance of power in that region. When we got rid of the Saddam (Shia) we created a religious void the Sunni Iranians are filling. Iraq had an uneasy combination of Sunni and Shia each of whom had been doing terrible things to each other for centuries.The Czech area of the old Austrian Empire had a huge, huge German speaking contingent and Hitler cared little about the Slovacks or the Czechs. He proclaimed Slovakia a protectorate after he was given the Czech portion and did you notice how fast the Slovacks and the Czechs split when the Cold War was over? History repeats itself constantly, only the names change.
2 Trackbacks
[…] SuGaLaNd wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptShe noted that all three support having direct talks with Iran, as Barack Obama does…. […]
[…] Warren - MySpace Blog wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerpt” Rubin argued that John McCain is hypocritical, too…. […]