Tools

METHINKS THEY PROTEST TOO MUCH

By Charlie Sykes

Patrick McIlheran on the manufactured outrage from the Obama camp over President Bush's comments on appeasement.

 


Obama got his bowels in a twist, apparently, because President Bush gave a speech in Jerusalem saying exactly this:

"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is –- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."


In short, the pretty much normal understanding that you bargain only if there's something to bargain about. As John Podhoretz points out, this is almost boilerplate. The view has bipartisan buy-in, as you'd expect, other than among those particular Democrats who lately have made a point of snuggling up to thugs and so on. As Paul Mirengoff at Power Line points out:

"What's telling here is Obama's defensiveness. Bush didn't say that Obama is among those who favor negotiating with Hamas, for example. But it's understandable that this is a sore point for Obama, inasmuch as his former adviser, Robert Malley, not only favors negotiating with Hamas but apparently was actually 'negotiating' with it."


Saturday, May 17 at 10:35 PM Jeffrey L. Schallert wrote ...

I think people are missing the point. Mr. Obama is adopting the Clintons' "everlasting campaign" model - victim spin. No matter what happens anywhere, it is about Obama. Bush denounces appeasement? It's an attack on Obama. Hillary wins a primary? It's evidence of a subtle prejudice against Obama. A tree falls in the woods? Don't ask me how, but it's an insult against Obama. "The nefarious Republican attack machine is behind it all!" Talk about the audacity of solipsism!

Saturday, May 17 at 7:40 PM Amy L. Geiger-Hemmer wrote ...

The whole point of Obama getting all worked up is that he feels that he is the one Bush is referencing. Even though Bush uses no names. Why is that? If the shoe fits.... This incident is akin to Obama's team getting defensive over the use of Obama's middle name - has anyone implied there is something wrong with it? - yet Team Obama and other liberals seem they must not use Obama's middle name and go balistic if someone does. Why?.... Hussein IS his middle name. Again, if the shoe fits...

Friday, May 16 at 8:56 PM pq wrote ...

"3rd party" talks aren't the same as Presidents validating terrorists with DIRECT talks, such as Obama proposes. Colin Powell is another Liberal, though with great military (not Presidential) credentials. He's also irrelevant right now, like you, BC.

Friday, May 16 at 2:22 PM Ryan wrote ...

Bush could have been talking about Carter,but from some reason,Obama thought he was talking about himself.All he had to do was say,I 100% agree and move along.Instead he makes a comment about this.Talk about feeling guilty about something.

Friday, May 16 at 10:11 AM bigcat wrote ...

Interesting, No one mentions that the pentagon and Robert Gates are currently advocating for third party talks with Hamas and Iran or that Colin Powell advocated for diplomacy and high levels talks as well.

Add a comment

Name:

Comment: 500 Characters Left

Comments are moderated and will not appear on this story until after they have been reviewed and deemed appropriate for posting.

620WTMJ and its affiliated companies are not responsible for the content of comments posted or for anything arising out of use of the above comments or other interaction among the users. We reserve the right to screen, refuse to post, remove or edit user-generated content at any time and for any or no reason in our absolute and sole discretion without prior notice, although we have no duty to do so or to monitor any Public Forum.