May 16, 2008
Bush 'Appeasement' Comments Outrageous, Says Steve Gimbel
Steve Gimbel, at Philosophers’ Playground, is frothing at the mouth over President Bush’s remarks in Israel about “appeasement.”
As The New York Times put it:
President Bush used a speech to the Israeli Parliament on Thursday to liken those who would negotiate with “terrorists and radicals” to appeasers of the Nazis — a remark widely interpreted as a rebuke to Senator Barack Obama, who has advocated greater engagement with countries like Iran and Syria.
Gimbel, of Gettysburg College, writes:
There are so many angles from which outrage should flow from Bush’s “appeasement” comment in front of the Knesset. Making a cheap Nazi reference in front of the Israeli legislature that is celebrating the founding of the nation which was came about in no small part because of the actual horrors of Nazism is tasteless. Taking a nation’s celebration of their 60th anniversary and hijacking it for domestic political shots is rude. Misrepresenting diplomatic engagement for appeasement is dishonest. Overlooking the fact that Bush himself is engaged in exactly this sort of diplomacy with fellow axis of evil leader Kim Jong Il and that the Israelis have a history of diplomatic engagement with their national enemies, not to mention criticizing a fellow American overseas after the Dixie Chicks fiasco, is nothing short of hypocritical.
All of this is disturbing, but what is truly stunning is that here is George W. Bush, the man whose policy of pre-emptive war, whose infantile black-and-white, with us or against us mentality, whose antipathy towards well-established and effective means of diplomacy put not only our country in greater danger, but which has made Israel significantly less safe. This man then stands in front of the government that now has to worry more about the safety of its citizens because of his policy stance and then in his embarrassingly adolescent manner lashes out at one of the adults for suggesting that we need to stop shooting ourselves and Israel in the foot, something everyone in the room knows we have to do. This is nothing short of oblivious.
He becomes even more outraged as the post goes on.
Alex Kafka | Posted on Friday May 16, 2008 | PermalinkComments
Previous: Research Gone Wrong
Next: Is Jodie Foster Responsible for Reaganomics?
Thank goodness we have brilliant minds like Steve Gimbel to think for us! Whew, I am so glad we lack ample WWII appeasement history or contemporary statements from Iran about wiping out Israel, to disagree with Steve Gimbel. Besides, Obama is the messiah.
— Stepah Johnas May 16, 10:40 AM #
Thanks goodness Bush’s policies of standing firm against terrorism and the countries that support it have kept us safe since 9/11. Oh, and thank goodness his policies have give the Iraqi people the opportunity to choose democracy, if they want it.
— Joseph May 16, 10:56 AM #
President Bush didnt even mention Obama. So if the shoe doesnt fit, his supporters needn’t put it on.
Instead they have put it in their mouths with their hysterical reactions like the above “blog”. Did the President come uncomfortably close to what some Obama supporters might fear or wish?
— Joseph F Foster May 16, 11:12 AM #
Was the comment even accurate? Who was the U.S. politician Bush quoted?
— Paul Kleppner May 16, 12:28 PM #
I’m not sure Bush is the best person to assess whether someone’s ideas about the Middle East are delusional. The boasts of Iran’s leaders about wiping Israel off the map are not the same as the Nazi’s taking of Czechoslovakia. Didn’t Kruschev speak of “crushing” the United States? Diplomacy did not end because of heated rhetoric. Are Iran’s leaders idiots? Yes. Does that mean you shouldn’t talk to them (or, even better, around them, to the Iranian people, as the U.S. often did with Russia)? No. In fact, you often strengthen the domestic hand of people like this by using such heated rhetoric. (See: Fidel Castro). This macho posturing is hollow and does nothing to settle the issues. If negotiation doesn’t work, explain the peace in Northern Ireland, South Africa, or that between Egypt and Israel or Israel and Jordan to me.
— Evan May 16, 12:31 PM #
Perhaps commentators #1 and #2 should review Bush’s own past and policies. Didn’t he give the Taliban funding during the very early part of his first term? Even then, the world knew that this religious/political regime was abusing women and intellectuals in Afghanistan, that it was limiting the vote to those who shared its extremely fundamentalist views of Islam. But Bush didn’t blink and eye (or negotiate) with these terrorists. He simply wrote them an exceedingly large check. Is this what you mean by appeasement? Then when it turned out that this same group aided those who destroyed the twin towers, Bush stops calling them allies and gives them a new name—terrorists. By the way, didn’t this same scenerio play out in Iraq under Bush’s father? First they are our allies then our enemies, even when their policies and leaders remained the same? Is this appeasement? Or does simply the name change (ally to terrorist) justify a retroactive rebuke? So are Bush and company keeping us safe, or are they simply renaming others to suit their own selfish and destructive agenda?
— Brilliant Mind May 16, 01:45 PM #
What part of Neville Chamberlain and the “peace in our time” crew don’t American “intellectuals” undersatnd? The anti-war movement in America in the 1930’s was well and happy while Poland was crushed and the London Blitz began. Roosevelt campaigned on a “I hate war” and no intervention platform while he put together the lend-lease program. Why? Because he knew that eventually we would go to war and that until the inevitable happened we had to keep Britain from defeat.
If the current group of history challeneged idiots had their way, we would appease everyone.
And if that whiny little pseudo-messiah Obama didn’t have a guilty conscience (and if he was really as smart as everyone believes him to be) he’d take a lesson from Bush – the Yale history major – and realize no one was referring to his egotistical “it’s all about me” candidacy. What a putz! Bush never called his name. Now we all know how really stupid Obama is.
— Muap Conners May 16, 02:31 PM #
Commentator #6: The latter, and renaming one’s ally as one’s enemy has been going on throughout history. Leaders through the ages have known that bread and circuses are expensive but effective means of appeasing one’s OWN people (also costly, in terms of casualties = democracy, human life and values). Plus ca change . . .
— Anonymous May 16, 02:34 PM #
Commentator #7: Yeah, guess Mr. Yale History Major skimmed over the chapter on Vietnam!
— Anonymous May 16, 03:39 PM #
Didn’t the president leave Israel for Saudi Arabia (the noted land of human rights and democratic ideals) to basically suck up to the monarchy so the oil keeps flowing? HELLO?! You want to talk about appeasement?
I happen to believe POTUS was slapping ex-POTUS Carter with his comments, BTW. Sorry, Barack. It’s not all about you.
— Just Wondering May 16, 03:52 PM #
I think Charles Bukowski said it best when he wrote, “War is the ungrown man’s final argument.” I can think of one person this describes perfectly.
— Tom May 16, 04:12 PM #
Let’s not confuse incompetnece and stupidity, which clearly characterize George Bush and his administration, with the need to think clearly and rigorously about how to defend the human rights humanity has established during the past 200+ years. Serious and intelligent diplomatic negotiation has done more to thwart the enemies of freedom than some of the persons who have posted on this thread are willing to recognize.
In my lifetime, we avoided nuclear holocaust when JFK engaged in serious and intelligent negotiation with the USSR over the Cuban Missile Crisis rather than engage in a pre-emptive war. (Yes, the threat of military action was genuinely presented but Gen. Curtis LeMay was not given the opportunity to act on his recommendation of a pre-emptive strike.) Decades of war in Viet Nam cost too many lives and just postponed the inevitable. How many lives might not have been wasted if we had the courage, intelligence and discipline to engage in serious and intelligent negoatiation? War and violence have not ended the imbroglio in the Middle East. Serious and intelligent negotiation created the on-going peace treaty between Israel and Egypt.
Serious and intelligent negotiation is not appeasement. It is hard work that offers far better prospects than war. War must always be the last resort given its awful and lasting harm. Calling our enemies names is not going to end the threat that they pose, nor will ignoring them make them go away.
The Bush Administration’s cheap talk coupled with incompetent action have done more harm to the vital interests of the USA and all those who seek to promote human rights around the world than any other action by any other current political leader I can think of. Shame on us as a nation for not only electing Bush president, but for re-electing him.
— One angry and embarrassed US Citizen May 16, 04:13 PM #
To Commenters 1-10: are you all men? If so, let’s just get out a ruler and settle what all this self-righteous posturing is all about!
— barbara May 16, 04:14 PM #
Serious times and serious issues. I wonder, then, why some of the respondants to the original blog would rather engage in flame wars, characterizing those who disagree with them as idiots and hypocrites, than actually have a hard and engaged discussion.
I suspect the point is railing against enemies, real or imagined, right or left, rather than thinking, learning, or having a meeting of minds.
Too bad. Blogs have such potential.
— angela May 16, 04:18 PM #
#11 wrote: I think Charles Bukowski said it best when he wrote, “War is the ungrown man’s final argument.” I can think of one person this describes perfectly.
I’m guessing you’re not referencing Mrs. “Oblilterate Them” in this statement?
— JD May 16, 04:32 PM #
The news today is all about soundbites that appeal to ratings instead of substance. It makes us less of a democray because we base on opinions on little facts.
— J. Jones May 16, 04:35 PM #
Barbara: Wow, look, Angela’s one of the guys (i.e., “self righteous”)!
— Anonymous May 16, 04:48 PM #
Rules of politics are like rules of war. Oxymoronic. Especially in a post-Rove hate-radio world in which Republicans find it perfectly acceptable to brand half of their American brothers and sisters as traitors. It’s about as close to the edge of fascism as it gets.
— original marcii May 16, 05:35 PM #
Gimbel is spot on, of course, but let us not concentrate only on Bush. McCain (Bush Lite) had an opportunity to dissociate himself from Bush’s remarks, but instead endorsed them.
Incidentally, one assumes the first five commentators are merely College Republicans taking their turns at monitoring the blogs. If I had to think they were Hillary Democrats, it would be too much to bear.
— /case hardened May 16, 06:12 PM #
Few of these retorts rise to the level one would hope to find on a site appealing primarily to academic minds. It is significant that M. Obama and his friends are so sensitive; Mr. Buish did not mention any names. “Methinks the lady doth protest too much.” No. 10 put it well: “Sorry, Barack. It’s not all about you.”
Most to be pitied for their limited perspective are those who fume about Mr. Bush “politicizing the war” (Obama) and “criticizing a fellow American overseas” (Gimbel). Who has politicized the war, almost from the start? (Hint: It wasn’t the President or the GOP!) What President has gone overseas to say terrible things about his domestic opponents? (Think Jimmy Carter; think Boy Clinton.) The hypocrisy is as staggering as is the vitriol heaped on President Bush. Interestingly, many of the same terms were hurled against Abraham Lincoln by the Democrat elite from 1860-1865.
— diogenes May 16, 10:12 PM #
Looks like even country music stations are upset with Bush attacking an American citizen:
“Currently, 147 country music stations have instituted the [Bush] ban, a number which has been growing by the hour. Clear Channel, a major syndicator to all radio formats across America, is considering the ban, which would increase the numbers significantly and be a major blow to the White House. Several Clear Channel stations have independently instituted their own ban.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-j-elisberg/country-radio-stations-sh_b_102147.html
Bush may find his Hitler remarks backfiring even further on him considering his own well documented family history of appeasement, support and money laundering for Hitler.
http://newsmine.org/archive/cabal-elite/families/bush-dynasty/bush-family-fortune-from-nazis-dutch-connection.txt
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/012303A.ma.dead.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0925-01http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8783.htm
http://ecosyn.us/Bush-Hitler/Bush-Hitler.html
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/ROG309A.html
— MsSwin May 16, 11:23 PM #
THIS WAS NEITHER ABOUT OBAMA NOR APPEASEMENT
Why is the media focusing on the wrong story here?
Obviously Obama picked up on the potential for headlines, but is that not a secondary story?
This about the misuse of the term “NEGOTIATE”
http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/2008/05/bushs-misrepresentation-of-negotiate.html
————-
— PacificGatePost May 17, 04:04 AM #
You folks really ought to read more, and knee-jerk less, for example the NYRB article from which this is an excerpt:
“In the best sentence in her book, about the Suez adventure of 1956, she writes, “Not for the first time, and certainly not for the last, the lessons of Munich and appeasement were wrongly applied to a later international crisis.” Likewise, having rightly observed that “there has arisen among America’s elite a Churchill cult,” Patrick Buchanan devotes a chapter, “Man of the Century,” to denouncing the cult, and the man. He not only looks askance at Churchill’s saying in September 1943 that “to achieve the extirpation of Nazi tyranny there are no lengths of violence to which we will not go”; he chastises the administration of George Bush the Younger—who installed a bust of Churchill in the Oval Office—for having emulated “every folly of imperial Britain in her plunge from power,” and having drawn every wrong lesson from Churchill’s career. There is by now an entire book to be written about the way that “Munich,” “appeasement,” and “Churchill” have been ritually invoked, from Suez to Vietnam to Iraq, so often in false analogy, and so often with calamitous results.”
— Walter Huber May 17, 05:00 AM #
#21: Checked out a few of your suggested revelatory websites on the Bush family. It’s simply astonishing how such absurd, slanderous, and pulpy conspiracy-mongering could convince anyone of the connections you insinuate in your post. But wait . . . pssst! . . .bet you’ve got another one coming, right?
— J A DeLater May 17, 05:17 PM #
It’s apocalyptic, this speech before the Knesset. The Bush family were and still are Nazi sympathizers. Prescott Bush helped Hitler bring about the Holocaust. Seeing his grandson invoke it in front of a bunch of fawning Jews is beyond ironic, it is hypnotic evil transcendent.
— marcii May 19, 04:42 PM #
Bush has been clearly delusional since the start of his first term. He has the uncanny ability to believe the world is as he thinks it is – JUST because he thinks it’s that way. Since his lame duck status limits his chances to further screw up the US in his remaining time, he’s now trying to share his approach with the middle east. Maybe he can escalate the conflict there into a war if he tries hard enough.
— Al May 19, 06:02 PM #
“Appeasers” who have caught hell from the far right:
John F. Kennedy for promising not to invade Cuba if missiles were withdrawn by Russia
Dwight D. Eisenhower for inviting Khrushchev to the United States
Ronald Reagan for reaching arms control agreement with Gorbachev
Obama for even suggeting talking with our foes
“Appeasers” who have not caught hell from the far right:
George W. Bush for talking and negotiating with Libya, North Korea and Iran
— MsSwin May 21, 07:51 PM #