May 15 2008
Republican hot air
It became obvious today that Republicans are unable to differentiate between “talk to” and “appease.”
In my dictionary, appeasement is defined as “satisfying, esp. by giving in to the demands of.”
Barack Obama has said that we should talk to not only our friends but also our enemies. The Republicans have latched on to this as meaning that he wants to appease the terrorists. Do none of them own a dictionary? It is common knowledge that George W. Bush is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but is it really necessary for the rest of the Republican party to mimic him?
Watch this video. I have not laughed quite so hard in a very long time…
Hot air. It’s really all they have. One almost has to feel sorry for them. (I said almost.)
This is the best response their presumptive nominee could muster:
Meanwhile, in Columbus, Ohio, McCain said he took the White House at its word, but then he weighed into the spat himself, saying: “This does bring up an issue that we will be discussing with the American people, and that is, why does Barack Obama, Senator Obama, want to sit down with a state sponsor of terrorism?”
Asked if Obama was an appeaser, McCain said Obama must explain why he wants to talk with leaders like Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and added that Obama’s position was a serious error. “It shows naivete and inexperience and lack of judgment to say that he wants to sit down across the table from an individual who leads a country that says Israel is a stinking corpse, that is dedicated to the extinction of the state of Israel. My question is, what does he want to talk about?”
My question is, what is there not to talk about? (Remember, please, that talking and appeasing are completely different actions. Get out your dictionary if you need to.)
Addendum:
10 Responses to “Republican hot air”
Here’s another area where you should do your Ronald Reagan research. Reagan offered to “talk” with the Russians… while making sure they understood that he had the full military force to take care of the problem if they wanted to play hardball.
Obama has already said he will slash the military budget, bring down nuclear weapons, stop ‘weaponizing’ space, back off our ability to have quick response to an attack… and then tells Iran he wants to “talk.” That’s why I see it as “appeasement”, not “talk.” I can’t speak for the Republican party. But Obama’s plan seems to be: ‘I’ll remove any threats from in front of you, and then ask you nicely to do the same.’
Do you really think that’s going to work?
Just a quick note: From what I’ve heard (and I have not read everything related to this story), President Bush never called out Obama, at least by name, in his remarks today.
So, when the Obama camp rallied around the wagons and Biden and others came to his defense… would it be a case of “its the hit dog that howls”?
@Aaron : No, I don’t. And I don’t believe Senator Obama does either. Could you provide referenced quotes where he says it will?
“Obama’s plan seems to be” doesn’t quite cut it. Unless you know what his plan is, you probably shouldn’t be passing judgment on it.
As for your second comment, if Mr. Bush was not referring to Senator Obama, who do you believe he was talking about? Conventional wisdom, and mine, indicates that his remarks were a very thinly veiled attack upon the presumptive Democratic nominee.
Thanks for your comments, Aaron. Really.
Well, I see you didn’t really answer anything I asked.
Obama gave a speech outlining his plan for the military cuts I described above. He did so in advance of ever having any “talks” with these regimes.
Simple logic tells you that a mad regime like Iran is giddy with the prospect of a President Obama, who has already said he will seriously curtail the threat of nuclear weapons!
Oh, and what say you to the Hamas endorsement of Obama? Yeah, I know we conservatives aren’t supposed to bring that up, but it is what it is. Makes me confident to know that a terrorist organization supports Obama for President. Think there might be a reason why? Think it might be because they know he’ll never do anything to them?
From Obama’s official campaign website:
“Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without
preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would
offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will
offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move
toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic
pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to
make progress.”
That’s a fancy way of saying, “If you’re nice to us, we’ll be nice to you. If you’re not nice to us, we’ll slap you on the wrist.”
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not in favor of war (not even Iraq), but telling Iran you’re going to slap them on the wrist if they don’t behave isn’t going to cut it. Especially after telling them upfront you’re removing much of the nuclear threat, plus weapons space systems, etc. Many countries hate the US (and did long before Bush became President) and they’d like nothing better than to know that the United States is destroying its weapons systems… gives them a chance to catch up!
Lest we forget, Aaron… al Quaeda endorsed John Kerry in 2004. Get serious.
Thanks for quoting Senator Obama’s website. I, too, have read what is posted there. I am in complete agreement with what he says.
Again, thanks for your comments. It’s been fun. Really.
“Lest we forget, Aaron… al Quaeda endorsed John Kerry in 2004. Get serious.”
How does that help your case? It didn’t make me any more confident with Kerry then than it does with Obama now. American citizens should seriously examine why a terrorist organization would support a specific candidate.
Thanks for the discussion.
My point being simply that the statement is as ridiculous now as it was in 2004. (I’m sorry that wasn’t clear.)
Have a good evening. Thanks for dropping by.
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
First time posting here, couldn’t resist.
First, that video, wow, if ever there was a great example of people with a big mouth that didn’t know what on Earth they were talking about! Hilarious!
And Aaron, on your fist comment, what do you mean by this? “Do you really think that’s going to work”? What exactly are we supposed to be getting worked out? I know a few things about Iran’s history and our involvement in it. And I’m wondering just what exactly are we supposed to be doing? Haven’t we already done enough?
And when did talking to people become “appeasement”, or a bad thing altogether? To me, it seems rather weak to not even attempt to talk with nations you don’t get along with, why on Earth shouldn’t we talk to Iran? Isn’t talking better than the alternatives? We talked to north Korea. So they have a crazy leader, he doesn’t have the real power in Iran anyways, and guy who does has said nuclear weapons are anti-Islamic or something real similar to that. I think our leaders are pretty crazy too, and they actually have gone halfway around the world to attack other nations out of pure aggression (Iraq).
When I keep hearing about all these young guys (and women) returning from Iraq with no legs, no eyesight, no ability to walk, etc, I think talking to our manufactured enemies is the best thing we can do.
And curtailing the threat of nuclear weapons is bad how? Reducing threats doesn’t mean we’re going to give up our arsenal or anything like that, we have enough to destroy the world many times over, plus some of our weapons stockpiles are poorly guarded and are just expensive and dangerous paper weights.
And on this whole Hamas thing, last I heard it wasn’t anything close to what the sensationalistic media has said, and since when did we allow a foreign group of any kind to dictate to us who to vote for? Dubya was the best thing that ever happened to Al-qaeda, I don’t ever see conservatives bringing up how Bush gave them Iraq on a silver platter, or gave up on finding OBL for that matter.
Talking to them and doing what you posted that Obama said is slapping them on the wrist? We shouldn’t even be involved in their personal matters, our actions led to the rise of the extremists there anyways, history repeats itself, we shouldn’t be making that mistake again.
And on your last post.. Americans shouldn’t be voting because of who a terrorist group supposedly supports, info like that should either be ignored or looked into to see who is pushing it, and how it aligns with the actual facts. In the case of Al-qaeda supposedly supporting Kerry, that would only make sense if they wanted him to lose, since Bush has been their Santa Claus. To mistake these people for being stupid would be a mistake, they know people will support the guy they don’t make an endorsement for, and Bush taking out Saddam and turning Iraq into a terrorist training camp and religious state was exactly what they would want.