First Door on the Left

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: