Bush took a shot at Obama yesterday, comparing Obama’s willingness to talk with foreign terrorist leaders “appeasement.” The reference to Neville Chamberlain is inapt. Chamberlain “appeased” Hitler by giving him territory - part of Czechoslovakia - not by merely talking with him. The cheap (and incorrect) shot sparked some media attention. On the clip below, Chris Matthews makes a complete fool out of conservative radio pundit Kevin James, who doesn’t appear to know his history, but tries to trade on it nonetheless.
Matthews said it best: “when you’re going to make a direct historic reference, get it straight.”
Stumble It!
8 responses so far ↓
Progressive Conservative // May 16, 2008 at 10:47 pm
I find it interesting that as soon as Bush mentioned ‘appeasement’ Democrats got upset. Guilty concience?
Negotiation is one tool of foreign diplomacy, no a complete basis for foreign policy, which is what Obama seems to indicate.
Ames // May 16, 2008 at 11:11 pm
Being upset at a nasty little debate tactic doesn’t prove a guilty conscience :-).
And, I agree, but I’ll turn it back on you - war is one tool of foreign diplomacy, not a complete basis thereof, which the Bush years have seemed to indicate.
All that Obama said is that he’d be willing to talk. To infer that that’s *all* he’s offering is taking rather a huge leap, no?
Progressive Conservative // May 17, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Agt this point it seems like he should be starting to exaplin that.
Progressive Conservative // May 19, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Over at Asymmetric, he makes a great point about this whole debate:
Remember when leftists cheered the Democratic candidates after the candidates refused to appear on Fox news? Why did they do that?
Well, because by going on Fox, Obama, Clinton, and Ravel would have beeen saying, in effect, that Fox News isn’t the journalistic equivilent of Star Wars’ Mos Eisley Cantina (”wretched hive of scum and villainy”).
Anyways, it’s nice to know that the left thinks more highly of Hamas than Fox News.
Ames // May 19, 2008 at 9:48 pm
That’s sort of a tortured reading of what talking to someone versus not means. When you strip it of context, I suppose that’s the result you get, but without the context, it’s almost like lying.
Progressive Conservative // May 19, 2008 at 10:05 pm
The point is that
A: Negotiation gives legitimacy
B: Negotiation implies we will give something.
C: negotiations at the presidential level should be a reward, not an enticement.
Ames // May 19, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Right, that’s a legitimate point. I think Barack is possibly seeing the “diplomacy/WAR” imbalance from the Bush years and possibly taking it too far in the other direction. It’s just that the Chamberlain comparison is inapt, and so is the Fox News one.
Progressive Conservative // May 19, 2008 at 10:53 pm
We are negotiating with Iran every day. Just not at the presidential level. They have to earn that. Obviously they want it, so why not attach some requirements? That’s all we’re talking about.
Leave a Comment