Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the 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 I could only have talked to Hitler, all 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. (Applause.)
For reference according to the New York Times,
The president was alluding to Senator William E. Borah, an Idaho Republican noted for his powers of oratory and his isolationist views. In 1938, when Hitler was gobbling up parts of Europe, Borah expressed admiration for him, and in 1939 he did indeed lament that he had not been able to talk to Hitler before the Nazi invasion of Poland.
This has caused an uproar within the Democratic Party as they close ranks around their presumptive presidential nominee. Now the question I ask, does no one think that all the questions that people have but have no stated thus far in the Primaries is not going to be an issue during the elections?
Politics is not a white glove sport, rather a bare knuckle endeavor. The rhetoric in modern times pales to the visceral attacks our esteemed founding fathers engaged in. Is it better for the country and candidates to hold their tongues or is it better to engage in a full debate?
I put it to you, too much? Or not enough?
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 12
2003 was not an election year, but million of Americans trusted the President and members of his administration when they asserted, Saddam Hussein was on the verge of obtaining nukes and our nation is still feeling the effects of that deception. For many this was that assertion that tipped the public opinion scales in favor of invading Iraq. Fortunately Bush and company blew their credibility with the that one, so most of us now take his claims with a grain of salt, but I'm not sure he realizes the damage he has done to his credibility, that of future presidents and politicians in general even though the latter had a pretty bad reputation without such added reason for distrust. Quite frankly it is one of reasons the "trust me" thrust of Obama's campaign has bothered me. How much more will he be expecting us to accept on trust when he has the power of the presidency behind him?
My concern about Obama is, for lack of a better analogy, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." I think he is intelligent, fine orator, but I worry about his experience. I don't think he has the requisite experience to serve as president.
It is his lack of experience that makes the "trust me" thrust of his campaign more cause for wariness.
That was one. Second, questions have been asked during the primaries. At least on the democratic side. Every 3 days has generated a question ranging from personal life 20 years ago, to futuristic imaginary decision they will make in 3 years.
George Bush displayed no civility. He went up there on their anniversary and injected American policy debate on the celebration. Although this is about Israel to some degree, it's a US matter. The US decides what our policy in that region ought to be. We don't consult them in shaping our policy. This is an important debate. Silent treatment to Iran vs. sitting on a table. America ought to have that debate, here, not in Israel or Saudia Arabia.
Regarding the uporoar. It's politics. They had to jump on it and tie Bush to McCain's neck once again.
One of the most egregious failings of the present administrations is its ability to engage alternate opinions, and I'm speaking among its own staff and appointees. I've never seen a president scroll through so many generals in my life, just because the report is not what they wanted to hear. Irregardless of why we went to Iraq, there is no excuse for the poor planning past the "Invasion stage". A really through and detailed account of the events from a military perspective is Cobra II. The reference citing is impeccable and presented in a level manner. I highly recommend it.
BTW not endorsing Amazon, just it was the first link I found.
That being said, though I voted for Bush, I have been disappointed over many issues during his administration. I think what is forgotten is that he did not alone vote us into this war with Iraq. Democrats and republicans alike share in that burden.
As far as foreign policy is concerned, I do not believe that we will ever be able to negotiate with terrorists. Stiff negotiations do no good with those who have already made up their minds and have closed them, deciding to hate anything to do with "the great Satan." How is Obama offended and why is he spewing rhetoric about how he could open those closed minds when it is not possible.
I do agree, Viv, that there have many egregious failings in the ability to engage alternate opinions. That makes us almost as close minded, so i certainly understand a well stated point.
I just don't think Obama's extremes are any better. I certainly pray for the next administration. God help us all.
Bush feels that talking to Iran and N Korea is talking to terrorists. So what. Its his opinion. All those old time senators trying to act like they're appaled at such evil speach. Please!
If we didn't have news hounds and political parties digging up and spitting out all the mud they could find ... we would have better people running this year.
Whew! That felt good. Since I drifted away from Town Hall to Gather I haven't gotten into politics much and a tiny tiny bit of anger is building :)
We have serious issues that are affecting the lives of everyone in this country. The weak dollar is having a catastrophic effect on American purchasing power, especially since we no longer manufacture anything. Whether or not you use the "R" word we are in trouble.
I am all for free economies, but the speculation going on in the financial markets has led to some devastating consequences and I think the issue of oversight and regulations needs to be reevaluated. The internet bubble, mortgage fiasco, and the energy (oil) price escalation are just a few of the examples. For historical perspective on what this sort of unmitigated speculation can do to economies think Dutch bulbs market collapse in 1647. -Yes I am familiar with the alternate theory that the Thirty Years War and outbreak of plague were greater influences on the collapse, but in my opinion the inflated prices paid (tracts of land, exorbitant sums, and livestock) resulted in collateral damage to the economy.