|
|
 |
|
|
| Kevin James and Chris Matthews on Appeasement |
 |
Kevin James and Chris Matthews on
Appeasement. Just goes to show that
conservatives don't draw from history. They
make stuff up and lack basic knowledge
Matthews:
"You don't understand there's a difference
between talking to the enemy and appeasing.
What Chamberlain did wrong, most people would
say, is not talking to Hitler, but giving him
half of Czechoslovakia in 1938. That's what
he did wrong. Not talking to somebody.
Appeasement is giving things away to the
enemy."
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/05/15/kevin-jam
es-appeaser/
Tags : Obama McCain McSame The Kevin James Show KRLA Conseravtive Moron Chris Matthews on Appeasement Hitler Munich Appeaser |
|
Affichage : 41216
Durée : 233 s |
| James Baker: Talking to an enemy is not appeasement |
 |
In May of 2006, John McCain said former Sec'y
of State James Baker was one of the
"smartest" men he knew and that he was likely
to ask Baker to serve as a diplomatic envoy
to the Middle East. Speaking to an Israeli
newspaper, McCain added "I know you in Israel
don't like Baker."
Baker's comments about "appeasement" came on
October 6, yet within a matter of days,
McCain had once again included Baker on the
list of his potential Middle East diplomats.
The video is from an October, 2006 interview
on Hannity & Colmes. Thanks to reader KC for
the tip!
More here:
http://www.jedreport.com/2008/05/james-baker-
tal.html
Tags : James Baker John McCain George Bush Barack Obama Talks Enemy Appeasement Negotiations |
|
Affichage : 37103
Durée : 67 s |
| Negotiation is NOT Appeasement! (George Bush is an Idiot) |
 |
In a speech to the Israeli parliament
Thursday, President Bush took a swipe at
Barack Obama for his willingness to negotiate
with evil regimes. "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," Bush said. "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."
But if there is anything that has been
discredited by history, it is the argument
that every enemy is Hitler, that negotiations
constitute appeasement, and that talking will
automatically lead to a slaughter of
Holocaust-like proportions. It is an argument
that conservatives made throughout the Cold
War, and, if the charge seemed overblown at
the time, it seems positively ludicrous with
the clarity of hindsight. The modern
conservative movement was founded in no small
part on the idea that presidents Truman and
Eisenhower were "appeasing" the Soviets. The
logic went something like this: Because
communism was evil, the United States should
seek to destroy it, not coexist with it; the
bipartisan policy of containment, which
sought to prevent the further spread of
communism, was a moral and strategic folly
because it implied long-term coexistence with
Moscow. Conservative foreign policy guru
James Burnham wrote entire books claiming
that containment -- which, after the Cold
War, would be credited with defeating the
Soviet Union -- constituted "appeasement."
Conservatives even applied this critique to
one of the most dangerous moments in human
history: the Cuban missile crisis, during
which the United States and the Soviet Union
nearly came to nuclear blows over Moscow's
deployment of missiles 90 miles off the
American coast. When President Kennedy
successfully negotiated a peaceful conclusion
to the crisis, conservative icon Barry
Goldwater protested that he had appeased the
Soviets by promising not to invade Cuba if
they backed down. The Soviets withdrew their
missiles in what was widely seen as a
humiliation to Khrushchev, but Goldwater
believed that Kennedy's diplomacy gave "the
communists one of their greatest victories in
their race for world power that they have
enjoyed to date." To Goldwater, it was far
preferable to risk nuclear war with the
Soviets than to give up our right to roll
back Fidel Castro.
Ronald Reagan, whose election in 1980 was
seen as the culmination of the conservative
movement, dubbed SALT II "appeasement" as
well, but the trope would come back to bite
him. Although Reagan pleased the right
enormously during his first three years in
office with his military expansion, his call
for rollback and his advocacy of missile
defenses, conservatives reacted with horror
once he began serious negotiations with the
Soviets. When he and Mikhail Gorbachev signed
the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty
in 1987, which for the first time eliminated
an entire class of nuclear weapons, Buckley's
National Review dubbed it "suicide." The
Conservative Caucus took out a full-page
newspaper ad saying "Appeasement is as unwise
in 1988 as in 1938." It paired photos of
Reagan and Gorbachev with photos of Neville
Chamberlain and Hitler.
Containment, negotiation, nuclear stability
-- each of these things helped protect the
United States and end the Cold War. And yet,
at the time, conservatives thought each was
synonymous with appeasement. The Bush
administration has been little different,
refusing for years to talk to North Korea or
Iran about their nuclear programs because it
wanted to defeat evil, not talk to it. The
result was that Pyongyang tested a nuclear
weapon and Iran's uranium program continued
unfettered. (By contrast, when the
administration negotiated with Libya -- an
act that its chief arms controller, John
Bolton, had previously derided as, yes,
"appeasement" -- it succeeded in eliminating
Tripoli's nuclear program.) Alas, John McCain
accused President Clinton of "appeasement"
for engaging North Korea, instead calling for
"rogue state rollback," and now he dismisses
the idea of negotiations with Iran. Given
conservatism's historical record, Obama's
inclination to negotiate seems only sensible.
When will conservatives learn that it is
2008, not 1938?
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opin
ion/la-oe-scoblic17-2008may17,0,647492.story
Tags : Barack Obama Iraq war John Mccain vice president George Bush iran Al qaida terror attack Hamas Hezbollah Israel Jewish |
|
Affichage : 1627
Durée : 556 s |
| Keith Olbermann Special Comment: Stay the Course/Appeasement |
 |
Keith Olbermann delivers a special comment on
Countdown about the catch-phrases used to
promote the War on Terror such as "Stay the
Course", "Cut and Run", and George Bush's new
Nazi appeasement smear on Barack Obama.
Later, Chris Matthews from Hardball discusses
his dustup with conservative talk show host
Kevin James.
--------------------------------------------
On Friday's Countdown with Keith Olbermann,
guest host Rachel Maddow asked Chris Matthews
about his refusal to allow talk show host
Kevin James to blindly repeat White House
talking points without having any idea what
those buzzwords meant...Matthews understands
how fundamentally detrimental these buzzwords
are to a functioning democracy (and before
you retort, no one is harder on him than I
am, and he rarely allows them unchallenged on
his program--he's far more likely to be
swayed by the perceived power--or
attractiveness--of the person than the words
they speak).
MADDOW: Do you think this is something new?
Do you think this is something specific to
our current, contemporaneous politics that we
have these sort of buzzwords and bumper
sticker slogans, whether it's 'appeasement,'
or 'fight over there so we don't fight them
here' or 'they hate our freedom,' any of
these terms. Are they designed to be repeated
and not to be interrogated?
MATTHEWS: Well, just look at the way people
are basically exterminated or tried to be
exterminated. Bill Maher makes a comment
--which may not have been the right
comment--but he was making a point he was
trying to make, about stand back weaponry
compared to people killing themselves. You
can argue about the niceties of that. The
Dixie Chicks say something about the
war—and they shouldn't have said it
overseas, but they said it. The shutting up
of opposition is critical to running a
country in an undemocratic way, let's put it
that way. And so you have buzzwords like
'appeasers' or 'cut and run' and they're used
over and over again by the most mindless
people. The trouble with them is they tend to
work. The dittoheads can use them. Anyone can
use them and they seem to have the same
effect. They cause people to run from
criticism
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/05/18/chri
s-matthews-explains-his-reluctance-to-accept-
talking-points/
Tags : Barack Obama Israel Jewish Likud Kadima Olmert Hillary Clinton John Mccain Iraq war George Bush bill iran hamas terror |
|
Affichage : 3153
Durée : 641 s |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
| |
|
