Bush's statement regarding appeasement, which was part of a longer speech made in Jerusalem, included the following comment:
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.)
As was explained the day it happened, this started a war of words, with Obama responding as if his very name had been said, Joe Biden calling Bush's words "bullshit", John McCain saying the President had it exactly right and Joseph Lieberman issuing a statement agreeing with Bush's appeasement statement as well.
Since then, this has started a public brawl between McCain and Obama in which I saw one of the truest statements yet from the McCain campaign about Obama and the Democrats overreactions to Bush's words, where McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds says:
It was remarkable to see Barack Obama’s hysterical diatribe in response to a speech in which his name wasn’t even mentioned.
These are serious issues that deserve a serious debate, not the same tired partisan rants we heard today from Sen. Obama. Sen. Obama has pledged to unconditionally meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — who pledges to wipe Israel off the map, denies the Holocaust, sponsors terrorists, arms America’s enemies in Iraq and pursues nuclear weapons. What would Sen. Obama talk about with such a man? It would be a wonderful thing if we lived in a world where we don’t have enemies.
But that is not the world we live in, and until Sen. Obama understands that, the American people have every reason to doubt whether he has the strength, judgment and determination to keep us safe.
There is a lot of talk about how aides have "anonymously" said Bush's words were directly aimed at Barack Obama but I disagree with that conclusion.
I think they were aimed at all of those who would appease terrorists and since Obama himself has said and has written on his own website, he would sit down and talk with leaders of terrorist states, with no "preconditions".... guess what? THAT is appeasement.
If the shoe fits why such a public display from the Democratic leaders?
Nancy Pelosi unconditionally met with al-Assad from Syria, where she delivered a "message" that Israel had to publicly correct because she not only tried to "appease" a state that sponsors terror, but she couldn't even deliver a simple message without getting it wrong.
Jimmy Carter just went over and played footsie with Hamas terrorists and lets not forget Carter's pathetic attempt at appeasement on behalf of Bill Clinton with North Korea, which didn't work out so well.
Those are but a couple examples of a long list of examples of how Democratic leaders believe appeasement is the answer. The list is out there, in the public and yet they become hysterical when ti is publicly stated?
Mark Steyn makes a few very good points regarding this issue in the Orange County Register where he says:
It says something for Democrat touchiness that the minute a guy makes a generalized observation about folks who appease terrorists and dictators the Dems assume: Hey, they're talking about me. Actually, he wasn't – or, to be more precise, he wasn't talking only about you.
That is exactly the point. George Bush did not need to name any names because it applies to a very large portion of the Democratic politicians.
The shoe is a perfect fit, the problem is, Obama and the rest of the Democrats do not want to be seen wearing it.
.
