Is this lost on everyone?

Obama's suggestion that he would be willing to negotiate with Cuba, Syria and Iran is BAD! If you TALK to the tyrants who are trying to construct nuclear (noo-kyoo-lar) weapons, then you are weak and are APPEASING tyrants and are making America WEAK... except for when...

...your last name is Bush and you negotiate with North Korea, which already HAS developed nuclear weapons.

This is really, really different that talking to Iran, Syria and others because....

um....

uh.....

__________________
Let's see which attack angle will work:

Trying to tie 8 year old Barack Obama to William Ayers.

...or...

Trying to tie 50 year old John McCain to the savings and loan scandal and following his mavericky path of deregulation for all his time in Congress.

Hmmmmmmmm, what will voters care more about??

www.keatingeconomics.com

lol the hypocrisy is amazing.

__________________
The tragedy of war is that it uses man's best to do man's worst.
-Henry Fosdick

I'm looking forward to seeing the comments of the Bush Butt Fume Huffers on this.

__________________
Let's see which attack angle will work:

Trying to tie 8 year old Barack Obama to William Ayers.

...or...

Trying to tie 50 year old John McCain to the savings and loan scandal and following his mavericky path of deregulation for all his time in Congress.

Hmmmmmmmm, what will voters care more about??

www.keatingeconomics.com

I'm not a Bush fan. But the difference is that Bush wasn't going in for unconditional talks (In this case his conditions were that the talks be with multiple countries). And the purpose of his talks was to get the North to disarm. From the article it looks like they're at least managing to shut down future production. We'll see if they actually blow the tower.


Really though Obamas problem with this was a failure in how he communicated what he wanted to do. Chiefly in moving to talk about "carrots" that would be offered first such as WTO membership and basically evaded any mention of sticks. Hence the accusations of appeasment.

Also Obama has a lot of fire. He could have turned it on, whipped out some hand gesures and his loud voice and and spoke about how he will go to Iran and tell them to quit supporting terrists and to halt their persuit of nuclear weapons.

Something. But no, he brought none of that.

He's even sort of went soft on the issue itself
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008...sforeignpolicy (little old).

If he can't convince people in his own country he isn't going over there as an appeaser I question his ability to stand up for America in talks and not be one.

the overall consensus has been that those who even suggest talks with nations who support, reflect, harbor, or parallel actions deemed by the Unites States as harmful to the citizens of this nation in any way, shape or form are labeled as appeasers. With Obama, the goal was always "talks in the best interest on the United States". President Bush has practiced this same approach to peace, and no matter how you look at it, it is in fact hypocrisy.

__________________
The tragedy of war is that it uses man's best to do man's worst.
-Henry Fosdick

That isn't the consensus and you know it. If Bush had wanted to speak to any of those states he could have without taking any appeasment flak unless he actually did take an appeasment like position.

In part because, as questionably intelligent as he is, his rep as a crazy mofo who can take a hard line and will bomb your @$$ has been well established.

Going into those comments anybody should have been able to tell Obama that the right would try to slam him as an appeaser. And he could have gone for a stronger phrasing and did some condemning of their actions and spoke about possible consequences if they can't reach an accord. My guess is that when he first made those comments he only cared about the voters who could participate in the Democratic caucases/primaries and figured they wanted to hear about peace with a side of being nice. The article I linked above might be due to having to reach out to a wider pool.

But again I think it may be significant that he's backing off on the issue instead of pressing it and adding some fire and threats to his speech. But he only seems capable of saying that he'll sit down and offer goodies to any enemy of the US

I disagree with Bush here.

He should have came onto national television, and announced that if North Korea even thinks of launching a nuclear weapon, their entire country would be leveled with our nukes, and we would hunt down any survivors.

Same thing goes with Iran. Bush should have dared Ahmadingypants to fire off a nuke.

__________________
"It's the rich people's fault they earn more." - Makedde

Do not play chicken with a crazy man. You will both lose.


Also there is an obvious point in all this that might be missed.

Appeasement means "The policy of granting concessions or gifts to potential enemies to maintain peace."

So when Obama says that he'll offer goodies to Iran if they halt their support of terror attacks or insurgents, he is in fact being an appeaser. That part shouldn't be up for discussion.

(Bush is offering N korea goodies, but that's because we're asking them to halt all nuclear refining and energy production which they have a right to do.)

The questions that should be asked in a thread like this are:

1. Did Obama really mean that he would give goodies to Iran if they halted their support of Insurgents/terrorists (sure seems like it and that's what I think most Democrats took him to mean, but he wasn't quite specific enough to say for sure).

2. Is appeasement really such a bad thing(most people think so)

3. Are Bush or McCain also appeasers (Bush isn't with NK as explained above).

Special bonus secondary topic: Is opening official diplomatic channels with an aggressor without requiring them to give an inch, meet a precondition, or make some token gesture a form of gift or concession, at which point it would be a mild form of appeasement?

The stupidity of not knowing the difference between the two policies is amazing but not surprising.


Obama crowd after all...

This is just ONE STEP in the multi-nation negotiations. It doesn't stop here. And North Korea will be held to following through on PROVING they are doing what they say they are doing. There WERE preconditions about this deal----it began with the insistence from the Bush administration that the talks to six-nation talks; not unilateral as occured during the Clinton administration and as Obama advocates.

It's amazing how many libs can't comprehend the huge differences.

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007