‘Appeasement’ as a hate term
- From: itsall_bull <itsall_bull@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 14:02:15 -0700 (PDT)
‘Appeasement’ as a hate term
By Bob Tyrrell
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Poor Neville Chamberlain. The long-
deceased British prime minister — remembered through the decades for
his policy of appeasement and for the war with Hitler that it hastened
— now suffers yet another disgrace. The mere mention of "appeasement"
apparently sets off paranoid tantrums amongst members of the political
class. Once deemed a very enlightened tool of statecraft,
"appeasement" has become a slur, a hate term. Speaking before the
Israeli Knesset, President George W. Bush associated appeasement with
those who "believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and
radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have
been wrong all along." Kapow! The Democrats went on the offensive,
though they had not been mentioned.
Pronounced House Squeaker Nancy Pelosi: "(Bush's words were) beneath
the dignity of the office of the president and unworthy of our
representation at that observance in Israel." The observance of which
she spoke was Israel's 60th birthday, and no member of the Israeli
parliament shared her anger. In fact, many applauded the president.
Pronounced Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid: "(Bush's remarks were)
reckless and irresponsible." Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton took leave of
her campaign, where she probably has wrapped up the white supremacist
vote, and denounced the president's choice of words as "offensive and
outrageous."
Even the serene and august Sen. Barack Obama stepped down from his
cloud of serenity to asseverate: "It is sad that President Bush would
use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's
independence to launch a false political attack." Betraying a hint of
what may very well be megalomania, the likely Democratic presidential
candidate continued, "George Bush knows that I have never supported
engagement with terrorists." Yet the president had not mentioned the
senator or any other living American politician, not even Jimmy
Carter, who most certainly did engage with terrorists as recently as
April, when he conferred with representatives from Hamas to mull over,
of all things, "human rights."
For that matter, it was not more than a year ago that Squeaker Pelosi
visited with the Syrian leadership in Damascus, concluding, "We came
in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a
road to peace." If the Syrians do not qualify as terrorists, they
certainly give sanctuary and arms to terrorists, some of whom are
using those arms in Iraq. I guess we can understand why she is
sensitive when the president mentions appeasement.
As for Sen. Obama, he still is trying to wriggle out of an answer he
gave to a question someone asked him during a debate last summer. As
president, would he meet with the anti-American, anti-Semitic and
seemingly delusional president of Iran, "without preconditions"? "I
would," he answered in the sanctimonious tone that always suggests
incense is burning nearby. So maybe we can understand why he and the
Democratic leadership are so eager to transform yesteryear's failed
policy of appeasement into a hate term. Incidentally, "irresponsible
and frankly naive" was Sen. Clinton's immediate assessment of Sen.
Obama's pert answer. She has shown herself to be an able critic of the
Democratic front-runner. Possibly she eventually will join the McCain
campaign.
One thing that all these Democrats have in common is a colossal moral
superiority. As we have seen before, they repeatedly presume to set
the terms of political debate. They rule over the appropriateness of
words and strategies, telling us what the Republicans can and cannot
say. Now they have ruled the word "appeasement" to be "reckless,"
"outrageous" and bereft of "dignity." The term has been applied to
opponents of a forceful foreign policy for two generations, during
which forceful foreign policy kept America secure. Alas, in this
election, the Democrats have ruled the word "appeasement" out of
bounds.
To Obama, the term is redolent of that "divisiveness" that he abhors.
He has crossed the length and breadth of the land lecturing against
divisiveness. So how can we end this offensive divisiveness? Well,
obviously by agreeing with him and his wife. His wife is also on the
campaign trail, and when Republicans react unfavorably to her
complaints about America, he tells them to "lay off (his) wife." What
kind of a person tells us what we can and cannot say and with whom we
must be in agreement? To my mind, it is a bully, and now we are going
to have months of watching Sen. Obama attempt to bully Sen. John
McCain. Over in Vietnam somewhere, there are retired jailers who could
tell him that one cannot bully McCain, even when you have him flat on
his back with broken bones.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: ‘Appeasement’ as a hate term
- From: Nebuchadnezzar II
- Re: ‘Appeasement’ as a hate term
- Prev by Date: Moffitt Takes Over "Dumbest Poster" From Pittel
- Next by Date: March of the Polar Bears
- Previous by thread: Moffitt Takes Over "Dumbest Poster" From Pittel
- Next by thread: Re: ‘Appeasement’ as a hate term
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
