Today, from the floor of the Israeli Knesset, George Bush spoke out against the imprudence of the Democrats’ foreign policies and the follies of appeasement. It being the 60th anniversary of the state of Israel, Bush couldn’t resist a Nazi reference:
Some seem to believe we should negotiate with 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 only I could have talked to Hitler, all of 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.
Good God, man! At what point in a man’s presidential career does he become politically senile and oblivious to popular disapproval?
Maybe Godwin’s Law needs to be expanded to cover the probability of a lame duck president’s rhetorical comparison to Nazis or Hitler. We could call it the Bush exception.
Joe Biden’s response:
This is bullshit. This is malarkey.
Go get ‘em, Joe.
It wouldn’t be complete without the GOP’s favorite Democratic naysayer, Joe Lieberman:
President Bush got it exactly right today when he warned about the threat of Iran and its terrorist proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah. It is imperative that we reject the flawed and naïve thinking that denies or dismisses the words of extremists and terrorists when they shout “Death to America” and “Death to Israel,” and that holds that — if only we were to sit down and negotiate with these killers — they would cease to threaten us. It is critical to our national security that our commander-in-chief is able to distinguish between America’s friends and America’s enemies, and not confuse the two.
Joe “let’s bomb ‘em all” Lieberman on flawed thinking, ladies and gentlemen.

26 comments
Comments feed for this article
May 15, 2008 at 7:11 pm
jkkuwitzky
There was a most hilarious exchange on Hardball today about this.
http://wonkette.com/391031/biggest-moron-on-earth-makes-for-delicious-hardball-comedy
Remember how apeshit Republicans went when the Dixie Chicks made a political statement overseas? It was hailed as some horrid breach of decorum to speak ill of a politician on foreign soil when a freaking band did it, but its great and wonderful for the President to do the same thing. I defended Obama for the first time today on this. It felt weird, but this was just too stupid.
May 15, 2008 at 8:01 pm
gino
Yeah, it’s always a good practice to take W at his word. He’s always been honest and ethical….
Saying he takes Bush at his word that he wasn’t speaking directly of Obama, McCain said, “It does bring up an issue I will be discussing with the American people, and that is why does Barack Obama, Senator Obama want to sit down with a state sponsor of terrorism?” McCain said in the back of his campaign bus.
Translation: Why wouldn’t Obama want to “stay the course” regarding the foreign policy of the US in the Middle East? Why would he want to change the status quo of US policies?
Just a shot in the dark here, but perhaps it is because these strategies have proven to be ineffective.
Lieberman: Is he the official spin doctor for any and all stupid comments thrown out there by the right wing? There’s a role that must be fulfilling and give oneself a sense of self-importance.
May 15, 2008 at 8:12 pm
S.C. Denney
Kolby, say what?
Yeah, Lieberman just down right pisses me off as of late.
May 15, 2008 at 8:18 pm
jkkuwitzky
I would like to apologize for the three weeks of August 2006 that I spent in Connecticut on behalf of Holy Joe. My bad.
May 15, 2008 at 8:18 pm
S.C. Denney
WHAT DID CHAMBERLAIN DO!?
May 15, 2008 at 8:25 pm
jkkuwitzky
I think I prefer “Why are you yelling?”
May 15, 2008 at 8:27 pm
S.C. Denney
Rush Limbaugh’s long lost son?
May 15, 2008 at 8:29 pm
jkkuwitzky
He’s more like the demon spawn of a scotch fueled Hannity/Coulter/Santorum threeway. Limbaugh isn’t nearly that stupid.
May 15, 2008 at 8:31 pm
S.C. Denney
On a more serious note, do people really think that Obama is going to “appease,” that is give in to demands or satisfy wants, of “terrorist?” There is a river as wide as the Mississippi between diplomacy, or talking, and appeasing.
Webster’s pocket dictionary, $4, local Wal-Mart or Office Depot.
May 15, 2008 at 9:05 pm
gino
On a more serious note, do people really think that Obama is going to “appease,” that is give in to demands or satisfy wants, of “terrorist?”
I honestly don’t think it’s going to pass the “smell test” as this election moves forward. Am I being naive?
May 15, 2008 at 9:15 pm
S.C. Denney
Yes.
May 15, 2008 at 9:54 pm
gino
I’m trying to turn over a new leaf here and have some confidence in the US voter.
I really don’t need these seeds of doubt you are sewing, Denney!
May 15, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Edward Carson
“This is bullshit. This is malarkey.”
I think he needs to be more “articulate.”
May 15, 2008 at 11:00 pm
S.C. Denney
He said more. But that was how he lead in. Joe Biden is a bit of a hot-head.
Here’s his whole quote:
“This is bullshit, this is malarkey. This is outrageous, for the president of the United States to go to a foreign country, to sit in the Knesset … and make this kind of ridiculous statement.”
May 16, 2008 at 4:59 pm
David M. Manes
Appeasement is just what we call diplomacy when it doesn’t work out. To be sure, diplomacy has had some failures in the past, but overall it has worked much better in every way than the Bush-like doctrine of hawkish preventative intervention has.
I absolutely hate the Hitler-appeasement argument. In debate-world, this argument is used way too often, and it gets way too much traction. I get extremely depressed thinking about how much traction the argument gets among the plebs.
May 16, 2008 at 10:16 pm
Alejandro
I think there is a little of an overreaction going on about this. Obviously using a nazi reference in israel to blast a partisan opponent is way below the belt but so is push polling to stroke racial tensions. Unethical, yes. Effective, absolutely. I don’t see why anybody should seem suprised or shocked. This is election season and politics is a rough game. And of course mccain is going to not condemn and then pivot to an attack to paint obama as weak on protecting israel. He wants to win and gaining jewish votes helps. can you say florida? Ditto for lieberman. Do any of you think he’s not going to try to help mccain out on his ethnic group. Honestly on israel I doubt there is much distinction between them on israel besides rhetoric, so I think its all about defining the other.this is politics not principles in action. It should be fun to see who wins the spin war.
May 17, 2008 at 11:06 pm
David M. Manes
I finally got a chance to watch that video that jkkuwitzky linked in the very first comment. That is too funny.
Chris Matthews: “You don’t know what you’re talking about.”
May 18, 2008 at 3:30 am
S.C. Denney
Yeah, apparently he is no idea what appeasement means. It’s just a catch phrase to him. Typical talk show host (conservative nonetheless).
May 18, 2008 at 11:10 am
Jesse
“And of course mccain is going to not condemn and then pivot to an attack to paint obama as weak on protecting israel.”
right, that’s what bush n cronies are doing for mccain……
John McCain and the Neocon Resurgence
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/giraldi.php?articleid=12345
“gaining jewish votes helps”
curious…
one really has to wonder how many in the israel lobby are actually jewish…
May 18, 2008 at 10:28 pm
S.C. Denney
A McCain-Lieberman ticket scares me. Wow, I can’t think of a worse ticket.
May 18, 2008 at 11:13 pm
gino
McCain-Huckabee?
Indeed, both scary, but which ticket would be more frightening?
May 19, 2008 at 11:45 am
Jesse
i think mccain lieberman would be worse. much more of an itchy trigger finger.
of course, all top three candidates are insufficient and scary. so take your pick if you dare. i don’t know why people would even want to lend any of the frontrunners a hand. they are all transgressive.
May 19, 2008 at 11:58 am
Jesse
http://stephiblog.wordpress.com/2008/01/16/the-us-presidential-election/
this blog has some good comments on this years elections….
May 19, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Ian
Transgressive? That’s an interesting word choice. In what ways are they all three transgressive?
May 19, 2008 at 4:17 pm
S.C. Denney
Lieberman, although not running (yet), is definitely “transgressive.” He’s all over the map. I don’t know about the three main candidates, though.
May 20, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Jesse
just read the USC and then match it up with their platform. the current government is too and the three lead candidates will not change what has now become an accepted trend. (hint: trend=mainstream/radical=fundamental)
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/legtext/44leg/2r/bills/hcr2034p.htm