Posted by
Gene on Saturday, May 17, 2008 5:09:33 PM
This whole hullabaloo over whether Bush was referring to Obama as an appeaser is a proverbial tempest in a teapot and much ado about nothing. Of course Bush was referring to Obama in his speech in the Knesset! Most probably he was also referring to what some wag has called an 84 year old walking hemmorrhoid, Jimmy Carter. And the description fits both.
Carter aside, since it's unkind to abuse the senile, let's look at the context.
A simple syllogism: GWB says negotiating with terrorists is appeasement. Barack Hussein Obama says he would negotiate with a terrorist state, Iran. Therefore, Obama is an appeaser. No?
Obama is fuming over the insinuation. See http://townhall.com/columnists/AmandaCarpenter/2008/05/16/mccain_hits_obama_on_diplomacy.
Before we can establish whether that syllogism holds any validity we would have to briefly examine both terrorism and appeasement.
Merriam-Webster defines terrorism as “the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion” and appeasement as "to cause to subside . . . to buy off by concessions" (emphasis added).
Since President Mahmoud Ahmadinjad’s Iran regularly threatens the forcible eradication of Israel, finances and trains known terrorists, commits acts of international intimidation, and preaches venom at every opportunity, can we not label Iran a terrorist state? Since Obama promises that, as President, he would sit down with Mahmoud and negotiate with that pipsqueak terrorist, what could Obama expect to achieve? Since negotiating involves give and take, that is, offering quid pro quos, what would he give and what would he take? Why bother to confer if you’re not prepared to concede something?
The possibilities are endless but the bottom line is not: President Obama would have to offer the terrorist state of Iran concessions in order to gain concessions, much like Chamberlain offered the Sudetenland to Hitler after a desparate Hitler promised to leave the rest of Europe alone. (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERsudetenland.htm)
That’s called appeasement. The ultimate result for Chamberlain? World War II and 60,000,000 dead. The ultimate result of Obama’s planned appeasement of Iran could be World War III and, perhaps, far more dead people.
The syllogism holds. Let Obama fume all he wants. The shoe fits.