Not Talking About People Who Will Talk To People We Shouldn't Talk To, Part Two
Maybe President Bush actually was criticizing both Obama and McCain for being willing to talk to the specific terrorism-sponsors that Bush doesn't want to talk to?*
*Not to be confused with the terrorism-sponsors and nuclear proliferators that Bush does want to talk to.
posted by QueensGuy @ 7:01 AM
6 Comments:
Nice try, QG, but no cigar. If you want to argue that Bush is a hypocrite because he hasn't lived up to what he said, I won't necessarily disagree. What I wrote is that you can't argue with what he said.
Here's what he said:
"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," ...
I believe that statement to be true. What's more, the article you link to on our negotiations with North Korea doesn't dissuade me. I'm sure many people regarded The Munich Agreement to be a triumph of pragmatism, too.
Talking and appeasement are two different things
Agreed. But even if it doesn't rise to the level of appeasement, I would still question how engaging in such a dialog benefits us.
In fact, I would question when such a dialog has ever benefited us.
Well, I was actually waiting for someone to say "ha, but Libya has renounced terrorism!" So that I could say, "yes, after dialog!" So I guess I'll just play both parts....
What you seem to miss, though it's pretty obvious, is it's all about who meets with whom and what are the preconditions. It's not just about meeting at all.
Yes, and I suppose our troops in Iraq had nothing to do with Libya's decision to renounce terrorism.
Hmmm, troops (or maybe missiles, or both) + dialog. You might actually have something there, QG.
Post a Comment
<< Home