Defense Secretary Robert Gates: Appeaser?
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in 2008 Election, Barack, Bush, Foreign Policy, Iraq, Terrorism
How exactly does Bush explain his speech when his own defense secretary’s opinions seems to place him in the “appeasement” camp with Obama?
“We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage . . . and then sit down and talk with them,” Gates said. “If there is going to be a discussion, then they need something, too. We can’t go to a discussion and be completely the demander, with them not feeling that they need anything from us.”
Note the emphasis…”sit down and talk with them.”
If Obama wins in the fall, maybe he should look to Robert Gates for his defense secretary. It’d be like a big appeasement sundae with extra appease sprinkles on top.
This entry was posted on Thursday, May 15th, 2008 and is filed under 2008 Election, Barack, Bush, Foreign Policy, Iraq, Terrorism. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
May 16th, 2008 at 9:24 am
Uh, maybe because BUSH NEVER SAID A DAMN THING ABOUT OBAMA??? Honestly, the level of stretching people will go to find some way to criticize Bush and praise Obama is absolutely absurd. I have no idea how so many people have found justification for turning Bush’s remarks about radical cave-dwelling terrorists who want nothing more than to murder every single American, including the bleeding heart liberals who want so badly to “just talk to them,” with Obama’s remarks about diplomatic relations with Iran. Bush said NOTHING about Obama, and if you read his remarks clearly, was obviously not talking about the Iranian government. This is shady, yellow journalism at its worst.
May 16th, 2008 at 9:58 am
appease appease appease – the new neo-con buzzword. ‘the reds are comin! an’ they’re lookin to appease ever’body! run fer yer lives!!”
May 16th, 2008 at 11:00 am
Stacy, first off, please calm down.
Second, accusing us of yellow journalism is contradicted by the facts. Please check the following…
Note the bolded section.
And yes, it’s true that the White House’s press secretary said this wasn’t about Obama, but it has been widely reported that they said one thing publicly and another thing privately. In other words, don’t let them spin you.
One last note, Bush wasn’t talking about radical cavedwelling terrorists. He talked about Hitler very specifically. So you can think Bush was just making some sort of random historic parallel in the Israeli parliament about an American senator wanting to talk to enemies of Israel on the ANNIVERSARY of the nation’s formation, but I’m not buying it.
May 16th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Stacey, why do they have to be “cave dwellers”? Why are you such a bigot? What is wrong with living in caves? If anyone here is using “yellow journalism” it is you. Pssst… Americans are terrorists by their own definition… google Schools of America or the CIA or any of our past actions that sought to overthrow a government and instill a dictator… I can think of one example… Iraq and Saddam, or Afghan and the Taliban. Lets lead by example, not just throw out hypocritical demands and wage war when countries laugh in our faces at them.
As to the subject…
“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,†– Bush
Why wouldn’t this work? Understand your enemy. Understand why they want what they want. Understand what YOU want and why YOU want it. Understand the differences between the two and how you can come to a peaceful agreement. Its called diplomacy. Remember in 2000 when Bush ran on a non-interventionist foreign policy and then after 9/11 he did a 180 and wants to intervene in everyone’s affairs.
May 16th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
The definition of appeasement is: “acquiring peace by way of concessions or gifts.” Talking is not the same appeasing. Talking just means talking. It doesn’t mean “giving” anything. Neither Gates nor Obama are suggesting giving up anything. They both know that you can gain a lot by talking to someone – you size them up, you guage what their real interests are, you view how their power is structured, etc, etc, et freaking cetera.
Anybody catch Chris Matthews last night? It was genius. I don’t know who the half-wit “conservative” pundit was, but Chris nailed him on this. Nevile Chamberline gave Hitler HALF OF CZECKOSLOVAKIA! Now that’s appeasement. People keep using “the appeasement of Hilter” as some kind of historical warning that we must never engage with our “enemies” and they don’t know what the freak their talking about. As Chris said, if you’re going throw around historical referrences, at least look them up and get your facts straight.
May 16th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
If Obama simply wants to “talk” with Tehran, and is not willing to give concessions or negotiate over uranium enrichment or supporting terrorism, then Bush’s reference to senator William Borah was absolutely correct. Obama HOPES he can CHANGE Ahmadinajad’s mind by having tea and crumpets with the Mad Mullahs in front of hundreds of sparkling flash bulbs of the international press corps. I call it CHOPE – where change meets hope. Will Obama adorn a Kufi during a photo-op at the great mosque at Qom where the Hidden Imam is secretly pulling the strings of world affairs?
I would argue that engaging official diplomatic relations with Iran, thus ending their status as a rogue regime is in-and-of-itself a concession (albeit not as severe as the Sudetenland). What could possibly be accomplished that could not otherwise through back channels – like sizing them up, gaging what their real interests are, viewing how their power is structured, etc, etc, et freaking cetera.
If there is no problem with simply “talking,” then why the bug up Obama’s ass about Jimmy Carter’s trip to Hamastan? They are a more legitimate representational government than Iran’s because the elections in Palestine were more free and more fair. Whats wrong with offering CHOPE to the terrorists of Hamas, if its OK to meet with the terrorists of Tehran?
May 16th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Gates is an Antisemite!
May 16th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Jimmy, I think you know why. Hamas isn’t trying to enrich uranium.
May 16th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
If only Hamas tried to develop WMD’s, then we could talk with them too – and therefore achieve peace through dialogue. Here’s to hoping Hamas buys a nuke on the black market, and to hanging the Jews out to dry!
May 16th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
the current media has drummed into our minds that Iran is a rogue state, says who, Uncle Sam. But is it really the antagonist or the victim?
Starting from the Great game to today it has been subjected to use as a pawn, in 1941 the USSR and Brit invaded it, the later govt, nationalized Iran’s Mineral Wealth (yes took away the rights of *its* citizens) the brits took away the rights of citizens of Iran, embargoed its oil and pumped America to do the same! So who’s the antagonist?
Then Ah!, the seed of evil by none other US, Operation Ajax, to CONTROL IRAN”S OIL!!! Now who’s the antaognist?
Ofcourse the ppl finally took to streets and kicked the American boot lickers away and now they have a nice strong country wishing to defend itself after years of foreign intervention.
Israel’s nukes are knoen through its own citizens, yet Israel is never threatened by use of force?
Not to forget the Iraq Iran war fuelled by US weapons, what would ppl do except HATE america.
But then ppl are blind to their own faults …. When Iran tries to interfere with other’s affairs (Hezbollah) it is rogue but when US …. Vietnam,Afghanistan,Iraq/Iran,Palestine,Iraq,Iran,N korea …….
When an animal reaches its age its prime it turns on its master ……(Osama)
May 16th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
ADDENDUM:
Obama seems to disagree with you on that distinction, Justin. From the words of the Messiah himself:
A terrorist supporting state intent on Israel’s destruction and will not renounce terrorism nor recognize Israel’s right to exist – now thats another story.
Don’t states typically have more wealth and power than most organizations? It seems that the more powerful you are, the more dangerous and threatening you are, the more President Obama is willing to speak with you, and possible hash out a deal. It seems obvious to me that his policy would merely encourage terrorists to become more aggressive or to institutionalize their ambitions in order to get a seat at the table as legitimate world players.
Now all Hamas has to do is declare Gaza an official sovereign entity, which they probably could do since Israel withdrew and most of the Arab and Islamic world is behind Hamas, get it in writing at a summit in Cairo (hell, Israel unilaterally withdrew, Hamas can unilaterally declare itslef a government), and bingo! You have direct unconditional talks with President Obama.
May 16th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Stacey,
Please dont tell me you dont think the current pres. is not a retard?
May 16th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
fred,
leave that kind of talk out of the conversation. It has no place here.