It’s quite plain from the context what the president wanted people to take away from that portion of the speech.

“Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the 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 I could only have talked to Hitler, all 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.”

Third, people are talking about “appeasement” because Bush used that in reference to simply talking to Iran,

He did? When was this?

First off, can the name calling. It’s not welcome here.

Second, I think it’s pretty obvious that Grant was being facetious.

Third, people are talking about “appeasement” because Bush used that in reference to simply talking to Iran, but he seems to have no problem doing the exact same thing in other countries. His record and rhetoric are inconsistent, and he’s gaming the future arguments in favor of only benefitting his point of view on the subject. That’s not only dishonest, it’s dangerous.

So next time, instead of accusing people of drinking the Kool-Aid, you better check to see what’s in your own cup first.

Whether we like it or not, these lapses in decorum must stop. America can no longer swagger about the world and expect compliant behavior by either ally or enemy.

Much of the world no longer listens to us. We need to take great care in cultivating those that still do.

Definition of appeasement is “the policy of giving in to the demands of a hostile or aggressive power…” (yourdictionary.com). It’s akin to giving a bully your lunch money to keep him from kicking your ass today, and still having to worry about him tomorrow.

If you read the entire article, you will find that, prior to Darfur, the Bush administration was successfull in establishing peace. After the genocide in Darfur started, peace would’ve been restored if it were not for several local warlords that Bashir could not control.

That is negotiation, not appeasement. When you appease someone, you get nothing in return – it’s one-sided. Negotiations result in benefits for both sides.

What Obamama wants to do with Iran is engage in talks that will only serve to legitimize M.A. without getting any consessions from him….In other words, Iran gets the benefit without having to shelve their nuclear weapons program, quit their support of terrorists that are killing Iraqis and American soldiers and they can keep perpetuating the conflict between Palestine and Isreal. That sounds more than a little “one-sided” to me….

Put down the Kool-aid and take 2 steps back!!

http://sojournersplace.blogspot.com/2008/05/am-i-not-human-wanted-ahmad-haran-ali.html

SjP