reckless, naive appeasers!
could someone please explain what i seem to be missing? this is the top story on all pol. blogs today and it doesnt seem like a big deal to me. glad their in talks, but other than that, is there an underlying sense of collusion going on that im not getting?
Looks like all of McCain's talk about appeasement might blow up in his face with this news
jimmy carter was heavily criticized by tools like cristopher hitchens and other neo-cons for talking to hamas and syria, but it sure looks like his talks with syria paid off, though i doubt that talks with hamas and israel will begin any time soon.
now that israel's actions back's up BHO's ridiculously non-controversial stance, WTF does McCain have to attack on? the economy? you won't out-energy policy the democrat with GWB stapled to your leg.
Curioso @2 -- the controversy is that Obama has said that under certain conditions he would hold talks with people who don't like us, like Hamas, Iran, or Syria. McCain immediately attacked him for being an "appeaser", and Bush chimed in as well, making the Chamberlain-Hitler analogy explicit.
This is profoundly hypocritical of them both, because the Bush administration DOES hold talks with people like that, as he well knows. Bush's Secretary of Defense said as much the very same day as Bush's remarks.
And now we have Israel talking to Syria as well. The plain fact is, as anyone with half a brain knows perfectly well, is that you DO talk to your enemies; it's called diplomacy. For all the bluster and chest-puffing, even the people who have the most to lose in the Middle East do diplomacy too.
Bush's lies on this subject, and McCain's witless parroting of that line, suggest that neither is equipped to handle the real world of international conflict. The fact that Israel has, like everyone else, given up on the Bush Administration's incompetent leadership, and gone to talk to Syria, just underlines this point.
In short, it makes McCain look like a liar or an idiot, one or the other. Possibly both.
Having recently read "The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy" by Stephen Walt & John Mearsheimer, the NY Times evening story regarding the Israeli/Syrian negotiations and seen "Charlie Wilson's War", the fine film by Mike Nichols, I've come to the conclusion that I'm not at all surprised at the Bush Administration saying one thing and doing another. "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". It's the nature of the beast in international relations. What's not mentioned in the excerpt is that Israeli PM Olmert is under a cloud of investigation. As a result of these negotiations, the news media has less of an onus on his legal predicament (there is a hilarious line from the film regarding such a situation with MC Charlie Wilson). I have no problem with it. Bully for Israel and hopefully with the USA to settle with Syria and get them out of Iran's sphere of influence.
It's an election year. R's resort to this B.S. every year to convince the white pot belly vote they are the only ones who are macho enough. Somehow the D's always fall for it and play defense. ERG!
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).