McCain, the Appeaser....

Email Print posted by MedfordTim 05/27/2008 05:43:52 PM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
What was all that hubbub about a couple of weeks ago again concerning Obama being an appeaser for talking with "the enemy"?

McCain wants nuclear talks with China, Russia

John McCain Tuesday pledged to launch a new dialogue with China and Russia to reduce nuclear weapons and proliferation, and backed a US-India civil nuclear pact.

The Arizona senator also took a fresh swipe at potential Democratic general election foe Barack Obama, over his offer to talk to the leaders of US foes like Iran, Syria and Cuba.

He can flip at the same time he flops! Amazing!

"Many believe all we need to do to end the nuclear programs of hostile governments is to have our president talk with leaders in Pyongyang and Tehran, as if we haven't tried talking to these governments repeatedly over the past two decades," McCain said.

You moron, McCain! You left out a few words. "Many pundits at FOX and in the Republican party would have you believe that Democrats are suggesting that all we need to do to end the nuclear programs of hostile governments is to have our president talk with leaders which, of course, has never been the case except in the fantasies of the Right. What freedom loving, democratic people really believe in is actual diplomacy, where the channels of communication are open and people talk back and forth instead of the big, powerful country economically blackmailing the smaller country as the United States has done repeatedly over the past two decades"


Wouldn't want to take you out of context, now would we?
< Shareholder "rebellion" at Exxon | Are You Interested In Becoming An Intern For The Young Turks? >
 Display:
McCain, the Appeaser.... | 12 comments (12 topical, 0 hidden)
Uhhhh, Tim (none / 0)
Diplomatic relations were established with Russia and China some time ago. Remember? Nixon went to China. Reagan brought Gorby to his knees. We entered into tough negotiations and extracted demands. We forced them to relinquish communism and embrace capitalism. Today, the U.S. currently considers Russia and China as trading partners and developing allies. It could be argued that these countries are now better capitalists than the U.S.

In fact, as the U.S. develops ever closer working relations with these former foes, we can actually leverage desired behavior from outlaw regimes like Iran, Venezuela, and North Korea. Once the Big Three become united in trade relations and global capitalist ventures we can easily steam roll over the likes of Kim Jung Mentally Ill and Imadinnerjacket.

There is nothing to “negotiate” with pygmy outlaw regimes. You should have learned that lesson from North Korea. When you try to appease them with bribes in order to get them to behave, the results are never good.

When the Big Three circles the wagons and applies pressure, countries like North Korea and Syria are forced to join the community of civilized nations.

by KenTX on 05/27/2008 09:52:33 PM EST

"We entered into tough negotiations" (none / 0)
Your words.

We entered into tough negotiations...


Now, tell me what is missing from the current administration's approach... 

by MedfordTim on 05/27/2008 10:21:17 PM EST

[ Parent ]
teachable moment (none / 0)
Outlaw regimes like North Korea, Iran, Venezuela have nothing to offer in negotiation. When bribing a misbehaving child, the adult is being conditioned and manipulated. The child wins.

The civilized world needs to condition outlaw regimes. With appropriate international cooperation and pressure, its easy to gang up on outlaws and reward them when they behave and punish them when they misbehave.

The Bush Method is working splendidly with North Korea. 

By contrast, the Carter-Clinton approach of bribery, appeasement, and tribute was an abject failure.

History has already measured the weakness of Clinton against the strength of Bush. 

by KenTX on 05/27/2008 11:10:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Really? An insder disgarees with that assesment (none / 0)
silly ass troll... lies have a way of coming out.

Exclusive: McClellan whacks Bush, White House
By MIKE ALLEN | 5/27/08 6:18 PM EST
    Text Size:  
Scott McClellan
McClellan says the administration relied on "propaganda" to sell the war.
Photo: AP

Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan writes in a surprisingly scathing memoir to be published next week that President Bush "veered terribly off course," was not "open and forthright on Iraq," and took a "permanent campaign approach" to governing at the expense of candor and competence.

Among the most explosive revelations in the 341-page book, titled "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception" (Public Affairs, $27.95):

  • McClellan charges that Bush relied on "propaganda" to sell the war.

  • He says the White House press corps was too easy on the administration during the run-up to the war.

  • He admits that some of his own assertions from the briefing room podium turned out to be "badly misguided."

  • The longtime Bush loyalist also suggests that two top aides held a secret West Wing meeting to get their story straight about the CIA leak case at a time when federal prosecutors were after them -- and McClellan was continuing to defend them despite mounting evidence they had not given him all the facts.

  • McClellan asserts that the aides -- Karl Rove, the president's senior adviser, and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the vice president's chief of staff -- "had at best misled" him about their role in the disclosure of former CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity.

by Chinese Democracy on 05/28/2008 12:19:55 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Did you post this in the wrong thread? (none / 0)
I don't see anthing related to what we are discussing in this thread.

Are you styling hair while blogging again?

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

by KenTX on 05/28/2008 12:25:58 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Nice one Ken (none / 0)

That definitely proves its not true!

You are brilliant. 

by ProfRich on 05/28/2008 12:40:53 AM EST

[ Parent ]
It was a little something (none / 0)
Im sure that you would be interested in  in regards to the power and glory of the bush administration.

No Im chatting from my blackberry while driving down the road.

You are posting in the wrong blog.

Go away

by Chinese Democracy on 05/28/2008 07:57:49 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Your main mistake (none / 0)
...is in thinking of Iran and Venezuela, who "have nothing to offer in negotiation" except, maybe, the majority of the world's oil supply between the two of them, as "outlaw." There is no reason for them to be branded as such. You, McCain, Bush, Lieberman, all the rest, do this country a real dis-service by making them "villians" for imperialistic reasons.

Take a closer look at what "worked" with North Korea for Bush - it was when he returned to the Clinton model that he claimed "success" in Korea.

Tin plated "heroes" ya got there.

by MedfordTim on 05/28/2008 12:41:34 AM EST

[ Parent ]
And in a nutshell the whole problem with (none / 0)

the current administration.

 When bribing a misbehaving child, the adult is being conditioned and manipulated. The child wins.

 Except these are countries with millions of people inhabiting them, not errant children.  What happens when you treat an adult as a child?  Because that is a better analogy of this situation.  

 But back to Iran in particular, when did we reward them for good behavior..... other than those arms Regan gave them for the hostages? 


by Duncansmom14 on 05/28/2008 08:07:42 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Reagan (none / 0)

If there was one thing Ray Gun Ronnie loved more than Jelly Beans and cheating on his first wife it was Nazi-loving appeasing.

Man, it made him so happy. 

by ProfRich on 05/28/2008 10:43:01 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Bush The Appetizer (none / 0)

Once again I will crush the arguments of the blogger whose name shall not be spoken.

BOLD FACE LIE : History has already measured the weakness of Clinton against the strength of Bush.

(This guy sure has a fixation on the judgements of history . I guess the best he can hope for is that historians will somehow forget how fucked up the here and now is under Republican and Bush rule. Just a thought.)

BOLD FACED FACTS: The AP's Terence Hunt and NBC News' David Gregory both reported
President Bush's "veiled swipe" at the Clinton administration's North Korea policy, in which Bush said, "I appreciate the efforts of previous administrations. It just didn't work." But neither noted that, following the Clinton administration's signing of the 1994 Agreed Framework with North Korea, that country did not produce any plutonium until 2002, when the Bush administration abandoned the agreement. CFMA

Robert L. Gallucci, the chief negotiator of the accord and now dean of the Georgetown School of Foreign Service, said it is a "ludicrous thing" to say that the Clinton agreement failed. For eight years, the Agreed Framework kept North Korea's five-megawatt plutonium reactor frozen and under international inspection, while North Korea did not build planned 50- and 200-megawatt reactors. If those reactors had been built and running, he said, North Korea would now have enough plutonium for more than 100 nuclear weapons. WAPO

By Gallucci's account, North Korea may have produced a small amount of plutonium for one or two weapons before Clinton came into office -- during the administration of Bush's father -- but "no more material was created on his watch." When Clinton left office, officials saw signs that North Korea may have been attempting to create a clandestine uranium enrichment program, but nothing was definitive. WAPO

Such a program would violate the Agreed Framework. When the Bush administration decided it had conclusive proof of that enrichment in July 2002, it confronted North Korea and terminated fuel oil deliveries promised under the Agreed Framework. In response, North Korea evicted the inspectors, restarted the reactor and retrieved weapons-grade plutonium from 8,000 fuel rods that had been kept in a cooling pond. Intelligence analysts now think that, before Monday's apparent nuclear test, North Korea had enough plutonium for as many as a dozen weapons. WAPO


 This is what real historians say...not the partisan hacks suffering from rectal crainial inversion:

  • Just as Clinton began his presidency, George W. Bush also started out with a policy of indifference towards North Korea. When the 2000 elections rolled around in November North Korea was not an issue at all. It was not a thought in anyone's mind, and the first 9 months of Bush's administration seemed to be no different from his campaign as far North Korea is concerned.
  • ...it seems that his ( Bush) administration is applying a policy more of neglect than engagement. Much of the events in North Korea have been overshadowed by the events, and the policy that Bush has enacted towards Iraq
  • As shown before Clinton used bilateral diplomacy many times, sending officials and dignitaries to North Korea for negotiations. Bush seems to have stuck to more of an isolationist policy, opting not to send negotiators over until North Korea has complied with the demands put forth.
  •  Bush is a little bit harder to fit into a model. He doesn't seem to fit into he rational actor model very well, for he does not seem to consider all options and their consequences when making his foreign policy decisions.
  • So it has been shown that on the one hand there are many differences between the Bush administration's policy towards the DPRK and that of the Clinton administration. Yet on the other hand, there are also many similarities. These similarities can bee seen not only in the approaches taken, but also in the apparent intentions that the two presidents had when making decisions.

  • We will not know the full effect of his presidency on North Korea until well after he is out of the White House. Until then, we will have to keep on making intelligent guesses as to where his policy will bring us in the future.

That sums it up...intelligent...being the operative word, and in Bushes case we all know what he thinks about "strategery"

 

by MRFred on 05/28/2008 01:35:54 PM EST

109th Congress (none / 0)

None of what Obama is citing qualifies as, "appeasement".&nb sp; If you want a perfect example, look at the 109th Congress.  Those lazy-ass, follow-the-leader Republicans gave everything to their idiot-in-chief and that my friends is appeasement.

You give away the store in exchange for something...and in this case, the something was staying in favor with Republicans.  Damn the cost and damn the detriment to our country.

Next time the topic of appeasement comes up, shove the actions of the Republicans down their throat as the perfect example of appeasement. 

 

by redford on 05/28/2008 04:56:07 PM EST

McCain, the Appeaser.... | 12 comments (12 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: