I've seen a lot of sad things in American politics in my lifetime -- the resignation of a president who became a national disgrace after he oversaw a campaign of break-ins and cover-ups, another who circumvented the Constitution to trade arms for hostages, and yet is now hailed as national hero. And those paled to what we have seen in the last seven years -- flagrant disregard for the Constitution, the launching of a "pre-emptive" war on false pretenses, and discussions about torture and other shocking abuses inside the White House inner sanctum.
But now it's come to this: A new low that I never imagined was even possible.
President Bush went on foreign soil today, and committed what I consider an act of political treason: Comparing the candidate of the U.S. opposition party to appeasers of Nazi Germany -- in the very nation that was carved out from the horrific calamity of the Holocaust. Bush's bizarre and beyond-appropriate detour into American presidential politics took place in the middle of what should have been an occasion for joy: A speech to Israeli's Knesset to honor that nation's 60th birthday.
But here's what he said:
JERUSALEM (CNN) – In a particularly sharp blast from halfway around the world, President Bush suggested Thursday that Sen. Barack Obama and other Democrats are in favor of "appeasement" of terrorists in the same way U.S. leaders appeased Nazis in the run-up to World War II.
"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," said Bush, in what White House aides privately acknowledged was a reference to calls by Obama and other Democrats for the U.S. president to sit down for talks with leaders like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
"We have heard this foolish delusion before," Bush said in remarks to the Israeli Knesset. "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."
As a believer in free speech, I think Bush has a right to say what he wants, but as a President of the United States who swore to uphold the Constitution, his freedom also carries an awesome and solemn responsibility, and what this president said today is a serious breach of that high moral standard.
Of course, there are differences of opinion on how America should handle Iran, and that's why we're having an election here at home, to sort these issues out -- hopefully with respect and not with emotional and inaccurate appeals. Not only is the president's comment a gross misrepresentation of Barack Obama's stance on the issue, but ironically, it comes just a day after his own Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, said of Iran: "We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage . . . and then sit down and talk with them." Is Gates a Nazi appeaser-type, too? And Bush has been hardly consistent on this point, either. Look at his own dealings with oil-rich Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi, linked to deadly terror attacks like Pan Am Flight 103.
But what Bush did in Israel this morning goes well beyond the accepted confines of American political debate, When the president speaks to a foreign parliament on behalf of our country, his message needs to be clear and unambiguous. Our democracy may look messy to outsiders, and we may have our disagreements with some sharp elbows thrown around, but at the end of the day we are not Republicans or Democrats or liberals or conservatives.
We are Americans.
And you, Mr. Bush, are the leader of us all. To use a diplomatic setting on foreign soil to score a cheap political point at home is way beneath your office, way beneath your country, and way beneath the people you serve. You have been handed an office once uplifted to great heights by fellow countrymen from Washington to Lincoln to Roosevelt to Eisenhower, and have plunged it so deeply into the Karl-Rove-and-Rush-Limbaugh-fueled world of political destruction and survival of all costs that have lost all perspective -- and all sense of decency. To travel to Israel and to associate a sitting American senator and your possible successor in the Oval Office with those who at one time gave comfort to an enemy of the United States is, in and of itself, an act of political treason.
In another irony, this comes from an administration that has already committed such grave abuses that its former officials are becoming fearful of traveling overseas, lest they be arrested for war crimes. Despite the alleged crimes and misdemeanors of the Bush administration, the Democrats who control the House have until now been restrained in their use of the impeachment process, hoping that the final eight months of our American nightmare can pass by quickly. Indeed, one has to wonder how much of Bush's outrageous statement this morning arose from fear -- fear that a President Obama will go after his wrongdoing in 2009.
Today, it's a whole new ballgame. I believe this treacherous statement by a U.S. president in Israel is a signal to the Democrats in the House in Washington, that it's time to play its Constitutional role in ending this trauma, before even greater acts against the interest of America are wrongly committed in our name.
- Geez, Will, you should probably have sat on this entry for a few minutes before you put it up. What the heck is "political treason" anyway? What the Peresident said is the usual political smear that was probably not even taken seriously by his audience. Did you think that President Bush had credibility anywhere in the world, and that the auduence wouldn't know any better? It's not even the most offensive thing he has said this week. But you decided to express your outrage and constructed some kind of sandy foundation to mount some kind of argument that this was the last straw. Instead the reader is left to wonder what the heck you are talking about and disregarding your whole post as some sort of hysterical rant. Instead of creating the basis for the discussion of the president's low life political smear, you've actually directed the discussion instead to the ravings of some hysterical hater. Instead of forcing the Bush sycophants into dealing with the issue, all they have to do is brush off another case of BDS.— SteveMG
- Which appeaser said: "Jaw, jaw, jaw is better than war, war, war"? a) Chamberlain, b) Daladier, c) some other wienie?— SteveMG
- Actually, on second thought, I pretty much agree with Stevie there. There's nothing new in Bush implying that anyone who disagrees with his approach to the "GWOT" is an ally of terrorists. I'm not sure how his doing it on foreign soil is particularly relevant.— Talking point sleuth
- As emptywheel points out over at FDL, Dubya's grandpa, Prescott Bush, was a Nazi Enabler. I'm "shocked" that Dubya didn't make reference to this in his speech.— tonycpsu
- Congratulations on your most hyperbolic post to date, Will. " To travel to Israel and to associate a sitting American senator and your possible successor in the Oval Office with those who at one time gave comfort to an enemy of the United States " Uh, Will, when Chamberlain was appeasing Hitler, Nazi Germany was not a declared enemy of the United States yet - and would not be for several more years. But don't let historical fact get in the way of your rants. Obama and Hillary and the Dems have been attacking Bush relentlessly over the war for years. Pelosi went to Syria to conduct her own foreign policy. Apparently the left likes to dish it out, but can't take it in return.— db_cooper
- A couple of years ago, Harry Reid was sharply criticized for calling Bush "a loser" because Bush was on a trip abroad (I believe it was Egypt). So we have a tradition that it's inappropriate that it's not proper to criticize the president when he's abroad, but he can go in front of a foreign government and make scurrilious charges about his opponents back home. Only in Bush's America. Even Nixon never did this.— will
Comment removed.- " Look at his own dealings with oil-rich Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi," Last I checked, Gadhafi, largely as a result of the Iraq War, renounced his WMD program and ceased to act as a state sponsor of terrorism. Another minor detail that Will apparently couldn't be bothered to remember. I guess BDS gets you so worked up that you don't think all the way through what you are writing.— db_cooper
- Comment removed.
- Nothing new here. Remember when Seymour Hersh outed Richard Perle for his 5 outrageous and illegal conflicts of interest? Perle called Hersh a terrorist. Remember when Rod Paige, Bush's Education Secretary called the National Educators Association a terrorist group? This has been the right's tactic all along.— Markov
- So, Will, aside from being "tradition," why is doing it on foreign soil more significant. What is the meaning behind the tradition?
"Conservatives" are constantly saying that public criticism of our government here in the States "emboldens" terrorists. You seem to be saying something similar - only making the distinction that it's been done on foreign soil. Steve's right. Fact of the matter is that given the virtrually universally shared opinion of Bush around the globe (excluding the marginalize 27% of the American public that are Republican sycophants) criticizing Obama is only more likely to improve Obama's standing throughout the rest of the world - no matter where he does it.
Perhaps, in an unconscious way, Bush is actually trying to finally do something that will improve America's ability to achieve global objectives should Obama get elected?
— Talking point sleuth - Last I checked, Gadhafi, largely as a result of the Iraq War, renounced his WMD program and ceased to act as a state sponsor of terrorism.
Apparently, db, you think that negotiating with terrorist isn't appeasement if they approach the U.S. to resolve the disagreement - and that you completely disregard their ongoing terrorist activity as a criteria to determine whether negotiations should take place.
Just when did you do a complete 180 on your views of diplomacy? Was it before, or after the person you voted for twice has tried to use Libya as a justification for one of the biggest foreign policy disasters in the history of the country?
— Talking point sleuth - Will, these are not well reasoned arguments, but cheap shots. As stated above, Qaddafi has come in from the cold. Bush's words are a comparison by implication not an out-and-out comparison. This is not journalism. It is 'bloviating'.— wompus
- Comment removed.
Will Bunch, a senior writer at the Philadelphia Daily News, blogs about his obsessions, including national and local politics and world affairs, the media, pop music, the Philadelphia Phillies, soccer and other sports, not necessarily in that order.
E-mail Will by clicking here.
PLEASE COMMENT WITH PASSION...
...but not with racial slurs, potentially libelous allegations, obscenities or other juvenile noise. Such comments will, at our discretion, be deleted in their entirety, and repeat offenders will be blocked from commenting. ALSO: Any commenter advocating killing any government official will be immediately banned.
Thanks.
- Atrios
- Kiko's House
- Suburban Guerilla
- Booman Tribune
- All-Spin Zone
- Philly (Dragonballyee)
- Afro-Netizen
- Rowhouse Logic
- MyDD
- Bad Attitudes
- Billmon
- iFlipFlop
- CorrenteWire
- upyernoz
- Tattered Coat
- Fables of the Reconstruction
- Slacktivist
- Citizen Mom
- The Next Mayor
- Philly Future
- Philadelphia Will Do
- Philebrity
- Young Philly Politics
- Phillyblog
- Welcome to Phillyville
- Phawker
- A List of Things Thrown Five Minutes Ago
- Keystone Blog
- Philadelphia - America's Hometown
- BlankBaby
- Above Average Jane
- Phillyist
- Metroblogging Philadelphia
- The Clog
- Josh Marshall
- Daily Kos
- Juan Cole
- Oliver Willis
- Andy Borowitz
- War and Piece
- Wonkette
- BuzzFlash
- Raw Story
- Cursor
- Crooks and Liars
- Swing State Project
- Kevin Drum
- Talk Left
- AmericaBlog
- Hullabaloo
- Mad Kane
- Think Progress
- Jesus' General
- The Carpetbagger Report
- Majikthise
- Echidne of the Snakes
- David Sirota
- Glenn Greenwald
- TBogg
- Fire Dog Lake
- Taylor Marsh
- Matthew Yglesias
- Jon Swift
- Drudge Report
- Beer Leaguer
- The 700 Level
- Dick Polman
- Balls, Sticks and Stuff
- Shallow Center
- Philling Station
- Phillies Nation
- A Citizen's Blog
- The Good Phight
- Romenesko
- Editor and Publisher
- Pressthink
- Buzzmachine
- The Inksniffer
- Media Bloodhound
- Eat the Press
- Mickey Kaus
- Media (Huffington Post)
- Blinq
- The Corner
- Instapundit
- Andrew Sullivan
- Free Republic
- James Taranto
- Blonde Sagacity
- ScrappleFace
- Blogorrhea
- February
- January
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- January 2008
- News | Sports | Business | What's Happening | Restaurants & Food | Entertainment | Living | Marketplace | Jobs
And good point in focusing on how the Bush administration has repeatedly pointed to the results of negotiations with Gadhafi as evidence of success of their administration's foreign policy.
Also, interesting, is that after years of asserting that diplomacy with enemies is "appeasement" they now claim success in the results of negotiations with North Korea; of course, forgetting to mention that essentially what they've achieved is nothing more substantial than what had been achieved under the Clinton administration - results that they ridiculed.