Fools On Parade
Posted by Jeremie Jordan on May 16, 2008
Democrats literally fell over themselves as they rushed towards the nearest microphone in an attempt to denounce President Bush’s speech in Israel. Press releases couldn’t be written fast enough. They couldn’t ratchet the rhetoric high enough. There wasn’t enough hours in the day to give Barack the proper time to play act the victim.
“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.” [Bush]
Pelosi ignorantly said moronic things like Bush’s statement ‘was beneath the dignity of the office of the president.’ Like a stain maybe Nancy? Then Hillary Clinton had to take a break from her constant attempt to smear and discredit Barack Obama to act like she was defending him. “Offensive and outrageous” she said.
What the fuck? Forget Obama for a second, the man who believes we should sit down and talk with Iran (the nation that openly admits it wants Israel wiped off the face of Earth), do you want to know who came to my mind first when I heard Bush’s statement? A guess?
How about former President Jimmy Carter. Did he not just meet with the terrorist organization Hamas? Uh, gee, I wonder where Bush could have ever come up with the idea that Democrats would negotiate with terrorists. I am fucking stumped.
Then, as I listened to the endless parade of democratic sound bites riping the President, I couldn’t help but start to think ‘aren’t they being a tad hypocritical?’ Bush lead us into a war they fully supported at the beginning, but since it wasn’t gift wrapped up nice with a bow by the first the anniversary of the invasion they’ve had no problem trashing the Bush and the office of the Presidency at every opportunity. They can dish it, but they can’t take it. Typical. Don’t worry Pelosi has an excuse for their hypocrisy:
“The tradition has always been that when a U.S. president is overseas, partisan politics stops at the water’s edge.”
I think Pelosi might have heard about this tradition on her world tour of ‘diplomacy’ after becoming the Speaker of the House. I need not remind Pelosi that it had also been a tradition that members of Congress don’t travel the world an under mind the current administration’s foreign policy.
This people, is why I haven’t blogged much later. What the fuck?
This entry was posted on May 16, 2008 at 6:32 am and is filed under Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Jeremie's Rants, politics. Tagged: Barack Obama, George Bush, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi. 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 16, 2008 at 7:18 am
Maybe these democrats could give some examples of reformed terrorist organizations to prove that negotiating works.
May 16, 2008 at 8:46 am
I’m not a super huge Republican fan, but jesus the democrats make it hard to want take them serious about anything.
May 16, 2008 at 8:56 am
Pelosi, Carter, et al are people who are more than thrilled if terrorists promise to kill them last.
May 16, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Have you guys heard the latest story on Glenn Beck regarding the gentlemen in Lebanon hoping that BarrackO gets the bid? He has a group of about 15-20 people making calls and sending emails to individuals at an internet cafe in LB to the US during every primary encouraging them to go and vote for BarrackO. He does this because he thinks it is going to help out there issues because of BarrackO’s weak foreign policy. By weak, I mean no foreign policy.
May 16, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Ben, that’s creepy, but I am guessing it has little impact.
May 16, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Um…duh..
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/the_white_house_changes_target.php
Of course, believing that link requires you don’t knee jerk on every reaction. You know, engage your brain.
May 17, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Jeremy,
I’m a bit worried you haven’t followed your thoughts to their logical conclusions. The United States has a long history of negotiating with rogue, terrorist-sponsoring states. President Kennedy negotiated an end to the Cuban Missile Crisis with the Soviet Union, one of the most wretched governments to ever exist. President Reagan negotiated an arms-for-hostages agreement with Iran in the 1980s. Those are two examples off the top of my head.
Diplomacy is a dirty business. You can’t choose your enemies, and it’s folly to only talk to morally pure nations and entities. America is the most powerful nation in human history, and it should be able to project its power across the diplomatic spectrum. Diplomatic agreements often, but not always, undermine a rogue state’s legitimacy, rather than support it. The Helsinki Accords in the 1970s, particularly Points VII and VIII, undermined the Eastern Bloc, because brave anti-communist dissidents could now claim that their governments gave at least pro forma support to individual liberty and self-determination. This helped laid the seeds for glasnost.
President Bush maintains that any negotiation with a rogue state supports, rather than undermines, that rogue state. It’s why he won’t talk with North Korea. That principle is so patently false I wonder why anyone thinks it passes the laugh test.
It’s clear you don’t like the Democrats, and I’m not particularly wild about them either. However, you are letting ideology replace reality. Speaker Pelosi visited Syria last year and met with its ruler. Lots of Congressmen and Senators from both parties have done the same. There is no allegation that she illegally negotiated with Syria.
It’s common for partisans, when talking about Bill Clinton’s affairs, to say, “It’s not the sex that bothers me, it’s the lies.” Well, by alluding to a stain, it’s clear that the sex does bother you. To me, on the scale of global mistakes, it seems that allowing North Korea to gain nuclear weapons is a greater blunder than an affair with an intern.
Also, it’s really not fair to imply Pelosi and Obama supported the war in Iraq from the beginning. They never did.
The President of the United States is the most powerful person on the planet. The President must have a magnanimity equal to his office. By going to Israel, an adversarial ally of the US, to hurl veiled insults at his political opponents, Bush was overcome by pettiness. Yes, Jimmy Carter was wrong to speak with Hamas (technically an enemy of Israel, not the US), but he’s an old man who hasn’t held office in nearly 30 years. The President should be bigger than that.
Terrorism has been present since the 1789 and will continue indefinitely. These non-state entities, call them terrorists, militias, insurgents, guerrillas, Maoist revolutionaries, or whatever, don’t follow the rule of law and regularly commit atrocities. Is military action the only solution to defeat them? I think not. Will diplomacy always work? Certainly not. But why should the US try to end terrorism with one arm tied behind its back? That arm of diplomacy may not be necessary always, but it’s good to have.
May 17, 2008 at 2:17 pm
EW, it was a rant more so than a deep political insight (which I am not capable of anyway). My beliefs lie somewhere between the Bush administration and the democrats as I 100% agree that we should always try diplomacy.
Perhaps you’re right that the President should have been a bigger than that comment, but my gut feeling is the heck with it. President Bush could find a cure for AIDS and the democrats would still criticize him for taking too long.
I find the whole situation politics as usual.