Comments on: "I Did Not Call You an Appeaser!"

By: gasdocpol

gasdocpol — Tue, 20 May 2008 02:35:55 +0000

Ham

Google PNAC Read their own words. NOT my words.

Do you agree with its mission?

By: Ham

Ham — Tue, 20 May 2008 00:46:54 +0000

GASDOCPOL, you’ve found our secret. It’s all part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. Now that we have your IP address, watch out for the black helicopters, they’re watching you. Our hyper-effective government cannot afford you to share our secret. If you get a unknown phone call in the next 24 hours, be afraid, be very afraid.

By: gasdocpol

gasdocpol — Tue, 20 May 2008 00:37:53 +0000

HYam, GW Bush did not make up the fabrication. It was the Neoconservatives of PNAC who used GW Bush as their front.

The members of the Project For a New American Century (PNAC) had their agenda prepared and published before they propped up an uninformed, inexperienced, failed businessman named George W. Bush as their poster candidate.

He had great appeal among the good ole boys and the bible thumpers who were not very likely to vote for the scowling man behind the curtain, Dick Cheney.

George W. Bush had not been sitting around for the previous 10 years thinking about foreign policy. Rather, he was being coached on foreign policy by handlers who had to teach him that Africa was a continent and not a country.

The stated aims of PNAC can be followed from their war plans to their hopes of global military superiority. George W. Bush was not a factor when PNAC was writing its openly published policies. But once the 2000 election was secured, PNAC members became and remain the mainstay of the Bush administration, holding virtually every major position relating to foreign policy.

GW Bush has been a front, a figurehead and a puppet for the Neocons.

By: writerchick

writerchick — Tue, 20 May 2008 00:08:14 +0000

Personally, I think that the prez’s comments were somewhat directed to Obama. I didn’t mind it though. Obama walks around as though he can say anything and not be called to task for it while he gets offended by everything every person says whether directed at him or not. A bit hypocritical.

As to appeasement, just the word itself is offensive to me. And it does seem a sign of weakness to me.
Annie

By: Ham

Ham — Mon, 19 May 2008 23:50:09 +0000

JOS – Also consider that Kennedy’s visit was viewed by Kruschev as “weakness” and facilitated the “Missiles of October”.

By: JOS

JOS — Mon, 19 May 2008 03:18:53 +0000

Ham,

The problem I have with “appeasement” is that it requires a nation-state to sacrifice it’s principles to the aggressor. It’s pretty clear that Chamberlain’s foreign policy in the years preceding WWII allowed Hitler to gain power in Europe. With regard to Nixon’s visit to China in ‘72, I wonder what the world would be like today had the U.S. not sought normalized relations with the P.R.C. Our policy with China since Nixon’s visit and the granting of “Most Favored Nation” status in ‘79 has been one of appeasement (we didn’t even lift the MFN status after the Tiananmen Square protest in ‘89). The result? China continues to violate the basic human rights of its population, they also own the majority of U.S. debt and their economy grows stronger as ours struggles.

Anyway, that’s my 2¢.

- JOS

By: Ham

Ham — Mon, 19 May 2008 00:31:39 +0000

Stew, but for arguments sake, is not Iran a legitimate country? Didn’t Kruschev even say that he would “crush” us, not too disimilar to Ahmedin’s comments about Israel?

By: Stew

Stew — Sun, 18 May 2008 23:59:13 +0000

Big BIG difference between sitting Presidents meeting with the heads of state of other legitimate countries (even the communist block) and terrorists (Let’s not forget who the leader of Iran is).

By: Jamie Holts

Jamie Holts — Sun, 18 May 2008 18:33:26 +0000

Great post. I will read your posts frequently. Added you to the RSS reader.

By: Ham

Ham — Sun, 18 May 2008 18:30:19 +0000

Hmmm, thank for the comments “gasdocpol”, but I think you’ve oversimplified the issues here.

Are you really saying that President George Bush is so powerful that he could make up this fabrication and the entire Congress would buy it? And the entire Congress was too stupid to check the veracity of his statements?

No, G it’s all a bit more complicated than that…