The New Republic's Peter Scoblic has a great op-ed in the Los Angeles Times about Bush's comments to the Israeli Knesset this week. It is a must-read.
Here's the crux:
But if there is anything that has been discredited by history, it is the argument that every enemy is Hitler, that negotiations constitute appeasement, and that talking will automatically lead to a slaughter of Holocaust-like proportions. It is an argument that conservatives made throughout the Cold War, and, if the charge seemed overblown at the time, it seems positively ludicrous with the clarity of hindsight.
The New Republic, of course, has been one of the most reflexively pro-war publications in Washington, helping beat the drum for the Iraq War. However, Scoblic's op-ed is spot on -- and it derives from his new book, "Us vs. Them."
I've known Scoblic for years now, and though I certainly have taken issue with The New Republic in the past, I have always found Scoblic to be a solid writer, and not prone to the kind of national security zealotry and extremism many at that publication champion. I confess that because I'm swamped trying to get ready for my book tour, I haven't had a chance read the book yet, but if the op-ed is representative of it, then it's probably a worthwhile read. Whether it signals a shift at The New Republic -- I have no idea. But progressives certainly need more voices out there making the case that a radically different foreign policy is not just a good idea -- but a necessity.
The truth is, both our international economic and military policy is not only making the world less safe -- it is specifically making AMERICA less safe. Conservatives' attempt to make saber rattling and the concept of military action synonymous with "strength" and "toughness" is threatening our security. Democrats should be saying just that.
Think Obama can win in November without centrist Democrats?
Hillary and Obama are actually nearly identical in stance on the issues. Hillary lost, and Obama won, this primary due to their vastly different campainging styles, and not so much due to any actual significant differences on the issues (with the exception of the Iraq war). Hillary was deceitful, unethical, and depended upon a very outdated and antiquated fundraising and campaigning metric. Obama has almost always taken the higher road, leaving Hillary monopolize the gutter, and has run a a very intelligent campaign based upon grassroots, progressive fundraising and organization.
And it is progressives that Obama has attracted to the Party, or back to the Party. So, considering it is Obama, the progressive, who has won the nomination over Clinton, I would say that there are more progressives activated now that there are centrist Democrats, who, if they really adhere to and vote upon Democratic values and principals, will vote Obama over McCain in a heartbeat.
OT: I loved your book "Hostile Takeover," David. I read it about a year ago and found it very much on point. I am glad to have such a strong, progressive voice living in my city of Denver.
Of course, I also believe that most people are smart enough and nice enough (and practical enough) to make decisions in the interest of their nation (and look into matters of such importance rather than accept any hype at face value) ahead of their personal emotional attachments, so maybe I'm just being naive as usual.
--James Madison
Of course, we may not need to worry abut peace with how our military has been gutted, as well, thus demolishing one of our more effective deterrents.
--James Madison
When a person like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad calls the Holocaust a lie, and promises a new world without Israel. and refuses to stop his quest to become a nuclear power, comparisons to Hitler are somewhat justified.
And a treaty with a guy like that, isn't worth the paper it's reported in.
Now, if the Ayatollah gets torqued off, it's a whole different ball game.
Certainly, the definitions of negotiation and appeasement are different. But whether or not one constitutes the other has more to do with the posture of the antagonist than dictionary definitions.
When a country has engaged consistently and unapologetically in rhetoric that is primitive, violent and threatening, negotiation IS appeasement. It says that we are willing to meet you on a level playing field despite your irresponsible, ominous threats and in doing so, effectively removes any incentive for the other country to reconsider their posture.
It's a simple concept, which I know tends to be difficult for HuffPo readers to grasp.
Your ignorant and snot-nosed comment is an example of what we have been experiencing as a nation all through the last 7 years of Bush/Neocon arrogance and hubris. You're comments do them proud, but offer nothing to change the morass of conflict their narrow-minded and politically driven foreign policy has gotten us into. Bush&Co have manufactured "enemies" for partisan politics and profit. Only a fool doesn't take into account the positions of their adversaries and history has tought that dialogue and a measure of understanding can lead to the end of conflict. Clearly it is the Bush regime and the power of the pro-Israeli lobby in America that has set the agenda for pre-meditated "war without end" that is a mainstay of the Israelis and the Bush regime. Apparently that is difficult for you and others of like mind to grasp. It is a simple concept, one that only the ignorant and those who failed to learn the lessons of history will see any merit in.
Actually, negotiations exist specifically for politically, economically, internationally, or in other ways using (and flaunting) our power to dominate, pacify, or entice threats into not doing what we don't want. Negotiations themselves ARE an incentive for others to reconsider their posture, and a demostration of our power over them.
Negotiations neither imply a level playing field nor remove incentive, but in fact do the precise opposite, if you study history. Negotiation buys time, and can even defuse certain situations; but most importantly, it moves the dominant situation-defining and -manipulating power from those misbehaving to those (the U.S.) trying to command them.
Now, we have tragically lowered ourselves to the same, terroristic playing field as those we would target, divesting our own potency. We have abused, and thereby lost or severely diminished, our political and economic capital.
Negotiation is NEVER political appeasement. It can be used to reward, bribe, convince, punish, diminish and do a host of other things to the "enemy"; but politically and militarily, negotiation is simply a weapon used to increase our power over the enemy by limiting its power, influence, supplies, economic access, and other traits.
Negotiation in fact gives us power over those with whom we negotiate. Merely to agree to it, they admit that what we think of or how we act toward them matters, and our terms put us squarely in charge.
If Obama negotiates with Iran, the discussion will bog down in posturing and ridiculous demands. Iran will have been appeased, and will be laughing quietly at Obama.
My favorite example, and maybe how this all started was Reagan with his "there you go again".
I don't even remember who it was....Mondale?
But when the sonorous, well-reasoned Dem talked and talked
The republican comes up with some kind of demeaning, Better Dead Than Red, For It Before He Was Against it, etc.
It's as if, we as a country stand around like a huge Roman Coliseum and we are suggested things to chant.....we always choose the easy, demeaning, irrational Republican Chant. "You Suck You TreeHugging Fuck" always seems to beat out "We Cannot Sustain Ourselves Any Longer By Wanton Waste Of The Natural World"
Lefties know this. Every time on Every Issue, we try to convince a largely irrational nation to behave rationally. We know the Uphill Struggles, Underdog Status, and that stupidity and gluttony and greed are much much stronger than reason and rationale and moderation.
Lefties know that you can get an audience to the point of realizing that Math Works, Science Works...and that we live in a closed system and we are killing it.....and one person can yell that "you live in a house made from dead trees and you drive a car so everything you say is a lie you treehugging fuck" and the audience just dissolves.
Mountains of facts leveled by some cowboy hollywood line.
The Republicans are in a way correct that Iran is the cause of our problems. It was the Iran hostage crisis that got Reagan elected and America has never gotten over it.
Diplomacy is speaking softly and carrying a big stick. It's a one way street, and always will be.
By the way, how's that Iraq thing going?
This is the underlying theme of many of the "action movies" polluting the consciousness of this society. The dehumanized enemy deserves utter destruction because it is pure evil. It has been identified in psychological studies, such as "The Authoritarian Personality," as a characteristic of the authoritarian psyche.
John McCain, Bush, Cheney, etc. all authoritarians, see the world this way, like many people did in America in the Cold War. Better dead than red. They are insane. If the US doesn't change course toward a more sane worldview, we are doomed to become hated and reviled as an evil nation.
Shades of grey doesn't.
But the reality is that we rationalize our actions after we act, which results both in unexpected heroism and unbelievable crimes. We prefer to think that those with whom we invest some measure of professionalism or authority are honest, deserve their position, prefer to do the best for us, and know what they're talking about even when they're nowhere near their subjects of expertise.
But it's easier to remember rhyming, catchy comments, and they more deeply impact us because of this. Facts are hard, which is why mnemonics exist, and catchphrases earned their name because they stand out to us and stick with us. So until we recognize our own weaknesses, tendencies, inclinations, preferences, whatever--until we are informed and prepared to look deeper rather than accepting authority at face value and succumbing to emotionally and verbally appealing statements, that won't much change.
We're designed for groupthink, and some of us don't know or care.
We are one. We have to ask ourselves, what is it our collective psyches that warranted such lousy leadership?
*'s idiotic statements in Israel don't pertain to his ancestral legacy of war mongering.
It's an entire projection.
Bellicosity doesn't qualify as diplomacy. EVER.
As usual.
Peace over time.
War, by any other name, is politics with weapons rather than words.
Picking up a stone and killing your brother.
How childish.
How can death and destruction lead to good?
It's a question of winning.
It has always been thus.