"Appeasement": Guilt-By-Analogy... When Guilt-By-Association Isn't Enough

I was the split-screen bystander on Hardball last night when Chris Matthews exposed Kevin James as the quintessential right wing slandering bloviator.

James was of course pathetic but his -- and Bush's and McCain's -- strategies aren't so funny. Basically, when you've lost an argument because facts and history aren't on your side, resort to unprovable guilt-by-association or, as in appeasement, guilt-by-analogy.

It was bad enough when McCain tried to link Hamas and Obama because Hamas said it preferred Obama. And if the Klan endorsed McCain because he wasn't the black guy, would McCain have a problem if someone said that McCain and the Klan are one and the same?

Then Bush makes his instantly famous appeasement attack at the Knesset on Obama. We've seen this movie before. Whenever conservatives can't win an argument on the merits, they attack some real or perceived enemy as Hitler. So Ho Chi Mihn was Hitler. bin Ladin was Hitler. Ahmadinejad was Hitler. Of course Hussein was Hitler. And anyone who does something to try to resolve conflict short of more war is Neville Chamberlain.

Beyond the fact that Mr. President 28% has next-to-credibility on much of anything, least of all in the Middle East, the attack on Obama is ridiculous.

As the late PM Yitzhak Rabin famously said, you negotiate not with your friends but your enemies. Was Israel -- with far more experience and its survival at stake in dealing with war and terrorism -- wrong to neogtiate with former enemy Egypt, with successful result...wrong to negotiate with former enemy Jordan, with successful result... now wrong to talk to Syria about peace in exchange for the Golan? Churchill rightly understood that at times of potential or actual conflict, it was better to "jaw jaw than war war."

Given where Bush's ready-fire-aim approach has gotten us in Iraq, it's good for the next president to pursue a strategy of common security when it comes to such inter-border problems as terrorism, pollution, AIDS and nuclear proliferation. Bush and McCain's military-first impulse has proven a calamity for America and the world because, to quote even a momentarily cogent Don Rumsfeld, "we can't kill them all."

Take Iran and Ahmadinejad, the newest "Hitler." Iran can't stop laughing at Bush's foreign policy. He attacks its long-time enemy Iraq, allowing Iran's Shia majority to have far more influence in a Shia-majority Iraqi government. And Bush at the same time provides an unpopular Iranian government with a convenient outside enemy to rally nationalistic support to its side. Which is why Secretary Robert Gates himself has advocated talking more to Iran. What an appeaser!

Related: Chris Matthews Eviscerates Right-Wing Host Kevin James Over Obama "Appeasement" Claims

Comments

[jkpcguru]

yea, I saw you on that show. That guy was a real trip! I laughed so hard when chris mathews shut him down!

[leftLibertarian]

You democrats need to get tough with these thugs and criminals. Of course since Bush and Cheney committed crimes, impeachment is the best option, but since the party is too spineless to do such a thing, I'd say put ads in major newspapers with pictures of Bush and Cheney and a caption "Wanted for High Crimes."

[LeonBNJ]

In the recent back and forth as to Iran, what is next by McCain and Bush - that they will bomb, or will support Israel bombing the nuke facilites in Iran? That it would happen before the November elections? That could kill many 1,000's in Iran if nuke materials were to be leaked out and could trigger an expansion of their generations of hate toward us. The USA and the 'west' supported the Shah and other leaders in those countries as part of Cold War strategy. Those hand picked leaders had domestic policies that repressed minorities, the religious as well as more potential democratic leaders and supressed human rights that led to the govenments they have today.
I would rather take my chances to have tough negotiations with the Iranian leaders - as anti-Israel and hateful toward the west as they are -as they want to keep in power too and need access to the world to sell their oil and use the income for the needs of their country.

[krocklin]

Before we praise Mathews any more, let's remember what he said on his program just yesterday.

"The Republicans strength is still on national security. This is the only area in which they have an advantage."

After 7.5 years of a foreign policy that has just made us weaker and Al Queda and Iran stronger? What "advantage" do they have? Is their judgement wiser, their leaders braver and more effective?

And then when a politician is outspoken and tells the truth, Mathews is the first one to defend the orthodoxy and denounce the truth tellers - until it becomes more widely known what the truth is.

That's the difference between him and Olbermann. If he were consistent he would have denounced almost everything Olbermann has been saying for years, because it was not acceptable on the D.C. cocktail circuit. Now that it is, Mathews is also a "truth teller" all of a sudden.

Except that he will still readily denounce any courageous remark made by anyone about Republican policy.

Also, he smacked down Ed Schultz yesterday for saying "Bush is an idiot". At the same time denouncing Republicans for doubting the patriotism of their critics for years - those Republicans who still can't refrain from labelling their critics as unpatriotic, Hamas and terrorist supporters, don't want to win in Iraq etc.

Ed should have defended himself and said the Republicans have said much worse for years thanks to people in the media like Mathews who tolerated it until now.

[lucky54]

I totaly agree, Mathews is a "swinger" so he's always looking for a confortable position to swing on any side .... that's a main reason I stoped watching him. But Olberman - he is my hero!!!!

[SouthFloridaDem]

I took what Matthews said to mean that the PERCEPTION by many voters (such as the so-called "low information voters") is that it's still the GOP that is tougher on national security. Now, you have to figure that there's some truth in this interpretation, since Bush is polling in the basement on everything EXCEPT fighting terrorism. This, in spite of the fact that terorism has increased for all the reasons we all know so well. Obviously those being polled are still in a 9/11 mindset and don't get that the GOP has done absolutely nothing for national security. Seems to me that the Dems need to attack Bush's perceived strength while tying McCain to him. And they need to do it in a really straightforward manner.

[bick]

republicans strong on national security? yeah, and pit bulls are strong on unexpectedly mauling infants.

"national security" to a republican is shooting pat tillman in the back.

[IowaKid]

This story was released the same day Bush gave his speech in Israel, but I never seen any coverage of it in the media.
The Washington Post reported that Bush's defense secretary, Robert Gates, said that the United States needs to "sit down and talk with" Iran. Not only that, Gates added, "We can't go to a discussion and be completely the demander."

[AMJordan]

You need to start watching Keith Olbermann. He mentioned it more than once.

[Photofarm]

Truly amazing, the United States has always tried to avoid war, but sometimes you just can't avoid it. Obama's " change " in policy is the same one we have been using for the last 30 years in the middle east. The only difference my be what Obama will give up just to avoid war. When your enemy thinks you can be rolled, and they will get everything they want, you lose.

[tulsey]

In texas{Mexico},Cuba,the Philipines,Hawaii,Columbia, Guatamala, Honduras, Granada, Panama, Vietnam,etc. The United States has often sought war. The history is there. And by the way, we are being rolled right now.

[ceu]

What is it that you think Obama might give up just to avoid war??

[Photofarm]

Give up Israel, will allow Nuclear arms in Iran, will believe European's won't sell us out to Iran get oil.

[ceu]

Oh, and... you can't say that we've been using the same policy in the Middle East for the past 30 years since BUSH is the one that abandoned that policy when he took office. The "policy" of the Bush administration is to do nothing at all to further the cause of peace.

[lucky54]

US tried to avoid war ?????? Where do you live ???? What lala land are you posting from??? Holly Bobolly we started almost more wars then there is countrys on a globe.

[rmreddicks]

"(A)lways tried to avoid war," What utter nonsense.

Give me a few examples if you would. Do you mean like Panama or Grenada? Regular and repeated wars against the various peoples of Central America? Perhaps Mexico? Vietnam? The Phillipines? Any Native American nation? Invasion of Russia 1919? Iraq I & II. The only war I remember the U.S. avoiding or attempting to avoid was nuclear war with the Soviet Union in '62. You can make a flimsy case for Korea and a capitalist case expanded (I retch with the words) for WWI. You can make a Yankee-come-late case for WWII.

[abby4ever]

Bush's remarks are getting too much press, it will delight him---and encourage him to make more.

[AMJordan]

The more he talks, the more he discredits the Repulsive agenda. It's a winning scenario.

[jimdog1954]

I hope to God that Bush campaigns really hard for McCain in the fall. Please, God... oh please....

[nomobull]

good! he needs more exposure so the american people can see and be reminded of what an idiot he truly is.and hopefully not make that mistake again.maybe if ther had been more of this when he was running for office we wouldn't be where we are.

[shamgod]

Mark Green is a genius.

[Manx]

Do you think George W. Bush understands the difference between appeasement and diplomacy? He didn't even know there were sunnis and shias in Iraq before the invasion and occupation. God forbid, we should resort to diplomacy to resolve disputes. It might put his friends, the war profiteers out of business.

[Brinkman]

It's debatable whether Bush knows the difference between his posterior and his elbow, but his speech writers certainly do and they are banking on American ignorance that diplomacy and appeasement are exactly the same thing - which, of course, they aren't.

I saw a Republican "strategist" last night on Dan Abram's show doing just that - misusing the term "appeasement" to mean contact of any kind besides bombs contacting the ground and exploding. Unfortunately, Abrams did not correct him on this.

[digoweli]

Mark,

Don't you remember that TV speech from Moscow that Nixon gave at the height of Watergate? It's always interesting to watch an American President whimper abroad.

digoweli

[rmreddicks]

Bush whimpered even better in Saudi Arabia. Publically asking the Saudis to pump more oil. In the back room begging on his knees to NOT pump more oil. "I have coffins, er, coffers to refill." My god, the House of Saud must love and laugh at this "man". What a charming child he must be in their eyes.

[KQuarksSuperKollider]

Mr. Green you just make too much sense for the right wing. They are much more a custom to thinking of terms in black and white. Republicans are just not trying to talk to our higher consciousness. The are trying to put the seeds of doubt in the electorate's reptilian brain. The Republicans truly think they can fool the electorate again and the will fool tens of millions of people in the fall. But hopefully they won't fool enough people this time.

[maidenofdforest]

Bush and his tactical platoon tried to deny Obama was the target. Pray nay, how could it then be Carter when Carter is old and can't be naive? Or how could it be someone else when Hitler has long been caking in the sun or the lake of fire in you know where?

Isn't "naive" vastly the give away word with matching shaking of the head side to side just sort of a chuckle at the speech before the Knesset?

Mr. Bush, why did the American people missed on that stinging election day that you were not just an idiot but a bad liar, as well? I can't wait for the dummy Republicans vote another white haired relic who is missing his marbles on the Shiites and Al Quaeda, then do the cha cha on talking with the Hamas. At least there's the video, thank God. And Huckabee joined the fray too today with a bad taste in the mouth. So much for his being evangelical...no wonder they keep losing congresssional seats when they banner Dem's candidacy to Sen. Obama's. Now, the lightning has striked them mighty and electrified the Judas liars in their lairs so ants are in a frenzy scrambling to kingdom come.

REPUBLICANS, this is what you do come campaign season, character assasination and a largely dirty games in boxing. Everybody who is supposed to be intelligent hammering on the 'fair game' issue often justifies their villifying actions with that phrase.

[ceu]

The absurd part of the admin's claim that the target was Carter is that Carter is the one who brokered the peace accords between Israel & Egypt, which have held up for 30 years. For Bush to stand in the Knesset and say that diplomacy is not the way to go when dealing with adversaries is breathtakingly ludicrous. That they could expect anyone with a modicum of intelligence to think that the target was Carter rather than Obama is ridiculous beyond belief.

[druidlady42]

IMPORTANT NOTE TO EVERYONE READING ON THIS SITE:

Be SURE you read Sarah Posner's article, "Hagee's Lesson Plan for Bush's Appeasement Speech" here on Huffington post!!! Here's the link to it, which you should copy/paste to get this information into the MSM and public knowledge:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sarah-posner/hagees-lesson-plan-for-bu_b_102101.html

Bush's speech in Israel/ McCain's coordinated reaction (along with the sudden, unexplained resignation of CENTCOM Cmdr. Admiral Fallon---followed by total silence about WHY) is not just happenchance! Something is about to "come down", and this article may explain what!

I was listening to CSpan this a.m. when a young soldier called in re: a statement. In answer to the moderator's question about when she would be going back to Iraq and for how long, she replied (not a direct quote),----- "July, for 15-18 months, depending on how the air attack on Iran goes."

PLEASE! Read Posner's article and help spread the word!

[KQuarksSuperKollider]

Thanks for the info you should publish this everywhere.

[druidlady42]

We need everybody's help to get this into the mainstream MSM!

As far as what I think "is coming down": it seems pretty clear from many other sources(both here and in Europe) and events we're seeing that the stage is being set for an air attack on Iran BEFORE the election, not only because Repubs think it will assure their keeping the White House, but it is the #1 agenda of the Likud Party in Israel and the Jewish lobbies here to get this done before the Bush/Cheney administration leaves office, as they believe that any successor will not have the "cajones" to do it! Seymour Hersh has written much about this, and it apparently is being prepared for in the Pentagon.

WAKE UP, CONGRESS!

[abby4ever]

What do you think is about to 'come down'?

[2cntswrth]

The truth is Mr. Green that the American public is in desparate need of intelligent dialogue based upon facts and informed critical analysis. I would suggest that the very lack of it has dumbed viewers down to sound-bites and half-truths for far too long. America is in desperate need of honesty from the media as well as legislators/political figures so that we can make choices in elections that are best for our country. For far too long we have been talked down to, insulted, and mislead by loud-mouthed right wing radio and news shows that are only interested in baiting the fears of people and preying upon what we don't know. While this was an uncomfortable thing to watch last night--it is something that needs to happen more often to people who come with a disengenious mission to distort facts, twist, and spin the minds of voters into following their agendas (which is not always best for the greater good of all). We deserve to hear a healthy debate of issues based upon balanced perspectives. What viewers need is the opportunity to make up our own minds---not have someone shout "fire" in a crowded building--when someone is simply lighting a candle for effect. You added a lot to the discussion.

[shinybear]

The bigger issue here is that James was caught red handed by Matthews- he was merely spouting that day's Republican talking points and he had no real understanding of them.

How many other right wing "spokes-models" are there out there?

Too bad Green couldn't think of anything to say in response while he was actually on the air.

[nomobull]

he did

[ariadne1]

matthews is the first pundit that i have seen call them on their game... chris matthews is a history buff and knows that of which he speaks.

the coattails to this display has been to actually cause the 'low information voters' to raise their heads from the grass... stilling chewing, they sniff, change is in the air.

[rmreddicks]

James proved himself a damn fool. Matthews didn't really do much better.