NY Times: Bush Appeasement Attack Directed Toward Israel As Well

The New York Times has a truly stunning editorial today. The paper makes the very important point that when Bush made his appeasement remarks in the Knesset it is almost certain that he knew that Israel was negotiating with Syria. Thus, his appeasement attack was directed not just against Obama, but the leadership of the Jewish state of Israel as well. The Times writes:

Everybody knew President Bush was aiming at Senator Barack Obama last week when he likened those who endorse talks with "terrorists and radicals" to appeasers of the Nazis. But now we know what Mr. Bush knew then -- that Israel is in indirect peace talks with Syria, a prominent member of Mr. Bush's list of shunned nations -- and it seems as if the president was going for a two-for-one in his crack about appeasement.

If so, it was breathtakingly cynical to compare the leadership of the Jewish state with those who stood aside in the face of the Nazi onslaught, and irresponsible to try to restrain this American ally from pursuing a settlement that it judges as possibly being in its best interests.

Outrageous.

Comments

[lthuedk 1]

Let's just say no to nationalist socialism and the neo cons. Let Israel and America work together for peace, not never ending war against think tank created boogie men. Cheney, Bush, Feith, Podhoretz, Boot, Libby, and their comrades betrayed both nations.

http://www.light-to-dark.com/auntie_christi_juggles.html

[Krikkit]

Given the revelation that Feith et al tried to convince Israelis in the mid '90s to attack their neighbors and the overwhelming warnings given that an Iraqi invasion would destabilize the region -- now the threat to bomb Iran and a pointed message at Israel, I wouldn't be surprised to discover that the point of invading Iraq was to destabilize the region and to force Israel eventually to act against its neighbors.

Bush is a patsy. His handlers want the region destroyed completely, and they want Israel to take the fall for it.

[MessageForceMultiplier]

Lamest Duck Evar!

[BADEN]

He just reads what's written in front of him.

"Tawnks" instead of "Tanks" in the speech...

He's on cruise control.
Laura's got her digs ready in Austin.
He's gonna have that brush on the ranchette allll to his lonesome.

"How was that?"
"Very good, sir.."
"Good, let's get the hell out of here..."
"Very good, sir"

[onelife1]

You give Bush much too much credit. When has he planned anything that well.
I'm not buying it.

[ljmck]

Breathtakingly cynical it may have been, but it must be remembered that no one has ever accused Bush of reasoned thinking, considered judgment, or any degree of subtlety. It"s more likely that he got caught up in a concept suggested by one of the fourth class minds rambling around the White House these days, and latched onto a phrase he dimly remembered hearing about and clearly did not understand.

[argeec]

Dubya doesn't care what Israel thinks - he only cares about what AIPAC thinks.
And I bet AIPAC doesn't favor negotiations with Syria either.

[MikeDu]

Syria was on Bush's original 'to invade' list (Yes, the drew up an actual list that even included little Yemen!). It would be mighty inconvenient for Bush if peace broke out in the region despite all his efforts to the contrary.

[sophistwatch]

I read the Times article and I think it is nicely done. Your point about Bush chastising Israel and the Times point that he needs to get out of the way if he is not going to lead the US in a meaning diplomatic effort, brings up a larger and more pressing issue about Bush's credibility as president.

If Israel and Syria work this out together, without the US, egg will be all over Bush's face. He should not put himself in this position.

As to the process. Why doesn't Israel give back the Golan Heights and just wait to see what happens. They can always say "see we tried" and go back to fighting if it does not work out.

Aside from the Times advocating dialog and diplomacy, there is one additional component to achieving success. That involves actually doing something.

[WasteNJ]

It does seem like his comments can be applied to Israel. I found myself thinking that how can Bush say we shouldn't talk to Iran WHILE Israel talks to Syria, a country whose fledgling nuclear reactor it bombed last year. It does seem contradictory, but I don't give the Bushies that much credit. They suck at nuance and to choose a Nazi reference for intended association with Israel seems shockingly amateurish.

But that pretty much sums up the last 8 years, so...

[burnt]

"Like Mr. Obama (and many others), we strongly encourage diplomacy, including contacts with adversaries. If Mr. Bush cannot use his remaining months in office to do the same, he can at least get out of the way."

WOW! It's been a long time coming... but, perhaps we are seeing the reawakening of the NYT. If they would just focus a little and give up their Clinton delusion, they could be great again... and perhaps some of their lost readership would return.

I strongly agree with the entire editorial. The CheneyOilCo and its monkeypuppet's deeply etched legacy of "war criminal"... had one remote chance for any positive spin. It's half-assed attempt at reaching any kind of accord with any of the players can be most easily viewed by the collapse of Saudi support for America. The almost 600 percent increase in oil prices that will be achieved by the end of this year is a reflection of failed foreign policy in that region.

I can imagine the laughter that must have echoed in the Oval Office when President Carter submitted his recent trip agenda and his proposed goals to the State Department. They must have believed that effort would result in complete failure. That immediate and positive results were achieved can be reflected by the hopping-mad dance that Rice did (and her lying attempt to smear Carter) after she found out about the resumed talks between Syria and Israel.

Let's all hope that dialog leads to something positive.

[Dap]

Neither Bu$h nor his handlers are that deep, give me a break NYT, that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

[john456]

There is a lot of history associated with the Munich agreement. It was supposed to only be the Sudetenland which was German. It was when Hitler (using Bohemian political leaders) seized the rest of Czechoslovakia that things came to a forefront. Because Hitler seized all of Czechoslovakia, his claim to the Danzig Corridor was rejected. The initial territorial claims of Germany were along the lines of the 1916 Greater Germany Peace Proposal that France (unsure of England's position) rejected. There was sympathy in England and the US for Germany because of the harshness of the Versailles treaty. This allowed Hitler to be so successful in the 1930s, but his insanity shortened the Second World War. WWII was the extension of the First World War after a 20 year hiatus. We need leaders who understand the dynamics behind history, rather than speechwriters with an agenda to drag us into an unwinnable war. I would like to see an analysis of each course of action. Should the US and/or Likud Israel (my bias) attack Iran what are the possible responses and how do we curtail them. What is the response to the response to the response...? We better know before we start something and to each possible different response. Do the Likud Israeli supporters really believe that they will not eventually be made the scapegoat for any adverse affect?

[outnow]

Hitler did use Bohemian political leaders just a the Soviet Russians used inside members of the communist party in 1948 to seize control of Czechoslovakia but "German aggression" started before Hitler came to power. WW I was an example. Churchill used the idea of freedom and spreading democracy, which goes back to Woodrow Wilson's ideals of "making the world safe for democracy." His real aim was to continue the harsh aspects of British imperialism and to draw the US into his fight with German expansionism.

Bush draws so many false analogies in his pursuit of empire that it makes no sense to even listen to him. What is the axis of evil? Black and white thinking is evidence of inflexibility and the ideology of force. Israel is well advised to make peace with its neighbors. The most successful free markets are now the most authoritarian such as Russian and China and certain Arab states. Democracy and free markets do not necessarily promote peace. Economic expansion and military conquests are more often incompatible with democracy and civil freedoms.

[drkazmd65]

I was wondering when one of the Bloggers here would start to make that connection,...

I remember remarking almost exactly this sentiment to my wife a couple of days back when the info about Israel and Syria negotiating came to light.

It is only appeasement when there is no negotiation,... no give & take between the parties involved. All conflict can be resolved in one of three basic ways:

Appeasement, Bullying, or Negotiation,... Thanks to Georgie-the-Chimp and a complicit Congress we have been the bully, and nothing but the bully. Problem is,... almost everybody has figured out that 'we' can't really act on being the bully any more,...