Bush Is America's #1 Appeaser-Coward-Patsy -- It's Time the Dems Said So

Once again, the Bushies have trotted out the appeasement charge, comparing to Neville Chamberlain people who believe that the only hope of getting anywhere with adversaries is to engage in discussions. That Bush made this charge as a guest of a foreign government, especially an Israeli government where many of the members are either Holocaust survivors or their children was particularly undignified, once again degrading the regard in which US is held in the world.

And, of course, the Democrats protested. As I have written on multiple occasions, that response allows the argument to occur on their terms, and they decide whether to desist or not.

Instead, the Democrats should point out that, if Bush wants to find an appeaser (and a coward and patsy, to boot), he should begin by looking in the mirror.

It was none other than former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin who said, "you make peace with your enemies, not with your friends". And, for such sentiments, he was assassinated by someone who harbored the perverted belief, not dissimilar to Bush/McCain, that making a peace with adversaries, however imperfect, was treason.

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson is perhaps our most practiced politician-diplomat who has dealt with our most vicious enemies. He not only adheres to the Rabin doctrine, he practices it. He does not go into those discussions to give something up or compromise our interests. But, he does build trust. That is why the North Koreans called Richardson when they wanted to discuss resolving their dispute with the United States.

Appeasement is surrendering vital interests to bullying and threats. That is what George Bush did in early 2001 when he removed the US Navy from Bahrain when intelligence had picked up al-Qaeda chatter suggesting attacks. That is what he did when, having received the report that the prior attack on the USS Cole was al-Qaeda directed, he decided (if one believes this testimony is even plausible) "not to swat at flies" as National Security Director Rice described their policy of not retaliating for that attack. At all.

Having thus appeased al-Qaeda by scadaddling from Bahrain because of cellphone chatter, and by leaving unaddressed the USS Cole attack, bin Laden must have viewed Bush as the "Appeaser-in-Chief". When he mustered no response to pre-warnings about an attack on the United States -- contrasted with the Clinton Administration's attention to millennium day attack threats that they thwarted -- bin Laden had freedom to operate.

And, then Bush proved himself to bin Laden as a complete patsy by not sending 600 Army Rangers to capture bin Laden when they had him surrounded at Tora Bora.

Refusing to speak to enemies conveys not strength but cowardice and weakness.

Indeed the only foreign policy success the Bush administration has had occurred when they negotiated with a terrorist state -- Libya. They decided -- rightly, even if not happily -- that Libya's nuclear disarmament was worth the price they paid, abandoning the insistence that Libya turn over higher-ups in the Libyan government associated with the PanAm 103 bombing.

Imagine if Bush had remained intransigent, and had refused to speak with Libya until they turned over the government higher-ups. Suppose that Barack Obama suggested talking to Libya, and the outlines of the actual deal that was consummated. Is there any question that today the radical rightwing would launch Chamberlain-Hitler attacks? And would the world, and the US be better off or worse off?

By continuing the war in Iraq -- draining our resources, weakening our military, exhausting our will -- Bush, and his protege McCain, are bin Laden's patsies. Bin Laden has duped Bush and McCain to focusing their firepower and intelligence away from him, and on Iraq. We now know that, in preparation for the Iraq invasion, the US removed two-thirds of its intelligence capabilities from Afghanistan to focus on Iraq.

It is long past the time that Democrats should stop just protesting outrageous Republican rightwing charges. Instead, they should label the true appeasers-cowards-patsies exactly what they are... and they need not await an attack to convey those truths.

Comments

[GiggidyGeshmoygen]

bush has done nothing BUT appease North Korea and Libya (remember Lockerbie?) by giving them _________________ (fill in the blank - food, fuel, absolution) in order to get a headline showing how successful he is in his "war on terror" --

BUSH HAS DONE NOTHING BUT NEGOTIATE WITH AND APPEASE TERRORISTS --

it really hurts my brain when i try to comprehend the megalomaniacal hypocrisy of everything that eminates from bush's upper orifice ...

[AlexVonHussein]

Have you guys noticed the Bush is visiting the Saudis more than necessary.­......what deals is he trying to close with them before his term is over?

[seawolf77]

I watched ID4 again and the fictional president was an ex fighter pilot. Presumably the movie inferred,he was a successful one capable of leading a defense of the world. I can't help but wonder at the incredilble irony. First we get W, the coke snorting partying frat boy who never showed up for duty. Not exactly The Red Baron. Now we get McCain. The man who crashed 3 jets before he even got in a dogfight, toasted a fourth on a carrier deck, and then got shot down after 23 missions for a grand total of 5 jets. Most cadets are unceremoniously dismissed if they even hint at losing a jet. So here we have it, our own little movie abut an ex fighter pilot being president. Woldn't you like to have Iceman as president. Hell even Maverick. The Republicans though think we need Cougar, and that's who they have sent us. Not once, but twice.

[Atticus]

WOW! Monday morning quarterbacking is great, no?

And I suppose Obama would have saddled his charger and put on his uniform (oh, where IS that uniform, sweetie?) and wiped out nasty Islam in one fell swoop-- Osama in chains dragged down Pennsylvania Avenue ala a Roman Triumph.

Gimmee a break! ;-)

[PaulAbrams]

Curious as to what is monday morning quarterbacking in here:
1) Re: Tora Bora, the CIA's operatives called for the 600 Army Rangers in real time, and they were not sent. There is no dispute about this, as the commander of the CIA forces has written a book about it.
2) Re: removing the US Navy from Bahrain when intelligence reported "chatter" about an attack...Tom Friedman wrote a column on June 26, 2001, stating how Bush was sending a signal of weakness to bin Laden by that act (and, he added, for removing US FBI agents from Yemen at the same time). I emphasize the date---2.5 months PRIOR to 9/11, so not Monday morning.
3) Re: failing to heed warnings about 9/11....George Tenet was signaling flashing redlights about a big event and Bush did not even convene a meeting, not even a meeting.
4) Re; USS Cole. Happened at tail-end of Clinton Administration, that then had to confirm the perpetrator so retaliation made sense (you have to know whom to strike). Clinton (through Richard Clarke) handed the information to Bush and, again, his response was nothing, aka appeasement.
So, what exactly is Monday morning quarterbacking about any of this?

[newpantaloons]

Prior to 9/11, the Bush family and the Bin Laden family were friends and business partners. Heed the immediate transfer OUT of the country by military planes the Saudis and THE BIN LADEN FAMILY! The FBI was not even allowed to interview them before they were whisked away on the orders of the President (or Cheney, whichever you believe is the president). Bush is a COWARD, PERIOD!

By the way, fellow Progressives, pay no attention to the trolls. They have been sent here to try to disrupt the Progressive sites. This was tried in 2006, and it didn't work then. It's KKKarl Rove's idea (what a dimwit), and he thinks it will work(?) They are running really scared and that's because when Mississippi's Senate seat was won by a Democrat, they finally saw the handwriting on the wall. Turnout for Democrats is so ENORMOUS! they are worried they can't even STEAL the election in November.

[LizM]

It sounds like you missed all that Senator Biden had to say about this - you should check it out...I believe he said exactly what you suggested!

[PaulAbrams]

Yes, I did miss it, I was traveling. But, I do like what he said, although he did not specifically label Bush as the appeaser---which is what he is, and how he should be labeled.

[LizM]

Hey Paul...I'm just wondering if you have any preferences about who Senator Obama should be considering for his selection as VP and whether or not you think that choice could make or break his ability to win big...I mean, really big!... in November.

[popecorvo]

Paul, I've read your first sentence four times and cannot make heads nor tails of it.

[PaulAbrams]

Thanks. I tried rewriting for clarity.

[Lazslo]

Hell, yeah. I seem to recall Howard Dean saying these things four years ago. So much of what Howard warned about then has come to be. The dems got it wrong in 2004, but seem to be getting to the work that needs to be done in 08.

Hoping Richardson has a position in Obama's cabinet.

[lgillooly]

Impeachment is the tool our Founders gave us. It is un Constitutional for our elected leaders NOT to use this tool for the sake of our National Security. I am sick of the excuses.DO SOMETHING!

[magen]

Why is Bush appeasing Pakistan where the real terrorist threat lies????????

Didn't he say that countries who harbor terrorists would be considered terrorist regimes??????

People in Pakistan call their dictator Busharaff!!!!!

[JimR]

Not to mention Saudi Arabia, where 15 of the 19 hijackers came from, and where madrassas preach hatred against the U.S.

[research]

And the billions of dollar the Saudi's gave to spread Wahabism all over the middle east.

Talk about appeasement, Bush actually kisses and holds hands with the folks who set 9/11 in motion, not to mention the weapons bush sent them.

[sugarmoes]

excellent points and well said. it's almost as if the bush... dare i say... actually wanted the attacks to get bigger so he would have something bigger to "swat at"... bigger things to "swat at" also conveniently is an excellent way for an oil/defense investor to make FUCKLOADS of cash.

or... it could all just be coincidence and bush/chene­y/rove/etc had ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA that stepping aside to enable the path for a war they already wanted and had laid out... would be so damn profitable.

and if you believe that......

[PaulAbrams]

Bush/Chene­y/Rumsfeld were committed to Star Wars. Anything terrorism related was too small. Condolezza Rice was supposed to deliver a speech on 9/11 that had been cleared, obviously, by national security, and they have refused to make that speech public. It is highly likely that the reason they did not is that it would have shown the utter disregard for terrorist threats. Ashcroft (the AG at the time) wanted to cut the budget for FBI counterterrorism.

9/11 was a disaster, and for them a political disaster. It was an immense failure of vision and a study in incompetence. It is important to note that it would NOT have happened under Clinton--or Gore. They took Richard Clarke very seriously. It is not that they would have responded differently to the Aug 6 Daily Brief, it is that such a brief never would have been given, because it was not needed. They would have been increasingly on top of it from the day Gore took office. There would have been meetings, action plans, and they would have heard Tenet. I have little doubt that the pilots' training only how to steer, and not land planes, would have been uncovered.

But, the radical rightwing media with Rove orchestrating did a (tragically) brilliant job of making it a plus....and, providing the opportunity for continyuous war that, primarily Rove, looked up as a means to get their unpopular radical rightwing domestic agenda enacted and a permanent Repub majority in place.

[birdgal]

Very very well stated, Mr. Paul Abrams. If McBush belittles Obama on his war experience or diplomatic choices then the truth of the bushco incompetence prior to 9/11 should be talked about by every Democratic Party spokesperson on a daily basis so even the most uninformed American voter is sure to hear it. During tthe 9/11 hearings When one of the Democrats asked condaleeza rice about the title of the President's Daily Briefing she pertly answered: Al Queda determined to attach inside the US. Then when asked what her job title she replied, like a complete moron: "National Security Advisor". When asked what she thought of the PDB she said considered it : "an historic document". WTF was she thinking, something akin to - so what else is new? My blood boils everytime I remember those hearings. Excerpts from her testimony should be used in commercials supporting all Democratic Party candidates especially whenever the republican operatives attack our candidates for being weak on National Security.