What Is Appeasement?

Recall the Soviet Union, whose leaders vowed to "bury" America and truly had the power to do it.

I have something to confess, dear readers. In the 1980s, I went to the Soviet Embassy in Washington to meet there with assembled ranking members of the Communist Party. Each had sworn to the defeat of America and triumph of international Communism. Included in the group were agents of the dread KGB.

Why was I there? To give a briefing on American politics, with a particular emphasis on California, a major area of interest to Soviet intelligence.

Was I a traitor? Was I engaging in what President Bush yesterday described as "appeasement?"

As Borat would put it, "Not so much." I was there, as an advisor to a U.S. senator, and having been trained in the U.S. military to kill Russians and learn Soviet doctrines, to talk.

A long line of leaders of the Soviet Union vowed to destroy America. And these guys actually did have the power to do it. This was the Cold War. Which at times was extremely hot. Both overtly and covertly.

Did we negotiate with the Soviets on a regular basis? Did we talk with them, even those who clearly had blood on their hands, even American blood? Of course. As a matter, frankly, of routine. Bear in mind that the Soviet Union murdered tens of millions of people, far more than Nazi Germany, indeed, far more than any other world power in the history of this planet.

This did not make Ronald Reagan an appeaser any more than I was an appeaser. Reagan, in fact, engaged in summitry with Soviet leaders to win PR victories. And with constant vigilance, and a policy of aggressive containment, the Cold War was successfully concluded with the defeat of the Soviet Union.

Since then, some of my closest friends have been Russians, now free from the yoke of Communism. Free to pursue the American dream of Armani and champagne.

Anyone who understands history knows these things. I've defended Bush from hyperpartisan lefties who insist that he is stupid. He's hardly that; as best I can make out, he has an IQ of 128. Which is certainly smart enough for big-time politics.

Nevertheless, thanks to Bush's play, yesterday was, in game parlance, an unforced error for the Republicans.

John McCain, who has spent the bulk of the week showing his independence from a very unpopular president and a declining Republican brand, had just given an excellent speech. Which I wrote about at length yesterday.

Then President Bush said these things before Israel's parliament, the Knesset:

Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is--the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

Which infuriated some of Israel's biggest backers, such as LA Congressman Henry Waxman.

As HuffPost and NWN readers are well aware, the Bush Administration is in fact negotiating with Iran now. Iran, most unfortunately, proved to have the necessary clout to end recent factional fighting in Iraq that was terribly distracting to our goal of bringing stability to that country more than five years after we defeated Saddam Hussein.

John McCain, who may feel he is in the business of building sand castles, had to choose between supporting his party's president -- who retains diehard support from the conservative base -- or denouncing his comments as the sort of hostile divisiveness he had himself just denounced in his Columbus, Ohio speech. McCain, as I've noted repeatedly, has a difficult balancing act to pull off in his run against Barack Obama.

He chose to support Bush. Which is exactly what Obama and the Democrats want.

Interception. Returned for touchdown.

Comments

[MrHHusseinMA]

Obama wins! Talks make a difference! Lebanon Signs Peace Deal! Israel & Syria Working On Peace!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8tMKJwBUMs

[chromodynamics]

"....Anyone who understands history knows these things. I've defended Bush from hyperpartisan lefties who insist that he is stupid. He's hardly that; as best I can make out, he has an IQ of 128. Which is certainly smart enough for big-time politics...."


Really, William Bradley, and how did you make this out? If you are right, then Bush's IQ makes him, technically, 'Super Intelligent'! He"s just short of gifted (what the use to call genius). And I have to ask, who did the test and can you trust the results?

There are many gifted people who are dumb and do stupid things. Anyone in MENSA will tell you that. So you will need to do better than argue about Bush's IQ to convince me he is not as stupid as we people think he is. Try sighting example, and you will be hard pressed to find anything he has done that doesn"t look like the act of a moron.

[tylerm]

i'm so glad we had a liberal in office doing the cuban missle crisis,kennedy and his cabinet used diplomacy to get the soviets to pull their missles out of cuba,if the neo cons or republican with the present day mentality were in doing the 60's we would have had mutual destruction


and its funny as hell bush talking about appeasing dictators when he talks to north korea,you guys remember the axis of evil?kim agil who muder his own citizens and locks them up in death camps if they oppose him and starves his own country,bush call north korea the axis of evil and now he talks tho their brutal dictator,talk about appeasment

[betz55]

I hope to god Obama brings back DIPLOMACY and puts to rest once and for all the cowboy, beer drinkin', scratch yer ass, low IQ, shoot your friend in the face mentality of the Bush administration.Here are some of the US government's dear friends that have been "appeased" :

Israel - on going - but hopefully this will end soon.
Augusto Pinochet
Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos
Anastasio Somoza
Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (Shah of Iran)
Manuel Noriega
Islam Kamirov
Saddam Hussein
Ariel Sharon
Adolf Hitler (IBM )
Saudi Royal Family

[charon]

What was the overkill ratio of US to Soviet nukes in the 50s? Who was more likely to bury whom? US so-called "intelligence" services constantly overstated Soviet military strength, especially their nuclear arms, in that period. And where do you get this idea of Bush having an IQ of 128? He doesn't even know what the historical concept "appeasement" means, for Christ's sake. Just as Weber identified two types of rationality, the "zweckrational" and the "wertrational," there is the intelligence of knowing how to use power to achieve ends independent of the moral value of those ends, and there is the intelligence of determining ends which have moral value (i.e., are good). Bush has the former, he knows how to use power, but he is utterly lacking in the latter, of understanding the moral value of his uses of power.

[The5thW]

A long line of leaders of the Soviet Union vowed to destroy America. And these guys actually did have the power to do it.

A war economy for 60 years yet the Soviets had the power to destroy us, They call that selling a woof ticket where I'm from. Power of Nightmares shows the inventors of this myth are the Neocons driving us off a cliff now,

[Bella Liberty]

Of course the appeasement policy will do with any nations or its leaders but it couldn't be make with terrorists. The terrorists are not a nation's leaders or religious leaders of course you can find some appeacesment policy records in world history but there is no appeasement policy record from a nation leader to terrorists. In WW II even British's appeasement policy to German was condemned . Osama Bin Laden is not a nation's leader or a political leader, also his followers are not a nation's leaders or politicians.
If Osama Bin Laden was alive does Obama wants to talk with Osama Bin Laden, will American people agree for that ? Also Obama should know the facts why Osama Bin Laden attacked America on September 11, 2001. After his talk with terrorists or Osama Bin Laden can he definitely agree for that there is no more terrorists in this world?
Today Obama's appeasement policy is out of range and he should withdraw his words before November 2008 election, if not the Republicans will rule out the White House for next 4 years term.

[charon]

Appeasement has nothing to do with negotiation. It is about surrendering sovereign nations to greedy dictators from another country. The situation in South Vietnam in the 60s, of letting the 90% majority Buddhists take over the country from the minority Catholics, would not have been appeasement. Letting Hitler "have" Czechoslovakia would be. It has nothing to do with holding discussions. This whole topic from Bush's idiotic and embarrassingly ignorant statements in front of the Knesset to this blog are just inane beyond belief.

[RickTheScribe]

Sorry, Bella, but this is exactly the sort of crap that only serves to distract people. I'll assume that you are merely a victim of the right-wing spin doctors, but you should know that Obama has been very clear that he would not negotiate with Bin Laden or al-Qaeda. He would negotiate with elected, recognized or de facto leaders of nations in an effort to advance American interests and the interests of peace, whether it be the leaders of Iran or any other nation. So relax. You have nothing to worry about.

[sophistwatch]

I know this article is based on Reagan's handling of Soviet relations. He used diplomacy and it was effective. He also negotiated with terrorists in Iran and traded arms for hostages. This was appeasement.

Since the appeasement comment President Bush raised while in Israel was related to Obama and Hamas, allow me to make a point.

Facts are being deliberately left out of this discussion which should be considered in any serious evaluation of the recent comments by Bush and McCain.

Hamas, Islamic Resistance Movement, is the democratically elected governing party because they currently have a majority of seats in the in the legislative council of the Palestinian Authority.

According to the US State Department, the group is funded by Saudi Arabia, Iran, Palestinian expatriates, and private donors in other Arab states. This is where the problem comes in. The US still talks to Saudi Arabia and Iran and Palestine and the other Arab states that are funding Hamas.

President Bush said this on September 20th, 2001.

"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime".

As usual, the statements being made by McCain and Bush about not talking to terrorists are misleading. We talk to the people funding Hamas every day.

[blessedfrog]

yes darling - we negotiated with them and they are even more steadfast in their hatred for us now------------- good luck-- i have little faith in obama- the guy wouldn't be this far along unless the establishment approved him

[LiberTLover]

And apparently we pay them even now. What else can you call it but appeasement when BushCo is paying 100,000 former terrorists who killed and maimed US troops $300 a month ($30 million a month) to fight alongside the friends and comrades ot those same US troops?! I feel so sorry for the troops that have to deal with this every day, not knowing if the person fighting next to you blew up your friends a few months ago, and they are being paid by the same Government that you are. And all this in the name of making the surge look like it is working to make BushCo look better. Chilling.

[MPeter]

Thank you Mr. Bradley. Watching that soviet Military Parade was chilling. But thank you for giving us a refresher and once again highlighting the hypocrisy of McSame. This is a great article.

[RDixon]

Appeasement is what has been happening with the Bush admin for the past 7 and one half years and especially so of the past year and one half.

Congress has been and is guilty of that.

[Skepticat]

Never confuse IQ with smarts.
IQ is usually determined in standardized written tests where the applicant either conforms or not to what test designers believe is appropriate - since most of these are multiple choice machine scored there is seldom any analysis as to why the test taker chose answer A over B.
I prefer the Forrest Gump approach to intelligence
"Stupid is as stupid does" - and assess politicians accordingly.

[lisakaz2]

If you don't think Bu$h is stupid, what would you call it? Bloodthirsty? Incuriousity to the point of being insipid? What?

[Gma11]

Thanks for sharing your insight with us.

[laksa]

No matter how you diced it, McCain is Bush's third term. Bush would like to amend his badly damage legacy thru McCain.

[charlietuna11]

i stopped reading when you stated that bush had a 128 i.q. that data had to come from his mommy or your a certified believer in p. t. barnums world famous theres a sucker born every minute.. i have a suggestion, if you want your article read in its entirety and you wan't to be taken seriously, than stop treating your readership like nai've morons.

[gtpeds]

I continued reading because I thought I.Q. meant incompetence quotient.

[gloriar8]

Charlietuna,
I agree and I stopped in the same place. This child was left behind.

[researcher]

free to pursue the american dream? or be one of the 47 million without health care.

with communism man exploits man with capitalism it is the other way around.

self destruct time in america just like in the soviet union in the nineties.


"the laws of the universe overwhelm the greed of man." researcher.

when you call your soldiers war heros for fighting in illegal wars for profits that is imperialism defined. most americans prefer to blame their politicans rather than look in a mirror.

we are the terrorists and promote terrorism around the world through our CIA and our wars for profits and our corp media and our industrial military complex.