President Bush got it right while addressing the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's birth.
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.
Hmm. I wonder who suggested negotiating with terrorists and radicals? I guess it was the presidential candidate who thinks negotiating with terrorists and radicals is a good idea.
In a statement, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., shot across the bow: "It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 6Oth anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack."
The problem for Obama is that there was no false political attack. If he sees himself in President Bush's statement, maybe the problem is his policy proposal, not the president's speech.
Press Secretary Dana Perino denied the speech was an attack on the Obamessiah. Hell, Democrat leaders denounce the speech as politics while playing politics with it.
The nutroots lie--er, mischaracterize President Bush's speech (more nutroot hysteria here, here and here).
Here's a suggestion: if Obama doesn't like the comparison--even when he wasn't being compared--he could clarify why he thinks negotiating with terrorists and radicals is a good idea!
Cross-posted at Common Sense Political Thought.
|