Thursday, May 15, 2008

Funny Incurious George Should Criticize Appeasers

Contemptus Stultus
We've all heard the story of George w. Bush's thinly veiled slight of Barack Obama over the Senator's statements that he would talk to America's "enemies", namely Iran and Syria. Without naming Obama directly, the frat boy who has miserably failed the American people every day of his administration, even back before 9/11, was obviously exploiting the opportunity of a speech to commemorate Israel's 60th anniversary in order to get in a few partisan digs for John McSame.

Bush ought to appreciate appeasers, not condemn them. He's relied on a gang of spineless appeasers in order to get his way and drag America down ever since 9/11. Without appeasers (yes, including Her Ladyship, Dame Hillary), George might have had to wait a few more months before invading Iraq by which time Hans Blix would have given Iraq a WMD Clean Bill of Health. Without appeasers, Americans wouldn't be living under the scourge of the Patriot Act. Without appeasers, Bush and Cheney would have been impeached and probably indicted by now. Without appeasers America might not remain at the feet of Big Oil today. Without appeasers, America might not have tolerated the privatization of war itself.

The appeasers did more than just prostrate themselves before their self-proclaimed emperor. They empowered him with tools to intimidate and coerce those who refused to appease the puppet prince. These appeasers even allowed Bush to twist and pervert their Constitution to suit his will. These appeasers allowed Bush to institutionalize torture, to dishonour their own military, to arrest and imprison anyone, indefinitely, without charge - to fly them to some of the most vile nations on the planet where their dirty work could be carried out unseen, unheard.

Mister Bush ought to appreciate appeasers. Without them he'd be nothing - and wouldn't the world be an infinitely better place for that?


Jim Terral said...

Of course, you are talking about real appeasement which is done without negotiation. The appeasers are capitulationists. No one who has ever been engaged in serious negotiations would confuse negotiation with appeasement. Appeasement is just one possible outcome of negotiations.

LeDaro said...

I thought appeasement meant to give in. No democrats said that they would give in to Iran, Iraq or North Korea. Bush and McCain were hallucinating as usual.

The Mound of Sound said...

Jim, were you watching Hardball?

There was plenty of Congressional capitulation during the Bush years. Often on a "take it or leave it" basis with very little of what anyone could call negotiation. When they ought to have stood up to Bush they - Republican and Democrat - buckled under lest they be branded unpatriotic or weak on terrorism. That's the political form of coercion that results in capitulation, appeasement.

You're right LD. No one, neither Obama nor "bomb'em into the stone age" Clinton has suggested giving in to these nations. Actually, if you revisit the North Korean situation, Bush yielded a couple of times when he found he'd painted himself into a corner.

Jim Terral said...

No, I wasn't watching Hardball. I don't see much American TV, but I just did. Thanks for that. It was hilarious.