A Democratic view I fully agree with....

[cairns]

...unfortunately the MSM and left wing Democrats don't.

Ed Koch Commentary

May 20, 2008


We are now getting down to the homestretch as we wrap up the Democratic primary and begin the race to the November general election. We will be electing the next president of the United States, and almost everyone expressing an opinion, informed or uninformed, believes the Democratic candidate will be Barack Obama.

I am a supporter of Hillary Clinton, but I too believe the odds of her defeating Barack Obama are overwhelmingly against her. It looks as if Senator Obama will prevail in the Democratic primary before or at the Democratic convention.

His rise has been phenomenal and swift. I believe a major attraction for Democratic voters is his optimistic personality, a strong desire for change and racial reconciliation. I believe the U.S. has indeed entered its Golden Age in which discriminatory views are rapidly breaking down. The result is that there is virtually no bar to the election nationally and locally of minority candidates, whether they be black, Hispanic or Jewish, and that gender bias in the selection of candidates, whether or not Hillary prevails, has been thoroughly defeated for elections to come. So our efforts now should be devoted to nominating and electing the best candidates available, particularly for president of the United States.

Anyone who knows me is aware that I am a proud American and a proud Jew who, while not religiously observant, fiercely loves and defends his faith. It has become fashionable for Americans in general, Jew and gentile, to hold President George W. Bush up to derision. As I believe many readers and listeners of my commentaries know, I crossed party lines in 2004 to support the President's reelection, saying at the time that I did not agree with him on a single domestic issue, but I did believe he was the only one running who appreciated the threat of Islamic terrorism to American values and Western civilization and was prepared to wage a war to defend those values.

I have no regrets for having made that decision and helping the President to win a second term. Today, according to the most recent CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey, "71 percent of the American public disapprove of how Bush is handling his job as President, an all-time high in polling." His position can be compared with that of Harry Truman who left Washington unpopular and alone in 1953. Today, with the passage of time, most historians and certainly the American people, see Truman in a different light, primarily for his willingness to stand firm against Soviet aggression, whether against Greece or South Korea, and proclaim the Truman Doctrine, effectively defending the free world from Soviet efforts to expand their hegemony. Like Truman, George W. Bush, in my view, will be seen as one of the few world leaders who recognized the danger of Islamic terrorism and was willing with Tony Blair to stand up to it and not capitulate.

In the days of Yasser Arafat, leader of the Palestinian Liberation Organization and an organizer and supporter of terror, Western European countries led by France, Germany and Italy, had understandings with Islamic terrorists that if the terror was confined to acts against Israel, the European countries would allow the terrorists to function without challenge. What those European countries came to understand was that they could not buy peace by offering up Israel as a sacrificial lamb, because the ultimate goal of the supporters of Osama bin Laden, and other jihadists throughout the Islamic world, was and remains the reestablishment of the caliphate (or Islamic religious rule) in all Muslim lands, including in any nation that was once under Muslim rule, e.g., Spain. If successful, this would place one billion, 400 million Muslims under one theocracy.

As part of their master plan, the jihadists intend to bring the West to its knees, and to replace moderate Arab regimes, e.g., Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states and Turkey, with Islamic republics, ultimately to become part of the reborn caliphate.

For most of Osama bin Laden's career, the destruction of Israel was not a priority. However, this has now changed as the jihadists believe that Western countries have grown weary of unending war and may be convinced to offer Israel up as a sacrificial lamb.

Recently, President Bush went to Israel to celebrate its 60th birthday as a nation and addressed its parliament, the Knesset He said, "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 an obligation to call this what it is: the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

Bush’s remarks were heavily criticized by leading Democrats, particularly Barack Obama, who said, "Now that's exactly the kind of appalling attack that's divided our country and that alienates us from the world."

Really? Is it wrong to call the philosophy supporting negotiating at the highest levels – President to President without pre-conditions -- with the terrorists and radicals by its rightful name - appeasement?

The President was accurate in my opinion in recalling the specter of Neville Chamberlain's pre-World War II efforts to satisfy Adolf Hitler. Those efforts responded to Hitler's siren call that all he wanted was the Sudetenland, with Chamberlain responding, "yes," and returning to Britain waving a paper and announcing, "peace in our time." Must we really learn the terrible lesson of Munich all over again seventy years later?

Israel and the Western world are in great danger from a declared enemy that knows no limits when it comes to achieving its goal of destroying Western civilization and spreading militant Islam through threats and terrorism throughout the world.

The danger to Israel comes not from any unwillingness of its citizens to fight. They are willing to fight the enemy, and Israel is willing to suffer the deaths of its young men and women in battle to preserve its values and its very existence. The Western world appears in many parts of Europe in particular to have lost its self confidence and willingness to stand and fight an enemy willing to continue the war until victory is achieved and their goals met. When one side loses its resolve to fight and win and the other retains its resolve, that side which has lost its courage will look for ways to appease and entice the enemy to bring the war to a conclusion. If the enemy says, understanding the weakness, "give us the Sudetenland," and later says "give us all of Czechoslovakia," as we know from history, such demands will be met. Bin Laden, recognizing the willingness of some in the Western world to give up today's Czechoslovakia - Israel - in two messages within the past few days, has emphasized his demand that Israel be delivered to the jihadists, saying, "To Western nations..this speech is to understand the core reason of the war between our civilization and your civilizations. I mean the Palestinian cause. The Palestinian cause is the major issue for my (Islamic) nation. It was an important element in fueling me from the beginning and the 19 others with a great motive to fight for those subjected to injustice and the oppressed."

In fact, in most prior bin Laden threats, Palestine and Israel were rarely mentioned. Shrewdly, bin Laden, believing that with the war-weariness rising in the U.S. and Europe, and anti-Semitism escalating in Europe, there are fertile grounds to make Israel the new Czechoslovakia.

The reason I believe history will redeem President George W. Bush is that he is one of the few leaders on the planet today who understands the larger picture. He has not lost his courage and vision of the future. He knows what calamities await the world if it engages in appeasement and deserts an ally in order to buy an illusory peace. We will recognize his worth long after he is gone.

[Joeaksa]

Very interesting and makes some good points. Of course the libs will blow a gasket over it...

[The Gaijin]

This would pass for "hate speech" in much of Western Europe.

[kach22i]

Israel has done a great job of taking care of it's self. I don't see that they need our help.

Let's cut off aid to that part of the world, and stop selling them arms (including the Saudi's).

Too many outside players mucking up the balance over there.

[Tobra]

I see why you like Mr Obama so much George

Good article, so OBL can learn from history and BHO cannot, which one is the smart one again?

[kach22i]

This was in 2005, its more spending every year with no change in sight.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/state.html

The President’s Budget:

*
Provides over $5.7 billion in military and economic assistance to front-line states in the war on terror;
*
Affirms our commitment to the citizens of Afghanistan by providing $1.2 billion for economic reconstruction and democracy-building;
*
Promotes efforts to expand democracy in the Greater Middle East, including doubling funding to $80 million for the National Endowment for Democracy and increasing funding to $150 million for the Middle East Partnership Initiative;
*
Broadens assistance to reduce and prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, their delivery systems and related equipment, materials, and expertise;
*
Maintains strong U.S. leadership globally in funding international HIV/AIDS care, treatment and prevention. The President’s 2005 Budget provides $2.8 billion to combat AIDS in the most afflicted countries in Africa and the Caribbean;
*
Provides $2.5 billion for the second year of the Millennium Challenge Account paving the way to reach the President's commitment of $5 million in 2006; and
*
Continues a multi-year effort to secure all overseas embassies and posts to protect U.S. Government employees and their families.

[Superman]

I vigorously disagree.

Most of you guys know me as a curious Liberal. I like guns. I am Catholic. Yadda yadda. I feel I am pretty independent. My views on specific issues can range from wildly conservative to wildly liberal. Mostly liberal, sure.

But I have a hard time thinking of this (terrorism) issue as lib versus con. Unless of course, you buy into the mythology that libs are a bunch of quivering cowards who naively believe peace will reign if we unload our guns. Nobody thinks that, except in the minds of several of you guys.

No, I think every rational American notices this threat (terrorism). The real question is whether it is the best strategy to go over there with guns and bombs and make a mess in the name of freedom........or pursue terrorism in other ways. I firmly believe we are making the situation worse by pursuing Dubya's brilliant plan. Immeasurably worse. If we had left Saddam in charge, we would have been protecting Iraq against Al Queda. The Iraq war was a massive brainfart. And now, it is a trap. It is a place where we pour money and lives into a dark hole while Al Queda stands at a safe distance and watches us erode our own national security.

I believe we should obliterate Al Queda. The more we focus on Iraq, the more that goal will slip away.

And finally.......the article above discusses these issues in the context of the upcoming election. I believe Iraq and the economy will determine our next President. And I believe that does not bode well for Mr. McCain. He has hitched his cart to a sinking ship. Don'tcha love mixed metaphors?

[stevepaa]

'"Really? Is it wrong to call the philosophy supporting negotiating at the highest levels – President to President without pre-conditions -- with the terrorists and radicals by its rightful name - appeasement?"

Yes it is wrong. But it is a convenient label to use for politicians and the disingenuous.

[Mule]

Originally Posted by stevepaa

'"Really? Is it wrong to call the philosophy supporting negotiating at the highest levels – President to President without pre-conditions -- with the terrorists and radicals by its rightful name - appeasement?"

Yes it is wrong. But it is a convenient label to use for politicians and the disingenuous.

Is your real name Neville Chamberlain?

[stevepaa]

is yours "chicken little"?

[dd74]

Why isn't this person supporting McCain?

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Impressions:

1. That article gives WAY too much credit to George W. Bush's "vision" (there isn't one) for the M.E. Its failure to mention the quagmire in Iraq by name is a conspicuous absence.

2. Is written solely to convince the west to fight Israel's battles for it, or at least ride to their aid.

3. It is absolutely correct however that radical Islam must be contained and if possible, rooted out and destroyed. The mechanism of this however is debatable. I would suggest that the best "containment mechanism" is moderate/secular Islamic interests, which are the majority in the nations of the Arabian peninsula, Asia and northern Africa.

4. There should NOT be any negotiation with terrorists. Period. Stated policy of the U.S. for decades. This should not change.

5. Thinly-veiled war cry. Actually I'll cut through the crap and come right out and say it - this is flat-out war glorification of the type that appeals to war mongers. Are there things worth fighting for? Sure. Are there situations that might arise which SHOULD be dealt with militarily? Absolutely. But the case is not made for more violence, bloodshed, killing, etc. here.

"War on Terror"? OK, I can see/understand/support that. Use all tools at our disposal to destroy murderous Islamist terrorists. No problem. Subversion, infiltration, special ops, surgical strikes, assassinations, whatever. That is justified. However, to use this as a springboard for some kind of global war on Islam is (1) unjustified, (2) stupid, (3) short-sighted and (4) exactly what the jihadists want.

You don't fight a guerrilla war/enemy with open military formations. Did Vietnam teach us nothing? To say nothing of our own revolutionary war?

If we stopped using "War on Terror" as a political buzz-phrase and actually put it into action quietly killing and dismantling legitimate threats without patting ourselves on the back (like Israel's Mossad does, for example) we might be getting somewhere. As long as this whole "War on Terror" thing is just a flag-waving rah-rah rallying point for a bunch of warmongering shoot-em-up cowboys here, we're going to be exactly where we are in I-wreck - adrift, without purpose, without ultimate goal and without the moral high ground.

[RoninLB]

Koch is heavy into city Dem politics. He'll probably be at a Dead Hillary fund raiser next year.

He's also an undeclared spokesman for Israel and can bring up topics where Liberman may not want to presently go.

McCain and Liberman dropped acid and discussed word events recently.

[RPKESQ]

“supporting negotiating at the highest levels = appeasement”

This is a fine example of what Joseph Goebbels called the big lie. When we negotiated with Libya recently was that appeasement? When we negotiated with N. Korea recently, was that appeasement? How about pre WWII with Japan? With Germany? How about Reagan with the Soviet Union? Why are all these examples not appeasement?
Koch’s article was the blatant BS of the Israel right or wrong fanatics. I am all for supporting Israel, but I know they have not been right all the time. One sided political viewpoints are never correct.

[dd74]

Originally Posted by RPKESQ

“supporting negotiating at the highest levels = appeasement”

This is a fine example of what Joseph Goebbels called the big lie. When we negotiated with Libya recently was that appeasement? When we negotiated with N. Korea recently, was that appeasement? How about pre WWII with Japan? With Germany? How about Reagan with the Soviet Union? Why are all these examples not appeasement?
Koch’s article was the blatant BS of the Israel right or wrong fanatics. I am all for supporting Israel, but I know they have not been right all the time. One sided political viewpoints are never correct.

Excellent post.

And it should also be noted the U.S. is, on certain levels, negotiating with Iran about their nuclear program.

Ironically, this (past and present U.S. negotiations or "appeasement") will probably be the argument launched against McCain's absurd vitriol toward Obama sitting down with nations/groups unfriendly to the U.S. and Israel.

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by RPKESQ

“supporting negotiating at the highest levels = appeasement”

This is a fine example of what Joseph Goebbels called the big lie. When we negotiated with Libya recently was that appeasement? When we negotiated with N. Korea recently, was that appeasement? How about pre WWII with Japan? With Germany? How about Reagan with the Soviet Union? Why are all these examples not appeasement?
Koch’s article was the blatant BS of the Israel right or wrong fanatics. I am all for supporting Israel, but I know they have not been right all the time. One sided political viewpoints are never correct.

Very good post, wish I had expressed my thoughts as well.

[RoninLB]

Koch doesn't get involved much unless he has to raise money for some cause.

He knows how to rile his troops.

I don't think he has many fans in Idaho?

[Danimal16]

[quote=RPKESQ;3969941]“supporting negotiating at the highest levels = appeasement”

This is a fine example of what Joseph Goebbels called the big lie. When we negotiated with Libya recently was that appeasement?

No, because Libya felt threatened by Western Nation's overt decisions to destroy Libya if Libya continued along the same path they were on. Libya negotiated in light of recognizing that any overt act of force as they had done in the past would be met with at least British and American force. When the Germans and the French changed their Government, by the vote of their people thier positions in light of the reality of the need to be willing to fight against Islamofacism and expressing a willingness to employ it, that served as one of the final straws that broke Libya's political determination to continue on that path. The application of economic sanctions also hurt them. This combination shaped Libya's political will.

When we negotiated with N. Korea recently, was that appeasement?

No. Because anyone that has any knowledge of the reality of life in the North and the continuation of NK's policies was NK's eventual and enevidable demise. NK postered itself, but the threat of the use of overwhelming force by western nations, the lack of support from China and the fall of the Soviet Union, changed the NK's power position. Their ability to logistically support their military in a full blown war would have resulted in the same destruction that same military was subjected to in the early days of the Korean War. The NK's changed their ways due to the combined effects of economic sanctions and the overwhelming distruction due to western determination.

How about pre WWII with Japan?

I don't understand the analogy, but the Japanese were willing to go all the way even in the face of overwhelming Allied power. The dropping of the Atomic Bombs were the level of force needed to convince them otherwise.

With Germany?

Actually, I think the point has been well documented about that failure of a man Chamberlain.

How about Reagan with the Soviet Union?

Lets see, Reagan did not fear applying force against the Soviets. Were they dominated by the West, I would say yes and that resolve by the West is what eventually bleed them dry, not to mention their inability to compete at that time against the shear power of western economies. I would say Reagan understood the rules of the game and appeased no one.

Why are all these examples not appeasement?
Koch’s article was the blatant BS of the Israel right or wrong fanatics. I am all for supporting Israel, but I know they have not been right all the time. One sided political viewpoints are never correct. [/quote/]

War is hell. (Please pardon the mis-spellings it has been a bad day)

[RKC]

In short: No, Obama offering to talk to Iran is not appeasement.

Appeasement would be if Obama gives away the sovereignty of another state (Israel, Iraq, etc.) in order to better secure our current "peace" with Iran.

Talking alone is neither good nor bad (US/USSR Summit meetings, Truman, Eisenhower, Cuban Missile crisis with JFK, Nixon and China, Reagan/Gorbachev, etc.). The results are all that matter.

Worrying about what Obama might give away makes some sense, given his views and lack of experience. But supporting or continuing Bush's policy of silence IS ALSO foolish.

After all, talking is not bad, in and of itself. The people/topics are everything. The word appeasement wouldn't even have entered the language in the sense we use it if Winston Churchill had been PM at Munich. And Churchill, who knew and trusted his own mind and heart, was never afraid to talk to anyone. He was the one who suggested the Summit meetings (and gave them their name) by saying that "jaw, jaw" is better than "war, war."

I suppose it is best that Bush doesn't talk with other leaders. He is no Churchill and probably WOULD give away too much by failing to see with his limited intellect what he was doing. His not talking has probably saved us from worse than we know.....

David McCullough wrote a nice book about Truman. It has raised his standing with people. But it is the story of an average man doing his best during extraordinary times. Think how much better the world would have been if a truly extraordinary man - A Lincoln, a TR, a Churchill had been in power.

Bush is not evil. But he is, at best, average. Think how much better things could be right now. The two candidates are likely better able to lead us than Bush. But are they great thinkers? Great leaders? Time will tell when one of them wins. Let's hope so for our sake and our nation's.....

The good news is that the Clinton/Bush era seems to be over.....

[RPKESQ]

[QUOTE=Danimal16;3971315]

Originally Posted by RPKESQ

“supporting negotiating at the highest levels = appeasement”

This is a fine example of what Joseph Goebbels called the big lie. When we negotiated with Libya recently was that appeasement?

No, because Libya felt threatened by Western Nation's overt decisions to destroy Libya if Libya continued along the same path they were on. Libya negotiated in light of recognizing that any overt act of force as they had done in the past would be met with at least British and American force. When the Germans and the French changed their Government, by the vote of their people thier positions in light of the reality of the need to be willing to fight against Islamofacism and expressing a willingness to employ it, that served as one of the final straws that broke Libya's political determination to continue on that path. The application of economic sanctions also hurt them. This combination shaped Libya's political will.

When we negotiated with N. Korea recently, was that appeasement?

No. Because anyone that has any knowledge of the reality of life in the North and the continuation of NK's policies was NK's eventual and enevidable demise. NK postered itself, but the threat of the use of overwhelming force by western nations, the lack of support from China and the fall of the Soviet Union, changed the NK's power position. Their ability to logistically support their military in a full blown war would have resulted in the same destruction that same military was subjected to in the early days of the Korean War. The NK's changed their ways due to the combined effects of economic sanctions and the overwhelming distruction due to western determination.

How about pre WWII with Japan?

I don't understand the analogy, but the Japanese were willing to go all the way even in the face of overwhelming Allied power. The dropping of the Atomic Bombs were the level of force needed to convince them otherwise.

With Germany?

Actually, I think the point has been well documented about that failure of a man Chamberlain.

How about Reagan with the Soviet Union?

Lets see, Reagan did not fear applying force against the Soviets. Were they dominated by the West, I would say yes and that resolve by the West is what eventually bleed them dry, not to mention their inability to compete at that time against the shear power of western economies. I would say Reagan understood the rules of the game and appeased no one.

Why are all these examples not appeasement?
Koch’s article was the blatant BS of the Israel right or wrong fanatics. I am all for supporting Israel, but I know they have not been right all the time. One sided political viewpoints are never correct. [/quote/]

War is hell. (Please pardon the mis-spellings it has been a bad day)

You have sadly missed several points. Although your lack of logically constructed replies may be the cause of your dilemma.

In all of my posted examples the common denominator was the willingness to hold and pursue negotiations. And please learn a little more history; I was entirely listing the negotiations that America initiated, so the reply concerning Chamberlain is, of course, nonsense.

As was your response to our pre WWII talks with Japan.

Bush's administration has negotiated with named terrorist groups several times. This is not a fault; it is one of the few worthwhile things they have done. So you missed the point that the pot is calling the kettle black.

And last, but not least, you have expressed the idea in your replies that military action is the only strength to negotiate from. You are clearly limited in your ability to understand human dynamics and unable to see that strength can be found in other options, without "giving away the store" ala Chamberlain (hint: try Nixon in China).