Thursday, May 15, 2008

W speaks truth to power and picks a fight we need to have.

The President finally picked a fight that both he and America have needed for four years.

Ever since reelection the President of the United States, a nation at war, simply went about the hard work of winning the war, keeping the economy afloat in the midst of the mess his predecessor left and the inflation in energy costs produced by the liberal’s fanatical opposition to domestic energy production. In so doing, he failed to defend himself from the even more fanatical opposition to everything Bush. The Democrats have engaged in levels of political incivility that was unknown even during Watergate in their attacks on the President.

Today, the gloves came off. President Bush finally stated the obvious about the liberals from the one position where it will he heard.

Take time and read the text as well. This is the most important political argument of our time and we who know how to protect America, usually Republicans, have history and reality on our side.

The Democrats, yelping like the dog that was hit by the shoe, screeched out their offense. Not surprisingly the Democrats can’t really provide any factual or contextual differences between their position, and its logical outcome and that of the British politicians who appeased Hitler. Obama’s language almost mirrors that employed by Neville Chamberlain and the isolationist British Conservatives, and their French and American cousins.

This is not to say that the liberals want the Islamofascists to win but their policies make it far more likely. Weakness has never worked so pound that message down our throats every day until you leave office.



Anonymous said...

You don't have to worry about the corporate press, sir. They are already swallowing Bush's attempt to conflate negotiating with capitulating.

Negotiation is not appeasment. Failure to talk to a potential enemy is self-righteous, myopic foolishness. ---Spotlight

Anonymous said...

By the way, how about those House Repubs! Voting "present" so that they don't have to vote more money for their war. Profiles in Courage! -------Spotlight

Anonymous said...

Come to think of it, House Republicans have just appeased the Iraqi insurgency by refusing to vote more money to fight them! Peace in our time!--Spotlight

RF said...

We've gone over this argument a few too many times. No use getting into it again. It amazes me that you actually seem to believe what you write about this. Talk about serious denial of reality.

The Real Sporer said...

"Negotiation is not appeasment. Failure to talk to a potential enemy is self-righteous, myopic foolishness"

is not an argument, its a conclusion. On what premises, inductive or deductive rest?

None? Let's have an argument, so you please tell me why you have reached the conclusion.

vlad the impaler said...

SIx and a half years too late.

Anonymous said...

How many more days until this fucking idiot is out of office? And how many more terrorists will there be because of this fool and his crappy foreign policies? (And tell us if you think Condi Rice is an appeaser too)

RF said...

Not to mentioning how undignified it is for W to go make these kinds of political attacks in a foreign country's parliament during their national celebration. Had a D president done something like this, R's would be all over it.

On the substance of W's statements, Biden said it best: bullshit.

KenRichards said...

People lie, cheat, steal and murder are called criminals in our society because they refuse to obey common laws and act out on their threats and evil intentions. We need to apply the same logic against rogue nations who openly state their intentions to harm the United States and our allies. One truth should be self-evident and that is you can’t negotiate with those who only seek to kill you since you have nothing left to give but your life.

If an armed robber walks into your store demanding money will he go away if you close your eyes or should you shoot him if you have a gun in your hand? That is the question and Democrats lose on this argument because they "sell peace" but deliver a more dangerous world when the dream is inevitably shattered by reality.

KenRichards said...

Pelosi and Obama want to replicate Neville Chamberlain’s “Peace in Our Time” and get upset when realists point out their policy is exactly the same the lead the West into WWII with hands tied behind their backs. German records show Hitler would have backed down if the West had only stood up but they remained silent. Therefore, giving in to a terrorist nation only delays the inevitable conflict. Indeed, giving in (APPEASEMENT) not only delays a fight it actually guarantees a much bigger conflict because the enemy becomes much stronger after diplomatic and territorial victories if we consider Germany doubled in size after Chamberlain’s sell out. Little wonder Germany of September 1939 felt strong enough to challenge France and England when it was unthinkable only 12 months prior.

KenRichards said...

As for Islamo fascist nations trying to wipe out Israel and the West consider the following from

The Prophet Muhammad specifically sanctioned the use of deceit and lies to kill a troublesome opponent. In AD 628 – Muhammad ongoing military conquests were not going well, and so for tactical purposes he signed a treaty with the Meccan Quarish tribe. (The Al-Hudaybiyya agreement between the Prophet and the Quarish was signed for a period of 10 years, which became, in Islamic tradition, the time limit for any agreement with non-Muslims). The Al-Hudaybiyya agreement was broken just 18 months later when Mohammed’s army advanced and conquered Mecca.

Because of the difficulty he had subduing them, after they surrendered Mohammed had all 600 men from the city slaughtered, and sold the women and children into slavery. This tactic is a template still in use because Muslims have enjoyed so much success with it.

Have you noticed that every time militant Arab Muslim groups find themselves in a losing position in conflicts they initiated, they immediately proclaim they are ready to suspend hostilities and begin negotiations? They suddenly become concerned with victims, saying "Peace" so often it becomes meaningless, yet Westerners fall for it every time. Arab Muslims have an insidious habit of negotiating falsely, a tactic that is all too easy to pass off to ignorant Westerners longing for peace.

KenRichards said...

Of course, anyone singing the song "Make the World Go Away" should not ride that tune to the White House.

KenRichards said...

The fact is Appeasement doesn't work and evil despots respect power rather than good intentions.

It turns the guy President Bush referred to was a Republican Senator so Obama's desire to spin this as a Democratic vs. Republican argument fails the history test.


'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided." —1939, William Edgar Borah (Republican Senator)

(Attributed) McKenna, Marian (1961). "Borah". The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 338: 156-157.

Anonymous said...

It's outrageous for D's to get their panties all in a wad over what Bush said. Finally, Bush said something of substance.

Where was their outrage when Jimmah "I never met a terrorist dictator I didn't like" Cartah was over there negotiating with Hezbollah and Hamas to the detriment of the United States and Israel.

Where was their outrage when Nancy "I never met a terrorist dictator I didn't swoon over" Pelosi - as SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE - negotiating with Syria - wearing Muslim head gear and all.

THAT my weak and only concerned about gay marriage and abortion libs is the OUTRAGE!

Oh well, libs just are bitter about their religion of liberalism and their lack of ability to protect themselves with guns.

Anonymous said...

Hey Teddy - I think Peggy Noonan has been reading your blog. I wonder if anyone who runs campaigns or any candidates for office or anyone at the new RPI - Iowa Future Fund or whatever they are calling the republican party nowadays - is listening or are they just plain unable to put together a strategy or an agenda other than to coopt the democrat agenda?
The headline Wednesday on Drudge, from Politico, said, "Republicans Stunned by Loss in Mississippi."

It was about the eight-point drubbing the Democrat gave the Republican in the special House election.

My first thought was: You have to be stupid to be stunned by that.

Second thought: Most party leaders in Washington are stupid – detached, played out, stuck in the wisdom they learned when they were coming up, in '78 or '82 or '94. Whatever they learned then, they think pertains now.

In politics especially, the first lesson sticks. For Richard Nixon, everything came back to Alger Hiss."
We've been calling this Viet Nam disease in Iowa for quite a while now. It looks like those in Washington are just noticing they are in a time warp - Rip Van Winkle Disease - Viet Nam Disease - Aging Hippie disease - Aging Black Activist disease - Aging Feminist disease -

The 60's are long over and those fights and those issues are no longer fights or issues for us folks who live under the mismanagement of our elected officials on both sides.

I find myself longing for term limits.

Art A Layman said...

Damn kennie:

Somebody hit a nerve or are you off duty for a couple of days? Always interesting to learn history though, so thanks for that.

In your paranoic zeal you fail to connect the dots. So does Dumbya but we understand in his case. You stated: German records show Hitler would have backed down if the West had only stood up but they remained silent. The you post Senator Borah's quote, that Dumbya passed off as idiocy: Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.

Now I don't know if history can tell us what Senator Borah was going to say to Hitler but is it possible that he was going to convey to Hitler a message consistent with Dumbya's basic foreign relations policy, "And now you understand. Anything goes wrong, anything at all... your fault, my fault, nobody's fault... it won't matter - I'm gonna blow your head off. No matter what else happens, no matter who gets killed I'm gonna blow your head off."? If Borah had delivered that message maybe Hitler would have indeed backed off.

The core of much of Dumbya's ineffective leadership is that he watched too many John Wayne movies growing up but he didn't realize they were fictional.

You and sporie get confused - sporie even criticizes a poster for "conclusions" without supporting premises - negotiation is not APPEASEMENT. APPEASEMENT is one possible result (conclusion) of negotiation, it is not a synonym of negotiation.

Can we trust anyone of the Middle Eastern countries, other than Israel, and even they will violate agreements if they deem their self interests require it, to remain honor bound to any results of negotiation? Highly unlikely, but it's a start. Playing around with sanctions doesn't seem to work. It didn't with Saddam. The weakness in economic sanctions is capitalism. When there is money available, and Iran has a steady stream, the capitalistic nature refuses to let that money just languish. Better to siphon it off, even illegally, and collect it in the corporate coffers. Halliburton appears to be the leading expert at this in Middle Eastern dealings.

We have negotiated with the former USSR, with Russia, with China, with North Korea, with the Saudis, with Libya, with Egypt and a whole host of other countries around the world. Have all of them lived up to their agreements or their promises?

Dumbya has actually been negotiating with Iran in a way. He has been letting the press be his messenger and we all understand that ain't real bright.

Negotiating is not an end all be all. It may end up fruitless; it may end up with lies and violations and whatever, but though you can't make the horse drink, he surely won't if you don't offer him water.

Unless we are ready to just nuke the rest of the world, negotiation is the only other alternative. Now we can do it, like with North Korea, with a multi-party team, and that approach has merit, or we can try it alone. The drawback to the multi-party approach is the added task of getting all the team members to agree on the goal.

You and sporie, history buffs par exellence, can beat the Neville Chamberlain incident to death over and over again. That achieves nothing and does not advance the discussion. Again, Chamberlain's talking with Hitler was not the problem, his resolution was the problem.

Negotiating does not suggest that you don't hold the threat of power as your trump, it merely means that you don't wear it on your chest like spories's Juris Doctorate.

KenRichards said...

Good point about the gay lobby and their unreasonable pro appeasement stance which is all the more perplexing considering leaders like Ahmadinejad have a plan for Gays and it isn't good.

Before WWII Hitler wrote a book telling the entire world his plans and Chamberlain still purused appeasement. Likewise, Ahmadinejad states Israel will be wiped off the map while insisting his nuclear program is for “peaceful purposes.”

History is not on their side of Appeasement and thank God for President Bush! I'd rather have Churchill than Chamberlain any day and voting for Obama or any other put your head in the sand liberal Democrat is very dangerous when facing modern day Hitlers.

Anonymous said...

You know if we were to win Iowa back to the republican column we would need a dream team in the RPI they have a couple of the people that could make up the dream team. This would require a lot of humility on the part of many in our party. In addition many inside our party would have to lay down there guns and stopp shooting at each other and be focused on the State. this would require a 99 county strategy and leave no city behind.
We would put the best coalitions, fundraising, political and communications people together and have 4 depts in RPI. The type of talent is there, the question is this can the party stop fighting itself and put aside old hatreds to go to victory?

KenRichards said...


#1. Only France, England and Russia had the means to scare Germany and if they ganged up in 1939 Germany were finished before she got started. If France and England ganged up in 1938 Germany would've back down. If only France had stood against Germany in 1936 Germany would've back down. Since the United States had a standing army of only 130,000 or so in 1939 we could not scare Hitler at all. Our Navy was a force but no more so than the Royal Navy they already faced so it was a non-issue. Whatever the Senator thought he could say to Hitler to stop WWII it could not have been from a position of strength. I suspect he planned to take him to a nudie bar or maybe fishing because Isolationist US simply was not a factor on the World Stage at that time.

#2. I appreciate your arguments about capitalism in relation to economic sanctions but the truth is no blockade is completely effective anyway. But, economic blockades make it so expensive some countries actually change course (see Libya and South Africa) and do whatever it takes to get sanctions dropped. Other countries endure sanctions at the expense of their people so their senior leadership can maintain privilege (Iran, pre 2003 Iraq, and N. Korea). Sanctions are a very effective way to get the attention of the bad guys but military action may be required when nuclear development enters the scene. Personally, I think we should’ve bombed N. Korea’s program but the fact they would take out Seoul was a deterrent. Unfortunately, exporting nuclear technology seems to be their only cash crop and the Syrians decided to buy.

#3. The Churchill vs. Chamberlain argument is extremely relevant considering the choices are essentially the same for the next US President and Obama looks a lot more like Chamberlain than Churchill. The only difference is this time Hitler will be played by an Islamo Fascist madman seeking nuclear weapons and the stakes are higher than ever!

Anonymous said...

I'm listening to Obama squeal like a stuck pig over his defensiveness over his policy of negotiating wtih terrorists.

Lies lies - First he doesn't understand the meaning of appeasement or negotiation.

Second, he lied by saying W told us it would only take a few months for war. W was explicit each and every time he said it that this would take years and year and be difficult and complicated.

Obama - doesn't remember that Algore invented the internet and you can't get away with lies like you could when Clinton was president.

Art A Layman said...


No doubt we alone did not appear to be a strong force and might not have impressed Hitler at all. But, even coming off of a depression we had resources and wealth that combined with England and France, even without Russia, would have possibly caused Hitler to second guess his desires. Just showing an interest in the fray might have created a need to rethink his strategy.

I may be wrong, and I'm sure you'll correct me, but at the outset Russia did not seem real interested in the European dilemma. Their geographic layout and their severe winters had proven to be a formidable barrier to invading armies. The size or the manpower capability of their armies I'm sure also gave them a sense of security from invasion. As an extra precaution did they not sign a peace treaty with Germany?

While the US may not have struck fear in Hitler and in his fanaticism I'm sure he felt that he could eventually defeat us, but the expanse of the oceans, I would think, would render his blitzkrieg strategy not nearly as effective against us. The English Channel appears to have been an impediment to his abilities.

Your analysis would portend that without Russia, England and France and the US would not have presented a deterrent to Hitler. If this is true and if we assume that Chamberlain realized this, what options did he then have in his negotiations with Hitler. And he had no reason to presume that the US would play. He could have saber rattled but if he knew your facts, then it was reasonable to assume that Hitler knew as well. In that scenario, appeasement, though a risk, might have appeared as the best option, unless he wanted to declare war right then and there.

Economic sanctions alone, seldom achieve their goals. South Africa, not being a country with any axe to grind on the world stage nor any desire for world dominance, capitulated fairly easily. Libya took years to finally give in and my understanding is that during many of those years there was a dialogue, if not a negotiation, going on between us and them.

Neighbors and allies and the impact of war on them is often a deterrent to making war. We got away with war against Iraq primarily because we were still riding a wave of sympathy from 9/11; the world's intelligence was not much better than ours and there was consensus that Saddam was a butcher the world would be better off without. We don't have those factors going for us with Iran. Yes, nuclear capability in the hands of nutcases is scary but nuclear capability has expanded to, Pakistan, India, North Korea and we have no assurance that nutcases might not eventually end up in charge of Pakistan, especially, but could even be a possibility in India some day.

Like it or not we are probably back to the days of "mutually assured destruction" as our only real weapon. Fortunately for us none of those players poses anywhere near the threat of the former Soviet Union so deterrence should be a stronger sword to wield, along the lines of Hillary's exclamation.

Speaking of capitalism, can you imagine the economic impact of our bombing Iran, en masse, and effectively shutting down their oil supply?

You and sporie often compare Ahmadinejad to Hitler but they are not comparable. He has no real power. He is a mouthpiece, a PR man, keeping the western world in a tizzy. The Mullahs, sitting back fat, dumb and happy let him rant. He doesn't have the support of most of his populace, except when we scare hell out of them with our war threats (the bad thing about Hillary's boast).

All in all, there are not a lot of favorable options with Iran. We can't gain consistent help from Russia and China, so United Nations actions tend to be meek. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that we are not currently equipped to occupy yet another Middle Eastern country which will lead us to the same imbroglio we have in Iraq. The most effective option we have would be to block their oil shipments; think we will get a lot of support for that? Can we say $10 or $20 a gallon gasoline?

You can debate and hypothesize the likely success or futility of negotiation but unless you try it, all the haranguing is political posturing. In the words of Shakespeare it is, "Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Art A Layman said...

hey sporie:

In your typical hate-filled, vitriolic, insane and inane ranting you failed to point out where it is exactly that Dumbya's policies are winning for us.

Yea, Dumbya, fight that last battle, don't go into that good night gently. Fight hard! Fight long! Then leave us nowhere in terms of progress.

Anonymous said...

"The grant from the state-funded program will help cover costs for landscaping, lighting and security for the $30 million collection of at least 16 sculptures that venture capitalist John Pappajohn and his wife, Mary, plan to donate to the Des Moines Art Center.

Although the sculptures will belong to the museum, the city of Des Moines has been charged with maintenance and security.
Somebody earlier said we were donating land. Looks like they were wrong. It's CASH from taxpayers. How about one less statue donated and they pay for the "landscaping and lighting" rather than taxpayers.

Let's be honest - the donation from those extremely fabulously wealthy people will be treated very well by the IRS as a major donation. So, they get to deduct from their taxes, the value of this donation. So, we get scultures we don't need, we spend money we don't have and the taxpayer gets screwed all the way around.

Maybe Jim Cownie and the other extraordinarily rich folks in Des Moines who come up with these really fabulous ideas can fund them instead of us middle class folks who are struggling with gas prices and bottle deposits.

Anonymous said...

The Vision Iowa program was established in 2000 to provide financial assistance for recreational, cultural, educational and entertainment facilities.

So far, the program has doled out more than $227 million to 14 projects throughout the state.
Government has no business fundiong entertainment facilities etc.

How many kids textbooks could $227 million buy? How much health insurance for kids could $227 milion buy? How many windmills could they build for energy replacement? How many schools could have been upgraded? What about the Senior Living Trust fund which was raided to empty over crap like this. How about the Tobaccco Fund that was raided to fund crap like this. How about the roads that D's claim we need so many more of. How many bridges could have been repaired.

How much of a raise could Chet have gotten?

Outrageous use of tax money for the wealthy's use only it appears. The D's are giving tax breaks to the wealthy with this crap.

Anonymous said...

I guess Chet cares more about culture than kids. the artsy farts get some artsy fartsy art in the rich kids neighborhood and kids are sharing textbooks and learning in dilapidated buildings. Even worse, Polk County doesn't have a new courthouse.

Could they have built a new courthouse for $227 million? Government should build courthouses and repair schools.

They shouldn't be funding entertainment.

Anonymous said...

Priorities priorities priorities.

Everyone is tapped. We have to save up for July when our disposable incomes decrease substantially to pay for all the improvements in our lives the legislature passed.

Is there a bus stop by that art exhibit so the little people can enjoy it too?

Anonymous said...

How many Jobs and Young people have stayed in Iowa instead of hoing to other states that would give 1 Million dollar to enhance the culture of it's citizens thru public art. one of the biggest draws to an area happens to be cultural activities -- Here is one.

Anonymous said...

Oh really? I don't see many young people at the art center.

Anonymous said...

Yes, Des Moines is known for it's public art. During campus interviews, I made sure to inquire about the public art as it was material to where I would locate. I didn't care about the pay at all. Publicly funded public art made all the difference. Did it for you too?

Yes, I forgot. Microsoft is opening up a factory in a small town in Iowa, not because of all the tax money we bribed them with to come here, but the public art south of grand in des moines iowa.

I hadn't noticed our economic development office promoting our publicly funded public art as a reason to locate in Iowa with their jobs. I missed that flyer.

Anonymous said...

Employers cannot get good employees without the quality of life and public at is quality of life. Iowa cannot get good employers if the employer cannot get good employees. Here in Iowa we have a problem of not having enough people to fill all of the jobs. (yes we have a small unemployment rate, but you can't really hire a drug user to be an accountant)