www.nikitas3.com
In a speech before the Israeli Knesset (parliament) marking the 60th anniversary of that nation’s statehood, President Bush warned about negotiating with freedom’s enemies:
“Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along,” he said. “We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator (William Borah) declared, ‘Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of 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.”
Rather than praise the President for stating something that is historically astute and obvious, Democrats looked deep and saw Bush menacingly inserting himself into the 2008 presidential campaign. Then they went on the attack, and for good reason. They see in one brief statement a truism that could shake the coming election.
While Bush’s comments easily could have applied to figures like Britain’s Neville Chamberlain in his wish to appease Hitler, they more recently could have applied to two Democrats — Jimmy Carter in his dialogue with the Hamas terrorist group, and Barack Obama who said last winter that he would open dialogue with some of the most despotic tyrants of the world rather than confront them with American strength as Ronald Reagan confronted the Soviets - and won - in perhaps the most intelligent deployment of foreign policy in world history.
Without firing a shot, President Reagan defeated a great tyranny. And while Democrats hid under the desks as Reagan opted out of pacifist dialogue, they were proven wrong then and they are wrong now.
Republicans have called both Carter and Obama naïve appeasers who cannot be trusted with our national security, and who would trade away our strength in favor of potemkin peace and security. And obviously rattled by the implications of President Bush’s words of wisdom, Democrats showed their truly nervous nature because they understand the implications.
Democrat Senator Joe Biden of Delaware said bluntly and inappropriately: “This is bull****, this is malarkey. This is outrageous, for the president of the United States to go to a foreign country, to sit in the Knesset … and make this kind of ridiculous statement.”
Obviously Bush’s wisdom did not sit well with a very touchy and rude Biden. After all, Democrats are known to contradict wisdom and virtue in favor of temporary political gain, no matter how ethereal.
Said former Democrat Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota: “I am shocked and, actually, very, very saddened by what the President has done. This is an unprecedented political attack.”
Daschle is an Obama supporter, and said that Bush did not need to mention any names to indicate that the real target of his speech was Obama.
The question remains: Does not Daschle understand the scope of history? Or even recent history, in which a former American president (Carter) indeed opened a dialogue with terrorists whose goal is to destroy the freedom that Israel was celebrating as Bush gave his address? Were not Bush’s words indeed timely?
Are these Democrats so frightened that every word can be parsed as a repudiation of them and their party?
Yes. Because all liberals suffer from a manic-depressive complex in their words and deeds. They are bold and overly confident on the one hand, and cowardly on the other. And Bush’s comments exposed this trait.
And where has Daschle been as former President Bill Clinton relentlessly attacked Bush, sometimes on foreign soil, breaking the unwritten gentleman’s agreement that presidents should refrain from commenting on their successors?
Answer: Nowhere.
Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi even drew John McCain into the fray, saying “I would hope that any serious person that aspires to lead the country would disassociate themselves from (Bush’s) comments”.
The remarks, she said, were “beneath the dignity of the office of the president and unworthy of our representation at the celebration of Israel’s 60th anniversary.”
Is there downright paranoia in the Democrat air? Why the hair trigger?
The big guns came out when Obama himself declared, “It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel’s independence to launch a false political attack…. George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the President’s extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel.”
Obama’s statement is typically inept. Immediately he turned the president’s speech into a personal attack when in fact Bush easily was speaking about Carter’s recent visit with Hamas. Or Senator Borah. Or Neville Chamberlain. That Bush was speaking on the 60th anniversary of a nation that has been threatened by outside forces since its birth, his comments were not only appropriate but wise.
The White House said that Bush has made similar statement in the past, and was not referring to “any single person.” But in the Democrat party, suspicion and fear prompt any perceived slight as an attack.
What Democrats are doing is setting themselves a seat at the political table that is untouchable, with a separate place setting, an isolated chair, and food testers attending. They have claimed that Obama’s radical pastor’s comments are not germane. They have claimed that Obama’s inexperience is off limits and that his wife’ anti-American comments are not relevant. They have declared ‘global warming’ cannot be challenged, and that everything from gas prices to the housing crunch are Bush’s fault. And that Obama’s utopian solutions are all to be taken seriously.
By whom? Are we not living in a dangerous world that requires tough action against our enemies, that requires direct address to the dilemma of energy, a world in which we might take 10 steps back before imposing draconian ‘global warming’ laws that will gut our economy and throttle our oil supplies?
If Barck Obama wishes to enter into the presidential campaign, he and his political allies need to grow up, state their case and join the debate. But in this dustup Democrats are showing themselves to be the party of thin skins. If they intend to possibly rule the nation, they should expect that they will encounter opposition, challenge and dissent. Otherwise they should get out of the kitchen because obviously they can’t stand the heat.
![[del.icio.us]](http://forthardknox.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/delicious.png)
![[Digg]](http://forthardknox.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/digg.png)
![[Facebook]](http://forthardknox.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/facebook.png)
![[Newsvine]](http://forthardknox.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/newsvine.png)
![[Reddit]](http://forthardknox.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/reddit.png)
![[Sphere]](http://forthardknox.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/sphere.png)
![[StumbleUpon]](http://forthardknox.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/stumbleupon.png)
![[Technorati]](http://forthardknox.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/technorati.png)
