The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

We were way too busy to get into this yesterday, but there’s every indication that this story will be a major headline-getter throughout today.

The core issue of this debate is over the meaning of the term “appeasement,” & the issue of pursuing a diplomatic strategy with those the U.S. considers an enemy.

So let’s take it from the top.

Please enable Javascript and Flash to view this Flash video.

President Bush said the comments above in Israel’s Knesset (Congress) during a speech marking the 60th anniversary of the creation of the Israeli state. His criticism of a presidential candidate in an election in which he’s not a candidate was an unprecedented move ["I can't imagine there's a precedent for a sitting president to go before the legislative body of a foreign government and launch a political attack on a major-party nominee running to succeed him," said Brian P. Murphy, a fellow in American history at the University of Pennsylvania]. It’s more typical for a) an American president to refrain from criticizing his opposition while overseas & b) for his opposition to refrain from criticizing him while he’s overseas. But this is a president who has long demonstrated he cares not for presidential tradition.

Reaction from Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, was swift & severe. Here’s an example from former presidential candidate Joe Biden:

Please enable Javascript and Flash to view this Flash video.

Let’s take a step back & examine the word “appeasement.”

From Dictionary.com:

ap·pease /əˈpiz/ [uh-peez] –verb (used with object), -peased, -peas·ing.

1.	to bring to a state of peace, quiet, ease, calm, or contentment; pacify; soothe: to appease an angry king.

2.	to satisfy, allay, or relieve; assuage: The fruit appeased his hunger.

3.	to yield or concede to the belligerent demands of (a nation, group, person, etc.) in a conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles.

The third definition is definitely what President Bush had in mind. He was specifically talking about the most (in)famous case of appeasement, that of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in the years leading up to World War II.

Please enable Javascript and Flash to view this Flash video.

But that analogy is false. Why? Because Chamberlain’s blunder was not in sitting down at the table with Hitler. It was (essentially) giving Hitler a free pass to acquire all territory between Germany & the Soviet Union, as a way to keep both powers at each others’ throats, rather than having Germany turn its sights on attacking England. As we all know, this “appeasement” failed miserably, & hastened Hitler’s plan for world domination. This is a false analogy for President Bush, however, because he is equating sitting down with an enemy with giving the enemy concessions. No candidate on either side has actually spoke of giving any kinds of “carrots” to the other side as a way to reduce terror.

The Bush administration, as we’ve said before, has paid a price for its belligerent & hubristic foreign policy, because it has repeatedly failed to take the long view. How else can you explain the fact that the true victor in the current Iraq war is Iran? Had Bush & his planners seen how a destabilized Iraq would thrust Iran into the strategically enviable position it’s in now in the Middle East, perhaps they would have thought twice about invading.

This gets us back to a theme of this campaign about nuance. For the past 7 years, looking at the world in terms of black & white has hurt our long term interests. Sitting down & talking with enemies is something that all presidents, going back to Roosevelt, Republican & Democrat, have done as tool to achieve America’s long-term interests. Only since 2000 has the U.S. adopted a position that negotiating with enemies is somehow “weak.” It’s not.

Another important issue that was raised by Bush’s comments yesterday has more to do with campaign strategy, specifically McCain’s. He may have come out to support Bush’s indirect Obama jab yesterday, but it’s in McCain’s best long term interest in terms of the general campaign that Bush generally keep his mouth shut. Recall that this is a president who holds the record for the highest & longest-sustained public disapproval rating. They may agree on many issues, but it ma not serve McCain so well to have the current unpopular president be seen as his biggest cheerleader.

MSNBC’s First Read blog has some interesting thoughts on that front:

*** Bush’s gift to Obama: When President Bush — thousands of miles away in Israel — decided to fire his thinly veiled shot at Obama yesterday, it was a giant gift to the Illinois senator and his campaign. Why? One, it essentially kept Clinton on the sidelines just two days after her big West Virginia victory. Two, Obama’s opponent was no longer Clinton or McCain, but the man with the 27% job-approval rating. And three, it rallied Democrats to Obama’s side. Even neutral Dems, like Joe Biden, Rahm Emanuel and Harry Reid, quickly leapt to Obama’s defense. Some Democrats might be deeply divided right now. Pro-choice women are angry at NARAL’s endorsement of Obama; Clinton supporters are upset that Obama is looking like the eventual nominee; and some African Americans are unhappy with the Clintons. But what’s the best way to unify them all? Give them an excuse to turn their attention to Bush. And this will all play out another day — and will likely extend into the weekend — as Obama will respond this afternoon to Bush at his rally with Tom Daschle in South Dakota, NBC’s Andrea Mitchell reports. Obama will react to both what he considers Bush’s politicization of foreign policy and the substance of Bush’s attack.

*** The power of Bush: Regardless of whether you believe Bush yesterday did the right thing or not as far as the unwritten rules of partisan politics, it is a reminder of how the president can toss an issue grenade into the middle of the campaign and change the narrative in a nanosecond. But we have to ask: Did anyone in McCain’s orbit get a head’s up on this? After all, Bush’s remarks — and then McCain’s response to them — overshadowed McCain’s big “2013” speech that he gave to put more room between himself and Bush. They also undercut that very speech after McCain essentially agreed with Bush’s assessment. As the Obama campaign pointed out, McCain delivered “a lofty speech about civility and bipartisanship in the morning, and then embrace[d] George Bush’s disgraceful political attack in the afternoon.” Now, McCain’s past (and possibly contradictory) statements on Hamas are gaining fresh scrutiny today with an op-ed by Jamie Rubin in today’s Washington Post.

*** Understanding the reality: Another example of how unifying Bush’s speech yesterday was: Clinton also leapt to Obama’s defense, even though she has disagreed with him on this issue of negotiating with unsavory world leaders without preconditions. “This is the kind of statement that has no place in any presidential address, and certainly to use an important moment like the 60th anniversary celebration of Israel to make a political point seems terribly misplaced,” Clinton said. But earlier in the day, as NBC’s Ron Allen pointed out, Clinton gave few hints that she’s still fighting for the nomination. “Maybe we’re getting a bit ahead of things, maybe its just the place and time, maybe its that we’re all looking for clues about her intentions, but the vibe feels different,” Allen wrote. And as a top Clinton aide told NBC’s Mitchell: “People understand the reality, but they are still loyal to her.” It’s striking how the Edwards endorsement, and then Bush’s volley from Israel, quickly changed the subject after Tuesday night’s contest in West Virginia.

Friday around noon Barack Obama had this to say in response:

Please enable Javascript and Flash to view this Flash video.

What do you think? Would love for you to weigh in on this.. especially if you disagree with my assessment.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.