After Endorsing Bush’s Comments, McCain Camp Claims ‘We Never Used The Term Appeasement’
After Endorsing Bush’s Comments, McCain Camp Claims ‘We Never Used The Term Appeasement’
While speaking to the Israeli Knesset yesterday, President Bush compared those who advocate speaking directly to our enemies to Nazi appeasers, a comment interpreted as a hit at Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL). Speaking on MSNBC this afternoon, Nancy Pfotenhauer, a policy adviser to Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), stood by Bush’s comparison even as she tried to claim that McCain had never used the word appeasement:
PFOTENHAUER: Senator McCain responded directly himself and said he took the president at his word, that those comments were not directed toward Senator Obama. […]
SHUSTER: Nancy, does the McCain campaign believe that talking to our enemies is the same as appeasing them?
PFOTENHAUER: We have never used the term appeasement and you know that.
SHUSTER: But the president did. […]
PFOTENHAUER: We have specifically not used the term appeasement.
Watch it:
Pfotenhauer needs to get her facts straight. First, McCain himself specifically used the word “appeasers” yesterday, insisting “the president is exactly right“:
Yes, there have been appeasers in the past, and the president is exactly right, and one of them is Neville Chamberlain. I believe that it’s not an accident that our hostages came home from Iran when President Reagan was president of the United States. He didn’t sit down in a negotiation with the religious extremists in Iran, he made it very clear that those hostages were coming home.
What’s more, it’s unclear what Pfotenhauer was referring to when she said the McCain campaign “took the president at his words,” considering Bush never said that his comments were not directed toward Obama. In fact, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino confirmed that the comments did “include” him. CNN’s Ed Henry reported yesterday, “White House aides are acknowledging that this was a reference to the fact that Sen. Obama and other Democrats” support meeting with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
48 Responses to “After Endorsing Bush’s Comments, McCain Camp Claims ‘We Never Used The Term Appeasement’”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
It’s funny how upset progressives get when they are compared to nazi appeasers, when most of them see nothing wrong with comparing conservatives to the actual nazis.
May 16th, 2008 at 8:27 pmWith a response to Hamas ranging anywhere from bombing to a bed of roses, one or the other is sure to appease.
May 16th, 2008 at 8:30 pm.
McFish on deck…!
.
May 16th, 2008 at 8:32 pmIts bad enough McInsane’s living in his own, private reality, but now his people have moved there as well. Well, it must be that all the flip flopping from above has flopped down to those below. This election’s gonna be one hell of a circus.
May 16th, 2008 at 8:32 pmImpeach Cheney and Bush and Save the Constitution!
Abu Ben Hussein Leporello
.
backup,
Does context NOT mean a damn thing to you?
.
May 16th, 2008 at 8:33 pmIt’s funny how upset progressives get when they are compared to nazi appeasers, when most of them see nothing wrong with comparing conservatives to the actual nazis.
If the authoritarian boot fits…
May 16th, 2008 at 8:34 pmbackup Says:
As usual your comment has nothing to say. It would however fit very well over on the Little Green Footfungus site. Of course saying something of value is not your point and we all know that. Your point is to inflame and disrupt like the good troll you are.
May 16th, 2008 at 8:37 pmHe didn’t sit down in a negotiation with the religious extremists in Iran, he made it very clear that those hostages were coming home.
Um, yes, he did. And the weapons shipments started just months after his taking office. Also, he perfidy spurred terrorists to take additional hostages after the Iranians sent them home. Reagan was the embodyment of appeasement.
May 16th, 2008 at 8:42 pmI can’t help but feel that there is a bit of “good cop, bad cop” going on here.
After all, what has Bush got to lose by playing the bad cop? It sure could make McBush look real good! On a relative scale, of course. When Bush does McBush’s dirty work, good ‘ol John and his spokespeople, as above, deny or play with semantics. He “appears” to be taking the high road, but in reality isn’t.
An interesting gambit! This will only have a chance of working if he and Bush are seen as separate entities. If he is wearing the Bush legacy around his neck he is toast. (The visual of the two headed man with one body springs forth.)
May 16th, 2008 at 8:48 pm“Oh! Ooohhh! But Hillary said she landed in Bosnia under incoming enemy fire!!! Lookee over there, Hillary’s a liar. Over to you, Wolf, for more on Hillary’s false claims, and we’ve got more clips of Rev. Wright after the break….”
Cheers,
May 16th, 2008 at 9:03 pmMore straight talk from the jowly old flip-flopper.
May 16th, 2008 at 9:09 pmMerlin Says:
An interesting gambit! This will only have a chance of working if he and Bush are seen as separate entities. If he is wearing the Bush legacy around his neck he is toast. (The visual of the two headed man with one body springs forth.)
It seems more to me that the old puppetmaster, Rove has his hand up the backside of a new puppet this election cycle. Bush is religated tothe shelf
May 16th, 2008 at 9:14 pmreligated = relegated =P
May 16th, 2008 at 9:15 pmI think Obama scored billiantly today attacking McCain and Bush at the same time on the same issue.
May 16th, 2008 at 9:21 pmIf McCain continue to link himself on every issue to Bush as he seems to be doing, then Obama had McCain exactly where he wanted him to be ‘the third term Bush candidate’.
I believe that it’s not an accident that our hostages came home from Iran when President Reagan was president of the United States.
Talk about twisting history here! “Negotiating” with Iran before the election, behind Carter’s back, in order to impress the American voting public, was no accident. I’m glad McBush is willing to admit that. And of course the whole Iran/Contra thing with weapons and money dancing around between Israel and Iran with Reagun’s approval just shows how tough Raygun was to them ‘ranians! The CIA in bed with Iran and Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam. Yeah! Ollie North, Eliot Abrams Bush Senior at the CIA… What a great crew! Weren’t those Raygun years great!
May 16th, 2008 at 9:25 pmThese statements have given Obama an opening to the last 30 years of Republican behavior on the world stage. Reagan had a deal in place with Iran before he took office. Nobody has seriously investigated that. There are many criminal acts on the part of current and former officials that were swept under the rug. Time to brush up on the history. Time to ask about all the disappeared in Central America. Time to find out where a whole boatload of money went during Iran-Contra. Time to ask about Chalabi and all his friends in PNAC. If we actually had journalists in this country, many of these facts would have been exposed years ago. They better be careful who they are projecting their Nazi tendencies on, because Bush’s granddaddy has a rather questionable relationship with Hitler’s government. And then there are the Saudis–15 out of 19 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. And how did they identify them so fast if they didn’t already know their names? Always wondered about that.
May 16th, 2008 at 9:31 pmTarazan Says:
I think Obama scored billiantly today attacking McCain and Bush at the same time on the same issue.
Absolutely! And This shows the readiness, ability and strength that the Obama campaign has. To those progressives who are afraid that the right wing smear machine will destroy him, I say take note! And backing him up is a large vocal, smart and fired up Democratic party covering his back.
His recent responses to the neocon crap have been immediate, strong and right on target. He has not flinched or waffled in his retorts. His speech on race following the Wright bruhaha was nothing short of brilliant. Today, his direct challenge to debate Bush and McBush any time, any where was powerful. (Offering to take both of them on together, 2 on 1, and then threatening to beat them both with their own baggage was brilliant.)
Folks, we have a powerful man here! He will be President Obama come Jan. 20!
May 16th, 2008 at 9:38 pmThe APPEASER’S appeaser:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/ world/ 2004/ sep/ 25/ usa.secondworldwar
The Bush Crime Family’s fortune. ‘Nuff said, Except for THIS:
http://www.desertratdemocrat.com/ archives/ 1-mccain_bush_hug.jpg
May 16th, 2008 at 9:42 pmJonny, let’s not forget this:
http://www.atlargely.com/2008/05/all-the-preside.html
May 16th, 2008 at 9:46 pmquestioneverything Says:
Good post!
You might want to check out Robert Parry over at Consortiumnews.com. He broke a lot of the behind the scenes stuff back in the 80s and has written a number of excellent books exposing it all, even as it was unfolding. Unfortunately, he was a journalist alone against the “good morning America” and aw shucks politics that the conventional media just loved.
So, the info was out there, but no one was paying attention to it.
May 16th, 2008 at 9:46 pmThe McPain campaign reminds me of a horse show: A bunch of horses showing their asses to a bunch of horses asses showing their horses.
May 16th, 2008 at 9:58 pmCrusty Old Bastard Says
LOL! Very good!
May 16th, 2008 at 10:03 pmMerlin Says:
Unfortunately, he was a journalist alone against the “good morning America” and aw shucks politics that the conventional media just loved.
So, the info was out there, but no one was paying attention to it.
That is what happens when people get distracted by something shiny looking at the hypnogourd in their livingrooms rather than reading books (not the comic variety).
May 16th, 2008 at 10:09 pmWayne Says:
Merlin Says:
An interesting gambit! This will only have a chance of working if he and Bush are seen as separate entities. If he is wearing the Bush legacy around his neck he is toast. (The visual of the two headed man with one body springs forth.)
It seems more to me that the old puppetmaster, Rove has his hand up the backside of a new puppet this election cycle. Bush is religated tothe shelf
May 16th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Well, Rove does have two hands. I can certainly see him with the other hand still manipulating Bush, only now it is in McBush’s service. Would explain my idea of “good cop bad cop” nicely.
Rove certainly is a busy guy these days, what with threats of him being dragged, literally, in front of Congress and all.
May 16th, 2008 at 10:15 pm…he took the president at his word…
That was his first mistake.
http://progressiveworldreview.com
May 16th, 2008 at 10:33 pmYou have to ask him (and anybody in the right wing) the right question: “did you use ANY word that starts with ‘appease’?”
May 16th, 2008 at 10:35 pmbackup Says:
It’s funny how upset progressives get when they are compared to nazi appeasers, when most of them see nothing wrong with comparing conservatives to the actual nazis.
Isn’t it also funny (hilarious, in fact) that none of the “war” on terror supporters want to hear it when us progressives want to look back at the history of this “war” and the reasons we went into Iraq, yet Bush will reach back into history and talk about WWII (a war fought over 60 years ago) and the Vietnam war all day long if he can pick and choose events from them that he feels support his folly in Iraq.
I think it’s also comical how, 5+ years into this “war,” Bush is still trying to sell it to the American people. Bush really sucks at persuasion, huh?
May 16th, 2008 at 10:50 pmHey lady, are calling the millions who SAW and HEARD mc lame say APPEASERS and all the video tape liers????????? DUH!
May 16th, 2008 at 11:11 pmI wonder how mcbush feels about nixon sitting down with the North Vietnamese and negotiating his release from the Hanoi Hilton?
May 16th, 2008 at 11:20 pmOh crap, Dana Perino has a twin, or worse, a clone! Oh no, they’re multiplying.
May 16th, 2008 at 11:21 pmAsk McCain if John F. Kennedy had a “foolish delusion” when he negotiated a deal with Nikita Khrushchev to end the Cuban Missile Crisis or whether he would have gone to nuclear war to end the crisis. McCain, after all, is the one saying it is all or nothing. “All” then meant nuclear war. Since I was on active duty and on call for deployment at that time my memory is still pretty clear on this issue. Where one deploys for a nuclear exchange never was clear to me but I am thankful nonetheless that cooler heads prevailed.
May 17th, 2008 at 1:25 amMcInconsequential.
May 17th, 2008 at 2:49 amThe greatest benefit of the McSame Campaign is the chance for stupid Republicans to find employment . . . who else but McSame would hire this bunch of sleazy lobbyists, failed business leaders and wannabe bimbo talking heads? Can you IMAGINE Carley, his “Economic Adviser” reapplying for her old HP CEO position? At this rate, McSame will have flip-flopped to the point of complete “spin” by August . . . a continuous clean energy supply?
May 17th, 2008 at 4:34 am“anything from bombing to a bed of roses.”
Thats the most ridiculous bullshit spin Ive seen this week
McCain:
McCain is NOT talking about bombing the Hamas government or assassinating Hamas ministers. Hes talking about dealing with the Hamas government in a civilized manner.
And since when can the US just decide to bomb the occupied Palestinian territories? They cant do that! And why the hell should they? Thats just absurd! Besides when McCain really means bomb he sings a little song about it
More importantly McCains “BUT” is aimed directly at the Bush policy of isolating Hamas and its suggesting changing that policy and to recognize the will of the Palestinian people.
Personally I think thats a commendable and bold position to take for an American senator. But apparently McCain never took that position, or any other position on anything.
May 17th, 2008 at 4:43 am#30 Shayne,
Yes, it looks like McSame found him the next Dana Perino,
May 17th, 2008 at 6:39 amDana,the one who had no idea what Cuban Crisis was…
Ah, but Reagan with the help of Bush Sr. did appease the Iranians. And the hostages came home from Tehran.
May 17th, 2008 at 9:52 amThe republicans have also been appeasing dictators from around the world for the last fifty years. The list is long. From the middle east to Pakistan to Latin America.
The republicans can take credit for America’s awful image around the world. Republican foreign policy speaks volumes of shame.
Spin-spin-spin… wonderful-spin…… (sung in the same vein as Monty Python’s Spam Song).
May 17th, 2008 at 10:25 amWould someone please tell these dikwads that there is this invention, called the videotape, as well as a thingy called a tape recorder. Both of these devices capture what you do and say, respectively, on a long lasting, replayable media.
May 17th, 2008 at 10:36 amJackasses.
Nazi appeasers, eh? Oh, come on!
This should be so easy to throw back in their face.
Two words: PRESCOTT BUSH!
May 17th, 2008 at 10:49 amGod, talk about parsing your words. First he says:
I believe that it’s not an accident that our hostages came home from Iran when President Reagan was president of the United States.
He is 100% correct in what he said. Reagan negotiated with the Iranians before he was President.
Then he said:
Yes, there have been appeasers in the past, and the president is exactly right, and one of them is Neville Chamberlain.
He did not say the word appeasement, he said the word appeasers.
So, technically they were correct on all points. But, the American public is no longer asleep, they know what is going on here. The Republicans are toast and they know it.
May 17th, 2008 at 11:01 amMerlin Says:
Absolutely! And This shows the readiness, ability and strength that the Obama campaign has.
You should spend some time at Huffington Post. The Hillary supporters are saying that Obama is “whining” about how he is treated. You gotta love them. They are grasping at straws there. If Obama had not responded forcefully they would have said that was proof that he wasn’t strong enough to stand up to the Republican slime machine. Then when he brilliantly stands up to the slime machine, they say he’s “whining”.
So TP, now that Obama is the obvious candidate for the Democrats, are you going to start covering him?
May 17th, 2008 at 11:12 amIt will be an interesting fall - I can’t wait!
May 17th, 2008 at 11:29 amWhat kind of shoe will John McCain bang on the podium while he’s President? George W. used that closet bound, genuine Ostrich FootJoy golf shoe to pound the dais at the Knesset. Calling Democrats Nazi appeasers (when the Bush family tree is full of Nazi supporters/enablers) simply takes people’s attention away from the further integration of business and government, a critical element of fascism. The infamous politically connected Carlyle Group announced their purchase of Booz, Allen & Hamilton’s government consulting and intelligence services division. Carlyle’s downing Booz for $2.54 billion. They expect a grand return, courtesy of your tax dollars.
May 17th, 2008 at 12:04 pmBackup:
Today’s so called conservatives may not be nazis but they damned sure are a form of fascist pigs. Prove it wrong.
May 17th, 2008 at 1:14 pmBilbo, my hellthermometer is reading 34 degrees, so there is a possibility…/snark out.
May 17th, 2008 at 2:15 pmHere’s the sad irony: the media coverage of this has got everyone tacitly accepting the premise that Iran is the new Nazi menace and if our elected leaders even offer to speak with the Iranians, they risk being compared to Neville Chamberlain the Nazi Appeaser.
May 17th, 2008 at 3:58 pmIn reality, Israel and the Bush Administration and its invasion of Iraq more closely resemble the Germany of Hitler’s Nazi Party. Iran seems somehow pacifist by comparison to what the United States has been up to.
THE FASCIST AGGRESSOR IS THE UNITED STATES NOT IRAN.
kassandrasduplex, if what you said was true, you may want to re-think posting on public websites. When the interrment starts, you could be one of the first on the list.
Assuming, of course, what you say is true.
May 17th, 2008 at 7:41 pmMerriam-Webster defines terrorism as “the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.”
A simple syllogism: GWB says negotiating with terrorists is appeasement. Barack Hussein Obama says he would negotiate with a terrorist state, Iran. Therefore, Obama is an appeaser. No?
Obama is fuming over the insinuation. See http://townhall.com/ columnists/ AmandaCarpenter/ 2008/ 05/ 16/ mccain_hits_obama_on_diplomacy
Before we can establish whether that syllogism holds any validity we would have to examine the words “terrorist” and “appeasement.”
Since President Mahmoud Ahmadinjad’s Iran regularly threatens the forcible eradication of Israel, finances and trains known terrorists, commits acts of international intimidation, and preaches venom at every opportunity, can we not label Iran a terrorist state? Since Obama promises that, as President, he would sit down with Mahmoud and negotiate with that pipsqueak terrorist, what could Obama expect to achieve? Since negotiating by definition involves give and take, that is, offering quid pro quos, what would he give and what would he take? Why bother to confer if you’re not prepared to concede some issue?
The possibilities are endless but the bottom line is not: President Obama would have to offer the terrorist state of Iran concessions in order to gain concessions, much like Chamberlain offered the Sudetenland to Hitler after a desparate Hitler promised to leave the rest of Europe alone. (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERsudetenland.htm)
That’s called appeasement. The ultimate result for Chamberlain? World War II and 60,000,000 dead. The ultimate result of Obama’s planned appeasement of Iran could be World War III and, perhaps, far more dead people.
The syllogism holds.
May 18th, 2008 at 12:37 pm