Gates refuses to defend Bush’s ‘appeasement’ remark.
Gates refuses to defend Bush’s ‘appeasement’ remark.
During a Senate appropriations subcommittee hearing today, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) asked Defense Secretary Robert Gates if President Bush is “correct when he says that it’s appeasement to talk to Iran?” While Gates tried to wiggle out of the question, saying “I don’t know exactly what the president said,” Specter took the opportunity to chide Bush for his comments he made recently to the Israeli parliament:
SPECTER: [I]t’s not appeasement, and that the analogy to Neville Chamberlain is wrong. And we’ve only got one government to deal with there. They [Iran] were receptive in 2003. I’ve had a chance to talk to the last three Iranian ambassadors to the U.N. And I think there is an opportunity for dialogue.
Watch it:
Specter noted that one day prior to Bush’s “appeasement” speech in Israel, Gates had said that the U.S needs to “sit down and talk with” Iran.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
The rest of the whole world knows what Dufous said in Israel, Sect. Gates, where have you been?
May 20th, 2008 at 9:48 pmJesus Christ, Bob, grow some frockin stones, willya? Pathetic syncophant.
May 20th, 2008 at 9:53 pmHow soon before Mr. Gates is looking for a new job and Cheney brings Rummy back for the Iran follies?
May 20th, 2008 at 10:01 pmShrub couldn’t define appeasement, much less spell it correctly.
Rove still plying his craft I see…
May 20th, 2008 at 10:18 pmSorry for the OT
Someone earlier (sorry for not referencing the post) brought up the comments at freerepublic, and I have to bring up another point…
http://www.redstate.com/ stories/ elections/ 2008/ can_america_win_the_war_yes_we_can
They refer to a population of “grownups.” I find that to be an ambiguous lumping.
Sounds like someone is blogging from their “grownups’” basement again…..
May 20th, 2008 at 10:23 pmMaybe they got appeasement and basement confusicated…
May 20th, 2008 at 10:28 pmor an easement…
May 20th, 2008 at 10:30 pmsleaze-ment?
May 20th, 2008 at 10:34 pmSnicks, what’s your point and why are you linking to an anti-Obama post at Redstate? Tolls!
May 20th, 2008 at 10:56 pmRedstate wouldn’t know what a cogent post was.
May 21st, 2008 at 12:26 am‘Bring back the Guillotine.’ is what I’d like to say. But I think Vincent Bugliosi’s proposal in his new book (out May 27) to prosecute GW for the murder of 4000 Americans is a better start. Especially since, as Gov. of Texas, he signed executions for ~152 persons. More than any other in history.
May 21st, 2008 at 12:39 amActually, Alecto, Redstate does recognize cogent posts. That’s what I was banned for. And all I posted was, “what WMD’s?”, about ten times in a single thread. I never got an answer either.
May 21st, 2008 at 1:02 amI don’t recall = I don’t know what the president said…
What, Gates doen’t pay attention to when the president says contravertial things in foreign lands about other prominent Americans that he might have to make a statement on? He doesn’t read or watch the news? What gives with these people?
… And he’s in charge of the Military?
GATES = OXYMORON
May 21st, 2008 at 2:14 amSpecter noted that one day prior to Bush’s “appeasement” speech in Israel, Gates had said that the U.S needs to “sit down and talk with” Iran.
*************************************************************
Exactly. Gates almost certainly tried to wiggle out of the question because he probably knew that he’d be painting himself into a corner if he agreed with Bush’s statements. Spector, figuratively speaking, had Gates by the “short and curlies” — and Gates knew it. If he had tried to support Bush’s claims, he would have made himself seem like either a blatant liar and a hypocrite or a total incompetent (for the moment, we’ll overlook the fact that he’s quite probably both given the fact that he’s a member of the Bush administration). While most Bush administration officials seems to have a remarkably poor capacity for recall, there’s no way Gates could plausibly claim to have a memory so poor that he literally can’t remember what he said only the day before! If that were the case, he probably shouldn’t be allowed out on his own without supervision — let alone be serving as the Defense Secretary!
May 21st, 2008 at 5:20 amGuess who else is now appeasing dictators?
“Israel says it is holding indirect talks with Syria to reach a comprehensive peace agreement.
A statement by the Israeli prime minister’s office said both sides were talking “in good faith and openly”.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7412247.stm
May 21st, 2008 at 6:19 amAnd more appeasers of dictators.
“U.S. military personnel at Guantanamo Bay allegedly softened up detainees at the request of Chinese intelligence officials who had come to the island facility to interrogate the men — or they allowed the Chinese to dole out the treatment themselves, according to claims in a new government report.
Buried in a Department of Justice report released Tuesday are new allegations about a 2002 arrangement between the United States and China, which allowed Chinese intelligence to visit Guantanamo and interrogate Chinese Uighurs held there.”
http://abcnews.go.com/ Blotter/ story?id=4894921&page=1
May 21st, 2008 at 6:28 amMaybe we should rendition the Dalai Lama for Chinese intelligence in exchange for poisoned toothpaste for WalMart.
May 21st, 2008 at 7:56 amAnd more appeasers of dictators.
“U.S. military personnel at Guantanamo Bay allegedly softened up detainees at the request of Chinese intelligence officials who had come to the island facility to interrogate the men — or they allowed the Chinese to dole out the treatment themselves, according to claims in a new government report. — Bernarda
************************************************
With all due respect, Bernarda, don’t be silly! Bush’s remarks about “appeasement” weren’t intended to refer to all governments which fit the category of dictatorship. It only refers to those dictatorships which Bush has conveniently chosen to single out as evil for his own purposes — we know that, so do they, and I suspect most people in the corporate-controlled media do as well (and therein hangs a tale). The only people who don’t know that are the American voters who have apparently either forgotten how to think for themselves due to lack of practice or else never learned how, people who apparently still regard politicians and journalists in the same manner that they used to (and in which some still do) regard doctors…as highly-intelligent, knowledgeable, and trustworthy humanitarians who surely must know what they’re doing and therefore should not be doubted or questioned.
Bush’s deliberately misleading and provocative remarks about “appeasement” doesn’t change the fact that he himself chooses and/or has chosen to have dealings with China, Uzbekistan, and Saudi Arabia — all of them currently led by governments which meet the definition of a dictatorship — nor does it change the fact that the US government has in the past chosen to have dealings with other dictatorial regimes when those dealings serve our purposes. That’s the key — when they serve our purposes. At present, our dealings with China serve our purposes — our dealings with Iran do not. (While we’re on the subject…is it purely a coincidence that we’re rattling our saber against Iran, a country which currently has one of the five largest proven oil reserves on the planet but no current nuclear weapons, and not against North Korea, a country which has had an active nuclear weapons program but no oil?) However, all of this is academic as long as the Bush administration succeeds in distracting and deceiving the American people through this sort of rhetoric. It should be more than obvious by now that they don’t particularly care what the truth is — they’ll say and do whatever they feel is necessary in order to get their way.
May 21st, 2008 at 8:35 am