It all started with President Bush, speaking at the Knesset in Jerusalem, in celebration of Israel's 60th anniversary.
Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We've heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared, "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all 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. (applause)
Bud Simmons reminds us of the old saying: "When a stone is thrown into a pack of wolves, the one that yelps is the one that is hit."
Barack Obama immediately yelped with a faux anger that smacked of political calculation.
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."
In a speech this week, Obama reiterated his position: "I have never said I would negotiate with terrorists.”
Unfortunately for Sen. Obama, his own official campaign web site contradicts his assertions.
Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior.
Let's hit the pause button. The US State Department calls Iran the world's "most active state sponsor of terrorism."
AFP caption: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's president (L) pledges funds to Khaled Meshaal, the leader of Hamas.
Okay, hit play.
Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.
Membership in the WTO, economic investments, normal diplomatic relations... what else can these carrots be called except "appeasement" when no stick is involved?
In short, Obama has repeatedly stated he favors appeasing a country that calls Israel a "stinking corpse", America "the Great Satan", and foments terrorism worldwide.
Self-described liberal David Corn writing at the Nation, mocked Obama's "direct negotiation" gaffes in October 2007.
I can see the ad now: Kim Jong Il, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Fidel Castro, Bashar al-Assad, and Hugo Chavez all strolling into the White House, and a grinning Barack Obama greeting them with a friendly "Welcome, boys; what do you want to talk about?"
If Obama gets close to the Democratic presidential nomination, pro-Hillary Clinton forces could air such an ad. If he wins the nomination, the Republicans could hammer him with such a spot.
...At the newfangled YouTube/CNN debate [the question was asked of Obama]: In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since. In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?
I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous.
Furthermore, Obama's Middle East policy adviser secretly met with Hamas on multiple occasions.
Rob Malley, a Middle East policy adviser to likely Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama, resigned after news surfaced that he had been meeting with Hamas -- something Obama pledged he himself would never do...
...Last month, as former President Jimmy Carter was set to meet with Hamas leaders, Obama told a group of Jewish activists and clergy in Philadelphia that he would not sit down with Hamas.
And while such activity is presumably outside of Obama's control, it is nonetheless highly bizarre to see phone banks -- operating in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip -- calling into the United States to urge voters to support Obama.
Upon hearing that Hamas had officially endorsed Obama (calling him Kennedy-esque), Obama campaign manager David Axelrod said that "it's flattering when anybody says that Barack Obama would follow in his footsteps."
Lest anyone think we're cherry-picking Obama's statements, let's revisit another interview -- this one on NPR's All Things Considered (Oct. 2007) -- in which Obama said:
Oh, we have to deal with the role of Iran. The question is whether we deal with Iran through saber-rattling, or whether we deal with Iran by direct diplomatic engagement. The key for us is to engage in the sort of direct talks that we engaged in, by the way, when Iran cooperated with us in dealing with the Taliban in Afghanistan. It's that sort of direct engagement that this president has been unwilling to do, but under an Obama administration would be, I think a top priority.
Put simply, Obama favors direct talks at the presidential level -- the sort of engagement that President Bush "has been unwilling to do."
EIB adds the kicker:
It used to be... when Barack... hit the scene last summer the only thing we couldn't mention were his ears. He went out [and] told Maureen Dowd he's very sensitive about his ears, and she said, "We're trying to toughen you up." Hasn't worked. Since then, when we could only not mention his ears, now we cannot talk about his mother, now we can't talk about his father... we can't talk about his wife. Now we can't talk about his preacher... we can't talk about his voting record. And we dare not talk about his religion. And we don't use the appeasement word, can't say appeasement now. We can't talk about color. We can't talk about race. We can't talk about lack of color. We can't talk about his friends, mobsters and bombers, terrorists. We can't talk about schooling. Can't talk about his name. Can't talk about his experience. Can't talk about his income. Can't talk about his flag pin. In the beginning it was just his ears. Now he's a messiah, we can't say anything about the guy without it being a mean-spirited personal attack...
For a guy who wants to be president, there's a lot we can't talk about. And there's a hell of a lot of lying going on -- enough lying that I prefer to call him "Hillary Obama".
Most importantly, he continues to lie about direct engagement with terrorists -- even his own website calls him a liar -- and now he's incessantly whining about those very statements coming home to roost.
Barack Hamas Obama makes Jimmy Carter look like Patton.
Hat tips: Jim Geraghty and Larwyn