May 19, 2008 - 7:00am
Tornoe's Toons: Ronald Reagan, the Great Appeaser
By Rob Tornoe
President Bush got into a lot of hot water last week when he suggested to the Israeli Knesset that Barack Obama was an appeaser for being willing to talk to Iran.
The Boston Globe pointed out on Saturday that Bush must have forgot that his ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, has been holding talks about Iraq with an Iranian counterpart.
Or that among his few foreign policy achievements are the agreements his diplomats negotiated with Libya's Moammar Khadafy and Kim Jong Il of North Korea.
Or even the fact that John McCain seems to hold the same position as Obama on speaking to Hamas.
Maybe a mirror is in order.
--------------------------
For more from Politicker.com editorial cartoonist Rob Tornoe, click here.
Article Tools
Contributors
James Pindell
In this amazing 18 month presidential campaign a few moments stick out. Barack Obama's first campaign appearance. Rudy Giuliani's phone call ... >
Reid Wilson
If only Al Gore had asked Bill Clinton to more actively campaign for him during the final weeks of the 2000 election, the vice president would have ... >
Rob Tornoe
Detroit News editorial cartoonist Henry Payne has done a parody version of the controversial New Yorker cover which will appear on the ... >
-
Jason Horowitz - New York Observer
Steve Hildebrand was getting an earful. Barack Obama’s soft-spoken deputy campaign manager had just finished a panel discussion at the Netroots Nation convention in Austin, Texas, on July 19, during which he had called on liberal bloggers to help meet the demands of the 24-hour news cycle by beating back criticisms of the candidate. The more people there were participating in the campaign, he argued, the greater the likelihood of Mr. Obama’s election and an enduring Democratic majority.
-
Joe Conason - New York Observer
Barack Obama knows which countries border Iraq; he understands the difference between Shia and Sunni; and he is probably aware that Czechoslovakia no longer exists—but as John McCain complains, the young senator has “no military experience whatsoever.” Indeed, like both of the last two presidents, Mr. Obama possesses scant credentials in national security and foreign policy.
| Politicker INTERACTIVE | |
 |
The Pindell Report Keep up with the races in your state |
 |
Lawmaker Profile Follow the funding of your representatives |
 |
270 to Win Predict the road to the White House |
Poll
Most Active Stories
- Presidential candidates coming to a comic book shop near you
- Torricelli on The Record, aka the 'Hacks of Hackensack'
- Pick the Cabinet early
- Crites comes out as AG candidate
- Michigan Democrats take to YouTube against Romney
- Weekly Standard parodies controversial New Yorker cover
- Zimmer ad pulled from YouTube
- I'm back, and what a week I missed!
- High gas prices are good
- With his caucus in fighting shape, Kean sees GOP poised for more wins
Politicker in the News
Syndicate
Is there any surprise that
Is there any surprise that Bush has tried to distort the facts when it comes to Obama wanting to talk to our enemies. Why are we still paying attention to him anyway?
What do you call it when White House officials say one thing in public and almost the exact opposite in private?
You might call it lying.
President Bush yesterday took the highly provocative rhetorical step of likening those who support negotiating with our enemies to Nazi appeasers. For most people following the presidential campaign, it was an obvious attack on Democratic frontrunner Barack Obama, who has been particularly critical of Bush's refusal to talk with leaders who disagree with him.
On the record, White House officials issued disingenuous denials that Bush was talking about Obama. But on background, they admitted as much.
CNN's Ed Henry reported that "White House aides privately acknowledged the remarks were aimed at the presidential candidate and others in his party."
Sasha Issenberg writes for the Boston Globe: "White House officials indicated that the criticism applied to Obama."
Brian Williams reported on the NBC Nightly News that "it was clear to those listening that it was in part to make a point about Barack Obama back home." NBC correspondent John Yang then added: "Privately, White House officials said the shoe fits the Democratic frontrunner."
When asked at yesterday's gaggle if Bush's remark was "in any way directed at Senator Obama," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino replied: "It is not." And not only that: She tried to blame Obama for such an interpretation. "I understand when you're running for office you sometimes think the world revolves around you," she said. "That is not always true and it is not true in this case."
Umm... the facts?
Firstly, since nobody was mentioned by name in Bush's Knesset speech, you would only assume he was referring to Obama if you feel Obama is an appeaser... Tells you something about how Democrats and Obama himself feel about his position. Nobody's denying he's an appeaser, they just don't appreciate the President pointing out that appeasement doesn't work.
Secondly, President Bush did not sit down directly with Kim Jong Il or Gaddhafy. The diplomacy that did take place involved preconditions, and we did not confront North Korea one-on-one, but rather as part of the six-party talks.
These situations are wildly different from Iran, as both N. Korea and Libya caved to international pressure and fear of military action in the wake of the successful ouster of Saddam Hussein.
Let's not forget that Ahmedinejad's stated foreign policy objective is to wipe Israel off the map, and we know that he is trying to develop a nuclear weapon. No amount of diplomacy will deter him from that objective, without the fear of possible military intervention or the sanctions which are currently imposed. We have offered him nuclear energy, which he turned down.
President Bush was right to say that we shouldn't forget the mistakes of the first Holocaust, while Ahmedinejad plans the next one.
Barack Obama should review
Barack Obama should review the basics of American history and the fundamentals of diplomacy.
In comparing various enemies, one is by needs more willing to talk to hostile nuclear super-powers (as Nixon, and Reagan did with China and the Soviet Union) that have the ability to destroy us than to talk to a hostile power like Iran. In the former case, we have few options, in the latter plenty. For the analogy to be valid, did Nixon and Reagan have summits with Castro as they did with Mao or Gorbachev—and if not, why not?
And is not Obama's speak-anytime-anywhere-to-anyone -policy at odds with many of our allies in the EU who haven't gone that far with an Iran or Venezuela?
Post new comment