Obama, Appeasement and Media Bias
Another sign of the Democrats grasping at straws in their eagerness to attack Republicans is their attempt to read an attack on the likely Democratic presidential nominee in President Bush’s address last Thursday to the Knesset in Jerusalem.
Yet, in that speech, the president made no reference to Barack Obama nor to the Democratic Party, mentioning the name of only one Democrat, former President Harry S Truman and then in a mostly favorable context. So, what was the reference which so excited all the leading Democrats as well as a growing list of left-wing bloggers, ever looking to be offended by conservatives’ comments and Republican remarks? Well, you see, the president faulted those (”some” was his exact word) who would “negotiate with the terrorists and radicals,” likening them to Nazi appeasers.
New York Times reporters Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Jim Rutenberg observe that the president’s remarks have been “widely interpreted as a rebuke to Senator Barack Obama,” who has advocated greater engagement with countries like Iran and Syria.”
Note the clever use of the passive here. “Widely interpreted” if your idea of a broad-range of interpretation includes Democrats and their supporters in the mainstream media.
And the Democrats have been quick to allege that Obama was the target of these remarks. As the Wall Street Journal put it, “the party’s top four Democrats [have] come roaring out of the blocks in unison.” Even Joe Biden joined in the fun, using an expletive to fault the president for saying something he didn’t say.
Given the speed of the new media, that due to my focus on gay marriage last week, I’m only getting to this now, it seems that other bloggers and pundits have already said pretty much all that I wanted to say about this, but it so amused me to watch the Democrats outraged over something that wasn’t said, that I just had to chime in. They really are grasping at straws to find offensive Republican statements.
But, it does say something about Barack Obama’s prickliness that, as James Taranto put it, when he and his supporters “hear the president talking about countenancing hatred, appeasing terrorists and breaking ties with Israel, they think: He’s talking about us!“
In observing that since the president did not accuse Obama or other Democrats of appeasement, Jim Geraghty wonders if they were “using mental telepathy to identify those Bush refers to as ’some.’“
The Anchoress had a great roundup about this brouhaha, building on a point she made in a previous post that “the headlines and stories have moved away from Bush and any full-text, contextual display of the speech to making it all about Obama.“
It’s a pretty amazing speech about the founding of the State of Israel, the history of our relationship with that democracy and our shared goals. But, the MSM is more interested in creating a fuss about something that isn’t’ even in the speech so instead of inviting readers to consider what the president actually said, they dwell on what he didn’t say.
Seeing this as yet another example of the media spinning for Obama, she writes, “If I were a journalist, I’d be embarrassed.“
Anyway, just read the whole thing and follow some of her links, for there’s lots of good stuff in the posts she references.
She really gets at the meaning of this hullabaloo, something which I’ve described as the media’s borrowing from Obama’s playbook. This is a story about media cheerleading for Obama. here’s more to it than that. Let’s also bear in mind how quick the Obama campaign was to assume the president was talking about his campaign when he referenced those who would appease terrorists.
39 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Exactly. It’s called, “guilty conscience”.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 18, 2008 @ 11:15 pm - May 18, 2008
Mark Steyn has a tart take on it, as always:
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/president-obama-words-2044703-bush-talking
I am starting to love that guy. He’s kinda hot, for a straight guy.
For the record (because some people don’t follow links), here is what President Bush actually said:
The Senator he’s talking about there was A REPUBLICAN. (David Boren of Idaho) And “some” of the modern-day appeasers whom the President rebukes may well be found IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. Mark Steyn notes, as one possible example, James Baker, whose Iraq Study Group was against the surge and willing to basically sell Iraq to various terror-sponsoring nations.
But, the majority of modern-day appeasers are to be found with the Democrats; plus, many leftists are closet narcissists; so naturally they assumed or “knew” it was all about them.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 19, 2008 @ 12:04 am - May 19, 2008
Correction: It was Senator William BorAH of Idaho. (Still a Republican.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 19, 2008 @ 12:07 am - May 19, 2008
I took Bush’s statement as a comment on the Democrats, and Obama specifically, but I was glad he said it. The dangers of the appeasement philosophy need to be brought up in the public eye, and I hope that the Republicans continue to highlight Obama’s errant philosophies and naiveties on these international matters.
Comment by NaturallyGay — May 19, 2008 @ 1:15 am - May 19, 2008
I took Bush’s comments as a slam on Jimmy Carter, seeing as Jimmuh was just over there about a week ago, talking to Israel’s enemy Hamas, and Israel was so offended they snubbed him. Seemed pretty obvious to me.
But then again, Obama has a great many former Carter hacks working for him.
Democrats are determined not to be “swifboated” this election. I just wish Republicans would occasionally circle the wagons like that.
Comment by American Elephant — May 19, 2008 @ 2:27 am - May 19, 2008
How long would the American people put up with a whiny bitch president like Obama?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 19, 2008 @ 3:21 am - May 19, 2008
How long would the American people put up with a whiny bitch president like Obama?
Hopefully, no longer than half a term. But only if the GOP manages to grow a brain and a pair of testicles, and let people know that if they elect them in 2010, there will be opposition to the inevitable excesses of an Obama administration.
What I think is more dangerous, frankly, is if McCain wins and the GOP takes the lesson that to win, they have to go hard left on every issue except keeping troops in Iraq.
Comment by V the K — May 19, 2008 @ 7:05 am - May 19, 2008
Thank you, Dan. This needed to be said and I’m sick of the hypocrisy of Dems on this. They have spent the past 8 years castigating Bush while overseas and then whine like stuck pigs when the man makes a comment that may or may not have referenced Obama.
Comment by John — May 19, 2008 @ 7:50 am - May 19, 2008
Obama is sensitive to comments about his huge, simian ears. But you can not avoid the fact that he has a tin ear (or ears) when it comes to the nuances of politics.
A well seasoned politician would have roared that “Bush is not referring to me, because I am not an appeaser!!!” He would have gone on to talk about Bush fiddling while Gaza burned and then talked about the marvelous things that will come from his active engagement with the major players and his down and dirty, hard work diplomacy.
But no. He ran from the school yard screaming “Teacher, teacher the President is attacking me and it is against the rules. Pat my head. Say I am right. Tell me my ears aren’t flapping funny.”
Everything is off limits in the drive to hope and change. Only Barry can talk above the fray. Anyone who tries to engage the debate is off limits, practicing the politics of division and probably a racist.
Obama is such a little boy. And, his wife …….. well, let’s just say that they are a power couple on parade. I hope they have a Billy Carter, Roger Clinton, or a Sam Houston Johnson hidden in the closet for comic relief. These two are charming like a Hummer parked on an angle and taking up three spaces in front of the grocery store.
Comment by heliotrope — May 19, 2008 @ 9:15 am - May 19, 2008
Here in Atlanta there was some hoo-ha about a bar that was selling Obama ‘08 shirts with a monkey on ‘em. I do agree that this is a pretty nasty racial insult but we have to figure into that calculus the Chimpy McHitlerburton phenomenon.
Of course this was an attack on the Dems generally and Barry specifically. Of course it is coordinated to some degree with McCain. Again, W demonstrates a greater tactical skill at the game of politics than his opponents. For the past seven odd years the Lefties have abused their liberties of speach to bark stupidities to each other unquestioned. The minute W starts hitting back it is a new ballgame and it was ALWAYS on his timetable. He IS the decider, by our Constitution and he has proven time and again confident in his exercise of those powers including media access. For those who have said the WH PR office is MIA, this is a thudding right hand of, not a defense as some have hoped for, but a counteroffensive. This is a superior tack, in my book. Obammy and the Dems are feeling it because it is utterly unexpected. On this issue Bush has always been within the Left’s decision loop. Google up OODA, friends, for an explanation and look for more like this. You will see McCain do prep work as he did with Barry re Hamas.
Comment by megapotamus — May 19, 2008 @ 11:10 am - May 19, 2008
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 05/19/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
Comment by David M — May 19, 2008 @ 11:15 am - May 19, 2008
Best comment I read on the web (sorry I don’t remember who), was how it’s amazing that Barry can sit in church for 20 years and not hear a word his preacher says.
But President Bush has one paragraph in his speech about appeasement, and the big O is wailing like a baby - it’s not fair to attack me!!!
Comment by Leah — May 19, 2008 @ 11:33 am - May 19, 2008
#12 - Hi Leah, I read the same article too and laughed my keyster off. I think it was either Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter, but I forgot which one said it.
And ILC at #2 - yes, Mark Steyn is a hottie and I personally think he goes both ways. At least I hope he goes both ways.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 19, 2008 @ 11:52 am - May 19, 2008
Also, now B. Hussein Obama is adding his wife to the list of “Things We Cannot Discuss About the Obamamessiah.” Even though she has inserted HERSELF into the national discussion. That alone makes her fair game. Period.
Hey Barry, here’s a tip - if you don’t want us to talk about your wife, DON’T LET HER CAMPAIGN FOR YOU.
Is it just me, or does this guy have a Hitler complex? The comparison points of screaming adulating crowds, lapdog media and fascist ideology are just mind-blowing.
Not to mention his racist mega-church and ranting pastor. You know, the one he spent 20 years in front of who never heard the phrase “God Damn America.” Yet he claimed he was slandered in a speech by President Bush even though his name was never uttered.
What’s next? Will B. Hussein Obama start spouting talking points? You know, like “The Jews are our misfortune?” “Work brings freedom?” “Sieg Heil?”
Will we have to wear an “O” instead of a flag on our lapels and be sent to re-education camps if we don’t?
Laugh and snicker if you must. But I’ve been around enough family members who lived through this the first time around. And some viruses are better off dead.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 19, 2008 @ 12:01 pm - May 19, 2008
What’s funny is an administration spokesperson said that everyone was amused, since the remarks were aimed at President Carter and not Senator Obama.
Comment by HCN — May 19, 2008 @ 1:03 pm - May 19, 2008
From the moment I heard that part of President Bush’s speech I assumed the paragraph was aimed at Obama and the Democratic left. (We know it was not Hillary about whom he was talking. She has repeatedly criticized Obama for his willingness to, for example, talk to the president of Iran before agreements are negotiated by persons at lower pay grades.)
I totally disagree with Obama and how he proposes to handle foreign policy. He’s horribly naive. He isn’t running for student council president. The issues are more serious than getting the school’s main rival to stop stealing the mascot the week of the homecoming game.
But I wish President Bush had left the “offending” paragraph out of his speech. Omission would not have altered his message; the paragraph above the “offending” one sufficiently made the point.
I have long criticized Democrats for criticizing American foreign policy in general or the president in particular while standing on foreign soil (for example: Jimmy Carter trashing Bush while overseas to receive the Nobel Peace Prize). So I am (at least) disappointed that, in my sincere judgment, President Bush chose the occasion of a state visit to an ally’s capital tk fire a shot across the bow of Obama’s high-flying campaign.
I would have had no problem whatsoever had the “offending” paragraph been spoken by the president in a speech or press conference here in the states.
I miss the good old days when politics ended at the shoreline. An honorable liberal like Hubert Humphrey could fight President Eisenhower (or President Nixon) to the mat on every issue, foreign or domestic, and sometimes did. But when Humphrey traveled out of the country he left politics at home and was an American, not a Democrat or Republican, while overseas. There were a lot of officials like him, both Democratic and Republican.
It’s too bad that today we don’t have many officials, in either party, as honorable as Humphrey.
Comment by Trace Phelps — May 19, 2008 @ 2:49 pm - May 19, 2008
#16 - Trace, I normally agree with your postings but not this one. How on earth did the President “fire a shot across the bow of Obama’s high-flying campaign?” As far as I can recall, he never once mentioned anyone by name.
Also, as you rightly point out, it is the Dhimmicrats who go abroad (Carter, Algore, Clinton et al) who spew their anti-Bush and anti-American vitriol. Yet you never hear Rep Rahm Emanuel (D-NY) chant “politics stop at the water’s edge” unless the person who is doing it has an (R) after their name.
Dana Perino said it best: Bush is President until January 2009. Until then, he is the one who directs foreign policy and speaks for the USA. And most Dhimmicrats need to realize that fact ASAP.
As far as calling out Obama, Carter or whomever, I’ll just say this - if I create a shoe and someone puts it on and loudly announces that it fits, it is NOT my problem.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 19, 2008 @ 3:09 pm - May 19, 2008
The fact that the administration was planning on dealing with a fall out related to the remarks as related to Jimmy Carter means they were aware of it. They knew it might be taken in as an accusation against a democrat, which would cause other democrats to respond in defense. Obama is now the standard bearer for the party, so he will be the most vocal in countering attacks on democrats from now….until he loses the General Election. Making it into an Obama focused attack, helps his campaign cement that he is now the nominee and he is the one the Republicans are gunning for.
So the democrats took it as a shot against them and fired back, why is that new? Its not like this is the first time or the last time the opposition party took a President’s speech as some kind of attack. Just fight back, no reason you can’t direct the conversation to prove Obama would be an appeaser.
Comment by Darkeyedresolve — May 19, 2008 @ 5:37 pm - May 19, 2008
“Oh, Barry! If the shoe fits, wear it…..”
What children….the Dhimicrats just will not be able to reconcile a workable majority of the Electorate at this rate.
Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — May 19, 2008 @ 5:58 pm - May 19, 2008
#18 - “They knew it might be taken in as an accusation against a democrat, which would cause other democrats to respond in defense.”
Nice try, DER, but no cigar. The original quote is actually an admission against interest, which is argument for stronger validity since the original quote was by GOP Sen. Borah (D-ID), as ILC pointed out.
The obvious question is why the Dhimmicrats would be offended by something that a Republican Senator said.
As I’ve said before, if you put on a shoe and loudly proclaim that it fits, it ain’t my problem.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 19, 2008 @ 5:58 pm - May 19, 2008
Bush’s speech in Israel, whether directly an attack on Obama, was clearly an attempt to politicize while addressing a foreign nation. This is what the democratic party really had a problem with. This is the same rhetoric we hear from Bush during the 2004 election. The country bought it then. They’re not buying it so much anymore.
Comment by James — May 19, 2008 @ 7:13 pm - May 19, 2008
Are you so sure, James in #21?
How?
And does the rhetoric borrow phrases that Obama has used on the stump, a trick politicians often use to disparage their rivals without addressing them directly?
Comment by GayPatriotWest — May 19, 2008 @ 7:43 pm - May 19, 2008
Sen Byrd has now come out for Obama. I knew he would. It is his way of paying penance for being a KKK member. Even with Byrd’s help, Obama will lose West Virginia by a landslide even with McCain screwing up.
Comment by John W — May 19, 2008 @ 7:53 pm - May 19, 2008
Peter, #17, tell me the truth, friend. When you heard President Bush’s speech, didn’t that word “some” just leap out at you? From that instant I could think of but one target, the really naive Mr. Obama. (Had the speech been given a year ago or so I might have thought the paragraph was aimed at James Baker, Lee Hamilton and others on the Iraq Study Group.)
I do think the Democrats greatly overreacted, especially the whining Obama, to the mention of Hitler’s aggression in that paragraph.
Comment by Trace Phelps — May 19, 2008 @ 9:54 pm - May 19, 2008
#24 - Actually Trace, none of the words “jumped out” at me. Unlike the MSM, I don’t cherry-pick parts of speeches to get the maximum benefit out of them. It’s like having decorated a spectacular bedroom but all anyone can focus on is how the drapes are a tad too short for the windows.
What I do know is that it was one of the best speeches of his administration and it came too late to save what might have been a great 2nd term.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 19, 2008 @ 11:50 pm - May 19, 2008
Of course, the amusement value has been watching the Dems like Biden scream about namecalling Obama….. less than a year after they were calling him “naive” when it came to foreign policy.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 20, 2008 @ 12:12 am - May 20, 2008
The most amusing thing to me is how all the big liberal failures came out of the woodwork to circle the wagons around Snobama. Tom Daschle (WTF???), Joe Biden, Denis Kucinich, John Kerry, the Breck Girl, Pelosi, etc. Tom Daschle? Tom Daschle??? Seriously, WTF?
And then the liberals set out on an amusing slash & burn campaign to redefine appeasement so it doesn’t fit them or Snobama. I even heard a liberal radio host, Ed Schultz I think, try to say that he heard Bush say “a candidate”.
But the most amusing thing by far is the fact that in all the kerfuffle, NONE of the liberals that I’ve seen have said that what Bush said wasn’t true. They all said “You can’t say that!”, but they NEVER once said that it wasn’t true. And there’s the self incrimination.
That and the lack of leadership of an obvious total pussy who will whine, cry and make a speech everytime things don’t go his way.
Can we go to Pussama now?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 20, 2008 @ 1:35 am - May 20, 2008
After reading a liberal defend Hitler, I stand corrected.
THAT’S the funniest.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 20, 2008 @ 4:37 am - May 20, 2008
TGC, Ramsey has been getting some attention for his defense of Hitler, but considering the repulsiveness of what he wrote - not nearly enough! Here’s my fisking of him:
Oh. My. Freaking. God.
Um, that’s “reasonable”? And what is your fascination with “German authority”? Aren’t we really talking about *Hitlerian* authority, and death camps? (Real ones… not the fake ones Bush and Cheney are supposed to have for gays in the backwoods of Wyoming… Real ones.)
Really? Would the Austrians have said “Oooh, no bloodshed”? And what about the blood of Austrian Jews? Does that not count, because it’s only the Joooz?
The FREE CITY of Danzig? Which means, after annexation by Hitler, it was… not free, right? As for the Sudeten region as a mere “border area” of the Czech Republic: it was a mountain region that was Czechoslovakia’s only plausible defense against Germany; annexing it to Germany was tantamount to total German conquest, Hitler’s real aim. Guess you’ve forgotten all that.
As Taranto points out: That worked, now didn’t it? Whew! World War 2 was averted! It never happened!
So that makes Munich OK? And means we should never draw any useful lessons from it?
You mean: in 1938 the world’s *craven, stupid people* knew less. That is true. Unfortunately, the freedom-loving and wise people like Churchill, or (say) Jewish leaders, knew quite a lot about Hitler - who had published _Mein Kampf_ in the 1920s - and unfortunately, they weren’t listened to.
Ramsey is what passes for some liberals’ “thinking” about war and peace in the 21st century. We’re living in 1938 all over again.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 20, 2008 @ 6:00 am - May 20, 2008
#29 - ILC, that was so brilliant that I honestly cannot say any more about this topic. KUDOS!
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 20, 2008 @ 10:11 am - May 20, 2008
Thanks Peter. Of course, as you’d expect, Ed Morrissey says it that much better.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 20, 2008 @ 11:45 am - May 20, 2008
Let me get this straight: when the Bush administration talks to the Iranians that’s not appeasement but when the Obama administration hypothetically does so in the future, it will be.
The Bush family ought to know about appeasement. They did business with the Nazis up until the day the Feds stopped them.
Comment by Houndentenor — May 20, 2008 @ 12:16 pm - May 20, 2008
Peter, #25, I agree that it was one of President Bush’s finest speeches. That’s why I was so disappointed that one paragraph — a paragraph that wasn’t really needed to make the president’s point — became a political football and took the focus off the president’s eloquent reaffirmation of the bonds between Israel and the United States.
Comment by Trace Phelps — May 20, 2008 @ 1:14 pm - May 20, 2008
You don’t get out much, do you Houndentenor? It is indeed all about who is doing the talking… and why, i.e., to what end, or with what preconditions; what message; what policy.
When Neville Chamberlain went to Munich in 1938 and talked to Hitler, that was unhelpful to world peace, as we know. If, instead, Winston Churchill had been in power and had done it, delivering a different message (”Hands off Czechoslovakia”), it might have been very helpful to world peace. See how that works? The message. The preconditions (if any). The purpose.
Obama, we know, has expressed his willingness to talk to Iran without any particular conditions or goals in mind, achieving nothing except the implementation of a policy of appeasement.
To the extent that the Bush Administration’s policy toward Iran has devolved into one of appeasement, their talking to Iran may be equally bad. Or, to the extent that the Bush Administration is standing up for U.S. interests with Iran, their talking may be good. It depends.
Typical pathetic Houndentenor attempt at changing the subject. Even if true (which I doubt, or at least in the one-sided form presented).
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 20, 2008 @ 1:45 pm - May 20, 2008
#32 - “They did business with the Nazis up until the day the Feds stopped them.”
I call bullshit on that one, Lassie. Please provide sources for your statement - and no, HuffPo or DailyKaka are not acceptable.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 20, 2008 @ 3:35 pm - May 20, 2008
Which goes to show you don’t know what appeasement means.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 20, 2008 @ 4:33 pm - May 20, 2008
#36 - TGC, Winston Churchill said it best:
“An appeaser is someone who feeds everyone to the crocodiles, hoping it will eat him last.”
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 20, 2008 @ 5:10 pm - May 20, 2008
Caroline Glick (correctly) rips Obama to pieces:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/obamas_unique_appeasement_styl.html
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 20, 2008 @ 5:27 pm - May 20, 2008
#38: Thanks for recommending Caroline Glick’s column, ILC. She’s fantastic! I encourage everyone to check out her columns.
Comment by Sean A — May 20, 2008 @ 10:54 pm - May 20, 2008