BCT Editorial – 5/19/08

This page was last updated on May 19, 2008.

Shameful charges; Editorial; Beaver County Times; May 19, 2008.

The editorial subtitle is “Bush’s comments on dealing with terrorists have no basis in reality.” As you’ll read below, the fact that President Bush’s comments have “basis in reality” is what has the Times’ underwear in a twist.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“President Bush’s loose lips continue to damage American policy in the Middle East and roil domestic politics.

“Speaking before the Israeli Knesset last week, the president basically accused Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama of appeasing terrorists. He didn’t stop there. In this very symbolic forum, he also alluded to Nazi Germany and Adolf Hitler.”

[RWC] Review President Bush’s speech and you find Mr. Bush never mentioned Barack Obama, not even close. That’s why the editorial used the weasel words “basically accused.”

If it weren’t such a serious topic, it would have been fun reading this editorial to watch the Times try to run interference for Mr. Obama. You’ll note the editorial never explains why the Times and its candidate believe Mr. Bush was attacking Mr. Obama.

“‘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,’ Bush said Thursday during a speech to Israel’s parliament. He said that kind of thinking recalls the shortsightedness of mid-20th century politicians who wanted to appease Adolf Hitler.

“Bush’s baseless charge is another example of his black-and-white world view and the unrealistic Middle East foreign policy that results from it.”

[RWC] Since the Times chose not to reprint the entire relevant quote, here it is. “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 have 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.”

Who was the senator Mr. Bush quoted? It was Republican William Borah of Idaho. Yep, it’s clear Mr. Bush was attacking Democrats and Barack Obama.

“Obama — and others — have never suggested that the United States should talk to terrorists. Instead, they point out, realistically, that there can be no solution to the mess in Iraq and resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without the governments of Syria and Iran being involved in the process. They want the United States to negotiate with these governments because, no matter how onerous their policies are, they can’t be ignored.”

[RWC] “Obama — and others — have never suggested that the United States should talk to terrorists?” Let’s look at that claim.

Iran provides weapons and financial support to the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah as well as “insurgents” attacking coalition troops in Iraq. If you provide weapons and financial support to terrorists, are you not a terrorist yourself? The Obama campaign website says, “Iran has sought nuclear weapons, supports militias inside Iraq and terror across the region, and its leaders threaten Israel and deny the Holocaust.”

Now let’s go to a transcript of the fourth Democrat debate held in July 2007 and the following question and answer.

“Question: 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?

“Obama: 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.”

Now let’s go to Mr. Obama’s campaign website. The foreign policy page says, “Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions [my emphasis].”

The Times and its current candidate can try to wiggle out of this all they want, but Mr. Obama is on the record.

“The Associated Press reported prominent Republicans such as Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., and Bush family adviser and former Secretary of State James A. Baker III agree with Obama. Their point is that the United States gains nothing by freezing out distasteful governments that might give Washington something it wants, and that one need not compromise moral authority in the process.”

[RWC] I could find nothing to support the assertion in the first sentence. It’s too bad the editorials don’t provide enough specifics so readers can check claims like this. While Mr. Baker agrees these countries need to be engaged (which the U.S. does at a nonpresidential level), I didn’t find anything saying he believes the President of the United States should meet with the leaders of these countries “without preconditions.” Remember, Mr. Obama’s position is that he would personally meet with these thugs “without preconditions.”

“[D]istasteful governments” is not exactly the same as terrorist-supporting. A lot of the world’s governments are “distasteful;” a relative handful support terrorism. I wonder why the editorial failed to note Hillary Clinton disagreed with Mr. Obama’s “without precondition” position. Perhaps the Times is hedging its bet in case Mrs. Clinton becomes the Democrat nominee. After all, the Times wouldn’t want an inconvenient editorial quote popping up during the general election campaign.

“Yet the president blindly pursues a policy that rejects talking to these major players in the region because they support terrorism.”

[RWC] At least the editorial concedes these countries are terrorist states.

Hmm, I missed all the meetings between Bill Clinton and the leaders of these countries, though he actually had terrorist Yasser Arafat at the White House. That worked well, didn’t it? After all, Palestinian terrorists “beat their swords into plowshares” a long time ago, right?

I also missed the meeting between Jimmy Carter and Ayatollah Khomeini during the hostage crisis of 1979-1981.

“The president also is being hypocritical. As many people have pointed out, the United States does negotiate with rogue states. Over the last two years, the Bush administration has been holding talks with North Korea — one of the three ‘axis of evil’ nations (Iraq and Iran were the others) — in an attempt to reach a nuclear disarmament deal.”

[RWC] The editorial performed some verbal gymnastics (read: deception) in a lame attempt to slap the “hypocritical” label on Mr. Bush.

First, the editorial slides from countries that “support terrorism” to the more general “rogue states.” North Korea is pretty objectionable, but to the best of my knowledge it doesn’t fund or supply weapons to terrorists. Further, nuclear disarmament discussions with North Korea began long before Mr. Bush took office.

Second, Mr. Obama’s statements indicate he would employ “direct presidential diplomacy” with these thugs, meaning he would meet personally with these guys “without preconditions.” Mr. Bush hasn’t met with any of these people, including North Korea’s leader.

“In regard to domestic politics, his smear charges against Obama and others are shameful — and all too typical of this president and his administration.”

[RWC] I know this isn’t original, but methinks the Times and Mr. Obama doth protest too much.