Barack Obama hasn’t come up with too many ‘zingers’ since entering the White House, but he rolled out a peach today when he was asked about claims from Republicans that he practices ‘appeasement’ with his foreign policy. Obama replied “and the 22 out of 30 top al-Qaida leaders who’ve been taken off the field whether I engage in appeasement. Or whoever’s left out there. Ask them about that”. Touche.
The word ‘appeasement’ has become pretty dirty in political circles because it is used to describe the failed attempt to contain the threat of Hitler prior to World War 2. And the word ‘appease’ does literally mean to placate someone by bowing down to most or all of their demands. So for a leader, it’s a pretty damaging accusation, because leaders are supposed to be able to get what they want.
But beyond this debate, there’s a wider point, and that’s the idea that while ‘appeasement’ might be ‘bad’, there’s a lot of to be said for a foreign policy built on consensus. And I’d argue that this is what Republicans are really attacking, except they use the word ‘appeasement’ because it carries such obvious connotations. Obama certainly gives the impression of listening to the rest of the world’s opinions, although there were recently a few Pakistan border guards who might disagree with that assessment…
Um… We would ask Osama bin Laden, but President Obama had the Military dump his body into the Ocean, because President Obama was afraid of violating Islamic burial law or something.
Well, at least he doesn’t bow to anybody… um…
‘there’s a lot of to be said for a foreign policy built on consensus’
HAHA!! So are we to assume; that YOU would EVER support any consensus for a Republican President, on ANYTHING? No. No, you wouldn’t. your point is moot. You’re a Democratic Party Muppet. BTW. Hows Libya?
maybe not exactly on topic but still relevant: antiladen.wordpress.com