War and appeasement
Speaking to the Knesset, President Bush suggested that Obama and Democrats (who else could he have meant?) favor a policy of appeasement toward terrorists.
Obama fired back, accusing Bush of using the “60th anniversary of Israel’s independence to launch a false political attack.”
Joe Lieberman then issued a statement agreeing with Bush:
President Bush got it exactly right today when he warned about the threat of Iran and its terrorist proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah. It is imperative that we reject the flawed and naïve thinking that denies or dismisses the words of extremists and terrorists when they shout “Death to America” and “Death to Israel,” and that holds that – if only we were to sit down and negotiate with these killers – they would cease to threaten us. It is critical to our national security that our commander-in-chief is able to distinguish between America’s friends and America’s enemies, and not confuse the two.
So if one is to follow the line of reasoning that “tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions,” as Obama calls for, are exactly analogous with “appeasement,” what’s the corollary of Lieberman’s remarks? What’s the alternative policy Lieberman is promoting? If talks=appeasement, then is it fair to say that no talks=war? (That is, after all, how we handled Hitler.)
Is Lieberman calling for war on Iran? Is that what McCain stands for? Is he prepared to say so? And will the Jews who join in tagging Obama a latter-day Chamberlain settle for nothing less?
JustASC is written by Andrew Silow-Carroll, Editor-in-Chief of the 