Of course it's Rove Politics 101 - he's advising the campaign?

Besides, what else can McCain do? Run on a great record? He has no choice but to attack.

I hope Obama smacks back even harder this time.

LOL!

Come on, McWar: Bomb bomb bomb,
bomb bomb Iran,
bomb bomb bomb,
bomb bomb Iran -

O bomb Iran!
That's my favorite song...

Obama should use essentially the same tactic: question the legitimacy of McCain's experience. If you keep making bad decisions, what is your experience worth? And for himself, he points to making good judgments in the past (e.g., Iraq war).

Obama specifically referenced Reagan talking with Gorbachev, which is very smart. Because by attacking the notion that we would talk to our enemies, McCain indirectly put himself in the position of going against Reagan. Consider that Reagan is practically worshipped as a god by those voters McCain most needs in the fall, and he's in a tricky spot.

Same old GOP bullshit.

"You should be scared of Obama. He's reckless and wants to talk to Iran. You should be quaking by now."

I just HOPE McCain, at some point, brings up Obama's "rhetoric." What is it the Republicans have used to keep their hold for eight years other than fearmongering rhetoric?

-

Obama/Olbermann '08!

The question of whether McCain will start a war with Iran is now becoming a huge part of this campaign.

I can't see that ending well for him.

McCain is his own hype man. I expect Team O to knock this one out of the park. Everytime the McCain responds, I have more respect for the Clinton camp--they were just heads and shoulders better than these clowns.

I generally think armchair coaching, quarterbacking, generaling, and campaign management is silly--as if what some random bloke in the comments section of a blog made difference. The Obama Campaign seems to be doing a perfectly compentent job without me telling them what and when they need to put into their next speech.

But just this once: One of the things he's done right is talking frankly about what the Washington games are and how they're played. I hope he continues by building "Rove Politics 101: attack your opponent's strength and ignore your own weakness" into the stump speech and he starts hammering with precisely this point over the next several weeks.

what's consistently surprising about McCain's continued assaults on Obama's willingness to negotiate with hostile foreign powers is that majorities support Obama's position and oppose McCain's -- another sign that this is more Rove Politics 101.

Why is that surprising? Of course McCain is going to use Rove politics. Pretty much everybody is attacking their opponent on points where they themselves are weak -- after Bush had so much success with this tactic, why wouldn't they? One might even say that Obama is doing this himself by going after McCain so eagerly on foreign policy.

McCain starts out with 30% of w's base, disenfranchised voters in Florida, Michigan, WV, KY, PA and other States Obama gave up on.

He wins on national security again to give the Dems three losses in a row.

Nice work kool aid guzzlers.

YouTube Mccain moments of nightmares

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c

To: Sen. McCain
From: The rest of the World

The idea that the American Presidency can bestow "international legitimacy" to a soveriegn nation shows your "naviete" and lack of understanding the "basic realities of international relations."

Any standing with the international community was destroyed by the current president of the United States.

Obama can keep smacking this stuff down, and he's doing a very good job. My only concern is that Bu$hCo will attack or invade Iran before the election, with McSame having been briefed in advance, and that all of this rhetoric could be just the laying of the groundwork for smearing him as weak and naive after the bombs have already started falling. I don't think that this is a probability, but there's enough chatter out there about an Iranian attack to elevate it to a possibility.

"An ill conceived meeting between the President of the United States and the President of Iran, and the massive world media coverage it would attract, would increase the prestige of an implacable foe of the United States ..."

Um, Senator? Your president --- and, it's become increasingly apparent, your ideological twin --- has laid waste to any prestige that a meeting with the American president may have given to the leader of another nation.

That's part of the problem that we have with you and your party. In fact, it's only by entering into talks such as those supported by Sen. Obama --- only by using judicious presidential diplomacy to shepherd lasting solutions to international problems --- that we can hope to restore that prestige.

Fear's out.

Hope's in.

Get used to it!

I'm not one to spam or play Chicken Little, but the sky IS falling.

And at the end of this speech in Chicago, McCain so eloquently said...

"I'd like to thank the hospitable city of Boston, Kentucky for their support. I have to go now, I poopied my pants."

And then his nursing home aides helped him off stage.

It was such a sad sight to see.

YES! Thanks for the info.

As long as we're discussing, "Inexperience And Reckless Judgment," let's take a quick and admittedly incomplete look at McCain's judgement on a personal level:
Reporters told, "Real McCain," author Schecter that the McCains were estranged and that the senator frequented Hanoi's red light district.
I'm not a prude. In most cases I'm for allowing the individual to do anything to themselves they want to, as long as they do NOT hurt anyone else doing it. Someone aspiring to the Presidency is by definition held to a higher standard. I don't need a totally reckless cowboy (and pilot of dubious accomplishment) in the cockpit; I mean Oval Office . . .

What is appeasement--and what is not:

From "Head of State"

http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/05/hot-bush-injection-brief-history-of.html

Monday, May 19, 2008

Hot Bush "Injection": A Brief History of Appeasement

It was this morning, while on the elliptical machine, that I heard the 20th (when I began counting) reference to Bush having "injected" foreign policy, via his raising of "appeasement" before the Knesset, into the Democratic campaign debate.

Aside from the face that a Bush injection would likely require more investigation from the FDA and CDC than vaccinations laced with 50% thimerosal, the discussion, which has shown surprising legs, has revealed a remarkable lack of basic knowledge about the distinctions between negotiation (e.g. Nixon's intervention with, at the time a rogue Chinese state, which largely prevented conflict and helped to usher China into the family of nations; ) and appeasement--ranging from the Kevin James school of international policy negotiation through utter lack of knowledge to more informed but still significantly incomplete or incorrect understandings of appeasement as it has been used in this context.

Therefore, I provide you with brief, fully accurate history of the "appeasement" that has been raised in these debates, so that those who wish to use actual fact in advancing their arguments can do so (For those who wish to continue to rely on insinuation, distortion, or the ritual, repetitive, seemingly talismanic use of the cry "He's an appeaser! You know! Like Munich! Like Chamberlain!" without knowing what this actually means. Please proceed to Remedial History, room 101B. No gum).

The Munich Agreement:

The Brief Pre-History of Munich:

Hitler, levered into power in January of 1933 (ironically after their first significant national election outcome decrease in 1932, after which they very well may have faded into their earlier insignificance) through the dramatic miscalculations of former Chancellor Von Papen (who, in his proposed role as Vice-Chancellor, hoped to be the "power behind the throne", and to return to the Chancellorship) and prominent Nationalist Alfred Hugenberg, among others to isolate and co-opt Hitler in a cabinet of Conservative Nationalists ("We've hired him"--Von Papen; "We've boxed him in"-Hugenberg), who persuaded the reluctant, aging President Hindenberg to accept this agreement, soon gained primacy and control over the cabinet, government, and increasingly the nation, through a series of questionable legislative (e.g. "The Enabling Act") and viciously revolutionary and counter-revolutionary (i.e., the elimination of other political parties, the Rohm Purge, brutal and cynical anti-Semitic actions by the SA, the Gleischaltung or "Coordination" of virtually all German organizations and press in 1934) actions.

After gaining such control, and with an autarkic economy that, from the start, invested huge sums in rearmament, Hitler brought the German military into coordination as well, under the aegis of the compliant General Blomberg, and with a shared mission of challenging the restraints placed upon German armament under the Versailles Treaty which followed World War I (Hitler's railing against this treaty had been a key element in the rise of the Nazis to power, particularly in the most dire economic phases of the Weimar Republic). In a series of shocking and escalating violations of this treaty, Germany announced the reestablishment of the German Air Force (1935), the reoccupation of the Rhineland (1936) and the Anschluss of Austria (1937), Hitler began an express drive for expansion conveyed as a correction of the Versailles Treaty, but in fact a clearly stated intent to increase the "living space" (Lebensraum) of Germany, and to attain hegemony in Europe (and, eventually, beyond).

In 1938, under the pretext of incorporating the Sudeten Germans who lived in Czechoslovakia (and utilizing Czech Nazi sympathizers to provoke manufactured "incidents" among this group), Hitler continued this expansionist drive by threatening, beginning in the famous "Weekend Crisis" of May 20-22, 1938, to attack Czechoslovakia on behalf of the Sudetens. Months of anti-Czech propaganda created by the Goebbels-controlled ministry continued through June, July and August. Following a vicious tirade at the conclusion of the Party Congress against the Czechs on Sept. 12, threatening action if the "issues" regarding the Sudetenland were not resolved. This provoked a wave of fear and disturbance across France and the Sudetenland.

As a result, on September 15, Neville Chamberlain flew to Munich to meet with Hitler. Hitler, in this first meeting, presented Chamberlain with an apparent fait accompli, stating that he would settle the matter himself "one way or another", clearly implying force. Chamberlain met this with the remark that under such conditions, there was no further point in talking--after which, Hitler tactically receded and stated that if the question of incorporation of the Sudetenland was open, discussions should continue. Hitler's ultimate goal here was to use the tactic of Sudeten independence to force Czechoslovakia to cede the Sudeten potion of its nation to Germany, claiming that "we want to Czechs"--e.g., the remaining part of the country--and that without such an incorporation, he would attack--thus unleashing the protective guarantees of France to Czechoslovakia, and thereby, a second World War.

Under such pressure, France and Britain placed weight on Czechoslovakia to cede the Sudetenland. Hitler, Mussolini, Chamberlain and Daladier (the French premier) provided the basis for the Munich Agreement--which indeed carved off the Sudetenland, leading to Chamberlain's notorious statement of "peace in our time"--set along side Goebbels statement that "We have achieved everything we wanted according to the small plan, while the big plan is...for the moment, not realizable".

Hitler, in fact, intended to incorporate the rest of Czechoslovakia--and was described as disappointed that the agreement had denied him the opportunity for a war against the Czechs that would allow him this full territorial conquest in a single step. In March of 1939, following a similar propaganda barrage regarding Slovakian nationalist independence, Hitler threatened Czech President Benes with invasion, should he not cede the rest of the nation. Under such threat, Benes collapsed, and the Germans seized the remaining portion of Czechoslovakia without resistance.

Ironically, these constant risk-all gambits led Hitler to his fatal mistake--the conquest of Poland, which, although "victorious", led Britain, France, and ultimately the USA to enter the fight against Germany, and Germany to seek to end the battle against these enemies by removing their most likely ally--the Soviet Union--a combined two front battle which led to the downfall of Nazi Germany.

This was appeasement.

The appeasement here was agreeing to give away Czechoslovakia--carving it into sections, and giving the section, and eventually the nation, away. It was shameful--and wrong.

Negotiation: Talking To Leaders

Despite the endless rhetoric of the past week, negotiation is not appeasement.

Two of many examples:

Nixon's Rapprochement With China:

Despite the well-known failings of the Nixon Presidency, Nixon's engagement with China remains a signal achievement. Note that Nixon, throughout his career, was an ardent fighter of Communism. Thus, we might have fully expected him to take the "negotiation is weakness" position with a country that, at the time, was regarded as a rogue nation in the West.

Nevertheless, this fervent anti-Communist chose to negotiate--a marked change from previous U.S. policy--and continued to do so even as highly inflammatory border attacks occurred between China and the Soviet Union in 1969, stating that "We simply cannot afford to leave China outside the family of nations." (a statement that would likely draw errant fire of commentators from the Right if it were uttered today). With a persistent diplomacy through 1969-1972, culminating in a meeting with Chou en Lai, these negotiations led to a dramatic thawing of relations with both China and the Soviet Union--where, in meetings with Leonid Brezhnev, an anti-ballistic missile treaty, a trade agreement worth a billion dollars, and a SALT treaty were signed.

Here, talk--negotiation--decried as weakness this past week--and at the time of these negotiations--led to success.

Reagan and Gorbachev

Reagan, of course, was noted for referring to the Soviet Union as the "Evil Empire."

Despite this stance, he too was willing to negotiate with Gorbachev in the interests of nuclear disarmament--and despite the objections of many on the Right, whose statements at the time regarding the weakness of negotiation could be easily grafted onto the present debates.

As we know, Reagan's meetings, according to Alan Greenspan, "started the sequence of geopolitical initiatives that led Mr. Gorbachev to figuratively tear down the Berlin Wall", and contributed to the break up of the Soviet Union.

Many from the right called for aggressive military action--for missiles first, rather than negotiation


.
Talk--negotiation--led to success.

Note that in each case, the President talked with a leader who they regarded as hostile--in the face of those who argued then, as they do now, that talking-- negotiation--signifies weakness.

In each case, talking--strong, informed negotiation--did not result in appeasement of the aggressor, but instead resulted in the desired outcome--in one case, the component breakup of the aggressor nation--in another the end of a threat of nuclear conflict--without a single loss of life.

Negotiation is not appeasement.

When negotiation is chosen, however, it will be the case that those who simply wished for the visceral strike--the simplistic first solution of subduing an enemy through the use of might--will not find its satisfaction. We have seen the results of this position, throughout the years--from the events recounted in the first section, to the present.

Perhaps, in negotiation, it is *they* who have been appeased.

If so, given history--this was a favorable outcome indeed.

Cite:

Head of State

http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/05/hot-bush-injection-brief-history-of.html

I'm wondering why this mess gets so much play but yeah a whole lot of idiots dig this mess.

Considering that terrorists are capable of bringing down major structures in the US and throwing our economy into shambles, it probably isn't a good idea during the campaign for Obama to appear to belittle the threat posed by nations aligned to terrorism. It just gives the GOP another line of attack.