The Narcissism of the Left: Barack Obama and Appeasement

Barack Obama and his surrogates in the Democratic Party have proven, once again, that being on the left means being an extreme narcissist. President Bush goes to Israel, gives a beautiful speech to the Knesset that includes a warning against appeasement (a point that speaks directly to the era of the founding of the State of Israel) – and Obama, back home at some Legion Hall in Oregon or Kentucky, proclaims “HE’S TALKING ABOUT ME! HE’S TALKING ABOUT ME!”

Mark Steyn describes it well in National Review:

Honestly. What a bunch of self-absorbed ninnies. Here’s what the president said: “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.”

It says something for Democrat touchiness that the minute a guy makes a generalized observation about folks who appease terrorists and dictators the Dems assume: Hey, they’re talking about me. Actually, he wasn’t — or, to be more precise, he wasn’t talking only about you. Yes, there are plenty of Democrats who are in favor of negotiating with our enemies, and a few Republicans, too — President Bush’s pal James Baker, whose Iraq Study Group was full of proposals to barter with Iran and Syria and everybody else. But that general line is also taken by at least three of Tony Blair’s former cabinet ministers and his senior policy adviser, and by the leader of Canada’s New Democratic party, and by a whole bunch of bigshot Europeans. It’s not a Democrat-election policy, it’s an entire worldview. Even Barack Obama can’t be so vain as to think his fly-me-to-[insert name of enemy here] concept is an original idea.

John Podoretz breaks it down perfectly in Commentary:

An “unprecedented attack on foreign soil”? That is completely deranged. Not only did Bush not mention Obama by name, it is doubtful he or his people were thinking about Obama. The argument that negotiating with terrorists is appeasement akin to Europe’s appeasement of Hitler is a standard view among hawks on the Right — decades old, dating back even before Barry Obama found the audacity to hope in the pews of Jeremiah Wright’s church. It is exactly the sort of thing a man with Bush’s politics would say in a speech before the Knesset, whether Obama had run for president or not.

I’m not sure what this all says about Obama. Is this smart politics, getting his base riled up on his behalf? Is he trying to use Bush as a wedge to make the case to the Jewish community in the United States that the bad man in the White House is mischaracterizing him and therefore Jews should like him more? Is he trying, for the millionth time, to rule any criticism of himself out of reasonable bounds by complaining about something that isn’t even criticism of him?

Or is this just another example of Obama’s thin-skinned-ness?

Advertisements

6 Comments

Filed under Islamist-Leftist Alliance, Left-Wing Causes Celebre, Political Idiocy, Politicians, The Confusion of The Left

6 responses to “The Narcissism of the Left: Barack Obama and Appeasement

  1. Not to belabor a point already made, but “appeasement” is when you give things to people, not when you talk to them.

    The guy who said “I wish I could have talked to Hitler” was naive in hindsight, but he was not an appeaser.

    Appeasement was giving away a chunk of Czechoslovakia. The analogy would not be Obama being willing to talk to Iranian authorities. It would be more like the arms-for-hostages deal that Oliver North negotiated with the Iranians.

  2. No, no, no. Wrong again. Entering into negotiations with the enemy without preconditions could certainly be called appeasement. Don’t like “appeasement”? How about “capitulation”? That fits, too. “Naive” and “Stupid” also work well.

    Fact is, the Americans under Bush are talking to the Iranians all the time through back channels, and through the EU-3 negotiators. However – and this is backed by every free nation in the world – until Iran gives up its enrichment program, there will be no high-level meetings, and no concessions of any kind.

    A high-profile summit between the President of the United States and Iran’s intractable holocaust-denier-in-chief Ahmadinejad would only serve one purpose: to grant credibility and power to a regime that would use that credibility to further its stated genocidal goals.

    Anyway, the bottom line here is: all the look-at-me-I’m-so-smart people hate Bush, all the look-at-me-I’m-so-smart people want him to look bad, and all the look-at-me-I’m-so-smart people want Obama to win.

  3. My Chambers Dictionary says the following of appease: to pacify; to soothe by making or effecting concessions.

    “Concessions” would be the key word there. The concessions in 1938 were the annexation of Austria and the Sudetenland.

    “Capitulation”, on the other hand, just means “surrender”.

    Those are two different words which you are trying to conflate.

    Do you find it odd that you accuse your opponents of being “look-at-me-I’m-so-smart people” shortly after calling them “stupid”? Doesn’t that make you a “look-at-me-I’m-so-smart” person?

  4. Get beyond the parsing, and get to the substance: assuming the goal is to stop Iran’s nuclear program, stop them from funding Hizb’allah and Hamas, stop them from arming and funding the Islamist insurgency in Iraq, and have them accept the existence of Israel as part of the family of nations in the region, what could Barack Obama possibly accomplish in a face-to-face meeting with Ahmadinejad? If you’re prepared to live with any of the above conditions in the long-term, you’re simply not decent. And if you’re going to get any of those things accomplish, you’re going to have to give something tangible – talk just won’t do it, and it’s naive to think that Barack Obama will have some genius magic words to convince Iran to drop their revolutionary mania. So what would he have to offer? Who is he willing to screw, for the return of empty promises?

  5. Pingback: The Narcissistic Qualities Of Barack Obama « Nice Deb

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s