A Ludicrous Denial

Christopher Orr blogs for The New Republic that "making an attack this direct on a domestic political opponent while on foreign soil is generally considered out of bounds. But more than either of those responses, I'm struck by how politically foolish this assault appears to be. Bush attacking Obama, and Obama counter-attacking Bush, while John McCain sits on the sidelines, is a disastrous dynamic for the GOP. The more Obama can frame this race as him vs. the most unpopular president in modern history, the easier a time he'll have in the fall."

Massimo Calabresi writes for Time: "In the escalating smackfest between President George W. Bush and Barack Obama it's hard to know who needs whom more. Bush is struggling to keep his presidency relevant, and injecting himself into the presidential campaign is a sure way to do that. At the same time, Obama is happy for any opportunity to tie Bush to Republican nominee-to-be John McCain's side. . . .

"Obama's strategy for the general election is to hammer the idea that John McCain will continue Bush's policies at home and abroad. He made the argument most recently in his victory speech after his win in North Carolina, when he said, 'We can't afford to give John McCain the chance to serve out George Bush's third term.' It helps that Bush is at record public disapproval levels, his Arab-Israeli peace process is near dead, his efforts to prevent Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons appear to be going nowhere, and oil prices are soaring beyond his control."

Appeasement Watch

Stolberg and Rutenberg note: "Thursday was not the first time the term 'appeasement' has cropped up in the Bush administration lexicon. In 2006, in advance of the midterm elections, Vice President Dick Cheney and then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld invoked the analogy as a line of attack against critics of the war in Iraq. Then, as now, it was controversial."

MSNBC host Chris Matthews yesterday lectured Kevin James, a right-wing radio host defending the Bush position, on what appeasement really is: "Your problem, Kevin, is, you don't know what you're talking about. And the problem is, you don't understand there's a difference between talking to the enemy and appeasing. What Neville Chamberlain did wrong, most people would say, is not talking to Hitler, but giving him half of Czechoslovakia in '38. That's what he did wrong, not talking to somebody. . . . Appeasement is giving away things to the enemy."

A Talking Points Memo reader writes: "Appeasement - the acceptance of conditions imposed by an aggressor in lieu of open conflict - is not the result of negotiation, but of capitulation. And the inverse proposition - the rejection of all negotiation even at the price of open conflict - is just as rigidly obtuse. We call it war-mongering."

And foreign policy blogger Matt Eckel writes: "Iran is not Nazi Germany. Though the Iranian regime is anti-democratic, and espouses values that are indeed antithetical to those of the liberal West, the notion that Iranian armies and proxies are poised to make a genocidal sweep across the Middle East is absurd. Even the Iranian nuclear threat, though serious, shows every sign of being able to be contained with an intelligent deterrence policy (should things come to that). Iran does not have a particularly impressive industrial base. Its infrastructure is mediocre, its economy is sclerotic (propped up only by high oil prices), and its regime is unpopular. Even the outrageous statements about Israel made by President Ahmadinejad should be taken with a grain of salt, remembering that the Iranian President is not the head of state, and that he is actually at odds with much of Iran's clerical leaders.

"Obama's willingness to talk with the Iranian leadership is not a sign of weakness or delusion. It is a sign that he understands that there are things we want from Iran (cooperation in Iraq, nuclear disarmament, reduced political and material support for Hamas and Hezbollah) and things Iran wants from us (a security guarantee, diplomatic relations, a lifting of sanctions, membership in the WTO), and that a deal might be possible that is more amenable to American interests than the current situation. Clear-headed strategic thinking is sorely needed among American leaders today. It is time to stop letting ideological blinders, reinforced by poor analysis and bad history, get in the way."

The Missing Peace

Dion Nissenbaum blogs for McClatchy Newspapers that "what has been overlooked is what Bush didn't say.

"Bush didn't use his historic address to the Knesset to talk about what is supposed to be a top priority for him in his final year: The peace process he officially launched last November in Annapolis.

"He didn't use the address to speak directly to the skeptical lawmakers who will be asked to support any peace deal with the Palestinians.

"He didn't use the address to speak directly to the Israeli public and urge them to support a peace deal with the Palestinians.