Obama's Appeasement Foreign Policy

President George Bush made the following remarks before the Israeli Knesset. “Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with 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 only I could have talked to Hitler, all of 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.” Almost as soon as those words passed the lips of Bush, Senator Barack Obama and a multitude of his supporters decried the remarks as a false political attack against him. In Obama’s words, "It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack." What could have raised the ire of the presidential candidate? The President never mentioned Obama, or that anyone currently running for President had alluded to such action. Why would Obama jump to the conclusion that Bush was referring to him?
Could it be that back in July of last year at a Democratic debate, Obama expressed his intentions as President to talk directly with Iran without setting any preconditions? He felt that Bush’s policy of only talking to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad under the condition that they stop enriching uranium for nuclear weapons was foolish and too heavy-handed. Repeatedly Obama has asserted that we should talk to our enemies without setting any preconditions. Obama’s own website claims that “Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions.” His stance has been called naïve by his opponent Hillary Clinton. After all, her husband’s administration held talks with North Korea and gave them the technology for nuclear power with their promise not to use the the nuclear material for weapons. To the Clinton administration’s surprise, the North Koreans broke their promise and now we are dealing with a North Korean nuclear threat. Does Obama possess some ace in the hole that will ensure Iran would keep any promises that it makes to him?

Look back at the 1980’s and Ronald Reagan meeting with the Soviet Union. He went into the talks unwilling to yield on his position of the United States ability to defend itself from nuclear attack. He walked out of the first meeting with Gorbachev and the media and the Democrats screamed in horror. They believed that he would bring us to nuclear war. They implored him to disarm our weapons and give the Soviets everything they wanted. They believed that appeasement was the best course of action. Ask Neville Chamberlain if appeasing Adolf Hitler worked in the 1930’s? The United States has a standing policy to not negotiate with terrorists or terrorists states. The policy is based upon the philosophy that if you negotiate once, the precedent is set for all future terrorist incidents. Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. The are a supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah, both are terrorist organizations determined to eradicate Israel from the face of the earth. Ahmadinejad is on record stating his goal is to destroy Israel. He also claims that the Holocaust never occurred.

How does Obama plan on negotiating with this type of man? It is the same flawed logic that believes that if we could just sit down with Osama Bin Laden and explain that we mean him no harm, he will just disarm his suicide bombers and send them all home. How do you negotiate with a regime that is intent on eliminating Israel from the Middle East? How far is he willing to go for talks with Iran? Syria? North Korea? Is allowing Iran to take Israel part of the plan, as Chamberlain allowed Hitler to take Poland? Obama’s foreign policy is yet another example of his flowery rhetoric containing no real substance.