Once again, we have allowed the Republican hit-men to frame the debate by leveling the charge of "appeaser." Once again, we find ourselves in the "either you’re with us or you’re with the terrorists" trap. But, to borrow a phrase: NOT THIS TIME!
Let’s start by rejecting this false either/or choice and instead recast the debate in terms of a continuum or range. To do that, we’ll need a few definitions we can (all of us, left and right, Obamaphile and McCainiac) agree on.
Here is the range I’d like to suggest, along with the definitions provided by the (hopefully) apolitical Webster’s Dictionary:
appease: to buy off by concessions
discuss: to talk about
negotiate: (1) to confer with another so as to arrive at the settlement of some matter; (2) to get through, around, or over successfully
diplomacy: the art and practice of conducting negotiations between nations; tact
saber-rattling: The ostentatious display of military power (with the implied threat that it might be used).
belligerent: waging war; combative, contentious
So where do the key players fit on this continuum? Let’s start with President Bush. Here’s what he just said to the Arabs:
""We must stand with the Palestinian people, who have suffered for decades and earned the right to a homeland of their own," Bush said at the end of a five day Middle East tour. Adjusting his approach from the one taken on his visit to Israel for its 60th anniversary, Bush pressed Palestinians to "fight terror" and called on Israel to make "tough sacrifices for peace and ease restrictions on Palestinians.""
http://www.nytimes.com/...
Is this appeasement, diplomacy, or something else?
Next, let’s compare the official positions of Obama and McCain regarding talking to Iran:
From www.barackobama.com:
"Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress."
From www.johnmccain.com:
"The answer is not unconditional dialogues with these two dictatorships [Iran and Syria] from a position of weakness. The answer is for the international community to apply real pressure to Syria and Iran to change their behavior. The United States must also bolster its regional military posture to make clear to Iran our determination to protect our forces and deter Iranian intervention."
Appeasing? Discussing? Negotiating? Using diplomacy? Saber-rattling? Or belligerent?
You make the call.
You decide which strategy is best for America and which will keep us safest.
Then vote accordingly.