the Appeaser in Chief: Bush visits 9/11 funders, the Saudis

Yesterday Bush said anyone who tries to negotiate with terrorists nations are appeasers; today he visited Saudi Arabia, the country that funded the 9/11 attacks and whose intelligence agent picked up two of the hijackers at the airport when they arrived in the US.

In a technical sense, Bush is not an appeaser. There is no indication he is negotiating anything that would lead to fewer terrorist attacks.

Yesterday in the Israeli Knesset, Bush 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."

(Story)

Proving he has no idea what the word irony means, today he is visiting Saudi Arabia, the country that the Joint Congressional Inquiry found gave money to the 9/11 hijackers and help getting settled in the US through their agents.



Since that time, Bush and Cheney have visited Saudi Arabia several times.

It hasn't seemed to have affected their terrorist related behavior since the largest number of foreign fighters and suicide bombers pouring into Iraq are coming from Saudi, and Prince Bandar, the former long time ambassador to the US, threatened Britain with more terrorist attacks if they didn't drop a corruption investigation that involved the Saudis.



In response to us cutting them slack on terrorism, they haven't even done anything to lower the price oil despite Bush's public pleas.

Sadly, Bush is partly right. Too many Democrats ignore the fact that Saudi Arabia attacked us on 9/11, fail to ask publicly why the so-called "War on Terror" seems to be aimed every Muslim country EXCEPT the ones behind the attacks, and even visit and glad hand them.

But they do so following the lead of the appeaser in chief, George W. Bush.

Was Reagan an appeaser for negotiating with Gorbachev about tactical nukes?

A lot of righties say any negotiating with countries like Iran or Venezuela or the designated boogeyman of the moment is just like appeasing Hitler.

The odd thing is, none of these countries we're supposed to be afraid of now have the capacity to invade or annihilate the United States.

By contrast, the Soviets had enough nukes to wipe the US off the map back in the 80s (the Russians and Chinese still do), and though the Soviets were behind us in technology in some ways, they more than made up for it in numbers of tanks, nukes, and other hardware.

And unlike the spread out Soviet Union, the countries we are supposed to be afraid of today are relatively compact, medium-sized ones that would take relatively few of our nukes to incinerate every square inch of. So why should we be more afraid of them than Reagan was of Gorbachev?

If the Soviets could not sustain an arms race, do you think Iran can or Iraq could have even if they had what Bush claimed?

And unlike Iran, the Soviets HAD invaded neighboring countries in the Baltics, Eastern Europe, and Afghanistan.

Why was Reagan negotiating with them NOT appeasement but negotiating with some medium-small country now is?

Democrats need to call bullshit on the Republican talking points and put things in perspective if they want to end the war and the assault on our democracy. I don't think they aren't out of cowardice or stupidity but because too many agree with what Bush is doing, seizing Persian Gulf oil to give it to his cronies on terms they choose.