How Dare You?

In their zeal to blacken Bush and McCain and to provide support and cover for Obama and the other Democratic appeasers, the New York Times imputed to Bush the charge of equivalencing Israeli dealings with an enemy (Syria), with appeasing the Nazis. How despicably low can they go? Moral equivalency and excuse-by-equivalency are part of the Liberal stock in trade; NOT what moral people would be expected to do.

On the specific issue of Israeli negotiation with Syria:
1) Syria was the real obstacle to negotiations between the two countries, making preemptive demands before they would engage in negotiations. An essential element of negotiation is that each side has something to trade that the other side wants. Israel and Syria need to find out if they have compelling interests to overcome their mutual hatred and mistrust - enough to make a deal beneficial to both of them. As a corollary, perhaps we see here the salutary effect of a punch in the nose to a bully to get his attention - as the Israeli raid on the Syrian nuclear facility no doubt was. Sometimes, hard action is what is called for to move the process along and to facilitate "engagement". Are you paying attention, Mr. Obama?

2) There is a huge difference between low level diplomats getting together in a 3rd country to explore possibilities, and a full show of acceptance and head-to-head photo ops that enhance thugs - which is what Obama was initially proposing, in response to a question on one of the interminable Democratic Party debates. He seems to have backed off, now, to sort of proposing a step-by-step approach (in fact similar with what has been going on all along, as it should be). Obama is just full of feel-good talk that is intended for consumption by his self-righteous followers. That is not something he can indulge in if he is in high office. Obama and his talk of open negotiation and "engagement" is the perfect illustration of the term "fuzzy headed Liberal". If he were a woman, some unkind person might even call him "ditzy".

3) To the extent that the US was discouraging Israel from talking to Syria, we and they can have different strategic interests and differing perspectives every once in a while; we have that with all our allies at one time or another.

If the NY Times is the "objective" source of news and analysis it claims to be, they need to curb their ideological zeal and political imperatives and not allow them to get in the way of dispassionate reporting and commentary. We all realize how desperate the Times and the rest of the Liberal media are to ease Obama's way to the White House, but a little fairness, too, please! Perhaps that is too much to ask of the Liberals - after all, they ARE trying to bring the exotic messiah to his rightful position as head of the nation, to redeem us and cleanse us of our sins.