Bush's history on appeasement/strawmen

Back in 2006, I proposed Nyhan's corollary to Godwin's law in a column for Time.com:

A well-known rule of Internet discourse is Godwin's law, which states that, as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches inevitability.

Let me propose Nyhan's corollary: As a foreign policy debate with conservatives grows longer, the probability of a comparison with the appeasement of Nazis or Hitler approaches inevitability.

What's incredible is that my prediction has come true only days after Barack Obama became the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.

During a speech before the Israeli Knesset, President Bush seemed to mischaracterize Obama's declared belief in negotating with foreign governments as a belief that the US "should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals" and linked it to appeasement of the Nazis:

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. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all 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.

Some people suggest if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of the enemies of peace, and America utterly rejects it...

The Bush administration has repeatedly invoked the specter of Nazi appeasement in this way to undermine opposition to its foreign policy, as my Time.com column shows. In particular, Donald Rumsfeld used the same quote as Bush in a 2006 speech to the American Legion. (The statement, which was made by Senator William Borah, is a key trope of conservative appeasement rhetoric -- Time/Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer used in his August 11, 2006 newspaper column about Iran as well as columns denouncing the alleged appeasement of China in 1989 and North Korea in 1994.)

It's also worth noting the way that Bush attacks straw men in his speech, which makes vague references to "some" who "seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals" and "some people" who "suggest if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away." Bush frequently uses formulations like these in his public addresses as a way to caricature his opponents while saying something that can be defended as an accurate reference to some (usually unspecified) extremist. Along these lines, White House spokesperson Dana Perino denied that Bush was referring to Obama, saying "when you're running for office you sometimes think the world revolves around you."

Here's a brief sampling of the administration's eight-year war on straw men:

"When the tax cut takes effect, the typical family of four will save $1,600 every year. Some say that's not much." (3/3/01)

"They tell me it was a shallow recession. It was a shallow recession because of the tax relief. Some say, well, maybe the recession should have been deeper." (9/1/03)

"There's a lot of people in the world who don't believe that people whose skin color may not be the same as ours can be free and self-govern." (4/30/04)

"[T]he natural tendency for people is to say, 'Oh, let's lay down our arms.' But you can't negotiate with these people. There are no negotiations that are to be had. Therapy won't work." (5/10/04)

"The idea of emptying the Strategic Petroleum Reserve plays -- would put America in a dangerous position in the war on terror." (5/19/04)

"Sometimes you'll hear people say that moral truth is relative, or call religious faith a comforting illusion. And when you hear talk like that, take it seriously enough to be skeptical. It may seem generous and open-minded to say that everybody, on every moral issue, is equally right." (5/21/04)

"I reject this notion -- and I'm not suggesting that my opponent says it, but I reject the notion that some say that if you're Muslim you can't be free, you don't desire freedom." (10/1/04)

"I rejected the kind of intellectual elitism of some around the world who say, well, maybe certain people can't be free." (1/29/05)

"Now, I understand there's some in America who say, well, this can't be true there are still people willing to attack." (1/25/06)

"There's a group in the opposition party who are willing to retreat before the mission is done. They're willing to wave the white flag of surrender. And if they succeed, the United States will be worse off, and the world will be worse off." (6/28/06)

"I would hope people aren't trying to rewrite the history of Saddam Hussein -- all of a sudden, he becomes kind of a benevolent fellow. He's a dangerous man." (9/15/06)

"It's hard to plot and plan attacks against the United States when you're on the run. I need members of Congress who understand that you can't negotiate with these folks, you can't hope that they change their mind, that the best way to protect the American people is to defeat them overseas so we do not have to face them here at home." (9/21/06)

"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals... Some people suggest if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away." (5/15/08)

Update 5/19 8:39 AM: Don't believe Perino's statement or President Bush's vague denial that he was talking about Obama. As a commentator notes, members of the administration admitted that the President's statement was directed at the presumptive Democratic nominee: "Although the president didn't name names, administration officials are privately acknowledging this was a shot at Barack Obama."

Update 5/19 5:50 PM: The White House is protesting NBC's editing of Bush's response -- here's the full exchange:

ENGEL: “In front of the Israeli palm at the Knesset, you said that negotiating with Iran is pointless — and then you went further, you saying — you said that it was appeasement. Were you referring to Senator Barack Obama? He certainly thought you were.”

THE PRESIDENT: “You know, my policies haven't changed, but evidently the political calendar has. People need to read the speech. You didn't get it exactly right, either. What I said was is that we need to take the words of people seriously. And when, you know, a leader of Iran says that they want to destroy Israel, you've got to take those words seriously. And if you don't take them seriously, then it harkens back to a day when we didn't take other words seriously. It was fitting that I talked about not taking the words of Adolph Hitler seriously on the floor of the Knesset. But I also talked about the need to defend Israel, the need to not negotiate with the likes of Al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas. And the need to make sure Iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon. But I also talked about a vision of what's possible in the Middle East.”

I interpreted Bush's (clipped) statement as a denial, but the White House is claiming that NBC's omission of "You didn't get it exactly right" suggests that Bush agreed with Engel's premise. In any case, as I noted above, administration officials acknowledged privately that Bush's language was directed at Obama, so it's hard to take them seriously now when they call this a "media-manufactured storyline."

Update 6/10/08 8:45 AM: A historian alerts me that there are questions about the veracity of the alleged Borah quote.

Comments

[David]

Bush never mentioned Obama by name nor identified him in any way. The reason to conclude that Bush meant to criticize Obama can only be that Bush's description matched Obama's positions.

Brendan and Obama seem to be making two contradictory complaints:

1. They believe that Bush was criticizing Obama because the policies he described were Obama's.

2. They believe Bush was incorrect or lying because the policies he described weren't Obama's.

[jcargh]

There already is a corollary to Godwin's Law. The first one to use a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis loses the argument.

[JFred]

Bang on Bush for re-using the appeasement theme once too often. Sure.

Bang on Bush for leaning too hard on the 'some who' and 'those who' formulas for vagueness. Why not?

Assume that: appeasement = Omama. Well, maybe Obama's complaining because Bush hit the nail on the head.

Whether he intended to or not, though, Obama's over-reaction does paint him as the Democratic Candidate, neatly excising Hillary from the picture. A nice move, politically. But at the cost of attaching the 'appeasement'
label to his name.

"Although the president didn't name names, administration officials are privately acknowledging this was a shot at Barack Obama"
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/About_Obama.html

[David]

IMHO appeasement is almost he right focus, but really the proper concern is whether the candidate would use force when appropriate or necessary. E.g., the allies were wrong to appease Hitler during the 1930's, but their fundamental mistake was their failure to take up arms against him sooner than they did.

Clearly Bush and McCain are willing to use force -- too willing, some would say.

Obama has left it unclear whether he would use force when it was needed. His commitment to withdraw American troops from Iraq regardless of the situation on the ground doesn't inspire confidence.

Another key question is whether Obama would know how to lead a military effort. Bush provided poor leadership during the occupation of Iraq (until the selection of Petraeus and the surge.) Bremer was the wrong person to be in charge. The plan Bremer followed was a poor plan.

As far as I can see, there's nothing in Obama's background that suggests that his military leadership would be better than Bush's.

[ZacC]

While I do believe Mr. Nyhan's corollary is an accurate one, what about the tendency of some in the left to invoke Vietnam in discussions about American foreign policy? Certainly,it comes up a lot in discussions about Iraq.

I've enjoyed Brendan's blog for quite some time now. He has shown in the past a strong willingness to criticize the left and right, even on left-leaning websites (and caught ire for it, as well). However, I'm somewhat exasperated to see that his critiques of liberal excess are becoming fewer and far between. I hope I'm just imagining this.