From the School of Neville Chamberlian: The Democratic Response to President Bush’s Address

Note: Neville “Chamberlain is perhaps the most ill-regarded British Prime Minister of the 20th century in the popular mind, because of his policy of appeasement towards Nazi Germany regarding the abandonment of Czechoslovakia to Hitler at Munich in 1938."

The Democratic "appeasement of our enemies" response was delivered by delivered by Illinois Sen. Richard Durbin on Wednesday evening.

Here’s an excerpt of that response:
. . .The president's response to the challenge of Iraq is to send more American soldiers into the crossfire of the civil war that has engulfed that nation.
Escalation of this war is not the change the American people called for in the last election. Instead of a new direction, the president's plan moves the American commitment in Iraq in the wrong direction. . . .
. . .Twenty-thousand American soldiers are too few to end this civil war in Iraq and too many American lives to risk on top of those we've already lost.
It's time for President Bush to face the reality of Iraq. And the reality is this: America has paid a heavy price. We have paid with the lives of more than 3,000 of our soldiers. We have paid with the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform. And we've paid with the hard-earned tax dollars of the families of America.

So what exactly do the Democrats want to do? In an interview with Durbin following the response this is what Durbin said:

. . .QUESTION: [Inaudible]... Do you think that the White House might actually change its position on it or scale it back?
DURBIN: I don't know. But I'll tell you this: I think that it's important that we finally have a voice.
It's been four years since we voted on the use-of-force resolution. If you look at the purpose of our invasion of Iraq, frankly every single element is unnecessary today. There is no Saddam Hussein. There are no weapons of mass destruction.
What we're talking about now is to really bring Congress into the debate, the American debate, about what's going to happen next in Iraq.
And we believe that if we can bring forward a resolution that really brings the president's policy before Congress [to] ask for bipartisan support; that's a debate that's long overdue.

So basically, the Democrats still want to sit at the table with Iran and Syria!

. . .QUESTION: In addition to withdrawal, the Iraq Study Group ... said that the U.S. should talk to Iran and Syria...
DURBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: ... you know, bring them into the fold with Iraq. And President Bush said -- he basically refuted that recommendation as well. How do you respond?
DURBIN: I think that's a mistake. If there's any surge that we need, it's a surge in diplomacy.
We need to have countries in that region, in the Middle East, who are interested in the stability, ultimate stability of Iraq, to get involved in its future.
We can't do this alone. The Iraqis, as I've said in this statement, have to really resolve that they're going to make their own nation strong and defend it.
But for its long-term future and the stability of its borders, we really need to engage other countries. I don't know how we can boycott countries in that region.
We need to at least sit at a table and find out if there is some common ground. That's the only way that I think we're going to find any long-term stability.

Read the entire response at theEagle.com

Hummm . . . Let’s see what common ground we can find to bring Iran “into the fold”?

The following excerpt from Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad 2005 speech is from InformationClearinghouse.com (Bold added by me. Take note of how Ahmadinejad takes a jab at the weak. The left here and in Europe should take note. )

“But let's take a closer look at what Iran's President Mahmoud said. It is a merit of the 'New York Times' that they placed the complete speech at our disposal. Here's an excerpt from the publication dated 2005-10-30:”

They say it is not possible to have a world without the United States and Zionism. But you know that this is a possible goal and slogan. Let's take a step back. [[[We had a hostile regime in this country which was undemocratic, armed to the teeth and, with SAVAK, its security apparatus of SAVAK [the intelligence bureau of the Shah of Iran's government] watched everyone. An environment of terror existed.]]] When our dear Imam [Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Iranian revolution] said that the regime must be removed, many of those who claimed to be politically well-informed said it was not possible. All the corrupt governments were in support of the regime when Imam Khomeini started his movement. [[[All the Western and Eastern countries supported the regime even after the massacre of September 7 [1978] ]]] and said the removal of the regime was not possible. But our people resisted and it is 27 years now that we have survived without a regime dependent on the United States. The tyranny of the East and the West over the world should have to end, but weak people who can see only what lies in front of them cannot believe this. Who would believe that one day we could witness the collapse of the Eastern Empire? But we could watch its fall in our lifetime. And it collapsed in a way that we have to refer to libraries because no trace of it is left. Imam [Khomeini] said Saddam must go and he said he would grow weaker than anyone could imagine. Now you see the man who spoke with such arrogance ten years ago that one would have thought he was immortal, is being tried in his own country in handcuffs and shackles [[[by those who he believed supported him and with whose backing he committed his crimes]]]. Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime [Israel] has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world.

"(source: www.nytimes.com, based on a publication of 'Iranian Students News Agency' (ISNA) -- insertions by the New York Times in squared brackets -- passages in triple squared brackets will be left blank in the MEMRI version printed below)"

To read the rest go to InformationClearinghouse.com

Ahmadinejad On Israel:
This is from the BBC.
"If European countries claim that they have killed Jews in World War II... why don't they provide the Zionist regime with a piece of Europe," Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told Iranian television.
"Germany and Austria can provide the... regime with two or three provinces for this regime to establish itself, and the issue will be resolved."
The president's remarks were quickly condemned by Israel and the US.

Others writing about President Bush’s address and the Democratic Response:
Wake Up America
theneweditor
Almanak
Freedom Eden