Appeasement
Posted September 6th, 2006 by Chip Bok
Click Image to Enlarge.
Appeasement was our power word last week.
Bush and Rumsfeld feel that every time the U.N. appeases our enemies we fall behind in the war on terror. Critics on both sides were miffed when the Secretary of Defense labeled them appeasers in a speech.
Steve Chapman (you may need to register for the Tribune link) thinks the appeasement thing is overrated and overused. McCain thinks Rumsfeld needs to put more boots on the ground in Iraq.
Since this cartoon is critical of Bush Mencken probably thinks I'm appeasing him.
September 8th, 2006 at 10:20 am
I think old Dubya must have appeased Mencken with the recent remarks concerning the success of the CIA's secret torture chambers.
I knew Mencken would come around at some point.
September 8th, 2006 at 1:17 pm
I don't think "Old Dubya" appeased anyone, at least anyone thinking clearly, with his recent admission that the secret prisons exist. King George got caught in another lie and now has to talk his way out of it. Slow learner.
September 9th, 2006 at 12:20 pm
"I don't think "Old Dubya" appeased anyone, at least anyone thinking clearly, with his recent admission that the secret prisons exist. King George got caught in another lie and now has to talk his way out of it. Slow learner."
I'm totally confused on how you people can worry about the terrorists well being so that you can condemn the President. WOW.
September 9th, 2006 at 8:06 pm
Yo Slope.
I'm not picking up on any "worry about the terrorist's well being" in Batman's post.
Please correct me if I am wrong in picking up on your apparent support of torture as an appropriate manipulation….ever.
I've said it once and I'll say it again.
"NO ONE expects the Spanish Inquisition."
September 10th, 2006 at 12:22 am
I don't see any reference to torture in any of these posts. We were talking abut prisons.
September 10th, 2006 at 5:23 am
Ooops Left this out:
"Bush would not detail the type of interrogation techniques that are used through the program, saying they are tough but do not constitute torture."
September 10th, 2006 at 8:02 am
Who cares if it is torture, as long as it works. Terrorists are enemies of the United States and should be treated as such.
Rules of engagement, the Geneva Convention, etc., are products of the same mindset that says the strategic use of nuclear weapons can be a rational option.
September 10th, 2006 at 9:18 am
I try not to make personal comments here, but Larry… that is one sick statement to make.
Mans inhumanity to man. Ain't it great?
September 10th, 2006 at 4:20 pm
If you don't want to make personal comments, why do you do it?
That statement's just as hypocritical as the notion of the due process of revenge, the idea of fair play in war or the adherence to cliches as absolutes.
September 10th, 2006 at 5:13 pm
I "try" not to make personal comments. I "want" to make them all the time. Just look how restrained I have been in the past.
September 11th, 2006 at 7:22 am
Larry implies that when Saddam tortured people he perceived to be threats to his well being, it was worth the lives of thousands of Americans to stop this morally repugnant activity. When Americans torture people they feel are threats to their well being, then we hear, " who cares as long as it works." There in lies part of the problem.
September 11th, 2006 at 8:55 am
I wasn't thinking of Saddam at all but of terrorists who, by most accounts, seem to be actively plotting to kill U.S. citizens here in America.
They seem to regard their war with the U.S., Israel and the West as a life and death struggle. I think we should regard the conflict in the same way.
Of course there are valid reasons to disagree with my view. I get the distinct impression, however, that such disagreement is often overshadowed by those who simply want to prove that they understand current popular intellectual theories regarding the subjective nature of perception, values and culture.
That kind of elitist, self-righteous thinking is what I find morally repugnant.
September 11th, 2006 at 9:58 am
"current popular intellectual theories". That's right up there with the famous Fox News line, "some would say". But thanks for allowing that there are "valid reasons to disagree" with you.
How charitible and anti-intellectual of you.
September 11th, 2006 at 10:26 am
What are you trying to say Mencken? Maybe someone from Bartlett's can say it more clearly for you.
September 11th, 2006 at 1:27 pm
Don't knock Bartlett's… lots of good stuff in there.
Interesting how often intellectuals are blamed for the world's woes. You and the ayatollahs have a lot in common.
September 11th, 2006 at 1:51 pm
I've got no problem with intellectualism, just pretension.
September 11th, 2006 at 3:33 pm
Christ on crutch Larry…Pretense of what ? I've stuck my ideological neck out here for months and all I get from you is ankle bites and barking when you get excited. You drive this goddam bus for awhile.
September 11th, 2006 at 3:59 pm
You seem to claim I'm anti-intellectual simply because I disagree with you. That's pretentious.
And we've already covered the pretentious nickname thing, as well as the pretentious, pseudo-intellectual practice of parroting quotes.
September 11th, 2006 at 4:32 pm
"All I care to know is that a man is a human being—that is enough for me; He can't be much worse."
Mark Twain
Pretentious and pseudo-intellectual enough for ya?
September 11th, 2006 at 7:00 pm
Damn Larry, you just ruined another one of my best socks.