The surreal posturing of the Bush/McCain foreign policy keeps bumping into reality with interesting results.

On May 15, 2008, Bush spoke before the Israeli Knesset, railing against “appeasers”.

“The fight against terror and extremism is the defining challenge of our time. .. Some seem to believe we should negotiate with 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 only I could have talked to Hitler, all of 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.”

Now a bit over a month later Condi Rice flies into Lebanon with approving words for the Lebanese government's negotiations with Hezbollah.  

Rice Visit Signals Support for Power Deal in Lebanon

Likewise the Israeli indirect negotiations with Hamas have borne fruit with a new cease fire agreement.   The State Department in its own moment of surrealism praised the outcome of the negotiations while reiterating its position that Hamas is a terrorist organization, with which of that basis, one should never negotiate.

US Welcomes Prospect of Israel-Hamas Truce

All this raises the question – who exactly are the “appeasers”?  Bush's attack on Obama was clear enough, but isn't the government of Israel more guilty than Obama, who merely suggested negotiations, whereas the Israelis actually went ahead and negotiated? And what of Condi Rice and her State Department drones who praised the outcome of the various negotiations with both Hamas and Hezbollah?  

I guess the Bush rule is that Obama must be an appeaser to suggest negotiations but everyone should just look the other-way when Israeli or Lebanon does negotiate successfully with those who the Bush administration label as terrorist.