“An appeaser is someone who feeds everyone to the crocodiles, hoping it will eat him last.”

Regards,
Peter H.

The Bush family ought to know about appeasement.

Which goes to show you don’t know what appeasement means.

I call bullshit on that one, Lassie. Please provide sources for your statement - and no, HuffPo or DailyKaka are not acceptable.

Regards,
Peter H.

when the Bush administration talks to the Iranians that’s not appeasement but when the Obama administration hypothetically does so in the future, it will be

You don’t get out much, do you Houndentenor? It is indeed all about who is doing the talking… and why, i.e., to what end, or with what preconditions; what message; what policy.

When Neville Chamberlain went to Munich in 1938 and talked to Hitler, that was unhelpful to world peace, as we know. If, instead, Winston Churchill had been in power and had done it, delivering a different message (”Hands off Czechoslovakia”), it might have been very helpful to world peace. See how that works? The message. The preconditions (if any). The purpose.

Obama, we know, has expressed his willingness to talk to Iran without any particular conditions or goals in mind, achieving nothing except the implementation of a policy of appeasement.

To the extent that the Bush Administration’s policy toward Iran has devolved into one of appeasement, their talking to Iran may be equally bad. Or, to the extent that the Bush Administration is standing up for U.S. interests with Iran, their talking may be good. It depends.

The Bush family… did business with the Nazis

Typical pathetic Houndentenor attempt at changing the subject. Even if true (which I doubt, or at least in the one-sided form presented).

The Bush family ought to know about appeasement. They did business with the Nazis up until the day the Feds stopped them.

Regards,
Peter H.

What bothers me is the continual reference to Hitler and his National Socialists, particularly the British and French accommodation at the Munich Conference of 1938. What Hitler was demanding was not unreasonable.

Oh. My. Freaking. God.

[Hitler] wanted the German-speaking areas of Europe under German authority.

Um, that’s “reasonable”? And what is your fascination with “German authority”? Aren’t we really talking about *Hitlerian* authority, and death camps? (Real ones… not the fake ones Bush and Cheney are supposed to have for gays in the backwoods of Wyoming… Real ones.)

He had just annexed Austria, which was German-speaking, without bloodshed.

Really? Would the Austrians have said “Oooh, no bloodshed”? And what about the blood of Austrian Jews? Does that not count, because it’s only the Joooz?

There were two more small pieces of Germanic territory: the free city of Danzig and the Sudetenland, a border area of what is now the Czech Republic.

The FREE CITY of Danzig? Which means, after annexation by Hitler, it was… not free, right? As for the Sudeten region as a mere “border area” of the Czech Republic: it was a mountain region that was Czechoslovakia’s only plausible defense against Germany; annexing it to Germany was tantamount to total German conquest, Hitler’s real aim. Guess you’ve forgotten all that.

When the British let Hitler have a slice of Czechoslovakia, they were following their historical wisdom: avoid war.

As Taranto points out: That worked, now didn’t it? Whew! World War 2 was averted! It never happened!

The narrative we’re given about Munich is entirely in hindsight.

So that makes Munich OK? And means we should never draw any useful lessons from it?

We know what kind of man Hitler was, and that he started World War II in Europe. But in 1938 people knew a lot less.

You mean: in 1938 the world’s *craven, stupid people* knew less. That is true. Unfortunately, the freedom-loving and wise people like Churchill, or (say) Jewish leaders, knew quite a lot about Hitler - who had published _Mein Kampf_ in the 1920s - and unfortunately, they weren’t listened to.

Ramsey is what passes for some liberals’ “thinking” about war and peace in the 21st century. We’re living in 1938 all over again.

THAT’S the funniest.

And then the liberals set out on an amusing slash & burn campaign to redefine appeasement so it doesn’t fit them or Snobama. I even heard a liberal radio host, Ed Schultz I think, try to say that he heard Bush say “a candidate”.

But the most amusing thing by far is the fact that in all the kerfuffle, NONE of the liberals that I’ve seen have said that what Bush said wasn’t true. They all said “You can’t say that!”, but they NEVER once said that it wasn’t true. And there’s the self incrimination.

That and the lack of leadership of an obvious total pussy who will whine, cry and make a speech everytime things don’t go his way.

Can we go to Pussama now?

What I do know is that it was one of the best speeches of his administration and it came too late to save what might have been a great 2nd term.

Regards,
Peter H.

I do think the Democrats greatly overreacted, especially the whining Obama, to the mention of Hitler’s aggression in that paragraph.

How?

And does the rhetoric borrow phrases that Obama has used on the stump, a trick politicians often use to disparage their rivals without addressing them directly?

Nice try, DER, but no cigar. The original quote is actually an admission against interest, which is argument for stronger validity since the original quote was by GOP Sen. Borah (D-ID), as ILC pointed out.

The obvious question is why the Dhimmicrats would be offended by something that a Republican Senator said.

As I’ve said before, if you put on a shoe and loudly proclaim that it fits, it ain’t my problem.

Regards,
Peter H.