Posts Tagged ‘appeasement’

Barack Chamberlain

May 16, 2008

Today, President Bush spoke in front of the Knesset (their Parliament) while in country for the 60th anniversary since Israel’s modern birth.  while speaking, he had something to say about those who would negotiate with Iran, whether to get them to abandon their nukular weapons program they of course don’t have, or on their program to take over the whole islamic world and wipe Israel off the map.  Bush had this to say regarding the appeasement movement of today:

“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,” the President said to the country’s legislative body, “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.”

Seems rather obvious to me.  There was a massive appeasement movement both in England and right here in America.  Chamberlain’s infamous ‘Peace in our time’ speech came after his meeting with Hitler in Munich, dooming the Czechs.  Less than six months later, Hitler showed why appeasement doesn’t work.

Very quickly after Bush’s speech made the news here, Team Obamessiah took a bit of offense, saying

In a statement, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., shot across the bow: “It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 6Oth anniversary of Israel’s independence to launch a false political attack. It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel. Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power — including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy – to pressure countries like Iran and Syria. George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the President’s extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel.”

Considering the fact that Bush mentioned no names in his comments, Obama sure does seem defensive!  Old Bill Shakespeare got it right in Much Ado About Nothing when he wrote ‘thou dost protesteth too much, methinks.’ 

The comments could be said to pertain to a large number of individuals in the Western world.  However, let’s assume Bush were talking about Barack Obama.  Why would he ever think such a thing?

Despite Obama claiming, as of a few days ago, that people on the right have ‘reframed’ his views, and that He would not meet unconditionally with Iran, or any other rogue state, LGF busted Him, going back to last July’s CNN debate.

QUESTION: In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since.

In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration — is ridiculous.


Obama continues this idea to this very day, stating on his own website (as of today, even though the light has been shone on this matter five days ago)

Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.

This is the same Iran whose leader promised to ‘wipe Israel off the map’ repeatedly, said yesterday that “Israel is dying and that its 60th anniversary celebrations are an attempt to prevent its “annihilation.”, and Israel is referred to as “filthy bacteria” and a “cancerous tumor” and Jews are characterized as “a bunch of bloodthirsty barbarians”. 

Okay, Barack, you want to meet unconditionally with these people?  The same ones whose very holy book orders them to kill Jews?  Repeatedly?

Obama has cried in his defense of meeting with Iran that he would talk to our enemies in the same manner as Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Truman.  A couple of problem with this: FDR never sat down with Hitler, or Tojo.  His diplomatic staff did, and look what all that talk got us.  WWII.  Truman met with Stalin, true, but did Uncle Joe cease to blockade West Berlin, or drop the Iron Curtain across Eastern Europe?  Reagan did in fact sit down with Gorbachev, after instituting the original Star Wars plan which 1) completely threatened any first strike capability and 2) any attempt to compete would utterly bankrupt the Soviet Union even faster than was going on.  Gorby knew he had no chance to compete against America, so he smartly sat down and struck a ballistic missile treaty which has served the world well. 

You don’t offer to negotiate with a dictator, unconditionally.  It only gives them legitimacy, makes you look weak, emboldening them, and dictators are rather infamous for telling you what you want to hear, to buy time, and keep on doing what they want when you walk out the door.  Looking like a paper tiger is what got us attacked on 9/11, among other attacks.

What we have been doing with Ahmadinnerjacket, and what Obama promises to kick into overdrive,  is akin to the parent with an unruly child, who constantly tells that child ‘now you stop that!  I mean it this time!  I’m really going to be upset this time!’  All the while, the child knows good and well Mom or Dad has no intention of ever doing a darned thing, and the behavior continues, unabated.

If there is any solution to the Iranian problem with nukes, it lies in the TR philosophy of ‘speak softly and carry a big stick’.  Tell your enemy how it’s going to be, without bluster.  While showing him that there will be real consequences if he doesn’t comply.  If he comes along, then great.  If not, then whack him with the stick you showed him.  Every parent knows that if you aren’t willing to back up your threats, then your situation will be worse than if you never made them at all.

UPDATE:  Barack’s partner in diplomacy says “The Hidden Imam manages all the affairs of the world.”  When someone is so religiously oriented that he believes the last in muhammed’s bloodline has been living at the bottom of a well for over a thousand years, and will not return until his followers create total chaos in the world, and when he does, he will be the equivalent of Christ returning to Earth…  I don’t think The Obamessiah will be able to speak any magic words to deter such a nutburger from his plans to create that very chaos.  The man used city funds to create a special boulevard leading up to the Mahdi’s well, so he has a nice path to enter the city among adoring fans.  He doesn’t give a rat’s patoot what pretty words Obama has for him, for peace, when he doesn’t want anything but chaos. 


Pat Condell Nails It Again

March 9, 2008

Via LGF:

For those of you who aren’t familiar with Pat, he’s my second favorite atheist, behind Allahpundit over at  He’s been known to say things you might not like about the Catholic church on occasion, but he’s one of the good guys.  On the fight against islam, He gets it.  He sees his country and his continent being taken over by the Soft Jihad*.  Here’s a man willing to stand up, put his name and his face out there for the world to see.  In this day and age, that equals putting his life on the line, and he darn well knows it. 

May the God Pat doesn’t believe in protect him.

*Soft Jihad:  A state of ‘slow burn’ jihad, as opposed to the more traditional, obvious, throat-slitting variety.  A societal ju-jitsiu, if you will.  It takes a free, open, liberal society’s best aspects and uses them against it.  Open immigration policies, willing low birthrates, freedom of expression, multiculturalism.  It moves into an area in large numbers, refuses to assimilate, breeds in vast numbers (sorry to be blunt folks, but it’s a fact), then points their dirty third world fingers in your faces, demanding that you give them more.  Because of the sickness that is multiculturalism, the stupid bureaucrats, and many of the citizenry as well, people are trained to believe that Western Civilization and white people are the bad guys of the world.  As Pat says, islam is notan equal civilization, it is a seventh century civilization, at best.  They want to drag not only their own people back there, but the rest of us as well.  This isn’t just me saying this, this is their own words.  They openly state that they want to take over the whole world.  They openly state that they want sharia law to be the ruling law.  They want it right here in America.  The leader of CAIR is quoted (though he later backpedaled) as saying

“Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant,” and, “The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.”


That is soft Jihad, folks.