It's a critically important and essential element of wingnuttery, believing oneself, always, to be Winston Churchill, and the rest of the world to be, always, Neville Chamberlain.

Please.

Walk like Chamberlain, talk like Chamberlain.......

The ironic thing is that President Bush was quoting a Republican, Senator William Borah of Idaho. While Borah was an isolationist (having vehemently opposed the League of Nations), he was hardly an appeaser or Nazi sympathizer.

Borah was a liberal. And a fool.

The point is that he was neither an appeaser nor a Nazi sympathizer, yet Bush chose to paint him as such for political points. That's just wrong.

It is, and it's also wrong in the respect that the politics should stop at the water's edge. The President has no business campaigning for his party while addressing a foreign legislature. Doing so is outrageous.

Borah, in addition to being a fool who thought he could reason with Hitler, was an isolationist who fought FDR all the way. Sounds like an appeaser to me. And a tool, a useful idiot, for Nazi propaganda.

Speaking about what appeasement led to 70 years ago, during an address commemorating the founding of Israel, is not political campaigning. It is a statement of American foreign policy then and now, as delivered by our president.

If Mr. Bush's words sting, perhaps Senator Obama should rethink where he's standing.

Bush, Chamberlain, and Obama

As Chris Matthews educated Kevin James on tonight's Hardball, diplomacy does not equal "appeasement." Appeasement requires giving something to the other side; the mere act of talking is not "appeasement."

Of course, this Administration is working toward negotiating with our enemies, right? SecDef gates was just talking about how we need to get to the point at which we can negotiate with Iran. Let me guess, though - that doesn't count, for some reason, right?

It was just as bad to hear McCain's comment as he defended Bush's remarks:

“I believe that it’s not an accident that our hostages came home from Iran when President Reagan was president of the United States. He didn’t sit down in a negotiation with the religious extremists in Iran, he made it very clear that those hostages were coming home.'’

Of course, Reagan had been President for all of what, 20 minutes when the hostages were released? (Unless we're supposed to buy into the conspiracy theory that argues contacts between the Reagan camp and the mullahs before the election...(roll eyes)) And I guess that the whole Iran-Contra thing wasn't connected in any way to negotiations with Iran....oh, but Reagan didn't do that personally, right?

This is bordering on the ludicrous.

Reagan "negotiated" the release of the hostages by using a big stick. You made the point yourself, Wes, that they were released the day Reagan took office. One can only guess what ultimatum had been directed at Iran to cause that.

But Wes, at least you got your timeline straight, unlike the idiots at Think Progress, who wouldn't know a fact if it bit them on the ass. In their thin attempt to dismiss McCain's speech on this subject, the Think Progress geniuses claimed that the hostages were released after the Iran-Contra deal.

Sitting down and having a nice little diplomatic afternoon tea with terrorists and thugs running a rogue state is quite different than delivering an ultimatum. The key element here is that Obama said he would talk with Iran with no preconditions, as only a weak Carter-esque leftist would do.

Reagan "negotiated" the release of the hostages by using a big stick. You made the point yourself, Wes, that they were released the day Reagan took office.

Oh, yes, I'm quite sure that President-elect Reagan sent a note to Teheran...actually, he probably did; someday we'll know how that came to pass in oh-so-convenient a fashion.

Oh, and Iran-Contra? In Reagan's own words:

"My purpose was... to send a signal that the United States was prepared to replace the animosity between [the U.S. and Iran] with a new relationship... At the same time we undertook this initiative, we made clear that Iran must oppose all forms of international terrorism as a condition of progress in our relationship. The most significant step which Iran could take, we indicated, would be to use its influence in Lebanon to secure the release of all hostages held there."

Oh, but we don't talk with enemies...this was just an 'initiative' gone awry. (snort)

Obama, on Hamas:

“We must not negotiate with a terrorist group intent on Israel’s destruction,” Obama said. “We should only sit down with Hamas if they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel’s right to exist, and abide by past agreements.”

Obama on Iran, speaking to AIPAC in Feb 07:

And while we should take no option, including military action, off the table, sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons. [...] This includes direct engagement with Iran similar to the meetings we conducted with the Soviets at the height of the Cold War, laying out in clear terms our principles and interests. Tough-minded diplomacy would include real leverage through stronger sanctions.

This is yet another manufactured 'controversy' intended as fear-mongering.

Hardly a "manufactured" controversy. Not with Obana advisors meeting with Hamas while Obama speaks with forked tongue. Not with Obama saying that he would meet with Iran without any preconditions.

These are real issues, and go to the Carter-esque nature of Obama's world view. We cannot afford another Carter administration. The world cannot afford one.

Just for added background on Barack "Jimmy" Obama, here's a reminder of the continuing pattern:

CLICK

Oh, and by the way, "fearmongering" is a mantra that has passed its expiration date.

If you that the "fearmongering" thing has expired, check out the Hardball clip I mentioned above. Kevin James is a perfect example of content-free fearmongering; he pumps the "just like before World War II" line, but then can't even say what "appeasement" took place. He kept shouting "appeaser! appeaser!"...

No fearmongering there...bleah.

Oh, and here's the clip.

Wes,
Would that be the same clip where Chris Matthews yells at his guest for not understanding history and then Matthews forgets who was president when the USS Cole was bombed?

Yeah, at first I couldn't tell if Matthews was asking rhetorically or if he really wasn't sure...I think he wasn't sure.

Of course, that hardly excuses James...

Kevin James is now a punch line.

All the bile in the world spewed toward Matthews, deserved or not, doesn't and won't change that.