The New Appeasers

President Bush’s implied attack on Barack Obama -- comparing those who would negotiate with terrorists and radicals to pre-World War II appeasers -- is being written off as mere heated political rhetoric. That is happening because the president, as is his wont, expressed a correct judgment in incomplete and thus incorrect terms.

Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the 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 I could only have talked to Hitler, all 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.

Adding his to the president’s muddle, Sen. John McCain first said that the president was “absolutely right,” and then said he didn’t know if Obama was an appeaser. If the boundaries of the debate were defined by the president’s formulation, McCain could be forgiven his confusion.

On the other side of the aisle, Speaker Pelosi harrumphed about politics being a home game, Sen. Joe Biden (D-RI) gave forth an expletive and Obama advisor Greg Craig said Bush’s comments were “an abuse of office” and “unseemly”.

The day after the president spoke, Sen. Obama -- at a South Dakota town hall meeting -- called the president to task for launching a political attack on foreign soil. (Yes, he did mean Bush and not Jimmy Carter, whose shuttling to terrorist capitals is metronomic).

He said President Bush’s words were the “kind of appalling attack that divides our country” and alienates us from other nations. But Obama managed nothing more. In his characteristic vacuity he never argued the merits of the president’s accusation. The best Obama could do was say “so much for civility” about the presidential campaign.

Is Obama an appeaser? Of course. But why? What is an appeaser? An appeaser may be a diplomat, but all diplomats are not appeasers.

Diplomats buy and sell; appeasers just give things away. And that difference is something Barack Obama has yet to learn.

An appeaser is someone who is willing to compromise his nation’s interests without obtaining an equal or greater concession from the adversary. History’s most famous appeaser, Neville Chamberlain, gave the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia to Hitler in 1938 and received nothing in return. Having been appeased -- and thus given time to further build his military might -- Hitler attacked a year later, conquering Poland and igniting the largest and most murderous war in history.

In Churchill’s more literary definition, an appeaser is someone who feeds the crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

In many speeches (and on his official campaign website) Obama has announced that he would remove all American combat troops from Iraq within sixteen months of his inauguration. He would establish no permanent bases there and leave only enough troops to protect our embassy and diplomats. And, we must infer, he would do so without extracting any concessions from Iraq’s neighbors -- Iran and Syria -- to end their direct intervention in Iraq.

Obama has never explained what would come next in Iraq. Necessarily Iran, Syria and their terrorist proxies would have free rein there while Obama sought to end the threat of terrorism and solve the problems of the Middle East by personal diplomacy.

Thus, Obama has already offered Iraq to Iran without getting anything in return. And he has promised to engage in diplomacy with Iran, personally meeting with Iranian leaders without precondition.

Obama, by our objective (and historically sound) definition, is an appeaser. For Obama, Iraq is the Sudetenland. What will be Iran’s Poland? Obama would find that out at his first meeting with Ahmadinejad. Having already surrendered Iraq, a President Obama would have positioned America only to give further concessions without any prospect of extracting equal or greater concessions from Iran.

Obama’s promise of a diplomatic offensive is entirely offensive to American interests. He apparently does not realize that in the entire murderous history of the mullah’s kakistocracy, there has been no successful negotiation with them. No nation or group of nations has negotiated a change in Iran’s behavior in the 29 years since the regime forcibly replaced the ailing Shah’s government.

What makes Obama think he can succeed when no one else has in three decades? His ego-driven naiveté is not excused, as Chamberlain’s was explained, by horrific wartime experience.

Barack Obama may be the first president of the United States whose character is equivalent to Blanche Dubois’. In Tennessee Williams’ “A Streetcar Named Desire,” the hapless, destitute Blanche said, “I have always depended on the kindness of strangers.” But strangers -- especially foreign nations -- cannot be relied on to dispense kindness. History proves that they take more than they give unless some outside force or internal opposition compels them to do otherwise.

Churchill once said, “Appeasement is feeding the dragon hoping he will
eat you LAST.”

(If you want to know about the author, Paul Belien) - - -
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/paulbelien )

The German author Henryk M. Broder recently told the Dutch Newspaper
“DeVolkskrant” that young Europeans, who love freedom, better emigrate.
Europe as we know it will not exist twenty years from now.

While sitting on a terrace in Berlin during the interview, Broder pointed to
the other customers and the passers-by and said, “We are watching the
world of yesterday.”

Europe is turning Muslim. As Broder is sixty years old he is not going to
emigrate.

“I am too old,” he said. However, he urged young people to get out and
“move to Australia or New Zealand . That is the only option they have if
they want to avoid the plagues that will turn the old continent uninhabitable.”

Many Germans and Dutch, apparently, are not waiting for Broder’s advice.
The number of emigrants leaving the Netherlands and Germany has already
surpassed the number of immigrants moving in. One does not have to be
prophetic to predict, like Henryk Broder, that Europe is becoming Islamic.

Just consider the demographics.

- The number of Muslims in Contemporary Europe is estimated to be 50
million.
- It is expected to double in twenty years. By 2025, one third of all European
children will be born to Muslim families.
- Today Mohammed is already the most popular name for newborn boys in
Brussels , Amsterdam , Rotterdam and other major European cities.

Broder is convinced that the Europeans are not willing to oppose Islamization.
“The dominant ethos,” he told De Volkskrant, “is perfectly voiced by the
stupid blonde woman author with whom I recently debated.

She said that it is sometimes better to let yourself be raped than to risk
serious injuries while resisting. She said it is sometimes better to avoid
fighting than run the risk of death.”

In a recent Op-Ed piece in the Brussels newspaper De Standaard the Dutch
(gay and self-declared “humanist”) author Oscar Van Den Boogaard refers
to Broder’s interview. Van den Boogaard says that to him coping with the
Islamization of Europe is like “a process of mourning.” He is overwhelmed
by a “feeling of sadness.”

“I am not a Warrior,” he says, “but who is? I have never learned to fight for
my freedom. I was only good at enjoying it.”

Consider that in all of Europe no one under the age of 65 has pickedup arms
in defense of their country. That task has been borne by the United States
since Hitler surrendered in 1945.

As Tom Bethell wrote in this month’s American Spectator: “Just at the most
basic level of demography the secular-humanist option is not working.”
But there is more to it than the fact that non-religious people tend not to have
as many children as religious people, because many of them prefer to “enjoy”
freedom rather than renounce it for the sake of children.

Secularists, it seems to me, are also less keen on fighting. Since they do
not believe in an afterlife, this life is the only thing they have to lose.
Hence they will rather accept submission than fight.

Like the German feminist Broder referred to, they prefer to be raped than to
resist.

“If faith collapses, civilization goes with it,” says Bethell. That is the real
cause of the closing of civilization in Europe .

Islamization is simply the consequence. The very word Islam means
“submission” and the secularists have submitted already. Many Europeans
have already become Muslims, though they do not realize it or do not want
to admit it.

Some of the people I meet in the U.S. are particularly worried about the rise
of anti-Semitism in Europe . They are correct when they fear that
anti-Semitism is also on the rise among non-immigrant Europeans.

The latter hate people with a fighting spirit. Contemporary Anti-Semitism in
Europe (at least when coming from native Europeans) is related to
anti-Americanism.

People who are not prepared to resist and are eager to submit, hate others
who do not want to submit and are prepared to fight. They hate them because
they are afraid that the latter will endanger their lives as well.
In their view everyone must submit.

This is why they have come to hate Israel and America so much, and the
small band of European “Islamophobes” who dare to talk about what they
see happening around them. West Europeans have to choose between
submission (Islam) or death. I fear, like Broder, that they have chosen
submission - just like in former days when they preferred to be Red rather
than dead.

Europeans apparently never read John Stuart Mill: “War is an ugly thing,
but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and
patriotic feeling which thinks nothing is worth a war, is worse.”

“A man who has nothing which he cares more about than he does about
his personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance at being
free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.”

President Bush’s implied attack on Barack Obama -- comparing those who would negotiate with terrorists and radicals to pre-World War II appeasers

Obama negotiating with terrorists and radicals?? Say it ain't so!

"God Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11"

"In the 21st century, white America got a wake-up call after 9/11/01. White America and the Western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just 'disappeared' as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring Black concerns."

http://www.cmaucc.org/EMRJeremiahWright2.pdf

"America’s chickens...are coming home...to ROOST!"

--Rev Dr. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor and ~~spiritual advisor~~ 'crazy uncle' for over twenty years

_____________________________________________________________

"I don’t regret setting bombs," Ayers was quoted in the opening line of the Times profile; "I feel we didn’t do enough." In 1969, Ayers and his wife convened a "War Council" in Flint Michigan, whose purpose was to launch a military front inside the United States with the purpose of helping Third World [Maoist-communist] revolutionaries conquer and destroy it.

Taking charge of the podium, dressed in high-heeled boots and a leather mini-skirt – her signature uniform – Dorhn incited the assembled radicals to join the war against "Amerikkka" and create chaos and destruction in the "belly of the beast."

Her voice rising to a fevered pitch, Dohrn raised three fingers in a "fork salute" to mass murderer Charles Manson whom she proposed as a symbol to her troops. Referring to the helpless victims of the Manson Family as the "Tate Eight" (the most famous was actress Sharon Tate) Dohrn shouted:

"Dig It. First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, they even shoved a fork into a victim’s stomach! Wild!"

(big snip)

Today William Ayers is not merely an author favored by the New York Times, but a Distinguished Professor of Education at the University of Illinois, Chicago.

His Lady Macbeth [Bernardine Dohrn] is not merely a lawyer, but a member of the American Bar Association’s governing elite, as well as the director of Northwestern University’s Children and Family Justice Center.
[it's true! see: http://www.law.northwestern.edu/aclu/]

Article: Allies in War -by David Horowitz
FrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, September 17, 2001
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=63512670-BF7C-42A0-B41D-5D0FB9E09C09

Abbas Musawi, who was a former leader of Hezbollah, put it more clearly than anybody else. Musawi said we are not fighting so that you’ll offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you. (taken from Hugh Hewitt's interview of Mark Steyn, 4/08)

Hezbollah, the image of its progentitor, Iran, under the Jimmy Cahtuh' Mullahs, explains itself through its notorious and much-revered (among them) head.

Who could possibly effectively debate the negative to the proposition that Obama's an appeaser? Biden only ventures that BHO's changed his mind, reconsidered. BHO shows himself not to be presidential material. The Dhimmicrats show themselves not to have American's best interests in mind. If any Demonrat in power didn't endorse what BHO said in the first debate, he or she could have denounced it or challenged it, even quietly, and had BHO revise and extend his remarks in any of dozens of opportunities. The are only now changing their tune because they've done new polls on these issues, and they see how badly it looks for them.

No, BHO spoke the Left's truth accidentally and clearly, or shall we say, "cleanly articulated," just as when he glorified the quality of the Muslim call to prayer.

Any BHO-contemplated venture--of course he may not yet be credited with anything able to be called "foreign policy--toward Iran would give them, at minimum, a reset of the clock, whereafter BHO and his cronies would in every implicit way seek to give BHO's initiative(s) time to work. This would of course give Iran yet more time to make their bomb(s) with which they've already declared they intend to wipe Israel and the Great Satan off the map!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.