You forget. The Iranian leadership is working on religious principals. They are just waiting for the Messiah to show them the way.

I hope Matthews runs against Specter and wins. It would be great to get that useless man out of the Senate and Matthews off the air and into a position where he has to take ownership of his words and behavior.

Really?

Nice nuance Tom Shipley.

If by “nuance” you mean “getting the facts correct,” then yes, it was nice nuance.

Appeasement is talking to ratbags who have no intenton of changing the way they operate.

Um, no. it’s. not.

Appeasement is talking to ratbags who have no intenton of changing the way they operate. Talking openly gives the rat bags gravitas in their county and on the international stage.

I recall that the Democrat visits to the Middle-East resulted in crackdowns on the political opposition.

Fact is, when a bully has you pinned, there’s no difference between crying uncle and giving him your lunch money. Either way, you’ve lost all self respect — you’re a pansy — you’re not dealing from a position of strength.

Did you watch the entire clip. Matthews doesn’t make an argument that Chamberlain did not appease Hitler. His basic point was that Obama’s pledge to talk to Iran is not the same as giving half of Czechoslovakia to Hitler. That insinuating that Obama is an appeaser it utter BS.

And he was right.

I fail to see how what Chamberlain did according to “Hardballed”, basically giving Hitler a piece of Czech after Hitler had already invaded Austria, wasn’t appeasement, which is what the non-lib called it if I heard correctly. Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler hung the Czech’s out to dry in piecemeal fashion. Churchilll was against it and so were the Czech’s. Chamberlain’s being spineless clearly got a lot more people killed in the long run. “Hardball” pawned himself if anything.

What’s funny is that at the very end the Hardballed “history expert” Mathews says “wasn’t the USS Cole under Bush?”
I guess everybody , includingh Allahpundit, just missed that one in their zeal to skewer the non-liberal. (hint: Oct 2000; Prez: Billary Clinton ) “Hardballed” pawned himself again.

And from the first clip of Obama on this segment, exactly how much negotiating with our enemies did Truman and FDR actually do before committing the U.S. to war in WW2 and Korea? Kennedy?

It will be hard to top this one. At least in her case, Prissy Chrissy did not afford her the luxury of speaking. Speech was this guys Achilles’ Heel.

think a Banzai charge is how you purchase tiny trees,

O no that is a Gore thingy!

So much historical stupidity, so little evident brains.

MrLynn on May 15, 2008 at 11:26 PM

NO WAY bush was addressing the democratic party MURTHA included, not obama alone.

I’ll buy that correction all the way. Couldn’t have said it better myself, but I had fried chicken on the stove and I had to cut it short lest I burn my dinner. Thanks!

Is this not a direct betrayal of the Sudetenland’s inhabitants by Great Britain? Was Czech sovereignty not sold down the river for peace in Chamberlain’s time? Is this not direct involvement by Chamberlain’s government to assist Hitler’s aggressive and expansive military ambitions?

Please explain where my conclusion (as well as the historical consensus)is wrong.

Here’s a link to the document.

darclon on May 15, 2008 at 10:07 PM

Sounds about right to me. And that’s the point. The President and others think that the situation with Iran is analogous to the one Germany created in the late ’30s. It is by no means an accurate analogy, as there are powers much greater than Iran in the world today, but there is no denying Iran’s hegemonic ambitions in the Middle East, and the dangers they pose to the region and especially to Israel, which Iran’s leaders have vowed to destroy.

The analogy with Chamberlain offers the object-lesson that to appease tyrants with hegemonic ambitions, by giving them an inch or two, is foolhardy, because they will inevitably go on to take a mile.

The President implies that some in this country would be happy to give Iran an inch, by talking to them, rather than confront them: “What would you offer?” he asks. Would they be satisfied?

Though the White House denies it, the President clearly had Obambi in his sights, and justifiably so. The naive candidate poses an existential threat to Israel and to the Middle East, by simply announcing he is willing to try carrots, mistaking these carnivores for bunny rabbits.

Where Chris Matthews found this incompetent idiot to defend the President’s position I don’t know. Unfortunately there are many in media who love to talk, but have empty heads—even some on the right.

It’s irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that Obambi is the far more dangerous idiot. The President is right, and he’d better do something about Iran before November. The danger posed by the Democrats is too great.