I couldn’t help but laugh at the recent kerfuffle regarding the supposed comparison of Barak Hussein Obama to a Nazi-appeaser. (I also laugh at the anger arising anytime someone uses Barack’s middle name… but I digress). In an interview, Bush said:
“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 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.”
Never mind the fact that Barack was not mentioned at all–he still used the opportunity (as any good politician would) to get in front of the media and defend himself.
“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.”
But you have advocated for this very thing, Barack! (or does the Iranian regime fall outside your definition of a “terrorist”… which, if true, is about as revealing as anything Bush has said). The funny thing is that Bush is routinely called, well, a NAZI, by many on the left… and not even a finger is lifted in response. When accused of being something quite tame in comparison (i.e. an appeaser), Barack looses it with outrage. How is it that those on the right can be called anything with impunity, but those on the left must be shielded from even the softest criticism??? Is it not funny how the standards of political correctness change from party-to-party?
If anything can be garnished from this small forray, it is that Bush has a much greater grasp of history than Barack does. Those who do not see the similarities between Iran, or other terrorist-sponsoring regimes will undoubtedly make the same mistakes.
What Barack H. Obama failed to notice was that Hitler was not a “terrorist” in the sense that we use the word. He was a head-of-state, just like Ahmadinejad of Iran and Bashar of Syria. It is true that they support terrorism through Hezbollah, but they are not themselves considered to be terrorists in the truest sense. That is the flaw of Obama’s retort.
Barack complained that he never would sit down with terrorists and so the comparison to 1939 Germany-Britian relations was not correct. But he only demonstrates his supreme ignorance in making the complaint. Ahmadenijad wants the same thing that Hitler wanted – the annihilation of the Jews as a race of people. But to Obama, somehow there is a difference between the two.
I’m not one for rhetoric for its own sake, but I will say this – Barack Hussein Obama is a damned fool! Those who have bought and drank his kool-aid will soon find themselves gasping for political air. Idiots.
Publius