Kevin James doesn't know from appeasement, Chris Matthews reveals

I have to admit, Tweety does a good job in this interview with right-wing radio host Kevin James.

James starts yammering about how Neville Chamberlain was an appeaser and Chris Matthews stumps him with a very basic question: How exactly did Chamberlain earn his reputation as one of history's most notorious appeasers?

The Hardball clip is very amusing to watch. I have to respect how well James holds up under Matthews' onslaught. A lesser bullshitter wouldn't have withstood 20-plus rounds of "What did he do?"

The serious point behind this performance is that George Bush and his allies are calling Barack Obama an appeaser and likening him to Chamberlain for saying that we should talk to Iran.

Their implicit argument, if it can be called an argument, is that merely talking to our enemies is equivalent to giving in to their most outrageous demands in the hopes of placating them. Of course, Chamberlain didn't appease Hitler merely by talking to him. He appeased Hitler by letting Nazi Germany annex half of Czechoslovakia.

It's not like the truth matters. The president is just throwing out a little red meat for the Republican rubes at home. Of course the US talks to Iran when it suits US interests. This week Bush's own Secretary of Defense announced upcoming talks with Iran.

The president is just being a demagogue. There's no general prohibition against talking to regimes we don't like. There never has been. It's just a made-up rule that right wingers invented to browbeat their critics and to make war seem inevitable. It's not like the Bush administration has ever been bound by that constraint.

The US is currently negotiating with North Korea. Earlier this month North Korea handed 19,000 nuclear program documents to the US State Department. Today, the Bush Administration announced that it will be sending 500,000 tons of food to North Korea. (Officially, the aid is unrelated to the nuclear negotiations.) Point being, the US has no compunctions about engaging with hostile regimes, even to the point of supplying concrete aid.

Even Bush was for diplomacy before he was against it:

Rice’s boss, President Bush, drove the point home after a meeting with the new German Chancellor, Angela Merkel. “You’re going to see a lot of public discussion about this matter,” Mr. Bush told reporters at the White House. “You’re seeing the evolution of a proactive diplomatic policy.” Merkel, in Washington for her first official visit, left little doubt there was any distance between Europe and the U.S. “We will certainly not be intimidated by a country such as Iran.” [CBS, January 2006]

Comments

[Mary]

ONe last word (damn you stupid people get me steamed)... it's my understanding McVeigh was a loner, a sicko who didn't have a movement or following, Bob. Do you see the diff between him and say Hamas, or even bin Laden? What evidence have you that there are plenty of McVeighs just itching to blow up federal buildings with daycare's in em? Any excuse to diss religion, I suppose...

[The Phantom]

Bob

My internet was down for some time, and I've been tortured by Time Warner's Indian IT dept. ( Turn the modem off. Turn it on. Disconnect this. All the usual stuff, read from a sheet )

Churchill was a prophet before his time, and then of his time. He called evil by its name, much as Ronald Reagan did.

Now, guess you will say that Chamberlain was a realist and a good leader, and that Churchill, who led his country through its darkest hour, was a bad leader.

I have no time to read your comedy, but allow me to read it tomorrow, so that you may be dismissed.

[The Phantom]

BTW

I've had my fights with Mary. But she's so right on the McVeigh thing. Most Christian in the US ( say 99.99%) would either turn him on sight or administer summary justice to the no good criminal.

Is that the same as how the Muslim world treats bin Laden? Hero to many millions there, which is why he is still alive. Who in America would protect McVeigh?

An imbecilic comparison. Which only you or Christine Amanpour might make.

Now turn the modem on, turn it off, do a little dance in the backyard, and then go to second level IT nonsupport.

[Lancelot Gobbo]

I would have preferred it if Mr Matthews was a little more certain as to whether he was talking about 1938 or 1939. It doesn't take long to read A.J.P.Taylor's book, "The Origins Of The Second World War" and the benefits far outweigh the effort. Otherwise, I congratulate him for exposing a shameless know-nothing blatherer.

[Inquiring Minds]

Did "Mary" really ask where Obama hides his big stick? What is this, the sock-puppet-from-beyond-the-grave of Robert Mapplethorpe?

[Bob]

Phantom: “Churchill was a prophet before his time, and then of his time. He called evil by its name, much as Ronald Reagan did.”
Again, thank you for yet again proving my point . Churchill “called evil by its name” Does that include the evil of the concentration camps? Just wondering because Sir Winston as a journalist defended Lord Kirchner and his concentration camps in the Boer Wars. How about the use of poison gas? Surely as one who “called evil by its name” Sir Winston would have opposed that, right? Wrong. He argued for its use in England’s colonial wars and in WW I and sent a memo in WW II in which he calmly and rationally discussed the up side to using poison gas during that conflict.
Just as Reagan “called evil by its name”. Evil. Like say child rapers. I think we can all agree 50 year old men who rape 6 year old girls are evil. So why did Reagan take the side of the child rapers in Afghanistan? What’s that, you don’t know what I’m talking about? Of course you don’t, you’re a conservative and St. Ronnie did no wrong – he stood up to evil. See, the “evil” Soviet-backed government in Afghanistan issued a series of reforms, each of which progressively upset the warlords and their supporters. However the one that started the war, the one that caused these great and glorious freedom fighters to rise up against the government was a package of marriage reforms which A. put restrictions on dowries and B. raised the age of marriage to 12. Well, that’s not exactly correct. It established a minimum age of marriage. In other words families could no longer sell their 6 year old daughters to some 50 year old man who already had 4 wives for a dozen goats and some chickens. Now those modern-day Patrick Henry’s would have to wait until the girl was 12 and they would have none of that no siree bub and Ronnie, dear freedom loving St. Ronnie was with them 100%.
None of which is to say Reagan and Churchill were evil incarnate. It just harkens back to that whole complexity thing I mentioned earlier. But hey, if you think in terms that fit on bumper stickers there’s really no room for that ole devil complexity, so Reagan and Churchill are near-perfect human beings whilst Neville Chamberlain thought Hitler was a great guy. There is nothing, NOTHING in any of your posts on this page indicating any critical thinking skills whatever so if you don’t mind I’ll just ignore your pooh-flinging from here on out.