"Appeasement": Guilt-By-Analogy... When Guilt-By-Association Isn't Enough

I was the split-screen bystander on Hardball last night when Chris Matthews exposed Kevin James as the quintessential right wing slandering bloviator.

James was of course pathetic but his -- and Bush's and McCain's -- strategies aren't so funny. Basically, when you've lost an argument because facts and history aren't on your side, resort to unprovable guilt-by-association or, as in appeasement, guilt-by-analogy.

It was bad enough when McCain tried to link Hamas and Obama because Hamas said it preferred Obama. And if the Klan endorsed McCain because he wasn't the black guy, would McCain have a problem if someone said that McCain and the Klan are one and the same?

Then Bush makes his instantly famous appeasement attack at the Knesset on Obama. We've seen this movie before. Whenever conservatives can't win an argument on the merits, they attack some real or perceived enemy as Hitler. So Ho Chi Mihn was Hitler. bin Ladin was Hitler. Ahmadinejad was Hitler. Of course Hussein was Hitler. And anyone who does something to try to resolve conflict short of more war is Neville Chamberlain.

Beyond the fact that Mr. President 28% has next-to-credibility on much of anything, least of all in the Middle East, the attack on Obama is ridiculous.

As the late PM Yitzhak Rabin famously said, you negotiate not with your friends but your enemies. Was Israel -- with far more experience and its survival at stake in dealing with war and terrorism -- wrong to neogtiate with former enemy Egypt, with successful result...wrong to negotiate with former enemy Jordan, with successful result... now wrong to talk to Syria about peace in exchange for the Golan? Churchill rightly understood that at times of potential or actual conflict, it was better to "jaw jaw than war war."

Given where Bush's ready-fire-aim approach has gotten us in Iraq, it's good for the next president to pursue a strategy of common security when it comes to such inter-border problems as terrorism, pollution, AIDS and nuclear proliferation. Bush and McCain's military-first impulse has proven a calamity for America and the world because, to quote even a momentarily cogent Don Rumsfeld, "we can't kill them all."

Take Iran and Ahmadinejad, the newest "Hitler." Iran can't stop laughing at Bush's foreign policy. He attacks its long-time enemy Iraq, allowing Iran's Shia majority to have far more influence in a Shia-majority Iraqi government. And Bush at the same time provides an unpopular Iranian government with a convenient outside enemy to rally nationalistic support to its side. Which is why Secretary Robert Gates himself has advocated talking more to Iran. What an appeaser!

Related: Chris Matthews Eviscerates Right-Wing Host Kevin James Over Obama "Appeasement" Claims

Comments

[TrevorAlan]

Conservatives love to call people Hitler, but they don't remember that its the CONSERVATIVES in Gemany and other countries that BUILT Hitler, and CONSERVATIVES in other coutries that APPEASED him. Did 1930's Republicans spring to the aid of Jews in Germany? Did they even want to accept the refugees from a dictator they enthroned?

Today, Bush has no use for the Democratic process or progressives, but he calls DEMOCRATS the appeasers.

Conservative rhetoric loves calling other people Hitler to try to distract them from how much they liked... Hitler.

[lisakaz2]

And there were reasons for creating Czecholslovakia with the Sudetenland, namely that the rest of the country would not have defensible borders without that region.

And you forget that the Germans there were not organized against the new government without Nazi "help." The "persecution" was overreach as far as an accusation.

This was hardly the sole reason for the Nazi movement and you distort history by suggesting that it was. Why don't you include:

-- the "war guilt" clause
-- the lack of concern for rebuilding Germany after the war or even concern for its postwar government (which was called the product of Revolution by some)
-- the limitation of the military to 100K men
-- the demilitarized Rhineland
-- the seizure of imperial possessions, typically given to Britain or France

and most notably:
-- the "Polish corridor" separating East Prussia from the rest of Germany

These matter more than the refusal to allow Austria to join Germany or the Czechoslovokan state.

[LORISNJ]

Good points and if that is all the Germans under Hitler wanted, no one would be bringing up Hitler as the world's worst to compare the current tyrants to; this however was not ALL that they did is it? It was the insanity of Hitler and his dreams of a master race and his use of prejudices against the prosperous Jews that made him the icon of evil. And the Germans have spent many years living down the reputation of Hitler's death camps and the Germans complicity in the final solution. Just like we will have to when Bush's true crimes finally come to light - we are as guilty as Bush because we didn't stop it and we let them continue to rule.

Remember - every terrorist believes they have a valid reasons for doing what they do and in most cases their reasons are sound. Fighting terrorists will never stop the terrorists, it just creates more of them. You must attack the root cause not the symptom. Fight poverty, injustice, prejudice, and ignorance and you will stop terrorism.

No matter how religious a person is, if they have a job, a home, and food; they will not strap bombs to their backs.

[lisakaz2]

And funny Bu$h should mention Hitler in Israel. I wonder if anyone bothered to ask him about what he learned from Grandpa Prescott about him,,,

[Backatcha]

And to highlight his appeasement claims he mentioned a Republican Isolationist senator from Idaho ....like Green said last night ...when your in a hole stop digging

[lisakaz2]

Yeah, those isolationist Republicans, the ones Buchanan says didn't exist...

[Transcendentobserver]

It is probably important to place into historical perspective the Munich Accord and its antecedent causes. The issues which the conference addressed were not the good-evil dichotomy either party to the MSNBC debate loquaciously asserted. The issue at point was the disposition of a German speaking province in Czechoslovakia (The Sudetenland) which prior to the Treaty of Versailles had been part of Germany. Against the position of President Wilson and the US but as punishment to Germany, the province was made part of the arbitrarily created nation of Czechoslovakia, created 16 years earlier along with Yugoslavia, to break up the Triple Alliance. The subsequently acknowledged assessment of the unfairness of the Treaty to the German embryonic republic, most historians concur, gave rise to the Nazi movement. The irony of the agreement was that the provincial cession was supported by virtually the whole of the Sudetenland populace who had demanded that the province be returned to Germany. It was the world's first and only actual application of Wilson's democratic principal of popular self determination to create states by plebiscite rather than by agreement between kings and emperors. The lessons may have relevance in today's issue--particularly in light of the fact that the artificial states of the Middle East trace their existence to the arbitrariness of nation building of the post WW1 diplomatic turmoil.

[Economike]

good one

[JRandomPoster]

Unfortunately, I fear that Hegel was right when he said, "We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

[lisakaz2]

And there were reasons for creating Czecholslovakia with the Sudetenland, namely that the rest of the country would not have defensible borders without that region.

And you forget that the Germans there were not organized against the new government without Nazi "help." The "persecution" was overreach as far as an accusation.

This was hardly the sole reason for the Nazi movement and you distort history by suggesting that it was. Why don't you include:

-- the "war guilt" clause
-- the lack of concern for rebuilding Germany after the war or even concern for its postwar government (which was called the product of Revolution by some)
-- the limitation of the military to 100K men
-- the demilitarized Rhineland
-- the seizure of imperial possessions, typically given to Britain or France

and most notably:
-- the "Polish corridor" separating East Prussia from the rest of Germany

These matter more than the refusal to allow Austria to join Germany or the Czechoslovokan state.

[Zelma]

Just a bit of a correction. The Seudetenland was never part of Germany; it was part of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire. The area had be administered from Prague and had been politically connected to what became western Czechoslovakia. The area was included in the new state because of its long political and economic ties with the hinterland and its strategic importance.

The Seudeten Germans had never been German in the sense of being part of the old German empire. They were a language-group, not a nationality. And until the Nazis sent in agent provocateurs and bought some local political figures, there hadn't been much demand for union with the Reich.

Including the Seudeten Germans in the new state of Czechoslovakia had nothing to do with a Wilsonian desire to "punish" the Germans, but rather with an effort to a viable nation out of the ashes of the multi-national Austro-Hungarian empire.

Yes, we should learn from history, but we should also get our history right, as the hapless gentleman on Crossfire failed to do.

[laylahb]

I was having a bad day until I watched the clip. I laughed and laughed through the entire clip. Then I watched it again, and again later. It's kept a huge smile on my face all day.

It was wonderful to watch such a striking testimony to the absolute ignorance of an exalted symbol of the radio-neocon phenomenon. How did you manage to keep a straight face?

OK, guy, Keep digging and digging until you get to China, I mean Walmart.

[sophistwatch]

Bush's attempt at guilt by analogy is flat wrong. Kevin James never stood a chance.

The Sudetenland Crisis, as it is often referred to, led to the The Munich Agreement which was signed September 30, 1938 by Nazi Germany, France, Britain, and Italy. This Agreement permitted German annexation of Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland.

Obama is willing to listen to what Iranian leaders have to say. He has not agreed to discuss giving away any part of the US or another country to appease Ahmadinejad. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has not invaded any country. Therefore, there is no valid analogy to Neville Chamberlain or the concept of Nazi appeasement as related to the Munich Agreement.

There is, however, a very good example of Nazi appeasement when you look at what George Bush has done in Iraq.

Bush's speech on September 20, 2001.

"And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime".

Bush is not only negotiating with people we once labeled terrorists, we are actually paying money to sworn enemies to try to reduce the violence in Iraq.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/25/hersh-qaeda/

Clearly it is the Decider who is the appeaser!

[JRandomPoster]

Actually, I'd say one of the biggest cases of appeasement during the entire war has been our appeasement of Turkey over the Kurds. For all intents and purposes, we have given them the short end of the stick, broken our promises to them because Turkey fears the formation of a Kurdish state so much.

[Bladernr1001]

Mark,

Appeasment only works when the people you are negotiating with think you will use force if an acceptable agreement is not created.

That is the way the world works. Not sure what the point of your post really was.

[Imhotep]

That sounds like something bush might say, i.e. it's nonsense passed off as logic thinking. Peace

[Sapphire9]

The word "appeasement" doesn't mean what you think it means. That's why Kevin James got slapped around by Chris Matthews. If, however, you yell it loud enough then I'll concede your point.

[Liberal2]

No, *YOU'RE* wrong. Appeasement works when you have sufficient strength to make the other party regret not being appeased but you'd rather not fight. Think "Cost versus Benefit".

Matthews' slapping around of James was amusing. But I think James was trying to remember the point was allowing Hitler to march into Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland without British opposition. He just couldn't recall the fact with Matthews' hectoring him. Of course, historical ignorance is also possible.

[KMan1]

Mr. Green's post made perfect sense, if you understand the meaning of appeasement.

[Hallucinocynic]

Appeasement isn't necessarily negotiation. Appeasement implies that one party is attempting to negotiate from a position of less power, less influence.

That was the problem with Chamberlain - he had nothing to bargain with, other than the Sudetenland, to hold Hitler and Germany at bay. The US has had many tools that it could have employed to contain Iraq (even IF Saddam had possessed those tricky WMDs) but, unfortunately, when a government is predisposed to the use of violence - as Bush, Cheney, McCain and their ILK are - any other approach is deemed unsuitable.

Those tools remain available and there is nothing about our relationship with Iran, or Iran with its neighbors, that cannot be dealt with in a nonviolent and productive way. Those who claim that negotiation - diplomacy - is only for weaklings are, in fact, the real weaklings, and probably still pay full price for everything that they don't steal.

[Liberal2]

At last, someone who understands something about history! You're absolutely right. In fact, England probably would have fallen if the war had started a year eariler. They were able to manufacture just enough additional Hurricanes and Spitfires to maintain control of the air. Goring's air force came within days of totally destroying Britain's only defense against invasion.

I recall reading even Churchill acknowledged, whether intended or not, that extra year before the breakout of real war saved Britain, they were so unprepared militarily. We in America are unable to grasp how deeply, emotionally affected Britain was by the number of British men killed in the first world war. If the US was affected by 58,000 dead in Vietnam, imagine the impact of 100s of thousands of British dead. And Britain has a smaller population.

[ApolloSpeaks]

After 12 years of sanctions, bombings, weapons inspectors and talks Iraq wasn't being contained. 600,000 pages of Iraqi intell documents tell a story of an Iraq that was massively funding and training terrorists­-including Al Qaida affiliates, and had the capability of produing WMD on short notice . As for comparisons with Chamberlain his fatal flaw was to completely misread Hitler's intentions as Barack Obama is doing to the vicious, murdering Khomeine jihadists of Iran.

[MajorKong]

Since we've had several major conflicts and countless minor ones since WWII, I don't think the problem is that the United States is unwilling to use force.

[babylonandon]

But that only works when they think we aren't going to merely stop at maintaining some military status quo or play stupid games ala Viet Nam, Korea, or Iraq AFTER Saddamn was gone.

Right after we squashed Afghanistan and Saddamn all these countries (Syria, Iran, Libya, North Korea) were real keen on getting on our good side - until we let Iraq get torn apart by militia's and gangsters instead of just wiping out any trouble makers (Sadr) and pounding anyone outside for sending in weapons or people.

For all their pronouncements since, the Arabs actiually understood us roughing up troublemakers and it was only when we started acting weak and cursing ourselves did they change their opinion against us.

Any time we proudly flattened someone, everyone else gets all quiet and polite.

[grendl]

What George Bush and Co. failed or didn't care to see was the intrinsic danger of delivering democracy to Iraq. Maybe because he won his presidency based not on a majority of the popular vote but by some back room shenanigans aided and abetted by Scalia and those slimeballs on the Supreme Court. And his brother's home state bamboozling of voters.

But in a democracy, George you see the way it's supposed to work is the majority rules, and Iraq, the majority was in fact Shia, 60% and then some. These were the subjugated masses, ruled by Sunni Baathists, watching their nation's natural resources and wealth go to the building of palaces. And they always suspected we the United States were in bed with those Baathists.

But when we deposed him, we opened Pandora's Box. The majority who shared the same sectarian values as Iran Shia were now, by virtue of the tenets of Democracy in power. We created a bigger enemy in delivering democracy than the nickel and dime dictatorship that was there before.

Why is a blowjob worth impeachment, when such thickedheadedness, or outright greed for oil is not?

[travelea]

I watched the thing live and was impressed with your cool in the face of that meltdown. It added to making James look like an absurd poster child for mindless bloviation. Keep up the message, and thanks for being steadfast.­.

[wagonjak]

Thanks for the royal ass-kicking you gave James...he came off as a clueless, angry and hysterical clown, and you kept your cool. Of course you didn't have to do too much but sit back and smile as Chris humiliated this pathetic individual­...

[appleknocker]

Please, someone, refresh my memory. When bin Laden declared his fatwa against the US, didn't he state as his principal grievance the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia? And didn't Bush, shortly after 9/11, remove those troops? Coincidence or "appeasement?

[KOisGod]

You got it - exactly

[Knowbetter]

BINGO!

[TheHandyman]

Don't know where you've been but we still have a very large military presence in Saudi Arabia. We have been asked to stay to help prop up and protect the Royal family. Note that the number of terrorist acts have slowly but surely esculated and there has been more and more crackdowns by the police there. So consider your memory, how ever faulty, refreshed. As an aside, removing our military from SA would have tested whether bin Laden was using it as an excuse or would have been proven a lie. Bush proved his mental capacity by not taking advantage of it. Probably because he would have perceived himself as having appeased Osama

[SShaw490]

So the right wing lunatics who pray before a photo of Ronald Reagan every day have forgotten how Reagan put the Soviet Union on the ropes? They forgot that he did it through negotiation, statesmanship, finding common ground, and outflanking and outthinking them?

I grew up my whole life just assuming that one day the Americans and Russians would all push the button at the same time and that'd be that. And Reagan, whatever you think of him otherwise, found a way to end that - and he did it without firing a shot.

People who are more interested in proving their manhood always want to shoot someone - people who want to leave the world better than they found it always want to talk to someone.

[Economike]

I thought we out defense budget spent em until they went bankrupt. I can't help wondering if it isn't our turn next.

[Synoia]

Ah, you understand the strategic use of armies.

Armies don't win wars. They just prolong the status quo until the enemy's economy collapses (Germany in WW II, and WW I)

I'm sure Osama understands this. I'm also sure Bsuh and his Neocons either do not or will not.

I suspect will not. There is too much profit in the MIC for the Neoconds and their enablers.

[Synoia]

Ah, you understand the strategic use of armies.

Armies don't win wars. They just prolong the status quo until the enemy's economy collapses (Germany in WW II, and WW I)

I'm sure Osama understands this. I'm also sure Bsuh and his Neocons either do not or will not.

I suspect will not. There is too much profit in the MIC for the Neocons and their enablers.

[JRandomPoster]

As I recall, that was exactly what Bin Laden's stated claim was - to suck America into a state of perpetual war and bleed our economy dry. It would appear that perhaps he had read the PNAC statements, knew what the sort of response by Bush would be, and had no anticipation of greetings for the liberators with flowers.

For a few percent of the cost of the Iraq war, I am sure we could have paid off all the foreign governments who might have been sheltering him, gotten a hit team in, and removed him.

But no - the neocon drive was so strong, and with exactly the "new Perl Harbor" that they had been hoping for, into Iraq we went. And unfortunately, the rest is not yet history...­.

[Liberal2]

"...So the right wing lunatics who pray before a photo of Ronald Reagan every day have forgotten how Reagan put the Soviet Union on the ropes? They forgot that he did it through negotiation, statesmanship, finding common ground, and outflanking and outthinking them?..." Horse manure. I was reading predictions of the USSR's fall before Reagan was in office. Robert Heinlein (the SF writer) wrote an article that Soviet economic statistics were phoney. He counted the railroad tracks leading into Moscow and realized Moscow had to be much smaller than the population figure given by Soviet officials. Why? Because there wasn't enough railroad shipping available to support a population as large as the Soviets claimed. The USSR didn't use transcontinental trucking..­..no roads.

The US is now issuing similarly phoney, useless economic statistics. Be prepared for the US to simply stop. Just like the USSR.

[TheHandyman]

If you really believe that that is what Ronnie Raygun did then I have some beachfront property in the Everglades I'd like to sell you. This was npthing more than a race to see who was going to go bankrupt first. Russia lost but given Afghanistan and Iraq, it could turn out that Russia was the winner. Wait till China calls%

[missionimpossible]

I agree with all of your points except that Reagon "outthunk" the Soviets. That's a stretch to say the least. Reagon wasn't that smart of a President, but he did have common sense, something Cowboy Bush doesn't have.

[CapedCrusader]

"ready-fire-aim"

ROFLOL! Priceless!!!

[surfrider]

IT SHOULD PROBABLY BE
FIRE-AIM-READY?!

[Puller58]

I'm sure some here will be too young to remember, but back in the days of the Cold War, right wing hacks would start screaming about communism if they were losing ANY argument. At this point, you can see them trying to paint Islamofacism in the same vein. That's one reason I think Tom Friedman reached for the Cold War label to slap on the Iranians. It would be no different than Bush repeated the phrase, "..lessons of 9/11." Well, the lessons for conservatives is to use national security to fend off the competition. Can't or won't fix the economy? Bring up national security. Oil prices off the chain? Bring up national security. Bringing up Hitler is cute. Remember than when Bush stated that the Palestinians deserved a homeland after 9/11, Ariel Sharon implied Bush was Chamberlain. What a short memory.

[Hass]

A more apt description is "guilt-by-­metaphor."

Israeli officials have made the Hitler comparisons standard fare.
Shimon Perez referred to Iran's (non-existent) nuclear missles as "flying gas chambers"
Netanyahu has made a habit of saying "Its 1938 again".
Holocaust, Chamberlain, appeasement etc comparisons abound.

Now, look at it from Iran's view:

1- Bush has explicitly threatened Iran with nuclear first strikes (in fact we have altered our nuclear defense doctrine to envision the first use of nuclear weapons -- unlike China) in violation of our past promises (aka our "Negative Security Assurance")

2- The US has also blatantly ignored the Non-Proliferation Treaty obligation to disarm and instead we're building more "user friendly" mini-nukes.

3- We have a record of invading and attacking other countries without a legal basis (aka crime of aggression)

4- We regularly threaten to bomb / attack Iran's perfectly legal, IAEA-monitored civilian nuclear program because it "could" perhaps one day be used to make nukes.

And remember, it was Iran that took over 60,000 casualties as a result of US-backed Iraqi chemical weapons attacks during the Iran-Iraq war, when we were buddies with Evil Saddam.

Now, who is really the "Hitler" in this world?

[DickTater]

And also
Homegrown Fascism
with our own little Goebbels and Gestapo
enemy-izing dissenters at home and abroad
false flag/fake attacks on US
terrorizing the population with fake threats of random terrrrrsm
rapidly increasing police state
and surveillance society
melding of governmental and corporate

[Economike]

Next they'll be refering to any kick ass endevour like "Let's go into Poland"!

[altohone]

Mark-

Any thoughts on reaching the majority in this country who don't visit HuffPo or watch political cable shows?

The networks gave the story minimal coverage, if that.
ABC and CBS presented the Bush and McSame clips, getting their view out without any analysis, using Biden's bullsh*t quote, something garbled from Pelosi, and an excerpt from Obama's statement to keep the coverage "fair and balanced".

Shouldn't there be some proper "ethical journalism" going on?
Pundit fights don't qualify, and do little to inform.

I'm just sayin.