I found it ironic that Prescott Bush, King George's grandfather, was one of the most prominent Nazi appeasers and sympathizers of that era. Bush also tends to forget that his father actually worked with the infamous Reinhard Gehlen and his band of Nazis at the CIA. How Prescott must be rolling in laughter in his grave as his grandchild carries on the proud family tradition of lies and obfuscation made famous by Goebbels. How equally sad that the Knesset gave Bush a standing ovation for his disgraceful speech. Apparently, those who are too stupid to understand history make the best politicians in Israel as well as America. The only people more ignorant are those who voted for these criminals.

Good Image—Zieg Heil Mein Bush

It is easy—like almost everything that slips from the lips of Republican Party authority these days, to blame Neville Chamberlain for “appeasement” and claim that if he had declared War then Hitler would have been stopped. Such childish statements are unbecoming of a would be President of the USA, but they do reveal just what kind of character McCain and Bush represent as well as an indication of their ability to analyze the world we live in. The proper question in relation to Chamberlain is simply what was Chamberlain to do? He was caught in the middle of a dilemma to which no good solution existed and thus he chose what he believed was the lesser of multiple evils.

In 1938 the perception of the Soviet Union by England and France was deemed an equal or perhaps even a greater threat than Nazi Germany. While the Soviets desired to be protective of Czechoslovakia (Because they were “Slavic”) they also had their demands in terms of forming a coalition with France and Great Britain. In exchange for aiding to resist the expansion of the Nazis into Czechoslovakia, the Soviet Union demanded the right to annex Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Finland (by annex I mean invade). The two European Superpowers powers refused to allow the Soviets to occupy these countries while the Nazis in simultaneous secret negotiations with the Soviets said that they would go along with such an arrangement—thus the Nazis would take Austria and Czechoslovakia, the Soviets the Baltic states.

So as I said what was Chamberlain to do? If he denied the Germans access to Austria and Czechoslovakia he would have had to allow the Soviets the right to occupy the Baltic States. That too would be appeasement. The truth of the situation was further confused by the fact that it was doubted that the Soviets could be counted on in a conflict with Nazi Germany due to internal purges of Stalin which weakened them militarily. The Soviets viewed France and Great Britain as their biggest enemies in terms of creating their “global revolution”, after all France and England represented the Status Quo Powers of global dominion and capitalism. During WWI the Russians had more or less left the war as the conditions for the Russian Revolution crystallized thus dividing Russia from within but also abandoning their commitment to their allies (France and England). So the situation was that in 1938 Chamberlain did not have any sound possibility to contain the Nazis without willingly allowing the Soviets the right to an Anschluss (annexation) of their own. The failure of McCain to recognize the difficulty of Chamberlain's position is perhaps an indication of his own ineptitude to understand the world he so desires to influence as a president or perhaps the only thing the aging McCain remembers from his history lessons of World War II is a punchline from “The Godfather”.

The complexity of the problem of Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, and the communistic Soviet Union as well as the rise of Imperial Japan made Neville Chamberlain's difficulty incomparable to the immoral acts of aggression taken by President Bush in regards to Iraq. Unlike the position of Chamberlain the enemies facing the US at this particular moment in time are not capable of militarily controlling a single nation—in terms of power they represent a pain in the ass. Chamberlain's England was faced with two upstart powers whose military capacity at the start of WWII represented the most advanced military in the human history. Considering the horse trading that was going on between the great powers of the 1930's, Chamberlain had to have believed that a preemptive strike on Nazi Germany could have easily resulted in a war with not just Nazi Germany and fascist Italy but the Soviet Union as well. Considering the way in which WWII unfolded, the incredible superhuman effort of the Soviets where the most deadly battles in human history were waged, where at the Battle of Stalingrad (what is deemed to be the turning point of WWII) the death toll was in the millions in the course of a six month siege and where the difference between these two massive armies turned out to be the nourishment that the Russians were able to get by making potage from glue found in the wall paper of their homes—we can be thankful that we did not fight both the Soviets and the Nazis! Still it strikes me as mistaken that Chamberlain chose appeasement—he clearly looked at the possibility of war and after close analysis deemed war was not wise because a critical partner in such a war could not be counted on and because that very same critical partner could easily be a considerable opponent in its own right. Chamberlain could not look to the US, and on the European theater he could not look to the Netherlands or to the Belgians (after several hundred years of being the battlefield upon which the supremacy of European power was fought they'd had it with war.) Thus there was France and England and the Soviets but no way to count on the Soviets. In Asia, he knew he could count on the Aussies, New Zealand, the Dutch and Belgian colonies and in North America the Canadians—but the US was also a great question mark in 1938.

Considering that the US press has allowed Bush and McCain to skate on historical reality, where Iraq has been compared to Nazi Germany, the time to call these myth makers on their total irresponsible lies seems to be now. When England was attacked by Germany it was not by 19 terrorists armed with ball point pens and short blade knives and the hijacking of 4 airliners but rather a million plus army superiorly equipped to Brits as well as an armada of bombers, fighters, rockets, u-boats, and the most modern warships of their time. In this sense England's position was more akin to Iraq's but in terms of comparable strength England was indeed closer in military might to Nazi Germany than Iraq was to the US but the English were certainly out gunned.

I don't believe terrorism can be defeated by military means—it requires negotiation, especially with key state entities like Syria and Iran but also the democratically elected Hamas. It means that such fighting forces as Hezbollah will also need to be heard because these types of forces are real existing forms of power—strong enough to stalemate the Israeli Defense Force. If Israel cannot handle dealing with its situation then it would seem they need to be ordered to obey instead of being appeased—because it is here the word “appeasement” is most properly applied. The entire point of being the Hegemonic Power is that no other state can set the terms for whom you engage in discussions—thus Obama's point of view is the true point of view of Hegemonic Power. Since the power structure of the US is built upon trade—we are as Dick Cheney once said, “a nation of trade” and all academic analysis of trade (Nobel prize in economics was awarded for this in 2004) shows that it is most prosperous when political conditions are stable, then the real national security strategy of the US ought to be regional stability the world over. The Bush strategy is that of chaos—which has halved the valued of the dollar, quintupled the price of oil and in general crippled the US economically while Bush has merely increased the terrorist cause and recruitment. It is obvious that McCain and Bush are not only wrong but that their entire mentality is too “world ignorant”, static and archaic to meet the demands of 21st century.

As always Broder has pulled off a skillful comical image of our stooge in the White House—Is that an Adolf Bush image or a Rat Mouse Bush?

One need not be a “pro-bushie” to appreciate that both positions have weaknesses.
Or, be anti-Obama to identify where he has potentially screwed up.
Perfection, while generally unattainable, should not be shunned for that reason alone.
We should strive for perfection, while realizing that it will never fully materialize.
In that spirit, I say the following:
The Mid-East has been a cat-and-mouse game of flows and eddies. While we were pinned down policing Iraq and Afghanistan, Ahmadinejad successfully toppled the pro-democracy contingent in Iran and has succeeded in turning the clock back several hundred years. He is NOT popular in Iran. He is however feared. At first, the secular politicians were barred from seeking office and most recently, the Muslim Clerics were read the “riot act” by the Ahmadinejad machine. That does NOT make him a “middle of the roader”. It makes him a tyrant.
Re: Bush’s speech: It was an overstep because Obama has not offered anything of value to these thugs. Therefore, he has not advocated “appeasement”. But lets also face facts. The world has chosen to appease Iran because they have willingly allowed the U.N. Security counsel to be rendered hapless, by an endless succession of wrist-slapping. Iran continues to be in defiant violation of a variety of U.N.S.C. resolutions. Why is there no Brodner cartoon about that?
BTW: Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini long ago outlawed the branch of Islam that Ahmadinejad promotes, believing it to be intrinsically dangerous. Obama by contrast believes Ahmadinejad to be potentially reasoned with. That would be quite a trick.