Ladies and gentlemen, this isn’t appeasement — it’s worse than that *UPDATED*

Obamaworld in a Matt Drudge nutshell

I’ve noticed something interesting.  While serious thinkers are likening what John Kerry and Barack Obama did vis a vis Iran to Neville Chamberlain’s disastrous Munich Agreement, they’re  not using the world “appeasement” as the dominant trope.  (E.g., Charles Krauthammer and Bret Stephens.)  They’re just saying that, in terms of giving a tyranny permission to be tyrannical, Obama and Kerry have followed in Chamberlain’s footsteps.

This omission makes perfect sense when one realizes that there is a substantive difference between Munich and Tehran:  when it came to Munich, as Stephens points out, England couldn’t have done anything anyway.  Her military might was practically nonexistent.  The most that Chamberlain could do was put a smiley face on the situation in the hope that Hitler would come after England last, not first.  No wonder Winston Churchill famously said “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.”

Here, however, as Stephens again points out, America held the hand with three kings.  Right up until Obama signed on the dotted line, Iran was a pariah nation badly hurt by economic sanctions, while America still has the most powerful military in the world.  Thanks to Obama, though, Iran has been given permission to go ahead with all the enrichment it needs to do to position itself for becoming a nuclear power; it’s been relieved of an enormous economic burden; and it’s been legitimized — and all when we had the winning hand.

So why did Obama give away everything when he didn’t have to give away anything?  This is not appeasement; this is collaboration.  As Obama made clear from the beginning of his administration, he wants to side with the mullahs and he doesn’t like Israel.  Obama has now given free rein to the Obama doctrine:  the elevation of Islamic totalitarian dictatorships to the detriment of anything that stands in their way.  This manifestly awful agreement isn’t a desperate mistake, it’s an intended outcome.

So yes, this is much worse than Munich.  Obama isn’t trying to make the best of a bad situation; he is intentionally creating a bad situation because that situation harmonizes with his core beliefs and values.

And if that doesn’t scare you, nothing will.

UPDATELee Smith states it simply:  Obama has had America switch sides.  Iran is no longer our enemy, but our ally.  We once supported a liberal democracy, but we now side with a bloody-minded, genocidal, misogynistic, homophobic, totalitarian Islamic dictatorship.  Obama has soiled America.

Hat tip to Jon Gabriel for that great photoshop.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Charles Martel

    Collaboration with a sworn enemy of the United States has another name: treason. As time goes on, Obama’s treasonous acts will become more overt because he knows that there is nobody and nothing to take him down.
    Imagine if somebody were to try to intervene and stop his course. Impeachment? Impossible as long as the Democrats hold the Senate. Interventions by the courts? Highly unlikely considering how politicized the federal courts have become and the glacial slowness at which they move. (The Supreme Court offers little hope–Ginsburg is an open Marxist, Kennedy is a spineless ditherer, and Justice Roberts is a sophist. These are not people disposed to save the country or capable of it.)
    So what then? A coup? It would tear the country apart and plunge us into civil war. It would very likely lead to a race war.
    One of lessons of history is that when a barbarian takes over an infrastructure built by civilized men, the best he can do is pretend to do the task of maintaining the structures he has inherited. That’s why the constant question about whether Obama is a Manchurian Candidate, or an affirmative-action dimwit, or a self-aware Cloward-Pivenist is beside the point. His tactic of letting our country drift, of taking the easy way out of situations he lacks the skills to handle will be just as successful at dismantling America as the manipulations of a Lex Luthor. If I run a nuclear power plant, what does it matter that I make it blow up by design or from neglect?

  • JKB

    Well, he did say he wanted to transform America.  
    Of course, word is, Israel is working with Saudi Arabia on a plan to stop the Iranian bomb.  To the extent of reports that Israeli officers have inspected Saudi bases.  And the Saudis probably already have their own bomb on the way from Pakistan, purchased long ago through support of the Pakistani nuclear program.  
    One wonders what all those internationalist “liberals” are going to do when no one listens to America any longer.  Or at least, they won’t listen to those who abdicated the leadership position.  They’ll still listen to the Jacksonians who are the ones who rise to the occasion when needed.  

  • David Foster

    I don’t think it’s correct that nothing could have been done by Britain/France at the time of Munich. Of course, it would have been better had they crushed Nazi Germany at the time of the Rhineland incursion, in 1936, when the balance of forces was much more favorable…BUT, the Czechs, if not undercut, could have put up a serious fight, given the size of their army, the terrain, and the fortifications. At the same time, the Royal Navy could have done serious harm to Germany’s overseas trade…and it is quite likely that German military officers would have overthrown Hitler.
    Regardless, Neville Chamberlain was not as bad as man as Barack Obama…there is nothing I’ve seen suggesting he dislike Britain and the British in the way that Obama appears to dislike American and the Americans.

  • lee

    I went back to Wikipedia* and read about “Operation Opera” when Israel bombed the Iraqi nuclear reactor. Fascinating reading…

    Reading things on Wikipedia, well, I ALWAYS take what is there with ENORMOUS grains of salt–the subject matter is at the mercy of the writer, the editor and whomever has the stamina and time to keep going in and editing and re-editing and re-re-editing to make sure THEIR Point of View is the one that is always there. I am not enough of a Wikipedia groupie to know which writers and editors to “trust” so I don’t trust any of them. And I assume almost EVERYTHING there is from the perspective of the left. Which is what makes Operation Opera intresting reading.
    It seems that Israel, according to the entry, wasted money, lives and goodwill on a fool’s errand. Iraq didn’t cease its nuclear development, it just went underground and focused totally on developing weapons, and thanks to the bombing, moved faster towards success…
    WAIT!!! Didn’t the Left tell us for years and year and years and years on end after qw went into Iraq, that Iraq/Saddam Hussein did NOT have “Weapons of Mass Destruction”? Yet here, Wikipedia is telling us it did–because of the stupid Israelis bombing of Osirak…
    I went to read about it because I was curious what the international fallout was. I left for Israel almost immediately after it happened, so all I knew was what was being said in Israel. I knew, of course, the UN condemned Israel, because after all, it is the UN, and it is Israel. (If a butterfly dies in the South Pacific, the UN would condemn Israel for causing it.) I also had a vague recollection that US made some sort of pro forma complaint but didn’t push it. (Reagan was president. But Caspar Weinberger was not exactly a fan if Israel. Kind of in the James Baker mold… But Reagan knew Israel was a trustworthy ally.)
    I am not sure how well a bombing raid might work. I think that Israel has lined up anything and everything it needs with Saudi Arabia. I also figure that Israel came to the conclusion loooooong ago that they couldn’t rely on the US (with BHO at the helm) for ANYTHING. They may have gone on talking to us, and pretending to be our friends, but they wrote it off a few years back. (“Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.” They were NEVER going to wait for BHO to fool ’em the first time.)
    Although I don’t particularly trust the Wikipedia entry, common sense tells me that: A) Iran has probably already planned for that, and has highly decentralized labs working on their project in underground bunkers; and B) Israel already knows this and it working on something more successful than Stuxnet, more efficient than Operation Opera, and more secret than Operation Orchard. (Bombing of Syrian facility.) Think about it–our Titan Missile sites, built in the 50’s, were designed to take almost a direct NUCLEAR hit and survive–and you can buy the plans on the internet. Iran, even with the mullahs in charge, is one of the smarter countries in the Middle East after Israel…
    My bet is a super-duper-ooper Stuxnet that will **** pretty much EVERYTHING. And possibly so that they might bomb themselves into oblivion…

  • Danny Lemieux

    Lee, after reading your Wiki link, I am not sure that I place much stock in the arguments made that Iraq simply accelerated their nuclear weapons development. The U.S. didn’t find very advanced nuclear weapons labs in Iraq after the invasion (it did find poison gas and biowarfare labs, however).
    The reactor was bombed in 1981. The (first) Iraq invasion was in 1990. I would have expected that there would have been plenty more evidence of nuclear weapons facilities by then had that been the case.
    In sum, I totally buy into the Israeli position that bombing the reactor severely delayed Iraq’s nuclear weapons program.
    I have faith in and believe that you are right about Israel’s ability to defend itself. They never cease to amaze me.

  • sabawa

    I am scared.  I have been scared ever since Jack Ryan pulled out of the Il Senate race and Mr. Cooler-than-everyone was handed the election.  I smelled something really nasty then and he hasn’t disappointed.

  • Charles Martel

    Israel’s attack may be something as simple as dropping a high-explosive cruise missile warhead down the 12th Imam’s well in Qom to sorta un-occulate him. Then they’ll break in on Iranian TV broadcasts with exhortations, “Come on out, Mahdi, wherever you are! Time to take on the evil Jooos! Mahdi? Mahdi? You in there?”

  • Danny Lemieux

    Sabawa, I too detect something very foul and unholy at work. You’re not alone. All one needs to do is delve deeply into Obama’s background to understand that something very warped is at foot.

  • Ymarsakar

    Shouldn’t people have figured this out when Obama refused to support the freedom fighters in Iran? But supported the AQ fighters in Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood?

  • Ymarsakar

    Britain never did have a large army. They relied on their navy for defense and offense. So looking at the lack of a British standing army, isn’t why Neville Chamberlain negotiated with Hitler.
    Like many people, he was duped by evil into thinking evil thinks like the rest of us. Evil is evil. People who don’t get that… end up like Neville more or less.

  • Charles Martel

    I’ve just finished reading Robert Kaplan’s “The Revenge of Geography,” which posits that geography has played a larger role in the development of states and empires than we often give it credit for. Thus, Russia is a classic land power whose lack of natural defenses has made it a perpetually expansionist state that reasons it is better to be in the business of pushing its frontiers ever outward than to have them be pushed back.
    On the other hand, isolated as it is by great oceans from humanity’s “world heart,” Eurasia-Africa, the United States is a power that projects its might on the earth’s sea lanes. Unlike Britain, the U.S. at times has been able to field very large armies, but even with its gigantic economy has had to pay a big price to transport and supply them over vast distances—hurdles that explain some of our difficulties in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    As the world’s greatest sea power, we are in a position to conduct a war of attrition against Iran’s military and nuclear assets without needing troops on the ground. The U.S. Navy could decimate Iran’s military infrastructure in fairly quick order, opening the way for Israeli and Yank commandos to land at will in remote parts of Iran to finish the job of destroying that country’s nuclear facilities.
    But, as this discussion and recent events have shown, a traitorous Jew hater is now our president. Israel is on its own.

  • Rob Miller

    Great piece, Books.
    Collaboration assumes that someone is making a conscious choice. I think Barack Obama’s choice is a kind of convergence, thinking that Iran is reasonable and that they will become more like America as we become more Islam-friendly. And after all, Iran’s villayet e’fiqh is just another form of Islamism, isn’t it? And don’t already know how the president and his team feel about the Muslim Brotherhood?
    This isn’t as far-fetched as it sounds. FDR made almost exactly the same mistake with Stalin and the USSR before and during WWII, aided by a number of Soviet sympathizers and actual agents riddling his administration.
    And FWIW, treason is strictly defined by our Constitution as aid and comfort to the enemy during wartime, meaning a war legally declared by Congress. That’s why Lieutenant Kerry was never prosecuted for treason for meeting with North Vietnamese diplomats in Paris to plot political strategy to undermine the US war effort. Ditto Jane Fonda and many others.
    Regarding Chamberlain and Obama as a comparison, both were similar in that they agreed that it is better to flush an inconvenient ally whom they have little or no sympathy with anyway ( remember Chamberlain’s little screed about it being amazing that England would be preparing for war ‘for a far off people of whom we know nothing?). And there was the added bonus of doing this  while coming to an accommodation with a nation they saw as reasonable and ready to deal, while providing themselves with politically popular cover, or a distraction in President Obama’s case.
    Barack Obama from an early age has always surrounded himself with anti-semites and ‘anti-Zionists’. It’s to be expected that he would operate in this fashion. For him, the fact that this agreement further isolates Israel, especially from the U.S.  is a real bonus. It’s what he meant from day one, when he talked about creating ‘daylight’ between America and Israel.
    The point about Czechoslovakia is that IMO a firm stance there would likely have prevented WWII. They had a superb army with battle tested veterans and commanders, superb defense  on difficult terrain on the Czech borders facing Germany, and excellent, SOTA arms courtesy of the Skoda armories. Hitler at that time had not signed the Ribbentrop-Molotov agreement with Stalin, and the prospect of having to fight a two front war haunted Hitler and his generals. There was also no guarantee that Stalin, using Russia’s historic stance of protector of the Slavs would not have aided the Czech’s, just as The Soviets aided the Republican forces in Spain. There might never have been a pact between Hitler and Stalin. And Britain’s navy and France’s army would have made a powerful combined force in the west.
    I frankly don’t think Hitler would have gone to war with the possibility of a strong, well-armed adversary in the east. Not for along time, at any rate and quite possibly never. Barack Obama signalling the Ayatollahs that he really doesn’t mind if they get nukes is tantamount to the same thing.


    Okie dokie, we all acknowledge what Obama is, has been and forever will be. What he is not – is a one-man army. The SOB was groomed for creating chaos, upending everything and turning gold into shit. He’s not capable of this level of destruction by himself, which doesn’t make me detest him one bit less. SO, I have this gnawing question: Who else and what else is and has been fueling the “empty chair.”

  • Charles Martel

    Sadie, it may not be a conscious conspiracy so much as a convergence of forces. You have very cunning sociopaths like Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, billionaire haters like George Soros, and an almost thoroughly corrupted and co-opted press and academy willing to tell whatever lies are necessary to usher in the likes of an Obama.
    I think many leftists were genuinely surprised that it was so easy to get him into the White House on what had to have started out as a what-the-hell trial run. Hillary would have been a giant step in the right direction for the left, but her forte is sheer incompetence. Obama adds a layer of malevolence that advances the cause of this country’s destruction that much further and faster.
    Now if it becomes necessary for the left to give Obama a taste of his own under-the-bus medicine, no biggie. The State is the important entity here, not the individuals serving it.

  • Mike Devx

    It’s very clear that Obama’s worldview is Muslim-oriented.  Most of us in America have a Christian-oriented worldview, so we struggle to understand this.
    *Why* this all is true isn’t difficult: We were raised in America, which means as children we were immersed in a Christian-oriented culture.  Obama was raised in the Philippines, and attended a madrassa there for years, so he was deeply immersed – and strongly schooled – in a Muslim-oriented culture as a child.
    What we don’t know is how deeply his Muslim sympathies resonate within him.  At a minimum, he believes the Muslim umma deserves to be nuclear-armed, to effectively maintain and expand their dominion.  It is clearly unacceptable to him that the infidel world has nuclear arms and the umma does not (Pakistan not-withstanding.)
    What we don’t know is whether he is a Muslim triumphalist.  We do know he detests all Western traditional values, and has disgust for the concept of American exceptionalism.  He’s hidden his true inner beliefs very well.
    We struggle to understand this, but really, it’s not difficult.
    What we DO know is bad enough.  Israel should be terrified.

  • Charles Martel

    Oh, this is getting loopy. Who would have figured—and Mike Devx, thanks for yet another one of your incredible insights—that our Chance Gardner is this unspeakable Muslim-Marxist hybrid, the unholy spawn of earth’s two bloodthirstiest, most despicable ideologies ever? Obama may be the biggest two-fer in history, even greater than Paul Winchell, who not only was a fine puppeteer but also an inventor.

  • Matt_SE

    None of this is surprising, especially if you watched the 2012 Democrat convention. Half the convention delegates refused to reinsert “God” and “Israel” back in the platform.


    Charles, I am not convinced. I believe the staging began in 1991 with the grandiose author and orator with his foray into publishing [read: creating the character]. His literary agents, Acton & Dystel, in their promotional booklet cited that he was Kenyan born for 16 years. No corrections were made until 2007 – a planned red herring? The hot mic moment to Medvedev … I’ll have more flexibility. Why was he so sure he’d win a second term [read: Lois Lerner/IRS]. Oy, no need to list all of Satan’s little helpers.  Anything that we know is due to what we’ve read and we really have limited access to the nitty gritty, but not so for our conservative counterparts in Washington, which gets to the core of another problem for me – their silence. Hearings just don’t cut it – they have all the speed of molasses. The house is burning and no one is shouting FIRE!

  • Ymarsakar

    Saddam was able to get 99% of the vote in democratic Iraq. Obama only got 93% of the vote in DC and 95% of blacks.
    Don’t worry, we’re getting there.

  • Pingback: Watcher of Weasels » Watcher’s Council Nominations – Peace In Our Time Edition()

  • Pingback: The Colossus of Rhodey()

  • Pingback: Watcher’s Council Nominations – Peace In Our Time Edition | Liberty's Spirit()

  • Pingback: Watcher’s Council Nominations – Peace in Our Time Edition |

  • Pingback: Watcher’s Council Nominations – Peace In Our Time Edition | Nice Deb()

  • Mike Devx

    Now would be the perfect time for some American patriot at the Los Angeles Times to leak the hidden 2003 Obama/Rashid Khalidi videotape.
    My God.  Did I just use the phrase “American patriot at the Los Angeles Times”?  I’d better go grab me some more coffee, or I’ll soon be talking about Santa Claus’ toy factory on the moon, too.

  • Pingback: Watcher’s Council Nominations – Peace In Our Time Edition | Virginia Right!()

  • Pingback: Watcher’s Council Nominations – Peace In Our Time Edition |

  • Pingback: Trevor Loudon's New Zeal Blog » Watcher’s Council Nominations – Peace In Our Time Edition()

  • Charles Martel

    Is it possible the Clintons have an inside connection at the Times? Even though Hillary is a certified Jew hater, one can always hope.

  • Pingback: Watcher’s Council Nominations – Peace In Our Time Edition | askmarion()

  • Pingback: The Razor » Blog Archive » Council Nominations: November 27, 2013()

  • Pingback: Bookworm Room » Watcher’s Council’s Thanksgiving Bounty()

  • Pingback: Watcher of Weasels » The council Has Spoken!! This Weeks’ Watcher’s Council Results()

  • Pingback: The Council Has Spoken!! This Weeks’ Watcher’s Council Results | Virginia Right!()

  • Pingback: The Council Has Spoken!! This Weeks’ Watcher’s Council Results | Liberty's Spirit()

  • Pingback: The Colossus of Rhodey()

  • Pingback: The Council Has Spoken!! This Weeks’ Watcher’s Council Results |

  • Pingback: Nice Deb()

  • Pingback: The Council Has Spoken!! This Weeks’ Watcher’s Council Results – 11/29/13 |

  • Pingback: Trevor Loudon's New Zeal Blog » The Council Has Spoken!! This Weeks’ Watcher’s Council Results – 11/29/13()

  • Pingback: Bookworm Room » Watcher’s Council Winners — Thanksgiving Edition()

  • Pingback: The Council Has Spoken!! This Weeks’ Watcher’s Council Results 11.29.13 | askmarion()

  • Pingback: WoW!! - Citizens News()

  • Pingback: The Razor » Blog Archive » The Council Has Spoken: November 29, 2013()

  • Pingback: Rhymes With Right()

  • Pingback: The Razor » Blog Archive » Council Submissions: Nov 27, 2014()

  • Pingback: The Razor » Blog Archive » The Council Has Spoken: Nov 29, 2014()