|
What Matthews and the Times are saying is this: We can have
a Munich, but we promise to be tougher than Chamberlain was.
Therein lies the flaw in their logic. Yes, in the abstract, it is
technically possible to "talk" without giving up Czechoslovakia
(or in today's case, Iraq or Israel).
But in reality, when talking to a lunatic without having first
bombed him into submission, the only possible result is
appeasement. Any talk with Hitler, or a McHitler like
Ahmadinejad, that does not include handing over Czechoslovakia or
Israel, like a game show parting gift, is going to be a
relatively brief chat.
Churchill knew that before Chamberlain went to Munich. But a
lot of Britons then, like a lot of Americans today, refused to
see that blindingly obvious point.
Liberals think the way to deal with dangerous tyrants is to
send in a sensitive president who will make Ahmadinejad fall in
love with him. They imagine Obama becoming Ahmadinejad's
psychotherapist, like Barbra Streisand in "The Prince of
Tides."
President Bush described such people perfectly with his
reference to Sen. William Edgar Borah, the one who said World War
II could have been avoided if only he could have talked to
Hitler.
Liberals refuse to learn from history because they put their
hands over their ears and tell themselves over and over again:
"Hitler was different."
COPYRIGHT 2008 ANN COULTER
|