Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Pat Buchanan :: Townhall.com Columnist
Bush Plays the Hitler Card
by Pat Buchanan
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


"A little learning is a dangerous thing," wrote Alexander Pope.

Daily, our 43rd president testifies to Pope's point.

Addressing the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's birth, Bush said those who say we should negotiate with Iran or Hamas are like the fools who said we should negotiate with Adolf Hitler.

"As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared, 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement. ..."

Again, Bush has made a hash of history.

Appeasement is the name given to what Neville Chamberlain did at Munich in September 1938. Rather than fight Germany in another great war -- to keep 3.5 million Germans under a Czech rule they despised -- he agreed to their peaceful transfer to German rule. With these Germans went the lands their ancestors had lived upon for centuries, German Bohemia, or the Sudetenland.

Chamberlain's negotiated deal with Hitler averted a European war -- at the expense of the Czech nation. That was appeasement.

German tanks, however, did not roll into Poland until a year later, Sept. 1, 1939. Why did the tanks roll? Because Poland refused to negotiate over Danzig, a Baltic port of 350,000 that was 95 percent German and had been taken from Germany at the Paris peace conference of 1919, in violation of Wilson's 14 Points and his principle of self-determination.

Hitler had not wanted war with Poland. He had wanted an alliance with Poland in his anti-Comintern pact against Joseph Stalin.

But the Poles refused to negotiate. Why? Because they were a proud, defiant, heroic people and because Neville Chamberlain had insanely given an unsolicited war guarantee to Poland. If Hitler invaded, Chamberlain told the Poles, Britain would declare war on Germany.

From March to August 1939, Hitler tried to negotiate Danzig. But the Poles, confident in their British war guarantee, refused. So, Hitler cut his deal with Stalin, and the two invaded and divided Poland.

The cost of the war that came of a refusal to negotiate Danzig was millions of Polish dead, the Katyn massacre, Treblinka, Sobibor, Auschwitz, the annihilation of the Home Army in the Warsaw uprising of 1944, and 50 years of Nazi and Stalinist occupation, barbarism and terror.

In that same speech to the Knesset, Bush dismissed the idea we could ever successfully negotiate with Hamas, Hezbollah or Iran:

"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them that they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before."

But did not Ronald Reagan's negotiations with the Evil Empire, as he rebuilt America's military might, bear fruit in a reversal of Moscow's imperial policy and an end to the Cold War?

Richard Nixon went to China and toasted the greatest mass murderer of them all, Mao Zedong, when Maoists were conducting a nationwide purge: the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. Yet, Nixon ended a quarter century of implacable U.S.-Chinese hostility. Was Nixon's trip to China useless?

Three years after Nikita Khrushchev drowned the Hungarian revolution in blood, Ike had him up to Camp David. John Kennedy ended the most dangerous confrontation of the Cold War, the Cuban missile crisis, by negotiating with that same Butcher of Budapest.

Were Ike, JFK and Nixon all deluded fools? For the dictators they negotiated with -- Khrushchev and Mao -- were far greater mass murderers and enemies of America than is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Bush's father negotiated with Syria's Hafez al-Assad, the Butcher of Hama, and made him an American ally in the Gulf War.

Was President Bush's father a deluded fool?

The president's own diplomats negotiated an end to the nuclear program of Col. Gadhafi, who was responsible for the air massacre of American school kids over Lockerbie.

Bush's own diplomats are negotiating with Kim Jong-il's North Korea, a state sponsor of terror. Ambassador Ryan Crocker is negotiating with Iranians in Baghdad. Egypt is negotiating on behalf of Israel with Hamas to retrieve a captured Israeli soldier. Are they all deluded fools?

Bush refused to talk to Yasser Arafat because he was a terrorist. But four Israeli prime ministers negotiated with Arafat. Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin shared a Nobel Prize with him. "Bibi" Netanyahu ceded Hebron to him. Ehud Olmert offered him 95 percent of the West Bank.

Were all four Israeli leaders deluded fools?

True, the Chamberlain-Hitler summit at Munich proved a disaster, as did the FDR-Churchill-Stalin summits at Tehran and Yalta, and the JFK-Khrushchev summit in Vienna. But JFK's diplomacy in the missile crisis may have averted a nuclear war. And Eisenhower, Nixon, Gerald Ford and Reagan all met with foreign dictators with blood on their hands, without loss to America, and sometimes with impressive gains.

What has Bush's refusal to talk to Hamas, Hezbollah, Damascus and Tehran done to make either Israel or America more secure?

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Pat Buchanan is a founding editor of The American Conservative magazine, and the author of many books including State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America .
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Pat Buchanan's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
Geez Pat
Your history lesson seems to be lost on this crowd.

Bush right to remind us of Hitler
Lest we NEVER forget what happened to the Jews, ever!

I personally thought what Bush said was exactly right.

We need not negotiate with SATAN--those who want to destroy God's land ISRAEL.

Obamba is pro Fakestinian and he would love to have the U.S. stop focusing on the plight of Israel; as he himself said in his book, he wants to focus more on the "plight" of the Fakestinians.

Bad move. Unbiblical. Unethical. UnAmerican.

In the animal world, just plain DUMB.

When's the last time the rabbit took time out to see if he could negotiate with the coyote?

Obamba is just Odumbo.

Naive, straight from Chicago.

!Bye-bye la Obamba!

JUST SAY "NO" TO "O"


Bye to Obama
HELLO HILLARY

You got my vote.

Pat your article is biased....
but, it's typical as you never liked the President anyway.

Jimmy, is that you?
I had to check the by-line to make sure this wasn't a Jimmy Carter column.

"Hitler had not wanted war with Poland" - true - he would have preferred to take Poland over peacefully like he did Alsace, Lorraine, Austria and Checkoslovakia. Very reasonable guy.

"Were all four Israeli leaders deluded fools?" History says yes - together with Clinton the Israelis offered Arafat everything he asked for at Camp David, but Arafat preferred to stick with the status quo - intifada without end and no Palestinian nation.

Buchanon is comparing apples and oranges. What JFK did during the Cuban Missle Crisis and what Reagan did with Gorbachev was to negotiate from a position of strength and with the threat of the big stick. That works. Remember that Reagan walked out on Gorbachev when he was pressed to appease him. We won the cold war (among other reasons) because Gorbachev FAILED to get Reagan to stop our star wars program.

Chamberlain, FDR, and various Israeli PM's offer land to tyrants and murderers to try to get them to stop hurting them. That's appeasement (as opposed to negotiation from strength) - when has that ever worked?

When you separate out examples in your article of negotiation from strength, the remaining examples of appeasement are admitted failures.

oops
oops - make that "Czechoslovakia"...

This column reminds me of Jimmy Carter's book that claimed the Revolutionary War could have been prevented by negotiating with George III.

The Declaration of Independence did a pretty good job of explaining why that didn't work.

Hitler & Others
Mr. Buchanan:

Do you really believe Hitler was interested in resolving Germany's disputes and advancing her interests through negotiation? I have read that he was terribly disappointed and upset after Chamberlain's Munich capitulation because it denied Germany the excuse and opportunity for war. Furthermore, Hitler's foreign policy was violently expansionist and had three primary objectives: 1)the acquisition in the east of additional living space (lebensraum) for a growing Germany, 2) the subjugation and utilization of the inferior Slavic people for the German economy, and 3)the extermination of the European Jew, most of whom lived in Poland and western Russia. None of this is consistent with a man intent on advancing his country's interests through negotiation.

I think your article is utterly foolish.

Patrick J. Mikes
Troy, MI

Bush Plays the Hitler Card
Buchanan rides alone.

Pat please don't confuse people with FACTS!!

I read Buchanan's column
and then I read what the masses write below in the comments section (ie: Monique- "Obamba is just Odumbo"), and I just shake my head. I don't agree with Buchanan on much, but he has a great command of history. Unfortunately, this is lost on dumber than dirt partisans.

Pat's "command"
"he has a great command of history"

Right, blaming WWII on Poland. The truth is that Pat has never commanded anything. Belying his phony tough-guy persona, Peppermint Patty is in fact a pampered Little Lord Fauntleroy whose daddy put him through Yale and who has never created, accomplished, or been responsible for anything of value in his incredibly useless life spent as a media jockey and political groupie. The "pineapple" of his career came in 2000, when he could not even get 1% of the vote, fighting it out with the kookaboos of the "Natural Law" party.

Pat makes Harold Stassen look relevant.

PALESTINIANS: THE LOST TRIBES OF ISRAEL?
Someone has written that there is a DNA Semetic link to the Jews in Israel and the Palestinians so is it possible that the Palestinians could be the lost tribe: Benjamin and Judah of Israel or descended from them?

Afterall, Abraham was also the father of the Arabs according to the Koran and to the Torah.

Gary Rosen......
You must be one of the Zionists that the Rabbis are complaining about in the links I posted!?

semetics
yes, Abraham was the father of the Arabs and the Jews - Arabs via Ishmael and Jews via Isaac and then Jacob. Both the Koran and Torah agree on this point as well.

Seeing as the common ancestor of Jews is only two generations removed from the common ancestor of Jews and Arabs, one would expect a DNA link. The Hebrew and Arabic languages are also closely related.

Also note that descendants of other close relatives (such as Lot, Abraham's many other sons, and Esau) populated modern Palestine for many years.

Finally, note that "semetic" just means descended from Shem (son of Noah). Whether you believe the Bible or not, that is where the word came from.

Chris....Thanks for the INFO
So, I wonder if we can also surmise from what you wrote that both the Jews and Arabs are descended from Noah....Semetic and at what point did they pick up the Judeo Religion and at what point did the Arabs pick up the Moslem Religion.........so, they are indeed brothers and sisters just separated by religiosity??

Isolationist lunacy
Churchill pointed out that WW2 should have been called "the unnecessary war", because it would have been easy to prevent. If the Allies had stood up to Hitler while he was weak, he would have backed down. But giving away Czechoslovakia gave him the Skoda industrial works that churned out tanks and other weapongs for the Nazis. Britain came very close to losing the war, and might have done so if the Buchananite isolationists back then had got their way.

Whats with the Fox Neocon Channel?
Looks like Townhall.com will soon be purchased by the NEOCON FOX NEWS CHANNEL and Rupert Murdoch along with the Sean Hannity Talking Head..juding by their presence on this site..

Believe it or not, I once tried to post on Sean Hannitys website which I have rarely ever done and something popped up that the administrator had banned my IP address...guess I was just too much for him!! LOL Everyone in the area of my computer was laughing so hard they could hardly sit straight in their chairs....

Pat's feelings are hurt
Poor Pat,

The "usurper" who stole the presidency from him has now dissed Buchanan's hero, Adolf Hitler. If Pat's hero had his way, all those pesky neocons in Europe would have gone up the chimneys and not just a measly six million.

Now a new Adolf Hitler is on the scene, threateneing to kill a lot more neocons on that worst state in the whole whole whole whole history of the wide wide world, and Pres. Bush had the temerity to implicitely criticize him. Pat's bloodlust for murdered neocons (read Jews) knows no bounds; however, he doesn't know his Muslim, anti-Semitic buddies. Maybe the Muslims will get the Jews but medieval, non Muslim anti-Semites are next. Jews are just the first, but Pat's Islamo fascist buddies will not stop there. I only wish I could be alive to see it when his Islamo fascist heroes turn on Buchanan.

"First the Saturday people (Jews), then the Sunday people (Christians)"

Common saying amongst Muslims in the Middle East

Jondo....Pat's History Lesson Understood
Pat's history lesson is understood by most of us...its obvious that Bush is Sucking up to Israel but when he gets out of office it will be King Abdullah who will donate most of the $500 million dollars for his library:

The New York Daily News reports, “President Bush and his truest believers are about to launch their final campaign — an eye-popping, half-billion-dollar drive for the Bush presidential library.”

Bush is attempting to raise $500 million to build his library and a think tank at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. Bush fund-raisers hope to get approximately $250 million from what they call “megadonations” of $10 million to $20 million each. Among the candidates for “megadonations,” whose names will remain anonymous.

Underzog.....WOW ..u came out of nowhere
I was wondering how long it would take before the NEOCONS would start coming out of their holes. LOL

Go, Pat!
If only all of the Neo-Con freaks would be forced to read Pat's thoughts, the GOP might be able to return to true Conservative ideals again.

W's speechwriters did him an enormous disservice and he managed to put his foot in it, again.

The paradigm has shifted since WWII...
Unlike the Soviet Bloc or the Axis Powers of old, with the possible exception of ultranationalist Japan, we are not presently at war with an enemy whose culture makes the threat of mutually assured destruction an inducement rather than a deterrent.

In an eerie similarity to Japan under Tojo and the ultranationalists, we are facing a foe who lives by the rule of being more afraid of the fear of disgrace of defeat more than death... and dies by that rule as well.

Personally, I think it's that part of the equation that has so many on our side spooked about the possibility of getting dragged into an all-out war with the Moslem world... fighting an enemy who won't surrender, run away or even show fear.

But that's just me.

In closing, I have a question regarding Nixon: Did he truly accomplish anything worthwhile, or did he simply delay the inevitable?

(Hint: China's masters STILL want to rule the world. They may change their ways, but never their goal.)

David
I see.

So Pat, Adolph was really just a misunderstood catholic alter boy. Would you admit that in his zeal to reunite the German people he maybe overstepped a tad with the attempted annihilation of the Jewish people. Those stubborn Poles were really responsible for the Holocaust; who knew?

Pat, turn your heart on for a minute or two and you'll realize that sound you're hearing is Jesus weeping. I'll continue to pray for you.

Blessings,
David

Partially right
Pat is right about a couple things here. The First World War was started because of a great combination of competition between great nations leading to mass militarization, the formation of essentially racial alliances amongst those nations, longstanding grudges between opposing nations (Great Britain was none too happy with Germany's naval buildup, and France was still smarting from their loss of Alsace/Lorraine after the Franco-Prussian War in 1870), and finally a profound instability in the Balkans. When the Archduke was assassinated, it set off a tinderbox that could not be stopped. When war was declared, Germany invaded France through "neutral" Belgium.
The underlying theme here is that after the war ended, the victors decided to declare Germany as being exclusively responsible for the war, and she should be punished and made to pay for the entire cost to all the other countries. The fact is that the Treaty of Versailles was an absolute crime, humiliating a proud people, end putting in place the resentment and economic devastation that made the rise of Adolf Hitler possible.
The Poles had no right to Danzig. That had always been a German seaport. The Poles also made it very difficult for Germay to cross Danzig in order to get to East Prussia.
With regard to Munich, I'm afraid that Pat is dead wrong. It is true that Hitler wanted war, and was disappointed when it "fell through" (and Czechoslovakia ceased to exist).

sir aslan... Chris
Indeed, the Judeo religion was developed after Moses delivered the 10 commandments to God's chosen people. Islam was created by Mohamed 600 years after Christ's death.

Abraham's sin with Hagar is the root of the problem. Abraham and Sarah raised Ishmael as God's promise for 13 years before Sahah conceived Isaac.

Unreconcilled brothers. If you're an Arab (not simply muslim; remember Ishmael is the ethnic father of all Arab people), you should desire to be reunited with your brothers despite your mutual father's sin. The rest of the world is waiting for you...

Blessings,
David

Excellent commentary by Buchanan.
Bush exudes a swaggering patina of self confidence in foreign affairs, but Reagan, JFK, Bush 41, Eisenhower, all embodied the real thing...not just the veener or appearance.

Buchanan nails it.

And the koolaid drinkers can't stand it.

As usual, they are hyperventilating.

Reagan had the self-confidence to meet with the Soviets at a time in our nation's history when the USSR posed FAR, FAR more of a threat to the existence of the United States, than the threat posed by Iran today.

Soviets had thousands of nuclear weapons targeted at the United States.

Bush does not even have the self-confidence to meet with a president of Iran who does not even possess a single nuclear weapon.

I think the reason for the huge chasm between Reagan and G.W. Bush can be boiled down to this:

Whereas Reagan had a coherent, rational foreign policy, G.W. Bush doesn't.

Reagan knew what he wanted, and how to achieve it.

Bush is floundering around, contributing to the power of the extremists, the radicals, in the region.

As a result of Bush's simplistic and dangerously naive crusade at democracy-building in the mideast, he pressured the Israelis to premit elections in Gaza.

Well, Hamas was the overwhelming choice of the residents in Gaza.

Bush's Iraq invasion removed the biggest threat(Saddam)of the Iranians, freeing Iran to meddle in Lebanon and other areas of the middle east(thru the use of its proxy, Hezbollah).

Lebanon now is teetering on the brink. Hezbollah is a growing threat there.

A Shia revivalism is occurring in parts of the mideast, largely orchestrated by a resurgent Iran which greatly benefited from the Bush invasion of Iraq.

The Saudis, Egyptians, Jordanians, are all growing fearful of this Iran, which only was able to become such a threat due largely to the events begun on March 19, 2003(our invasion of Iraq).

"Misson Accomplished", anyone?


This Is Garbage;Buchanan No Conservative
So, according to Pat Buchanan, it was those intransigent Poles who were responsible for World War II and their own fate at the hands of Nazi Germany -- if only they had negotiated Danzig. Say what? Did not Hitler have a plan to expand Germany eastward? Yes, he did and thus in due course invaded the Soviet Union. Negotiation over Danzig was but a stepping stone to a larger expansion.

This is NOT history by Pat Buchanan; this is idiotic garbage served up to rationalize "negotiations" with the terrorist organization Hamas that is intent upon the destruction of Israel. President Bush did not play the Hitler card in speaking to that outpost of democracy in the Middle East known as the Israeli Knesset. President Bush gave a reminder of what history truly teaches.

This article by Buchanan should serve as a warning as to how off the deep end Pat Buchanan has gone. He is no conservative. His call for "negotiations" with terrorists puts him in company with Obama. Buchanan's isolationism puts him with George McGovern ("Come Home America").

the BIG difference
The Iranian leadership consists of members of a death cult whose sole aim is to bring the world to serve Allah in accordance with the Prophet Mohammed's visions recorded in the Koran.
By the way, Pat, Chamberlain's appeasement, coupled with the western democracies other surrenders on stipulations of the WW1 "armistice", is exactly why Hitler placed no belief in England's guarantees to Poland!

Pat, Pat, Pat...
I like you and you're a sharp guy, but when it comes to WWII and its ramifications you live in some alternate reality. What amazes me is the number of posters here who seem to buy into it.

So let me get this straight...Hitler was a reasonable, rational man just trying to acquire some real estate, the Czechs and Poles were a stubborn lot for wanting to hang on to their country, and it was Neville Chamberlain, not Winston Churchill, who really saved Britain once the war became immiment. Okayyy...

If the Sudeten Germans were entitled to their chunk of Czechoslovakia, then I guess we'd better listen to La Raza and give Mexico back at least a good chunk of the American Southwest.

BTW, if I recall from just a few years ago, it seems that Qa-daffy decided to give up his nuclear ambitions in the wake of the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the fall of Saddam...or was that just coincidence?

And we can see what a success it has been talking with Syria, why they're just our best buddies now.

What do you place on the table when you
negotiate? The inference that negotiation brings is that unless some agreement is reached there will be conflict of the military kind. So how can you negotiate with radical Muslims who wish to start a conflict? It would appear the better solution would include ignoring the radicals.

We need to negotiate with people that desire to live in this world. Radicals want to die to go to their reward. Unfortunately they will die and take many with them that wish to live in peace and friendship. Negotiation should be saved for those people who wish for peace and friendship not war and 72 virgins.

Bush is correct in not negotiating but his line of reasoning is unknown. If he had shown a willingness to defend the Constitution his line of reasoning would be known.

public vs private
What I find amusing is the belief that conversations among different antagonist is non-existant until the "Leaders" talk.

Of course conversations with your enemy should take place if the enemy will talk -- the issue is at what level.

Bush makes it clear he will not publically negotiate with terrorist. He is right to avoid the face to face until the appropriate groundwork has been laid..

Others seem to feel that leader on leader talks from the outset will work best. My question - What will one leader force another leader to give up to "save face"- and if both leaders hold their ground - what next.

Wars are always started by
bad diplomacy and not percieving correctly what the other guy wants. In the case of Iran,abdabanutjob has made his intentions very clear, he wants us out of the middle east and he wants to destroy Israel.

Remember, this is the guy who led the group who kidnapped our embassy people and got away with it, until Reagan came in, because he understood carter was a naive wuss who wouldn't oppose him militarily.

Obama is worse than carter, the President is exactly right and so is JSM to oppose any direct talks with this nut who believes a nuclear war will bring the Armaggedon he wants to bring the 12th Imam into existance. You cannot negotiate with a lunatic or a rabid dog.

Buchanan writes that JFK's diplomacy averted a nuclear war, but Krushevs's memoirs speak to his fear that JFK was so inept that he pulled back for fear of us blundering into such a war.

I was there in Cuban waters and it was dicey to say the least, also we were over-flying the Soviet Union with U-2's, one got chased back to Alaska, had they shot it down we would have had a shooting war, not a smart move by us at all.

If Iran gets a nuke, they'll use it on Israel or give it to a terrorist to use in NY and all the foolish kumbaya from obama won't stop them, it will encourage them...this guy is simply not ready for prime time, not now, not ever.


not saying I agree totally with Pat here
but, I notice while many of you pile on him about his WW 2 history (Hitler was insane, and that is historical fact), none have called him to task over any of his other examples of negotiation, most of which are quite accurate. Pat is not near the doddering old fool you all think he is - after all, would Jesus have been calling for total war and bloodshed here?

That being said, what Apollo says in post 25 makes an awful lot of sense. Obama's "unconditional" negotiations policy is as bad as McCain's "keep running with Bush's theory" style will be...

Oh. My. God. Does that mean Hitlery is our wisest choice this year (at least for foreign relations)? Pardon me while I go off into a corner and shake violently for a while...

Appeasers are Losers
Bush doesn't need to Appease anyone- He has has a host of Lefties doing it for him. Right before we invaded Iraq, remember all the anti war people that flooded Iraq?? What did Sadamm do?? If my memory is correct- he was using them for Human Shields. The left runs commericials about Darfur- Mr. Bush please stop the genocide in Darfur- Yet they run over to Hugo Chavez (who called our President the Great Satan) and act like Chavez is some kind of Hero- while the people of Venzuela are starving and oppressed- I kind of think that is a double standard- Don't You Pat?? Anyone can fly to Israel and PEACEFULLY. Try flying to an antiSEMTIC Country- You might get your head chopped off.If we just wanted to take over Countries- Why haven't we invaded CUBA?? The theory is you surround Iran with Countries that hold free elections- where the people are FREE and have RIGHTS- I mean HUMAN RIGHTS- Where Women don't get ACID thrown in their face or stoned to DEATH. If the left wants to get us out of the Middle East and Iran surrounds us via Hugo Chavez, etc... Remember what Irans dictator said at the College about Homosexuals--All yor rights will be taken away- and oh by the way- they really don't like Appeasers or Traitors- You will be used first as Human Shields. Jessie Jackson was with Chavez when Hurricane Katrina Hit- He should of been in New Orleans Using all of his Buses ( you know, the ones during VOTING SEASON ) to get the people out!!!

What??????????
Sprinkle it with a couple of facts, then build your own story around it - isn't that the truth, Pat? The results of war sometimes bring peculiar results. Israel gets fired upon, wipes the invaders in 6 days, then the arabs want back the land from which they launched the attempt to bury Israel. I don't think you are correct about Hitler's intentions. You imply that Hitler was not preparing to overrun all of Europe, England and Russia during the 1930s. Instead Buchanan wants to blame Poland and Hitler's neighbors. Talk about the Democrats re-writing history.

craigctx
Well, one thing Obama has accomplished that I thought could never, ever happen -- he's made me see good qualities in Hillary. Move over, I need to go to the corner as well.

I actually have a lot of respect for Pat, I just part with him on the idea that we should have sat out WWII. As far as his examples of successful negotiation are concerned, it seems to me that in each case, the diplomacy was backed up by strength and the willingness to walk away if necessary (as in Reagan in the eighties). We should also give a nod to enlightened self-interest; I think that in 1991 the Arab League realized that it would not be a good thing to let Saddam grab off Kuwait.

One of the many reasons I can't get behind Obama is that he definitely doesn't get the "strength" part, and he only gets the "self interest" part as it applies to the people across the table from us.

Pat
According to American history books,Nikita Krushchev told John F. Kennedy;"We will Bury You".It has been said, that Russia had missiles 90 miles off the coast of Florida,at the time.I am most please to see, that the conservatives have at least one person of credibility left.Thank you sir,for being a great American.

Dumb & Dumber
GWB has never let facts get in the way of his decision making. That's why we're stuck in Iraq. What is even more surprising is that there are those who still defend him. I can only guess that they must be the lobbyist and profiteers of the war.

SeaWolf
I know, with the right wing smear machine, Obama's views get twisted around. Your right about Kennedy, except Krusheve is making up his take on it, Kennedy showed him he meant business and could be hard as needed to be. Would you read this site and still think the same way?

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,553644,00.html

Also, one must weigh the alternatives, McCain is getting old and its a big question mark how well he's stand up against the pressure and sleazy neocon tricks.

Pat's Hash of History Recipe
Sprinkle a teaspoon of fact and apply 2 gallons of BS.

It's okay, Pat, you have a dedicated brainwashed audience that will cheer you on because you preach what they cling onto, false realities. Spoon feed your masses. Hitler only wanted to negotiate and never wanted to hurt a single hair on any inferior races...

So, how do we brilliantly negotiate with terrorists who are dedicating their lives to destroy whom they find inferior?

71 out of 72 virgins surveyed say it can't happen.

Bush' Amazing Hypocrisy
History's classic example of "appeasement" of an aggressive foreign power was Neville Chamberlain's ceding of a portion of Czechoslovakia to Hitler a year before the beginning of WWII. Hitler was threatening war, had huge and well-trained armed forces, and was demanding more territory.

Present day Iran is poor, weak, has third-rate armed forces, and is making no territorial demands whatsoever. How do you "appease" someone who is making no demands?

There is a power in the Middle East, however, that has invaded and occupied countries, installed satrap rulers, and threatens more wars of aggression.

That power is the United States, under George W. Bush.

So I agree, it might not be right for Ahmadi-Nejad--or any other Middle East ruler--to sit down with George W. Bush and try to reach a compromise with him. That would be tantamount to "appeasement."

Bush is obviously aggressive, has a huge and well-trained military, and has shown he is willing to use it. Don't give in to this madman! Resist! Any bargaining with him would be Neville Chamberlain all over again!

texasps
Pat your article is biased....
but, it's typical as you never liked the President anyway.
I would say it is also anti - Jew. This is why Pat is never taken serious.

buchanan strikes again
so it was polands refusal to negotiate with Hitler that irritated hitler so much that he just had to sign that pact with USSR> ans invade Paland. thats what comes across Mr buchanan. I dont believe thats what you mean, and if this had been written by anybody else but you i would have known that immediately. However, given your past record i am inclined to accpet the darkest possible interpretation. i count it as one of my great accomplishments that i was ther the days we prevented you from coming any closer to the Presidency than you did.

Bulldog74 #41
I agree with you. We need to serve our own good and if that good is truly a good it will be universally good. Many people still look to America as the land of the free etc.

I also think that if the Arab League wanted to stop Saddam in '91 they should have been empowered to do so. Sending our military to stop Saddam only protected the diseased Saudi Arabia. A powerful tactic in world politics is to allow your enemies to fight among themselves thus weakening themselves. Imagine if the Arab League had had to man up and fight Saddam. There could have been a middle east that is much less hostile to the west, oil would be cheaper than today. If the Arab League had won Saddam would be gone. If Saddam had won then Saudi Arabia would be a much different country. Either way the west would have won a powerful victory.

Real Stuff
Monique is so right. I for one say "NO TO O" We must stand behind Israel, we need to let our voice be heard. It appears Americans have forgotten what terrist did on 9/11. We need to wake up & understand these people want to bring us down.How canyou negoiate with people that have no regard for even their own life???

Shells
"So, how do we brilliantly negotiate with terrorists who are dedicating their lives to destroy whom they find inferior? "

Your right about Bucahan and some of his loony history. Hiter, he says never wanted to invade Poland"? That's pathetic and every school child knows Hitler wanter Lebensraum for his pure race.

Obama never said he's talk with Hamas, btw, and his talking with Iran could be helpful. Iran, you might not know has a very large and proud Jewish community.

"Although Iran and Israel are bitter enemies, few know that Iran is home to the largest number of Jews anywhere in the Middle East outside Israel.

About 25,000 Jews live in Iran and most are determined to remain no matter what the pressures - as proud of their Iranian culture as of their Jewish roots."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5367892.stm

Also, If Israel really were so afraid of Iran, they would give them arms.

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=36369


Latest Patrick Buchanan
Were the Czechoslovakians given a voice in the partion of their country in 1938/39? After the English and French sell out of the Czechs Churchill said of the appeasement, "You have gained shame and you will get war." Mr. Buchanan's article is pretty shallow. So... the Poles are responsible for WWII ?

Weird
This is just so weird. Pat has always been a bit crazy. We know he is an isolationist and Jew hater. So much so that the conservatives have rejected his craziness.
Now he is on MSNBC with the farleft loons and he is their hero. He hasn't changed any of his thoughts and they love him. Very bizarro.

Clinton was Hitler
A monk named Nostradamus (1503-1566) had visions and made predictions based on the visions. Many of these predictions have already come true.

One of his predictions was that the Antichrist would take human form on three occasions. Clues were given so that the Antichrist could be identified. These clues included parts of the world where born, a date of birth in one case, along with part of the name by which the Antichrist would be known.

In each identity, the Antichrist has given himself the charm to get himself into a position of power, and used that power to cause many deaths and much destruction.

The first identity of the Antichrist was Napoleon Bonaparte. Bonaparte put Europe into a state of war, which lasted for years and overflowed to the United States to cause the War of 1812.

The second identity of the Antichrist was Adolph Hitler. Hitler started World War II and the Jewish Holocaust. Fifty million people were killed and worldwide destruction resulted.

The third identity of the Antichrist was, and is, Bill Clinton. Clinton has already gotten a number of people killed, but he isn’t done yet. His Islamo-fascist-terrorist followers are his troops now.

After causing many millions of deaths and worldwide destruction, the Antichrist left the Hitler body on April 30, 1945. Over fifteen months later, in 1946, he re-emerged as the person we now know as Bill Clinton.

What person since Hitler has exuded such evil on the world as that of Clinton? Osama Bin Ladin does and Saddam Hussein did worship him.


As a conservative . . .
I've tried really hard to find something about Mr. Buchanan to admire and respect. This article doesn't help.

TeeHall
"Israel gets fired upon, wipes the invaders in 6 days,''

DingDingDing... incorrect. Israel started out the shooting in the 1967 war.

Hand over Texas to Mexico
So Pat, once a majority of Texas residents become Hispanic we should give it to Mexico if they ask, after all it was once their country anyway...





Taking it too far...
"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them that they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before."

Where does it say Iran? Where does it say any recognized government? I think Pat has way overstepped the intentions of this quote, and appplied it too liberally.

We have a duty to "negotiate" among recognized governments in the world arena. Hamas is not a recognized government. Al Qaida is not a recognized government. Anyone that thinks negotiating with these groups will actually achieve anything is a complete idiot. That would only prove that every other idiot in the world can form their own anti-societal group and get the recognition they crave.

Stick to the actual point, Pat.

Buchanan the isolationist
Please Mr. Buchanan, you have stated before, EVEN after Germany bombed and invaded France and Poland criticized England for declaring war on Germany. Hitler conquered France and began bombing Britain, you still insist, the Nazis were not a threat to America. A little perspective please, before you declare yourself the doyen of history and what is appeasement. Giving Hitler an inch, was too much.

Agreed...
...Bush was foolish to trigger Godwin's law in his speech (every so-and-so to come along for the past 60 years has been called "the next Hitler"). And condemning negotiation as a strategy was also dishonorable (we should prefer the strategy of "kill, and then kill more?")
I question some of Pat's WWII history, but there's certainly nothing here to warrant the usual chorus of "Joooooohater!" screams.

buchanan and federal election commission
last i heard and it may be very dated, Mr buchanan owed the Federal Election Commission hundres of thousand of dollars. this was money which had been given to him because he was a republican candidate for president but trhe money had not been spent on ther campaign. he was therefore obligatd to pay it back. if memory serves he was being a little reluctant. anyone out there know.?

Chris
Chris Posted: "What JFK did during the Cuban Missle Crisis and what Reagan did with Gorbachev was to negotiate from a position of strength and with the threat of the big stick. That works. Remember that Reagan walked out on Gorbachev when he was pressed to appease him. We won the cold war (among other reasons) because Gorbachev FAILED to get Reagan to stop our star wars program."

Thank You!! I totally agree and I think P.B. is WAY

continued
WAY off the mark!!

Bush talks tough
and the 29% swoon. Lost in all this though is the fact that the clock is running out on this administration and, for all the harsh rhetoric, Bush will probably leave office having done nothing about Iran or North Korea.

Israel's 60th at US Taxpayers' expense.
President Bush was in Israel, with obeisance and homage, for the 60th Anniversary of the Founding of Israel by UN decree. (A decree most of the Marxist and Muslim ambassadors in the UN wish they could rescind). I also noted that Democratic Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi and liberal Senator Charles Schumer, in their only bi-partisan point of agreement, also gave their assurances to the Israeli Knesset. With due deference, I suppose both parties once again pledged to give an astronomical amount of arms, aid and tribute to our ostensible "ally". But I would ask our politicians what symbiotic benefits do we really derive from Israel? Friends and allies offer mutual aid and benefits; a good alliance is synergistic. We give billions of dollars and agree to hazard our armed forces to preserve, protect and defend one nation. Meanwhile, we sit back with ambivalent aplomb at the suffering, bloodshed, persecution and genocide that occurs in other countries beset my Muslim or Marxist warlords. The savage slaughter of Africans or Asians (like those in Dar fur or Tibet) seems to elicit no sympathy from our State Department or Congress. Yet, we are told we must protect a particular nation based upon their purported claim to racial and/or religious superiority to the rest of the world. Isn't this contrary to the democratic principles we espouse in our Bill of Rights and 14th through 16th I would remind them that not being "pro" is not synonymous with being "anti". I am not advocating anything hateful or hurtful towards Israel, just repudiating a supposed debt or obligation to a nation that has never done America anything of any great value for the decades of multi-billion dollar donations in alms and arms they have received.
Michael Guy

Bush Plays the Hitler Card
Buchanan usually hits the target. But here he's not even in the ball park. Hitler was a despot, a tyrant, a madman, incapble of compromise. Read Mien Kampf. Look at the history.

Saddam Hussien's hero was Hitler. He gassed his own people. He invaded Kuwait. He then violated one after another UN resolution.

Iran is currently violating serveral UN resolutions. The UN can not negotiate with them. Constantly they state they want Israel wiped off the map. And death to the West. Earlier they violated international law by seizing the US Embassy and taking American's hostage. Jimmy Carter tried to negotiate (appease) them. We know how that turned out.

Bush is no favorite of mine. Neither is McCain. But Barack Obama is a black Jimmy Carter.

King Liberal writes:
"Not (Note?) all the comments above ATTACKING THE MESSENGER without addressing his points."
-----

If anybody should know about attacking messengers, King Liberal should.

Thanks for providing another fine example of leftist hypocrisy, KL.

To Liberals.....
...it doesn't matter how outrageous an article may be; as long as it bashes Bush they will agree with it 100%. No evaluation of the facts is necessary.

YOU'VE LOST IT PAT
Dear Pat,

Until I read this article, I had respect for your opinions. That is now history. The president had it right. Maybe his time frame was off a little, but you and I both know Hitler had his eye on all of Europe, indeed the world, from the beginning. There was no negotiating with him. The same is true of Hamas, Iran and "name the others". Maybe its time you changed your label. Liberal seems to fit this kind of thinking.

Archie Hanna

Good for President Bush...
President Bush is right! Many are too blind to see! Then there is Hillary & Obama and the liberal Democratic Party who have their own evil agenda for America. Our nation is being destroyed from within and except for the Lord interceeding...America will fall. Pray that this nation will turn from its sinful ways and return to its roots...the Founders' intent for it to be a Christian nation.

What Price Peace?
I used to admire Pat as a very intelligent conservative, but in his dotage he seems to have lost the will to resist evil. I believe he opposed America's entry into the fight against the Axis.

His very argument about World War II seems to illustrate the fallacy of trying to "negotiate" with an enemy sworn to kill you.

How do you negotiate with leaders and people who have sworn to kill you? The Arabs will never agree to sign and honor a peace treaty with the Israelis. Just as the Jihadists, al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden will not sign a peace treaty with the West. Their organization and followers have to be destroyed or crippled to the point where they no longer can successfully operate.

There is no substitute for victory.

Pat is wrong
Where to begin? There is a huge difference between mid-level diplomats meeting with other mid-level diplomats and the President of the United States of America (the most powerful man on Earth) meeting without precondition with a Little Tin god from Iran.

Meetings with the Soviets had preconditions (from both sides) and the U.S.S.R. was a superpower-- Iran is not.

Why should the Poles have negotiated away part of their country to Hitler? Would the U.S.A. negotiate away one of our states for any reason?



impeachbush
There are regular reports of alien abductions in the press - do you believe those, too?

You have B.O. - Bush Obsession.

Where's Newt when we need someone
with a true grasp on history? The only thing terrorists and bullies understand is overwhelming force, and someone who is not afraid to immediately use it when necessary. If you agree to talk without conditions, you have no leverage when the other side renegs.

William Jefferson Clinton is so proud of his peace talks that he supposedly brokered between Israel and Arafat, yet Israel was the only party to abide by its agreed terms. All Israel has done is give away more and more under spineless figureheads' administrations. It's time to bring back Bibi to stand up for his country for a change.

Pat's Gaddafy example is way off base. Moammar started behaving when his family saw cruise missiles coming into the windowss of his compound, and his loved ones were caught up in it all. Amazing how that works. Thank you Mr. Reagan for showing us what to do with a rabid dog.

Swing and a Miss on the Sudetenland
Mr. Buchanan needs to relook at the situation in the Sudetenland. The focus on the plight of the Germans under Czech rule was merely Hitler's smoke screen for removing a strategic thorn in his side. If Mr. Buchanan would have studied the ground and order of battle, he would have understood that the Sudetenland is a difficult to traverse mountainous area that surrounds a relatively level area that is much of the rest of the former Czechoslovakia. By earning the Sudetenland through posturing, Hitler was able to defeat a natural strong point defended by at least 35 solid divisions.

Within 2 weeks of Munich Accord, Hitler had signed an order for the invasion of the remainder of Czechoslovakia. That doesn't sound like someone in search of a negotiated and peaceful settlement. With the removal of that protective ring, the remainder of the country caved in the fall of '38 and Hitler gained not only the land and people, but significant and modern industrial facilities used for manufacturing tanks and armored vehicles.

Fast forward to the summer and fall of 1939 and refer to a map. With the all of Czechoslovakia under German control, Hitler now has Poland surrounded by Germany in the west, occupied Czechoslovakia on the south (the high ground), the Baltic to the north, and a territorial hungry USSR to the east. Hitler triggered war with Poland by staging a fake raid by Polish troops on a German facility (actually political prisoners dressed in Polish uniforms). His "defensive action" was to immediately invade Poland with scores of divisions from the west and south. Sounds like someone looking for a diplomatic solution...

While I generally enjoy and many times agree with Mr. Buchanan's writings, he missed the boat on this one.

Caped Crusader
Buchanan Rides Along.

Great line! I've watched and enjoyed most of the Randolph Scott westerns, even though in retrospect he probably should have lived long enough to star in Brokeback Mountain.

Obama no Hero
Yo, MDoggg bro.

What exactly makes Obama a hero. He has done absolutely nothing. He was not just talking diplomacy, he was talking about negotiating with our enemys with PRECONDITIONS. This does not a hero make. Your little god, Obama is nothing but a tin god.

Pat Buchanan
I like Pat best in his regular appearances on MSNBC because I don't watch MSNBC and, therefore, don't have to suffer his foolishness.

ImpeachBush
Grow a brain. Go to school. Learn something.

I would imagine the only thing that started is a bunch of sorry a$$ liberal getting BDS.

A few poor examples
Pat cites Reagan's talks with Gorbachev and Nixon's opening to China as being good. Good for what must be asked?

Modern Russia and China are now both powerful enemies of America, the democratic Chinese in Taiwan were thrown out of the UN. So what was the benefit of talking to these folks?

If a nation wishes to discuss anything with the American President. it ought to be because that nation wants to work with us for peace.

Remember the North Viet Nam talks in Paris. How useless were they?

Without Preconditions
Correction on my 10:07am post.

OBAMA will negotiate WITHOUT PRECONDITIONS.

Playing Fast and Loose With History
Pres. Kennedy and Nixon negotiated with despots when there was an advantage to be gained. Hitler did not want to invade Poland? Give me a break. The drive for room to live was as strong with Hitler as it was for any other German leader that looked east to expand, especially from Bismark on.
Negotiations with the enemy is good when it will bear fruit. Look at the treaties Isreal signed with Egypt and Jordon. Negotiating with enemies that want to use talk as a tool to further their murderous ends is counter productive. Syria, HAMAS, the PLO, and Iran all have the elimination of Israel as their goal. That is the difference.

Good Grief!
Gruppenfuhrer Buchanan's wonderful justification for Nazi aggression and defense of Neville Chamberlain's actions at Munich ignores totally the nature of the National Socialist regime and underlines his support for our modern Jew-killers in the Middle East. But lets not let a crackpot like Buchanan obscure the idiocy of the Bush Administration's commitment to weakness and crawling before horrific anti-American regimes and obnoxious domestic enemies of this country. You notice in the photo Mr. Bush's trouser knees were still crumpled from crawling on them in front of King Abdullah. But weak as he is Bush is about to be replaced with an ally of all the forces Bush has been so inept at opposing. America will leave the Middle East and King Abdullah and the degenerate oil kingdoms will be left to the tender mercies of the Chicoms and the Indians as they compete to fill the power vacuum left by the collapse of American power and to feed their energy-hungry economies.

Participating in the American Past-Time
Bush Bashing.

You seem to think that any communication between two enemies would be the kind of negotiation that Pres. Bush was talking about. If I remeber history correctly Kennedy did not request Krushev to remove the missiles, he demanded it with the full might of the U.S. military behind him. Krushev was then willing to negotiate. When Chamberlain put the full might of the British military on the line in allying with Poland, well we can pretty much know how Hitler felt about that. Kennedy practiced the "Peace through strength" model, while Chamberlain practiced the "Pretty please" model. Which one worked?

Hmmm, killer
My being 60, perhaps you would like to try your name on yourself first. Remember, lead by example. You can be an answer to your own prayers.

Who Would Have Thought
Pat, Obama, and Hitler.

Are there stranger bedfellows?

He hates Israel....
It's finally confirmed in my mind. Buchanan hates Israel. Buchanan has a soft spot for Hitler. I can find no other alternative to that. Stating that Hitler could have been negotiated with flies in the face of all historical fact. Hitler was expansionist and wanted to crush ALL in his reach. The nut job in Iran wants hedgemony in the Middle East. He's a modern day Nasser with a hell bent messianic view of himself and his country. The communists were much slower in their view of eventual world domination.Negotiating with them was sensible. Reagan took the long view. Bush is absolutely right. Yup I said it (I know he's an idiot- and all you far left bloggers are geniuses- go figure).

Buchanan
He is one smart guy, just ask him.

He is on MSNBC as the resident conservative. They use him to make all conservatives look like fools. He is their resident idiot.

They all snicker when he makes his comments. He has to lean in to hear what they are saying.

They also like him because he hates Bush and attacks him every chance he gets.


Big Difference Between Iran and Nazis
While it is good to remember the mistakes of history, there is a world of difference between Iran and Nazi Germany. Germany had already invaded other nations showing strong signs of aggression and expansion. Iran has done no such thing. They have not engaged in invasion with other nations. They have not been massing troops on the border in preparation to invasion. In fact, they have shown a willingness to make concessions to promote peace and stability in the region.

Seriously, people, we need to look at that plank in our eyes before we start judging other nations. WE are the ones who invaded two other countries. I am not saying that they were unjustified (though I believe that the Iraq invasion was), but it is a fact that militarily speaking, we have a lot of nerve judging another nation on their intentions. Was not our invasion of Iraq made precisely to give us a strategic presence in the Middle East? Wouldn't Iran be just as justified to compare ~us~ with Nazi Germany?

This kind of rhetoric accomplishes little to no good, and to refuse to keep lines of communication open only leads to trouble. In ~any~ relationship, communication is key, and if it is possible to negotiate peace, we owe it to the thousands who would lose their lives in a conflict to at least try to reach it without compromising our values or commitments.

It is long since time that we opened official diplomatic channels with Iran to avert another war: a war that we certainly cannot afford to fight.

Oh Please
Negotiating with a country is not the same as negotiating with a street gang. Bush's speech was right on point, I didn't take it as a history lesson.