Bush Plays the Hitler Card
by Patrick J. Buchanan


"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?

May 20, 2008

Patrick J. Buchanan is co-founder and editor of The American Conservative. He is also the author of seven books, including Where the Right Went Wrong, and A Republic Not An Empire. His latest book is Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War.

Yes, I know we already dove into this topic, but this ignores the obvious Nazi ties of the Bush family and instead focuses on the idea of appeasement and what Diplomacy, which the Administration seems to have no capacity for, can accomplish.

I may not always agree with Pat, but at least he's not a Globalist.

Being that Hezbollah and Hamas are funded mercenaries of Syrian and Iranian power brokers is no less dangerous than Al-queda and the ties to Osama from the similarly disaffected.

To that, US intelligence networks are also culpable in the rise of Osama's militancy.
That alone makes the US complicit in the advance of ideals including cloaking national political agendas in mercenary activities only policed through criminal laws and not international tribunals and interventions to quench, seeing that such constructs are not formal governments and not subject to treaties and formal diplomacy for which the leaders of nations bear responsibility and accountability to for their respective peoples sake.

That a cloak for covert aggression has examples to merit their continued existence and viability for exaserbating conflict is still being explored for assuming credible and acceptable tactical expressions throughout the world.

Globalist or not, world leaders cannot ignore, nor encourage the proliferation of such covert alliances.

What started WW1 was not settled as the armistice that gave rise to Hitler and WW2 was not peace by any means. Reparations sought from Germany also bankrupted Germany and the suffering of Germans was played on by Hitler under the guise of re-establishing the means of re-building its own economy and absolving Germany of its obligations to finance the reconstruction of its victims' infrastructures.

With respect to how these events are tied to the conflicts being pressure cooked in the cauldron of Middle East struggles is exemplified by the similarites of Yugoslavian and Lebanese stages for bearing the explosiveness of conflict in the destructive nature of war.

The powder keg that has had a lit fuse attached will explode if not quenched.

The goals may be different and the assumptions made that are irreconcilable with civil discourse may be different, but their effect is the same.


The consensus seems to be that nations at large would like to keep strifes and contentions limited to the actions within present borders throughout the world.

Whether that furthers globalist ideas or not is not at the heart of the concerns that the international community is faced with.

Global domination by any one nation is a threat to every nation and to all peoples.


The new face of conflict and war is presenting itself as "economic warfare" seeking global dominance and command and control of peoples and resources and treasure.

That warfare is threatening cultures and livlihoods throughout the world.

Those that recognize that their own interests will be at risk of being overcome by the more powerful economic forces not embracing their particular values and their autonomy (with equal armor and armament) are increasingly aware that they are at risk of being overcome and imprisoned by their vulnerabilities to being forced into accepting prevailing dominance intended and willed by those with the greatest purchasing power and the will to insulate protective advantage and privilege.


That is a global concern.

The globalists know full well that the stakes are high.


Appeasement and diplomacy are tools of the global economic powers to further their own agenda.


The slavery coming to the world's disadvantaged and underprivileged will only be made tolerable for those that bend the knee to the demands of those dominating the future landscape contrived into being by the advantaged and privileged, ultimately.


That frightening and horrific contemplation can be a powerful and fervent motive to men willing to risk their lives and futures to resist at the cost of their lives.

It is that cost that cannot be denied by those that see thier lives, their loved ones lives and their children's lives stolen from them already.

Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen.

Seeing the world through worldly expectations can lead to worldly pursuits.

But ignoring the tensions and warnings present only advances the momentum of the privileged and advantaged.


Resisting economic domination can be achieved by collective abstinance from the economic forces advancing their goal of domination.





But where is water and seed and arable land not without a cost and taxation and enjoying an impregnable defence?


Nowhere on the planet, my fellow prisoners.






Nowhere..........