May 21, 2008
If We Could Talk To The Animals
Printer FriendlyBy: Ann Coulter
You always know you've struck gold when liberals react with hysteria and rage to something you've said. So I knew President Bush's speech at the Knesset last week was a barnburner even before I read it. Liberals haven't been this worked up since Rev. Jerry Falwell criticized a cartoon sponge.
Calling the fight against terrorism "the defining challenge of our time" – which already confused liberals who think the defining struggle of our time is against Wal-Mart – Bush said:
"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is – the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."
The way liberals squealed, you'd think someone had mentioned Obama's ears. Summoning all their womanly anger, today's Neville Chamberlains denounced Bush, saying this was an unjustified attack on Obambi and, furthermore, that it's absurd to compare B. Hussein Obama's willingness to "talk" to Ahmadinejad to Neville Chamberlain's capitulation to Hitler.
Unlike liberals, I will honestly report their point before I attack it.
The New York Times editorialized: "Sen. Obama has called for talking with Iran and Syria," but has not "suggested surrendering to these countries' demands, which is, after all, what appeasement is."
"Hardball's" Chris Matthews gloated all week about nailing a conservative talk-radio host with this brilliant riposte: "You don't understand there's a difference between talking to the enemy and appeasing. What Neville Chamberlain did wrong ... is not talking to Hitler, but giving him half of Czechoslovakia."
Liberals think all real tyrants ended with Hitler and act as if they would have known all along not to appease him. Next time is always different for people who refuse to learn from history. As Air America's Mark Green said: "Look, Hitler was Hitler." (Which, I admit, threw me for a loop: I thought Air America's position is that Bush is Hitler.)
This is nonsense. Ahmadinejad looks a lot like Hitler did when Chamberlain agreed to meet with him at Munich, except that Hitler didn't buy his suits from ratty thrift shops. Much of England reacted just as today's Democrats would because, like today's Democrats, they feared nothing more than another war. (Lloyd George lied, kids died!)
Lots of Britons cheered when Chamberlain returned from Munich and announced "peace in our time." Without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, what on earth makes Chris Matthews think he would not be among them?
As Bush said at the Knesset, "There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain away their words." That was Chamberlain. And that is today's Democratic Party.
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."
Posted by redguy at May 21, 2008 08:42 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.redstatesusa.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/941
Comments
When will the good old USA wake up. Will it take another 9/11? I sure hope not. We haven't been attcked on our soil since 9/11. Someone deserves credit for this and it sure isn't the Democrats.
Obama will deliver us all to the terrorists. I have thanked the one above that George W Bush was President of the United States when they hit us on 9/11. If Gore would have been their, he'd still be wondering what they should do.
Posted by: arnie
at May 22, 2008 07:17 AM
As usual, Ms. Coulter, you illustrate a very good point: any discussion with a psychopath who hasn't been somehow subdued is in fact "appeasement." I guess if Obama came across a rabid dog he'd try to talk it out of biting people. Then he'd leave, and people would get bitten, and it'd be too late to lay blame.
Anybody can see this, and I suspect that most leftists agree with W. But the most glaring flaw in the entire leftist philosophy is its unyeilding propensity to confound the conservative right, even at the expense of honesty, fair play, common sense and the good of the nation.
It doesn't matter what W says, anytime; Leftists will wail and gnash their teeth every time he says anything. If an orphanage was burning and W showed up to save kids or put out the fire, lefties would criticize him for it, somehow.
That's why I loathe leftism: for its warm embrace with dishonesty and confusion as a viable means for denouncing its opponents and gaining more power. I'm not so proud of the conservative right these days, but I'd die before identifying myself with the political left.
Posted by: Florida Cane
at May 22, 2008 08:17 AM
How true, Ann. One comment, in the interest of brevity - it takes 7 sylables to say Barak Hussein Obama - it takes six sylables to say B. Hussein Obama -- it takes only two sylables to say B.O.!
Posted by: HoneyBee
at May 22, 2008 08:32 AM
Appeasement from direct talks.....you mean like we did with North Korea? You mean like Secretary Gates and Condi Rice wish us to do with Iran?
And how insulting to Bush, that the day after his speech at the Knesset, Israel ignores him and sits down to negotiate with Syria.
BTW, all this dither about whether or not to talk with Ahmadinejad is a waste of breath. Ahmadinejad is a figurehead with little or no power in Iran, especially over foreign policy or their nuclear program. All decisions are made by the Attolah Khomeni and the Islamic Council appointed by him. Talks with Ahmadinejad is like discussing our foreign policy direction with Bush when President Cheney is in the room.
Posted by: kevind
at May 22, 2008 08:33 AM
Maybe we could send someone over there to give the man a hug. Picture Richard Gere running up to Ahmadinejad, "Let me love you!" That would work, wouldn't it?
Posted by: dougiefresh
at May 22, 2008 09:30 AM
As a Brit I can never undersand why your left-wing Liberal Party is allowed to call itself the "Democratic" Party. The last time I looked the USA was a democracy so all political parties are democratic. If the Liberal's were democratic they would not tacitly support socialist dictators.
Anyway getting back to Ann's considered opinion that you should not cosy up to your enemies and appease them. Isn't this just common sense? The problem I have is in finding a Presidential candidate who will stand up for the USA and put your country first. Surely to legalise 11m illegal immigrants who will vote Liberal is committing suicide.
It is essential that the USA ensures that it maintains it's strength economically,militarily, politically and strategically. It cannot do this with a weak President, and Liberal President's are notoriously weak, because Liberals are weak and have no moral fibre.
So for the sake of the USA, and the World, I am praying that John McCain wins, and that he ensures the USA is not weakened by an influx of liberals who have no feeling for the USA other than the money they can elicit from US taxpayers.
Posted by: Redrex
at May 22, 2008 09:57 AM
You dont talk to terrorists,you shoot them.
If someone shot Hitler instead of talking to him
55 million people would not have died.
You dont have to go to war with Iran and wind up with another Iraq.
Just get rid of Amaadickhead and 5 mullas and let the Iranians have back their country.
Only then will you have peace in the middle east,
instead of the comming armagedan.
Posted by: Rick
at May 22, 2008 11:27 AM
Sorry, Rick.
While I agreed with you when you stated that shooting terrorists and tyrants would save lives, you forgot that there are many more terrorists and tyrants than those you mentioned. We would have to start with the mullahs of Iran and then proceed to slaughter almost all of the Islamic clerics throughout the world, Kim Jung Il, the Castro brothers, Hugo Chavez, the Chinese Communist party officials, and perhaps millions of others.
After that, we burn the Koran, the Communist Manifesto, etc. until we eradicate all evil. That will never happen...but it is nice to dream. You may delay Armageddon, that is, the last days war in the mountains of Megiddo, but you cannot prevent it.
Posted by: Loser
at May 22, 2008 04:46 PM
Ann, I love you and once again you are absolutely telling it like it is. It's so easy to take the "Oh it's different because that was Hitler" stand. You are absolutely right about 1939. In you're book "How to talk to a Liberal" (if you must)you read my mind when you wrote that passage that this is our 1939, right now.
The writing is on the walls and the Dems keep ignoring it at every turn! We cannot afford 8 years of Barack Hussein. The USA is the greatest country in the world and we need to do what it takes to keep it that way. Surrendering is never the answer, we need to kick some ass!
Posted by: Tolbert
at May 23, 2008 01:14 AM
I was just discussing this the other day. Maybe liberals can't conceive of truly evil people who would just as soon kill them as look at them because they don't have a moral fiber in their bodies? Florida Cane, I can relate to your comments. I was once a flaming liberal who thought Reagan was the anti-Christ but then I took a very close look at the Democrat Party and came to my senses. Like you, I have found democats to be some of the most dishonest, hateful, small minded, intolerant people on the face of this earth. I too would sooner die than be affiliated with them.
Redrex, I have to correct you. The US is NOT a democracratic form of government. It is a REPUBLIC. The different is that a democracy is the rule of majority, a republic is a representative government of the people. It is bad enough that DemocRats do everything in their dishonest power to vote for representatives, I'd hate to see what sort of state we would be in if we were a democracy!
arnie, I'm with you bud! We would probably be speaking Arabic if Gore had been at the helm when 9/11 hit. Thank God distrustful DemocRats didn't have their way in Florida and were stopped from manipulating the count in their favor!
Posted by: The_Kat™
at May 24, 2008 10:22 AM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
