The Neville Awards
Home | The Liberals' Corner | Hypocrisy Watch | Recommended Media | The Butcher's Bill |
Obama's Daily March To Socialism & Surrender | The Obama Gallery | Videos

We Are Tough!! We Are...We Are...We Are!!!
We're Not Appeasers!! We're Not...We're Not...We're Not!!!!

Related Articles:

The Fallacy of Appeasement Part 5 - Obama's Appeasement Tour In Europe and Asia -- Four Articles
Obama Compromises U.S. Foreign Policy and National Defense -- Three Articles
Obama Compromises U.S. Foreign Policy and National Defense -- Three Articles
We Are Tough!! We Are...We Are...We Are!!!
We're Not Appeasers!! We're Not...We're Not...We're Not!!!!

Appeaser, Thy Name is Democrat -- Three Articles
Appeaser, Thy Name is Democrat Part 2 -- Dude, Where's My Party?-- Three Articles
Bring On the Foreign Policy Debate
Obama is the New Carter -- Michelle is the New Malaise
The Fallacy of Appeasement Part 1 -- Kennedy and Khrushchev -- Three Articles
The Fallacy of Appeasement Part 2 -- Negotiating With Iran -- Three Articles
The Fallacy of Appeasement Part 3 - Obama Naive on Defense and the Military -- Three Articles
The Fallacy of Appeasement Part 4 - Obama's Law Enforcement Approach to Terrorism -- Two Articles
Gitmo Terrorists, Habeas Rights and The Willful Blindness of Barack Obama--Two Articles

By The Neville Awards
Posted May 17, 2008

If the shoe fits wear it. Methinks the Dems doth protest too much. Truth hurts.
Can we come up with any more cliches? Welcome to the general election of 2008. The whole point of this site is finally realized, at last. The Democrats and the Left are appeasers and they have a long and cherished history of doing just that.

We could have brushed the terrorists off like gnats a long time ago. But, handcuffed by political correctness, we were afraid to offend the high-maintenance Muslims and their eggshell sensitivities. Since 9/11 the Islamo-Facists have been laughing at us as we twist ourselves into a pretzel over how hard we should be prosecuting the War on Terror.

Now, amazingly, they see their chances to win improve dramatically as we prepare to nominate a candidate for President who may be just dumb enough, naive enough, and inexperienced enough to actually sit down with them and have a chat. The audacity of hope indeed.

On the occasion of Israel's 60th Anniversary President Bush addressed the Knesset (Israels' Parliament) and said the following:

The fight against terror and extremism is the defining challenge of our time. It is more than a clash of arms. It is a clash of visions, a great ideological struggle. On the one side are those who defend the ideals of justice and dignity with the power of reason and truth. On the other side are those who pursue a narrow vision of cruelty and control by committing murder, inciting fear, and spreading lies.
This struggle is waged with the technology of the 21st century, but at its core it is an ancient battle between good and evil. The killers claim the mantle of Islam, but they are not religious men. No one who prays to the God of Abraham could strap a suicide vest to an innocent child, or blow up guiltless guests at a Passover Seder, or fly planes into office buildings filled with unsuspecting workers. In truth, the men who carry out these savage acts serve no higher goal than their own desire for power. They accept no God before themselves. And they reserve a special hatred for the most ardent defenders of liberty, including Americans and Israelis.

And that is why the founding charter of Hamas calls for the "elimination" of Israel. And that is why the followers of Hezbollah chant "Death to Israel, Death to America!" That is why Osama bin Laden teaches that "the killing of Jews and Americans is one of the biggest duties." And that is why the President of Iran dreams of returning the Middle East to the Middle Ages and calls for Israel to be wiped off the map.

There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain away their words. It's natural, but it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously. Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century.

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.

Some people suggest if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of the enemies of peace, and America utterly rejects it. Israel's population may be just over 7 million. But when you confront terror and evil, you are 307 million strong, because the United States of America stands with you.

America stands with you in breaking up terrorist networks and denying the extremists sanctuary. America stands with you in firmly opposing Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions. Permitting the world's leading sponsor of terror to possess the world's deadliest weapons would be an unforgivable betrayal for future generations. For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.

Ultimately, to prevail in this struggle, we must offer an alternative to the ideology of the extremists by extending our vision of justice and tolerance and freedom and hope.

You would think the President had called the Democrats the spawn of Satan what with all the teeth-gnashing, rending of clothes and tearing of hair. To show how tough they are the Dems brought out the big guns in reponse:

Sen. Joe Biden --
"This is bullshit. [classy huh?] This is malarkey. This is outrageous. Outrageous for the president of the United States to go to a foreign country, sit in the Knesset ... and make this kind of ridiculous statement," he said.
"He's the guy who's weakened us. He's the guy that's increased the number of terrorists in the world. His policies have produced this vulnerability the United States has."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
Reid called on Bush to "explain the inconsistency between his administration's actions and his words today."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
Pelosi said there is a "protocol" of not criticizing the president when he is abroad, but then declared, "I think what the president did in that regard is beneath the dignity of the office of president and unworthy of our representation at that observance in Israel."

Sen. B. Houssein Obama
"It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack."
"George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the President's extraordinary politicisation of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel."

Of course none of the aforementioned paragons of Congressional intestinal fortitude seem to have a problem when Jimmy Carter, Nancy Pelosi, Dennis Kucinich and any number of American leftists go abroad and trash our country. Can you say Sean Penn and the Dixie Chicks?

Actually, the President never said 'Democrats are appeasers' or 'Obama is an appeaser'. Like the suspect in the film L.A. Confidential who says "I didn't kill anybody" prompting the cop to say "You know, you're talking about murder and I haven't even told you what you're in here for", the self-absorbed Dems got played like a violin on this one.

The following is excerpted from the Wall Street Journal's editorial page, May 17, 2008

The fuse that set them off is any suggestion inside the context of a live presidential campaign that the Democrats are soft on national security.

This has been a particular Democratic vulnerability since at least the George McGovern campaign in 1972. The most famous and destructive image from a Democratic presidential campaign the past 25 years was the helmeted Governor Michael Dukakis in a tank. In 2004, John Kerry tried to run on his biography as a Vietnam vet. Didn't work.

Speaker Pelosi's own April 2007 sojourn to Syria is remembered mainly for Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert feeling obliged to correct Ms. Pelosi's announcement that Mr. Olmert had told her he was ready to start peace talks with Syria. Untrue.

Meanwhile, Speaker Pelosi announced in Damascus: "We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace." There must be a word for this somewhere. Just last month, former President Jimmy Carter met with leaders of Hamas to promote, among other things, "human rights."

Mr. Obama asserted again yesterday that he will not meet with terrorists. He is, however, willing to meet with [terrorist enablers] Iran or Syria. Virtually no serious person disputes that Iran has shipped weaponry to terrorists in Iraq and that Syria has provided safe haven to these terrorists and let them cross from Syria into Iraq. In turn, these jihadists have killed U.S. soldiers. At a minimum, one might expect that ceasing this lethal activity would be a "precondition" before committing the office of the presidency to meet with either.

Leaving no argument unturned, Democrats have reached back to Richard Nixon's trip to China and Ronald Reagan's negotiations with the Soviet Union as evidence that Republican Presidents "talk to the enemy." Put it this way: The day Iran brings forth a Chou Enlai and Syria a Mikhail Gorbachev, sure, give them a call.

Mr. Bush is right about one thing: At bottom this dispute is about understanding the nature of the enemy in Iran, Syria and other sponsors and practitioners of Islamic terror. If the tempest over his indelicate words causes the Democratic presidential nominee to think twice about the political cost of trafficking with Tehran or Damascus, uttering "appeasement" will have been worth it.

Read the whole article (and one by Mark Steyn too!!)

Now we come to our Terrorist Enabler in Chief, B. Houssein Obama. Barack has consistently said he would talk with our enemies without preconditions:

CNN YouTube Debate, July 23, 2007:

Q. In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since. In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

A. I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous. Now, Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire. And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward.

CHICAGO, Oct. 31, 2007:

Obama says he would "engage in aggressive personal diplomacy" with Iran if elected president and would offer economic inducements and a possible promise not to seek "regime change" if Iran stopped meddling in Iraq and cooperated on terrorism and nuclear issues.

Making clear that he planned to talk to Iran without preconditions, Mr. Obama emphasized further that "changes in behavior" by Iran could possibly be rewarded with membership in the World Trade Organization, other economic benefits and security guarantees.

"We are willing to talk about certain assurances in the context of them showing some good faith," he said in the interview at his campaign headquarters here. "I think it is important for us to send a signal that we are not hellbent on regime change, just for the sake of regime change, but expect changes in behavior. And there are both carrots and there are sticks available to them for those changes in behavior."

Interview with Jeffrey Goldberg May 12,2008:

Look, we don't do nuance well in politics and especially don't do it well on Middle East policy. We look at things as black and white, and not gray. It's conceivable that there are those in the Arab world who say to themselves, "This is a guy who spent some time in the Muslim world, has a middle name of Hussein, and appears more worldly and has called for talks with people, and so he's not going to be engaging in the same sort of cowboy diplomacy as George Bush," and that's something they're hopeful about. I think that's a perfectly legitimate perception as long as they're not confused about my unyielding support for Israel's security.

Interview with Reporters

Obama - who has said repeatedly that America must meet with its enemies, including the tyrants who lead Iran, North Korea and Cuba - drew the line yesterday in refusing to talk with Hamas.

"They're not heads of state. They don't recognize Israel," Obama told reporters.

"You can't negotiate with somebody who doesn't recognize the right of a country to exist."

Obama's comments caught some observers by surprise because Hamas was democratically elected and has shared power in the Palestinian government.

And Iran's leader, who Obama is willing to meet with face-to-face, not only doesn't recognize Israel, but has often called for the destruction of the Jewish state.

During the first Democratic debate last July, he said he'd be willing to meet the heads of Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Syria and Venezuela in his first year as president.

"It is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them," he said.

So Obama won't meet with Hamas but he is perfectly willing to meet with the enablers of Hamas and Hezbollah. Actually Obama has been talking indirectly with Hamas. It turns out that his main Middle East Advisor, Robert Malley, admitted he was conducting secret meetings with Hamas...until Obama canned him in April 2008.

Obviously B. Houssein Obama was "for talking with Hamas before he was against it".

Who is Robert Malley? He was Clinton's chief negotiator with Yassir Arafat in the late 90's. When the talks fell apart Malley blamed the United States and Israel. Consider this from an article about Malley by Ed Laskey for American entitled "Barack Obama's Middle East Expert":

His father Simon Malley was born to a Syrian family in Cairo and at an early age found his métier in political journalism. He participated in the wave of anti-imperialist and nationalist ideology that was sweeping the Third World. He wrote thousands of words in support of struggle against Western nations. In Paris, he founded the journal Afrique Asie; he and his magazine became advocates for "liberation" struggles throughout the world, particularly for the Palestinians.

Simon Malley loathed Israel and anti-Israel activism became a crusade for him-as an internet search would easily show. He spent countless hours with Yasser Arafat and became a close friend of Arafat. He was, according to Daniel Pipes, a sympathizer of the Palestinian Liberation Organization --- and this was when it was at the height of its terrorism wave against the West . His efforts were so damaging to France that President Valerie d'Estaing expelled him from the country.

Malley has seemingly followed in his father's footsteps: he represents the next generation of anti-Israel activism. Through his writings he has served as a willing propagandist, bending the truth (and more) to serve an agenda that is marked by anti-Israel bias; he heads a group of Middle East policy advisers for a think-tank funded (in part) by anti-Israel billionaire activist George Soros; and now is on the foreign policy staff of a leading Presidential contender. Each step up the ladder seems to be a step closer towards his goal of empowering radicals and weakening the ties between American and our ally Israel.

Read the whole article (and one by Mark Steyn too!!)

The following is a consise history of appeasement failures since 1938:

In 1938 Neville Chamberlain went to Munich for a chat with Hitler regarding his intentions in Europe. Chamberlain returned to England with his pathetic "Peace for our time" scrap of paper. The agreement bought Hitler enough time to build up his violation of the Versailles Treaty, and then he invaded Poland in September of 1939. Hitler then concluded a non-aggression pact with Stalin which he violated a year later when he invaded Russia.

In 1961 Kennedy went to chat with Khruschev in Vienna. In Kennedy's own words: "He just beat the hell out of me. I've got a terrible problem if he thinks I'm inexperienced and have no guts. Until we remove those ideas we won't get anywhere with him."

What followed was the Berlin Wall three months after the summit and the missles in Cuba six months after that.

In 1979 Carter spoke to Brezhnev about his intentions regarding Afghanistan and the Soviets invaded anyway. Carter said "I can't believe Brezhnev lied to me." What a loser.

In 1994 Clinton sent Carter and Madeliene Albright to North Korea to get them to stop their nuclear program. Under the so-called "Agreed Framework" we would give Kim Il Sung bucks and food and he would stop building bombs. Il Sung took the money and the food but he kept building bombs. We found that out after Bush II took office. That's why Bush wasn't so keen on starting the talks again. Fool me once...

In 2006 the Israelis pulled out of Gaza in yet another failed "land for peace" deal and rockets still rain down on Israel every day. The Syrians want the Golan Heights back, no doubt so they can grow vegetables on it.

Can we be any clearer here? Tyrants never, NEVER live up to signed agreements for the long term..pure and simple. The only thing they understand is opposing strength...something the liberals always seem to have a problem with.

What can Obama possibly offer the Iranians as an incentive for them to stop funding terrorism and threatening Israel? By going hat in hand to meet with Iranian strongman Mahmoud Ahmadinejad he will be legitimizing a terror regime. And what kind of guy is Mahmoud? Let's have a look at his resume.
  • Believes in the "12th Imam"...a Shiite guy who's been dead or hiding for 1000 years...he will return bringing vengeance to Islam's enemies, peace and justice to the world...and maybe toys for all of the good children.
  • Tortured the hostages taken at the U.S. Embassy in 1979.
  • Holocaust Denier
  • Hezbollah and Hamas financier
  • Financed and encouraged the Hezbollah proxy war in 2006 against Israel
  • He is behind arms shipments to Iraq and Afgahnistan that kill U.S. soldiers
  • Has called Israel a "stinking corpse" and promised to wipe it "off the map"
What a guy...he's a rock star among the leftist/academia/journalism intelligentsia around the world, pretty much the Obama constituency. In the interests of promoting "academic freedom" Columbia University Stooge President Lee Bollinger gave this guy a platform from which to dazzle the naive idealistic students, the press and anyone else who is easily led down a primrose path.

Here are some of the gems of genius spouted by the great dick, er, dictator Mahmoud last September 2007 at Columbia:

Mahmoud on 9/11 -- "If the root causes of 9/11 are examined properly - why it happened, what caused it, what were the conditions that led to it, who truly was involved, who was really involved - and put it all together to understand how to prevent the crisis in Iraq, fix the problem in Afghanistan and Iraq combined."

Mahmoud on women -- "The freest women in the world are women in Iran."

Mahmoud on executions of homosexuals in Iran -- "In Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country. In Iran we do not have this phenomenon. I don't know who's told you that we have this."

Mahmoud on Israel's destruction -- "We love all nations. We are friends with the Jewish people. There are many Jews in Iran living peacefully with security."

Mahmoud on The Holocaust -- "I am not saying that it didn't happen at all. This is not that judgment that I am passing here. Why is it that the Palestinian people are paying the price for an event they had nothing to do with?"

On foreign policy Barack is equally lacking. He wants to pull out the troops in Iraq effectivley surrendering Iraq to Iran. Just because we declare "peace" does not make it so.

We were at war with Al Qaida for 8 years during the Clinton administration but we were not exactly engaged. We've technically been at war with Iran since 1979 but we've not exactly been engaged. We've been appeasing them. In the meantime they've got Syria/Hezbollah doing their dirty work in Lebanon and they are supplying arms to Hamas and they are killing our soldiers in Iraq.

In front of that adoring Oregon crowd Obama on May 17, 2008 said the following:

Excerpted from Obama's Oregon "Malaise Speech", May 17, 2008.

Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us." "Iran, they spend 1/100th of what we spend on the military. If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance.

Stand a chance from who is the real question...which president? Obama has already signaled his intent to talk, without preconditions, with Iran...a sign of weakness on our part if we do that. No doubt Obama will be tested and retested by our enemies in his first two (God forbid) years in office. Will he have the resolve not to back down? Jimmy Carter demonstrated, time and time again, he did not have the cojones to stand up to Iran or the Soviet Union.

Former U.N. Amabassador John Bolton put it this way in his recent article "Bring On the Foreign Policy Debate":

At first glance, the idea of sitting down with adversaries seems hard to quarrel with. In our daily lives, we meet with competitors, opponents and unpleasant people all the time. Mr. Obama hopes to characterize the debate about international negotiations as one between his reasonableness and the hard-line attitude of a group of unilateralist GOP cowboys.

The real debate is radically different. On one side are those who believe that negotiations should be used to resolve international disputes 99% of the time. That is where I am, and where I think Mr. McCain is. On the other side are those like Mr. Obama, who apparently want to use negotiations 100% of the time. It is the 100%-ers who suffer from an obsession that is naïve and dangerous.

Note to Barack: We don't need to talk to this guy or anyone else of Mahmoud's ilk like Chavez, Assad or Il Sung. They're all nutbags. And you are gonna look pathetic running off to chat with these nutbags. Of course you did hang around Wright for 20 years...
Reading List