Obama and Hillary the U.S.A.'s twin answer to Neville Chamberlain

British statesman and philosopher Edmund Burke observed, "Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it." History is clearly not the strong suit of the modern Democratic party and their top tier candidates Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Elected as Prime Minister of Great Britain in May of 1937 Neville Chamberlain believed that Germany had been treated badly after Armistice and subsequent Treaty of Versailles that ended World War I. Not wanting to plunge his nation into another war with Germany Chamberlain believed that if he could appease Hitler and Mussolini that he could save Europe from another confligration with the resurgent "New Germany". Unfortunately for Chamberlain and those who banked on his policy of "peace in our time", negotiation and "meeting the other party half-way" only works when the fellow sitting across the table from you is also bargaining in good faith. Neither Hitler nor Mussolini were the type to bargain in good faith and only saw negotiations with the well-mannered Chamberlain as a sign of Western decadence and weakness before an ascendant Third Reich a new Roman Empire.

Here we have an old newsreel recounting the events and hopes surrounding a major conference between Chamberlain and Herr Hitler. Note how the tone of excited anticipation underscores the newsreels coverage of this event as well as the media's effort to legitimize Hitler's Nationalist Socialist regime as a partner in peace. Note the air of anticipation conveyed in the newsreel as though a solid breakthrough is about to occur in Anglo-German relations.




In the following reel Chamberlain is shown holding up a worthless scrap of paper signed by Adolf Hitler as a guarantee to the British people of his promisses to avoid war and pursue peace with the Western powers. The film is slowed down to underline the preposterousness of Chamberlain's faith that a thin piece of paper signed by the Nazi warlord during the Munich Agreement signified a breakthrough in the diplomatic stalemate that occured with Britain and France with Hitler's insistance in acquiring the Sudetenland for Germany.



In this segment Senator Obama explains to General Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker his belief in a "diplomatic surge" the includes negotiations with Iran. Senator Obama postulates that if the Iraqi government can pursue peaceful relations with Iran then the U.S. should as well. True. However that only works if Iran really wants to pursue peace with the United States and not continue as it has even up to the present week in initiating fighting in Basra and with mortaring diplomats in Bagdad's "Green Zone".

Here's the tape.



Not to be outdone, Senator Clinton drifts before the cameras during Senate Armed Services committee hearings on the state of progress in Iraq to cite her desire to remove American forces from Iraq and redeploy to Afghanistan. In one of the graphics put up by CSPAN, the Senator is quoted as saying that she would have U.S. forces quit Iraq in as little as 60 days if elected President. I question why the Democrats are in such a hurry to abandon Iraq post haste and move forces to a relatively quiet theatre of war in Afghanistan and leave that strategically located nation with all its resources, infrastructure and wealth to the tender mercies of al Qaeda sympathizers. Now that the surge has been shown to be a success on the military and political fronts despite Democrat and New York Times assertions to the contrary, all that remains in Iraq are some mopping up operations of Iran supported resistance to the Maliki government. But today's Democratic leadership wants to abandon Iraq to have our military chase moonbeams in some remote backwaters of the world to look for terrorists while the real centerpiece of the war on terror is Iraq. As Julius Caesar would say, "Quo Bono?" Who Benefits?

The main beneficiaries of such a blundering policy would be the governments of Iran and Syria. So why the big Democrat push to leave the door wide open for the two nations in the region that have been sneaking fighters into Iraq to simply saunter in after we "redeploy" forces under a Democrat inspired middle-east policy under the guise of "protecting our troops", "preserving the national treature" and "looking for terrorist hideouts"? The big fight is in Iraq, the terrorists themselves have said this so why are the Democrats in such a hurry to leave?

The following video shows Mrs. Clinton's statements before the Senate Armed Services committee where she quote's a New York Times article of all things (She may as well have quoted Al-Jezzira) on the emotional toll the war is having on returning Veterans. (An article which by the way was found to have been highly suspect in its sourcing and viewpoint) And goes on to misquote General Petraeus on the status of the political and military progress made in Iraq.



No matter how things change they always manage to stay the same. Today's Democratic party leadership have decided to apply Neville Chamberlain's policy of appeasement with the modern-day Hitler and Mussolini of our time; Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran and Bashar Al-Assad of Syria. They obviously think that with their charm and intelligence they can persuade Ahmadinejad and Al-Assad to see the error of their ways and reach an accommodation with the high minded liberals of the Democratic establishment.