Iran Deal: Obama’s Munich?
Will it be?
Obama to Iran: If you like your nuclear program, you can keep your nuclear program.
— Philip Klein (@philipaklein) November 7, 2013
Stacy McCain thinks so:
Our anti-American president and our abominable Secretary of State were willing to bargain with Iran’s totalitarian death cult….
…Even to think of negotiating with the Tehran regime is a disgrace.
Frequent TOM commentator and Friend In The Ether Adjoran disagrees:
But it is hardly Munich. Chamberlain had no good options at that point, Britain was neither armed nor approving of war. Obama was holding ALL the cards with Iran as the sanctions had begun to force them to the table, but he unilaterally began relaxing them for nothing.
This is far worse than Munich, or the Paris surrender of Vietnam. It’s voluntary, unforced surrender to evildoers to allow them nuclear weapons.
Good point, but, while the situation is not exactly the same, the spirit is.
When we speak of ‘a Munich’, I think most of us are encompassing a series of events that led-up to The Munich Agreement.
While he was Chancellor Of The Exchequer under Stanley Baldwin and later as Prime Minister, Chamberlain was always in favor of appeasing Herr Hitler. Some forgive him for taking this stand in the mid-1930’s because Britain was so woefully unready to wage war against Nazi Germany, but, as the gradual release of secret documents from that era have shown, so was the Wehrmacht and Chamberlain was privy to this knowledge. Even a dullard like Neville could figure out that it was highly unlikely that Hitler would have risked war against The Western Powers until the very late 1930’s — the Nazi records show that this was so and many of the Fuehrer’s Generals believed that the Wehrmacht was not ready in the Fall of 1940.
Barack Hussein Obama is as much of a dullard as Neville Chamberlain was, and, like such people, he believed that he was smarter than all of his associates, that he possessed a clearer vision of the world.
What Chamberlain was most assuredly not was a malevolent man, like Obama is. When the former Prime Minister passed away in late 1940, Winston Churchill spoke these words to the House Of Commons:
It fell to Neville Chamberlain in one of the supreme crises of the world to be contradicted by events, to be disappointed in his hopes, and to be deceived and cheated by a wicked man. But what were these hopes in which he was disappointed? What were these wishes in which he was frustrated? What was that faith that was abused? They were surely among the most noble and benevolent instincts of the human heart-the love of peace, the toil for peace, the strife for peace, the pursuit of peace, even at great peril, and certainly to the utter disdain of popularity or clamour. Whatever else history may or may not say about these terrible, tremendous years, we can be sure that Neville Chamberlain acted with perfect sincerity according to his lights and strove to the utmost of his capacity and authority, which were powerful, to save the world from the awful, devastating struggle in which we are now engaged. This alone will stand him in good stead as far as what is called the verdict of history is concerned.
Will anyone in their right minds ever be able to say the same about Barack Hussein Obama when he shuffles-off his Mortal Coil?