[weegee]

Chamberlain never used articulate words like “uhh” and “y’know”.

[ClearCase_guy]

Some know how to fight. Some do not.

[griswold3]

As Dana put it, This isn’t all about you!
Suck it up, Barry. You’re such a target rich environment. You won’t survive if you keep this up.
Wile E Coyote Democrats at it again!

[pipecorp]

[canuck_conservative]

Again, Bush’s hypocrisy is showing:

If it’s wrong to talk with terrorist states, why is his administration talking with North Korea?

Is it because Bush believes “some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along”?

[D-fendr]

Precisely.

Hopefully, the GOP will respond with two questions for Obama:

Which part of the speech does he think applied to him?

Which part does he disagree with?

[Vigilanteman]

Neville Chamberlain got Hitler figured out less than one year after Munich when he declared war for the invasion of Poland. He also had the grace and dignity to step aside for Winston Churchill and shut up.

[trumandogz]

You have to remember that Obama is a member of the Liberal Party and Chamberlain was a member of the Conservative Party.

And John McCain is a member of the ______________ Party.

[steel_resolve]

off topic, but...

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Excellent!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Obama Nailed.

[Neville Chamberlain]

Ten Questions to Ask the Dems About Appeasement‏ I wrote Blitzer a note after he had Kerry on to rip W. Wolf, 1) I appreciate you throwing McCain’s quotes at Kerry in an effort to be fair and balanced but if all the hubbub is about the questions posed in Bush’s speech, how about at least asking the indignant Dems to answer the actual questions that spurred them to launch their coordinated attack in defense of appeasement? 2) Is it foolish delusion to claim that talking with terrorists will result in peace? 3) Should we negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along? 4) Aren‘t you saying like that Senator back in 1939 that ‘Lord, if only I could talk to Ahmadinejad, all of this might be avoided’? 5) Isn’t this really the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history? 6) Aren’t you defending the failed strategy of appeasement and thinking that if you go and talk with Ahmadinejad that they’ll forget their evil ways and learn to love us? 7) What makes you think they would treat a future president any better than they did Jimmy Carter? 8) When one looks at how they use the spectacle of a U.N. address to excoriate us, wouldn’t they similarly use the spectacle of ‘talks’ as a sign of legitimacy and an opportunity to offer no peaceful conciliation but rather a tool to justify the path they‘ve chosen? 9) If you speak with Iran, what demands would you make of them and what are you willing to compromise to get a deal? 10) To which kinds of terrorists would you talk and to which would you not?

[Stentor]

This calls for that crying dem baby pic but I guess it’s politically incorrect. What a bunch of whining pathetic children are the rats.