Have you actually not witnessed the clip of Chris Matthews schooling Kevin James, the conservative talk show host who didn't bother Googling Neville Chamberlain before he went on Hardball to accuse Chamberlain of being Barack Obama's ideological forebear? CLICK THE PIC THEN. Or you'll be condemned to a lifetime of being alarmed by the ignorance of Intelligent. Conservative. Talk Radio. hosts. (Interestingly, if Bush knows anything about Chamberlain it's probably only because historians have likened his own stubbornness to the pre-Churchill British PM's.) (Which would make Obama OUR CHURCHILL, ha ha ha.) Click the pic to watch the clip, read Winston Churchill's 1940 Chamberlain eulogy and discuss how low the dollar would have to get for Obama to say similarly nice things about GWB (perhaps with Dick Cheney as the "wicked man" figure.) And no, it doesn't actually all line up. That is the point.

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.





@Abbi: Yes, except Tony gave W Iraq which had no involvement in 9/11 nor any WMDs and had not invaded anyone since the Gulf War. That would have been like Churchhill invading Germany in 1933 'cause they were looking at the UK funny.

Chamberlin gave Hitler part of a third country in hopes that this would *appease* his annexing and invading — which was already in play.

Bush's attempted parallel is made of stupid. Talking to Hitler to try and find a peaceful solution was not the bad part of this scenario; what WAS a bad idea was giving him a sop in an attempt to stop further hostilities.