I got all excited because I thought Michael Ledeen was linking to an official announcement here:
I think the appeasers ought to have a candidate in the Republican primaries, and he’s their ideal standard-bearer. So far as I know, he never met a dictator he didn’t want to appease.
Turns out to just be some speculation. It’s worth considering the charges here. Appeasement, as we know, is bad because when tried vis-a-vis Adolf Hitler it didn’t succeed. Is it really so implausible that during Chuck Hagel’s term in the Senate, from 1996 to the present day, he feels the United States has not encountered any genuinely Hitleresque dictators on the world stage?
This, of course, is the perplexing thing about the Munich analogy. It’s made with a sort of eerie constancy, like the world is just chock-a-block with Hitlers. The salient fact about Hitler, however, and the world situation in the 1930s, is that it was unusual time and Hitler an unusual person. The suggestion that we should make recourse to strategies that, allegedly, would have, in retrospect, have been optimal for coping with Hitler as our regular basis for dealing with foreign leaders who don’t eagerly submit to American hegemonic aspirations is daft.