Bruce Ramsey writes in defense of appeasement at the Seattle Times:

Democrats are rebuking President Bush for saying in his speech to the Knesset, here, that to “negotiate with terrorists and radicals” is “appeasement.” The Democrats took it as a slap at Barack Obama. What bothers me is the continual reference to Hitler and his National Socialists, particularly the British and French accommodation at the Munich Conference of 1938.

What Hitler was demanding was not unreasonable. He wanted the German-speaking areas of Europe under German authority. He had just annexed Austria, which was German-speaking, without bloodshed. There were two more small pieces of Germanic territory: the free city of Danzig and the Sudetenland, a border area of what is now the Czech Republic.

Appeasement is the attempt to placate an implacable foe, but Obama doesn't seem to think that Iran is implacable. He must think that the Iranians are reasonable people with reasonable demands, otherwise what would be the purpose of sitting down to talk with Ahmadinejad? And as he told David Brooks today, he thinks Hamas has "legitimate claims." Surely when Obama addresses those claims they will renounce violence and live peaceably with their Israeli neighbors. As will Hezbollah when Obama addresses their reasonable demands for "electoral reform" and "a fair distribution of services."

Once you see the demands of tyrants and terrorists as legitimate and not altogether unreasonable, it's just a hop, skip, and a jump to assuring peace in our time.

HT: Ace