NY Post compares Joe Biden to Hitler-appeaser Neville Chamberlain
In a recent editorial column by New York Post author Michael Goodwin, President Joe Biden has been compared with former British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. The startling comparison has been drawn while criticizing Joe Biden's questionable handling of the Afghanistan crisis. "Who could imagine any American president allowing murderous thugs to set the terms of our military’s surrender? But that’s what has been happening and it crystalized Tuesday," Goodwin wrote.
Infamous in history for his "policy of appeasement" towards Adolf Hitler, Neville Chamberlain had signed the Munich Agreement in 1938, which relinquished a portion of erstwhile Czechoslovakia (Sudetenland) to Nazi Germany. His decision backfired soon afterward as Germany invaded Poland in 1939, marking the start of World War II. Eventually, Chamberlain proceeded to declare war on Germany and headed the British cabinet for another eight months. Fast Forward eight decades later, US President Joe Biden has received ample negativity for his decision to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan. His decision led the Taliban terrorists to take over the reins of the country within weeks.
In his scathing column, Goodwin attacked Joe Biden as the 'champion of
cowards' and implying that he is worse than Chamberlain. He begins the
editorial piece saying, "Neville Chamberlain can rest easy. He is no
longer the most shameful appeaser in modern history. Joe Biden is the
new champion of cowards."
He goes on to add, "Coming on the eve of the 20th anniversary of 9/11, Biden’s bad judgment and poor leadership have undercut the heroes who prevented Afghanistan from again becoming a safe haven for other terrorist attacks on America. All along, his obsession seems to have been that he would be the president to end the war. He even tried to sell it as a victory by saying the troops would come home on Sept. 11."
As the Taliban took control over Afghanistan at a speed that left the whole world in bewilderment, the US president Joe Biden was widely perceived as 'responsible' for the chaos. Amidst the mounting criticism of the decision of the withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan, Biden addressed the nation on the matter on Monday, August 16, at the White House. In his first public remark over the Taliban's takeover, Biden defended his stance and said, "I stand squarely behind my decision. After 20 years, I’ve learned the hard way that there was never a good time to withdraw."
He further 'slammed' the Afghan military for 'giving up' and their dependence on the US troops to battle the Taliban crisis. "The truth is, this did unfold more quickly than we had anticipated. So what's happened? Afghanistan political leaders gave up and fled the country," he noted. Biden also remarked that after four of his predecessors dealing with the war against terrorism in Afghanistan, he wished to be the one to end the war.
In the New York Post article, Michael Goodwin argues, "Even more unforgivable, by agreeing to the Taliban’s demand that he stick to his own initial deadline of Aug. 31 for the withdrawal of all troops, Biden shows he is willing to strand thousands of Americans behind enemy lines. Exactly how many Americans will be left behind is unknown, but most estimates put it in the thousands. They are now hostages to Biden’s fear and failure."
"As is always the case with appeasement, our allies will be shaken and our adversaries emboldened," Goodwin said, indirectly likening his stance to Chamberlain's Munich agreement. The article proceeds to scrutinize Biden further, as it raises the question, "...he defends his decision by over and over citing threats of an attack by remnants of the Islamic State terrorists. He talks of “increasing risks . . . every day we’re on the ground.” No doubt there is some truth to that, but is the possibility reason enough to run away and abandon our citizens, allies and principles?"
1 comment:
I am not convinced that Neville Chamberlain was pushed into his position by cowardice. As a man who remembered the British losses during The Great War he wanted very much to avoid a second catastrophe and thought that Hitler could be reasoned with. Of course I never knew the man and I could easily be completely wrong.
Post a Comment