got the biggest issue of the day wrong. But no one ever doubted that he loved his country. That's why, after his eviction from Downing Street, Churchill kept him on in his ministry as Lord President of the Council, and indeed made Chamberlain part of the five-man war cabinet and had him chair it during his frequent absences. When he died of cancer in October 1940, Churchill wept over his coffin.
So please don't insult Neville Chamberlain by comparing him to Obama...Point taken, Mr. Steyn. But how about comparing Obama to Jimmy Carter, another feckless, far-left Democratic president who had his innings with Iran? Well, it's true that during the crisis that saw the Shah, an American ally, deposed as the Ayatollah Khomeini and his Islamic "revolution" swept into power, the Carter administration did not exactly act in a strong or creditable manner. In that sense at least, Carter and Obama are entirely in synch. However, when 49 Americans were taken hostage at the U.S. embassy in Tehran, Carter did grow a semblance of a backbone. He warned Iran's new leaders that there would be hell to pay if even one hostage was harmed.
The Iranians took heed of the warning, and, as recounted in the Canadian documentary Our Man in Tehran, began treating their captives much better as a result (even though they were not released until Ronald Reagan took office).
I wonder: would Barack Hussein Obama, who is determined to secure a deal with Iran even as the Ayatollah Khomeini's successor is screeching "Death to America" for the umpteenth time, have been able to muster the same sort of spinal fortitude? When you consider that Obama is willing to sign his "peace in our time" pact even though several Americans, including former American Marine Amir Hekmati, are being held captive in Iran, the answer to that is glaringly--and sickeningly--obvious.
That being so, it must be said: please don't insult Jimmy Carter by comparing him to Obama.
(Cross-posted at The Rebel/The Megaphone)