I'm not a big fan of Chris Matthews given his previous sexist on-air behavior. But his publicly humiliating that right-wing tool for stupidity and ignorance is definitely all right with me.

He could've done some real damage to Obama...by endorsing him.

Oh man.... That has to be SEEN....

If only Chris Matthews were that hard on everybody who doesn't know what they're talking about!

I think the point was that Chamberlain agreed to let Hitler have half of Czechoslovakia, not that he did nothing while Hitler took half of it. Appeasement is a bribe, essentially. If we let you have (x), will you promise not to ask for anything else?

Buaha-ha-ha! If Chris Matthews really goes to the side of the good guys, then great! But Chris Matthews usually is an annoying, self-satisfied, short-sighted silly-boy.

I have a feeling that Chris only wanted to show how much he happened to know about Neville Chamberlain, and show up this twit, rather than that Chris was on the side of Truth, Justice, and The American Way.

One suspects the rats are leaving the ship already and this guy James was the only one left they could find to go on TV for Bush. What a moron, and aggressively moronic as well.

After returning from his meeting with Hitler, Chamberlain read a statement in front of 10 Downing St that included this infamous sentence:

"My good friends this is the second time in our history that there has come back from Germany to Downing Street peace with honor. I believe it is peace in our time."

The year was 1938.

Even all of the stupid predictions made by the Iraq War supporters before the war don't compare to the degree of wrongness in Chamberlain's statement. But, as with the pre-Iraq War predictions, there was at the time he made that statement massive evidence to indicate that his prediction would be horribly wrong. Germany's intentions were obvious. All Chamberlain did was buy time -- for Germany -- to increase its military force before WW2 started.

There are all kinds of useful lessons to take from Chamberlain's stupid error. One is to understand your foe, and his/her intentions. Another is to not sign an agreement that you do not have the power to enforce. A third is to recognize when conflict is inevitable, and prepare accordingly.

BUT, none of those lessons equates to "never talk to your enemy". Always be willing to talk -- you never know what sort of options may come about as a result. Chamberlain's error wasn't that he talked to Hitler -- it was that he believed what Hitler told him.

is all over the political map. Wasn't he a speechwriter or something for President Carter? Then something happened to him and he emerged as a Clinton nemesis during Bill's impeachment. He can be construed as anti-Hillary and pro-Obama, although he also waxes sweet about McCain.

But to watch him today take on the right wing blowhard Kevin something, I was thrilled for the first time, that he did not let misinformation take the upper hand. They were both shouting down each other. Appeasement vs Negotiating was at the heart of the matter.

Chris Matthews does have a way of bending with every political wind. He may yet emerge a progressive Deomcrat again, given that McCain will be soundly beaten in November.

Chris Matthews is pretty good for a TV show host who obviously despises Hillary and The Clinton legacy. "Appeasement" in the coming media-hate attack may devolve to torquing Bush's views on MidEast affairs so they appear "rational" or "proactively engaging" of a very violent period... of needless conflict.

If the object of an interviewer is to elicit greater expertise on a topic than previously revealed, then Matthews has done us a great service in debunking the myth of hate-radio hosts as sources of real knowledge... and respectability.

They tend to be despicable due to the Cardinal Sin of Omission more often than outright ignorance - of the whole damned thing being discussed. But because you raised the ugly issue, Mr. Leonard - don't you think Salon ought to rebuke attackers with deft research and radically-correct intel regarding history?

a. Obama's speech and subsequent acts

b. Bush's speech and consequent actions

c. The dire state of MidEast conflict; effect on world powers

d. Why in the hell George II can get away with such drivel!

My God, that was funny.

That loudmouth wouldn't shut up! Just like Bush, when challenged and exposed, he just thumps his chest harder and makes animal noises!

Ha ha hah aha ha ha!!!

Man, if only there was more fact-checking/standards in political coverage, like, say, on the BBC, where the interviewers actually have an education and aren't afraid to use it on their subjects, demanding a minimal level of knowledge and reasonable discourse.

Oh well, I'm not a big fan of Matthews (himself often an ignorant though jovial enough loudmouth), but this was savagely funny.

All Chamberlain did was buy time -- for Germany -- to increase its military force before WW2 started.

Maybe. There's a strong argument to be made -- as distasteful as it is these days -- that in fact Neville Chamberlain knew exactly what he was doing and did it deliberately, even knowing that Hitler would break the Munich agreement and gobble up Czechoslovakia. What Chamberlain bought time for was the completion of the Chain Home radar system. Once the war actually began, it was Chain Home that allowed Fighter Command to defeat the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britian. Likewise, in the year between, the UK built up its forces (especially fighter forces).

After 1936, time was not on the side of the Axis -- and Hitler knew it as well as Chamberlain. That was why he flew into a rage that the British "cheated" him out of his war at Munich. Hitler knew he had to strike fast; if war didn't come by 1940 or so, it would be on very unfavorable terms for Germany. And so the increasingly bold gambits and eventually, the assault on Poland.

It's entirely possible that Neville Chamberlain lost Czechoslovakia but won the war.