Armchair historian George W. Bush last week, in an act of terrifying tactlessness, accused "some" in the United States of wanting to "appease" terrorists the same way that Neville Chamberlain appeased Adolf Hitler. His act is tactless, said Barack Obama, because he criticized Americans in front of a foreign delegation, and all because those "some" Americans disagreed with his foreign policy. But, nevertheless, it may have been valid because his speech was on foreign policy ...

Wait a minute, wait a minute. Whoops! Turns out he was giving a speech as part of the celebration of Israel's 60th anniversary. Happy birthday, Israel! Don't you just hate Democrats?

Chris Matthews of all people took the time to point out to a stupid guest why Bush's immediate distaste for "appeasement" doesn't make sense: the act that makes historians slap their palms to their foreheads is not that Chamberlain met with Hitler -- for, at the time, Hitler had not yet demonstrated his desire for world domination; the problems in Germany were external -- but rather that they gave him Czechoslovakia in return for the promise that he wouldn't go after any other countries. Hitler alleged that Germany had a legitimate claim to the Rhineland in Czechoslovakia. The other European leaders, still stinging from World War I, which is a more horrible war than you've been taught in history class, wanted to avoid another war at any cost.

Talking to leaders was, before 2001, how diplomacy got done. For Bush's analogy to make sense, his political enemies would have had to suggest that they let the other Arab states destroy Israel. To my knowledge, no Democrat has suggested this.

It could be that Bush, with his college-freshman mind, had heard the word "appeasement" in a class somewhere but didn't fully understand what it meant. Or, more sinisterly, he knows full well what it means, and knows that the Israelis know that, too. Perhaps he was sending a code to the Israeli delegation, saying, "If the United States elects a Democrat to the presidency, that person will stand idly by while Iran, Syria, and Lebanon destroy you."

Sadly, though, I don't think Bush is that smart. I think, as Chris Matthews has suggested, he's using the word "appeasement" as a buzz-word in the same way as every other pundit, including right-wing talk show host Kevin James. James was asked two dozen times by Matthews what Chamberlain did that was appeasing. For five minutes, James insisted that "we all know" what he did, and that "he was an appeaser." Finally, James admitted that he didn't actually know what Chamberlain did that was "appeasing."

And still, the election in 2008 will be almost a tie. How can James and others get away with this and have people believe them?