Charles Krauthammer, in a fit of impotent rage, has yanked is dong out of his pants and forced a geyser of urine up into his own nose:

When confronting an existential enemy -- an enemy that wants to terminate your very existence -- there are only two choices: appeasement or war.

Aside from the fact that his use of the word "existential" is so grotesquely forced that it actually induces eye pain, his complete inability to imagine any other strategies to eliminate a mortal threat other than "kill or be killed" speaks volumes about the paucity of his imagination. He is, of course, referring to Spain's role in Iraq. It is the trend to call anyone who adopts a different point of view an "appeaser". It's certainly easier than actually accepting the credibility of those who think the war was fraudulent and the "war on terror" an ill-conceived failure. But apologists for the right never said that we should fight smart, to the contrary, they've consistently lauded Bush's anti-intellectualism and declared that what was needed against the terrorists (above all else!) was "resolve", "confidence", "steadfastness", "determination" and "commitment". Our enemies are "nihilistic", "evil", and "will stop at nothing". In other words, we have no choice but to pound stupidly against "them" because, like every abused child on earth, "They just won't fucking listen!"

Of course, this doesn't mean that there aren't those who actually qualify as "appeasers". But it is merely a cold-hearted diversionary tactic to level such accusations at the countries of Europe, who's citizens are fighting terrorism at home and abroad. Perhaps the title of "appeaser" more rightly belongs to Saudi Arabia, about which Lawrence Wright has written a brilliant and revealing article. To wit:

The fact that there are [in Saudi Arabia] no secular charities or non-governmental institutions or, of course, political parties—civil society, in other words—means that there is no moderate, stabilizing middle ground between the government and the clerics. This situation has, naturally, elevated the power of religious conservatives. Although many of its own citizens struggle to make do, the Saudi government sends about two billion dollars a year in aid to other Islamic countries, building mosques and madrassas, underwriting religious universities, distributing books and tracts, funding charities—and supporting jihad. These donations, approved by the small inner circle of elderly princes who run the government, are made with an eye toward placating the country’s religious extremists; they also insure that the Wahhabi strain of Sunni Islam, the official dogma of the kingdom, will be the Muslim voice heard above all others.