Not long ago, the right-wing blogosphere was chastizing the left because (supposedly) we all wanted to “appease” Saddam.  Of course, “appeasement” in our view meant inspections, fly-overs, sanctions and a whole host of other active efforts which—let’s be honest—are just the opposite of appeasement.

Today’s LA Times has a piece by former NSC director Steve Andreasen which takes Bush to task for his appeasement of North Korea and Iran.  He makes the distinction between active appeasement, which is bad enough, and passive appeasement, which characterizes the Bush policy:

No one can accuse the Bush administration of making an active effort to appease North Korea or Iran. In fact, the administration has gone to great lengths to avoid even the appearance of “giving in” to Pyongyang or Tehran, refusing to engage in direct negotiations regarding their nuclear programs. Without negotiations, the reasoning appears to be, there can be no concessions, no agreement and no appeasement.

Or can there be? The administration seems to have forgotten the part about meeting the aggressor head-on. Indeed, the administration’s approach might be called passive appeasement — and the absence of energetic diplomacy or credible military threat may be just as injurious to U.S. interests as an active agreement recognizing renegade nations as nuclear powers.

***

Because of a lack of assertive diplomacy, the most isolated, dangerous regime on the globe has been permitted to increase its nuclear inventory. Only now — when North Korea appears ready to stage a nuclear test — is the administration considering establishing its own red line, backed by threats of negative consequences. But bilateral negotiations with the North apparently remain off the table.

Read the whole thing, and ask yourself, where are the cries of “appeaser” now?