With the decision of the Adminstration to bluntly outline to the public the dangers of the appeasement policies proposed by the Democrats, expect some reactions from Democrats along the lines of the famous response: "It's not my dog.  He didn't bite you.  And besides, you kicked him first."

NationalReview's Katherine Jean Lopez has a bit of the Democratic response here, with Democratic Senator Jack Reed arguing it isn't fascism we are fighting:

QUESTION: Senator, I was wondering if you could respond to the earlier note of the use of the phrase Islamo-fascism, if you think that is an accurate term for what's going on.

REED: Well, I'll just say I don't think it's particularly accurate. You know, I think if one carefully has looked at the history of fascism, which was a political movement in western Europe that actually, in the two principal cases, came to power through democratic elections — at least in Germany it did — I think the analogy is very, very weak.

Today's Washington Post has another bit with Senator Schumer arguing it isn't appeasement the Democrats are promoting:

"Maybe there are some people in America who do not want to fight the war on terror, but I do not know them," Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said yesterday. "We Democrats want to fight a very strong war on terror. No one has talked about appeasement."

It won't be long for the last third of the argument to appear:  "How dare the Republicans are questioning my patriotism!"

Appeasers can and usually are patriots.  The Baldwin-Chamberlain governments that led Great Britain in the '30s were composed entirely of patriots, though of the most misguided sort who never understood Hitler and the rise of fascism and who always advocated policies they thought would appease Hitler but which never did because Hitler did not want to be appeased.  After the collapse of appeasement, the principal figures in that camp continued to serve honorably in many positions in the wartime government, because appeasers can be and usually are patriots:

Neville Chamberlain became Lord President of the Council after his resignation as Prime Minister, and served until his death.

After the fall of Chamberlain, one of Chamberlain's primary partners in appeasement, Lord Halifax, remained for many months as Foreign Minister before Churchill dispatched him to the United States as Ambassador.

Samuel Hoare was one of the most ardent of the appeasers. He served as Ambassador to Spain throughout most of the war brought about by appeasement's weakness in the face of determined evil.

The policies proposed by today's Democrats and promoted by a chorus of modern Geoffrey Dawsons in the MSM --as editor of the Times of London, Dawson was appeasement's mouthpiece-- are certainly as destructive of the nation's security as were those of the Baldwin/Chamberlain governments, but like the men of those governments, the appeasers of today are certainly patriots, just deeply misguided, foolish patriots. Because the charge of appeasement is so completely applicable and the understanding of appeasement's folly so clearly understood by a majority of the public, Democrats will, as  shown above, argue that our enemies aren't fascists and complain mightily that they are not appeasers.  When those responses prove futile because "facts are stubborn things,", they will attempt to change the subject by protesting that the charge of appeasement is a charge of treason, which it is not and never has been. The best response to such victim posturing:  "Chamberlain was a patriot, but he was an appeaser.  Halifax was an appeaser, but he was a patriot. Your response is silly.  Stop playing the victim and at least attempt to defend your appeasement policies."