Gingrich: "It's not an insult[ ]" to compare Bush administration critics "to those who enabled Hitler"
SUMMARY: On Hannity & Colmes, Newt Gingrich stated that Donald Rumsfeld's likening of Iraq war critics to Nazi appeasers was "not an insulting comment." Gingrich also repeated the misleading claim that the United States "found over 700 chemical warheads and weapons in Iraq, which supposedly had none, according to our friends on the left."
On the September 1 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, discussing a speech by Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, during which, in the words of an August 29 Associated Press article, Rumsfeld "likened critics of the U.S. war strategy to those who tried to appease the Nazis," Fox News political analyst and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) stated that he agreed with Rumsfeld's comments, adding that the comparison between Iraq war critics and Nazi appeasers was "not an insulting comment."
After Gingrich said he "[e]ssentially" agreed with Rumsfeld's remarks, co-host Alan Colmes challenged Gingrich, asking: "Calling appeasers people who disagree with the Bush policy administration, comparing them to those who enabled Hitler?" Colmes called Rumsfeld's analogy "a very insulting comment ... to most of the American population, which doesn't agree with the Iraq war." Later in the segment, when Colmes challenged Gingrich's characterization of war opponents as "people who want us to cut and run in Iraq," Gingrich responded: "It's accept defeat." Guest co-host and National Review editor Rich Lowry added: "Yeah, that's exactly what it is."
Additionally, Gingrich claimed that the United States "found over 700 chemical warheads and weapons in Iraq, which supposedly had none, according to our friends on the left." As Media Matters for America noted, these weapons were expected to be found and were known to be degraded and ineffective.
From the September 1 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
COLMES: We were just talking about [House Democratic Leader] Nancy Pelosi [CA] and what she wants to do in this effort to perhaps get Rumsfeld removed. He recently made some very controversial comments, basically suggesting that critics of the Iraq war are tantamount to Hitler's appeasers. Do you agree with him on those comments?
GINGRICH: Essentially, sure. I mean, I think you've got to say that --
COLMES: You're calling appeasers people who disagree with the Bush policy administration --
GINGRICH: Look --
COLMES: -- comparing them to those who enabled Hitler?
GINGRICH: Yes.
COLMES: That's an astounding comment --
GINGRICH: GINGRICH: What's your -- what's your -- why? Why is it astounding?
COLMES: -- that's a very insulting comment --
GINGRICH: It's not an insulting comment.
COLMES: -- to most of the American population, which doesn't agree with the Iraq war, for example.
GINGRICH: Look, look, no. First of all, the question is, if you have a North Korea with nuclear weapons threatening us, you have an Iran trying to get nuclear weapons threatening us. We've now found over 700 chemical warheads and weapons in Iraq, which supposedly had none, according to our friends on the left. You have a terrorist organization in Great Britain, a terrorist organization in Canada. My question, Alan, is, for the people who want us to cut and run in Iraq, and let's be clear --
COLMES: It's not cut and run. I don't agree with that.
GINGRICH: It's withdrawal. It's leave. It's accept defeat. I mean --
LOWRY: Yeah, that's exactly what it is.
From a heartless bastard like Newt. Newt, who served his wife with divorce papers as she lay dying. Newt, who had 84 ethics violations lodged against him. What a poor excuse for a man!
What is the relevancy of attacking Gingrich? He may be what you say he is, but addressing his point furthers the debate, not dredgin up his divorce.
The best way opponents of Bush and their latest comparative to Hitler campaign is to lay out exactly how there is no comparison. Stop crying foul and firmly make their case why this struggle is in no way similar to Hilter and the 1930/40's. And that should be very easy if this is such a ridiculous assertion in the first place.
Many times. But still we have leaders of the republican party trying to make the connection. We also have apologists for these leaders bringing up Clinton wherever and whenever it suits them. It suits me now, to do the same to Newt. He is a discredited former speaker of the house and his opinions cast doubts on the integrity and the patriotism of more than fifty percent of the population of this country.
the republicans in roosevelt's day were the hitler enablers. roosevelt proposed the "lend-lease" program to help england fight the nazis, pre pearl harbor. it passed congress, but the republicans opposed it by substantial margins.
this really is a good comparison. the only flaw is in the object. rest assured that republicans are acting like goebbles global news network by spreading lies and smearing their opponents all for the fatherland. it's certainly no insult to point out that is exactly what they are doing.
...better than I could. If you haven't watch it. If not watch it again... In fact, there's a rebuttal to Rummy's rebuttal. It's all good. Once again, up is down, black is white with these clowns.
[link to www.crooksandliars.com]
[link to www.crooksandliars.com]
And, yes... Olbermann (a former ESPN anchor) is one of the few to come out vehemently against this disgusting ling of 'reasoning'.
I wasn't commenting on Rumsfeld's analogy or the legitimacy of it, personally, in my opinion, it's all politics and it won't stick. But to attack Gingrich is diverting the point when it's really not necessary and just gratuitous.
And thanks for the link to Olbermann's remarks, they were very well said.
As always, Tommy, your comments are appreciated.
Newt to attack US but we ought to be constrained from attacking him back. As usual the argument is its OK for rightwingnuts to attack liberals but somehow its wrong for liberals to return the serve. I am not buying it, good try to keep the exclusive franchise on personal attacks among your own kind though.
Actually, it's quite expected for liberals to attack. They attack everyone and everything that doesn't fall lockstep in agreement with their screwy ideals. It makes a lot of sense that RWN's voice their opinion and it only makes more sense that LWL's voice theirs. Why complain about who attacks who's opinion? It seems to me that sticking to the subject that 'appeasing liberals' are doing the same thing as what was happening during WWII is more to the point. There is a valid claim that terrorist appeasers are not much different than nazi appeasers. Why is that such a hard thing to understand? There is nothing wrong with complaining about a war, but to continually claim lies and conspiricy just seems to detract from the actual problem...terrorism. IMHO liberals have no complaints with terrorists because both groups want Bush removed from office in full disgrace. When liberals state they are for the protection of the US, but refuse to support a war against the only danger to the US then there is definately a screw loose in someones skull.
Does the war in Iraq make the U.S safer from terrorists?
Yes, I think it does. We are eliminating more and more terrorists and their capability to carry out their plans on destroying the world. More keep cropping up, but they only have the dumb ones to choose from. Do you really think a smart person would convert to Islam in order to kill someones children while blowing himself up?
Why would terrorists, bent on 'blowing up the world,' stick around Iraq to be shot by armed soldiers?
Have global terrorist attacks increased or decreased in the last five years?
Why not cease squandering our treasure and resources on a nondefined openended war strategy and concentrate efforts on dismantling terror cells globally?
Of WHY do warmonger rightwingnuts love to see as many Americans killed as possible. Does it save on their Viagra bills? So its ok to criticise a war that only the most brainwashed really think had anything to do with the war on terror but it does make us like Nazi appeasers. Does your fanatic love of American deaths make you like the thugee death cult? The whole POINT revolves around the question of whether this IS a war with any rational moral justification. Where are those WMDs again? What about those collaborative ties with al Queda? Cough them up. They dont exist. So you can keep repeating these assertions until you get dumped into an old folks home that wont magically make them true
" Where are those WMDs again? What about those collaborative ties with al Queda? Cough them up. They dont exist. "
So the leftwingloonies are saying that since there are no WMD's and no "collaborative ties" that there should be no war on terror? I'm sorry you feel that protecting the US from future carnage at the hands of evil minds is a waste, but minds that aren't tweeked by the constant use of medical pot think that terrorism is a real threat to world peace and needs to be stopped. I think the crazed minds from the left feel that terrorism isn't a threat to world peace, after all, they fully believe that appeasement is the answer... just like appeasing Hitler was thought to be the answer. And just like then you are wrong. So get over your silly obsession with WMD's and "links" and accept the reality that radical Muslims are on the war path and the world stands in their way. If you don't want to support the war against evil, then get out of the way and let people who care about living do the fighting for you. Then, when it's over, you can go back to promoting your culture of death along with all the other crazed liberal loons.
We don't need no stinkin' reasons. I decided there are terrorists in Iraq and I'm the decider.
"This and no other is the root from which all tyrants spring: when he first appears he is a protector" -Plato
Instead of ATTACKING Gingrich as a person, Liberals should confine themselves to ATTACKING his Hitler comparison scenario...
However, the I believe the notion of credibility has some validity here. Gingrich is not a reliable source when speaking of being 'good', being good American, or who one should believe when it comes to the facts. But, that's my opinion.
even though he did serve her with divorce papers while she was undergoing chemo. What I want to know is, who's the Hitler to be appeased? Saddam? bin Laden? Bush?
That is the better question... the irony of it all is sickening.
Instead of ATTACKING Gingrich as a person, Liberals should confine themselves to ATTACKING his Hitler comparison scenario...
All righty: Gingrich's Hitler comparison scenario is so absurd on its face, so reflective of partisan insanity carried to the extreme, that it forces one to conclude that Newt Gingrich is a poor excuse for a man.
Rusty, Certainly one SHOULD conclude that Gingrich's REMARKS were entirely partisan in THIS instance. HOWEVER this has NOTHING to do with his divorce, which W.K. brought up as a counterpoint. So my point was and is-- ATTACK him for his viewpoints, not his marital history.
Quite frankly for a man who possesses a great intellect when it comes to history, Gingrich's ATTEMPTS to equate appeasement towards Hitler [and the Nazis] to OPPOSING Bush's Iraqi policy were farfetched at best, blatantly disingenuous & dishonest at worst.
But I wouldn't go so far as to DECLARE him a "poor excuse for a man'. Many politicians out there have LESS than stellar MOMENTS personally & politically....Gingrich, IMO, has often made good points throughout his career on a plethora of issues, and though he almost always does AGREE with Conservatives on most policies, he has on occasion voiced his dissention.
He may be a lousy husband, BUT IF we wrote off every politician who was a lousy spouse...how many lawmakers would be left in D.C???
Also, there are quite a few politicians out there that operate as blindly partisan sheep 100% of the time, are they--in your opinion-- ALL poor excuses for men and/or woman? OR just poor excuses for leaders?
Those are interesting questions, and somewhat broader ones than we started with (which is okay by me).
However, I'm not going to let those broader questions - valid though they are - distract from my assertion that Newt Gingrich's shameless flogging of this particularly reprehensible talking point, considered completely independently of his low moral character (as accurately described by Draftedin68), is strong evidence of him being a poor excuse for a man. Or rather, a poor excuse for a decent, honorable man.
It wasn't Drafted, it was WorrierKing. My bad.
I was drafted too.
Well said jeter, it is disheartening that some people who disagree with politicians can't help but personally attack them instead of their views alone.
This from a man who helped put the biggest moron in history in the White House. Thank you O Wise One.
Calling people like me Nazis wasnt in any way a personal attack it was just critiquing my viewpoint in an, oh so civilized manner.
...taken, Jeter. However, I do agree that his personal issues to have a lot to do with his credibility. If a person is a disgusting, lying, cheating person, would you take their words with their intended value - or might you question their motives? For someone who has been caught in lies and deceit, I would question motives, considering the source, and make an informed decision on my own. Personally, I don't believe anything that comes out of Gingrich's mouth.
CSL, I really do HATE to bring THIS up, BUT what about a Ted Kennedy? No matter how you look at it he DID leave a young woman to drown AND didn't REPORT the accident until MANY hours later. Doesn't THIS speak to his Character & Credibility? Should his viewpoints be dismissed BECAUSE of that incident?
There are OTHER examples as well...BUT I don't want to be the one to take THIS thread too far off-topic.
Again, KNOCK Gingrich for HIS remarks & opinions, BUT be careful about asserting that his PERSONAL foibles should part of the equation.
Gingrich promoting THIS Hitler/Nazi appeasement comparison to Bush/Iraq is ludicrous...BUT it has nothing to do with his marital problems.
On the contrary jeter, you didn't bring it up at all. Your analogy is an excellent one. Well said.
...point taken. However, we have not seen Kennedy as someone who has been touting "Family Values" or a "Contract with America". Gingrich has acted hypocritically in more ways than one. I don't mean to excuse Kennedy for his mistakes, but there is a difference between what Kennedy did versus what Gingrich continues to do. Gingrich has been on a continuous campaign of lies and deceit for many years.
Make a mistake - apologize and hope for forgiveness - Kennedy.
Lie and continuously promote falsehoods in order to deceive others and tol hold onto power - and have no remorse - Gingrich.
See the difference?
I don't expect a response, as you have already mentioned that we are probably going off-topic. You're right about that. However, if we elect people to represent us, I guess that says a lot about how the electorate really is - it doesn't matter if you're a complete jerk, as long as you tell us what we want to hear. Gingrich has gone beyond that. Again I'll say it, if people like Gingrich need to promote lies to remain in power, to keep the people scared of more terrorists, to consistantly and repeatedly deceive people, it only shows that they truly are the nasty people that posters on this board say they are.
The reason I brought up the counterpoint and didn't refute his statement is that I refuse to validate the comparisons he's trying to make. As many times as they've been refuted in the last few weeks, it seems that every day, another so called leader of the Republican Party uses the tactic. Like everything else, they're trying repeat the charge until it's the accepted belief.
I read the other day that many WWII veterans are disgusted with this ruse. The WWII vets I know and their spouses are angry at the rights cavalier references to Hitler.
Some posters on the left have compared George Bush to Hitler. That was out of line, and they were just posters on websites. Newt Gingrich is a powerful man with a national audience, not some lunatic raving on the internet. He should be ashamed of himself for stooping to this level.
American are dying everyday and we allow our leaders to behave this way. It's absolutely disgusting. Newt would serve the nation better by joining in a reasoned debate on the war, not to wallow in platitudes and sound bites. Each day we stay in Iraq makes it harder to eventually leave. At what point will we say, enough!
I understand why you might feel that to debate Gingrich's remarks gives them a sort of validity. I guess my counterpoint to you bringing up his PERSONAL life would be the example of...[oh please don't all THROW tomatoes at your computers screens--or flip me the bird]....Bill Clinton. The Republicans ARGUED that Clinton's PERSONAL marital indiscretions somehow diminished his trustworthiness, AND reflected on his leadership. May I go on RECORD [again] here as saying I personally did NOT feel that way. I liked the guy, AND thought [and still do] that he was a good President.
As far as Gingrich's scenario HERE goes...it's bunk!
I ALSO don't agree with those on the Right that COMPARE Iran to Nazi Germany or Ahmadinejad to Hitler. I don't FEAR Iran obtaining the A-Bomb. SOME might call me naive, BUT I don't see Iran blowing Israel off the map OR attacking the U.S. They just want to possess what the "big boys" have. It makes them feel powerful. It [in their minds] garners them some kind of [warped] respect. It makes them feel like they're "Players" on the World Stage.
The Bush-Hitler comparisons are getting a bit tiresome as well, BUT it does seem to be bloggers and posters, NOT those in leadership positions that are throwing that B.S. around without much thought.
I AGREE with you about Iraq, and that Gingrich has stooped to a new low by suggesting that to OPPOSE Bush's whacked policy there is comparable to APPEASEMENT for Hitler.
There have been instances when I DO agree with Gingrich, and yes DESPITE his checkered personal behavior still consider him a very bright man.
THIS time though, his OPINION disgusts me.
neither newt, nor his rabid perverted supporters or defenders, have a leg to stand on. In the immortal words of Agent 'J' "if didn't want nuttin', you shouldn't have started sumtin'. In other words, you reap what you sow.
This is a man who sent out a strategy memo to other Republicans saying when they talk about Democrats to use words like sick, perverted, and so on but for some reason WE have an obligation to NOT be personally offensive to HIM. No Dice he started it he deserves anything levelled at him until he repudiates his sick perverted ways.
He may be a lousy husband, BUT IF we wrote off every politician who was a lousy spouse...how many lawmakers would be left in D.C??? jeter2
--------------------------------
This from a man who backed impeachment of a US President for getting a BJ. O thank you for sharing your newfound morality with liberals -- wonder where they got the idea that the gloves are off and ad hominem attacks on politicians for being bad husbands are fair game?
Nothing wrong with Newt calling liberals Nazis thats just part of the game but for liberals to personally attack HIM well thats just wrong. NOT. BUYING. IT.
Tommy, Gingrich didn't back up the claim that opponents of the Bush administration are like Hitler's appeasers, so there's no argument to refute. He pulled the rhetorical equivalent of asking "When did you stop beating your wife?" It's not an argument, it's not a substantial claim -- it's an attempt to attack the credibility of his opponents.
I could offer you a list of differences between World War Two and Bush's "War on Terror" (one was against nation-states, the other variably targets states and non-state actors depending on the mood of the administration; one had a foreseeable endpoint, the other is essentially structured as a perpetual state of war...) but I'm in no mood to dignify Gingrich's remarks.
Apparently the conservative talking point about "If you're not with us, you're against us" has been revised as "If you're not with us, you're for Hitler." It's not just offensive, it's absurd. No one should have to defend him or herself against such a baseless attack. Period.
you have to remind people that they are not listening to a credible voice on good choices. it's this passiveness that lost us a lot of races in the past.
do i care if someone compares me to a nazi sympathizer? no. neither do you, or anyone i know. the issue now [is] who has the will to be the one left standing in this fight. fighting from top to bottom and even from behind is the only way democrats will ever win. republicans are a fierce enemy of democrats and the world at large and it's clearly demostrated in gingrich's comments knowing the majority of americans oppose the war. gingrich is actually attempting to dictate what is insulting to someone other than himself, and what is not.
at the same time, we have to celebrate good republicans even the ones who support the president. there are good ones. but, not beating every last breath out of the messenger who attacks us is a mistake. so in doing so, we may remove or destroy good people who are republicans.
only problem; most democrats lack the mental acuity to attack on the spot.
Most of the time when Democrats try to defend themselves against these charges coming from the far right, they sound like they’re whining. The best way I think the Democrats can combat these charges and go on the offense at the same time is to start comparing the actions of Bush to Hitler. It may be extreme but there are a lot of comparisons that can be made.
Comparing Bush to Hitler is just as ridiculous as comparing those who disagree with Iraq as Nazi appeasers. I don't believe that anyone can be accused of whining if they take what Gingrich and others are saying and quietly and deftly point out the vast differences in the two.
To just scream back with equally bogus accusations is pointless and worth nothing. That is whining. Stick to the facts and people can see it for what it is, instead of a bunch of empty rhetoric flowing back and forth from both sides.
Now it sounds like your whining trying to defend against the charge and this is what the republicans have been doing to the Democrats for years.
sticking to the issues is not enough.
we have to attack them as misguided, lying, cheating, incompetent, careless, mischievous, hollow christians who have wormed their way into power as they and their supporters have been enriched by the fear, sweat, and lives of the rest of us.
your approach is admirable (for a high school counsel race) but the reason why we have lost so many races we should have won. if you don't have the stomach for it, you should leave it to the rest of us and we'll meet up on the other side.
For all you neocons who think you can reverse reality with rhetorical tricks: Nazis are White Supremacists whether inside or out of Germany.
Calling an anti war peace activist a Nazi or Nazi sympathizer is like calling Martin Luther King a neocon. O wait you morons are doing that too!
Here is the problem its not that we are whining its that we are having the WRONG ARGUMENT. IF we start arguing about why we are NOT Nazi sympathizers we are in a losing argument no matter what. Its like trying to explain why you are NOT STILL BEATING YOUR WIFE. You can make the point that you never did beat your wife but the whole argument makes YOU look bad and your opponent look good no matter how the argument itself goes. Its a good tactic for the GOP if the Dems are dumb enough to fall for it, which is I am sure why you want us to take that tack but its a loser from the word go.
Give Newt and friends the equivalent of a 'whatever'. Don't even acknowledge their language it is laden with false premises. Restate and reframe without hesitation.
The very foundational concept of his argument. That criticising Bush is like being a Nazi. Lets go to the record. Teddy Roosevelt. To say there must be no criticism of a president that we must support him right or wrong is not onlyl unpatriotic and servile but morally treasonable to the American public. I am saying Newt should stop being unpatriotic, servile and morally treasonable to us good Americans.
Did somebody slip Colmes a super energy pill? He's starting to act like a real liberal pundit instead of the under-lapdog he was hired to be! If he keeps this up, I may actually start respecting him.
... it's also a canard, a straw man, a red herring and every other euphemism for the Rovian campaign of deceit now underway by The 3-Dees (Duhhbya, Dickie and Donny), who are busily bouncing bell-filled balls in every direction for the MSM puppies to go chasing after.
Meanwhile, the good news in Messopotamia is that it won't be too long before the rains will help the firemen wash the blood from the streets.
It's amazing that even after the Bush Administration came out and admitted that they hadn't found the WMD's they were looking for people such as Newt, Santorum, and Coultergeist continue to assert that we did find the WMD's we were looking for.
The even more amazing thing is that the American public is being completely fooled. The last poll I saw which was taken in either June or July showed that 51% of Americans believed we had found WMD's.
Now granted we did find weapons, but those weapons were so degraded that you could handle them without gloves and the worst that you would get would be a skin rash.
Simply amazing.
First, "appeaser" seems to be the new Fox/Rush/etc. buzzword. If you're not with us you're an appeaser.
Second, all this talk about appeasers and comparisons to Neville Chamberlain. I'd like to see a picture of Chamberlain shaking hands with Hitler next to that 1983 photo of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Sadaam dressed in his full fascist regalia. And they have the nerve to call President Carter an appeaser.
While they're making comparisons of Iraq War critics to Nazi enablers someone should remind them of the Bush family's financial entanglements with the Third Reich in the 30's.
did Gingrich spontaneously bring up North Korea and Iran? Not relevant at all to Colmes' question. Is Newt getting senile? Or is he having trouble reading Rove's handwriting?
But he was probably technically correct when he said we have found "700...weapons" in Iraq. I mean, you can use a rock for a weapon.
...you will see this more and more.
"So, how are you doing *insert Republican here*?" "Much better once we invade Iran!!"
The conversation will continually head back to Iran now... regardless of it's relevance of legitimacy. That's the next step in this 'plan'.
"relevance OR legitimacy"...
I suspect you are correct. That's the problem with the Bush-Cheney policy of waging pre-emptive warfare under the "one-percent" doctrine. Once they see they can wage a war like Iraq on a flimsy pretext, each successive war just gets easier and easier to justify. (That Mock-mood Ahma-ja-whatisname looked at me funny! F*** it, we're going in!)
With the public disapproving of the Iraq war at 60% and the intelligence estimates on WMD proving to be less than accurate, no Congress is going to authorize going to war without a stone-cold guaranteed reason.
I think you're right, but I don't think that means that war hawks will not still push for an invasion of Iran. They already seem to be doing it despite the problems you describe.
I'm really not sure what we would invade them with. Computer simulated army men?
...the Twins, Mary Cheney, and neocon frat boys. We'll have Rummy, Dick, W, Condi, and Laura in reserve.
Then, when W has his legs blown off, we cut veterans' healthcare bennies and buy "I support the troops" magnets.
I'd like to suggest we call up the media reserves too. Rush, O'Reilly, Hannity, Coulter and the like (I could have said their ilk, but I'm trying to behave), for active duty too. They'd finally get to be real heroes instead of the imaginary kind.
Now get back to work!
Oooh, you're a hard taskmaster! Honestly, if I were more successful as a writer, I'd hire a taskmaster. I can fritter a day away, but I'm done writing today. Today was actually the sort of day where I have no reasons to recriminate my self. I'll sleep like a babe tonight!
I'm really not sure what we would invade them with. Computer simulated army men?
Excellent point. Our armed forces are pretty busy at the moment.
"...no Congress is going to authorize going to war without a stone-cold guaranteed reason."
Except the Bush administration doesn't really seem to care about Congress's role in anything. Besides the Yoo doctrine, Bush himself has hinted that he believes he has sole powers in this arena.
[link to glenngreenwald.blogspot.com]
He can send troops to Iran whenever he likes. It may not be legal, but he might very well think it is.
Bush's so-called "Political Capital" has gone up in flames. He is just a powerless second-termer like most of the other second-termers, crippled by his own mistakes. In my opinion, what he thinks he can do is irrelevant. Nobody listens to a president with a 35% approval rating.
"Nobody listens to a president with a 35% approval rating."
The military does, because they have to. If they can try to justify invading Iraq with the AUMF, they can use it to invade Iran as well. The White House declared "There will continue to be challenges ahead, but along with our partners, we will attack terrorism and its ideology, and bring hope and freedom to the people of the world. This is how we will win the War on Terror." That sounds like an ongoing project to me, and Iran and Syria certainly sound like the next parts of the grand plan.
You're speaking politically, but I'm speaking practically. You would think it would be a bad idea to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, but they did it anyway. You'd think when people start disapproving of that war en masse that they would try to get out and save themselves. Yet, they go against common political sense in these instances, and many others as well. Clearly the political fallout is not the prime concern here, based on their behavior thus far. And besides, if they were to change their course, then they would be admitting that they had been wrong previously. That's something this administration is very, very hesitant to do.
I agree with much of what you say. My main point against a further invasion against another country is that 2006 is a totally different climate than 2003. In 2003 we (we being the majority of this country, not everyone) were in favor of going to war based on what was told to us at the time by our government. He actually did have political capital at that time and he spent it very unwisely.
Now, this administration has become the Wizard of Oz with the curtain pulled back. Totally exposed. I don't see how they could pull it off again. Fool me once...
It is a different climate. I think a lot of this is that people hope that it shouldn't be possible for them to do it again, considering all the circumstances. That would be a very, very frightening commentary on our system.
I certainly hope it doesn't happen, but so little surprises me anymore.
A BBC documentary called The Power of Nightmares explains the rise of neo-conservatism and how the myth of a global network of terrorists got them into power. The only thing bad about the documentary is that there is no mention of the Project for a New American Century and it doesn’t go into detail about the Iraq War and the current occupation.
Why don't Newt run for office?? Why is Newt on the sidelines?
Why does Newt not step up with his desires to be President??
Answer to all above questions: The Man has told so many lies and distortions he couldn't get elected "The Cold-Beer Man in Hell" and he knows it.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
It's time for the Democrats/moderates to turn this discussion on its head. The Bush Administration's incompetent execution is in fact the true appeasement.
They refuse to define what "victory" consists of, thereby allowing an open-ended characterization of any withdrawal or timetable as "cut and run". They fired everyone who told them what it would take to win. And anyone who criticizes any attribute of the campaign are now painted as Nazi sympathizers.
The next time they spout "cut and run" or "defeat", dems must consistently have a one-two punch ready: First state the following question: "Please define what constitutes victory in Iraq?" The minute they say a democratic Iraq, ask "Then why hasn't the President reinstated the draft to install the 1/2 million troops needed to stop the slaughter of 100's of Iraqis and scores of our troops EVERY SINGLE MONTH. Why has he not done what is needed to truly pacify the insurgency, to prevent the formation and rampage of sectarian death squads, to restore the country's infrastructure, and to allow the democratic government to unfold without constant fear of assasination and kidnapping? Why is he not doing what is needed to prevent the country from becoming another Shiite Iranian surrogate (ala Syria) that will represent an even longer term problem for both us and for Israel?"
Watch them sputter away. And don't give an inch when they try to turn this into some grandiose non-descript war on terror diatribe. And they should be fully painted as lunatics (that they are) if they fail to acknowledge that the President's "stay and pay" strategy is not working.
This man of many despicable acts calls me an enabler of Hitler and I can't strike back at him. First off, I cannot attack his comment because it only frames the conversation to his point of view. So, I am permitted to throw out a question/comment to him...why did you file divorce papers to a sick woman...you creep. Why did you disgrace yourself as a top politician in this country by accepting monies illegally...you creep. And on and on and on.
However, I think this newt should continue to talk about those weapons of mass destruction which were found in some bunker along the Iranian border. Do you know why I think he should? Because he is a disappointed human being because he knows he is a creep. How dare he attack people, I NEVER would.
You can attack Newt, or anyone you would like to. It is certainly your choice. But to shoot your arrows at him in a personal way leads most people to an inevitable conclusion - that you do so because you are unable to attack the message he delivers.
So the points you make are lost in your vitriol, thereby rendering less effective than if you just shot down coherently what he says.
Granted, his argument and those who make this comparison are reaching at best, it's silly. But stick to refuting his assertion instead of his personal foibles, that's the point.
Just a suggestion.
Or more importantly, why is the media giving him a pass to do the exact same thing? I don't buy your concept of don't fight back in kind anymore. When the energizer bunny is driving you nuts you don't ignore him, you pull out his friggin' batteries!
Where in anything that I have said is giving Newt a pass? As for the media, you have Colmes challenging him here. So, I am not sure what your point is?
If it's to fight fire with fire, then so be it. I still maintain that is the wrong approach for all you end up doing is constantly playing defense. If you and the Democrats or whomever he is referring to just lay out the reasons why Newt and others are way off base, then if it comes up just refer back to those reasons and be done with it.
Keep playing the one up game by insulting them back does nothing to quiet this kind of stuff, it only enflames it more and then what are you left with?
...a second. It's OK for Newt to be hateful and nasty on NATIONAL television, but it's not OK for progressives on an internet board to post hateful and nasty things against Newt. I see. Double standard.
For once, Tommy, I agree with you - that personal attacks get you nowhere. I'd like to see which Democrats/Liberals/Progressives have used such vitriol against the right-wing. I still have not found a single instance of where libs, with a NATIONAL platform, have debased right-wingers to the extent that Gingrich and his ilk have.
In light of your comment above, I think that maybe you're directing your advice at the wrong person. Righties should take their own advice. Look at right-wing boards. They insult libs constantly - and they act like they're proud of it. But then you come here and say that the "regular folks" shouldn't call Newt names. Aww...
Bottom line: what is said on a message board like this is quite different than what is said on NATIONAL news/talk shows. If dems were to begin calling people names as the right-wingers do, I would balk at their attempts. However, you've probably already noticed, dems don't need to resort to name calling to get their point across - only right-wing shills do.
I played the game you suggest and it doesn't work with republifundie extremists. Using rational, thought out points are meaningless to those who can only process bumper sticker messages. So I've learned not to waste my time debating facts with them (they just take what I say and parse for the answer they want and proceed to label me with it) and have found far more satisfaction in poking them back. And if it drives up their blood pressure (and doctor's bill) all the better. At least the cost of controlling that blood pressure will make them think twice about rising medical costs...
speaker of the house? Why do you guys let him get away with contributing nothing but meandering guidelines about not using bad words and not insulting people? Who is this guy, anyway, if not an appeaser of the very people this site seeks to expose? If he was really as outraged by YOUR tactics as he purports to be, maybe we should expect to see him display a bit more anger at the comparison under discussion - that is, between Nazi appeasers and anti-war citizens and politicians. If you really understood the gravity of this concept, Tommy, you might even yourself be tempted to step down off your high horse and use a few bad words yourself. It's your halo slipping down to choke you now.
Who made Tommy....
speaker of the house? Why do you guys let him get away with contributing nothing but meandering guidelines about not using bad words and not insulting people? Who is this guy, anyway, if not an appeaser of the very people this site seeks to expose? If he was really as outraged by YOUR tactics as he purports to be, maybe we should expect to see him display a bit more anger at the comparison under discussion - that is, between Nazi appeasers and anti-war citizens and politicians. If you really understood the gravity of this concept, Tommy, you might even yourself be tempted to step down off your high horse and use a few bad words yourself. It's your halo slipping down to choke you now. - TomJoad -----------------------------
Thank you. Its way past time somebody said that. Whatever the subject this Rovian control freak plays the same broken record trying to tell liberals how they should respond to Cons (as ineffectually and Liebermanish as possible).
Personally I agree with Tommy. Personal attacks are not constructive to debate and should be refrained from. It's the equivalent of trading barbs in the school yard: "Well Yo Momma is so..."
It never fails though, you always have someone defending away "but, but, he's got the national stage, he's more influence potential... blah blah" it's not an excuse for it. Responding in kind brings you down to their level of childishness and for new people who come to this site, personal attacks such as these could very well turn them off. (Oh, MMFA looks like just another partisan attack site)
You remember that old axiom that you attract more bees with honey than with vinegar?
But the point of this site is to highlight 'conservative misinformation (to point it mildly)' or in this case, slander.
I dont think it's irrelevant that this man has the national stage. I also think it is RELEVANT that we do not. The post shows the man comparing people like you and me to Nazi Sympathisers, (never mind Godwins Law). Some poster points out that Newt hasnt got an ounce of moral integrity using, yes, personal information. But Tommy's repsonse is not to consider the news item, instead to explain why we should mind our P's and Q's. What is more relevant is the horrifying accusation this personality has made.
When the Newts, Rushes and Annies started this game of denigrate the liberals. We ignored them and it worked so well. Wait a minute, it didnt work well, that tactic was a disaster. So them we showed Rush was a liar and a blowhard with cold hard facts. That didnt do anything either. I think there is a large group of people that dont want to get bogged down in the details and want to know that you care enough to fight. In theory what you say makes sense. I am saying that the historical record shows it is tactically ineffective and it is TIME to fight fire with fire. Let tommy convince you that the right thing to do is let the rightwing frame the debate and have you argueing THEIR arguments that make you look weak and defensive. When someone asks if you still beat your wife the proper answer isnt , hey wait, I never did beat my wife the proper answer is. F**k You. Didnt I see YOUR wife at the emergency room?
He is not making an assertion...it is an phony accusation. Whereas, his criminal behavior is not invalid. Who the hell is Newt to attack me? And why is he above being attack?? Remember, I find his initial accusation to be useless...so he must just be talking to attack.
saying that Bush is actually literally Satan, then belittling any conservative response that fails to address my argument.
Molest small children. And dont attack ME explain in detail with only valid arguments why you do NOT molest small children. Of course the argument itself will be demeaning but thats the POINT ISNT IT?
Another approach I thought of would be to say that cons love the deaths of American soldiers. You can certainly make that argument. Cons love to put our troops in harm's way, and apparently hate the thought of taking even a single one of our troops out of harm's way.
In fact, it would reasonably follow that cons actually celebrate the deaths of American soldiers. Perhaps they have parties, with cupcakes and punch.
Maybe one of our resident cons will address my argument (without resorting to name-calling, or any other straying from my point). Cons, why do you love the deaths of American troops so much? Why do you feel that cupcakes and punch, as opposed to ribs and beer, are the appropriate celebratory foods when you are celebrating the deaths of American troops?
I look forward to civilized discourse.
Agreed. What liberals need to accept is twofold: that there will be no convincing the hardcore neocon. And the people liberals need to convince are the rational folk who lean left or right but not to the extreme. The right and left leaning moderates are the ones being alienated by the rhetorical bile.
For instance, concerning Iraq sensible people can agree that the death of thousands of Iraqi civilians is worth re-evaluation of current policy. The debate can begin from there without name calling. Once the other side begins behaving like a child in a civilized discussion you've won.
Well said.. I have repeatedly argued this point, but some here are very resistant to change apparently.
MMFA does a great job high-lighting conservative mis-information IMHO.. Those who sit in the middle (and not hard right) should be the target audience. They are the ones most likely to listen to a reasonable discussion. Childish insults, while serving to make the poster "feel good" and recieve "Atta boys" from like minded posters, do nothing to persuade someone who is not that far left and can infact have the exact opposite effect.
I would think if you are truly concerned with conservative misinformation that you would be wanting to influence the "on the fence" visitors of this site.. because they are the ones ultimately that are going to be able to do something about it (in terms of MSM network ratings as the popularity of this site increases).
Argue THEIR arguments. Tell us, explain in detail why you are NOT a weak, terrorist loving, Nazi coward. Explain it in detail. Address THEIR talking points. Bog yourself down in long winded explanations about why you DONT love Ben Laden and arent REALLY a communist. Then get back to us telling us exactly how successful you were swaying those on the fence. Its a LOSING GAME. If you play it at ALL, like tommy wants us to, if you really believe tommy has the liberals best interest at heart then this might sound like a winning strategy to you, it will make you look weak and ridiculous. There are arguments you cannot begin to have and walk away clean, and the I-am-not-a-Nazi-lover, is most certainly one of them. This is a trap, a silly transparent trap, a game that cannot be won if you play by THEIR rules.
I don't know how to provide links. So type in a google search for the name George Lakoff at the Rockridge Institute. You may or may not find this stuff useful but it's a worthwhile visit. Also look up Geoffrey Nunberg.
While I havent read his book I have read several of his articles and he is definitly talking about a very important issue
keep on keepin' on.
This discussion could never be construed as reasonable. As long as it starts with anyone accusing the majority of the people in this country of being Nazi appeasers.
The only reason that the Republicans have been in charge for so long is that we've allowed them to frame the debate. A "reasonable discussion" within the boundaries of their debate can only guarantee that they win the debate. It's time that we stop allowing them to set the terms. If a prominent Republican accuses the opposition of being "traitors", "cowards", "Nazi appeasers", etc., our response should be to attack the credibility of the person making the accusations.
That means when someone like Gingrich accuses us of siding with Nazis, we cut him off instantly by going for his weak spot. If Limbaugh or O'Reilly question our patriotism, we don't answer their accusations but we go for their weak spot by asking them where was their patriotism during the War in Vietnam.
I agree, it's time for all of the name calling to stop. But, if we ignore their attempts to paint us as "traitors" and "appeasers" all anyone will remember is that someone made an accusation against us and we didn't defend ourselves. So the implication will be that their accusation had merit. We need a truce between the factions. I'll wait to see if the name calling from the right stops. If it does, then I'll do the same.
So, Tommy, are you suggesting that Colmes should have replied, "Newt, here's a list of ways in which I'm not a Hitler apologist: first..." Gingrich isn't just "reaching" when he makes this comparison -- it's an attempt to put his political opponents on the defensive by having to prove how they're not like Hitler appeasers.
Which is what you're suggesting. Your arguing that democrats should attack the merits of Gingrich's argument. Except there ARE NO MERITS. It's a total suckerpunch, and to respond to it on its own terms suddenly makes it seem like a legitimate debate worthy of airtime. "Mr. Gingrich, I disagree with President Bush, but I certainly wouldn't have appeased Hitler, and here's why..." Come on.
As far as I'm concerned, Gingrich opened the door to criticism of his ethical background when he compared anyone who disagrees with Bush to a Nazi sympathizer. I'm not advocating personal attacks, but this stopped being a rational civil debate the moment he engaged in that kind of rhetoric.
What is the purpose of Newt's statement? In order to truly understand what Newtie is trying to say, I think we need to look at the underlying reasons for making such statements.
What good does it do to compare critics of the Bush administration to Nazi enablers/sympathizers? Just what is Newtie trying to prove?
Actually, he's not trying to prove anything. Here we are, about two months from very important elections. The Fox minions are doing their very best to get as many votes for Conservatives as possible - even if they have to stoop to name calling and strawman arguments.
What Newt is doing is just plain smear - and it is insulting. He isn't adding anything to the conversation. All he is doing is showing that he is nothing but a shill for this administration. Obviously, he is scared of the outcome of the November elections; otherwise, he might try to make some coherent arguments instead of being insulting. If you have to call someone names, you've lost the argument - and you truly don't have anything of substance to add to the conversation.
Go home, Newt.
BushCo invaded countries and occupied them.
Hitler used Jews to rise to power.
BushCo used gays to rise to power.
Hitler concentrated people in camps and subjected them to torture.
BushCo concentrates people in camps and subjects them to torture.
Hitler comparisons should be considered, but not in the way that Newt believes.
People have compared Bush to Hitler for years and I think, that after all the comparing, the neocons are saying, "No, you're the Hitler! I'm a mirror, so whatever you say, reflects on you!"
Hitler had goebbles global news to preach his views. Bush had goebbles global news to preach his views.
And both hated Jews.
[link to www.rawstory.com]
I left out more than a few. The overlap between the Nazis and the neocons is well-documented, but I didn't want to bore folks, so I kept it purty pithy. Plus, if I keep my posts short, I can still post here and not feel too terribly guilty because I'm not writing elsewhere!
I would think that a historian like Gingrich would want to avoid comparing those that oppose a Bush with someone that was a Hitler appeaser. History tells us that prescott Bush made a lot of money doing business with the Nazis even after the US entered the war. A quick review of the tools employed by the Nazis to get and maintain power also look a bit familiar. While it may incite the right, any comparative analysis will only reveal that this administration has more in common with Hitler's regime. The same could be true of the other socialist movement of the time. Facism incorporated totalitarianism and corporatism. Sounds familiar to me.
This is an excellent thread -- lots of great points. I wish there were more opportunities for this sort of wide-ranging brainstorming here on MMFA.
Tommy says to attack their facts, and in circumstances where Gingrich employs facts, that would be good advice, but Gingrich and his fellow travellers rarely use facts. For example, this exchange:
I think it would be entirely fair to point out that this is indeed offensive and untrue, but I would go further and mention that Gingrich lost his job as Speaker because he was unethical and betrayed his position, and that only an ethically-deficient person would find the word "appeaser" to be anything other than an insult.
These people do not play fair, they don't play be the rules of normal, polite society, and while we must always strive to be polite, in circumstances such as these, it's "gloves off" time at Madison Square Garden.
What we need to put in context is individuals like Mr Gingrich, Rumsfeld, right wingers etc etc ... will say whatever lies they think will work at the time. The truth is something that is so out of thier sphere of knowledge that they make themselves trival. The more attention that we give to these morons the more they will say.
I have to respectfully disagree with Tommy.
When these credibility-challenged and integrity-bereft clowns on the right try to impugn the character, patriotism and intentions of those who disagree with them and do so in such a way as RumsFAILed and this pustulent hypocritical little amphibian Gingrich have, we should not just attack the propaganda that they spit forth, but we should also not hesitate to bury them under the same mud as their phony rhetoric.
We should attack the lies and attack their sources.
It's not enough to pipe up and say "that's not true"
These meatbags have polluted the discourse to the point where if we want to counter the BS, we should say "Not only is that an outright lie, but look at what a devious unprincipled sack of crap it's coming from"
The republicans, for all their talk about ethics and morality have refined the art of fighting dirty in every aspect of the political game and so long as they try to use our better natures against us by playing the "civility" card whenever we use their own tactics against them, we won't stand a chance.
You wrote: "These meatbags have polluted the discourse to the point where if we want to counter the BS, we should say "Not only is that an outright lie, but look at what a devious unprincipled sack of crap it's coming from"
Like Tommy, I generally wince at ad hominem attacks, but given that the neocons (and Newt especially) rose to power on allegations of their superior moral fiber, I think their failings are fair game.
However, I might change my mind on this. I do want to be better than Newt. I do, I do, I do.
I do, since Newt and Karl and Dick paved their way to power by grinding up the bones of gay citizens and their other boogeyfolks that they fed into their mill. I want to wear the white hat, but damn, it's hard to keep the white hat on my head when the neocons keep shooting us in the back.
Mixing metaphors here, but hey, it's the end of the day.
It's easy to refute Newt's - or anyone else's - comparison of Bush critics to Hitler appeasers...it's a false dichotomy. I.e., the argument is basically that you either accept the administration's policies or you're appeasing the enemy. Maybe certain members of the adminstration truly believe such binary thinking...all the more reason to doubt their ability.
As an amusing aside, I was pondering the history of Vietnam, noting that our withdrawal failed to result in the doom and gloom once predicted. (Granted they're still not the bastion of individual freedom that many other nations take for granted, but nor did they become part of a communist attempt at world domination. Heck...they even fought a short war against China.) While perusing the latest Vietnam constitution, I noted - with a chuckle - this passage:
The State protects marriage and the family.
That's got to get some neocons all twisted in knots. :D
"As an amusing aside, I was pondering the history of Vietnam, noting that our withdrawal failed to result in the doom and gloom once predicted."
Great point. The point was made in the 60s and 70s that if we left Vietnam, the dominoes would fall all the way to us. Didn't happen, did it? Well, actually, it did in a way. The dominoes fell all the way to the Soviet Union...and through the Soviet Union.
It was the Vietnamese Army that broke the grip of the Khmer Rouge on Cambodia and ended the "Killing Fields".
Aren't the neo-con elites brilliant in how they present their message to the American public? Really. Perfectly manicured Gingrich, the smoothest talking geek of the bunch, is framing an absurd, crazy comment as perfectly normal. Brilliant. Isn't he the perfect con artist? What better image to represent the state of politics today than Newt's? Who better the standard-bearer of all things corporate?
And isn't it wonderful that the propaganda network continues to imply that the Dems are wimps by using Colmes as the pin-up boy (Sorry Alan, but look in the mirror.) while two rude "yes men" Republicans AND Gingrich walk all over the Dem. It's also great theater.
For how long will the US public accept the MSM as the semi-official propaganda wing of the White House? I wonder whether they will ever be able to figure out how "reality" is being presented to them. Will there ever be a competing MSM perspective? Will the MSM ever figure out that by making the political struggle part of the media script, they can diffuse social unrest? That way, they can count on worrying only about controlling the voting machines in the long run as a means of staying in power.
But they're brilliant. The people running Bush's show are so expertly Machiavellian that Niccolo himself would be agog.
I depend on Media Matters to substantiate several of the articles on my site, and their relentless pursuing of the news, pointing out obvious discrepancies, and informing America of the truth is vital to take-back our Democracy and rid ourselves of a President that has no respect for our Constitution, Bill 0f Rights, and the Rile of Law.
I recently addressed Bush's remarks in an article in regard Nazism and the special that was to be run on ABC that was pure propaganda - and it was with the help of Media Matters I, and other Bloggers, were able to effectively debunk their "special" that blamed Clinton for 911 - and to Media Matters, I and America owe a hearty thanks because this "special" will never be aired.
is that Democrats/liberals on these shows don't have at the ready strong refutations of these easily predicted Republican talking points. I'm glad Colmes is standing up a bit, but just saying it's insulting doesn't change the perception or equation; he has to actually point out WHY it's not only insulting but ABSURD and MANIPULATIVE. If you are a Dem, lib, or just someone with some common decency on one of these shows, you KNOW Gingrich,Hannity, Coulter,etc. will throw out these disgusting notions. Instead of just saying they are disgusting, show some rhetorical skill and shoot off your points as to WHY. Make an argument that shows all they are doing is INANE at best and plain unamerican at worst.
Frustrating!
To compare me to a Nazi sympathizer is not an insult? Newt is a very intelligent man, a man capable of twisting men's words and entire statements to mean other than what the common meaning is. He's shown that noxious ability repeatedly in his political career. When I discuss him with my Republican friends, their stock reply is, "Oh, him!" True Republicans stand for what the original Republican tenets have always been: smaller gov't; helping people who cannot help themselves until they can help themselves and other admirable goals. Who are these neo-cons who deign themselves to be speakers for the Republican party? And, no, I am not a Republican, although I was until 1994. That was it for me. That was it for anyone who thinks!
How many times do I have to tell you neocon morons that there are no WMDs in Iraq. I told you before you lied your way into this war, after no WMDs were found, and will keep telling you after Bush leaves his mess to the next President.
You people really know how to hang on a delusion.
Separate a Bengal Tiger from a porkchop than a wingnut from an ideologically useful lie.
Newt is full of his usual blather, nothing new here.
Gingrich: "It's not an insult " to compare Bush administration critics "to those who enabled Hitler".
My, my,
When one considers the folly of such an utterance by Gingrich of 'Contract on America fame 'and to a lesser extent the tripe offered up to American Legionnaires by Rumsfeld recently, one is forced to consider the absolute hypocrisy of such a simple sounding plethora of vacuous non-thought. Of course, the intent of such embellishments are to inflame the public discourse and to challenge one's patriotism for those who have the courage and principle to criticize the course this administration has charted, replete with its disaster in Iraq, and a host of other foreign policy initiatives that seem to emanate from a text written by an impoverished Austrian vagabond in the 1920's.
How anyone with the IQ of a turnip can lend any measure of credulity to such effrontery is as the Germans would say, " Ich verstehe nicht".
A more critical analysis ought to concern itself with is how this adminisratration has utilized the trademark and patented policies of undermining a Consitutional Republic, much the same as the National Socialists accomplished by setting in motions policies, illegalities, bogus terror alerts and surreptitious plots with one guiding aim in mind.............. "Dictatorship," although the NeoConmen are a bit more discreet and what shall we say , utilize more stealth-like and subtler terms when describing the march to 'FASCISM', like the 'Unitary Presidency' and CIC. After all, " I'm a War-Time President. Incidentally the Wiemar Republic was a genuine reflection of OUR own Consitution and in many ways was actually considered more democratic. We all know what happened in its aftermath.
While the NeoConmen seem content to define a loosley knit and fractious brigade of Arab malcontents TO what constitutes the modern day version of 'Fascisism' ,,,,,,,,,,,, And then have the absolute gall to equate such nonsense to that of Nazism while the fear-ridden and academically challenged salivate like Pavlovian dogs at the mere mention of retreat in the face of 'Fascism' with an Arab face.....................reveals the exent to which the country has been dumbed down.
Appeasers to the Nazis, ' Just who the HELL is appeasing who?????????????????????????
Seriously off-topic, but Iran was actually mentioned in this thread. Just thought I'd point out that apparently Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and David Horowitz have been collaborating on strategies for rallying the extreme nutcases:
[link to sfgate.com]
Wonder if Glenn Beck will read this one?
The double standard is evident, as usual. Had some Democrat compared a war critic to a "Nazi appeaser", a "terrorist lover", or a "slavery supporter"', the Republicans would be up in arms and the right - wing blogosphere woud be sputtering with rage.
Incidentally, it is worth noting that, in Israel, the critics of the recent war with the Hezbollah -- many of them reservists who just served -- are very vocal. As a result, Amir Barak has authorized an investigation into the handling of the war, barely three weeks after the cease - fire took effect. No one in the Isreali government has called the Israeli war critics "Nazi appeasers", or "Hezbollah - lovers", nor would they dare do such a thing on a general basis.
The Bush administration could take a leaf out of the Israeli Handbook of Democracy. When the Israeli scream, their government listens. When a majority of Americans scream, the government insults it and impugns its integrity. If the Rove machine thinks that insulting a majority of the population and impugning its honesty and integrity will gain votes from said majority, they are grossly mistaken.
Gingrich is too smart and knows way too much history to believe any of this nonsense he's spouting. Besides, who were Hitler's real enablers? Weren't they bankers, people who provided him the financial wherewithal to build up his military? Like George Herbert Walker, our Dear Leader's ancestor?
goes all the way back to Hitler. Rove's open strategy is to take your own weaknesses and project them in attack fashion upon your opponents. Those who compare Bush's dismantling of constitutional and legislative authority to Hitler's identical behavior in the 30's are attacked by Rovian logic as Nazis. When Bush threw out the first pitch at a ballgame after 9-11 and the crowd roared, it was Rove who said that it sounded like a Nazi rally. 9-11 was their Reichstag Fire, but scientific analysis is steadily eroding the gov't version of events. 9-11 is the lynchpin of the PNAC doctrine. Roughly half of all Americans no longer accept the official myth. The Bush administration isn't just a bunch of idiots, they are career criminals who pose a clear and present danger to the people of the US.
I agree with your analysis. I think that if things get real tough for the Dumbya dictatorship they'll produce another iteration of synthetic terrorism and declare Martial Law. In fact, my impression is that they have always intended to do that. Rumsfeld was modifying the succession of gov't protocols in a doomsday scenario during last Christmas holiday. That's one of the reasons why Dumbya doesn't get rid of him. Besides, the psychopath knows too much about the way the Bush crime family is hardwired into the attacks and the profiteering from the outcome.
No thanks. I really don't need to watch the clip of this larcenous Repugnant fearmonger. I've seen enough of this creep and his Gingbots: it's why I take heartburn medication.
[link to www.gwu.edu]
Thank you, Mr. Aspartame!
Why these kind of statement's get's up the noses of these dumbbell media whores Hannity & Colmes is because they know full well the real enabler of Hitler was George Herbert walker bush's father, George W's Grandfather Prescott Bush financed the Hitler war machine, the only reason they did'nt gain world domination then was because Russia changed side's halfway through the the war, and now again we have the Bush,Laden cartel's Carlyle group carring on where Hitler left off, Hitler would'v had his leg sawn off to get the type of control that they have now, Hitler had a telling saying "Shout a lie loud enough and long enough and the people will believe it" and remember Folk's "Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it" enough said.