Discussing McCain's Hitler comment, CNN's Brown baselessly asserted McCain was "making his case for a strong military"
During postdebate analysis of the November 28 CNN/YouTube Republican presidential debate, CNN anchor Anderson Cooper aired an exchange between presidential candidates Sen. John McCain (AZ) and Rep. Ron Paul (TX), in which McCain referred to Paul's assertion that U.S. troops should be redeployed from Iraq and stated, "[W]e allowed Hitler to come to power with that kind of attitude of isolationism and appeasement." McCain went on to say that he visited with U.S. troops in Iraq on Thanksgiving and that "the message of these brave men and women who are serving over there is, 'Let us win.' " Asked by Cooper for her thoughts on McCain's statement, in which the senator equated opposition to the Iraq war and support for bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq with the attitude that allowed Adolf Hitler to come to power, correspondent Campbell Brown asserted that McCain was "making his case for a strong military and an interventionist foreign policy." Brown, however, did not explain why she concluded from McCain's comparison of Paul's position on Iraq to the conditions leading to Hitler's ascension that McCain was "making his case for a strong military.''
Indeed, McCain made no comments about the need for a "strong military" during the debate:
McCAIN: If Congress can't fix the tax code, give me the job and I'll fix it.
I just want to also say that Congressman Paul, I've heard him now in many debates talk about bringing our troops home, and about the war in Iraq and how it's failed.
[applause]
And I want to tell you that that kind of isolationism, sir, is what caused World War II. We allowed --
[applause]
We allowed --
[audience booing]
COOPER: Allow him his answer. Allow him his answer, please.
McCAIN: We allowed Hitler to come to power with that kind of attitude of isolationism and appeasement.
[audience booing]
McCAIN: And I want to tell you something, sir. I just -- I just finished having Thanksgiving with the troops, and their message to you is -- the message of these brave men and women who are serving over there is, "Let us win. Let us" --
[applause]
COOPER: We will -- please. We will get to Iraq --
From the November 28 edition of CNN's Anderson Cooper 360:
COOPER: Campbell, John McCain took on Ron Paul about the war in Iraq and his desire to bring home the troops now.
Let's listen to that.
[begin video clip]
McCAIN: We allowed Hitler to come to power with that kind of attitude of isolationism and appeasement.
[audience booing]
McCAIN: And I want to tell you something, sir. I just -- I just finished having Thanksgiving with the troops, and their message to you is -- the message of these brave men and women who are serving over there is, "Let us win. Let us" --
[applause]
[crosstalk]
PAUL: What John is saying is just totally distorted. He doesn't even understand the difference between non-intervention and isolationism.
I am not an isolationism -- an isolationist. I want to trade with people, talk with people, travel. But I don't want to send --
COOPER: Time is up, and we're going to talk about this later.
PAUL: -- our troops overseas using force to tell them how to live. We would object to it here and they're going to object to us over there.
[end video clip]
COOPER: Campbell Brown, your thoughts on this exchange?
BROWN: Well, I think, Anderson, that McCain used that exchange very effectively.
I mean, Ron Paul is essentially where Democrats are on the war. And McCain used him, in a way, as a foil on this to show how he would go after Democrats if he gets the nomination. And I think he did it pretty effectively, making his case for a strong military and an interventionist foreign policy.
I think I'm going to play contrarian a little bit with the other two panelists, since we are a panel, on some of the other issues. I did think the opening exchange, you know, immigration seems to be the dominant issue, not only among Republicans, but, frankly, Democrats now.
Here we go with the lame WWII = Iraq analogies. Saddam may have fancied himself as some kind of reincarnation of Hitler or Stalin, but he never posed the threat that Nazi Germany did. Hitler came within a frog's hair of taking over all of Europe. If he hadn't wasted so much of his army trying to invade the U.S.S.R., the war may have turned out differently. Saddam never posed that kind of threat...Gulf War I proved that he was a paper tiger.
Hell, Saddam NEVER posed a threat to anyone outside of his own country. But, be afraid, be very afraid.
I agree with your disdain for the republicans use of a supposed analogy between the rise of Hitler and Nazi Germany with the totally exaggerated threat that Saddam and Iraq posed to the US. Of course, these same simpletons will totally ignore the very real analogy with the rise of Hitler specifically and Fascism more generally and the current state of our country. The Nazis loved to frighten their fellow citizens into submission with the specter of an 'enemy' ever present and responsible for all of the Fatherlands ills. Children were encouraged to turn in their parents if they were not behaving as "Good Germans". And the general loss of freedom in exchange for the illusion of security in Germany is eerily familiar to the current administrations assault on the Bill of Rights and general disregard for The Constitution. Don't even get me started about the similarities between the fire at the Reichstag and the 9/11 attacks...
How true. Of course, if you dare to point out this obvious trend, you're accused of "hate speech". (Political correctness in reverse, I suppose).
Speaking of history, Conservatives have, for years, tried to equate us with ancient Rome because of the Gay Rights issue. They assure us that Rome fell because they were too gay. It's nonsense, of course. Any serious reading of history shows that Rome fell for complex, multiple reasons. It is interesting to note that one reason for Rome's decline was that it over-extended itself as the world's only super power....creating a world full of enemies.
Rome's demise is a cautionary tale, to be sure...but it has nothing to do with homosexuality.
Nerzog, if you haven't checked out BilldO O'Reilly's tv clown show lately, he's got the stoopidest WWII=Iraq theme going.
I guess it's a little early to get his "War on Xmas" non-issue into full gear, so he's got a little crusade going about Hollywood celebs not doing USO tours.He had Connie Stevens on tonight, and she was bitching that other celebrities weren't going over there, like she's doing anything else.
While I wouldn't mind seeing more movie stars and (non-country-shlock) musicians performing or visiting, I have to put myself in their place; How many are jumping to visit troops who get fed nothing but Rush telling them that these artists hate the troops and want them to lose?
I missed seeing Connie Stevens on Christmas Day 1969. She was traveling with Bob Hope's USO tour.
I was on guard duty and couldn't go. I doubt I'd have liked the show, but I have to give her and Bob and everyone else credit for coming over.
It's a bizarre comaprison too, esp after Bush made his Axis of Evil speech. Because when you consider Iran, Iraq and North Korea, and our policies towards each, the WWII analogy would have been an US-Led invasion of Mousalini's Italy while continuing to support sanctions against Hitler and multi-nation talks with Tojo.
Now I'm not saying we should invade Iran or drop atomic bombs on N.Korea, but that path has the lone merit of making more tactical sense than invading Iraq. All three are madness, but W. picked the one that was not only madness, but that also had no possibility of tactical gain in the war on terror. (And McCain apparently supports this. Which explains why no one who wanted him in 2000 wants him now.)
Now you know why Campbell Brown couldn't make the grade at NBC and moved on to CNN.
Some people thought that Brown wouldn't be impartial because her husband works for Romney. Guess she put a stop to that by using McCain to imply that Dems oppose a strong military. CNN -- The Most Rusted Name in News.
Funny, all I saw was a desperate, bitter old man making his case for being laughed out of the Presidential Race.
I'm pretty fricking sick of McCain's chest pounding- first his lame "I was tied up at the time" line when mentioning Woodstock, now going wayyyyy overboard in basically calling anyone who suggests that maybe, just maybe we shouldn't be sending troops EVERYWHERE an "Isolationist" -- well, I'm sorry McCain decided to run this year. He's sacrificed whatever reputation for honor and integrity he had left on the altar of vaunted ambition.
Just go away, John. Please.
JJamelle: I agree with you. I am also fed up with McCain's constant reference to "I talked to the troops and they say..." as if all the troops over there feel exactly the same way, which, coincidentally, happens to be exactly what McCain thinks. Many of the soldiers that are or have been over there have made it quite clear that they do not support McCain's (or the administration's) position, and I am sick of McCain pretending that he is the candidate that speaks for all the trroops.
My best friend is a 25-year veteran of the Armed Forces, joined right out of High School. He's been all over the world in service to his country, including a nearly 2-year stint in Iraq. He's a liberal who voted for Al Gore and John Kerry who did his duty every time his country called, even though he is staunchly against this war.
The biggest insult that these a-holes deliver to the troops is the assertion that they are some kind of hivemind monolyth who all think the same about every issue. The troops are individual human beings who share love of country but have the same variety of ideas concerning use of the military as us civilians back home. McCain, Hunter, and all those other politicians who claim to know what "all" the troops think are just displaying their ignorance and really, really need to shut up.
Jjamele: Of course what the Republicans are doing is even worse than suggesting that all the soldiers think the same, which they obviously do not. What the Republicans want people to really believe is that the "true patriotic" soldiers favor this war, and that any soldier who does not favor the war should be disregarded or marginalized, as Rush's "phony soldier" comment highlighted. The phrase "support the troops" to these people means "support only the troops who support Bush", which, needless to say, just means "support Bush." The saddest legacy of the Viet Nam war was the way the soldiers were treated when they came home by the anti-war protesters. Nobody in this country wants to make that same mistake again, so the Republicans use that reluctance against those who oppose this war by suggesting that not supporting the war is the same as not supporting the troops. It really is sickening.
I agree with most of what you're saying Mark.
But the saddest thing wasn't the way Vietnam Vets were treated by antiwar people, but the way they were treated, and are being treated, by the government responsible for sending them to Vietnam.
There haven't been many verified accounts of Vietnam vets being mistreated by antiwar people after returning. I'm not saying that the incidents didn't happen .
I don't remember any, but I do remember Vietnam vets joining in antiwar activities and being welcomed by those in opposition to the war we fought.
What I've been saying for more than thirty five years is that regardless of where you stood on the war, everyone had family members, friends or neighbors who were sent to Vietnam.
Most Americans were effected by the war, even those who marched against it. I doubt if many would have stood by while vets were abused.
Because every time anyone saw a Vietnam vet, they saw their brother, father, cousin, friend or neighbor.
Well, we should send troops everywhere [that there are terrorists.] For some bizarre reason, however, we sent the bulk of our troops into the only countury in the middle east NOT training and harboring terrorists. And toppled the most secular government in the region as part of a war against islamo-facism.
(And to cut off all of you Con's out there - I'm not saying that I liked Saddam, only that there were (and still are) more pressing matters, and greater military threats - Like Bin Laden & co.)
Nice Guy Eddie: Sorry, but in the mind of conservatives you do not have the option to have a nuanced outlook regarding Saddam. You either support the war or you admit that you wanted Saddam to marry into your family. Which is it?
Good points. They must demonize Saddam as much as possible, so that they have some feeble justification for the costly blunder known as the Iraq War. They cannot admit the true reason that we're there, which is to secure Iraq's oil for our future use. Even though a strategic argument could be made to excuse such a massive theft...it just wouldn't play well on the home front.
Well, it's a tough argument, becuase the man was a monster. (As much as I hate using that term, for a variety of reasons.) He was a butcher. So it's tough to criticise the idea of toppling an evil, horrible, violent, human-rights-crushing government like that. especially when the Dem's are supposed to be the "human rights" party. That's why I always argue it from a tactical or strategic perspectiove with conservatives.
Personally I think the world IS a better place w/o Saddam (or his two mutant sons) in it. Ironically, if it weren't for 9/11 I probably would have supported toppling Saddam. But if I'm to take the threat or terrorism seriously, I can't possibly see the value of liberating the Iraqi's from an evil (yet secular) dictaor at the expense of our military readiness. (Not to mention blood, treasure and TIME - the last being the only resource you can never get more of!)) If it weren't for the threat posed by terrorists and islamic extremeists, I'd think that [toppling Saddam] was a good thing. Well... it still is a good thing , just not a good use of our resources, considering that were had much bigger fish to fry. AND that we're now in a worse position militarily, diplomatically and (for W's party) politically for having pursued this purely idealistic goal. (And I'm being HUGELY generous in describing it that way! We all know the REAL reason, but even in the best case, it's still a huge waste!)
I tend to agree. Strategically speaking, we were probably better off before we invaded Iraq. Saddam was a skunk, to be sure, but we've gotten into bed with skunks before. After all, we pretty much created Osama and the Taliban, but that's another story.
I believe that the best way to fight global terrorism would be to keep our military fast and nimble, executing surgical strikes wherever the terrorists are found. Invading and occupying a whole country was a monumental blunder, in my humble opinion. The money and equipment wasted there will take generations to replace. The lives lost, of course, can never be replaced.
Then again, if our goal was to steal the oil, invading and occupying the country was PRECISELY the way to do it.
Yep that pretty much sums it up.
Taking it one step further, for those on the right who INSIST on a military alternative - I say: INVADE SYRIA.
1) Smaller/weaker country - not as many resources needed.
2) They actually DID (and still do!) train/harbor terrorists, and (via Iran) have more WMD's than Iraq did at the time.
3) Would strengthen some of our regional allies - Israel & Lebanon.
4) Would weaken Iran's position. (Depriving them of a regional ally.)
5) With Saddam still in power in Iraq, continuing to bluff about WMD's that we knew he didn't have, Iran would have been kept in check, fearing another attack and/or war with Iraq.
Now I'm not saying that's what we should have done - but if you want a better example of military tactics/strategy, I'd say that qualifies. It's sad that in five minutes sitting alone in my living room, I devised a better war plan than the entire US gov't and military was able to come with in two years.
(Of course, with MY plan we can't steal any oil, so...)
The part I don't understand: we have cab drivers and market owners in Gitmo and other places going on five years now undergoing waterboarding so's we gets some terrorist ticking time-bomb intel-eye-gence out of 'em, and we hang Saddam. (Just for the record, the only one in my family not married is my 59-year old brother.)
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Hitler! A Fascist! A Rascist! A Bloody Mass Murder! A Madman that invaded nations to expand his influenance.
Now, who's party has issues with democracy, obeying the rule of law, xenophobic, rascist policies, and invade countries that have not threaten us for political influenance???
I think that Hitler comparisons on the stage of a Republican debate could easily be mistaken for a 'ENDORSEMENT' instead of a slight!
The thing that is almost comical is that Ron Paul is answering questions we would have once heard in a civics class, and constantly correcting the RHETORIC being used instead of the correct answer. The only democratically motivated candidate is Ron Paul since he seems to be the only candidate that cares about the oath of office or have any reverance for the constitution.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
McCain is thru after that amnesty amendment. All over but the shouting.