As you can see, Kevin James has no idea that Chamberlain allowed Hitler to occupy Czechoslovakia. Obviously Mr. James never took World History in high school. Pretty important fact for the lead up to WWII.
Thank God for Lou Dobbs, Chris Mathews, and Keith Olberman for honest and intelligent political diabtribe. No, I did not include Rush Limbaugh in that statement, Rush is a druggie with an agenda. If there is a worse combination in a man, I don't know what it might be.
So, right wing talk radio has an agenda, but the left doesn't? Please. Dobbs, Matthews and Olberman are just as agenda-driven as Rush, the only difference being that their agenda is derived from the Democrat party's Socialist platform.
By the way, it's former druggie...
Edit: And, it appears that Matthews didn't quite know what he was talking about either.
Matthews question:
Quote:
"I"™ve been sitting here five minutes asking you to say what the president was referring to in 1938 at Munich."
Here's what the President said:
Quote:
Bush gave a speech to Israel's Knesset in which he spoke of the president of Iran, who has called for the destruction of the U.S. ally. Then, the president said: "Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along."
"We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is "” the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history," Bush added.
So, Bush never mentioned Chamberlain. He wasn't talking about 1938, and he never said anything about Munich. And, of course, Obama is self centered enough to think Bush was referring to him. Seems to me a more likely target was Idiot Carter.... sorry, Jimmy Carter who recently met with the Hamas terrorists.
And, I'm not sure that Matthews' limited definition of "appeasement" is completely accurate... "Most commonly, appeasement is used for the policy of accepting the imposed conditions of an aggressor in lieu of armed resistance, usually at the sacrifice of principles. Usually it means giving in to demands of an aggressor in order to avoid war." It doesn't, necessarily, mean ceding territory.
So, right wing talk radio has an agenda, but the left doesn't? Please. Dobbs, Matthews and Olberman are just as agenda-driven as Rush, the only difference being that their agenda is derived from the Democrat party's Socialist platform.
Who said the left wing does not? Not I. Don't try to defend the Conservative Talking heads by acting like one. Don't put words in my mouth. FYI Dobbs and Mathews are not "leftists". Dobbs is a self described populist, Mathews is an Independent who is an equal opportunity basher. Olberman is a democrat, but not really sure how liberal he is, he is however, especially insightful, funny, and calls a spade a spade.
Quote:
By the way, it's former druggie...
and you know that how? Awful presumptious aren't you? Or just guillable enough to take a drug addict's word?
Quote:
So, Bush never mentioned Chamberlain. He wasn't talking about 1938, and he never said anything about Munich. And, of course, Obama is self centered enough to think Bush was referring to him. Seems to me a more likely target was Idiot Carter.... sorry, Jimmy Carter who recently met with the Hamas terrorists.
Of course he was talking about 1938, with his "as Hitler invaded Poland...false comfort of appeasement" What else could it refer to? Chamberlain essentially turning over half of a country and all of the ports in Ireland to "buy" peace. Just because is was implied tacitly does not mean it was not put out there
As for Hamas, it's not really a country now is it? I can see your point though, fighting civilunrest from para military factions via traditional military might has worked so well in the history of the world. It has been a brilliant strategy for dealing with the Sandinistans, Palestineans, the Baltic states, and we all know how well it worked in Northern Ireland. Tanks are excellent weapons to use against guys who strap bombs to their chest and walk into restaurants.
Quote:
And, I'm not sure that Matthews' limited definition of "appeasement" is completely accurate... "Most commonly, appeasement is used for the policy of accepting the imposed conditions of an aggressor in lieu of armed resistance, usually at the sacrifice of principles. Usually it means giving in to demands of an aggressor in order to avoid war." It doesn't, necessarily, mean ceding territory.
And again, I think you are flat wrong in your assessment. In the speech by Bush and then the run up to use the "talking points" (which we know see were not truly understood) by the talking heads, Mathew's assessment is pretty well dead on. I don't think he was trying to define the word and all of its etiology per Webster's 12th Edition.
Of course he was talking about 1938, with his "as Hitler invaded Poland...false comfort of appeasement" What else could it refer to? Chamberlain essentially turning over half of a country and all of the ports in Ireland to "buy" peace. Just because is was implied tacitly does not mean it was not put out there
Rather disingenuous of you to leave out the pertinent part of what Bush said.
"We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Polandin 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is "” the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."
Bush's reference, "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler..." was specifically to Senator William Borah, in 1939. It was not a reference to Chamberlain in 1938. Why omit 2/3's of his statement and then say he was talking about something other than what he said?
As for whether I'm being presumptuous regarding Limbaugh's former addiction to prescription painkillers.... I'd say "pot calling the kettle black" is an apt metaphor.
Quote:
As for Hamas, it's not really a country now is it? I can see your point though, fighting civilunrest from para military factions via traditional military might has worked so well in the history of the world. It has been a brilliant strategy for dealing with the Sandinistans, Palestineans, the Baltic states, and we all know how well it worked in Northern Ireland. Tanks are excellent weapons to use against guys who strap bombs to their chest and walk into restaurants.
Yeah, I suppose you're right. Let's just chat with them, and give them what they want so they'll stop making trouble...
Conservative Talk Radio
