Seattle Times editorial writer Bruce Ramsey, in an effort to defend Barack Obama against President Bush's "appeasement" speech, actually ends up defending Nazi Germany, Adolf Hitler, and the Anschluss (the annexation of Austria): Bush, and His Use of `Appeasement'.
Democrats are rebuking President Bush for saying in his speech to the Knesset, here, that to "negotiate with terrorists and radicals" is "appeasement." The Democrats took it as a slap at Barack Obama. What bothers me is the continual reference to Hitler and his National Socialists, particularly the British and French accommodation at the Munich Conference of 1938.
What Hitler was demanding was not unreasonable. He wanted the German-speaking areas of Europe under German authority. He had just annexed Austria, which was German-speaking, without bloodshed. There were two more small pieces of Germanic territory: the free city of Danzig and the Sudetenland, a border area of what is now the Czech Republic.
We live in an era when you do not change national borders for these sorts of reasons. But in 1938 it was different. Germany's eastern and western borders had been redrawn 19 years before-and not to its benefit. In the democracies there was some sense of guilt with how Germany had been treated after World War I. Certainly there was a memory of the "Great War." In 2008, we have entirely forgotten World War I, and how utterly unlike any conception of "The Good War" it was. When the British let Hitler have a slice of Czechoslovakia, they were following their historical wisdom: avoid war. War produces results far more horrible than you expected. War is a bad investment. It is not glorious. Don't give anyone an excuse to start one.
Our Lefty copped a lot of flak over those words and he has now revised them somewhat. As with a lot of Leftist writing, what he has said is half true. A lot of people of the prewar era DID think Hitler's demands were reasonable. To them, he was after all merely attempting to regain a small portion of the German territory that had been lost to Germany in the aftermath of WWI.
But people who thought that way were wishful thinkers. They were ignoring evidence that they did not want to see. As far back as Volume I chapter 4 of Mein Kampf, Hitler had made clear his intention to grab for Germany the territory of other nations. But people just did not want to believe that he really meant it.
Similarly today, President Ahmadinejad of Iran has made clear his intention of wiping the "tumour" of Israel off the map but again people are blocking their ears. Again they just do not want to believe it -- even though Ahmadinejad has expressed himself most forcefully on the matter. It is clear that our Leftist editor thinks it is defensible for Obama to join the blocked-ears brigade but we must all fervently hope that whoever wins next November WILL learn from history. The clearly expressed aggressive intentions of extremists DO have to be taken seriously and prepared against.
Senator Harkin is an Anti Military Slime
Post below recycled from Big dog. See the original for links
Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa is a bonehead who has insulted John McCain because McCain served in the military. According to Harkin, McCain's service and the generations of service from his family has wired him differently and renders him unfit to serve as president. Imagine that, Harkin thinks military service makes one unfit for the Presidency. Remember when service was a good thing and when most of our presidents served or came from military families? Perhaps liberals look at this differently because it is getting harder and harder to find liberals who served and they know this.
Republican presidential candidate John McCain's family background as the son and grandson of admirals has given him a worldview shaped by the military, "and he has a hard time thinking beyond that," Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Ia., said Friday.
"I think he's trapped in that," Harkin said in a conference call with Iowa reporters. "Everything is looked at from his life experiences, from always having been in the military, and I think that can be pretty dangerous."
Harkin said that "it's one thing to have been drafted and served, but another thing when you come from generations of military people and that's just how you're steeped, how you've learned, how you've grown up." Des Moines Register
Harkin is absolutely, without a doubt a complete idiot. He believes that being in the military and that havng a family history of serving makes one unfit to be the president. I guess the idea of discipline, selfless service to the country, duty, honor, and integrity (all values taught in the military) are not what Harkin would call positive attributes. And why would he? Just look who he backs for president. Barack Obama.
Barack Obama lived the ideal liberal life. He was born to a black man and white woman. His father left when Obama was very young so he was left in a single parent household. Eventually he ended up being shipped off to his typical white grandmother. Obama benefitted from affirmative action and used the benefits provided by the government to attend law school and then he became a politician and has lived off the government. Barack Obama has lived a liberal life of handouts and socialism. He is not fit to be president. His life experiences are ingrained in him and he will try to run the country based on his liberal ideas of income redistribution.
It seems to me that Democrats are positioning themselves for the general election. They know that Obama has NO military experience whatsoever and his life shows he has little leadership experience. The left is trying to make this a non issue now by claiming it is McCain whose life experiences make him unfit to serve. There are a lot of problems with John McCain that might call into question his qualifications for the presidency but his military experience is not among them and Senator Harkin should be slapped around for suggesting such stupidity.
Think about it America. The Democrats want you to believe that military experience and a family history of service makes people unfit to be president. Barack Obama is supposed to be the next coming of JFK. As I recall Kennedy was in the Navy. His service failed to make him unfit to be president. Only in the mind of liberal idiots could military experience disqualify a person from serving AS COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE ARMED FORCES.
And this is the kind of logic that wants to run this country. It might be a good idea for the liberals to come up with another line of attack. This whole military issue will backfire. Harkin has already insulted a lot of people who have served and whose families have a history of service and these insults will not go unnoticed.
GM Roper also has some good comments. Hark to some basic background on the dishonest Harkin here and also below::
For more postings from me, see OBAMA WATCH, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN.
List of backup or "mirror" sites here or here -- for readers in China or for everyone when blogspot is "down" or failing to update. Email me here (Hotmail address). My Home Pages are here or here or here
The Big Lie of the late 20th century was that Nazism was Rightist. It was in fact typical of the Leftism of its day. It was only to the Right of Stalin's Communism. The very word "Nazi" is a German abbreviation for "National Socialist" (Nationalsozialist) and the full name of Hitler's political party (translated) was "The National Socialist German Workers' Party" (In German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei)