12 replies to this topic

[inawe]

"We have heard this foolish delusion before," Bush said in remarks to
the Israeli Knesset. "As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an
American Senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to
Hitler, all of 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."
This is a common Repugnant tactic. Create a straw man with attributes
people hate and present it as their opponent.
Bush didn't say who the senator was because he was a Republican.
But before appeasement there was collaboration. Hitler came to power
with the financial backing of powerful industrialists. One of the most
prominent was Fritz Thyssen. Thyssen had an agent managing his money
in the US. Guess who it was? Yes, it was Prescott Sheldon Bush, George
W. Bush grandfather. The money Prescott Sheldon Bush made dealing
with the Nazis was what started the so called Bush dynasty.

[niner]

Yeah, but George W. Bush wears a flag lapel pin, so it's ok.

[aim1]

This is a common Repugnant tactic. Create a straw man with attributes
people hate and present it as their opponent.
Bush didn't say who the senator was because he was a Republican.
But before appeasement there was collaboration. Hitler came to power
with the financial backing of powerful industrialists. One of the most
prominent was Fritz Thyssen. Thyssen had an agent managing his money
in the US. Guess who it was? Yes, it was Prescott Sheldon Bush, George
W. Bush grandfather. The money Prescott Sheldon Bush made dealing
with the Nazis was what started the so called Bush dynasty.

Your comment is a little convoluted and childish, (e.g:Repugnant), but if you look real hard you may find the Kennedy dynasty attached to the National Socialist German Workers Party.
As far as appeasement goes, history shows it doesn't work. Jimmy Carter should know better.

[niner]

This is a common Repugnant tactic. Create a straw man with attributes
people hate and present it as their opponent.
Bush didn't say who the senator was because he was a Republican.
But before appeasement there was collaboration. Hitler came to power
with the financial backing of powerful industrialists. One of the most
prominent was Fritz Thyssen. Thyssen had an agent managing his money
in the US. Guess who it was? Yes, it was Prescott Sheldon Bush, George
W. Bush grandfather. The money Prescott Sheldon Bush made dealing
with the Nazis was what started the so called Bush dynasty.

Your comment is a little convoluted and childish, (e.g:Repugnant), but if you look real hard you may find the Kennedy dynasty attached to the National Socialist German Workers Party.
As far as appeasement goes, history shows it doesn't work. Jimmy Carter should know better.

My god, Republicans are absolutely obsessed with "appeasement"! We sure hear a lot about friggin' Neville Chamberlain from them, and the comparisons are virtually never meaningful. It's even more popular these days than blaming things on Carter. Speaking of whom, what exactly should he "know better" about? Talking to terra'ists? Did he forget his flag pin or something?

[aim1]

This is a common Repugnant tactic. Create a straw man with attributes
people hate and present it as their opponent.
Bush didn't say who the senator was because he was a Republican.
But before appeasement there was collaboration. Hitler came to power
with the financial backing of powerful industrialists. One of the most
prominent was Fritz Thyssen. Thyssen had an agent managing his money
in the US. Guess who it was? Yes, it was Prescott Sheldon Bush, George
W. Bush grandfather. The money Prescott Sheldon Bush made dealing
with the Nazis was what started the so called Bush dynasty.

Your comment is a little convoluted and childish, (e.g:Repugnant), but if you look real hard you may find the Kennedy dynasty attached to the National Socialist German Workers Party.
As far as appeasement goes, history shows it doesn't work. Jimmy Carter should know better.

My god, Republicans are absolutely obsessed with "appeasement"! We sure hear a lot about friggin' Neville Chamberlain from them, and the comparisons are virtually never meaningful. It's even more popular these days than blaming things on Carter. Speaking of whom, what exactly should he "know better" about? Talking to terra'ists? Did he forget his flag pin or something?

Here is an excerpt from a Seatle newspaper concerning President Bush's comments and appeasement:
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.
So, according to this editor, what Hitler wanted was not unreasonable.
Carter won't be happy until Israel is wiped off the map. No matter who he needs to suck up to to reach his goal. Be it Hamas, or Ahmadinejad .
Appeasement is an issue globally. Look at what is happening in Sweden and Norway, two countries with some of the most liberal immigration policies. All in the name of political correctness (which is just another term for appeasement). Crime is exploding in these countries. A Norwegian "professor" (all bow to the enlightened ones in academia) went as far as to say the reason so many of their women are being raped by muslims can be blamed on the women.
Just as Chamberlain waved his paper and declared peace in our time, giving the green light to Hitler, so too do people such as Carter continue to come down on the wrong side of history.

[inawe]

Here is an excerpt from a Seatle newspaper
Carter won't be happy until Israel is wiped off the map. No matter who he needs to suck up to to reach his goal. Be it Hamas, or Ahmadinejad .

Since you seem to have a hard time understanding things I'll try to
make it easier.
This is not about the editor of a newspaper or about Carter who's not
running for anything.
Next election is going to be between Obama and McCain. The president
of the US gave a speech in Israel trying to link Obama to whoever
tried to appease the nazis before WWII. You follow so far?
As far as I know neither Obama nor anybody else in his family had any
dealings with the nazis. But Bush's grandaddy did. Still following?
What Bush did is very dishonest and despicable.

[niner]

This is a common Repugnant tactic. Create a straw man with attributes
people hate and present it as their opponent.
Bush didn't say who the senator was because he was a Republican.
But before appeasement there was collaboration. Hitler came to power
with the financial backing of powerful industrialists. One of the most
prominent was Fritz Thyssen. Thyssen had an agent managing his money
in the US. Guess who it was? Yes, it was Prescott Sheldon Bush, George
W. Bush grandfather. The money Prescott Sheldon Bush made dealing
with the Nazis was what started the so called Bush dynasty.

Your comment is a little convoluted and childish, (e.g:Repugnant), but if you look real hard you may find the Kennedy dynasty attached to the National Socialist German Workers Party.
As far as appeasement goes, history shows it doesn't work. Jimmy Carter should know better.

My god, Republicans are absolutely obsessed with "appeasement"! We sure hear a lot about friggin' Neville Chamberlain from them, and the comparisons are virtually never meaningful. It's even more popular these days than blaming things on Carter. Speaking of whom, what exactly should he "know better" about? Talking to terra'ists? Did he forget his flag pin or something?

Here is an excerpt from a Seatle newspaper concerning President Bush's comments and appeasement:
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.
So, according to this editor, what Hitler wanted was not unreasonable.
Carter won't be happy until Israel is wiped off the map. No matter who he needs to suck up to to reach his goal. Be it Hamas, or Ahmadinejad .
Appeasement is an issue globally. Look at what is happening in Sweden and Norway, two countries with some of the most liberal immigration policies. All in the name of political correctness (which is just another term for appeasement). Crime is exploding in these countries. A Norwegian "professor" (all bow to the enlightened ones in academia) went as far as to say the reason so many of their women are being raped by muslims can be blamed on the women.
Just as Chamberlain waved his paper and declared peace in our time, giving the green light to Hitler, so too do people such as Carter continue to come down on the wrong side of history.

Amazing what a microcosm of right wing thought you've managed to squeeze into one post. You found an obscure op-ed writer somewhere who said something that sounds bad (at least when taken out of context) and then attempt to apply it to the entire spectrum of people to the left of Ann Coulter. Then you throw in an utterly delusional Carter accusation, go off about immigration, then political correctness, and cap it off with a slam against academics. The right has a real issue with educated people, don't they? And finally the ubiquitous Chamberlain reference, along with another stab at Carter. There's just one thing that I don't understand... How could you possibly have finished this post without saying one thing about Clinton?

[aim1]

This is a common Repugnant tactic. Create a straw man with attributes
people hate and present it as their opponent.
Bush didn't say who the senator was because he was a Republican.
But before appeasement there was collaboration. Hitler came to power
with the financial backing of powerful industrialists. One of the most
prominent was Fritz Thyssen. Thyssen had an agent managing his money
in the US. Guess who it was? Yes, it was Prescott Sheldon Bush, George
W. Bush grandfather. The money Prescott Sheldon Bush made dealing
with the Nazis was what started the so called Bush dynasty.

Your comment is a little convoluted and childish, (e.g:Repugnant), but if you look real hard you may find the Kennedy dynasty attached to the National Socialist German Workers Party.
As far as appeasement goes, history shows it doesn't work. Jimmy Carter should know better.

My god, Republicans are absolutely obsessed with "appeasement"! We sure hear a lot about friggin' Neville Chamberlain from them, and the comparisons are virtually never meaningful. It's even more popular these days than blaming things on Carter. Speaking of whom, what exactly should he "know better" about? Talking to terra'ists? Did he forget his flag pin or something?

Here is an excerpt from a Seatle newspaper concerning President Bush's comments and appeasement:
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.
So, according to this editor, what Hitler wanted was not unreasonable.
Carter won't be happy until Israel is wiped off the map. No matter who he needs to suck up to to reach his goal. Be it Hamas, or Ahmadinejad .
Appeasement is an issue globally. Look at what is happening in Sweden and Norway, two countries with some of the most liberal immigration policies. All in the name of political correctness (which is just another term for appeasement). Crime is exploding in these countries. A Norwegian "professor" (all bow to the enlightened ones in academia) went as far as to say the reason so many of their women are being raped by muslims can be blamed on the women.
Just as Chamberlain waved his paper and declared peace in our time, giving the green light to Hitler, so too do people such as Carter continue to come down on the wrong side of history.

Amazing what a microcosm of right wing thought you've managed to squeeze into one post. You found an obscure op-ed writer somewhere who said something that sounds bad (at least when taken out of context) and then attempt to apply it to the entire spectrum of people to the left of Ann Coulter. Then you throw in an utterly delusional Carter accusation, go off about immigration, then political correctness, and cap it off with a slam against academics. The right has a real issue with educated people, don't they? And finally the ubiquitous Chamberlain reference, along with another stab at Carter. There's just one thing that I don't understand... How could you possibly have finished this post without saying one thing about Clinton?

You are perpetually in attack mode when someone disagrees with your shade of politics.
First off, I don't consider a daily newspaper with a weekday circulation of 215,311 can be considered "obscure". But that's me. He didn't say something that sounds bad...it is a disgusting thing to say...that Hitler was right to conquer any lands that spoke German to come under German rule, so he annexed Austria. Should the US do the same with Canada? Ridiculous, but that's what this argument leads to.

Delusional Carter accusation? Not hardly. Carter is a well known anti- semite.
Go off about immigration? No, just stating some recent facts about some governments trying to appease immigrants and finding out the hard way it doesn't work.
Ann Coulter...where'd that come from? You forgot to throw in a Karl Rove reference.

If a person on the right would claim that the reason so many women are raped in his country is because of the way the women act or dress you would be howling. I am exposing the professor who thinks he has all the answers. I have no problem with intelligent, educated people of which this professor is neither.

As far as Chamberlain goes...history speaks for itself.

[aim1]

Here is an excerpt from a Seatle newspaper
Carter won't be happy until Israel is wiped off the map. No matter who he needs to suck up to to reach his goal. Be it Hamas, or Ahmadinejad .

Since you seem to have a hard time understanding things I'll try to
make it easier.
This is not about the editor of a newspaper or about Carter who's not
running for anything.
Next election is going to be between Obama and McCain. The president
of the US gave a speech in Israel trying to link Obama to whoever
tried to appease the nazis before WWII. You follow so far?
As far as I know neither Obama nor anybody else in his family had any
dealings with the nazis. But Bush's grandaddy did. Still following?
What Bush did is very dishonest and despicable.

It is about all the squealing people on the left are doing because of something Mr. Bush said. Please point me to the quote that shows that he referenced Senator Obama. I'm willing to bet you would not be so incensed if Joe Biden and his fellow travelers weren't acting so child like.
I see nothing wrong with President Bush pointing out historical facts, and if Mr. Obama is upset, there must be a reason. By the way President Bush isn't running for office either.
The Kennedy patriarch was a well known nazi enabler and collaborator.
P.S. Change your tone, please. Your condescension is not warranted.

[niner]

You are perpetually in attack mode when someone disagrees with your shade of politics.

It's not a "disagreement with my shade of politics", it's your spouting of out-and-out untruths, untruths that damage our very society, that get me into "attack mode". What in the world does the poorly stated opinion of two people, a Seattle columnist and a Norwegian professor, have to do with anything? I could find any number of preposterous opinions from clowns at White supremacist websites or right wing "think tanks"; should I be holding them up as representative of "Republicans"? If you seriously believe that Carter wants to see Israel "wiped off the map", well, I'm sorry but I'm going to have to stick with my diagnosis of "delusional". Disagreement with the policies of Likud is not "anti-Semitism". That's about as lame as calling someone who disagrees with Obama a "racist".

[niner]

The other day I happened upon a right wing nut who considers it "appeasement" to use the spelling Qur'an instead of Koran. Here, in a reply within comments, if you're actually interested. I found this to be an amusing example of the right wing appeasement fetish. When this particular nut is not worrying about spelling, he is fulminating over the proposed memorial to the flight 93 crash site being shaped like a crescent, thus being a symbol of Islam.

[inawe]

"We have heard this foolish delusion before," Bush said in remarks to
the Israeli Knesset. "As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an
American Senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to
Hitler, all of 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."
This is a common Repugnant tactic. Create a straw man with attributes
people hate and present it as their opponent.
Bush didn't say who the senator was because he was a Republican.
But before appeasement there was collaboration. Hitler came to power
with the financial backing of powerful industrialists. One of the most
prominent was Fritz Thyssen. Thyssen had an agent managing his money
in the US. Guess who it was? Yes, it was Prescott Sheldon Bush, George
W. Bush grandfather. The money Prescott Sheldon Bush made dealing
with the Nazis was what started the so called Bush dynasty.

Fritz Thyssen broke with the Nazi party in 1938 and fled Germany; he was captured by the Nazis in France and spent the rest of the war in prison until freed by the Allies. Thyssen wrote a book regarding his early support of the Nazi and why he eventually rejected them - you can find it on Amazon.

In any case, I'm sure you could find any number of national-level U.S. politicians (e.g. JFK) with fathers or grandfathers with closer ties, financial or ideological, to the Nazis than George W. Bush. And certainly the financial dealings of Prescott Bush were something George W. Bush would have had very little control over seeing as how he hadn't even been born by that time.

By the way, the following press release from the Anti-Defamation Leauge (http://www.adl.org/I...rs/prescott.htm) seems relevant:

Rumors about the alleged Nazi "ties" of the late Prescott Bush, the grandfather of President George W. Bush, have circulated widely through the Internet in recent years. These charges are untenable and politically motivated.

Despite some early financial dealings between Prescott Bush and a Nazi industrialist named Fritz Thyssen (who was arrested by the Nazi regime in 1938 and imprisoned during the war), Prescott Bush was neither a Nazi nor a Nazi sympathizer.

Bush didn't say who the senator was because he was a Republican.

Of course, because we know it would have been impossible for Bush's speech writer to come up with a historical example who happened to be a Democrat.

Seriously, what would have been the reaction if Bush had instead mentioned a Democratic politician in his speech? Without a doubt his detractors would have been screaming with ever greater outrage that he had overlooked the appeasement of this particular senator from his own party.

I wonder why you chose to argue the reference to Prescott Bush/Thyssen, disregarding the most important point I made in my post.
Under normal circumstances there wouldn't be any reason even to mention Prescott Bush. I just wanted to point out that Bush should have known he had his own skeletons in the Nazi closet. But he couldn't resist. He saw the opportunity to create straw men and claim such were the opponents to his policies. Critics and opponents of his crazy policies are unpatriotic, soft on terrorism, appeasers or worse. In this case he has outdone himself bringing up the specter of the Nazi nightmare.
As for Prescott Bush, it is very disingenuous to argue that somebody in his position didn't know the nature of the Nazi regime before 1938. The Nuremberg laws were adopted in 1935. And harsh harassment and persecution predated these laws.