Politics and Culture

Obama IS absurdly dishonest and stunningly hypocritical. He showed it again today when his camp accused Bush of being dishonest and stooping to a new low just because he said we shouldn't be trying to negotiate with terrorists. (a comment which is try and which could very well have been referring to Jimmy Carter's recent meeting with Hamas and not to Obama at all)

Sorry, there's no escaping it. James was simply eviscerated. Pure and simple. His first mistake was to scream and hyperventilate about a historical reference he knew nothing about.

And how was Matthews question a "gotcha"? Listen, anyone who had a halfway decent high school education should know what Neville Chamberlain, Hitler, and Daladier were doing in Munich. It wasn't a hard question to answer. Why would a question like that require a helping hand from Matthews?

1. You ask: "If they had no hope of being appeased in some way, why would our enemies negotiate? They're going to surrender unconditionally? Why would they attend a meeting where they would be dictated to?"

Your (wrong) assumption is that every leader that has a conflict with the United States is some fascist that only wants to dictate unconditional terms to the United States. Perhaps that's because that reflects your own view of what the United States should be doing in return. But blockheaded stubbornness does not make for good diplomacy. Failed diplomacy creates unnecessary tension, and tension often leads to misunderstanding and wars. And wars mean more senseless death, and yes, TAX HIKES to pay for the damn war.

There's simply NOTHING wrong with sitting down with your adversaries, if for nothing else than to size them up, avoid misunderstandings, build personal relationships, and perhaps strike an unexpected agreement. The Munich talks of September 1938 were actually an historical anaomaly. European military leaders exchanged letters and held banquets with their opposing generals for hundreds of years - often on the eve of conflict. Kennedy met with Khruschev. Nixon met with Mao. A recent book reveals that even the Israelis held secret meetings with the Iranians throughout the 1980s.

It's arguable that World War I would never have happened had the leaders of the Entente actually talked with the Central Powers instead of simply mobilizing and thinking only the other side would shrink back from the prospect of war. They didn't 0- and 10 million people lost their lives as a result - and made Adolf Hitler possible in the first place.

2. You state: "Mark Green is against analogies? Obama's whole campaign strategy is an analogy (McCain is like Bush)."

At least the analogies between Bush and McCain are more apt.

Bush - Supports indefinite commitment in Iraq.
McCain - Supports indefinite commitment in Iraq.

Bush - Supports keeping the Bush tax cut in the middle of a war and passing along more debt to our children.
McCain - Supports keeping the Bush tax cut in the middle of a war and passing along more debt to our children.

In fact, since you oppose the analogy argument so much, what do you think are McCain's biggest differences with Bush? And do those differences make you more or less likely to support McCain?

The lessons of Munich are lost on neoconned Republicans. Jewish hysteria pushed us into invading Iraq and now the same garbage is being employed to soften the American public for "obliterating" Iran. The fact is U.S. appeasement towards Israel brought us 9/11/. We give them billions, send American soldiers to fight and die in Iraq for them and drain our national treasury to do so and still they want more. Methinks the American public is sick to death of a foreign policy dictated by what is "good for the Jews."

"the whole scenario is a big burst of dishonesty."

Yeah, rightwingers can't be expected to understand their talking points! What's next? Are we going to ask Bush the details of what happened in 1938? That would show such enormous disrespect for the well-honed GOP talking points that all the wingnuts and dittoheads have worked so hard to memorize!

Priceless. You right-wing dittoheads will defend anything, even as transparently pathetic a performance as Kevin James's. Just accept that one of the right wing media Myrmidons had his ass handed to him for speaking like an expert with something less than a 9th grader's grasp of history and move on. Of coure, you Bush fans have plenty of practice defending the indefensible.

You don't seem to know who the heck Neville Chamberlain is either, or why the comparison is so ridiculous.

Can we can some writers with historical perspective here?

Really, if you're going to talk about a subject, you ought to know what you're talking about. All I heard from Kevin James was a bunch of empty appeals to peoples' emotions. There was no analysis, no meaningful argument. It was a dog that wouldn't hunt and, to be honest, I'm really gratified to see Matthews calling it out.

As for me, I wasn't really commenting on Kevin James. He didn't handle the situation well.

I'm just talking about the logic of the issue.

Pointing out that an analogy is stupid and pernicious, and pointing out that Kevin James is too bludgeon-stupid and ignorant to carry water on anything that involves history or nuance, is not enough reason to dismiss all analogy.

"I'm just talking about the logic of the issue."

Oh, the LOGIC! Got it! I thought you were simply defending a rightwing radio hack who doesn't know anything about history, who was mindlessly repeating a talking point from George W Bush - the single most history-challenged buffoon on the planet - and having no idea that to people who study history the proliferation of empty-headed rightwing shock jocks that have filled up 90% of AM radio over the last 25 years, is why the American people have been so poorly served by government disinformation and morons like Kevin James who get lucrative positions despite being nothing more than a complete rightwing moron.

But you were talking about the "logic" of the situtaion. That makes a world of difference.

What does anybody know about Chamberlain but appeasement. It was a trick question.

Yes, it was a trick question. Here's another one: "Kevin, please state your name".
To call this encounter "dishonest" is so absurdly DISHONEST.
When a moron screams at everyone about their lack of knowledge and common sense, only to be proven to have no knowledge or common sense of his own, well, there's a certain poetry to that. When you defend it and make the host the villian, that's just pathetic.