So, I'm guessing that by now, most have seen Huckabee's description of the Iran deal,
"This president’s foreign policy is the most feckless in American history. It is so naive that he would trust the Iranians. By doing so, he will take the Israelis and march them to the door of the oven. This is the most idiotic thing, this Iran deal. It should be rejected by both Democrats and Republicans in Congress and by the American people. I read the whole deal. We gave away the whole store. It’s got to be stopped." He served up this little diddy on Breitbart.
Generally, I have not felt a need to unload on Huckabee they way I do on penultimate assholes like Cruz or Trump. This comment, however, is just out of any respectable boundary. You don't like deal, then say so, but to compare Obama to Adolph Fucking Hitler, a man who truly believed in cleansing the earth of the Jews, is contemptible. It goes with the turf that any POTUS will be criticized for everything they do by the opposition party. Year by year, however, the white hick fucking trailer trash of this country has continually stepped over each other in a race to see who can be the most offensive. Again, you don't like Obama? Fine, go to rallies with the rest of the hick white assholes who think it's clever to photoshop Obama's face onto Heath Ledger's joker character and shake hands with a bunch of idiots who continue to celebrate the legacy of a failed rebellion as they fly their rebel flags. But do the rest of the world a favor, stop the endless false comparisons to WW II and though it pains your stupid hick brains, how bout showing a little respect for the office of the president.
Enjoy your fifteen minutes you stupid asshole Mike Huckabee.
I don’t think at all that he was comparing Obama to Hitler but I can see some pretty clear associations between Obamas blind and reckless foreign policy not only with Iran but with Russia as something akin to the brilliance of Neville Chamberlain…
ReplyDeleteI might be mistake so if you can quote the words he used calling comparing Obama to Hitler, I will apologize and will of course stand corrected.
Iran, still today, avows to wipe Israel off the fact of the earth… sounds like pretty strong intent to eliminate an entire population based on its religion if not its national identity to me.
“Iran’s threat of genocide by calling for the eradication of the Jewish state of Israel could complicate the removal of certain international sanctions against the Islamic Republic, an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal on Monday revealed.
The U.N. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide obligates signatories to prevent all forms and threats of genocide, which recent calls by Iranian military and political officials for the destruction of Israel clearly seem to contradict.”
Got it. So because Hickabee didn't directly compare Obama to Hitler, you can use the defense that a precise reading of his words, which says that Obama will be marching Israel to the ovens, is not a comparison. Sorry TS, that's pretty much bitch trolling. If you are trolling me, then this is pretty well played. If you genuinely believe this, you are less intelligent than I give you credit for being.
ReplyDeleteChrist Mike… if Neville Chamberlain had his way Europe would be speaking either German or Russian and there would have been a hell of a lot fewer Jews to return to anything resembling a homeland. I don’t believe that Chamberland was a Nazi or a sympathiser of Hitler but that he was very naïve of Hitler, the Third Reich and the world….
DeleteThe question has however been asked in the past: Was Neville Chamberlain a sympathizer, or just a very naive guy who thought he could obtain "peace in our times" by having a psychotic power-hungry lunatic (that would be Hitler) sign a piece of paper?
If you think this response was a troll message then I have to reconsider all of your thought process... Huckabee did not compare Obama to Hitler... period. Only in the mind of someone who is just looking for an argument could you deduce that.
Lou and I had a very long discussion about this on another thread. Iran is NOT the equivalent of pre WW II Nazi Germany. It annoys me to no end to hear the left and right keep trying to put the tags of Chamberlain and Hitler to bombastically call someone an appeaser or an aggressor. The comparisons of Iran to Nazi Germany are thin at best and if we want to avoid having another massive world war, I think we need to examine the present.
DeleteWe are going to disagree on Huckabee. Any mention to me of Jews and Ovens in the same sentence is going to take my mind directly to the Holocaust, which was a premeditated, intentional action to exterminate the Jews. To say that Obama is marching the Jews to the door of the oven is not a comparison is frankly far more Chamberlain like than anything Obama is doing. The intent was to be as outlandish as possible because for many, this is the tactic to go to when your view isn't taking hold. I'll concede, I guess that when he was speaking to an audience of Breitbart, he was looking to hit that note of outrage and probably didn't realize how this would come across. Still, if we are going to play the game of concretizing everything, I'm going to ask the question, who was the guy who literally lead the Jews to the oven? That would be Hitler. If he's going to say something this fucking stupid, he deserves to be tagged making that connection. Quite honestly, I don't believe that in some of the way way out there types, Obama is precisely viewed as a Hitler, just as Bush was to the far left.
You went on for quite a bit with your North versus South post, and if we are going to look at the rise of Hitler and EVERYTHING that went along with it, we would need a much, much bigger presentation of all the facts. We have a problem with Iran. The radical Mullahs there, at least the ones who are there now and will be in the near future, are simply not going to acknowledge the state of Israel. Unlike Iraq who lobbed missiles in Israel, Iran has talked a lot more shit than they have backed up. Iran has not gone on a military conquest of the Middle East. And as for being sponsors of terror, so is basically everyone else in the Middle East who feels it is in their interest to back some group of pawns who are willing to die for some cause.
Again, we have a problem with Iran. Some want to pretend that Obama is making a false claim that it's his deal or war. but that's not really far off in my opinion. If we demand that Iran bow to us and acknowledge to accept Israel as a state, they are not going to do so. Then what. Ever read Hayek? So, if we sit back and keep squeezing them with sanctions, and keep hurling bombast at them from our far right while people like former POTUS candidate McCain make jokes about bombing them, I don't see us making any progress either. Russia, or somebody else is going to help them build a bomb. So if we are going to kid ourselves that we don't want war when we are making a demand they are never going to agree to, why don't we just skip it and go to war now?
Max and TS
DeleteSeems you are both getting upset at the goings on of Huckabee, which I would suggest is fair enough. Not the worst of a bad bunch, that title must belong to the Thumper who is being kicked in the ass by some Repubs,all Dems and most of the media.
In your discussions you have introduced Chamberlain and Munich into the argument and he appears to have been dealt with and dismissed with a sentence or two as a possible sympathizer to the Nazi philosophy. I would like to add a word or so about Chamberlain simply in the interest of fair play and the different picture painted by another nation from another era.
I stood at the large cabinet Radio in our sitting room in Sussex UK with my parents and listened live to the speech as Chamberlain alighted from the aircraft after the Munich agreement. I was three years old and to this day I remember my father saying he would be at war in a years time. My mother, ever practical is remembered as suggesting that more root vegetables be planted in the garden.
So was Chamberlain correct in signing the Munich agreement? Was he a Nazi sympathiser or was he simply not man enough for the job.
To answer these questions we must remember the circumstances of the times. Some of the problems must be laid at the feet of the United States, some blame must be taken by the British government and some belongs to the British people and the British subjects living in the Dominions and colonies throughout the British Empire. The feelings against the US were strongly felt from the first world war. Procrastination for years and then entry with great fanfare when the result had been predetermined. US had suppled war making materials to both sides and had treated the war as an economic industrial exercise. WW1 saw America a debitor nation at the beginning, she emerged at the end in credit!. The prominent position of Woodrow Wilson at the Paris negotiations following the end of the war were a burr under the saddle of those who had fought for so long and suffered such grievous losses.
The British government were partly to blame for the Munich agreement because public support for war was lacking, justifiably so after only twenty years of peace. The population simply did not want confrontation again after the return of a generation to a land “fit for heroes” .The British people saw the results of the war ,business tycoons grown richer than ever from the profits of the war years and the sacrifices of the youth of the nation. The heroes were all those left in the killing fields and there was no support for more of the same.
Chamberlain had serious opposition within his own cabinet and he simply was not the man for the job. It is my belief that history now regards Chamberlain as a weak leader thrust into a situation he could not control. It was not until the war actually began that the British people saw the error. A war declared over foreign soil to satisfy a typical British trait of nobles oblige. The Empire following blindly along and so many friends failing to join what at the time was generally accepted as a great and worthwhile cause.
The war could have been won in two years, Pearl Harbour may not have occurred if Lind burg and the isolationists had not strangled FDR in Congress. Again and for the last time, America took too long to take the strain on the rope being pulled by the good guys. FDR did a magnificent job with the lend lease arrangements and behind the scenes help to prosecute the war effort.
Thank you King for that personal point of view that the rest of us clearly cannot give let alone truly imagine. Your fourth of fifth para there that suggest to consider circumstances of the times is exactly my point. The casual use of the names Chamberlain, Hitler, Churchill et al. without proper context has become an accepted form of political discourse. It is done in the name of "Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it", as if to say that any cherry picked nugget of history is good enough reason to do anything we choose in the present moment in the name of staving off repeating some perceived historical mistake.
DeleteChamberlain, IMO, is conveniently blamed for not acknowledging war was inevitable. Because of this, a host of contributing factors are likewise conveniently ignored. There IS a historical context that to some degree, fits our current meddling in the middle east. As even Rand Paul pointed out, we seem to have armed just about all the players there at one time or another and have intervened to choose winners and losers based on whatever we thought was best for us at the time. We want Iran to toe whatever line we set for them. When and if we do go to war with that country, it will not be because of some perceived weakness of the POTUS at that time, and instead will have much to do with our actions a decade or more prior.