Trigger warning:

This site may, in fact always will contain images and information likely to cause consternation, conniptions, distress, along with moderate to severe bedwetting among statists, wimps, wusses, politicians, lefties, green fascists, and creatures of the state who can't bear the thought of anything that disagrees with their jaded view of the world.

Jun 1, 2008

Press Obamasuckups.

One of my greatest irritations in relation to the current election campaign is the way the press, who are generally regarded as one of the bastions of truth and accuracy in a free society are actively colluding with the political agenda of one candidate.

They appear to be so besotted with Obama that they not only accept everything he says without question, but willingly distort history to twist it to one that will suit him.

The Seattle Times recently did this over the appeasement issue in an article; “Bush, and His Use of "Appeasement" by Bruce Ramsey.
Democrats are rebuking President Bush for saying in his speech to the Knesset 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.

The narrative we're given about Munich is entirely in hindsight. We know what kind of man Hitler was, and that he started World War II in Europe. But in 1938 people knew a lot less. What Hitler was demanding at Munich was not unreasonable as a national claim (though he was making it in a last-minute, unreasonable way.)
Germany's claim was that the areas of Europe that spoke German and thought of themselves as German be under German authority. In September 1938 the principal remaining area was the Sudetenland.

So the British and French let him have it. Their thought was: "Now you have your Greater Germany." They didn't want a war. They were not superpowers like the United States is now. They remembered the 1914-1918 war and how they almost lost it.

What sort of pathetic excuse is this for Obama’s stated intention of negotiating with every enemy America has without preconditions? Just for starters we saw how that one turned out, it will be no different this time. The main precondition to negotiations taking place now is acceptance of the right of Israel to exist.

To drop this demand is to accept that Israel not having the right to exist, is a legitimate position. Sorry ST but the lad isn’t the sharpest implement in the tool shed.

How the hell do you come to think that “the areas of Europe that spoke German and thought of themselves as German be under German authority” is in any way a “not unreasonable position”? Do those people because of their ethnic background have no reasonable right to any form of self determination?

Are you so authoritarian that you still think the future of regions should be decided by other powers? Fellas, this is the 21st century come and join us here.

Seriously, hindsight is not an issue in this, Hitler’s intentions were clear from the beginning. He had stated them often enough. Churchill was warning of the massive military buildup in Germany for at least a year before Munich.

His statement on the Munich agreement was "You were given the choice between war and dishonor . . . you chose dishonor and you will have war."

Lets have an honest debate and not a rewrite of history to suit Obama’s new vision of the past.

No comments:

Post a Comment