PDA

View Full Version : Condi Fails History 101


ECW
02-27-2007, 07:50 AM
Keith Olbermann hits another home run. This time the baseball is Condi Rice and her neocon version of history where she picks and chooses facts to fit her theories and comes up with intellectual mush unworthy of a Secretary of State or even the diplomatic corps.

On "Fox News Sunday" Feb. 25, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice paralleled World War II with the state of Iraq when discussing what would happen if Congress were to revise the Iraq authorization:

We already know about her suggestion that the president could just ignore whatever congressional Democrats do about Iraq.

Just ignore Congress.

We know how that game always turns out. Ask President Nixon. Ask President Andrew Johnson.

Or ask Vice President Dick Cheney, who utterly contradicted Secretary Rice on Monday when he warned President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan about what those mean congressional Democrats could do to his foreign aid.

All of this, par for the course.

But about what the secretary said regarding the prospect of Congress’ revising or repealing the 2002 authorization of the war in Iraq:

Here we go again! From springs spent trying to link Saddam Hussein to 9/11, to summers of cynically manipulated intelligence, through autumns of false patriotism, to winters of war, we have had more than four years of every cheap trick and every degree of calculated cynicism from this administration, filled with Three-Card Monte players.

But the longer Dr. Rice and these other pickpockets of a nation's goodness have walked among us, waving flags and slandering opponents and making true enemies — foreign and domestic — all hat and no cattle all the while, the overriding truth of their occupancy of our highest offices of state has only gradually become clear.

As they asked in that Avis commercial: "Ever get the feeling some people just stopped trying?"

Then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld thought he could equate those who doubted him with Nazi appeasers, without reminding anybody that the actual, historical Nazi appeasers in this country in the 1930s were the Republicans.

Vice President Cheney thought he could talk as if he and he alone knew the “truth” about Iraq and 9/11, without anyone ever noticing that even the rest of the administration officially disagreed with him.

The president really acted as if you could scare all of the people all of the time and not lose your soul — and your majority — as a result.

But Secretary of State Rice may have now taken the cake. On the Sunday morning interview show “Of Broken Record” on Fox, Dr. Rice spoke a paragraph, which if it had been included in a remedial history paper at the weakest high school in the nation would've gotten the writer an "F" — maybe an expulsion.

If Congress were now to revise the Iraq authorization, she said, out loud, with an adult present: "… it would be like saying that after Adolf Hitler was overthrown, we needed to change, then, the resolution that allowed the United States to do that, so that we could deal with creating a stable environment in Europe after he was overthrown."

The secretary's résumé reads that she has a master’s degree and a Ph.D in political science. The interviewer should have demanded to see them, on the spot. Dr. Rice spoke 42 words. She may have made more mistakes in them than did the president in his State of the Union Address in 2003.


There is, obviously, no mistaking Saddam Hussein for a human being. But nor is there any mistaking him for Adolf Hitler.

Invoking the German dictator who subjugated Europe; who tried to exterminate the Jews; who sought to overtake the world is not just in the poorest of taste, but in its hyperbole, it insults not merely the victims of the Third Reich, but those in this country who fought it and defeated it.

Saddam Hussein was not Adolf Hitler. And George W. Bush is not Franklin D. Roosevelt — nor Dwight D. Eisenhower. He isn't even George H.W. Bush, who fought in that war.

However, even through the clouds of deliberately spread fear, and even under the weight of a thousand exaggerations of the five years past, one can just barely make out how a battle against international terrorism in 2007 could be compared — by some — to the Second World War.

The analogy is weak, and it instantly begs the question of why those of "The Greatest Generation" focused on Hitler and Hirohito, but our leaders seem to have ignored their vague parallels of today to instead concentrate on the Mussolinis of modern terrorism.

But in some, small, "You didn't fail, Junior, but you may need to go to summer school" kind of way, you can just make out that comparison.

But, Secretary Rice, overthrowing Saddam Hussein was akin to overthrowing Adolf Hitler? Are you kidding? Did you want to provoke the world's laughter?

And, please, Madame Secretary, if you are going to make that most implausible, subjective, dubious, ridiculous comparison; if you want to be as far off the mark about the Second World War as, say, the pathetic Holocaust-denier from Iran, Ahmadinejad — at least get the easily verifiable facts right: the facts whose home through history lies in your own department.

"The resolution that allowed the United States to" overthrow Hitler?

On the 11th of December, 1941, at 8 o'clock in the morning, two of Hitler's diplomats walked up to the State Department — your office, Secretary Rice -- and 90 minutes later they were handing a declaration of war to the chief of the department's European Division. The Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbor four days earlier, and the Germans simply piled on.

Your predecessors, Dr. Rice, didn't spend a year making up phony evidence and mistaking German balloon-inflating trucks for mobile germ warfare labs. They didn't pretend the world was ending because a tin-pot tyrant couldn't hand over the chemical weapons it turned out he'd destroyed a decade earlier. The Germans walked up to the front door of our State Department and said, "We're at war." It was in all the papers. And when that war ended, more than three horrible years later, our troops and the Russians were in Berlin. And we stayed, as an occupying force, well into the 1950s. As an occupying force, Madam Secretary!

If you want to compare what we did to Hitler and in Germany to what we did to Saddam and in Iraq, I'm afraid you're going to have to buy the whole analogy. We were an occupying force in Germany, Dr. Rice, and by your logic, we're now an occupying force in Iraq. And if that's the way you see it, you damn well better come out and tell the American people so. Save your breath telling it to the Iraqis — most of them already buy that part of the comparison.

“It would be like saying that after Adolf Hitler was overthrown, we needed to change then, the resolution that allowed the United States to do that, so that we could deal with creating a stable environment in Europe after he was overthrown."


We already have a subjectively false comparison between Hitler and Saddam. We already have a historically false comparison between Germany and Iraq. We already have blissful ignorance by our secretary of state about how this country got into the war against Hitler. But then there's this part about changing "the resolution" about Iraq; that it would be as ridiculous in the secretary's eyes as saying that after Hitler was defeated, we needed to go back to Congress to "deal with creating a stable environment in Europe after he was overthrown."

Oh, good grief, Secretary Rice, that's exactly what we did do! We went back to Congress to deal with creating a stable environment in Europe after Hitler was overthrown! It was called the Marshall Plan.

Marshall!

Gen. George Catlett Marshall!

Secretary of state!

The job you have now!

C’mon!

Twelve billion, 400 thousand dollars to stabilize all of Europe economically — to keep the next enemies of freedom, the Russians, out and democracy in! And how do you suppose that happened? The president of the United States went back to Congress and asked it for a new authorization and for the money. And do you have any idea, Madame Secretary, who opposed him when he did that? The Republicans!

"We've spent enough money in Europe," said Sen. Robert Taft of Ohio.

"We've spent enough of our resources," said former President Hoover.

It's time to pull out of there! As they stand up, we'll stand down!

This administration has long thought otherwise, but you can't cherry-pick life — whether life in 2007, or life in the history page marked 1945. You can't keep the facts that fit your prejudices and throw out the ones that destroy your theories. And if you're going to try to do that; if you still want to fool some people into thinking that Saddam was Hitler, and once we gave FDR that blank check in Germany he was no longer subject to the laws of Congress or gravity or physics, at least stop humiliating us.

Get your facts straight. Use the Google!

You've been on Fox News Sunday, Secretary Rice. The Fox network has got another show premiering Tuesday night. You could go on that one, too. It might be a better fit. It's called "Are You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader?"

~link~ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17351284/)

potter
02-27-2007, 04:27 PM
Thanks for the post ECW. I rarely watch talking heads but Olberman does hit a homer on occasion.

Shame on Rice....must be worried about someone suggesting they meter the oil from Iraq....

Red Dragon
02-27-2007, 09:59 PM
Wow our secretary of state said that, if you excuse me I'm going to go sit in the corner and cry for the future of this country. And also a little word to Rice, just because Bush used the words “Axis of Evil” doesn’t mean they are the Axis powers.

lily
02-28-2007, 02:17 AM
Once again, Red.........you made me forget that you're only 15! Well said.

Anti-Racism
03-08-2007, 04:01 AM
She's doing great work promoting black Americans as NOT being affirmative action appointees.

Buck Laser
03-08-2007, 04:23 AM
Once again, Red.........you made me forget that you're only 15! Well said.


On another forum besides this one, I've run across some teenagers who display more wisdom than most of the alleged adults.

And Red Dragon, I think I knew you were in high school, but your posts have consistently been thoughtful, mature, and--I can't think of another good adjective to put here. But you're really a relief from the most prolific posters here, who shall go unnamed.:rolleyes:

ECW
03-08-2007, 06:26 AM
I guess the conclusion I can draw from this is that Condi is NOT smarter than a 5th grader.

Guitarmitch
03-08-2007, 12:09 PM
So we can apply the same level of scrutiny about ones knowledge of history when one compares Bush to Hitler right?

That is what you are saying right?

Just making sure.

Stoner
03-08-2007, 12:12 PM
Condi Rice is smarter than any 5 liberals on this board put together.

ECW
03-08-2007, 03:54 PM
So we can apply the same level of scrutiny about ones knowledge of history when one compares Bush to Hitler right?

That is what you are saying right?

Just making sure.


They can't possibly be the same because Hitler never smirked and Bush never wore a silly hat..

http://www.boingboing.net/images/bush_smirk.jpghttp://www.jtf.org/america/sss.nazi.germany.hitler.smiles.jpg

But stuff like this makes me wonder...

http://www.skibummusic.com/data/contentfiles/Bush_NAZI.jpg

lily
03-08-2007, 06:21 PM
Condi Rice is smarter than any 5 liberals on this board put together.


You make a fine Culture Warrior. I would hope that she would be smarter than any 5 liberals or any 5 right wingers on this forum, considering the job she holds.

ECW
03-08-2007, 10:32 PM
Ah, but she's not and Mr Olbermann proved that at the very beginning of this thread. It's obvious that Stoner failed to read the article because he did here what he accuses me of doing in his sacred threads: not responding to the thread topic. Like I said in another thread, I seriously doubt he comes here to debate.

BoogyMan
03-08-2007, 10:59 PM
Putting stock in the commentary of Keith Olbermann is akin to watching a monkey try to graph a double integral, its funny to watch but a complete waste of time, and I am fairly sure that the monkey is more intelligent than Olbermann.

Olbermann did little more than preach to his unhinged choir of winged monkey watchers.

Drocket
03-08-2007, 11:03 PM
Putting stock in the commentary of Keith Olbermann is akin to watching a monkey try to graph a double integral, its funny to watch but a complete waste of time, and I am fairly sure that the monkey is more intelligent than Olbermann.

Olbermann did little more than preach to his unhinged choir of winged monkey watchers.

Possibly. But he still managed to show that Rice lacks any real knowledge of history, though that doesn't seem to stop her from making untrue historical analogies.

BoogyMan
03-08-2007, 11:22 PM
Putting stock in the commentary of Keith Olbermann is akin to watching a monkey try to graph a double integral, its funny to watch but a complete waste of time, and I am fairly sure that the monkey is more intelligent than Olbermann.

Olbermann did little more than preach to his unhinged choir of winged monkey watchers.

Possibly. But he still managed to show that Rice lacks any real knowledge of history, though that doesn't seem to stop her from making untrue historical analogies.


Lacks any true knowledge of history? My goodness what a foundationless assertion. Most likely all that was done was the unhinged choral assemblage to which Olbermann preaches was given a high five moment.

Anti-Racism
03-09-2007, 12:24 AM
Neither Condi nor Olbermann (keine uebermann, nicht) are that intelligent.

Condi got her degree via affirmative action, Olbermann by having the right opinions.

I am not impressed.

ECW
03-09-2007, 12:38 AM
Putting stock in the commentary of Keith Olbermann is akin to watching a monkey try to graph a double integral, its funny to watch but a complete waste of time, and I am fairly sure that the monkey is more intelligent than Olbermann.

Olbermann did little more than preach to his unhinged choir of winged monkey watchers.

Possibly. But he still managed to show that Rice lacks any real knowledge of history, though that doesn't seem to stop her from making untrue historical analogies.


Lacks any true knowledge of history? My goodness what a foundationless assertion. Most likely all that was done was the unhinged choral assemblage to which Olbermann preaches was given a high five moment.


...and it looks like you didn't read the article either. Olbermann took Condi's own words and proved them wrong. Either prove Olbermann wrong (using appropriate citations) or quit yer whinin'. All you did was say he was wrong but you brought nothing to the table to show it. Man, have you taken a page out of the Stoner Posting Manual lately or what?

BoogyMan
03-09-2007, 01:08 AM
ECW, the point you are missing is that there is no whining. What is going on is that I am laughing at the childish partisanship and foolishness of Olbermann's commentary. You have done little more than prove my assessment of the situation to be correct with your commentary. To waste my time rebutting Olbermann is to give him a semblance of credibility he doesn't deserve.

I actually find this refreshing as now that the standards of citation are so low as to allow Keith Olbermann to stand as an illustrative source, I should be able to post articles from such sources as the National Enquirer and still be well above the new low standard that has been set by Olbermann's inclusion.

What a joke.

lily
03-09-2007, 01:25 AM
...and it looks like you didn't read the article either. Olbermann took Condi's own words and proved them wrong. Either prove Olbermann wrong (using appropriate citations) or quit yer whinin'. All you did was say he was wrong but you brought nothing to the table to show it. Man, have you taken a page out of the Stoner Posting Manual lately or what?


......but it's so much easier to attack the messenger instead of the message.

BoogyMan
03-09-2007, 01:40 AM
...and it looks like you didn't read the article either. Olbermann took Condi's own words and proved them wrong. Either prove Olbermann wrong (using appropriate citations) or quit yer whinin'. All you did was say he was wrong but you brought nothing to the table to show it. Man, have you taken a page out of the Stoner Posting Manual lately or what?


......but it's so much easier to attack the messenger instead of the message.


Your commentary assumes that Olbermann is worthy of a response to his apoplectic and foolish assertions.

Olbermann is Coulter quality, through and through.

Elrathin
03-09-2007, 01:44 AM
Olbermann is Coulter quality, through and through.


Has Olbermann called for the death of Conservatives as Coulter did with the NYT?

BoogyMan
03-09-2007, 01:46 AM
Olbermann is a hitman with an agenda, just as is Coulter.

His inclusion as an illustrative source has so lowered the bar as to make just about anyone a worthy source.

Elrathin
03-09-2007, 01:58 AM
Olbermann is a hitman with an agenda, just as is Coulter.

His inclusion as an illustrative source has so lowered the bar as to make just about anyone a worthy source.


You didn't answer my question Boogy, has Olbermann called for the death of conservatives as Coulter did with the NYT? If not, then they aren't even in the same league.

BoogyMan
03-09-2007, 02:04 AM
I know what you are trying to do El, and I won't fall for it. You have a different set of standards, principally as you apparently agree with the tripe that Olbermann spews.

Elrathin
03-09-2007, 02:57 AM
I know what you are trying to do El, and I won't fall for it. You have a different set of standards, principally as you apparently agree with the tripe that Olbermann spews.


First of all I never said I did agree with Olbermann so your ASSumptions fall back towards your own partisan dealings.

And my point stands, he is nowhere near Coulter's league on being an ass.

I'll give you that he may spew partisan crap, but it is on NOWHERE NEAR Coulter's level. Coulter wished for an entire building to be destroyed, you can't even begin to say Olbermann is on that Level Boogy, just admit it.

BoogyMan
03-09-2007, 02:59 AM
I don't expect you to see the guy as my side of the isle sees him El. You and I are likely to never agree on this one. Olbermann, in my view, is no different than Coulter.

Elrathin
03-09-2007, 03:00 AM
Olbermann, in my view, is no different than Coulter.


If he is no different, what building did he call for being destroyed eh? Sorry Boogy, fact is Coulter is about as close as you can come to a Christian Fascist pig.

BoogyMan
03-09-2007, 03:08 AM
One is more outlandish than the other, both are sorry examples of humanity with little to add to a productive debate. Same-same.

Elrathin
03-09-2007, 03:11 AM
One is more outlandish than the other, both are sorry examples of humanity with little to add to a productive debate. Same-same.


Both may be outlandish, but only Coulter has called for a building to be destroyed in 9/11. Sorry, not the same Boogy.

I can guarantee you that if someone called for the death of Bush and Rush limbaugh insulted liberals, that you would say the one that called for Bush was worse. The fact you are saying Coulter is the same says that you see no difference between outlandish remarks versus calling for the destruction of a building in 9/11.

BoogyMan
03-09-2007, 03:19 AM
Sorry El, Olbermann has a place on my list of those unworthy of my time or my effort. I have and will continue to place him in the same class as Coulter, Moore, and others.

Elrathin
03-09-2007, 03:28 AM
Well there is no changing your mind then, I will agree to disagree on this one then.

BoogyMan
03-09-2007, 03:29 AM
I already told you that. :D

Drocket
03-09-2007, 04:30 AM
Coulter calls for the assassination of Supreme Court justices, attacks everyone who disagrees with her for being Godless Satan worshipers, slanders public figures with bigoted name-calling, accuses widows of enjoying their husband's deaths, says that all Muslims should be given the option of converting to Christianity or being killed, and says liberals should be randomly executed to serve as an example to others, whereas Olbermann, um, factchecks statements made by people in the White House.

...

Yep, I don't see any difference there either.

ECW
03-09-2007, 05:54 AM
ECW, the point you are missing is that there is no whining. What is going on is that I am laughing at the childish partisanship and foolishness of Olbermann's commentary. You have done little more than prove my assessment of the situation to be correct with your commentary. To waste my time rebutting Olbermann is to give him a semblance of credibility he doesn't deserve.

I actually find this refreshing as now that the standards of citation are so low as to allow Keith Olbermann to stand as an illustrative source, I should be able to post articles from such sources as the National Enquirer and still be well above the new low standard that has been set by Olbermann's inclusion.

What a joke.


The joke here is the fact that you cannot dispute what has been said. Shoot The Messenger it's called. Can't dispute the message? Attack the messenger. It's an old Neocon trick that doesn't work anymore.

As for lowering standards, posting crap from Dick Morris and the Drudge report on this forum would fill that bill as well. I guess those claims of my partisanship you constantly toss my way never seem to make their way over to attacking those two sources. If you have, I've never seen it. The joke, it turns out, is your presumed elevation above the partisan fray when, in reality, you are just as partisan as anyone else here. The sin of omission glares as brightly as the sin of commission. Give it a rest. You are becoming insufferable.

If Olbermann's commentary is "foolishness" and you cannot come up with a response to it, what does that make you? I hesitate to say but it isn't good...