'I'm Going to Ask You an Ugly Question'
J$P Video! Frank Luntz and a focus group of undecided voters on "appeasement". It's more GOP propaganda from Fox!
From The Strategy Room, May 18 2008 fox news luntz focus bush
notveryhow
Thanx for the post JD.
Yet another proof of Godwin's Law.Whether you're a blog poster calling Bush a Nazi or O'Reilly calling Huffington posters "brownshirts",when you bring in the Nazi analogy,you lose your credibility and lose the argument.
May 19, 2008, 8:50:48 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Anon
That is disturbing.
May 19, 2008, 9:38:40 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Grammie
Anon, I agree.
Eeyore, I think that GWB was not comparing Iran to Nazis/Hitler but rather the actions, reactions and policy of both canditates and governments to the war footing and aggression to them.
By quoting that insufferable and arrogant Repub Senator, who was so representative of the times,I think he made he made that clear.
May 19, 2008, 10:15:44 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
I think the last audience member voiced why people responded better to Obama's rhetoric than to Bush's. They don't want an American military incursion with Iran.
Now as to Eeyore's statement, I again think that more commonsense should be engaged...
O'Reilly's statement was emblematic of what we have discussed before. It was a below the belt punch to his professional and personal critics. Yeah, many of his Kos Kids critics are hateful to say the least and intolerant of diverse views, but O'Reilly's was a trivializing and frivolous comparison at best, a smear at worst.
What Bush stated has a different context completely. He was taking an example from history in order to make a case against what he thinks is similar current polical thinking that will have similar historical impact. Using the analogy of Stalin rather than Hitler, wouldn't have made a difference to anyone apt to personalize the reference. And within THAT context, there is no way to delicately put forth the point that certain dealing end up as being mere appeasement any more than there's a way to delicately characterize that opponents of such maneuvers are misguidedly hungry" or blood-thirty for war.
So there you have it. Both sides are going to hear what they don't wish to hear and both sides are going to try to make political hay by screaming bloody murder.
We can enjoy the show, but ultimately we should try to be smart people by separating and examining the policy from the politics.
In the political dramatics and the ensuing loss of commonsense, it's easy to forget that in the case of Iran, as opposed to Kos kids, Olbermann's O'Reilly mask, etc, Bush's is a contextual analogy of the questions involved in having to contain a regime that is dangerous and oppressive, with our having had to contain one that WAS dangerous and oppressive sixty years ago.
This is true no matter how commonsensical or nonsensical we consider his take on sound policy towards Iran.
O'Reilly was just being a jerk.
May 19, 2008, 11:51:35 AM EDT – Like – Reply
notveryhow
If you compare those who express a willingness to have a dialogue with Iran to Chamberlain,then you must be equating Iran and Oscarweinerjob with Germany and Hitler.
Whether this invokes Godwin's Law or not is debatable,but the comparison is off by an air force and several thousand tanks.
We saw Iraq and Iran in a virtual stalemate throughout their war.Then in 91 the US and it's allies handily flattened Iraq's military in a short,one-sided conflict.If Iran couldn't do the job on Iraq in 8 years that our military did do in a month,then the projective power of Iran's military must be minute.
Germany's military in WWII conquered Poland,Norway,Denmark,The Netherlands,Belgium,France,Greece,Yugoslavia.They overran North Africa and most of the European USSR and damn near brought down the Soviets and Britian. Iran couldn't take Iraq.
I don't want to see a nuclear armed Iran,but equating Iran's military threat as equivalent to Germany in 1939 is historically and logically inaccurate.
May 19, 2008, 1:48:06 PM EDT – Like – Reply
thebronze
[message deleted for rules violation: language]
Edited By Siteowner
May 19, 2008, 1:59:06 PM EDT – Like – Reply
thedudesblog
So, those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it, huh? Then why do all these people hate it when history is brought up?
We don't want to repeat history, but don't tell us about history because we don't like that.
May 19, 2008, 2:58:46 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Grammie
Very true, Eeyore, very true. But the appeasement started in 1933 exactly b/c Hitler set about to build that blitzkreig machine that after 9 years of appeasement had technology, weapons, armies and a few purloined countries and regions' resources. Second, a few atomic bombs could turn Israel to glass and wreak as much damage and havoc on any city or small country equivalent to a month or so of bleitzkreig in the 1930-1945.
I believe GWB was equating the reaction of the west to Hitler, not that Iran is a fullfledged equivalent in every category. Those little inventions, atomic bombs and ICBMs make up a large percentage of the disparity between Iran's military might and Hitlers might. I also have no doubt that Hitler would not have hestitated for a second if he had the arsenal that Iran potentially has to final solution us all for German living space. Come to think of it, I do believe that parts of the Iranian government and Islamic terrorists are every bit as demented as Hitler was.
Not every comparison has to be completely equal in every aspect to be an historical lesson on the best way to handle a problem.
May 19, 2008, 3:31:06 PM EDT – Like – Reply
notveryhow
Grammie
Perhaps,but the emotional freight attached to the "Chamberlain Analogy" makes the counter-reaction powerful as well.And this is not the first time that this administration has used the WWII analogy.Rumsfeld and Cheney have strummed that harp..People are tired of hearing it.I think it has the opposite effect than that intended.
Israel is purported to also possess nuclear weapons.And the US certainly does.Would Irans leaders attack Israel facing the certainty that they,and most of their nation's people,would die?
I doubt it.OBL might have nothing to lose but the hut he's hiding in.But the Ayatohlahs and Amahdinejad would lose power,influence,and a comfortable life.
That's not to say that a nuclear armed Iran would not be problamatic,to say the least,for US Middle East policy.But it's not hard to imagine that the blowback from a military strike,or even worse, an invasion,might be worse.
So what's the problem with negotiations?We talked to N Vietnam,China,the Soviets and N Korea,even during active conflict.Just because you're talking doesn't mean you have to give away the farm.Brent Scowcroft and James Baker,from his father's administration,are in favor of negotiation,as was the Iraq Study group,but George W Bush seems absolutely opposed.
So that leaves capitulation on the part of the Iranians (not likely,how much do you like to be pushed),or military conflict.What other alternatives are there,if you refuse to negotiate?
May 19, 2008, 6:01:16 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Grammie
Well, the fact that Iran will reject using any of their nuclear weapons based on their own self interest is not necessarily so. Dinnerjacket and Kim Sun Il (sp) both strike me as unstable and therefore more dangerous than I am comfortable with. To bring Hitler up again he gave orders, thankfully not followed, to annililate anything that the Allies did not. He was sending boys not old enough to shave to the front lines. Crazy people do crazy things.
I do not say we should never talk with other nations and their leaders but rather that it is follhardy to do it willy nilly with no preconditions whatsoever for the rogue regimes, which is what Obama quite clearly said he would do.
Do you think that N Pelosi and J Carter helped or hurt our position in the Middle East with their little exta curricular visits with terrorists and terrorist supporting regimes. Do you think the Dems going ape over GWB's speech instantaneously helped or hurt our position in the Middle East.
No formal diplomacy, no informal diplomacy can ever succeed with certain leaders and regimes. Obama has impressed me as someone who doesn't realize that some things can not be fixed with words and goddwill.
May 19, 2008, 6:30:10 PM EDT – Like – Reply
notveryhow
Grammie | 05.19.08 - 6:35 pm |
"No formal diplomacy, no informal diplomacy can ever succeed with certain leaders and regimes."
Well,you never know until you try,which we haven't done.If requiring preconditions precludes talks,then what have the preconditions accomplished besides preventing talks.What is the harm of unconditional talks?Specifically,what negative conserquences would result if we had such talks?
Concerning N Pelosi,did you have the same negative reaction to the Republican delegation that travelled to Syria shortly before her delegation?Did you also criticize wearing a scarf.I've worn a yamakule in Synagogue,and I'm not Jewish.
As for J Carter,there are Iraelis who support talks with Hamas.They are the democratically elected government of the Palestinians.I can't make decisions for Israel,and God knows that nation has a tortured history of relations with it's neighbors.But WE are not Israel,and the interests of the US do not automatically parallel Israel's.
As for discussions with the Palestinians,it's either that or kill them all,like we did with Native Americans.But those were different times.That wouldn't fly.
We have enormous influence with Israel.And we could perhaps create a solution to the Palestinian question.But we will never do it without negotiations.Again I ask,what is the harm?
And speaking of harm,what do you think would be the blowback from an air attack on Iran?Many analysts have said that it would be unlikely that we could be assured of taking out Iranian nuclear facilities with air strikes,that we would need ground troops.What do you think the consequences of a land invasion of Iran would be?
I think it was Mark Twain who said that,to a man with a hammer every problem looks like a nail.We have the premier military on the face of this planet.We can bomb many nations with virtual impunity.My concern is that because we have this military,everything looks like a target,to the exclusion of other possible solutions.
May 19, 2008, 8:18:23 PM EDT – Like – Reply
olby sucks
Where's otm, nvh? Is she on restriction
May 19, 2008, 9:27:05 PM EDT – Like – Reply
