Silly us, we thought ‘appeasement’ was an insult

September 5, 2006

Remember, Newt [tag]Gingrich[/tag] has characterized himself as one of the more serious, idea-driven leaders in the conservative movement, despite all evidence to the contrary.

On the September 1 edition of Fox News’ Hannity & Colmes, discussing a speech by Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, during which, in the words of an August 29 Associated Press article, Rumsfeld “likened critics of the U.S. war strategy to those who tried to appease the Nazis,” Fox News political analyst and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) stated that he agreed with Rumsfeld’s comments, adding that the comparison between Iraq war critics and Nazi appeasers was “not an insulting comment.”

No, of course not. This was simply an instance in which the Secretary of Defense was equating critics of the war in Iraq — a group that happens to include the majority of Americans — with those who wanted to appease Hitler. Why would anyone find that “insulting”?

In the same program, Gingrich insisted, “We’ve now found over 700 chemical warheads and weapons in Iraq, which supposedly had none, according to our friends on the left,” a comment which can only charitably be described as wildly misleading.

This is one of the great “idea men” on the right? Newt thinks he’s presidential caliber? Granted, Bush has set the bar pretty low, but still….

Poor Newt. How many will he insult by the crack alone?

People really should get the concept that it is better to be mocked on the Colbert Report than praised on Faux News.

Or am I showing my colors?

What so many forget about pre-war Hitler is that he had no real effective opposition. He chose to re-militarize the Rhineland when the French were in a domestic political crisis. He would not have gone in if they weren’t. Do you know who the Europeans were suggesting to use to slap Hitler down originially? Mussolini and the Italians 😉

Gingrich is supposed to be a historian, for God’s sake. How can he be spouting this stuff?

  • Is Newt (and Rummy) referring to the Rethugs, like Shrubby’s granddad, who were more than happy to 1. Appease the Nazis and 2. do business with them? Oh wait, they’re referring to the Democrats. Huh.

    And would calling Newt a “moron” “not be an insulting comment”?

    My God, how can people vote for these lackwits? And as for Presidential caliber, Newt is a .22 short, if that (Dubya being a bb by means of comparison).

  • The biggest appeasers in the U.S. of A. are RepubCo who are always on the edge of their seats waiting to jump up and calm the rotted and worried minds of ShrubCo and CorpCo at the slightest hint that they might be hindered or questioned in the slightest.

    Appeasement, thy name is Newt, among a skanky crew of others. Takes one to know one was never more appropriate.

  • The Rupublicans are appeasing another dangerous wannabe dictator right now. His name is George Bush.

  • Second tier guys can lay low and come back (Chenney). Larger than life failures like Nixon can somewhat be rehabilitated (for his many, many faults, he did at least attempt some ambitious things) – hell, look at Carter.

    But one hit wonders with nothing inside them never hit the top again. Gingrich is a douchbag and a quitter. Throw whining into the mix and I just don’t see it. I figure he’ll be President when “Achy Breaky Heart” hits the top 10 charts again.

    -jjf

  • Preston Bush didn’t merely “do business” with the Nazis – that was his reward after they came to power for what he really did for them: He organized loans to the corporate sponsors of the Nazis, starting in 1926, which enabled them to become the powerful organization that ran the country. They remembered who had been in their corner back when no one else would help.

    The Bushes really are traitors to America going back three generations now. These are the people Gingrich is appeasing.

  • Why not say completely misguided crap like Newt did when there are absolutely no repurcussions for lying though your teeth? If a lie falls in a forest of dittoheaded Fox news “analysts” and no one calls it as BS, can anyone tell if a lie was told at all?

  • ***Gingrich is supposed to be a historian, for God’s sake. How can he be spouting this stuff?***
    ————————————————————Lance

    But Gingrich “is” a historian, Lance. A “very special” type of historian. It’s called “being a historical revisionist.” So—I suppose one could say that, with Gingrich, History is being “Newt”ered….

  • Steve, History is not written truthfully the first time. There is not necessarily something wrong with historical revision. If you are making up lies, that is bad.

    • Comments are closed.