• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

A sufficient plurality of insane, greedy people can tank any democratic system ever devised, apparently.

“Can i answer the question? No you can not!”

A last alliance of elves and men. also pet photos.

It’s the corruption, stupid.

The cruelty is the point; the law be damned.

Let’s delete this post and never speak of this again.

Red lights blinking on democracy’s dashboard

Black Jesus loves a paper trail.

When your entire life is steeped in white supremacy, equality feels like discrimination.

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

After roe, women are no longer free.

Let’s finish the job.

There are consequences to being an arrogant, sullen prick.

Roe isn’t about choice, it’s about freedom.

“Jesus paying for the sins of everyone is an insult to those who paid for their own sins.”

If you are still in the GOP, you are an extremist.

Putin dreamed of ending NATO, and now it’s Finnish-ed.

They think we are photo bombing their nice little lives.

Fuck these fucking interesting times.

Pessimism assures that nothing of any importance will change.

A snarling mass of vitriolic jackals

Come on, media. you have one job. start doing it.

I’ve spoken to my cat about this, but it doesn’t seem to do any good.

Take hopelessness and turn it into resilience.

Mobile Menu

  • Winnable House Races
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Balloon Juice 2023 Pet Calendar (coming soon)
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • War in Ukraine
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • 2021-22 Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Bush’s Speech

Bush’s Speech

by John Cole|  May 15, 20086:27 pm| 139 Comments

This post is in: Assholes, Republican Crime Syndicate - aka the Bush Admin.

FacebookTweetEmail

Bush’s “appeasement” speech has been discussed in detail everywhere today, and I don’t have a unique take on it other than that he remains true to form- a jackass. I will note that whoever it was that remarked that all history for wingnuts begins and ends with Hitler has some more evidence.

I did, however, just see the speech, and I have to say it fills me with pride to watch my President be unable to pronounce the word “argument.”

Just go away, you buffoon.

*** Update ***

Matthews is hammering some guy on Hardball, and it is glorious. “What did Chamberlain do wrong?” and the guy does not know. I will have the video as soon as possible.

Matthews is hammering him- “You don’t know. You don’t know what you are talking about.”

He just ended with the statement “I gotta go to someone who knows something about history. He is as bad as the press secretary who does not know what the Cuban Missile Crisis was.”

This was, without a doubt, the finest hour for Chris Matthews. I take back everything negative I have ever said.

Video:

It is painful to watch. I love how he turns redder and redder and just yells appeaser.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Pure Idiocy
Next Post: Liberal Fascism on Your Television »

Reader Interactions

139Comments

  1. 1.

    Zuzu's Petals

    May 15, 2008 at 6:11 pm

    Also can’t pronounce:

    tanks

    American

    history

  2. 2.

    r€nato

    May 15, 2008 at 6:13 pm

    There’s a reason he’s called Drunky McStagger.

  3. 3.

    Raenelle

    May 15, 2008 at 6:15 pm

    If Bush wants WW2 comparisons, how about this–Churchill in 1941: “It’s better to jaw-jaw than to war-war.”

  4. 4.

    r€nato

    May 15, 2008 at 6:16 pm

    I will note that whoever it was that remarked that all history for wingnuts begins and ends with Hitler has some more evidence.

    Considering that Bush wouldn’t be where he is today if his grandfather had not profited from financing the Nazi party both before and after we were at war with Hitler’s Germany, and that conservatives were entirely on the wrong side of the interventionist vs. isolationist argument right up until Pearl Harbor… maybe they ought to shut the fuck up about Hitler.

  5. 5.

    Ted

    May 15, 2008 at 6:22 pm

    I wish I could communicate to all service members one thing: the Republicans do not care if all of our deployed forces in Iraq become a collective hostage to Iran. They will attack Iran anyway, fully knowing Iran will likely outwardly strike back at our troops in Iraq, who um, already have their hands full. Indeed, neoconservatives seem to think this would be a desirable outcome.

    But it probably wouldn’t do any good. The officers will continue to vote in droves for Republican presidents anyway.

  6. 6.

    rob!

    May 15, 2008 at 6:24 pm

    sweet jesus, was that Matthews segment hysterical.

    that Republican sh*t-head doesn’t know who or what Chamberlain was or did.

    hysterical.

  7. 7.

    nightjar

    May 15, 2008 at 6:24 pm

    appease + democrat = appeaser = liberal + appeasement = Obama

    Rinse, repeat and insert terrorist appeaser now and then and you have the ad nauseam wingnut campaign strategy for the 2008 election.

  8. 8.

    Andrew

    May 15, 2008 at 6:25 pm

    HO-LEE FUCK they are tearing this republican asshole apart on hardball. I will briefly {heart} Chris Matthews.

  9. 9.

    Zifnab

    May 15, 2008 at 6:28 pm

    Hey, I’ll say this. Bush is pulling another “Uniter Not a Divider” moment. Kerry, Biden, Pelosi, Dean, Reid, and even Hillary immediately rushed to Obama’s defense.

    Ask me whether something like that would have happened back in the 90s? Fuck no. The Dems have been louder and more supportive of Obama in the last few hours than I’ve seen them be on any other candidate in my lifetime.

    This can only be good for the Republicans.

  10. 10.

    r€nato

    May 15, 2008 at 6:33 pm

    Joe Lieberman: President Bush got it exactly right today when he warned about the threat of Iran and its terrorist proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah. It is imperative that we reject the flawed and naïve thinking that denies or dismisses the words of extremists and terrorists when they shout “Death to America” and “Death to Israel,” and that holds that — if only we were to sit down and negotiate with these killers — they would cease to threaten us. It is critical to our national security that our commander-in-chief is able to distinguish between America’s friends and America’s enemies, and not confuse the two.

    Priority #1 after the election: kick this asshole out of the Democratic caucus.

  11. 11.

    Harley

    May 15, 2008 at 6:35 pm

    The Matthews clip is up at Youtube. Brilliant stuff.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1wSZBTAXRs

  12. 12.

    Zifnab

    May 15, 2008 at 6:36 pm

    Hahaha. Best part of the clip was when the blow hard says “… just like with the USS Cole… ” and my brain starts churning just in time for me and Matthews to say – at the same time – “Wasn’t the Cole bombing under Bush”?

    Shit. I was just thinking at Chris Matthews speed. I feel dirty.

  13. 13.

    Davis X. Machina

    May 15, 2008 at 6:37 pm

    The Churchill quote is from June of 1954, but still well taken.

    His own lifetime had seen a ‘progression’ from cavalry charges to Hiroshima, and he was horrified by the prospect of nuclear war. In other words, he was as far from Junta Boy as is humanly possible when it came to armed conflict and its consequences.

    And in his war, he served in the trenches of France, not the whorehouses of Juarez.

  14. 14.

    Dennis - SGMM

    May 15, 2008 at 6:38 pm

    Rinse, repeat and insert terrorist appeaser now and then and you have the ad nauseam wingnut campaign strategy for the 2008 election.

    Ah, the new, re-branded Republican party. Glad to see that they’ve learned so much from their decline.

  15. 15.

    EJ

    May 15, 2008 at 6:40 pm

    Of course if that Republican flack knew the answer, he’d be forced to admit that Chamberlain agreed to let Hitler take over part of Czechoslovakia, which is totally unlike anything Obama is proposing, and therefore Bush’s statement is totally stupid.

    Either way he loses.

  16. 16.

    SamFromUtah

    May 15, 2008 at 6:44 pm

    that Republican sh*t-head doesn’t know who or what Chamberlain was or did.

    I hope somebody asks Bush that same question. Betcha he doesn’t know either, and probably thinks it was Wilt Chamberlain.

  17. 17.

    Jorge

    May 15, 2008 at 6:47 pm

    Do the Republicans realize how badly they are going to lose this fall? Does Bush realize that he has been absolutely unable to get anything done legislatively since the bankruptcy bill in 2005? Has anyone told him that 66% of Americans have disapproved of him for going on 3 years?

    GW – please, please inject yourself into this campaign.

    On caveat though – I actually think that Bush’s remarks were more aimed at Jimmy Carter than they were at Obama.

  18. 18.

    GSD

    May 15, 2008 at 6:48 pm

    We have ruled by Neo-Know Nothings.

    -GSD

  19. 19.

    ksmiami

    May 15, 2008 at 6:50 pm

    This is right up there with those stupid pre-war analogies of Iraq becoming like Japan and Germany post WWII when I would dive straight to the liquor cabinet and the special stash of xanax… The collective Republican knowledge of our history both sordid and good could fit between the cheap lingerie and sock aisle at Supertarget and trust me that is a very very small space… ARGH, if the Dems lose this year, I am moving to canada or mars or hell or something. Teh stupid, it buuuuurns

  20. 20.

    Ted

    May 15, 2008 at 6:51 pm

    I’m still blown away by the press secretary Dana Perino not knowing what the Cuban missle crisis was. WTF is wrong with these people?

    They get all their talking points from right-wing think tanks composed of actually educated wingnuts, who twist history into whatever narrative they need, and feed the idiots in the Republican ranks just enough information to get themselves into trouble.

  21. 21.

    annagranfors

    May 15, 2008 at 6:52 pm

    Kevin James is a local Los Angeles wingnut who’s pissed me off for years, now–he’s long been one of the foremost anti-“illegal alien” types, breathlessly uncovering “scandal” after “scandal” that he lays at the feet of Mayor Villaraigosa. I’m almost tempted to listen to his show tonight to hear him whine.

    I wouldn’t, however, give Tweety any undo praise here–he’s simply vetting a new wingnut guest to make sure he can handle the bigger stuff, should he be invited back.

    And just what was Tweety’s three days as a redhead about, anyway?

  22. 22.

    Calouste

    May 15, 2008 at 6:52 pm

    The Churchill quote is from June of 1954, but still well taken.

    His own lifetime had seen a ‘progression’ from cavalry charges to Hiroshima, and he was horrified by the prospect of nuclear war. In other words, he was as far from Junta Boy as is humanly possible when it came to armed conflict and its consequences.

    And in his war, he served in the trenches of France, not the whorehouses of Juarez.

    Churchill served somewhere close to the trenches of France, but not too close, 20 or 30 miles back. And he was in London half of the time anyway, because he was still a member of parliament, after having resigned from the cabinet, partially as a result of his invlovement in the planning of the disastrous landings at Gallipoli.

    He was however earlier involved in close fighting in Pakistan and Egypt and was a POW while serving as a war correspondent during the Boer War.

  23. 23.

    Suicidal Zebra

    May 15, 2008 at 6:52 pm

    Controversial statement of the week: Chamberlain has an exceedingly bad reputation and much on the ‘Appeasement’ angle is undeserved. I’ll always feel sorry for the guy, he’s going to continue to be the whipping boy of international conflict politics for generations when it’s highly unlikely that even the much vaunted Churchill would have been able to salvage the position Britain was in at Munich.

    And back to vanilla statements: yeah, this Republican is an idiot and notions of Obama ‘Appeasing’ terrorists (or even Iran) are absurd.

  24. 24.

    linda

    May 15, 2008 at 6:54 pm

    and the truly hysterical point is when kevin, following on mark green’s suggestion to read richard clarke’s book, tells green to watch that dreadful abc production ‘pathway to 9/11’ for a true account of how 9/11 is all clinton’s fault.

    man, that’s entertainment. lol.

  25. 25.

    cleek

    May 15, 2008 at 6:54 pm

    goodbye war:

    Today, about 100 House Republicans refused to vote for more war funding, voting ‘present’. They are trying to hand off the war to the Democrats, but even Democrats were able to increase their ‘no’ vote number on funding from 141 to 149; the bill failed.

  26. 26.

    Bill H

    May 15, 2008 at 6:55 pm

    I happened to be watching when Matthews took the guy apart. The moron at one point did mumble that he didn’t know. I was rolling on the floor. The other guest at one point advised him that when he was in a hole he should stop digging.

  27. 27.

    Ted

    May 15, 2008 at 6:56 pm

    And just what was Tweety’s three days as a redhead about, anyway?

    Blond dye job. It takes a few washings to begin to look more natural. I once dyed my blond hair auburn brown. It looked like fresh copper for a few days before turning into a chocolate color. Like brand new penny copper.

    Of course you know, Tweety actually has gray hair (he’s in his 60s).

  28. 28.

    calipygian

    May 15, 2008 at 6:57 pm

    The guy looks like a typical fratboy, meathead, jock that I’d love to kick in the teeth.

    Date rapes at his college probably dropped 50 percent after he dropped out after freshman year.

  29. 29.

    Chris Johnson

    May 15, 2008 at 6:57 pm

    It’s just nice to see anybody, anybody at all, demanding some accountability. It suggests that just randomly saying inflammatory shit isn’t considered OK anymore, and that you have to be making some sense, better yet knowing something of what you’re talking about.

    I’m gonna watch that second clip again. It’s a nice little journalism lesson that I thought we’d lost for good.

  30. 30.

    nightjar

    May 15, 2008 at 6:58 pm

    This was, without a doubt, the finest hour for Chris Matthews. I take back everything negative I have ever said.

    Saw that and it was terrific. Kevin James uber wingnut gasbag and he folded like a cheap suit. It was also fun to watch when he destroyed Malkin in 2004 on the swiftboat shit

  31. 31.

    Reverend Spooner

    May 15, 2008 at 7:00 pm

    Churchill served somewhere close to the trenches of France, but not too close, 20 or 30 miles back. And he was in London half of the time anyway, because he was still a member of parliament, after having resigned from the cabinet, partially as a result of his invlovement in the planning of the disastrous landings at Gallipoli.

    He did get shelled on several occasions. Supposedly, one time he was staying in a church, and the shell went through his room, into the next room, and didn’t detonate. If memory serves correctly, anyway.

    Gallipoli might’ve worked if it had been carried out vigorously. Same as Anzio in WWII. You don’t land on the beaches and entrench, you get as far inland as possible ASAP. If you can’t carry that out, might as well pull off the beaches on Day 2. No point sticking around for the bloodbath.

  32. 32.

    Wilfred

    May 15, 2008 at 7:02 pm

    You’re reading this wrong. It’s not a mistake but a well-timed shot at Obama’s cred with the Jewish vote, about to be pounded home at the June 2 Aipac love-in where McCain/Lieberman will be featured speakers and the Obama appeaser meme will be pounded home even more. Bush’s handlers know exactly what they’re doing, already gaming Florida for McCain.

    And what, precisely, is the fucking difference between Bush insinuating that Obama is an appeaser and Clinton asserting that McCain is better qualified to be President during ‘wartime’, and her obliterate Iran horseshit? Bush spoke in Israel but his audience was the Israel Firsters in the US; he doesn’t give a shit what any of you think.

  33. 33.

    SamFromUtah

    May 15, 2008 at 7:05 pm

    They get all their talking points from right-wing think tanks composed of actually educated wingnuts, who twist history into whatever narrative they need, and feed the idiots in the Republican ranks just enough information to get themselves into trouble.

    Yup. But the idjits won’t get into trouble if they’re not called on it, like Matthews did to this guy. It’s been rare for that kind of thing to happen, though, in the with-us-or-with-the-terrorists Bush years. I doubt it’ll happen real often still, but nice to see it at least once.

  34. 34.

    montysano

    May 15, 2008 at 7:05 pm

    Tweety was just having some fun. Don’t get your hopes up; he’ll be back in full wanker mode shortly.

    Let me just say how much it pains me to flip past Fox and see Hume, Krauthammer, Kondracke, and……….. Mara Liasson of NPR.

  35. 35.

    ed

    May 15, 2008 at 7:05 pm

    Yeah, Chamberlain got intimidated and let Hitler unilaterally invade another country which posed no threat. What the fuck was up with that?

  36. 36.

    rawshark

    May 15, 2008 at 7:07 pm

    I love how he turns redder and redder and just yells appeaser.

    Just say the buzzwords. It works. The ‘right’ people won’t see Matthews takedown as anything more than a perfect example of the liberal media suppressing and preventing ‘the question from being asked’.

  37. 37.

    Mustard is Evil

    May 15, 2008 at 7:08 pm

    Standard operating procedure for BushCo. Misrepresent the other side of the debate, then affirm your opposition to it. Straw man 101:

    “Some of the debate really centers around the fact that people don’t believe Iraq can be free; that if you’re Muslim, or perhaps brown-skinned, you can’t be self-governing or free. I’d strongly disagree with that.” -Some moron, 2004

  38. 38.

    Chris Johnson

    May 15, 2008 at 7:10 pm

    Well, I hope Tweety understands he can haz moar popularity by this sort of thing- doing (even very minimal) homework and calling these people on their nonsense when they are trying to shout you down and score their meme points.

    Tweety basically denied this guy ‘appeaser’. Directly, bluntly, sometimes at the top of his voice. The guy just wouldn’t shut up and Tweety did not let himself get steamrollered, and good for him.

    Point for the ‘knowing some sort of shit’ side, loss for the ‘we define reality and the meaning of your Earth words’ side.

  39. 39.

    Tsulagi

    May 15, 2008 at 7:11 pm

    Bush’s “appeasement” speech has been discussed in detail everywhere today, and I don’t have a unique take on it other than that he remains true to form- a jackass.

    Pretty much my take too, and hardly unique.

    However, this time he did add a little extra on to his jackassness. Dissing Americans in a foreign country. Guess now he’s our little preppie cheerleader alumni, horse-fearing cowboy version of Hugo Chavez. He’s special like that.

  40. 40.

    Dennis - SGMM

    May 15, 2008 at 7:12 pm

    Seems like only yesterday that the Repubs were having hissy fits about “leaving politics at the water’s edge.” Good to see that the president, whose disapproval rating (71%) now exceeds Nixon’s attacking Obama. McCain’s statement today that “The president is exactly right,” should put him in solid with the voters.

  41. 41.

    Studly Pantload

    May 15, 2008 at 7:13 pm

    I groaned the instant that rightie jock opened his yapper, and wondered why the hell the bookers/producers of Hardball would want to go down the hellish route of Crossfire. Little did I know I was actually about to enter schadenfreude heaven. Even Mrs. Pantload, who has a rather visceral distaste for Tweety, will appreciate this clip when I show it to her.

    Back under your rock, right-wing moron. Let the adults discuss the issues.

  42. 42.

    El Cid

    May 15, 2008 at 7:14 pm

    All of you are avoiding the key question of whether or not Obama should be negotiating with Adolf Hitler to allow him to conquer Masada for the terrrorists.

  43. 43.

    El Cid

    May 15, 2008 at 7:16 pm

    By the way, maybe that really loud, boldly speaking right wing radio host thought that way back then “Appeaser” was a job description, and he thought that was a really bad job to have to work at.

  44. 44.

    Chris Johnson

    May 15, 2008 at 7:16 pm

    ‘cos the thing is, even if you’re watching that little exchange with purely your reptile brain, the way Tweety handled it, the guy looked like a damn fool, and was treated as a damn fool.

    Saying the buzzwords only works if the ‘mediator’ lets you get away with them. If suddenly there’s a whole theme of “WHOA hold on there, what did Chamberlain do that WAS appeasement?” and you can’t answer really basic questions about that, and then your host has to explain to you what YOUR POINT was and why you’re full of shit, well, the buzzword thing just isn’t as effective.

    If Tweety had simply let this clown say, ‘Obama is an appeaser, it’s like letting the Nazis do what they want!’ it would have been different. Instead, we got a little history lesson. I don’t know what was in Tweety’s wheaties, but for God’s sake keep putting it in there. I’m sure he’ll have more opportunities to finally get his own back at these screaming, gibbering loons.

  45. 45.

    Davis X. Machina

    May 15, 2008 at 7:17 pm

    hurchill served somewhere close to the trenches of France, but not too close, 20 or 30 miles back.

    Right up at the front, with the 6th battalion, Royal Scots Fusiliers, in normal trench rotation, including the pointy end, albeit for a limited time, not ‘for the duration’, like the PBI.

  46. 46.

    Jay B.

    May 15, 2008 at 7:17 pm

    That fucking idiot said to Mark Green toward the end of the stupidity something really stupid. In response to Green telling him that he should read Richard Clarke’s book, James screams out “YOU should watch “Path to 9/11”

    The latter is a book written by a longtime national security/intelligence DC fixture who served under Reagan, Bush and Clinton.

    The former was a “based on events” semi-fictional mini-series ABC puked out.

    The reality-based community wins again!

  47. 47.

    Mary

    May 15, 2008 at 7:21 pm

    I think I just felt a thrill up my cerebral cortex.

    But I am ashamed to admit that even though I consider myself fairly well read, I went absolutely blank on Chamberlain as the piece was running. Even though I covered European history in high school and have read my way through all of Orwell’s collected essays, I could only remember something about the Munich Accord, Sudetenland, “Peace in our time”, and Czechoslovakia being betrayed, and that was it. Really, that’s just a level above babbling “Appeasement! Appeaser!”

    So my to-do list for the year now includes:

    1) Read more world history.
    2) Shore up my math (which was already on my to-do list anyway).

    (So please tell me I’m not the only one feeling more ignorant as I get older.)

  48. 48.

    Studly Pantload

    May 15, 2008 at 7:22 pm

    On caveat though – I actually think that Bush’s remarks were more aimed at Jimmy Carter than they were at Obama.

    Either Gregory or Harwood, on Race to the White House, said they got word from reliable reporters that the Bush admin. related on background that the shot was, indeed, at Obama. I think Wilfred at 7:02 has it tagged.

  49. 49.

    D-Chance.

    May 15, 2008 at 7:23 pm

    I love how Obama used the opportunity to throw Hillary’s husband under the bus…

    Hillary (defending Obama): President Bush’s comparison of any Democrat to Nazi appeasers is both offensive and outrageous on the face of it, especially in light of his failures in foreign policy. This is the kind of statement that has no place in any presidential address and certainly to use an important moment like the 60th anniversary celebration of Israel to make a political point seems terribly misplaced. Unfortunately, this is what we’ve come to expect from President Bush.

    Obama (not returning the favor): Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what (Presidents) Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power – including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy – to pressure countries like Iran and Syria.

    Kennedy… Nixon… Reagan… no mention of Clinton while offering POSITIVE examples of foreign policy under Reagan?

    Classy.

  50. 50.

    Dennis - SGMM

    May 15, 2008 at 7:25 pm

    You’d think that any Republican running for office in November is praying that the general election would not be a referendum on the Bush administration. Despite that, Bush injected himself right into general election politics with this speech. I get the feeling that Rove called him up with this insanely great idea and Bush went for it. “Trust me, mister president, my numbers prove that this will work.”
    EPIC FAIL

  51. 51.

    Chris Johnson

    May 15, 2008 at 7:30 pm

    OMG, I totally forgot that “Path to 9/11” was a freakin’ docudrama. That’s hilarious and SO fucked up… if only someone had pointed that out.

    Mary, it’s not just you- I couldn’t have answered Tweety’s question correctly either, though I would have quickly admitted it and been enlightened. Munich could have tipped me off, but no.

    The less we study history the more we’re doomed to repeat it…

  52. 52.

    Studly Pantload

    May 15, 2008 at 7:32 pm

    D-Chance: It’s over. Obama won. We’ve been putting up with enough piss-antery from the Clinton side of the aisle for six months, already. Time to move on. From here on out, you’re either with the right wingers, or you’re again’ ’em.

  53. 53.

    Dreggas

    May 15, 2008 at 7:33 pm

    D-Chance,

    Which one of our “enemies” did Bill Clinton Negotiate with? The North Koreans? Did the North Koreans pose a threat to us? No.

  54. 54.

    Ted

    May 15, 2008 at 7:34 pm

    I agree with the commenter up thread; Bush’s speech was aimed squarely at Jewish voters in the US. They already sensed a weakness Obama has with them, so they took the opportunity to hammer on it.

  55. 55.

    Studly Pantload

    May 15, 2008 at 7:36 pm

    Which one of our “enemies” did Bill Clinton Negotiate with? The North Koreans?

    Well, to hear that right winger radio dude tell it, Clinton was “negotiating” with al Quaeda for eight years.

    Stupidity so thick, you could eat it with a fork. But use a spoon. You’ll want to get every drop (not).

  56. 56.

    ThymeZone

    May 15, 2008 at 7:36 pm

    Son of a bitch. Please give me a second to pick my jaw up off the floor.

    I have been in the front row of Matthews-bashers around here for a long time. I hereby reject and renounce all of that bashing. This was the best 5 minutes of political tv I might have ever seen. This is what punditry is supposed to be.

    Matthews is my hero today.

    That talk show guy is wonderful, I hope he works hard for Mister Magoo’s election in November. Love it.

    OMG.

  57. 57.

    Dennis - SGMM

    May 15, 2008 at 7:36 pm

    D-Chance, it sounded to me as though Clinton was defending Democrats generally. If she meant to defend Obama then wouldn’t she have mentioned him by name?

    As for Obama’s failure to mention Bill Clinton’s major foreign policy breakthroughs, please list them so that we can be outraged too.

  58. 58.

    Ted

    May 15, 2008 at 7:37 pm

    No way to prove it, but $50 says Kevin James had never heard of the Knesset until today.

  59. 59.

    Cruel Jest

    May 15, 2008 at 7:39 pm

    D-Chance:

    Not to be an appeaser or anything, but I think it was more rhetorically important to reference a few republicans to destroy the argument. Particularly St. Reagan. Kennedy? Well, everyone mentions Kennedy. I think it’s in the Constitution.

  60. 60.

    calipygian

    May 15, 2008 at 7:43 pm

    No way to prove it, but $50 says Kevin James had never heard of the Knesset until today.

    No way to prove it, but $50 says Kevin James has to get his mommy to velcro his sneakers for him before he leaves the house.

  61. 61.

    Wilfred

    May 15, 2008 at 7:44 pm

    McCain chimed in with the following:

    Republican John McCain, who has clinched his party’s presidential nomination, did not repeat the word “appeasement” when asked about Bush’s comments as he campaigned in Ohio.
    But he did criticize Obama’s pledge to speak directly to U.S. foes, particularly Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He said Obama needs to explain why he would talk to him.
    “It shows naivete and inexperience and lack of judgment to say that he wants to sit down across the table from an individual who leads a country that says that Israel is a ‘stinking corpse,’ that is dedicated to the extinction of the state of Israel. My question is, what does he want to talk about?” McCain said.

    You’d think McCain was campaigning to be President of Israel – how about talking with the Iranians to stabilize Iraq and get American kids out of harm’s way – if that’s ok with Israel, of course.

    This is the level that American politics has been reduced to – Obama will spend the entire campaign having to deal with this criminal, treasonous shit. Israel first, last, only and always.

  62. 62.

    Studly Pantload

    May 15, 2008 at 7:44 pm

    No way to prove it, but $50 says Kevin James has to get his mommy to velcro his sneakers for him before he leaves the house.

    Yikes — if he still lives with dear ol’ mom, the poor woman must be stone deaf by now.

  63. 63.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    May 15, 2008 at 7:45 pm

    D-Chance, quoting Obama: Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what (Presidents) Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power – including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy – to pressure countries like Iran and Syria.

    I’m pretty sure he didn’t invoke Reagan. He said Truman.

  64. 64.

    Helena Montana

    May 15, 2008 at 7:46 pm

    Finally, FINALLY that overgrown 6 year-old justifies his existence.

  65. 65.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    May 15, 2008 at 7:46 pm

    Wait a minute.. he didn’t say Nixon either. The snippet I heard had him referring to Roosevelt, Kennedy and Truman.

  66. 66.

    Cruel Jest

    May 15, 2008 at 7:46 pm

    Oh, and as for Matthews, bully for him and whatnot, I suppose. He could have been doing this all along. My guess is that he saw Olberman gaining on the backstretch and wants to reposition himself for the new administration. He’s still a dick … today he was erect. How umm … refreshing.

  67. 67.

    Dennis - SGMM

    May 15, 2008 at 7:46 pm

    No way to prove it, but $50 says Kevin James has to get his mommy to velcro his sneakers for him before he leaves the house.

    No way to prove it, but $50 says Kevin James needs to bring along directions back to his front door when he goes out to pick up the newspaper off of his front lawn.

  68. 68.

    Ted

    May 15, 2008 at 7:50 pm

    The sad fact is that Kevin James will not be back on Hardball. Malkin never was after her smackdown. Instead of recognizing the ratings value of these types of guests, if Matthews thinks they’re total idiots, he never has them back.

  69. 69.

    Andrew

    May 15, 2008 at 7:51 pm

    Date rapes at his college probably dropped 50 percent after he dropped out after freshman year.

    Frighteningly likely to be true POTD

  70. 70.

    Ted

    May 15, 2008 at 7:52 pm

    No way to prove it, but $50 says Kevin James needs to bring along directions back to his front door when he goes out to pick up the newspaper off of his front lawn.

    No way to prove it, but $50 says Kevin James has to wear the front door key on a string around his neck when he leaves the house.

  71. 71.

    Dennis - SGMM

    May 15, 2008 at 7:53 pm

    No way to prove it, but $50 says Kevin James couldn’t pour piss out of a boot even if the instructions were printed on the heel.

  72. 72.

    Studly Pantload

    May 15, 2008 at 7:54 pm

    I’m pretty sure he didn’t invoke Reagan. He said Truman.

    Come to think of it, in the clip I heard I seem to recall him mentioning only Roosevelt, Truman & Kennedy.

    But anyway, yeah, D-Chance – empty a fifth, cry yourself to sleep, and then let’s all climb on the train to put an end to eight years of governing as if the Constitution had been replaced by a copy of “Lord of the Flies.”

  73. 73.

    Neal

    May 15, 2008 at 7:54 pm

    I was never a fan of Mathews, but holy shit. I wanted to give him a hug after that one.
    Keep it up, Tweety, we’re going to need a lot more of that in the next few months. Somebody in the MSM has to finally refuse to let these assholes continue to create their own reality.
    I almost want to say he’s one of the good guys now.

  74. 74.

    qwerty42

    May 15, 2008 at 7:55 pm

    …Same as Anzio in WWII. You don’t land on the beaches and entrench, you get as far inland as possible ASAP. If you can’t carry that out, might as well pull off the beaches on Day 2. No point sticking around for the bloodbath….

    I know that has been conventional wisdom for years, but Rick Atkinson in The Day of Battle suggests that Allied forces on the beach were too few and could not have held the hills once the German counterattack began. It was very difficult to hold on as it was, but spread out into the hills, the landing could have been overrun. Really difficult to say; the landing was a clever idea that could not be executed (outflank Monte Cassino). Fortunately, the Allies did learn from that. I should add that at about this time there were the massive attacks by the Red Army along the eastern front – including ending the siege of Leningrad. The Japanese besieged the garrison at Imphal, but were driven from the Gilbert and marshall islands. A lot of very hard fighting.

  75. 75.

    D0n Camillo

    May 15, 2008 at 7:56 pm

    Dissing Americans in a foreign country.

    Remember when Natalie Maines dissed the President in London? The wingnuts practically lost control of all bowel function they were so apoplectic.

  76. 76.

    Studly Pantload

    May 15, 2008 at 8:00 pm

    Remember when Natalie Maines dissed the President in London? The wingnuts practically lost control of all bowel function they were so apoplectic.

    When did they ever have control of it?

  77. 77.

    yet another jeff

    May 15, 2008 at 8:03 pm

    Remember when Natalie Maines dissed the President in London? The wingnuts practically lost control of all bowel function they were so apoplectic.

    Ah yes, back when you were a terrorist for mentioning the emperor’s lack of clothes.

  78. 78.

    D0n Camillo

    May 15, 2008 at 8:04 pm

    When did they ever have control of it?

    Good point now that I think of it.

  79. 79.

    D0n Camillo

    May 15, 2008 at 8:06 pm

    Back when you were a terrorist for mentioning the emperor’s lack of clothes.

    There’s a reason we’re not ready to make nice any more.

  80. 80.

    dr. bloor

    May 15, 2008 at 8:06 pm

    Oh, as if President McFuckup could have answered the question had Matthews asked him.

  81. 81.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    May 15, 2008 at 8:10 pm

    Come to think of it, in the clip I heard I seem to recall him mentioning only Roosevelt, Truman & Kennedy.

    D-Chance is probably lying. Paid Clinton trolls still gotta earn a paycheck no matter how bleak it looks for Her Ladyship.

  82. 82.

    reid

    May 15, 2008 at 8:13 pm

    It’s been several hours since I watched and the senility is peaking for the day, but didn’t Matthews also start to question why so much of our debate revolves around Israel? To add to Wilfred’s point.

  83. 83.

    Steve T.

    May 15, 2008 at 8:16 pm

    Alternative History Lesson: Chamberlain’s cowardice may have saved western civilization. After Munich Hitler told his military brass that the Allies were cowards and he wanted his war NOW. They begged him not to do it as the planned military buildup wasn’t finished. Hitler ignored them, but they were right, they weren’t ready to take on the world. Even so, by the time the war ended, even fighting a survival war on two fronts with us bombing the fucking bejaysus out of them, they had jet fighters up flying combat missions when we had nothing close, and were closing in on an atomic bomb.

    Suppose Chamberlain had faced Hitler down? Suppose he had forced Hitler to wait until the military buildup was finished? Suppose the war had started with Hitler’s unstoppable jet-powered Luftwaffe nuking London, Birmingham, and Liverpool?

    World War II would have been over in about ninety minutes. The thing about the lessons of history is you can never be sure what they’re teaching.

  84. 84.

    Gemina13

    May 15, 2008 at 8:18 pm

    My God. I actually found something to like about Gossamer/Tweety.

  85. 85.

    Ted

    May 15, 2008 at 8:24 pm

    Ok, after watching it a couple times, my favorite part is (rough transcript):

    Matthews: We’re dealing with people who are blank slates in terms of history.

    James: HEY CHRIS, WAIT A MINUTE, WAIT A MINUTE, (screaming)WHADDYA MEAN A BLANK SLATE!?!!

    This interview really was hilarious.

  86. 86.

    Zuzu's Petals

    May 15, 2008 at 8:26 pm

    Matthews – James: Hi-larious !

    I also love when the Air America guy pointed out what Richard Clark, who was THERE, wrote about the GWB administration’s willful blindness, James shouts back that they should watch a FICTIONALIZED TV show instead.

  87. 87.

    Zuzu's Petals

    May 15, 2008 at 8:27 pm

    and the truly hysterical point is when kevin, following on mark green’s suggestion to read richard clarke’s book, tells green to watch that dreadful abc production ‘pathway to 9/11’ for a true account of how 9/11 is all clinton’s fault.

    man, that’s entertainment. lol.

    Beat me to it.

  88. 88.

    cbear

    May 15, 2008 at 8:28 pm

    Date rapes at his college of his college fraternity brothers and campus mascots probably dropped 50 percent after he dropped out after freshman year.

    fixt.

  89. 89.

    Ted

    May 15, 2008 at 8:28 pm

    James shouts back that they should watch a FICTIONALIZED TV show instead.

    They don’t see the difference between fiction and non-fiction.

  90. 90.

    John Cole

    May 15, 2008 at 8:30 pm

    The funniest thing about all of this is that I imagine the Red State servers probably overloaded as they all googled Sudetenland at the same time.

  91. 91.

    vwcat

    May 15, 2008 at 8:32 pm

    It was a thing of beauty to watch Matthews take that big mouth down without trying.
    Like Mark Green said, quit digging yourself deeper in the hole.
    One of the beautiful things I’ve seen is when someone like that conservative talk show host got taken down wow.

  92. 92.

    Ted

    May 15, 2008 at 8:38 pm

    The funniest thing about all of this is that I imagine the Red State servers probably overloaded as they all googled Sudetenland at the same time.

    lolz!

  93. 93.

    r€nato

    May 15, 2008 at 8:39 pm

    The guy looks like a typical fratboy, meathead, jock that I’d love to kick in the teeth.

    Date rapes at his college probably dropped 50 percent after he dropped out after freshman year.

    that’s exactly the comment I was reaching for. Thank you. What an asshole. John, after watching that aren’t you glad all over again that you’re not on that side any longer?

  94. 94.

    TR

    May 15, 2008 at 8:40 pm

    The funniest thing about all of this is that I imagine the Red State servers probably overloaded as they all googled Sudetenland at the same time.

    Nah. They would have all emailed Jonah Goldberg and asked him to post a bleg to the NRO readers so they could learn how to spell Sudetenland. And then they’d go to Google.

  95. 95.

    Jess

    May 15, 2008 at 8:42 pm

    The thing about the lessons of history is you can never be sure what they’re teaching.

    Yep. Excellent point. That’s what makes it so much fun to study–I’ve never understood how people can think history is boring.

  96. 96.

    Andrew

    May 15, 2008 at 8:43 pm

    TR, I was about to post almost the exact same snark.

  97. 97.

    Magnus

    May 15, 2008 at 8:44 pm

    As a Norwegian…

    You really take these people who don’t have the social skills to shut up, and who keep talking over each other, and who have no knowledge of history whatsoever… *seriously*? (Add exclamation points as seems appropriate.)

    *This* is your “pundit class”?

    No wonder you’re up the creek without a paddle and with a half-wit navigator.

  98. 98.

    r€nato

    May 15, 2008 at 8:52 pm

    No wonder you’re up the creek without a paddle and with a half-wit navigator.

    And yet we manage to muddle along somehow as the last superpower standing. Just imagine where we’d be if our culture actually valued intelligence in our political class.

  99. 99.

    Ted

    May 15, 2008 at 8:53 pm

    I’ll have to check the right-wing blogs to see if they’re complaining about Matthews on this. I’d love to know if they think it’s unfair to want a right-wing pundit to understand why they’re defending Bush’s point about Chamberlain.

  100. 100.

    Notorious P.A.T.

    May 15, 2008 at 8:56 pm

    What’s this about Dana Perino not knowing what the Cuban Missle Crisis was? Where can I find a transcript or video of that?

    up the creek with a half-wit navigator

    By “half-wit” you mean Bush, Cheney, and Rice combined, I assume.

  101. 101.

    stickler

    May 15, 2008 at 8:56 pm

    SteveT sort of beat me to it, but anyhoo, upthread was asked:

    Controversial statement of the week: Chamberlain has an exceedingly bad reputation and much on the ‘Appeasement’ angle is undeserved. I’ll always feel sorry for the guy, he’s going to continue to be the whipping boy of international conflict politics for generations when it’s highly unlikely that even the much vaunted Churchill would have been able to salvage the position Britain was in at Munich.

    This is probably correct, most historians now think. Or, at least, it’s correct given what Chamberlain knew at the time. Neither he, nor the British military, realized how weak the Germans really were (especially the Luftwaffe, which had been blaring BS propaganda for two years). Chamberlain probably really believed that he had delivered “peace in our time” by divvying up “a faraway country about which we know nothing.” Obligatory Wiki link here.

    Long story short: Chamberlain was nobody’s fool, and Britain in 1938 was not ready for war. But neither was Germany. Hitler’s generals knew the real situation, Chamberlain didn’t.

    What makes Chamberlain still eligible for asshole status, historically, is the fact that he was one hell of a cynical political son of a bitch. Not just by selling out the Czechs, either: he mobilized the British media and hounded out squishy members of his coalition in Parliament. The more accurate problem with Munich, really, is that Chamberlain was using the accord for domestic political gain. Here’s what he said after he landed at Heathrow bearing a scrap of paper with Hitler’s signature on it:

    “…the settlement of the Czechoslovakian problem, which has now been achieved is, in my view, only the prelude to a larger settlement in which all Europe may find peace. This morning I had another talk with the German Chancellor, Herr Hitler, and here is the paper which bears his name upon it as well as mine (waves paper to the crowd – receiving loud cheers and “Hear Hears”). Some of you, perhaps, have already heard what it contains but I would just like to read it to you …”.

    Then he waves the document in the air and says something about “peace for our time.”

    This is Grade-A public relations. Too bad that he had misjudged Herr Hitler.

  102. 102.

    Chris Johnson

    May 15, 2008 at 9:00 pm

    The fascinating thing is, Chris Matthews is the guy who said,

    “I thought in listening to the president, I was listening to one of the great neoconservative minds who’s worked in this administration, the former deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz, who had lunch with me way before this war began.”

    There have been times when this guy has had to wipe his bottom lip, seriously. He’s fawned over Bush’s “powerful rendition of why we are in Iraq”. So for me the fascinating thing is- what was his breaking point?

    For John, it was Terri Schiavo and torture. Possibly in that order, possibly Schiavo simply set him up to question the Republicans which then left him asking about the torture- and the rest is blog history ;)

    For Tweety- what?

    I’m going to guess that more than anything else, Tweety wants to think of himself as intelligent. His morals are crap compared to John’s (in a sense John’s whole break from the Republicans was 100% over morals) but it personally offends him if he’s treated as a fool.

    He’s happy to convince himself of neoconservative claptrap, but to claim that talking to enemies is Chamberlain-esque appeasement was the breaking point. Tweety snapped, he was like “I know what that word means. Do you? Okay, what did Chamberlain do, in this historical reference you’re trying to push on me? WHAT did he do?”

    And the rest is video-clip history- all because Chris Matthews insists we recognize his knowledge of history. Not morals so much as ego- but the same result.

    If he follows the same pattern as John, what will happen is he’ll have another incident, but it won’t be moral outrage like Olbermann, no- he’ll catch the buggers in another historical error, another manipulation, and his outrage will continue to increase.

    I’m looking forward to watching that. However, I prefer John Cole, Olbermann etc. for being offended for the right reasons. Why accept torture, and then get mad because someone implies Chamberlain ‘talked to’ Nazis, rather than signing away half of Czechoslovakia?

  103. 103.

    Zuzu's Petals

    May 15, 2008 at 9:01 pm

    It’s worthwhile seeing the whole exchange at the MSNBC website:

    MSNBC clip

    Green makes some very good points, including quoting Yitzhak Rabin saying you don’t talk just to your friends, but also to your enemies.

    Added bonus: Matthews signing off by telling James to know what he’s talking about next time he makes a historical reference.

  104. 104.

    w.Thomas Smith Jr

    May 15, 2008 at 9:01 pm

    Hahaha. Best part of the clip was when the blow hard says “… just like with the USS Cole… ” and my brain starts churning just in time for me and Matthews to say – at the same time – “Wasn’t the Cole bombing under Bush”?

    Shit. I was just thinking at Chris Matthews speed. I feel dirty.

    I don’t get it, are you saying you’re not too bright like a tv talking head?
    USS Cole bombing- 0ct 12 2000
    GWBush inauguration-Jan 20 2001

  105. 105.

    Zuzu's Petals

    May 15, 2008 at 9:04 pm

    This is Grade-A public relations. Too bad that he had misjudged Herr Hitler.

    Sort of the “Mission Accomplished” moment of its time, eh?

  106. 106.

    Chris Johnson

    May 15, 2008 at 9:05 pm

    Magnus: it’s established practice for these right wing guys to intentionally talk loudly over the other person and continue to say what they’re saying. it’s NOT lack of social skills, it’s an intentional aggressive move. You’ll notice that when Tweety was shouting the fellow down, he wouldn’t stop. They do that on purpose- if you show any sign of social politeness, you lose the initiative and the guy will cut you off before you can say anything yourself.

    Note I didn’t say this was GOOD. It’s just our Republican, Rushian, Rovian legacy. Learn from it rather than just being astonished, because there will always be conflict and the desire to win an argument, wherever you go.

  107. 107.

    Bob In Pacifica

    May 15, 2008 at 9:14 pm

    Just want to point out that absolutely no mainstream media points out that Prescott Bush was Hitler’s stock broker. You know, a little irony, just to point it out. No one mentioned it.

    Everyone on the internet who cares to google Prescott Bush and Nazi can find fifty articles on it. But no one in the MSM.

    What does that tell you about censorship? On some things it’s absolute.

  108. 108.

    Dennis - SGMM

    May 15, 2008 at 9:19 pm

    No wonder you’re up the creek without a paddle and with a half-wit navigator.

    You’re giving Bush credit for about half a wit more than he has.

  109. 109.

    Cruel Jest

    May 15, 2008 at 9:28 pm

    This came to mind.

  110. 110.

    As My Great Grandmother

    May 15, 2008 at 9:31 pm

    Link to Malkin on Hardball.

  111. 111.

    Conservatively Liberal

    May 15, 2008 at 9:44 pm

    No wonder you’re up the creek without a paddle and with a half-wit fuck-wit navigator.

    Fixed.

    I saw the interview just before the wife and I took the kids to the beach (95 here today, screw riding the motorcycle until tomorrow when it is supposed to be 80 and foggy!). I was wondering why Kevin was yelling, then it occurred to me that his studio probably turns the mic down so he can blather in to it and people might be able to listen to him.

    That or his audience is full of old farts with dead hearing aids.

    I like it when Chris asked him ‘Why are you yelling?’, to which Kevin said something like ‘You get me excited’. The visual I got from that was not pretty.

    I hope Matthews keeps taking his interviewer steroids, it’s helping him. If Olbermann can call out BS he sees in the news, it would be great to have Matthews actually start calling out idiots like this when they go in to talking points overdrive on his show. Call them on the labels that they try to stick on others, and see if they actually know what they are talking about. In this case, it paid in gold.

    I bet $50.00 that Kevin’s mom has to comb his hair, brush his teeth, wash the orange stains off his fingers and face, change his Depends, hang a house key around his neck and pin a note on his suit that says:

    “Please, Do Not Feed The Idiot”

    before she lets him go outside.

  112. 112.

    Reverend Spooner

    May 15, 2008 at 9:45 pm

    I know that has been conventional wisdom for years, but Rick Atkinson in The Day of Battle suggests that Allied forces on the beach were too few and could not have held the hills once the German counterattack began. It was very difficult to hold on as it was, but spread out into the hills, the landing could have been overrun. Really difficult to say; the landing was a clever idea that could not be executed (outflank Monte Cassino).

    Lucas didn’t believe in the operation, which called for a speedy advance on Rome. If he felt he didn’t have enough support to conduct his operation, he shouldn’t have led it. If he chose to lead it, he should’ve conducted it aggressively, not set himself up for the WWII version of Gallipoli. Ultimately, the entire Italian theatre was a cul-de-sac for the Allies. It’s a very defensible peninsula, and the Americans were right to be leery of the entire endeavor. (I just finished reading a biography of Hitler that claims he was extremely cynical of the affair; he allegedly criticized the cowardice of the Allies for landing in southern Italy, saying, “If I were Churchill, I would’ve landed in Genoa, or Hamburg, and caused us some real trouble.” Not that Hitler’s standard of strategic acumen counts for much, but still, it’s an interesting anecdote.)

    Fortunately, the Allies did learn from that. I should add that at about this time there were the massive attacks by the Red Army along the eastern front – including ending the siege of Leningrad.

    8 of every 10 Germans who died in WWII died on the Russian Front. That about sums up the essentially sideshow quality of Italy right there. Landing in France was important for post-war strategic purposes, though.

    The Japanese besieged the garrison at Imphal, but were driven from the Gilbert and marshall islands. A lot of very hard fighting.

    America was an amazingly powerful country. We single-handedly defeated the Japanese (India-Burma was a pretty small facet of the Pacific Theatre, and even China wasn’t all that hard for the Japanese to overrun), and still contributed incredible amounts of materiel to the British and Soviets. (It’s hard to imagine the Soviets advancing as quickly as they did without Ford trucks supplying them, especially with the scorched earth the Fascists left them as they advanced across the Ukraine.)

  113. 113.

    jenniebee

    May 15, 2008 at 9:48 pm

    Can you imagine where that would have gone if the question had actually gone past what Chamberlain did to what the strategic significance was of the Czech anschlauss?

    It’s too fucking bad we can’t shut off all of Red State’s ability to post or comment until they submit essays on either the Skoda Works or a compare and contrast between Joe Lieberman and Ramsay McDonald.

  114. 114.

    crw

    May 15, 2008 at 9:48 pm

    Too bad that he had misjudged Herr Hitler.

    I wonder if ol’ Neville looked Hitler in the eye, and got a sense of his soul?

  115. 115.

    Studly Pantload

    May 15, 2008 at 9:54 pm

    Suppose Chamberlain had faced Hitler down? Suppose he had forced Hitler to wait until the military buildup was finished? Suppose the war had started with Hitler’s unstoppable jet-powered Luftwaffe nuking London, Birmingham, and Liverpool?

    Actually, the Nazis gave up going big time on developing the bomb. In fact, I’d submit that no matter what Chamberlain and Hitler had done or not done, the writing was on the wall w/r/t the outcome (at least, on the Western front) on December 8, 1941. Discuss.

  116. 116.

    Studly Pantload

    May 15, 2008 at 10:05 pm

    Landing in France was important for post-war strategic purposes, though.

    Ironical that Stalin was aggitating for the invasion, all things considered, ain’t it?

  117. 117.

    Suicidal Zebra

    May 15, 2008 at 10:14 pm

    Stickler, it’s a tough call. You’re quite right in that the British political classes tended to overestimate the military capabilities of the Germans (Nazi testing successes in the Spanish Civil War at the time notwithstanding) but we do tend to forget the state of the British Military at the time, which was largely still of WWI-era in terms of training, tactics and technology. Non-maritime technological development dried up in the inter-war years at a time when the German Army was ratcheting up operations and aggressively developing new technologies, and it is worth noting that at the same time as the ‘Peace in our time’ speech new investments in especially the RAF were being made, indicating that perhaps he really was just playing for time. In that light the speech could be seen as piece of misinformative propaganda directed at Germany as much as a salve for his own political woes at home. It seems that his judgement of the relative strength of British forces in 1938-40 was correct after the debacles of the expeditionary forces in 1940.

    That said, there can be no doubt that he most certainly was a political whoreson, and a pretty cold bastard for signing away half of Czechoslovakia no matter how he calculated the odds.

    My contention in discussions of Chamberlain is pretty much the same as reservations I have over denunciations of Truman for nuking Hiroshima. We’re making judgements 60/70 years on with more information on the enemy than either ever had access to, and details of their own actions come out slowly and without much fanfare as the records are unsealed. As such the condemnation of both is perhaps a trifle harsh, but I do acknowledge that the evidence in support of the view counter to accepted opinion is circumstantial at best.

  118. 118.

    Suicidal Zebra

    May 15, 2008 at 10:29 pm

    Studly Pantload:

    Actually, the Nazis gave up going big time on developing the bomb. In fact, I’d submit that no matter what Chamberlain and Hitler had done or not done, the writing was on the wall w/r/t the outcome (at least, on the Western front) on December 8, 1941. Discuss.

    I’ve got a feeling that when it comes to the War in Europe, Operation Barbarossa and aborted attempts at invading the British Isles were each at least as important as Pearl Harbour, even supposing that the US would have declared war on Germany if Germany hadn’t done it first. But then, that’s a very Euro-centric view.

  119. 119.

    Zifnab

    May 15, 2008 at 10:31 pm

    There have been times when this guy has had to wipe his bottom lip, seriously. He’s fawned over Bush’s “powerful rendition of why we are in Iraq”. So for me the fascinating thing is- what was his breaking point?

    For John, it was Terri Schiavo and torture. Possibly in that order, possibly Schiavo simply set him up to question the Republicans which then left him asking about the torture- and the rest is blog history ;)

    For Tweety- what?

    Tweety is one of the “kool kids” of the media word. He has to keep up with what is fashionable. Turns out, fawning over Bush is no longer fashionable and the guy is generally considered a giant loser. Ergo, Matthews loses his hard-on like he probably lost his virginity – quietly and in a way he hopes no one would notice – before moving on to another man to fawn over.

    All that said, Chris has a very low level of tolerance for people who are dumber than even himself. So… :p

  120. 120.

    Andrew

    May 15, 2008 at 11:32 pm

    Actually, the Nazis gave up going big time on developing the bomb. In fact, I’d submit that no matter what Chamberlain and Hitler had done or not done, the writing was on the wall w/r/t the outcome (at least, on the Western front) on December 8, 1941. Discuss.

    Nothing was decided on the Western front except for details.

  121. 121.

    Xenos

    May 15, 2008 at 11:37 pm

    I don’t get it, are you saying you’re not too bright like a tv talking head?
    USS Cole bombing- 0ct 12 2000
    GWBush inauguration-Jan 20 2001

    You are not too bright, because the issue here is a little more complicated than you realize.

    Clinton was responsible for the policy that had the USS Cole refueling in that port, which, in hindsight, was a foolish risk given the limited diplomatic value that was to be gained in return for leaving a ship vulnerable to this sort of attack. While the rules of engagement were followed, they did not allow the crew to shoot on the boat in time — Clinton bears political responsibility for that, of course, even though the rules decisions were made far below his pay grade.

    The political issue regards the response. Not being a complete cretin, Clinton was not going to respond until the FBI & CIA submitted a report identifying who did it. That report was not released until January 25, 2001, four days after G.W.Bush was inaugurated.

    What was G. W. Bush’s response? Jack shit. He sent Ashcroft out on a war on pornography, and dicked around on his ranch while the nation was left suffer the ‘summer of the shark’ and the saga of the missing fucking Congressional intern for three mind-numbing months.

    Then, whooops, Hey! There is a war goin’ on! Who-da-fucking-thunk?!

  122. 122.

    w.Thomas Smith Jr

    May 15, 2008 at 11:53 pm

    Nope, still don’t get it.
    So you agree that the the Cole bombing wasn’t under Bush?

    But that Zinfab and Matthews can be forgiving for thinking that is was because of Ashcroft? Or something like that?

  123. 123.

    Xenos

    May 16, 2008 at 12:08 am

    The Cole bombing was not under Bush. The utter failure to respond to it was, however, and that is the significant sin.

    Hell, I even remember that election season that there were promises that Bush/Cheney would get to the bottom of the Khobar Towers bombing, too. Aw forget it, who cares? Did not really matter much to our national security, right?

  124. 124.

    Studly Pantload

    May 16, 2008 at 12:24 am

    Andrew sez:

    Nothing was decided on the Western front except for details.

    You sayin the Nazi regime wouldve fallen, Western Europe an all, regardless of whether the US became an active belligerent in the conflict? Splain yerself!

  125. 125.

    Andrew

    May 16, 2008 at 12:39 am

    You sayin the Nazi regime wouldve fallen, Western Europe an all, regardless of whether the US became an active belligerent in the conflict?

    Probably, maybe?

    The Eastern front was more than an order of magnitude greater, maybe two, in almost every respect than the western: troops, casualties, costs.

    On the flip side, if Hitler had sued for peace with Russia, he probably would have easily retained control over western Europe.

    But yeah, Hitler’s push into Russia and the Russian counter attack was the fatal move for the Nazis. Even if the U.S. had not entered the war in Europe, the Soviets would probably (95% chance?) defeated Hitler and taken the whole of continental Europe by, say, 1946 or 1947.

  126. 126.

    Studly Pantload

    May 16, 2008 at 12:58 am

    On the flip side, if Hitler had sued for peace with Russia, he probably would have easily retained control over western Europe.

    Now, there’s an interesting idea: The cold war of the latter half of the 20th century being between Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany, America playing the sideline observer(?).

    Ah, well, likely only ever to be a thought exercise, no matter the universe, considering Japan’s limited options in the face of American resistance to the Japanese expansion into Asia and the South Pacific, eh?

  127. 127.

    josephdietrich

    May 16, 2008 at 1:45 am

    Given how things played out, it is highly unlikely that Hitler would have sued for peace with Russia, or that Stalin would have accepted any such suit.

  128. 128.

    w.Thomas Smith Jr

    May 16, 2008 at 2:46 am

    Xenos Says:
    The Cole bombing was not under Bush. …
    Aw forget it, who cares?

    Exactly, stupid argument, sorry i brought it up.
    The video clip is hilarious, it just keeps on giving, blowdried t-head baffoon spends 4 minutes berating silly loudmouth blowhole for his ignorance of pre-WW2 history only to admit that he is ignorant of more recent history. Blog commentators go all “Yeah that’s another zing”, further blog commentators spin like grateful dead hippies…
    Look I’m sorry I brought it up, but for a person like me who enjoys watching people make loud public twats of themselves, this is a win win win win situation.

  129. 129.

    w.Thomas Smith Jr

    May 16, 2008 at 2:59 am

    But yeah, Hitler’s push into Russia and the Russian counter attack was the fatal move for the Nazis.

    Duh.
    Hey, when you get a chance, could you guys discuss the Sherman Tank “Death trap” issue? In detail?
    And i don’t think the ‘Truman dropped the bomb to save lives or to impress the Soviet Union?’ question has been discussed nearly enough.

  130. 130.

    OriGuy

    May 16, 2008 at 3:02 am

    The Japanese besieged the garrison at Imphal, but were driven from the Gilbert and marshall islands. A lot of very hard fighting.

    It’s often overlooked that the islanders did a lot of the fighting. The Americans would have had a lot harder time of it without their help.

  131. 131.

    w.Thomas Smith Jr

    May 16, 2008 at 3:10 am

    It’s often overlooked that the islanders did a lot of the fighting. The Americans would have had a lot harder time of it without their help.

    Oh good, I knew we’d eventually get into the Pacific war. So much more interesting than that European stuff. Now we can argue about cultures we don’t understand.

  132. 132.

    Reverend Spooner

    May 16, 2008 at 4:45 am

    Ironical that Stalin was aggitating for the invasion, all things considered, ain’t it?

    Well, in 1942, it really would’ve helped him. Even in 1943, Italy helped him a bit by getting Kursk called off. By 1944, he didn’t need much help.

    Then again, we didn’t need his help in Manchuria, either. If he hadn’t gone in there, China might not have gone to Mao, and we probably never would’ve had to fight the Korean war or divvy up the country.

  133. 133.

    w.Thomas Smith Jr

    May 16, 2008 at 5:01 am

    Well, in 1942, it really would’ve helped him. Even in 1943, Italy helped him a bit by getting Kursk called off. By 1944, he didn’t need much help.

    Then again, we didn’t need his help in Manchuria, either. If he hadn’t gone in there, China might not have gone to Mao, and we probably never would’ve had to fight the Korean war or divvy up the country.

    Gaddam, didn’t you retards argue all this stuff out back in 1995 on usenet?
    Say, how do you all feel about nuking wva?
    Personally, I’m all for it.
    YMMV

  134. 134.

    dslak

    May 16, 2008 at 5:20 am

    Don’t mention the war; it upsets the troll.

  135. 135.

    Paul

    May 16, 2008 at 6:20 am

    Studly Pantload Says:

    On the flip side, if Hitler had sued for peace with Russia, he probably would have easily retained control over western Europe.

    Now, there’s an interesting idea: The cold war of the latter half of the 20th century being between Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany, America playing the sideline observer(?).

    There is a Harry Turtledove AH short story where Nazi Germany AND Soviet Russia both survive. The point of divergence is that Hitler gets assassinated sometime in 1943, and Germany strikes a deal for peace with Stalin, and Normandy thus fails.

    It was an uncomfortable world and an uncomfortable story. (The actual plot, timely enough, about oil reserves…)

  136. 136.

    tm

    May 16, 2008 at 7:34 am

    There is a Harry Turtledove AH short story where Nazi Germany AND Soviet Russia both survive. The point of divergence is that Hitler gets assassinated sometime in 1943, and Germany strikes a deal for peace with Stalin, and Normandy thus fails.

    Can’t remember the author, but remember reading a story back a couple of years ago where Castro shaves of his beard and smuggles himself into the US and goes fishing.
    Not that good a book as i recall, but the concept, shaving off your beard and disappearing, was kinda cool.

  137. 137.

    Tony J

    May 16, 2008 at 10:36 am

    Suppose Chamberlain had faced Hitler down? Suppose he had forced Hitler to wait until the military buildup was finished? Suppose the war had started with Hitler’s unstoppable jet-powered Luftwaffe nuking London, Birmingham, and Liverpool?

    There was zero chance that Hitler was going to let 1938 go by without taking the Sudaetenland. He made it clear to his Generals that he either got what he wanted at the negotiation table (which is what happened) or he’d send in the Wehrmacht.

    So if Chamberlain had, for whatever reason, decided to tell Hitler to go screw himself, Czechoslovakia would still have fallen, but at the cost of smashing up the German military machine and putting a bullet in the head of Hitler’s economic plans, while at the same time ensuring that the Western Allies went onto a war-footing a year early.

    Bottom line – Germany enters 1939 bankrupt, sans the bulk of her carefully hoarded front-line divisions, and surrounded on all sides by enemies convinced that Hitler simply couldn’t be trusted and had to go.

  138. 138.

    Steve T.

    May 16, 2008 at 11:37 am

    Gosh it’s fun to argue over questions that can never really be resolved. It brings a certain purity to the exercise. But this:

    …I’d submit that no matter what Chamberlain and Hitler had done or not done, the writing was on the wall w/r/t the outcome (at least, on the Western front) on December 8, 1941.

    This is definitely true. Churchill has written that the moment he first truly believed that England would survive was when he heard the Americans were coming in, and that that night he went to bed and “slept the sleep of the saved.”

  139. 139.

    Reverend Spooner

    May 16, 2008 at 6:32 pm

    Gaddam, didn’t you retards argue all this stuff out back in 1995 on usenet?
    Say, how do you all feel about nuking wva?
    Personally, I’m all for it.
    YMMV

    Eat a turd, assbrush. Straight out of the toilet bowl you call home.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

Recent Comments

  • laura on Tuesday Evening Open Thread: Elizabeth Holmes Has Started Her Prison Sentence (May 30, 2023 @ 9:20pm)
  • Alison Rose on Tuesday Evening Open Thread: Elizabeth Holmes Has Started Her Prison Sentence (May 30, 2023 @ 9:19pm)
  • WaterGirl on Tuesday Evening Open Thread: Elizabeth Holmes Has Started Her Prison Sentence (May 30, 2023 @ 9:18pm)
  • H.E.Wolf on Tuesday Evening Open Thread: Elizabeth Holmes Has Started Her Prison Sentence (May 30, 2023 @ 9:18pm)
  • Sebastian on Tuesday Evening Open Thread: Elizabeth Holmes Has Started Her Prison Sentence (May 30, 2023 @ 9:18pm)

Balloon Juice Meetups!

All Meetups
Seattle Meetup on Sat 5/13 at 5pm!

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Fundraising 2023-24

Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
We All Need A Little Kindness
Classified Documents: A Primer
State & Local Elections Discussion

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Twitter / Spoutible

Balloon Juice (Spoutible)
WaterGirl (Spoutible)
TaMara (Spoutible)
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
TaMara
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
ActualCitizensUnited

Join the Fight!

Join the Fight Signup Form
All Join the Fight Posts

Balloon Juice Events

5/14  The Apocalypse
5/20  Home Away from Home
5/29  We’re Back, Baby
7/21  Merging!

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2023 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!