Mark Steyn on Bush’s speech, and Obama’s reaction to the speech

‘Nuff said!

7 Responses to "Mark Steyn on Bush’s speech, and Obama’s reaction to the speech"

Lorica says:

May 17, 2008 at 8:43 pm

Obviously, there are items on the agenda that the free world can never concede on â€“ “President Clinton’s immoral acts” â€“ but who’s to say most of the rest isn’t worth chewing over?

This is perfect!! How are you suppose to “negotiate” Clinton’s adultry?? Perhaps Bill could promise Bin Ladin that he will never have another affair on Hillary. Perhaps tomorrow I will capture a leperchaun and it will show me where the pot of gold is. – Lorica
Tom TB says:

May 18, 2008 at 10:27 am

Obama is showing himself to be a thin-skinned egotist who thinks the world revolves around him. It’s great that it’s so easy to get a rise out of this inexperienced politician; there’s many a slip to yet be made, and it’s not even summer yet!
Mwalimu Daudi says:

May 18, 2008 at 11:36 am

An interesting Weekly Standard article:

Seattle Times Preaches Appeasement, And Practices It Too

There is something downright surreal about the following passage from the Seattle Times:

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

Amazing. It would seem that Seattle Times writer Bruce Ramsey had never heard of a little dustup between Germany and the civilized world. In World War II (believe it or not) people actually got killed.

In the last century we have witnessed two major acts of appeasment. Chamberlain thought he could talk Hitler out of his midlife crisis by giving him chunks of Europe. The Democrat-controlled Congress tossed the people of Southeast Asia under the bus. Chamberlain at least showed remorse for his actions and spent his final days helping to fight Nazi Germany. Have Democrats ever apologized for the genocide they helped to unleash when they ended aid to the government of South Vietnam?
Steve Skubinna says:

May 18, 2008 at 12:16 pm

MD, you are quoting from the piece that Ramsay edited, after the initial outrage. Believe me, it was far more egregious at first. Had only Hitler the foresight to have insulted George W. Bsuh he’d be a leftist icon today, a hero to the Dems. Adolph shirts would swamp Che shirts.

At least once a week, a major media outlet makes me wish I subscribed to them, just so I could cancel.
Mwalimu Daudi says:

May 18, 2008 at 12:59 pm

True, Steve, but the first piece was more honest if nothing else. It was the sort of propaganda that reminded me of the hapless American Bund. As such, it’s transparent crudeness detracted from its effectiveness.

The latter “correction” by Ramsey is far more common in American politics – and more dangerous. To make a truly effective and terrible lie it should have a single grain of truth at its center. The truth was this: we did not have the horror of WW II as a reference back in 1938.

But that leaves Ramsey and the Messiah with no escape hatch. Knowing what happened after Munich, how can they willingly repeat history? Both are perfectly well aware that appeasement can lead to catastrophe. They just don’t care. Their arrogance feed their ignorance – after all how dare mere mortals disagree with He Whose Middle Name Must Not Be Mentioned? Besides, if there is a disaster during the Obama Administration the alibi will be that it is all somehow Bush’s fault. Bank on it.

We don’t hear much about the American Bund these days, and it’s not hard to see why. The parallels between the Bund and Code Pink, the Democrat Party, the MSM and other leftist organizations are obvious. I doubt that many in these groups are closet Islamists. But they have made common cause with Islamofascists, and it’s not comforting that our self-annointed moral and intellectual betters don’t actually want to see the USA turned into an Islamist caliph. For now Islamic terrorism is useful for leftists, and they will protect and encourage the terrorists no matter the cost. Leftists generally overestimate their intelligence and ability, and this is no exception. In any battle between Islamists and leftists the Islamists will win easily.

That is why I chose the “corrected” quote rather than the original. The first tell us nothing new (except the degree to which anti-Semitism has crept into modern media). The second represents the “human face” of the modern Democrat Party, and I consider the second more dangerous than the first.
Baklava says:

May 18, 2008 at 6:38 pm

Obama SHOWS his weakness.

Go McCain!

or… .be a gentleman and let him win……………………………………..
Steve Skubinna says:

May 18, 2008 at 9:38 pm

MD, since 9/11 I have considered CAIR to be the modern day American Bund. The difference is that the latter was busted once we were at war.

Anyway, I had something of an argument with an old friend concerning that odious bit of filth Ramsay last night – his take was Ramsay was simply being stupid. Mine was that Ramsay knows damn well what he was saying, he didn’t “misspeak” or was casual in his wording, he said precisely what he meant. Today during my morning constitutional I thought more on the topic and reached the following conclusions.

First, you get no points for championing freedom and individual liberty in one of the Western democracies. It’s much like boldly declaiming that water is wet and that it quenches your thirst. Big deal.

But if you move in the circles Ramsay does, you say, in effect, that Hitler wasn’t that bad, and after the initial gasps of astonishment (in themselves worth making the statement for) people will admire your boldness and your guts to challenge received wisdom. You will be lauded as somebody unbound by preconceived ideas, and fearless in exploring where they lead. And in Ramsay’s circles I think it’s a safe bet that there is no concept beyond the pale, other than perhaps that some Republicans are intelligent, honest people with whom one may disagree on policy matters.

And here’s the kicker: suppose that the US is overtaken by a totalitarian government. Who’s going to be in worse shape, a guy such as myself who has loudly championed freedom, or a known toady like Ramsay who will gladly serve his new masters without qualm?

It’s a sort of Pascal’s Wager. This waste of skin wins either way.

Comments are closed.