What the hell happened to Dennis Miller? When did he go from a guy that could rage against the machine to being part #3498584500228482111-GH in said machine?
He's not even making sense in his analogies now. Comparing Howard Dean to Neville Chamberlin? Nevermind that Chamberlin's policy probably had a lot to do with Germany ultimately being defeated. But Iraq was nothing like 1930's Germany. It's stupid on it's face. But he still said it. Maybe he was just playing to the crowd at a Bush fundraiser.
Posted by danisaacs at June 30, 2003 12:20 PM | TrackBackHe's a liberal who now has a clue? ;-)
Posted by: Brian on June 30, 2003 12:24 PMWhat clue? His angle is now "Hollywood is stupid". Well, no shit. But perpetuating the idea that a) Dean's position is the same as Chamberlin's and b) implying that Neville was wrong, are both things that fail to survive basic investigation.
He was never a liberal. He's always been staunchly libertarian. And there is no Administration that has posed a greater threat to libertarian ideas than the one he's now supporting.
Posted by: Disappointed Dan on June 30, 2003 03:41 PMUmm, hate to disagree with you, but Neville WAS wrong. He thought giving Hitler Czechoslovokia would appease him and that he wouldn't try to take over the rest of Europe. WRONG. All it did was give Hitler time to build his forces further. But that's another debate.
I will say it's a stretch to get from Dean to Neville, but of course he's there to rail on the opponents, not defend them :-)
Posted by: Brian on June 30, 2003 05:00 PMGermany would have crushed any combination of the US/GB/and France when GB decided to give a little. If he had chosen war, he would have lost. The time he gained allowed greater defenses to be developed, and ultimately led to Germany's defeat.
And don't act like you hate disagreeing with me. You love it as much as I do. :)
Posted by: Appeasingly Dan Isaacs on June 30, 2003 07:56 PMAnd don't act like you hate disagreeing with me. You love it as much as I do.
Yup, you got me on that one. :-)
Neville didn't come back from Munich thinking "OK, I've held of Adolf off for a few months." He came back thinking that he had secured peace for Europe.
Posted by: Brian on July 1, 2003 12:18 PMMy contention is not that Neville knew he was doing the best thing. It was that in spite of whatever his intentions were, the result was a better outcome than they probably would have had if they'd chosen War.
And the analogy is simply a baseless one. Saddam was not Hitler. Iraq was not trying to dominate it's continent. And nobody (outside of a French cafe) thought we should "appease" saddam. People that were against military invasion weren't calling for him to be left alone. They were insisting that weapons inspections should continue, and that there was no basis for attacking them.
And so far, they have not been shown to be mistaken.
Posted by: Arguably Dan on July 2, 2003 01:37 PMUmm...I wasn't the one who brought up Neville. It was our darling boy Dan who did that (actually Mr. Miller, but I'll hold off on that for now)! :-)
And speaking of "Know-It-All-Attitude", maybe you should re-read the comments again.
The funny thing is that the same arguments that are used against George Bush (dumb, power-hungry) were the same arguments used when Ronald Reagan was in office.
Posted by: Brian on July 7, 2003 09:35 AMWho is making those statements against Bush? And how is that relevant to this thread?
Name-calling is not an argument. Idiot. :P
Posted by: Know-Most-Of-It on July 7, 2003 10:02 AM