Will John McCain denounce Bush's Jerusalem 'appeasement' statement before May 20?

Interested in a Laugh?
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/05/15/kevin-james-appeaser/

Neville Chamberlain;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Chamberlain

Another great question!

Likely particular comments in question:

"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along."

"We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is - the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

- George W. Bush (15 May 2008)

Author: Please correct above characterization if wrong.

At great risk of friendly annoyance to those of differing considerations, I must say, I LMAO big time when I read, in particular, the statement: "as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along."

Que charisma, baby!

I am not a huge fan of Bush, but I must say, RIGH ON BUSH! GOOD JOB MAN!!! ... I support Israel and their plight against these whack jobs who can't keep their hands to themselves, always throwing nades and crap at Jewish settlements, by all means, blast Hamas straight into hell!!!!!!!

lucidstates -

I love the humor and you are right on with the "whack jobs who can't keep their hands to themselves" comment!!! Isn't that what it's all about? I remember a comedian once (I can't recall who it was) describing the plight of violent criminals. He said something to the effect of "In grade school they tell you to keep your hands to yourselves. Later on, if you don't listen, they send you to a place where NOBODY can keep their hands to themselves".

Considering the chaos he has created he should not be discouraging diplomacy.

Nancy Peloski said it right when she said he has shamed the office of the president by talking about American politics on a foreign trip.

I don`t think he even understands what he was saying.

Suggesting that communication is appeasement is a bit of a stretch in my opinion.

As an outsider looking in it is beyond my comprehension how people were eager to impeach Clinton for misleading the public about a blow job but hardly anyone has suggested Bush should suffer the same for misleading the world for matters that have destroyed the lives of millions of people.

Bush breaks rules, even unwritten rules. He sure is doin' his father real proud!

At a Presidential level, sitting down with these people would result in the same propaganda that spewed forth when Carter met with Hamas or Nancy Pelosi's junket to Syria. Unhappily for Democrats, Bush is still president, and it remains his job to quarterback American foreign policy. In making a foreign policy speech in Israel, it is wholly appropriate, indeed necessary, for him to make his strongest case in support of his policies. In making his case to stand tough against terrorists -- a case he has been making without interruption since 9/11, during and in between election cycles -- it is perfectly logical and essential for him to mention -- and refute -- the opposition party's criticisms of his policy.Bush was wearing his presidential cap in Israel and was stumping not for John McCain, but for the United States of America. It's too bad, but understandable, that Democrats so often find themselves on the wrong side of our national interests. President Bush was acting abundantly presidential and in furtherance of our national interests when assuring Israel and warning Iran that we will stand by our closest Middle Eastern ally. If I were President Bush and Democrats accused me of labeling them as appeasers, I'd say: "Guilty as charged. And I'm just getting warmed up. And I fully expect John McCain to follow my lead. Let's have this debate out in the open. Nothing is more important to America's future." - David Limbaugh Friday, May 16, 2008
I couldn't have said it better, myself.

mork- Clinton wasn't impeached for a "blow-job"...rather, lying under oath to a Federal grand jury.

Clinton wasn`t impeached...but I know what you mean.

mork...respectfully, you really need to brush up on your U.S. history: Clinton was the second U.S. president to be impeached by the House of Representatives. http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/bc42.html

I guess my concern is better expressed if I say I am surprised that Clinton had to go in front of a grand jury regarding his personal life and Bush hasn`t had to answer for the problems of his presidency.

Thanks for the link Erik. I stand corrected.
This is why I like hubdub.
I learn something new everyday.

no worries mork..many are confused by the term, "impeachment." It's not a conviction...rather, similar to an indictment. It must originate in the House of Representatives (Article I Section 2 U.S. Constitution). The trial is in the Senate. In this case, he was aquitted. The standing argument that his mis-deeds did not rise to "High crimes and misdemeanors" as noted in Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution.

You have correctly identified my confusion Erik.

The current campaign for presidency, although becoming tiresome to watch, has been interesting to follow. I think it is the diversity of the characters involved, the closeness of the race and the strong desire for a new president which has made it interesting for me. I still know little about the American system but far more than before this campaign.

Some of the things I have learned:
- the superdelegate policies of the democratic party. (seems a little undemocratic to me)
- McCains history as a POW (surprised how he stated his hatred toward his captors race...although understandable after an experience like that)
- Hillary has less class than I thought
- Obama seems genuine and speaks in a powerful manner at times reminding me of JFK. (Hopefully his installations of change will not cause strife by being implemented too rapidly)

Indeed mork...
-The Democrat parties' super-delegates and their division of states' delegates (as opposed to winner take all) has me confuzzled.
McCain has quite a history indeed. Although a bit too politically liberal for my blood.
-Hillary...well, what can I say. With the Clintons, it seems that it's always about the Clintons.
-Obama scares me. He's a great orator, obviously he's been studying Kennedy as well as Reagan. Extremely inexperienced, however. Looking at his record in the Illinois legislature and the U.S. Senate, hesitant to take a stand on anything controversial(many votes as "present") and seemingly quite willing to do/be whatever is necessary to climb up that ladder. I don't know what his platform would be. He says change but, just what does that mean?

That's what I love about U.S. Politics...the fun hasn't even begun!

You do mean the Democratic party do you not Erik?

This comment doesn't strike me as being aimed at Obama at all. It's just a bit of common sense that is going to be especially appreciated by an Isreali audience that Obama is offended by because it shows what a fool he is.

The president of the united states can not sit down and negotiate with a group such as Hamas, they are terrorists and thats it. By sitting down and talking with them you are saying that they have some right to make demands, and they simply don't. If they want to have peaceful talks they need to stop shooting rockets at civilians for awhile. Obama wants to talk with them because for some reason he thinks he can fix the middle east!

Let him try if he wants, some people need to fail to learn what their limitations are. The way he has come out of no where and is now the (presumptive) presidential nominee of a major party it is likely he thinks he can do anything he wants right about now.

@ ironman288republican
ummm, we never said sit down with them over tea... we are saying have OUR people sit down, if even over the phone, and talk to THEIR people... as far as someone "thinking they can do something" they all claim to BE doing something... Obama is the one saying he wants to at least try... sorry republicironman, you lose.

"We knew that Bush is the enemy of God, the enemy of Islam and Muslims. America declared war against God. Sharon declared war against God, and God declared war against America, Bush and Sharon."
(Hamas leader Dr. Abdel Aziz Rantisi (killed in April 2004) at a rally in Gaza, March 28, 2004, AP)

''She [first Hamas woman suicide bomber] is not going to be the last because the march of resistance will continue until the Islamic flag is raised, not only over the minarets of Jerusalem, but over the whole universe.''
(Hamas leader, Mahmoud Zahar, at funeral of Reem Raiyshi, who murdered 4 people, January 15, 2004, AP)

"We should lend punches to the Jews wherever possible [to commemorate Muhammad's defeat of one of the Jewish tribes of Arabia]."
(Hamas communiqué, September 8, 1988, translated and distributed in the U.S. by the Islamic Association for Palestine)

"We want art that is on the offensive. Art on the offensive exalts and defends the noble principles, and attacks principles that are corrupt, vulgar, ungodly, and inhuman.

"Art reaches perfection when it portrays the best life and best death. After all, art tells you how to live. That is the essence of art. Is there art that is more beautiful, more divine, and more eternal than the art of martyrdom? A nation with martyrdom knows no captivity. Those who wish to undermine this principle undermine the foundations of our independence and national security. They undermine the foundation of our eternity.

"The message of the [Islamic] Revolution is global, and is not restricted to a specific place or time. It is a human message, and it will move forward.

"Have no doubt... Allah willing, Islam will conquer what? It will conquer all the mountain tops of the world."
Ahmadi-Nejad

Ummmm, michael...that's not quite correct. Obama said he, personally would have a talk (I don't know if he drinks tea):
At A July 2007 Debate, Obama Didn't Hesitate To Announce He Would Personally Meet With The Leaders Of Iran, North Korea, Syria And Others. Question: "[W]ould you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?
Obama: "I would. And t he reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration - is ridiculous." (Sen. Barack Obama, CNN/YouTube Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Charleston, SC, 7/23/07)

well theonecalledmicheal, i don't see what it is that i "lose". It's not my fault that negotiating with terrorists is something that happens to be favored by democrats! People that shoot rockets at civilians shouldn't be negotiated with, or talked to over tea, or called on the phone or whatever it is you want to pretend your democrat idols do. Pelosi and Carter both went in person, and that is what Obama intends to do as well.

fingers_of_fury has provided you with quotes from Hamas, in case you were not familiar with them. We are not talking about girl scouts here! There is hardly anyone on the planet that does not consider them to be a terrorist regime, and yet Obama wants to chat? as McCain asks, what does he want to talk about?

Sniped by Erik!

according to what Erik posted though, Obama seems to believe that Bush invented cutting off diplomatic relations! Has he never been in a history class, or does he just think he can be the exception to the rule, and make it work when so many people have failed?

Here's a sad life truth:

Diplomacy doesn't work with some people and after a point implies weakness that only begets more violence.

"...the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them..."

Obama is ignorant about the reasons for "not talking to (them)" or this is a cleverly LOADED statement. No one could successfully argue that the silent treatment is a ridiculous form of punishment. There are other more effective methods of punishment, but that's a completely different subject for a later debate.

The subject is:
Why would we communicate with irrational individuals? These are religious extremists who lack coherence and mental clarity. They strap suicide bombs on their brain washed followers.

@ironman288 - Regarding "as McCain asks, what does he want to talk about?" WOW... in November I was planning on writing in "Mickey Mouse" for president as protest at the dismal offerings, but if McCain keeps up that kind of talk I'll plug my nose and vote for him.

Umm, Ok, so one of you is quoting Obama about meeting IN PERSON with world leaders....yes, good idea....the other is bringing hamas and hezzbolah into it...those are terrorists, but they also have broad control of resources and people's hearts and minds within their respective countries...so, yes, have our people talk to their people....good idea.... to just ignore the problems and try to bomb them out of existence is the futile side of this argument....

just a side note: hillary accused Bush of sitting down with the saudis "for tea" yesterday... i hadn't seen it, but it's funny how the tables turn when you talk about our "allies" in the middle east....the saudis, who are largely responsible for Bin Laden and his band of idiots....

as Shimone Perez said, "You don't make peace with your friends..."

yeah fingers McCain has impressed me lately, even though I've dislike him for many years. I even started to like Clinton a bit when she started copying him about a month ago to save her campaign (or try to).

Here, I think, is the major point of contention in all of this:

Certain individuals and groups of people are openly stating or strongly implying that the Bush Administration has made no diplomatic efforts to attend to the Iran problem, in particular, and prefer to use guns rather than conversation. They suggest that if Bush just wasn't such a heavy-handed warmonger these problems could be solved through meaningful conversation with the bad guys.

Here's the problem: These base assumptions, the jumping off point for the vitriolic exchanges, are simply not true. Additionally, hypothetically, if previous administrations had pulled out all stops on diplomacy and failed, why would the next administration seek to repeat a method which has already failed?

It couldn't be more obvious that diplomatic efforts are the preferred initial manner by which to deal with serious international issues relating to a nation's safety. The real question is: When diplomacy doesn't work, what next? In this case it appears to me that the Bush Administration has been slowly working it's way through all of the diplomatic options. For example, low level diplomacy has failed. High level diplomacy through intermediaries (i.e. major European powers, Russia, China, the UN, etc.) has failed. An stated offering of rewards of sorts have failed. Strong language has failed. Sanctions have failed. Ignoring Iranian naval provocations in the Persian Gulf has failed. Taking no military action against Iran's persistent training and arming of terrorists in Iraq, and elsewhere, who are actually killing Americans and our has failed. Patience in the extreme has failed. This can go on and on.......

The argument that this administration, or prior administrations for that matter, have not sought a diplomatic solution to the Iran problem has begun to ring so hollow it is growing increasingly difficult to give further consideration to arguments more can and should be done on the diplomatic front. There comes a point where reason and practicality must prevail and when both are lacking it strongly suggests a profound lack of understanding of the facts surrounding the matter at hand. This is unforgivably exacerbated by many politicians selfishly jockeying for advantage through manipulation of the less informed amongst us.

Make no mistake, I am not pleased with Bush or the Republican Party. They have both screwed up in grand fashion and show no signs of correcting their stupid ways. Unfortunately, the same can be said of their ilk on the other side of the aisle. Nonetheless, politics aside, the facts of this matter remain the same. It's just too bad our politicians choose not to level with the American people.

IMHO the error of Bush's judgement is this:

With ratings as low as his, he should just stay home, shut up, or at least not disrespect the office of the president by breaking the tradition of not speaking of domestic issues on foreign soil.

He also disrespected the Israeli gathering by using that opportunity for a republican campaign.

He should be the first to acknowledge the complexities of these matters have NO simple solution.

@mork - I WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree... we should fiercely engage, internally, our debates and disagreements while externally presenting one unified face and voice to the world... Bush's criticisms (justified or not) of any US citizen's actions or ideology should be aired here on our home turf.

The diverse characters of the current presidential campaign is allowing the American people to have this opportunity to debate and discuss these matters internally in a democratic manner. Bush's statement to the world only inhibits that process. If he wants to include himself in this debate then he should speak to the American instead of the Israeli people.

mork & fof: Right you are! He should have held a press conference at the White House and made that very same statement in the Rose Garden rather than the Knesset. If his domestic critics are reserved enough keep the criticism at home it is only proper that he do the same. Since his actions are attacked only at home they should be defended only at home.

Bush is an idiot... Rush and you righties elected this baffoon, and now you feel like you have some duty to defend him...as karl rove sits at his new desk at FOX Frickin NEWS!!! put that in your pipe and pass the doychy on the left hand side... you all can sit here and defend that [hubdub censored word] all you want, the GOP is DOA!!! and it couldn't come soon enough... death to the right, the south will rise to the occasion and elect the black man, and a new party will arise, and it will be more left than the current left, and thank your gods for that... death to the right! and Fox news, mouthpiece for the wealthy, the connected, the biased, and the idiot poor rednecks who don't know any better,,,,

debates, arguments, news, friends, education, opinions, gambling... all on one site!!! Man, I LOVE it here...

and i am WHITE middle class bred fair skinned wholeheartedly american patriot, proud of our millitary, ashamed of our leaders...

Maybe he thought Israel is part of the electorate.

wow touchy subject i see. agree or disagree with any president elected they ain't dumb. onemichael say obama gets elected and holds talks with people who wants to kill american's cause they don't worship their god. they have the talks and no postive results come from them. then is obama a idiot? is he a hero cause he played nice with people who want to kill us? very well could be a big year for the liberal-left. then when they got all the power i'll bet you they don't solve the middle east problems either.(how'd clinton do?) them folk was killing each other before any of us was born, and will still be killing each other after we all have passed. if them radical muslims fly a plane into your house onemichael you gonna ask them nicely to stop doing that?

Is Bush Stupid?
I don't know so I googled it...
http://www.irregulartimes.com/stupid2.html

...or should I say, I used the google.

"Bush is an idiot"...everytime I hear this, I can't help but wonder: If he's so stupid, how does he manipulate the oil market to his advantage? After all, those who say he's incompetant are the same ones claiming that he's the one making all of the $$ on high gas prices.

"and it will be more left than the current left, and thank your gods for that" Nope, can't do that, I'm not a socialist.

Let's take a look at what was said in Israel, shall we?
Bush, in addressing the Israeli Knesset today, said: "Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along.

"We have heard this foolish delusion before,'' the president told the parliament. "As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is - the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.''

That senator was William Borah, a Republican of Idaho.

But the senator from Illinois took exception to the president's remarks. Obama has spoken of negotiating with the leaders of Iran and Syria, but has staunchly opposed any talks with Hamas, the "terrorist organization'' that controls Gaza and poses an avowed threat to Israel's existence.

Rep. Rahm Emanuel also suggested that Bush has crossed a certain line today. "The tradition has always been that when a U.S. president is overseas, partisan politics stops at the water's edge,'' said Emanuel (D-Ill,) chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. "President Bush has now taken that principle and turned it on its head: for this White House, partisan politics now begins at the water's edge, no matter the seriousness and gravity of the occasion. Does the president have no shame?"

But a National Security Council spokesman said the president's remarks were "not specifically pointed to one individual.'' The NSC's Gordon Johndroe said the remarks applied to a "broad group'' of people who advocate negotiations with implacable enemies.

Dana Perino, White House press secretary, suggested that Obama was reading too much into Bush's speech.

Also asserting that Bush's comment was "not'' directed at Obama, Perino said: "There are many who have suggested these types of negotiations with people that President Bush thinks we should not talk to. I understand when you're running for office you sometimes think the world revolves around you -- that is not always true, and it is not true in this case....

"The president is president, regardless of an election cycle,'' Perino said. "And he's going to be the president of the United States until January 20, 2009... We're not going to stop talking about the ideals and the values of the United States because there's an '08 election.''

http://www.juancole.com/2008/05/zawahiri-endorses-mccain-plan-to-bomb.html
Extremism Breeds Extremism
Please stop it.

So, Erik...you hear "Bush is an idiot" a lot, do you? Should tell you something....

Bush is an idiotic puppet set up by friends of his father to boost oil prices so the cronies outside of the middle east can finally afford to drill for oil again, making profits on speculation, not actual worth. Those same shadows are responsible for the 9/11 attacks...this administration is a total sham, an afront to all of the people who sacrificed for this country, past and present... but, as long as you watch fox news and listen to hannity and limbaugh, you will never get it....

Of course Bush was referring to Obama, the right wing wackos are trembling at the thought of an outsider running the white house, looking into all of the shady deals made over the last 7 (or dare i say 27) years.....wake up.

dang I typed a whole post and it didn't go :(

In recap: McCain was the one who first advocated a gas tax holiday and a federal investigation of the obvious market manipulation, and Obama is against the tax holiday and hasn't said anything about an investigation to my knowledge.

And Bush was talking to Israelis, who happen to be Jewish in case you were unaware, and promising them that America would not repeat the failed policies of those that allowed Hitler to have Poland with no fight. You might remember that Poland was the European country with the largest Jewish population and that more Jews were killed in Poland than anywhere else during the Holocaust. The reason that Obama takes offense is becuase he advocates these exact same policies today.

"Extremism Breeds Extremism
Please stop it." - mork

Amen... but I don't think Muslim Extremists will see your request... nor will they "stop it"

wow micheal...I won't even waste much typing energy on that one. Must be something in your water. Take some asprin, I think Bush's cronies manufacture it.

By the way, michael...We're awaiting you're insightful knowledgeable on this one: http://www.hubdub.com/m7600/Will_Keith_Olberman_be_fired_from_MSNBC_before_July_1_2008

IMHO:

Questioning someone's motives about judgement calls they have made, when backed up by relatively clear reasons as to why they might bias themselves toward a given position is fair game. However, presenting accusations that someone was involved in heinous criminal activity must rise to a level beyond mere conjecture. Though judicially impervious evidence need not be demonstrated to maintain credibility, absolutely baseless aspersions, devoid of even a modicum of physical evidence, serve only to define the accuser as a conspiracy theorist. Though conspiracy theorists are on very rare occasion correct, they are vastly most often wrong. As such, their credibility and judgement is assumed to be flawed until proven otherwise.

Anybody can say anything about anybody. Anybody can accuse anybody of anything. Anybody can hate, disrespect, or malign anybody. Talk is cheap as hell. We can all argue about bias and psychology (which is appropriate and beneficial) but if you are going to say Americans were involved in a conspiracy to facilitate or permit 9/11 to take place, for God's sake at least try back it up!

Show me an American bought their plane tickets. Let me see documents that the CIA channeled money into their bank accounts. Share with me the recording of the American petroleum industry's representative giving them their marching orders. At least one pixel of Cheney on the grassy knoll will give us a start. I don't need a "WHY". Everybody has a "WHY"! Give me a "HOW" and back it up.

Oh, yes................and please pardon my outburst.

@markov - I enjoyed your outburst =)

#1- i am not a theorist, # 2 I don't like aspirin, but the kool-aid on the left is sooooo sweet... #3 who cares about msnbc? and who is keith olberman ?... #4 the gas tax holliday is laughable... #5 Cheney wishes he had been around for the right wing crucifiction of Kennedy, and laments his absence on the knoll with karl rove on their daily "golf" outing, replete with hookers,,, oh, no, that's the left wingers... the right wingers don't get off on women, they like missiles, bombs, oil, and hummers.... come on, are you really defending bush, cheney, rove, halliburton, kbr(a halliburton shell company), 9/11, and the current value of the dollar? wow, you republicans have BIG balls... full of hot air, and no silo in which to insert the missiles....

Although entertaining and partially agreed with, any indication of even the smallest measure of evidence to substantiate the most egregious accusations remains absent. Defending a position is not the same as defending a person. Expecting evidence, or at least sound reasoning, to support acceptance of accusations, philosophies, or perspectives is just common sense. Any substantial claim worth making is worth defending in detail. A statement that can't suffer scrutiny is more likely based in emotion than fact.

I used the google again....
WTC7 is definitely suspect of something.
I do not want to be considered a conspiracy theorist but I fear being ignorant.
I continue to wonder what all those people coming out of WTC were talking about when they were reporting explosions going off near the lobby of the WTC While I watched CNN in horror on the morning of Sept 11,'01.
I do not claim to know the answers.

Allow me to add to bush's referance of Hitler.
Here are a few of his quotes:

"How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think." - Adolf Hitler

"If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed." - Adolf Hitler

"The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force." - Adolf Hitler

and,

"The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one." - Adolf Hitler

Now for something lighter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D85yrIgA4Nk

mork...in re: building 7. I don't know if you've ever read this. It's a long, but good read. No theorizing, just the facts that where known, and the decisions that where made (right or wrong) at the moment: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-81.pdf

Thanks for the link Erik...I copy ;).....and paste...:)

Here's what I got out of it:

On September 11, 2001, WTC 7 became threatened as the WTC complex was attacked. The OEM facility located inside WTC 7 had to be evacuated.

Shortly after WTC 2 was struck, a firefighter entered WTC 7, connected a hose line onto the stairwell sprinkler riser and started the Engines pumps.

At approximately 9:44 a.m., “OEM, the mayor, they’re all gone.”

At 10:06 Engine 160, supplied water to two Tower Ladders operating on WTC 7.

10:28 a.m., WTC 1 collapsed and a significant amount of damage was done to WTC 7.

Between approximately 12:00 noon and 2:00 p.m. firefighters indicated that several blocks needed to be cleared around WTC 7. It was decided to leave the power on and not allow personnel to enter WTC 7.

The FDNY Fire Commissioner stated:
“How ridiculous, I thought, We’ve got a thirteen-million-dollar command center and we can’t even use it.”

At approximately 5:20 p.m., some three hours after WTC 7 was abandoned the building experienced a catastrophic failure and collapsed.

number of interviews conducted by NIST with each organization:
• FDNY = 68
• NYPD = 25
• PANYNJ/PAPD = 15
• OTHER = 8

I like this too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxnpujfanUM&feature=related

Indded mork...Kennedy was indeed a constitutional conservative. As far as the explosions you referred to earlier....I'll have to do more digging. But, I seem to remember reading a report concerning The Port Authority of New York's ammunitions depot. I may be wrong, I'll have to dig.

mork I thought that was Goebbels. He also had some good quotes about the news media that the neocons have really taken to heart.

1."If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State. 2.”The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over” Sounds like the last 7 years to me. I just hope the neocons didn't come across this one. 3.“If the day should ever come when we [the Nazis] must go, if some day we are compelled to leave the scene of history, we will slam the door so hard that the universe will shake and mankind will stand back in stupefaction..”

neocon <gasp>...*chuckles*...as if constitutional conservatism is a bad thing.