Here we have Sean Spicer, Trump’s press secretary, implicitly claiming that Bashar al-Assad is worse than Hitler, as Hitler didn’t sink . . .to using chemical weapons.”
Spicer apparently forgot about Zyklon B and carbon monoxide. Called out by a reporter, Spicer was unable to admit he was wrong, and instead says this:
“I think when you come to sarin gas. . . he was not using the gas on his own people the same way that Assad is doing. I understand your point. There was not in the. . . he brought them into the Holocaust center; I understand that. What I was saying: in the way Assad used them—where he went into towns, dropped them down to innocent. . .in the middle of towns, it was brought so. . .the use of it. . .I appreciate the clarification, and that was not the intent.”
How many ways can a guy put his foot in his mouth in less than a minute? (Click on the links if you can’t see the tw**ts.)
Press Sec. raises eyebrows with Hitler/Assad comparison: Hitler "didn't even sink to using chemical weapons." https://t.co/GpeWraGX2T pic.twitter.com/eWb4NmbBcT
— ABC News (@ABC) April 11, 2017
But wait! There’s more! Hallie Jackson, NBC’s chief White House correspondent, shows that Spicer’s attempts at damage repair just did more damage:
NEW: a second clarification from the @presssec on Assad/Hitler comparison: pic.twitter.com/IU8OA5jFAb
— Hallie Jackson (@HallieJackson) April 11, 2017
The lessons:
- Know your history before you open your mouth about it.
- Be careful when you compare people to Hitler
- Don’t double down when you make a mistake: admit that you’re wrong. Spicer’s fumbling attempt to show that what Asssad did was in fact worse than what Hitler did to Jews, Romanis, gays, criminals, and so on, fell flat on its face. Is dropping a Sarin-containing bomb worse than confining naked people in small bunkers and gassing them with cyanide?
- Spicer has the worst job in the world. Completely unqualified, he’s forced to make as ass of himself on a daily basis. Does he sleep well at night? Is he proud when he looks in the mirror?
h/t: Grania
Update: (by Grania)
He’s the gift that keeps on giving. You’d think that the White House would have decided for their own sakes they wouldn’t allow this guy near a microphone again.
Wow: While apologizing for Hitler gaffe, Spicer literally says he doesn't want to distract from Trump's attempts "to destabilize the region" pic.twitter.com/jlCwC93Wn4
— Tommy X-TrumpIsARacist-opher (@tommyxtopher) April 11, 2017
Maybe Trump should replace him with Britain’s Ken Livingstone. He has a lot of spare time on his hands right now.
Better, Philomena Cunk.
Even better, a piece of igneous rock.
You mean Drumpf himself should become his own press secretary?
Oh, wait — you wrote, “igneous.”
b&
>
well, Trump’s statements are volcanic eruptions, spewed indiscriminately everywhere.
I went to Whitehouse.gov and asked for Spicer to be fired immediately for this.
You know, given that there is already an out-of-closet nazi in the WH as we speak, I really doubt that will in any way shape or form affect Spicer’s career. He’ll work for Trump as long as he gets to and then collect his benefits and hide somewhere because no one will hire him after these 4 years…
Can’t fire Spicer. Where else is there comic relief?
The most charitable explanation I can think of is that he’s horrified with what he’s become and he’s trying to escape the mess by undermining both his own position and Der Drumpfenfurher’s.
Because the alternative is that this Resident and his Folk don’t think that Zyklon B was a bad thing, or that German Jews weren’t German people.
(The other option, that they don’t think that gas chambers used gas weapons doesn’t pass the — pardon me — sniff test. Even they can’t be that ignorant, except most malignantly willfully.)
Cheers,
b&
He appears to be saying that Jews, gays Romani, the inconveniently disabled, etc. were/are not ‘innocent people’.
Or that they jews gassed weren’t Germans (Hitler’s own people). Oy!
As I now see you already stated. Sorry!
The most charitable explanation is that he meant to say that Hitler never used chemical weapons on the battlefield.
Using poison gas to execute people you hold in captivity and are going to kill by one method or another is a bad thing, but it is a different thing than using poison gas on the battlefield as was done in WWI.
I dunno. We used napalm and agent orange in Vietnam. I don’t think he wants to go there.
Ah, but napalm wasn’t a ‘chemical’ and Agent Orange was just a herbicide. Like it really didn’t have any nasty long-term effects except on US/Aust/NZ troops who have subsequent access to lawyers. Yeah right.
Also, high explosive isn’t a ‘chemical’.
And nuclear weapons aren’t ‘weapons of mass destruction’.
You just have to get the terminology right.
[/sarcasm]
I do agree that in trying to draw comparisons as to who-is-baddest is a minefield which anybody would be wise to avoid, specially if their name is Sean Spicer.
cr
#AlternativeFacts
Hitler himself had suffered from a mustard gas attack during WW I (and for a while gone blind). He was treated for it at Pasewalk military hospital.
That’s why during WW II, he ordered German forces not to use poison gas, which he called a heinous weapon, in combat.
That has been asserted by at least one historian, but completely without evidence. Other explanations would fit Hitler’s mentality more plausibly.
As for evidence, I fear Mr. Hitler was not obliged to substantiate his orders in writing.
Fact is, the Germans had developed Tabun, then the most deadly chemical weapon, but did not use it on the battlefield.
Well, yes, that’s what I meant with lack of evidence. When speculating, it is important, I think, to acknowledge other possibilities, like fear of retaliation.
“Other explanations would fit Hitler’s mentality more plausibly.”
What other explanations?
I find it entirely plausible that Hitler, who probably had visions of a glorious Third Reich in the traditions of Teutonic knights, would regard gas as an unworthy tactic that true warriors would never use in combat.
Gas certainly has its drawbacks, the most obvious one being that the enemy can use it too, especially if they have air superiority (another thing I doubt Hitler would deign to contemplate, certainly not in the early days of the war), and its means of deployment in World War 1 was incompatible with the concept of ‘Blitzkrieg’; but I doubt Hitler was such a rational military thinker.
cr
Lack of knowledge of chemical weapons developed by allies, and fear of retaliation, for example.
On Hitler’s part, or on the German High Command’s part?
I took your original comment to suggest that maybe Hitler made no such order. But I now think you were just querying his motives for doing so, if indeed he did.
I’m not sure we’re in disagreement here. I think it quite plausible that Hitler would have given such an order, for whatever reason. Admittedly plausibility isn’t proof.
cr
But how does one use weapons of any kind on a battlefield of any kind against one’s own civilians, save in accident or despite their use as human shields?
No, there’s no way to take Spicer’s statement innocently in any charitable reading, other than unless, as I originally suggested, a self-sacrificing act of sabotage.
To deny that Hitler ran gas chambers, and on the first day of Passover of all days…that’s simply so far over the top that it can’t possibly be innocent — and, if it truly was spoken in ignorance, represents an incomprehensible level of gross incompetency never before seen in American politics.
This is going to be a case of either Spicer or Drumpf must go, and I really doubt Drumpf is going to go to the mat for Spicer.
But, at the same time, I don’t see Drumpf realizing why Spicer has to go — which could well lead to this thing dragging on painfully long for everybody.
Cheers,
b&
>
I’d agree, he was probably thinking of battlefield use, and his mouth outran his brain.
cr
I agree and I think that is what he was aiming at, except I would quibble with the word “battlefield” since that implies combatants not civilians. I realise it is a bit hard to define the battlefield in Syria though.
Anyway, I fail to see the distinction between using gas and carpet bombing with “conventional explosives. The people on the ground are just as dead and the survivors can still have pretty horrific injuries.
Hitler may not have dropped chemical weapons from aeroplanes onto civilians, but he did drop high explosives from aeroplanes onto civilians and so did the British and Americans but on an industrial scale.
You ignore one important point and that would be that most civilized countries have agreed not to use chemical weapons in conflict/war. This gives the rest of humanity room for action against those who use it.
May I remind you that the US refused to ratify a world wide ban against the use of landmines which I find appalling.
In matters of war I do not think Americans can regard their own conduct as civilized.
Remember when there was a limit to how much embarrassment there was in the world?
When was this? I seem to remember a time with both Bagdad Bob and W around, for one … 😉
To be ignorant of history is to remain always a child – Cicero
I could probably relevantly quote this every day with reference to this Administration
Why does everyone accept the claim that Assad gassed his people uncritically ? Not only there is zero evidence supporting the claim, but the claim itself does not make sense. Not only most previous similar claims turned out to be staged by Islamic terrorists trying to put the blame on Assad in order to demonize him and gain support for regime change. If Assad was really the monster describe by some media and did actually perpetrate the chemical attack, he would have no reason to deny it, as it was done in the open.
Well, chemical weapons are labor intensive to create, store and use, which usually means a state actor. Ditto for deployment via an air force. I’m not saying I can present an overwhelming case, but I think it’s wise to take Assad as the null hypothesis until we have reason to think otherwise.
This report in Deutsche Welle points more to the rebels as the source of toxic gas attacks (although not chlorine barrel bombs, which, however, may come from chlorine gas canisters fired by rebels from improvised cannons* — these are not shown by US corporate news, televised or otherwise, but can be viewed on google images):
http://www.dw.com/en/is-assad-to-blame-for-the-chemical-weapons-attack-in-syria/a-38330217
As for gas production requiring a state actor, most have forgotten the Japanese sect’s 1995 sarin attack on the Tokyo subway. There were about 10 people implicated in the attack. Their ‘garage’ lab was reported to have the capacity of producing tons (thousands of kilograms) of sarin nerve agent.
*Google “gas cylinder cannon” or “gas canister cannon” to see how rebels deliver gas, toxic and otherwise, to pro-Damascus neighborhoods.
“these are not shown by US corporate news, televised or otherwise, but can be viewed on google images”
That is (I think) a very good point, but I would extend that to (at least) the whole “five eyes club”.
There are also (as far as I can see) a lot of comments from military and intelligence sources coming in now (from back channels and whistle blowers).
Which appears to corroborate the Russian/Syrian narrative.
Top Former U.S. Military and Intelligence Officials: Trump Should Rethink Syrian Escalation
Oops, wrong link… This is the right one… I think 😉
Trump Should Rethink Syria Escalation
Well ISIS have already used commercial drones to drop small but deadly explosive bombs (and of course put the videos up on the net). Their beliefs might be mediaeval and barbaric but they’re not above using any technology they can get hold of.
cr
Where did you get the idea that previous attacks were staged by terrorists? The fact previous chemical attacks were perpetrated by Assad is a matter of record, confirmed by the UN.
Quite apart from anything else, the chemical attacks have all been made from the air. The terrorists and others fighting Assad do not have aircraft.
Before he resorted to chemical weapons, Assad also had a penchant for including chlorine gas in his barrel bombs. (Chlorine apparently doesn’t come under the Geneva Convention definition of chemical weapons.) He has thus shown a willingness to attack his own people with more than just conventional weapons.
Also, look up Maajid Nawaz explaining to a doubter on LBC how we know it was Assad who did this.
Skepticism is fine, but be careful it doesn’t leave you incapable of making reasonable assumptions from the evidence.
Thank you. I do not understand why so many nice-looking people are so much in love with this genocidal dictator Assad.
Stupid question, I’m sure, but…aren’t Assad and Putin putatively fighting ISIS?
No. ISIS is their token enemy. They took care to eliminate pro-democracy opposition while doing little harm to ISIS. Without it, Assad would most likely be out of office by now, and Putin would have lost an ally.
Here is a nice cartoon about the situation:
http://www.vox.com/2014/8/22/6057055/syria-cartoon
Yep, that cartoon sums it up exactly!
Yes I agree. ISIS is a convenient excuse but they are pretty much fighting the same enemy.
Heather, I think you are ill informed on a number of points.
“Before he resorted to chemical weapons, Assad also had a penchant for including chlorine gas in his barrel bombs. (Chlorine apparently doesn’t come under the Geneva Convention definition of chemical weapons.)”
The Geneva convention does not specify any chemical weapons, it simply lists (as far as I understand) effects and symptoms!
You need to go to the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993, to find the actual lists of specific chemical agents, (see the Annex on Chemicals).
Further, from the OPCW homepage of what constitutes a Chemical Weapon:
“The term chemical weapon is applied to any toxic chemical or its precursor that can cause death, injury, temporary incapacitation or sensory irritation through its chemical action.
The toxic chemicals that have been used as chemical weapons, or have been developed for use as chemical weapons, can be categorised as choking, blister, blood, or nerve agents. The most well known agents are as follows: choking agents—chlorine and phosgene…”
Chlorine gas used as a weapon is a Chemical Weapon.
“Where did you get the idea that previous attacks were staged by terrorists?
From (among others) the United Nations…
INTERVIEW:The Syrian forces and ISIL used toxic chemicals as weapons – report
The impression given was that all previous chemical weapons attacks weren’t real and were staged by DAESH to make Assad look bad. That is what I was referring to. Assad has frequently used chemical weapons in the past.
Personally I agree about Chlorine and I think it’s a chemical weapon. However, it does come under a separate category in international law and is not forbidden in the agreement on CWs. I’ve obviously named the wrong agreement, so I do not know the name of the right one. However, I am sure that chlorine is classified differently for some reason.
@Heather,
“I am sure that chlorine is classified differently for some reason”
Chlorine is a very important industrial raw material, as well as critical for water purification all over the world, so it is impossible to prohibit it. In these instances, the convention, “The Chemical Weapons Convention”, says, that such chemicals are classified, by how they are used, (as i cited above).
I.e. when chlorine is used as a weapon, it is classified (according to the convention) as a chemical weapon. When it is transported in gas-tubes on a truck en route to the water purification plant, it is classified as a normal industrial chemical.
“Assad has frequently used chemical weapons in the past.”
The problem as I see it, is that it has been very difficult to prove who have been behind many of the previous reported incidences. Take for example the attack in Ghouta 21 August 2013 with Sarin. Contrary to what many believe, UN has not (as far as I know) been able to identify the perpetrator.
UN-HRC, Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic, 9th Report of Commission of Inquiry on Syria
But, because Obama (and basically the whole western media said it was Assad), almost everyone believes that it has been independently proved. Media seldom report when things didn’t turn out the way they initially reported…
For me, one of the most important pieces of text in the UN interview, in regard to the current question, is the very last answer by Virgina Gamba;
Which means, that you can not (automatically) jump from evidence of exposure to a chemical weapon, to, Assad did it. And even less, from an air attack by Assad, to, Assad did it.
Hmm, something strange happened with my link, so I try to post i raw…
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/IICISyria/Pages/Documentation.aspx
Then scroll down to:
9th Report of Commission of Inquiry on Syria – A/HRC/28/69 5 February 2015 (published on 20 February 2015)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-says-new-evidence-discredits-russias-claims-on-chemical-attack/2017/04/11/09e7f75c-1ed6-11e7-a0a7-8b2a45e3dc84_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_ussyria-310pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&tid=a_inl&utm_term=.4eb069fe4ea2
That link looks unnecessarily long, so I hope it works.
@Heather,
There are several serious problems with the article, and to begin from the top.
First, US is an active part in this conflict, and, as such, by definition not independent.
There are fundamental reasons why alleged perpetrators and victims or family members of alleged perpetrators or victims are not allowed to either investigate a crime or sit in judgment as a jury.
This is as far as I understand true in the US, as well as Europe and virtually every modern society and judicial system in the world, to my knowledge.
Second, the presented “evidence” is basically of the type, trust us and because we say so with added anonymous military sources.
No one disputes that the Syrian Air force performed an attack on the designated target, they even informed the US beforehand that they were going to do that.
And, while radar can track the plane, and perhaps even the ordinance dropped, it can not, as far as I know, see inside the metal casing of a bomb, and differentiate between a normal bomb and a bomb filled with a chemical weapon.
And the question is not whether personal previously connected with Assads Chemical Weapons program was present or not, the question is rather, were they there before? Assad only operate (as far as I know) 2 or 3 airfields, so any surviving military airforce technician must of course be someplace.
What is needed is (to my mind) a very different set of evidence.
OPCW or a specific UN mandated team of independent experts need to get unrestricted access to the area, be able to freely investigate, study the alleged impact site, take soil samples, get the remains of the alleged ordinance, perform autopsies of alleged victims, do the test of victims themselves, and freely make interviews of alleged witnesses and so on.
It aught to be self evident, that just because people show up in Turkey with symptoms of, or show effects of, or even test positive for exposure to (say) Sarin, does not in and of itself constitute a binding evidence.
You need to secure the provenance, the whole chain.
Hans Blix, the former head of UNMOVIC, EU urges diplomacy in Syria as ex-weapons inspector says US acted without proof
“I don’t know whether in Washington they presented any evidence, but I did not see that in the Security Council,” Blix said. “Merely pictures of victims that were held up, that the whole world can see with horror, such pictures are not necessarily evidence of who did it.”
Blix says the problem with this situation is that while it’s natural to jump to the conclusion that the regime is far more likely than the rebels to have the means to carry out an attack of this magnitude with a substance such as sarin gas, it is far from proven that it did so.”
And aside from industrial uses, chlorine has many household uses too. If you use a strong mould killer or drain cleaner or bath cleaner, it gives off chlorine (hence the warnings about not breathing the fumes, lest you wish to be guilty of self-inflicted war crimes).
There are many industrial chemicals which are quite horrifically strong but have legitimate industrial uses. Often, the stronger it is, the more useful (and the more lethal if it leaks). For example red fuming nitric acid, or chlorine trifluoride, or phosgene, or various cyanide compounds (Google ‘Bhopal’). None of these are ‘chemical weapons’ until someone uses them as such.
cr
For that matter…many of us will remember a certain fear of terrorists using “binary chemical weapons.”
If you want to create a binary chemical weapon of your own, all you have to do is go to your local grocery store’s cleaning products aisle, pick up a bottle at random, read the warning label, and do what it tells you not to do. And it takes virtually no creativity to come up with ways to do that in a somewhat-controlled way at a time and place of your choosing. Like, pour into a pair of glass jars and smash them together.
For super extra bonus points…get yourself a two-litre bottle of soda. Fill it with household bleach. Get your terrorist friend a similar bottle filled with household ammonia. Go to the airport. Pour your bleach into the garbage bin right outside the see-you-naked machine. Have your friend do the same with the ammonia. The resulting chaos will shut down at least the airport, if not the entire American transportation system.
As we increasingly see, it’s just about as easy to drive a car or truck or whatever into a crowd and wreak havoc that way. Or you could dump smoke detectors into the local reservoir, or go old fashioned and plant IEDs by the roadside, or….
We live remarkably safe lives not because it is difficult to wreak havoc or because the State protects us, but because, within rounding, absolutely nobody actually wants to wreak havoc and all of everybody wants to prevent havoc. That’s why the jet that crashed into the field on 9/11 was the last successful hijacking, ever, period — no matter what security measures any government might want to implement. Terrorists may figure out creative ways of wreaking havoc on a plane, but they’ll never manage to actually hijack one.
Cheers,
b&
>
BBC news website on April 7th on the Middle East section had a headline, “Syria,’chemical attack’: what we know so far.
“The US says its military radar systems monitored a Syrian Air Force fixed-wing aircraft take off from Shayrat airbase in Homs province on Tuesday morning and fly over Khan Sheikhoun on two occasions – at 06:37 (03:37 GMT) and 06:46.
US military officials told NBC News that the radar systems picked up flashes on the ground, indicating that ordnance had been dropped on the rebel-held town about the same time that the first casualties with breathing difficulties were reported.”
“Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, a former commanding officer of the British Armed Forces Joint Chemical Biological Radiological Nuclear (CBRN) Regiment, said Russia’s assertion that the strikes had hit rebel chemical weapons were “pretty fanciful”.
“Axiomatically, if you blow up Sarin, you destroy it,” he told the BBC.
Experts say the explosion resulting from an air strike on a chemical weapons facility would most likely incinerate any agents. Sarin and other nerve agents are also usually stocked in a “binary manner”, which means they are kept as two distinct chemical precursors that are combined just before use, either manually or automatically inside a weapon when launched.”
“A Syrian military statement published by state media categorically denied the use of “any chemical or toxic substance” in Khan Sheikhoun on Tuesday, adding that the military “has never used them, anytime, anywhere, and will not do so in the future.”
Russia, which has carried out air strikes in support of President Assad since 2015, meanwhile said the Syrian air force had struck Khan Sheikhoun “between 11:30am and 12:30pm local time” on Tuesday, but that the target had been “a large terrorist ammunition depot” on its eastern outskirts.”
“Hamish de Bretton-Gordon”
According to reliable-source reporting, U.S. radar and surveillance systems traced the fixed-wing aircraft that conducted the chemical attack on the town of Khan Sheikhoun back to the Shayrat airbase (which is controlled by the Syrian government and its Russian sponsor). Plus, we have a great deal of background evidence establishing that Assad is a vicious autocrat and war criminal.
Under those circumstances, it seems prudent, per Occam’s Razor, to accept conditionally that the attack was carried out by Assad –subject, of course, to any disconfirming evidence. Have you any?
“According to reliable-source reporting”
I am not sure what that means.
It means it appeared in well-established mainstream media, based on firsthand reporting from sources with personal knowledge — as opposed to a fringe outlet or what some doofus said on the internet.
Are you denying that the aircraft in question were traced to Shayrat airbase? Do you have any proof?
“It means it appeared in well-established mainstream media”
So did WMD reports leading to the Iraq War.
“Are you denying that the aircraft in question were traced to Shayrat airbase?”
Are you having fun just throwing out random accusations?
If the main stream media report verbatimly on press releases from the intelligence services or the Trump administration then it is obviously not impartial and judging from past history not reliable.
Neither is Russian sources to be trusted obviously.
Instead of
“According to reliable-source reporting,”
I suggest to phrase it as:
“According to the US mainstream media…”
The problem we have today is that we do not have many journalists on the ground, real investigative journalism is hard to find and is highly politicized.
For example, the Guardian newspaper was an excellent newspaper in the previous century, today it is highly subjective and lack any quality analysis and investigative journalism. The only British journalist I bother to read on Middle East issues is Patrick Cockburn from the even worse Independent.
These are outlets with a demonstrated record of accurate reporting — not perfect, but generally trustworthy. I accept them provisionally, subject to contravening evidence.
If you have some evidence that contradicts what’s been reported, let’s have it. Or are you merely floating innuendo and pseudo-skepticism?
“These are outlets with a demonstrated record of accurate reporting”
I agree that some media are more trustworthy than others.
“Or are you merely floating innuendo and pseudo-skepticism?”
You ignored which I believe are valid concerns about the media just uncritically report what the administration and intelligence agencies feed them. (Robert Fisk talked about this issue constantly)
“If you have some evidence that contradicts …”
You stated “reliable-source reporting” and I merely objected to the term “reliable”, neither you nor I know exactly what is accurate. If would say there is a 80% chance that reports are true.
B.t.w I do not appreciate the tone of your conversation – all the best.
I disagree — “everyone” did not accept it “uncritically”. Many journalists used the usual caveats — “it appears that Assad…” etc. In the absence of compelling contrary evidence, I see no reason to doubt the consensus of numerous intelligence reports on this, as well as Assad’s previous record.
As was pointed out in the ‘Deutsche Welle’ article linked by W.Benson: why would he do that? Cui bono?
Although I would not put gas attacks beyond him -he never shrunk from a war crime here or there-, they have little military use, and moreover, he was on the winning hand. Would he risk an, admittedly reluctant, growing international acceptance of his regime?
The only reason I can think of is ‘testing the red line resolve’ of the US.
On the other hand, there is some circumstantial evidence it was indeed Assad.
As it stands now, I reserve my opinion as to who was responsible.
“The only reason I can think of is ‘testing the red line resolve’ of the US.”
That is, in fact, the only motive I can think of for Assad. Against that is, that Trump was previously unenthusiastic about getting involved in Syria, why stir him up?
I can certainly think of motives for ISIS to have done it, though whether they had the capability remains to be established. Do we even know exactly what gas was involved?
I think a reserved opinion is wisest at this point.
cr
Yes, it appears to serve the purposes, not so much of DAESH, but of the opposition parties, like al Nusra, that are/were on the losing hand, but incomprehensible supported by ‘the West’ (I mean DAESH/ISIL have no use -on the contrary- for, or a remote chance of, ‘Western’ tolerance).
I don’t think Trump and his cabinet have much interest in history, science, literature, etc.
Well, that’s a bit extreme; I think he simply didn’t think, not that he expressed anti-Semitism. And no, don’t fire him–he’s an endless fountain of laughter about the Trump administration!
In a moment of weakness I actually felt sorry for him.
Well, you know Hitler didn’t actually drop poison gas from jets onto Syrian people, so its like, not the EXACT same. So, yeah….
Nah, I can’t make it work. What an ass.
This nonsense in the White House sure knows how to appease known hate groups. What an accomplishment.
#SorryWorld
Mike
https://twitter.com/furry_princess/status/851873048269598720
Although I don’t like it when Wikipedia is used for political commentary. I have to admit that the turnip truck joke was brilliant. Had me laughing like a maniac in front of my computer.
Just checked the changes on the Wiki page have already been rolled back.
Sean Spicer is going to need years of intense psychotherapy to recover from selling his soul to Trump to get this gig. It’s like watching a drowning man who keeps refusing the safety lines rescuers throw him.
Now is a good time to remind everyone that many Holocaust refugees were refused admission into the U.S. and subsequently killed by Hitler.
Spicer’s doing a bruilliant job. We’re talking about his latest schlockjockery when we should be talking about the actual airstrike, its probavle effects, and the dangerous incoherence of Trump’s foreign policy. And see this, from a fromer UK ambassador to Syria: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WubWQrjyu8s
I think the airstrike was the right thing to do. The same, however, cannot be said about Trump’s declared acceptance of Assad before, which naturally made the dictator believe he had a carte blanche to do anything.
Good video, Paul. Thank you for drawing attention to it. I didn’t know rebels, according to Ford, had used chlorine against civilians in a Black Flag operation with the intent on putting the blame on Assad. Is this documented someplace?
No, he really isn’t doing a brilliant job. And why can’t we talk about many different things at the same hour, day, week . . .? I know I am perfectly capable of doing so and I assume that I am not unique in that capacity.
How long until Pish-Posh Spice starts to argue that “there were no holes in the ceilings of the gas chambers at Auschwitz!”?
You would be hard pressed to find a person who considers Trump more deplorable and dangerous than I, but perhaps Spicer should be cut a little slack in regard to Jews and certain other ethnic groups. Spicer claims that Hitler did not use gas “on his own people.” At least in regard to the Jews, Hitler did not consider them “his own people.” Indeed, one of the basic tenets of Nazism was that Jews were not true Germans or Aryans. In this view, Jews were vermin to be exterminated as were the Roma as explained in the Holocaust Encyclopedia.
“The Nazis targeted Roma (Gypsies) on racial grounds. The legal interpretations of the 1935 Nuremberg Laws (German laws which defined Jews by blood according to racist theories) were later adapted to include Roma. The Nazis termed Roma “work-shy” and “asocial”—in the Nazi framework, unproductive and socially unfit. Roma deported to the Lodz ghetto were among the first to be killed in mobile gas vans at the Chelmno killing center in German-occupied Poland. The Nazis also deported more than 20,000 Roma to the Auschwitz-Birkenau camp, where most of them were murdered in the gas chambers.”
https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005149
Of course, the Nazis murdered millions outside of the concentration camps by means other than gas, including anti-Nazi Germans. Some “real Germans,” at least ethnically, such as gays, were sent to the concentrations camps. However, not all concentration camps were extermination camps, so I don’t know how many people such as these were gassed. It is also probable that some other non-Jews, such as Russians and Poles, were gassed, but not necessarily in concentration camps. But, of course, they were not Hitler’s “own people” either.
This article from the Holocaust Encyclopedia implies that German gays were not gassed, although they were treated brutally in the camps they were sent to.
https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005261
So, I would not be too hard on Spicer for a remark he probably regrets, but will not so admit. There are so many more pressing things that Trump and his spokesman should be criticized for. This is one historical argument that is a distraction.
Now, go after me! Perhaps I am splitting hairs here by focusing on Spicer’s use of the expression “on his own people” and am being too charitable towards him. I will gladly admit that I am wrong if it can be shown that Nazi policy was to murder by gas people they considered ethnically German as opposed to other means.
So, according to you, Hitler’s words that Jews weren’t Germans count more than reality, and that lets Spicer off the hook? Are you insane?
I hope that Professor Coyne will not ban you for your ad hominem attack.
You seem to imply that entities such as nationality and ethnicity can be objectively determined. I disagree. For example, there has been a continuous debate in United States history as to what it means to be an American. I was trying to make the point that the Nazis did not consider Jews to be Germans during the World War II era. Others would disagree, as would I, but that is irrelevant. Nor do I excuse in even the remotest sense what they did. But, I was trying to explain why they did it.
Heather Hastie may very well be correct that Spicer simply forgot about the Holocaust. I was arguing that Spicer was technically correct and the debate over his remarks is a distraction from what Trump is doing in the here and now.
You are trying to justify what Spicer said and I find that offensive. Now you are getting off the point of what Spicer said.
There is a difference between justifying and explaining. Trying to dispassionately explain an incident, i.e., Spicer’s remarks, does not necessarily imply approval. Although I argue that Spicer was technically correct (without him probably knowing it), I believe his degree of ignorance is probably only surpassed by Trump.
“So, according to you, Hitler’s words that Jews weren’t Germans count more than reality, and that lets Spicer off the hook? Are you insane?”
No he is not.
The suggestion with the phrase “his own people” is that it is psychologically more difficult to kill people who you indentify with, family, tribe etc. Hitler did not view Jews as his “own people”, and neither did Truman when dropping the atomic bomb on Japanese civilians.
Do not get offended when no offence was intended.
This was an uncivil remark; please refrain from saying things like accusing commenters of being “insane”!
Assad surely also uses some method to other the people he is gassing (e.g. Sunni vs Shia).
They are non-Alawites. (Q.E.D)
I don’t think it was anything so complicated. I think Sean Spicer was thinking about the battlefield and just forgot about the gas chambers.
Spicer has already shown an ignorance of, and lack of appreciation for, history. I think this is just another manifestation of that.
During the Republican Convention last July, after it was beyond peradventure that Melania Trump had plagiarized parts of her speech from Michelle Obama, Sean Spicer appeared before the national media to claim it was the fault of Twilight Sparkle from My Little Pony.
Why anyone gives him even a moment’s credibility since, is a mystery.
Yeah, I’d forgotten about that. He seems to have this hero worship thing going on with Trump. He believes anything that comes out of the guy’s mouth and is prepared to alter reality to make any Trump pov fit.
When Spicer got the job, the other reporters apparently thought he’d be good. They didn’t count on his Trump personal delusion meter being so high.
+1
Every time he opens his mouth, he sounds like a fucking moron. Sean Spicer, you need to resign and go get some help. Seriously.
Yes.
Of course this is why a politically savvy press secretary should have thought it out ahead and refrained from off-the-cuff remarks.
Never mind. I am reminded of Nixon’s hapless press sec and “Last week’s statement is inoperative”.
cr
I understand what you’re saying, but, as Joe Pesci told his date at the Copa in Goodfellas, “you have to watch out, ’cause sometimes how you say things, people can get the wrong impression.” 🙂
Mr. Spicer should resign / be sent packing immediately. If nobody wants to take his position, an urgent law could be passed to pick random citizens to do it, like jury duty.
More like Shirley Jackson’s short story “The Lottery.” 🙂
Let’s just sic United Airlines on him…
Surely Spicer and some of the others shop at Trump dot com to get the lowest price on brains. They all sound alike and they all avoid truth at all cost.
They should just have a card they pull out and give to everyone they talk to. It states briefly: You are right, I did tell a lie just then but you know what I mean.
Or maybe a card that says, “I’m just here to create a distraction from the actual events of the day by any means possible, including tone-deaf comments guarantied to set off the chattering class…
If I recall correctly (I don’t have access to the book) David Irving claims in Hitler’s War, that Hitler refused, on ethical grounds, to use sarin gas on the enemy.
If my memory is correct, and if this bizarre claim has passed into right wing propaganda, and if it was passed on to Spicer as a good talking point, then that would mean that Spicer meant to refer specifically to sarin gas, and not to deny the holocaust.
If that is the case, he could try to minimize criticism of him by stating clearly that he was referring to a different and very specific piece of pro-Hitler propaganda from a holocaust denier, and not specifically denying the holocaust himself.
There is no possible excuse for having someone like Sean Spicer as press secretary. He lacks education. He can’t think on or off his feet.
And he definitely hasn’t been to Toastmasters or some other venue for learning how to talk to groups. But then, Trump’s selection of Sean Spicer seems to be consistent with all his other selections representing to the world: America, the land of the ignorant dummies.
Bring back CJ.
Guess after alienating them by lobbing a few score Tomahawks at a deserted airbase in podunk Syria, the Trumpers felt they owed their alt-right Assad & Putin fans the reach-around of saying a nice word about Nazis.
(I mean, “Holocaust Centers,” Sean? Makes the death camps sound like community centers where civic-minded Iowans go to caucus every four years.)
“Hitler didn’t use chemical weapons”
Sorry Americans, Truman is worse than Hilter!
Hitler also didn’t use napalm or cluster bombs with red cloth streamers or encased in hard plastic so shrapnel couldn’t be detected by x-ray. The red cloth-streamers were to make unexploded bomblets attractive to children. Careful with you call Assad inhuman.
“The red cloth-streamers were to make unexploded bomblets attractive to children. ”
Terrible, I was not aware of this.
The amount of stupid, arrogance, and Dunning-Kruger in the world gives me Weltschmerz.
There’s a cream for that these days, but only available by prescription. And stay away from the herbal “remedies” labeled for that…they’ll just turn your Weltschmerz into a really bad case of Schadenfreude.
b&
>
I like Schadenfreude. Schadenfreude let’s me feel smug and superior and just a little naughty for feeling so.
Yes, but seek medical attention immediately if it lasts for more than four hours….
b&
>
I think you’re thinking of dialectal dysfunction.
In that case, call a metaphysician.
I am reminded of the late Gary Shandling re this occurance: “I’m not calling my doctor, I’m calling everybody.”
Let us know if it develops into angst (or crosses the Rhine into ennui).
Oh mon adieu not ennui!
Just as we could have predicted a missile attack to counter falling popularity and bad optics with proximity to Putin, we could also have predicted some nice pro-Hitler propaganda to win back disillusioned white supremacists.
It looks to me like someone told him to work a Hitler reference into his speech somehow.
Either that or he really is as stupid as he sounds.
That line about never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by incompetence is really being tested by this administration.
Tillerson has just been quoted as asking why should US taxpayers care about Ukraine, while Spicer has just gone on CNN to apologize and say he didn’t want to distract from Trump’s efforts in Syria to destabilize the region.
Waiting to see if someone shows up to say that Spicer is not wrong because Zyklon B is the brand name of a pesticide. *sigh*
My free advice to all politicians is this. Should the urge strike you to compare anything to Hitler, DON’T. It doesn’t end well.
I think the outrage is a bit overblown. Spicer, whose main qualification for the job seems to be a lack of integrity, is stunningly unable to talk without putting his foot deep in his mouth. I doubt, though, that there is any holocaust denial here. Stupidity for sure but does anybody really not realize what he was so in-artfully trying to say? Is using gas in a gas chamber really the use of “weapons”? If the Germans had shot 6M Jews instead of gassing them, would everybody be OK with the comparison?
There’s a whole lot to be outraged about with this administration. This kerfuffle seems to be overwrought. Mock Spicer all you like, he deserves it, but the level of outrage far exceeds the crime here.
Yep.
Actually Spicer lost me at the sentence before that. “WE didn’t use chemical weapons in World War 2”
Yeah right. Only napalm, incendiaries, flamethrowers and nukes, but of course they’re perfectly innocuous and besides, the enemy made us do it.
Actually I find that more objectionable than the – probably accidental – aside about Hitler. It’s just more hypocritical. Memo to Spicer: before you start being pious about what ‘we’ did, think for a moment about what we actually did.
cr
Don’t forget white phosphorus and things like fire bombing Dresden.
War is awful, especially nowadays where there is high likelihood of civilian casualties. As a world, we’ve accepted a lot of that as just business as usual (although it should be pointed out that slaughtering civilians isn’t new; check out the Bible). We have accepted that some weapons shouldn’t be used and chemical ones are one of them. I don’t have a solution to Syria where as many as half a million have already died. But it’s a bigger problem that the fact that Spicer has foot in mouth disease.
Indeed. The opposition’s outrage is clearly just playing to their base. (As a member of the opposition, I feel entitled to criticize it…) By all means, let’s pile on Spicer rather than contemplating what the escalating military response might bode.
It is, to my eyes, just another variant of virtue signaling…
Just a couple of weeks before, the US air force (in all probability) killed around 300 civilians including women and small children with a strike by absolutely ordinary bombs in Mosul.
Nearly 300 died in Mosul airstrike, making it one of the deadliest attacks on civilians in recent memory
There is a lot of cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy going around.
“There is a lot of cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy going around.”
I fully agree
Sounds like Spicey is doing Norm Crosby’s old act.
Omigosh, thanks for that! I’d forgotten all about Norm Crosby!
(Dino was nothing if not swave and blaze.)
There oughta be a picture of Dino next to the entry for “louche” in the dictionary. 🙂
Mattis also referenced the idea that the worst tyrants in WW2 didn’t use chemical weapons. So it looks to me very much like Spicer was given “mention Hitler” as a talking point.
If this wasn’t so damaging to the country it would be funny…and yet i had to laugh.
This administration is indeed a “clown car of incompetents”.
With Republicans everyone is Hitler. Saddam was Hitler….Even Obama was Hitler. Republicans have Hitler Turrets!
“With Republicans everyone is Hitler.”
There is a lot of name calling around.
According to the Democrats everyone is a racist.
Holocaust Center? Meaning – Concentration Camps, right? He couldn’t remember “Concentration Camp”? Or is that a bad word in the Trump administration?
Also – no you didn’t use chemical weapons in WWII. You saved all your Agent Orange for Vietnam.
Saw this online somewhere:
“Spicer must have been home-schooled by Betsy DeVos and studied chemistry at Trump University.”
Hahahaha
Ugh, what a buffoon. I agree, though, that this is not the remark of an anti-Semite, just a poorly thinking boor (which is bad enough).
I agree with Paul Braterman’s comment above that we should be talking about the actual airstrike and not Spicer’s nonsense.In case someone is interested, I wrote a very detailed blog post, in which I examine the evidence about the recent chemical attack and compare the situation with what happened after the chemical attack in Ghouta in August 2013. I argue that, in that previous case, the media narrative had rapidly unravelled and that, for that reason, we should be extremely prudent about the recent attack and not jump to conclusions. It’s more than 5,000 words long and I provide a source for every single factual claim I make. I really believe it’s the most thorough discussion of the allegations against Assad with respect to his alleged use of chemical weapons out there. Please share it if you thought it was interesting.
Theye’re not even funny anymore. !