Olbermann turned that on its head
In a small irony, however, Mr. Rumsfeld’s speechwriter wasI don't know, really, if Olbermann here is being ironic or not. The kinds of political attacks by a ruling party against its critics that Olbermann cites was standard operating proceedure in 1938 Nazi Germany, not Great Britian. But Neville Chamberlain has received bad press ever since.
adroit in invoking the memory of the appeasement of the Nazis.
For, in their time, there was another government faced with true
peril - with a growing evil - powerful and remorseless.
That government, like Mr. Rumsfeld’s, had a monopoly on all the
facts. It, too, had the secret information. It alone had the true
picture of the threat. It too dismissed and insulted its critics in
terms like Mr. Rumsfeld’s - questioning their intellect and their
That government was England’s, in the 1930’s.
Somewhere, and I can't find the source, I've read that due to the double-whammy of world War I and the Great Depression Chaberlain's Great Britian was in no shape to fight a war with Germany. Nor was Édouard Daladier's France in any better economic shape. The truth was, Chamberlain knew Hitler was a threat but the political climate in Great Britian at the time, and perhaps his own personal inclination, prevented more forceful action. After all when he waved the Munich Agreement above his head at Heston Airport the crowd cheered.
In playing the game of "what if," most agree had Chamerlain and Daladier stood firm against Hilter World War II, at least in Europe, might never have happened.
Neville Chamberlain never, as Olbermann claims,"...demonized Winston Churchill" as has the Bush administration of its critics.
But Olbermann is correct on this; Rumfeld and the entire Bush administration's new attack meme that opponents of their misguided "war on terror" and "war in Iraq" as appeasers is wrong. And more importantly it is they who are the fascists.