"Appeasement": Guilt-By-Analogy... When Guilt-By-Association Isn't Enough

I was the split-screen bystander on Hardball last night when Chris Matthews exposed Kevin James as the quintessential right wing slandering bloviator.

James was of course pathetic but his -- and Bush's and McCain's -- strategies aren't so funny. Basically, when you've lost an argument because facts and history aren't on your side, resort to unprovable guilt-by-association or, as in appeasement, guilt-by-analogy.

It was bad enough when McCain tried to link Hamas and Obama because Hamas said it preferred Obama. And if the Klan endorsed McCain because he wasn't the black guy, would McCain have a problem if someone said that McCain and the Klan are one and the same?

Then Bush makes his instantly famous appeasement attack at the Knesset on Obama. We've seen this movie before. Whenever conservatives can't win an argument on the merits, they attack some real or perceived enemy as Hitler. So Ho Chi Mihn was Hitler. bin Ladin was Hitler. Ahmadinejad was Hitler. Of course Hussein was Hitler. And anyone who does something to try to resolve conflict short of more war is Neville Chamberlain.

Beyond the fact that Mr. President 28% has next-to-credibility on much of anything, least of all in the Middle East, the attack on Obama is ridiculous.

As the late PM Yitzhak Rabin famously said, you negotiate not with your friends but your enemies. Was Israel -- with far more experience and its survival at stake in dealing with war and terrorism -- wrong to neogtiate with former enemy Egypt, with successful result...wrong to negotiate with former enemy Jordan, with successful result... now wrong to talk to Syria about peace in exchange for the Golan? Churchill rightly understood that at times of potential or actual conflict, it was better to "jaw jaw than war war."

Given where Bush's ready-fire-aim approach has gotten us in Iraq, it's good for the next president to pursue a strategy of common security when it comes to such inter-border problems as terrorism, pollution, AIDS and nuclear proliferation. Bush and McCain's military-first impulse has proven a calamity for America and the world because, to quote even a momentarily cogent Don Rumsfeld, "we can't kill them all."

Take Iran and Ahmadinejad, the newest "Hitler." Iran can't stop laughing at Bush's foreign policy. He attacks its long-time enemy Iraq, allowing Iran's Shia majority to have far more influence in a Shia-majority Iraqi government. And Bush at the same time provides an unpopular Iranian government with a convenient outside enemy to rally nationalistic support to its side. Which is why Secretary Robert Gates himself has advocated talking more to Iran. What an appeaser!

Related: Chris Matthews Eviscerates Right-Wing Host Kevin James Over Obama "Appeasement" Claims

Comments

[FarOutFish]

This is turning into the last scene of an Agatha Christie novel. Mrs. Marple gathers the suspects into a room and announces “The Murderer is in this room” Of course the killer leaps to his feet proclaiming “It wasn’t me.”

Bush dragged the bait of appeasement past the school of candidates and Obama bit at it like a Tarpon after a Mullet, Had everyone ignored the gambit, it would have been reported as the President blowing a kiss towards the Israelis. The Democratic candidates would be discussing their strong points, economy, health care, the increasable shrinking dollar, not there perceived weakness, national security.

[sophistwatch]

Read my post.

To quote a true American patriot, Dick Marcinko, "DOOM" on you! I am pretty sure he would not want some A-holes in an office getting his men killed because you did not understand the tactical situation on the ground or in the ocean or elsewhere. With your chest poked out unnecessarily threatening the other side with a war that men like Marcinko and his men have to fight.

I can't speak for Mr. Marcinko, but you desk jockeys are as FOS as a Christmas goose.

This Admin has treated the troops like sh*t and you have the balls to talk about appeasement??? The likes of you don't write checks big enough to buy the esprit de corps that it is going to take to get our butts out of the mess you got us into.

You better pray to what you believe in that the men and women willing to fight and die for this country have mercy on your and your kind.

This will not likely get posted, but if it does I hope every one takes note of just what is gained and lost during a war. Mr. Bush you have no business talking about appeasement.

[jhink465]

Telling it like it is. Hrrah!

[indypete]

Well said! (Remind me not to piss you off!)

[NicoleAnonymous]

I can't understand what you're trying to say - are you saying war is always wrong regardless of the situation?

Our country wouldn't exist if we didn't go to war against the British and there would still be slavery if we didn't have the civil war and Hitler would have killed almost everyone in Europe if we hadn't won that war so we don't always have a choice. The situation in Iran could become really dangerous because they have extremists running the government - I doubt they would ever attack us but we need to make sure they understand we're not "negotiating" with them about anything. If they attack us their country will be destroyed.

[MikeW213]

Sophistwatch,
I can't quite figure you out. You must be a weekend warrior.

Tell us specifically what the Admin did to treat you like Sh*t. If you were a real militaryman, you'd know that all of us are volunteers and would know what you were getting into before you ever signed up.

If you are actually overseas in a war zone or have actually ever been in any warzone, you'd know that we are in a police action stage now. Not exactly what we were trained to do. But, as our fathers and grand fathers discovered at the end of WWII, it has to be done. Hey, we are still in Germany last time I looked.

Do you think talking nice will make everything hunky dory over there? You must have your head up your fourth point of contact. The men and women I've fought with always have mercy for mankind. Even if they are misguided and ignorant about what actually is going on over there and why we do what we do.

Ever notice how quick and tough acting the Democrat Presidents became shortly after taking ofice and learning the real truth? Fact is, we have been to war more frequently in our history under the leadership of Democrat Presidents than any other party.

[mattashell]

Not addressing a perceived weakness, especially one like national security, would be stupid. It's a mistake the Dems have made in the last couple of elections. That the Republican strategy on national security appears to be let's start yet another war we can't sustain, makes this a battle that the Dems should win easily.

This is actually a great thing for Obama, since it further joins McCain and Obama at the hip and shows that McCain has no interest in changing anything, including the tenor of the debate.

[sophistwatch]

This appeasement issue that Bush brought up happens to be pretty instructive if you look at it for what it is.

The last time this was a relevant issue was when Regan appeased the Iranians in the Arms for Hostages deal. I wonder who the researcher was who pitched this softball to Bush.

http://www.mia.org.il/archive/861106lat.html

Bush is following in Regan's footsteps and McCain now wants the baton.

The two greatest appeasers in modern history are the Republican party's top names. And Bush is talking smack about appeasement.

[apoyo]

Hopefully, this serves to make the Democrats stop their bs against each other and unite once and for all to win in November.

[Hoelder]

Coming from a president without outstanding credentials in history or policy successes, it is the same old, same old strong phraseology of the Republican pissing contest. It proves what the world know all along: Americans elect numb nuts for president or senile imbeciles shouting to tear the wall down while the process was well under way without US help. Bush has nothing to show for. Bush says inappropriate things without really caring about those actually studying history or living in the area. Isn't it a wonderful feeling to watch a president talking to the elected body of Israel evoking the spirit of Hitler not far from the Holocaust memorial. I don't know any less appropriate people to mention.

[CircleofHealth]

Well Bush may not know history but he should at least know the history of his own family as they seem to be the only people he cares about.

And if you were going to characterize the role of his ancestors, appeasement would be too soft a word. The fact is that Prescott Bush directly financed Hitler's armaments and his rise to power-- so that Americans of the great generation had to go give their lives to fight a war against the very guy the Bush family empowered and put on the map.

No wonder the word Hitler comes to mind when Bush is speaking to a group of Israelis-- but the finger pointing out at others should turn back and point at himself and his own ancestors.

Anyone wanting to look into this further, just google "Prescott+­Bush+Hitle­r."

[elizaW]

Barak's policy when it comes to Iran is appeasement. He thinks if he talks nice they'll come around and shower love on him the way so many left wing democrats do. Not only is that weak, it's ridiculously bad judgment and shows very little grasp of foreign policy. It's a point that was made on KCRW's Left, Right and Center today. Not by Arianna of course.

[JRandomPoster]

First off, lets make sure we are on the same page here. Appeasement is giving your enemy something out of fear. Talking and negotiation is something completely different. One can speak and negotiate from a position of strength; one can only appease from a position of weakness and fear.

Now, ignoring your sarcasm, what would you propose? We aren't going to solve the century old regional hatreds with force (unless we kill every single last Iranian.) We are not going to overcome the memories of European colonialism with a blunt object approach, either. Yet we want the resources in the area; we are dependent upon the oil.

So - again - what do you propose we do? The folks in that part of the world still want to sell us oil, and we have not yet so completely destroyed our economy that we still retain the ability to speak and negotiate from a position of strength.

In my mind, the alternative is never ending war. Perhaps you have another?

[altohone]

They ignore reasoned conversations.

I liked your comment though.

[Dave1955]

No, talking to one's enemies is NOT appeasement. Appeasement would be if, say, Iran insisted that we let them take over the Shia portion of Iraq, and we said, "O.K., sure, but only if you promise that you won't take anything else."

Because THAT is what Chamberlain did. His appeasement was not talking to Hitler (all the European leaders tried talking); his appeasement was giving him half of Czechoslovakia.

You would thing you right-wingers would at least get your facts straight, before making yourselves look really, really ignorant.

[lisakaz2]

Lemme guess: you don't know what the word means, either, since it has NOTHING to do with talking "nice."

[23000Days]

You likely wouldn't have bothered to check your Funk and Wagnalls for the difference between negotiation and appeasement, because you still believe that forcing your will on others makes perfect sense.
If your "grasp of foreign policy" is "if they don't do as we say, bomb the shit out of them!", then you live in the same la-la land that GWB and Dick occupy. HINT: It's not working! It has never worked! it never will....
Peace doesn't come from a gunbarrel.

[MikeW213]

23000 Days:
It damn sure did during WWII.
Who was your History teacher?

There are those who would say, "Nuke e'm 'til they glow and use their butts for runway lights."

Then there are the Jimmy Carter types who negotiate and give everything away ala the Panama Canal.

So, what do you propose we do? We don't negotiate with terrorists for good reason. It puts them in the position of power.

What? You don't think another 9/11 is possible or probable? Get your head out of the sand. The Berlin Wall didn't come down because we appeased the enemy. We did it from a position of power. The fear that we have the guts to push the button if necessary does work. Power seems to be the only thing we have to negotiate with. So, do we really want a wet noodle talking for us all?

Extracting a portion of what the author stated on the HuffPo front page, "anyone who tries to resolve conflict short of more war is Chamberlai­n."

Death of a Nation; You'll know us by our gentle touch!
Is that what the new Democrat mantra is going to be?

[Barky]

As has been noted by others here you obviously dont know what "appeasement" means...an­d as I suspect neither do George Bush nor Sen. McLite.

This may help...tak­e a look and please watch the entire clip or you may miss something:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/15/hardball-shoutfest-matthe_n_102020.html

[gerrylong]

They'll do anything to win -- anything.
There is the Time Magazine of 5/27/87, cover story – (“Whatever Happened To Ethics”), which lists more than 100 members of the Reagan administration who were being investigated for “questionable activities”. We know that many of them did serve prison terms, and more probably would have if not for the cowardly Xmas Eve pardon of many of them by Bush I as he left office.

There is the LA Times article on the Nixon criminals of 6/16/92, (“Where Are They Now”), listing at least fourteen of the culprits and the length of the prison terms they served. Nixon was pardoned by another Cowarly act of Gerald Ford

Now we have the Bush II whose crimes are so widespread most newspapers can’t (or won’t’) even cover them any more. (A few: Attorney General, Siegelman, No Bid Contracts, Electronic Evesdropping, Lying to Congress, War Crimes, etc., etc.)

When will the American People realize GOP administrations cannot be trusted. They live with their hands in the cash register. The talk about “Tax and Spend Democrats” yet 85% of our existing federal budget was created under Reagan and Bush I and Bush II. The beneficiaries of that largesse has gone to huge business and wealthy individuals who support the party.

So in November, the poor folks who get their news from Limbaugh and Fox will go to the polls, give themselves another kick in the ass, and vote for John McCain.

[continental]

In reply to ApolloSpeaks:

Are you kidding or just showing off your ignorance?

[DonKrieger]

Let's talk about those who've appeased America. What about the "Old Europe," nations like Belgium, Germany, and France, nations which allowed themselves to be intimidated into sending a token force to Iraq to join "the coalition?"

What about Spain and Italy pulling their token forces out of Iraq after the one, Spain, was the target of a terrorist attack and the other, Italy, after their force sustained fatalities? Did they "appease" both America and the terrorists?

More importantly, who wrote President Bush's remarks? Does anyone question that he had the knowledge, etc. to write it? Why would Condoleeza Rice, or whoever was advising him go along with his speech, allowing him to disgrace himself and our government? Did he simply insist on it?

I personally see a child when I hear President Bush speak, and a very fearful one. I see a cowardly child, who has used the might of America to bully our allies and enemies alike.

[U4IA]

Hear, hear!

He and many of the neo-cons share this complex. It seems as though they've never come out of that highly solipsitic, narcissistic world view of a toddler. And they've just had their milk and cookies taken from them.

[NicoleAnonymous]

So do you think it was right that our country got involved in a European war during the Holocaust even though Americans were really threatened by it?

[ceu]

Nicole, Germany declared war on the US on 12/11/1941. Since we were going to war against Japan following the attack on Pearl Harbor and because of the alliance Germany, Italy, and Japan had entered into in 1940, we really didn't have much choice but to become involved in Europe - but we didn't do it because of the Holocaust.

[ApolloSpeaks]

THE OBAMA DOCTRINE OF APPEASEMENT, WEAKNESS AND DEFEAT

What do the terror-masters of Iran consider the greatest threat to their theocratic regime? A US invasion of their country which they would never survive. And what do they want most from the US? The elimination of this threat by the removal of our forces from the region.

Now what is the Obama Doctrine for dealing with Iran? First, Obama has pledged to remove most if not all US troops from Iraq and the region within 16 months of his administration. And what will we get from Iran in return? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! Obama is going to eliminate the greatest existential threat to the mullahs without receiving any concessions from them on either the nuclear issue and their massive funding of terrorism.

And once US troops are gone from the Middle East and Iran is breathing a sigh of relief what then does Obama plan to do? He's going to hold "direct tough presidential negotiations" with Ahmadenijad without any real leverage, without a gun to their heads, without the biggest, baddest most threatening stick he can use: the threat of a US invasion.T­his is kindergarten diplomacy, diplomacy from weakness, not from a position of strength, and shows a serious lack of judgment reminiscent of Chamberlain's complete misreading of Hitler's intentions.

Retreat now diplomacy later! Peace through weakness not through strength! Can someone tell me how the Obama Doctrine differs in any respect from appeasement, or just plain stupidity?

[U4IA]

And speaking of narcissism, thank you ApolloSpea­ks...

[BlueOnBlue]

Right now, the United States is in a position of weakness and it is not from pulling out of Iraq. It is from having gone in there. We are now stretched so thin that it has removed any credible threat that we will meet force with force elsewhere. Short of throwing bombs at them, we can't.

We have tied down and eviscerated our ground forces. This severely limits us, because there is no way short of rockets and bombs for us to retaliate.

Of course, to the simpleheaded, it's easy to say let's just threaten to bomb them out of existence with nukes. Sure - and everything downwind, as well. On a bad day, that could be Russia, which might just not be pleased.

No, it's not leaving Iraq which will make us weak. It's staying that will keep us weak.

[JRandomPoster]

I was going to reply, but I saw yours and it pretty much captured what I was going to say.

I'll just add that, in reference to negotiations "without a gun to their heads" - our gun, as finely crafted an instrument as it is, can only fire so many rounds at a time, and on only so many targets at once.

[ApolloSpeaks]

Iran is global enemy number one. Armed with nukes raises the danger tenfold. Why then would we want to leave the Middle East when the greatest Jihadist threat is Iran? As for leaving Iraq it only makes geo-political sense if our forces are redeployed within the region: Qatar, Kuwait, Kurdistan. But to bring them home? That spells disaster.

[blueshield]

Let's look at our real leverage. We have given Iran a friendly Shia majority in Iraq's government, something they could never have dreamed of achieving. We eliminate Iran's mortal enemy without their having to fire a shot, one which had restrained Iran's ambitions for decades. By our own doing, the United States is being bled billions daily, the balance of our military capacity is tied down and wearing out, attempting to prevent the total collapse of what is left of Iraq. We have given Ahmadenijad a unifying bully on his doorstep to shore up his power base and prevent moderates from challenging him, and for the cheap price of a few martyrs, he can claim to have fought the Great Satan as an equal on the world stage.

The past eight years have incredibly strenghtened our enemies in Iran, given them world stature and power, while at the same time reducing our own, for absolutely no gain whatever.

This is a case of the hostage holding a gun to their own head, and believing they have negotiating leverage. It's delusional, not policy.

And if engaging enemies is "appeasement", then Bush has a lot to answer for his current dealmaking with Axis of Evil North Korea, which has a far more credible nuclear threat than Iran.

[ApolloSpeaks]

I concede that Iran has benefited from the Iraq War. But the clock can't be reversed. If benefiting Iran is a bad thing why then benefit them even more by removing from the region the army that defeated Saddam Hussein in less than 30 days-Iran couldn't do this in 8 years-and replaced him as the region's only buffer to Iranian ambitions? How can we have "tough" negotiations with Iran by throwing away our greatest bargaining chip? THE THREAT OF A US INVASION.

Moreover, no Iranian can become president of Iran unless he is a Khomeine Jihadist. In Iran Khomeine Jihadists are either moderates or hard liners. Their difference is over means not ends. The end is the restoration of the Islam as a great world power-the revolutionary aim of Iran. The means to victory is either through an accommodating and deceptive approach to international relations, the moderates, or through a more straightforward and confrontational approach, the hard liners. Moderates and hard-liners are essentially the same. Treating them as basically different is a dangerous mistake in a commander in chief-reminiscent of Chamberlain's misreading of Adolph Hitler as a conventional statesman.

Obama is clearly guilty of this sin. LIke Chamberlain with Hitler he believes that the implacable, radical "moderate" and "hardline": mullahs can be appeased and moderated; hence, his unrealistic plan to remove US forces from the MIddle East prior to negotiations. A very very naive policy that is doomed to fail as it did with Hitler.

[HSimpson]

Kevin James was really funny on "King of Queens" but he obviously doesn't know his history very well.

What?.....­.......It'­s not the same Kevin James?....­..........­.....sorry my mistake.

[NicoleAnonymous]

Actually liberals compare people to Nazis or Hitler way more often than anyone. There are lots of people who accuse Bush and Republicans of being Nazis as if that is the only way they can make their point. They do that frequently - I used to tell people when I first came to this place that I was going to donate a dollar to a charity everytime someone compared Bush to Hitler but then I realized I would soon run out of money because it happened so much.

But I'm not really following this story that closely - as usual the MSM is making something into a major scandal and spending way too much time on it when there are more important issues to think about.

[JRandomPoster]

There is perhaps a reason that the word "fascist" comes up on occasion when describing the current regime. Dr. Lawrence Britt has studied fascism, and part of his work was to come up with 14 characteristics that tend to fit all fascist states. You can read a summery here:

http://www.rense.com/general37/fascism.htm

[lisakaz2]

Why don't you Google "Prescott Bush" and Nazis while you're at it?

[NicoleAnonymous]

I've already heard the rumours that someone in the Bush family was involved with Nazis but I'm not about to hold Bush responsible for what his relatives did many years ago.

He is a horrible president but those allegations have nothing to do with it.

[JRandomPoster]

Also - if Bush had made his remarks before a domestic audience, it would be worth discussion because what is really being discussed here is what sort of nation we should be. Should we always use force, always be sending troops to destroy those we don't agree with, or threatening them? Or should we attempt to find other ways to stop the perpetual cycles of violence that have their historical roots before our nation was founded, yet still impact our national interests?

By linking all negotiations with anyone who does not agree with US policy with Chamberlain's appeasement of Germany (which was not as simple a matter as a land grab demand by Germany, do your research), it makes any talks or negotiations appear to be a sign of weakness. Yet eventually, we will, as McCain said, have to deal with these people.

While I do believe that our armed forces are stretched too thin, and our economy has been weakened, we are still in a position to negotiate from a position of relative strength. If we continue along the path that Bush and Co. have set for us, we may find ourselves in a different position.

[zeitgeists]

Bush Property Seized--Trading with the Enemy

In October 1942, ten months after entering World War II, America was preparing its first assault against Nazi military forces. Prescott Bush was managing partner of Brown Brothers Harriman. His 18-year-old son George, the future U.S. President, had just begun training to become a naval pilot. On Oct. 20, 1942, the U.S. government ordered the seizure of Nazi German banking operations in New York City which were being conducted by Prescott Bush.

Under the Trading with the Enemy Act, the government took over the Union Banking Corporation, in which Bush was a director. The U.S. Alien Property Custodian seized Union Banking Corp.'s stock shares, all of which were owned by Prescott Bush, E. Roland `` Bunny '' Harriman, three Nazi executives, and two other associates of Bush.

If Bush is looking for an appeaser, the bloody fascist should look into the mirror!

Peace, Best Wishes and Hope

[123andy]

I have copied the relevant portion of the text of Bushie's talk:
"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. (Applause.­)"

I don't see a reference to Senator Obama or any Democrat in the text. What exactly is the uproar about? The only person who has been "negotiating" or at least talking to terrorists was ex-president Jimmy Carter in the past few weeks. Bushie may have refered to him if anyone at al.

[JRandomPoster]

From cnn.com:

"White House officials denied Obama was a target of Bush's remarks. But privately, White House aides indicated the criticism was aimed at various Democrats, including Obama and former President Jimmy Carter."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/16/obama.bush.mccain/index.html

Additionally, given the concerted attack by the right wing spin doctors and the McCain camp about Obama being soft on terrorists, being a Hamas supporter, and trying to paint any negotiation as being a sign of weakness, I don't see how his remarks could be construed any other way.

[lisakaz2]

Why don't you alert Senator McCain, since he clearly saw it differently.

[23000Days]

White house aides acknowledged this was a swipe at Obama.....­..

[BlueOnBlue]

I'm glad to see someone dug this stuff about Bush's father up. The family earned much of its early money in the arms trade and Prescott made a lof rom dealings with German business interests in the 30s.

There was also a story about Prescott being on the board of the Hamburg-America Line, which was investigated for a plot to overthrow FDR and set up a fascist regime in the U.S.

Bush's father was himself heavily involved with shady international dealings, not the least of which was the arms for oil deal with the Iranians.

The Bush family has never been very cuddly. And they have never minded dealing with the enemy, as long as there is profit in it. They're not Americans so much as Ferengis.

[tyrodin]

Ha ha, I actually find it fun to watch how Republicans act when they know their days are numbered. They bring out their true personalities, ugly meanspirited little children with behavior issues. I wonder if any of them will figure out that they might want to treat the next president with respect as the clock ticks along or if they'll just get nastier. It will be real interesting to see how they act when they get on the stand during all the corruption hearings that are coming.

[elizaW]

tyrodin,

You've got to be kidding. You can't possibly be accusing republicans of being "ugly, meanspirited little children with behavior issues" when for months now this site has been inundated with comments from democrats who have been ugly and meanspirited when it comes to Hillary Clinton. I have yet to find an anti-Obama comment from anyone (republican or democrat) that is as disgusting as the anti-Clinton comments that have been posted here by people in her own party. I suggest you read your own comments again and take repsonsibilitrry for your own ugliness.

[jjasonham]

I can't justify why anyone (anti-Clinton or anti-Obama) would resort to being meanspirited and vulgar on a blog comment board. However, it may have something to do with the fact that this is, in fact, a blog...com­ment...boa­rd. Since I don't usually read Republican blogs, or their comment boards, I have to rely on news articles, videos, tactics used in ads, reports from congress, etc to show me how horrid these Republicans in power can be. Their "ugly, meanspirited, behavior issues" directly affect the american people through legislation and policy because of bitter partisanship that both parties feel compelled to participate in, simply to defend themselves.

[altohone]

You can't possibly be defending the GOP by changing the subject to unsubstantiated claims?

[ThePrisoner]

Mark:
I watched it live last night and am delighted to see you post on it here. You showed that sometimes "less is more." Sitting there quietly with a big smile on your face while James sputtered his nonsense was half the fun of that segment.

[JRandomPoster]

Concur. Taking the high road has many advantages, though they do not manifest as quickly in many cases as low road rewards.

Kind of nice to be able to get some instant gratification from it sometimes, though.

[JRandomPoster]

There is a terrible irony in the fact that the neocons love to use the visceral response they can illicit by painting those they would attack as being fascists and akin to Hitler, when the tactic that they are employing is best summed up by the following:

"Naturally the common people don’t want war. But after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."

... which is attributed to none other than Hermann Goering.