Sean Spicer Reveals That Trump Is Hitler by Denying the Holocaust

Quick! The Alka-Seltzer! 

When Sean Spicer noted that even Hitler had not used chemical weapons against his people, I immediately knew what he was talking about. It is a familiar observation. Poison gas was used by all sides in the First World War. Hitler had stockpiles of it. Yet he allowed Germany to go down to total defeat without ever resorting to using it.

This was probably not for purely humanitarian reasons. The problem might just as well have been that, after the experience of World War 1, England, France, and the US also had their stockpiles of poison gas. Establish the precedent, and it would probably be a wash. Maybe useful once, in one vital, desperate battle, but no more.

There is another theory: that Hitler, having himself been gassed during the First World War, had a visceral aversion to it.

But I am utterly surprised by the public and press reaction to Spicer referring to this: that it was not true, and insensitive, because of the Jews Hitler gassed in the concentration camps.

What Spicer actually said was “We didn't use chemical weapons in World War II. Someone as despicable as Hitler ... didn't even sink to using chemical weapons.”

Exactly right. The preceding sentence makes it clear that he was referring to a weapon of war. Even without the specific reference to the war, an electric chair, a gas chamber, or a guillotine may qualify as a weapon, but it is not the sort of thing we usually think of when we use the term. It should not have been necessary to add “in war” in the second sentence to make this clear. If it were, this is a trivial error of clarity in an off-the-cuff spoken statement. We do not normally require precision in such circumstances.

In reaction, the Anne Frank Centre released this statement:








Excuse me, but are they nuts?

 

Putin's Intervention in the Syrian Crisis

Nobody's puppet.

A lot of commentators are unhappy about Vladimir Putin’s proposal to have Syria hand over its chemical weapons. But it seems to me that this is a good solution for everyone, and Putin is to be congratulated for playing a useful role. If this ends up boosting Russia’s prestige, it is deserved.

Let’s suppose things had gone as they were going before Putin’s intervention. There seems a good chance Obama would have lost his vote in Congress for action against Syria. Result: disaster for US diplomacy, and so much for the international ban on chemical weapons. If, on the other hand, Obama won the congressional vote, he would have either lobbed a few missiles at Syria, or done more extensive bombing. Either would have killed a lot of people. This is not good. Would it, despite this, have had worthwhile results? It is hard to say. An assault that did too little damage would do nothing to deter the use of chemical weapons the next time. It might even boost Assad’s prestige. An assault that did too much damage might throw the Syrian civil war to a rebel faction that is hostile to the West. It’s a choice even Hobson might not wish to make. A full-scale US ground assault might have been the ideal response, as I have argued, but that was not in the cards this time. It looked as though any possible congressional resolution was going to explicitly rule that out.

By contrast, Putin’s proposal, if it pans out, obliges Assad to accept and sign on for the international prohibition on chemical weapons. The ban is confirmed and upheld. One could argue that this is all a sham, that Assad is not really going to give up all his chemical weapons, and there is no way of confirming that he has. All fair enough, but beside the point. With Putin’s proposal, he cannot use them again. If he does, he is caught in a big lie; he has very clearly his own treaty obligations; and, not least, he has embarrassed Russia and Putin.

At the G8 summit.

In such an event, Obama should have far less trouble in getting Congress, the UN, and other governments to sign on to firm action against Syria—something he cannot seem to get now. The more so since he has demonstrated his good faith and reluctance to take the military option.

Will Assad, in the meantime, be able to strengthen his position? It seems unlikely. The element of surprise had already been lost; signing on to the Putin deal now can only give the US an opportunity to recover it. The use of chemical weapons on the outskirts of Damascus, in the first place, looked like desperation, and Assad’s willingness to seize this deal looks like desperation again. His days look numbered in any event. It may well be in everyone’s interest not to let his fall be too abrupt.

Okay, I’m struggling, but I just can’t see a downside to Putin’s deal. At the same time, Russia deserves credit for putting its prestige on the line here; this is not without risk.

And how much is this all going to cost the US, in blood or money?

Nothing.