Written by: Goemagog

While reading some other sites, I saw this...

Herbert Lottman, describing the last days of Paris before it fell to Germans in 1940 describes the strange mixture of urgency and lassitude, of obsession with long term schemes counterpointed by an indifference to the immediate in a nation that had just weeks to live. It was the perfect portrait of a country which did not know it was at war.

I would have to disagree. The Crapauds understood that they were not at war. Their war had been lost, and by ignoring all aspects of the war, they made themselves non-threatening to the advancing Germans. The cowards understood that to be non-threatening they would need to pose no direct threat while keeping their own population subdued and under control. This willful ignorance is why so many frogs who had been only weeks before fighting against the invaders were rolled into the Vichy government. They weren't really self-ruling, but they went along willingly to get what little scraps of power the Germans threw down for the lapdogs to fight over.

Winning the war wasn't important. Resisting the occupation wasn't important. Setting themselves up as potential collaborators was the only thing that mattered.

And that brings me a little more up to date. Kerry wants international approval for any anti-terrorist actions we take. This would require a considerable amount of groveling to the governments who are paying, and being paid by (France again), the terrorists. That would essentially put us at the mercy of the people trying to kill us. The Kerry approach to the war seems to be based on getting our 'old friends' to put in a good word for us so that he can run a vichy-style puppet show on their behalf.

The Bush plan is a bit more realistic, and relies on encouraging (bribing mostly) the local goons to pressure each other to accept Bush as the vichy president in exchange for large tributes ("aid").

Neither plans to try fighting the war because they both assume it to be lost. That's why neither will do anything about Arafat even though he's been a terrorist longer, having founded his own terrorist organization a year before bin Laden was born. Instead of fighting the world's number one terrorist, both want to give him more influence on our foreign policy, particularly the means by which we sacrifice Israel like so many Czechs. This makes Arafat happy, because it's why he got into the terrorist business all those many years ago.

Both Kerry and Bush also support tracking Americans around within the country, not unlike Big Brother's surveillance in Orwell's 1984. Neither of them has suggested keeping track of who crosses our borders or following terrorists. Both view Presbyterians as a greater threat than Muslims, although Kerry probably fears Baptists the most. That international terrorism, since the loss of Soviet sponsorship, is exclusively a Muslim strategy is not considered important. Keeping Americans subdued and under control is all that matters to either.

Goe, telling you to purge non-islamic thought before something vichy this way comes.