Split from: Hitchen's Signature Behavior

[pomeroo]

Simple Solution

From the all roads lead to Rome department...

Pomeroo, rather than array quotes from Soros so I can evaluate if he engages in a practice of comparing Bush to Hitler, you expect me to play a game of whack-a-mole (you as mole) by providing one link after another, mostly to opinion pieces:

1. Frontpage Magazine
2. National Review
3. Worldnet Daily
4. WA Post (news story)

Seeing these links, a reader (who is lazy and gullible) might think you have supported your claim by citing four different quotes from Soros.

Except, each of these sources contains the same Soros quote, and as best as I can tell, no other quote.

(Since you insist on debate via link, it can't be ruled out that I overlooked something. Or maybe I inserted a bent quarter.)

It's quite misleading to hype your evidence this way.

Why not simply watch Soros explain himself to Wolf Blitzer?

 

[SkeptiKilt]

Why not simply watch Soros explain himself to Wolf Blitzer?

I did, and I posted about it, and you seemed to agree with some of my points. No matter how hard you hit it, that horse is not going to get up.

HAND

 

[Merko]

You can read the Post story here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A24179-2003Nov10?language=printer

Well, I think when Soros claims he didn't compare Bush and Hitler, we have two choices. Either he's lying. Or he didn't. I think it is generally good to avoid assuming that people are lying unless there really is no other explanation.

But looking at that actual quote (and thanks for finally posting it) I don't think Soros was comparing Bush to Hitler at all. I see something very different in that quote.

Soros, as you might know, is of part Jewish ancestry, and he had to flee the nazis in his youth. Later, the nazis were driven out of his native Hungary only to be replaced by another totalitarian regime--the Soviet union. When Soros talks about how he hears echoes of occupied Hungary, he isn't so much saying that Bush is exactly like Hitler (or Stalin), but rather explaining why he has such strong feelings when someone says something like Bush's "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

Now, I have noticed that Bush has in fact modified his rhetorics in a significant way. In more recent years, he has even made a point of stating that dissenters can be good Americans, etc. We might think that this is only a 'tactical decision', but to me that doesn't matter so much as the fact that he actually does it. While I'm sure this doesn't make Soros a Bush supporter, I'm sure it reduces his feeling of echoes from occupied Hungary.

We get the idea that Soros and Moveon had it pounded into their heads that although comparing Bush to Hitler is popular with leftist yahoos, it scares off sane folk.

There is another problem with your argument here. I know you've acknowledged that the left isn't monolithic, but Soros isn't even part of the left to begin with. He is the world's leading sponsor of free-market economic 'reform' politics, and thus an arch-enemy of much of the left. It is true that his opposition to Bush has brought him into an alliance with many leftists (in the form of Moveon), but that doesn't make him a leftist.

My impression is that Soros thinks that the issue of civil liberties trump the issue of free-market economics, and thus he can cooperate with leftists who equally think that civil liberties trump social interventionist economics. I'm part of that latter group, so even though I disagree very strongly with him on economics, I can still have respect for him. He has meddled a lot with the politics of many countries, but he has always done so in an essentially 'fair' way, as far as I'm aware.

 

[TobiasTheViking]

Oh yes, better than Tobias even.

LIES ALL LIES

 

[articulett]

You understand people like me well enough. You understand that we mean to resist the weakening and eventual destruction of America.

I guess that's the ideal Bush has inserted into your head. I think his policies have done more to divide and destroy America than anything else. And I remember the 80's as a time when Reagen incurred huge deficits (not unlike this President) to design a Star Wars Sci Fi pie-in-the-sky missile defense system which this current administration was going to be promoting on the day our own low tech airplanes were used as missiles. Whoever put the propaganda in your head did a good job. I'm sure the Nazis were convinced that they were resisting the weakening and destruction of Germany. I bet the Muslims are certain they are resisting the weakening and destruction of Islam. If you blow hards would kill each other instead of destroying the lives of those of us without a choice as to what our government does or what propaganda it expects us to kowtow too then it might be fine. But like Hitchens...those who benefit from certain leadership, are never the ones putting their lives, mental health, property, money, or loved ones on the line for their damned ideals.

 

[pomeroo]

Re: "Trope":

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think "trope" is quite the word you mean to be using. A trope is a figurative use of language to mean something other than it usually means, a rhetorical figure of speech that consists of a play on words, such as irony. True, hyperbole is a type of trope, but it's not the same thing. Maybe you meant "tripe"? Or maybe there's a usage of "trope" I'm unfamiliar with, in which case, you've taught me something.

I'm using the term to mean "any literary or rhetorical device, as metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche, and irony, that consists in the use of words in other than their literal sense" (Random House Dictionary of the English Language, Second Ed., Unabridged). The loony-left's favorite metaphor is, I assume, not to be understood as meaning that Bush and Hitler are the same person (but, then, ya never know).



Re: Ironic humor:


I don't think NotJesus is an "aspiring" satirist. I think the level of NotJesus' satire is top notch. Then again, such things are of course subjective, and even the greatest humorists are always aspiring to be better... so never mind.

Seriously, when I read NotJesus' post:
I laughed out loud. Perfectly timed dry comedy. Analyzing humor is one of the lamest human endeavors, but if I must, I'd say the two cues are 1) it's so outrageous a statement, so blunt and unadorned that it had to be satire (don't mention the people who do make Bush-Hitler comparisons, it's the way this was stated, in context); and 2) the follow-up, "So there's one," further tips us off to the fact that it's not serious. If it were, the follow-up would have been some variation of "And I'm not alone, there are thousands of us," and it would almost certainly have included explanations for why the comparison is valid. Also, the timing in the thread, after all this serious debate, made it obviously dry wit to me.

That's the last I'll say about analyzing humor, so you can have the last word if you want.

[/quote]
Your offer to allow me the last word is so gracious that I feel churlish accepting it. Of course, that's never stopped me before, so...

I just think you're seeing what you want to see. It's probable that the poster was making a simple declaration.

Incidentally, I don't have the slightest idea of why your words turned blue or how they got underlined.


Re: Claim about MoveOn.org:

Only because you accuse me and others of having been disingenuous, I must assure you: it was 100% sincere. And only because you're mischaracterizing it again, please let me set the record straight as simply as possible:

You did not merely complain about "MoveOn's odious Bush-is-Hitler stance" (however even that is a bogus claim -- the organization MoveOn takes no such stance; in fact a Google search of "Hitler" on all of MoveOn.org's pages produces only 6 distinct hits, of which only 4 actually mention Hitler, and all are about that non-MoveOn ad). Several of us responsed specifically to your claim:



And that specific claim of yours was accurately countered. With sincerity. That's all.

I continue to believe that MoveOn had no problem at all with those ads. When people started complaining, they treated the ads like off-color jokes that are perfectly acceptable around the dinner table at home, but inappropriate in a restaurant.





Re: No "monolithic left":

Pomeroo, you've derisively called my (and others') points about the non-monolitic nature of left "banal" and "sophomoric," but I take you at your word that you do not believe in a "monolithic left." Just so you understand why it has sounded like you do, here are some of the statements you've made in this thread [boldface added]:

• "I understand that they are highly inconvenient to the Big Lies of the left, but they are manifestly accurate."
• "The left's ugly smear of Bush continues."
• "Googling "Bush and Hitler" produces about 2,040,000 results. The left has promoted this insane comparison for years, starting with false allegations about the father of George H.W. Bush. Prescott Bush was not the "Nazi's financier," nor did he make money from the death camps. Yet, the madness persists. It is impossible to contend that the Bush-Hitler trope, grotesque though it may be, hasn't been a staple of leftist rhetoric."
• "That leftists have compared Bush to Hitler countless times is shameful."
• "Are you seriously trying to pretend that leftists haven't trumpeted their Bush-is-Hitler trope for over five years? This is a joke, right?"
• "Are you actually pretending that leftists haven't been comparing Bush to Hitler for the last five years?"
• "Can you possibly be contending that leftists DO NOT ROUTINELY compare Bush to Hitler? I can't be the only person who is blinking in disbelief."
• "The National Review, the Weekly Standard, and Commentary, to name only the journals that immediately spring to mind, have published articles examining the left's Bush-as-Hitler trope. You are pretending--and doing a highly unconvincing job--that the vile smear is given voice by a tiny fringe. You are wrong."
• "Move On's official line is that the ads were unpopular. I, along with every other conservative and, I suspect, many centrist Democrats, think they're lying: lefties compare Bush to Hitler all the time and they're not the least bit shy about it"
• "Yes, and the preposterous attempt at denial by a handful of leftists of the left's most repugnant and overused smear is the height of disingenuousness."

Can you see how repeated use of blanket terms like "the left," "leftists" and "lefties" gives the clear impression that you are lumping all on the left together? In the last quote above, you even suggest that only a "handful" of those on the left are distinguishable from the rest of the left who supposedly regularly compare Bush to Hitler. Many of us on the left find such a suggestion objectionable, just as many on the right find it objectionable when they're confused with being the same as some extremists of their wing.

Ah, but that's the problem. People on the right tend to be more fastidious about separating themselves from the wackos. As I wrote in another post, Alan Colmes went so far as to call Leslie Cagan "a liberal." That monument to fuzzy thinking (James Burnham used to say that for liberals, there is no enemy to the left) is comparable to Hannity calling some beer-soaked, gun-totin' survivalist who hears the whirring of helicopter blades above his head "a conservative."

Even the phrase "moveon types" is inaccurate, considering the vast numbers of MoveOn.org supporters who do not engage in the sort of rhetoric you're arguing against.

I, and many other conservatives, believe that the Bush-as-Hitler rhetoric resonates with many MoveOn types.

Also, since you mention people like Margaret Cho, I think it's important to distinguish between comedians and straight political commentators. The former -- which includes cartoonists and other satirists -- are always granted much more license to use hyperbole, sarcasm and irony. It's their job. Even if you believe there's truth behind what they're saying, you have to take it with a grain of salt, whether they lean left or right (e.g., PJ O'Rourke, Dennis Miller, etc.).

Finally, it's not always an egregious thing to draw loose comparisons between something bad and its most extreme extension or distortion -- depending on how it's stated and the point being made. I agree with you that it's usually mindless and inflammatory. But sometimes it's perfectly legitimate to sound the alarm on curtailments of freedom in a free society, and remind us of the most drastic consequences of such a path. It doesn't mean the speaker actually believes the current administration is similar to Hitler's; often the point is far subtler than that.

The left's rhetoric is rarely distinguished by subtlety. For most Bush-bashers, the sledgehammer and the mud pie remain the weapons of choice.

Never mind, SkeptiKilt clarified the distinction between comparing and equating better.

[/quote]

It is a useful distinction.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... You understand that we mean to resist the weakening and eventual destruction of America.

Really? I thought you were a Bush supporter.

Between the horrendously failed war policy, gutting of the country's ability to respond to Katrina like disasters, trading security for the cheap labor benefits to corporate cronies of having a wide open border to the south, and the worst foreign debt in the history of the country you may need to do a lot of resisting real soon.

 

[NotJesus]

Seriously, when I read NotJesus' post:
I laughed out loud. Perfectly timed dry comedy. Analyzing humor is one of the lamest human endeavors, but if I must, I'd say the two cues are 1) it's so outrageous a statement, so blunt and unadorned that it had to be satire (don't mention the people who do make Bush-Hitler comparisons, it's the way this was stated, in context); and 2) the follow-up, "So there's one," further tips us off to the fact that it's not serious. If it were, the follow-up would have been some variation of "And I'm not alone, there are thousands of us," and it would almost certainly have included explanations for why the comparison is valid. Also, the timing in the thread, after all this serious debate, made it obviously dry wit to me.

That's the last I'll say about analyzing humor, so you can have the last word if you want.

Your offer to allow me the last word is so gracious that I feel churlish accepting it. Of course, that's never stopped me before, so...

I just think you're seeing what you want to see. It's probable that the poster was making a simple declaration.

I think you're refusing to see what you don't want to see. The joke has been pointed out to you and explained to you. But you would prefer to believe that A) In the midst of all this wrangling about comparing Bush to Hitler, I decided to make the simple declaration "Bush is like Hitler" and then B) I got cold feet when you chided me for being irrational and tried to pass it off as a joke.

I realize it's embarassing to have a defective sense of humor, but continuing to posture without first wiping the egg off your face just makes you look silly.

 

[SkeptiKilt]

The left's rhetoric is rarely distinguished by subtlety. For most Bush-bashers, the sledgehammer and the mud pie remain the weapons of choice.

Political discourse of any stripe these days is almost completely devoid of subtlety. Sledgehammers, mud pies, cluster bombs and rhetorical nukes abound. 'Tis strange that you only seem to care about them when they comes from one side. Here are the first two grafs of a recent Ann Coulter screed:

Fortunately for liberals, the Iraqis executed Saddam Hussein the exact same week that former President Ford died, so it didn't seem strange that Nancy Pelosi's flag was at half-staff. Also, Saddam's death made it less of a snub when Harry Reid skipped Ford's funeral.

The passing of Gerald Ford should remind Americans that Democrats are always lying in wait, ready to force a humiliating defeat on America.

I submit that this is a bit stronger than "There are some disturbing similarities between the rhetoric of the White House and that used by the Nazis."

And now, since Godwin's Law has been amply demonstrated, it is time for the pancake bunny.

​

 

[LostAngeles]

...

And now, since Godwin's Law has been amply demonstrated, it is time for the pancake bunny.

​

I suppose we could chalk it up the extreme unfun of printing out my Logic textbook (which is legal to so, as it's only up online and I'm enrolled in the class), but man, that is a mesmerizing emoticon.

Is it kitten & recipe time yet for this thread also?

 

[pomeroo]

Uninspiring Vision

Really? I thought you were a Bush supporter.

Between the horrendously failed war policy, gutting of the country's ability to respond to Katrina like disasters, trading security for the cheap labor benefits to corporate cronies of having a wide open border to the south, and the worst foreign debt in the history of the country you may need to do a lot of resisting real soon.

The Bush-bashers have been shrieking about Iraq since 2002, making it difficult to tell when they noticed that the situation there had actually deteriorated. Many of Bush's shrillest critics seek an American defeat so fervently that one wonders if any of them have thought through the consequences of a failed Iraq becoming a satellite of Iran. It is beyond me that people can mount a moral high horse when their vision of the Middle East is a stagnant, benighted region where tyrants and corrupt plutocrats oppress their peoples and work mischief on the global scene. As someone wrote to The Guardian the other day, how can any liberal possibly be proud of having advocated keeping Saddam Hussein in power? This is carrying the enemy-of-my-enemy business to ludicrous extremes.

 

[pomeroo]

Unthinkable Alternative

I think you're refusing to see what you don't want to see. The joke has been pointed out to you and explained to you. But you would prefer to believe that A) In the midst of all this wrangling about comparing Bush to Hitler, I decided to make the simple declaration "Bush is like Hitler" and then B) I got cold feet when you chided me for being irrational and tried to pass it off as a joke.

I realize it's embarassing to have a defective sense of humor, but continuing to posture without first wiping the egg off your face just makes you look silly.

Necessarily I have a defective sense of humor. It is inconceivable that you're not very witty.

Your alleged joke was pointed out by someone who has an interest in maintaining the fiction that the reprehensible practice of linking Bush to Nazism is not widespread. I don't read minds, so I had no way of determining how serious you were. My point, the one that everyone is aware of but pretends to overlook, is that the prevalence of the BusHitler crap on the left makes it impossible to assume that a statement such as yours is a joke.

But, you already knew that.

There is much posturing here, none of it by me. The fact remains that far too many garden-variety Democrats--not, I insist, merely far-left extremists--buy into the Bush-as-Hitler nonsense. Those same Democrats would scream bloody murder if the right compared their political heroes to Stalin.

 

[pomeroo]

Not So

[SkeptiKilt;2300458]Political discourse of any stripe these days is almost completely devoid of subtlety. Sledgehammers, mud pies, cluster bombs and rhetorical nukes abound. 'Tis strange that you only seem to care about them when they comes from one side. Here are the first two grafs of a recent Ann Coulter screed:I submit that this is a bit stronger than "There are some disturbing similarities between the rhetoric of the White House and that used by the Nazis."

It may serve your forensic purposes to pretend that I am indifferent to Coulter's nastiness, but your insinuation is false. I have criticized her often for her role in debasing debate in this country. She is certainly no better than the most relentless and mindless of the professional Bush vilifiers.

And now, since Godwin's Law has been amply demonstrated, it is time for the pancake bunny.

I like the bunny.

 

[NotJesus]

Necessarily I have a defective sense of humor. It is inconceivable that you're not very witty.

Not at all. My joke wasn't even all that witty. I don't mind if you don't find it funny. I mind very much that you persist in insinuating that I'm a liar.

Your alleged joke

See?

was pointed out by someone who has an interest in maintaining the fiction that the reprehensible practice of linking Bush to Nazism is not widespread.

And yet, throughout this interminable discussion, you have consistently failed to demonstrate that this reprehensible practice IS widespread.

I don't read minds, or have a sense of humor, so I had no way of determining how serious you were.

Fixed your post.

My point, the one that everyone is aware of but pretends to overlook, is that the prevalence of the BusHitler crap on the left makes it impossible to assume that a statement such as yours is a joke

But, you already knew that.

Nope.

There is much posturing here, none of it by me. The fact remains that far too many garden-variety Democrats--not, I insist, merely far-left extremists--buy into the Bush-as-Hitler nonsense.

No evidence. Again.

Those same Democrats would scream bloody murder if the right compared their political heroes to Stalin.

Probably. You got one right.

 

[articulett]

So, everyone who disagrees with pomeroo and his beloved president is evil leftist bush bashers bent on destroying America? Wow, that is some heavy propaganda you've been seeping your mind in. I haven't heard much of the Bush being Hitler analogy, though pomeroo assures us it is everywhere, though I do remember the brouhaha about how if the left was in charge, we'd be speaking German. I think there's a world of people who have huge problems with this president and Hitchens warmongering...and they don't even live in America or vote. I think there are plenty of people in his own party. I think you have to be completely brainwashed to sound like Pomeroo. I suspect that you can plug in other names or regimes and get identical statements coming from Stalinists, North Koreans, Muslim Extremists, and Aryan Supremecists. They all think they are the good guys keeping their holy group from being weakened and destroyed by silencing dissent and destroying others. You are one sick puppy, pomeroo...

I don't even think the drunken Hitchens is besotted with Bush and as blinded to his very impeachable offenses as you are. It would be nice if you had some facts behind your weakening and destruction of America fear tactics, but I fear people like you more than all those "evil others" out there that we are supposedly being protected against. I think countries should provide for their own before fighting the battles of others who didn't ask for and don't want their help. I think it behooves us and our President and the brainwashed to learn to hear others instead of aiming weapons at them and shouting them down and telling them how wrong they are to dare and disagree or not trust inane claims. I can't tell one "faith based" radical from another...rather it's faith in your political party, god, some ideal or something else.

The weird thing is, if Muslim extremists were saying the same things you are, but putting the "US" in place of all your derogatory terms and fighting to save Islam--you'd see how horrific such "I'm right no matter who I kill" thinking is.
You ought to read Mein Kamf. I have a feeling you'd actually find it an insightful book. If they didn't tell you who wrote it, I bet you'd find him a respectful author on par with the President. Really.

 

[Merko]

I, and many other conservatives, believe that the Bush-as-Hitler rhetoric resonates with many MoveOn types.

That is abundantly clear. However, you haven't submitted any sort of evidence that this would be the case. Arguing this point entirely from your subjective opinion of something that you clearly have less experience of than those debaters in this thread who are more supportive of MoveOn, isn't likely to convince anyone.

As someone wrote to The Guardian the other day, how can any liberal possibly be proud of having advocated keeping Saddam Hussein in power?

I'm not aware of any liberal having advocated keeping Saddam Hussein in power. The advocacy was about not ousting him with a military campaign bound to end up in massive human suffering. It is however true that these alternative strategies would, at least in the short run, have allowed Saddam Hussein to stay in power.

Now, I am proud of having advocated a policy that would have allowed Saddam Hussein to stay in power. I am proud of this because the facts speak clearly: The number of people being killed or tortured today is far higher than the numbers being killed or tortured towards the end of Saddam Hussein's regime. Additionally I believe the majority of Iraqi claim that it was better in those days.

No doubt, it was a good thing that Saddam Hussein was toppled, but it was not worth the price. The object of politics should always be to make things better.

 

[pomeroo]

Not at all. My joke wasn't even all that witty. I don't mind if you don't find it funny. I mind very much that you persist in insinuating that I'm a liar.



See?

I am not insinuating that you are a liar. When I'm dealing with a conspiracy liar, I don't restrict myself to insinuating. The rationalists on this forum, including those with whom I have political differences, merit respect. If you claim that you weren't serious, I'll take your word for it. I acknowledged in an earlier post the possibility that you might have been joking. Although it was not obvious to me that your intent was ironic, it might have been if I knew you better.

And yet, throughout this interminable discussion, you have consistently failed to demonstrate that this reprehensible practice IS widespread.

Actually, I think I have demonstrated it. There is a reason why so many conservative pundits write about this reprehensible practice and I've heard fair-minded liberals on talk shows condemn it as well.

 

[pomeroo]

=Merko;2300985]

I'm not aware of any liberal having advocated keeping Saddam Hussein in power. The advocacy was about not ousting him with a military campaign bound to end up in massive human suffering. It is however true that these alternative strategies would, at least in the short run, have allowed Saddam Hussein to stay in power.

This is verbal gamesmanship. If you strongly opposed removing him, you advocated keeping him in power. His continued oppression of the Iraqis, particularly the Kurds and the Shiites, would have certainly continued to produce human suffering on a vast scale. Leftists--and I anticipate the anguished howls--are famously indifferent to the bloodbaths caused by the totalitarian tyrants they are so fond of.

Now, I am proud of having advocated a policy that would have allowed Saddam Hussein to stay in power. I am proud of this because the facts speak clearly: The number of people being killed or tortured today is far higher than the numbers being killed or tortured towards the end of Saddam Hussein's regime. Additionally I believe the majority of Iraqi claim that it was better in those days.

You have nothing to be proud of. You are pontificating from the comfort and relative safety of a civilized Western nation. Would Iraqis who were brutally tortured and who were forced to watch the tortures and murders of family members be impressed by your complacency with the nighttime raids by the Mukhabbarat, the mass graves, the rape rooms, the jails for children? Saddam's nightmarish police state may have totally suppressed the individual freedoms of his subjects, but clearly he didn't affect your own. You are willing to allow faceless others to live in constant fear, to endure hopelssness and despair, in exchange for being able to flaunt your exquisite sensibilities to moral poseurs who take comfort for granted. Sorry, that sort of moral preening has always offended me. The members of Congress who cut off funds for South Vietnam dislocated many a joint patting each other on the back. But not one of them accepted any responsibility for the plight of the boat people, for the re-education camps, or the Cambodian genocide.

Iraqis understand the enormous difference between the abuses committed at Abu Ghraib by a handful of American soldiers and the real tortures Saddam's henchmen specialized in. You are quite wrong in imagining that a majority of Iraqis pine for the good old days. The last poll I saw, about two weeks ago, showed that 80% were glad Saddam was gone. And why should that result surprise anyone?

No doubt, it was a good thing that Saddam Hussein was toppled, but it was not worth the price. The object of politics should always be to make things better.

[/quote]

It is a very good thing Saddam is gone--good for the nations he will never menace with his weapons programs, and much better for the people of Iraq, who have the opportunity to create a free and prosperous nation.

 

[bignickel]

I ask, for the sake of accuracy, that this thread be renamed "Pomeroo's signature behavior"

Although, someone might then think the thread was about Pomeroo's signature.

 

[SkeptiKilt]

It may serve your forensic purposes to pretend that I am indifferent to Coulter's nastiness, but your insinuation is false. I have criticized her often for her role in debasing debate in this country.

If you choose to believe that moveon.org "constantly" equates Bush with Hitler despite considerable evidence to the contrary, you'll have to allow me to take that statement with several pounds of salt -- especially since you are quite the mimic of her rhetorical style, viz.

Many of Bush's shrillest critics seek an American defeat so fervently that one wonders if any of them have thought through the consequences of a failed Iraq becoming a satellite of Iran.

1) Was that a sledgehammer or a mudpie?
2) One wonders if the neocons considered the possibility of the Shia majorities in both countries aligning before they decided to muck with the balance of power in the powderkeg commonly known as The Middle East.

As someone wrote to The Guardian the other day, how can any liberal possibly be proud of having advocated keeping Saddam Hussein in power?

Saddam was a murderous ratbastard, but there are lots of murderous ratbastards running countries around the world. Was deposing him and stirring up a hornets' nest in the ME worth the cost we have paid and will pay in blood and treasure?

This is carrying the enemy-of-my-enemy business to ludicrous extremes.

Yes, it was.