Intentions Vs Results
Imagine a 1938 New Yorker cartoon of Neville Chamberlain that showed him covered in blood, with an inscription reading "the killer of 50,000,000.
" What indignation would it have caused! What revulsion would it have provoked! To depict this good, kind, peace-loving man in such a grotesquely abhorrent way! What a flood of letters to the editor, what a chorus of demands for apology, what lamentations of the lack of taste on the part of the magazine! But a mere 4 years later, in 1942, with ruined Europe in flames as a direct result of his peace-seeking Munich pact of 1938, would that same cartoon be so out of place? Did Prime Minister Chamberlain intend to drag the world into the war that indeed killed fifty million people? Of course he did not.
Was he a good, kind, peace-loving man? Of course he was.
But his well-meant policies of appeasement produced exactly the same result as if he was hell-bent on mass murder.
Is it Barack Obama's intention to have a Moslem terrorist occupy the Oval office, and gloat while he triumphantly decorates it with a portrait of Osama bin Laden and throws American flag into the flames? What a repulsive and revolting idea! Barack Obama is a good, peace-loving, terrorism-abhorring, patriotic American.
One has to be totally nuts to take the New Yorker cover which is so much in the news nowadays as a depiction of his intentions.
But how about taking it as a symbolic depiction of the probable results of his policies? His policy of appeasing Iran is, of course, intended to not allow it to develop an atom bomb - yet it will greatly facilitate Iran's nuclear effort.
His peace-seeking withdrawal from Iraq is, of course, not intended to cause a new, and far more terrible wave of terrorism - but it will cause precisely that.
A Moslem terrorist occupying the Oval office four years after Obama's presidential win? Hardly believable.
As was the destruction of Europe back in halcyon days of the fall of 1938, at the threshold of the ecstatically welcomed "peace in our time" brokered by a good, kind, peace-loving, patriotic man.
" What indignation would it have caused! What revulsion would it have provoked! To depict this good, kind, peace-loving man in such a grotesquely abhorrent way! What a flood of letters to the editor, what a chorus of demands for apology, what lamentations of the lack of taste on the part of the magazine! But a mere 4 years later, in 1942, with ruined Europe in flames as a direct result of his peace-seeking Munich pact of 1938, would that same cartoon be so out of place? Did Prime Minister Chamberlain intend to drag the world into the war that indeed killed fifty million people? Of course he did not.
Was he a good, kind, peace-loving man? Of course he was.
But his well-meant policies of appeasement produced exactly the same result as if he was hell-bent on mass murder.
Is it Barack Obama's intention to have a Moslem terrorist occupy the Oval office, and gloat while he triumphantly decorates it with a portrait of Osama bin Laden and throws American flag into the flames? What a repulsive and revolting idea! Barack Obama is a good, peace-loving, terrorism-abhorring, patriotic American.
One has to be totally nuts to take the New Yorker cover which is so much in the news nowadays as a depiction of his intentions.
But how about taking it as a symbolic depiction of the probable results of his policies? His policy of appeasing Iran is, of course, intended to not allow it to develop an atom bomb - yet it will greatly facilitate Iran's nuclear effort.
His peace-seeking withdrawal from Iraq is, of course, not intended to cause a new, and far more terrible wave of terrorism - but it will cause precisely that.
A Moslem terrorist occupying the Oval office four years after Obama's presidential win? Hardly believable.
As was the destruction of Europe back in halcyon days of the fall of 1938, at the threshold of the ecstatically welcomed "peace in our time" brokered by a good, kind, peace-loving, patriotic man.
Source...