Keith Olbermann Slanders Neville Chamberlain While Comparing Him to Donald Rumsfeld

via Atrios.

That government was England’s, in the 1930’s.

It knew Hitler posed no true threat to Europe, let alone England.

It knew Germany was not re-arming, in violation of all treaties and accords.

It knew that the hard evidence it received, which contradicted its own policies, its own conclusions — its own omniscience -- needed to be dismissed.

The English government of Neville Chamberlain already knew the truth.

This is slander

Neville Chamberlain became prime minister on 28 May 1937 . When the Chamberlain government was first formed, Germany had re-armed and re-militarised the Rhineland . It was clear to all including Chamberlain that Germany had re-armed and was a threat to Europe.

The Baldwin government make have been wilfully blind in the way Olbermann describes.

I am not defending Chamberlain. He certainly made a mess of things.

However, Olbermann has not bothered checking the facts.

I used Wikipedia and one minute of my time. Why didn't Olbermann ?

Furthermore, when Chamberlain took office he faced terrible painful choices. His response to Hitler was mistaken. However, he didn't make a disaster out of nothing. Furthermore, I think it safe to say that if an English city had been flooded, he wouldn't have argued against sending troops to help relief. Now that I'm at it he is not known to have approved the use of torture.

I'd say that Keith Olbermann owes Neville Chamberlain an apology. He was a truly aweful prime minister but comparing him to Donald Rumsfeld is going too far.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "8/31/2006 04:20:00 AM":

I used Wikipedia and one minute of my time. Why didn't Olbermann ?

I'm sure the first source Keith consults is Wikipedia, doing a show four or five times per week. After all, it's always accurate and even the fact-checking staff at MSNBC must have it on their bookmark list.

One other point: Whatever you're smoking, send some fumes my way. Must be fun.

Robert replies

I assume Wikipedia is reliable on matters of public record such as when did Neville Chamberlain become prime minister and when did Hitler remilitarise the Rhineland.
In any case a Wikipedia claim that a fact is false should be enough to check in an authoritative source.

Of course I exagerated when I said it took me a minute to decide that Olbermann had slandered Chamberlain. I thought so instantly, because IIRC Chamberlain was not prime minister for most of the 30's including the period when the Nazi military buildup was not yet openly flaunted. My recollection plus Wikipedia is plenty for me.

I understand that anonymous' point about the 4 or 5 shows a week is that, since Olbermann has no staff at all to help him, it is unreasonable to expect him to spend all of 4 or 5 minutes a week checking the facts he uses in his historical analogies.

Also I quit smoking and am sucking on a nicotine tablet.

And thanks for the real non spam comment.