Piling On Sean Spicer
By JAMES K. FITZPATRICK
There are two logical ways that Sean Spicer could have responded when he was attacked for his statement, “Even Hitler did not use chemical weapons during World War II,” which Spicer made during his condemnation of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s use of poison gas against his own people. The first is the way Spicer did respond; the second is the way I think he wanted to respond.
The critics piled on Spicer. They accused him of anti-Semitism, of insensitivity, with being ignorant. They demanded his resignation, contending that only an evil man or a dunce could have said what he said in light of Hitler’s use of poison gas in the concentration camps against European Jews. Some accused Spicer with being a Holocaust denier.
An Associated Press story observed, “The Nazis killed millions of Jews and others in gas chamber,” in contrast to the “eighty-seven people, including children, who were killed in last week’s chemical weapons attack in Syria.” Barbra Streisand jumped in: “Sean Spicer should be fired for saying Hitler did not use chemical weapons on ‘his own people.’ You mean 6 million Jews don’t count?”
Spicer responded the way one does when caught in a “gotcha” moment. He recognized his only way out was to apologize, profusely, abjectly. He came before the cameras the day after he made his initial comments about Assad and said, “I made a mistake. There’s no other way to say it. I got into a topic that I shouldn’t have and I screwed up. On both a personal level and a professional level that will definitely go down as not a very good day in my history.” He added his comments were “inexcusable and reprehensible and all the more painful because they were made at a time sacred to Jews and Christians.”
All that was missing were sackcloth and ashes. But let’s be fair: It makes sense to be submissive in this manner when you know that you have given your adversaries an opening to posture self-righteously while they distort your words, to be unfair, unjust, and biased. And that there is nothing you can do about it.
This holds true even when you realize that you would have responded very differently to someone who treated you in this dishonest manner, if no cameras or microphones were around. In that were the case, you would get in their faces and tell them in no uncertain terms, “Give me a break! You know that is not what I meant! Get off your high horse!”
At least one would like to think Spicer would have responded that way if he were in a private setting. The alternative is to conclude that he has been browbeaten by the press and liberal elites into agreeing with them. It is one thing to play the role of a penitent for public relations purpose — to prevent your enemies from taking unfair advantage of you. It is something very different when you permit your enemies to intimidate you into buying in to their effort to shape public opinion.
Look: The people who jumped all over Spicer for his comment about Hitler and Assad knew they were being dishonest to score political points. Most of them have high IQs and graduate degrees. They knew they were taking advantage of Spicer and of how the press will cover anything he would say in an attempt to clear up the meaning of his words. They know they were trying to “get him,” to score points against the Trump administration. Fairness played no part in their calculations.
If that is not the case, then Spicer’s critics were so caught up in ideological fervor that they could not think straight. I guess that possibility cannot be dismissed, if we are to judge by the irrational conspiracy theories being spouted by some left-wing talk-show hosts. (Lawrence O’Donnell on MSNBC went so far as to propose that Vladimir Putin urged Assad to use poison gas to give Trump the opportunity to act forcefully against Russian interests in the world arena, hoping to end the suspicions of ties between Russia and Trump.)
Everyone knows what Spicer meant. He used a line that I have heard repeated in history classes my entire life, mainly by liberal professors seeking to pay homage to international organizations like the United Nations as mankind’s best hope for peace. The comment comes up most often during classroom coverage of World War I. My guess is that this is where Spicer first heard it used, even if he does not remember the specific day.
It is probably where Chris Matthews first heard it, as well. Though a severe critic of Spicer, Matthews, back in 2013 on MSNBC while commenting on Barack Obama’s standoff with the Syrian government, reminded his viewers that the “prohibition against chemical weapons has been enforced around the world-international community for decades. Don’t use chemical weapons. We didn’t use them in World War II, Hitler didn’t use them.” (You can verify this by doing a search using those last two sentences.) It is hard to say if Matthews forgot he had said this, or didn’t care in his determination to join in the smear campaign against Spicer.
It is a stock phrase. I would wager most readers of this column have heard it used in this context, too. Think back: The teacher is discussing trench warfare and the manner in which the German army lobbed “gas bombs” against the British, French, and American forces aligned against them. Perhaps the professor will make reference to the ghastly deaths suffered by those who were unable to get their gas masks in place in time, dying sometimes even years later as their lungs rotted away in civilian life.
Remember what comes next? The professor will say something like, “The world came together in the Geneva Convention in 1925 after the war and agreed to outlaw the use of these gases. And it worked. Even Hitler did not use poison gas during World War II!”
The line has been repeated over and over again in American classrooms. Everyone knew what it meant: that Hitler did not use poison gas on the battlefield, in the manner that it was used during World War I. Everyone who heard the comment knew about the gas chambers in the concentration camps, especially the liberal professors seeking to demonstrate the potential of international peacekeeping bodies.
The line was used in reference to poison gas — in combat! On the battlefield! That it would be a war crime if any nation were to do so again! The international community had spoken!
If a student had objected that the United States continued to execute murderers in gas chambers in several parts of the country after the Geneva Convention, the professor would not have labored long on the question. He would have noted that the Geneva Convention was speaking directly to war crimes, to weapons used against opposing forces during combat, to actions such as those undertaken by Bashar al-Assad, not to prison executions.
Which is what Sean Spicer meant.
