Twice.
Back in the day, this MB would have lit up within minutes of his press conference. I guess that's what Twitter does today.
My personal favorite was his fumbling homina, homina attempt at climbing out of the hole he dug for himself. I assume what he originally wanted to say was Hitler never used gas on the battlefield. But by referring to the death camps as Holocaust Centers, he had to win the prize for press secretary spin doctor euphemism of the year, if not of the decade.
Holocaust Centers. Could they be booked for wedding receptions? Better yet, how about bar mitvahs?
What's wrong with it? They were the places where the Holocaust was performed. IMO, solid, non-portable dwellings disqualify anything from being a camp. Death camps is a sort of anti euphemism, and a form of virtue signalling by trying to come up with a nasty name. Their technical name was concentration camps, because they concentrated the population in a few places to deal with them. Death camps could mean just about anything, but Holocaust center is very specific. It distinguishes Hitler's camps from everyone else's. We had death camps, for crying out loud. Mr. Miyagi's wife died in one, so it would technically be a death camp. But we sure as shit didn't commit the Holocaust, so why don't we use Spicer's name when refering to the German ones? Also, a lot of other people were killed besides the gas victims.
The distinction is that in the Holocaust centers (that name is really growing on me), the problem with the gas was that it was one of the ways people were being murdered for suspect reasons and largely without due process. The gas is irrelevant, and the Holocaust centers would not be an iota more moral if the Allgemeine-SS restricted themselves to starvation, bullets, beatings and lethal injections. Gas as a weapon on the battlefield, on the other hand is indiscriminate and remains a hazard after the fact, by design. Sure, unexploded bombs and shells also do that, but those are ordnance that failed to function properly. Gas that poisons nearby civilians, or people passing through after the battle, is simply doing the job for which is was made. Killing people in war is one thing, but using particularly dangerous methods that are incapable of limiting their collateral damage is something else, and it is something our debased media is ignoring, because they are more interested in making themselves look smart and trashing the administration, instead of doing their job. And you're no better.
There is actually a serious issue here, such as whether or not the deployment of chemical weapons merits the US response so far given, and whether or not it was effective for what we were tryign to do, or moral to do so. In my opinion, the answer to all of those questions is no, but we're not talking about that, we're all patting ourselves on the back for making fun of mere word choices.
“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” GK Chesteron
Inde muagdhe Aes Sedai misain ye!
Deus Vult!
*MySmiley*
*NM*
*NM*
*NM*