Sheriff Morgan's Incoherent Clarification of His Muslims Equals Nazis Comment

Introduction

On June 2, 2015, after I posted the article on "Sheriff Morgan's 'Knighthood' Fraud Exposed," Deputy Chief Eric Haines commented on Escambia Citizens Watch's Facebook page that I had unfairly maligned the good Sheriff.

When I wrote that Sheriff Morgan had said, "Muslims are Nazis," which was the headline shorthand, the Deputy Chief wrote, "No he didn't."  The Deputy Chief then alluded to the question-and-answer section of the Sheriff's August 2013 speech to the Rotary Club of Pensacola and claimed Sheriff Morgan "goes on to clarify he was speaking of radical Islam."

So, herein is my response to those who think I unfairly maligned the good Sheriff.

In fact, by not including the Sheriff's clarification I spared him further embarrassment.  While attempting to think on his feet and extricate himself from a bigoted political faux pas, he revealed that when challenged by an audience member to clarify his statement--that equated Muslims with Nazis, according to the question asked of him--Sheriff Morgan could not formulate a single coherent thought that was an adequate clarification of his original statement.  At the end of his response, he retreated into what he thought would be a rousing rendition of American Exceptionalism--"the last refuge of a scoundrel."

As I will explain below, the incoherent stringing of words together by "Sir David, Knight of Grace" was not a clarification.  He tried to change the subject by suggesting that he was talking about a "dialogue" that he might want to have, might have taken place, might not have taken place, could take place, or could not take place, but by whom and when and where is absolutely left unsaid.  Who knows what he actually meant?  It is a statement amounting to gibberish--lots of words meaning nothing.

And, the suggestion that Sheriff Morgan's formulation--"if you changed NAZI to Muslim, you'll have a real eye opener..." really means, "Let's have a cup of coffee and discuss radical Islam," is almost too comical to respond to.  But, since that is all Sheriff Morgan's Deputy Chief has, well, as Warner Wolf would say, "Let's go to the videotape."

What Sheriff Morgan Said the First Time From Prepared Notes

In the context of recommending William Manchester's three-volume biography of Winston Spencer Churchill, Sheriff Morgan stated:

"And what you’ll find striking, and I find striking by the way, is the policy of appeasement that we go through in almost a cyclic mode throughout our communities and our societies.  An appeasement across the board.  We intend to appease crime; we intend to appease political opponents; we intend to appease those who have different religious beliefs than we do.  And the frightening thing about these volumes is this, if you changed NAZI to Muslim, you'll have a terrific eye opener in the history and the way the world is progressing."

Sheriff Morgan's Initial Analogy, Muslims are Nazis

Now, some have said that I misinterpreted Sheriff Morgan and that he was only talking about "appeasement" or "appeasing Muslims."  While that may appear to a legitimate interpretation, I do not think that is the correct interpretation in the context of what he said.

You must equate Muslims with Nazis, or, Islam with Nazism, in order to make his original claim make sense.  Namely, that if you substitute Muslim for Nazi you will understand "the way the world is progressing" and that understanding will be "eye opening."

Thus, Muslims or Islam in that formulation means a group of co-religionists or a religion that is determined to conquer the world and exterminate whole peoples.  If Sheriff Morgan's formulation does not mean that, then he must be suffering from a complete break with reality.

His formulation was "if you changed NAZI to Muslim."  Sheriff Morgan is talking about every Muslim or Islam or both.

Appeasement of Muslims or Islam

Clearly, he stated that one could use the word "Muslim" and "Nazi" interchangeably in the context of "history and the way the world is progressing."  Thus, one could substitute Muslim for Nazi with no loss of meaning or context.  In other words, in Churchill's (or Manchester's) explanation of the Munich Agreement signed in very late September 1938, one could substitute the word "Nazi" with the word "Muslim" and the explanation would be completely understandable.  Really?

Not only is Sheriff Morgan's statement complete rubbish on historical grounds, but he intended to equate Muslims with Nazis.  He was reading from a prepared speech.  This was not a slip of the tongue or momentary lapse of judgment.

How in the context of "history and the way the world is progressing" can one substitute Muslim for Nazi and suddenly that would provide you with a "real eye opener"?  Actually, it should give you a migraine headache as you try to understand a statement that should earn you a failing mark in high school.

But, if you do substitute Muslim for Nazi, or Islam for Nazism, meaning that Islamic forces or Muslims are bent on world domination achieved through the extermination of whole peoples, well, that makes no sense on empirical grounds.

Since the end of the Second World War, accounting for the utter destruction of the Nazi regime which we no longer had to appease, how have the United States and its Western allies appeased the Middle East (only one region where Islam is present)?  What treaty has the United States signed with the Islamic world or even an Islamic country that gave away territory that belonged to the West?  Where is the appeasement of the Middle East region or the Islamic world?

Since 1945, the United States has dominated the Middle East militarily, economically, and politically.  At the behest of the British government and British Petroleum, the CIA overthrew a legitimate elected social democratic government in Iran and installed a psychotic dictator, the Shah in 1954.

The only "appeasement" the United States did with Iran came when the Reagan administration agreed to sell covert weapons systems to the Iranian mullahs--a country still on the terrorist watch list--for cash.  In fact, President Reagan even sent his national security adviser on a covert mission with a birthday cake for one of the mullahs to make the deal.  Oh, and when the U.S. Marine Corps barracks was hit by a truck bomb in Lebanon, the Reagan administration appeased Hezbollah and their Iranian backer by withdrawing all military forces from the country.  Oh, and the Reagan administration arranged for the head of the Palestinian Liberation Organization to escape from the Israeli stranglehold on Beirut.

Still want to talk about "appeasement" Sheriff?

Since the 1990s, the United States has invaded Iraq twice and Afghanistan once.  The first invasion of Iraq was sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council in response to aggression from Iraq against Kuwait.  The second time we invaded Iraq we ended up creating Daesh or the Islamic State.  The second invasion was based on the Bush administration lying to the American people and the United Nations Security Council on an existential threat that did not exist and a connection to 9/11 that did not exist.

Prior to that, in the late 1970s, the United States during the Carter administration began arming fundamentalist mujahedeen in order to provoke the Soviet Union into invading Afghanistan.  That worked out really swell.  We ended up creating al Qaeda.  We used all sorts of subterfuge to overthrow Qaddafi and destroy Libya during the Obama administration; that has turned out fabulously.

The Obama administration has taken President Bush's "War on Terror" and expanded it with the use of covert military operations in more than 100 countries and the indiscriminate use of drone strikes to kill innocent civilians, including American citizens not charged with terrorism.

On historical grounds, Sheriff Morgan's statement is complete nonsense.  That a college-educated, former military officer can believe and declare true that the United States and the West have been appeasing the Muslim world with all the earnestness he can muster is unbelievable.

But, in order to understand his meaning in the context of appeasement, one actually has to make Muslims into Nazis bent on world domination.  Thus, the substitution of Muslims for Nazis, or, Islam for Nazism only makes sense when they are equivalent.  Sheriff Morgan had to have meant that Muslims were the new Nazis in order to make the historical and current "the way the world is progressing" analysis work.

His formulation reveals his anti-Muslim or anti-Islam bigotry, but it is factually wrong when looking at the "way the world is progressing."

In point of fact, Muslims in the United States oppose terrorism and the "way the world is progressing" because they see the Salafist/ threat from Daesh and al Qaeda as antithetical to their religion and to their interests.

Q&A Bewildering Babble and Gibberish

The very first question asked of Sheriff Morgan from a woman was straight to the point:

WOMAN:  "I think I'd like to rewind on one of the topics today.  It appeared you equated Nazis with Muslims.  Was that your intent or did you mean something else?"

It is understandable that she would give Sheriff Morgan an out because his statement is pure bigotry.  In order to escape from the bigotry, Sheriff Morgan would have to give a convincing answer as to the "something else."  In the context of his opposition to appeasing criminals, political opponents, and those having different religious beliefs his "something else" would have to be convincing in order to be believable.  Moreover, his "something else" would have to support his contention that substituting Muslim for Nazi would allow you to understand "the way the world is progressing."  The latter critierion is a steep one.

Why?  Because his statement that Muslims were the new Nazis was an integral and logical part of his authoritarian, anti-democratic worldview, and, only be equating Muslim with Nazi could one erroneously understand "the way the world is progressing."

Here is Sheriff Morgan's answer in full:

"No ma'am, no.  Look, no, of course not.  I think you brought up the radical elements and what they have done throughout the country has been an appeasement.  No, unfortunately and that's been part of this dialogue that we talked about.  Uh, we've not had an open dialogue with, I would say the appropriate elements of the Muslim faith.  We are appeasing, we are appeasing a lot of that.  And what we're doing there is, it's almost an approach 'don't harm us, don't hate us, we haven't loved you enough, we haven't understood you enough, we haven't done whatever' but we never sat down and had a dialogue with an understanding.

There's probably only one great country in the world where you can have co-existence of different opinions and of different religions, and that's in the United States of America.

But we won't arrive at that conclusion and that result, is what we want, until such time as we do that.  And that was the context of that comment." [bolded added for clarity]

The Question-And-Answer Response

The first thing is, the woman did not bring up radical elements and neither had Sheriff Morgan previously.  He said "Muslim" in the original statement without qualification.

Second, what does he mean, "what we have done throughout the country has been an appeasement"?  How has the federal government appeased the "radical elements" of Islam, let alone Muslims in general?  Does he really expect the voters of Escambia County to believe that the Bush and Obama administrations have "appeased" the "radical elements" of Islam inside the United States?

The data is just the opposite of appeasement--ruthless targeting and coercion directed against Muslim communities and individuals by federal, state, and local law enforcement using paid informants to manufacture terrorist threats.  Even Fox News' Judge Andrew Napolitano has been alarmed at the FBI manufacturing terror plots by manipulating hapless Muslims using paid informants.

None of that data--even if you disagree with its progressive point of view--suggests that federal law enforcement has been in the appeasement mode.

But, Sheriff Morgan went even further into the netherworld of inanity when he characterized the posture of the Bush and Obama administrations as essentially quisling.  How else can one characterize his statement that in "appeasing" the "radical elements" there is "almost an approach 'don't harm us, don't hate us, we haven't loved you enough, we haven't understood you enough, we haven't done whatever.'"

That is the statement of a Sheriff who has lost touch with reality.  I defy Sheriff Morgan or Deputy Chief Haines to find any body of policy statements from law enforcement in the Bush and Obama administrations that even remotely approximates this attitude of "'don't harm us, don't hate us, we haven't loved you enough,' we haven't understood you enough, we haven't done whatever.'"

Given how harshly and ruthlessly federal law enforcement has targeted Muslims and the Muslim community, I suppose the only thing that would satisfy Sheriff Morgan desire not to "appease" Muslims would be the use of drones against mosques, concentration camps, systematic torture, and the extermination of American-Muslims on American soil.

What about the "dialogue"?

This appeal to "dialogue" is completely nonsensical given his coherent worldview that to "appease" criminals, political opponents, and those with different religious beliefs is wrong.  In the case of Muslims, he believes they are the equivalent of Nazis.  What kind of dialogue could Sheriff Morgan have with Muslims if he believes that he is negotiating or talking to Nazis or their moral equivalent?

But, his use of the word "dialogue" is incoherent.  On the one hand, appeasement has "been part of this dialogue that we talked about."  Except, in reality there has been no appeasement and I doubt we have had that dialogue, and certainly not with "radical elements" on behalf of  or by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Homeland Security.

He then claimed that "we've not had an open dialogue with, I would say the appropriate elements of the Muslim faith."  That is probably a true statement.  Probably, had we had an early "open dialogue" with Muslim communities, federal, state, and local law enforcement would not have engaged in the counter-productive practices that have alienated the very moderate Muslim community leaders most likely to be able to identify youths susceptible to the siren call of jihad.

So, we've been having a dialogue, but it appears this dialogue has been with the "radical elements" and has resulted in appeasement.  And, we have not had a dialogue with the "appropriate elements of the Muslim faith," presumably the moderates.

Has anyone seen this dialogue with the "radical elements" or is this a figment of his imagination?

But, then he stated that "we never sat down and had a dialogue with an understanding."  Huh?  We never had that dialogue with the "radical elements" you previously stated we had that resulted in appeasement?  And yet, Sheriff Morgan insists that its "almost our approach 'don't harm us, don't hurt us, we haven't loved you enough, we haven't understood you enough, we haven't done whatever.'"

Then, Sheriff Morgan plays his American Exceptionalism card, perhaps to rally himself for the finish, or, perhaps to get the crowd on familiar territory--in case they have actually been able to follow his nonsensical discourse of dialogues that have happened and not happened.

Only in America can you "have co-existence of different opinions and of different religions."  Really?  Would Sheriff Morgan want to venture a guess at the reaction he would get if he made that statement at a ministerial meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization--our closest and longest military allies?  He would probably find himself swallowing another turd whole.

So, only in America can you have "co-existence of different opinions and of different religions."  The term co-existence is a relic from the Cold War when both the United States and the Soviet Union, having achieved Mutually Assured Destruction with their nuclear weapons, decided to have peaceful co-existence through detente.

In America, instead of having a multi-ethnic, multi-religious, multi-racial, non-violent pluralistic democratic society, we "co-exist," as if violent warfare could break out at any time.  Only through "co-existence" can we tolerate "different opinions and...different religions."

In other words, Sheriff Morgan's view of America is that it is poised for civil war or violent conflict.  And yet, this is the "one great country in the world."

And what is the result of this supposed dialogue?  I do not know because Sheriff Morgan stated that "we won't arrive at that conclusion and that result, is what we want, until as such time as we do that."

What conclusion and what result are we supposed to achieve with this dialogue?  America is in a state of co-existence of "different opinions" and "different religions."  In Sheriff Morgan's mind this state of co-existence makes us the "only great country" in the world.  How would a dialogue improve this?

And, in the context of his opposition to "appease political opponents," how would Sheriff Morgan propose to conduct this "open dialogue"?  What would be the point?  Why would political opponents or religious moderates engage in an "open dialogue" when the Sheriff sitting across from them thinks that any compromise is appeasement?

That is not a coherent clarification.  That is stringing together phrases hoping that something makes sense.  It does not.

Concluding Observation

Sheriff Morgan's initial remark to the Rotary Club of Pensacola was that he was opposed to appeasing criminals, Democrats, and Muslims.  In that context, he stated that only Muslims could be substituted for Nazis with no loss of meaning.

Even taking his statement to mean that he opposed appeasing Muslims, his statement makes no sense when examined in light of historical experience since the end of the Second World War.  The historical evidence completely undermines any assertion that the United States has engaged in appeasement with Islam as a religion or Muslim states or even Muslim terrorist groups, and certainly there has been no appeasement with Muslim-Americans living inside the United States, and especially not the "radical elements."

It is clear from the first question asked in the Question-and-Answer session that the audience believed he had made Muslims equivalent to Nazis.

Sheriff Morgan denied that was his intent.

But, the statement that "Muslims are Nazis" was a logical statement consistent with his overall worldview which is authoritarian and anti-democratic.  Moreover, the statement "Muslims are Nazis" is necessary in order for his claim that such a substitution would reveal "eye opening" insights into the "way the world is progressing."  To claim otherwise is just to engage in sophistry.

The clarification that Deputy Chief Haines thought extricated Sheriff Morgan from his "Muslims are Nazis" faux pas is incoherent.  How is Sheriff's Morgan emphasis on "dialogue" consistent with his view that this will reveal "eye opening" insights into the "way the world is progressing"?  It does not and therefore his clarification makes no sense.

Sheriff Morgan's clarification is long on the word "dialogue" and short on meaning.  Only in his own mind have we had a "dialogue" with "radical elements of the Muslim faith" inside the United States.  Only in his own mind has this "dialogue" been characterized by a quisling attitude towards the "radical elements" and resulted in appeasement.  On the other hand, according to Sheriff Morgan, "we never sat down and had a dialogue with an understanding."

In Sheriff Morgan's view, we have had a dialogue resulting in appeasement and we have not had a dialogue resulting in appeasement.

Only in Sheriff Morgan's mind and the minds of his apparent supporters does this make sense.