HuffPoster: "At Least Hitler Meant Well, Unlike Bush"

Idealists are all the same, in every time and place. Be it Communism, Fascism in all its variants, the Jihadis, and yes, George Bush, elevate Doctrine above Facts, always at the expense of freedom.

The Nazis were greedy, but Bush is oddly indifferent to the money-making possibilities of his war in Iraq. Had he merely been a plutocrat, he would have invited every oil company in the world into Iraq, to rebuild the infrastructure, reinstated some regime amenable to his aims to exploit Iraq, and most importantly, paid off everyone with bribes and threats.

This he did not do. I believe Bush was and is a True Believer, still clinging to the threadbare tatters of American Supremacy, as Herr Hitler did. Like Herr Hitler, he's retreated to his bunker, indifferent to the sufferings of his own people, or the people of Iraq. There the metaphor fails: unlike Hitler, who had a fair idea of how to harness the efficiency of bureaucracy to the task of exploiting his conquests, Bush has proven to be staggeringly inept. But to return to the metaphor, Hitler was put in power by a cabal of industrialists and cynical political types, who hoped to use him to their own ends. It amazes me, to now see the Republicans turn on George Bush, not for his failed ideology, but for his political blunders: the US Attorney scandal, the recent battle over Immigration, and most especially, the Republican loss of both the House and Senate.

Good god Blaise. Bush never was a conservative at least not in any sense that I'm aware of and the loss of the House and Senate is hardly the reason many of us former Republicans have turned on him. For me it was both his and the Congress's fiscal profligacy and the insistence on letting that idiot Rumsfeld call the tune in Iraq for far too long. And it's the height of hyperbole to suggest that he doesn't care about the suffering of the Iraqi and American people. In fact, a good case can be made that the Democrats in their insistence on bugging out now are the ones who are really insensitive to the plight of the Iraqi people.

Lord a'mighty, Bill. Digby predicted this meme of "Bush ain't a Conservative" years ago. I cannot believe you have succumbed to this sort of self-delusion.

And don't start in blaming Rumsfeld, you got what you bargained for with Bush, to wit, a bunch of old Reagan retreads, still sorting the world out into Good Guys and Bad Guys, like an bunch of pensioners playing Old Maid.

Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, Bush meant well, it was his subordinates who failed him. That being the case, Bush should have disposed of Rumsfeld long before. That he did not is congruent with my theory of Loyalty over Competence. Herr Hitler inherited a fairly good military, but would not delegate any responsibility to his flag staff. Bush and Rumsfeld got rid of every competent general, installing a corps of Yes Men. Even now, old Bob Gates is out there in the weeds, trying to work out some new strategy of dividing Iraq into Iraqistans. This is the sort of ignorance and lack of vision which comes from Yes Men. It also shows the Administration does not give a damn about Iraqis.

I have said before, we should have either reduced Iraq to another layer of rubble atop the centuries of rubble, or we should have left it alone. Bush made no plans for a lengthy occupation, he should have at least had the good sense to get out of a situation he could not control, and resume air patrols over Iraq, to keep things in line. Do not accuse the Democrats of Bugging Out, there comes a point where staying is pointless, and that point has long since been reached. Our continued presence delegitimates the current Iraqi regime, and our current arming of the rump Ba'athist contingents is an act of unmitigated madness.

Bush never was a conservative at least not in any sense that I'm aware of and the loss of the House and Senate is hardly the reason many of us former Republicans have turned on him.

Bill, You always use the same gimmick. Support Bush's policy 100% then when it loses supported or it's exposed as pure unadulterated bs. You say "I'm not aware, never was, never been, etc."

What an effing hairless weasel.

verdammken, try not to indulge in such flameishness. It is hard enough for the Conservatives among us to liberate their minds from the sieg-heil lumpen memes of Loyalty to Our Prezdunt, the Leader of Our Nation. And in fairness, they are beginning to dump Bush, a position they ought to have taken long ago, back when this Connecticut frat boy was grifting his way to being a millionaire down Texas way. Any cursory look at his stinky resume should have told the voter what to expect. But no, they were informed Bush was Reagan Deux, a Uniter, not a Divider. Etcetera. Etcetera.

And who told them Bush was a Conservative? Who convinced them? Why, the very people who now say Bush isn't a Conservative. Are you beginning to detect a pattern here? Conservatives do exist, honest ones are few, but they are finally waking up to realize, like David Byrne in Once in a Lifetime:

And you may ask yourself
What is that beautiful house?
And you may ask yourself
Where does that highway go?
And you may ask yourself
Am I right? ...am I wrong?
And you may tell yourself
My god!...what have I done?

Therefore, when a Conservative tells you "Bush is not a Conservative", they are now repeating, like so many timid sheep, what they have again been told. The real question they should be asking is "Are the people who now tell us Bush is not a Conservative, are they Conservatives" The answer is, of course, No.

That they do not ask this more-important question should clue y'all in. Real Conservatives have always known Bush was not a Conservative.

Isn't there some good news from Iraq you could be reporting

Very good point--for all the remarks that Iraq is doing better than the "liberal media" says it is, the Bush supporters sure don't ever have specific examples of that to share.

See Brian Lamb reading comments from Micheal Savage fans on C-SPAN>

The depth and breadth and breadth of "Bush Derangement Syndrome," as Bernard Goldberg calls it, never ceases to amaze me. Even ostensibly reasonable and intelligent people frequently fall victim to this hysterical malady; people who would otherwise be pleasant and civil and rational are suddenly reduced to nonsensical hyperbole at the very mention of George Bush's name.

Feel free to disagree with Bush or attack his policies. But to grant moral or behavioral equivalency between President Bush and Adolph Hitler indicates a profound lack of knowledge about either man.

No one thought Hitler was Hitler until it was too late.

If it had been too late, you would be speaking german right now...

So Hitler wasn't that bad?

Is that what you believe?

And what we have here is a fifth column and fifth string political writer who is trying to dismiss the entire attitude shown by this third stringer. The fact that you are dismissing it makes me wonder why you don't want others to see how the far left really thinks.

Yes, it must be a vast left wing conspiracy. That's the only possible explanation.

The Hitler comparison is over the line and the fact that there are wing-nuts on both the Left an the Right isn't news, isn't worthy of a news site, and certainly isn't something that is appropriate to tar the entire Left with.

This seed is bull@!$%#. It's bull@!$%# because the half-assed opinions of a has-been sports writer aren't news even if they do compare Bush to Hitler or a giant reptilian space alien. The only thing in this thread that's more intellectually irresponsible than the aforementioned writers ramblings is your dishonest and disingenuous attempt to paint the entire left with one the rantings of the obscure fringe.

I can seed denunciations of lone right-wing rubes and hate groups all day long and use them to smear decent and upstanding people on the right too. The difference is, I've got too much respect for some of Newsvine's right wing and Newsvine itself to sink to that.

I also will continue to extend you the courtesy of not referring to you or your column as "fifth rate" for the aforementioned reasons. At this stage, however, it seems overly optimistic to expect the same in return.

It seems to be what you believe DA.

So Hitler wasn't that bad?

What??? I believe DAWeb was saying that if it was truly too late, then Hitler would have taken over the world (a fact which has some merit). The Allies stopped him before it was too late.

What does that have to do with saying that Hitler wasn't that bad???

It was late enough that a World War ensued to topple him.

That, in my book, is too late.

It seems to be what you believe DA.

The warped logic it would take to come to that conclusion is not something I wish to understand.

I do wish to commend you on shortening your posts tho TJG. it is appreciated by me at least.

by the way, you failed to answer my question.

You seem to be stating that Hilter is not that bad.
Is that what you believe?

Nope, I don't believe that.

But if we wait for the next Hitler to reach Hitler's levels, it will be too late.

like pulling teeth! So you do support going after people like Sadaam. I am glad to hear that.

Was Saddam a real threat to us or anyone? The evidence says "no."

Not to mention that there are worse dictators and regimes out there, if we really invaded because of how terrible Saddam was.

I'd say that Bush is more a threat to the world than Saddam was--Saddam was contained. Bush has his apologists encouraging him.

This seed is bull@!$%#.

A newsvine first!

anti-Right Killfile denounces Right-wing person's seed on anti-Right bush/hilter bull@!$%#!

Now that's... eerr, also not news.

Nice to see the signal to noise ratio drop here on the vine.

So your reason for not wanting to go after Sadaam now (rather then waiting till he moved up closer to hitler) is because he was not the worst one available to us to attack?

He wasn't a threat.

He wasn't even close to being a threat.

He wasn't even close to being a threat.

So, Saddam was not killing his own people? Neville Chamberlain seemed to be happy with appeasing Hitler so long as he stuck to Jews in Germany and those who lived in the Sudetenland.

If Hitler had just exterminated all of the Jews within his own country, he would not have presented a direct threat to the United States. Should we and the rest of the world have stood by and allowed that to happen?

He wasn't a threat to us--we are not the world's policemen. Also, if the bar is terrible things happening to people in a country, we should have invaded Darfur.

Ahh Yes, we should only be the worlds police if it is in an area with no strategic interest to our country. You neglect the fact that he WAS a threat to us. remember that a threat to our allies is a threat to us. Firing on our planes in fact is a threat. Stop playing semantics and just admit that you don't care what the circumstances would have been you would not have ever supported taking out sadaam.

Nope, he wasn't a threat.

Oh, because you say so? sorry, but I don't accept your statement.

He wasn't a threat to us--we are not the world's policemen.

Are you saying that we should have let the Jews get exterminated?

Also, if the bar is terrible things happening to people in a country, we should have invaded Darfur.

We should have done something in the past and we should now do something about the tragedy in Darfur. By 'we', I do mean more than just the United States. The UN has acted in a particularly spineless way dancing around the genocide. Year after year, they commit to doing some sort of inquiry, but, in the end, they never classify it as genocide. Once the situation is declared a genocide, the UN charter compels them to take action.

Are you saying that we should have let the Jews get exterminated?

Nope, I am not saying that at all. But to compare Saddam to Hitler is pretty silly, though I know the Bush followers need some justification for the boondoggle that is Iraq.

DAWeb: Let's put it this way, if Saddam was the threat to us you would have him be, putting aside the threat he posed to his own people, do you approve of our re-arming the Ba'athists in our fight with Al-Qaeda in Iraq? This is the moral equivalent of re-arming a band of unrepentant Nazis to fight the Communists, in my opinion.

Saddam was no threat to the USA, in any significant measure. The WMD argument has long since been discarded, that was a lie, and was admitted to be wrong by those who made the argument. This is not to say he was no threat to his neighbors, but in those days, we backed him to the hilt, Don Rumsfeld armed him in his fight against Iran. What is your point? We arrived to save the Emir of Kuwait, an undemocratic little monster who keeps 300 chattel slaves, mostly from the Sudan.

These little countries have their own agendas, and they are in no way congruent with democratic ideals. Do not pretend to call the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia a friend to the United States, they have made life very difficult in the prosecution of the war on terror. Their autocratic regime has inflamed the Middle East, Osama bin Ladin is entirely correct in his assessment of the House of Saud. We are willing to overthrow Saddam Hussein for his manifest wickedness, but of the Saudi regime's role in the creation of these jihadis, we dare not utter a word.

Saddam was our boy, groomed by none other than the CIA. Remember that lovely photo of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand?

I'm with JonesGirl. Saddam was not a threat. We turned him into the boogy man when he failed to adhere to our agenda. Yes, he was a tyrant. But he was our tyrant. And no, he didn't pose a threat to the United States.

Many Iraqis today are saying that Bush's democracy (in big, fat quotes) is causing more death and destruction that Saddam's regime ever did.

After all, 655,000 dead Iraqis ain't exactly peanuts, folks. The fact that Bush lied to get us over there is pure evil.

I believe that history will judge the Bush administration as harshly as it does Hitler's Germany. I'd also venture to say that when it comes to unequivocal evil, the two regimes are on a comparable par.

I'd also venture to say that when it comes to unequivocal evil, the two regimes are on a comparable par.

Yup. Both Hitler and Bush were motivated by power and showed/show little disregard for anyone/anything standing in the way of that power. I mean, how can anyone think otherwise with the latest comments from Bush that he and Cheney are separate from the Executive Branch? That the President has wide, sweeping power to do as he wishes, under the name of "fighting terror"?

Does the word "dictatorship" ring a bell?

Dictatorship is ok if I am the dictator, said Bush.

Even in jest, given his actions and words thus far, that is a scary statement.

The nightmare is fast becoming a reality . . .

Look, once again, the fact that you state he was not a threat does not make it so. He routinely violated the terms of his cease fire, routinely fired on US planes, was a threat in the region, and had aspirations and the will and position to improve his position. You claim he was contained and yet we have found that he was dealing with the french and others to have the sanctions (and any containment that even provided) removed. He was a clear threat to his neighbors our allied and yet you merely say, no he wasn't. As I state before, I don't accept your claim.

As for the ridiculous claim that he was our boy or that we groomed him. No. Again, sorry. We did support him when it was in our best interests to do so. there is a balance that must be played and on occasion you end up supporting those you may not agree with. (for an example of this, see pork in the budget). Our former relationship with Sadaam in no way prevented us from taking him out when that was in our best interests. You throw the word 'lie' around like you have some basis for it. You don't. if you did you would be upset at all the democrats that looked at the same evidence and came up with the same conclusions as Bush. You would be upset with Gore for criticizing Bush Sr. for not removing Sadaam in the first place. No, you are merely tossing a work around in an attempt to elicit an emotional response. It won't work with me, and it saddens me that it seems to work so easily for you.

The Dems saw evidence doctored up by Bush.

Sorry, DA, but there was no reason to go to war with Saddam. Every last reason given by the Admin and its supporters has been debunked. Why should anyone support your debunked talking points?

(cruel laughter) whose best interests were served by propping up Saddam Hussein? And whose interests are now served by rearming his Ba'athist thugs, DA? You credulous sheep, do you really believe that to be true, or are you just so short-sighted that you believe arming the Ba'athists to be a good thing?

Was Stalin our boy too then? We supported him in WWII. Remember?

(cruel laughter) whose best interests were served by propping up Saddam Hussein? And whose interests are now

Didn't you know? Whenever a corporation, be it Monsanto, Dow, Exxon or Maxwell House, is intrenched into the economy of another country and have holdings there, regardless of the form of government or despotic nature of that countries government." It is considered a vested interest of the United States. And to assure the continuation and stability of that country and the continued profit of the corporations within that country The government of the US will do whatever is necessary.

Comparing Saddam to Hitler is silly.

Hitler had the best military and the second biggest economy in the world.

Like George Bush, the only thing Saddam Hussein had left was the refrain "be afraid, be very afraid."

How many, Bodhi?

Please list them and provide links, if possible.

From your source:

WASHINGTON - The CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies fell victim to false "group think" when assessing Iraq's weapons capabilities and produced overstated or incorrect conclusions that led the Bush administration to justify the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, according to a scathing Senate Intelligence Committee report released Friday.

A "series of failures ... led to the mischaracterization of the intelligence" on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, the bipartisan, unanimous report said.

Sen. Pat Roberts, a Kansas Republican who heads the committee, told reporters that assessments that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons and could make a nuclear weapon by the end of the decade were wrong.

I'm right! I'm right!

Tyler Drumheller, the former chief of the CIA's Europe division, revealed that in the fall of 2002, President Bush, Vice President Cheney, then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and others were told by CIA Director George Tenet that Iraq's foreign minister — who agreed to act as a spy for the United States — had reported that Iraq had no active weapons of mass destruction program

The CIA is till upset about being blamed.

It's bull@!$%# because the half-assed opinions of a has-been sports writer aren't news even if they do compare Bush to Hitler or a giant reptilian space alien.

I dunno... we've been reading the opinions of a bunch of nobodys here on Newsvine for over a year now. What's the difference?

I dunno... we've been reading the opinions of a bunch of nobodys here on Newsvine for over a year now. What's the difference?

You're reading opinion pieces. But you're not reading someone reporting on an opinion piece. In fact, the only reporting on Newsvine articles (specifically) in the main stream press that I'm aware of was the Wall Street Journal's coverage of Pamela Drew and myself back in February and the BBC's coverage of my reporting on the Virginia Tech shootings.

Mike D's "pwning" of John McCain might count towards that total as well, but that wasn't so much about his article as the image swapping.

do you just want to damage my self-esteem?

from the looks of things, you need no help at all embarrassing yourself..

i'm tempted to vote for this crap just to keep your tomfoolery in the public eye a little longer.

yup, i do keep calling you on your cherry picked un-thought out propaganda.. because it's obvious to many here that for the most part, you take the government issue talking points on the most controversial subjects and spin them for all they are worth.

once the kitchen gets too hot for you on one thread, you just pick another o'reilly-esque talking point and start over.

i appears to me that the real purpose of your "articles" is to rally the faithful and spew forth the party line. in the end, all you accomplish is to deepen the divide and keep the lemmings in line.

i guess it's good work if you can get it, but this place is about making people smarter, not hearding everyone into the same rah-rah cheerleading section.

Bodhi,

As is too often the case around here, the response to a liberal or Leftist to a story that sheds light on the lunacy of Leftism is to immediately attack the messenger. Just imagine how our liberal friends here would be howling if you had actually used Fox News as a source! Sacre bleu!

As has been the case for many years, those of us who point out the failures of this administration have endured the constant rejoinder of "Oh You Just Hate George Bush"

Now that even Republicans are abandoning him, the Conservatives are now reduced to the only exit now open to them, saying Bush Ain't a Conservative. The liberal messenger has been attacked, and has now been vindicated.

The Nazi salute was always accompanied by Sieg Heil, Victory Salute. Bush has failed to provide Victory, and now his erstwhile followers do not Salute.

It is true, Bush never ran as or claimed he was a 'conservative'. he was always better then the competition tho...

I think you will find that Bush ran as a "Compashionate Conservative", oxmoron that it is.

well, for one it is far from an oxymoron, and two that does not make him a conservative. That is merely what he claimed.

and again, he was always better then the competition in spite of his flaws. Given the same choices today I would again vote for him.

You stated:

It is true, Bush never ran as or claimed he was a 'conservative'. he was always better then the competition tho...

Then you say:

That is merely what he claimed.

So which is it, did he run as a conservative, never claim to have run as a conservative, not a real "conservative", which?

He ran as a conservative, was voted for by conservatives, and now, when they finally realise what a @!$%#-up he is, is disowned by conservatives. He's a conservative, he's your conservative. You voted for him, you own him.

yup, i do keep calling you on your cherry picked un-thought out propaganda.. because it's obvious to many here that for the most part, you take the government issue talking points on the most controversial subjects and spin them for all they are worth.

Since when is it any Viner's responsibility to treat seed equally from all sides? None of us is, individually, a complete news source.

sprydle, if you can't read what I wrote, I really don't feel like (or have the patience to ) eplaining it to you. If this offends you, I most deeply apologize but it won't change anything.

Renesis

Since when is it any Viner's responsibility to treat seed equally from all sides? None of us is, individually, a complete news source.

my comment was directed toward bodhi's posting as a whole, not just this individual thread.
he often quotes out of context and chops out the bits that disprove his thesis.

i'm not the only one to call him on the cherry picking and disingenuous use of quotes to attempt to prove a fallacious point.

i am all for accepting facts that disagree with my views when they are real documented facts that can be backed up with things other than opinion and misrepresented half truths.

in short, i resent the intellectual dishonesty that seems prevalent in bodhi's "articles" and commentary.

I can read what you wrote, as can everyone else. You made a claim, then denied that you made said claim. It's right there in black and white.

Is their any point in engaging in a dialog with you if you are so blatantly dishonest? I think not.

tschreck -

With the way Newsvine is set up, I see nothing wrong with one user posting only seeds that, on their own, present a lopsided viewpoint. Other user's seeds balance that fact out. What I am saying is, one seed or 20, no user has a responsibility to present a balanced playing field. That comes from the entire community.

Renesis-

i suppose if you toss out honesty and integrity, it's all good.. but.. there is a huge difference in posting seeds that espouse your opinion and cherry picking mangled quotes and misrepresentation coagulated into articles that distort the true into something nearly opposite.

some people call it lying. i guess it has become acceptable practice given the examples set by our illustrious leaders in washington. that an effin' shame.

each person is entitled to his or her opinions, but i'll draw a line when it comes to the misrepresentation of fact to sway opinion.

intellectual dishonesty is at best, a cancer that seems to be well tolerated here on newsvine.

Sprydle, does that mean you will no longer be responding to me? I won't shed a tear.

Sprydle, does that mean you will no longer be responding to me? I won't shed a tear.

I have no compunction in pointing out your dishonesty and treating your comments with the same amount of respect you apparently show your readers, which judging by the veracity of some of your posts, is very little.

Renesis, bless you for being a voice of reason. Well said.

Bohdi, good job on seeding this; if it weren't relevant, we wouldn't have all of these people rushing in to comment on it, would we.

Killfile, thankfully, has said that the Huffington Post doesn't speak for all liberals. And it doesn't. It speaks for a great many Leftists, though. Arianna is going to be very crushed to hear that she hasn't yet complete achieved goddess-like stature here on Newsvine. But Killfile, to his credit, has said that the blog went too far.

Yet, Jones Girl has rushed in to say that Bush may well yet be proven to be a Hitler. She says he's worse than Saddam. This shows a lack of understanding about who Bush is or who Hitler was. I like Jones Girl and her passion and intelligence, but her statement is unfortunately more common among liberal/leftist circles than some would want to admit.

Bodhi, keep on seeding these. I know it hurts the eyes of liberals to see what some in their community are saying, but truth is healing and cleansing.

Shall we wait until he is exactly like Hitler, Tom?

I would suggest reading Elie Wiesel's Night to understand exactly what Hitler was.

Right on, Jay!

C'moooooon, Jones Girl. geeeeeeeez. What planet are you living on when you compare Bush and Hitler? There is no comparison, it's not even close! Read something about the Holocaust, about what Germany was like under Hitler.

JG, there you sit in a nice place in San Francisco, where there was a big gay pride parade yesterday - certainly something the President doesn't celebrate - and yet the city could do it with no federal troops coming in shooting people and rounding them up for concentration camps. You can sit with your computer in your home and call Bush every bad name in the book and never worry about being arrested. You can go out on the street and call him names - you can travel freely across America, round up your friends, and march on Washington if you want, and wave signs and chant obscenities aimed at Bush, and you don't have to worry about being killed for it. And isn't that wonderful?

The hysteria about Bush being a "dictator" is so grossly out of proportion with reality it's really tough to know how to respond to it.

Jones Girl, I am really hoping that you are just saying some of these things to be provocative, and not because you really believe the USA is a fascist state. By the way, Mehlman didn't just compare Bush to Hitler, but he compared him to the worst tyrants in history. Gee, where does Bush fit on a list with Stalin, Mao, Genghis Khan, Nero, and those cats?

C'mon, debates are fun, but let's step back from the brink, here.

I'm not on a brink. I simply refuse to look the other way as Bush and his cronies put themselves higher and higher above the law. If Bush had his way, there would be no pride parades. We would live in a taliban-esque country, only it would be ruled by Christian law, not Sharia law (the two are scarily similar).

I'd bet that if I marched as you suggested on Washington, I would be added to watchlists and soon have trouble getting on flights. Bush and his remaining supporters have made it clear that they put Bush and his agenda far above the founding principles of this country and the Constitution.

Oh, so now the Christians are like the Taliban?

Again, I'm sorry to say, that remark reveals you know little about either.

I'd bet that if I marched as you suggested on Washington, I would be added to watchlists and soon have trouble getting on flights.

LOL, I have trouble getting on flights all of the time.

And, JG, non-violent protest happens every day. Bush was just here in the city where I live, and people protested him for all sorts of things. Heck, I even thought of bringing a sign down there myself on a couple of issues.

If the Bush Administration were as evil - or as competent - as you think, then you and I would both already be on some kind of weirdo watchlist for the things we've posted on Newsvine. Ease up, a little bit. Hate Bush if you like, but I don't think you're about to be sent to internment camp. Relax there, JG.

She is definitely on the brink if not dipping her toes into the abyss of nonsense, perhaps waiting to take the entire plunge if the waters were not so full.

That is a quote from an article. I don't understand why it's a notable or worthy quote to pick out. The reason that it needs to be said and repeated is that it's merely a ridiculous piece of propaganda. And the only way anyone would think it bears any semblance of reality would be if it were repeated ad nauseam, much like the majority of the claims put forth by the Bush Administration for the past 7 years.

ComSen, that's a good comment on the hypocrisy of so much of the "feel good" leftism that majors on symbolism and often neglects tangible reality.

Deh-

one of the conservative methods is to repeat the saying over and over..

and after a while the weak minded begin to assume it is the truth..

911 iraq
iraq 911 saddam
terrists 911 iraq
iraq terrist wmd saddam

"oh my gawd!! saddam was behind 911 and will do it again soon.. hurra hurra, let's get em.."

it works with an uneducated and lemming like population.

Too true, tschreck. Repetition over and over and over again. It becomes a mantra for the mentally incapable.

It also doesn't tax Bush's tiny brain much. No big words. No depth of thought. Very little memorization.

Okay, if I review Tom Bombadil's comments, I discover that he is adept at left bashing and he knows one phrase in French. Should I be impressed?

Typical right-wing blather. No arguments of substance along with visceral attacks calculated to elicit emotional responses but fail to challenge the brain . . .

I DID like the French, though, Tom. Do you know the word for "green beans"?

and the rest of us that read his comments and your response recognize that you have no response to his statements and instead resort to attacking his character and or intelligence.

It doesn't take intelligence or character to post RW talking points, DA.

What's ironic, Bodhi?

BTW, why did you completely ignore hamid's response to you at the end of your ESCR comments where he shows that a woman you used as support for your argument actually disagrees with your stance and the manipulation of your words.

Let's not bring facts into an argument!

"haricots verts" or "haricots de liberté" (freedom beans)

Okay, if I review Tom Bombadil's comments, I discover that he is adept at left bashing and he knows one phrase in French. Should I be impressed?

LOL, Rebecca, I know a few more phrases in French that come to mind right now, but as a gentleman, I will refrain from saying them.

Some of the liberal responses to this topic have included comparing Bush to Hitler and to Saddam, talking about his "tiny" brain, his evil motives, and the general stupidity of conservatives. Please don't presume to lecture me about bashing; we conservatives have our values bashed and our intelligence insulted every day by the mainstream media, by leftist bloggers, by Hollywood entertainers, by crusading radical academics, and by "patriots" who are so delighted by carnage in Iraq because it helps them advance their partisan political agenda.

If you want to engage in a bashing contest, let's get it on, but don't try to tie my hands with high-toned hypocrisy.

TJG, I have made the challenge before, So far no one has been able to take it up. If you have any evidence that any comment by me is NOT my personal opinion (as you insinuate when you claim I am merely spouting talking points) please bring it forth. Show us. You make the accusation, I merely expect that you should try to back it up.

DA,

It may well be your opinion--but it all sounds just like what Rush and the like parrot.

I see. If one is a conservative, one is a "parrot." But if one says that Bush is like Hitler and Christians are like the Taliban, that makes one an original and witty raconteur?

Right wing talking points? You say that as if the left is devoid of talking points. As if we don't hear the same bland arguments and comparisons over and over and over and over....

Mostly I view "right wing talking points" as any time the left's answer for an issue is not accepted.

We respond to repetitious rhetoric with... repetitious responses. And then get accused of spewing right wing talking points.

Yes it gets old. Yes I get tired of speaking into a vacuum. Yes I get tired of hearing the same things over and over and over again. I didn't agree with them the first time I heard them and I don't agree with them now, the 10,000'th time hearing them later.

People are going to have to go out on a limb and be willing to accept their position may not be correct on an issue or no true dialog will exist. No, not "sure I'm willing to do that if you are as well" under the assumption they "they" will see the light and you will finally win the argument. People will have to truly accept that their position on an issue may indeed need some heavy refining before any progress will be made on these political issues. Otherwise, hiding behind rhetoric and the same dry responses to that rhetoric is all you'll find.

Novanglus,

That was great. You are absolutely right.

Well, you are mostly right, I loved it.

OK, you're right to a degree.

I'm having mixed feelings about what you said.

You're a good guy, but you missed it on that one, bud.

Man, that note stunk. Nothing good about it at all.

You're a Taliban Fascist!

Boo! Boo! Eat my shorts!

I just wanted to come at your note from all points of view. (I really did like it though.)

Hahahaha... yeah I think you covered them all.

I know you guys think you invented it [and I know you're all proud of this one] "Swift-boating", but you didn't invent it, it has been done before, even though it is now a term that has become synonymous with Conservatives, for just making stories up to discredit their opponents, but lets call it by its real name propaganda. Red Herring, to describe the tactic of changing the topic away from any serious discussions. And lets not forget the old standby ad hominem, The hidden innuendo's the Jokes and cute catch phrases Even Godwin's Law was invented to prevent any discussion from making the Hitler comparison. But it has all been done before, in another time and country. So I guess its OK, with Hitler in the title.

Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship... voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.
Hermann Goering (1893 - 1946), From a conversation with psychologist Gustave Gilbert while jailed at Nuremburg on the evening of 18 April 1946, documented in Gilbert's book "Nuremburg Diary."

This next one you'll love, let me know how familiar this sounds. I would see this used by Conservatives everyday here, when bush was at peek of his popularity. What happened to o'l Annie get you gun Coulter BTW? This reminds us of Bush in so many ways.

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and
or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.
Joseph Goebbels

I bet you conservatives get that fussy feeling all over don't you? The good o'l days eh.

Zoilus, let's see how you like this analogy ...

Your speech above sounded like one of Fidel Castro's lengthy sermons, translated from Spanish, into Swahili, by Robin Williams, and then into English via a static-ridden Marconi wireless.

Now, I know you probably didn't like me saying that, so you can perhaps I am tiring of being compared to nazis and fascists.

It's not too funny to continually compare Bush - with all of his problems, mistakes, incompetencies, whatevers - with Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and others. And, it's not too funny when your side continues to reference nazis and fascists when making references to those of us on Newsvine who take a conservative perspective. Frankly, it demeans the victims of true tyranny and creates a fog of confusion about the true meanings of words and true historical perspective and proportion.

Moral relativism is rampant here.

This shouldn't even be up for discussion. Even attempting to compare Bush to Hitler says an awful lot about people's knowledge of Hitler and even more about the public education system that produces this nonsense. I doubt anyone who actually was alive during the Hitler years would EVER agree that Bush is anything like Hitler or that the United States has now turned into Nazi Germany.

But I don't even care to get bogged down in that ridiculous discussion. Why are we even trying to bend history to make that comparison? Ok so you people don't like Bush. Fine. We get the picture. Guess what? I don't care :)

What is the point here? Is it just a fancy roundabout way to justify calling conservatives names like "Nazis" and "Fascists"? Who cares? Call me whatever you want. Apply whatever horrible labels you can concoct. It's not going to sway me into buying into the liberal mindset regardless. I'm not going to wake up one day and go, "Gee, if I support the President that makes me a Fascist, I better vote Democrat!" Nor am I going to believe that because I support certain policies presented by the Bush administration that I'm a fan of Nazism of Fascism or am deserving of such labels.

Nazism - the body of political and economic doctrines held and put into effect by the Nazis in Germany from 1933 to 1945 including the totalitarian principle of government, predominance of especially Germanic groups assumed to be racially superior, and supremacy of the führer

Let's see... do I believe in a totalitarian government - certainly not
how about supremecy of a führer (or president) - certainly not
how about any group being racially superior - certainly not

Fascism - a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

I do not support dictatorial leaders, nor do I see how Bush has somehow become one. I am not a big fan of the government in nearly all cases. I certainly don't believe in social regimentation and especially despise forcible suppression of opposition (ie. things like the Fairness Doctrine or the systematic elimination of all voices of opposition by Hugo Chavez).

Pretty much none of these describe me - not even close. Yet how can that be? I'm a conservative? Doesn't that mean I eat little babies in the dead of night and all that?

This entire discussion is just an exercise in kindergarten namecalling to be honest. People seem to be extremely hungry to point out how evil conservatives are and this discussion seems to be centered around that at its core.

Don't we have more important things to be talking about and applying our collective minds to? Or is this the extent to which we can "rise" to here?

Killfile,

Don't be obtuse yourself. Feel free to dislike my note, my content, my style, or my humor, but ...

... and please hear me ...

... calling conservatives with whom you disagree "nazis" is inexcusable and unacceptable.

Furthermore, inserting now the ludicrous allegation that I made a racist remark is just another low blow (what's wrong, you can't delineate between racism and making a joke about a statement being garbled in translation among several languages????? Grow up or wise up, amigo).

I am sick of those on this site who would take a general disagreement and make it highly personal and inflammatory.

That is straight out of the Stalinist handbook. Don't go there.

You're smarter than that, you're better than that.

Tom-

funny that you say..

... calling conservatives with whom you disagree "nazis" is inexcusable and unacceptable.

and then turn right around and suggest..

That is straight out of the Stalinist handbook.

pot meet kettle!

if you want to claim the moral high ground, i'd suggest you'd try to do it with both feet, rather than having one firmly planted in your mouth.

For a group so quick to offense, many of the Repubs seem to be quick to call those of us on the left "unAmerican" and "Stalinist."

This has been said before, If you don't like the comparisons to Nazi's, the only way to stop them is to stop using the same methods of propaganda used by the Nazi's. Character assignations, Swiftboating, misquoting, questioning someones patriotism based on their political affiliations or just because they don't agree with the Bush regime. Bullying, slander, rewriting history, ignoring history when it does not support your party, circle arguments to distract from uncomfortable truths. How many times have I seen some Neo-con point being proved as completely manufactured, only to see the poster disappear from the thread and begin the same false argument elsewhere. Lets see anyone apologize for all the name calling during the Kerry fiasco! calling him a coward and liar. Lets see someone apologize for attacking patriots and good Americans who fought in the Vietnam and were called traitors to America because the saw, Bush's "mistakes" from the start. Just Once. How many of you, who where proud Neo-cons two years ago, now deny ever being one? Even to the point of denying that their every was such a thing. You are destroying your own party. No one else is to blame. Just as Bush is desperate to blame Iraq on anyone, rather then stepping up and taking the responsibility for it like a man, he throws mud around hoping it will stick, or at least cover up his mistakes with it. Your Party is going the way of the Federalist and the Aristocrats, to become a short page in the history books, and you have no one to blame but yourselves. Maybe if I put this all into bullet points, it will easier for you.

misquoting

Like what you did recently to Brian Ford?

Hey -- I've spoken out against the Bush/Hitler comparison far more than 99% of the Left and a good chunk of the Right as well. I'd urge you to read that article I linked earlier.

That said there were some pretty unsavory things that the Nazis did that the Right in this country is also doing. Now I'd never say that this "makes them Nazis" or "worse than Hitler" but it does seem to invite that comparison.

Of course, just because something was done by the Nazis doesn't make it evil. Hitler got up and took a shower every morning too. That doesn't make morning showerers "Nazis."

At the end of the day there are some political tactics which have been identified with despotic totalitarians. Using those tactics is likely to get you labeled as such. "Nazi" and "Hitler" just happen to be the closest memory for most Americans.

Tshreck,

You say this about my "Stalinist" crack:

pot meet kettle!

I deliberately used that term in the context of some of you saying that conservatives used "nazi" tactics. It was in the spirit of my earlier retort to Zoilus. Please try to keep the comments in context. If some of you want to toss around "nazi," "fascists," "effing hairless weasel," and other choice phrases - if you want to compare Bush and conservatives to the Manson family or Hitler, Stalin, Mao - then be prepared for a little old fashioned karma coming down.

Frankly, I hate the whole thing.

Killfile, you said:

Of course, just because something was done by the Nazis doesn't make it evil. Hitler got up and took a shower every morning too. That doesn't make morning showerers "Nazis."

LOL, c'mon, man! You know jolly well that comparing conservatives to nazis is a gross insult, its highly inflammatory, and it escalates what could have been a reasoned debate into a raging flame war that will reverberate across Newsvine relationships, even other threads. It erodes our sense of trust and community here.

Killfile, if you or your compadres here would have simply said something like this:

"Bush and his administration have repeatedly undermined the US Constitution with their policies, their secrecy, and their corruption. They have frequently misled the American people, they have been unclear, incompetent, and confused. Their agenda seems to be untrustworthy, and based upon their track record, I fear for the direction our nation is heading under their leadership. They, and their supporters continue to throw up a fog of propaganda that is dulling the senses and distorting the perspectives of the American people."

That takes the ad hominem and incindiary "nazi" rhetoric out of the equation. Then we can have a more honest, less emotional debate about the matter. If something along those lines had been said, either in Mehlman's original blog, or in the responses here, this debate could have been much more substantive and perhaps even constructive.

Instead, this thread has become scorched earth. Just for seeding the article, Bohdi has been lambasted and called names. His personal bio tag line - which has nothing to do with the content of this article - has been ridiculed and used as a club against him. The rhetoric in this thread screamed by a few extreme leftists has far exceeded what Mehlman said in his original blog.

Had a few reasoned liberals simply said: "We think Mehlman was trying to make a good point, but he went too far." Then, I could have respected that.

But I will not sit idly by and watch people with either no knowledge of history, or no sense of context and proportion, simply spout of vehemently about matters they do not understand. I will not be called a nazi and sit still for two reasons: first, because it is a gross and inaccurate insult to me and fellow conservatives; secondly, because it is a slap in the face to the real victims of the horriffic nazi atrocities.

Killfile, please see my reply to you at 6.23 with regard to the article you wrote last year - and I compliment you on speaking out as a voice of reason.

Researchers help define what makes a political conservative

A synopsis by the staff at UC Berkeley, of the paper "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition," Published in the American Psychological Association's "Psychological Bulletin", of which i only have a hardcopy of, but can not find on the web, sorry. The bottom lines.

latest debate about the possibility that the Bush administration ignored intelligence information that discounted reports of Iraq buying nuclear material from Africa may be linked to the conservative intolerance for ambiguity and or need for closure, said Glaser.

"For a variety of psychological reasons, then, right-wing populism may have more consistent appeal than left-wing populism, especially in times of potential crisis and instability," he said.

Glaser acknowledged that the team's exclusive assessment of the psychological motivations of political conservatism might be viewed as a partisan exercise. However, he said, there is a host of information available about conservatism, but not about liberalism.

The researchers conceded cases of left-wing ideologues, such as Stalin, Khrushchev or Castro, who, once in power, steadfastly resisted change, allegedly in the name of egalitarianism.

Yet, they noted that some of these figures might be considered politically conservative in the context of the systems that they defended. The researchers noted that Stalin, for example, was concerned about defending and preserving the existing Soviet system.

Although they concluded that conservatives are less "integratively complex" than others are, Glaser said, "it doesn't mean that they're simple-minded."

Conservatives don't feel the need to jump through complex, intellectual hoops in order to understand or justify some of their positions, he said. "They are more comfortable seeing and stating things in black and white in ways that would make liberals squirm," Glaser said.

He pointed as an example to a 2001 trip to Italy, where President George W. Bush was asked to explain himself. The Republican president told assembled world leaders, "I know what I believe and I believe what I believe is right." And in 2002, Bush told a British reporter, "Look, my job isn't to nuance."

Zoilus, I think that is an interesting and informative note.

I hope you will forgive me if I recall that the report is issued by UC Berkley and the APA, which are not noted as Conservative-friendly organizations. Frankly, I thought your comments were much more insightful and balanced than those of the Berkley psychologists.

They conclude, basically, that the Conservative mindset is a sick one, extremely narrow and intolerant, not balanced, and fearful:

Fear and aggression

Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity

Uncertainty avoidance

Need for cognitive closure

Terror management

Again, forgive me if I don't find any of that too comforting. But, given the source, it's probably not the worst thing they have ever said about Conservatives or Conservatism. And, it's definitely a step up from some of the other things we've been called in this thread, LOL.

Tom Bombadil

This study is not meant to be derogatory, but there are extremes that can be observed in any sampling that will show a range of variation. That when placed on a bell curve can be measured, form moderate [Ronald Reagan] to extreme, [Adolph Hitler]. it is the extremes that are dangerous. The ultra, the far-right. What if we do the same study of the liberals? where is the line they cross that takes them over the edge to the lunatic fringe? Mahatma Gandhi to Kennedy, greenpeacer's and animal rights activist who throw paint on fur coats, finally to someone who spikes trees to stop logging or burns down new housing construction projects. No one here is going to find it justifiable or condone the wholesale slaughter of 6 million people.

Your tag line certainly speaks volumes, Bodhi . . .

What does a tag line have to do with the article at hand???

It shows the character of the person posting.

Are you saying that those on the left hate America, Bodhi?

That line is so 2003.

Left of center is against America? I was hoping that line went out with Senator McCarthy.

i think bodhi's new tag line should read..

wait for it...

...

....

let's not bring facts into this discussion

perfect huh!

Facts like cherry-picking comments from a stem cell researcher? :p

And yet, Senator McCarthy was proven correct later about the infiltration of communists into the highest echelons of American government. But, he wasn't very photogenic, he drank a lot, he had a bad temper, and he was a conservative, so he "must be a bad guy". And now we can invoke his name as a curse word whenever someone dares speak out for patriotism.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/711735/posts

http://www.amazon.ca/Venona-Secrets-Exposing-Americas-Traitors/dp/0895262258

http://brneurosci.org/reviews/treason.html

The Mehlman jerk who wrote the original blog for Huffington - that's right, jerk - and an idiotic one at that, deserves all of the criticism he gets. He went way, way over the line.

I call on responsible and decent liberals to simply repudiate his remark about Hitler and Bush. It's not complicated.

You can hate Bush or conservatives or Republicans or the war in Iraq without defending moronic statements like Mehlman made.

Tom,

I will expect you to be this upset the next time a Dem is called names.

It depends upon which Dem and which names, LOL.

Seriously, we're talking about calling Bush "Hitler" or "Stalin". Or, in your case, calling Christians "Taliban."

JG, you're a fierce and determined debater, and I love that about you. But, sometimes we all go a little too far in our rhetoric, eh?

~ hint, hint ~

I stand by what i said, Tom.

Bush is a dangerous tyrant.

Please don't be condescending.

Bush may be a bad President or a poor leader. He may have an ideology that you hate. You may think he is a dweeb. He may be dangerous in some ways, mainly to his own poll numbers, LOL.

But, I hate to burst your bubble, he is not a tyrant. Words have meaning. I know the hyperbole sounds better, but he is in no way, shape, or form, a tyrant.

He has never been a tyrant. He is not a tyrant. He will not be a tyrant. Soon, he and the Veep are going to be unemployed. It will happen through a peaceful election and a peaceful transfer of power. Bush will himself bless his predecessor, whoever they are, and whatever their political party, and he will hand them the keys to the White House, and then he will go peacefully back to his ranch in Texas and clear some brush, eat some BBQ, and thank the good Lord that his days in Washington are finished.

Cheney will be spending more time out deer hunting. That does pose some threat to us all, but I suspect a policy of containment and a few UN resolutions will keep him in line.

That was a joke.

Anyway, try to ditch whatever blogs or newsletters or fliers or pamphlets or whatever that propagate these leftists paranoid delusions.

As for condescending, please don't call Bush "Hitler" and don't call Christians "Taliban." I get a little testy about stuff like that.

In this case, the shoe fits, IMHO.

How do you think it feels to have Bodhi insinuating that I am unAmerican?

A Democrat is rarely called names. they are more often lionized for their achievements in mediocrity. Applause for just showing up.

JG, I'm just glad that we are still talking here. :-)

I wouldn't make a good Taliban. My beard won't grow very well - it gets all patchy and scraggly. Plus, those robe things, they would trip me up too much. And, if I told my wife to wear I burkha, then I wouldn't see her at all for about three days. And then, I could probably see her just a bit, out of my left eye.

I just noticed this ...

Thus Spake Drydiggins:

"Amerika Uber Alles!!!"

Again, here is a Leftist angry at Bodhi's patriotic tagline - a tagline that is independant of the subject matter of this thread - and feels the need to spit on America and on Bodhi's patriotic views. To compare America to Nazi Germany reveals a profound and gross ignorance about America or the Nazis.

I've said that a few times in this thread. And it's still true now.

That whole "Amerika" crap really ticks me off. It's an affront to every person who suffered under Nazi oppression and to every American soldier, airman, seaman, marine, and guardsman who gave their life to fight those monsters. It's an affront to decent and patriotic and intelligent Americans across partisan political lines who love this nation, its heritage, and its future.

In America, you have the right to insult, you have the right to be ignorant, you have the right to spit on the past. But, the right to do it doesn't make you right.

I hate to burst your bubble, he is not a tyrant. Words have meaning. I know the hyperbole sounds better, but he is in no way, shape, or form, a tyrant.

He has never been a tyrant. He is not a tyrant. He will not be a tyrant. Soon, he and the Veep are going to be unemployed. It will happen through a peaceful election and a peaceful transfer of power. Bush will himself bless his predecessor, whoever they are, and whatever their political party, and he will hand them the keys to the White House, and then he will go peacefully back to his ranch in Texas and clear some brush, eat some BBQ, and thank the good Lord that his days in Washington are finished.

Cheney will be spending more time out deer hunting. That does pose some threat to us all, but I suspect a policy of containment and a few UN resolutions will keep him in line.

Tom, that was brilliant! I loved it.

I actually wrote an article on this very topic in April of last year. Interested parties can find it here:

Bush, Hitler, Tyranny, and a Touch of Common Sense

Not nearly as thorough and eloquent as Killfile, I wrote "All it takes for the Public to forget, is to deny that it ever happened."
With all due deference and respect, stating: He has never been a tyrant. He is not a tyrant. He will not be a tyrant. ...does not make it so.

and yet in spite of his saying it not making it true, it is still true.

Killfile, I will read the article you referenced, and if I understand the context, it sounds like you are being a voice of reason on this issue. Thanks.

Nycam, no, my saying it doesn't make it so. It's either true or not. But the word "tyrant" has meaning, and the fact that we are sitting here today typing our thoughts freely on Newsvine tends to negate the argument that Bush is a nazi tyrant.

I read the article - and everyone should. It's a good guideline for discussion, and for this debate in particular. Thanks for recommending it and writing it, Killfile.

Yeah I agree Tom, that's a good article Killfile and fits in well with this discussion. Thanks for bringing it up here.

May I urge you in turn to read the Federalist Papers, in which the authors of our Constitution warned of fearmongering and false patriotism, especially Federalist 48:

They seem never to have recollected the danger from legislative usurpations, which, by assembling all power in the same hands, must lead to the same tyranny as is threatened by executive usurpations. In a government where numerous and extensive prerogatives are placed in the hands of an hereditary monarch, the executive department is very justly regarded as the source of danger, and watched with all the jealousy which a zeal for liberty ought to inspire. In a democracy, where a multitude of people exercise in person the legislative functions, and are continually exposed, by their incapacity for regular deliberation and concerted measures, to the ambitious intrigues of their executive magistrates, tyranny may well be apprehended, on some favorable emergency, to start up in the same quarter.
...
The conclusion which I am warranted in drawing from these observations is, that a mere demarcation on parchment of the constitutional limits of the several departments, is not a sufficient guard against those encroachments which lead to a tyrannical concentration of all the powers of government in the same hands.

Tom,

I'll read that, if you read Gore's The Assault on Reason and Frank Rich's The Greatest Story Ever Sold

heh...what Publishers Weekly to say about The Enemy at Home:

But D'Souza's claim that Islamic extremists are inflamed solely by America's music videos and feminists—not its U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or American support for Muslim dictators—is too single-minded. For example, he paints Abu Ghraib poster-girl Lynndie England as the personification of liberal sexual depravity, without acknowledging that the U.S. Army sent her to Iraq, not the left. Charging that liberals aid terrorists while sympathizing with the terrorists' culturally conservative worldview, D'Souza's critique of American cultural excess trips over its own inconsistencies

Looks like a wonderfully unbiased book. I might request it from the library, as I enjoy humorous books :)

You know what, Tom?

I will check it out and read it, just to prove I am open to all sides. I won't even presuppose that it is humor.

Will you do the same for either book I mentioned above? I will read it and write an article about it, to be done by mid-August (I am in the middle of two other books, but I will request this from the library and read it next).

Deal?

You're too kind, JonesGirl. Frankly, the personification of Lynndie England as the personification of liberal sexual depravity sort of turns my stomach (not to mention the fact that it completely undermines the author's credibility).

sssshhhh, Rebecca, I'm trying to see if I can at least get Tom here to go so far as to agree to reading one of the two books I mentioned. :P

I read quickly, the whole ordeal will be quick :)

Okay, JonesGirl. Your secret's safe with me. Heh-heh.

Rebecca, D'Souza does indeed make a link between Lynddie England's perversion with the sexual mores propagated by the Left. He also definitively proves a link between these incidents and Muslim outrage. Of course, you'd have to read D'Souza's book to see how he does it, rather than rely upon the left-wing Publisher's Weekly and their poisoned review. (I read PW often, as they are a main source for Amazon, and they consistently bash conservative views.)

JG, I have been talking today with Spiffie about the Richard Dawkins book The God Delusion, which I have read. But I have a stack of books at least 30 high that I have to read this Summer, and as voracious a reader as I am, that's still a very tall order for me. Some of them are for my "real world" work. So, I could add Gore's and Rich's books into the pile, but I can't guarantee I'll have them done by the end of the Summer. Actually, I will try to fast-track the Gore book because it really does interest me.

D'Souza does not write as a Westerner, since he is Indian. His Asian-Middle Eastern sensibility is refreshing, in that he has a good understanding of Western culture and a deep love for America.

LOL, definitively proves a link?

Sorry Tom, but I can't stomach trees dying for that sort of nonsense.

Let me get this straight--it is ok to blame half the country, that is liberal or Dem for 9/11, but comparing Bush to Hitler is wrong?

If you honestly think there is truth in the book you recommend, I have lost all respect for you, sorry.

I have lost all respect for you, sorry.

And I know that you have carried an immense respect for me here, JG, so the loss must pain you greatly.

~ chuckle ~

Well, I hate to say it, but I do "think there is truth" in Dinesh D'Souza's book. Feel free to read it, that is if it is available in San Francisco. Or, feel free to believe what Publisher's Weakly has to say.

It is kind of tough to get to know what people really believe and how they really are when you only read what the bloggers have to say about them without really getting to actually know some of them. That's why I hang out with lefties, read their books, listen to their music, and go to their movies. Some of them are pretty cool, and every now and then, in spite of myself, I find myself agreeing with something they've said.

But, if you just stick inside of your cocoon, you can call Christians "Taliban" and Bush "Hitler" and feel pretty good about it.

I expose myself to plenty of RW noise, Tom. I can see why Bush being compared to Hitler offends you, it must suck to know that you support someone that vile.

Goodnight, I am done with you and this thread. You aren't here to discuss, you are here to restate Rush's latest and laugh at those who disagree with you.

Actually, I missed Rush's latest. Have you heard it?

By the way, I am assuming you mean Snakes and Arrows the brand new CD from Canada's greatest prog rock band. I can't wait to hear it, though. Those guys really know how to jam.

http://www.amazon.com/Snakes-Arrows-Rush/dp/B000NVIXFK/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-3741904-6997700?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1182823009&sr=8-1

and laugh at those who disagree with you.

Well, some of it is kinda funny. I don't mean to laugh. Sometimes, I just sort of quietly titter to myself. But, then, sometimes, a big old guffaw does escape, and for that, I apologize.

When I feel the need to refill on Leftist nonsense, I do it all at once by reading Cockburn or Chomsky. Their breadth and depth are sustainable yard markers to their erstwhile supporters.

Yeah, a paragraph or two of Chomsky will do me for a month or two.

You aren't here to discuss, you are here to restate Rush's latest and laugh at those who disagree with you.

Starting to see a pattern here. TJG doesn't like someones opinion so she attributes it to someone (anyone) that she despises. Hmmmm

And I don't think she likes Rush, either, and so I just have to ask:

"What do you have against Canadians?"

Actually, I missed Rush's latest. Have you heard it?

By the way, I am assuming you mean Snakes and Arrows the brand new CD from Canada's greatest prog rock band. I can't wait to hear it, though. Those guys really know how to jam.

That was priceless....

That was priceless....

No, really, it's only $12.98 new and, wowee, they have some used ones for only $8.29!

~ chuckle ~

I'm glad somebody around here can laugh.

crickets

Republicans reacted to that and to his criminal activities.

LOL--and you cheer Bush's criminal activities. Aside from a BJ, what criminal activities were discovered by Starr?

So, it is ok when Repubs dislike a president and discuss him ad naseum, but not ok when Dems do it. Got it.

Great, another Clinton debate.

OK. I like Bill Clinton in some regards. He did some things right as President. He is a vast improvement over the current field of Democrats - Madame Senator included.

But, as a man, lovable and fun as he can be, he is also deeply corrupt, greedy, and, well...horny. It's not just that he...had...sex...with...that...woman, but that he molested and harassed numerous women and obstructed justice to cover it up. What he did in terms of pardoning Marc Rich and others before he left the White House had even Jimmy Carter disgusted and appalled and publicly denouncing him.

The late Barbara Olson wrote two revealing books about Clinton's behavior and actions:

The Final Days

and

Hell to Pay

. She would have written more, but apparently George Bush and Halliburton killed her in the plane that hit the Pentagon on 9/11...oh wait, there was no plane at the Pentagon, was there. Anyhoo, feel free to whitewater - I mean, whitewash - Clinton all you like, but he was no angel.

He is a fun guy, though. As long as you weren't a woman working for him who he has the hots for, that is.

Yet, Tom, none of that regarding Clinton harrassing women was found to stand up in court or under investigation...I just cannot believe that you would compare Clinton's sex life with the numerous lies of the Bush admin. It is laughable and shows the depths bush's supporters will sink to, to defend their boy.

As for pardoning Rich, several repubs looked into it and found nothing wrong with it.

Curious statements, but if you want to believe that, fine.

I do not compare Clinton's lies with Bush's whatevers. I have criticized Bush often here on Newsvine and elsewhere.

I think Sir Bubba Pantsalot was a good president in some regards, and I said so. He harassed and molested numerous women. Had he been Republican, then the women would have been embraced by feminists everwhere and Clinton would have suffered the political equivalent of a Bobbitization. Instead, the feminists scorned their sisters - some of whom were former Clinton supporters - and "stood by their man" no matter what the evidence suggested. As I said, keep on whitewatering - darn it, slipped again - whitewashing Clinton's long list of sexual, legal, finacial, abuse of power, etc....if it makes you feel better.

There was never anything substantiated about Clinton and the women--but thanks for reposting that RW nonsense.

it must truly annoy you that so much money was spent on investigating Clinton and all you have is a BJ to show for it.

Tom, I have decided to set you to ignore, as I am doing with many of the RW noisemakers.

Sorry, but I'm tired of the same ol'talking points.

The phrase "talking points" is itself a "talking point."

I'm afraid I missed out getting on a talking points mailing list, so I don't have any talking points to pass around. I am wounded, though, that you don't find me to be an original thinker. I try pretty hard, as I'm sure you do, to be my own person and express my own thoughts. I like you, JG, and I compliment you when I honestly feel I should, even when we disagree.

Setting someone to "ignore" as you apparently do with those that you disagree with, is a sad and unnecessary thing to do. You've not been threatened, harassed, stalked, or personally slandered. This is a site about honest and open debate and discussion, it's not the Huffington Post.

You know what they say about that whole heat/kitchen thingy. Personally, I think Newsvine would be rather dull without your strong opinions. Sorry you don't feel the same way about me.

Good night and have a good week - whether or not you can read this.

Tom
you must admit that the crickets retort was funny, even liberals watched Bugs back in the day.

What is the point of setting to ignore people who make thoughtful posts that you disagree with? If you agreed with everyone around here, I would think this place would become much less interesting to you.

Unless, of course, you find high-fiving and trading rhetoric with other like-thinkers over the latest Bush-trashing link interesting. But I personally like the back-and-forth. That's how I learn.

COBB,

I did think JG's retort was funny. Heck, I love JG, even though she apparently wants to resign as president of my fan club. I think she's smart, quick, determined, passionate, and interesting.

So, we'll see. Maybe I can launch a charm offensive and keep her from ignoring me for too long. I figured she liked people who were honest and passionate about their beliefs. I could be wrong.

Renesis,

Again, I agree with you. The give-and-take is what makes this site really hum. If every conservative (all twelve of us) left Newsvine tomorrow, the other 3,000 or so people here would quickly grow board of sitting in a circle talking about Bush being a chimp or Hitler or a mastermind or an imbecile, or whatever the critique du jour is. As I've said, I often learn things from my fiercest debate opponents, and am honored to have several of them on my friends list.

Ah, but ain't that America?

DA, the Left knows all. They have magical powers of mind-reading and can deeply discern the hearts and minds of everyone, especially simpletons like George Bush. Fortunately, the Left is not judgemental, though.

See, and I forget that sometimes. ;-)

Yeah, it's their world. We're just lucky to live in it.

Oh, yeah, that's another thing about Bush. He is an evil mastermind on the level of Stalin, Mao, and Hitler, but he's too dumb to walk and chew pretzels at the same time.

He's an enigma, shrouded in a mystery, wrapped in the NY Times.

Ahhh... so that's the new use for the NY Times? I heard that it was being used recently to wrap fish and line litter boxes.

</joke you did not find funny>

Hey, BMV, I laughed anyway. Those are perfectly acceptable usages for the Times. I also heard it was being used as a liner for Howell Raines playpen. Oh, wait, the Times was Howell Raines' playpen. :-D

None of the most infamous characters of history saw themselves as being evil.

Pretty much what I meant when I said no one thought Hitler was Hitler until it was too late, the evil unleashed.

There is an amazing story told of Herr Hitler by one of his drivers. Hitler was riding through Czechoslovakia, following his Panzers, and drove through a recently conquered village. Buildings were still burning, corpses lay in the street, devastation lay all around.

Hitler, who had soldiered bravely in the trenches of WW1, was apparently moved to tears. "Why, oh why did they have to oppose me?" he sobbed.

I'm so glad Zoilus posted this because, wow, apparently we left Charlie Manson out of the earlier comparisons to Bush.

Let's make sure we get all of the evil comparisons for Bush thrown into this little gumbo of ours here. Who's next, Kim Jung Ill? Barry Bonds? Kevin Federline? Aaaaaaah, the horror! Bush...must...be...stopped! Paging Austin Powers! Yeah, baby!

Tom Bombadil

I'm so glad Zoilus posted this because, wow, apparently we left Charlie Manson out of the earlier comparisons to Bush.

Reread my post, My point was that regardless of who, everyone thinks they are basically good. I did not make any Charles Manson comparison with bush. The first line contains my subject, the second my predicate. then I continue with this example to make the point, as you show here as well, the... wait, I'm not falling for this. You don't have a reading comprehension problem. You just use hand picked statements out of context as smelly fish, for propaganda purposes. I like the Austin Powers thing. Cute.

Zoilus,

Now, now, I know you're smart enough to realize I'm not going to fall for the grammar lesson there: you fully meant to link Manson and his followers with Bush and his followers. You insinuated that Bush supporters are members of a cult. It's OK, don't be embarrassed - you're in good company tonight with many others who are dropping names like Rosie O'Donnell at a MoveOn coffee klatch.

Glad you liked the Austin Powers rant. I'm feeling a bit ranty tonight. But, please know, I'm actually cool, calm, and happy - I'm saying a lot of these things tongue-in-cheek.

These are not easy days for Republicans, you know. Have a heart, if we seem a little frazzled, it's because the Republican Party is about as organized as Ray Nagin in a rainstorm.

Zoilus said:

The ultraconservatives in Newsvine resorting to lunatic fringe blogs to make arguments like this makes clear their desperation.

Unfortunately, the legitimacy of the substance of this link/blog doesn't matter at all now; The point, that some out there believe Bush is "worse than Hitler" has been confirmed right here by many of Newsvine's own.

"worse than Hitler" has been confirmed right here by many of Newsvine's own

Who? I don't like him I think he has been bad for the country, I also believe he has violated his oath of office by not upholding the Constitution, I think he orchestrated us into a war that will hunt America for decades. I am sure he will go down in History as one of the worst Presidents ever. But he has not killed 6 million people. and he never gets any blow jobs from interns.

Who?

I am not saying you are, but many have, mostly above.

Who?

Zoilus, have you been reading this thread at all?

Nope, can't find one statement saying that Bush is "Worse then Hitler". That title goes to my ex's Mother.

LOLOLOL,

Zoilus, that was a great comment. My respect for you just shot up immensely. Anyone with a sense of humor can't be all bad. Just look at Stephen Colbert.

As did the headless rider at sleepy hollow

He had the potential. But he used it the wrong way.

DAW,

LOLOOLOLOOOLOLOLOLOOL, that made my day. Thanks.

It is too late. America is over.

You're writing this under the false assumption that the ultraconservative factions of Newsvine are innocent in their ignorance. It's a purposeful goal of deception and propaganda. In some cases they do not know they are even doing it, just following along with the party line. This was the case in the Democratic, pre Nazi Germany as well.

Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship... voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

Hermann Goering (1893 - 1946), From a conversation with psychologist Gustave Gilbert while jailed at Nuremburg on the evening of 18 April 1946, documented in Gilbert's book "Nuremburg Diary."

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and
or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Joseph Goebbels

It is too late. America is over.

Could be, but don't despair, when people of good intent believe in the truth and in freedom good things happen in the end. What matters is to stand for democracy in the face of tyranny. This ability for people to debate things with one another in a public setting is a neglected art. If all goes well we could be witnessing the beginnings of a new golden period in democracy within our lifetime. But there will be pain getting there.

You're writing this under the false assumption that the ultraconservative factions of Newsvine are innocent in their ignorance. It's a purposeful goal of deception and propaganda. In some cases they do not know they are even doing it, just following along with the party line. This was the case in the Democratic, pre Nazi Germany as well.

I loved your quote, it is the essence of fascist doctrine. I don't deny the motives of the far right Newsviners, but in general I think that it's not important whether right or left wins as much as democracy winning. We call many of them "far right" out of courtesy, but sadly in many instances their outlook is fascist in nature. Once you reach that extreme it's not a matter of right or left elements of a democratic state but elements that would eliminate democracy altogether.

I also appreciate Killfile's comments, it's important that we all work towards high-quality seeds of opinion and fact. As citizen journalists we have an obligation to improve the options available to Newsviners. Getting original sources whenever possible, making sure that the sources that we're using are credible, these are all good things. But at the same time I think that "playing nice" with fascism can get us into trouble. We need to be able to call it for what it is honestly, openly and objectively.

Bodhi, get a load of this stuff at 14, 14.1, 14.2, 14.3 ... I think these guys are serious! I don't know whether to laugh, cry, or phone Bellvue. I'm sick of babies who scream fascism every time somebody disagrees with them. Apparently, it's not just Bush who is a fascist, but we conservative Newsviners

"America is over."

America is over? Good grief. Where will the hysterical, extremist rhetoric end?

~ snorts derisively ~

Cry me a river.

And, if you think my note here is hostile, just think how it feels to be referred to as a nazi and a fascist.

I would love for some reasonable liberals to come into this and ask your ideological fellows to tone it down a bit.

And I'd like to see a reasonable conservative, Tom. You and Bodhi aren't it.

And I'd like to see a reasonable conservative, Tom.

See, JG, you just missed a golden opportunity to tell your comrades on the Left that this whole "America is over" and "conservative Newsviners are nazis and fascists" rhetoric should be cooled.

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

If I was all that you apparently think I am, then I would be leading the storm troopers through the streets of San Francisco right now. But, alas, I'm not. I'm sitting by my computer having a little mug of green tea and listening to John Mayer, and petting my labrador retriever on his big old head. Sorry to disappoint - I don't even have fangs.

I agree with those leftists, Tom.

Now, the quandry begins: I've just finished replying to your note that you are putting me on your ignore list. So I don't know if you can see this or not.

But if you really agree with the Leftists that Bush is "Hitler," the Christians are the "Taliban," and "America is over," then you must feel pretty scared and upset. And, honestly, I'm sorry to hear it. It's tough for me to imagine that you really believe that, but if you say you do, then I have to believe you feel that way.

To me, the facts do not support such a bleak assessment of the nation or of your fellow Newsviners. But, that's just me. I'm sorry you have that conviction and I'm sorry for the fear that you must feel. And that's not being condescending; I'm really sorry you feel that way.

Uncle Ted, I dotn share the opinion that America is over. Most empires last for at least 400 years. Now perhaps due to technology, the window may be shortened but we can at least make it as long as we have oil, and then decide to burn our coal, which shuold buy us another 150 years. so the way I see it, Paris' grand-daughter will still be news worthy.

Man, the way medicine is advancing, and the way that Larry King is fawning over her, Paris Hilton may still be newsworthy. And, Larry King may still be on TV. Now, that's scary.

I'd like to see a reasonable conservative,

I see a statement like that from some and I am beginning to believe that what it really means is " I'd like to see a liberal that claims to be a conservative". I think you are looking for RINO's

Think of Bush as Hindenburg in the last phases of the Weimar Republic when Hitler had taken over as Chancellor. Watch the Chancellor - Cheney.

We're lucky that we're not yet to the point of having widespread storm troopers as in the height of that ugly era, but there are plenty of analogies. Let's pray that we can make some progress in demobilizing this machine while we still have relatively strong democratic institutions with which to do so.

Bush is a dangerously misinformed ideological zealot , hitler was more of a realist.

Think of Bush as Hindenburg in the last phases of the Weimar Republic when Hitler had taken over as Chancellor. Watch the Chancellor - Cheney.

You two, honestly, take one's breath away with the depth and breadth of the hateful ignorance displayed by those remarks.

Perhaps, Tom, you are OK with this sort of thing?

here

I'm not. And I think that his and Cheney's behavior is that of tyrants. Power-hungry, couldn't care less about the country or its Constitution, tyrants.

actually I agree, the constitution seems to be more of a guideline than a core principal of our society these days, but I dont htink it will fare all to well from either side of aisle. Talk among yourselves.

Oh, yeah, the big coup. I almost forgot about it. *Yawn*

Even Chris Matthews this afternoon on Hardball (yeah, I watch it sometimes) was saying that, while it was goofy, the President and Vice President were technically legally correct in their assertions.

Well, I think it is goofy, and as usual, Bush and his team are communicating miserably. But, I read the thread you linked, and again, I thought the overall tone of the rhetoric was way overheated, hysterical, and ill-founded. I realize some Leftists are all upset about the Patriot Act and about how the Consitution does not protect foreign terrorists, and about how the detainees down in Gitmo only have barely more freedom of religion than American public school students, but I think all of the talk about "overthrowing the government" is a little premature.

Let me say it again: in 18 months or so, Bush and Cheney are going to ride off into the sunset. We will have an "overthrow" called the November 2008 election. I will say that I think this whole Executive privilege kerfuffle is yet another example of chaos in the Bush legal team and administration. I think Al Gonzales should resign, and others, too. But I don't believe this is as sinister as you do.

Also, I don't believe that what has happened, is happening, or will happen in Washington approaches the definition of tyranny. It may be comedy, but it's a long way yet from tyranny. I'm sure Colbert and Stewart are going to have a lot of fun with this one.

This is the weakness of the system, which prompts our own weaknesses, you're right.

Oops, another comment.

Welcome to radio station WVINE, where we play the same old song, over and over again. Here's a little dedication we're sending out from Tommy B of the Old Forest to JBlossom in beautiful Connecticut...so let's just sit back, put on those headphones, and chill to the sounds of Pink Floyd:

Hello...hello...hello
Is there anybody
In
There?

Just nod if you can
Hear me
Is there anyone
Home?

JBlossom,

Sometimes, in my kidding around and satire, I can be too harsh, which is the case with my note #16.2 above. While you and I disagree on many matters, I recognize that you are a very intelligent and caring gentleman who is sincere in what you write.

Therefore, I apologize for my overly hostile and snarky tone, and I hope you will forgive me. I will try to do better.

M4,

No, you don't sound like a Communist at all. The Communist goal, as expressed through the ideology and actions of the Soviet Union, was world domination. So, Communism gave us two major world superpowers, China and the USSR, and took us to the brink of nuclear confrontation. Having been to the USSR prior to its dissolution, I can tell you that Communists would have taken you and locked you up for saying what you said. Actually, they wouldn't have liked the part where you said "think" either, LOL.

Frash, you asked:

I wonder how many of those same people think 9/11 was an inside job...

For an insight into that question, please see my article"9/11 WAS a Conspiracy!

Also, you said:

Al Franken could become president and even still I wouldn't be so insolent to say he were anything like Hitler.

Absolutely right. In fact, I wouldn't even be so insolent as to say he was worse than Chevy Chase, LOL.

Hey, don't get too down on Newsvine. There are a few of us rock-ribbed, nimble-minded conservatives hanging on around here, and even most of the liberals are pretty great folks, once you get to know them. They are not tame, however, so be cautious about petting them or feeding them snacks.

Johnmoe8,

You know, there's nothing like good satire. And, that was nothing like good satire.

You claim Hitler was a puppet? That's a rather unique take on history. It sort of damages your credibility for the rest of your claims.

At our President's speeches, It is wonderful to see, as a back drop, mostly military or business people.

By the way, aside from the inaccuracy of the above statement, let me ask, what is your beef against military people? And I guess business people are evil also, in your world?

Ya have to get your entertainment where you can!

WhyIt,

You may be right. That's not a bad analogy, and it certainly is a more reasonable and proportionate perspective than some here have offered.

I like the President in some regards. I don't know if I agree with you. But now you are bringing the dialogue into a realm where constructive dialogue could happen. So, thanks for that.

I must argue one point, though, that you made:

and has allowed a lot of other greedy nearsighted old farts to fill his cabinet.

Sir, I must inform you that Al Gonzales is a greedy nearsighted young fart.

Hey, Bodhi! I think you are now listed as the Head Kool Aid drinker!!

He obviously buys the sugar-free crap.

Jimster is right - A congressman's worst fear... angry constituents (especially in repeated phone calls and letters).

What totally ticks me off is that Jimster doesn't think I'm as good a Kool Aid drinker as Bohdi. C'mon, man, I've got the cherry red mustache and everything! Oh yeeeeaaah!

Speaking of Bohdi, where is he?

Tom I'll let you and Bodhi! work out who's at what end of the horsey custume.

Remember, you can lead a Repubilican horse to water, but you can't make'em mix the Kool-aid.

Leave that to Epiphany.

I have just read through this entire thread...

Just think... you'll never get that time back.

Remember, you can lead a Repubilican horse to water, but you can't make'em mix the Kool-aid.

Leave that to Epiphany.

We are all getting so close now to a group hug. I can just feel it. ;-)

excellent.