The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > Comments on Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-14-2003, 02:07 PM
DRomm DRomm is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Are the dittoheads taking over The Straight Dope too? Cecil makes a factual error

In the column Was Bush's great grandfather a Nazi? http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030214.html , Cecil not only sounds like a mindless dittohead but gets his facts wrong.

The questioner was right, and Cecil was wrong: The crimes concerned Bush's great grandfather, George Herbert, and grandfather Prescott Bush, not "misdeeds by George W.'s father, George H.W., and his grandfather, Prescott Bush". Cecil is a George off.

Cecil dismisses the rather serious crime of Trading With The Enemy while we were at war with Nazi Germany by evading with "Some of the most distinguished names in American business had investments or subsidiaries in prewar Germany" (empahsis mine) which in no way excuses the Bushes unpatriotic dealings.

Cecil apologizes for them, saying that Prescott only had one share of stock of one of the subsidiaries (without a cite) while sliding over the fact that he was a director of the corporation and was called "Hitler's Angel" by the press at the time. An account here: http://www.lpdallas.org/features/draheim/dr991216.htm . And here: http://www.tarpley.net/bush2.htm . And for good measure, here: http://www.rememberjohn.com/Nazis.html .

Further, the Harriman connection is unexplored, but Prescott's connection to the eugenics movement can be found here http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Exhibi...nics/Bush.html , and Harriman's founding of the Eugenics Records Office in London in 1910 can be found here http://www.eugenics-watch.com/roots/chap12.html .

One of the ways you can tell a dittohead (or worse, a freeper) is that every comment about the Bushes starts off with a dig at Clinton. In fact, the attempt to uncover the Bushes involvement with the Nazis and the bin Ladens isn't even remotely like the massively financed hatemongering lies about Bill Clinton. The whole first paragraph should have been edited out. But that's another column; lets stick to the facts about the Bush family.

I used to respect Cecil, but instead of aging into the grand master of truth seekers, he's sunk to the level of spin control and rumormongering of Drudge and Rush. Sad.
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 02-14-2003, 02:31 PM
John Corrado John Corrado is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Laurel, MD, USA
Posts: 3,684
Can I comment on the irony that the OP considers Cecil a "dittohead (or worse, a freeper)" when one of his own sites (the geocities one) alleges that Prescott Bush was a Nazi for his 1950 involvement with Planned Parenthood?

For we all know that Planned Parenthood is anathema to any good liberal cause.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-14-2003, 03:17 PM
APB APB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 1,777
Re: Are the dittoheads taking over The Straight Dope too? Cecil makes a factual error

Quote:
Originally posted by DRomm
The questioner was right, and Cecil was wrong: The crimes concerned Bush's great grandfather, George Herbert, and grandfather Prescott Bush, not "misdeeds by George W.'s father, George H.W., and his grandfather, Prescott Bush". Cecil is a George off.
Not so fast. You've taken that quote out of context. What Cecil actually said was:

Quote:
In 1994 Loftus coauthored a book with Mark Aarons entitled The Secret War Against the Jews: How Western Espionage Betrayed the Jewish People. The book alleges various misdeeds by George W.'s father, George H.W., and his grandfather, Prescott Bush.
Now, I'm unfamiliar with that particular book but the sample pages of the 1997 paperback edition at Amazon.com do include the index. From that, it would appear that Loftus and Aarons make numerous references to George H. W. Bush and that they mention Prescott Bush on three pages. George H. Bush doesn't appear at all. I therefore suspect that any 'misdeeds' discussed by them do indeed involve George W.'s father and grandfather. It is just that George H. W. Bush's 'crimes' didn't involve Nazi Germany.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-14-2003, 04:58 PM
mystic2311 mystic2311 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
trading with the enemy

If you read Charles Higham's book, Trading with the Enemy, you will find out that it was not illegal to trade with the enemy, you just had to get a permit from the treasury department. Amazing, eh? In this book you can find out more amazing facts about how Ford and GM refused to help the American war effort and instead built trucks for Hitler. Andrew Mellon of Alcoa sold his aluminum to the Nazis, so we had to recycle toothpaste tubes! Standard Oil had oil tankers sail from Venezuela (so it technically was not illegal) to the Canary Islands to refuel Nazi U-Boats.

But the one story that is NOT in Higham's book is the story about Prescott Bush's business dealings with Hitler. Thus I questioned the veracity of this story and am glad that Cecil, who is usually a right-wing apologist, vetted the story. Interestingly, Trading with the Enemy was published in 1983, when George Bush Sr. was president (technically he ws VP, but after he tried to assassinate Reagan, the old gipper (I am not president, but I play one on TV!) wasn't really in charge anymore.

So I wonder, did Bush Sr. censor the story somehow? Incidentally, Higham came across his info while researching the Nazi loyalties of Errol Flynn. It seems like everybody who was anybody back then was pro-Nazi, including Joe Kennedy, Sr.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-14-2003, 05:11 PM
akrako1 akrako1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
I'm sad to see that nobody has mentioned IBM's role with the Holocaust. IBM invented a census punchcard system that the Nazi's used to determine who got exterminated, put to work, etc.

See:
http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/p...2001-04-04.htm
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-14-2003, 05:31 PM
mystic2311 mystic2311 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
IBM was sued by holocaust survivors for this, but IBM won the case. General Motors was also sued by holocaust survivors for being used as slave labor in GM's Nazi factories. GM denied the claims but settled out of court for $3.3 BILLION. Wow! That's a lot of money for being innocent!
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-14-2003, 08:21 PM
samclem samclem is online now
graphite is a great moderator
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Akron, Ohio
Posts: 21,268
Quote:
GM denied the claims but settled out of court for $3.3 BILLION. Wow! That's a lot of money for being innocent!
What would the amount have been if they had been found gulty?

Everything in life is merely relative.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-14-2003, 08:27 PM
samclem samclem is online now
graphite is a great moderator
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Akron, Ohio
Posts: 21,268
Quote:
...and was called "Hitler's Angel" by the press at the time
Got a cite for that?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-14-2003, 08:37 PM
samclem samclem is online now
graphite is a great moderator
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Akron, Ohio
Posts: 21,268
Quote:
Cecil...who is usually a right-wing apologist,...
As opposed to, say, december, who is merely giving you the Straight Dope?

(Sorry, december). You were just a convenient boogeyman. At least december doesn't say things "quite" this rediculous. Most of the time.


Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-14-2003, 11:52 PM
mystic2311 mystic2311 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Hello samclem,
You are obviously a right-wing apologist too (and don't spell very well). GM was obviously guilty of using slave labor, after all, it is a historical fact. They settled for the paltry sum of $3.3 billion to avoid more bad publicity. As for the cite for Prescott Bush being called Hitler's Angel, don't be so lazy, do your own google search. Here is one cite:

http://www.meta-religion.com/Secret_..._the_nazis.htm

There are dozens more.

Now, do you have anything intelligent to contribute?
I didn't think so.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 02-15-2003, 06:46 AM
AskNott AskNott is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Anderson, IN,USA
Posts: 13,983
If I may be so naive as to ask, what's a freeper? I know what a dittohead is.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02-15-2003, 08:06 AM
bonzer bonzer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Quote:
Originally posted by mystic2311
As for the cite for Prescott Bush being called Hitler's Angel, don't be so lazy, do your own google search. Here is one cite:

http://www.meta-religion.com/Secret_..._the_nazis.htm

There are dozens more.
Welcome to the SMDB mystic2311. Since you're new, a word of advice: in these parts, it's utterly the norm for someone to ask for a cite to a claim someone else is making. It's not laziness, it's curiosity.

That said, a Google search wouldn't have helped much in this case. Using "Bush" and "Hitler's Angel" does indeed throw up dozens of pages, but virtually all of these are recycling the same piece of text and others are clearly garbling the story. The first page is the one you chose to cite. In it, the relevant passage is:

Quote:
Prescott Bush was surely aghast at a sensational article the New York Herald Tribune splashed on its front page in July 1942.

'Hitler's Angel Has 3 Million in US Bank,' read the headline above a story reporting that Adolf Hitler's financier had stowed the fortune in Union Banking Corp., possibly to be held for "Nazi bigwigs."

Bush knew all about the New York bank: He was one of its seven directors. If the Nazi tie became known, it would be a potential embarrassment, Bush and his partners at Brown Brothers Harriman worried, explaining to government regulators that their position was merely an unpaid courtesy for a client.
Now all this appears plausible and from a beliveable source - indeed it's the Boston Globe story from 2001 that Cecil himself refers to in his article. And it's certainly discrediting to Prescott Bush. It's just not obvious that this implies that the New York Herald Tribune was calling Bush "Hitler's Angel". After all, I don't suppose it was much of a headline to imply that a US businessman, and a director of the bank at that, had 3 million in a US bank. Turning to one of the others pages Google threw up, we find

Quote:
On October 20, 1942, the U.S. government had had enough of Prescott Bush and his Nazi business arrangements with Thyssen. Over the summer, The New York Tribune had exposed Bush and Thyssen, whom the Tribune dubbed "Hitler's Angel." When the US government saw UBC's books, they found out that Bush's bank and its shareholders "are held for the benefit of ... members of the Thyssen family, [and] is property of nationals ... of a designated enemy country."
So in this version it's Thyssen who the Tribune was calling "Hitler's Angel".
Now one would have to see the original article (it doesn't appear to be online) to be sure, but the headline does make far more sense as a reference to Thyssen.

I reiterate, none of this lets Prescott Bush off the hook. But you'll find it far easier to make a case on the SMDB if you get your facts straight.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-15-2003, 09:29 AM
DRomm DRomm is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
John Corrado:

While I'm glad you take the time to read the cites (perhaps you could help samclem; see below), I find it ironic that you completely slide by the evidence of the Bushes helping the Nazis while we were at war to comment on a later charge of Prescott Bush being called a Nazi. To have a leading Republican aiding and abetting a dangerous potential enemy of the US back in the 30s and 40s would be as bad as having the current Vice President illegally doing business with Iraq in the 90s and lying about it under oath... there's irony for you, eh?

APB: The question was about Herbert Walker, and Cecil doesn't dig that far, only going back to Poppy Bush and Prescott. There's certainly enough evidence about George Herbert -- some official court records, some commentary at the time (see the cites I made) -- that's not mentioned. It's a common rhetorical trick to answer a serious charge by pooh-poohing a lesser charge. Cecil's reply was lazy at best and disengenous at least.

mystic/akrako: While doing business with Hitler in the 30s may be morally unjustified, Germany was a sovereign nation and it was not illegal to deal with them until we were at war. Then the Bushes were not merely morally repugnant but engaging in criminal acts, for which they were punished.

samclem: Thanks to mystic and bonzer for further elaboration, but if you'd bothered check out the cites I made, you'd have found references to Prescott Bush as Hitler's Angel, possibly more than once as you follow links. Please don't demand cites until you've checked out the ones already there.

AskNott: A "freeper" is someone who posts regularly to freerepublic.com (no, I'm not going to check to see if the url is valid; I just took a shower and don't want to get slime all over me). The slimy, hatemongering, barely literate great unwashed but web-enabled right wingers stroke their egos by tightening their collectived sphincters. Dittoheads are at a KKK rally; freepers are writing the graffiti in the porta-potties of a KKK rally...
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02-15-2003, 09:49 AM
Cecil Adams Cecil Adams is offline
Perfect Master
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Posts: 166
DRomm writes:
Quote:
The questioner was right, and Cecil was wrong: The crimes concerned Bush's great grandfather, George Herbert, and grandfather Prescott Bush, not "misdeeds by George W.'s father, George H.W., and his grandfather, Prescott Bush". Cecil is a George off.
Please. Our current president's great-grandfather was George Herbert Walker, not George Herbert. Walker does figure in the Loftus book, but much more attention is given to the alleged misdeeds of George H.W. Bush, the 41st president. I concluded that the letter-writer had his generations mixed up and meant father and grandfather - easy to do given the similarity of names. In retrospect this conclusion was unwarranted. Thank you for calling attention to this confusing aspect of the column - I'll have Little Ed amend it.

Quote:
Cecil dismisses the rather serious crime of Trading With The Enemy while we were at war with Nazi Germany by evading with "Some of the most distinguished names in American business had investments or subsidiaries in prewar Germany" (empahsis mine) which in no way excuses the Bushes unpatriotic dealings.
Prescott Bush was not accused of a "rather serious crime." The Trading with the Enemy Act provided for the seizure of enemy-owned or -controlled assets in the United States, of which the UBC was one. The vesting order may be viewed in its entirety at
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill...8/vesting.html. UBC had been established long before the war (according to Loftus, it "began trading in 1924"), when trade with Germany was legal. The Trading with the Enemy Act permitted continued operation of the assets under the supervision of the Alien Property Custodian. After the war control of UBC was returned to its owners and the company was liquidated in 1951. Seizure of an asset was not tantamount to a charge of treason, contrary to what some people think today.
Quote:
Cecil apologizes for them, saying that Prescott only had one share of stock of one of the subsidiaries (without a cite) while sliding over the fact that he was a director of the corporation and was called "Hitler's Angel" by the press at the time.
Prescott's ownership of one share of UBC stock is stated in the Federal Register as cited above. Others on this thread have already pointed out that "Hitler's Angel" was Fritz Thyssen, not Prescott Bush.
Quote:
One of the ways you can tell a dittohead (or worse, a freeper) is that every comment about the Bushes starts off with a dig at Clinton.
Huh? The target of my "dig" wasn't Clinton, it was the "rabid EOBs (Enemies of Bill)" who spread scurrilous stories about him and his family. You ought to be more careful about this kind of thing if you're going to accuse others of misstating the facts.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02-15-2003, 11:25 AM
Duke Duke is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Good answer, Cece!
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 02-15-2003, 12:09 PM
bonzer bonzer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Quote:
Originally posted by DRomm
samclem: Thanks to mystic and bonzer for further elaboration, but if you'd bothered check out the cites I made, you'd have found references to Prescott Bush as Hitler's Angel, possibly more than once as you follow links. Please don't demand cites until you've checked out the ones already there.
Your apparent set of references for the "Hitler's Angel" label were:

Quote:
Cecil apologizes for them, saying that Prescott only had one share of stock of one of the subsidiaries (without a cite) while sliding over the fact that he was a director of the corporation and was called "Hitler's Angel" by the press at the time. An account here: http://www.lpdallas.org/features/draheim/dr991216.htm . And here: http://www.tarpley.net/bush2.htm . And for good measure, here: http://www.rememberjohn.com/Nazis.html .
I've read through these and can see no reference to anybody being called "Hitler's Angel" in any of them. Searching the files for the word "Angel" in them throws up nothing either. None of these pages have any obvious links to any further references.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 02-15-2003, 12:55 PM
mystic2311 mystic2311 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Without seeing the original news articles, it is impossible to know who was originally referred to as Hitler's angel, and the waters certainly have been muddied since then by writers referring to both Thyssen and Prescott Bush as "Hitler's angel." For example, this article independently dubs Prescott Bush "Hitler's angel" without referring to any other source:

http://www.bartcop.com/421102.htm

I admit that the original cite I gave from the Metareligion website is ambiguous at best as to who the original Hitler's angel was.

We can only conclude, then, that they were both Hitler's angels. After all, a false god surely can have more than one angle in his celestial sphere.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 02-15-2003, 01:42 PM
Cecil Adams Cecil Adams is offline
Perfect Master
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Posts: 166
Let's put this to rest. Here are the first three paragraphs of Michael Kranish's story in the April 23, 2001 Boston Globe:
Quote:
Prescott Bush was surely aghast at a sensational article the New York Herald Tribune splashed on its front page in July 1942.

"Hitler's Angel Has 3 Million in US Bank," read the headline above a story reporting that Adolf Hitler's financier had stowed the fortune in Union Banking Corp., possibly to be held for "Nazi bigwigs."Bush knew all about the New York bank: He was one of its seven directors. If the Nazi tie became known, it would be a potential "embarrassment," Bush and his partners at Brown Brothers Harriman worried, explaining to government regulators that their position was merely an unpaid courtesy for a client. The situation grew more serious when the government seized Union's assets under the Trading with the Enemy Act, the sort of action that could have ruined Bush's political dreams.

As it turned out, his involvement wasn't pursued by the press or political opponents during his Senate campaigns a decade later. But the episode may well have been one of the catalysts for a dramatic change in his life. Just as the Union Banking story broke, Bush volunteered to be chairman of United Service Organizations, putting himself on the national stage for the first time. He traveled the country raising millions of dollars to help boost the morale of US troops during World War II, enhancing his stature in a way that helped him get elected US senator. A son and grandson would become presidents.
"Hitler's financier" was Fritz Thyssen, whose book I Paid Hitler had appeared the previous year. It was Thyssen who put the "3 Million" in UBC and was given the nickname "Hitler's Angel," not Prescott Bush. I don't have the Herald Tribune article, which might make this clearer. John Loftus says a researcher he paid to look through the H-T back copies couldn't find the story, and my e-mail to Michael Kranish went unanswered. I don't think there's any big mystery here, though, just a mistake in the dates.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 02-15-2003, 03:03 PM
Evil Captor Evil Captor is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
It seems to me that going after Bush by going after something his grandpappy did is a remarkably roundabout technique of political smearing, especially considering that we have serious allegations, and some evidence that Resident Bush:

1) Stole a U.S. Presidential election
2) Is a former cocaine abuser
3) Is (and may still be) an alcohol abuser
4) Was involved in fraudlent financial dealings (Harken)
5) Was AWOL for a prolonged period during wartime
6) Has close ties to the Enron criminals

It seems to me that a much more productive avenue for anyone interested in bringing Bush down would be a thorough examination of these charges, rather than a dubious guilt by association charge. Maybe Granpappy Bush crossed the line in his dealings with the Nazis, maybe he didn't. Any amount of debate on this topic will probably not change a lot of opinions about the current President, because Dubya undoubtedly had precious little ability to control Granpa's business dealings as a child.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 02-15-2003, 04:10 PM
bibbouk bibbouk is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Who cares about his granddad, the man himself is a nazi from what I can tell

Last edited by MEBuckner; 02-16-2003 at 02:13 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 02-15-2003, 05:14 PM
bonzer bonzer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
I'm just mildly stunned that Cecil works Saturdays. Fighting ignorance is clearly a 24/7 business after all.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 02-15-2003, 09:32 PM
mystic2311 mystic2311 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
more treasonous associations of bush

I agree with Evil Captor and Bibbouk. Quibbling over who was the real Hitler's Angel is distracting us from the really incriminating stuff, like W's ties to Wahhabi terrorists, through his "field marshall," Grover Norquist, and how higher-ups in the FBI suppressed and sabotaged the investigation of terrorists before 9-11. Bush has more ties to Al-Qaeda than Saddam Hussein does, which might explain why he allowed 9-11 to happen, thus tightening the grip of Judeo-Christian-Islamic Fascism on the American people. Check out these links:

Grover Norquist's strange alliance with radical Islam:

http://www.tnr.com/111201/foer111201.html

The FBI's Radical Fundamentalist Unit:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MOO208B.html

Wahhabis in the Old Dominion:

http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Con...1/072kqska.asp
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 02-15-2003, 10:33 PM
samclem samclem is online now
graphite is a great moderator
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Akron, Ohio
Posts: 21,268
mystic said
Quote:
I admit that the original cite I gave from the Metareligion website is ambiguous at best as to who the original Hitler's angel was.
And after admitting that you don't have a clue as to who the original headline in the article reffered to you then said
Quote:
We can only conclude, then, that they were both Hitler's angels
Where did you learn your brand of logic?

And to take this discussion into a criticism of the current president by linking to rather controversial sites is merely taking this away from the original column.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 02-16-2003, 02:14 AM
MEBuckner MEBuckner is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Posts: 10,206
Moderator's Note: I have no idea where that link in bibbouk's post was supposed to go, but as it was, it wasn't going anywhere, and it was making the whole thread look funny, so I killed it.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 02-16-2003, 11:55 AM
DRomm DRomm is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Gosh, a direct reply from Cecil himself! I'm honored. And he'll "amend" his column due to my comments! Gosh!

Let me address your reponse, Cece: I was a Walker off, but you were a George off. You may conclude that George Herbert Walker, father in law to Prescott Bush, wasn't the Bush progenitor being asked about, but you still should have done more to answer the question about "Bush's great-grandfather". The Loftus book might go on about Poppy Bush, but in he wasn't active in the 30s and 40s and so couldn't have directly supported Nazi Germany, whereas great-grand could have and did. It's a legitimate question, and you didn't answer it.

Not long after WWII, having been to a Communist party meeting as a teen 20 years earlier could have ruined your career. Today, not being sufficiently angry at Saddam Hussein has the far right raising doubts about your patriotism. Actually trading with Hitler while we were in a declared war with him may not be treason in the legal sense, but it's sure morally bankrupt and deserves more of a prominent place in the family history of George W. This is a guy who's running away from his past as fast as he can, where his own birthplace isn't mentioned in his official bio, where he's trying to hide the official papers from the Reagan/Bush administration and his time as Texas governor. You could have shed some light, instead you continued the obfuscation. Not the exemplary job fighting ignorance I've come to expect from you.

In the article you cited (thanks!) from the Federal Registry, http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill...8/vesting.html , the Trading With The Enemies Act is established for "the national interest". It strikes me that breaking this law comes fairly close to the definition of treason in the moral sense. Roland Harriman and Prescott Bush were active supporters of Adolph Hitler; 1 share or 3,991. This may not mean that they supported death camps or wanted Nazis to attack the US, but it does mean that they placed their economic interests above the interests of US national security.

As I mentioned in my original comment, it was morally reprehensible to do business with morally reprehensible governments such as the Nazis in the 30s, but it wasn't illegal to do so until we were at war and the Trading With The Enemies Act was signed six days after Pearl Harbor. After that, it was slimy AND illegal.

George Herbert Walker and Prescott Bush's ties to Nazi German go beyond owning one share of an American company doing business with them in times of war. See http://www.clamormagazine.org/featur...feature.3.html for charges ranging from "A portion of the slave labor force in Poland was "managed by Prescott Bush," according to a Dutch intelligence agent. In 1941...." and "Prescott Bush continued with business as usual, aiding the Nazi invasion of Europe and supplying resources for weaponry that would eventually be turned on American solders in combat against Germany." Shades of Dick Cheney's Haliburton doing business with Saddam Hussein!

Cece (and bonzer): Okay, I'll give you that "Hitler's Angel" referred to Thyssen and not Prescott Bush. Still, to have Bush's associate and long-time business partner be labelled such doesn't particularly reflect well on the family. Thyssen and Bush get linked a lot, more than just a nickname as reported in the press. Would you accept "Hitler's Angel's Partner" as a nick for Prescott?

But no, Cece, I won't give you your comparison to the people pointing out the real history of the Bush family with the "rabid EOBs". There is, quite simply, no comparison with the Sciafes and American Spectators who monomaniacally pursued a sitting president for their own political agenda (see David Brock's book, Blinded By the Right) to the people who are legitimately asking questions about subjects long under the media radar. The whole first paragraph was not merely unnecessary, it was wrong.

The real comparison (which would have made a better introductory paragraph, in my rarely humble opinion), would be to address the lack of such questions raised under the Poppy Bush administration. All these cites are a matter of public record and, as you say, more directly involve GHW Bush than GW. As Bob Dole once asked, "Where is the outrage?" Of course, he WAS an EOB...
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 02-16-2003, 01:52 PM
mystic2311 mystic2311 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Good answer, DRomm. There are interesting parallels between corporate treason during WWII and our present administration's incestuous relationship with Saddam. So much so that I wrote this comparison, Is Saddam Another Hitler? (I trust that you will pick up on the subtle satire.)

There are several ways that Hitler and Saddam are alike:

1. Both were put in power, armed, and financed by the Anglo-American
establishment, for the purpose of attacking an enemy of said establishment.
Hitler was armed and financed by the West to attack Russia, Hussein was
armed and financed by the West to attack Iran.

2. Both were given the green light to invade said enemy, Hitler was given
the green light to invade Russia by Neville Chamberlain, Hussein was
given the green light by April Glaspie.

3. After doing the bidding of their masters, the countries of both Hitler and Hussein were destroyed by their masters after they got uppity (the Noriega syndrome).

4. Both Germany and Iraq were rebuilt by Anglo-American corporations,
resulting in great profits for these corporations. The purpose of the
Marshall plan was to ensure that formerly self-sufficient European countries
became consumers of American goods. In the case of Iraq, Cheney's
Halliburton profited from rebuilding Iraq's oil infrastructure.

5. Both Hitler and Hussein killed American troops using weapons and materiel that were manufactured and sold by Western corporations. Hitler would have gotten nowhere without oil from Standard Oil, trucks from Ford, aluminum from Alcoa and bearings from SKF. Iraqi weapons were manufactured and supplied by a web of Western arms manufacturers and dealers.
Hussein's biological weapons came from the American Type Culture Collection. The Iraqis massacred Shiites with American-supplied helicopters and the pilots were trained in Florida.

6. Both Hitler and Hussein were financed by Bushes: Hitler by Prescott Bush
(W's granddaddy) and Hussein by GHW Bush.

7. Both Hitler and Hussein have goofy mustaches.

Some mean people are comparing George Bush to Hitler. I think that is ridiculous. Bush and Hitler are completely different. Hitler was democratically elected. (OK, I stole that from Boondocks).

Sources:

Trading With the Enemy, Charled Higham.
Saving Private Power, Michael Zezima.
John Macarthur, Second Front.

DRomm, I have always felt that cece has a right-wing bias. I am glad that you concur. Check out those cites I posted about Bush, Norquist, and Wahhabis. If Gore had been president when 9-11 happened, and it came out he had extensive ties to Islamic terrorists, he would have been lynched already. Incidentally, Grover Norquist has a large portrait of Lenin hanging in his living room (according to David Brock in Blinded by the Right). Who are these people....shades of The Manchurian Candidate....communists disguised as fascists.

samclemm...The cites I contributed about W's links to terrorists are a logical extension of the story of his family's ties to fascists. Remember when Bush Sr. got in trouble during his campaign for his ethnic heritage groups that were linked to European fascism? (Russ Bellant, Old Nazis, the New Right, and the Republican Party). Now W is in league with Islamic fascists. The stories are not controversial in terms of their factual veracity. They are only controversial in the sense that for some reason we are not allowed to question Herr Bush, the worst criminal ever to squat in the white house. And that by itself is a sure sign that we under the thumb of a fascist government. Certainly I am not the only one who is concerned by this?

Also, samclemm, I have noticed you don't post anything of substance...you just snipe at other people's contributions. Please try to contribute something constructive.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 02-16-2003, 02:00 PM
Lemur866 Lemur866 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Middle of Puget Sound
Posts: 16,552
So when YOU do it, it is merely asking legitimate questions, but when THEY do it it is monomaniacally pursuing a sitting president for their own political agenda. Nothing partisan about YOUR stance, nope. I mean, your accusations that Bush knew about 9/11 in advance doesn't reveal a pathological (and confused) political agenda does it?
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 02-16-2003, 03:31 PM
grg88 grg88 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Not to nitpick, but Cecils last comment is kinda puzzling:

"--but the idea that his German holdings increased in value despite being obliterated by Allied bombs is ridiculous. "

From my reading, I get the impression that our bombing mainly hurt the cities, and industry largely dispersed to the countryside. IIRC German industrial production actually increased thruout the war years, even with the bombing and oil shortages.

It's hard to reconcile "obliterated" with a graph of increasing production....
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 02-16-2003, 05:41 PM
bonzer bonzer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Quote:
Originally posted by DRomm
Cece (and bonzer): Okay, I'll give you that "Hitler's Angel" referred to Thyssen and not Prescott Bush.
Well, thank you - though frankly an apology to samclem would be more in order from both yourself and mystic2311.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 02-16-2003, 06:02 PM
DRomm DRomm is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
bonzer: I probably should have said "samclem and others", but in any event, you (plural) were correct and Prescott Bush did not have a supervillian cognomen. Not that any of this removes the stigma of the Bush's financial support for Hitler...

Lemur: You're kidding, I hope. There is, simply, no parallel. Please, do some research on the rabid hatemongering attacks from the right. If you have any shame, you'll blanch.

Errata: I probably should have said that Cecil was "a Bush off" (and not "a George off"). Frankly, I think he made a rather serious mistake and responded about the wrong guy: George Herbert Walker Bush, not the person being asked about: George Herbert Walker. This is not like Cecil. Was the column ghost written by Matt Drudge?

mystic: Interestingly, I just wrote an article where I point out that the parallels between Saddam and Hitler are wrong. Saddam Hussein's closest parallel is Manuel Noriega... but that's another thread.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 02-16-2003, 07:09 PM
samclem samclem is online now
graphite is a great moderator
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Akron, Ohio
Posts: 21,268
mystic. You're right. I quite often snipe in columns other than GQ. Of course, you could go back and read the Mad Hatter thread. I did more than snipe.

But when you ramble on by saying
Quote:
samclemm...The cites I contributed about W's links to terrorists are a logical extension of the story of his family's ties to fascists. Remember when Bush Sr. got in trouble during his campaign for his ethnic heritage groups that were linked to European fascism? (Russ Bellant, Old Nazis, the New Right, and the Republican Party). Now W is in league with Islamic fascists. The stories are not controversial in terms of their factual veracity. They are only controversial in the sense that for some reason we are not allowed to question Herr Bush, the worst criminal ever to squat in the white house.
you are posting stuff in the incorrect forum. If you want to rant about the current Bush, take it to the Pit or to GD. It has nothing to do with Cecil's column.

There. Was that more constructive?
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 02-16-2003, 07:51 PM
mystic2311 mystic2311 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
samclem: nope, you are still sniping. My comments have everything to do with cecil's column, you just lack the sense of historical continuity.

lemur: I thought it was ridiculous that we impeached Clinton for having sex and lying about it. Why didn't we impeach him for smuggling drugs into the Mena airport and laundering the funds through Whitewater? The answer is simple, because the trail for the CIA drug smuggling led all the way to GHW Bush. As one operative put it, "Whitewater was a rope bridge of democratic wrongdoing over a raging river of Republican crime." I am running a bipartisan truth commission. No rational person can doubt that Bush had foreknowledge of 9-11. We still have to have a commission investigate whether he had complicity or not. He is clearly a traitor regardless of which conclusion we reach, so why do you support a treasonous squatting (not sitting) pResident?

bonzer: Apology for what? Our interpretation differs from yours. So what?
I guess you, like the Busheviks, have no tolerance for dissent.

DRomm: Exactly! Saddam and Noriega are perfect parallels. The point I was making in that comparison is that Hitler was just Noriega/Saddam writ large. Think about it. I am not comparing Saddam to Hitler in the usual sense. It is much more subtle than that, and so far I don't think anybody has got it yet. Please email me at burch@hawaii.edu. We need to start our own column, something like "The Real Straight Dope." Of course, cecil would sue us, so we have to have a different name like maybe the curvaceous dope. The real truth, like The Peoples History of the US, but with more dirt thrown in.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 02-16-2003, 08:21 PM
samclem samclem is online now
graphite is a great moderator
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Akron, Ohio
Posts: 21,268
Quote:
We need to start our own column, something like "The Real Straight Dope."
I agree. Of course, you could always post in one of the columns I suggested. That's why they exist. At least, on THIS board. YOur board may vary.

When you say

Quote:
lemur: I thought it was ridiculous that we impeached Clinton for having sex and lying about it. Why didn't we impeach him for smuggling drugs into the Mena airport and laundering the funds through Whitewater? The answer is simple, because the trail for the CIA drug smuggling led all the way to GHW Bush. As one operative put it, "Whitewater was a rope bridge of democratic wrongdoing over a raging river of Republican crime." I am running a bipartisan truth commission. No rational person can doubt that Bush had foreknowledge of 9-11. We still have to have a commission investigate whether he had complicity or not. He is clearly a traitor regardless of which conclusion we reach, so why do you support a treasonous squatting (not sitting) pResident?
am I missing the part about where you are joking? Are you truly serious in your assertions in the quote? Or is it another of your parodies?
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 02-16-2003, 09:28 PM
RobbieFal RobbieFal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
"Hitler was given the green light to invade Russia by Neville Chamberlain"

Neville Chamberlain was DEAD when Hitler invaded Russia in June 1941. You can't seem to get your own lies right, can you?

*rolls his eyes*
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 02-16-2003, 10:06 PM
t-keela t-keela is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
I actually tried to discuss this possibility once http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...hreadid=127177
and was berated by the Bush supporters for doing so. Perhaps my inexperience with the folks here justified their rudeness. I felt like they just didn't want to even consider the possibility of their beloved President's family having such a corrupt history.

It's been several months since I started the thread, but in retrospect maybe they should have dug a little deeper into the Bush family closet.

I wonder if they're in love with him now?

As far as Cecil's mistake goes...well, there's a lot of room for error when it comes to reliable and accurate sources regarding the Bush dynasty. I think we can understand how someone might have a hard time getting the Straightdope on that bunch.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 02-16-2003, 10:39 PM
Cecil Adams Cecil Adams is offline
Perfect Master
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Posts: 166
grg88 writes:
Quote:
Not to nitpick, but Cecils last comment is kinda puzzling:

"--but the idea that his German holdings increased in value despite being obliterated by Allied bombs is ridiculous. "

From my reading, I get the impression that our bombing mainly hurt the cities, and industry largely dispersed to the countryside. IIRC German industrial production actually increased thruout the war years, even with the bombing and oil shortages.

It's hard to reconcile "obliterated" with a graph of increasing production....
German armaments production is thought to have peaked in the second half of 1944 but plummeted thereafter. By May 1945 the German economy was largely in ruins. The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey (http://www.anesi.com/ussbs02.htm) gives details. The steel industry, in which Thyssen and the Bush-Harriman partners had sizable prewar holdings, suffered substantial losses. According to the survey, "Germany's steel industry was knocked out.... German steel production for all the Reich and occupied countries declined from 2,570,000 metric tons in July to 1,000,000 metric tons in December [1944]." That said, I don't know specifically what damage was suffered by plants in which Thyssen/Bush-Harriman had an interest.

DRomm writes:
Quote:
You may conclude that George Herbert Walker, father in law to Prescott Bush, wasn't the Bush progenitor being asked about, but you still should have done more to answer the question about "Bush's great-grandfather". The Loftus book might go on about Poppy Bush, but in he wasn't active in the 30s and 40s and so couldn't have directly supported Nazi Germany, whereas great-grand could have and did. It's a legitimate question, and you didn't answer it.
Don't hassle me about this. Prescott Bush is the subject of interest. The accusations against Walker by comparison are penny ante.
Quote:
Actually trading with Hitler while we were in a declared war with him may not be treason in the legal sense, but it's sure morally bankrupt and deserves more of a prominent place in the family history of George W.
I dealt with this matter in the column. Bush was never accused, during his lifetime anyway, of "actually trading with Hitler while we were in a declared war with him."
Quote:
See http://www.clamormagazine.org/featu..._feature.3.html for charges ranging from "A portion of the slave labor force in Poland was "managed by Prescott Bush," according to a Dutch intelligence agent.
This was dealt with in the column. When I discussed the claim that Bush had managed slave labor in Poland with John Loftus, no friend of the Bushes, he readily conceded it was "over the top" (his words).

We are in agreement that the hysterical right-wing attacks against Clinton and his family were odious. Where we disagree is over your belief that what you are doing with respect to Bush and his family is somehow different.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 02-16-2003, 11:28 PM
mystic2311 mystic2311 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
RobbieFal: Chamberlain gave Hitler the green light to invade Russia in 1938, when he was still alive and kicking. This analysis is from Pat Buchanan:

"For decades, Republicans and Democrats alike have disparaged British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain.

He was the man with the umbrella who sought to appease Adolf Hitler by trading a chunk of Czechoslovakia for what Chamberlain called "peace in our time." Even the location of the talks -- Munich -- is a modern epithet for cowardice and betrayal.

But with conservative presidential candidate Patrick Buchanan now insisting that the Western powers were wrong when they belatedly tried to stop Hitler in Poland, Chamberlain's appeasement strategy might deserve another look.

According to Buchanan's analysis, Hitler’s imperial ambitions were to the East, not to the West, giving Chamberlain no reason to obstruct Nazi land grabs. After Hitler’s conquests and extermination campaigns, Buchanan says, the West could have decided whether or not to intervene.

“If the revealed horrors of Nazism in the East mandated a war, the Allies could have chosen the time and the place to strike,” Buchanan writes in his new book, A Republic, Not an Empire."

Try to do some research before you call somebody a liar.

waitaminnit....Chamberlain the man with the umbrella...was he the one at Dealey plaza? jus kidding...

t-keela: don't let the freepers get you down!
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 02-17-2003, 01:30 AM
RobbieFal RobbieFal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
"Chamberlain gave Hitler the green light to invade Russia in 1938"

and your source is Pat "We shouldn't have gone to war with Hitler" Buchanan.

Really reliable source there.

I bet you believe that Ambassador Glaspie told Saddam to invade all of Kuwait also.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 02-17-2003, 07:33 AM
C K Dexter Haven C K Dexter Haven is offline
Right Hand of the Master
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Chicago north suburb
Posts: 15,410
Ladies and gentlemen and the rest of you:

Can we agree that it is possible to investigate the deeds and misdeeds of a President's family without the need to descend to malicious, childish name-calling (on the one side) or blind, servile loyalty (on the other side)? The man is a human being, and his family is all made up of human beings. They are neither perfect nor satanic.

To the anti-Bush faction: You can be critical of their actions without thinking that they are evil incarnate, on a par with Hitler or Stalin or bin-Laden.

To the pro-Bush faction: You can be supportive of them politically without thinking that they are holy or divine or perfect and completely without flaw.

Now, can we limit the discussion here to the specific accusations and evidence, please? If you want to call the family by nasty names, or if you want to pledge your blind loyalty, do it in another forum. We're lucky enough to be getting Cecil to respond to specifics, let's not chase him off with rants or irrelevancies (on either side), eh?
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 02-17-2003, 09:55 AM
bup bup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Quote:
Originally posted by mystic2311
RobbieFal: Chamberlain gave Hitler the green light to invade Russia in 1938, when he was still alive and kicking. This analysis is from Pat Buchanan:

"For decades, Republicans and Democrats alike have disparaged British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain.

He was the man with the umbrella who sought to appease Adolf Hitler by trading a chunk of Czechoslovakia for what Chamberlain called "peace in our time." Even the location of the talks -- Munich -- is a modern epithet for cowardice and betrayal.

But with conservative presidential candidate Patrick Buchanan now insisting that the Western powers were wrong when they belatedly tried to stop Hitler in Poland, Chamberlain's appeasement strategy might deserve another look.

According to Buchanan's analysis, Hitler’s imperial ambitions were to the East, not to the West, giving Chamberlain no reason to obstruct Nazi land grabs. After Hitler’s conquests and extermination campaigns, Buchanan says, the West could have decided whether or not to intervene.

“If the revealed horrors of Nazism in the East mandated a war, the Allies could have chosen the time and the place to strike,” Buchanan writes in his new book, A Republic, Not an Empire."
I'm not following. First, is the entire passage from Buchanan's book? The sporadic quotation marks, and the fact that part of it refers to Buchanan in the 3rd person, make it seem like you're quoting a second source that partially quotes Buchanan. Who are you quoting?

At any rate, a chunk of Czechoslovakia is not the same thing as Russia. And it's only Buchanan's interpretation that agreeing to give him a chunk of Czhechoslovakia was a 'wink-wink-nudge-nudge' go-ahead for Hitler to invade whatever he wanted to the east.

Indeed, it's illogical - why would a man come home proclaiming 'peace in our time' when he's just OK'd Hitler's invasion of Russia? I sure wouldn't wanna ride into a re-election with a quote like that hanging around my neck, when I've told Hitler to keep on keepin' on.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 02-17-2003, 09:57 AM
bup bup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Ah, I found it - by putting a part of the quote in google:

http://www.consortiumnews.com/1999/120299a.html

You should give Robert Parry credit if you're going to quote him.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 02-17-2003, 12:26 PM
mystic2311 mystic2311 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
April Glaspie did not tell Saddam to invade all of Kuwait. It clearly was a set-up though.

Excerpts from an article by David Figrut titled: Operation Desert Storm: Outright Disinformation Scheme

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill...m_glaspie.html

This is what April Glaspie told Saddam before he invaded Kuwait:

"We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."

On July 31st, two days before the Iraqi invasion, John Kelly, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern affairs, testified to Congress that the

"United States has no commitment to defend Kuwait and the U.S. has no intention of defending Kuwait if it is attacked by Iraq."

When confronted with details fo the transcript after the invasion, this is what April Glaspie said,

"Obviously, I didn't think, and nobody else did, that the Iraqis were going to take ALL of Kuwait."

She did not specify exactly what percentage of annexation they anticipated.
Iraq's annexation of Kuwait was no different than the US annexation of Texas.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 02-17-2003, 03:08 PM
DRomm DRomm is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
(The message board hiccups when I try to use the quote button, so forgive the formatting.)

DRomm writes:
"... whereas great-grand could have and did. It's a legitimate question, and you didn't answer it."

Cecil Adams replies:
"Don't hassle me about this. Prescott Bush is the subject of interest. The accusations against Walker by comparison are penny ante."

Geeze, Cece, the QUESTION was, and I quote from the amended column head still at http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030214.html : "Was President Bush's great-grandfather a Nazi?" That's George Herbert Walker, not Prescott, not GHWBush, not W.

And the "accusations against Walker" ARE pretty serious. Quote from http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/randy/swas5.htm : "Walker was one of Hitler's most powerful financial supporters in the United States. The relationship went all the way back to 1924, when Fritz Thyssen, the German industrialist, was financing Hitler's infant Nazi party. As mentioned in earlier chapters, there were American contributors as well." Indeed, it would make a fine column if you were to get The Straight Dope on many of Hitler's supporters between the wars. This transcends party affiliation, though tends to concentrate in the isolationist Republicans like Harriman.

See also http://www.tarpley.net/bush2.htm . Google is such a wonderful thing...

Cecil writes: "We are in agreement that the hysterical right-wing attacks against Clinton and his family were odious. Where we disagree is over your belief that what you are doing with respect to Bush and his family is somehow different."

Hang on a second. I haven't said anything about how this affects George W's morals or fitness for office, or his daughters or anyone living. I think he's been a terrible president, but not because his great-grand- and grand-dad helped finance Hitler. I'm not "doing" anything to W here (and have defended GHWB, who fought for the US in the Pacific Theater in WWII), just quoted the record from sixty years ago. W is notoriously reticent to talk about his past or that of his family, and we can see why. Perhaps he thinks that the sins of the great-grandfather pass through to the great -grandson. I dunno. This doesn't, in and of itself, prove anything about the current Bush, and claiming that finding The Straight Dope about the Trading With The Enemies Act is somehow equivalent to The Arkansas Project only serves to obfuscate matters.

The "everybody does it" defense simply doesn't wash. The Straight Dope is that George Herbert Walker and Prescott Bush were linked to the Nazis, even while we were at war, and for long before that.

I've been an admirer of your columns for a long time, Cecil, and own several of your books and even quote you on my radio show now and again, but I think you blew this one.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 02-17-2003, 03:58 PM
Philbuck Philbuck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Quote:
Originally posted by mystic2311

Iraq's annexation of Kuwait was no different than the US annexation of Texas.
And how, precisely, is annexation via invasion "no different" from annexation by peaceful voting of the duly elected representatives of both nations?
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 02-17-2003, 04:02 PM
Philbuck Philbuck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Gah--forgot which forum/thread this was in. Apologies for continuing a hijack.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 02-17-2003, 04:56 PM
Lemur866 Lemur866 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Middle of Puget Sound
Posts: 16,552
You are aware that Iraq and Kuwait were undergoing a border dispute before the invasion, right? And the dispute was very important, since underneath that worthless desert was a whole lake of oil. Move the boundary a few miles one way or the other, and one country or the other would have millions and millions of dollars in oil reserves.

April Glaspie's comment was refering to that border dispute. The US, in fact, had no opinion about where the boundary should lie. She was NOT saying that the US wouldn't care if Iraq invaded and annexed Kuwait.

And citing Pat Buchanan as a historical reference is kind of...kind of...well, let's just say it is kind of sad.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 02-17-2003, 04:59 PM
C K Dexter Haven C K Dexter Haven is offline
Right Hand of the Master
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Chicago north suburb
Posts: 15,410
Can we please keep this thread on topic? Comments about Iraq, Kuwait, W.C. Fields, and Czechoslovakia are not on topic.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 02-18-2003, 01:36 AM
mystic2311 mystic2311 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Dear Administrator:
Please delineate the boundaries and future direction of this topic. Can the topic evolve, or does it have to stay within the strict confines of the original column. If the latter, then this topic is dead. DRomm and I have clearly established that the Bush crime family has for 3 or 4 generations armed, financed, and supported dictators such as Hitler, Noriega, and Hussein, and then attacked them using tax payer money, at great profit to the Bush criminal organization. What else is there to talk about?

Please advise.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 02-18-2003, 01:39 AM
mystic2311 mystic2311 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Lemur: I am kinda puzzled. The freepers on this list clearly defend the Bush crime family despite their Nazi links, yet you despise Pat Buchanan for his apparent Nazi sympathies. Tell me, are there good Nazis and bad Nazis? Perhaps Buchanan is a good Nazi, after all, thousands of Jews in Florida voted for him.

Please advise.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 02-18-2003, 01:49 AM
samclem samclem is online now
graphite is a great moderator
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Akron, Ohio
Posts: 21,268
[snipe mode on]
Quote:
DRomm and I have clearly established that the Bush crime family has for 3 or 4 generations armed, financed, and supported dictators such as Hitler, Noriega, and Hussein, and then attacked them using tax payer money, at great profit to the Bush criminal organization. What else is there to talk about?
Eggsactly! But just in case you feel compelled to keep talking about it, take it to another forumn.
[snipe mode off]
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.