I’m just mildly stunned that Cecil works Saturdays. Fighting ignorance is clearly a 24/7 business after all.
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:
The FBI’s Radical Fundamentalist Unit:
Wahhabis in the Old Dominion:
And after admitting that you don’t have a clue as to who the original headline in the article reffered to you then said
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.
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.
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/Parliament/2398/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/features/issue14.3_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…
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:
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
Both Hitler and Hussein were financed by Bushes: Hitler by Prescott Bush
(W’s granddaddy) and Hussein by GHW Bush.
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).
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.
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?
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…
Well, thank you - though frankly an apology to samclem would be more in order from both yourself and mystic2311.
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.
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
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?
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 firstname.lastname@example.org. 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.
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
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?
“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
I actually tried to discuss this possibility once http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=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.
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 .” That said, I don’t know specifically what damage was suffered by plants in which Thyssen/Bush-Harriman had an interest.
Don’t hassle me about this. Prescott Bush is the subject of interest. The accusations against Walker by comparison are penny ante.
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.”
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.
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!
“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.
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?
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.