My point is that in any two areas of similar scope- be it presidential assassination or country rulership- there are areas that are bound to overlap, whether out of coincidence or out of the mere fact of the similar scope. To state that recent Bush acts “are remarkably similar in nature and execution to the practices of the Gestapo and Nazi party apparatchiks” shows that you can identify paralells without understanding from whence those paralells occur, but get a lot of “oooohs” from credulous leftists, much as I can state that “the assassination of Kennedy is remarkably paralell to the Lincoln assassination” and receive “ooohs” from credulous spiritualists who wish to believe the world is interconnected.
Hey, go for it, but if you’re not going to add any weight whatsoever to your unsubstantiated assertion regarding the similiarity of Bush to Nazis, I’m just going to have to assume that there isn’t any weight to be added, and you’ve shown your lack of point.
Good lord. Edwin Black? I thought I was dealing with someone with scholarly credentials. Sensationalist journalism does not an historian make. IBM and the Holocaust was nicely provocative, and the man has done some acclaimed work, but working as a footnoter for his publishing company hardly boosts your credibility. And if you are in fact Edwin Black himself, kudos for excelling in your profession (esp. the work on Pollard), but I cannot accord your work the same stature as that of serious academicians.
It is precisely the contemplation of “from whence those parallels occur” that I am suggesting warrants our consideration. Recognition of parallels is Step 1. Evaluating them is Step 2. I was under the impression that the informed debate on this board was part of Step 2. Of course I don’t fully understand the parallels. That’s why they warrant study. They may turn out to be bunk, or they may have merit. Either way, to dismiss the question out of hand is either laziness or ignorance.
I am surprised that participants on this board would be so dismissive of the dialectic process. Is there in fact only one true way to skin a cat? I am hopeful that the narrow-mindedness and polemic in this thread is restricted to only this group of users. I am not attempting to demagogue the Bush administration, nor blindly champion the Democratic party. These are real issues, with real facts, with real historical parallels, and there are real consequences to you and me. If you’re not willing to study history, see if there’s anything to be learned, and be able to back up your conclusions, then frankly there’s no compelling reason for anyone else to agree with you. Do not fear to let your own voice be heard, but don’t get pissed if nobody listens to you.
I’ll give Mace and Corrado one more chance - can you respond to the substance of my posts or provide suitable reason why the historical record does not support my conclusions? Or do you simply believe that the questions are not even worth asking? If the latter, then I see no reason to continue engaging with such incurious individuals.
P.S. The new Black book does not appear to actually deal with the cultural and tactical components of the literal rise of the National Socialist party in the Weimar Republic. Thus I do not understand how whatever facts you gleaned from your research have any bearing on the material in the Allen book I cited, much less refute it. There is no “overlap” or “similar scope”, to use your quite a propos terms. Indeed, I agree 100% that it is often only an instance of overlap or similar scope that warrants further study.
Excuse me? So the mere fact that Mr. Black does not have a Ph.D. from a university indicates that his work is unworthy? I can assure you, not as a footnoter for his publishing company, but as a researcher who worked with him to organize facts and to recognize the data for what it was, that Mr. Black’s work is more researched than anyone else in his field, and dismissing him out of hand is mere snobbery and elitism masquerading as intellectualism.
Except that you have provided nothing. Nada. Scant scat. Rien. Etc. You have made a wild assertion- that Bush and his policies follow a paralell to the Nazis- and provided nothing to back it up, no evidence to be cited, no items to be discussed. Merely a naked allegation.
And you have yet to offer any real issues, any real facts, any real paralells. You have merely set it out as an established fact, when it is an assumption you have yet to show any interest in proving your reasoning for.
So, please- dictate how Bush’s actions parallel the Nazis. Give specific examples. You’re a “student of history”- surely you’re not afraid of an essay question?
And likewise, if you’re not willing to put out substance, but instead wish to make allegations and put forth conclusions without backing them up yourself, don’t get pissed when you get dismissed.
And I’ll give you one more chance to provide any evidence, any allegory, any paralells, between Bush and Hitler. Because you haven’t yet, and as you are the one making the serious claim, it thus falls to you to take the first step to prove it. I can certainly provide thousands of ways in which Bush is not like Hitler, from eye and hair color to Bush’s acting within the bounds of a Constitutional government and Hitler acting wthout the bounds of his.
Wow. I can actually feel the condescenion dripping from your post. Cool! Good to see that academia still acts the way it did when I was in school. How’s your grad paper coming along?
In any case- if you had actually read Mr. Black’s book- which you haven’t- you’d know that Mr. Black goes into a good bit of detail regarding Hitler’s rise to power and his consolidation of power after being appointed Chancellor. Ergo, it was vital for him and his researchers- including myself- to have a strong understanding of how Hitler came to power.
As for the Allen book- how do you assert that Allen’s writings in 1984 prove that George W. Bush is akin to Hitler? I am certain Allen writes in great detail about how Hitler took power, but you have yet to show any- not one, not at all, not a bit of a bit- of parallel between Hitler and Bush. Allen’s book may be mana from heaven, but it doesn’t do a bit of good for your point.
You mean like destroying al Qaeda, unifying domestic safety under a Department of Homeland Security, increased spending to combat terrorism, stuff like that, right?
You do realize all this was originally planned and drafted in the final days of the Clinton Administration, don’t you? Clinton’s folks even had several transition meetings with Condolizza Rice on the growing threat of al Qaeda and terrorism, but the Bush Administration sat on the whole mess and ignored it… until 9/11/2001.
(And if I remember my irony correctly, John Ashcroft’s list of top ten DoJ priorities came out less than a week before 9/11 – and “fighting terrorism” wasn’t even on the list)
Dude, I already said it was “abbreviating”. Would you prefer “paraphrasing” or “summarizing” instead?
Well, then, if you have another reasonable way to parse it so it doesn’t say “Those who disagree in any substantive way with Bush’s approach simply don’t care as much about our national security as we are”, then let’s hear it. Note that Gillespie is not saying anything along the lines of “Our opponents are devoted to our national ideals and they do mean well with their different approach, but they’re simply mistaken in these aspects because …”. No. It’s flatly “They’re making us more vulnerable.”
What the hell else could such a statement, in context with so much else that we’ve heard recently from your neck of the woods, reasonably be intended to insinuate other than how I’ve summarized it? You have not addressed that at all, and it’s not a mystery why.
No, you know damn well what impression the GOP campaign strategy, as summarized by Gillespie, is consciously intended to create. To point that out has nothing to do with “liberalism”, as you are forced to assert in an attempt to dismiss rather than address an uncomfortable topic; it has everything to do with basic intellectual and moral honesty and simple responsible citizenship. You’re welcome to keep the Coulters of the world supporting you. But be aware of what they’re saying, and how, and without trying to draw any more false equivalencies. xt, it’s clear you can’t back up your assertion about “Democratic lies”. The definition of equivalence you so loudly demand has to be your own, since you made the flat statement about “they all do it”. Tell us why you have concluded that. You’re making the assertion; you back it up however you think is best - if you can’t, you can say so or simply let it go. You’ve been asked already without effect - do you have anything factual to support your own claim, or can we conclude you don’t?
Its clear to ME that you are either clueless as to what I’m getting at or, like me, you also can think of no objective way to argue this point meaningfully, and instead of being an adult and simply admitting that, you decided to flail your arms about instead. You aren’t stupid, so you HAVE to know that Democrats lie just like Republicans do, and for exactly the same reasons. There for I’m picking the later assumption, as I think you DO get what I’m saying.
Why I concluded it? Because from MY perspective that IS the case. Look, you know I’m a moderate independant. From MY perspective, the lies told by one side have the same weight as the lies told by the other. You were the one that asserted this ridiculous ‘moral equivalency’ thing. Based on who’s morals? Who decides which infraction is more heinous? You? Me?
Its ridiculous and has zero meaning. Why? Because our understanding of whats moral and what isn’t is so different. From MY perspective, to use the example of the Iraq war, its NOT morally heinous for us to invade another country pre-emptively. I think Bush DID lie, but I also think he felt there were WMD in the country, and it matters not at all…he LIED about it to further his own ends. SH was a royal pain in the ass, and I think that Bush manufactured the ‘evidence’ he wanted to justify our going into Iraq…show of force and all that. I have some problems with that, sure (ok, more than some, but then I wasn’t voting for Bush reguardless of WHAT he did anyway). I certainly have problems with Bush bumbling the post war, but I had no problems with the actual war, per se.
So, if you put this down of proof of immorality on Bush’s part I would disagree. To me, the lies told are the ‘moral equivalent’ of lies told by Clinton at his impeachment trial. They were, IMO, lies told for the SAME REASON…namely to further the ambition of the politician, to get him off the hook, too allow him to wiggle free of a political snare, etc. The deaths you shriek, what about the deaths of the American soldiers and the Iraqi’s?!? Well, I don’t look at the deaths the same way you do either…as I said, we are radically different. The war, per se, I don’t have a great deal of problem with…the POST war period though. Ya, I’m starting to get seriously concerned about that. But that has nothing to do with the relative weight of the lies.
A non-Bush/Clinton example. Kennedy lied to the anti-Castro armed forces and got many (thousands) of them killed when he betrayed them. To ME this is the ‘moral equivalent’ of Regan lieing about the Iran/Contra deals…both did it because they felt they must to further THEIR political goals, or to spare themselves embarrassment.
I DID give you some (bullshit IMO, rightwing) examples of Democrats lieing and costing lives. I did this to make the point that the other side ALSO flails their arms about the Democrats: Stuff like Bay of Pigs (lies and betrayal by Kennedy cost thousand of lives of anti-castro supporters). Begining of the Vietnam war under Kennedy (Probably THE most destructive and ‘evil’ war America ever participated in…tens of thousands of Americans died, millions of Vietnamese). Serbia (I can’t think of any lies told off the top of my head, but I’m sure if I dig hard enough I could find something…certainly this was an unpopular military action at home, and it did cost American lives…as well as Serbian). Somolia (lies and cowardly behavior by the Administration cost the lives of Amrican troops and thousands of Somolians).
Those were all events where Americans died and lies were told (from a rightwing perspective). There were also the myriad lies and evasions told by Clinton (Monica Lewinski anyone?) during his presidency. Maybe they didn’t matter to YOU (or me for that matter)…but thats my point. They mattered to SOME people as much as Iraq matters to you (especially the religious types). Off the top of my head I could also come up with similar lies told by the 'Pubs. Do you see the point or are you still denying it?
Do you need actual cites for these events? Do they prove anything? Do you understand that ‘lies’ told by one administration or another are based on our perceptions and our various partisanship in one party or another?? That ‘moral equivalance’ depends on perspective, and something YOU might find offensive someone else might not…and vice versa?
There are lots of examples of lies told by every administration (I still can’t believe you actually want cites about this…its like asking me for a cite that we breath air and drink water…politicians lie?? Well doh!!). A PARTISAN, such as yourself, can look at your own side and simply poo poo them away, while railing at the other side for THEIR lies. What I was getting at was that, looking at it objectively, BOTH sides lie, and they lie for the same reason…they WANT TO GET RE-ELECTED. The fact that you can’t see that or acknowledge it just shows how very partisan you are.
Hell, I’ll go out on a limb here for my OWN partisanship…if, by some miricle, and Independant ever actually gets elected to be President, HE would lie too, about something, during his time in office. Just to be fair, so you didn’t think I was picking on you and the 'Pubs both…
**This makes for a crisp attack. But no doubt your many fans are a bit disappointed that you neglected to include any of those “lies” the scurrillous Dems are spreading about Our Leader.
**
When they accuse him of saying the threat was imminent. He never said it.
When they accuse him of saying it was going to be easy. He never said that, in fact he said many times that it would be a difficult task.
When they accuse him of not using diplomacy. What were the months of UN and Powell running around frantically talking to potential allies?
When they say that it was unilateral. Even if you only count Britain as a true partner, a debatable point, that’s two. That’s bilateral.
I think it must just be something about politicians that they reflexively lie. It’s not as if Bush had to lie to justify the war. What was known to be true was already more than enough. Likewise, the Democrats have ample opportunity to attack Bush on the leadup to war and the handling of the aftermath, but they can’t resist “sexing up” their case as well.
** Because partisanship is causing you to distort the plain meaning of the statement. Gillespie made no mention of the motives of the Democrats, or how much they cared.
I also noticed that your accusations against the Republicans also failed to include any statement about the good faith of the Republicans. Quite the opposite in fact - your fabricated quote accused them of calling their political opponents “traitors”.
Do you see the problem? You are accusing the Republicans of unjust accusations against Democrats, based on a misreading of a quote, and a fabricated quote.
On the contrary, I did address it. You are mistaken in saying that the exaggeratedly partisan interpretation you made of the Gillespie quote is ineluctable truth.
A moderate would not necessarily read “The president’s critics are adopting a policy that will make us more vulnerable in a dangerous world” as “You bunch of traitors!” That’s partisan hysteria, and it does you no credit.
Indeed I do. The trouble is that the impression Gillespie wants to create resembles your characterization of it almost not at all.
Liberals who manufacture quotes, distort and misrepresent their opponents’ positions, and project their political paranoia onto policy disagreements, quickly lose the right to talk about “basic intellectual and moral honesty and simple responsible citizenship”. As well as many elections.
It just doesn’t work to claim that a rabidly partisan interpretation of Republican campaign rhetoric is the only possible Truth.
Well, you have a point, of a sort. Clinton was relatively passive compared with GeeDubya. GeeDubya took bold and decisive action. Regretably, it was stupid, bold and decisive action.
That’s an interesting interpretation. The things that Clinton did were “virtually nothing”. I suppose you mean that the attacks were unsuccessful. That’s true.
But when the advice was passed over to the incoming Bush administration to do something urgently, Bush didn’t do “virtually nothing”, did he? He did “actually nothing”. There’s a difference there.
And since OBL is still presumably walking around somewhere, Bush has done “virtually nothing” post 9/11 as well.
Clinton did some good things. It’s not fair to say he did nothing. I only really think he made one major foreign policy blunder during his term, and that was North Korea. He fought the war on terrorism about as well as any President, including GWB: until Sep. 11, and everything changed.
Having trouble reading the big words, are we, elucidator?
Here’s a tip - when something says
that means that it was
NOT
See the difference? I grant that the two phrases are similar except for the last word, and the names involved actually have a letter in common, so by liberal standards you would get a solid B+, but see if you can blow the top off the curve and actually read all the letters.
Go ahead, 'luc, make us proud - I know you can do it.
In any case, I assumed for the sake of the discussion that rjung didn’t simply make this up off the top of his head. Perhaps I was wrong. If you disbelieve him, you could ask him for a cite.
You know - him, the one who made the claim.
So you believe the overthrow of the Taliban is “actually nothing”. Hmmm.
And, by the way, why was it that the first attack on the WTC happened in 1993, but it wasn’t until seven years later and under a new administration that the problem became something “urgent”?
“I have been sitting on my thumbs about this for seven years, but for you it is an emergency!” Uh huh.
One must be cautious. Rules are different in GD, obliged to be somewhat decorous. Still, nonetheless, he has a point, however hamfisted and snidely gleeful the delivery.
If I must, I must…Note to self: Revise Dumb as Dirt Stuff Shodan Has Posted, Vol. 10, Oct-Nov, 2003. Delete last entry.
I agree, and I tend to dismiss conservative partisans who rip Clinton for being “soft on terrorism.” No, as illustrated by his rather pusillanimous responses to terrorist attacks, I don’t think Clinton did all he could to effectively deal with Islamic terrorism. But I think Clinton did more to address the underlying fundamental problem of the Middle East - the Israeli/Palestinian situation - than any other U.S. president, and deserves praise.
It’s not Clinton’s fault that Arafat wouldn’t accept peace.
Regarding the “soft on terrorism” canard: The fact is, even the conservative saint Ronald Reagan helped to create the impression of American pussiness, when he inserted Marines into Beirut and turned tail after the barracks were suicide bombed in 1983.
The impression of American pussiness (Beirut, Somalia), IMHO, was a major reason Osama bin Laden made the strategic decision to attack the U.S. on Sept. 11. It’s only now that we’re in the heart of the jungle - taking casualties but also inflicting them - that we are addressing this impression.