Any comparison between Nazi Germany and the US is intellectually bankrupt at best and willfully dishonest at worst. This thread was over before it started.
It’s almost true. After the Nazis became the dominant party in Germany, President Hindenburg named Hitler chancellor, after which he seized power. The process is a bit more analogous to Tony Blair becoming prime minister than it is Bush being elected.
Aha! Let’s all compare Tony Blair to Hitler! Whee!!
“Since his successful diet, Rush Limbaugh is no longer “overfed.” You can see his picture here. Note that his face has changed shape from round to more elongated.”
Why am I reminded of Franz Kafka’s Metamorphosis? 
Yeah, but even then it ignores the fact that:
A.) Hitler had already been decisively beaten in his own attempts to run for President.
B.) The Nazi Party had actually polled less votes in later elections than in earlier ones (i.e., they were on the decline)
C.) For several months various leaders had been given or promised the Chancellor position, only to be unable to rule- not because of lack of Nazi support, but because the other parties were more interested in destroying each other than in stopping Hitler. Hitler was given the Chancellorship by von Hindenburg not out of a recognition of Hitler’s power, but out of recognition that every permutation of ruling coalitions that didn’t involve the Nazis had been tried and failed miserably.
I think it’s much more equivalent to “Bush and Gore fight over Florida so much that the Supreme Court finally declares Ross Perot President just to get something done.”
Thank you for the correction, Jackmannii. “Almost true”–I like that, very gracious.
So, Hitler actually lost the popular vote, but became leader of his country anyway. My mistake, I shouldn’t have listed that one as a dissimilarity. I apologize.
Obviously people are taking this article much more seriously than I thought. Where in my OP did I say I endorsed thie article’s thesis? If I did, then why would I point out that Hitler didn’t use the term “Homeland” to refer to Germany as the author claims or point out that Hitler’s statements on faith are questionable while Bush’s are dead serious so there’s no similarity there either. Personally, I think the author was using Bush’s “Saddam is Hitler therefore he is evil” rhetoric against him. I would like to know how much of the facts this guy twisted or completely disregarded to make his “Bush is Hitler and therfore evil” argument. That’s why I am asking to either confirm or disprove his facts. I don’t buy Bush’s argument because the comparisions are invalid. Saddam has a more in common Stalin or Pol Pot. He does not have some wacked out racial ideology or desires to see the Iraqi people rise above all others. Why must Saddam be compared to Hitler to convince us he is evil? Bush is reaching and so is the author of the article. I just want to know where and how much and even if he is clean with his facts, are the similarities valid.
To those who argue that comparing Bush to Hitler is loony, dumb, or morally bankrupted at best, I agree. I also think that comparing Saddam to Hitler is loony, dumb, and morally bankrupted at best too. Unfortunately, many people accepted the comparison straight out and we are fighting a war under the belief that Saddam really is Hitler.
I’d like to thank TJ555 Golfer for at least giving me the benefit of the doubt. But I have to disagree with him on one point. The worst thing I’ve could have done is to accept the author’s argument as if it were truth.
The similarities and differences listed in the article seem pretty useless. Fatherland/homeland - many countries use some term like this. Everyone curtails civil liberties in war time.
But there is a serious point there. I don’t believe GWB is deliberately trying to undermine your constitution. But your rights seem to be being eroded with the war as an excuse. They’re a lot harder to get back Do you want to bet the next president is also not Hitler?
I would think that a History major would know that the current war strategy is nothing like the blitzkrieg.