So What’s With All The Nazi Analogies?
I have broken what for me has been a cardinal rule in recent days in using Nazi analogies when writing about the Bush administration’s embrace of torture as well as a deafening lack of response from most Americans to this and other outrages not unlike the Germans who failed to speak out about the excesses of the Third Reich.
Nazi analogies usually are bad because they stifle debate and inevitably trigger side debates about whether comparing someone to Hitler or something contemporary to an aspect of the Third Reich is appropriate, let alone in good taste. And then further side debates about whether calling someone a Nazi is as bad as calling them, say, a “kike” or “nigger.”
Then there is Godwin’s Law, which states that as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches inevitability.
As a longtime newspaper editor, I forbade use of Nazi analogies by my reporters because they were unnecessarily inflammatory and the comparisons invariably were exaggerated.
Many a public official has found to their dismay that the backlash against offhanded Nazi analogizing is far more damaging than their remark is effective. Then there is CNN pop-off Lou Dobbs, who earlier this year became the umpteenth media maven to feel the wrath of Jewish groups for breaking their secret rule book of inappropriate analogies after he accused advocates for illegal immigrants of using propaganda techniques employed by Nazis.
I bring some personal baggage to the issue, as well. I am proud to say that Jewish blood courses through my body, my family lost a number of relatives in Hitler’s death camps and a dear Jewish uncle survived years as an American POW because he happened to be a dentist and worked on the teeth of his captors. So I suppose that I am even more on guard for false or misplaced analogizing.
Having said all that, I have broken my rule for a couple of reasons . . .
Please click here to read more at Kiko’s House.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
47 Responses to “So What’s With All The Nazi Analogies?”
I am convinced that Mr. Mullen really has no clue as to what toture really is. The outrages that the Nazis perpetrated on the Jews is not even the same universe as making prisioners wear women’s underwear on their head or sleep deprivation. What childish thinking this is. If we were as bad as alleged, Mexico and Canada would be territories and we woul dhave invaded Venezula for oil.
dwolf:
You argue quantity over quality, and indeed the Nazis tortured many, many more people than has the U.S. That, however, does not change the situation today one iota.
Shaun,
Ask yourself what higher purpose do Nazi comparisons serve?
None that I can see. They are “preaching to the choir” of the already converted Bush-haters and are unlikely to convince anyone who still supports Bush – in fact, quite the opposite is likely.
It seems to me the only effect is that real issues get clouded in the debate over whether such Nazi comparisons are valid and/or appropriate. In that regard, I think they have an overall negative effect.
Are you scrapping the bottom of the barrel now, or is there some region that remains unexplored?
If the shoe fits…
The Nazis and Hitler are part of history, there should be no rules barring comparisons.
My guess is that people don’t like the comparisons in this case because they have the ring of truth.
entropy:
A fair question and perhaps a good point.
As I note in my post, I am a late comer to such analogizing and do so after some agonizing. (Sorry about the rhyme).
If it is not obvious, the underlying purpose of the post is twofold — to air out the analogizing issue and to say without equivocation that “It’s Come to This” — the crimes and misdemeanors of the Bush administration invite analogizing that would have been unthinkable.
To refrain from doing so is unacceptable to me.
What about Stalin? Pol Pot?
Marc:
What about them?
Regarding torture, The Nazi analogizing is not merely surface scratching.
Anyone who has any knowledge of Nazi torture techniques — notably Verschärfte Vernehmung — cannot help but be struck by the similaries to what the CIA has in its playbook.
But what really jumps out is the extent that the Nazis went to in justifying the use of torture and the similarly convoluted and frankly sick justifications that Gonzo’s gang at Main Justice used.
Well, I will say that Gonzo’s legalistic explanation of torture as anything that causes “organ failure or death” to be a bit narrow in its scope. Uh, that leaves a lot of questionable tactics in perfectly legal territory. It seems they redefined it so that they could CYA in any future court proceeding.
As Andrew Sullivan and others have pointed out, the phrase ‘enhanced interrogation’ is one concocted by the Gestapo in 1937 to describe a form of torture that would leave no marks. The list of techniques mentioned are remarkable in their similarities to the techniques this administration has categorised as permissible, and included forced cold baths, prolonged standing, blows to the face and water boarding.
Add to the above the fact that it was in 1933 that Hitler pushed through a piece of legislation (the Enabling Act) which declared an end to Habeas Corpus and that he alone had the power to decide who was or wasn’t an enemy combatant and thus eligible to be subjected to the above ‘techniques’, and the comparison between the America of today and the Germany of 1930s are not so far fetched after all.
Shaun,
Because both of my wife’s parents were survivors of Nazi death camps, I’m particularly outraged by your decision to sink to the Bush-Nazi analogy.
Yes, it is true that the Bush Administration has violated international norms on torture, and, yes, it sickens me. But to leap from that fact and that opinion to a comparison with the Nazis is to seriously overplay your hand.
By using the analogy, you understate — by a huge margin — the qualitative and quantitative differences. The Nazis were far, far more brutal and used torture against millions of people (genocide is torture, isn’t it?)
By mentioning the Bush administration and the Nazis in the same breath, you lessen the unique evil of the Nazi regime.
If you are truly upset about human rights violations, you should be venting your spleen about Darfur, Zimbabwe, Iran, and others. Aren’t those regimes more Nazi-like that is ours? And wouldn’t their inclusion serve to show the vast distance between Bush and Hitler?
*squawk* Bush is bad, Bush is bad! Nazis, Nazis! *squawk*
[...] The Moderate Voice, Shaun Mullen writes that “I have broken what for me has been a cardinal rule in recent days [...]
The nazi analogies are late in coming, but who is to blame for them? Those who make the observations or those who create the basis for them?
Adolph Hitler’s right wing thugs regularly “mugged” opponents and members of unpopular groups even before he came to power.
The people who support the current administration have repeatedly demonstrated their belief that they are entitled to engage in all types of reprehensible behavior to further their cause.
Given Randi Rhodes courageous outspokenness about the sinister intentions of the right wing, it is not unreasonable to suspect that this non-robbery assault is an attempt by Neo-conservative thugs to silence her views.
Bush certainly has moved us down that path to a sickening extent I agree. And the torture, which is what we do, is indeed bad. But that bad??? And yes we have watch lists you can’t defend yourself from, and so on and so forth.
Still to say he is as bad as that yet.. I think its to early. When people start getting interred for being libera,l and expiremented on, or something then yes. And that does not look likely.
DaveA,
I think you’re right on this, but it doesn’t do any harm to note the similarities. Obviously comparisons between the US today and Germany in the 40s is not appropriate, but it took the Nazis quite awhile to become what they became.
The Nazi party of the 30s set out to grab as much power as they could and understood that the best way to do this was to paint the country as a nation in crisis, surrounded and infiltrated by enemies determined to destroy the homeland.
The Enabling Act was their chosen tool and the similarities between it and the Military Commissions Bill, are scary indeed.
That said, our system of government does seem strong enough to withstand the Bush/Cheney grab for power, but only if the rest of us stay awake longer than the Germans did in the 30s.
Marc:
With all due respect to your parents, you are copping a regretably common (and understandable) attitude: No horror can be quantitatively worse than the Holocaust and therefore any discussion of that era and analogizing with America in 2007 must meet certain procscribed parameters of certain interest groups or otherwise is off limits.
Sorry, but I’m not buying.
You say that the administration’s embrace of torture “sickens” you.
On a scale of 1 to 100 with the Holocasut being 100, does it sicken you as a “1″ or a “3″ or a “5″ or a what? And are you prepared to say that because 6 million-plus Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and other people were extermined and countless more were tortured by the Nazis that the comparatively few people tortured with the approval of the White House are qualitatively insignificant? If so, you are an extraordinarily wise man; I by comparison am a mere mortal who is trying to encourage debate — not stiffle it — on a subject that unfortunately needs to be addressed head on because what is happening in our very midst.
The Nazi comparison is counter-productive. These comments show exactly why.
But, of course, it’s okay to call the people who disagree with you appeasers. Like Rumsfeld did.
Too bad he broke his own rule; it is black on his name that will never be erased.
I really hate this line of thinking with a deep passion.
We live in the United States of America. It is our responsibility, above all, to keep our own house clean.
I agree with Chris. We are neglecting our own problems as it is (shrinking middle class, rising energy costs, crumbling infrastructure, broken government that seems to work only to the benefit of special interests, death of whole cities- Detroit or New Orleans-, national health care crisis, growing inequality, etc etc) Why not institute a requirement of national or international service from our young?
They can volunteer at home or overseas for 12 months in exchange for tuition. Then at least we don’t have to feel responsible for every single tyrant or civil war in the world. I don’t care about spreading democracy. The money that we spend to do that usually backfires by getting those activists we are ‘helping’ arrested in a crackdown. I have read several accounts of activists in Iran who don’t want our help because of just that reason. Of course, W sent the money despite this- so he could be known as the Democracy president -its his new legacy.
Shaun,
I’m sure I don’t have to point out to you that we have an election coming in a little over a year. Do you anticipate that the White House will have its version of Nixon’s plumbers to carryout an equivalent to the Reichstag Fire (an inside 9/11) so that, with the approval of Congress, the election can be postponed and Bush will be granted dictatorial powers for the duration of the “emergency.”
If you don’t believe in this hair-raising scenario, then Bush has less than 15 months to continue, in your view, his efforts to transform the U.S. into a Nazi-like state. Are you concerned that his successor — whoever it may be — will follow in his footsteps?
Contrary to your assertion, I’m not trying to stifle debate. There should be a debate regarding the measures taken by Bush in the aftermath of 9/11 and in the prosecution of the Iraq War. It’s you descent into Nazi analogies that stifles debate. It does so by strengthening the convictions of those who already agreed with you or who were on the edge of being persuaded. It also strengthens the convictions of “right-wingers” (anyone who doesn’t agree with you) that “left-wingers” are, at best, crackpots. In other words, the views you express are polarizing and result in less — not more — dialogue.
Since you and I are about the same age, I suspect that you remember these lines, written in 1967, by the Buffalo Springfield:
Paranoia runs deep/Into your heart it will creep/
It starts when you’re always afraid/Step outta line, the Man come and take you away
I believe there’s a fair amount of unnecessary paranoia in your heart. The man is not coming to take you away.
[...] 16th, 2007 by Marc Schulman At The Moderate Voice, Shaun Mullen writes that “I have broken what for me has been a cardinal rule in recent days [...]
I need to remind everyone of THIS: the original New York Times column on this about the “Good Germans” ran over the weekend. If you check memeorandum you will see that every blogger and his mother, father and stepkids and pets seemingly commented on it. The fact Shaun decides to comment on it and offer his view is not inappropriate and if you do a technorati search on this you’ll see he is not the only person to comment on it. He’s offering his opinion and he has a right to express it just as the zillions of other bloggers have and people in comments. Or are only those who think the Times column was wrong “correct” and able to freely express themselves without their ideas being discussed and somehow it boiling down to insults being hurled at them?
PS: The entire wing of my mother’s family was wiped out by the Nazis and while I don’t use that comparison it is not one unhear of these days. Several talk radio hosts have had a former member of a Republican administration who is warning about some Bush adminsitration moves and he points to totalitarian governments including Germany when doing so. To each his persepctive — and his RIGHT to that perspective without it then coming down to negative labeling because of that perspective.
Given Randi Rhodes courageous outspokenness about the sinister intentions of the right wing, it is not unreasonable to suspect that this non-robbery assault is an attempt by Neo-conservative thugs to silence her views.
LMAO.
Randi Rhodes falls down while walking her dog. It’s Bushitler’s fault.
Yeah, I think that pretty well covers it.
The ends justify the means, n’est-ce pas, Shawn. After all, we *are* talking about one of THE (if not THE) most eeeeeeeeviiiiilllllllll regimes in the history of the known universe, nay every single dimension in existence, both known and unknown, as we all know the ChimpyMcBushitler regime is.
But here’s another thought that apparently escapes you: perhaps the American people have a far better intuitive sense of proportion, perspective and context. Most of all they exhibit something that apparently eludes you or that you no longer are able to recognize: common sense.
But since we are talking about WW2 analogies, I anxiously await your unequivocal condemnation for all the atrocities the so-called “Greatest Generation” committed in your name all those years ago. Things that pale in comparison to what big bad eeeeeeeevvvviiiiiiiiiiiiilllllll Bushitler and his Satanic regime have done in present day hell, errrr, I mean Amerikkka. Compared to what FDR and Truman did for “the greater good” and in the name of “protecting America”, it’s not even a contest. But wait, wasn’t that the “good” war. Oh well.
I could list a couple off the top of my head:
- the mass murders of hundreds of thousands of Germans during the fire bombings
- the dropping of nuclear bombs in Japan
- the allying of the United States of America with perhaps one of THE greatest mass murderers that history has produced. A man and a regime that was even more vile and more ruthless that Hitler himself. A man that essentially won the war in Europe for the allies with the kinds of methods and tactics that would make your poor sensitive little heart explode, my poor little Shawn.
- the subsequent abandonment of half of Europe to said mass murderer’s regime and his equally vile and destructive ideology.
“Greatest generation” my ass. At least if they are judged by the morally righteous warriors of today.
But all that pales in comparison to what Bushitler may or may not have done today. Gotcha.
What I read in Shaun’s post is not at all what his critics are addressing.
Pointing to similarities as a warning is not in the least the same as claiming that the present situation in the US is the exact mirror image of Nazi Germany. It’s a warning about how insidiously easy it is to lead an entire nation into moral decay.
Do we really need statistical comparisons of body counts to understand what genocide means?
Similarly, do we really need precise comparisons of tactics used to intimidate to understand how a silent populace enables those in power to act wihout moral restraints?
And what is this about Darfur and the like?
There is always something worse to point to.
The implification that there being something worse excuses everything lesser, is not only luidicrous but it is outright dangerours. Everything short of hell is not okay!!!
I would say that this overreaction to noting the similarities actually reinforces the similarities: if you’re not with us, you’re against us and an enemy of the state.
A wise priest said to me recently, that he wisdom of some heretics is necessary to keep a faith true to its principles.
I would add that the periodic breaking of some taboos is necessary to break out of the cobwebs of conditioned thinking.
It’s time we break some taboos and break the silence of acquiesence.
Yeah Tully… good one. You’ve ended the debate on torture and habeas corpus right there.
Better look out, Chris, the brownshirts are coming.
I see it as Doma sees it. Shaun isn’t saying Bush is Hitler and that he’s establishing a fascist state. He’s making a narrow comparison about similar tactics used by the Nazis during WWII, and how the Germans just stood by silently. Actually, once Hitler took power he established a totalitarian state, so I have no doubt that many kept silent out of fear and out of their own desire to survive the war.
But we, OTOH, aren’t confined by those circumstances, and don’t say much anyway.
It just doen’t stop in the comments, does it?
It’s about Shaun.
It’s about burying the current issues in a ton of historic and current comparisons.
Someone, in an apparent fit of desperation, even brought Randi Rhodes into the discussion.
It’s about everything and anything but the subject of the post: How SOME current tactics are similar to SOME tactics of Hitler’s Nazis.
Here’s another warning. Unlike the Germans who claimed not to know anything about what was being done in their name, we don’t have the luxury of that pretense. We not only know, we attack those who remind us what we know.
I’ve seen a lot of comments about the issue of torture that pointed to tactics used by Al Qaeda in an attempt to show us that what the United States has been doing is not torture.
By pointing to Nazi war criminal techniques that are the same as current U.S. techniques it becomes incontrovertible that the U.S. is engaging in torture. That’s really the point, and it makes the comparison valid and necessary.
‘Chris said,
October 16, 2007 at 8:20 am:
‘If the shoe fits…
The Nazis and Hitler are part of history, there should be no rules barring comparisons.
My guess is that people don’t like the comparisons in this case because they have the ring of truth.’
GL: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
Schneider’s Corollary: The rise toward one, in Godwin’s Law, is almost always preceded by a concomitant rise toward one in the Fascistic behavior of those compared to Nazis.
Well Shaun, I think what I commented about way at the top of this thread has come true, hasn’t it? No one is talking about Bush or what he’s doing, or what to do about it. Whatever the validity of a Bush-Hitler comparison, making it has obscured the real debate and, I might suggest, has ultimately hurt the cause.
The simple fact is that by making such a comparison one inherently implies that Bush might just become exactly like Hitler given the chance. People naturally have the tendency to take such comparisons to their logical conclusion.
I also think there is a matter of degree others have addressed. It seems to me you’re comparing the guy who grows a bunch of pot in his backyard to Pablo Escobar. Personally, I think comparisons work best when they are closer in degree. Just because there are some similarities does not mean it’s prudent to draw a line between them.
Joe,
I don’t see that anyone has said that Shaun does not have a right to make such a comparison, nor do I see any attempts to shut Shaun up. Rather, the critical responses are more geared toward criticism of what he wrote and the comparison itself. Is that somehow off limits here?
Just in case this thread is in danger of becoming boring, I’m going to say somehitng to bring on another firestorm of criticism.
To wit:
The degree of one’s Jewishness or the amount of personal suffering due to the Holocaust does not automatically elevate one’s judgment enough to rival that of Solomon.
Personal experiences do provide invaluable insider knowledge; there is no doubt about that. On the other hand, intense personal experiences can at times concentrate focus to such an extent that they can tip the balance in overall judgement too much..
One’s Jewishness , though often cited here, grants neither more nor less credence to the arguments as they relate to torture and other disturbing trends in the US.
A survivor of Stalin’s torture or slave labor camps, for example, would not necessarly possess supreme wisdom about current tactcs in the US if Stalin were used in an anlogy.
Entropy-
As a practical matter, you may be right.
Most of the time, I don’t believe in waving red flags at angry bulls.
On the other hand, I don’t see a clear line between avoiding confrontation and enabling a worng by keeping silent.
If a neighbor makes bigoted remarks, for example, is ti better to not remonstrate and keep the peace or to say something to oppose the bigotry? If no one speaks up, the bigot can nurse the illusion he is typical of everyone. If onw person speaks up, another may join in, and the silence about what is unacceptable is broken.
No so easy to decide.
Who said anything about keeping silent? No one is suggesting that Bush’s wrongdoing’s should not be discussed, only that this particular comparison is not a good one.
As noted above, I don’t think anyone is suggesting that all criticism is verboten, and that criticizing one line of reasoning as inapt or even offensive does not preclude other arguments.
However, you give a good example to bounce off of. If a neighbor makes bigoted remarks, is it ok compare him/her with Thomas Thistlewood? After all, there are similarities, correct? Would such a comparison be apt?
In my mind, this is a similar example to Bush-Hitler comparisons. One can be a bigot yet not be a brutal slave-owner, just as one can be authoritarian, implement some authoritarian policies and still not be Hitler, just as one can grow drugs and not be Pablo Escobar.
Well what people I think are trying to point out is how these freedoms disappear by degree, bit by bit and thats how we end up with folks like Hitler. His rise to power took a deal of time, it wasn’t overnight and some of the steps along the way parallel some things Bush has done.
In the name of a war on terror vs. a large grp of saboteurs who ultimately are no threat to our survival as a nation, we have suspended habeus corpus and engaged in the use of torture again. There exists now the legal means to imprison citizens without trial and without legal defense, to cut them off from the outside world for the duration of that imprisonment, and to make it last as long as the executive branch wants. There is HUGE with the possiblitiy of abuse.
I for one do not feel the Bush administration is doing as much with these self granted powers that they could. But what about the next administration or the one after that? The door is open now and IF someone were looking to undermine the freedoms and laws in order to create some less like America and more like Nazi Germany, I think there is a strong argument that this is how someone would go about just that.
Nazi Germany was the German Republic first, and how this change happened to them, the first steps on the road to damnation and war, should not be ignored because the current situation does not mirror exactly the ultimate horrors of WWII.
Of course, if the Executive was the only authority in government, you’d have a point.
The simple fact is that the courts have already shot down much of what Bush wanted to do and there are still cases pending on the matter. If one examines the history, courts have been more deferential to the executive in wartime and then rein-in its power once the war was over.
Then there is Congress. Although it is largely filled with spineless twits, frequent elections occasionally clear out some chaff. And the simple fact is that with the Democrats in charge of the agenda, there is zero chance that Bush will be granted more power by legislative fiat.
One thing that struck me is why now for all the Bush-Hitler comparisons? What’s different about what’s happened recently than in years past? ISTM, Bush’s power reached a peak a couple of years ago and is now at it’s nadir. I don’t see anything that’s happened that would warrant the comparison now but not in, say, 2005. The man is the lamest of lame duck Presidents and he will be out of office in 15 months.
Entropy-
Like the other crtiics, you make a basic mistake about analogies. Just because an analogy is made to some particulars of Hitlers’s regime does not mean that the analogy extends to Hitler or his rule in every particular.
No one claimed that there were extermination camps in the US, for Pete’s sakes.
It was the critcs who carried this way beyond the boundaries the post necessitatted.
If I were to say your wriitng is reminiscent of Fitzgerald, it would not indicate that you also have a drinking problem or have a mentally unstable wife.
As I said, I think a diplomatic approach is usually best, but on occasion, some things need saying the way one feels them.
The readers’s have a responsibiliy, too, and that is to react reasonably. That some don’t is rather telling.
I don’t agree with Entropy’s mild mannered take on Bush’s power grab. Much of what he’s done is just not visible. The signing statement on the torture bill, essentially said that he, Bush, finds the law unconstitutional, and he will not abide by it.
The signing statement stands.
The DOJ is being used like a group of his adjutants instead of an independent branch of the governement, and some have taken up that role eagerly.. Aside from Cheney, there are others who would like to have a monarhcial executive.
I could llist a number of other ways the balance of power has shifted, but the worry does not really stop with Bush.
Once a new president is installed, how likely is it that he/she iwill refrain from taking advantage of this new executive strength? Cheney and friends weren’t doing this just for Bush. This was planned to transform the presidency, no matter who lived in the WH.(Thinking, of course, that it would always be a Republican.)
That’s the real worry! And it should be a big worry for all of us. There will be long years of international tensions. The excuses for wartime powers are not likely to run out any time soon.
The worry is that subsequent presidents will not only follow in Bush’s footsteps, but will improve
expand on them.
A Congress with some backbone could do a correction, but we don’t have one now, nor are we likely to have one soon. There is such fear of looking soft on enemies abroad that they neglect their Constitutional duties at home.
Ah yes, another post at the “moderate†voice by shaun. So Bush is Hitler, I guess the next logical “analogy†is the Republicans are brown shirts. The next step after that would be that the Democrats are Stalinists and we can start fighting each other in the streets. Fortunately a lot of the unrest of Weimar Germany was started in the beer halls, so if we are going down this path the first thing to do is to get drunk. Now where did I put my swastika?
Well, we’ll so how “diplomatic” people are when the shoe is on the other foot. If history is any guide, diplomacy will be nonexistent. For example, is it ok to compare the most socialist democrats to Communists? I don’t think so, and I doubt you would either.
No, there aren’t, but people naturally take comparisons to their logical extension. Like it or not, if you compare person X with person Y you’re inherently indicating they are more alike than different.
Like I said, there are checks and balances of executive power. Bush can add all the signing statements he wants, but if the courts come back and shoot is ass down, what can he do? And Congress can pass legislation and exercise oversight. A President claiming to have the power to do something and a President actually successfully exercising the power are two different things.
Have you forgotten what other President’s have done in our history? How much Habeas Corpus did the Japanese we rounded up get? ISTM that FDR is much more comparable to Hitler than Bush. You don’t see Bush rounding people up and putting them in camps based on their ethnic makeup.
Yet somehow our republic survived that, just as it survived the extraordinary power the executive had during the civil war. The courts and Congress eventually reined that power in. One must remember that these things don’t happen overnight.
Gotta agree with Doma again- not just about the torture issue, but about Bush overreaching his Constitutional authority-Cheney was of big help there. And for those who think it was due to 9/11, you don’t know Cheney, who has made it his mission to expand presidential power since the 70′s. While in Congress during the Reagan years he argued that Reagan should be allowed to fund the Contras through a backdoor means. He believed in 1991 that Bush 41 had no reason to get authorization from Congress for the first gulf war.
In any case the combination of Bush/Cheney, 9/11 and accomodating lawyers like Gonzales, Libby, Addington and Yoo, has resulted in a consolidation of executive power, while the power of Congress weakened. Bush has used signing statements, recess appointments,clauses in the Patriot Act, claims of executive privilege and the tactics of Karl Rove to keep Congress at bay. None of those are unprecedented tactics but the extent that they have been used compared to previous administrations is significant.
Entropy-
“people naturally take comparisons to their logical extension.”
We are tlalking here about people taking comparisons to their ILLl-ogical extensions. People have to take responsibility for theri own errors is perceptions and LOGIC.
*****
“is it ok to compare the most socialist democrats to Communists?”
The way it’s put is usually not by way of comparison but by way of drawing an equal sign. Hove you forgotten the ‘progressie/socialist/anti-semite” excitement we had here?
If a comparison were made between Democrats
not resisting the excesses of theri leadership and the same being true in the SSR, then that would be legitimate, however.
*********
“Have you forgotten what other President’s have done”
That’s just it. This is not a repeat of past wars.
Wars of the the past had a beginning and and end.
The WOT has no foreseeable end., and many of the war powers are being extended as a normal part of governance.
Cheney argued, for example, that Bush ’41 did not need Congressional approval for the Gulf War.
That shows where some have been heading ever since the slapdown to Nixon. This isn’t about Bush or the war in Iraq, it’s about the nature of the presidency.
[...] The Moderate Voice – Then there is Godwin s Law , which states that as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison They can volunteer at home or overseas for 12 months in exchange for tuition. Then at least we don t have to feel read more [...]