Joined: 08-Oct-2006
Location: Korea, South
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3335
QuoteReplyTopic: Bush - Hitler conenction Posted: 24-May-2007 at 14:40
I need some info about the similarities between Bush and Hitler. I would really like the similaries in terms of politicla policies... but others would do as well. If you could also add the references for the relations that may not be obvious, it would really help. Thanks in advance. ~
George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.
The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.
His business dealings, which continued until his company's assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy.
So thanks to grandpappy Bush, Hitler was able to build his war machine. Yes, it was wrong to deal with Hitler, but grandpappy Bush couldn't afford to do the right thing, the same way financial managers today say that they cannot afford not to invest in Sudan.
Both are members of a rightwing political ideology that is a corruption of a leftwing one. Neo-Conservatism is a rightwing-ised version of Troskyism, founded by a Troskyist guru and Nazism a form of revolutionary socialism.
Like Hitler, President Bush was not elected by a majority, but was forced to engage in political maneuvering in order to gain office.
Like Hitler, Bush began to curtail civil liberties in response to a well-publicized disaster, in Hitlers case the Reichstag fire, in Bushs case the 9-11 catastrophe.
Like Hitler, Bush went on to pursue a reckless foreign policy without the mandate of the electorate and despite the opposition of most foreign nations.
Like Hitler, Bush has increased his popularity with conservative voters by mounting an aggressive public relations campaign against foreign enemies. Just as Hitler cited international communism to justify Germanys military buildup, Bush has used Al Qaeda and the so-called Axis of Evil to justify our current military buildup. Paradoxically none of the nations in this axis--Iraq, Iran and North Korea--have had anything to do with each other.
Like Hitler, Bush has promoted militarism in the midst of economic recession (or depression as it was called during the thirties). First he used war preparations to help subsidize defense industries (Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, etc.) and presumably the rest of the economy on a trickle-down basis. Now he turns to the very same corporations to rebuild Iraq, again without competitive bidding and at extravagant profit levels.
Like Hitler, Bush displays great populist enthusiasm in his patriotic speeches, but primarily serves wealthy investors who subsidize his election campaigns and share with him their comfortable lifestyle. As he himself jokes, he treats these individuals at the pinnacle of our economy as his true political base.
Like Hitler, Bush envisages our nations unique historic destiny almost as a religious cause sanctioned by God. Just as Hitler did for Germany, he takes pride in his providential role in spreading his version of Americanism throughout the entire world.
Like Hitler, Bush promotes a future world order that guarantees his own nations hegemonic supremacy rather than cooperative harmony under the authority of the United Nations (or League of Nations).
Like Hitler, Bush quickly makes and breaks diplomatic ties, and he offers generous promises that he soon abandons, as in the cases of Mexico, Russia, Afghanistan, and even New York City. The same goes for U.S. domestic programs. Once Bush was elected, many leaders of these programs learned to dread his making any kind of an appearance to praise their success, since this was almost inevitably followed by severe cuts in their budgets.
Like Hitler, Bush scraps international treaties, most notably the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Convention on the Prohibition of Land Mines, the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Kyoto Global Warming Accord, and the International Criminal Court.
Like Hitler, Bush repeats lies often enough that they come to be accepted as the truth. Bush and his spokesmen argued, for example, that they had taken every measure possible to avoid war, than an invasion of Iraq would diminish (not intensify) the terrorist threat against the U.S., that Iraq was linked with Al Qaeda, and that nothing whatsoever had been achieved by U.N. inspectors to warrant the postponement of U.S. invasion plans. All of this was false. They also insisted that Iraq hid numerous weapons it did not possess since the mid-190s, and they refused to acknowledge the absence of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq since the early nineties. As perhaps to be expected, they indignantly accused others of deception and evasiveness.
Like Hitler, Bush incessantly shifted his arguments to justify invading Iraq--from Iraqs WMD threat to the elimination of Saddam Hussein, to his supposed Al Qaeda connection, to the creation of Iraqi democracy in the Middle East as a model for neighboring states, and back again to the WMD threat. As soon as one excuse for the war was challenged, Bush advanced to another, but only to shift back again at another time.
Like Hitler, Bush and his cohorts emphasize the ruthlessness of their enemies in order to justify their own. Just as Hitler cited the threat of communist violence to justify even greater violence on the part of Germany, the bush team justified the invasion of Iraq by emphasizing Husseins crimes against humanity over the past twenty-five years. However, these crimes were for the most part committed when Iraq was a client-ally of the U.S. Our government supplied Hussein with illegal weapons (poison gas included), and there were sixty U.S. advisors in Iraq when these weapons were put to use (see NY Times, Aug. 18, 1992). U.S. aid to Iraq was actually doubled afterwards despite disclaimers from Washington that our nation opposed their use. President Reagans special envoy Donald Rumsfeld personally informed Hussein of this one hundred percent increment during one of his two trips to Iraq at the time. He also told Hussein not to take U.S. disclaimers seriously.
Like Hitler, Bush takes pride in his status as a War President, and his global ambition makes him perhaps the most dangerous president in our nations history, a rogue chief executive capable of waging any number of illegal preemptive wars. He fully acknowledges his willingness to engage in wars of choice as well as wars of necessity. Sooner or later this choice will oblige universal conscription as well as a full-scale war economy.
Like Hitler, Bush continues to pursue war without cutting back on the peacetime economy. Additional to unprecedented low interest rates bestowed by the Federal Reserve, he has actually cut federal taxes twice by substantial amounts, especially for the top one percent of U.S. taxpayers, while conducting an expensive invasion and an even more expensive occupation of a hostile nation. As a result, President Clintons $350 billion budget surplus has been reduced to a $450 billion deficit, comprising an unprecedented $800 billion decline in less than four years. At the same time the U.S. dollar has steadily dropped against currencies of both Europe and Japan.
Like Hitler, Bush possesses a war machine much bigger and more effective than the military capabilities of other nations. With the extra financing obliged by the defeat and occupation of Iraq, Bush now relies on a defense budget well in excess of the combined military expenditures of the rest of the world. Moreover, the $416 billion defense package passed last week by Congress will probably need to be supplemented before the end of the year.
Like Hitler, bush depends on an axis of collaborative allies, which he describes as a coalition of the willing, in order to give the impression of a broad popular alliance. These allies include the U.K. as compared to Mussolinis Italy, and Spain and Bulgaria, as compared to, well, Spain and Bulgaria, both of which were aligned with Germany during the thirties and World War II. As a result of their cooperation, Prime Minister Blairs diplomatic reputation has been ruined in England, and a surprising election defeat has produced an unfriendly government in Spain. The Philippines have withdrawn their troops from Iraq to save the life of a hostage, and other defections can be expected in the near future.
Like Hitler, Bush is willing to go to war over the objections of the U.N. (League of Nations). His Iraq invasion was illegal and therefore a war crime as explained by Articles 41 and 42 of the U.N. Charter, which require two votes, not one, by the Security Council before any state takes such an action. First a vote is needed to explore all possibilities short of warfare (in Iraqs case through the use of U.N. inspectors), and once this has been shown to be fruitless, a second vote is needed to permit military action. U.S. and U.K. delegates at the Security Council prevented this second vote once it was plain they lacked a majority. This was because other nations on the Security Council were satisfied with the findings of U.N. inspectors that no weapons of mass destruction had yet been found. Minus this second vote, the invasion was illegal. Bush also showed in the process that he has no qualms about bribing, bullying, and insulting U.N. members, even tapping their telephone lines. This was done with undecided members of the Security Council as well as the U.N. Secretary General when the U.S.-U.K. resolution was debated preceding the invasion.
Like Hitler, Bush launches unilateral invasions on a supposedly preemptive basis. Just as Hitler convinced the German public to think of Poland as a threat to Germany in 1939 (for example in his Sept. 19 speech), Bush wants Americans to think of Iraq as having been a potential threat to our national security--indeed as one of the instigators of the 9-11 attack despite a complete lack of evidence to support this claim.
Like Hitler, Bush depends on a military strategy that features a shock and awe blitzkrieg beginning with devastating air strikes, then an invasion led by heavy armored columns.
Like Hitler, Bush is willing to inflict high levels of bloodshed against enemy nations. Between 20,000 and (more probably) 37,000 are now estimated to have been killed, as much as a ro-1 kill ratio compared to the more than 900 Americans killed. In other words, for every U.S. fatality, probably as many as forty Iraqi have died.
Like Hitler, Bush is perfectly willing to sacrifice life as part of his official duty. This would be indicated by the unprecedented number of prisoners executed during his service as governor of Texas. Under no other governor in the history of the United States were so many killed.
Like Hitler, Bush began warfare on a single front (Al Qaeda quartered in Afghanistan), but then expanded it to a second front with Iraq, only to be confronted with North Korea and Iran as potential third and fourth fronts. Much the same thing happened to Hitler when he advanced German military operations from Spain to Poland and France, then was distracted by Yugoslavia before invading the USSR in 1941. Today, bush seems prevented by the excessive costs of the Iraqi debacle from going to war elsewhere if reelected, but not through any lack of desire.
Like Hitler, Bush has no qualms about imposing regime change by installing Quisling-style client governments backed by a U.S. military occupation with both political and economic control entirely in the hands of Americans. It is no surprise that Iyad Alawi, Iraqs current temporary prime minister, was once affiliated with the CIA and has been reliably reported by the Australian press to have executed six hooded prisoners with a handgun to their heads just a day or two before his appointment a couple weeks ago.
Like Hitler, Bush curtails civil liberties in captive nations and depends on detention centers (i.e., concentration camps) such as a Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and any number of secret interrogation centers across the world. Prisoners at the camps go unidentified and have no legal rights as ordinarily guaranteed by the Geneva Conventions. They have also been detained indefinitely (for 2 years already at Guantanamo Bay), though there is mounting evidence that many are innocent of what they have been charged--some, for example, having been randomly seized by Northern Alliance troops in Afghanistan for an automatic bounty from U.S. commanders. Moreover, many Iraqi prisoners have been tortured, in many instances just short of death. Recent U.S. documents disclose that as many twenty have died while being tortured, and twenty others have died under unusual circumstances yet to be determined.
Like Hitler, Bush uses the threat of enemies abroad to stir the fearful allegiance of the U.S. public. For example, he features public announcements of possible terrorist attacks in order to override embarrassing news coverage or to crowd from headlines positive coverage of Democratic Party activities. He also uses the threat of terrorism to justify extraordinary domestic powers granted by the Patriot Act. Even the books we check out of public libraries can be kept on record by federal agents.
Like Hitler, Bush depends on a propaganda machine to guarantee sympathetic news management. In Hitlers case news coverage was totally dominated by Goebbels; in Bushs case reporters have been almost totally imbedded by both military spokesmen and wealthy media owners sympathetic with Bush. The most obvious case is the Fox news channel, owned and controlled by Rupert Murdoch. Not surprisingly, recent polls indicate that the majority of Fox viewers still think Hussein played a role in the 9-11 attack.
Like Hitler, Bush increasingly reduces the circle of aides he feels he can trust as his policies keep boomeranging at his own expense. Just as Hitler ended up isolated in his headquarters, with few individuals granted access, Bush is now said to be limiting access primarily to Attorney General Ashcroft (who also talks with God on a regular basis) as well as Karl Rove, the Vice President, Karen Hughes, and a few others. Both Secretary of State Powell and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld are now said to be out of the loop.
Like Hitler, Bush has become obsessed with his vision of conflict between good (U.S. patriotism) and evil (anti-Americanism. Many in contact with the White House are said to be worried that he is beginning to lose touch with reality--perhaps resulting from the use of medication that seriously distorts his judgment. Possibly symptomatic of this concern is the increasing number of disaffected government officials who leak embarrassing documents.
Like Hitler, bush takes pleasure in the mythology of frontier justice. As a youth Hitler read and memorized the western novels of Karl May, and Bush retains into his maturity his fascination with simplistic cowboy values. He also exaggerates a cowboy twang despite his C-average elitist education at Andover, Yale, and Harvard.
Like Hitler, Bush misconstrues Darwinism, in Hitlers case by treating the Aryan race as being superior on an evolutionary basis, in Bushs case by rejecting science for fundamentalist creationism.
Just a comment: using Hitler to illustrate a point, even when it is valid, takes away from your argument. Most people automatically assume that any comparison with Hitler is exaggerated, even when it is not.
Just a comment: using Hitler to illustrate a point, even when it is valid, takes away from your argument. Most people automatically assume that any comparison with Hitler is exaggerated, even when it is not.
I am just letting you know :)
Of course. I am merely using these connections for my political satire project.
Sorry guys, but this list is just too stupid and I'm just dumb enough to stir up some controvery.
Like Hitler, President Bush was not elected by a majority, but was forced to engage in political maneuvering in order to gain office. Several US Presidents have not been elected by a majority. I am unaware of any proof of political maneuvering, other than the fact that some people are too stupid to know hot to use a ballot.
Like Hitler, Bush began to curtail civil liberties in response to a well-publicized disaster, in Hitlers case the Reichstag fire, in Bushs case the 9-11 catastrophe. As did Abraham Lincoln, Woodroe Wilson, and Franklin Roosevelt.
Like Hitler, Bush went on to pursue a reckless foreign policy without the mandate of the electorate and despite the opposition of most foreign nations.
Like Hitler, Bush has increased his popularity with conservative voters by mounting an aggressive public relations campaign against foreign enemies. Just as Hitler cited international communism to justify Germanys military buildup, Bush has used Al Qaeda and the so-called Axis of Evil to justify our current military buildup. Paradoxically none of the nations in this axis--Iraq, Iran and North Korea--have had anything to do with each other. Pretty much all American Presidents between 1945-1990 used Communism as a justification of build up military forces. FDR used axis aggression to justify the pre-Dec 7, 1941 buildup. Germany and Japan were hardly in what could be considered a functional military alliance, and international communism was not the monolith that the West made it out to be.
Like Hitler, Bush has promoted militarism in the midst of economic recession (or depression as it was called during the thirties). First he used war preparations to help subsidize defense industries (Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, etc.) and presumably the rest of the economy on a trickle-down basis. Now he turns to the very same corporations to rebuild Iraq, again without competitive bidding and at extravagant profit levels. Militarism? I haven't seen any parades of soldiers and tanks going by the White House lately. Also, the military has hardly been beefed up to the neccessary size and capability needed to wage such a long and widespread war. The US is still only spending about 5% GDP on the military, most of which goes to paying the salaries and benefits of serviceman. And once again, FDR got the US out of the Great Depression by building up the miliary and waging a war.
Like Hitler, Bush displays great populist enthusiasm in his patriotic speeches, but primarily serves wealthy investors who subsidize his election campaigns and share with him their comfortable lifestyle. As he himself jokes, he treats these individuals at the pinnacle of our economy as his true political base. Your really not giving Hitler much credit when you compare the speeches of the two. I would hardly call Bush's speeches as energetic or as enthusiastic as Hitler's. Populist? Bush isn't a populist. All political campaigns are subsidized by those who share the comfortable lifestyle. You'd half to list all US politicians as being comparable to Hitler. John Kerry has way more money than Bush.
Like Hitler, Bush envisages our nations unique historic destiny almost as a religious cause sanctioned by God. Just as Hitler did for Germany, he takes pride in his providential role in spreading his version of Americanism throughout the entire world. Once again, your going to have to list a lot of American politicians from the past as comparable to Hitler. What the hell is Americanism? The spread of democracy has been the goal of many US leaders and its nothing in comparison to the Greater Reich.
Like Hitler, Bush promotes a future world order that guarantees his own nations hegemonic supremacy rather than cooperative harmony under the authority of the United Nations (or League of Nations). So do I. Cooperative Harmony and the UN? Are you serious?
Like Hitler, Bush quickly makes and breaks diplomatic ties, and he offers generous promises that he soon abandons, as in the cases of Mexico, Russia, Afghanistan, and even New York City. The same goes for U.S. domestic programs. Once Bush was elected, many leaders of these programs learned to dread his making any kind of an appearance to praise their success, since this was almost inevitably followed by severe cuts in their budgets. Making and breaking promises? This sounds like any politican to me.
Like Hitler, Bush scraps international treaties, most notably the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Convention on the Prohibition of Land Mines, the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Kyoto Global Warming Accord, and the International Criminal Court. Ummmm, no US President has been in favor of the Convention of the Prohibition of Land Mines. Do you know why? Because land mines are currently protecting your home country from North Korea. No US Senator voted in favor of Kyoto because it would have destroyed the US economy. Once North Korea started firing Missiles over Japan, I'd say that the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty had to go. Russia is in no danger from any US Missile defense system. They US would never be able to shoot down all of Russia's missiles.
Like Hitler, Bush repeats lies often enough that they come to be accepted as the truth. Bush and his spokesmen argued, for example, that they had taken every measure possible to avoid war, than an invasion of Iraq would diminish (not intensify) the terrorist threat against the U.S., that Iraq was linked with Al Qaeda, and that nothing whatsoever had been achieved by U.N. inspectors to warrant the postponement of U.S. invasion plans. All of this was false. They also insisted that Iraq hid numerous weapons it did not possess since the mid-190s, and they refused to acknowledge the absence of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq since the early nineties. As perhaps to be expected, they indignantly accused others of deception and evasiveness. Have you ever read the speeches given by Bill Clinton in 1998 about Iraq's NBC stock piles, and the fact that he launched Military attacks on Iraq because of Iraq's lack of compliance? And I was unaware of the fact that everything George Bush says has been accepted as fact? Are you kidding me?
Like Hitler, Bush incessantly shifted his arguments to justify invading Iraq--from Iraqs WMD threat to the elimination of Saddam Hussein, to his supposed Al Qaeda connection, to the creation of Iraqi democracy in the Middle East as a model for neighboring states, and back again to the WMD threat. As soon as one excuse for the war was challenged, Bush advanced to another, but only to shift back again at another time.
Like Hitler, Bush and his cohorts emphasize the ruthlessness of their enemies in order to justify their own. Just as Hitler cited the threat of communist violence to justify even greater violence on the part of Germany, the bush team justified the invasion of Iraq by emphasizing Husseins crimes against humanity over the past twenty-five years. However, these crimes were for the most part committed when Iraq was a client-ally of the U.S. Our government supplied Hussein with illegal weapons (poison gas included), and there were sixty U.S. advisors in Iraq when these weapons were put to use (see NY Times, Aug. 18, 1992). U.S. aid to Iraq was actually doubled afterwards despite disclaimers from Washington that our nation opposed their use. President Reagans special envoy Donald Rumsfeld personally informed Hussein of this one hundred percent increment during one of his two trips to Iraq at the time. He also told Hussein not to take U.S. disclaimers seriously. Iraq was not a US client-ally. The US supplied about 2% of the miltary aid to Iraq during the War. The Soviet Union and France supplied the vast majority of weapons and money, and many other nations helped Iraq as well.The terrorists are much more ruthless than American soldiers. As of yet, no US soldier have strapped a bomb to themselves and blown up a crowd of children. Nor has Bush ordered the public be-heading of anybody.
Like Hitler, Bush takes pride in his status as a War President, and his global ambition makes him perhaps the most dangerous president in our nations history, a rogue chief executive capable of waging any number of illegal preemptive wars. He fully acknowledges his willingness to engage in wars of choice as well as wars of necessity. Sooner or later this choice will oblige universal conscription as well as a full-scale war economy. Bush is not capable of launching any number of wars. I don't think he even had any further plans for invasions after Iraq in the first place. Invading North Korea would be suicide and Iran is too big. A full-scale war economy might be a good idea, siting the fact that the US is fighting a global war while the home-country is totally at peace.
Like Hitler, Bush continues to pursue war without cutting back on the peacetime economy. Additional to unprecedented low interest rates bestowed by the Federal Reserve, he has actually cut federal taxes twice by substantial amounts, especially for the top one percent of U.S. taxpayers, while conducting an expensive invasion and an even more expensive occupation of a hostile nation. As a result, President Clintons $350 billion budget surplus has been reduced to a $450 billion deficit, comprising an unprecedented $800 billion decline in less than four years. At the same time the U.S. dollar has steadily dropped against currencies of both Europe and Japan. And yet the US economy is still doing better than Europe and is still doing way better than Japan's. The interest rates were dropped because the US was in a recession that began in 2000. Typically when the economy goes into recession, the interest rates have to be dropped to encourage people to buy things like cars, and houses.
Like Hitler, Bush possesses a war machine much bigger and more effective than the military capabilities of other nations. With the extra financing obliged by the defeat and occupation of Iraq, Bush now relies on a defense budget well in excess of the combined military expenditures of the rest of the world. Moreover, the $416 billion defense package passed last week by Congress will probably need to be supplemented before the end of the year. The US has had the most powerful, "war machine," since about 1942. It was also the most powerful war machine in 1864-1865 and 1918-1919. Hitler's war machine was smaller than those of the US and USSR. The US defense budget is way bigger than the rest of the world's, percentage wise, than Hitler's ever was. Yet, the US defense spending is virtually still at a peace-time level.
Like Hitler, bush depends on an axis of collaborative allies, which he describes as a coalition of the willing, in order to give the impression of a broad popular alliance. These allies include the U.K. as compared to Mussolinis Italy, and Spain and Bulgaria, as compared to, well, Spain and Bulgaria, both of which were aligned with Germany during the thirties and World War II. As a result of their cooperation, Prime Minister Blairs diplomatic reputation has been ruined in England, and a surprising election defeat has produced an unfriendly government in Spain. The Philippines have withdrawn their troops from Iraq to save the life of a hostage, and other defections can be expected in the near future. The Phillipines withdrew because there are many Filipino expat workers in the Middle East, and they didnt' want them to be targeted. One of the currently collaborative allies is the Iraqi government and army. During the Vietnam War, the US had fewer allies participating than it does now. So was President Johnson the same as Hitler?
Like Hitler, Bush is willing to go to war over the objections of the U.N. (League of Nations). His Iraq invasion was illegal and therefore a war crime as explained by Articles 41 and 42 of the U.N. Charter, which require two votes, not one, by the Security Council before any state takes such an action. First a vote is needed to explore all possibilities short of warfare (in Iraqs case through the use of U.N. inspectors), and once this has been shown to be fruitless, a second vote is needed to permit military action. U.S. and U.K. delegates at the Security Council prevented this second vote once it was plain they lacked a majority. This was because other nations on the Security Council were satisfied with the findings of U.N. inspectors that no weapons of mass destruction had yet been found. Minus this second vote, the invasion was illegal. Bush also showed in the process that he has no qualms about bribing, bullying, and insulting U.N. members, even tapping their telephone lines. This was done with undecided members of the Security Council as well as the U.N. Secretary General when the U.S.-U.K. resolution was debated preceding the invasion. I don't even know if I want to get into this one...but...I would consider 12 years of inspections to be frutiless, especially when the Iraqi's kicked the inspectors out in 1998. France and Russia would have voted against it because it went against their financial interests. And the UN does not rule over the US. Bribing the UN Secretary General? Oh My! And I don't think that Hitler ever went to the League of Nations to talk about his invasion of Poland. He never tried to bribe Britain and France into agreeing to it either.
Like Hitler, Bush launches unilateral invasions on a supposedly preemptive basis. Just as Hitler convinced the German public to think of Poland as a threat to Germany in 1939 (for example in his Sept. 19 speech), Bush wants Americans to think of Iraq as having been a potential threat to our national security--indeed as one of the instigators of the 9-11 attack despite a complete lack of evidence to support this claim.
Like Hitler, Bush depends on a military strategy that features a shock and awe blitzkrieg beginning with devastating air strikes, then an invasion led by heavy armored columns. Well what tactics would you like him to use? Rank and file marching to the beat of a drum while the calvary scouts ahead? Though I don't think Hitler had precision weapons, or the degree of command and control on the battlefield that the US has.
Like Hitler, Bush is willing to inflict high levels of bloodshed against enemy nations. Between 20,000 and (more probably) 37,000 are now estimated to have been killed, as much as a ro-1 kill ratio compared to the more than 900 Americans killed. In other words, for every U.S. fatality, probably as many as forty Iraqi have died. Uh, recall that the vast majority of people who are dying in Iraq are as a result of insurgent and terrorist bombings. When the US goes to war, should it try to have a 1-1 kill ratio with the enemy?
Like Hitler, Bush is perfectly willing to sacrifice life as part of his official duty. This would be indicated by the unprecedented number of prisoners executed during his service as governor of Texas. Under no other governor in the history of the United States were so many killed. I think that pretty much all world leaders are. And as of yet, Bush hasn't exterminated all the Jews in America.
Like Hitler, Bush began warfare on a single front (Al Qaeda quartered in Afghanistan), but then expanded it to a second front with Iraq, only to be confronted with North Korea and Iran as potential third and fourth fronts. Much the same thing happened to Hitler when he advanced German military operations from Spain to Poland and France, then was distracted by Yugoslavia before invading the USSR in 1941. Today, bush seems prevented by the excessive costs of the Iraqi debacle from going to war elsewhere if reelected, but not through any lack of desire. So...should he have started with 2 fronts instead?
Like Hitler, Bush has no qualms about imposing regime change by installing Quisling-style client governments backed by a U.S. military occupation with both political and economic control entirely in the hands of Americans. It is no surprise that Iyad Alawi, Iraqs current temporary prime minister, was once affiliated with the CIA and has been reliably reported by the Australian press to have executed six hooded prisoners with a handgun to their heads just a day or two before his appointment a couple weeks ago. Installing a democracy is hardly comparable to installing German SS run governments in occupied territories. Also, there are quite a few US Presidents who have unseated and installed US-friendly govenments in their place, but they usually weren't democratic.
Like Hitler, Bush curtails civil liberties in captive nations and depends on detention centers (i.e., concentration camps) such as a Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and any number of secret interrogation centers across the world. Prisoners at the camps go unidentified and have no legal rights as ordinarily guaranteed by the Geneva Conventions. They have also been detained indefinitely (for 2 years already at Guantanamo Bay), though there is mounting evidence that many are innocent of what they have been charged--some, for example, having been randomly seized by Northern Alliance troops in Afghanistan for an automatic bounty from U.S. commanders. Moreover, many Iraqi prisoners have been tortured, in many instances just short of death. Recent U.S. documents disclose that as many twenty have died while being tortured, and twenty others have died under unusual circumstances yet to be determined. Guantanamo Bay and German's concentration camps are not comparable.Taking stupid pictures as oposed to gassing and working people to death? Captive nations? Iraq and Afghanistan are captive nations? They don't seem all that captivated to me.
Like Hitler, Bush uses the threat of enemies abroad to stir the fearful allegiance of the U.S. public. For example, he features public announcements of possible terrorist attacks in order to override embarrassing news coverage or to crowd from headlines positive coverage of Democratic Party activities. He also uses the threat of terrorism to justify extraordinary domestic powers granted by the Patriot Act. Even the books we check out of public libraries can be kept on record by federal agents. Allegiance? His approval rating is about 33%.
Like Hitler, Bush depends on a propaganda machine to guarantee sympathetic news management. In Hitlers case news coverage was totally dominated by Goebbels; in Bushs case reporters have been almost totally imbedded by both military spokesmen and wealthy media owners sympathetic with Bush. The most obvious case is the Fox news channel, owned and controlled by Rupert Murdoch. Not surprisingly, recent polls indicate that the majority of Fox viewers still think Hussein played a role in the 9-11 attack. Sympathetic news management? Bush has got Fox and the Wallstreet Journal. That's about it. The other 90% of the media is and has always been completely against him. Oddly, Rupert Murdoch donated money to Hillary Clinton.
Like Hitler, Bush increasingly reduces the circle of aides he feels he can trust as his policies keep boomeranging at his own expense. Just as Hitler ended up isolated in his headquarters, with few individuals granted access, Bush is now said to be limiting access primarily to Attorney General Ashcroft (who also talks with God on a regular basis) as well as Karl Rove, the Vice President, Karen Hughes, and a few others. Both Secretary of State Powell and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld are now said to be out of the loop. Bush isn't in some bunker with a few aides. Firing aides is pretty normal for US Presidents. The main critism has come from the fact that he hasn't fired many of his aides. Ashcroft, Powell, and Rumsfeld are all long gone.
Like Hitler, Bush has become obsessed with his vision of conflict between good (U.S. patriotism) and evil (anti-Americanism. Many in contact with the White House are said to be worried that he is beginning to lose touch with reality--perhaps resulting from the use of medication that seriously distorts his judgment. Possibly symptomatic of this concern is the increasing number of disaffected government officials who leak embarrassing documents. Is Bush starting to twitch, just like Hitler?
Like Hitler, bush takes pleasure in the mythology of frontier justice. As a youth Hitler read and memorized the western novels of Karl May, and Bush retains into his maturity his fascination with simplistic cowboy values. He also exaggerates a cowboy twang despite his C-average elitist education at Andover, Yale, and Harvard. Hitler was a cowboy? What was Hitler's GPA?
Like Hitler, Bush misconstrues Darwinism, in Hitlers case by treating the Aryan race as being superior on an evolutionary basis, in Bushs case by rejecting science for fundamentalist creationism.Believing in a master race and the extermination and enslavement of all others, and the belief in creationism are hardly comparable.
Pekau, Just a comment: using Hitler to illustrate a point, even when it is valid, takes away from your argument. Most people automatically assume that any comparison with Hitler is exaggerated, even when it is not. I am just letting you know :)
Of course. I am merely using these connections for my political satire project.
Ah! Another dadaist into political satire and theater? There are a few around here. We should organize. :) I will start a thread.
not even comparable at all !!!! bush especcially the US to weak ATTITUDE wise not military. i am american by the way lol. like the phrase IVE GOT A BIG GUN AND IM NOT AFRAID TO USE IT lol US is the opposite alot of the time it feels to much remorse for others. for instance before 9/11 wich is supposedly some osam crap lol well anyway they think they have located him in the mountains and us military in aphgainstan area bout to blow the sh*t out of this mountain right. but then some guy sees a swing set and says o theres children and wemon so they dont blow it up but my point is that lets say osama was killed and possably 9/11 didnt happen. taking out osama and a couple wemon and children is nothing compared to 9/11 . and if you really think about it what are those kids going to be like when they grow up.. hmm i wonder lol.... not there fault its how there raised but in inevitable. america isnt willing to make even a little sacrafice sometimes wich could possably be our downfall one day look what happend because of it twin towers are gone but next time it could be nukes and more
Bush does have a connection with Hitler, although an indirect one and of a different nature.
"How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power"
The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.
His business dealings, which continued until his company's assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy.
..But the new documents, many of which were only declassified last year, show that even after America had entered the war and when there was already significant information about the Nazis' plans and policies, he worked for and profited from companies closely involved with the very German businesses that financed Hitler's rise to power. It has also been suggested that the money he made from these dealings helped to establish the Bush family fortune and set up its political dynasty.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Share Topic
Printable Version
Google
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Windows Live
Yahoo Bookmarks
reddit
Facebook
MySpace
Newsvine
Furl
Topic Search 
Topic Options
Quote 
Topic: Bush - Hitler conenction
