It had to happen, I suppose. In the wake of Lieberman's defeat in Connecticut, the Dark One (i.e. Dick Cheney) was quoted as saying:

And the media lapdogs jumped right on the bandwagon:



I'll just paraphrase the question the first article did:

Did Cheney and those who made similar comments go too far?

Did Cheney and those who made similar comments go too far?

The Democratic strategy is not "Cut and Run", it is create a flexible or inflexible time table (the set one is purported by John Kerry. There is another one (supported by among others, Barack Obama) which is malleable to circumstance, which was started by another senator whose name I forget, and I think it has majority democratic support). The Iraqi parliament and the Iraqi people want a timetable, and the troops themselves want to be out by the end of this year.

Does it encourage Al Quida to hear us considering a time table?

No doubt about it, but I would also point out that it will hurt their recruiting abilities, by making it evident to the Middle East that we do mean to leave Iraq (and that thereby we are not there to "make an empire" or convert the countries populace, or to try to carry any of their other alleged consipiracys). "Success" (which it will only be if Iraq falls into chaos) may make its pursuers happy, but it will also leave them with less goals.

In Iraq, what has been prolifically asserted to be an effort to fight terrorism, has really only made it worse.

Did Cheney and those who made similar comments go too far?

What "goes too far" is when Cheney's or anyone else's comments are held up for ridicule and condemnation without even posting the actual comments beyond three words embedded in some biased commentator's "interpretation". Here are his actual comments:


Nothing in there about Democratic voters siding with al-Qaeda. He's just criticizing the result, saying that it represents an endorsement of what he considers bad strategy, and that's nothing more than a restatement of what the administration's position has been all along. Criticizing an election result is an entirely legitimate thing to do in a democracy (not like we had any lack of that after November 2004).

It's a bizarre thing, but it seems that for some people, any time someone in the Bush adminstration criticizes someone, he's "smearing" them or "intimidating" them or creating a "chilling effect". It's like they're not allowed to express an opinion at all.

As far as I'm concerned, I'd love to have a discussion about whether or not his views on Iraq are right (on the appropriate thread). But when people just compain about the bare fact that he's expressed his views, I just can't take it seriously.

Personally, a better question would be Do I even CARE what the likes of Dick Cheney, Ken Mehlman and Tony Snow have to say about anything?

To be direct---NO.

Medford, Mass.: Exactly how is it that our sitting Vice President can get away with saying basically that people who exercised their constitutional right to vote for change (ie: Conn. primary) are helping terrorists? How is this not the headline of a story, instead of a footnote?

Jonathan Weisman: The vice president also said the insurgency in Iraq is in its death throes, and that U.S. troops would be greeted as liberators. I'm afraid to say his utterances are losing their news value.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...751.html?sub=AR

Did Cheney and those who made similar comments go too far?
A short answer is all this is going to take. Absolutely it went to far. That type of remark is extremely unprofessional for an elected representative to make, and it only serves to propel the political attitude in Washington to a new low. Comparing Democrats as Al-Qeada types is just as tacky as comparing Republicans to Nazi's.........

Balderdash! Anyone who can't read between the lines there isn't trying very hard. That is absolutely what he is implying and at the same time he is implying the Democratic strategy is to become isolationist and give up on fighting terrorism when that is patently false as well. In fact the Democrats are the only ones that seem to be talking about a strategy that might work, the GOP and Cheney in particular seem to be bound and determined to stir up as much conflict as possible and scare the voters into voting Republican.

On top of the comments from Cheney you heard simiilar sentiments from Tony Snow:


So here we have the White House press secretary implying that the results of the CT primary embolden Al Qaeda.

And then of course this just filtered through the pundit ranks like it always does and reached new levels of insanity.
From Cal Thomas at the Washington Times who started his column by saying:


The Taliban wing, lovely.

Then we have OReilly weighing in with his usual nonsense and insanity:


So now the CT primary indicates that Democrats are going to lie down and let Iran nuke us... great.

Even Tom Delay took a break from his legal battles to chime in that Democrats think terrorists are "wonderful people".

I mean this stuff is just so predictable, it plays through the same script every single time. The White House originates the talking points in a subtle or not so subtle fashion and then all the GOP congresscritters and pundits play along and repeat it.

Everyone is sitting in a room staring at a blue ball and someone from the White House stands up and says "This ball is red" and then you have pundit and media personalities alike saying "you know what, that is the reddest ball I've ever seen." It would be comical if it wasn't so deadly serious and pathetic.

Did Cheney and those who made similar comments go too far?

All I can say is for any of those so opposed to such comments, I hope there is a realization that this political knife cuts both ways, and the left is certainly just as guilty of it as the right. So if this type of political rhetoric creates any ire, then those irritated by it need to be just as upset when it comes from their own party. If not, then essentially the claim is 'Hey, they're doing it too!'....which doesn't particularly carry much weight or condemnation.

For myself, I would prefer that politics not be so divisive...but these types of tactics are employed because they work. So, until we all stop drinking the kool-aid, it will just continue.

I'm not sure I buy that Hobbes. For one "the left" doesn't have a fully mature and functional echo chamber media machine that includes personalities like Limbaug, Hannity, O'Reilly, and all of the lesser players. This stuff happens on a daily basis and I can pretty much predict what Hannity will be saying in the evening based on what the White House press secretary is saying during the day - it is that transparent.

Now as far as politicians taking shots at each other, nothing new there. But there is one party that has consistently slandered the other by equating them with terrorists and terrorist sympathizers and that party is the GOP.

You find me some examples that are anywhere close to the same level of vitriol as this and have the same echo throughout the media and maybe we can talk about it, but I can't recall any from recent history.

No, the fact that he's a Republican and says "al Qaeda" and "Democratic Party" somewhere in the same paragraph doesn't mean he's in any way equating the two, paranoid fantasies notwithstanding. The worst that can be said is that he may have miscalled the Democrats' position on this issue, but given the total lack of constructive suggestions coming from them of what to do about Iraq besides withdrawal, I wouldn't consider his characterization that far off the mark.


And now you're doing what you accuse him of - making wild speculations about his alleged motives, instead of debating the issues. By the way, what exactly does this strategy you speak of consist of, besides setting a date for withdrawal?

You have to be pretty darn blind to make that statement, it is crystal clear what he is saying especially when taken in context with what the press secretary said and with what all the loyal right wing pundits have said - I notice you don't exactly have any comments there... hmmm.


Not the subject of this debate and I don't have time for that discussion anyway, not that it would do any good because I've certainly had it before and it didn't do any good then either. I'm far too tired of trying to discuss things like that with people who don't have any intention of listening in the first place - I'll just wait till after Nov for the I-told-you-so's.

I could argue the right wing media part, but, even if it is true, the argument then becomes "Hey, they do it too, and they're better at it than us!" Still not very condemning. Remember that all the outlets you cite sprung up for only one possible reason...because the existing media previously had no right wing outlets at all. It was so bad before that an entire network sprung up to fill the gap. Essentially, the market has now balanced. The other major networks besides Fox are left-leaning, Fox is to the right, but more vocal about it. Perhaps the other method is even more effective though, as the bias isn't nearly as obvious, but still just as prevalent. Also, Fox is outnumbered 4-1 (5, if MSNBC continues to sway left), so maybe they have to be more vocal just to keep the playing field level.



I could go down that path, but that really is defeating my purpose, as I don't prefer diviseness at all. Let's just say 'baby-killers', and leave it at that...and note that all of the major networks as well as the print media ran with it fairly extensively. If anything, 'the left' has been the more vitriolic over the years (Alec Baldwin's rant on SNL ring a bell?, and did you watch Keith Olberman's recent commentary on O'Reilly...truly looked like the man had snapped, pretty scary, actually). But again, I don't like it either way...stopped listening to Rush loooong ago, and can only take Fox in small doses. Stopped following the major networks even before that. MSNBC used to be the neutral party, but Olberman is certainly changing that. I could point it out every time I see it, but that would be essentially every time you see a political soundbite, so I think you'd get very tired of the messages. It's the way politics is played now...been that way all along, actually, just better coverage of it now. Cheney's talk is actually fairly subtle (Blackstone has a valid point, although I'm sure the 'between the lines' you mention is also completely intentional), and the 'Taliban wing' is a newspaper columnist being sensational to get readers and buzz. I could come up with a long similar list of comments towards the right. Ain't going to stop it, just have to learn to filter it out. The parties have decided to fight fire with fire, so it'll be a matter of who's most effective at it. Trust me, any time you see anyone (from either party) repeat what they heard a politician say on the news or from a pundit, they're just carrying the message as intended. I believe it was the Democrats, after 1994, that first developed the process of having a message and staying 'on point.' This is just a continuation of that. The battle lines for the next round of elections are forming, and battles don't generally go to the meek, so expect more of the same...from both parties.

That’s your opinion and you are welcome to it, BUT... I believe it is intellectually lazy to disregard the point by criticizing the quantity or quality of the sources instead of responding to the real issue, which is whether or not Cheney’s comments crossed a line. You don’t believe they did, fine.

And by the way, I saw his comments, in toto. His intent is crystal clear.


Political mudslinging is one thing, but I believe this went too far. It’s one thing to characterize every American citizen who didn’t vote for him as a terrorist sympathizer, but this is a representative who was legitimately elected by the voters of a particular state. Would he have made the same comments had Lieberman won? No.

One word: puh-leeeeeze. That would be funny if it wasn’t so absurd.

From the man himself:

Maybe he's just being too sensitive.

There is no left wing media Hobbes, unless you buy into that whole myth of the 'liberal' media which has been proven false time and time again. There might have been a time decades ago when that description might have fit (think the Goodnight and Good Luck days), but I'd instead call it a responsible media - a media that did the job of providing a check on the government. Now what we have is a corporate media which sells entertainment - not news, and separately we have FoxNews which plays cheerleader for the GOP regardless of what they do.

But it is a fact that probably 90-95% of all talk radio echos right wing talking points. Aside from a few local programs there basically was nothing on the left there till Air America came around.


That is reaching pretty far back don't you think? Even then I can't say for sure but I'm pretty sure that it wasn't politicians saying those kinds of things it was activists. That isn't the same thing. Unless you've got a series of quotes flowing from the White House on down through the ranks then it isn't even close to the same thing.

All that aside, I just don't see why you have to put conditions on the answer. Politics has always been a dirty game, the GOP in the last decade or more has taken it to new levels. There was an extensive thread on that during the 2004 election you can look up where I was sparring with Aquilla - but if you review the thread objectively you'll see I'm right. Now you effectively have the White House leading the charge when I don't think you can say that was the case at any other time in history. The executive branch should be above that. It is unacceptable.

But definitely expect more of it, the GOP is going to do everything it can to equate Democrats with terrorists. They've done it before to a degree, expect it to reach new levels of insanity in 2006 and 2008.

So predictable. No analysis whatsoever. Just - It's obvious! It's obvious! He said "Democrats" and "Qaeda" somewhere vaguely in the same general paragraph, and he's DICK CHENEY! What more evidence do you need?!

As for Snow's comments, they're substantially the same as Cheney's, which is that he profoundly disagrees with the strategy advocated by Lamont and his supporters - one which you're totally unwilling to defend. And Cheney is not in any way responsible for everything some columnist says, any more than Democratic politicians are responsible for the racist cartoons of Condoleeza Rice put out by Jeff Danziger and others.


This is just so classic. You know the media are on your side, you know the drumbeat against Iraq is picking up steam and making it harder for us to win over there, so all you feel like you need to do is run interference on any discussion on the matter, and things will continue to go your way. Maybe they will. But I don't know what you're doing on a forum called America's Debate if you're not interested in debating the things you supposedly feel are so important.

If you don't want to talk about the Democrats' strategy for Iraq on this thread (even though you brought it up here - another classic tactic that you and a few others on your side just love to use), perhaps you'd be interested in sharing your ideas on this one. I set up that thread specifically for those posters who chronically bring up Iraq on other threads in order to take swipes at the administration, before deciding that they don't want to talk about it because it's "off topic". To date, none of the usual pot-shotters showed up on that thread to answer the questions I asked. I wonder why that could be.



Add that to my list - in addition to "smearing", "intimidation", and "chilling effect", we have "partisan advantage". I'm curious how Cheney, Lieberman, or anyone else, could express their opinions without incurring any of these insane objections. Basically they're expected to just shut their mouths altogether. I mean, how dare they criticize their political opponents! Who ever heard of such a thing?

You must have forgotten to read my whole post, because it was laid out pretty clearly. I don't intend to make it any clearer so if you disagree that's fine. I made my point, I don't care to refine it. Feel free to re-read it if you so desire.


If you want to consult my posting history, you know all 2,761 posts, you'll find that I've commented substaintially on Iraq here. I really don't have any desire to participate in your thread because I don't really see the point and I won't be "called out" and forced to post in a thread. It remains off topic for this discussion.


If you can't see the distinction between criticizing and/or disagreeing with political opponents and equating them with terrorists or terrorist sympathizers either directly or via proxies then I'm afraid there isn't much that we can discuss blackstone.

You mean here:


Or here:


Yeah, real solid analysis there. And you must have forgotten to read the part in my post where I explained how he's no more responsible for Cal Thomas than Ned Lamont is for Jeff Danziger.


Of course you don't see the point. It would mean having to defend your views on a thread where they can be scrutinized fully without the mods coming in and cutting the discussion short. Don't worry, you're not the only one around here who avoids those types of situations like the plague.

Yawn...

It is a well established pattern that the very day the White House or the GOP at large starts trying to circulate some kind of talking point it gets picked up on and escalated by every right wing columnist and pundit out there. There isn't anything sent out (that I'm aware of) explicitly encouraging people to take some action but daily/weekly talking points come out all the time and lo and behold they are dutifully picked up by the aforementioned parties. How do I know this? Because I've placed myself on several of these email lists and it doesn't take too much analysis to get an email laying out talking points and then see what the right-wing side of the house is talking about to put 2 and 2 together.

There is nothing equivalent for the Democratic party, it just doesn't exist. It would be great if it did, not because it would be a good thing but because it would counterbalance the other side.

Now once again you have an opportunity to critically analyze this for yourself and determine if that is in fact the case or you can simply go on the defensive again and ignore it. Do whatever you like, but I don't feel it is my job to "win you over", I'm just expressing my viewpoint.

This is all so terribly fascinating, but the debate question is whether Cheney's comments themselves were out of line, not whether Cal Thomas's columns were ghost-written by Cheney or Karl Rove. Personally, I consider it a safe bet that Thomas has enough of a mind of his own to come up with his own arguments, but ultimately, that's neither here nor there. Perhaps you could start a topic comparing the various ways in which the two parties get their messages out, and comparing which one is more "ethical" than the other.

But as it is, Cheney's comments themselves were within the realm of legitimate debate. As can be clearly seen from the text of his comments, he did not accuse voters in Connecticut of sympathizing with al-Qaeda, merely of having a faulty strategy for dealing with them. You and many Democrats disagree with his opinion, and that's all there really is to it.

Its really irrelevant to parse the actual words Cheney spoke as this is classic Rovian strategy, keep mentioning two unrelated things in the same sentence over and over and people will start to associate them regardless of context. In the run-up to the war, it was "9/11" and "Iraq". Its not just being paranoid to see the same thing being done with "Democrats" and "Al Qaeda", and its interesting that he specifically used "Al Qaeda types" rather than "terrorists". I'll be watching for more conjunctions of "democratic candidate" and "al Qaeda" as we near the election.

I'm sorry, this is just plain nonsense. The only thing that makes people look at it and think he's equating the two is when pro-Democrat commentators "interpret" for them that way.

To go by your standards, it's impossible for Cheney to criticize the Democrats at all in the WOT, because it would inevitably involve saying "Democrats" and "Qaeda" somewhere on the same page. You're basically saying he should just shut up and let the Dems own the mike.

Again, this seems to imply this is purely a Republican strategy. Where do you think it came from? Think James Carville never employed such tactics, and on a constant basis, and, for that matter, using equally 'vicious' comparisons? Democrats complaining about this now is the epitome of the pot calling the kettle black. I point this out because if you truly want it to stop, you need to be aware that it comes from both sides, and raise a flag whenever your side employs it as well. Otherwise your criticism carries no weight whatsoever.

I don't buy this. I can't think of a specific instance of a Democrat (or third party) equating the other party member to a mass murderer, or aiding and abetting a mass murderer...but if it has happened, I'd be willing to bet a public apology was demanded and given...and no doubt with a great deal of self-flagellation.

Please give me an example of, say, a Democratic senator, calling his Republican opponent a murderer (or even a traitor-that's another favorite tactic of the GOP), or accusing him/her of helping a murderer.

Or course you don't buy it...people seldom criticize messages they agree with. Note the example given here: Democrats see blatant criticism of their patriotism, Republicans see a valid point regarding strategy. This is exactly why these tactics work. I already provided the murderer example (and I don't remember any apology), there are numerous other ones. Consider all the vitriol spewed after the election, heck after each of the last two. What about all the comparisons of Republicans with Nazi's (which anyone being objective is a very apt comparison to that being discussed here). Quite frankly, if you don't see it now, my providing examples of it here has little possibility of doing any good, as its been going on for decades now, and is fairly blatant. Take a look at Carville's quotes...just about every single one of them does EXACTLY what is being complained about here. Anyone who wants to see it can do so quite easily, anyone who doesn't won't see it no matter how many times it is pointed out. Heck, you did it yourself right here in this thread...he's not Vice President Dick Cheney, he's the Dark One. Anyone with that outlook is not likely to see any examples given as being anything outlandish or uncalled for.

I may be missing a page or two here but I don't see that anywhere in this thread, no links or quotes. Can you provide them?

What would be the point of providing them? It's been going on, and pretty blatantly, for decades. If someone hasn't noticed it by now, I really don't see how my providing some links here is going to change their mind. The 'baby-killers' was extensively covered in the press, and not refuted here...if that's not sufficient, I'm really not sure what needs to be shown. Were I to provide them, arguments would just be made over their intent or meaning, making it a wasted effort. Ask any Republican person you know if it occurs...every one of them will tell you yes. The other side seldom sees it, because by design they tap into preconceived notions. Any examples I provided would simply be argued over just like this one is. Howard Dean utters things much worse than this on almost a daily basis, and he's the spokesperson of the Democratic party. In fact, it's fairly staggering to me to even have to have this conversation.
Why would anyone assume only one side used any set of tactics? I can only think that the answer to that question would go into the very stereotypes put out about Republicans that I'm talking about here.

We are talking about the Vice President of the United States playing word games to equate the Democrats with terrorists. Do you have an example of a former Vice President of the United States doing anything remotely like that Hobbes? Or anyone even remotely close to that stature?

I didn't think so.

.

Thanks for proving my point...and without even having to provide the examples.

Did you bother to answer my question about why anyone would assume there was a difference? To borrow a phrase, I didn't think so.

Quite frankly, the degree of bias it would take to not believe this occurs on both sides is pretty breathtaking.

Well, Al Gore used a Nazi comparison when he said that The Bush administration works closely with a network of rapid response digital brownshirts who work to pressure reporters and their editors for 'undermining support for our troops.'

And Senator Dick Durbin compared our troops to Pol Pot. Etc. Hobbes is right - pointless.

After the OKC bombing in 1995, Democrats were being only slightly (if at all) subtle in suggesting that Republican rhetoric against big government gave encouragement to anti-government extremists like McVeigh.

If it was not for the U.K, thousands of Americans would have died somewhere over the ocean. This is the problem with terrorism, it only takes a small group of people to conduct an attack, nothing the size of an army, or even something as visible as such. There needs to be a bolster of resources to conduct information warfare, that is how you are going to kill terrorism, they are in every country in the mideast and most countries around the world, such is evident in the variation found amongst Taliban prisoners taken in Afghanistan, and in 9-11 a large amount of the terrorists on those planes were from Saudi Arabia.

The war in Iraq is a stagnant mess of civil discord on the brink of civil war. The U.S force there cannot or does not operate as indiscriminately as Israel does or for the most part our forces have to fight with a blind fold on to save Iraq from becoming a crater, I think they are even trying to make it so U.S forces have to aim for capture over killing an insurgent, though I am not sure on that one. Now the army is having budget issues, even though we have an administration that is so pro army that none can rival the real patriots

Terrorism is alive and well, and what has the GWOT gotten us, the patriot act, which is indiscriminate and killing personal or civil rights, operated by a deficit of intelligence personal, the real weapon to use against terrorism, being that’s terrorisms primary weapon. What has the patriot act gotten us, last time I checked not much, a cop busted some Arab folk with a rather large amount of disposable cell phones, which I am sure are nasty to the environment, point being it was a patrol cop, not the patriot act.

We have also diverted massive resources from the war in Afghanistan, against the Taliban, the people behind 9-11 and what America really knows as terrorism, not only in a current but past sense. We are still fighting in both areas, though in Afghanistan it seems our forces can operate with more success giving the environment in relation to the design and implementation of our armed forces.

The current administrations strategy is one to stay the course, not much talk past that, and I ask for what, what I posted above, I am sorry but i would vote for a new republican administration or some group of people from Saturn if they would bring something new to the table, or have the brains to deviate from the current course of action.

The current administrations strategy is not to talk about the reality of the current world geography, its to provide and endless assault of slander really, how to you respect that past being a die hard follower of something? I simply cant understand this. Every time this administration talks, its usually just some speech completely devoid of any substance, just some pep talk really, or a painting that is not in touch with reality. The only other time you hear about them in relation to the GWOT is usually Rumsfeld(hack) being called to defend the mess in Iraq, in which he usually just gets kind of violent and talks about how great everything is.

I vote for change, not for democrats or republicans, just change.

More than slightly subtle: Use of "Far Right" and "Extreme" Labels Link Conservatives and Terrorists , and clearly appropriate for this thread. It also goes to show the myth of the lack of any left-leaning bias in the press, rapidly pushing talking points. This link does not show any quotes regarding this from the Clinton administration, FWIW, solely comments from the media (it's a media watch site).

As for current similar comments from a leading Democrat, here are two:

GOP has 'dark, difficult and dishonest' vision

A Scathing Chairman Dean Finds Republicans 'Evil,' 'Corrupt' and 'Brain-Dead'

The argument will probably be brought up that Dean's position is different that Cheney's. Given current positions within their parties, that is highly debatable...both are party spokesmen. What Dean may lack in status, he more than makes up for in vitriol, as any comparison of the comments will reveal. Have to go back to the last millenium to when Democrats were in power to find comments from the same position, and google is being very recalcitrant to pull up any transcripts at all, much less anything specific to what we're discussing here, for quotes that long ago.

However, as I said initially, I don't want to get into a tit for tat discussion here. I can't see that leading to anywhere good. I think the argument can be brought down to why anyone would assume only one group would use any tactic. That would almost certainly come down to a moral argument...only 'they' do it because only 'they' stoop to such tactics. I'm not sure we want to go down that path, either. I admire your passion and party loyalty, CJ and Daffy... but thinking this type of thing is one-sided is only going to ensure it will continue.

Based on the context it appears he would have said this as a private citizen, which is a big difference. If he runs for office again feel free to hold it against him.


Well first of all it'd be nice to see the quote and the date in full context, sorry if I just don't trust you right off the bat here.

And yeah he is right, it is pointless but not for the reasons he has said. It is pointless because everyone here seems to want to play the well so and so said it too game instead of just owning up and saying that it was inappropriate as the debate question squarely asks. If some Democrat says something like that in the future please feel free to start a thread and inform us about it, and I'm sure we can all agree it is inappropriate. This specific thread happens to be about Cheney and regardless of who has done what in the past it still doesn't change whether it is acceptable behavior for the Vice President of the United States.

The amount of party loyalty and cheerleading on threads like this is just frankly sickening.

Actually, the debate question includes "those who made similar comments" as well. Therefore, the question as written is not "specifically about Cheney," otherwise it wouldn't be much of a debate, but a rant-fest which would be more appropriate for a blog spot. It is entirely topic-related to bring up "so and so" as well in the context of this discussion.

DaffyGrl:

Are you kidding me? Please see this site, and it even comes with pictures:

http://tinyurl.com/2bjxf

I am otherwise still waiting for John Glenn's apology and self-flagellation [commenting on Republican campaigning vis-a-vis John Kerry, immediately after the GOP convention]:

"You've just got to separate out fact from fiction...Too often, too often, in this country, if you hear something repeated, it's the old Hitler business -- if you hear something repeated, repeated, repeated, repeated, you start to believe it."

Daffy, I was not previously aware that the noted phenomenon started with Hitler, Goebbels, and Das Reich, and so and again, I'm still waiting for that apology and self-flagellation [Machiavelli would otherwise be stunned by Mr. Glenn's erroneous attribution of credit when it comes to the matter of a lying propaganda].

And, Daffy, you'll have to indulge me, but since I find the whole Bush = Hitler/Republicans = fascists-Nazis thing to be nothing more than a lying propaganda in more modern form [see: http://tinyurl.com/nsslf ], well, please indulge me. Thanks. First off, Hitler was on the left, and not the right. There's the very name of the party itself: National SOCIALIST German WORKER'S Party. And here are the relevant provisions of Hitler's 25 point plan, which is rather leftist in nature:

http://tinyurl.com/c8wel

Hitler and Himmler were otherwise big on organic farming, and as you presumably know, Hitler himself was a vegan. And a certain leftist element here in the US wants to stop animal experimentation. Hitler did just that. Of course, we cannot say the same about his experimentation on Jewish children. The moral of that? As one wise soul observed, when some speak of treating animals like humans, know that they mean to treat humans like animals.

And then there's Hitler's own words, spoken on 1 May 1927:

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."

And so, as I posted on that other thread, as that other wise soul once said, fascism is nothing but Marxist heresy and so by way of further explaining that, by way of answering the question of why Hitler went to war with his fellow socialist by the name of Yosef Stalin, recall again the name, as I wrote it before, National SOCIALIST German WORKER's Party, and that is [the CAPS] the socialist element. The heresy is, as stated prior, the intrusion of race and so the Marxist heresy reads as NATIONAL Socialist GERMAN Worker's Party. And that explains Hitler's war with Stalin, at least in part, since the USSR represented INTERNATIONAL, and not NATIONAL and GERMAN socialism [and need I report that "international" socialism leaves no room for a "national" "German" socialism?].

As for the rest of Hitler's external enemies, well, simply recall that running dog right wing capitalists like myself were the inventors of the INTERNATIONAL GLOBAL profit-producing concern, and so, in the minds of the Hitlerites, we must either be part of world Jewry or else their conspirators or lackeys, and as such, and as stated by Hitler himself, worthy of death. Which brings me to the anti-globalists of our day. Fascists like Hitler. And their running riot in Seattle and some other places as well has Hitler's Brownshirts [SA] written all over it.

And if anyone on the left ever tries to compare me and the rest of the right to Mussolini, well, first, fine, since at least Mussolini and the Italian fascists refused to deport Jews for execution by the Nazis. And that was Hitler's sin, yes? Second [ http://tinyurl.com/qv5f6 ]:

"Nazism was inspired by Italian Fascism, an invention of hardline Communist Benito Mussolini. During World War I, Mussolini recognized that conventional socialism wasn't working. He saw that nationalism exerted a stronger pull on the working class than proletarian brotherhood. He also saw that the ferocious opposition of large corporations made socialist revolution difficult. So in 1919, Mussolini came up with an alternative strategy. He called it Fascism. Mussolini described his new movement as a "Third Way" between capitalism and communism. As under communism, the state would exercise dictatorial control over the economy. But as under capitalism, the corporations would be left in private hands."

Third, the fascists are, well, let us look at Mussolini's fascist program:

- The nationalization of all the arms and explosives factories.
- A strong progressive tax on capital that will truly expropriate a portion of all wealth.
- The seizure of all the possessions of the religious congregations and the abolition of all the bishoprics, which constitute an enormous liability on the Nation and on the privileges of the poor.
- The formation of a National Council of experts for labor, for industy, for transportation, for the public health, for communications, etc. Selections to be made from the collective professionals or of tradesmen with legislative powers, and elected directly to a General Commission with ministerial powers.
- A minimum wage.
- The participation of workers' representatives in the functions of industry commissions

That's all from Mussolini's 1919 "Fascist Manifesto." And he would have made a fine, upstanding member of the Green Party, since he (1) mandated the use of a gasohol [gasoline and industrial alcohol], (2) decreed a smaller size for newspapers, to save wood pulp, and (3) decreed that rural residents could not move to the city unless official permission was given.

And Mussolini's corporate state is not that of Dubya and the Republicans, since Mussolini divided all Italian business into 22 state owned corporations, thereby hoping to exert government control over all business [and not the other way around as claimed by the illiberal left].

And not that I want to smear FDR, but he was a leftist, yes? And the New Deal is a socialist program, yes? Well, it was only FDR who called Stalin, Uncle Joe, and who referred to Benito as that "admirable Italian gentleman." As Joseph Stromberg has written:

"In 1954, Hofstadter chided those who had worried about "several close parallels" between FDR's N.R.A. and fascist corporatism. There are more than "several" parallels. In 1944, John T. Flynn made the case in As We Go Marching, where he enumerated the stigmata of generic fascism, surveyed the interwar policies of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, and pointed to uncomfortably similar American policies. For Flynn, the hallmarks of fascism were: 1) unrestrained government; 2) an absolute leader responsible to a single party; 3) a planned economy with nominal private ownership of the means of production; 4) bureaucracy and administrative "law"; 5) state control of the financial sector; 6) permanent economic manipulation via deficit spending; 7) militarism, and 8) imperialism (pp. 161-62). He proceeded to show that all these were alive and well under the wartime New Deal administration (pp. 166-258). Pragmatic American liberalism had produced "a genteel fascism" without the ethnic persecutions and full-scale executive dictatorship seen overseas. Flynn found this insufficiently cheering. Some may call Flynn's catalogue of fascist traits arbitrary. Perhaps, but Flynn listed things he found; he did not make them up."

Mussolini otherwise learned much from the American "Progressives" of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Recall again, the fascist goal of a state controlled economy, the reduction of profits with their consequent exploitation of the workers, and that decree about not moving into the city without official permission. Well, commenting on the "Progressives" in America, De Corte writes:

"Originally, progressive reformers sought to regulate irresponsible corporate monopoly, safeguarding consumers and labor from the excesses of the profit motive. Furthermore, they desired to correct the evils and inequities created by rapid and uncontrolled urbanization."

And as James Loewen notes in his Lies My Teacher Told Me, simply recall also that Woodrow Wilson, that leftist Democrat, reversed the integration policy of Lincoln when it came to the federal goverment. As Charles Freund has also described the matter:

"Upon taking power in Washington, Wilson and the many other Southerners he brought into his cabinet were disturbed at the way the federal government went about its own business. One legacy of post-Civil War Republican ascendancy was that Washington's large black populace had access to federal jobs, and worked with whites in largely integrated circumstances. Wilson's cabinet put an end to that, bringing Jim Crow to Washington. Wilson allowed various officials to segregate the toilets, cafeterias, and work areas of their departments."

And Woody the racist also gave his endorsement to that notoriously racist film called Birth of a Nation.

Now back to the American "Progressives." Well, see the picture here, and you'll know from just where some got their straight-arm salute:

http://tinyurl.com/j229j

And now you also know why we have compulsory public education and also why the Demcrats are largely against school vouchers. Hard for the miscreants/Democrats to indoctrinate our children when our children are not compelled to be in their classroom.

And for irony, here's one man's description of the ideal candidate for some on the left:

http://tinyurl.com/f9lrr

And to now set our friends at Commondreams straight on one point, one that happens to be central to the premise of the above-cited work:

"Contrary to the Marxists, the Nazis did not advocate public ownership of the means of production. They did demand that the government oversee and run the nation's economy. The issue of legal ownership, they explained, is secondary; what counts is the issue of CONTROL. Private citizens, therefore, may continue to hold titles to property -- so long as the state reserves to itself the unqualified right to regulate the use of their property."

And so there is no comparison between right wing Republicans and the Nazis on that score, the Big Lie of Commondreams notwithstanding.

And now please note that even the neo-Nazis of today's America are not far right, since they don't like capitalism. Read their literature. They are socialists. Racist socialists, but socialists nonetheless. The only reason why they are thought to be on the right is because some on the left have lied to us all for the last 60 years or so by reporting that Hitler was on the right, and since Hitler's poster hangs on the bedroom wall of the neo-Nazi, well, you get the point. But to make it forever clear that leftists can indeed be racist to their very core, here are the words of Marx:

"It has been shown geologically and hydrographically that a great ‘Asiatic’ difference occurs east of the Dnieper [my note, that great river in the Ukraine], compared with what lies to the west of it, and that (as Murchison has already maintained) the Urals by no means constitute a dividing line. Result as obtained by Duchinski: Russia is a name usurped by the Muscovites. They are not Slavs; they do not belong to the Indo-Germanic race at all, they are des intrus [intruders], who must be chased back across the Dnieper..."[and so also, if one wonders why Hitler tried to purge eastern Europe, say hello to Karl Marx everyone]

"I now see clearly that he is descended, as the shape of his head and his hair clearly indicate, from the Negroes who were joined to the Jews at the time of the exodus from Egypt (unless it was his mother or paternal grandmother who mated with a Negro). But this mixture of Judaism and Germanism with a negro substance as a base was bound to yield a most curious product. The importunity of the man also is negroid...One of the great discoveries of this Negro, which he confided to me, is that the Pelasgians are descended from the Semites. His main proof is that, according to the Book of Maccabees, the Jews sent messengers to Greece to ask for help and appealed to their tribal relationship..."

Marx = racist. Now Engels:

"Paul, the candidate of the Jardin des Plantes - and the animals...Being in his quality as a nigger a degree nearer to the rest of the animal kingdom than the rest of us, he is undoubtedly the most appropriate representative of that district."

"I have arrived at the conviction that there is nothing to his [Tremaux's] theory if for no other reason than because he neither understands geology nor is capable of the most ordinary literary historical criticism. One could laugh oneself sick about his stories of the nigger Santa Maria and of the transmutations of the whites into Negroes. Especially, that the traditions of the Senegal niggers deserve absolute credulity, just because the rascals cannot write!...Perhaps this man will prove in the second volume, how he explains the fact, that we Rhinelanders have not long ago turned into idiots and niggers on our own Devonian Transition rocks...Or perhaps he will maintain that we are real niggers."

Engels = racist.

So one can be leftist and racist, whether one be Marx, Engels, or Woodrow Wilson. The two, leftist and rascist, are simply not contradictory, though, again, some have done their best to lie about their ideological history.

And speaking of racism, and parallels, please note that to the extent that the Democratic Kampuchea of Pol Pot, Ieng Sary, Khieu Samphan, et. al., spoke of a Khmer socialist revolution and otherwise did its best to exterminate the Cham minority and make life miserable, even deadly, for the Sino, Sino-Khmer, Viet, and Viet-Khmer persons within its territorial jurisdiction, well, suffice it to say that the match between the Nazis and the Khmer Rouge in that respect is rather exact.

Now, have you ever heard of R.J. Rummel, he who modifed that famous Lord Acton phrase to read: power kills, absolute power kills absolutely? Well, from R.J. Rummel:

http://tinyurl.com/qy76b

The short point being, for those so fond of the Bush = Hitler/Republicans = fascists nonsense:

"What is socialism? It is a politico-economic philosophy that believes government must direct all major economic decisions by command, and thus all the means of production for the greater good, however defined. There are three major divisions of socialism, all antagonistic to each other. One is democratic socialism, that places the emphasis on democratic means, but then government is a tool for improving welfare and equality. A second division is Marxist-Leninism, which based on a "scientific theory" of dialectical materialism, sees the necessity of a dictatorship ("of the proletariat") to create a classless society and universal equality. Then, there is the third division, or state socialism. This is non or anti-Marxist dictatorship that aims at near absolute economic control for the purpose of economic development and national power, all construed to benefit the people.

Mussolini's fascism was a state socialism that was explicitly anti-Marx and aggressively nationalistic. Hitler's National Socialism was state socialism at its worse. It not only shared the socialism of fascism, but was explicitly racist. In this it differs from the state socialism of Burma today, and that of some African and Arab dictatorships.

Two prevailing historical myths that the left has propagated successfully is that Hitler was a far right wing conservative and was democratically elected in 1933 (a blow at bourgeois democracy and conservatives). Actually, he was defeated twice in the national elections (he became chancellor in a smoke-filled-room appointment by those German politicians who thought they could control him -- see "What? Hitler Was Not Elected?") and as head of the National Socialist German Workers' Party, he considered himself a socialist, and was one by the evidence of his writings and the his economic policies. "

Readers of the late Iris Chang's The Rape of Nanking will otherwise be familiar with Mr. Rummel, since Iris discusses his work and the term that he coined, to wit, "democide", in her work.

So, please, one and all, Dubya is not a socialist, so he is neither Hitler nor Mussolini. The Republican Party is also not socialist, and so the Republican Party cannot be equated with the National Socialist German Worker's Party, all of the dissembling on the part of Commondreams, MoveOn.org, and the rest of the usual suspects, notwithstanding. Or as R.J. Rummel himself puts it [ http://tinyurl.com/h633m ]:

"Link of Note

”Bush-Hitler Links” A webpage of the Fallout Shelter News

This is for those of you who may not appreciate how crazy, in the full meaning of the word, some of the hatred of President Bush has become."

And to belatedly contribute my response to that one topic post that won the one award for best topic, re why the divide in this country, simple, some of us do not associate with known loons who are so morally bankrupt that they would (1) first lie to us about Hitler's leftist-socialism [since the truth would mean one less reason to join their cause] and (2) then have the unmitigated gall to compare some others, Dubya, to Hitler, and call him a fascist. But let that be the moral of the story, to wit, those making the comparison have an argument/position without any merit whatsoever and so they must rather falsely deny their own leftist, fascist, past, and otherwise engage in what even inmate Hussein would consider the mother of all argumentum ad hominem. And those of you who jumped on that bandwagon, led by those who posted that nonsense article asking us all to compare modern America with the fascism of Hitler and Mussolini, well, time to understand that you've been played for fools.

And, no, some of us don't just criticize the Dems, but also Libertarians, as Mr. Rummel himself does [though he calls himself a "freedomist"]:

"However, on foreign policy the libertarian, with some exceptions, is an isolationist, fundamentally opposed to foreign involvements and interventions. Let international relations also be free, the libertarians say, which means free trade and commerce, and freedom for other countries to do whatever they want with their people. Not our business.

On this, the libertarians are blinded by their desire for freedom, not realizing that everything, including freedom demands contextual qualification (should those with a dangerous infectious disease remain free, when they could spread it far and wide, killing maybe hundreds with it?). By their isolationism, libertarians are making the world safe for the gangs of thugs (called dictatorships) that murder, torture, and oppress a people, and rule by fear.

Not our business, the libertarian still will say, although his fundamental belief in freedom is being violated in the most horrible ways. By implication, his isolationism is declaring that since it’s some body else that’s suffering, not me, my loved ones, or my friends, it’s okay. But besides this basic human me and mine, it is also a blindness to his own welfare. For in an age of readily transportable biological weapons, such as anthrax, and nuclear weapons, no longer can a country like the U.S. sit back and ignore what goes on elsewhere in the production and deliverability of such weapons. In the hands of those who hate the democracies and their libertarian values, democracies have too much vulnerability to attack. Now, involvement and intervention in the rapacious affairs of thug regimes is of necessity a protection of democracies, not to mention advancing human rights and the freedom libertarians praise. Quite simply, no thug regimes can be trusted with either the possession or the capability of producing such weapons."

See: http://tinyurl.com/45erj

Lastly, for some numbers on Democide:

http://tinyurl.com/n5ubx

And to the anti-war crowd, please note from that last, that war is not the biggest killer.

Sorry, one more, for more on "democide", please see:

http://tinyurl.com/gorxg

And even one more, as to why our freedomist named Rummel supports Dubya:

"What you will read on this web site will be astounding and shocking. You will read that democracies do not make war on other democracies and rarely engage in lesser violence against each other. You also will read that the more a nation is democratically free, the less severe its foreign and internal political violence. Moreover, you will read that somewhere around 170,000,000 people have been murdered by their own governments, aside from war, and that the more democratic a nation the less it murders its own people. As if this were not enough, you will also read that democratic freedom promotes wealth and prosperity. Finally, you will read that our basic foreign policy should be to promote democratic freedom around the world. In short, you will read that were the world to become wholly democratic, then to the best of our knowledge war would be completely eliminated for the human species, lesser political violence, genocide, and mass murder would be minimized, famine eliminated, and poverty and inequality would be sharply reduced."

Lastly, truly, please see:

http://tinyurl.com/hek8o

Well actually Mrs P. if you want to get technical about it, the "similar comments" part would only apply to the people that I was talking about in one of my posts because in the proper context this debate is not about politicians making nasty comments, it is about what Cheney said specifically.

Seems to me that context requires some basis for comparison to determine whether it "went too far". IMO, yes it went overboard and no politician should make such comments. That is my opinion, but I don't see how it is more "overboard" than other commentary I've heard from the other side (as others have demonstrated).

How many times have I heard that Bush has made us less safe and is thereby helping terrorists? Or for that matter, that he knew about 911 and/or is actually personally responsible for it? Charges of treason? Need I actually look up what has been actively debated over the last three years?

There's a lot of blame to go around for why it has gotten this ugly.

ExCUSE me?!?! Where exactly did I say Bush=Hitler, etc? This is coming totally out of left field, and I don’t appreciate you putting words in my mouth.


Actually, the “those who made similar comments” meant similar comments to Cheney’s, i.e., equating Democrats with terrorists (as Tony Snow and Chuck Roberts did), NOT similar in a historic, anything goes context. I guess I should have been more clear.

As for the other examples that have been brought up (Dean, etc.), general insults, while ugly, petty and mean-spirited, are hardly the same as equating an entire political party/philosophy with terrorists.

Did Cheney and those who made similar comments go too far?
No. It is clear from what we know of the terrorists and “insurgents” that THEY feel they need to turn the American public against the war so that we will “pull out” and they will have the opportunity to kill the new government in Iraq before it is capable of defending itself. This does not mean that everyone has to agree with DC or anyone else but the fact is if we put up a “pull out date” we can be sure the terrorists will do everything possible to make sure that when wee leave they will be in a position to win.

IMO the terrorists know that when the Iraqi army, which outnumbers them many times over, is trained, equipped and ready to take over, they will have no chance to win. They are encouraged by events in our past like Vietnam. We fought the war badly (far worse than anything happening in Iraq) and when the American public and the politicians lost their will we bailed out. The country fell to the enemy in weeks.

Bottom line is that in a free country Lamont and Cheney did not go too far.

In this instance, yes...although he is still a prominent member of the Democratic party, which makes it analogous. It is also something he said previously, back in 1996, I think. I have references to the prior statement, but not the statement itself...as I said above, google doesn't appear to want to offer up anything much from that time frame. Will keep looking.



I agree completely. This is in fact exactly what I have been trying to point out.

Note the links to Dean's statements, which have gone unrefuted here, and the refusal by those here to accept that their side of the fence has any mud in it. The calls for references to some of these statements here is valid. However, the Nazi comments have not only recieved widespread media coverage, they have been discussed in multiple threads here...so it's not like there's much doubt they were uttered. Dean's statements were linked in this thread, and have received no comment. Links to similar comments relating Republicans to terrorists have been noted here, and not been refuted. Calls for reasons why someone would believe only one side would use such tactics have gone unanswered, and the likely reason for that mindset has been brought up and not refuted.

Here's the way I look at it Hobbes, mud is going to be tossed on both sides back and forth. I fully expect that from people like Mehlman and Dean (and for every Dean quote someone tosses out I can find something equal if not worse from Mehlman). I also expect it from activists and pundits. I don't like seeing it coming from the actual media but I've come to accept that is the new reality.

However, I draw the line when it comes to members of the executive because they are supposed to be representing the interests of the whole country, not just their party. I would also extend that to members of the supreme court and even those in senior leadership positions in the house and senate. I think the stature of those people means they need to be above the fray to a certain extent and hold themselves to a higher standard.

Furthermore, there is yet another line between typical mudslinging and equating the other party with terrorists. It sure parallels the McCarthyism of old.

As I said above, I agree with this...I do wish the executive branch operated in a politically neutral fashion. Personally, I think this should extend to fundraising and other events as well. However, that unfortunately is not the world we live in. Whichever administration is in power also operates as the head of its political party. In that environment, comments like those here are going to be made.

I suspect some of what raises your, Daffy's, and other's ire is the frequent comments from others declaring that dissent on the war, etc. is unpatriotic (something I have always criticized when I have seen it, btw). I don't think Cheney is implying that here, but making a pitch for what he sees as the correct strategy vs one he sees as the wrong strategy. However, I have been on the other side of that coin, and can understand where the feelings would come from, and how one would become sensitive to such statements.

The bigger issue here, I think, is the broad use of such statements and tactics in the political world has gone amok, and political strategy now does center on creating the proper soundbites and innuendos, rather than discussing actual issues. I think that is broader than this thread, but that the issue here is just an example of that.

And, yes, I agree that for every statement shown here, there is a corresponding one on the other side (that was really my only point to start with)...that's why I didn't want to go down that path providing a bunch of links. I don't like it either way, and have pretty much stopped listening to the conservative pundits who spread this, just as I rejected the liberal ones doing it before them.

Umm... except the difference is that McCarthy was RIGHT!!! hahahahaha...
I wish that term would be nixed. Frankly, for the most part, poor ol' Joe's conspiracy theories weren't really all that far off!

I personally believe that the mudslinging, partisan politics, and drawing lines in the sand has come to an all time high/low (whatever term you prefer!). It's not limited to the right or left, and seemingly has permeated our society more than ever. I'd love to see a day when more than a small fraction of the country isn't decided before an election process begins. It seems that most people you find have some sort of pre-conceived notion prior to any election, particularly based upon party. I have a saying that goes " politicians are basically like shiesty car salesman, in that they will say whatever it takes for you to buy into what they're selling". Politicians are just that... salesmen/women. Frankly, there's nothing wrong with sales (which is basically what I do), but it has to come with a level of integrity.

I don't care if you're talkin' about Bill Clinton or GW... I'm at the point where I have begun to question all that anyone says. Believe the Fed, believe the IRS (or else) and everything else has to be questioned as far as I'm concerned. It's sad, as I'm sure there still are honest politicians.... I just don't know who they are.

Did Cheney and those who made similar comments go too far?


Not really. He's preaching to the choir. No independent listens to what he has to say, or what all those other Rebub-loving talking heads say.

It wasn't too long ago that these same talking heads were predicting WW III with the Lebanon issue. They are so far out of reality that whatever they say is supposed to be true can be used as a reverse barometer. The truth is about 180 degrees to port.

So go ahead, accuse Demos of loving terrorists. Tell the world that Demos secretly had cake and ice cream on 9/11. Spread rumors that the new head of the DNC married OBL's sister. It's just serving to bring more distrust into an already distrustful electorate.

And go ahead and keep accusing Cheney of making any of these claims. It will indeed have the effect you describe.

Well lets see, I think the main talking point is wanting to change the issue of Iraq, not simply retreating on the war on terror, but of course the current administration would have you see something other then that.

No one talks about this point, its rather important though if you are trying to portray a defeatist group, what is really the platform. I am sorry, I could care less who runs for office if they have something of a plan that seems to make sense in combating terrorism, the current admin does not have one, they did provide a Vietnam though, but for some reason its utterly important to protect democracies in the mideast because it stops terrorism, which is not true of course, and of course we did not really aim to protect Lebanon. More to the point, we simply did not even look at Iran, really to me I think its because they did not have the worlds second largest supply of oil, I cant find any other reason to two got separated, we went into Iraq on the point of wmds, and with Iran actually having nuke programs, where is the talk, maybe its because the CIA could support that claim and the current admin does not favor intelligence, no pun intended.

Can someone actually bring up where the democrats simply want to flee from terrorism, I mean when bush took office what was he doing about terrorism, I don’t think much changed on that presidential hand off.

I think it might be easier to find a million points of light by the democrats in relation to the war in iraq, not simply trying to forget terrorism exists.

DaffyGrl:

I know that you did not say that Bush = Hitler and so I never said that you did. And it's only out in left field if we wish to limit the criticism to those holding elected office. I won't do that since those holding elected office don't live in their own little bubble world, separate and apart from the rest of us. As near as I can otherwise discern, the plan was that they be taken from and return to the common folk.

And there is a otherwise difference between the two. Cheney simply took a proposed course of action and reported what he believed to be one consequence of the same. And then he