Sen Ellison recently compared the political use of the Riechstag to the political pimping of 9/11 by the GW administration.

Notice- no one called Bush "hitler"- however- is the political use of these two events comparable?

Obviously, there was no massive loss of life from the Riechstag, but the result was the same- Hitler used this event to achieve poltical ends. 9/11 was a massive loss of life, a real shake up to the entire nation (though, it could be argued, the Riechstag was also a real psychological blow to the German poeple as well) - however, GW used this to political ends, far apart from the original need to go after those that harmed us.

So the question isL

Is it intellectually honest to compare the two events, seperating the other historical events that seperate Hitler and GW- such as genocide of the jews?

First, its Congressman Keith Ellison, not Senator Ellison.

rigggggghhttt... As long as someone doesn't say "Bush is Hitler", then they aren't accusing Bush of being like Hitler.

For those who haven't encountered what Ellison actually said, here it is:

"It's almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that. After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it, and it put the leader [Hitler] of that country in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted."

Obviously, there was no massive loss of life from the Riechstag, but the result was the same- Hitler used this event to achieve poltical ends. 9/11 was a massive loss of life, a real shake up to the entire nation (though, it could be argued, the Riechstag was also a real psychological blow to the German poeple as well) - however, GW used this to political ends, far apart from the original need to go after those that harmed us.

Is it intellectually honest to compare the two events, seperating the other historical events that seperate Hitler and GW- such as genocide of the jews?
No, it isn't intellectually honest, certainly not in the fashion that Ellison and most of the moonbats have done. Last I checked, we haven't had anything in the least bit comparable to the Enabling Decree passed. The opposition party hasn't been barred from Congress, etc, etc...

Is it intellectually honest to compare the two events, seperating the other historical events that seperate Hitler and GW- such as genocide of the jews?

Well, the Reichstag was a prominent building that burned, the WTC was a prominent building that burned. Emergency legislation passed in response to the Reichstag fire and emergency legislation passed in response to the WTC fire. That's about it. Emergency legislation always passes in response to large emergencies (that's, like, what the government is for) so this is hardly something surprising.

There were more substantial parallels to Pearl Harbor than the Reichstag fire...would the good Congressman accept that comparison?

No.

Of course the implication is that Hitler had a hand in the Reichstag's burning. Much like the LiHOP, MiHOP truther conspiracy theories. However, it actually was the Communists. Did Hitler make political hay out of the fire? No. He went hog wild berserk and changed everything out the country and put it on war footing.

9/11 and the Reichstag's fire are not comparable. It would be convenient if they were then all those Bushitler bumper stickers would be poignant and not just silly.

Pearl Harbor and 9/11 are comparable but then to use that analogy you'd have to admit that was is the correct response.

I agree. There are probably more apt comparisons. Of course, Mr. Ellison seems to prefer sticking with the "Hitleresque" version as it conveniently leads folks into thinking more on artificial parrallels between Bush & Hitler. Because there was so much more to the Reichstag fire than the notion of taking advantage of the situation, I am compelled to beleive that Ellison and his apologists wish the citizenry to make additional, more nefarious connections in the comparison. Foul ball...

Nope- Pearl harbor was nation vs nation- had nothing to do with "terrorists"- though FDR did work very hard on breaking down checks and balances- as it seems, every executive tries to d

However- the most apt comparison is this fire vs 9/11- GW has used it for more than "legislative action"- he has used to to justify everything from torture to property siezure to holding poeple indefinately without judicial review or due proccess.

Also- we used it as a pretext to "deal" with poeple that had nothing to do with 9/11- Saudi Arabia nationals financed 9/11, planned 9/11 and provided the poeple for the attack- we have yet to deal with Saudi Arabia- in fact, Saudi Arabia is STILL the main supplier of funds, ideology and bodies- we still haven't dealth with Saudi Arabia in any meaningful fashion. Saudi Arabia is still the #1 exporter of terrorism.

Personally, for me, the comparison isn't that good simply because GW is so inept- we would have been in for a world of hurt had he been competant- the fact that they couldn't even out CIA agents without being caught- it literally took a misuse of thier own power to keep them off the hook.

I don't remember saying the situations were identical, I said there were more substantial parallels. But I don't know why it matters whether the group that attacked us was sponsored by a recognized government or an unrecognized one... if a government is so criminal the world doesn't even acknowledge its existence we can't go to war with them if they attack us? Not sure I agree with that.



Germany didn't attack us. And Hitler was an Austrian. What was our beef with Germany anyway?


Per the topic...has all opposition been eliminated? Looks to me like Bush has less power than ever, not more. So, no parallel there. Where is the night of the long knives? Mass concentration/work camps? Elimination of the free press, ect, ad nauseum ect. It isn't even close.

yes, I would agree- GW failed where Hilter was succesful- I think it has alot more to do with the make up of the populations of our countries though- Germany was far more homogenous than we are- we are very diverse, and have a great deal many more checks and balances of power vs the flegdling republic of hitlers time-

that being said- they both used watershed psychological damage events in thier countries history to further thier own selfish politcal ideology- even though, both, I believe, have some delusional ideal that they think they are accomplishing.


Once again, I believe that the comparison falls apart because hitler was succesful in pushing his agenda and ideology through and GW was unsuccesful- though, we still have until 2008 for him to declare martial law and start naming 'enemies of the state"

Pearl harbor was an organized, state, battle line vs battle line declared war on the US- a huge difference betwween the political use of an act of terrorism, such as teh Riechstag was billed as in it's day, and was in 9/11.

In fact, listening to the moron- in-chief's radio address today- he is still pimpin' the dead of 9/11. I counted 10 times in like 5 minutes he used it to justify his policies.

I am waiting for "we cancelled school lunches because of 9/11, this policy will make us safer" - pretty much, they guy can't raise a goldfish in a bowl without pimping 9/11.

Hitler used the Riechstag as the center piece in his drive to squelch his oppostion- GW tried, just wasn't as succesful.

Success with furthering thier ideologies of hate and destruction is really all that seperate the two.

No, CR, GW's "failure" has far more to do with the simple fact that he didn't even try to become "The Leader."

If you truly believe that he's going to do that, then, as a "true patriot", I assume that you're developing a plan to put paid to Bushitler's nefarious schemes.

Classic Bush Derangement Syndrome.

So the question is

Is it intellectually honest to compare the two events

Yes, but very very carefully.

1. It allowed Bush to declare and prosecute an open ended "global war on terrorism" rather than bring police powers to bear on a fairly small particular jihadist group led by OBL that wanted to create a theocratic sharia based Caliphate over the Islamic world and violently remove what they felt were internal and external enemies to their plan for a broad Islamic state. The Nazis likewise took the fire as part of Jewish-communist effort to control the world and Germany in particular, way over reaching the meaning of the act which appears to have been the work of a single mentally imbalanced Dutch individual from Holland.

2. Both Bush and Hitler assumed extralegal powers although Bush obviously to a much lessor degree. Nevertheless Bush seemed to think he was executive, legislator and judge in many of his actions including taking an American citizen Padilla and confining him and torturing him apparently without his having any legal recourse.

3. Both had an expansionist agenda internationally and in both cases these events afforded the opportunity to pursue those agendas. In Bush's case that agenda is popularly known as PNAC and from what I understand on Sept. 12 2003 Rumsfeld was already expressing an interest in attacking Iraq. Iraq was perceived to be a "doable" staging area for future regime change efforts in places like Iran and Syria

4. Having read the Meershimer and Walts paper on the influence of the Israeli lobby and their strong neocon connection within the BA and their influence on the Iraq invasion one can't simply talk about an American response as unitary but perhaps more seriously talk about it as an American-Israeli response. As partly a proxy for Israel, a Zionist factor was introduced into the rationale for our Iraq invasion. We were in effect trying to change the ME political equation in the interests of a chauvinist state pursuing a particular religio-ethnic territorial agenda in conflict with its majority Muslim Arab neighbors. This has to be considered as having some similarities to what was going on in Germany although the differences were more pronounced than the similarities. Certainly Al Qaeda considered the Israeli Zionist factor a central issue in their Jihadist terror campaign.

5. In both the Iraq response and in the German invasions economic considerations, in our case access to ME oil, has to be factored into the reasoning.

6. In both events offense was couched in defensive terms. We must attack the folks who want our destruction first or they will destroy us - pre-emptive defense. Both attacked countries that were no provable threats to either in the name of defense.

7. There is the factor of cooking the intelligence to justify each nations policy.

8. Both regimes in their response ultimately showed contempt for the reigning international bodies of their time. In the case of the Nazis it was the League of Nations, in the case of the US it was the United Nations and the Security Council.

Bikerdad

I have a question.

The first two blocks of quoted text in your post #9 come from CR’s post #8., though they are not labeled as such. The third block of "quoted" text is "blah, blah, blah." In reviewing the eight posts that preceded your contribution, I do not find these words.

Could it be that you've created a straw man all on your own to knock over?

With your's being the 9th post in the thread, it's not that hard to find. If, however, there had been 50 or 100 posts, it might be a bit more cumbersome to verify - or perhaps not verify.

No, I haven't "created a straw man", I've paraphrased CR's argument in the interest of saving space and time. Unfortunately, my paraphrase was a little sloppy. EDIT And no, I don't attempt to "knock over"either the non-existent strawman or CR's argument. I simply describe CR's argument. Knocking it over is an exercise in futility, similar to hammering on one of those inflatable clowns that always pops back up. EDIT

Actually- it really shows how weak your argument is, and your ideal of holding republicans to lower standards than say, a pedophile in a schoolyard.

Though, personally, I find it hilarious, and a bit enheartening, because, hopefully, as long as there are Lordhelmets, Bikerdads adn Teds out there, the "republicans can do no wrong" movement will continue to rot on the vine.

BD- if you really just want to hear soliliquies of the right- I sugget sticking to freepers and Rush.


Back to the subject at hand- BD has no coherent argument, so I will address Dingo's post.

I believe you hit the nail on the head with "yes you can, carefully"

Hitler's rise to power and then abuse of those powers really can be seperated into two distinct time periods, a gathering of power, and then use of that power.

Hitlers goverment wasn't all powerful at first, it did it slowly- from 1924-1934. It was always a minority in elections, never gaining a true majority, and it was extreme in it's nationalism-

you really can't have a nationalist parties without those that are blind to it's excesses- as we see on this board today.

Fortunately, America isn't gripped in the icy hand of extreme nationalism- and that is what leads to the failure of GW while Hitler continued on.

Otherwise- Dingo provided pretty much the best comparisons.