George Bush.......Modern Day Hitler???????

[g826665]

Bush and Hitler are similar in respect that they are both fascists. Both have rendered their respective legislatures useless(by force and capitulation) and are autocrats. If Bush decides to invade another country(Iran, Syria) the Congress will not stop him. There are no checks and balances left within the American system. He decides, Congress gives in.

The authorization to go to war with Iraq and the Patriot Act are worded in such a broad way that it gives him nearly unchecked power. Anything Bush chooses to do can done under the guise of National Security. The unitary executive didn't start with W, it has been a steadily evolving process since Harry Truman signed the National Security Act in 1945. But Bush has kicked the ball so far down the road to fascism during his term that there is very small likelihood of turning back.

Impeachment is the responsibility the Congress has to make sure the President upholds the laws of the Constitution, and they will not do their job as they watch what used to be a democracy crumbles.

[CORVETTEDUDE]

The fact is he's been responsible for a huge amount of unesseccary deaths and hasnt acheived much in the progress....Do you think he has been successful as a presedent or not?????

Bush is most certainly not the best President we've elected. But to assume he is a 'Modern Day Hitler', is a bit over the top. You're on this forum flappin' your lips, aren't you?!

[vegasboy]

When unserious threads like this are made about very serious issues it devolves into meaningless drivel. There are serious and honest ways of making the comparison or making a contrast. First of all it's unserious because the poll options are polarized and anyone who thinks Bush isn't Hitler is forced into choosing an option they find almost as abhorrent. This is straight out of the the Dubya playbook of you're with us or against us.

Second of all, the comparison shouldn't just be of casualty figures. You have to look at the internal politics within the country. Long before the Anschluss, Hitler and the Nazi party passed the Nuremberg laws. Actually, I think it was in 1935, two years after the Nazis were voted in by a plurality. This act effectively stripped a substantial portion of the population of citizenship rights and forbade marriages between Jews and Germans, based I believe on the notion that 1/4 Jewish was Jewish enough to delegitimize one as a citizen and as a human being. It wasn't merely chauvinism, but unadulterated racial pseuodoscience and an attempted genocide first on the Jews but eventually on the rest of the non-Aryan world.

You can also look at the death tolls. The casualty figures from the Nazi era are different from what we've seen from U.S policy. The deaths perpetrated by the Nazis were carried out with direct intent. It wasn't colonialism, or colonialism in practice but an attempt to first occupy and eventually exterminate every native population. This was not immediately obvious but everyone familiar with Nazi propaganda should know anyone not Aryan would have eventually gotten the axe if the Germans were successful. Many, if not most, of the casualties in Iraq have been the result of sectarian violence after the region was destabilized. Can you make the argument that they're still our government's responsibility? Of course, but there's still a major qualitative difference to be grasped.

I'm sorry, but the anti-Americanism of some is so reflexive that they're happy to discredit themselves in a serious argument. Hating George Bush and disagreeing with his policies does not mean you have to compare him to the Nazis and disgrace the millions they killed.