# The Bush Administration is playing the NAZI card

• News
The Bush Administration has launched its latest PR offensive to boost support for the increasingly unpopular war in Iraq. But the rhetoric is familiar: an attempt to raise the specter of appeasement, starting with Donald Rumsfeld's speech to the American Legion Tuesday, in which he quoted Sen. William Borah saying "Lord, if only I had talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided!" after hearing of Germany's invasion of Poland in 1939. (Meanwhile, Rumsfeld barely mentioned Iraq until the last 500 words of the speech.) And today, in his speech to the Legion, President Bush described Islamic terrorists as the "successors to Fascists, to Nazis, to Communists, and other totalitarians of the 20th century."
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1515951,00.html

Hey if talking to Hitler might have worked perhaps we should try it.
The way things have been going in Iraq it is about as futile as trying to fight a fire with an ice pick.
If we want the Iraqi troops to take over and be effective, they are going to have to be trained to use the same type of hit and run tactics as the insurgents.

American military tactics have not worked, so why should we expect those same tactics to work for the Iraqi military?

Last edited:

Related General Discussion News on Phys.org
SOS2008
Gold Member
edward, at the same time you started this thread, I posted the following in the thread about 2006 elections because as your OP states, it is election-time rhetoric.

So here it comes, some more national security fear-mongering!

Rummy continues with the claim that the war on terrorism is a war against fascism -

"Rumsfeld: War critics have ‘moral ... confusion’
Defense secretary tells veterans that U.S. faces a ‘new type of fascism’" --
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14570794/

Rummy alludes to history, and how we need to learn lessons from it. Bush continues with that theme now likening terrorists to Nazis -

Bush: Iraq a 'decisive ideological struggle'
President predicts victory despite disillusionment

SALT LAKE CITY - President Bush on Thursday predicted victory in the war on terror at a time of increasing public anxiety at home, likening the struggle against Islamic fundamentalism with the fight against Nazis and communists.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14599961/?GT1=8404

Yes, let's learn from history, starting with the absurd use of these terms. There is some aspects of fascism in Islamic fundamentalism, but not enough for the term to properly apply. Nazis and communists are even further off the mark.

In unusually explicit terms, Rumsfeld portrayed the administration’s critics as suffering from “moral or intellectual confusion” about what threatens the nation’s security and accused them of lacking the courage to fight back.
First, in regard to intellectual confusion, these idiots need to look in the mirror! And let's stop with the usual cherry picking (if we can even find the tree!). Nazis/Hitler were able to rise in power because people did not QUESTION AUTHORITY until it was too late!!!

And one might note that Bush is making the connection of Nazism to the war in Iraq. It has already been established that Iraq is a separate issue from terrorism/Al Qaeda. Of course since most Americans don't know history, including current events, many will fall for this Bush!t.

Second is the claim of "moral confusion." Once again, these idiots (and certain conservatives, particularly the religious-right) need to look in the mirror!

Bush's moral compass out of whack

...President Bush has made his position clear on a number of occasions: he believes even a fertilized human egg is an individual human life and that sacrificing human lives, even to save the lives of others, crosses a moral boundary off-limits to decent societies.

For the sake of discussion, let’s assume Mr. Bush is correct about the blastocysts being people. Further, let’s do him the courtesy of taking his position - no lives sacrificed to save lives - seriously. That’s his belief and he’s entitled to it. Here’s what logically follows:

No more wars, certainly not wars that kill civilians. That means no Afghanistan, no Iraq. Not even to save American lives - remember, that would cross Mr. Bush’s moral line.

Terrorism is out in any case, but so is responding in a way that leads to the death of innocent non-combatants. So, no Israeli bombing of Lebanon.

The death penalty has to go. No human enterprise is carried through without error; inevitably, wrongly convicted prisoners will be killed.

Unless Mr. Bush is willing to give on these points or own up to his contradictions, his particular moral objection to the destruction of unconscious cell clusters carries no weight.

He won’t. So there we have it: major medical advances are being resisted on moral grounds by a president whose own moral compass - by his own definition - is out of whack.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14230700/

FREE MY PEOPLE, if not from tyranny, then from sheer stupidity. Replace the likes of Frist, Santorum, etc., with the Rule of Reason once more. Than impeach Bush/Cheney -- we cannot afford two more years of this!

Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
This time it won't work - they've got Godwin against them!

russ_watters
Mentor
Great job following a post on Goodwin's law with a post violating it, tubo-1

Yes, it is an election year, and the rhetoric is flowing from all sides. But then also, this is what I've been saying about Democrats overplaying their hand. You cannot win an election by comparing your own country to Nazi Germany. Frankly, though I'm not a big fan of the Democratic party (obviously), the PACs that purport to support them may as well be Republican plants, so badly do their actions backfire on them.

Last edited:
Gokul43201 said:
This time it won't work - they've got Godwin against them!
Rove must have decided that if the Administration repeats Nazi, Nazi, Nazi enough times people will believe it regradless of Godwin's law.

Repetition worked with the "WMD" that didn't even exist. The smoke and mirrors act has started once again.

Last edited:
kyleb
russ_watters said:
Great job following a post on Goodwin's law with a post violating it, tubo-1
Tubo-1 didn't mention Nazis, Bush and Rumsfeld did.

russ_watters said:
Great job following a post on Goodwin's law with a post violating it, tubo-1
You mean confirming it, it's a probability approaching one that Hitler or the Nazis will be mentioned as a thread continues. Anyway I think that the OP is about Hitler kind of excuses comparissons, maybe?

If you ask me the Bush administration is not only not dealing with a full deck but is fast running out of cards.

russ_watters
Mentor
kyleb said:
Tubo-1 didn't mention Nazis, Bush and Rumsfeld did.
Uh, did you read the link he posted? It is about the Bush admin being Nazis/fascists. They even have a picture on the website that is copied from an old Nazi poster, but with an elephant put in place of the swastika on the flag!

Last edited:
kyleb
Of course I saw that, and I passed it off for the silly propganda that it is. Did you see that the page predominately focuses on the characteristics of fascism, and that fascism is all turbo-1 spoke of when linking to the page? Did you see were, unlike turbo-1, Bush and Rumsfeld both quite clearly and directly did mention Nazis?

Schrodinger's Dog said:
You mean confirming it..
Good point. Godwin simply presented us with an extrapolation of a commonly understood axiom; an infinite number of monkeys typing for an infinite amount of time will eventually recreate the compete work's of William Shakespeare. In that same regard, as a discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving William Shakespeare approaches one; and that goes for popcicles too, and badgers, and anything else you can think of, including Nazis. So while Godwin's Law is perpetuated as if it is some trump-card akin pointing out a logical fallacy, corning an occurrence does nothing to contest the validity of such comparisons.

an infinite number of monkeys typing for an infinite amount of time will eventually recreate the compete work's of William Shakespeare. In that same regard, as a discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving William Shakespeare approaches one
As defined by rfc 2795 :)

http://www.rfc-archive.org/getrfc.php?rfc=2795

Last edited by a moderator:
Futobingoro
Hitler/Nazi comparisons are hopelessly driven by partisanship and the desire to cast one's opponents as inhuman.

This goes for comparisons made by both the Right and the Left.

There are aspects of the Nazi agenda that could be used to vilify both ends of the political spectrum. Most people are probably well acquainted with the Bush=Hitler rhetoric, so I will list some of the tenets that could be used with equal effect against the Left:

-Promotes a centrally governed state
-Believes that the government has been corrupted and sabotaged by a capitalist elite
-Believes in environmental protection
-Believes in the limiting of profits, the abolishing of rents and the increasing of social benefits
-Believes in uniting all workers to work for the common good
-Goal is to bring forth a nation-state as the locus and embodiment of the people's collective will
-Has a perception that a select group of rich men are controlling the country's finances
-Has a perception that a select group of rich men profits from warfare

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

In fact, Hitler's disdain for the Jewish bankers of his day is very similar to the hatred many people have for Halliburton (Hitler said that Jewish bankers constituted a corporate elite that had corrupted and sabotaged the government and was guilty of war profiteering during WWI).

Nevertheless, I must bring us back to the fact that an honest person can not truly believe that a Halliburton-hating, profit-limiting, socialist worker's party-supporting person is a Nazi.

It is as much a fallacy as saying, "All Fords are automobiles. Therefore, that automobile must be a Ford." A Nazi has a certain set of values, but if one shares some or many of those values he/she is not necessarily a Nazi. Hitler may have even liked ice cream.

Perhaps most revealing is that this website describes Hitler as an economic centrist.

To be honest, the label "election-year rhetoric" is as politically motivated as the rhetoric it is labeling.

turbo
Gold Member
Hitler's disdain for Jewish financiers was a transparent farce. He needed a scapegoat for popular consumption, and they were it. His rise to power was marked by rampant nationalism, jingoism, pomp and military regalia, including the use of uniformed troops to prop up his image when he made public appearances. His appearances were well-scripted and only the party faithful attended. Does this sound anything like W's battle-plan? You cannot even get into one of his choreographed "public appearances" unless you are a Republican. Pardon me, but I was under the mistaken impression that in a representative republic (NOT a democracy, which the US certainly is not!) that the President represented us all. Not this one.

easy there turbo... don't you know it's unpatriotic to criticize the bush administration? you are not to question our fearless leader in his brave attempt to bring our brand of democracy to the heathen savages of the middle east. don't you know that by criticizing bush, you are giving comfort to our enemy? You must be an atheist who is pro baby murder....

hahaha, you have to love the right wing propaganda. Sorry I couldn't resist.

Granted, this administration is a tool shed... but are you comparing bush to hitler?

Certainly the administration has been secretive, unwilling to compromise on its hard line stance... willing to misinterpret evidence to support a war.. and completely incapable of hearing criticism... but i'd hardly put that on par with hitler's transgressions.

turbo
Gold Member
ptabor said:
Granted, this administration is a tool shed... but are you comparing bush to hitler?

Certainly the administration has been secretive, unwilling to compromise on its hard line stance... willing to misinterpret evidence to support a war.. and completely incapable of hearing criticism... but i'd hardly put that on par with hitler's transgressions.
No, I'm not comparing him to Hitler. His administration has moved strongly toward an authoritarian position on many, many fronts, spouts nationalistic jingoisms, and marginalizes the rights of individuals while elevating the interests of large corporations over the common good. Those are hallmarks of fascism, and the fact that the US voters have not raised a ruckus about the marginalization of the roles of Congress and the Judiciary speaks volumes about their ignorance and/or apathy. I'm an Independent, but I'm going to vote a straight Democratic ticket in the next couple of elections and hope others will, as well, so Congress will not be a rubber-stamp for these people. When the president can sign many hundreds of "signing statements" exempting himself from obeying our laws, he is assuming the role of emperor or king. Our forefathers fought very hard to rid themselves of such tyranny and to secure the right to form a a representative government.

Last edited:
Skyhunter
Kieth Olbermann has a great rebuttal to Rumsfeld.

The problem making such comparisons is that there are always overlapping similarities between one ideology and another. The term Islamofascist is the one I find to be the worst. Any brutal repressive regime, organization, or group has many things in common with any other brutal repressive regime, organization, or group.

Fascism is corporatism, government by the corporations, of the corporations, and for the corporations. All you need to do is look at the bankruptcy bill passed last year. The credit card companies, aka big banks, wrote it, shopped it, and got it passed without amendments or changes.

Now that IMO is fascism.

Last edited by a moderator:
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Skyhunter said:
Kieth Olbermann has a great rebuttal to Rumsfeld.

Well spoken, Keith!

Last edited by a moderator:
kyleb
Some interesting details on how the comparison was circulated over the past year:

WASHINGTON - The Rupert Murdoch-owned Fox News Network and The Weekly Standard, as well as the Washington Times, which is controlled by the Rev. Sun Myung Moons Unification Church, and the neo-conservative New York Sun, have consistently and with increasing frequency framed the challenges faced by Washington in the region in the context of the rise of fascism and Nazism in the 1930s, according to a search of the Nexis database by IPS.

All of those outlets, as well as two other right-wing U.S. magazines -- The National Review and The American Spectator -- far outpaced their commercial rivals in the frequency of their use of key words and names, such as appeasement, fascism, and Hitler, particularly with respect to Iran and its controversial president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Nexis, for example, cited 56 uses of Islamofascist or Islamofascism` in separate programmes or segments aired by Fox News compared with 24 by CNN over the past year. Even more striking, the same terms were used in 115 different articles or columns in the Washington Times, compared with only eight in the Washington Post over the same period, according to a breakdown by Nexis.
...
http://www.kibush.co.il/show_file.asp?num=16106

Futobingoro
I am sorry to say so, but that Olbermann clip is cherry-picking disguised as stern-faced, eloquent, almost poetic, criticism. These excerpts are of great interest:
From Iraq, to Katrina, to flu vaccine shortages, to the entire fog of fear which continues to envelop our nation, [Rumsfeld], Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and their cronies have, inadvertently or intentionally, profited and benefited both personally and politically. And yet he can stand up in public and question the morality and the intellect of those of us who dare ask just for the receipt for the emperor's new clothes.
This country faces a new type of fascism, indeed.
As I have said before, there exists a myriad of tenets which define fascism and Nazism.

Never mind that the Nazis promoted the limiting of profits, the abolishing of rents and the increasing of social benefits.

Never mind that the fascist states of WW2-era Europe catered as much to the working class as they did to capitalists.

Olbermann simply does not provide enough "coordinates" to pinpoint the Bush administration as fascist or Nazi. This has some humorous consequences if one examines these "analyses" closely.

For example, turbo-1 wrote:
[Hitler's] rise to power was marked by rampant nationalism, jingoism, pomp and military regalia, including the use of uniformed troops to prop up his image when he made public appearances. His appearances were well-scripted and only the party faithful attended. Does this sound anything like W's battle-plan?
It sounds like Kim Jong-il's battle plan.

This Olbermann-esque analysis is hopelessly oversimplified. Olbermann and many others desperately need to read this website.

A two-dimensional political grid is a more logical manner of charting political differences.

Compare Hitler's coordinates to George Bush's coordinates.

In my view, Olbermann cherry-picked to try to lump George Bush with the authoritarian crowd (most notably with Hitler). However, defining only one coordinate on a two-dimensional grid is incredibly deceptive. "Authoritarian" describes Hitler and Stalin equally well!

While Keith Olbermann certainly knows that the Earth is round, he uses only latitude or longitude when navigating its politics.

Until anyone can provide enough political coordinates to make a valid comparison with Hitler or the fascists, these oversimplified, self-righteous analyses should not be taken seriously. That goes for comparisons coming from all political viewpoints.

Last edited by a moderator:
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Futobingoro said:
Olbermann simply does not provide enough "coordinates" to pinpoint the Bush administration as fascist or Nazi.
Did you watch the wrong video clip?

Olbermann never made any connection between Bush and Hitler or Nazism - none was intended by him! Naturally, it would make no sense for him (Olbermann) to provide "coordinates" in support of an argument he was NOT making.

Skyhunter
Gokul43201 said:
Did you watch the wrong video clip?

Olbermann never made any connection between Bush and Hitler or Nazism - none was intended by him! Naturally, it would make no sense for him (Olbermann) to provide "coordinates" in support of an argument he was NOT making.
I was going to say the same thing Futobingo.

You presented a nice rebuttal but it completely missed the point.

Here is a good definition of a modern fascist State.

FASCISM :

a political system in which all power of government is vested in a person or group with no other power to balance and limit the activities of the government. Fascist governments are often closely associated with large corporations and sometimes with extreme nationalism and racist activities. Modern fascism is often called "CORPORATISM".

As for the Islamofascist terms being thrown around, Pat Buchanon writes:

What is wrong with the term Islamofascism?

First, there is no consensus as to what “fascism” even means. Orwell said when someone calls Smith a fascist, what he means is, “I hate Smith. ” By calling Smith a fascist, you force Smith to deny he’s a sympathizer of Hitler and Mussolini.
Unsurprisingly, it is neoconservatives, whose roots are in the Trotskyist-Social Democratic Left, who are promoting use of the term. Their goal is to have Bush stuff al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran into an “Islamofascist” kill box, then let SAC do the rest.

The term represents the same lazy, shallow thinking that got us into Iraq, where Americans were persuaded that by dumping over Saddam, we were avenging 9/11.
http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_09_11/buchanan.html

I find myself agreeing with much of his analysis, and I share his contempt for the current administration's incompetence and hubris.

Last edited by a moderator:
Futobingoro
Gokul43201 said:
Olbermann never made any connection between Bush and Hitler or Nazism - none was intended by him! Naturally, it would make no sense for him (Olbermann) to provide "coordinates" in support of an argument he was NOT making.
Here is another excerpt from the video:
The confusion is about whether this Secretary of Defense, and this administration, are in fact now accomplishing what they claim the terrorists seek: The destruction of our freedoms, the very ones for which the same veterans Mr. Rumsfeld addressed yesterday in Salt Lake City, so valiantly fought.

And about Mr. Rumsfeld’s other main assertion, that this country faces a “new type of fascism.”

As he was correct to remind us how a government that knew everything could get everything wrong, so too was he right when he said that -- though probably not in the way he thought he meant it.

This country faces a new type of fascism - indeed.
That last statement is especially telling. Olbermann is calling the Bush administration 'fascist.'
Skyhunter said:
Here is a good definition of a modern fascist State....
Again, I must say that the http://www.politicalcompass.org/index [Broken] is the best way to visualize political differences. The definition you have given describes authoritarianism, which is but one "coordinate" in the political landscape. In other words, that definition has as much precision as the coordinate of y=8. There is a broad array of differing political viewpoints within authortarianism alone, which is what I was driving at when I pointed out that Hitler was actually far to the left, and near the economic center, relative to most modern world leaders. In fact the political compass webpage addresses this very issue:
In our home page we demolished the myth that authoritarianism is necessarily "right wing", with the examples of Robert Mugabe, Pol Pot and Stalin. Similarly Hitler, on an economic scale, was not an extreme right-winger. His economic policies were broadly Keynesian, and to the left of some of today's Labour parties. If you could get Hitler and Stalin to sit down together and avoid economics, the two diehard authoritarians would find plenty of common ground.
Bear in mind that one does not have to disagree with Keith Olbermann to find fault in his thinking. There are many legal experts who are pro-choice on abortion but find fault with the jurisprudence and legal construction of the Roe v. Wade ruling.

Last edited by a moderator:
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Futobingoro said:
That last statement is especially telling. Olbermann is calling the Bush administration 'fascist.'
No he isn't. He's comparing the Bush Administration to the Chamberlain government. Anything you want to read into it beyond that is your prerogative.

Futobingoro
Olbermann:
This country faces a new type of fascism - indeed.
Any thoughts?

Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Futobingoro said:
Olbermann:
This country faces a new type of fascism - indeed.
Any thoughts?
Sure.

"This country faces a new type of fascism" - this is Olbermann quoting Rumsfeld.

"Indeed" - this is a literary device known as sarcasm. (alternatives: "yeah, right!", "you bet", etc.) Objective: to express disagreement.