He's comparing Bush to Paul von Hindenburg. That has to count for some intellectual improvement over comparing Bush to Hitler.
Look at it this way:
He's comparing Bush to Paul von Hindenburg. That has to count for some intellectual improvement over comparing Bush to Hitler.
John Wolfsberger, Jr.
An unruffled person with some useful skills.
Hey John !
If you think that's a comparison, imagine what the Russian Chief of Staff has to sayOriginally Posted by J Wolfsberger
I swear that's a 1970's era Hawk battery behind him in that pic. Did we sell them those tooRussia not obliged to protect world from U.S.
Photoshop Arms Deal
Naw, he just took the pic from a brochure
Sneaky bastards; if he poses in front of a Bradley or Abrams next time, that's it
The latest Doonesbury thread portrays the VP as a dark lord akin to Star Wars' Emperor Palpatine. (Or perhaps he is a Dickensian Ghost of some Christmas past, present, or yet to come.)
I must admit that I, too, live outside the bubble, Lord Cheney
They're trying to preemptively inoculate themselves
. . . against accusations of defeatism and worse should they end up on the wrong side of history.
Anybody who questions their patriotism is a Nazi. End of discussion.
Tired of the Rovian Political Mindset
Gawd, can all sides declare a moratorium on two things, at least on SWJ?
1) Any comparison of any group to nazis that aren't nazis. Come on. Seinfeld can keep the "Soup Nazi", but that's about it.
2) Non support/criticism of war = not a patriot. I joined this army to defend their ability to question authority. You don't have to like it, but you can tolerate respectful dissent.
And I'm adding a #3 as I type - using the wingbat right (Malkin/Coulteites) or wingbat left (Moveon/Kos) to characterize everyone of a given political persuasion. Just because one lefty equates Bush to Nazis doesn't mean all those left of center to, or that some of them don't have valid points to make that are less emotionally loaded. Same for when the wingbat right equates all those who thought maybe we should be doing a different COA in Iraq are all "defeatists".
<sigh>
Last edited by Cavguy; 11-16-2007 at 01:24 PM.
I'm with you, cavguy.
I've come to the conclusion the right/conservative/fascist and left/liberal/pinko exist as a real group only in the non-thinking polarized few. Whether the topic is environmentalism or corporate subsidies few people think that there are easy answers or that there is a "one answer fits all" approach. Those that do think in concrete terms and that everything is black and white and color is evil are few but vocal. The Internet has given rise to the equivalent of two loud mouthed six year olds reasoning with volume and listening with deafness.
The debate on the war in Iraq between liberals and conservatives has been disingenuous at best and outright political theater at its worst. A few people are making a lot of money. The reasons for attacking Iraq are terribly inadequate. Continuation of the war is foregone conclusion whether it is true or not.
The same supporters of the war equate non-support of the war to anti-patriotism and hating the troops. The same supporters of the war who took a long time to up armor humvee's (sic) and built the equivalent of the largest fire-base on the planet in downtown Baghdad. The same supporters of the war willing to field an all volunteer force except for their children. Oops. Never mind the stop loss, forced return from IRR, sending 50 year olds back based on service 30 years ago, and other methods of a back door conscription
To their detriment those who oppose the war show almost a childish detachment to reality. Fighting over reasons of why a war began is like arguing over why you pissed your pants. It's to late to do anything about it but you should worry about cleaning it up. There is no metric for what withdrawal would cost or mean in world wide support. Ignoring the obvious conflict we are enjoined is creates a credibility gap and arguing over the past instead of the future is a painful lesson in maturity.
Intellectual debate is a stimulating exercise in political posturing that occurs while those under arms are motivated by hostile terrain and the engaging chatter of enemy weapons fire. Henceforth, I will forever ignore a politician or pundit who leads with or primarily uses the reasons of starting the Iraq war as a platform, or non-support of the Iraq war as bludgeon of patriotism.
Sam Liles
Selil Blog
Don't forget to duck Secret Squirrel
The scholarship of teaching and learning results in equal hatred from latte leftists and cappuccino conservatives.
All opinions are mine and may or may not reflect those of my employer depending on the chance it might affect funding, politics, or the setting of the sun. As such these are my opinions you can get your own.
To sum up, and paraphrase the words of Oddball, your avatar, let's just stop " with the negative waves, Moriarity."
I must admit that I, too, live outside the bubble, Lord Cheney
Hear hear.
Doonesbury never interested me before about 2002 - since Iraq started it seems to have reinvigorated Tredeau's satirical mojo and has become one of my favorite reads. His Iraq stuff is powerful.
Posting Permissions
"A Sherman can give you a very nice... edge."- Oddball,
Bookmarks