I finished watching V For Vendetta a few minutes ago.  It's obviously an anti-Bush, anti-Conservative film, but it was still a good watch.  Anyway, I got to thinking about how Bush is often compared to Hitler, and I was wondering exactly what was the basis of those comparisons.  I had asked about it, it past discussions, but no one could give me an answer.  I decided to search the net for the answer.

  I found a website citing various examples, or should I say, citing various collections of examples, but one in particular seemed to have them all in one package, so I'll go with that one.  Here's a copy of it:

David R. Hoffman (Legal Editor of PRAVDA)

In "Bush vs Hitler", the Legal Editor of Russia's classiest newspaper doesn't hold back. You half expect the picture editor to chuck in a photo of Bush with a Hitler mustache, and use a swastika as the 's' in his name. Oh, hang on, they do have a picture of Bush with a Hitler mustache and using a swastika as the 's' in his name:

 In fact, several disturbing analogies exist between George W. Bush and history's most infamous fascist, Adolph Hitler: Both men assumed power in defiance of the will of the majority; both men used "great lies" to pursue their warmongering agendas; both men preyed upon humanity's basest instincts to disseminate those "great lies"; both men were appeased by the British government, Hitler through Neville Chamberlain and Bush through Tony Blair; both men were willing to use national tragedies to justify the destruction of civil liberties, Hitler through the burning of the Reichstag and Bush through the September 11th terrorist attacks; both men were/are suspected of either participating in, or ignoring warnings about the imminence of, these tragedies in order to enhance their political stature and power; both men [exploit(ed)] a culture of death for political self-aggrandizement, Hitler through his well-publicized genocide campaigns, and Bush who, while governor of Texas, routinely denied DNA tests to death row inmates, even though such tests could prevent wrongful executions; both men were willing to appeal to racism, Hitler through his quest for a "master race," and Bush through his condemnation of affirmative action policies, which primarily benefit racial minorities. [...] both men reveled in war and exploited the military to satiate their personal ambitions and vendettas; both men used war to enrich their political cronies; both men demonstrated contempt for international law and the concerns of the world community; and both men believed they were/are on some holy crusade inspired by a "divine province" that placed them into power. [...]

September 2004 update: he's done it again.

  I'm going to address each point, one at a time, but first I want to make clear my position.  I'm not a "Bush supporter" in the philosophical sense.  What I am is an idiot opposer.  I voted for Bush because he was, in my opinion, the best of what was available.  I'll trust a man who actually believes in something bigger than himself and has ideals over a man who is completely unable to come even close to convincing me that he believes in anything more than his own acquisition of power any day.

  It's just a frequent coincidence, if there is any such thing, that the stupidity I oppose is in those who are driven by nothing but a hatred for Bush and/or Conservatives or Republicans.

  On to business.

#1.  "Both men assumed power in defiance of the will of the majority"

  This is, of course, the disbelief that Bush won the election fairly, despite a complete lack of valid evidence.  But what use do emotionally-driven people need of evidence.  Feelings = facts.

#2.  "both men used "great lies" to pursue their warmongering agendas"

  This is the "Bush lied" debate all over, again, which I've already wrote about in one of my previous blog entries: What Is A Lie?.  If you don't want to read it, I'll give you the super-condensed version.  Some people seem to be unclear on the definition of "lie".  Then there's the fact that they were found, but that's entirely irrelevant.

  I'll directly indirectly address this "warmongering" concept later on and throughout.  I may not actually mention the word, so if you don't notice where it's been touched on, well, hopefully you still won't be beyond hope.

#3.  "both men preyed upon humanity's basest instincts to disseminate those "great lies""

  Mostly goes back to #2, but I don't personally consider informing people of a factual danger to be preying upon humanity's basest instincts.  Again, see What Is A Lie? for details.

#4.  "both men were appeased by the British government, Hitler through Neville Chamberlain and Bush through Tony Blair"

  Okay.  And this is not circumstantial how?  Here's another way they were the same: they were both male.  *GASP*

#5.  "both men were willing to use national tragedies to justify the destruction of civil liberties, Hitler through the burning of the Reichstag and Bush through the September 11th terrorist attacks"

  Let's see, because we were attacked by Muslim extremists, he used that fact as an excuse to try to prevent it from happening in the future.  THAT BASTARD!

  Oh, wait, the civil liberties.  Well, since the person didn't go into specific examples, neither will I.  Perhaps you've heard that expression, freedom isn't free.  For every degree of safety provided, a degree of liberty is revoked.  That's just the nature of things.  Either you want to be protected, or you want to be left wide open.  Specifics are debatable.

#6.  "Hitler through the burning of the Reichstag and Bush through the September 11th terrorist attacks; both men were/are suspected of either participating in, or ignoring warnings about the imminence of, these tragedies in order to enhance their political stature and power"

  See #4.  Really?  Liberals have a seething hatred of Bush and a condemning conspiracy against him arose?  Shocker!!!

  Let's talk about ignoring things, though.  Clinton had Bin Laden practically handed to him on a platter, and he chose not to act.  Furthermore, he gutted the military and sold secrets to China, but those two don't really have anything to do with  ignoring something... except the security of the nation, I guess.

#7.  "both men [exploit(ed)] a culture of death for political self-aggrandizement, Hitler through his well-publicized genocide campaigns, and Bush who, while governor of Texas, routinely denied DNA tests to death row inmates, even though such tests could prevent wrongful executions"

  I'd have to take the person's word for it about the denial of DNA testing.  I don't know enough about the issue.  What does catch my attention is "culture of death" comment.  There's a word coming to mind... what is it... a...  ab... abortion, I think it is?  There's another word.  No, wait, it's two words.  A... as... assisted suicide?

  Have you heard that a doctor and three (or was it two) nurses took it upon themselves to kill some elderly patients during the hurricane Katrina flood.  Yup, a man who took a vow to do no harm decided he was god enough to kill patients without their consent.  Just a side-note, really.

#8.  "both men were willing to appeal to racism, Hitler through his quest for a "master race," and Bush through his condemnation of affirmative action policies, which primarily benefit racial minorities"

  Now, this one is just fucking hilarious.  He's appealing to racism by condemning something that is racist.  How does that work, exactly?

#9.  "both men reveled in war and exploited the military to satiate their personal ambitions and vendettas"

  What personal ambition is that exactly?  The desire to fight against those who have sworn to exterminate everyone not of their religion?  I'm gonna need some help on this one.

  Side-bar hypothetical: Let's see, the trees have come alive and are killing people.  The only way to stop them is to kill the trees, which would also open up some land for farming.  But killing those trees to open up land for farming is wrong, so I guess I better just leave the trees alone.

  No personal ambition of his is worth giving freedom to oppressed people.  THAT BASTARD!  How dare America go to war against a group of people who had declared war on America... or attack a sadistic dictator who was connected to them and wanted the same thing as they did.  THAT BASTARD!!

#10.  "both men used war to enrich their political cronies"

  Examples? ... for which there is actual proof?

#11.  "both men demonstrated contempt for international law and the concerns of the world community"

  This is another one that is completely laughable, but not for the contempt accusation.  "international law and the concerns of the world community" is long for the U.N., and it is they who are laughable.  A corrupt, ineffectual den-of thieves is the U.N..

  Dictators violate agreements, and the U.N. does nothing.  Jihadist or genocidal groups and governments attack the innocent, and the U.N. do nothing but want to talk to them.  When you have convert or die as you're options, then at least you can convert... and hope they still don't kill you.  When they want you dead, period, there's not really much room for compromise.

  The U.N. can kiss my ass.  Maybe you can talk to them from your graves after they've finished killing you.  Unless you think they're just kidding about their desire to kill.

#12.  "and both men believed they were/are on some holy crusade inspired by a "divine province" that placed them into power."

  See #4.  Of course, all people with a belief in god are naturally evil.  Oh, wait.  If there is no god, then there is no evil, so all people who believe in god are just meanies.

  We've been at this war for a while, which is no real surprise.  This is a new kind of war, and it's being undermined at every turn.  That's rhetoric, yes, but if the shoe fits....  I'd like for the war opposers to try something new and unusual.  I'd like them to try offering solutions, and more specifically, ones that would actually work.

  "Don't do this."  "Don't do that."  "You're gonna hurt someone's feelings."  "Just stay in your own country, in your own house, and wait for them to ring your doorbell.  When they do, tell them to wait a moment and then call the police."  But for the love of all that is fluffy and bunny-ish, don't do something that works.  That just makes you look mean and inconsiderate.

  Let´s make some real comparisons to Hitler.  Some comparisons that actually matter.  Hitler wanted to exterminate all Jews.  So does Hizballah.  Al-Qaeda, on the other hand, are less picky, and just want to exterminate everyone not of their religion.

  And for anyone who might be wondering, my sources on that are THE WORDS FROM THEIR OWN MOUTHS.

  Something stood out to me, in the movie, V For Vendetta, regarding Natalie Portman's character:  She was tortured... and she got over it.  And if that's not appalling enough for you, she actually came out the better and stronger for it.  Of course, she didn't realize it until it was fucking pointed out to her.

  And what's with that line, or partial line, "I don't feel anything", while she's "standing" there have a crying fit?  Maybe I'm crazy, but it seems to me that a person who didn't feel anything wouldn't be having a cow.  No, the thing you're not feeling is called fear.  Once you're no longer controlled by fear, you can start controlling your own emotions, which just happens to be what she did once she realized she was made stronger.  It's a lesson from which all Liberals can benefit.