Why Obama was WRONG about comparing rethugs to nazis.

[Yollam]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0601230146jan23,1,151477.story?track=rss


Obama won't join Belafonte's chorus
Pans likening security agency to Gestapo, calling Bush terrorist

By Jeff Zeleny
Washington Bureau
Published January 23, 2006

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Barack Obama on Sunday gently criticized two comments by civil rights activist Harry Belafonte in which he called the Department of Homeland Security a "new Gestapo" and referred to President Bush as "the greatest terrorist in the world."

"I never use Nazi analogies because I think that those were unique," Obama (D-Ill.) said on NBC's "Meet the Press." But he added: "I think people are rightly concerned that we strike the right balance between our concerns for civil liberties and the uniform concern that all of us have about protecting ourselves from terrorism."

As for the remark about the president, Obama said: "I don't think it's appropriate. That's not language that I would use, but keep in mind one of the great things about the United States is all of our citizens have the right to speak our minds about what's going on politically."



This is where Obama is wrong.

"I never use Nazi analogies because I think that those were unique,"


There is nothing remotely unique about what the Nazis did, except perhaps in the realm of sheer numbers. There is nothing unique about starting unwarranted wars of aggression (Bush has done this), stripping away civil liberties (Bush has done this), lying to the people (Bush has done this), using (fabricated?) attacks against national monuments to create paranoiac frenzy (Bush has done this), destroying established democratic institutions in order to consolidate power with the party (Bush has done this), imprisoning citizens without charges for indefinite periods of time (Bush has done this), using police state tactics to invade the privacy of the citizenry (Bush has done this). using certain ethnic or other groups as a scapegoat and a focus of hate for party loyalists (Bush has done this). and it goes on and on. State-sanctioned ppression and murder is NOT unique. It happens EVERY DAY, in countries all over the world, often in countries that our government calls "allies". It's the banality of evil that let Germans complacently watch as the nazis destroyed their country, and then most of Europe. And it's why even "democrats" like Obama pooh-pooh the honest, heartfelt words of a man like Belafonte who has tirelessly worked for civil rights for over four decades.


At this point in time, to my knowledge, Bush has not set up any death camps to kill gays or liberals or whoever else he's scapegoating today, and I suppose that is the one defining difference between Bush and Hitler, but if we were in Germany in 1943, we wouldn't know anything about death camps either, unless we were in them. And the question we should be asking is not "Is Bush exactly the same as Hitler?" The question we should be asking is "Is our president leading us in the direction of being MORE like the third reich, or LESS like it?" The answer is not comforting.

NOBODY can say with a straight face that this man is making our country freer, fairer, or more democratic.






ON EDIT: I think it's a disgrace that Obama is put on the spot having to answer for what Belafonte said, simply because he is black. How racist of Tim Russert and the media in general. But EVERY so-called democrat of any color should be echoing what Belafonte said. So, I don't mean to single out Obama, though I do disagree with his statement here.

[Benhurst]

1. Thanks, Yollam.

It makes me sick seeing the likes of Barak Obama not standing up for Harry Belafonte.

And this may not be Germany in 1943; but it's beginning to look like Germany in 1936.

[Yollam]

2. Small secondary point - Obama shouldn't be singled out.

I do think it's a shame that Obama is put on the spot having to answer for what Belafonte said, merely because he is black. Amazing racism there. But EVERY so-called democrat of any color should be echoing what Belafonte said. I don't mean to single out Obama, though I disagree with his statement here.

[Benhurst]

23. ...

:thumbsup:

[bpilgrim]

10. Springtime for Hitler

more...
http://GlobalFreePress.com

peace

[Hyernel]

15. Hey!! That's MY 'Ein Trifecta' photoshop!!!

One of my first political ones. (from my Carbon42 days) Nice to see it's still floating around.

They shrunk it though

[bpilgrim]

18. really! that is one of my favorites!!!

do you have a bigger one? i will add it to the archive with a link to your site.

:hi:

peace

[Hyernel]

28. Bartcop should still have the bigger one...

...I sent it to him first. Mine was lost in the great "new computer" change over of 2004.

I don't have an anti-Bush site. I'd still like to be able to fly.

[0007]

37. You do great work. Do another and get all the main players

in the photo something like on the order of the "Last Supper" - and in the far background maybe Eva Braum and Laura


Prescott Bush, Adolf Hitler

[G_j]

3. correct. the similarities are what we should be alarmed about

and good leaders owe it to the people to not mince words in the face of this terrible danger.

[Zynx]

5. Their is a difference between mincing words and being accurate.

In this case, comparing Bush to Hitler is an obscene overstatement simply trying to play on peoples' gut emotions, but it turns people off to anything you say. Bush is authoritarian, but we still have elections, we are still free to criticize the government(though we may be spied on when we do it now), and we still do not have anything close to the fear of arbitrary execution(unless you want to count excessive police force that has existed since the founding of the Republic).

[G_j]

17. point out the similarities

which are indeed dangerous and numerous.
You don't have to say "Bush is Hitler" to address the truth.
There are far too many similarities to ignore.
To deny them will lead us even further down that road.


.. btw, Hitler was 'elected'.

[RaleighNCDUer]

19. It may be closer than you think.

An election where only one side counts the votes is not an election. We haven't had a clean election since '98. And we may be free to criticize, but with the media in the hands of the government, any criticism is quickly silenced -- witness how Gore's speech was covered by the corporate press.

The problem with Hitler comparisons is that we look at the final result and compare that to something in progress -- better, compare with what Hitler showed to the world in '35, not '45.

i don't think it is overblown at all.

[Zynx]

4. I'm sorry, but degree of offenses does matter.

Hitler is resposible for the deaths of over 50 million in Europe that died during World War II. If degree didn't matter, I could call any tinpot dictator as bad as Hitler, but it simply doesn't compare.

By the start of Hitler's sixth year, 1939, he had already killed thousands of German Jews, homosexuals, mentally disabled, gypsies, etc..., abolished elections altogether(there wasn't even a semblence of democracy) and despite what some of the conspiracy theorists say there was very little irregular about the returns in the 2004 election when compared to past elections. Sure, we have a foreign war that has killed thousands, but that could be said about dozens of world figures throughout history. Nothing Bush has done yet or appears ready to do even compares to the horrors Hitler unleashed upon the world. I'm sorry, but the Hitler comparisons are not only incorrect, but they make the entire center-left and left elements of the political spectrum look foolish and crazy when you spout that nonsense. No one is convinced to join our side by that hyperbole and the vast majority of moderates are turned off.

[Stand and Fight]

6. That's a ridiculous assertion...

Are you saying that morality is a matter of frequency and numbers? I'd like to hope not.

[Zynx]

8. Killing 50 million people is worse than killing one person, yes.

They are both evil, but more evil acts is inherently more evil. Bush is responsible for maybe 150,000 deaths. Hitler is responsible for 50,000,000. There is a big difference. Also, the nature of the deaths in the Nazi death camps is particularly nasty and is something that has rarely been seen in human history.

I know why you made the ridiculous conclusion about what I said and that was to discredit me by trying to make it sound like I don't think killing a relatively small number of people is a moral outrage, but I said nothing of the sort and shame on you for trying to say that.

[Yollam]

22. How about 30 thousand?

That's how many Bush admits to killing in his illegal, mercenary invasion of Iraq. When does it turn into mass murder?

Pol Pot only killed what, 2 million? But he had a lot fewer potential victims. I don't think Pol Pot was any better or worse than Hitler. Just more obscure.

[Stand and Fight]

26. Hogwash...

Wrong is wrong. Taking a human life is murder, period. You are the one making a ridiculous conclusion and now you're making a circular argument.

"They are both evil, but more evil acts is inherently more evil. Bush is responsible for maybe 150,000 deaths. Hitler is responsible for 50,000,000. There is a big difference. Also, the nature of the deaths in the Nazi death camps is particularly nasty and is something that has rarely been seen in human history."

Murder is murder. No matter the amount that have been murdered. To argue that one is less worst is ridiculous. Shame on you for being so muddled in your morality. Shame on you for excusing Bush's acts because he "is responsible for maybe 150,000 deaths." That's a bullshit straw-man and you know it, but I've got one for you as well.

I don't agree with the death penalty, but tell me this... Since Hitler's acts are -- according to your argument -- more in number than Bush's, should Hitler incur a more greater application of the death penalty than Bush since Bush killed fewer people?

The question itself makes about as much sense as any answer you give or your argument that "more evil acts is inherently more evil." We won't even get into your mangled English. :eyes:

[bpilgrim]

12. Springtime for Hitler

come off it, you know what everyone is talking about... he didn't get there overnight.

but the easiest way to avoid this argument is to use the more generic the apt word...

FASCIST

psst... pass the word ;->

peace

[Zynx]

14. I'm angry because: 1. I dislike the comparison for being inaccurate

2. I think it hurts the cause of the left and Democrats in general when people on our side spout this nonsense.

[bpilgrim]

16. 1. I'm angry because: We are living through a FASCIST nightmare!

2. http://207.3.145.250/flash/no_bravery

a flash i am working on that expresses in song & images much better than i can

peace

[BushOut06]

20. There's more to the Nazi comparisons than just the Holocaust

Most of the people decrying the Bush-Hitler comparisons bring that point up. But there are many other issues that do bear examining. Hitler was a maniacal psychopath who flaunted international law and engaged in endless wars of aggression. He had total control of his populace, spied on his own people, controlled the media, etc. I could go on and on and on comparing the Bush regime to Nazi Germany, but time doesn't allow me to go into nearly as much detail as I would like. I'm sure other DUers can bring up plenty more that I have omitted.

[Yollam]

21. Hitler did those things, because at that point in time, he could.

There is no doubt in my mind that Bush would have done the exact same things if he'd had the opportunity and knew he could have gotten away with it.

[bpilgrim]

7. We Dare Not Speak Its Name (FASCIST)

So when do we use the word? When do we actually say it? When do we, as clergy, take up the ministry of Ezekiel, and warn our people of that which is coming (Ezekiel 33:1-9)?

So far we have refused to say the word. So far we have not been so bold as to take up Ezekiel’s ministry. Perhaps we are afraid that even if we sounded the alarm our people wouldn’t listen nor would they understand (Isaiah 6). And so, because of our silence, our people are assaulted by fears and suspicions, drifting into sleep, moving step by inevitable step into the abyss traveled by all other empires before ours (Revelation 18).

The signs are clearly all around us. The mission and purpose of the United States is now that of a permanent war economy patrolling the globe and exterminating the infidels (1 Samuel 8). The office of the president, with the acquiescence of the Congress, is fast becoming the office of a supreme leader who can change law through “signing statements” and extinguish law through an assumption of war powers. We have become a nation that practices torture. We have become a nation that targets and kills civilians. We have become a nation that disappears people. We imprison people without trial. We monitor what we say, who we say it to, when we say it, where we say it. All of this in the name of freedom and all of this disguised as justice. All of this covered with the silence and blessing of the clergy who will not blow the trumpet.

The signs are clearly all around us. We have students spying on their professors. We have government agencies spying on us. We have our computer transactions monitored. We have our children accosted by military recruiters at school, through the mail, through the media, at the mall. Meanwhile the price of war rises into the multiple billions even as spending cuts slice through the poor and the working class. But, from the pulpit, we dare not speak its name: this name that has become the reality of our time.

Within the Church there is an irreconcilable divergence emerging (1 John 2:18-19). At its extremes we see the birth of Patriot Pastors in Ohio even as liberal churches become targets for IRS investigations. We see Justice Sundays and the growth of theocratic nationalism even as more are jailed because of their faith-based resistance to the further production of war. From the pulpits of the nation the Sermon on the Mount, christian identification with the poor, the declaration to love our enemies are all replaced with strategies of church growth or manipulations to infiltrate political parties. Congregations insist that clergy dare not speak its name. Congregations insist that clergy stay embedded in their role as chaplain and golf partner. They insist that clergy provide comfort and offer therapeutic guidance. And clergy, with paycheck in hand, and a desire for career advancement in heart, oblige their congregations with false words of “peace, peace” (Jeremiah 8).

more...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=236906&mesg_id=236906

peace

[Journeyman]

9. I recommend you read Hannah Arendt's, "The Origins of Totalitarianism"...

and then return to tell us there was "nothing unique" about the only two totalitarian regimes the world has ever known -- Hitlerian Germany and Stalinist Russia. It was Dr. Arendt who coined the phrase "banality of evil," so I believe you'll find she knows her topic.

[The Animator]

11. I recall a bit from one of Bill Mahers "New Rules"

To paraphrase it went a bit like this:

New Rule; Stop comparing Bush to Hitler, when you compare the other side to Hitler, you automatically lose the argument. There is no comparing Bush to Hilter.

First off, Hilter was a decorated war hero...

[Zynx]

13. I see the joke, but the initial statement is correct.

Comparing anyone to Hitler is an act purely aimed at stirring emotion by hyperbole of the most grotesque kind. It automatically discredits the person who is arguing that position to everyone except those who already agree with that position.

[Yollam]

24. A lot of people would say that calling him "fascist" would be hyperbole...

...even though it's and apt descrition, especially when paired with the word "plutocrat".


I'm not saying that I think Belafonte's approach is necessarily the best, but I don't think his statements need to be renounced, either. They're hardly over the top. Bush is most definitely an international terrrorist, no bones about it.

[doublethink]

25. Let me ask you something Zynx.

And anything I say here is not meant to discredit you in any way, or make you look like anything you are not. Okay :) .... I ask you as a civil, rational, left leaning individual on 'our side' as you put it this question. If you were to walk outside your home and saw your neighbors house smoldering from the Attic, would you yell A. Smoke! or B. Fire! ...... Which one do you think would get anyones attention so you might get the response needed to help you react and take care of the situation? Before it actually became a fire? Some of us would rather yell Fire! And deal with the consequences later whether it's an actual fire or not. I'm just saying that's where some of us believe our country is headed. Some yell smoke (you) and some yell fire ... that's a personal decision. But they are both meant to keep something we both don't want to see happen. Me personally I'd rather yell Fire! Before the whole house is engulfed in flames. But that's just me, if I look stupid afterwords because the house didn't go up so be it. It wouldn't be the first time I looked stupid and it I am sure won't be the last, but I think the danger to not over-react is greater than to not. But that's just me. Peace and all the best. ;)

[Swamp Rat]

27. As per your definitive statement, I am therefore fully discredited.

:D

[Hissyspit]

29. I am impressed with Yollam's post on a critical level.

It makes very good points. It could be argued that the Nazis were "unique" on some level, but not others. There is enough "not unique"-ness to make comparisons between fascists/totalitarians, especially when they have both wrestled control of a country, and since the comparisons ultimately function metaphorically and there are always disparities in the characteristics of metaphors, I don't think it is at the level of hyperbole. I may avoid Nazi comparisons, but, by God, there sure seem to be a lot of people wanting to make them for some reason(s).

[yodermon]

30. You're right, of course, BUT,

people's brains tend to turn off when you say the word NAZI. It's the whole holocaust thing -- the scope of its evil is truly unimagineable. Most can't process the current situation in that context.

The term fascist, however, is slightly less trance-inducing, so I usually use that one in polite conversation ;)

[xchrom]

31. unimagineable to who? americans? you meant the ones

who so voraciously raped africa for a couple of hundred years or who did their utmost to exerminate the first nations people here --

please -- try not treating americans with kid gloves and tell them the damn truth.

if it walks, talks , and most importantly ACTS like a nazi call it a nazi.

[Karenina]

32. It's truly disheartening

how Americans simply REFUSE to learn from history, the experiences of others or even THEIR OWN EXPERIENCES! When people who lived through the horror perpetrated by the Third Reich openly refer to the *cabal as such and even RETURN TO GERMANY, saying they been there done that already, it's WAY past time to sit up and notice. Schreiing that Hitler was the pinnacle of evil is nothing more than a twisted form of egoism from my vantage point of MEANING "NEVER AGAIN" when I say it. VIGILANCE is required, which at this point is sorely lacking in the diseased American body politic. Make no mistake, with the technological advances of the last half-century the jackboot positioned above ALL OUR HEADS will make the Third Reich look like "The Lord of the Flies."

[G_j]

33. In Germany and Europe Bush gets compared to Hitler

I'd say they might have a bit more prespective on that.

[Karenina]

34. What's interesting

is it's only the post-teenie set, seduced by Ami "culture" who cling to the memories of the now long-lost friend, America. They are generally easily educated. The folks who lived during the Nazi era, who have been STAUNCHLY pro-Ami for decades, have turned with a vengeance. Most often what I hear is a profound sense of betrayal... It's just SO SAD.

BTW, NOTHING to see HERE:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2062553

[malaise]

35. You are correct because the English were just as cruel

to the Irish. Indeed, the poor Irish were the first 'imported' indentured labourers on Caribbean plantations (check Barbados), but what separates Hitler from the rest of European despots, monarchs and popes was that Europeans weren't supposed to do these evil things to fellow Europeans or 'white people' in the 20th century.
Of course it was OK if the people were non-white and therefore perceived as 'sub-human'.

The lies spewed in first year philosophy books about Hitler being an abberation are just lies. Hitler just used Western policy towards Africa, India et al on people in Europe.

[greiner3]

36. If I had a good memory, I'd like to memorize this;

There is nothing remotely unique about what the Nazis did, except perhaps in the realm of sheer numbers. There is nothing unique about starting unwarranted wars of aggression (Bush has done this), stripping away civil liberties (Bush has done this), lying to the people (Bush has done this), using (fabricated?) attacks against national monuments to create paranoiac frenzy (Bush has done this), destroying established democratic institutions in order to consolidate power with the party (Bush has done this), imprisoning citizens without charges for indefinite periods of time (Bush has done this), using police state tactics to invade the privacy of the citizenry (Bush has done this). using certain ethnic or other groups as a scapegoat and a focus of hate for party loyalists (Bush has done this). and it goes on and on. State-sanctioned ppression and murder is NOT unique. It happens EVERY DAY, in countries all over the world, often in countries that our government calls "allies". It's the banality of evil that let Germans complacently watch as the nazis destroyed their country, and then most of Europe. And it's why even "democrats" like Obama pooh-pooh the honest, heartfelt words of a man like Belafonte who has tirelessly worked for civil rights for over four decades.

And use it as a stump speech at the local college. As it is, I'm left with putting up Impeach Bush posters there. I do and repugs take them down. I have time so I put up more and with the free copies I get at school, I put up a LOT of posters. Anybody have new ones I could use?

[Karenina]

38. Check out Bartcop.com

He has great "Worst President Ever" posters.