posted 01-08-2004 08:16 PM            

Bush is an arrogant, greedy corporate puppet of low intelligence but with a persuasive charisma, on the far right politically, who’s prepared to take America into wars invading other countries for supposedly great patriotic purposes, security of the “homeland,” and empire building as detailed in his National Security Strategy doctrine, an unabashed plan for world domination. [b]

Hitler was an egomaniac, a bully, a dictator, and a ruthless tyrant who believed in using domination, violence and killing to achieve his political aims.

[b]Bush the egomaniac told Woodward he “doesn’t have to explain anything to anybody,” continues to warn the world he’ll attack sovereign nations with or without UN approval, has publicly proclaimed his desire for dictatorship, and is a ruthless tyrant who believes in using intimidation, media smear campaigns, assassinations, and the “new product,” war, to achieve his political aims. Recently, his staffers revealed the identity of a CIA NOC agent tasked to contain the spread of WMDs simply to exact revenge against a truth-teller, Ambassador Joseph Wilson.

Hitler had no sincere respect or concern for the national constitution, civil rights, individual freedoms, or the building of a prosperous economy, and his regime brought great harm to his country. He became drunk with power and aimed to create a dominating world empire ruled by him.

Bush has no sincere respect or concern for the Constitution, (election fraud, USA Patriot Act, expanded FISA rules, undermining of the Posse Comitatus Act, new Dept. of Homeland Security powers, Total Information Awareness,) civil rights, (free speech zones, secret no-fly lists,) individual freedoms, (black-bag searches, library spying, random road checkpoints, national ID cards,) or building a prosperous economy, (tax cuts for rich, massive corporate welfare, history-making deficits, record military spending, deep slashes in social programs,) and his regime is bringing great harm to the country, (stock market down; unemployment, crime, bankruptcies, foreclosures, poverty, homelessness and uninsured up; unprecedented weakening of environmental protections; frightening rise in global American disdain.)

Hitler presided over a major national disaster, the burning of the Reichstag, the national parliament building, which he blamed on terrorists but which was revealed to be the work of his own Nazi minions. They were “just following orders.”

Bush presided over a major national disaster, (9-11 terrorist attacks + anthrax letters,) which he has since been discovered to have at least known were imminent (Sen. Intel Committee uncovered 33 warnings, White House staffers admit taking Cipro before anthrax attacks) and may have participated in via deliberate complacency if not outright assistance, implied by his stonewalling and under-funding of a full 9-11 investigation, past business ties with the bin Laden family and Saudi royals, and a policy paper penned by his closest associates, titled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses,” in 2000, that stated: “

That event gave Hitler the opportunity to declare an emergency and expand his dictatorial powers further, so as to enforce his fascist beliefs and goals into societal reality, repress dissent, and gain personal benefits as well.

9-11 gave Bush the opportunity to declare a perpetual state of war emergency and expand his dictatorial powers further, so as to enforce his corpro-fascist beliefs and goals into societal reality, repress dissent, and gain personal financial benefits as well.

Hitler used the war-terminology "homeland" often, and whipped up fervent patriotism to support his wars. He used war as a means to distract people from domestic troubles and issues, kept the population of the country in constant fear, and exploited that fear for his own purposes.

Bush uses the war-terminology “homeland” often and has whipped up fervent patriotism to support his wars (“you’re either with us or against us.”) He uses war as a means to distract people from his disastrous economic policies and malfeasances committed by him, his administration and his corporate friends, he keeps Americans in constant fear with regular but vague terrorist attack warnings, and exploits this fear for his cartel’s own purposes, such as control of the Earth’s resources, increased military spending and demonizing of dissenters.

Hitler said in his writings that if you cannot create war then at least continue to propagate the idea that war is coming. Never leave people in peace, because when they are in peace, you are nobody. Then they don't need you; your very purpose is gone. They need you only when there is danger; so create danger. If there is not real danger, at least create the climate of a false danger.

Bush regularly reminds us the “war on terror” is never-ending, hence creating a climate of permanent danger and fear, whether real or “potential,” in order to maintain “approval” ratings in the face of a growing litany of high crimes, crony capitalism, and failed domestic and foreign policies.

Hitler sought to achieve a “Godderdammerung” – a razing of civilization as it was known so that he could create a distorted new world in his own twisted image.

Bush believes God chose him to spread His version of “democracy” to nations that just happen to control valuable resources, razing civilizations through “shock and awe” invasions followed by destruction of historical artifacts and records, clearing the way for his twisted vision of a new world order. .

Of course, Bush hasn’t started killing Jews yet.

Just because Bush has begun killing Jews doesn’t mean comparisons to Hitler aren’t relevant. He is, however, responsible for the deaths of an estimated 5000 innocent Afghanis as well as more than 10,000 Taliban soldiers who had nothing to do with al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or the 9-11 terrorist attacks, not to mention up to 35,000 innocent Iraqis, an estimated 15,000 Iraqi Army conscripts and 485 US Troops as well as another 11,000+ severely wounded.

http://www.re-select.com/bam/BAM_Bush_Hitler.htm

I know this is old hat to some of you, but it bears repeating! And I'm sure he could have added more examples at that!

bc

posted 01-09-2004 03:28 PM            

The picture symbolically represents the points made in the article!

The comparison of Bush with Hitler is a legitimate intellectual exercise of thought!

Exaggeration is always used in political cartoons as well as impactful illustrative pics.

Republican's expertise at mudslinging rivals that of anyone in the political field!

Freedom of speech is still alive and well!

Excellent pic and article!

bc

posted 01-09-2004 09:55 PM            

Give credit where credit is due!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boomer Chick:

Republican's expertise at mudslinging rivals that of anyone in the political field!
bc

---

Republicans invented mudslinging and their expertise EXCEEDS everyone else in that field combined.

posted 01-09-2004 10:38 PM            

Here's another entry on the subject!

The Bush Hitler Thing
t r u t h o u t | Reader Submission

Friday 09 January 2004

Dear Sir,

My family was one of Hitler's victims. We lost a lot under the Nazi occupation, including an uncle who died in the camps and a cousin killed by a booby trap. I was terrified when my father went ballistic after finding my brother and me playing with a hand grenade. (I was only 12 at the time, and my brother insisted the grenade was safe.) I remember the rubble and the hardships of 'austerity' - and the bomb craters from Allied bombs. As late as the 1980s, I had to take detours while bombs were being removed - they litter the countryside, buried under parking lots,buildings, and in the canals and rivers to this day. Believe me, I learned a lot about Hitler while I was growing up, both in Europe and here in the US - both my parents were in the war and talked about it constantly, unlike most American families. I spent my earliest years with the second-hand fear that trickled down from their PTSD - undiagnosed and untreated in those days.

I'm no expert on WWII - but I learned a lot about what happened in Germany - and Europe - back in those days. I always wondered how the wonderful German people - so honest, decent, hard-working, friendly, and generous - could ever allow such a thing to happen. (There were camps near my family's home - they still talk about them only in hushed conspiratorial whispers.) I asked a lot of questions - we were only a few kilometers from the German border - and no one ever denied me. My relatives had obviously spent a lot of time thinking about the war - they still haven't forgotten - I don't think anyone can forget such a horrible nightmare. Among the questions I asked:

Why didn't you do anything about the people in the camps?

Everyone was terrified. People 'disappeared' into those camps. Sometimes the Nazis came and lined everyone up, walking behind them - even school children - with a cocked pistol. You never knew when they would just shoot someone in the back of the head. Everyone was terrified. Everyone was disarmed - guns were registered, so all the Nazis had to do was go from house to house and demand the guns.

Didn't you see what was happening?

We saw. There was nothing we could do. Our military had no modern weapons. The Nazis had technology and resources - they just invaded and took over - we were overwhelmed by their air power. They had spies everywhere - people spying on each other, just to have an 'ace in the hole' in case they were accused - and anyone who had a grudge against you could accuse you of something - just an accusation meant you'd disappear. Nobody dared ask where you had gone - anyone who returned was considered suspicious - what had they said, and who did they implicate? It was a climate of fear - there's nothing anyone can do when the government uses fear and imprisonment to intimidate people. The government was above the law - even in Germany, it became 'every man for himself'. Advancement was possible by exposing 'traitors' - anyone who questioned the government. It didn't matter if the people you accused were guilty or not - just the accusation was enough.

Did anyone know what was going on?

We all knew. We imagined the worst because the Nazis made 'examples' of a few people in every town and village. Public torture and execution. The most unspeakable atrocities were committed in full view of everyone. If this is what happened in public, can you imagine what might be going on in the camps? Nobody wanted to know.

Why didn't the German people stop the Nazis?

Life was better, at first, under the Nazis. The war machine invigorated the economy - men had jobs again, and enough money to take care of their family. New building projects were everywhere. The shops were full again - and people could afford good food, culture, and luxuries. Women could stay home in comfort. Crime was reduced. Health care improved. It was a rosy scenario - Hitler brought order and prosperity. His policies won widespread approval because life was better for most Germans, after the misery of reparations and inflation. The people liked the idea of removing the worst elements of society - the gypsies, the homosexuals, the petty criminals - it was easy to elicit support for prosecuting the corrupt 'evil'people poisoning society. Every family was proud of their hometown heroes - the sharply-dressed soldiers they contributed to his program - they were, after all,defending the Fatherland. Continuing a proud tradition that had been defeated and shamed after WWI, the soldiers gave the feeling of power and success to the proud families that showered them with praise and support. Their early victories were reason to celebrate - in spite of the fact that they faced poorly armed inferior forces - further proof that what they were doing was right, and the best thing for the country. The news was full of stories about their bravery and accomplishments against a vile enemy. They were 'liberating' these countries from their corrupt governments.

These are some of the answers I gleaned over the years. As a child, I was fascinated with the Nazis. I thought the German soldiers were really something - that's how strong an impression they made, even after the war. After all, they weren't the ones committing war crimes - they were the pride of their families and communities. It was just the SS and Gestapo that were 'bad'. Now I know better -but that pride in the military was a strong factor for many years, only adding to the mystique of military power - after all, my father had been a soldier too, but in the American army. It took a while to figure out the truth.

Every time I've gone back to Europe, someone has taken me to the 'gardens of stone' - the Allied cemeteries that dot the countryside. With great sadness, my relatives would stand in abject misery, remembering the nightmare, and asking 'Why?'. Maybe that's why they wouldn't support the US invasion of Iraq. They knew war. They knew occupation. And they knew resistance. I saw the building where British flyers hid on their way back to England - smuggled out by brave families that risked the lives of everyone to help the Allies. As a child, I had played in a basement, where the cow lived under the house, as is common there. The same place those flyers hid.

So why, now, when I hear GWB's speeches, do I think of Hitler? Why have I drawn a parallel between the Nazis and the present administration? Just one small reason -the phrase 'Never forget'. Never let this happen again. It is better to question our government - because it really can happen here - than to ignore the possibility.

So far, I've seen nothing to eliminate the possibility that Bush is on the same course as Hitler. And I've seen far too many analogies to dismiss the possibility. The propaganda. The lies. The rhetoric. The nationalism. The flag waving. The pretext of 'preventive war'. The flaunting of international law and international standards of justice. The disappearances of 'undesirable' aliens. The threats against protesters. The invasion of a non-threatening sovereign nation. The occupation of a hostile country. The promises of prosperity and security. The spying on ordinary citizens. The incitement to spy on one's neighbors - and report them to the government. The arrogant triumphant pride in military conquest. The honoring of soldiers. The tributes to 'fallen warriors. The diversion of money to the military. The demonization of government appointed 'enemies'. The establishment of 'Homeland Security'. The dehumanization of 'foreigners'. The total lack of interest in the victims of government policy. The incarceration of the poor and mentally ill. The growing prosperity from military ventures. The illusion of 'goodness' and primacy. The new einsatzgrupen forces. Assassination teams. Closed extralegal internment camps. The militarization of domestic police. Media blackout of non-approved issues. Blacklisting of protesters - including the no-fly lists and photographing dissenters at rallies.

There isn't much doubt in my mind - anyone who compares the history of Hitler's rise to power and the progression of recent events in the US cannot avoid the parallels. It's incontrovertible. Is Bush another Hitler? Maybe not, but with each incriminating event, the parallel grows -it certainly cannot be dismissed. There's too much evidence already. Just as Hitler used American tactics to plan and execute his reign, it looks as if Karl Rove is reading Hitler's playbook to plan world domination - and that is the stated intent of both. From the Reichstag fire to the landing at Nuremberg to the motto of "Gott Mit Uns" to the unprovoked invasion and occupation of Iraq to the insistence that peace was the ultimate goal, the line is unbroken and unwavering.

I'm afraid now, that what may still come to pass is a reign far more savage and barbaric than that of the Nazis. Already, appeasement has been fruitless - it only encourages the brazen to escalate their arrogance and braggadocio. Americans support Bush - by a generous majority - and mass media sings his praises while indicting his detractors - or silencing their opinions completely. The American people seem to care only about the domestic economic situation - and even in that, they are in complete denial. They don't want to hear about Iraq, and Afghanistan is already forgotten. Even the Democratic opposition supports the occupation of Iraq. Everyone seems to agree that Saddam Hussein deserves to be executed -with or without a trial. 'Visitors' are fingerprinted. Guilty until proven innocent. Snipers are on New York City rooftops. When do the Stryker teams start appearing on American streets? They're perfectly suited for 'Homeland Security' - and they've had a trial run in Iraq. The Constitution has been suspended - until further notice. Dick Cheney just mentioned it may be for decades - even a generation, as Rice asserts as well. Is this the start of the 1000 year reign of this new collection of thugs? So it would seem.

I can only hope that in the coming year there will be some sign - some hint - that we are not becoming that which we abhor. The Theory of the Grotesque fares all too well these days. It may not be Nazi Germany - it might be a lot worse.

SL | Wisconsin

------- http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/010904A.shtml

posted 01-10-2004 01:19 PM            

he looks strange without his mustache.

And those two insidiously looking criminal types riding in the car. Excellent.

When Bush came through my city on his pre-election propaganda tour and pictured himself repeatedly with Generals, we knew instinctively we were headed for WAR. The Spirit made this mans Hitleresque intentions known to us here, way before he was ever elected. And we do not believe he is finished yet.

posted 01-10-2004 02:10 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boomer Chick:
The picture symbolically represents the points made in the article! The comparison of Bush with Hitler is a legitimate intellectual exercise of thought!

---

The article is a valid exercise. The doctored image is childish.

quote:

---

Exaggeration is always used in political cartoons as well as impactful illustrative pics. Republican's expertise at mudslinging rivals that of anyone in the political field! Freedom of speech is still alive and well!

---

Freedom of speech is obviously alive and well since you can post that picture and you're not in jail.

Nevertheless, to say that exaggeration is always used is to understate the degree to which that picture is an exaggeration. It goes beyond making a political point to being downright socially offensive, both by insulting the real victims of Hitler and by overstating the current situation by leaps and bounds.

posted 01-10-2004 06:42 PM            

Here's also a question for you if you don't mind:

If you could choose, right now, between standing up and defending an open, honest, Democratically inspired Republic based upon Justice, Fairness, The Bill of Rights and Constitutional Law or standing up and defending a closed, dishonest, Un-Democratically inspired Totalitarian Fascist Regime based upon Injustice, Unfairness, a Hatred for the Bill of Rights and Constitutional Law which would you choose and why?

posted 01-10-2004 06:51 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Show-Me Truth:
If you could choose, right now, between standing up and defending an open, honest, Democratically inspired Republic based upon Justice, Fairness, The Bill of Rights and Constitutional Law or standing up and defending a closed, dishonest, Un-Democratically inspired Totalitarian Fascist Regime based upon Injustice, Unfairness, a Hatred for the Bill of Rights and Constitutional Law which would you choose and why?

---

The former. The reason is obvious.

And as I said, it's fair to compare things that happened in the late 1930's in Germany to some things happening in our country today. That's pointing out historical similaries and, hopefully, learning from mistakes. But that doesn't change the fact that the doctored images of Bush/Hitler (which are a lot more "real-looking" than political cartoons of time passed) is offensive in various ways.

posted 01-10-2004 07:11 PM            

"It would be easier if this country was a dictatorship...just as long as i'm the dictator".

posted 01-10-2004 07:43 PM            

and it seems the picture may be more "offensive" to you than it is to me. I however find it wildly humorous with a strong element of truth and I believe probably most of the people I know, which includes folks from all walks of life, would also concur to it's humorous nature even if they didn't "politically" agree. My guess is that mainly only those few that have been brought up in environments where any question of "authority" was never tolerated might find it uncomfortable to view.

As we all know "authority" is and has been often proven wrong, and "out of control" authority has often proven deadly to the worlds masses. And often to our very neigbors. I personally don't want to see more of my fellow countrymen come home in boxes or in peices. And especially not for OIl and Empire. Nor do I want to see the land of the Free, transformed into Orwell's nightmare land of the walking dead, where there was one god, and it was Big Brother. These things are MUCH more offensive than any Bush likenes to Hitler.

But in all probability though making comparisons between the Nazi's and the Neo-cons is useful, a better approach to understanding where we are and where were headed is simply to ask specifically do we want the things the Bush Regime is giving the American citizens:

Do we want our fellow citizens held indefinately without trial?

Do we want to allow for secret searches, secret trials, secret evidence?

Do we want to be at war forever with a vague and ever morphing eternal enemy? (Oceania)?

Do we want to continue to run up astranomical debt and is it really necessary to avoid a "crash"?

Do we feel the killing of approx. 8000 Iraqi civilians is at all justified in the pursuit of resources and influence?

Do we feel that having been lied to so many times makes the end justify the means?

Do we want to give up our sons and daughters for The Empire???

posted 01-12-2004 11:11 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Show-Me Truth:
I see what your saying letxa2000,

and it seems the picture may be more "offensive" to you than it is to me. I however find it wildly humorous with a strong element of truth and I believe probably most of the people I know, which includes folks from all walks of life, would also concur to it's humorous nature even if they didn't "politically" agree. My guess is that mainly only those few that have been brought up in environments where any question of "authority" was never tolerated might find it uncomfortable to view.

As we all know "authority" is and has been often proven wrong, and "out of control" authority has often proven deadly to the worlds masses. And often to our very neigbors. I personally don't want to see more of my fellow countrymen come home in boxes or in peices. And especially not for OIl and Empire. Nor do I want to see the land of the Free, transformed into Orwell's nightmare land of the walking dead, where there was one god, and it was Big Brother. These things are MUCH more offensive than any Bush likenes to Hitler.

But in all probability though making comparisons between the Nazi's and the Neo-cons is useful, a better approach to understanding where we are and where were headed is simply to ask specifically do we want the things the Bush Regime is giving the American citizens:

Do we want our fellow citizens held indefinately without trial?

Do we want to allow for secret searches, secret trials, secret evidence?

Do we want to be at war forever with a vague and ever morphing eternal enemy? (Oceania)?

Do we want to continue to run up astranomical debt and is it really necessary to avoid a "crash"?

Do we feel the killing of approx. 8000 Iraqi civilians is at all justified in the pursuit of resources and influence?

Do we feel that having been lied to so many times makes the end justify the means?

Do we want to give up our sons and daughters for The Empire???

SmT

---

Gee, SMT, I wonder why Letxa hasn't answered your intelligent questions?

Of course the answer is "no" to all of your above questions!

The value of comparing the present US regime to that of the Third Reich is the supreme value of learning from history. A Holocaust (and yes, this word is capitalized -- I learned this in my college Lit. classes) survivor (above) gives her voice to the public discourse as a warning cry. Those who exercise their powers of comparison judgment add validity to the word, "freedom", in the very exercise of their expressions. And to be able to express and share one's thoughts on the internet is a gift to all freedom-loving citizens as the public forum widens and expands. This knowledge and intelligent discourse broadens the base of informed citizenry -- the best and most efficacious part of democracy -- informed and enlightened voting citizens. Learning from history is our right and our solemn democratic and spiritual duty!

bc

posted 01-14-2004 09:30 PM            

Jan. 13, 2004. 01:00 AM


Can PM appease Bush?

THOMAS WALKOM

Some refer to George W. Bush as another Hitler. This is a gross exaggeration. He has constructed no death camps and only one concentration camp — at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

While it does seem, in Nuremberg terms, that Bush could be called a war criminal (invading other countries on the flimsiest of pretexts), he has not engaged in genocide. Nor, unlike Volkswagen supporter Hitler, does he promote the production of small, cheap cars.

True, both came to power constitutionally (although under dubious circumstances and with the support of only a minority of voters). True, both masterfully used traumatic events at home (the 1933 Reichstag fire for Hitler; 9/11 for Bush) to make a frightened and resentful populace accept restrictions on civil liberties.

True, also, that the U.S. leader shares Hitler's taste for military costumes — although to be fair to the German dictator, he did serve on active duty in wartime.

But overall, the comparison is far from exact, lending credence to Karl Marx's famous comment that when history repeats itself, the first time is tragedy, the second, farce.

Still, for Canada and novice Prime Minister Paul Martin — currently trying to engage Bush in Monterrey, Mexico — there are certain similarities. Like central European nations of the 1930s, Canada finds itself next door to a powerful nation led by an unusually aggressive and perhaps slightly unhinged man. What to do?

It's generally forgotten now, but in the mid-'30s Hitler was not universally condemned as evil personified. Indeed, he had many admirers in Europe and North America — people who lauded his "leadership," who lionized his moral certainty (no namby-pamby moral relativism there) and who either forgave, or actively applauded, what was then called anti-Semitism and today would be labelled racial profiling.

World leaders were wary and respectful. Canada's then-prime minister, Mackenzie King, confided in his diary after meeting Hitler in 1937 that the dictator was "one who truly loves his fellow men and his country and would make any sacrifice for their good ... a man of deep sincerity and a genuine patriot ... a teetotaller."

Yet even King, an ocean away from Germany, recognized that Hitler's ambitions could cause trouble. Consider the difficulties of Germany's small neighbours. Should they stay resolutely neutral and hope for the best (Belgium, Switzerland), sign onto Hitler's security agenda (Austria, Hungary, Romania) or rely on agreements with other nations (Poland, Czechoslovakia)?

These are the choices Canada faces with Bush's America. Former prime minister Jean Chrétien attempted the Swiss solution — stay out of the aggressor's wars but continue to sell him whatever he needs. Hitler was comfortable with that level of tacit support. Bush appears to want more.

Martin seems to be veering to the Romanian model of more active support for Bush's military aims. I say "seems" because, as usual, Martin's actions to date have been rhetorical and procedural — setting up new committees, making vague promises.

Indeed, those far more familiar with Paul Martin's thinking than I whisper that, at heart, the new Prime Minister is no different from Chrétien here. If so, rhetoric will dominate — plus one or two substantive measures.

Like Chrétien, Martin will offer up the Canadian navy and special commando units to the U.S. (those interested in the level to which Canadian maritime forces are already under U.S. command should read Kelly Toughill's masterful piece in last Saturday's Star).

Like Chrétien, Martin will almost certainly sign onto Bush's missile defence scheme. Canada's hope, like that of Russia and Europe, is that missile defence will be harmless (it doesn't work), will provide juicy contracts for industry, and will focus Bush's attention away from invading small nations.

Will Martin go further? Leftish Liberals hope he will simply be a politer Chrétien: Don't join the aggressor's wars but don't call him a moron either.

Those on the right, including many of Martin's business supporters, want a version of the Austrian model: Anschluss (annexation) in everything but name. However, the U.S. has little interest in this so it's unlikely to happen.

Martin has vowed to keep the Canada-U.S. border open to commerce. This is an easy promise to keep since the Americans want that too. He said he would persuade the Americans to "respect" the Canadian passport. He won't get that. He may get an agreement on softwood lumber (which isn't up to Bush; even Hitler wasn't all-powerful). But Martin will get a lumber deal only if he gives the Americans everything they want.

My guess is that if Martin wants the U.S. president to like him, if he wants those coveted invitations to the ranch so useful for winning votes in Alberta, he will have to offer something more — that Canada will have to be a little more Romania and a little less Switzerland.

Switzerland, of course, survived World War II intact. Romania did not.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Walkom's column appears on Tuesday. twalkom@thestar.ca.

Additional articles by Thomas Walkom

posted 01-20-2004 10:49 AM            

ACTION ALERT:
When Are Nazi Comparisons Deplorable?
For Fox News, only when Republicans are the target

January 16, 2004

The controversy over comparisons between George W. Bush and Adolf Hitler in two ads submitted to the anti-Bush ad contest run by the online activist group MoveOn.org says less about the state of left discourse than it does about the double standards at Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation.

News Corp's Fox News Channel started the controversy on January 4, airing Republican National Committee chair Ed Gillespie's complaint about the Bush/Hitler comparison. "That's the kind of tactics we're seeing on the left today in support of these Democratic presidential candidates," Gillespie charged, calling such tactics "despicable."

The whole next day (1/5/04), this was a major story on Fox News Channel. John Gibson asked, "What about the hating Bush movement, the MoveOn.org and George Soros sponsoring these ads that compare Bush to Hitler?"--before being corrected that the ads were not sponsored by MoveOn (or Soros, a funder of the group), and were taken down in response to complaints.

Sean Hannity accused a guest: "You guys on the left are going so far over the cliff. You're making comparisons to the president and Adolf Hitler." Republican pollster Kellyanne Conway said on Hannity's show, "This is the hateful, vitriolic rhetoric that has become the Howard Dean Democratic Party." Bill O'Reilly cited the ads as evidence that "right now in America the Democratic party is being held captive by the far, far left."

It should be noted that however hyperbolic, comparisons to Hitler and fascism are not unknown in the American political debate. Rush Limbaugh has routinely called women's rights advocates "femi-Nazis," and references to "Hitlery Clinton" are a staple of right-wing talk radio. Republican power-broker Grover Norquist on NPR (10/2/03) compared inheritance taxes to the Holocaust.

Closer to home for Fox News, on the very same day that Gibson, Hannity and O'Reilly were talking about the Hitler/Bush comparison as evidence of the left's extremism, a column ran in the New York Post that described Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean as a follower of Josef Goebbels, referred to him as "Herr Howie," accused him of "looking for his Leni Riefenstahl," called his supporters "the Internet Gestapo" and compared them to "Hitler's brownshirts."

The New York Post, like Fox News Channel, is part of News Corporation, Rupert Murdoch's conservative media empire. And this piece wasn't just put up on the Post's website as part of a contest--it was written by a right-wing commentator who frequently appears in the Post's pages, Ralph Peters, and selected for the op-ed page by the Post's own editors. So it's more than a little embarrassing that these blatant Nazi comparisons were being made in the Post while the paper's corporate sibling was denouncing such comparisons as a sign of derangement.

So what did the Murdoch organization do? Fox appears to have completely ignored the Post's own Nazi analogies--there's no reference to the column whatsoever in the cable channel's transcripts. And the New York Post seems to have sent the column down the memory hole--clicking on a link that used to go to Peters' story gives you a "page not found" message, and the text isn't found in the Nexis media database. (Ironically, in light of this Orwellian disappearing act, the column also compared Dean to Big Brother.)

In the interview that started the brouhaha, the RNC's Gillespie was asked if he would oppose similar attacks on Democrats. He replied: "If they stoop to the kind of despicable tactic like morphing a candidate into Adolf Hitler, yes, absolutely, I will tell you right here on the air. Have me back if any organization does that, I would repudiate it."

The same organization that interviewed him did that, through another of its branches, the very next day. So far, Fox News hasn't had him back on to condemn the New York Post.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ACTION: Please ask the New York Post whether it stands by the column it published describing Howard Dean as a Nazi, or if it owes Dean an apology. And ask Fox News Channel why they didn't criticize that column, even though its hosts repeatedly condemned such analogies that same day--when they involved George W. Bush.

CONTACT:
Fox News Channel
1211 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Phone: 1-888-369-4762
comments@foxnews.com

New York Post
1211 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 100036
Phone: 1-212-930-8000
letters@nypost.com

As always, please remember that your comments are taken more seriously if you maintain a polite tone. Please cc fair@fair.org with your correspondence.

See the ads submitted to MoveOn.org comparing Bush to Hitler at The Memory Hole.

See the New York Post column describing Dean as a Nazi in a Google cache.
http://www.fair.org/activism/hitler-ads.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Go to link page for active links to referring articles!

bc