Monday, February 14, 2005

Comparing Bush and Hitler's Policies


A high school kid in Rhode Island received an A on a project where he compared the U.S. invasion of Iraq to the German Blitzkrieg. Well, the intentions of the two actions are as completely opposite as humanly possible in my mind. Bush is trying to spread democracy to Iraq; whereas Hitler was trying to conquer Europe and spread fascism. The only way they are at all similar is that they are both military invasions of other countries. Any comparison between Bush and Hitler, or their policies is mind boggling to me. This is along the same lines of Ward Churchill's paper where he called those working in the World Trade Center "little Eichmans." In absolutely no way are the productive, hard working citizens of America "little Eichmans." I really am tired of people comparing all facets of American life to Nazi Germany. Give me a break.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

President Bush is not Hitler. He means well for America. His foreign policy truely does blow, and its mind boggling to me people support him. However he is not Hitler. Hitler had no reason to invde other countries while Bush had one allbeit a false one. In opinion and the opinions of just about every histroian, President Bush will go down in history as a one of the worst presidents in history. He has cut off virtually all funding to alleviate the AIDS epidemic in Africa under pressure from the religious right and didn't even ponder renewing the assault weapon ban when it ran out. Nobody can ever question President Bush's patriotism or his intentions and they certainly don't have the right to call him a nazi, however he still is a poor leader in my opinion.

Fernbuckle McDragbottom said...

I agree to a certain extent. Even if you disagree with the policies of President Bush, you should still treat him with respect. He is our leader wheather you are liberal or conservative. He is not a Nazi and should not be compred to one.

Jim said...

OK, I'll begin with Hitler was bad, Hitler was evil, Hitler was mad, and George W. Bush is not Hitler.

However, one of the definitions of "compare" is: To examine in order to note the similarities or differences of.

I think that it can be argued that Hitler meant well for his country and that there were reasons (though perhaps false ones) for Germany to invade other countries.

What I'm saying is that comparing one historical figure to another is a legitimate exercise regardless of who they are, and to criticize a such a comparison simply because of who the subjects are is a knee-jerk reaction.

CCJM said...

Jim, what a well thought out comment. I have thought about this a little bit more, and it seems you are right, "comparing one historical figure to another is a legitimate exercise regardless of who they are." I have just gotten carried away with all this American/Nazi talk. My feelings remain that it is hardly plausible that Bush and Hitler are on the same level; however, I feel you are correct in that the comparison should be allowed to be discovered. Thanks for that comment. You really made me realize that perhaps my initial comment was, as you put it, a knee-jerk reaction.