Split from: Hitchen's Signature Behavior

[brodski]

Hang on a mo' that does seem rather a one-sided view of the world at the time since wasn't at Jefferson's time slavery morally proper and also legally enshrined in USA law?

It's not the same! Because, um, because… it's not as if anyone tried to use the Bible to justify slavery!
Oh, wait, never mind.

 

[drapier]

Googling "Bush and Hitler" produces about 2,040,000 results. The left has promoted this insane comparison for years, starting with false allegations about the father of George H.W. Bush. Prescott Bush was not the "Nazi's financier," nor did he make money from the death camps. Yet, the madness persists. It is impossible to contend that the Bush-Hitler trope, grotesque though it may be, hasn't been a staple of leftist rhetoric.

My relative indifference to the electoral fortunes of the Republican Party contrasts sharply with the unthinking devotion bestowed on the Democratic Party by certain uncritical types. To me, Republicans are preferable in the sense that a C-minus student is a better scholar than an F student. Perhaps I am damning him with faint praise, but Bush, for all his flaws, struck me as having a far clearer understanding of the jihadist threat than John Kerry, whose sonorous incoherence revealed no understanding of it whatever.

A major difference between me and the Democratic sycophants is that I have no interest in defending indefensible behavior. The outlandish rumors circulated about Clinton by rightwing groups, his murders and drug-running activities, served no useful purpose and managed to debase the level of political discourse--never very high--in this country. Nevertheless, drawing bogus parallels between an American politician and the genocidal maniac who caused World War II is far more pernicious than making baseless accusations of wrongdoing. There's a problem with turning your political opponents into comic book super-villains. You need comic book super-heroes to combat them and they're hard to find.

The left? Other than Soros, who is part of this monolithic left, issuing orders to their sycophantic minions?

Comic book super villains? You mean like the Axis of Evil?

George Bush as C- on the jihadist threat -- yes, he's done a heck of a job over there.

 

[varwoche]

Tammy Bruce states very clearly that Moveon did not produce the ads and repudiated them. I see no shameless distortion of facts. That leftists have compared Bush to Hitler countless times is shameful.

Here is the first paragraph of Bruce's rant about the ad:

The Leftist extremists now in charge of the Democratic Party are either so desperate or delusional they are now comparing this nation to Hitler’s Third Reich and the president to Hitler himself.

This is a classic smear. Who are the leftist extremists "in charge of the democratic party"? Certainly the random bozo who submitted the ad is not in charge of the democratic party. Even Soros is not in charge, and nor is he responsible for the comparison in this instance.

And here again is what you first posted while citing the Bruce article:

If you want to pretend that MoveOn hasn't made a practice of comparing Bush to Hitler, you run into a brick wall of reality.

In the incident being discussed, Moveon did not compare Bush to Hitler, as you inferred here.

You might also address Glenn's points about the "made a practice" aspect.

Subsequent goalpost movement notwithstanding, you and Bruce (I can't say about Hitchens because I wasn't there) grossly distorted the truth.

 

[Reager]

That event hardly made it a free-for-all. Really, you don't want the whole thing to be a giant pat-each-other-on-the-back, do you?

~~ Paul

I'm not complaining about healthy (or even raucus) debate, but please explain to me what the Iraq war or Muslim extremists has to do with Skepticism and the Media? I realize those are two dominant issues right now, but at every TAM both Hitchens and I've attended (which is all of them) that's what he's talked about. Enough already.

One problem is we need a moderator who is able to keep the panel focused, something we did not have this year.

 

[pomeroo]

No Distortion

Here is the first paragraph of Bruce's rant about the ad: This is a classic smear. Who are the leftist extremists "in charge of the democratic party"? Certainly the random bozo who submitted the ad is not in charge of the democratic party. Even Soros is not in charge, and nor is he responsible for the comparison in this instance.

And here again is what you first posted while citing the Bruce article: In the incident being discussed, Moveon did not compare Bush to Hitler, as you inferred here.

You might also address Glenn's points about the "made a practice" aspect.

Subsequent goalpost movement notwithstanding, you and Bruce (I can't say about Hitchens because I wasn't there) grossly distorted the truth.

No, I did not distort the truth and neither did Bruce. The left has promoted the vicious Bush-as-Hitler smear in countless venues. The article on Soros to which I linked reveals the ideology animating the man who gave over $24 million to defeat Bush.

You might want to read 'The Shadow Party,' by David Horowitz and Richard Poe.

 

[varwoche]

No, I did not distort the truth and neither did Bruce. The left has promoted the vicious Bush-as-Hitler smear in countless venues. The article on Soros to which I linked reveals the ideology animating the man who gave over $24 million to defeat Bush.

You might want to read 'The Shadow Party,' by David Horowitz and Richard Poe.

It's not every day that I see a goalpost made of straw moving hither and yon so quickly yet clumsily.

The gross distortions that I and others have pointed out are abundantly clear. Since our dialog has no bearing on the forum section we're posting in, I'll refrain from further comment. (If you want more feedback, start a thread in the Politics section.)

 

[pomeroo]

Where We Stand

It's not every day that I see a goalpost made of straw moving hither and yon so quickly yet clumsily.

The gross distortions that I and others have pointed out are abundantly clear. Since our dialog has no bearing on the forum section we're posting in, I'll refrain from further comment. (If you want more feedback, start a thread in the Politics section.)

The left's ugly smear of Bush continues. There are no "gross distortions," as no one has claimed that the ads comparing Bush to Hitler were anything but entries in a contest. The two ads appeared on Moveon.org's website and were removed when the RNC and various Jewish groups complained. It is preposterous that Moveon's audience "disapproved" of the very thing these types say ALL THE TIME. The book Soros wrote speaks for itself. Much of this discussion is disingenuous.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Glenn, I'm astonished by your evident lack of familiarity with Christopher Hitchens's work. A bi-partisan Senate investigating committee determined that Joe Wilson did indeed lie when he claimed that his wife did not suggest him for the assignment to Niger. That same committee concluded that Wilson's visit did not refute the findings of British intelligence but, rather, lent support to them. Here are links to several pieces Hitchens has published on Slate.com that deal with Iraq's attempts to purchase yellowcake from Niger:.....

I'll have to look at your sources before taking you on here (actually in a new thread when I get to it) but I do have a comment now.

Actually, three comments.

Even Bush now admits the Niger yellow cake incident was false. Your claim Wilson's report backed the lie is incredulous.

Whether or not his wife had anything to do with the assignment (I'll look at your citations), Wilson had done work in Africa, knew the political territory, and was qualified for the job. As evidence, he got it right, didn't he?

And three, the Scooter Libby trial jury selection continued today.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

This is not the politics forum.

~~ Paul

 

[Cleon]

This is not the politics forum.

~~ Paul

A wee bit late for that, for one thing. For another, expecting anything involving Hitchens to NOT descend into politics is like expecting him to give up drinking.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
I will grant some leeway on the idea of Western responsibility--the installation of the Shah in Iran in 1953 to counter the Marxists was a tactical blunder which we are still paying for over half a century later. Yes, there was a time when the CIA could actually get things done, and a lot of those things were short-sighted and disastrous in the long term. My chief objection to this strategy was that the American intelligence community seemed to lose faith in the strength of democracy and played the Soviet game too much. They should have backed the people, who will always be there, rather than individual despots, who are a dime a dozen.

Nevertheless, the view that the West is responsible for everything is even worse than what Hitchens claimed: it's a thinly veiled twist on White-Man's Burden, in which we refuse to hold the people of the third world in any way responsible for their misfortunes because we regard them as some sort of children who are incapable of managing their own affairs. In essence, we believe that nothing that they do matters--the ideological cornerstone of colonial imperialism. It turns my stomach to realize that this patronizing attitude comes in the velvet cloak of political correctness. We've found yet another way to make our own bigotry palatable. Those who hold this attitude are poisoning the very people they claim to be helping.....

From 1900 on (and you could go back further if you look at more than just oil), the US and Britain literally split up the Mideast oil resources among their proxy oil companies. Even though China and Russia were developing communism then, and maybe the US government had concerns, the "Cold War" didn't start until the end of WWII.

It was nationalizing of private assets, some of which were American, that sent us interfering in every country on the planet. However, in our stupidity, ignorance and greed, when we could have supported labor organizations instead of oppressive dictators, we chose the dictators and we even trained their armies in labor union leader murder techniques. Instead of developing democracies, we repressed them when the elected leaders didn't suit us.

Those countries did need capital investments. And nationalizing a company's assets after they set up the infrastructure to pump your oil resources was not right either. But we are seeing the results now of really poor solutions then.

And then there's Bush. Just after the initial most recent invasion in Iraq, what announcement did he make to the Iraqi people? "Don't burn the oil wells". While he may have been thinking of the Kuwait experience, it was no less a serious blunder.

And what did Bush do next? He sent Paul Brenner over to set up the corporate dream world. Labor unions were outlawed as one of the first acts.


But Hitchens is listening to Islamic fundies proclaim Sharia Law, growing indoctrinated armies in the Madrassas, and spreading the same around the world. It certainly isn't something we can ignore.


It just isn't a black and white world. And there is a big culture clash that is going to be hard to resolve. You have the religious fundamentalism on three sides in conflict. And you have the intolerable status of women in societies such as the Taliban created. For that matter, the intolerable religious control is a pretty broad gap to cross.


I think Hitchens did have a point there even though he ignored the fact there are lots of Islamists who aren't totalitarian.

 

[TsarBomba]

In other words, you agree with Hitchens, so it doesn't bother you that his bloviating (and whatever prompted it) about the Islamic boogeyman have nothing to do with skepticism and the media. Thanks for being honest.

Frankly Reager, I think that your statement is a complete non-sequitur, but I will say that absolutely and completely agree with everything that Hitchens said. As I said before, at least Hitchens had the guts to challenge Dikkers statment blaming Great Satan for the existence of Islamist terrorists ( and before you reply, I acknowledge that he didn't say "Great Satan," that is just my unfair and biased summary of his statments). In a our wonderful modern, multi-cultural, politically correct world full of the mealy-mouthed, the timorous, the people who watch everything they say so as to avoid giving offense, Christopher Hitchens is a breath of fresh air. Horray for Christopher Hitchens.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

From Salon.com on Moveon.org:

"In fact, as those who've followed the story know, MoveOn didn't sponsor or create, let alone televise, ads comparing Bush to Hitler. ...

Thank you, drapier. It's like the right wing propaganda machine attributing blog replies to the blog author.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Salon's explanation of those notorious ads is more than a little disingenuous. George Soros, the organization's principal backer, has made a practice of comparing Bush to Hitler. The claim that the two ads scored poorly with MoveOn supporters rings very, very untrue.

You are very selective in which 'facts' you chose to buy into. Were you there for Peter Sagal's presentation?

 

[TsarBomba]

I think Hitchens did have a point there even though he ignored the fact there are lots of Islamists who aren't totalitarian.

At the risk of appearing pedantic, I must point out the real and important distinction between a Muslim and an Islamist. Islamists are followers of a specific stream of Islam called Islamism. There are plenty of Muslims who are not totalitarian, but all Islamists are totalitarian.

Wikipedia defines Islamism as: "A neologism, denoting a political ideology that holds that Islam is not only a religion to be practiced by individuals, but a political system. Islamism holds that all Muslims should live in a state which is governed according to Sharia law." Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamist.

Any state governed by Sharia is totalitarian, this all Islamists are totalitarian, because they want the state to be governed by Sharia.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

We are kidding, aren't we? I said that GEORGE SOROS, MoveOn's principal backer, has made a practice of comparing Bush to Hitler. That much is incontrovertible.

The articles by Hitchens that I linked to are "implausible"? Why, pray tell? I understand that they are highly inconvenient to the Big Lies of the left, but they are manifestly accurate. British intelligence, incidentally, stands by its findings?

The bi-partisan Senate investigating committee that determined that Joe Wilson lied when he claimed that his wife didn't recommend him for the assignment to Niger--how do its conclusions square with the myth of Wilson as Fearless Whistleblower?

The word Hitler does not appear in this Source Watch bio of Soros.

Care to find a source for your curious beliefs.

And just which bipartisan committee report would that be which found Wilson both a liar, and a supporter of the Bush statement about the Niger yellowcake deal. Aren't you using a double negative there?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

A wee bit late for that, for one thing. For another, expecting anything involving Hitchens to NOT descend into politics is like expecting him to give up drinking.

You are correct, sir.

~~ Paul

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... For a useful analysis, see:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15710

Googling "Bush and Hitler" produces about 2,040,000 results. .....

Well I was going to look up http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Authors.asp to analyze it as a valid source. But as I started listing the authors, I got to the last one here and decided I need go no further.

Stephen Brown

Mona Charen

Phyllis Chesler

Jacob Cohen

Peter Collier

David Horowitz

Ann Coulter

Not exactly a basket of credibility there when Coulter is listed as a contributor.

And you aren't doing your credibility any favors listing how many times "Bush and Hitler" comes up on Google as useful data.

I got 2,020,000 for jesus and hitler. So?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I did find Hitchens's talk about how the media totally chickened out on the Danish cartoons spot-on. However, to begin his reply to Dikers by accusing him of "liberal masochism" was typical Hitchens behavior, and out of line, IMNSHO. There's not that much difference between the debating tactics of the "drink-soaked former Trotskyist popinjay" and those of Ann Coulter aside from the British accent and a better vocabulary. They're both professional controversialists. Of course, every now and again he writes something that has me saying "Hear, hear!"

The problem of Islamist extremism is a very complex one, and all simple answers are wrong.

And I mucked up my question on that too. I wanted him to discuss what he thought of the press' excuse. They followed the first replies like sheep. Not free speech, just respect for the religion. That's nonsense. Christians didn't burn down the art gallery that had Jesus on a cross in a tank of piss.

I think it came from the majority of reporters not really knowing what the typical Islamic reaction to the cartoons should normally be. The reporters were sort of cow towing to a bunch of vocal extremists. Oh sure, everyone should know a blasphemous picture of Mohammad requires rioting and burning.

It only would have taken a 15 minute search to find the last 50 published pictures of cartoon Mohameds where no rioting occurred. Any decent reporter should have thought of that.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

At the risk of appearing pedantic, I must point out the real and important distinction between a Muslim and and Islamist. Islamists are followers of a specific stream of Islam called Islamism. There are plenty of Muslims who are not totalitarian, but all Islamists are totalitarian.

Wikipedia defines Islamism as: "A neologism, denoting a political ideology that holds that Islam is not only a religion to be practiced by individuals, but a political system. Islamism holds that all Muslims should live in a state which is governed according to Sharia law." Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamist.

Any state governed by Sharia is totalitarian, this all Islamists are totalitarian, because they want the state to be governed by Sharia.

Thanks. I didn't know that. I'll read a bit more about it.