Bin Laden = Lenin = Hitler?

[Ddrak]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 101-4.html

"History teaches us that underestimating the words of evil, ambitious men is a terrible mistake," Bush said. "Bin Laden and his terrorist allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them. And the question is, will we listen?"

This annoys me.

Edit: Fixed link

Dd

[superwalrus]

Well, I don't think that Bush is saying that Bin Laden IS those two people, just that he too, is an ambitious and evil man like those other two are. Are you annoyed by the reference to Hitler and Lenin? While I agree it is a silly comparison, those two men paved the way for modern day autocrats and are still some of the best role models for wannabes. To cut down a comparison just because he uses Hitler is silly because eventually the comparison might be correct. But still, I don't think he's saying Bin Laden is Hitler.

Walrus

[Partha]

Everyone is Hitler to a Republican needing a target for bombing or invasion.

[Ddrak]

Well, I don't think that Bush is saying that Bin Laden IS those two people, just that he too, is an ambitious and evil man like those other two are. Are you annoyed by the reference to Hitler and Lenin? While I agree it is a silly comparison, those two men paved the way for modern day autocrats and are still some of the best role models for wannabes. To cut down a comparison just because he uses Hitler is silly because eventually the comparison might be correct. But still, I don't think he's saying Bin Laden is Hitler.

He was saying they were equivalent, not necessarily equal. Even stating that Lenin and Hitler had much in common is historically stupid. Let's face it - Bin Laden is somewhere relatively isolated with nothing much to do with anything right now, particularly Iraq. Hitler and Lenin were *never* in that sort of situation.

Bin Laden is certainly no autocrat, is definitely no communist and is most certainly not a national socialist. It's just a bastardization of history to reinforce a culture of fear, with no real relevance other than "OMG BAD PEOPLE".

Now, I know he was standing in front of the waning neocon rah-rah crowd at the Heritage Society but still, is it really too much to ask that a President make sense in his historical analogies?

Dd

[Kulaf]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/ ... TE=DEFAULT

"History teaches us that underestimating the words of evil, ambitious men is a terrible mistake," Bush said. "Bin Laden and his terrorist allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them. And the question is, will we listen?"

This annoys me.

Dd

Emphasis mine.

[superwalrus]

Ddrak... you're missing the point I think. Bush simply is saying (and I'm going off the things you quoted) that Hitler, Lenin, and Bin Laden are all evil and ambitious men.... are you saying they're not?

Walrus

[Rsak]

What was said is that like Hitler and Lenin, Bin Laden have made their intentions clear. It was also said that they are all evil ambitious men. The scale of their evil and the effect on the world is legitimately on vastly different levels.

I will go so far as say that you can logically conclude that Bush is saying that if we do not listen then Bin Laden could turn into a Hitler or Lenin. That would take alot of things to go their way, but it is not an impossibility however improbable.

The problem is that on some level the comparison is fair because Bin Laden, like Hitler, has targeted a specific race and their supporters for his terroristic attacks.

[Ddrak]

Bush is not "simply saying they are all evil and ambitious". There's an implied equivalence in there or he wouldn't have chosen those names. There are millions of evil ambitions men (and women for that matter) throughout the world, but should the government be curtailing individual rights and spending trillions of taxpayer dollars because they all say random things?

The intention of the statement is obvious - to equate Bin Laden's words with Hitler and Lenin and tell Congress that if they don't follow Bush's story board then we'll get another WW2 or Communist Russia emerging. Nothing could be further from the truth - the only power Bin Laden and terrorism have is the power you given them when you overreact to their antics. It's simply Bush playing a political game of fearmongering and that annoys me.

Do you honestly agree with the blanket generalization that "History teaches us that underestimating the words of evil, ambitious men is a terrible mistake"? Personally I think history teaches nothing of the sort.

Dd

[Finglefinn]

That link is some other article, Dd.


All three men mentioned are equivalent in that they are all evil men who have committed similar acts against mankind.

Hitler was mostly ingored by Europe until he invaded Poland in 1939. European leaders thought that they could just talk to him and appease him. They let him break the Treaty of Versialles without punishment. His "unification" of Czechoslovakia and Austria were part of that appeasement as well. Lots of things happened with Hitler, the Nazi party and the Reichstag, all of which gave Hitler overwhelming control of German politics. It wasn't until England and France declared war against Germany in 1939 that you could truely say that Europe took Hitler's words seriously.

I disagree that Bush is saying "if you don't do what I say, we'll have another World War."

On a side note, I would imagine that in a conventional World War today, over a billion people would die. Scary.

[superwalrus]

I still think you're really offbase there Ddrak, and I completely disagree with the conclusions you've reached from looking at the quote. And I would like to add, *one* of History's lessons is that you should never underestimate evil and ambitious men... they are in power all around us even today.

Walrus

[Ddrak]

Fixed the link to the white house source of the speech.

The context of the statement is the "delay" in Congress of the confirmation of the AG, the domestic spying bill and the funding of the Iraq war. Bush is saying the Congress is "ignoring" Bin Laden in the same way Europe ignored Hitler and "ignored" Lenin. I'd be interested to hear argument on exactly what should have been done about Lenin and when the "ignoring" started and ended.

The fact is, Bin Laden is not being ignored in any way even approximating the others, and Bush's claim of what history "teaches" is woefully ignorant. He's simply using fearmongering to push his agenda and resist any sort of checks and balances against it.

Dd

[Finglefinn]

I heartily agree that Bin Laden's words are not being ignored. That is a stretch by the President, but I hardly think it is a gross misrepresentation of the truth. It's political rhetoric. That is all. Politicians over emphasize everything to drive their reasonings home.

I see your point Dd, but I chalk it up to political posturing, not woeful ignorance.

[Partha]

Bush is saying the Congress is "ignoring" Bin Laden in the same way Europe ignored Hitler and "ignored" Lenin.

And WHO exactly ignored Bin Laden?

"So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you."

"I am truly not that concerned about him."

[Finglefinn]

Who said those things? Clinton?

[Garrdor]

The main thing they all have in common: Success in changing the world

Let it be supporting your goals or not.

[Ddrak]

I heartily agree that Bin Laden's words are not being ignored. That is a stretch by the President, but I hardly think it is a gross misrepresentation of the truth. It's political rhetoric. That is all. Politicians over emphasize everything to drive their reasonings home.

I see your point Dd, but I chalk it up to political posturing, not woeful ignorance.

Political rhetoric annoys me, especially when it draws from fearmongering rather than rational arguments.

On a tangent: do you think Lenin is in the same category as Hitler?

Dd

[Finglefinn]

No. Lenin did some terrible things in his lifetime, but not on the level of Hitler. Lenin wanted to spread Communism across all of Europe and did everything he could to accomplish that goal. I do not think that the things he did were any different that what several other countries were experiencing at the time. It does not make it right, but revolutionary activity in the world in the early 20th was a violent time.

The most nefarious act in the history of the world is and will always be Hitler's slaughter of 6 million Jews.

[Partha]

The most nefarious act they never talk about is Stalin murdering 20 million of his own people. If you want to say anything nice about V.I., it's that he recognized that Stalin was no good.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Hmmmm....

Both of you are considering acts of genocide from a purely western point of view. We sometimes forget other areas of the world when we do so, focusing instead on the direction to which our press corp and national leaders turn our heads. Comparing acts of genocide is a fruitless endevour. There is no competition to be number one in this category, and ranking them insults other victims of acts of genocide.

Manytimes, abhorent and despicable acts lay outside our superficial attempts to define them. None should be discounted and none should be elevated. Personally, I find Hassan Fatemolla's words on genocide profound....

The moment we say one is the worst, we insult the other victims. We have no scale to weigh the tears and blood, we should not have one.

[Kulaf]

I heartily agree that Bin Laden's words are not being ignored. That is a stretch by the President, but I hardly think it is a gross misrepresentation of the truth. It's political rhetoric. That is all. Politicians over emphasize everything to drive their reasonings home.

I see your point Dd, but I chalk it up to political posturing, not woeful ignorance.

Political rhetoric annoys me, especially when it draws from fearmongering rather than rational arguments.

On a tangent: do you think Lenin is in the same category as Hitler?

Dd

Lenin....no. But I think he actually meant Stalin and as usual got confused.