Okay libs...explain yourselves.?

Question

To all of the left-leaning thinkers out there, here's your chance to prove your mettle.

Using actual verifiable facts, explain to me just how it is possible to equate President Bush with the likes of Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin.

It seems to me that the ones shouting the loudest about hate and discrimination are the most hateful and discriminatory among us. Doesn't that bother you at all? Seems rather hypocritical and destroys the Lefts' credibility.

OK, lets have it.

Wow, this is already getting good.

Answer 1

Bush chose to invade Iraq. Most would agree that it was not necessary for us to invade Iraq. The invasion has killed a huge amount of innocents both U.S. and Iraqi.

The U.S. has Guantanamo Bay where political prisoners are taken and at least used to be tortured with Bush's approval. Both the soviets and the nazis engaged in practices like this to further their own political advancements.

Also, the U.S. government has taken on a neocon role by pushing the ideas of democracy in other countries that are not ready for such a thing. To push one's own ideas by force in a country that does not seem to want to follow the same path as the U.S. is reminiscent of Hitler and Stalin.

Bush backers like to say "Ok, you're over the top in comparing Bush to Hitler or Stalin". That's fine. I still think all three are scum, but if you want to think "Well, Bush is not QUITE as scummy as Hitler or Stalin and that makes him ok" I'd argue that you are not really looking at things clearly.

Answer 2

I'm a left-leaning moderate who is conservative on some issues and liberal on others. I do not compare Bush to Hitler or Stalin. Only the extreme left seems to be doing this - the same group that has been duped into thinking that Hugo Chavez is a "people's hero" when in reality he is "a fascist in liberal's clothing". I don't give much credence to the either side if its the EXTREME side because they usually don't make any sense to me.

That said, this has been one of the most incompetent administrations in modern times, and now the majority of the country agrees with this opinion. Hitler and Stalin were downright evil, but I think at the very least Bush is TRYING to accomplish a good thing in Iraq, but has mismanaged it beyond belief.

Answer 3

May 25, 2007 the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence filed a report with the President Pro Tempore concerning the pre-war intelligence assessments on post-war Iraq. It seems the committee came to the following conclusions about issues clearly raised by the intelligence community:

*
Democracy: Establishing a stable government would be a long, difficult and probably turbulent challenge.
*
Terrorism: Al-Qaida would see an opportunity to accelerate its operational tempo and increase terrorist attacks during and after a US-Iraq war. The increase in terror would spike and decrease in 3 to 5 years and in this period the lines between Al-Qaida and other terrorist groups would become blurred. Softer targets, such as US citizens overseas would become more inviting targets.
*
Domestic conflict: Iraq is a deeply divided society that would likely erupt in violent conflict unless an occupying power prevented it.
*
Influence of Iraq’s neighbors: Neighbor’s would jockey for influence in Iraq with activities ranging from rebuilding Iraq’s infrastructure to fomenting strife among Iraq’s sectarian and ethnic groups. Iranian leaders would try to influence the shape of post-Hussein Iraq to preserve national security and demonstrate Iran is an important regional leader.
*
WMD: any action to eliminate Iraqi WMD would not cause other regional states to abandon their WMD programs or desire to develop such programs.
*
Security: the Iraqi government would have to walk a fine line between dismantling the worst aspects of Saddam’s police, security and intelligence forces and retaining the capability to enforce nationwide peace.

And there is more… much, much more. Since these intelligence assessments were conducted pre-war and were not classified it is information that was available to all members of the House and Senate when they voted to authorize the use of military force in Iraq.

Answer 4

stalin no, hitler yes.

hitler loved to have his minions sign loyalty oaths - which produced some of the more strange nuremburg testimony when billionare industrialists would explain why they signed the things.

any who attended a bush cheney rally in the campaign to the 2004 election either had to prove they were republicans or SIGN LOYALTY OATHS - which was the most underreported story of the year.

then there is the way that bush and his supporters like YOU use the word liberal or in your case 'lib.'

actually very similar to the way nazis used the word 'jew.'

your turn to explain YOURSELF sonny...

added note - have a look at the guy above me who wants to have millions and millions killed because he doesn't like them...

Answer 5

I would never compare Bush to those two. Hitler and Stalin, while vile, evil, monsters, were not incompetents.

Answer 6

Liberals are traitors and should be shot......It is morally irresponsible to compare our president to Hitler or Stalin, it is an insult to the memory of the individuals who were exterminated at the hands of these monsters, no historical fact to make such a comparison, libs are horrible insensitive people to be throwing around insults like that in regards to a democratically elected president and to insinuate he is a dictator is ridiculous.My theory is libs are so frustrated that they are not represented in government that they resort to childish name calling, God bless our president and ou troops! hey libs...get ready for another four years of a republican presidency.

Answer 7

Their all megalomaniacs who didn't listen to anyone around them other than those who sided with their beliefs and actions. Is that enough?