What show was that from? Looks interesting.

randall g:

Film review of Downfall.

A superb film!

I have seen this scene used for many subjects, this is one of the best!!

"What show was that from? Looks interesting".

It's from the German film "The Downfall". Critics say it's the best acting job ever for the role of Hitler. I've seen it and I certainly agree.

Unfortunately, it's in German only but with English sub-titles.

This is soooo bad!

Loved it.

*Unfortunately, it's in German only but with English sub-titles.*

Why unfortunately? you would prefer to watch Hitler talking in english?

That's funny, I'd love to hear what goes on in a Clinton war room

I am so happy I don't speak german.

uff, big time double entendre...

The second coming of Jimi Hendrix? I'm going to watch that again. Genius.

Bush lied the country into an illegal war, threw the Geneva Convention into the dumpster, set up an offshore concentration camp to torture people,and Hillary Clinton's Hitler?

Um. oooohhhhhhh-kay.

I know, I know, I've got it I tell you!!!

It's from Nazi hunter Warren Kinsella's film adaptation of "WARROOM"!!!

The Obama stuff is really just a mistranslation of Obama Bin Laden.

This is obviously a CHRC plot to confuse Canadian voters!!!

Be warned, don't fall for it.

Cheers

Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht BGS, PDP, CFP

Commander in Chief

Frankenstein Battalion

2nd Squadron: Ulanen-(Lancers) Regiment Großherzog Friedrich von Baden(Rheinisches) Nr.7(Saarbrucken)

Knecht Rupprecht Division

Hans Corps

1st Saint Nicolaas Army

Army Group “True North”

Holy scheiße, that was well done.

I smell a really strong whiff of BDS in the air. Who let bolik in here?!

Oh,the war wasn't based on lies?

"We know for a fact that Saddam has WMD"

-Dick Cheney in the run-up to war.

The war isn't in contravention of international law? But Richard Perle, an architect of the war admitted so himself!

Bush didn't throw out the Geneva convention?

His lawyers stated that circumstances have rendered the Geneva convention "quaint".

(That's why all those 90 year old WW2 vets got so angry - somehow they managed to defeat Hitler and the Axis forces without torture)

But let's not point any of this out or one of the Einsteins here will bring up BDS!

(A clever tactic to try and neutralize dissent. I wonder if the Nazis would pooh pooh dissenters by saying they suffered from HDS?)

Too many acronyms and abbreviations. BDS, HDS, WMD? I don't even know what a "bolik" is.

BCer,

I found the movie compelling in large part because of the use of German. Even without understanding the language, I felt it added a layer of realism. German seems to me to be a very harsh language that conveyed Hitler's essence much more convincingly than Alec Guinness' refined British.

glasnost,

A "bolik" is a humourless, mouth-breathing, left-wing carbon unit.

somehow they managed to defeat Hitler and the Axis forces without torture

Also, "boliks" are singularly naive and historically ignorant.

By the way, bolik,

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

-- Sen. Hillary Clinton, Oct 10, 2002

Is Bolik german for troll?

HRC and WJC - who apparently had access to the same intell as GWB supported the overthrow of Saddam. Recent findings show that the Iraqis had created a ready-to-go system for creating WMD that could quickly replace the stockpiles they once had. and that Saddam and his advisors were not expecting the coalition to attack as early as they did, catching him and his WMD manufacturing flat-footed.

The Geneva convention mentions nothing about non-uniformed aggressors - other than allude to them being equivalent to spies and thus it being okay execute them without any trial. It is "quaint" in that they were written before the kind of terrorist activity we know today even existed. Perhaps bolik prefers the term antiquaited.

Here's what perle actually said (from wiki)

"Furthermore, shortly after the invasion of Iraq Perle stated that; "in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing" [12]. He also argued that there was "no practical mechanism consistent with the rules of the UN for dealing with Saddam Hussein". At the time, these comments provoked controversy among critics of the war, who argued that they contradicted the U.S.'s official stance on the legality of the invasion."

The "no practical mechanism" has been talked about by former Clintonites too. And it was legal according to US law and several other countries.

Guantanamo lets the inmates have rice cookers etc. and conditions there are better than the Kingston pen. It's been closely observed for years now and no charges of torture yet. Had the coalition adhered to the letter of the geneva conv. They would all have been summarily shot when they were captured.

Hey darrell

Re: the Clinton quote. Who cares? What's that supposed to prove?

You think I'm a Clinton supporter? When'd I say that?

Your guy lied a country into war and tortures people, and now is the most hated President in history.

That's all there is to it.

The "funny" thing about the left-wing crowd is that trying to convince them with facts and logic is like trying to use the science of nutrition to convince your 2-year-old to eat broccoli.

God help us if 2-year-olds manage to elect the next president.

bolik, "That's all there is to it."

In other words, don't confuse me with facts, my mind's made up.

Bolik, for your information -

The UN inspectors in Iraq were outnumbered unbelievably - in the region of about 100 to 1. In addition they were compelled to give notice before they were allowed to enter an area for an inspection. They were hampered in every way possible during the inspections, and you think that President Bush was lying?? And Saddam was acting responsibly?

It would be damn difficult to locate a portable item the size of a house in an area the size of Saskatchewan if you didn't know what you were looking for and some group was constantly trying to divert and distract you.

(Bear in mind that WMDs do not have to be that big.)

Torture?? Some torture! 3 squares a day, Islam certified. Prayer time, however many times a day. Recreation time interrupted by minor questioning whence you may respond only if you want to.

Rather than a Clinton supporter you sound more like a Layton fanatic.

CRB

Hey Rick in Bc

I presented objective facts galore in my post.

You can use the ol' tarring of liberals as being averse to 'facts and logic', but I'm the one whose posted facts here- which none of you have been able to refute. So you retreat and smear. Typical.

It must be hard for you guys to stand shaking your fists at a world that's passed you by. But look on the bright side: your man Bush has just been recognized as the most hated president in US history.

FINALLY he's accomplished something! Yay!

Uh, bolik. "Our guy" is a Canuck. Bush is an American. Just to help you out on some of the semantics.

Just a couple of other little points to help you out. The Geneva Convention applies to uniformed combatants. All others are "spies" and are not subject to the rules contained within the convention. And I've noticed a distinct lack of beheading of non-uniformed combatants as well as civilians on the coalition side.

Furthermore, if you hate Bush that much, don't vote for him. Oh, wait, you aren't a U.S. citizen so you couldn't have voted for him anyway. Never
mind.

And if you don't believe Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before the inspectors showed up, you're simply simple.

Remember those 90 year old veterans gave you the right to criticize. Just that there weren't as many bleeding hearts to apologize for the actions of Hitler and the Axis forces. We didn't confuse evil and misguided then. We certainly seem to now.

Enjoy your Koolaid bolik.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
luv itttt!!
Phony war or no, there hasn't been another airliner-skyscraper collision since 911.

Will GWB's successor do as well? I doubt it.

Texans have a way of cutting to the chase, an ambitious new yauk skank can only dream of.

What kind of a compromise is it, sticking with a nationally known phillanderer any way? Make a deal with anyone, to gain power? Yeah right..

This video is pretty funny too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws

Here is another take on this film clip - this one via Autoblog:

"If I wanted a piece of shit I would have asked for a Camaro SS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2bycZa4zKY

Why the hell does this link take me to a Google 403 error page? Does it in Firefox, and does it in Opera. And Google ain't even part of the URL. What gives?

"Is Bolik german for troll?"

Seems to me, on this blog anyway, "troll" translates as "dissent." If we don't see it your way we're commies, pinkos, socialists, queers, lefturds, progressives, etc. All kinds of names.

What Bolik is saying, and I heartily agree, is Bush and his buddies have lied the U.S. into an illegal war, into a country that never attacked the U.S., openly admits with photographic evidence that the U.S. army tortures prisoners who have not been charged with anything, sends prisoners to unknown dungeon locations thoughout the world, steals Iraqi and U.S. money, and on and on and on.

You guys and girls don't get it. The U.S.A. is a terrorist nation increasingly looked upon with hate from everyone in the world. The U.S.A. is the most dangerous nation on the planet.

I suppose if you continue to hug each other tightly and continue yelling you won't have to listen to reason.

god, why do I bother. Carry on folks.

John B, that clip was also sehr gut. There are many talented people out there; how do we mobilize and focus their efforts?

"Bush and his buddies have lied the U.S. into an illegal war, into a country that never attacked the U.S., openly admits with photographic evidence that the U.S. army tortures prisoners who have not been charged with anything, sends prisoners to unknown dungeon locations thoughout the world, steals Iraqi and U.S. money, and on and on and on."

Saying it is so, doesn't make it so. But, since you are sooo right, when are the charges being laid, and impeachment beginning?

"(That's why all those 90 year old WW2 vets got so angry - somehow they managed to defeat Hitler and the Axis forces without torture)"

Posted by: bolik at May 11, 2008 9:34 PM

How many old vets have you actually spoken with? The ones I've spoken with didn't call it torture. They had fun names like "a rifle butt to the head" or "a good kick in the nuts". God bless them, they did what they had to do to defeat the tyranny of the nazis.

"Is Bolik german for troll?"

Nein, it iz how we say 'bollocks'

Paul, great riposte. Sadly, it will have no effect on the likes of Mr. Hawke and Bolik. Nothing between their ears but CO2.

Not the funniest ever, but...expected commentary.
Right on the money.
The Clintons are not going to go away quietly.
They will undermine Obama for McCaine so they get a shot in 12.

Hey darrell

Hey bolik.

Re: the Clinton quote. Who cares? What's that supposed to prove?

That everybody believed Iraq had developed or was developing these weapons. Democratic leadership from Billary on down included.

I believe George Bush has been punching over his weight for the last 8 years, perhaps his whole life. But I don't believe he flat-out lied.

You think I'm a Clinton supporter? When'd I say that?

You appeared to be rushing to her defense. Seemed a reasonable assumption at the time, not unlike the one you made.

Your guy...

He's not "my guy".

...lied a country into war and tortures people, and now is the most hated President in history.

In my opinion, had he "lied a country into war," the Americans would have found whatever they needed to find in order to justify their actions. The fact that they found nothing, in my opinion, says that they genuinely expected to find WMDs in large quantities. They failed, badly, in their intelligence, but I don't think he lied.

Also, Jimmy Carter, James Buchanan and Richard Nixon are the most hated presidents in history. Lincoln, too, before he was lionized and sainted, inspired the same kind of insane hatred that the left has for Bush today. (No, I'm not comparing George Bush to Abraham Lincoln.) The left's hatred of Bush is pathological.

As for torture, well, what a load of crap. Torture is breaking elbows, electrocuting, peeling skin, drilling into wrists, stabbing people up the ass. Blowtorching them. Eye removal. Like al Quaeda does. Waterboarding? Please.

If you hadn't had your ability to think and make critical distinctions stolen from you by your professors, it wouldn't even occur to you to equate having female guards -- "torture", to a Muslim -- with what you'll see in that link, assuming you're willing to look at it. (It is graphic.) There is torment and there is torture.

That's all there is to it.

Ah! The mating call of the person who's stopped thinking.

The real reason for invading Iraq couldn't be used publically because...one of the tools used by every totalitarian state had to be stopped. And because the left is a friend of totalitarianism - the Stalins, the Hitlers, and the Pol Pots of the world, the excuse for war would never have passed american domestic media and the dysfunctional United Nations Security Council...that reason is genocide.

To quote General Lew MacKenzie "Forget links with terrorism and destroying weapons of mass destruction. Genocide trumps them both -- doesn't it?"

Saddam murdered over 250,000 of his own citizens.

To quote MacKenzie again: "Who can argue with "war is bad and peace is good" and all the myriad of variations on the same theme? The questions the anti-war protesters and our political leaders have to answer is: Who would have spoken for Saddam's next 250,000 victims? Who [else] would have stopped the genocide?"

A bit on WW2 Torture: I have many friends and relatives who fought in WW2, and some in the very front lines. I have read hundreds of books on WW2. My sources are well documented as well as first person.

"Torture" was applied anytime important information was needed. German spies were tortured if need be, then often killed. German officers, and often even soldiers, who showed the least bit of Nazi inclination, once caught, were often dispatched, ASAP by frontline troops. If it was suspected they had "life-saving" info hidden in their brains ... it was beaten out of them. Any Germans breaking Geneva rules, like wearing civilian dress during combat, or allied dress, were killed either on the spot or after a quick trial. They were shot or hung.

On Combat and treatment of surrendering Germans: Once battle was joined, if German soldiers held out too stubbornly, they were often mowed down when trying to surrender. All sides often did this because the heat of battle couldn't be turned off. If soldiers fled, with backs to enemy, they were open season and gunned down. Soldiers who surrendered quickly, and faced our guys, were most likely to survive. If Allied soldiers came across atrocities, their treatment of Germans in the vacinity was often merciless once combat started. The last thing you wanted to be was a German soldier fighting a delaying action, when some Nazi SOB had recently murdered a belgian family and the scene had been discovered by the soldiers opposing you.

On POWs: German POWs were starved after the war, and many forced to fight and die in Indochina by the French. Even Ike went through a spell of ordering privations for German POWs as a revenge measure ... this is well documented.

WW2 was fought as a total war, with no doubt on our side that they were "bad", and we were "good". It was total, brutal, effective, and as a result we won. Our job was to win by killing as many of them as we could. People back then were pragmatic, and still believed in the supremacy of the democratic West. There were, fortunately, not too many Mannies or Boliks and Noam Chomskies.

On the flip side, our soldiers did show incredible restraint compared to the enemy, and they did treat most Germans fairly and kindly. But, in the heat of combat, and where need be, our guys dished out ugly ... and thank god for that. It is, in fact, why Bolik has the good fortune to say what he wishes. Our WW2 heroes would have it no other way.

"The real reason for invading Iraq couldn't be used publically because..."

Katherine, ban me from this site, confiscate our dogs; I can't read any more of this drivel.

Hilarious, but I liked the CHRC one better. I wish they could've pasted Hilary's face on Hitler-- would have made it a little more real.

Thanks for the posts; Paul and Sarge. It's good to see that there are those who understand what is going on in the ME. This has been building for years. There have been numerous attacks beginning with the Munich Olympics; one every 12 to 18 months on US property alone. Canadians have also been killed in attacks (the shooting down of Canadian peacekeepers buffalo August 9, 1974 over Syria).
The real threat after 9/11 was that they would graduate to WMDs very soon if we did not act.

Darrell:

The logic behind your 'if they lied about WMD they would have planted them to justify the invasion after the fact' doesn't hold up.

If I have good reason to think your cat is in a tree but don't really know, yet state it as a fact in order to launch a momentous event, that isn't 'bad intelligence'. That's the purposeful stating of a falsehood in order to bring about a desired effect. It's a lie.

They lied when they magnified the threat of Iraq -speaking of nuclear bombs detonated in America. Cheney said he knew with certainty that Iraq had WMD. Lies.

Further, Paul Wolfowitz one of the architects of the war, has stated WMD was simply pushed forth as a reason "everyone could understand" for the war. That's one of the involved parties stating straight out it was a bogus reason for the war.

Your misapprehension about the idea of 'planting' the WMDs is typical: people seem to think of the Bush government as either corrupt and sinister, or disastrously incompetent, as though it's an either/or question - they're evil or they're stupid. The fact is that they're both. Men like Rumsfeld and Cheney have been proven wrong on everything, have destroyed all they've touched, burn with contempt for the people's will, yet still stride on, arrogant and proud. In the end, do they really care whether WMDs were found? They got their war. Why should they worry about planting WMDs?

As for Bush being the most disliked Pres in history, I'm surprised you're not aware I'm referencing a recent news item: that he had scored the highest disapproval poll of any Pres in the history of taking polls.

Now, I realize that you feel that 75% of the public are suffering from BDS, but out here in the real world there's no need to invent maladies to explain the numbers. Bush's complete inability to do anything right - along with his inability to refrain from doing wrong - over 8 long years have filled the public with disgust and disdain. Hell, doesn't even matter to most of them what a corrupt liar he is. They only have to look at the landscape of disaster and failure he's created to give him those numbers.

In the end, Bush will scoot out the door and go back to his life of privelege - kick back at his dad's mansion and not give a thought to the horror he's handed over. Who can blame him? That's the life he was born to.

The real mystery is people like you who do watusis around the truth to carry water for him, when just about everybody else has moved on. You bring out your hackneyed phrase about 'Bush Derangement Syndrome', which doesn't even make sense now that the vast majority don't like him, and it's just sad and embarassing. Really, are you engaging in some sort of intellectual exercise to develop your skill at trying to defend the indefensible?

I hope that's the case, because, Darren, and all the rest of you, the alternative is too awful to contemplate. That would mean that you have an unthinking devotion to authority, a need to excuse and justify anything - anything - Bush and crew does. Such a position is antithetical to democracy.

I certainly would not vote for Hillary, but use of Hitler's image as a joke is revolting. It makes my skin crawl. I wish this was not so popular.

Decidedly not funny. Crass, crude, boorish etc. I despair.

Gerry Hawke: You lack context (not surprising for a leftie) regarding "bolik" being defined as a troll...read some of the archives for his "debating" style and you will see that he is, definitely, a troll.

Plus, I have heard many times that the Iraq war is "illegal". Please, enlighten me...which law (and section) is this war in violation of? It has to be in violation of a "law" to be "illegal", so please do tell! What is a "legal" war?

Thanks in advance.

Sorry, didn't find it funny at all. I have seen/heard/done much funnier things.

Bolik, that must be why your ilk hates Harper too. If the west is so horrible and evil please move to Russia or Zimbabwe, the planes are empty going their way. Better yet how about the middle east, lots of your leftist brethern there and they really hate Bush so you would be right at home.

Bush was despised by the left long before 9/11 simply because he was a Republican. In Canada could you even imagine being led in a crisis by the likes of Dion or Layton.

As the Canadian Mossad officer stated in his book Volunteer, you can fight Muslim fanaticism in Iraq or Afghanistan or in North America, your call.

reposted on youtube. brilliant- never realized the flopfronted hairdo was copied from Adolf like her name was copied from Sir Edmund.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=B6Lstkiexhc

The film isnt calling Hillary Hitler, at least not in the large sense of the monster who committed the Holocoust etc.

The point of it, to be pedantic, is to point out the madness that can overtake leaders when they are cornered.

If you dont believe Hillary is a win at any cost type leader then you need to re-examine her record and find me some points where she used discretion, took a hit for the team and didnt relentlessly promote her agenda.

Do I think she is capable of Hitler type actions....not really, but the environments arent the same. She is a cold and analytical person, and some have argued ruthless. She is the steel in Bill's spine quite frankly. He was more the forgiving type.

So thats the analogy.

I saw it before, it is quite good. It resonates for a reason.

poor bollux....as daniel flynn said...'to the lefty mind every conservative pol becomes a Hitler...every war becomes another vietnam and every addle-pated activist becomes Rosa Park.."

Um, Gerry Hawke, who exactly put the toothpicks in your eyes and is holding you by the scruff of the neck forcing you to read this blog?
Typical lefty, won't take responsibility for their own actions, wants big brother (or sister in this case) to do something to protect them from themselves.

Bolik: Wait for the big turnaround in Iraq once a Democrat is in power , the entire perspective is going to change, suddenly things will start to work over there.

The one benifet will be not having to listen to people such as yourself, and the left in general spewing your pessimism anymore.

The logic behind your 'if they lied about WMD they would have planted them to justify the invasion after the fact' doesn't hold up.

If I have good reason to think your cat is in a tree but don't really know, yet state it as a fact in order to launch a momentous event, that isn't 'bad intelligence'. That's the purposeful stating of a falsehood in order to bring about a desired effect. It's a lie.

How ridiculous. Imagine reducing the situation in 2001 to a cat in a tree. For God's sake.

Are you seriously suggesting that by his behaviour, Saddam Hussein hadn't spent many years convincing the world -- perhaps having been convinced himself -- that he possessed these weapons, or at least was well on his way to developing them? Why did he not allow the UN unfettered access to suspected sites? It's easy to forget now -- and God knows the anti-war left tries to forget it -- but all he ever had to do was say, "Okay, you win, come in and look for yourself." Remember that?

They lied when they magnified the threat of Iraq -speaking of nuclear bombs detonated in America. Cheney said he knew with certainty that Iraq had WMD. Lies.

I'm certainly not a naive fool. I'm well aware that politicians lie in order to advance their interests. If you have any proof other than that your own say-so, which doesn't seem to me to be based on anything but irrational hatred, I'm open to it.

Further, Paul Wolfowitz one of the architects of the war, has stated WMD was simply pushed forth as a reason "everyone could understand" for the war. That's one of the involved parties stating straight out it was a bogus reason for the war.

I'd love a link to that quote. I'll wager you've selected a few words out of many and irresponsibly reinterpreted them.

I'd be happy to present you with a long list of quotes -- attributed, sourced ones -- of the Democratic leadership speaking about their own certainty that Saddam possessed these weapons. Before W was sworn in. Were they lying too? Why? No. They were just badly misinformed.

Your misapprehension about the idea of 'planting' the WMDs is typical: people seem to think of the Bush government as either corrupt and sinister, or disastrously incompetent, as though it's an either/or question - they're evil or they're stupid.

You're not refuting my reasoning, you're just repeating that you hate all of them.

And anyway, once again, you need to be reminded that Saddam could have avoided the war by submitting to the UN and allowing inspectors unfettered access to suspected weapons development and research sites. That's all.

The fact is that they're both. Men like Rumsfeld and Cheney have been proven wrong on everything, have destroyed all they've touched, burn with contempt for the people's will, yet still stride on, arrogant and proud.

This is just you telling me, again, about how much you hate them. I realize that you're consumed with hatred and while that's your prerogative, I don't really care.

In the end, do they really care whether WMDs were found? They got their war. Why should they worry about planting WMDs?

Why would they have used it as a pretext, then, in the first place? If they simply don't care, why use a pretext at all? And, having gone to the trouble to manufacture all this, why wouldn't they take the simple step of planting whatever they needed to find? That would have been the simplest component of the entire conspiracy. Remember, repeating that you hate them isn't really an argument.

In the end, Bush will scoot out the door and go back to his life of privelege - kick back at his dad's mansion and not give a thought to the horror he's handed over. Who can blame him? That's the life he was born to.

And that's the reason, I'll wager, that you hate him so much.

The real mystery is people like you who do watusis around the truth to carry water for him, when just about everybody else has moved on. You bring out your hackneyed phrase about 'Bush Derangement Syndrome', which doesn't even make sense now that the vast majority don't like him, and it's just sad and embarassing. Really, are you engaging in some sort of intellectual exercise to develop your skill at trying to defend the indefensible?

You brought it up, remember? I didn't mention anything about BDS, although, since you did, you seem to have a pretty serious case.

I hope that's the case, because, Darren, and all the rest of you, the alternative is too awful to contemplate. That would mean that you have an unthinking devotion to authority, a need to excuse and justify anything - anything - Bush and crew does. Such a position is antithetical to democracy.

All you've presented, as far as I can tell, is "Bush is a liar, Cheney is a liar, I hate them, anybody who doesn't hate them is unthinking," blah blah blah. I think you're the one who has a bit of difficulty forming independent thoughts. Not one example, save for the poor kitten in the tree -- which doesn't exactly cause me to think that you have a serious grasp of international affairs.

I'm entirely open to the possibility that lies were told, and if it turns out that 9/11 was an inside job, and the administration knowingly misinformed the world about the situation in Iraq, then they should indeed hang. Certainly they exploited the situation. But that's a long way from manufacturing it, and nothing I've seen so far proves to me that they did that.

OK. I concede that comparisons between Bush's imperial agenda and Hitler's were no better, but by what bizarre contortions of reason and history do Hillary Clinton and Adolf Hitler become associated?

I confess I don't much understand rightard humour, but I'm willing to learn. First, if anything, I would think your immediate reaction would have been to defend the wounded honour of Hitler. I mean isn't comparing a democrat, a woman no less, to Hitler, sheer defilement of his reputation?

So I'm left wondering what's the connection? And what's so funny? Perhaps it was millions massacred in the name of ethnic nationalism? Perhaps it was the Third Reich's gross and distorted misappropriation of leftist politics (just barely more distorted than Stalin's)?

Perhaps you folks just get off on this fascist stuff and will use any excuse to revel in it, even if disguised as satire. I mean if you wanted to make fun of progressives' penchant for organics, birkenstocks, tofu, camp fires, non-violent resistance, communitarianism... perhaps use Jesus. If the point is to highlight a politician's contempt for his/her supporters, I don't think such contempt to be exclusive to Hitler and Clinton. It seems to me sadly endemic to politics itself. In which case we're back to why Hitler as the source of comparison? Surely, there's no shortage of fictional scenes where leaders blow their stack.

Again, perhaps you rightards just get off on it. If you want to have a circle jerk around Hitler, knock yourselves out. After all, in the liberal democracy that you all hate so much, you're free to do so. Just don't come home drunk afterwards and beat your spouses, or swarm some faggots on the way home, or drive your pick up truck into oncoming traffic and you're good to go.

jethro:
"Um, Gerry Hawke, who exactly put the toothpicks in your eyes and is holding you by the scruff of the neck forcing you to read this blog?"

I'll admit my weakness jethro. It's difficult to look away from this train wreck. Perhaps a better metaphor would be watching a convention of Village Idiots where harmonious stupidity spontaneously combusts throughout the banquet hall.

Perhaps you could be the keynote speaker?

Hey you guys, this insulting stuff is kind of fun. Perhaps you're on to something.

Bill Stewart:

Maybe it is because so called champions of the left refer people on the right as Hitlerian in nature and scope.

Given that Angela Merkel represents the Christian Democratic Union I fail to see Chavez's alleged Hitlerian parallels.

See for example todays news report:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,552797,00.html

BERLIN IGNORES VERBAL ATTACK
Chavez Says Merkel a Political Descendant of Hitler

The German government has shrugged off a verbal attack on Chancellor Angela Merkel by Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez who called her a political descendant of Adolf Hitler and stopped just short of telling her to go to hell. The two leaders might meet at an upcoming summit in Peru.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez made his comments on Sunday during his weekly broadcast "Alo Presidente."
German Chancellor Angela Merkel has joined a long list of government leaders to receive a verbal savaging from Venezuela's outspoken President Hugo Chavez, but she appears to be intent on ignoring the abuse.

Chavez, speaking on Sunday in his weekly TV and radio program, said of Merkel: "She is from the German right, the same that supported Hitler, that supported fascism, that's the Chancellor of Germany today."

"Ms. Chancellor, you can go to ..." said Chavez, before pausing. Then he added: "Because you are a lady, I won't say any more."

Cheers

Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht BGS, PDP, CFP

Commander in Chief

Frankenstein Battalion

2nd Squadron: Ulanen-(Lancers) Regiment Großherzog Friedrich von Baden(Rheinisches) Nr.7(Saarbrucken)

Knecht Rupprecht Division

Hans Corps

1st Saint Nicolaas Army

Army Group “True North”

Bolik
Guess how the UN found out about Saddam’s nuke program, because his brother inlaw defected with the information. Did you ever bother to read any of Han’s Blixe’s reports to the UNSC? All of them (except for the very last one, where he tried to avert the invasion) speculated as to what Saddam was hiding, Saddam was playing for time, the sanctions where collapsing and China, Russia and France were chomping on the bit to grab the oil reserves in return for the Billions he owed them. Saddam was caught building offensive missiles as well, if his plans were peaceful, why did he need them? Saddam’s WMD may have been mis-calculated, but he had been given ample time to show the world he had given up, he never did because he needed the threat because he has made so many enemies. His plan like most of his plans backfired on him. The US tried many different strategies to contain him over the years, they didn’t work. The biggest failure the US can be accused of is not finishing the job in 91, that would have saved countless suffering on the part of the people, but in order to “appease” the UN and the world, they stopped and had to watch while Saddam’s henchman murdered civilians begging the US soldiers to help them. But I am sure you are fine with that scenario. Your outrage is paper thin, you care nothing for these people and use their suffering to bolster your own ego.

Boy, a lot of people missed the point of the piece.

Hillary seems to be oblivious to the fact she can no longer win the nomination (as Hitler was oblivious to his imminent demise). Hillary seems to be pulling her party down around her (as Hitler did with his country). Hillary's staff seem to be humoring her with good news (as did Hitler's staff).

This video deserves an academy award, at least. It's hilarious and accurate at the same time. It's not comparing Hillary with Hitler at all. Just their situations. Come on, who could come up with a line like "the second coming of Jimi Hendrix"? Even Michelle Obama would crack a smile at that one.

dp:

you left out that HRC and her hubby have famously volatile tempers - that they are prone to sessions of maniacal screaming at their minions - no unlike the last moments of hitler in the berlin bunker. (Looks like an excellent film BTW, I would like very much to view it.)

darrell:

The diversionary tactics throughout your post attest to the fact that you don't have much confidence in your arguments. One wonders why you even bother to make them, considering that much of your energy is spent trying to divert attention to irrelevancies in the hopes no-one will examine your words closely.

Case in point: your faux outrage over my 'cat in tree' analogy. I presume you're intelligent enough to know that the real point there was that presenting supposition as fact in service of creating a desired outcome is a lie. The 'cat in tree' analogy was irrelevant in that any analogy could have been chosen to illustrate the same point. You choose to focus on it to divert from the real point.

I don't know how to paste the link, but if you visit whitehouse.gov and glance at a speech Cheney made to the VFW on August 26, 2002, you'll find he makes the following statement:

"Simply put, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."

Cheney had no basis on which to make the statement. It was a baldfaced lie made to convince people to go to war.

Soldiers are sworn to sacred duty and leaders are sworn to sacred duty in the momentous decision to send them to war. This, along with all the other lies and insinuations, is an abrogation of that duty.

You say you're "aware that politicians lie to advance their interests". This was a lie that's led to the deaths of over 4000 Americans. Perhaps to you they're not important because they were volunteer soldiers. It seems to me, though, that a basic morality would disapprove their being sent to their deaths for suppositions presented as facts - lies.

www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/29/1053801479971.html

Here is the link in which Paul Wolfowitz says that WMD was presented as a rationale for war for 'bureaucratic' reasons because it was a rationale 'everyone could agree on'. Gee, it seems as though they weren't so concerned about the 'imminent danger' Saddam presented - this was just a rationale they settled on as being the most convincing.

Your canard that UN inspectors were denied access is troubling to me in that I'm no sure whether you actually believe it or are retailing it knowingly to falsely bolster your case. UN inspectors were in Iraq from Nov 2002 to March 2003, when the US advised them to get out because they were going to start bombing anyway (before it was announced no weapons existed?). Bush himself has repeated the lie that Saddam wouldn't let them in several times so maybe that's where your 'confusion' stems from. In any case, UN inspectors have certified that the war wasn't justified.

Your sad attempt to conflate my description of the failures of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld with some sort of unreasoning 'hate' on my part is another example of your diversionary tactics. You have no argument, so you muddy the waters and try to impugn my motives. Hey, I was just presenting facts. If you can point to an unqualified success these guys have accomplished I'd be glad to hear it.

But along with the majority, I only see failure, disaster, and incompetence. That's why Bush is the most disliked President in the history of the US.

But again, what's really troubling is your need to excuse and justify everything - everything - Bush does. Even if, as I've shown here, you really don't know what you're talking about. Such a need, such a blind allegiance to authority, really isn't reconcilable with democracy. It's the compulsion which fascist dictators have always depended upon in their populace.

I also quite enjoyed your intimation that the idea of 9-11 being an inside job was a subject of discussion here when it never has been. You try to join that extreme idea with the provable fact that WMDs were lied about. Nice try.

OK OK who is defaming the left? As someone in my past said, the left in Canada is more gauche than sinister.

Truly, as a left-handed person (who is in her right mind) I resent all this malinment directed towards my dexterity of choice. Please, this is not the middle ages, or even the pre-enlightened times of the modern centuries when people of the left were forced to write with their right hands - because the left was the sign of the devil and his work.

Have a good day, eh!

Sorry...it IS spelled malignment. The spell check on this blog said it was wrong....

I thought the analogy of Hitlers act was comparable to Clinton's act, as far humour could take it. The great thing about now and how 99% of us was raised, is that we could laugh about this stuff now because we don't have thin skins.

How did this ever relate to GWB and the war in Iraq?.

Uh....Darrell......Darrell......?

(*crickets*)

Guess Darrell's collision with the reality-based community was a bit too much for him!