Bush and the Nazi's

A Close Relationship

Published on November 12, 2004 By SameOldRat In Politics

I found a very interesting article after having a conversation with a friend about none other than the Bush family. Bush has been compared to the Nazi regime which very interestingly is not all that far off. Prescott Bush, George W. Bush's grandfather was a personal banker to Hitler. Many of the Bush fortune comes from the Nazi legacy. Here's the link. http://www.lpdallas.org/features/draheim/dr991216.htm

Comments (Page 2)

Daiwa

on Nov 13, 2004

I think you're confusing the issues, kingbee.

I agree that hindsight has shown that some expectations were wrong and that mistakes were made. We need to learn from them.

But any administration needs sufficient privacy in its war deliberations to allow for a full airing of options, even unpleasant ones. The secrecy you talk about is partly a creature of the left's making. It's not particularly helpful for our strategies and intent to be published in the NYT for our enemy's benefit, nor is pulling bits & pieces out of context and publicly tearing them to shreds out of political hatred. And it can fairly be argued that, by listening to the left and moderating our military options in Iraq out of respect for perceived local & international sensitivities, we're facing a more difficult problem now than we faced previously. I note that the press is now conveniently saying we should have done Fallujah in April, before the insurgents could consolidate, but the left always wants it both ways.

My point is that the President should not be crucified for doing his job. Let's debate how to better protect our country without forcing anyone into a defensive posture.

Cheers,
Daiwa

LeapingLizard

on Nov 13, 2004

I realize this is getting off the original topic, but I think it's imortant.

Where in the Convention does it say it's OK to fly fully-loaded commercial jets into buildings?

Obviously, it doesn't, but that doesn't give an administration the right to have a free for all in war games. I know that's just my interpretation of what happened, but you all know what I mean. It's the old 'two wrongs don't make a right.'

coercion is the least effective means of obtaining reliable information

Agreed. It's no wonder that this war has been so ineffective. Mission accomplished my A.

on Nov 13, 2004

stupid

kingbee

on Nov 13, 2004

by listening to the left and moderating our military options in Iraq out of respect for perceived local & international sensitivities, we're facing a more difficult problem now than we faced previously. I note that the press is now conveniently saying we should have done Fallujah in April, before the insurgents could consolidate, but the left always wants it both ways.

for clarification of my statement about rumsfeld not offering the president options other than those rumsfeld himself approved and evidence your contention about the press (or at least one major newspaper's very detailed report about the factors that resulted in losing control in fallouja) may well be incorrect, feel free to check this out: LINK. not everything is about left/right.

Daiwa

on Nov 13, 2004

Thanks for the link, kingbee - I think it supports what I've been saying (that the critics want it both ways - we were right to not storm Falloujah in April but now we shouldn't have allowed the insurgency to consolidate), although I simply do not accept the bald assertion that the insurgency is all our own fault. I agree "not everything is about left/right" and that there were mistakes & miscalculations - no administration has ever achieved clairvoyance. The "left/right" of it frames the discussion more than it should, however, though I'm not trying to turn the criticism around on itself. The administration deserves some heat for having allowed those political considerations to influence decisions.

I believe there are constructive ways of dealing with our mistakes and there are destructive ways. My opinion is that the left has spent a lot more energy on destructive criticism than helpful criticism. God knows what that has to do with Nazi's, but I guess that was my original point.

Cheers,
Daiwa

kingbee

on Nov 14, 2004

that the critics want it both ways - we were right to not storm Falloujah in April but now we shouldn't have allowed the insurgency to consolidate), although I simply do not accept the bald assertion that the insurgency is all our own fault.

i got no idea what this has to do with nazis either but...

as far as that 'times' article: there was no suggestion we should or should not have stormed fallouja in april. or that the insurgency was our own fault (except in the broader sense that without an invasion, it wouldnt be our problem). the most troubling aspects--to me anyway-- are: rumsfeld's rejection of the marine commander's input compounded by his refusal to put it in front of the president...any indication the president asked for other strategic options or input from the military. the result was an order to attack that was then halted by washington's equally disturbing decision to keep the june hand-over on schedule (rather than risk the political capital it promised). which led to the foolish (no matter how you look at it) rush to install the fallouja brigade and provide the insurgents with 800 weapons, 27 trucks, etc. (the parallel with arming vietnamese hamlets with modern assault weapons resulting in well-armed viet cong is painfully evident). it's difficult for me to find anything constructive about the handling of fallouja last spring.

ChristianDog

on Nov 14, 2004

The terrorists didn't just ignore the rule book that day, they tore it up and threw it in our faces.

You are telling yourself one of America's favorite current myths.

Terrorism is not new. We used it in our own Revolutionary War, and it wasn't new then.

Anyway, we are not limiting our torture to those who took part in or planned that attack. We are torturing ordinary people on the other side.

And I want my nation to behave like a Christian nation. I believe that we have a special place and a special role. I don't think that this means trying to match the evils of others.

bakerstreet

on Nov 14, 2004

"We used it in our own Revolutionary War... "

Elaborate?

Daiwa

on Nov 14, 2004

ChristianDog -

You are so wrong about that being a "myth." And you proceed in blindness at your peril. It amazes and saddens me that some people seem to shrug off what happened on 9/11. Just another day in history.

I don't advocate torture nor did I use that phrase to justify its use. I was referring to the fact that the status quo ante no longer applied and that a complete re-evaluation of our approach to dealing with the threat was not only appropriate, but necessary. I happen to believe, aside from the appropriate moral objections, that torture seldom "works" anyway. You and I agree on that point, but that point only. Abu Graib was a disgrace. As for whether such "enemy combatants" should have PX privileges, cigarettes or access to TV, my conscience will survive denying them such creature comforts.

Back to the original point (mine, anyway). Gonzales has been lambasted for allegedly advocating torture, as if it were his original idea to go figure out a way to obviate the Geneva Convention for the sole purpose of enabling "justifiable" torture, and that the whole exercise was an elaborate ruse for that purpose. That's just not an accurate or fair representation of what happened or Gonzales's role. Apologies to SameOldRat for this topic hijacking his original thread.

Cheers,
Daiwa

drmiler

on Nov 14, 2004

Reply #24 By: Daiwa - 11/14/2004 11:04:31 AM
ChristianDog -

You are so wrong about that being a "myth." And you proceed in blindness at your peril. It amazes and saddens me that some people seem to shrug off what happened on 9/11. Just another day in history.

I don't advocate torture nor did I use that phrase to justify its use. I was referring to the fact that the status quo ante no longer applied and that a complete re-evaluation of our approach to dealing with the threat was not only appropriate, but necessary. I happen to believe, aside from the appropriate moral objections, that torture seldom "works" anyway. You and I agree on that point, but that point only. Abu Graib was a disgrace. As for whether such "enemy combatants" should have PX privileges, cigarettes or access to TV, my conscience will survive denying them such creature comforts.

Torture can and does work but usually only if carried to extremes. Which ain't cool. If you think it doesn't work just go talk to someone who spent time in a Vietnamese prison camp.

Daiwa

on Nov 14, 2004

drmiler -

Torture "works" in the sense that individuals can be physically and psychologically "broken" but it rarely gives you the kind of intelligence that is timely or particularly useful. And very few have kind things to say about the North Vietnamese captors who tortured our troops.

ChristianDog and I are on the same page in that regard - we should hold ourselves to a higher standard, particularly when part of our reason for being in Iraq was to put an end to Saddam's torture chambers, not just replace them with our own. I'm ashamed as an American that that happened, even though I understand that what our troops did was nothing compared to what Saddam's thugs carried out routinely.

Cheers,
Daiwa

drmiler

on Nov 14, 2004

Reply #26 By: Daiwa - 11/14/2004 1:32:15 PM
drmiler -

Torture "works" in the sense that individuals can be physically and psychologically "broken" but it rarely gives you the kind of intelligence that is timely or particularly useful. And very few have kind things to say about the North Vietnamese captors who tortured our troops.

I wasn't saying that they would have kind things to say about them. I was using that as an example of tortures effects on an individual. Also depending on the type of torture (some people say that using drugs on an individual is a form of torture.) Intelligence *can* be both timely *and* useful. And yes we should hold ourselves to a higher standard. But talk to a CIA operative, they won't go along with our assesment

Daiwa

on Nov 14, 2004

I know that some feel we are forced to fight with one hand tied behind our backs. And there may be some validity in that opinion, but if our ideals are worth fighting & dying for, they're worth living by. I know that may sound a little smarmy, but it works for me.

Cheers,
Daiwa

jeblackstar

on Nov 15, 2004

Besides, "Truth serum" is so much more effective. Oh, and by the way, not that I advocate Torture, but some psychological ploys used by interogaters can fall under the umbrella of torture. Locking someone in a room with no human contact, playing Britney Spears songs 24 hours a day, depriving the individual of sleep, etc. Not, by a strict definition, torture, since it involves no physical contact between people, but I think a good case could be made that it is.

Cheers

drmiler

on Nov 15, 2004

Reply #29 By: jeblackstar - 11/15/2004 1:19:31 PM
Besides, "Truth serum" is so much more effective. Oh, and by the way, not that I advocate Torture, but some psychological ploys used by interogaters can fall under the umbrella of torture. Locking someone in a room with no human contact, playing Britney Spears songs 24 hours a day, depriving the individual of sleep, etc. Not, by a strict definition, torture, since it involves no physical contact between people, but I think a good case could be made that it is.

Oh NO, NOT Brittany Spears!!!! Anything but that!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!