Return to What Should We Make of the Charge Linking the Bush Family Fortune to Nazism?
RE: Bush/Nazi connection
(#23684)
by NYGuy on November 18, 2003 at 7:12 PM
by NYGuy on November 18, 2003 at 7:12 PM
Brillant,
What is it that Buchanan said from an historical point of view that created this state of ecstacy. After all HNN says this is a history site not a propaganda outlet for passions.
Perhaps you can give reasons for your anger.
You may not have know this but no one in the legitimate media would publish the non-event of Buchanan's "discoveries."
If you want to be fair this is an indictman of Roosevelt and his friend Harriman and adds suppor to the theory that Roosevelt provoked the war with Japan so his friend could earn more profits.
Seems nothing has changed with the democrats today.
What is it that Buchanan said from an historical point of view that created this state of ecstacy. After all HNN says this is a history site not a propaganda outlet for passions.
Perhaps you can give reasons for your anger.
You may not have know this but no one in the legitimate media would publish the non-event of Buchanan's "discoveries."
If you want to be fair this is an indictman of Roosevelt and his friend Harriman and adds suppor to the theory that Roosevelt provoked the war with Japan so his friend could earn more profits.
Seems nothing has changed with the democrats today.
RE: Bush/Nazi connection
(#23713)
by Jerry West on November 19, 2003 at 4:15 AM
by Jerry West on November 19, 2003 at 4:15 AM
-
NYGuy wrote:
If you want to be fair this is an indictman of Roosevelt and his friend Harriman and adds suppor to the theory that Roosevelt provoked the war with Japan so his friend could earn more profits.
Seems nothing has changed with the democrats today.
JW:
Are you arguing that the Democrats started the war with Iraq so that the Bushes and Cheneys could earn more profits?
Maybe what has changed is that it is now the Republicans' turn to start wars for fun and profit. :)
NYGuy wrote:
If you want to be fair this is an indictman of Roosevelt and his friend Harriman and adds suppor to the theory that Roosevelt provoked the war with Japan so his friend could earn more profits.
Seems nothing has changed with the democrats today.
JW:
Are you arguing that the Democrats started the war with Iraq so that the Bushes and Cheneys could earn more profits?
Maybe what has changed is that it is now the Republicans' turn to start wars for fun and profit. :)
RE: Bush/Nazi connection
(#23714)
by Jerry West on November 19, 2003 at 4:54 AM
by Jerry West on November 19, 2003 at 4:54 AM
-
NYGuy wrote:
If you want to be fair this is an indictman of Roosevelt and his friend Harriman and adds suppor to the theory that Roosevelt provoked the war with Japan so his friend could earn more profits.
Seems nothing has changed with the democrats today.
JW:
Are you arguing that the Democrats started the war with Iraq so that the Bushes and Cheneys could earn more profits?
Maybe what has changed is that it is now the Republicans' turn to start wars for fun and profit. :)
NYGuy wrote:
If you want to be fair this is an indictman of Roosevelt and his friend Harriman and adds suppor to the theory that Roosevelt provoked the war with Japan so his friend could earn more profits.
Seems nothing has changed with the democrats today.
JW:
Are you arguing that the Democrats started the war with Iraq so that the Bushes and Cheneys could earn more profits?
Maybe what has changed is that it is now the Republicans' turn to start wars for fun and profit. :)
RE: Bush/Nazi connection
(#23732)
by NYGuy on November 19, 2003 at 12:28 PM
by NYGuy on November 19, 2003 at 12:28 PM
Jerry,
Always nice to correspond with you. But I was absolutely "shocked" at your interpretaion of my comments.
JW:
Are you arguing that the Democrats started the war with Iraq so that the Bushes and Cheneys could earn more profits?
Maybe what has changed is that it is now the Republicans' turn to start wars for fun and profit. :)
NYGuy
Now that I have calmed down and reread your commnents I think you have a point. Reminds me of the old Jefferson sitcom:
"We are going to get a piece of the pie."
Always appreciate your keeping me on track. ;)
Cheers
Always nice to correspond with you. But I was absolutely "shocked" at your interpretaion of my comments.
JW:
Are you arguing that the Democrats started the war with Iraq so that the Bushes and Cheneys could earn more profits?
Maybe what has changed is that it is now the Republicans' turn to start wars for fun and profit. :)
NYGuy
Now that I have calmed down and reread your commnents I think you have a point. Reminds me of the old Jefferson sitcom:
"We are going to get a piece of the pie."
Always appreciate your keeping me on track. ;)
Cheers
RE: Bush/Nazi connection
(#23785)
by C.R.W. on November 19, 2003 at 10:51 PM
by C.R.W. on November 19, 2003 at 10:51 PM
"The obvious analogy of the current US administration's world domination strategies are so close to those of Hitler"
Can I believe my eyes? Did anyone else read this?
I guess it just escaped my attention that managing a baseball team or holding shares in an oil company didn't benefit the manufacturers of human incineration ovens or poison gas. I also never realized that the governments we wanted to install in Afghanistan and Iraq were collaborative supporters of fascism.
I used to think the right was crazy to talk all the time about how Americans were losing their understanding of "morality," but after talking to Iraqi expatriates whose relatives no longer have to worry about winding up at the hands of a professionally-employed rapist on the government payroll or worse, winding up in a mass grave, and then hearing this poster, I think they could be on to something.
John Buchanan can publish whatever he wants, that's fine, but visiting the sins onto the great-grandson as a way to make one's subjective worldview even more politically palatable is terrible.
Also, having an economic foreign policy "strategy" is no more Hitlerian than the fact that George W. Bush occasionally wears boots. Yep, that's it - it's about the boots. Hitler wore cowboy boots too, come to think of it.
Can I believe my eyes? Did anyone else read this?
I guess it just escaped my attention that managing a baseball team or holding shares in an oil company didn't benefit the manufacturers of human incineration ovens or poison gas. I also never realized that the governments we wanted to install in Afghanistan and Iraq were collaborative supporters of fascism.
I used to think the right was crazy to talk all the time about how Americans were losing their understanding of "morality," but after talking to Iraqi expatriates whose relatives no longer have to worry about winding up at the hands of a professionally-employed rapist on the government payroll or worse, winding up in a mass grave, and then hearing this poster, I think they could be on to something.
John Buchanan can publish whatever he wants, that's fine, but visiting the sins onto the great-grandson as a way to make one's subjective worldview even more politically palatable is terrible.
Also, having an economic foreign policy "strategy" is no more Hitlerian than the fact that George W. Bush occasionally wears boots. Yep, that's it - it's about the boots. Hitler wore cowboy boots too, come to think of it.
RE: Bush/Nazi connection
(#24472)
by Charles on November 28, 2003 at 1:39 AM
by Charles on November 28, 2003 at 1:39 AM
It is ironic that CRW should be so impressed by the solicitude that the right has for Saddam's victims. Twenty years ago, Donald Rumsfeld supplied the chemical precursors that Saddam used to construct chemical weapons. Twenty years ago, those who were trying to prevent Saddam from committing mass murder were largely on the left.
It is ironic that CRW should believe that Buchanan's piece somehow blames the grandson for the grandfather's crimes. Would he rather that Prescott Bush's crimes never be brought to light?
This seems to be the perversity of the era we are in: those who should be fighting for openness are trying to silence those who are trying to bring forth the historical truth. Those who enabled Saddam to commit his crimes-- indeed, those who BETRAYED the Kurds and the Marsh Shia when they rose against Saddam in 1991-- are now exalted for having "liberated" the Iraqis they let be enslaved.
It is ironic that CRW should believe that Buchanan's piece somehow blames the grandson for the grandfather's crimes. Would he rather that Prescott Bush's crimes never be brought to light?
This seems to be the perversity of the era we are in: those who should be fighting for openness are trying to silence those who are trying to bring forth the historical truth. Those who enabled Saddam to commit his crimes-- indeed, those who BETRAYED the Kurds and the Marsh Shia when they rose against Saddam in 1991-- are now exalted for having "liberated" the Iraqis they let be enslaved.
Bush/Rumsfeld/Hitler vs. the Kurds
(#24501)
by C.R.W. on November 28, 2003 at 12:17 PM
by C.R.W. on November 28, 2003 at 12:17 PM
Not all of us are mental monoliths.
I don't have a problem with the article exposing and ruminating over what occured over 60 years ago, I just don't think it has personal relevance to George W. Bush or his political career. I'm vindicated in expressing this idea because some people refuse to acknowledge the existence of ties between business and politics that are impossible to extinguish, yet persist in repeating this theme as a way to excoriate inheritants of a system they did not invent. The time-absent context supplied by people who would superimpose the conditions of "twenty years ago" on the events of today or any other era is one way to blur the crucial distinctions that prevent a simplistic "guilt by association" mindset.
I'm no fan of betraying the leaders of the post-Gulf War uprising, so it's too bad I have to disappoint you on the attempted straw man. Although it would be less likely to occur if you didn't lump a series of posts in with a childishly simplistic worldview that doesn't get much more complicated than political duality.
It is legitimate to question the wisdom of supplying chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein (or anyone for that matter). Supporting his side in a war against the Iranian theocrats, slightly less unwise. But equivocating between the use of such weapons in war versus their use against entire villages populating his own people in order to quash political dissent, morally blind and reprehensible.
Return to What Should We Make of the Charge Linking the Bush Family Fortune to Nazism?
by Dorothy Goulding Ph.D. on November 18, 2003 at 6:57 PM