Jump to content

NYT: Hillary Clinton Used Personal Email at State Dept


DKW 86

Recommended Posts

As expected....they are all in line protecting HiTlary. It will not be as easy as protecting barry.

As expected, WarTim is hateful and clueless.

Hatefull? ....nuttin' but Love....Clueless? You too are entitled to an opinion. Have a great evening.

Constantly referring to a political adversary as Hitler is hateful in the extreme. You are just too clueless to know it.

Did you hold that same high minded opinion when President Bush was called names? Just curious..... :-)

If anyone compared him to a Nazi ? Sure did.

You must have been rather busy during his 8 year term :-) .......
Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 139
  • Created
  • Last Reply

As expected....they are all in line protecting HiTlary. It will not be as easy as protecting barry.

As expected, WarTim is hateful and clueless.

Hatefull? ....nuttin' but Love....Clueless? You too are entitled to an opinion. Have a great evening.

Constantly referring to a political adversary as Hitler is hateful in the extreme. You are just too clueless to know it.

Did you hold that same high minded opinion when President Bush was called names? Just curious..... :-)

If anyone compared him to a Nazi ? Sure did.

You must have been rather busy during his 8 year term :-) .......

http://gratewire.com/topic/a-galley-of-people-who-called-bushhitler-bl-you-asked-i-delivered

That is a page loaded with references to Bush being equated to Hitler.

Artists, writers, singers, poets etc

Harold Pinter.

Corin Redgrave.

Ted Rall.

Annoy.com.

Jay Baker.

Aaron McGruder.

Linda Ronstadt.

Rex Curry.

Michael Bramante.

Commentators, columnists and pundits

Scott Ritter.

Harvey Wasserman.

Thomas Walkom of the Toronto Star.

Neil Clark.

Dave Lindorff.

Paul Street.

Samir Amin.

Iver Bogen.

Yamin Zakaria.

David R. Hoffman (Legal Editor of PRAVDA).

Federico Fasano Mertens, editor of La Republica del Uruguay.

Wayne Madsen.

Dennis Kaiser.

Prashant Bhushan.

Dr. Norman D. Livergood.

Samir Hussain and Pranjal Tiwari.

The Daily Collegian's Donaldson and Gonzalez.

At OpEd News: Rob Kall and

Robert Thompson.

Bob Fitrakis.

Hugh Pearson.

Bill Burkett.

Carl Doerner.

Adam Engel.

Thom Hartmann.

Michael Berglin.

John Pilger.

Allen Snyder.

Lilian Friedberg

Political campaigners, campaigning organisations

MoveOn.Org.

Ken O'Keefe.

Edward Jayne.

PeaceAware.

Assorted demonstrators, 20th March 2004.

Protestors in Greece, 2003.

Take Back The Media.

Rev James Love.

A Voice for Freedom.

Axis of Logic.

georgewalkerbush.net.

Human Rights Action.

Flying Fish.

What Really Happened.

Assorted demonstrators, March and November 2003.

One T-Shirt vendor among many.

Unknown News.

George Soros.

Another T-Shirt vendor.

World Socialist Web Site.

Politicians

John Valder.

Fidel Castro.

Government of North Korea.

Iran's Ayatollah Khamenei.

Fringe

oilempire.us.

Ireland's OWN.

Fallout Shelter News.

NoGW.com ("no George W").

The Public Cause Network.

Biblebelievers.org.au.

Artists, writers, singers, poets etc

Harold Pinter (British playright)

Quoted in the Guardian, June 2003:

"The US is really beyond reason now. It is beyond our imagining to know

what they are going to do next and what they are prepared to do. There

is only one comparison: Nazi Germany"

[back to top]

Corin Redgrave

In the Mail, Corin Redgrave incorrectly asks "Even the Nazis allowed the Red Cross to visit their prisoners : why won't America?" Millions of Russian prisoners taken by the Nazis on the Eastern front might have been surprised to hear that.

[back to top]

Ted Rall (cartoonist and writer)

In January, 2004, asking "Is Bush a Nazi?" seems the conclude that Bush is worse because at least Hitler was elected:

Lately we're being told that it's either (a) inappropriate or (
B)
untrue

to refer to Bush's illegitimate junta as Nazi, neo-Nazi or neofascist.

Because, you know, you're not necessarily a Nazi just because you seize

power like one, take advantage of a national Reichstag Fire-like tragedy

like one, build concentration and death camps like one, start

unprovoked wars like one, Red-bait your liberal opponents like one or

create a national security apparatus that behaves like something a Nazi

would create and even has a Nazi-sounding name. All of those people who

see a little Adolf in the not-so-bright eyes of America's homeland-grown

despot are just imagining things.

Me, I'm catching it for this week's cartoon for daring to suggest that, well--you know.

Of course, there are differences. Hitler, for example, was legally

elected. And he had a plan--not one that I like, but a plan--for the

period after the war.

I'll be happy to stop comparing Bush to Hitler when he stops acting like him.

trall040105small.jpg

trall031027small.jpg

[back to top]

Annoy.com ("created and designed to annoy")

With the introductory text "Despite

claims she was "misinterpreted," Germany's Justice Minister Herta

Daeubler-Gmelin resigned September 23, 2002 following an international fuhrer

furor that arose after she compared President Bush to Hitler for

threatening war to distract from domestic problems. Can't think why.

Hitler was shorter.", the "Unbearable Likeness Of Being"

postcard shows a montage of Hitler standing saluting behind Bush, who

is waving. See - they're in a similar stance: what more proof could

anyone want?

[back to top]

Jay Baker

Jay Baker is a writer, filmmaker (and voter) from Sheffield, UK. In his essay "The Yankee Swastika", the first paragraph manages to put supporters of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq on a par with holocaust deniers:

And yet there are still those who refuse to accept the figures when

facts show just how many innocent people of a particular persuasion were

condemned to concentration camps and sent to an early grave; a mass

grave.

Then he goes on about how at least Hitler was elected, and how Bush likes nothing better than killing brown people:

George Bush actually came to power in what many might argue to be a less

democratic way than Adolf Hitler. ... Bush may even have an ideology

based on the "blonde haired, blue eyed, white super-race." I say this

because since squatting in the White House, he has been intent on

bombing other far-away, dark-skinned people of Middle Eastern countries,

as part of his "War on Terror," which is really a War
of
Terror.

He also informs us that the National Rifle Association is a splinter

group of the Ku Klux Klan. That must explain all those burning crosses

seen so regularly in Charlton Heston's garden.

[back to top]

Aaron McGruder

Aaron McGruder draws the Boondocks comic strip. I can't find the actual cartoon itself because the archives don't seem to let you view old strips, but on 13th October 2002 the Boondocks carried a classic instance of "at least Hitler was elected":

"Some people in other countries are comparing Bush to Adolf Hitler

because of his warmongering," a Boondocks character says of the

president. "That's preposterous; even I wouldn't compare him to Hitler,"

another responded. "I mean, Hitler was democratically elected. Wasn't

he?" ...

[back to top]

Linda Ronstadt

Not just one Hitler, but a whole new bunch of Hitlers, according to the enduring crooner:

Don't get her started on the recent [2004] presidential election.

"People don't realize that by voting Republican, they voted against

themselves," she says. Of Iraq in particular, she adds, "I worry that

some people are entertained by the idea of this war. They don't know

anything about the Iraqis, but they're angry and frustrated in their own

lives. It's like Germany, before Hitler took over. The economy was bad

and people felt kicked around. They looked for a scapegoat. Now we've

got a new bunch of Hitlers."

There are people who are entertained by the idea of the Iraq war? Sadly, Linda doesn't give us any specific examples of who she means.

[back to top]

Rex Curry

Florida attorney at law and self-described celebrity historian, internationally recognized journalist, premier libertarian artist & photojournalist in the U.S, creator of the renowned artwork

"Searches Suck" (using the sadly under-exploited medium of bent

soldering wire glued to cardboard), author of the forthcoming book "Swastika Secrets" Ellis Rexwood Curry. IV, e-mailed to say:

Well, that's all very, erm... interesting, but as this page isn't about

FDR or the Bellamies (who started the U.S. Pledge Of Allegiance in

schools) I didn't see that it qualified for inclusion.

When he e-mailed me his open letter "Flag Day (6-14) Schools should not teach kids to verbally fellate flags, nor flag fetishism",

I asked to be removed from his mailing list. He wrote back asking if I

wasn't the right person to send stuff to for the The Gallery of 'Bush =

Hitler' Allusions? Yes, I replied, this is the place for "Bush = Hitler"

claims but he didn't seem be saying Bush is Hitler. His point, so far

as I'd grasped it then, is that Francis Bellamy somehow subverted the

USA to nazi tyranny by popularising the raised-arm salute in 1892 -

nearly 30 years before the nazi party even existed.

But quick as a flash Rex wrote back to explain all and show me where I

was going wrong. He put it so well that I'd just spoil it if I attempted

to paraphrase: "And you forgot to mention that Bush loves the

pledge, as do so many republican-socialists, who are outsocializing

Clinton by double (in social spending alone), and yes it happened 30

years before the National Socialist German Workers' Party (which you

cover for with the hackneyed shorthand) and it continued to grow for all

of those 30 years, up to and THROUGH the German National Socialists.

Thanks for not actually disputing a word I said, and for conceding all.

I realize that you are too intellectually dishonest to address this

topic or to inform your audience.".

oath_2.jpg Oh now I see...

  • When the pledge of allegience started in 1892 it adopted the
    straight-armed salute, which had been associated with the Romans since
    at least 1784 (see 'The Oath of the Horatii', right).
  • The National Socialist German Workers' Party (you see how I
    now avoid the hackneyed shorthand) adopted the straight-armed salute in
    1920.
  • In 1942, in reaction to the National Socialists' use of the salute, the pledge of allegience changed to using the current hand-on-the-heart gesture.
  • Bush likes the pledge.
  • Bush is a socialist.
  • Therefore Bush = Hitler.

A fairly watertight case, I'm sure we can all agree.

[back to top]

Michael Bramante

Michael J. Bramante e-mailed me a couple of days after Rex Curry (see above), to tell me that he'd made "the Bush Hitler morph" and has a page of anti-Bush art.

[back to top]

Commentators, columnists and pundits

Scott Ritter (ex Iraq weapons inspector)

Telling the Berliner Zeitung, May 2003:

"I see no difference between the invasion of Iraq and the invasion of

Poland in 1939." also reported as saying Bush had used the September 11

attacks as Hitler used the 1933 burning of the Reichstag to repress

domestic dissidents.

[Also]

[back to top]

Harvey Wasserman (columnist and senior advisor to Greenpeace USA)

Writing at CommonDreams.org, September 13, 2002, titled "Bush's 9/11 Reichstag Fire":

"Few Americans believe the Bush Administration itself brought down the

World Trade Center last year. But the conviction is widespread

throughout Europe and the Muslim world, and for good reason. This

unelected regime---Hitler also came to power with a minority of

votes---has used the terrible tragedies of September 11 in much the way

the Nazis jumped on the Reichstag fire."

[Also]

[back to top]

Thomas Walkom, Toronto Star

Writing in the Toronto Star on 13th January 2003,

starts "Some refer to George W. Bush as another Hitler. This is a gross

exaggeration..." and then goes on to make it seem more like a tiny

exaggeration. Damien Penny has a full dissection of the article.

[back to top]

Neil Clark, occaisional columnist

In a letter to the Observer:

"... It is because the US is acting like Nazi Germany on the

international stage that millions of us around the world are so

passionately opposed to it."

Tim Blair has more.

[back to top]

Dave Lindorff, politcal author

In three 'Counterpunch' articles, Dave Lindorff expands on the comparisons he sees between Bush and Hitler.

In "Bush and Hitler - The Stategy of Fear" on February 1, 2003:

It's going a bit far to compare the Bush of 2003 to the Hitler of 1933.

Bush simply is not the orator that Hitler was. But comparisons of the

Bush Administration's fear mongering tactics to those practiced so

successfully and with such terrible results by HItler and Goebbels on

the German people and their Weimar Republic are not at all out of line.

In "Bush and Hitler...Compare and Contrast" on July 18, 2003, in response to criticism of his February article:

So far, for example, while he has rounded up some Arab and Muslim men

purely because of their ethnicity or religion, Bush has not started

gassing them--at least not yet. What I did say, however [is] that some

of the tactics of the Bush administration resemble those of Hitler and

his Brownshirts. I would go further and add that Bush's attorney

general, John Ashcroft, a man who has pointedly praised the old

Confederacy, would probably feel quite comfortable in brown with a

hakenkreuz tacked to his sleeve.

[... warmongering ... agressive nationalism ... Guantanemo Bay as a concentration camp ...]

So let's make ourselves clear here. George Bush is not Hitler. Yet. America is not a fascist state. Yet.

In "RNC Plays the Hitler Card - MoveOn Shouldn't Apologize for Those Ads" on January 6, 2004, talking about the MoveOn ads:

... The truth is that the two ads are pretty darned good. [...] The Bush

administration deliberately stoked public fears after 9/11--just as the

Nazi's used the Reichstag Fire--to win support for an illegal,

unprovoked invasion of Iraq, an act of aggression which, at the

Nuremberg Trials, was specifically determined to be a war crime. The ad

might have added that the "shock and awe" terror campaign that was the

centerpiece of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, was also by definition a war

crime, since its target was the Iraqi public. [...] President Bush did

in fact publicly claim divine instruction to have been behind his

decisions to invade Afghanistan and later Iraq--a rather scary example,

if he is being sincere, of the very kind of megalomania that

characterized Hitler. [...] Were these two ads unfair to either Bush or

to the memory of the Holocaust? Hardly. [...] Are they saying that Bush

is Hitler? Only to the most simplistic or willfully unimaginative of

viewers--that is to say the RNC poobahs. What they are saying is that

the same technique used by Hitler and his National Socialist brownshirts

to whip up nationalist fervor in Germany in the early and mid 1930s is

being employed today by the Bush Administration and the Republican

Party, and to the same end--to get the American public to acquiesce in

surrendering its democratic rights, to accept one-party rule, and to

agree to a national policy of permanent war in the name of American

global hegemony. ...

[back to top]

Paul Street

Paul Street, ZNet contributor and Vice President for Research and Planning at the Chicago Urban League, wrote on April 14, 2003

that there is, apparently, only one particularly notable difference

between Bush and Hitler - Hitler wouldn't have allowed any looting of

museums in Baghdad:

The White House is deeply offended (officially at least) by those who

note the chilling parallel between Nazi foreign policy and the

Bush-Wolfowitz doctrine of "preemptive" (really preventive) war

currently being enacted in Iraq. Remembering that all versions of racist

imperialism are not the same, then, let us note one key difference

between the way the Bush gang is proceeding and how Adolf Hitler's Third

Reich would have conquered Baghdad.

The Nazis, we can be sure, would have made special provision to

safeguard, and then of course appropriate, the monumental treasures of

Mesopotamia and ancient Sumerian civilization. ...

[back to top]

Samir Amin

Samir Amin (one of the better known Neo-Marxian thinkers) writes in "Confronting The Empire" at the Centre for Civil Society:

[the North American programme] is infinitely more brutal in its simple

and extreme unilateral conception, and it is close to the Nazi

programme, which was also based on the principle of a Master Race. ...

Finally, Washington will not even attempt to support its real allies,

something which always means knowing how to make concessions. Fake

governments, like that of Karzai in Afghanistan, will manage things

better as long as military power supports a belief in the

"invincibility" of the US. Hitler did not think any differently. ... The

militarist programme adopted by the United States now threatens all

peoples. It is the exp
ression of the logic adopted by Adolf Hitler -- to

change social and economic relations by military force in favour of the

"Master Race" of the day. ...

That's, erm... civil.

[back to top]

Iver Bogen

Iver Bogen (emeritus professor of psychology at the University of Minnesota, Duluth), writes about the "The Nazification Of The Republican Administration":

Just as Hitler was installed (but not elected by the German people) as

the Feuhrer by the Nazi party, so George W. Bush was installed as

President of the United States by a conservative Supreme Court. In both

cases, governments used "national security" as an excuse to launch an

assault on democratic freedoms. While "lebensraum" was a rallying cry

for Hitler, Bush's "evil axis," referring to North Korea, Iran and Iraq,

was supposed to generate patriotic "no-think" here in the USA.

Just as Hitler detached himself from the League of Nations, George W.

has been assuming a more insular position internationally. ... Just as

the burning of the Reichstag provided the Nazi party with the

opportunity for shredding the Weimar Constitution, so did the attack on

the World Trade Center on 9/11/01 provide the Republican administration

(Cheney/Ashcroft/Rumsfeld) with the rationale for abolishing the

freedoms granted to all citizens in the American Constitution. ...

Iver Bogen is also published at the Duluth Reader Weekly.

[back to top]

Yamin Zakaria

In an article titled "Democracy is Hypocrisy" at the Al-Jazeerah Information Centre (NB: not affiliated to Al-Jazeera TV):

Even Adolf Hitler came to power through the democratic system in

Germany, whereas Bush, the current leader of the democratic block came

to power illegitimately according to many prominent Americans. Never

mind the 'small' difference since they both have a lot in common.

Adolf Hitler claimed to have launched a 'defensive' war against the

Jews, Slavs and the rest of Europe to protect the German race. Similarly

Bush has waged the same 'defensive' war against the Islamic world and

anyone else that does not to conform to the US dictates. ... Hitler

claimed the supremacy of the Aryan race, Bush calls for the supremacy of

US democracy run by its Multinationals, as exemplified by Paul Bremer

of Iraq with the likes of Halliburton and Bechtel.

Adolf had the Gestapo; Bush has the FBI and CIA, who are far more

efficient with killings, kidnapping, torture and now arbitrary

imprisonment without charge or legal representation. ... There are

'Arabs' and 'Muslims' campaigning and raising funds along with the

Zionist camp to re-elect Bush. They are staunch supporter of US

democracy and a believer in Adolf Bush. ...

Jihad Watch has more about Mr Zakaria, including his admiration of the repellant Zundel.

[back to top]

David R. Hoffman (Legal Editor of PRAVDA)

In "Bush vs Hitler", the Legal Editor of Russia's classiest

newspaper doesn't hold back. You half expect the picture editor to

chuck in a photo of Bush with a Hitler mustache, and use a swastika as

the 's' in his name. Oh, hang on, they do have a picture of Bush with a Hitler mustache and using a swastika as the 's' in his name:

pravda.jpg

In fact, several disturbing analogies exist between George W. Bush and

history's most infamous fascist, Adolph Hitler: Both men assumed power

in defiance of the will of the majority; both men used "great lies" to

pursue their warmongering agendas; both men preyed upon humanity's

basest instincts to disseminate those "great lies"; both men were

appeased by the British government, Hitler through Neville Chamberlain

and Bush through Tony Blair; both men were willing to use national

tragedies to justify the destruction of civil liberties, Hitler through

the burning of the Reichstag and Bush through the September 11th

terrorist attacks; both men were/are suspected of either participating

in, or ignoring warnings about the imminence of, these tragedies in

order to enhance their political stature and power; both men

[exploit(ed)] a culture of death for political self-aggrandizement,

Hitler through his well-publicized genocide campaigns, and Bush who,

while governor of Texas, routinely denied DNA tests to death row

inmates, even though such tests could prevent wrongful executions; both

men were willing to appeal to racism, Hitler through his quest for a

"master race," and Bush through his condemnation of affirmative action

policies, which primarily benefit racial minorities. [...] both men

reveled in war and exploited the military to satiate their personal

ambitions and vendettas; both men used war to enrich their political

cronies; both men demonstrated contempt for international law and the

concerns of the world community; and both men believed they were/are on

some holy crusade inspired by a "divine province" that placed them into

power. [...]

September 2004 update: he's done it again.

[back to top]

Federico Fasano Mertens, editor of La Republica del Uruguay

Replying in March 2003

to a letter from Martin Silverstein, the US ambassador to Uruguay,

accusing his newspaper of "totally lacking any sense of journalistic

integrity" by comparing George Bush to Adolf Hitler...

The matter at hand is the comparison between Adolf Hitler and George Bush.

There are obvious differences. The first being that the war criminal,

the murderer of the Jewish and Soviet peoples, won a resounding victory

in the German elections, while the war criminal and murderer of the

Iraqi people reached power fraudulently, in the biggest electoral

scandal in US history.

From the theoretical point of view, the comparison between Bush and

Hitler is correct. The scientists have described Nazism as a terrorist

dictatorship of corporate expansionism. Bush, by putting himself beyond

the law and invading a defenceless nation which it had not attacked in

order to take over its oil wealth, the second largest on the planet, and

then stating that other oil-producing nations will follow, comes close

to the definition of a corporate terrorist dictatorship. Even though he

may not like to admit it.

George Bush is a Nazi in his genes. ...

...because, you know, Nazism's genetic...

...The American Burning of the Reichstag of September 11 gave George

Bush the chance of a lifetime. The worst electoral victory of a US

president since 1876 had turned into the best historical opportunity for

a warmonger to impose a new US order on the world.

As in Hitler's case, the first thing he did was to surround himself with

a clique of con artists such as himself, men obsessed with the

intimidating power of force. ...

[back to top]

Wayne Madsen, Washington DC-based investigative journalist and columnist

In a January 2003 article for 'Counterpunch' titled "Bush and Hitler - Compare and Contrast":

Adolf Hitler would be proud that an American President is emulating him

in so many ways. Hitler, it will be remembered, routinely ignored his

military, other world leaders, and the clergy ...

Passing swiftly on to:

War making and saber rattling is not the only similarity of Bush to

Hitler. The German leader, along with Joseph Goebbels, was also a master

of propaganda. ...

Bush uses force and the media. So did Hitler. Ergo, Bush is like Hitler.

Then in February 2003, describing "Bush's War on the Soul of America":

The U.S. military [are being deployed overseas, which] permits the Bush

regime to seize more and more constitutional rights of the American

people without the possibility of substantial resistance. The only

people who are currently defenseless in the world today are the American

people--they are vulnerable to the machinations of their own illegal

regime. [...]

Like Roman Caesars Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, and Claudius, and

Napoleon Bonaparte, Adolf Hitler, and Benito Mussolini before him,

Bush's fanaticism threatens to plunge the world into endless war and

bring to an ignoble close America's 227-year democratic run. ...

Moving on to:

Anyone who closely examines Patriot II will realize that the document

represents the same sort of power grab by Hitler after the Reichstag

Fire of 1933. Using the pretext that the Reichstag was burned down by

Communists (when, in fact, it was engineered by Nazis), Hitler pushed

through the "Decree by the Reich President for the Defense of People and

State." The Reichstag Fire Decree, intended only as a "temporary"

measure, permitted Hitler and his regime to jail political opponents at

will, bypass the judicial system, and eventually force millions of

people into concentration camps.

Like the Reichstag Fire Decree, there is nothing really temporary with either Patriot I or II. ...

And ending with what looks like a call to the army and militias to overthrow the government:

A former British Lieutenant Colonel named George Washington once turned

the weapons of his army of rebels against his former masters,[...]

And just in case the fascists in control of our government contend that

the Founding Fathers were part of another era, let us remember some more

recent quotes:

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit

it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can

exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their

revolutionary right to overthrow it."--Abraham Lincoln. [...]

From our Founders to our more recent leaders we have been given the

answer to how best deal with the gravest constitutional dilemma that has

ever befallen the United States of America. Our modern militia, whose

forbearers defended us from the British, pro-slavery secessionists, the

Germans, and the Soviet Union, must now defend us once again against all

enemies, not foreign but domestic

[back to top]

Dennis Kaiser

In "A Cause for Alarm?" at DemocraticUnderground in December 2002:

[...] This list [of perceived misdeeds], while far from being complete,

represents a very clear picture of what the Bush administration and

Republican agenda is all about. It is about helping the oil industry,

large conglomerates, and the wealthy. It is about a never-ending war

against terrorism. It is about showing contempt for the American

citizens. It is about developing a dictatorship, in much the same manner

as that used by Adolf Hitler, through propaganda and fear.

I certainly support ending terrorism, but I believe terrorism is simply

being used by this Administration in much the same manner as Hitler used

it to gain control and maintain a hold on the people of Germany. [...]

Bush continues to have rather high approval ratings, as reported by the

media. Is this an indictment of the American people's lack of political

knowledge and their blind support of the fight against terrorism? Or is

this another example of being controlled by the mainstream media? [...]

Or does it show how instilling fear into the people is being successful,

much as it was for the Nazis in Germany?

He doesn't mention the possibility that Americans might be broadly

approving of Bush's policies and reasonably knowledgeable and open-eyed.

[back to top]

Prashant Bhushan

In " Bush Must Be Stopped Now Before It Is Too Late"

in March 2003, Prashant Bhushan (google finds a number of articles by

him in other outlets) unveils the Holy Grail of "Bush = Hitler"

allusions...

While selling his attack on Iraq, Bush often draws an analogy with

Hitler's Germany. He likens the threat posed to the world by Saddam

today to the threat posed by Hitler in the mid 30s. The point that he

tries to make is that it would cost the world much more to tackle Saddam

later if he is not tackled now [...]. While the analogy between Saddam

and Hitler may be laughable ...

...Saddam Hussein is nothing like Hitler, but...

... it is instructive, though frightening, to draw an analogy between

Bush and Hitler and the threats posed by them to other nations and to

world peace.

Yes, that's right. He's saying that Saddam's nothing like Hitler, but

Bush is like him. The rest of the article is a fairly standard rant.

[back to top]

Dr. Norman D. Livergood

Dr Livergood, a published man of various talents as well as running Hermes Press, wrote in "The Nazification of America", with a side-by-side timeline of 1930's Germany and modern America:

Phase 1, Seizure of Power ... appointed president ... Phase 2, An

Atrocity to Subdue the People ... The Reichstag Fire / September 11,

2001 ... Phase 3, The Leader Destroys Elections and Appoints Himself

Dictator ... March 24, 1933 The Enabling Act / November, 2002 Homeland

Security Act ... Secret US Police Concentration Camps etc...

[Also here].

[back to top]

Samir Hussain and Pranjal Tiwari

In an April 2003 ZMag article titled "Unimaginable Futures":

In the build up to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, comparisons made

between Saddam Hussein and Adolf Hitler were effectively exploited as

part of the propaganda arsenal promulgated by the spin doctors in

Washington to convince the populace of the threat that Saddam presents

(presented?) to world peace. ... In the wake of the blitzkrieg against

Iraq, a more apt comparison to fascism, many would feel, is one that

involves the American regime of George W. Bush... undemocratic

assumption of power ... enabling acts ... totalitarianism ...

ultra-right vanguard etc ...

[back to top]

Johnny Donaldson and Rene Gonzalez

University of Massachusetts student and controversial writer for the students' 'Daily Collegian', Rene Gonzalez was on the streets in December 2003:

Gonzalez compared the type of government in the United States to

fascism. He also said that the little opposition of U.S. citizens to the

policies of President George W. Bush is not dissimilar to the rise of

Adolf Hitler in World War II.

And in October, 'Daily Collegian' columnist Johnny Donaldson was engaging in political analysis:

Dubya is one of the single most evil men roaming free right now, a man

whose deviousness and maliciousness is equaled by only a few. Bush is a

creature on the same level as bin Laden or, more appropriately, Hitler.

He is a lying fascist who uses the myopic fervor of patriotism and the

calculated lying of propaganda to exert his will on a nation and lead

its people down the rabbit hole of war and terror. ...

Oh come on, Johnny - stop holding back and tell us how you really feel.

[back to top]

Rob Kall

Op-Ed News ("Progressive, Tough Liberal News and Opinion") editor Rob Kall wrote on August 31st:

[violent protest] is bad. It is not the time nor place for violence. All

the protests in NYC should be non-violent. Still, I understand the

perpetrators feelings. [Republican convention] delegates are supporting

the closest thing America's seen to Hitler since Adams passed the

sedition acts. Michael Moore made a big splash at the Republican

Hitler-fest. ... And under [Laura Bush's] friendly texas smile she's a

scorpion sleeping with the 21st century's Hitler."

And on September 1st:

I thought I was going overboard, using the Nazi word too much. Then

and I realized that the Bush team acts like Nazis, they walk the path

the Nazis walked, but Zell Miller, he talks like a nazi, like a

goosestepping gestapo leader. He's the kind of guy who could send Jews

and Muslims alike to gas chambers, or maybe they'd use laser or nuclear

"star-wars" ovens of genocide this time around.

Update, 20 November 2004: I haven't read it yet, but to judge from the headline I imagine "Bush Rats Jumping Ship,to Be Replaced By Even Worse, Ebola-Toxic Next Generation Republicanazis" is more of the same.

[back to top]

Robert Thompson

Robert Thompson, a retired French lawyer living in a small village in Northern France and frequent Op-Ed News contributor, wrote in "Building on fear and hatred" at the end of August 2004:

... As for Mr Giuliani, his likening of Mr Bush to Sir Winston Churchill

and Mr Ronald Reagan seems an odd mixture. Sir Winston did at least

call for opposition to the one man on whom Mr Bush so closely models his

actions, i.e. Mr Adolf Hitler, which thus makes this a most strange

comparison. On the other hand, we can see that Mr Reagan may, in his

later days, have been almost as "intellectually challenged" as Mr George

W. Bush. ...

Nice touch, mentioning Reagan's Alzheimer's disease like that, heh? Really classy.

[back to top]

Bob Fitrakis

At Common Dreams and

Op-Ed News, Bob Fitrakis (a political science professor and attorney, no less) writes "On Bush and Hitler's Rhetoric"...

... When was the last time a Western nation had a leader so obsessed

with God and claiming God was on our side? If you answered Adolph Hitler

and Nazi Germany, you're correct ... Both Bush and Hitler believe that

they were chosen by God to lead their nations... Like Bush-ites, Hitler

was fond of invoking the Ten Commandments as the foundation of Nazi

Germany... But if you ever wondered where Bush got his idea for

so-called "faith-based initiatives" you need only consult Hitler's

January 30, 1939 speech to the Reichstag ...

[back to top]

Hugh Pearson

Writing at Newsday on 2nd Sept 2004, Hugh Pearson of NYAge.net finds great similarity between the Republican National Convention and Hitler's Nuremburg rallies

As I watched Tuesday night's network coverage of the unrelenting

political propaganda hour known as the Republican National Convention,

the first thought that came to mind was of old newsreels of those

self-congratulatory Nazi rallies held in Germany during the reign of

Adolf Hitler. ...

Riiiight. I find all that sort of rah-rah-woo-woo flag-waving a bit tedious too, but wouldn't go that far.

[back to top]

Bill Burkett

Bill Burkett (of CBS memo fame) wrote in March 2003 that Bush is on a level with Napoleon and Hitler:

America will again be asked to bow at the feet of this small man with

big ideas [bush]. ... We must study the nemesis of France and how

Napoleon was felled before understanding the damage a tyrant does to a

nation and society. We must examine the ruthless and dictatorial rise of

yet another of the three small men�one whose name is not spoken out of

fear of reprisal, but his name was Adolf. We must examine history, in

order to not repeat it, and to understand the mesmerism of a public to a

murderous scheme. Three small men who wanted to conquer . . . and

vanquish. ...

[back to top]

Carl Doerner

Carl Doerner writes news analysis for New England media. In September 2004 at dissidentvoice, he analysed a self-appointed "People's Iraq War Crimes Tribunal" which decided that...

The first, irrefutable charge of which George W. Bush stands guilty is

that, like Adolph Hitler, he planned and carried out a war of aggression

against Iraq - this being the supreme violation of international law.

Oddly enough, even if he hadn't invaded Iraq Bush would still have been found guilty by the tribunal because "The role of sanctions was shown to cause destruction of the Iraqi infrastructure". Those sanctions being the only alternative to invasion.

[back to top]

Adam Engel

At dissidentvoice, where he's a regular contributor, reviewing Mark Crispin Miller's 'Cruel and Unusual' in September 2004:

America is sick, just as Germany was sick under Nazism, and Russia was

sick under Stalinism and any other nation or people thus afflicted with

fanatical rulers, a corrupted legislative body and a compliant press

were sick ... Hitler's Germany smacked into History like a frog flung -�

splat! -- against a wall. So seems to be the course of the American

Republic, if it still is a republic. ... Everything you've ever read

about the Nazis under Hitler, the Soviets under Stalin, the Chinese

under Mao, the French under Napoleon, about any tyranny that has ever

oppressed people of the past or present is happening here now, on your

dime, your body bag, your conscience. ...

[back to top]

Thom Hartmann

At Common Dreams in March 2003

Thom Hartmann, who we must suppose knows a lot about the Nazis because

he, errr, "lived and worked in Germany during the 1980s" produced an

extended thesis to the effect that the Reichstag fire and Hitler's 1933

Enabling Act was just like the 9/11 attacks and subsequent events.

[back to top]

Michael Berglin

I don't have the faintest idea who Michael Berglin is, but Pravda (Russia's classiest newspaper) gave him an entire column to suggest that Bushisms are a symptom of degenerative brain disease, and...

Bush is also getting incredibly more hostile towards his critics,

calling them enemies of the state. Hitler and Stalin shared this same

type of rabid hatred towards people who did not agree with them.

Of course, Pravda's legal editor would agree.

[back to top]

John Pilger

In the Mirror in September 2002:

"Pre-emptive attack" means attacking someone before they attack you.

When the Bush gang use it, they like to compare themselves with

Churchillian types who opposed Europe's appeasers of German ambitions in

the 1930s.

This is both false and dishonest; for it is they who bear a likeness to

the imperial planners of the Third Reich.

In case you missed that here he is again, in the Mirror, in January 2003:

[Tony Blair] is the embodiment of the most dangerous appeasement

humanity has known since the 1930s. The current American elite is the

Third Reich of our times, although this distinction ought not to let us

forget that they have merely accelerated more than half a century of

unrelenting American state terrorism...

[back to top]

Allen Snyder

Allen Snyder, a frequent contributer to OpEd News, resorts to verse in a sadly undated piece which I guess is a reaction to Bush's win in the 2004

POSTED 3 YEARS AGO #

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and 2008: Click on each image to see it in context as part of its original report.)

IMG_9815.JPG

IMG_1727.JPG

155-5568_IMG.JPG

118-1867_IMG.JPG

IMG_2478.JPG

IMG_5653.JPG

118-1853_IMG.JPG

IMG_0101.JPG

IMG_2467.JPG

IMG_4544.JPG

9-11_=_Reichstag_banner2.jpg

119-1912_IMG.JPG

IMG_2382.JPG

IMG_2320.JPG

118-1862_IMG.JPG

IMG_5632.JPG

IMG_3378.JPG

(The photos below were not taken by me but were sent in by zomblog readers:)

The following seven pictures were snapped in Los Angeles by blogger

Ringo and posted in his own roundup of Bush/Hitler protest imagery at Ringo’s Pictures, where you’ll find dozens of more examples:

ringobushitler17.jpg

ringobushitler15.jpg

ringobushitler14.jpg

ringobushitler10.jpg

ringobushitler1.jpg

ringobushitler3.jpg

ringobushitler13.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You of course do realize that all that work , all those photos and everything posted will be met with... " meh. Obama's been called worse ".

<_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those folks were as out of line as WarTim is.

You are entitled to your opinion as well!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those folks were as out of line as WarTim is.

You are entitled to your opinion as well!

Aren't we all! And strangely enough, we still will be even if this person you refer to as Hitler becomes President. Which shows just how clueless you are about who Hitler was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's pretty pathetic when the only defense you can throw up is that other people do it.

Some one apparently missed one of the very first lessons in their childhood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More details and this is what I wanted to know. The private e-mail mail server was at Clinton's house in New York.

We have a former four star general that has to plead guilty to avoid an expensive jury trial and these politicians are never held accountable.

http://bigstory.ap.o...official-emails

WASHINGTON (AP) — The computer server that transmitted and received Hillary Rodham Clinton's emails — on a private account she used exclusively for official business when she was secretary of state — traced back to an Internet service registered to her family's home in Chappaqua, New York, according to Internet records reviewed by The Associated Press.

The highly unusual practice of a Cabinet-level official physically running her own email would have given Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate, impressive control over limiting access to her message archives. It also would distinguish Clinton's secretive email practices as far more sophisticated than some politicians, including Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin, who were caught conducting official business using free email services operated by Microsoft Corp. and Yahoo Inc.

Most Internet users rely on professional outside companies, such as Google Inc. or their own employers, for the behind-the-scenes complexities of managing their email communications. Government employees generally use servers run by federal agencies where they work.

In most cases, individuals who operate their own email servers are technical experts or users so concerned about issues of privacy and surveillance they take matters into their own hands. It was not immediately clear exactly where Clinton ran that computer system.

Clinton has not described her motivation for using a private email account — hdr22@clintonemail.com, which traced back to her own private email server registered under an apparent pseudonym — for official State Department business.

Operating her own server would have afforded Clinton additional legal opportunities to block government or private subpoenas in criminal, administrative or civil cases because her lawyers could object in court before being forced to turn over any emails. And since the Secret Service was guarding Clinton's home, an email server there would have been well protected from theft or a physical hacking.

But homemade email servers are generally not as reliable, secure from hackers or protected from fires or floods as those in commercial data centers. Those professional facilities provide monitoring for viruses or hacking attempts, regulated temperatures, off-site backups, generators in case of power outages, fire-suppression systems and redundant communications lines.

A spokesman for Clinton did not respond to requests seeking comment from the AP on Tuesday. Clinton ignored the issue during a speech Tuesday night at the 30th anniversary gala of EMILY's List, which works to elect Democratic women who support abortion rights.

It was unclear whom Clinton hired to set up or maintain her private email server, which the AP traced to a mysterious identity, Eric Hoteham. That name does not appear in public records databases, campaign contribution records or Internet background searches. Hoteham was listed as the customer at Clinton's $1.7 million home on Old House Lane in Chappaqua in records registering the Internet address for her email server since August 2010.

The Hoteham personality also is associated with a separate email server, presidentclinton.com, and a non-functioning website, wjcoffice.com, all linked to the same residential Internet account as Mrs. Clinton's email server. The former president's full name is William Jefferson Clinton.

In November 2012, without explanation, Clinton's private email account was reconfigured to use Google's servers as a backup in case her own personal email server failed, according to Internet records. That is significant because Clinton publicly supported Google's accusations in June 2011 that China's government had tried to break into the Google mail accounts of senior U.S. government officials. It was one of the first instances of a major American corporation openly accusing a foreign government of hacking.

Then, in July 2013, five months after she resigned as secretary of state, Clinton's private email server was reconfigured again to use a Denver-based commercial email provider, MX Logic, which is now owned by McAfee Inc., a top Internet security company.

The New York Times reported Monday that Clinton exclusively used a personal email account it did not specify to conduct State Department business. The disclosure raised questions about whether she took actions to preserve copies of her old work-related emails, as required by the Federal Records Act. A Clinton spokesman, Nick Merrill, told the newspaper that Clinton complied with the letter and spirit of the law because her advisers reviewed tens of thousands of pages of her personal emails to decide which ones to turn over to the State Department after the agency asked for them.

In theory but not in practice, Clinton's official emails would be accessible to anyone who requested copies under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act. Under the law, citizens and foreigners can compel the government to turn over copies of federal records for zero or little cost. Since Clinton effectively retained control over emails in her private account even after she resigned in 2013, the government would have to negotiate with Clinton to turn over messages it can't already retrieve from the inboxes of federal employees she emailed.

The AP has waited more than a year under the open records law for the State Department to turn over some emails covering Clinton's tenure as the nation's top diplomat, although the agency has never suggested that it didn't possess all her emails.

Clinton's private email account surfaced publicly in March 2013 after a convicted Romanian hacker known as Guccifer published emails stolen from former White House adviser Sidney Blumenthal. The Internet domain was registered around the time of her secretary of state nomination.

Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., chairman of the special House committee investigating the Benghazi attacks, said the committee learned last summer — when agency documents were turned over to the committee — that Clinton had used a private email account while secretary of state. More recently the committee learned that she used private email accounts exclusively and had more than one, Gowdy said.

President Barack Obama signed a bill last year that bans the use of private email accounts by government officials unless they retain copies of messages in their official account or forward copies to their government accounts within 20 days. The bill did not become law until more than one year after Clinton left the State Department.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More details and this is what I wanted to know. The private e-mail mail server was at Clinton's house in New York.

We have a former four star general that has to plead guilty to avoid an expensive jury trial and these politicians are never held accountable.

http://bigstory.ap.o...official-emails

WASHINGTON (AP) — The computer server that transmitted and received Hillary Rodham Clinton's emails — on a private account she used exclusively for official business when she was secretary of state — traced back to an Internet service registered to her family's home in Chappaqua, New York, according to Internet records reviewed by The Associated Press.

The highly unusual practice of a Cabinet-level official physically running her own email would have given Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate, impressive control over limiting access to her message archives. It also would distinguish Clinton's secretive email practices as far more sophisticated than some politicians, including Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin, who were caught conducting official business using free email services operated by Microsoft Corp. and Yahoo Inc.

Most Internet users rely on professional outside companies, such as Google Inc. or their own employers, for the behind-the-scenes complexities of managing their email communications. Government employees generally use servers run by federal agencies where they work.

In most cases, individuals who operate their own email servers are technical experts or users so concerned about issues of privacy and surveillance they take matters into their own hands. It was not immediately clear exactly where Clinton ran that computer system.

Clinton has not described her motivation for using a private email account — hdr22@clintonemail.com, which traced back to her own private email server registered under an apparent pseudonym — for official State Department business.

Operating her own server would have afforded Clinton additional legal opportunities to block government or private subpoenas in criminal, administrative or civil cases because her lawyers could object in court before being forced to turn over any emails. And since the Secret Service was guarding Clinton's home, an email server there would have been well protected from theft or a physical hacking.

But homemade email servers are generally not as reliable, secure from hackers or protected from fires or floods as those in commercial data centers. Those professional facilities provide monitoring for viruses or hacking attempts, regulated temperatures, off-site backups, generators in case of power outages, fire-suppression systems and redundant communications lines.

A spokesman for Clinton did not respond to requests seeking comment from the AP on Tuesday. Clinton ignored the issue during a speech Tuesday night at the 30th anniversary gala of EMILY's List, which works to elect Democratic women who support abortion rights.

It was unclear whom Clinton hired to set up or maintain her private email server, which the AP traced to a mysterious identity, Eric Hoteham. That name does not appear in public records databases, campaign contribution records or Internet background searches. Hoteham was listed as the customer at Clinton's $1.7 million home on Old House Lane in Chappaqua in records registering the Internet address for her email server since August 2010.

The Hoteham personality also is associated with a separate email server, presidentclinton.com, and a non-functioning website, wjcoffice.com, all linked to the same residential Internet account as Mrs. Clinton's email server. The former president's full name is William Jefferson Clinton.

In November 2012, without explanation, Clinton's private email account was reconfigured to use Google's servers as a backup in case her own personal email server failed, according to Internet records. That is significant because Clinton publicly supported Google's accusations in June 2011 that China's government had tried to break into the Google mail accounts of senior U.S. government officials. It was one of the first instances of a major American corporation openly accusing a foreign government of hacking.

Then, in July 2013, five months after she resigned as secretary of state, Clinton's private email server was reconfigured again to use a Denver-based commercial email provider, MX Logic, which is now owned by McAfee Inc., a top Internet security company.

The New York Times reported Monday that Clinton exclusively used a personal email account it did not specify to conduct State Department business. The disclosure raised questions about whether she took actions to preserve copies of her old work-related emails, as required by the Federal Records Act. A Clinton spokesman, Nick Merrill, told the newspaper that Clinton complied with the letter and spirit of the law because her advisers reviewed tens of thousands of pages of her personal emails to decide which ones to turn over to the State Department after the agency asked for them.

In theory but not in practice, Clinton's official emails would be accessible to anyone who requested copies under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act. Under the law, citizens and foreigners can compel the government to turn over copies of federal records for zero or little cost. Since Clinton effectively retained control over emails in her private account even after she resigned in 2013, the government would have to negotiate with Clinton to turn over messages it can't already retrieve from the inboxes of federal employees she emailed.

The AP has waited more than a year under the open records law for the State Department to turn over some emails covering Clinton's tenure as the nation's top diplomat, although the agency has never suggested that it didn't possess all her emails.

Clinton's private email account surfaced publicly in March 2013 after a convicted Romanian hacker known as Guccifer published emails stolen from former White House adviser Sidney Blumenthal. The Internet domain was registered around the time of her secretary of state nomination.

Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., chairman of the special House committee investigating the Benghazi attacks, said the committee learned last summer — when agency documents were turned over to the committee — that Clinton had used a private email account while secretary of state. More recently the committee learned that she used private email accounts exclusively and had more than one, Gowdy said.

President Barack Obama signed a bill last year that bans the use of private email accounts by government officials unless they retain copies of messages in their official account or forward copies to their government accounts within 20 days. The bill did not become law until more than one year after Clinton left the State Department.

Are you suggesting that, David Petraeus is a victim?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you suggesting that, David Petraeus is a victim?

Petraeus was not a political insider. If he had been they would have protected him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you suggesting that, David Petraeus is a victim?

Petraeus was not a political insider. If he had been they would have protected him.

The DCI is not a political insider? Who is they? You did not answer the question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a matter of national security and leadership competence. Who, in their right mind, thinks that having the senior diplomatic official of the United States, conduct business on a private server out of her home, is not a huge security risk 1st; and secondly it obviously begs questions around transparency, etc. Lastly, it just shows a fundamental lack of judgment and regards for the security required to conduct the role. Hell, any business that conducted itself in this manner would run afoul of SOX immediately. That is what difference it makes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It works the other way too. Obama's former attorney general, Holder used his official DoJ email account for personal reasons. His aides tried to block handing over those emails saying they were personal messages.

It doesn't work that way. If you use your employer's email system, then any email sent or received with that email account belongs to the employer.

That is how it has always been....so what is your point? If you read the government provisions for getting an account with the various agencies, it states that up front. It is in plain english and if our Attorney General cannot understand plain english then there is an even bigger problem....

He understood it, he's like all executives over large organizations, they think they can bend the rules. Being an attorney and the head of federal law enforcement makes it worse. In this case he tried to opt out of providing those official emails that he claims were personal. Lower level people are not allowed to opt out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you suggesting that, David Petraeus is a victim?

Petraeus was not a political insider. If he had been they would have protected him.

The DCI is not a political insider? Who is they? You did not answer the question.

Pratraeus came from the military and was never one of the administration's insiders. He also has no political party ties.

If he have been a democrat politico or a former member of Obama's staff, he might have been protected by the administration and just allowed to resign.

They caught Clinton security adviser Sandy Berger stealing documents while he was a private citizen in 2004. He received a similar punishment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hillary server traced to NY home according to NYT. Listen to the video for some apparent facts/opinions. No matter how this comes down it ain't going to help her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those folks were as out of line as WarTim is.

You are entitled to your opinion as well!

Aren't we all! And strangely enough, we still will be even if this person you refer to as Hitler becomes President. Which shows just how clueless you are about who Hitler was.

Touched a nerve there obviously. Carry on...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a matter of national security and leadership competence. Who, in their right mind, thinks that having the senior diplomatic official of the United States, conduct business on a private server out of her home, is not a huge security risk 1st; and secondly it obviously begs questions around transparency, etc. Lastly, it just shows a fundamental lack of judgment and regards for the security required to conduct the role. Hell, any business that conducted itself in this manner would run afoul of SOX immediately. That is what difference it makes.

Far too many of the big $$$ Libs like the clintons think they are above the law. Rules apply to the simpletons. She is ticked that anyone dare question her...on anything.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's pretty pathetic when the only defense you can throw up is that other people do it.

Some one apparently missed one of the very first lessons in their childhood.

Who said this in a thread related to VA errors?

"Yeah, private hospitals never make errors."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's pretty pathetic when the only defense you can throw up is that other people do it.

Some one apparently missed one of the very first lessons in their childhood.

Who said this in a thread related to VA errors?

"Yeah, private hospitals never make errors."

Damn email trails.............
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you suggesting that, David Petraeus is a victim?

Petraeus was not a political insider. If he had been they would have protected him.

So you're saying that some people are more equal under the law than others? George Orwell would be proud. Hilary wont be protected because the job of SoS is far too high profile with too high of a security clearance for serious violations to be winked at by Congress. Hell, she's been issued a bunch of new subpoenas in the last 48 hours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those folks were as out of line as WarTim is.

You are entitled to your opinion as well!

Aren't we all! And strangely enough, we still will be even if this person you refer to as Hitler becomes President. Which shows just how clueless you are about who Hitler was.

Touched a nerve there obviously. Carry on...

Yes, I sensed your utter cluelessness.

Funny... the poster boy of cluelessness would be compelled to project his most outwardly noticeable character trait onto someone for expressing an opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those folks were as out of line as WarTim is.

You are entitled to your opinion as well!

Aren't we all! And strangely enough, we still will be even if this person you refer to as Hitler becomes President. Which shows just how clueless you are about who Hitler was.

Touched a nerve there obviously. Carry on...

Yes, I sensed your utter cluelessness.

Funny... the poster boy of cluelessness would be compelled to project his most outwardly noticeable character trait onto someone for expressing an opinion.

In his opinion Hillary is Hitler. Your clueless about what constitutes an opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a matter of national security and leadership competence. Who, in their right mind, thinks that having the senior diplomatic official of the United States, conduct business on a private server out of her home, is not a huge security risk 1st; and secondly it obviously begs questions around transparency, etc. Lastly, it just shows a fundamental lack of judgment and regards for the security required to conduct the role. Hell, any business that conducted itself in this manner would run afoul of SOX immediately. That is what difference it makes.

Colin Powell operated exactly like Hillary Clinton

Condoleeza Rice didn't use E-mail at all.

This is an evolutionary thing. Regulations concerning the use of E-Mail didn't exist during Clinton's tenure. This is really not much of a scandal in terms of violating the law.

Having said that, Hillary and Bill have a long history of pushing against the legal boundaries in their activities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Members Online

    No members to show

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...