Shows VERY poor judgement. Sheesh. As if she doesn't have enough baggage.

right over a cliff. Extremely disturbing.

and people really want her to run for president?

Clinton added that she believes any compromise between Ukraine and Russia will come in Crimea, the Ukrainian peninsula where there are many Russian speakers and where Putin has stationed Russian troops. She said she was hopeful about Secretary of State John F. Kerry's diplomatic efforts in Kiev, the capital of Ukraine.

"So everybody is hoping that there will be a negotiation but a negotiation that respects Ukraine and doesn't ratify a reoccupation by Russia of Crimea," Clinton said, according to the Press-Telegram.

"So it's a real nail-biter, right now, but nobody wants to up the rhetoric. Everybody wants to cool it in order to find a diplomatic solution, and that's what we should be trying to do."

They asked her a question and she answered it. Do you think that others are not making a similar analogy? Putin is old KGB and would love for Russia to annex the former Soviet Union territories.

this particular moment. Former Soviet Territories does not equate to as Hitler's agenda.

Whether it's prudent or not, it's a matter of debate.

Yes, those on the right who want WAR. Sorry Bea, but even here on DU, we get told not to use the word that rhymes with "potsie" because it immediately ratchets the hate to the point where the engines bust. How could Hillary even let herself be put in a position to say that?

She was at best, foolish, and yes, that should get weighed in as we give the war machine to her in 2016.

I haven't heard the Right suggest that we should invade the area. They keep calling Obama weak, but that's par for the course with that crowd.

I was reminded of the anchsluss. I was thinking it before she said it.

There are people here who want to smear her no matter what she says or does. Thanks for speaking up, Bea.

No matter what Hillary says, they will trash her. Considering that this is supposed to be a Democratic site, the whole thing is disgusting. I just read tonight an article where Karel Schwarzenberg (he was until recently the Czech foreign minister) said the same thing, and the Czech should know since they lived through the Nazi invasion.

where countries moved troops into another country by way of invasion/annexation, so when you use the loaded phrase "like Hitler" the only way for that to make sense is if you are saying he plans on invading the rest of Western Europe, perhaps setting up extermination camps along the way, otherwise he is just like several dozen other belligerents of the last century who were not named Hitler.

Let me see if I can recall a more recent example of a sovereign nation being illegally invaded by a hostile country on a bogus pretext...hmmmm.....

Oh yeah, the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2002.

So, if Putin is like Hitler, and we are like Putin, then we are like Hitler.

Q.E.D.

another country? To heck with that! I want our major politicians to take sides!, speak-up.

I don't think the EU will sit quiet and let big bluster nazi-like putin get away with his invasion either.

and has yet to admit she was fucking wrong in doing so. that's why Mrs. C should shut the fuck up.

So no, she doesn't need to shut the f*ck up, as you so delicately put it.

It's a good thing she was neither the SoS or POTUS during the Syrian crisis or now during this one.

Call the guy Hitler and want to be POTUS one day and have to work with him to prevent WWIII? Sucking up to the right-wing to snare a few %?

Dumb. Just DUMB.

To think Mrs. Clinton is not 'Presidential material' just because of that vote gives great joy to republicans.

Dec 18, 2006 http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2006/12/hillary_clinton-2/

Clinton has often been asked if she regrets her vote authorizing military action and she usually answers that question with an artful dodge, saying that she accepts responsibility for the vote and suggesting that if the Senate had all the information it has today (no WMD, troubled post-war military planning, etc. . .), there would never have been a vote on the Senate floor. However, she has never gone as far as some of her potential rivals for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination — who also voted for the war — and called her vote a mistake or declared that she would have cast her vote differently with all the facts presently available to her — until now.

This morning on NBC’s "Today" show, Sen. Clinton was asked about her 2002 vote and offered a slightly evolved answer. "Obviously, if we knew then what we know now, there wouldn’t have been a vote," she said in her usual refrain before adding, "and I certainly wouldn’t have voted that way."

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) and former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) have both publicly declared regret for their votes for the war and have become advocates for withdrawing American troops from Iraq sooner rather than later.

Sen. Barack Obama, the freshman Senator from Illinois who is considering a presidential run and who may pose the single biggest threat to Clinton’s bid for the nomination, wasn’t in the Senate in 2002, but declared his opposition to the war at that time as a Senate candidate. <<< GOBAMA

Since we give western politicians a four plus year grace period to take it all back.

Like Iraq was for the west. And Afghanistan has been, for Russia and the west.

Then there's Viet Nam.

And maybe a 'disaster' to any Americans who invested in russias Gov. owned gas corp.

Please point to where I say that.

My point is the "like Hitler" comparison in inapplicable and counterproductive. At no point do I say Secretary Clinton should "shut up"

HRC's statements only play well with the hard core right, so it comes across as pandering.

To heck with that! I want our major politicians to take sides!, speak-up.

And say what? More Hitler comparisons. How will that do anything?

OK, you are now president of the country. What do you do?

I don't think the EU will sit quiet and let big bluster nazi-like putin get away with his invasion either.

Other than some sanctions and speeches the EU will pretty much do nothing.

There is nothing they can do unless they are seriously prepared to get in a shooting war with Russia, which historically has never ended well for the civilian populace. Given that the ante is upped due to both sides having nuclear weapons, the stakes get even worse.

Putin is a blood-thirsty prick, but he isn't stupid. He knows how far he can go without getting himself and his country incinerated. Remember Georgia? How we sent the troops in after economic sanctions failed?

Oh wait, we did nothing of the sort.

They can buy from someone else, the world is glutted with oil and gas these days.

Gas and oil exports are central to Russia's economy.

You just can't switch natural gas sources like switching credit cards.

Switching sources would mean rounding up fleets of tankers and crews for those tankers and getting them to countries with surplus fuel to sell. I would guess that all of Russia's production could be made in 4-5 years at the most optimistic, 7-10 years at the most realistic.

the EU will ramp up as their oil fields have been in decline for years. Norway's oil production peaked in 2001, the UK in 1999, Denmark in 2004, and Italy in 2005. About 34% of the EU's oil and 30% of its natural gas comes from Russia. If the EU were to declare tomorrow they were not buying anymore oil/gas from Russia there would be economic pandemonium. You can't just stop buying Russian oil/gas today and replace it tomorrow with oil/gas from other sources. It would take months, possibly even years to obtain that kind of supply from "other sources" and those other sources would be FAR more expensive since it all has to be shipped in (as opposed to Russian supplies that come in via existing pipelines).

The only countries with surplus oil to sell outside Russia's influence would be Canada, the UAE, Brazil, Angola, Sudan, Qatar, and Thailand. And even IF those countries could ship supplies tomorrow, you have added thousands of miles to the supply chain.

The reality is that refusing to buy oil and gas from Russia would cause an instant economic meltdown in the EU, which would quickly become worldwide. We would be hurt just as much by such a move as Russia would.

By the way, the main power in the EU is Germany, which runs the central bank, and they have already said they have no intention of enacting sanctions against Russia. The number two power in Europe, the UK also has no plans to sanction Russia. So, who is going to "not buy" Russia's fuel?

The other reality is that Russia is in a far better position to inflict economic harm on the EU, than the other way round. They can use the same tactic OPEC used against the U.S. in the 70's: simply raise prices.

BRUSSELS (AP) — The European Union says the asset freezes it has imposed against 18 people held responsible for embezzling state funds in Ukraine include the country's ousted President Viktor Yanukovych.

The list includes what appear to be Yanukovych's closest aides, including a former interior minister, justice minister, the prosecutor general, the head of the security services and Yanukovych's son.

The sanctions also target former Ukrainian Prime Minister Mykola Azarov and his son.

The EU said Wednesday it was freezing assets of Ukrainian officials held in the EU but did not name them pending the publication in the official legal journal Thursday.

Ouch, that is going to leave a mark!

about that new domestic gas in Ukraine and the EU.

.......developments in energy technology have made it possible for Ukraine to manage without Russian energy supplies through shale oil and gas production. Preliminary estimates indicate the abundance of these in the Ukrainian territory.
The EU and the US intend to invest billions of dollars to develop oil and gas deposits in Ukraine, which may then become an exporter apart from being self-sufficient......
rest http://gulfnews.com/business/opinion/ukraine-crisis-has-to-do-with-economic-interests-1.1299470

We were talking about he EU's dependence on Russian gas and oil, not Ukraine's.

You told me that:

The EU will not buy his gas anymore, they will ramp up their own domestic production.

This is not going to happen because:

a) The EU has no domestic production to ramp up, all of their oil fields have been in decline since 2006.

b) The EU is not going to destroy its own economy by turning off the source of about a third of their energy and spend the next decade paying massively higher prices while they try to replace that shortfall.

I assume that you are now saying that Ukraine is going to meet that shortfall based on this part of the story you linked to:

The EU and the US are intending to invest billions of dollars to develop oil and gas deposits in Ukraine, which may become an exporter, apart from being self-sufficient.

This may affect Russian gas supplies to Europe. Russia supplies Europe with approximately 30 per cent of its gas needs through Ukraine.

(Please note my emphasis in bold of "weasel" words)

Let's put the reality filter on this. Assuming it is true (and that is a big assumption) the following problems arise:

1) The West is NOT going to invest billions in a country fighting a civil war or insurgency. Iraq has LOTS of oil fields, but investment is lacking since the pipelines keep getting blown up.

2) Russia is not going to stand around and see it cash cow slaughtered. Why do you think they invaded?

3) Assume you solve problems 1 & 2, the time needed to build the infrastructure needed to exploit the resources, then ramp up production to a level that can replace Russia's is measured in decades. Major ports, storage facilities, drilling rigs, refineries and pipelines are not things you throw up like a doublewide being rolled onto a lot. These things take MASSIVE amounts of steel, concrete, construction equipment, construction workers, engineers and ENERGY to bring into existence. Where will all of this come from?

4) Assume you solve problem 3 (and to do that, black magic and the selling of immortal souls would have to be part of the business plan), then you have to face two other ugly facts. First shale gas/oil fields have a LOW production life, meaning you start one up, you ramp up production, and then in a couple of years it peaks, and the yield PLUMMETS. Your shale well that was producing 1200 barrels a day is producing only 100 a day five years later. This means you are CONSTANTLY looking for new wells to replace old ones.

This brings us to the second problem, the environmental consequences of such drilling. Developing those resources (if the exist) is just the EU exploiting the Ukraine for its own enrichment. They get the energy, the Ukraine gets their country turned into a toxic waste dump. Plus, all of that wonderful carbon gets blasted into the atmosphere damaging the biosphere.

The world is NOT a place of black & white solutions to complex problems, many of them CENTURIES in the making. The Ukraine is yet another example of this reality.

EU isn't interested in imposing sanctions, even. This is not the moment to display her imperialistic war hawk proclivities. She has plenty of time to highlight her "national security creds" ..

but not those loaded words.

Surprising from her, since she is quite eloquent normally.

And... not to compare to the famous "47%" - this was supposed to be a closed meeting but the local paper did record her.

The conclusion is that public individuals should think very carefully of any emotional terms, even with a closed meeting.

Nice!

Putin is doing just like Hitler did, moving ethnic groups into an alien country, then claiming they need "protection."

who do prefer to be associated with Russia. And many did welcome Putin.

Still, she could have said something like: we have too many examples from history when such moves do not end up well.

She can be as harsh and as accusing as she wants. I will agree with her. But as we've seen, using these words make them the story.

The hyperbole isn't beneficial rhetoric in this situation.

This is just silly. Loses what? The debate amongst people who don't like critical thinking? The debate amongst Congress?

If you are using these loaded terms you pretty much narrow the scope of a debate. Instead of thinking about what really is happening in the Ukraine - after all, its eastern half and the Crimean Peninsula is populated by people with strong affinity to Russia - you are thinking about genocide and atrocities of the WWII magnitude.

Also, I am sure she did not think about it but remember how we eventually reacted to Hitler? We entered a war.

I certainly do not want to let Putin get away with his aggression, I am just not sure what we can do. We certainly are not going to send troops there.

In 1938 Hitler took the Sudenland region from Czechoslovakia to "protect" the ethnic Germans living there. The analogy is apt, in this case.

It had been part of the Austrian-Hungarian empire, but by the time Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia, he had already taken over Austria.

"The German occupation of Czechoslovakia (1938–1945) began with the Nazi annexation of Czechoslovakia's northern and western border regions, known collectively as the Sudetenland, under terms outlined by the Munich Agreement. Nazi leader Adolf Hitler's pretext for this effort was the alleged privations suffered by the ethnic German population living in those regions. New and extensive Czechoslovak border fortifications were also located in the same area.

Following the Anschluss of Nazi Germany and Austria, in March 1938, the conquest of Czechoslovakia became Hitler's next ambition. The incorporation of the Sudetenland into Nazi Germany left the rest of Czechoslovakia weak and it became powerless to resist subsequent occupation. On 16 March 1939, the German Wehrmacht moved into the remainder of Czechoslovakia and, from Prague Castle, Hitler proclaimed Bohemia and Moravia the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia. The occupation ended with the surrender of Germany following World War II

As the tepid reaction to the German Anschluss with Austria had shown, the governments of France, the United Kingdom and Czechoslovakia were set on avoiding war at any cost. The French government did not wish to face Nazi Germany alone and took its lead from the British government and its Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. Chamberlain believed that Sudeten German grievances were justified and that Hitler's intentions were limited. Britain and France, therefore, advised Czechoslovakia to concede to the Nazi demands. Beneš resisted, and on 20 May 1938 a partial mobilization was under way in response to possible German invasion. Ten days later, Hitler signed a secret directive for war against Czechoslovakia to begin no later than 1 October."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_occupation_of_Czechoslovakia

Russia's supply of natural gast to run their economies in most of Europe, including Ukraine.

Russia can get its way just by cutting it off, which they've done before. No need for an invasion.

A report on DU said around 675K people crossed the border from Ukraine to Russia since January. Perhaps they are making a fuss about having to move out.

And I think Hillary knows more about world history than most people here.

Russia can cut off their supply, but on the other hand, they need the money that these countries provide them. Europe and the US can freeze their assets and put in place the kinds of sanctions that have been used against Iran and N. Korea.

As for Hillary, some here have a knee jerk reaction to anything she says. They sound like the RW.

They don't trust our monetary system, nor us. For exploring space and oil deals, yes. There is plenty of commerce and scientific exchanges taking place as well as immigration from Russia. It's no longer the Iron Curtain, and it has no need to be another USSR.

Their paranoia is based on a history of being invaded. Some I know told me their history taught them they are not the aggressor, western powers are.

And that they lost more in WW2 than any western source will admit, both in fighting Japan and Germany, and that the west turned on them. A DUer posted some interesting articles regarding relations between the Axis powers and the USSR under Stalin, that gave motivations which they are possibly not being taught. But those I have talked to know our history pretty well.

Our own history, the way we are taught it, is incomplete. At least when I was in school, we were taught about labor, women, the KKK, lynching, slavery and abolition. Other things not in our history books that might have galvanized us:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_riot

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosewood,_Florida

Regarding the anti-Democrat, Hillary and Obama comments, the fragrance of freshly brewed Tea is the impression it must leave to RWNJs and others. So I disregard it as I have on other websites hostile to Democrats. We've got a lot of good people here who are open minded enough not to jump on the anti-Democrat bandwagon.

I don't expect a lot of support for Hillary, unless her fans can put forth her positives and not go negative. And it's nowhere near time for that, we still have 2014 to win.

This is blatant pandering to the right.

(And by "you" I mean HRC, not the OP.)

She pointed out that, in this case, the shoe fits.

And Putin is of that certain age.

and the Second World War over for eight years when Putin was born, so he is not of that generation.

The invocation of Hitler is incredibly inflammatory to your average Russian, given the high price Russia paid to fight Hitler. So any statement by a politician, especially from one who is the presumed de facto next president of the United States, that basically pushes the Russians to rally behind Putin, is a VERY stupid thing to do.

The statement seems contrived to play well over here and make her "look tough" on foreign affairs. As a political ploy it may or may not work. As a realistic attempt to deal with the situation in the Ukraine, it was unhelpful at best.

Or their Ukrainian strained peas, as the case may be.

WWII was omnipresent in our lives, yes I'm of a certain age, and many of our fathers and uncles fought, like mine.

She was speaking to an American audience, for American political purposes, not to the Russian people. I don't know if it makes her look particularly tough, but it does make her look like she paid attention in history class, which is a plus to some of us.

I respect the sacrifice of the Soviet peoples, many of whom were Ukrainians fighting in Ukraine in the worst of it, in defeating Hitler in WWII. How much of their suffering was the result of Stalin's ineptitude in shooting his best officers in '30s purges, trusting Hitler in the non-aggression pact and generally conducting the war with no regard to saving Soviet soldiers to fight again another day will remain unknown.

Perhaps the present day Russians should try to honor their veterans while examining their leaders' faults, just as we have been forced to deal with Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the Japanese internment camps.

Frankly, I'm tired of the words "Nazi" and "Hitler" being flung around. That's not what Hilary did. She compared tactics where such a comparison was warranted. The person who really needs to rethink things is Putin, who obviously studied history and has borrowed tactics from you know who.

She was speaking to an American audience, for American political purposes, not to the Russian people. I don't know if it makes her look particularly tough, but it does make her look like she paid attention in history class, which is a plus to some of us.

But the presumptive next president of the U.S. is not one of them. She is seen as the next WORLD leader and tone matters coming from that person.

I am glad she paid attention to history, but she seems to have a little trouble applying it especially in the nuanced context of the "world stage". Comparing Putin to the most reviled man of the 20th Century is not going to score any points with the Russians, any more than similar comparisons made about U.S. presidents were well received by the American people.

Perhaps the present day Russians should try to honor their veterans while examining their leaders' faults, just as we have been forced to deal with Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the Japanese internment camps.

Well, there has certainly been criticism of Stalin since the fall of the Soviet Union, and it only took us about 30 years to come clean on the interment camps, so I guess it is reasonable to expect the Russians to examine Putin's faults 30 years after he leaves office.

Frankly, I'm tired of the words "Nazi" and "Hitler" being flung around. That's not what Hilary did. She compared tactics where such a comparison was warranted. The person who really needs to rethink things is Putin, who obviously studied history and has borrowed tactics from you know who.

Absolutely. Trouble is (as some Democrats have learned) the distinction between comparisons to Hitler and a comparison of Hitler-like policies is generally lost in the public discourse, which is why folks need to watch what they say.

As soon as Hitler's name is mentioned in any comparative public political context, the rhetoric just got turned up to "11".

She's stating what she believes.

by thinking about the impact they will have on the crisis. That is what "leaders" are supposed to do, not blurt out what's on their mind. Given that this is not comment about breaking news, the statement was calculated for some purpose.

Comparing Putin to Hitler is a very stupid thing to do. It will piss off the Russian populace and cause them to close ranks behind Putin. So, either HRC has forgotten everything she learned about diplomacy over her lifetime, of she was pandering.

The former means she is incompetent, the latter means she is a scheming politician.

When it comes to Hillary, there's as much drama over here as there is at RW sites.

She didn't compare Putin to Hitler, she compared his actions as similar to what the Nazis did in Czechoslovakia in 1938.

of Germany?

would we wouldn't like it if Mexico decided to provide protection to ethnic Mexicans living outside of Mexico.

Because that is what Russia is doing. Providing them passports so they can come back.

Right wing republicans hate your guts regardless of how badly you try to suck up to them.

Distancing yourself from the president is a bad move on your part.

She's not distancing herself from Obama or Kerry.

Good times.

full agreement. bad move and not helpful. fueling the flames. another strike against her for potus.

out of poverty.

at this time.

have expressed concern or criticism without resorting to emotionally loaded shorthand. If she's elected in 2016, she's damaged whatever relationship she might have with Putin before she's even become President. Criticizing someone's approach can be attributed to the give and take of foreign policy. Comparing him to Hitler is a personal insult, and he will remember it.

"I learned it by watching you!"

It's less like Hitler in the 30s and more like what we did in the 00s. Actions that she voted for, supported, and supports to this day.

but during the '00s we did not go into other countries under the pretext that Americans, living in those countries, were in danger. That's the old trick that Putin is doing here, and that he pulled in S. Ossetia, which still is technically part of the country of Georgia but is occupied by Russia.

In the 00s, we went into those countries under the pretext that people living in those countries had harmed us (in the case of Afghanistan) or were about to harm us with WMD's (in the case of Iraq).

If you have a case in which we invaded to save Americans living in another country, please present it, because I can't remember one like that, at least not in the 00s.

Those were in the 20th century, but if people are using WW2 analogies, the 80s and 90s are fair game.

Panama: Endara.

Turns the temperature up. She's a private citizen, so nobody should care. As a candidate, this would rate as a major screw-up. Obviously out of practice/good reminder.

I don't think anyone, including her, would categorize her as a "rookie."

And, by the way, she'd already is trying to clarify her comments.

I admire her and she has always been well articulated and knew exactly what she is saying. Looking back, she realizes now that it was a mistake.

But, I suppose, better to get these mistakes before she is a candidate.

Which is why I called the incident a "good reminder."

lies.

Somehow I think equating putin with hitler does not seem appropriate, especially after looking what we have in the last 20 years, some with your support

"She compared issuing Russian passports to Ukrainians with ties to Russia with early actions by Nazi Germany before Hitler began invading neighboring countries," Saltzgaver told BuzzFeed. "She said, however, that while that makes people nervous, there is no indication that Putin is as irrational as the instigator of World War II."


Not exactly calling Putin the same as Hitler.

If this is an example of her foreign policy experience, I'm alarmed.

If this is an example of "I'll say anything to look like a strong leader," I'm appalled.

Well, you can't because you are then negotiating with someone when what you would need
to do is destroy them. That's what you do with a Hitler..I don't get her approach, makes no sense.

One reason hitler was successful early on was that many of his claims had an element of legitimacy. In fact, its even been said that had he died in 1938, he would have been remembered as a great german statesman instead of the monster that he was.

Following WW I, the victorious allies were drawing the map of Europe with the intention of changing boundaries to match ethnic groups. When they shattered Austria-Hungary, most ethnic groups got to be in their own new country, or were absorbed by a pre existing nation of the same group.

Except for Austria of course, which is ethnically german. They could hardly reward the defeated germany by giving it more territory.

Hitlers early goals were fairly moderate. Reoccupation of western german soil, annexing the ethnically german austria, and annexing the ethnically german part of czechoslovakia. These steps, which were consistent with the post great war policies of the allies, coupled with the desire to avoid a repeat of the great war, resulted in a string of diplomatic victories for hitler.

He got greedy and after he took the rest of czechoslovakia, the allies guaranteed to intervene in poland and the rest is history.

Crimea was not always part of Ukraine, it was given to Ukraine by Khrushchev in the 1950s. Crimea is more or less ethnically Russian, but not exclusively so, making it a hot mess as to which nation has a better claim.

If Clinton is posturing by claiming we need to stop Putin like we should have stopped hitler in the 30s, she's wrong. But she is correct in my view that Putin is set on expanding Russia as far as he can without crossing the line into a hot war.

The Nuremberg laws were passed in 1935, which is a problem for your view that "In fact, its even been said that had he died in 1938, he would have been remembered as a great german statesman instead of the monster that he was."

Germany has a long history of antisemitism.

Here's a quote from Martin Luther. The reformation guy from 1543, not the King version of the 20th century:

Jews as a "base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth." ... they are "full of the devil's feces ... which they wallow in like swine," ... and the synagogue is an "incorrigible whore and an evil slut


Martin Luther "On Jews and Their Lies" 1543

I'd bet that had Hitler not lived past 1938, the Nuremberg laws would not have tarnished his reputation that much.

Some of the stuff they say about Jews sounds like Goebbels.

Still, the fact that Hitler had company doesn't reduce the "tarnish."

It wasn't a "You're as bad as Hitler" line. Jt referred to very specific events that do bear a parallel.

It's also apt, because it's precisely that era that Putin and the Donechchane keeps referring to. You think he cares about anti-Semitism? No. He's looking at a different tradition about Hitler--one that is anti-Russian or anti-Soviet.

Ukrainians are "fascists" for Putin in the sense that they opposed the Red Army (and Stalin), and many of them therefore sided with Hitler. They were outside outside of Russia, and therefore of doubtful political reliability.

"Banderist" is a term bandied about as well, even though Bandera and his folk also fought the Nazis. However, they wanted an ethnically pure Ukraine and so also ethnically cleansed Poles--worse from the Russian side is that they fought the Red Army and Stalin. Banderists are also "fascists" for Putin. So by saying "Banderist" the implied threat is that the Ukrainians are now going to ethnically cleanse Russians.

Since Putin flings the term "fascist" around with abandon, it's almost humorous to descrbe his actions as early Hitler. On the other hand, he's certained primed the discussion and made all things Nazi more easily accessible to us as we speak because of his frequent use of the phraseology.

......and yes, Putin is a pathetically corrupt Bush-type fellow who runs what is basically a fascist-lite regime of his own, but he's not quite Hitler either. Hitler, btw, probably would be pulling out the nukes by now. Putin may be corrupt but he's not *that* kind of foolish......

Putin like Hitler in 1930s: former Czech foreign minister

Russian President Vladimir Putin is repeating history by acting in Crimea much like Adolf Hitler did in central and eastern Europe in the late 1930s, a former Czech foreign minister said in an interview Monday.

"What's happening in Ukraine is history repeating itself," Karel Schwarzenberg said in an interview with Austrian daily Osterreich.

"Putin is acting along the same principle as Adolf Hitler" did during his invasions of Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland in 1938 and 1939, he said.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/140303/putin-hitler-1930s-former-czech-foreign-minister

So it's not just Hillary making that analogy, and the Czech should know.

But they don't lose credibility.

I think Hillary, as usual, made an error, because she is going to be scrutinized on every thing she says.

She is a devoted student of Roman history and Julius Caesar, for example.

I don't want another Neo-con or Neo-Libera, and bloody hell, she manages to be both, doesn't she?!

To see that quote here.

Putin starts rounding up Ukrainians and deporting them to extermination camps,

Putin has ordered the desecration of Ukrainian cemeteries and burning of Ukrainian churches,

Putin has ordered opponents to be hung by piano wire and

Russian soldiers are lining up people on riverbanks and machine gunning them down,

the Hitler comparisons are pure bullshit.

Putin IS, however, acting exactly like Dubya circa 2003

There is a lot of anti-Hillary sentiment in this thread. I'm just a newbie, but I noticed that it's a DU policy that:

When general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear.

So what happens when Hillary becomes the putative nominee? Will all of you critics shut up and support her?

at least not work against that.

And that is a big "if", nowhere near "when".

But it's not really what I wanted to know. I guess I'm asking a philosophical question.

How can this be a realistic term of service? How in the world can it be enforced.

I can see how members here should be encouraged to support democrats, and posts here can be limited only to support democratic candidates, but that's a far cry from how people vote.

Not looking for real answers here, just commenting on a rather unique TOS provision.

toward getting Democrats elected.

No, Putin isn't Hitler. He isn't planning a genocide, and he has no plan for world domination. But on this specific issue, his actions are not unlike Hitler's actions in Sudetenland, the Polish Corridor, Austria, etc. Neither is his position (and the Russian parliament's newly passed law) that says he can intervene anywhere in the world to protect Russian "compatriots."

And no this doesn't mean we should go to war, but Russia does need to be sanctioned on this, both to dissuade him from seeking more territory in Eastern Ukraine and elsewhere and to discourage other foreign powers from thinking they can grab territory from neighboring states.

Anyway: http://www.rferl.org/content/interview-in-crimea-putin-has-lost-his-mind/25284114.html

but leave it to the anti-Clinton DU crowd to go ballistic. It's par for the course.

Yes, Putin is a megalomaniac, but no one wants to go to war over the Crimea.

As for the professor's last remark, Angela Merkel said something similar over the weekend.

Putin is pursuing different goals that Hitler. Hitler strove to expand territory and chauvinistically brainwash his people. I think the main goal here is to make Ukrainians hateful to Russians, so that the Maidan is not perceived by Russians as their own experience. So that it is seen as the experience of an enemy that needs to be rejected.

Putin is walking a fine line.

And this, a meme I've seen around:

Zubov: It's hard for me to judge, I haven't spoken to Putin personally. But in this case, not a single political analyst will make any serious prognosis. We always make prognoses based on the assumption that the politician, even if selfish and cruel, is intelligent and rational. But what we are now witnessing is the behavior of a politician who has clearly lost his mind.

That is cognitive disconnect. A world view has been called into question. I don't see any sign that Putin is nuts, and I think we would be nuts to proceed on that basis.