Historical Parallels Do Have Limits

Thom Hartmann's essay "When Democracy Failed - 2005: The Warnings of History" is a good start. It is chilling when one lives the events in today's world and see how closely the events stack up with those events in the 1920's and 1930's.

I agree strongly with what much of what Thom Hartmann wrote. I add though, the use of the historical parallels between Hitler and the shrub are limited. The people in power today have the mistakes made by the Nazis to teach them which mistakes not to make. The people in power now have learned from the mistakes made by the Nazis and will not make the same mistakes.

The threats to world peace and freedom from the shrub's government are real. The historical parallels of when Rome moved from a Republic to an Empire are also very chilling.

Remember when one draws one's sword against one's Prince, throw away the scabbard.

Link to article:

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0222-22.htm


Bush Lied, People Died, Media Cheered

their might be superficial similarities, but that is it.

That is not saying Bush is not dangerous, he just isn't Hitler

What the neocons are doing is something altogether new in the historic theater. It's almost, to borrow a popular phrase, a "kinder, gentler" form of regime.

That is probably the best way to describe it.

It is a bizarre mix of democracy, theocracy and 19th century imperialism

Check.

we are discussing. The players are secondary.


Bush Lied, People Died, Media Cheered

Despite having the lessons of all the mistakes made in Vietnam to profit from, the Bush gang insisted on repeating most of them.

extent they actually hold.

Parallels have no real predictive power, unless the circumstances and likely reactions are the same (in which case it's still not the parallel, that's predictive, but the circumstances and likely reactions).

that doesn't mean that Bush doesn't have the potential to be every bit as bad - or even worse than Hitler. Lets just say he's not their yet.