A historical reference

[Theophylact]

From uggabugga. (And before you jump all over me, I am not equating the current resident of the White House with this guy, only pointing out the curious relevance of the remarks.)

Source: The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich - William Shirer (page 532)

On "mature reflection", I've removed the .gif that was originally attached.

[FTM]

Originally posted by Theophylact
I am not equating the current resident of the White House with this guy, only pointing out the curious relevance of the remarks.)

Of course not. Far be it from you to make an association between GWB and Hitler for the purpose of furthering your politcal agenda

You clearly posted that invoke a response from the pro-war members. That may be your right, but don't claim that you don't know exactly what you're doing.

[swamp-fox]

Do you have a link comparing Hussein to his hero Stalin? Or just links comparing Bush to Hitler.

I smell flame bait.

[J-Excel]

1) Has anyone verified that Hitler made this statement?
2) Has anyone verified that the “current resident of the White House”, a.k.a. The President of the United States, whom Theo is obviously not comparing this to, made this statement?

I believe it is implying that this came from Hitler's Obersalzberg speech to his commanders on 22 August 1939. I believe this is a copy of that speech... http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/h...rsalzberg.html. Any similarities to anything said by the "current resident of the White House"?

[Tarp2]

Maybe the relevance is that Hitler was not victorious.

[Theophylact]

Sorry; the reference is relevant, no matter what the source.

The ostensible prime reason for the invasion -- "weapons of mass destruction"

While campaigning in 2002, President Bush said the following:

OCT 14, Michigan: September the 11th changed the equation, changed our thinking. It also changed our thinking when we began to realize that one of the most dangerous things that can happen in the modern era is for a deceiving dictator who has gassed his own people, who has weapons of mass destruction to team up with an organization like al Qaeda.

OCT 28, Colorado: [Saddam is] a person who claims he has no weapons of mass destruction, in order to escape the dictums of the U.N. Security Council and the United Nations -- but he's got them.

OCT 28, New Mexico: He's got weapons of mass destruction.

OCT 31, South Dakota: There is a threat in Iraq. And the threat exists because a leader there not only has denied and deceived the world about whether or not he's got weapons of mass destruction, but this is a guy who's used weapons of mass destruction. He not only has them, he's used them.

NOV 01, New Hampshire: We know he's got chemical weapons, probably has biological weapons.

NOV 02, Tennessee: We know that this is a man who has chemical weapons, and we know he's used them.

NOV 02, Atlanta, Georgia: He's a man who has said he wouldn't have weapons of mass destruction, but he's got them.

NOV 02, Florida: He's a man who has said he wouldn't have weapons of mass destruction, but he's got them. ... You know, not only does he have weapons of mass destruction, but, incredibly enough, he has used weapons of mass destruction.

NOV 03, Minnesota: This is a man who not only has got chemical weapons, I want you to remind your friends and neighbors, that he has used chemical weapons.

NOV 03, Illinois: I see the world the way it is. Saddam Hussein is a threat to America. He's a threat to our friends. He's a man who said he wouldn't have weapons of mass destruction, yet he has them.

NOV 03, South Dakota: Saddam Hussein is a man who told the world he wouldn't have weapons of mass destruction, but he's got them.

NOV 04, Texas: He said he wouldn't have weapons of mass destruction -- he has weapons of mass destruction. ... Not only has he got chemical weapons, but I want you to remember, he's used chemical weapons.

NOV 04, Arkansas This is a man who told the world he wouldn't have weapons of mass destruction, promised he wouldn't have them. He's got them. ... He said he wouldn't have chemical weapons, he's got them.

NOV 04, Missouri: He said he wouldn't have chemical weapons; he's got them.

And from the "leave within 48 hours" address of 17 March 2003:
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

has vanished, and now the US isn't willing to let UN arms inspectors in. An administration that asserted that it had secret information about the location of arms caches that it was unwilling to disclose to the inspectors, now claims that it may not be able to locate them at all unless it gets cooperation from Iraqis ("Rumsfeld Looking for Help In Finding Outlawed Arms", The New York Times (free registration)).

The rationale for war has disappeared, and suddenly, in victory, the Administration is pretending it was never important. And it will get away with it.

J-Excel, the speech you cite includes the following:

I shall let a few companies in Polish uniform attack in Upper Silesia or in the Protectorate. Whether the world believes it is quite indifferent (scheissegal). The world believes only in success.

I'm willing to assume that the Shirer quotation is a slight paraphrase; certainly the substance is the same. I have Shirer's book at home, and I'll be glad to check the reference for you. I didn't say that Bush ever said anything like this, only that he seems to be acting on it. (The Reichskanzler didn't say it in public, either; that would have given the game away.)

[J-Excel]

It's like comparing the former resident of the White House to Karl Marx. Not based on truth, and quite inflammatory to some of those who supported him. I'm sure I could find several Conservative sounding-board web pages that made such a comparison, like this one. (that also refers to the President as the “current resident of the White House” in a show of disrespect).

[Tarp2]

Sorry; the reference is relevant, no matter what the source.

And now you are taking your own quoted source out of relevance. This is a waste of time.

[J-Excel]

Quite honestly I don't give a rats behind if they do or don't find WMD. If I like the ends then I am comfortable with the ends justifying the means. And I like the results of the war so far. At this point the only thing that is to be determined is who gets the right to say "I told ya so".

[Theophylact]

I'm perfectly willing to confess to a lack of respect for Bush on a number of grounds, not the least of which was the method by which he attained his present position. Call me a sore loser if you like.

We've attained victory in Iraq. It remains to be seen whether we will attain any of our stated objectives: removal of weapons of mass destruction, democratization, reduction of terrorism. We haven't found any weapons of mass destruction, and there's no sign that we're investing much effort in doing so. Right now we have demonstrations in Baghdad demanding an end to the occupation; we have a bunch of preselected exiles planning to set up a puppet regime (there really isn't any other word for it); we have rival sheikhs and imams carrying on their own private wars; we have reverse ethnic cleansing by the Kurds and Shia. As for terrorism, who knows? But my bet is that al-Qaida recruitment is up.