Didn't Geena Davis give birth to that thing in The Fly?
Posted on 09/03/2003 6:47:36 AM PDT by bedolido
Do you think George W. Bush is a Nazi? That his family and close advisers are Nazis, too? If so, then you’ll feel right at home in the growing ranks of hard-core Bush haters.
Go to the left-wing website Counterpunch.org and you’ll find this: “It’s going a bit far to compare the Bush of 2003 to the Hitler of 1933,” writes a man named Dave Lindorff (who has written for The Nation and Salon and has appeared on National Public Radio).
“Bush is simply 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.”
Click to another site, the antiwar Takebackthemedia.com.
“The media will not tell you of the Bush family Nazi association,” says a Web movie that features photos of George W. Bush alongside photos of Adolf Hitler, along with stern warnings about the coming Bush Reich.
Then go to Fearbush.com, where you can download images of Bush in front of a giant swastika.
Does that seem like fringe stuff? Well, first remember that Counterpunch.org boasts 60,000 visitors a month. Takebackthemedia.com attracted some mainstream attention in coverage of the antiwar movement.
And then check out a slightly bigger publication: Vanity Fair.
Page 146 of the September issue of the magazine features a letter from a reader who noticed something interesting about a photograph of Bush administration military adviser Richard Perle in a previous issue.
The photograph reminded the reader of a famous Alfred Eisenstaedt photograph of Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels.
“Here it is: the same arrogance, the same malice toward the photographer, the same all-around creepiness,” the letter said. “Perle isn’t the first government official to use deceit and fear-mongering to force an extremist, irrational and ultimately violent view on an entire nation, or globe.”
The interesting thing is not that some people have such thoughts. The interesting thing is that the editors of Vanity Fair found the argument so compelling that they printed the letter in a special box with the Perle and Goebbels photos side by side.
But maybe all the Nazi stuff is a bit much for you.
If so, stop by Bushbodycount.com, where you will learn that the president and his family have been involved in dozens of “mysterious” deaths.
“This is a list of bodies, a roster of the dead, who might have been called witnesses had they not met their untimely ends,” the site says. The list includes all sorts of names — and even suggests that the elder George Bush might have had something to do with the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
At Bushbodycount.com you’ll also learn about something known on the Internet as the BFEE, or Bush Family Evil Empire. The bottom line: These Bushes are very, very bad people.
And if you tire of reading about how vicious the president is, you can take a break — and read how stupid he is.
Stop by Presidentmoron.com. And Bushisamoron.com. And Toostupidtobepresident.com. You’ll get the idea.
All that might seem not worth taking seriously were it not for the fact that similar stuff was taken quite seriously during the Clinton years.
Remember “The Clinton Chronicles,” the 1994 video that attempted to implicate Bill Clinton in all sorts of “unsolved” deaths? Remember the “Clinton Body Count” lists? Remember the stories of the president’s connections to drug running?
During those years, scurrilous stories about Bill Clinton were widely condemned in the press.
The Clinton White House did its part to help.
For example, in her famous “vast right-wing conspiracy” appearance on the “Today” show in 1998, then-first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton complained about administration opponents “accusing my husband of committing murder, of drug running.”
You might also remember that in 1995 the Clinton White House produced a 311-page study titled “Communication Stream of Conspiracy Commerce,” which purported to show how anti-Clinton stories made their way from the Internet (among other sources) to the mainstream press.
At the time, the Clinton White House sought to stigmatize the opposition by branding anyone who opposed the first lady’s healthcare plan or who thought Whitewater was a legitimate inquiry as Clinton haters.
They weren’t, just as now, people who simply dislike the president’s tax cut or don’t approve of the war in Iraq are not Bush haters.
But there are genuine Bush haters out there — an extensive, aggressive network of them.
Only so far, the press has seemed less interested in their work than in the previous administration.
But pay attention to what you see and read at Counterpunch.org, Bushbodycount.com, Presidentmoron.com and Vanity Fair.
An election is coming up. Things will undoubtedly get rough. And you’ll be seeing more and more of the Bush haters.
Byron York is a White House correspondent for National Review. His column appears in The Hill each Wednesday. E-mail: byork@thehill.com
I have never read one of Ann Coulter's books. I am now on the local library's waiting list for "Treason". While waiting I checked out "High Crimes and Misdemeanors". I should not have done so. The case against the President is incredible.
It's not that the book made me any more upset at what Clinton did to the US Presidency. It's that it made me so much more upset at the spineless, putrid, weak-kneed, limp-wristed, vacuous, coffe-nosed, malodorous, sorry excuses for humanity that we called (and call) Honorable Senators.
Shalom.
Didn't Geena Davis give birth to that thing in The Fly?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.