SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Bill who wrote (35004)6/29/2005 5:12:13 PM
From: jlallen  Respond to of 93284
 
lol



To: Bill who wrote (35004)6/29/2005 5:12:23 PM
From: paret  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 93284
 
The overused 'Nazi' insult
Jeff Jacoby
June 29, 2005

The most striking thing about the uproar over Illinois Senator Dick Durbin’s comparison of American servicemen to ‘‘Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or ... Pol Pot’’ is that his grotesque comparison even caused an uproar in the first place.

Of course his analogy was obscene. Of course he knew perfectly well that there is no equivalence between the treatment of several hundred Muslim detainees in Guantanamo — some of which may have been appalling, but none of which has been fatal — and the Nazis’ genocidal slaughter of 6 million Jews during the Holocaust or Stalin’s imprisonment of 25 million prisoners in Siberian slave camps or the mass murder by Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge of nearly 2 million of their fellow Cambodians.

But since when do such vile comparisons trigger an angry backlash?

When another Senate Democrat, West Virginia’s Robert Byrd, declared a few months ago that the Republican effort to bar filibusters on judicial nominations was no different from Hitler’s strategy to achieve dictatorial power, where was the storm of protest? When Pennsylvania’s Republican Senator Rick Santorum, on the other side of the same debate, said of Democrats objecting to the GOP’s stand, ‘‘It’s the equivalent of Adolf Hitler in 1942 saying, ‘I’m in Paris. How dare you invade me? How dare you bomb my city? It’s mine,’’’ why was there no outpouring of censure? When pundit Robert Novak, at still another point in the filibuster controversy, fumed that for Republicans to consider compromising with Democrats would be ‘‘like going to a concentration camp and picking out which people go to the death chamber,’’ how many commentators and talk-show hosts erupted in outrage and contempt?

Why the silence when a Virginia state senator, Democrat Mamie Locke, likened a proposed amendment preventing same-sex marriage to ‘‘the rise of Nazism in Germany and fascism in Italy?’’ Or when Ted Turner, to quote the trade journal Broadcasting & Cable, ‘‘compared Fox News Channel’s popularity to Adolf Hitler’s popular election to run Germany before World War II?’’

None of those revolting allusions — all of them from just the first six months of 2005 — set off any tidal waves of disgust or deafening demands for apologies, penalties, or resignations. And yet each of them was if anything even less defensible than Durbin’s ugly comments about US military interrogators in Guantanamo.

Needless to say, this habit of using the Nazis as an all-purpose taunt didn’t begin in 2005. Last year, for example, Al Gore derided GOP activists as ‘‘brown shirts,’’ a columnist for Newsday identified the Republican presidential convention with ‘‘Nazi rallies held in Germany during the reign of Adolf Hitler,’’ Linda Ronstadt interpreted the November election results to mean ‘‘we’ve got a new bunch of Hitlers,’’ Boston City Councilor Chuck Turner said Condoleezza Rice was like ‘‘a Jewish person working for Hitler,’’ US Circuit Court Judge Guido Calabresi pointed to the Supreme Court’s decision in Bush v. Gore as an example of ‘‘what happened when Hindenburg put Hitler in,’’ and former Senator John Glenn equated Republican political rhetoric to ‘‘the old Hitler business.’’

To hear such crude analogies from the stupid and the clueless is one thing. But from from senators? Columnists? Judges? Do they really believe that an election result they rue belongs on the same moral plane as cramming men, women, and children into boxcars and sending them to death camps? However passionate they may be about the political controversy of the day, should those they contend with really be lumped with the monsters who machine-gunned Jews into ravines and performed horrific medical ‘‘experiments’’ on unwilling victims?

‘‘I compare this to what happened in Germany,’’ New York congressman Charles Rangel told a group of state legislators when Republicans running on a ‘‘Contract With America’’ won a majority of seats in Congress a decade ago. ‘‘Hitler wasn’t even talking about doing these things.’’ His fellow Democrat, Representative Major Owen, said the GOP leadership under Newt Gingrich consisted of ‘‘people who are practicing genocide with a smile; they’re worse than Hitler.’’

Those who draw such insane parallels seek to damn their opponents with the most evil association they can imagine. But all they really accomplish is a kind of Holocaust-denial. After all, if congressional Republicans are ‘‘worse than Hitler,’’ then Hitler must have been no worse than congressional Republicans. Which means that the tyrant who drenched Europe in blood, created a hellish network of concentration camps, and sent more than a million Jewish children to their deaths is roughly equal to — maybe even better than — a political party that calls for tax cuts and welfare reform. Anyone who can say (or imply) such a thing is guilty of trivializing the Nazis’ crimes and of cheapening the agony of their victims.

This is where the degradation of American political discourse has brought us, but it isn’t where it will end. When calling an opponent ‘‘worse than Hitler’’ or ‘‘another Pol Pot’’ has lost its sting, what new invective will the slanderers move on to? When opponents of the war can no longer whip up a frenzy by depicting Bush as Hitler or by likening US troops to the SS and KGB, what fresh venom will they come up with?

Politics ain’t beanbag. But there used to be limits — including rhetorical limits — that decent men and women respected. As those limits are shredded and forgotten, our political environment is growing dirtier, uglier, and sicker.

©2005 Boston Globe



To: Bill who wrote (35004)6/29/2005 5:47:02 PM
From: paret  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 93284
 
Jury Convicts Five in Federal Vote Fraud (Democrat Party Chairman Convicted for buying Votes)
AP Wire ^ | 6-29-2005 | AP Wire

EAST ST. LOUIS, Ill. (AP) - A federal jury Wednesday convicted the chairman of the city's Democratic Party and four others of scheming to buy votes with cash, cigarettes and liquor last November.

Prosecutors relied largely on secretly recorded audiotapes in which they say the accused could be heard talking about paying $5 per vote to get key Democrats elected.

Charles Powell Jr., 61, the city's Democratic Party chairman, was found guilty along with the city's former director of regulatory affairs and three others



To: Bill who wrote (35004)6/29/2005 6:09:18 PM
From: paret  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 93284
 
Aide: Clinton Unleashed bin Laden
Chuck Noe, NewsMax.com
Thursday, Dec. 6, 2001
Bill Clinton ignored repeated opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist allies and is responsible for the spread of terrorism, one of the ex-president’s own top aides charges.
Mansoor Ijaz, who negotiated with Sudan on behalf of Clinton from 1996 to 1998, paints a portrait of a White House plagued by incompetence, focused on appearances rather than action, and heedless of profound threats to national security.

Ijaz also claims Clinton passed on an opportunity to have Osama bin Laden arrested.

Sudanese President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, hoping to have terrorism sanctions lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of bin Laden and "detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt's Islamic Jihad, Iran's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas,” Ijaz writes in today’s edition of the liberal Los Angeles Times.

These networks included the two hijackers who piloted jetliners into the World Trade Center.

But Clinton and National Security Adviser Samuel "Sandy” Berger failed to act.

”I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities,” Ijaz writes.

”The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening."

Thank Clinton for 'Hydra-like Monster'

”As an American Muslim and a political supporter of Clinton, I feel now, as I argued with Clinton and Berger then, that their counter-terrorism policies fueled the rise of bin Laden from an ordinary man to a Hydra-like monster,” says Ijaz, chairman of a New York investment company and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Ijaz’s revelations are but the latest to implicate the Clinton administration in the spread of terrorism. Former CIA and State Department official Larry Johnson today also noted the failure of Clinton to do more than talk.

Among the many others who have pointed out Clinton’s negligence: former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, former Clinton adviser Dick Morris, the late author Barbara Olson, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Iraqi expert Laurie Mylroie, the CIA and some of the victims of Sept. 11.

And the list grows: members of Congress, pundit Charles R. Smith, former Department of Energy official Notra Trulock, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, government counterterrorism experts, the law firm Judicial Watch, New Jersey gubernatorial candidate Bret Schundler, the liberal Boston Globe – and even Clinton himself.

The Buck Stops Nowhere

Ijaz's account in the Times reads like a spy novel. Sudan’s Bashir, fearing the rise of bin Laden, sent intelligence officials to the U.S. in February 1996. They offered to arrest bin Laden and extradite him to Saudi Arabia or to keep close watch over him. The Saudis "didn't want their home-grown terrorist back where he might plot to overthrow them.”

”In May 1996, the Sudanese capitulated to U.S. pressure and asked bin Laden to leave, despite their feeling that he could be monitored better in Sudan than elsewhere.”

That’s when bin Laden went to Afghanistan, along with "Ayman Zawahiri, considered by the U.S. to be the chief planner of the Sept. 11 attacks; Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, who traveled frequently to Germany to obtain electronic equipment for al-Qaeda; Wadih El-Hage, Bin Laden's personal secretary and roving emissary, now serving a life sentence in the U.S. for his role in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya; and Fazul Abdullah Mohammed and Saif Adel, also accused of carrying out the embassy attacks.”

If these names sound familiar, just check the FBI's list of most-wanted terrorists.

The Clinton administration repeatedly rejected crucial information that Sudan had gathered on these terrorists, Ijaz says.

In July 2000, just three months before the deadly attack on the destroyer USS Cole in Yemen, Ijaz "brought the White House another plausible offer to deal with bin Laden, by then known to be involved in the embassy bombings. A senior counter-terrorism official from one of the United States' closest Arab allies - an ally whose name I am not free to divulge - approached me with the proposal after telling me he was fed up with the antics and arrogance of U.S. counter-terrorism officials.”

This offer would have brought bin Laden to that Arab country and eventually to the U.S. All the proposal required of Clinton was that he make a state visit to request extradition.

"But senior Clinton officials sabotaged the offer, letting it get caught up in internal politics within the ruling family - Clintonian diplomacy at its best.”

'Purposeful Obfuscation'

Appearing on Fox News Channel’s "The O’Reilly Factor” on Wednesday night, Ijaz said, "Everything we needed to know about the terrorist networks” was in Sudan.

Newsman Bill O’Reilly asked how Clinton and Berger reacted to the deals Ijaz brokered to bring bin Laden and company to justice. "Zero. They didn’t respond at all.”

The Clintonoids won’t get away with denials, he said. "I’ve got the documentation,” including a memorandum to Berger.

"This was purposeful obfuscation,” he asserted.

O’Reilly wondered why the White House didn’t want information about the terrorists. Ijaz said that was for the American people to judge, but when pressed he suggested that Clinton might intentionally have allowed the apparently weak bin Laden to rise so he could later make a show of crushing him.

Concludes Ijaz in the Times: "Clinton's failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger's assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history.”