I just wanted to make it clear. MoveOn did not sponsor, pay for, or otherwise endors these ads comparing George Bush to Hitler. The ads are in poor taste, to be sure, and are not even close to being among the finalists of the Bush in 30 Seconds contest. Arguably they should have been screened out and never posted in the first place. Still, MoveOn has made it very clear that these are submissions from the public, though the RNC doesn't want to listen. The news stories are spreading fast, I even heard it from my father last night, "How about those MoveOn ads comparing Bush to Hitler?"
They're NOT MoveOn ads. They're contest submissions.
I understand that anytime someone mentions the word Hitler without following it with words like "greatest monster in history", they get in trouble. The Anti-Defamation League will get after your ass for any holocaust mention that isn't unequivocally focused on the evils of the Nazis. They were evil. No argument here.
What is ridiculous here is the casting of this as somehow indicative of Democrats, or anti-Bushies, or liberals. It is apropos of nothing. It means nothing, and everyone knows it. I found Joe Lieberman's comments during the debate the other night:
LIEBERMAN: Yes. I want to respond to Howard Dean's criticism of my statement that we're safer with Saddam Hussein gone. You know what? We had good faith differences on the war against Saddam. But I don't know how anybody could say that we're not safer with a homicidal maniac, a brutal dictator, an enemy of the United States, a supporter of terrorism, a murderer of hundreds of thousands of his own people in prison instead of in power.
And to change the subject as Howard does and to say that we haven't obliterated all terrorism with Saddam in prison is a little bit like saying somehow that we weren't safer after the Second World War after we defeated Nazism and Hitler because Stalin and the communists were still in power.
We have many threats to our security, there is no question. We are a lot stronger...
MODERATOR: Thank you, Senator.
LIEBERMAN: ... with Saddam Hussein in prison.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54363-2004Jan4.html
First, what Dean says is incontrovertible. Since Saddam was captured we have been at the highest level of terror alert since 9/11. A new bin Laden tape surfaced, which usually presages an attack somewhere. Simply put, we are not safer.
To me, Lieberman's comment is much worse than some random person making a Bush = Hitler ad which goes nowhere. Why no outrage over his comment? He is subtly implying that Howard Dean wouldn't have supported going after Hitler in the same way he didn't support going after Hussein. As if Dean's argument is that since it doesn't obliterate all evil, it shouldn't be done. Ridiculous. It shouldn't have been done, and I think Governor Dean would agree with me here, because there was no EVIDENCE that Hussein was doing anything to threaten our safety. You remember evidence, don't you Joe? That stuff our justive system used to be based on? I know it seems cute now, but try to think back.
And let me just throw this in here: Why so little talk about where Joe and his ilk's moral outrage was when all of these atrocities Hussein is no doubt responsible for, all of the "hundreds of thousands of his own people" he murdered, were actually happening. I guess they were too busy giving him money? Shaking his hand? As long as he was killing Iranians too, we were okay with it. We !@##!@*& funded it!
Lieberman "doesn't know how anyone could say we're not safer". Maybe he should turn on the TV or something. Seriously, if anyone out there truly feels safer since December 14, send me an email.
