Symptoms Of The Latter Stages Of Bush Dementia Syndrome: You See Nazis Everywhere!

Ok, first of all, take a look at this cartoon…

Do you see the Nazi tie-in? Really, you don’t? Look closer! Keep looking, keep looking…ok, you give up?

According to two members of the “reality based community”, Matt Kleiman and Matthew Yglesias, this is obviously meant to be a direct copy of this 1924 German poster that I don’t recall ever seeing before,

Here’s Kleiman on these two posters,

“I know that supporters of the currently ruling coalition of crooks, warmongers, torturers, incompetents, and theocrats are deeply, deeply hurt when they and their pet politicians are compared to Nazis. But could someone suggest to them — politely, of course — that it would help if they stopped borrowing Nazi iconography and phraseology?”

Now here’s Yglesias,

“For those who prefer their rightwing-media-acting-like-nazis to be super-explicit, here’s a recent Investor’s Business Daily cartoon I saw thanks to Mark Kleiman…”

Setting aside the fact that the German cartoon Kleiman came up with is extremely obscure compared to symbols of the Nazis like Hitler, the Swastika, and words like the “Holocaust,” or “final solution,” — cartoons that feature people being “stabbed in the back” are very common. For example, take a look at these.

So, when do we get this post from Kleiman or Yglesias…

“I know that supporters of the currently ruling coalition of crooks, warmongers, torturers, incompetents, and theocrats are deeply, deeply hurt when they and their pet politicians are compared to Nazis. But could someone suggest to them — politely, of course — that it would help if they stopped imitating Nazis? Take a look at this…

Adolph Hitler

Former U.S. Ambassador John Bolton

Notice anything similar? That’s right! They both have mustaches which means Republicans are Nazis, case closed!

PS: I suspect that this is really about what’s going to happen if people like Kleiman, Yglesias, Murtha, Reid, Obama, etc., successfully manage to throw the war in Iraq to Al-Qaeda because they think it will benefit the Democrats in the next election.

The price of their “success,” which they believe would help them at the ballot box, would be a huge victory for Al-Qaeda, a likely genocide in Iraq, the emboldening of America’s enemies, and a host of other horrors that can still be avoided if we stay the course until the Iraqis can defend themselves.

In other words, the reason they’re trying to make the phrase “stabbed in the back” beyond the pale is because they’re engaged in stabbing — America, the troops, and the Iraqi people who believe in democracy — in the back for political purposes and they don’t want to be called on it.

Update #1: Maha, from The Mahablog read this post and concluded,

“John Hawkins of Right Wing News is a little behind in his cultural literacy, and thereby misses the significance of the stabbed-in-the-back (dolchstosslegende) motif and its importance to the Third Reich.”

Now that’s the sort of snobbery mixed with stupidity that makes for a “great” liberal blog post.

The Germans did feel like they were stabbed-in-the-back after WW1 and that is part of the reason why the Nazis were able to come to power, but that’s nothing unique to Germany or the Nazis. Furthermore, It’s not as if the phrase stabbed-in-the-back originated with Nazis or as if wasn’t used in polite company after they were crushed. To the contrary, it is a commonly used phrase. You might as well say something like, “There were Nazis who eat scrambled eggs and you eat scrambled eggs, therefore you’re a Nazi!” It is really that dumb.

It’s also an attempt to sidestep the real issue.

Liberals are in the process of stabbing the country, the troops, and the Iraqis that trusted us in the back. The policy that the left is pushing today — not the right, not George Bush, not the “neocons” — the policy that the left is pushing will lead to the United States being defeated by Al-Qaeda in Iraq, the deaths of millions of innocent Iraqis, and a cornucopia of horrors.

They understand this, but they’ve concluded that a defeat for the United States in Iraq is good for them politically. So, if they get their way and then if, as expected, everything goes to hell in handbasket in Iraq because of it, they want to dodge responsibility. So, they’d rather sidetrack the discussion onto things like whether the phrase stabbed-in-the-back is connected to the Nazis because as long as they’re doing that, they don’t have to discuss the sacrifices our soldiers have made that they want to render meaningless or the Iraqi people who believed in Democracy and risked their lives to vote, who they’re happy to see dead if they think it will help Rahm Emanuel and Howard Dean win a couple of extra seats in 2008.

Make no mistake about it, we should stay in Iraq until the Iraqi government can defend itself without our help. If we do that, and we’re certainly capable of doing it, we can win the war. If the Democrats get their way and we don’t do that, if we stab the troops and our friends in Iraq in the back, then the Democrats should be held responsible for the nightmare that will follow as a direct result of their policies.

Update #2: Here’s Mark Kleiman’s reaction to this post,

Right. It’s a conspiracy.

What Hawkins doesn’t know is that Yglesias, Murtha, Reid, and Obama all take orders from me. (I get mine directly from the Elders of Zion.) And we’re so devilishly clever that only Obama, of those named, opposed the war in the first place. And I’m so extra-specially devious that I even supported the “surge” (as originally proposed, not the permanent escalation now in progress) as a long-shot bet to salvage something other than defeat from the appallingly bad position into which Bush and his cronies have maneuvered the country.

The deepest, darkest secret — one that even Hawkins has not yet discovered — is that Bush and Cheney work for me. (That is, Cheney takes orders from me and transmits them to Bush, in words of one syllable.)

Nobody can be as stupid as Kleiman is pretending to be…or maybe they can. After all, who am I to say that Kleiman isn’t a moron?

But, assuming Kleiman isn’t as brainless as he’d have to be to misread the post that way, why is babbling on about conspiracy? Because it’s another way to dodge the real issue. This is how it works,

Conservatives: We can win the war.

Liberals: No, we can’t. So, we have to surrender right now!

Conservatives: So, you want to choose to lose the war? Don’t you realize that you’re snatching defeat from the jaws of victory? Your decision will lead to the United States losing a war it could otherwise win. It’ll kill the morale of the troops, the terrorists may follow us home, millions of Iraqis who trusted us could die, — your decision could be a disaster.

Liberals: You’re not allowed to say that because it’s what Germany said after WW1. If you say that, it means you love Nazis!

Conservatives: What the hell are you talking about? Stop trying to dodge the issues and discuss the consequences of the policies you’re advocating.

Liberals: You’re accusing us of being engaged in a giant conspiracy! We’re not engaged in a conspiracy.

And that’s where we are, with another dodge in the works.

Why doesn’t the left show some courage? They say we should choose to lose a war because it’s politically popular. Yet, the consequences of that choice could be monstrous and I have yet to hear people like Kleiman, Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Michael Moore, or pretty much anybody in the anti-war movement talk honestly about the ramifications of what they want to do in Iraq.

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!

Send this to a friend