Revisited: Analyzing & comparing Bush to Hitler

Source

It is interesting to note that many of the people who are most convinced of the truth of the premise that Bush is like Hitler and America is like Germany was in the 1930’s are people who lived in Germany while Hitler was in power. Indeed, a gentleman who grew up in Germany under Hitler and emigrated to America following WWII moved back to Europe last year. He said he was leaving because what is going on now in America is what he had experienced in Germany when he was a kid and he could not bear to stay and see that sort of thing happen in America. He said he had been too young to be able to help try to stop Hitler in Germany, and he is too old to be able to help stop Bush’s takeover in America. He said he would pray for us.

He goes on......

“So far, I've seen nothing to eliminate the possibility that Bush is on the same course as Hitler. And I've seen far too many analogies to dismiss the possibility. The propaganda. The lies. The rhetoric. The nationalism. The flag waving. The pretext of 'preventive war'. The flaunting of international law and international standards of justice. The disappearances of 'undesirable' aliens. The threats against protesters. The invasion of a non-threatening sovereign nation. The occupation of a hostile country. The promises of prosperity and security. The spying on ordinary citizens. The incitement to spy on one's neighbors -and report them to the government. The arrogant triumphant pride in military conquest. The honoring of soldiers. The tributes to 'fallen warriors. The diversion of money to the military. The demonization of government appointed 'enemies'. The establishment of 'Homeland Security'. The dehumanization of 'foreigners'. The total lack of interest in the victims of government policy. The incarceration of the poor and mentally ill. The growing prosperity from military ventures. The illusion of 'goodness' and primacy. The new einsatzgrupen forces. Assassination teams. Closed extralegal internment camps. The militarization of domestic police. Media blackout of non-approved issues. Blacklisting of protesters - including the no-fly lists and photographing dissenters at rallies....

God and Bush:

Hitler, too, believed God was behind him. “Hitler believes he has been sent to Germany by Providence and that he has a particular mission to perform…He has been chosen to redeem the German people and reshape Europe.” (L. p. 35). “I carry out the commands that Providence has laid upon me.” (H. p. 36). Hitler believed himself to be an “Immortal Hitler chosen by God to be the New Deliverer of Germany and the Founder of a new social order for the world.” (L. p. 42.) “Providence had given him the “spark” that transformed him overnight. It was now his mission to transform the remainder of the German people by winning them to his view of life and the New Order.”

This undoubtedly is eerily like Bush. Bush has not killed or gassed millions. I dont know if i could even claim he would. I will give him the benefit of the doubt on that- as far as most everything else, it appears to be a carbon copy.

It is time to compare. Instead of becoming insulted at the thought of these two's similarities, take the time and read. Enlighten yourself.

Ohhhhh, dont be afraid to post!!!


Look at the similarities! It goes hand in hand with other threads that point out how Bush is reluctant to follow laws...

Take the bite...go on...it wont hurt you!!!

political scientist dr laurence britt compared the fascist regimes of several countries to find similiarites between them. he identified 14 points of fascism. the study can be found here -

www.secularhumanism.org...

present examples can be found here -
www.oldamericancentury.org...

i have often thought of starting a thread about this study and present-day america, but the sad truth is that very few here are really interested in proving or disproving these 14 points without a pre-set agenda and conclusion and it wouldnt take long for the thread to be hijacked or turn into the usual ugly brawl. neither 'side' wants the truth - they just want to argue and think they are 'right'.

so long as that attitude continues, the truth is forever lost and whilst your side-tracked by petty one-sided arguing, you've lost sight of the question and sadly, as history has proven repeatedly, the answer.

Thank you for your imput

Its high time people realize the truth.

Wow, someones articulated in a couple of paragraphs all the things Ive' felt wrong about the Bush administration. Can't add much to that. But let's hope It doesn't get worse. Unfortunately it looks like the building blocks are in place and the roofs being laid for a major 'crusade'. The one thing I worry about is what they'll pull out the bag in order to attack Iran.

[edit on 2-5-2006 by Xeros]

Shouldn't this be on PTS? How is this a conspiracy unless we want to say that it is an academic conspiracy to paint Bush as modern day Hitler?

Originally posted by dgtempe
Its high time people realize the truth.

the problem usually is that by the time some people do, it is already too late, whilst others still will never acknowledge it.

ask those villagers in germany that were forced to watch the burying of the remaining bodies found in the concentration camps after the war. they couldnt believe their government would do such things so they chose not to believe they did.

for some people it doesnt matter how much evidence you show them, they still will not believe what they dont want know.

do some people think that hitler & co were really the last of their kind? do they really believe fascist regimes can no longer exist? if you could see your government heading this way, would you do anything to stop it?

It could be viewed as a conspiracy if Neither Bush, nor Hitler did what they did of their own decision, but by their bosses. It would be a huge conspiracy.

I think this is a clear indication that Bush sees himself as being above the laws, above the very laws enacted while he has been President. Why would a President take the time to make himself exempt from having to obey laws unless he intended to break them?

www.democracynow.org.../05/01/1336245


Report: Bush Claims Authority To Disobey Over 750 Laws
A major investigation by the Boston Globe has revealed President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office. In each case the president has issued a so-called "signing statement" that asserts that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution. According to the Globe, Bush has issued a signing statement to more than one of every 10 bills he has signed. Bush has said he can ignore Congress' ban on torture as well as Congressional oversight of the Patriot Act. Bush has also said he can ignore laws forbidding US troops from engaging in combat in Colombia and any attempt by Congress to oversee what happens in military prisons such as Abu Ghraib. NYU law professor David Golove has warned that Bush's actions threaten to overturn the existing structures of constitutional law. Golove said that having a president who ignores the court, backed by a Congress that is unwilling to challenge him can make the Constitution simply ''disappear."

Why the heck are those laws even made when a buffoon of a prez can knock them all down to protect his butt if he screws up, or gets caught?
Something is not right when there seems to be nobody in government, like congress, that can over-ride presidential 'authority'.

I mean to allow just one man, prez. or not to just decide, without friction, to decide the laws of his country to protect his own butt is just rediculous!

What if Hitler ran the US today? Who would stop him? Not congress, not the American people, nobody.

Pretty vulnerable if you ask me.

When you can draw a parallel between Hitler invading Poland and the elimination of a murderous regime in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan, then maybe there's room to talk about a comparison.

We knew going in, the situation in the Middle East had no quick fix. Leaving things status quo was no option, and was probably the most dangerous thing we could have done. The problem, as most knew at the time, was to maintain the will to do the post-war job properly, and over an indeterminate, but undoubtedly protracted, interval. This was not going to be resolved quickly, and big mistakes have been made, no question.

You are certainly entitled to entertain the comparison, and if it works for you, fine. But for me, no there's no reasonable comparison between Bush and Hitler. Bush will be out of office in 2009. My big fear is that the next POTUS will attempt to undo much of what Bush has done on the international scene when what we really need is some cohesive and consistent response from the US internationally.

Yes, I'm troubled by Bush's flagrant disregard for the rule of law when it comes to how it should apply to him. But there's still a big chasm (IMO) between Bush and Hitler.

Google up Thomas PM Barnett, the author of "The Pentagon's New Map" and "Blueprint for Action". His website is www.thomaspmbarnett.com... . Check out his "Articles" section. Scroll down to the one from Esquire from February 2005.It's brilliant. They're all good, but that's a good one to start with.

yeahright, i would be interested to hear what your interpretation of a fascist regime is.

im not out to cause an arguement or whatever but as you are the first obvious poster to say you dont think america is turning into a fascist state, please can you define what YOU would regard as one. what signs would you look for and what actions would you expect that government to take. i dont want to know about bush and hitler and poland and iraq so please dont go down that road.

im not picking on you especially btw, because i am challenging each and every single person who wants to post in this thread to define what they would regard as a fascist government. im simply interested in what people regard as fascism today

Originally posted by yeahright
When you can draw a parallel between Hitler invading Poland and the elimination of a murderous regime in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan, then maybe there's room to talk about a comparison.

All right, let's do that. But leave aside the Taliban; there was some justification for that war in that they were protecting and supporting al-Qaeda, who had attacked us. So the real comparison to draw is between Iraq 2003 and Poland 1939.

Was the government of Poland in 1939 "murderous"? Apparently so. It was a good deal more anti-semitic than any German government before the Nazis. Jews and other minorities had few rights and were confined in ghettos. The Polish government was a dictatorship without respect for human rights. If its leadership was less flamboyant and colorful than Saddam Hussein, it was no less brutal and nasty.

What steps did Hitler take in terms of diplomacy and propaganda leading up to the invasion of Poland? Well, similar to what Bush did w/r/t Iraq, he claimed to the Reichstag that Poland had attacked Germans. Some Polish prisoners were dressed in Wehrmacht uniforms and executed to provide "evidence" of this attack. This is not unlike Bush's trumped-up "evidence" that Saddam had a nuclear weapons program that was dangerously near success, or his false claim (without even providing evidence) that Saddam was involved somehow in the 9/11 attack. Another similarity is that Hitler completely disregarded most world opinion (outside Germany) before invading Poland. The diplomatic outcome was worse for Hitler than for Bush in one respect, because Britain and France declared war on Germany; however, one can draw a parallel between this and the exploitation of the U.S. presence in Iraq by al-Qaeda forces, both to inflict casualties and as a propaganda tool, although admittedly the parallel isn't quite exact. One can even see a similarity between the U.S./British joint invasion of Iraq and the German/Soviet cooperative conquest of Poland, although again the parallel isn't exact, because American and British forces actually cooperated and worked together, while German and Soviet forces each conquered about half of the country independently.

Seems to me the comparison is really quite apt. On one point, though, let's hope the two diverge: the invasion of Poland sparked World War II.

Leaving things status quo was no option, and was probably the most dangerous thing we could have done.

Why?

The problem, as most knew at the time, was to maintain the will to do the post-war job properly, and over an indeterminate, but undoubtedly protracted, interval.

Yes, that indeed was the problem. However, one must not ask, not only how to do that, but also why it is worth doing. I don't see an answer, frankly.

But for me, no there's no reasonable comparison between Bush and Hitler. Bush will be out of office in 2009.

Well, I believe (or hope anyway) that you're right, and that's a difference to be sure. But it's not a difference between Bush and Hitler. It's a difference between the United States and Weimar Germany. The U.S. Constitution has no provision whereby it can be completely suspended in a time of national emergency, which provision did exist in the Weimar constitution and was exploited by Hitler to impose a dictatorship after the Reichstag fire of 1933. Given what Bush has done with the powers he does possess, we have every reason to believe that, if the U.S. did have such a provision in its constitution, Bush would have invoked it after 9/11 and would now be governing America as a dictator.

I do see an important difference between Bush and Hitler. Bush is not a racist. Hitler was. But while this difference is certainly important, it does not make Bush any less dangerous to civil liberties or democracy or world peace. And in all other respects, I see him as a Hitler with less ability and (thank Goddess) less opportunity.

My big fear is that the next POTUS will attempt to undo much of what Bush has done on the international scene

Whereas that is my great hope. If we continue along this path, we are finished as a great power, and in the worst case scenario, as a nation.

[edit on 2-5-2006 by Two Steps Forward]

[edit on 2-5-2006 by Two Steps Forward]

I'm not sure where "my interpretation" of a fascist regime is relevant. The thread was comparing Bush to Hitler.

But to answer your question, my interpretation is that in a fascist regime, (among other things) you have a system where there is a "good" class and a "bad" class of people manifested in segregation and separate interpretation and tiering of laws based upon class (i.e. religion, race, etc.).

No, I don't think the USA is fascist, or Bush is Hitler. No government is "pure" anything. You can find elements of socialism, democracy, and other things, within almost any government and certainly within ours.

I don't see this as "picking on me", BTW. It's a conversation. I expect disagreement. I'm glad there are people questioning what is going on. Hold their feet to the fire. Keep 'em honest. But in my opinion, comparing Bush to Hitler not only insults Bush (go ahead, I don't mind), it trivializes the horror that Hitler unleashed on the world. Stalin and Pol Pot were no pikers, either. But "Is the US Fascist?" and "Is Bush Comparable to Hitler?" are two different topics. (Although I'd obviously answer "no" to both).

NOW I've said I don't think the US is turning into a fascist state.

(Sorry, my browser crashed and now I'm crunched for time)

Originally posted by yeahright
When you can draw a parallel between Hitler invading Poland and the elimination of a murderous regime in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan, then maybe there's room to talk about a comparison.

TSR-Was the government of Poland in 1939 "murderous"? Apparently so...

The difference I see is that Poland was at least allowing the Jews to live. Hitler went in as a conqueror and exterminator. We liberated Iraq, but there's much work to be done.

TSR-What steps did Hitler take in terms of diplomacy and propaganda leading up to the invasion of Poland? ...

We (and the rest of the world) were te victims of flawed intelligence. hussein had his own people convinced he had, and was prepared to use, WMD. If we were willing to manufacture a reason like the Nazis did, we could have planted WMD and been done with it.

yr-
Leaving things status quo was no option, and was probably the most dangerous thing we could have done.

TSR-Why?

Hussein was an obvious threat to the region, and as far as we knew, globally. He'd ignored countless UN resolutions and was continually belligerent. You can't play games with these people. They only respond to brute force. Khadaffi and others in the region have been noticeably quiet lately, no?

yr-
The problem, as most knew at the time, was to maintain the will to do the post-war job properly, and over an indeterminate, but undoubtedly protracted, interval.

TSR-Yes, that indeed was the problem. However, one must not ask, not only how to do that, but also why it is worth doing. I don't see an answer, frankly.

Fair enough. We'll never know what hell we avoided by not going in. Who's going to stand up to these types, if not us? How many attacks do we endure before we say "enough" and step up? It's a trgic, but necessary, result of the world in which we live.

TSR-Given what Bush has done with the powers he does possess, we have every reason to believe that, if the U.S. did have such a provision in its constitution, Bush would have invoked it after 9/11 and would now be governing America as a dictator.

I don't think so, but we'll never know.

yr-
My big fear is that the next POTUS will attempt to undo much of what Bush has done on the international scene

TSR-Whereas that is my great hope. If we continue along this path, we are finished as a great power, and in the worst case scenario, as a nation.

I respectfully disagree. We've taken on a terrible responsibility, but I see the alternative (appeasement) as more dangerous in the long term.

I certainly appreciate an alternative view, and am glad people are asking the questions they are. Hold their feet to the fire. I, personally, just think the Hitler comparisons tend to minimize the horror that Hitler unleashed on the world. Bush is no Churchill, but he's no Hitler either.

Originally posted by yeahright
The difference I see is that Poland was at least allowing the Jews to live.

Well, sure, but the proper comparison to make is not between Poland and Nazi Germany but between Poland and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. The Nazis were in a position parallel to the U.S., being aggressors against Poland as the U.S. was/is against Iraq.

Hitler went in as a conqueror and exterminator. We liberated Iraq, but there's much work to be done.

Hitler, too, claimed to be going in as a liberator, as well as to protect German lives. It is true that he actually went in as a conqueror. And we, as well, have actually gone in as a conqueror, for all our high-flown talk about liberation. We have secured for ourselves a military springboard into Iran that can be used at need, plus access to Iraqi oil.

Why do I believe that those were our motives rather than "liberation" of the Iraqis? Simple. Look at all the nations of the world prior to 2003 that were relatively weak in military terms, as Iraq was, and so could be invaded as easily. Many had governments as brutal as Saddam's. In terms of "liberation," there was no reason to choose Iraq to invade rather than one of the other tyrannies. But few had Iraq's oil reserves, and none had Iraq's strategic position. Therefore, these factors are why we "liberated" Iraq instead of, say, Rwanda.

We (and the rest of the world) were te victims of flawed intelligence.

The problem with this statement is that "the rest of the world" was NOT fooled by that "flawed" -- actually, falsified -- intelligence. And while it is possible that Bush genuinely believed that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of chemical weapons left, it is not possible that he genuinely believed Iraq to have a nuclear weapons program nearing success. Not possible at all. That was a flat-out lie.

Hussein was an obvious threat to the region, and as far as we knew, globally.

No on both counts. After the first Gulf War, the Iraqi military was so reduced in strength and under such constant observation that Iraq was no threat to its neighbors whatsoever. Nor was there any good reason to believe in any global threat -- less reason, in fact, than to suppose he was a danger to his neighbors, which at least he had been at one time.

He'd ignored countless UN resolutions and was continually belligerent.

Of course. But what matters in assessing a threat is less a leader's personality and rhetoric than his available strength and capability. By that measurement, Saddam Hussein was a has-been and no real cause for worry, however disagreeable he was as a person.

khadaffi and others in the region have been noticeably quiet lately, no?

Compared to what they were 15 years ago? Yes. Compared to what they were a year before the invasion? No.

We'll never know what hell we avoided by not going in.

We can make a realistic estimate, though. And the answer is: considerably less of one than we're enduring now.

Who's going to stand up to these types, if not us?

When "these types" are as weak as Iraq before the invation, who needs to?

How many attacks do we endure before we say "enough" and step up?

How many attacks by Iraq do you think we DID endure before we invaded? You're not re-suggesting that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11, are you?

I don't think [that Bush would become a dictator if he had the opportunity], but we'll never know.

Again, we can make a realistic estimate of the odds. We can observe that Bush has made use of every opportunity that he actually has had, to set aside civil liberties, consolidate his power, ignore the law (quite openly at times), and violate the Constitution as much as he could get away with it. He has not had the opportunity to do what Hitler did, for which let us thank the founding fathers. But has he shown any restraint in using the loopholes that do exist, and even drilling some new ones when the existing ones didn't serve? Not that I can see.

I respectfully disagree. We've taken on a terrible responsibility, but I see the alternative (appeasement) as more dangerous in the long term.

I posted something about that word, "appeasement," a while back in another thread. To "appease" is to give a negotiating partner in diplomacy something that he wants, in order to get something that you want. There is nothing wrong with it. It is the keystone of all diplomacy, in fact. The only alternative to appeasement in diplomacy is to end diplomacy and go to war. Occasionally, that cannot be avoided, as with Hitler in 1938-39 -- but only when the appeased cannot really be appeased and is bent on war no matter what. In almost all circumstances, appeasement is better.

(I knew I'd regret clomping in here. It's just too complex [speaking for myself] a topic, not to mention emotionally charged, to get adequately addressed in this forum. Plus, I'm damned tired.)

I'll certainly agree that there were multiple reasons for invading Iraq, including our own self interest. I don't see this as problematic. Invasion should have extremely compelling reasons, including, yes, our own self interest. In a post above, I referred to Barnett's book, "The Pentagon's New Map". He draws a distinction between "The Core" meaning most of the peaceable functioning world, and "The Gap" being those nations disconnected by reasons of poverty, or political or cultural repression, (Bear with me; it's a complicated subject and I'm trying to be concise).

Al Qaeda, whose true grievances lie within the Persian Gulf, tried to destroy the Core's connectedness on 9/11 by triggering enough chaos to throw our rules into the dustbin. Its hope was to shock America and the West into eventually abandoning the Gulf region militarily, politically, and economically. Al Qaeda hoped to eradicate western influence in the region through disconnectedness. Hussein's regime was dangerously disconnected from our rule sets, our norms, and all the ties that bind the Core together in interdependence. Now Iraq becomes the battlefield for the soul of the whole region. We very much need to be successful in Iraq. I believe we're interested in exporting rules, not rulers. Yes Iraq can be a springboard; a linchpin to democratizing the area.

If we can't muster the will to win in Iraq, it sends a clear signal to the region that there is no future in the Core for any of these states, except Israel. Our goal there is to reconnect Iraq, and eventually the region back to the Core. The real danger is within those countries or regions most disconnected from the global economy.

I don't think the intelligence was falsified, at least by us, and I do think the rest of the world believed Hussein had WMDs. We disagree. As for the nuclear weapons program, I'm not sure it even matters. There was ample reason to go in, without that as a mitigating factor. IMO. Dead is dead, whether you're killed with a nuclear weapon or a chemical or biological one.

My view of Hussein was an is that he's a murderous thug and criminal capable of just about anything. Do you dispute that after the attacks on his own people and the uncovering of mass graves? I do not believe negotiation is always possible with the Husseins of the world. Chamberlain was wrong to try to appease Hitler, and we would have been wrong to continue down that road with Hussein.

We were hit on 9-11. We haven't been hit since. Now, I'm the first person to warn against attributing causality to correlation, and maybe I'm wrong for doing so now. You believe we'd be better off had we not invaded. I'm not so sure. And the fact is, we'll never know. No, I'm not saying there's a direct tie in to Hussein and 9-11. I am saying that the Husseins of the world are a whole lot more circumspect about terror sponsorship since Saddam was chased into a spider hole.

They thought after 9-11, we'd cut and run, leaving the region to the mercy of the radical extremists. Instead, we hit back. They think we don't have the resolve to see this through. We need to prove them wrong. You think we can ignore them and they'll go away and leave us alone. I don't.

The other fact is that the war on terror will never be over. How do you win it? Who surrenders? The best we can hope to do is to bring all (or as many as possible) nations into the Core, ideally as peacefully as possible.

I don't have the inside scoop. I'm sure there's much we don't, and will never, know. But I'll reiterate one final time, we're not a fascist state and Bush is no Hitler.

I'll give someone else the last word. The whole PTS thing is not my deal.

Originally posted by yeahright
I'll certainly agree that there were multiple reasons for invading Iraq, including our own self interest. I don't see this as problematic. Invasion should have extremely compelling reasons, including, yes, our own self interest.

Well, that's an interesting twist on a valid idea.

I certainly agree that invasion should have extremely compelling reasons. However, I do not agree that "our own self-interest" is a sufficiently compelling reason to invade another country. In fact, I would say that there is only one reason to invade another country that is sufficiently compelling: they have attacked us, or we have reason to conclude, beyond any reasonable doubt, that they are about to do so. And even that second one you have to be very careful about; as this thread noted in the OP, Hitler claimed that about Poland. He was lying, is all.

Starting a war, as opposed to fighting one someone else starts, is never justified. Never. And whatever else you can say about Saddam Hussein's Iraq, it did not start this war. We did.

Al Qaeda, whose true grievances lie within the Persian Gulf, tried to destroy the Core's connectedness on 9/11 by triggering enough chaos to throw our rules into the dustbin. Its hope was to shock America and the West into eventually abandoning the Gulf region militarily, politically, and economically.

The key word being "eventually." I'm sure that bin Ladin was savvy enough to know that we wouldn't immediately roll over and play dead. And we HAVE abandoned our own rules, or some of them: the rules of diplomacy, and the international understanding of when a war is justified and when it isn't. The very principle that justified the first Gulf War (action to repel an aggressor bent on conquest) now makes opposition to the U.S. in Iraq morally justified.

Are you familiar with the Uncle Remus story of the Tar Baby? In that story, Br'er Fox made a sculpture out of tar and left it in the road. Br'er Rabbit came along, tried to strike up a conversation with the tar baby, was of course met with silence, got mad and started punching and kicking it. With the result that he got stuck in the tar, and was in danger of becoming fox food.

Iraq is our Tar Baby. And I very much fear that al-Qaeda planned it that way.

Al Qaeda hoped to eradicate western influence in the region through disconnectedness. . . . Now Iraq becomes the battlefield for the soul of the whole region. We very much need to be successful in Iraq. . . .

If we can't muster the will to win in Iraq, it sends a clear signal to the region that there is no future in the Core for any of these states, except Israel.

And there, I believe, you have the al-Qaeda strategy in a nutshell. Yes, now that we have invaded, we very much need to be successful in Iraq. The problem is, we can't. It can't be done. We can forestall total failure as long as we keep an occupying army there. But we cannot actually succeed. Nor do I believe we will have the will to keep an army there indefinitely. If we had not invaded Iraq, Iraq would not be an issue now with the portent it has. Al-Qaeda was losing when we targeted only Afghanistan. But because we invaded Iraq, the enemy has won a round.

My view of Hussein was an is that he's a murderous thug and criminal capable of just about anything.

I disagree, because the word "capable" implies material abilities, not just moral ones. Just as Bush would become dictator if he could -- but he can't, and therefore won't -- so I would certainly not have put anything past Saddam Hussein if he had the ability. Well -- actually even that isn't quite true. Supporting religious fanatics like al-Qaeda, who hate his guts because he's an apostate secular tyrant, that I would put past him. But the point is, however despicable the man was, he ruled a weak nation. Hitler was a danger not only because he was despicable, but also because he ruled a strong nation.

The other fact is that the war on terror will never be over. How do you win it? Who surrenders?

That is precisely why I have a problem with waging a "war" on terror. It implies a permanent state of war, a war that never ends. And in wartime, we sacrifice freedoms for the sake of security.

Ever read Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell? One of the devices that the three tyrannical superpowers in that novel used to maintain their power was to be constantly at war with each other, with unwritten rules in place to prevent the war ever being finally won or lost. As long as the war continued, the people were more docile, and despotism could be maintained.

The so-called "war" on terror is a war only in metaphor. And it is a bad metaphor. Terrorism is a problem. But our approach to it should not be thought of as a "war."

I will add one more thought. We must ask ourselves, in considering our approach to the Muslim world, whether people in Muslim nations have legitimate grievances against us that we ought to address.

If they do, that in no way justifies terrorist actions such as the 9/11 attacks. But if we refuse to address those grievances because terrorists have attacked us over them, then we are suffering from tar-baby syndrome. Before 9/11, it was wrong of us to support tyrants in Muslim countries in order to obtain their support in the Cold War and, later, in order to obtain raw materials from them. It has not become any less wrong since 9/11.

If we really want to bring Muslim nations into the "core" peacefully (which is really the only way it can be done), then we should take a hard look at the real reasons why they hate us, and stop kidding ourselves that it is because of our freedoms or our way of life. It is not. It is because of what we have done to them, and continue to do.