Those who fail to learn from history are doomeded to relive it. No sh!t.

I hate hate hate the whole "America is fascist" yarn. I want someone to give me one legitimate example of America's fascism. Besides, to me it seems that the left acts more fascist (it their wants and desires) than the right. Anyway, good riddance. But, those Jews that go should avoid any of the holocaust memorials ... they seem to be a beacon to Islamic fundamentalists.

not to nitpick, but since when have the Germans sounded like the sweedish chef?

OK, I'm totally nitpicking and I love it!

Carin:

I want someone to give me one legitimate example of America's fascism.

I would say nascent fascism, or the threat of fascism. Robert Paxton in his study "Anatomy of Fascism" wrote the following:

These "mobilizing passions," mostly taken for granted and not always overtly argued as intellectual propositions, form the emotional lava that set fascism's foundations:

-- a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond the reach of any traditional solutions;

-- the primacy of the group, toward which one has duties superior to every right, whether universal or individual, and the subordination of the individual to it;

-- the belief that one's group is a victim, a sentiment which justifies any action, without legal or moral limits, against the group's enemies, both internal and external;

-- dread of the group's decline under the corrosive effect of individualistic liberalism, class conflict, and alien influences;

-- the need for closer integration of a purer community, by consent if possible, or by exclusionary violence if necessary;

-- the need for authority by natural leaders (always male), culminating in a national chief who alone is capable of incarnating the group's destiny;

-- the superiority of the leader's instincts over abstract and universal reason;

-- the beauty of violence and the efficacy of will, when they are devoted to the group's success;

-- the right of the chosen people to dominate others without restraint from any kind of human or divine law, right being decided by the sole criterion of the group's prowess in a Darwinian struggle.

Any (all) of those sound familiar?

Auguste -

Sounds like the Democratic Party! LOL!

Carin:
In early 2002, Mr. Gonzales wrote a memorandum stating that the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of war prisoners did not offer full protection to terror suspects thought to belong to Al Qaeda and to Taliban adherents from Afghanistan. This is your example should you chose to see through the glass clearly.

By the way, I'm not denying your point, that there are many liberals who fit one or more of those categories.

My concern right now, though, is who's in power and which (again, all) of those tendencies they're showing.

AbuWhatever,

So whats your point? Specifically, please instruct us how you arrived at the conclusion that the Geneva Convention does apply to terrorists. Or, alternatively, admit to regurgitating the DNC talking points of the day.

Abu -- here's the real question: was Gonzales right or wrong about the CONTENT of the particular Geneva Conventions that the US actually signed? (You know there are 4, right? And then there was an addendum in 1977 which the US did not sign, ratify, or agree to?) Note that this is a separate issue from the question of how the US should treat such prisoners; I'm only asking about what the US-ratified portions of the various Geneva Conventions requires of the US in regards to these prisoners.

Now, I've read the conventions. I know what they say. I'm pretty sure most "Amerikkka is fascist; look at Gonzales" folks like yourself have not, and honestly, have no fargin' idea what the hell you're talking about.

Auguste wrote "...who's in power and which (again, all) of those tendencies they're showing" [ellipses mine]

Thats an easy one! The party currently in power exhibits none of the characteristics you've put forth. I am an open minded fella though if you'd like to attach specific examples to your list.

AbuGonzales - the Geneva Conventions do NOT apply to terrorists. At best, they are considiered unlawful combatants. They are being treated far better than they are entitled or deserve.

Non-state actors, such as AQ, do render some of the Geneva Convention requirements for the treatment of prisoners quaint.

BrewFan:
Torture is indefensible. Or do you want to give it a shot? Those arrested and taken to Abu Ghraib and tortured and Guantanamo and tortured were "held" without trial. This is fascism. This is Hitleresque, Stalinesque and now Bushesque. Sound like DNC talking points so far? These prisoners have not been charged. Our administration is fascist. And even if they were charged you go ahead and be the first to say they should be electrocuted, burned, raped and beaten. Go ahead. Be a good Republican. Why don't you be a good citizen!

Auguste - Those "tendencies" seem vague enough that you could probably find examples at any time and any place.

AbuGonzales - Mr. Gonzales is right. The Geneva Conventions apply to members of those states or entities that have signed on. If they applied to those who did not sign it, then they would be essentially irrelevant because there would be no reason to sign on. Whether or not we should follow them is a different question than whether or not we must follow them in a given instance.

Liberalism strikes again! Apparently, living too well for too long and listening to Liberals makes even Jews who have suffered sick in the head, the first hallmark of Liberalism. The other two are cowardice and dishonesty. These Jewish Liberals' real motive is to flee from the troubles we face here in the US since taking on terrorists. And their complete and total dishonesty allows them to claim that THEY are the moral people who oppose the immoral Bush administration and are leaving as a matter of principle, when the truth is they are low-down cowards who want to stay out the fighting and troubles (even though our troubles with terrorists and in the Mideast are due to supporting Isreal). Liberalism boggles the mind!

August ... no, that mumbo jumbo doesn't sound at all familiar. At least not as far as public policy goes But, iit really does remind me of some of the pseudo-intellectual tripe I read in college. You know - where you drape big words over small words in the hopes that you confuse people into believing the point? You know, the idea where if you come across as really smart, people will believe you are right (the supposition that we are on the verge of Fascism.)

Take for example : "-- the need for closer integration of a purer community, by consent if possible, or by exclusionary violence if necessary;"

Ok, fuzzy words "closer integration" and "purer community" ... those phrases have no concrete meaning. It is intellectually wishy-washy. But, we're gonna violently execute it, apparently ...

BrewWatch - Really? Well, from my point of view:

-- a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond the reach of any traditional solutions - the rhetoric and action around the war on terror clearly fits into this mold.

-- the primacy of the group, toward which one has duties superior to every right, whether universal or individual, and the subordination of the individual to it - What happened/happens to people in government when the step out of line? Ask Richard Clarke, Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame, and a good number of CIA agents.

-- the belief that one's group is a victim, a sentiment which justifies any action, without legal or moral limits, against the group's enemies, both internal and external - You going to tell me that right-wing Christianity, who embodies this attitude, has no influence over the Republican party?

-- dread of the group's decline under the corrosive effect of individualistic liberalism, class conflict, and alien influences - Read Michelle Malkin or Daniel Pipes lately?

-- the need for closer integration of a purer community, by consent if possible, or by exclusionary violence if necessary - See above.

-- the need for authority by natural leaders (always male), culminating in a national chief who alone is capable of incarnating the group's destiny - I'm not even going to address this, because if you really think this isn't happening under our current President, then there's no arguing with you.

-- the superiority of the leader's instincts over abstract and universal reason And see above.

-- the beauty of violence and the efficacy of will, when they are devoted to the group's success See Joe Scarborough's recent statement that the story of the Marine rolling onto a grenade was "among the good news coming out of Iraq";

-- the right of the chosen people to dominate others without restraint from any kind of human or divine law, right being decided by the sole criterion of the group's prowess in a Darwinian struggle. - Remind me who our Attorney General nominee is again?

Now, some of the above examples come from pundits, but the truth is that, just as Randi Rhodes and Al Franken are important parts of the Democratic structure, right-wing pundits hold a vital place in the Republicans' plans.

Part of the problem is the Left, the Euroweenies, and the International Red Cross think the US is bound by 1977 Protocol I to the Geneva Convention, which requires treating terrorists as protected civilians unless they are actually attacking you.

The terrorist is required to comply by having some actual identifying characteristic under that Protocol WNEN attacking...as in Mohammed Atta wielding a boxcutter shouting "Death to Infidels".

Fortunately, Ronald Reagan refused to sign on to that1970's lunacy.

But the Left, Euroweenies, and International Red Cross think he was very, very wrong....

Therefore they continue to lecture us that we are defying the Geneva Conventions by not giving POW status to unlawful combatants, based on a treaty we never signed...

AbuGonzales: WOW! And I thought I'd heard Liberal Raving today!

Hitleresque, Stalinesque and Bushesque, how very ... picturesque!

Thanks for the laugh, you made my day!

And Carin, I would suggest you read an essay by David Neiwert. It's where I quoted the study from, and it's pretty exhaustive. It does plenty of explaining of the "fuzzy words."

AbuWhatever,
Torture is indefensible. -- Agreed

Or do you want to give it a shot? -- whats your schedule look like?

Those arrested and taken to Abu Ghraib and tortured and Guantanamo and tortured -- define torture please and cite some Guantanamo examples if you would

were "held" without trial -- this is not a criminal justice matter you know.

. This is fascism. This is Hitleresque, Stalinesque and now Bushesque. Sound like DNC talking points so far? -- uh, yeahp

These prisoners have not been charged. -- see above, they were not arrested they were captured.

Our administration is fascist. -- says you but you have not put forth any proof thus far

And even if they were charged you go ahead and be the first to say they should be electrocuted, burned, raped and beaten. Go ahead. Be a good Republican. Why don't you be a good citizen! -- Ad hominem attacks are symptomatic of not having something relevant to say

In seeking to defend ourselves everyone we have become our worst selves. This is the danger of living in the world. And our great country's executive branch has gone the way of Mao, Stalin and Hitler. We should be our best. We're Americans. We're a proud democracy. That means justice for all, regardless of international conventions. Doesn't it make you wince that 90 percent of those held have now been released. Many were tortured, according to the Post, the WSJ and the New Republic. We're better than this, we're Americans.

AbuGonzales - Undoubtedly some civil liberties have gotten violated, as happens in war times in even the most enlightened countries, but saying we're anything even remotely close to Hitler, Mao, or Stalin is utterly ridiculous. Yes, we should concern ourselves with not going down that path, but not every questionable thing that has been done is proof we are.

Auguste wrote "I'm not even going to address this, because if you really think this isn't happening under our current President, then there's no arguing with you"

Thanks for saving me some time and Ace some bandwidth.

P.S. In all seriousness, your list really is poor supporting 'evidence' for what you'd have us believe is true and if I were you I'd be a little embarrased about posting that nonsense.

Undoubtedly some civil liberties have gotten violated, as happens in war times in even the most enlightened countries, but saying we're anything even remotely close to Hitler, Mao, or Stalin is utterly ridiculous. Yes, we should concern ourselves with not going down that path, but not every questionable thing that has been done is proof we are.

For the record, I agree with this statement. The bolded section is why I even bring it up: vigilance and recognition of the signs around us.

P.S. In all seriousness, your list really is poor supporting 'evidence' for what you'd have us believe is true and if I were you I'd be a little embarrased about posting that nonsense.

Well, I'm posting comments (in between other tasks) rather than writing a position paper; that's why I linked to the David Neiwert essay above - because I recognized that one-liners are not fantastic support; but no, I'm not embarrassed.

Well, Auguste, you didn't link to the Neiwert article, but I found it anyway. I got to this :

"The "conservative movement," however, is a decidedly dogmatic political movement that demands obeisance to its main tenets (and exiles those who dissent) and a distinctly defined agenda. Movement followers proudly announce their membership. (In contrast, there is no "liberal movement" worth speaking of -- just a hodgepodge of loosely associated interests.)"

And there I stopped. That was enough. A real partisan, huh?

Humn - Hitler killed 12 million, Stalin killed possibly 40 Million (not including war dead).. and Bush locked up terrorists w/o reading them their Miranda.

I see the parallel.

Yeah, sorry, I realized afterwards I ought to have linked directly, although it's right there on the front page.

As far as not reading the article - your loss. Yes, he's partisan, or at least biased, but I don't necessarily disagree with the paragraph you cited. In fact, some people would say that the lack of a "liberal movement" is precisely the reason the democratic party has fallen out of power. Others would not.

If it's "demands obeisance to its main tenets (and exiles those who dissent)" that you're quibbling with, please explain the Valerie Plame case and the CIA housecleaning, just to name two examples.

Brew and Jason: Seymour Hersch cited examples of terrorism (whoops, meant to type torture) at Guantanamo, and CNN also reported evidence of torture from down south was making the rounds at the CIA. This is a criminal justice matter (has to do with due process) and a human right's matter and an American matter. It's troubling to me that ninety percent of those locked up have been released- this after they were detained and "found" lacking in information. A fascist government employs any means necessary to achieve its political desires. The Bush government is not a truly American government. Bush and co. have committed a purge, like Stalin and Hitler, a round up of all the usual suspects, ninety percent of whom are now free and back in their own countries. God knows what they're thinking now. Our govt broke people down as human beings. This is not American and not acceptable, even in wartime. When I heard that 18 and 22 year-old soldiers from Alabama and Mississippi and CA "knew" Muslims and dogs didn't mix too well, or that being naked with other men is a big no in the Koran, I was flabbergasted. They got this from the chain of command play book. I think we all know this is true. We cannot lose what distinguishes us as Americans. Torture is unacceptable. Even when we're fighting for our lives. That's why Gonzales and Bush need to go. They are not our best selves and we're better off dead than with them leading us down the road of fascism. We should all rail against it as Americans, regardless of our party.

THE VRIGINS rejoice at your stupidity! AbulGonzales is so typical of your Liberals whom you refuse to deal with even though they are dividing, confusing, and paralyzing your people. Even your bible says in Revalations that the Four Horseman of the Apocalypse are: War, Oppression, Famine and Liberalism. THE VIRGINS congratulate you AbuNidalGonzales for helping to confuse the Great Satan even more!

ALLAH AKBAR!!!

I'm not sure what "lack of a liberal movement" means in the context of the U.S. since those who are identified as "liberals" in the U.S. aren't particularly liberal by any traditional definition of the term. Leftists, yes. Liberals, no.

Unless you consider it liberal to label anyone who doesn't agree with you as a fascist, Nazi, or homophobe. Not all those given the liberal label in the U.S. do this, of course, but someone such as Michael Moore is most certainly not liberal.

Unless you consider it liberal to label anyone who doesn't agree with you as a fascist, Nazi, or homophobe. Not all those given the liberal label in the U.S. do this, of course, but someone such as Michael Moore is most certainly not liberal.

Okay. I assume you're not saying my comments are "labelling anyone who doesn't agree with me." Then again, "Not all those given the liberal label in the U.S." speaks to the fact that there are an awful lot of people out there labelling anyone who doesn't agree with them "liberal"...and don't tell me that many of them don't have the same relationship with that label as we do with "fascist."

Anyway, that statement may not have really been addressed to me; and I don't like Michael Moore much either...although without him, there's almost no way the Congress would be debating election reform right now.

We've strayed way off topic, mostly thanks to me. Still, I welcome further debate if asked.

To the ignorant lefties who scream "fascist" and "nazi" about everything American, have any of you ever thought about the events that lead the Germans to become Nazi's? I doubt it because all you do is just mouth off about what the characteristics of a nazi are without ever offering anything in the form of what causes a nazi to be created. A particularly interesting thing about the word "nazi" is that it is short for National Socialist. So Nazism is a form of socialism . An extreme from of it at that. So someone who believes in socialism is MUCH closer to adopting a belief in nazism. For once you believe that an omnipotentily powerful state can provide for all your wants and needs then it is a fairly small step futher to believe that anyone who doesn't hold this belief or is believed to be an impediment to this thinking should be eliminated. If its one thing that you lefty's love its socialism.

Do yourselves a favor and read "The Road to Serfdom" by FA Hayek.

I would argue that Nationalism is much closer to Nazism.

Auguste: If it's "demands obeisance to its main tenets (and exiles those who dissent)" that you're quibbling with, please explain the Valerie Plame case and the CIA housecleaning, just to name two examples.

CIA housecleaning is not relevant to your point. The CIA is supposed to work for the president, thus the president should "demand obeisance". The CIA is not elected and is not supposed to be a part of checks and balances. It works as part of the executive, and when it isn't doing that, it is changed. President Clinton did the exact same thing with the CIA membership of republican-party presidents Reagan and Bush.

This was covered very well in this post at QandO blog.

Fascist movements are LEFTIST historically.

Why does everyone get this wrong?

Ok AbuGonzales, if the administration was that fascist, why were the innocent ones let go? Why not use them as scapegoats and claim they were guilty?

Look, let's say, for the sake of argument, that I believe that all the reports of torture coming out of Guatanamo were true. First, I'm not sure all of them qualify as torture. Intimdating people with dogs may be unpleasant, but it's not torture. If it sounds like something that would happen in fraternity pledging, it's probably not torture (although I have known of groups that beat their pledges, which would be torture).

Now that being said, let's say I thought all of it was absolutely wrong, would I still believe that we were headed down the road to fascism? No. Why? Honestly, I just don't see it. Maybe if Bush started rounding up political opponents or something, but in a country where Michael Moore can make millions of dollars on an anti-Bush film, and remain as free and as corpulent as ever, I not with you. If I truly believed it to be happpening, I would be right in the street marching with you. But I don't. If that changes, I'll let you know.

" If it's "demands obeisance to its main tenets (and exiles those who dissent)" that you're quibbling with, please explain the Valerie Plame case and the CIA housecleaning, just to name two examples."

And Plame was exiled to where? We didn't even ship her off to Canada ... Man, that's what we need to start DOING .. exiling. I vote for Jimmy Carter first. We could send him to Cuba.

But to be serious, when words such as "exile" are used when in reality ... they lose their job ...words become unattatched to meaning - it's like reading Margaret Cho. Heck, my BIL has been 'exiled' about 20 times.

AbuNidalGonzales: Take your medication and drink a tall, cold glass of Shut-the-Fuck-Up-Juice and give it a rest! You're not convincing anyone and the more you speak the more ridiculous you sound.

ZG - No, the president shouldn't demand obeisance; he should demand honest intelligence and opinions. Otherwise he runs the risk of running into a foreign policy disaster.

Hmm.

And WindyCity - do yourself a favor and read "Germany Tried Democracy" by S. William Halperin.

For once you believe that an omnipotentily powerful state can provide for all your wants

I think you're confusing socialism with communism. They have common elements, but they are not the same, and certainly "omnipotentally powerful state" brings to mind the Patriot Act. For me, anyway.

Auguste: My comment wasn't really aimed at you specifically. It was just something I wanted to clarify. In the U.S., leftists regularly get labeled as "liberals" when the two aren't necessarily the same thing. In other countries, being "liberal" doesn't mean the same thing (sometimes in means almost the opposite) it means in the U.S.

So in the U.S. a liberal movement may exist, but it would be unlikely if it were actually called liberal.

For the record, I think it does exist, and is exemplified by quite a few bloggers of a variety of political backgrounds.

Sorry, Auguste, that last comment was by me. I'm not sure how your name got in there.

-Jason

Carin:

Oh, for crying out loud. They made an entire movie - two, actually - about the possible consequences of revealing NOC agents. As far as whether the word exile is appropriate, try to split the hairs a little more finely next time. The administration exiles - from positions, from influence, from safety - those who point out that the emperor has no...well, you know the story.

Jason,

Heh. I did a double take - I've been posting so much today, I thought maybe I threw that up there and didn't remember it! Wondered why I'd be addressing myself, though. :)

LOL, I don't think pointing out the difference of the word "Exile" (since, Communist actually DID exile people) and "losing a job" is splitting hairs.

Second, the whole Plame story was so dirty; her husband writing that article (which was partisan and self serving and most likely untied to reality)- and the aspects of who/what and why he got that job to journey to Niger in the first place. What was HIS purpose in writing that article?

I don't know what "movies" you are talking about, but I see know how it could possibly have any relevance to this discussion.

Jason, there are only two things to think about: the difference between right and wrong and what you want to aspire to as an American. As for facism, this govt conducted a roundup of its own in the guise of political scapegoating, a paper tiger of sorts that will never materialize in the next four years. Bush & Co. used "gay" marriage to stir up the hate/fear vote. This was pure fascism, without the bodybags. As a lesbian, my "minority" was targeted politically to ensure political ends. Facists stir up hate and rally people around fear, think Stalin and Hitler. You may not be able to see my point of view until it is revealed through your own experience.

AbuGonzales,

Your "definition" of fascism is not a definition of fascism.

This is going to be my last post for awhile boys and girls. Sadness abounds, I know. Good talking with you all - really, I mean it! :)

LOL, I don't think pointing out the difference of the word "Exile" (since, Communist actually DID exile people) and "losing a job" is splitting hairs.

Well, a) I explained what exile meant in this context, b) "losing a job" is an interesting way to describe putting a deep-cover agent - whose expertise, btw, was in WMDs of all things - in danger, ruining her career, and, evidence suggests, getting at least one of her assets killed. So call it "losing a job" if you want to. I call it treason on the part of the leaker.

Second, the whole Plame story was so dirty; her husband writing that article (which was partisan and self serving and most likely untied to reality)- and the aspects of who/what and why he got that job to journey to Niger in the first place. What was HIS purpose in writing that article?

Who cares? Joe Wilson is not his wife...and there is great debate over whether the article was false or not. National security trumps worries about nepotism; and I haven't seen strongly convincing evidence that there's anything wrong with his report. Cases made, but none that convinced me. I'm willing to be convinced; none of that changes the fact that it wasn't even Plame who wrote the article - and her job was trying to stop WMDs, supposedly the administration's #1 priority, at least at the time.

I don't know what "movies" you are talking about, but I see know how it could possibly have any relevance to this discussion.

Well, I was kidding, but both Mission Impossible and Charlie's Angels 2 dealt with keeping NOC lists out of the hands of the enemy. Bob Novak appears in neither...

Well we've certainly seen that the last thing Abu Whatever cares about is 'definitions' and 'facts'.

You know...this whole 'Republicans are Fascists' thing is the reason Democrats lost, and are going to continue to lose.

Nutty conspiracy theories. That's all you've got now. You're gibbering to each other in the attic. No wonder nobody wants to come over for dinner at your place anymore.

Looking forward to the day that the non-commie adults retake the Democratic party and make a worthy opponent out of it.

But that will be a few years down the road, after we've stacked the courts and stuff. 'Ta!