After the seething anger in the Whitehouse generated by her comment, what she
should have said is:
"My Dear Chancellor Schröder,
I made the comparison, but I've thought about it some more and here's where
I'd like to leave it.
Bush and Hitler are the same to the following extent:
Both were appointed. Bush is and Hitler was a saber rattler and both have
no regard for the sovereignty of nations. On the eve of Germany's invasion of
the Soviet Union, Hitler ordered his Generals to show not the slightest mercy
to any Communist that fell into their hands. America's refusal to grant
prisoner of war status to those it captures in Afghanistan suggests that a
similar mindset is at work today.
And here is where they differ:
Hitler walked out of the League of Nations when he couldn't get his way,
but Bush just told the UN to give him his way or they could go to hell.
Hitler was a born leader who built the NSDAP up from scratch through
tireless work over a period of 15 years while Bush, like everything he's ever
done, walked into a ready made situation.
Hitler was born poor while Dubya was born rich.
Hitler was a decorated war hero who saw front line service while Bush was a
draft dodger.
Hitler did not have a weapon of mass destruction, but he did have a weapon
of mass deception. This was his Propaganda Ministry, a cabinet level position
he created when he accepted the appointment to the Chancellorship. Bush has
both, a craven press and enough nuclear warheads to destroy the world. And he
wants more than that. He wants a system that will exempt America from the
time-honored custom of negotiation and compromise in international relations
and instead will allow America to offer to any nation on the face of the earth
the choice between annihilation and submission. Hitler would have coveted such
power, which we can surmise by his development and use of the V weapons
against England.
Since the Americans have repeated the phrase "weapons of mass destruction"
ad nauseum to justify their latest saber-rattling, the following conjectures
may not be inappropriate.
Hitler would have used such weapons on the Red Army if he had had them when
Germany stood on the brink of certain defeat at the hands of the hated Soviet
Union. Bush is the linear descendent of President Truman and Secretary of
State Byrnes who didn't hesitate to use them when America stood on the brink
of certain victory over Japan.
Instead of warding off defeat they used it in
what can only be considered as a gratuitous act of unspeakable cruelty against
inhabited cities in the expectation that the new weapon would intimidate the
hated Soviet Union as they prepared to double cross their former ally.
The manner in which the new weapon was demonstrated is significant. Not
only did it demonstrate its destructive power, which could, after all, have
been done with inanimate targets, but even more importantly, it demonstrated
that America did not have the moral scruples which might inhibit it from using
the weapon even in circumstances where its national survival was not
threatened in the least.
I am convinced that Bush doesn't have a cell in his brain capable of
criticizing America's use of weapons of mass destruction. And what I find as
evidence of a national mental pathology in America is that what enrages Bush
and company is the mere possibility that a tiny nation that they threaten with
annihilation should even dare to consider defending itself by whatever means
it has or can get.
Mr. Schröder, if you think there is anything untrue in what I've said here
I would prefer not to remain in your cabinet and herewith tender my
resignation.
Frau Däublin-Gmelin."
OLOGNE, Germany,
Sept. 19 — A reported remark by a German minister comparing President
Bush's tactics over Iraq to those of Hitler envenomed a close-fought
German election today and demonstrated how anti-Americanism had moved to
the center of political debate here.
ere's my comment on
Frau Däubler-Gmelin's comparison of Bush and Hitler.