[mburbank]

I found the article interesting in that I initially rejected a Hitler/Bush comparrison out of hand.

I pretty much reject the time honored "Hitler = however I currently don't like" argument every time I hear it. I thought the "Noriega is just like Hitler" was a stupid ass argument and I thought the extended "Saddam + Hitler" argument with anyone who wasn't part of the 'coalition of the willing' cast as Chamberlain was ignorant and insulting.

So; A Bush/Hitler comparisson also seems to serve no real illuminating purpose.

But, if the comparison is whittled down to: Hitler's progress from political non entity through German chancellor to the annexation of Poland shares several commanalities with Bush's journy from political non entity to the middle of his first term... This author makes an interesting case.

That said I'm not sure where the effort gets us. While I think if you plunked Bush down in a historic setting that provided the unchecked opportunity Hitler had the results might prove interesting, that's sciencefiction. Unless and until Bush finds reason to declare marshall law (and personally I can think of several scenarios) I think the comparissons are interesting, but don't play out very far.

Now, if people wanted to compare Chenney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft to Hitler's inner cirlce just prior to WW II, I think there's a case to be made.