Churchill, Hitler, and Newt

[Guest guest]

" Magginkat " <magginkat

Mon, 20 Feb 2006 07:43:54 -0600

Churchill, Hitler, and Newt

 

 

 

(Has Pat Buchanan become a Liberal?

 

 

 

 

Churchill, Hitler, and Newt

 

by Patrick J. Buchanan

http://www.lewrockwell.com/buchanan/buchanan37.html

 

 

You can always tell when the War Party wants a new war. They will

invariably trot out the Argumentum ad Hitlerum.

 

Before the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam had become " the Hitler of Arabia, "

though he had only conquered a sandbox half the size of Denmark.

Milosevic then became the " Hitler of the Balkans, " though he had lost

Slovenia, Croatia and Macedonia, was struggling to hold Bosnia and

Kosovo, and had defeated no one.

 

Comes now the new Hitler.

 

" This is 1935, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is as close to Adolf Hitler as

we've seen, " said Newt Gingrich to a startled editor at Human Events.

 

" We now know who they are – the question is who are we. Are we Baldwin

or Churchill? "

 

" In 1935 ... Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini intimidated the

democracies, " Newt plunged ahead. " The question is who is going to

intimidate who. " Yes, a little learning can be a dangerous thing.

 

A few facts. First, when Hitler violated the Versailles Treaty by

announcing rearmament in March 1935, Baldwin was not in power. Second,

Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald quickly met with Il Duce to form the

Stresa Front – against Hitler. Third, when Mussolini invaded Abyssinia

in October 1935, Baldwin imposed sanctions.

 

But Churchill did not wholly approve.

 

Abyssinia, said Churchill, is a " wild land of tyranny, slavery and

tribal war. ... No one can keep up the pretense that Abyssinia is a

fit, worthy and equal member of a league of civilized nations. "

 

As late as 1938, Churchill was still proclaiming the greatness of Il

Duce: " It would be a dangerous folly for the British people to

underrate the enduring position in world history which Mussolini will

hold; or the amazing qualities of courage, comprehension, self-control

and perseverance which he exemplifies. "

 

But back to the new Hitler.

 

The Iranians, said Newt, " have been proactively at war with us since

1979. " We must now prepare to invade and occupy Iran, and identify a

" network of Iranians prepared to run their ... country " after we take

the place over.

 

" I wake up every morning thinking we could lose two major cities today

and have the equivalent of the second Holocaust by nuclear weapons –

this morning. "

 

What about diplomacy?

 

" We should say to the Europeans that there is no diplomatic solution

that is imaginable that is going to solve this problem. " Newt's

reasoning: War is inevitable – the longer we wait, the graver the

risk. Let's get it over with. Bismarck called this committing suicide

out of fear of death.

 

My own sense of this astonishing interview is that Newt is trying to

get to the right of John McCain on Iran and cast himself – drum roll,

please – as the Churchill of our generation.

 

But are the comparisons of Ahmadinejad with Hitler and Iran with the

Third Reich, let alone Newt with Churchill, instructive? Or are they

ludicrous? Again, a few facts.

 

In 1942, Hitler's armies dominated Europe from the Pyrenees to the

Urals. Ahmadinejad is the president of a nation whose air and naval

forces would be toasted in hours by the United States. Iran has

missiles that can hit Israel, but no nuclear warheads. Israel could

put scores of atom bombs on Iran. The United States, without losing a

plane, could make the country uninhabitable with one B-2 flyover and a

few MX and Trident missiles.

 

Why would Ayatollah Khameinei, who has far more power than

Ahmadinejad, permit him to ignite a war that could mean the end of

their revolution and country? And if we were not intimidated by a USSR

with thousands of nuclear warheads targeted on us, why should

Ahmadinejad cause Newt to break out in cold sweats at night?

 

Currently, the " nuclear program " of Iran consists of trying to run

uranium hexafluoride gas through a few centrifuges. There is no hard

evidence Iran is within three years of producing enough highly

enriched uranium for one bomb.

 

And if Iran has been at war with us since 1979, why has it done so

much less damage than Khadafi, who blew up that discotheque in Berlin

with our soldiers inside and massacred those American kids on Pan Am

103? Diplomacy worked with Khadafi. Why not try it with Iran?

 

Yet, Newt and the War Party appear to be pushing against an open door.

A Fox News poll finds Iran has replaced North Korea as the nation

Americans believe is our greatest immediate danger. And a Washington

Post polls finds 56 percent of Americans backing military action to

ensure Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon.

 

Instead of whining about how they were misled into Iraq, why don't

Democrats try to stop this new war before it starts? They can begin by

introducing a resolution in Congress denying Bush authority to launch

any preventive war on Iran, unless Congress first declares war on Iran.

 

Isn't that what the Constitution says?

 

Before we go to war, let's have a debate of whether we need to go to war.

 

 

 

Toll Free to Congress -888-355-3588, 888-818-6641 or 800-426-8073