I ran across what I thought was a rather well-written article on the parallels between recent (United States of) American history and the processes that other countries have gone through on their way to becoming fascist or authoritarian states:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2064157,00.html

While the (W) Bush Administration has been instrumental in causing many of the recent changes mentioned in the article, I do not view this as an issue of Republicans versus Democrats. I am not applying the following statement to individual Democrats or Republicans, but I view the elected national-level Republican and Democratic parties as about 80% the same and 20% different. That is to say, I don't want any of them in control of the powers mentioned in the article.

Of course it is important to maintain the physical security of our country to a certain reasonably possible extent. But I think there is a point where we would destroy what we were trying to fight for in the first place, and it seems to me that we are currently on course toward this point.

DrDeke

Nothing special about the article. It's the typical hate Bush rhetoric we hear on a conctant basis. The US is not spiralling into a fascist government, the article was clearly biased and I'm sure anyone could write something proving just the opposite.

This article is just hate America propaganda, but go ahead and buy into, that makes just as crazy as the people who wrote it.

I can think of nothing more biased than than a left-wing American Liberal who writes an Article that tries to compare the USA with Germany under Hitler and than has it published in a left-wing British Newspaper. Naomi Wolfe is a ding-bat. What's next Noam Chumsky articles?

Jeez, what kind of a coward would go over to England to spew their anti-Bush hate?

Sincerely,
The Dixie Chicks

Reacting to an unwelcome argument first and foremost with nationalistic chest-beating (Point 9: "Dissent equals treason") is a clear indication that the argument is not entirely implausible.

I've seen chilling parallels in the entire propaganda onslaught from the Bush administration from day one, with ever deepening consequences.

There are clear parallels to fascistic regimes emerging, but Wolf herself makes clear that the USA today are not the same as Germany in 1933:

Quote: Of course, the United States is not vulnerable to the violent, total closing-down of the system that followed Mussolini's march on Rome or Hitler's roundup of political prisoners. Our democratic habits are too resilient, and our military and judiciary too independent, for any kind of scenario like that. Rather, as other critics are noting, our experiment in democracy could be closed down by a process of erosion. It is a mistake to think that early in a fascist shift you see the profile of barbed wire against the sky. In the early days, things look normal on the surface; peasants were celebrating harvest festivals in Calabria in 1922; people were shopping and going to the movies in Berlin in 1931. Early on, as WH Auden put it, the horror is always elsewhere - while someone is being tortured, children are skating, ships are sailing: "dogs go on with their doggy life ... How everything turns away/ Quite leisurely from the disaster." As Americans turn away quite leisurely, keeping tuned to internet shopping and American Idol, the foundations of democracy are being fatally corroded. Something has changed profoundly that weakens us unprecedentedly: our democratic traditions, independent judiciary and free press do their work today in a context in which we are "at war" in a "long war" - a war without end, on a battlefield described as the globe, in a context that gives the president - without US citizens realising it yet - the power over US citizens of freedom or long solitary incarceration, on his say-so alone. That means a hollowness has been expanding under the foundation of all these still- free-looking institutions - and this foundation can give way under certain kinds of pressure. To prevent such an outcome, we have to think about the "what ifs".

Famous sociological experiments have demonstrated that you can turn people from any nationality into an aggressive mob under the right circumstances. Nobody is completely immune to fascism, all the more important to keep the eyes open and oneself wary of propaganda claims, especially of those based on the combination of fear and hubris which have shown to have the most fatal consequences.

DrDeke, and Klaus,

I'd have to say I agree with you two both.

Andrea Kent

Quoting Klaus (Reply 4): Reacting to an unwelcome argument first and foremost with nationalistic chest-beating (Point 9: "Dissent equals treason") is a clear indication that the argument is not entirely implausible.

  

Quoting Klaus (Reply 4): Famous sociological experiments have demonstrated that you can turn people from any nationality into an aggressive mob under the right circumstances. Nobody is completely immune to fascism, all the more important to keep the eyes open and oneself wary of propaganda claims, especially of those based on the combination of fear and hubris which have shown to have the most fatal consequences.

Here's the thing, though. If we assume for the sake of argument that Bush has been attempting to turn the US into a fascist state (which I don't think he has - I think he's just a very bad leader who's more interested in his buddies than he is in the well-being of the union), how far has he really gotten in six years? I would say not very far - he only has two years left in office, and any damage that has been done is easily reversible. And while there may be the potential for abuses of power, there is a vast difference between that and actual abuses of power. Just ask Alberto Gonzales, who now finds himself in a huge bind for doing something that is perfectly legal (and handling it horribly, of course). Moreover, if we continue with the assumption that he has been trying to turn the US into a fascist state, it is clear that checks and balances set up in the government have limited his ability to do so. The rules for Guantanamo have been challenged by the public and members of Congress, and in some cases they have been changed. I will bet money that the next president, whether they be Democrat or Republican, will not continue with the same platform that Bush has. Public opinion will not permit it. So, in reality, any president has a maximum of eight years to do damage to the country, should they choose to do so (and that's if they hide it well), and must clear a number of hurdles to do so. The mechanisms in place work. Yes, the Executive branch still has a lot of power, but that can be used for good as well as bad, so I'm not sure that's a bad thing.

It is important to be alert for potential signs of fascist tendencies (real or imagined), but I am not worried about the stability of the US government.

-Mir

Funny, of all the first replies, it took a GERMAN to actually take a serious look at this and analyze the article - no matter what is thought about it - without dismissing it in one fell swoop and resorting to name calling.

Doesn't surprise me though, at least Germans aren't in denail (I hope) about their past fascist government and learn from it. US on the other hand doesn't seem to care...

Quoting Klaus (Reply 4): Reacting to an unwelcome argument first and foremost with nationalistic chest-beating (Point 9: "Dissent equals treason") is a clear indication that the argument is not entirely implausible.

Absolutely true

Whether you think this is alarmist reactionism and spin or not, everything comparison written in that article is absolutely true.

[

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 7): Funny, of all the first replies, it took a GERMAN to actually take a serious look at this and analyze the article - no matter what is thought about it - without dismissing it in one fell swoop and resorting to name calling.

There is nothing to take a serious look at, that's the problem. Saying that Bush is turning the the US into a Fascist nation is asinine. Whether you like Bush or hate him that doesn't matter. The executive branch does not hold all of the power in the nation. Have you heard of "checks and balances", last time I checked the Democrats hold a majority in the Congress, so Bush doesn't have that much power to begin with. You must have hate Bush a lot, to compare him with the likes of Mussolini and Hitler.

This is like saying that Clinton was bringing the US into Communism, its simply not true.

Quoting Mir (Reply 6): It is important to be alert for potential signs of fascist tendencies (real or imagined), but I am not worried about the stability of the US government.

how dare you not respond with leftist outrage. Don't you realize that Bush is Satan?  

Quoting N1120A (Reply 8): Whether you think this is alarmist reactionism and spin or not, everything comparison written in that article is absolutely true.

  

No. This statement, for example, is absolutely NOT true. "Right now, only a handful of patriots are trying to hold back the tide of tyranny for the rest of us."

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 10): No. This statement, for example, is absolutely NOT true. "Right now, only a handful of patriots are trying to hold back the tide of tyranny for the rest of us."

Let me clarify that then. I mean each of the 10 componants she laid out have been met.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 11): Let me clarify that then. I mean each of the 10 componants she laid out have been met.

Doesn't that mean that we are already Fascist?

[Edited 2007-04-25 01:11:30]

Quoting Mir (Reply 6): Here's the thing, though. If we assume for the sake of argument that Bush has been attempting to turn the US into a fascist state (which I don't think he has

Not to the extent of nazi Germany or fascist Italy or Spain, that is certainly believable.

But crucial traits of fascism were employed to practically suppress any political opposition, even though it would not have been possible to actually enforce that beyond the application of propaganda and group pressure.

Quoting Mir (Reply 6): The mechanisms in place work.

Yes, they do, fortunately.

In the Weimar Republic in post-WWI and pre-fascist Germany the democratic institutions were structurally weak, the economy recovering but still in dire straits and the population almost completely in opposition to the notion of democracy in the first place, which they believed to be the fruit of the defeat in WWI which had "robbed" them of Emperor Wilhelm II who had been forced to abdicate. Communist and fascist thugs created chaos in the streets and too few people really stood up to try protecting democracy. Too many of them had been raised to be obedient to an authoritarian regime to suddenly fall in love with what they perceived as defective and chaotic.

Although the US population today has its own worrying weaknesses which were exposed in recent years, the situations are fundamentally different. The neocons have ripped whole pages out of the fascists' playbook to push their own agenda through, but they are not fascists. They are incompetent, corrupt, delusional and in many respects outright malicious, but they are not fascists.

And neither are more than a handful among the general US population.

But the general readiness by the population's majority to accept torture and other human rights abuses, wars of aggression, imperial delusions and nationalist excesses was shocking and deeply worrying, to say the least. I hope there will be a big cleanup in the years to come and it already seems to have begun; But most positive illusions we on the outside once had about the USA have been thoroughly obliterated.

The worldwide unity post 9-11 was strong and an obvious opportunity for a big step for the better, but it will unfortunately enter history books as one of the biggest historical chances willfully ruined by delusional political amateurs.

Quoting Mir (Reply 6): It is important to be alert for potential signs of fascist tendencies (real or imagined), but I am not worried about the stability of the US government.

The stability of this particular government is indeed something to be worried about, actually. But the stability of the US institutions is not in doubt - yet.

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 7): Doesn't surprise me though, at least Germans aren't in denail (I hope) about their past fascist government and learn from it.

We do unfortunately still have quite a few neo-nazis, but harsh rejection of their ideas is the official and generally supported consensus across Germany today.

Quoting T773ER (Reply 9): There is nothing to take a serious look at, that's the problem.

Yeah. Any critic's only problem is that you're so incredibly fantastic. Everything besides that is just evil foreign propaganda, right?   

Quoting T773ER (Reply 9): This is like saying that Clinton was bringing the US into Communism, its simply not true.

If you're completely unable to counter the arguments as you seem to be, it doesn't bode well for the validity of your conclusion, I'm afraid.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 10): No. This statement, for example, is absolutely NOT true. "Right now, only a handful of patriots are trying to hold back the tide of tyranny for the rest of us."

I had to go back to the article to check whether that's really in there - it is. You're right. That's stupid.

However, to interpret the whole article as a hidden attack against Bush doesn't do it justice. Of course Bush isn't trying to turn the US into a fashist state; we all know that and so does she. It it was so, as Mir pointed out, he'd be doing a very bad job at it. Note that Wolf argues that it wouldn't make a difference whether the president is called Clinton or Giuliani.

The article is about the potential danger of a free and tolerant society turning into a totalitarian state i a process of erosion, not a revolution under the impression of a constant, anonymous threat that the government can utilize for its purposes. Even though I don't see the US doing that right now, the danger is undoubtly there and it's important to be aware of it.

I think most of us cannot imagine living under a totalitarian regime. We imagine it as something terrible, oppressive, inhuman. We fail to realize that the vast majority actually lives pretty comfortably in such a state. Such a regime can come into power everywhere, at any time. We all need to be weary.

More of the same old BS.

The US came closer to Fascism during the McCarthy Era then it is now.

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy

After we were hit on September 11 2001, we were in a state of national shock. Less than six weeks later, on October 26 2001, the USA Patriot Act was passed by a Congress that had little chance to debate it; many said that they scarcely had time to read it. We were told we were now on a "war footing"; we were in a "global war" against a "global caliphate" intending to "wipe out civilisation".

On December the 7th 1941 we were attacked by a terrifying external enemy. The Congress declared war on December the 8th against the Empire of Japan. George Bush didn't create this threat. Before September 11th our embassies in Africa where attacked a US warship was attacked, the WTC was attacked, we stopped a similar plot against US airlines in the Philippines Our service men were attacked in Saudi Arabia. All of this before September 11th. But according to Naomi Wolf none of this counts so The Bush administration "created" a threat.

2. Create a gulag

Once you have got everyone scared, the next step is to create a prison system outside the rule of law (as Bush put it, he wanted the American detention centre at Guantánamo Bay to be situated in legal "outer space") - where torture takes place.

At first, the people who are sent there are seen by citizens as outsiders: troublemakers, spies, "enemies of the people" or "criminals". Initially, citizens tend to support the secret prison system; it makes them feel safer and they do not identify with the prisoners. But soon enough, civil society leaders - opposition members, labour activists, clergy and journalists - are arrested and sent there as well.

Loyal Americans were rounded up and placed in concentration camps, in 1942. However, we haven't witnessed the rounding up of journalists, dissidents,.opposition members blah blah blah. In fact we ought to recatagorize the Congress (both Houses) as a gulag so that Naomi Wolf could considered right since thats where the opposition members seem to have been concentrated recently.

3. Develop a thug caste

When leaders who seek what I call a "fascist shift" want to close down an open society, they send paramilitary groups of scary young men out to terrorise citizens. The Blackshirts roamed the Italian countryside beating up communists; the Brownshirts staged violent rallies throughout Germany. This paramilitary force is especially important in a democracy: you need citizens to fear thug violence and so you need thugs who are free from prosecution.

The years following 9/11 have proved a bonanza for America's security contractors, with the Bush administration outsourcing areas of work that traditionally fell to the US military. In the process, contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars have been issued for security work by mercenaries at home and abroad.

This is so blatantly ridiculous I can't believe someone would need to refute it. However, since I work for a Contractor as a Historian for the West Point Museum I'm part of the "Thug Caste" don't believe me, I haven't received my brown shirt yet. Must have gotten lost at UPS.

4. Set up an internal surveillance system

In Mussolini's Italy, in Nazi Germany, in communist East Germany, in communist China - in every closed society - secret police spy on ordinary people and encourage neighbours to spy on neighbours. The Stasi needed to keep only a minority of East Germans under surveillance to convince a majority that they themselves were being watched.


This has been argued ad infinitum, but we can rehash. There was no wiretaps of law abiding American citizens. However, even if you don't believe that and that's fine its your right, Naomi Wolf ignores a HUGE difference between the closed societies she mentions and the US. In her wiretap example she cited the press making the program open. There are no examples of the German Civil Liberties Union in Nazi Germany. There is no Chinese Civil Liberties Union. There is however an American Civil Liberties Union.

5. Harass citizens' groups

The fifth thing you do is related to step four - you infiltrate and harass citizens' groups. It can be trivial: a church in Pasadena, whose minister preached that Jesus was in favour of peace, found itself being investigated by the Internal Revenue Service, while churches that got Republicans out to vote, which is equally illegal under US tax law, have been left alone.


Yes, Yes one church in Pasedena. Meanwhile the REVEREND Al Sharpton had a convention where EVERY Democrat candidate showed up. the REVEREND Jesse Jackson is conveniently left out, as are every black church where the vote goes Democrat. Isn't it interesting how leaving that info out makes the piece seem different.

6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release

This scares people. It is a kind of cat-and-mouse game. Nicholas D Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn, the investigative reporters who wrote China Wakes: the Struggle for the Soul of a Rising Power, describe pro-democracy activists in China, such as Wei Jingsheng, being arrested and released many times. In a closing or closed society there is a "list" of dissidents and opposition leaders: you are targeted in this way once you are on the list, and it is hard to get off the list.

In 2004, America's Transportation Security Administration confirmed that it had a list of passengers who were targeted for security searches or worse if they tried to fly. People who have found themselves on the list? Two middle-aged women peace activists in San Francisco; liberal Senator Edward Kennedy; a member of Venezuela's government - after Venezuela's president had criticised Bush; and thousands of ordinary US citizens.


Since many of us have experience in aviation, I wonder how many of us can seriously swallow the equating of the no-fly list at airports, (The only place this is enforced) and the round up of pro-deocracy activists in China. Is she really trying to have us believe that there is an equivalence to the Gestapo and the TSA?

7. Target key individuals

Threaten civil servants, artists and academics with job loss if they don't toe the line. Mussolini went after the rectors of state universities who did not conform to the fascist line; so did Joseph Goebbels, who purged academics who were not pro-Nazi; so did Chile's Augusto Pinochet; so does the Chinese communist Politburo in punishing pro-democracy students and professors.

Ward Churchill? Noam Chompsky? Are we really to believe she thinks this is going on? I work with academics all the time. If there were pressure on academics I think I might have heard, from the professors and academics I correspond with. Again Wolf Cherry picks a few isolated cases and makes them equates them with Nazi Germany. The firing of 8 attorneys is in no way equivalent to the wholesale purges of the German Civil Service.

8. Control the press

Italy in the 1920s, Germany in the 30s, East Germany in the 50s, Czechoslovakia in the 60s, the Latin American dictatorships in the 70s, China in the 80s and 90s - all dictatorships and would-be dictators target newspapers and journalists. They threaten and harass them in more open societies that they are seeking to close, and they arrest them and worse in societies that have been closed already.

The fact she writes this gives lie to her premise. How can we take her seriously in a time of the internet. Keith Oberman would love to disagree with Wolf on this I suspect. As would Bill Moyers whose new documentary is all about the media and the Bush Administration. Would something so damning be allowed in a Fascist America?

9. Dissent equals treason

Cast dissent as "treason" and criticism as "espionage'. Every closing society does this, just as it elaborates laws that increasingly criminalise certain kinds of speech and expand the definition of "spy" and "traitor". When Bill Keller, the publisher of the New York Times, ran the Lichtblau/Risen stories, Bush called the Times' leaking of classified information "disgraceful", while Republicans in Congress called for Keller to be charged with treason, and rightwing commentators and news outlets kept up the "treason" drumbeat. Some commentators, as Conason noted, reminded readers smugly that one penalty for violating the Espionage Act is execution.


I'm going to be really subtle here so I'm sure I'm going to lose some of you. However, I find it ironic that dissent opinion is lauded, and untouchable It can ot be criticized. However, every one of her examples here is opinion. Has she noted any trials under the Espionage act? No. She hasn't. In the US there HAVE been trails for espionage in the US. under the Alien and Sedition Act. And America has pulled away from that.

I read A lot of dissent on the internet. I'm going to read a lot more dissent in this thread. Please dissenters let me know if you are arrested for treason. I'll admit I was wrong then.

10. Suspend the rule of law

The John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 gave the president new powers over the national guard. This means that in a national emergency - which the president now has enhanced powers to declare - he can send Michigan's militia to enforce a state of emergency that he has declared in Oregon, over the objections of the state's governor and its citizens.


So should there be a chemical or biological attack in Oregon and the Oregon National guard is affected along with the civilian population the President would be able to use unaffected Guard units. However, this example Wolf cited a LAW as an example of the suspension of the law. The tenth example of Wolf manipulating the truth to fit her premise.


The problem with this creed that many of you who are going to respond to it will miss, is that she writes this in such away that those that disagree with her seem to be arguing FOR fascism. It's excellent propaganda. But it's propaganda none the less. Every one of her ten points can be refuted as I have done in fact its not that hard.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 13): But the general readiness by the population's majority to accept torture and other human rights abuses, wars of aggression, imperial delusions and nationalist excesses was shocking and deeply worrying, to say the least.

If that's the case, then the fact that the mainstream American public has started to question whether the current course of action is beneficial (regardless of whether they come to the conclusion that it is or isn't) should be heartening.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 13): I hope there will be a big cleanup in the years to come and it already seems to have begun; But most positive illusions we on the outside once had about the USA have been thoroughly obliterated.

That may be true, and it would be unfortunate, but those relations can be repaired.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 13): The stability of this particular government is indeed something to be worried about, actually. But the stability of the US institutions is not in doubt - yet.

This particular government is on the way out. And the US institutions have survived for a long time, very long indeed when compared to the current governments of much in the world. They have survived a civil war, two world wars, a depression, McCarthyism, the Cold War, etc. They have survived presidents both good and bad. I think that they shall continue to be stable for some time to come.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 10): how dare you not respond with leftist outrage. Don't you realize that Bush is Satan?

Bush is nowhere near Satan. He's got the evil part down, but until he starts getting some of the genius in there as well, any comparison between the two would be unjustified.   

Rove, on the other hand....  

Quoting Klaus (Reply 4): Reply 4

I understand that the USA is an Empire, but what is the source of this quote? I don't deny it's content, or its validity, I just need a source in order to lend it any credence.

Listen, I have a very dear girlfriend who has pictures in her home in BHM, AL of both her great-grandmother with her grandmother, great of which was a royal someone or somesuch in Germany; she also has a picture of one of her uncles, or great-uncles in Nazi uniform. We both have a tempered view of History. I don't doubt the Neo-nazis there are any less intense as the ones we have here. I also understand the USA is truly an empire. I know there is always the potential for the minority to come into authority. I would like to believe that the Founding Fathers of this country understood these things as well. I believe they set out to protect us from such things to the best of their ability from the perspective they had at the time. I also know that we are, as a Nation, far enough removed from the actual experience of anything the like (being ourselves or others suffering) to be complacent. Anyone who thinks Free Speech is unnecessary is WRONG.

Quoting LogansGirl (Reply 17): I understand that the USA is an Empire, but what is the source of this quote? I don't deny it's content, or its validity, I just need a source in order to lend it any credence.

Im not sure what quote you are refering to, but heres a source for the last part of his statement. Im sure you can find other experiments.
http://www.prisonexp.org/

Quoting LogansGirl (Reply 17): I understand that the USA is an Empire, but what is the source of this quote? I don't deny it's content, or its validity, I just need a source in order to lend it any credence.

Sorry, I didn't explicitly add the link again; I was quoting from the article linked to in the thread starter.

Quoting Mir (Reply 16): If that's the case, then the fact that the mainstream American public has started to question whether the current course of action is beneficial (regardless of whether they come to the conclusion that it is or isn't) should be heartening.

Absolutely. But the complete and total failure of all structural safeguards (opposition, press, ...) casts severe doubts on the resilience of the american democratic process which I would not have thought possible before.

Quoting Mir (Reply 16): That may be true, and it would be unfortunate, but those relations can be repaired.

Relations can and almost certainly will be repaired soon after the inauguration of a non-neocon Bush successor; But the somewhat naive trust by default into the strength and role model character of american democracy which many abroad once had has been shattered, probably for good.

Which will remove many of the reasons why the USA found it so easy to get its way on the international stage during most of the post-WWII era. Ugly awakenings out of a honeymoon are not reversible again, usually.

Quoting LogansGirl (Reply 17): I understand that the USA is an Empire, but what is the source of this quote? I don't deny it's content, or its validity, I just need a source in order to lend it any credence.

The text quoted by Klaus was from the article linked by DrDeke the thread starter, it is towards the end of a longish article.

Wonder how many others chose, or will choose to comment without knowing the basis of the discussion.

Personally I have had some of those same concerns for the USA as Ms Wolf writes about, mostly as a distant observer. However I am more optmistic in the role of the "First Amendment" and the checks & balances built into the US system of government to get thru just as it has in previous crises such as McCarthyism, World Wars, Cold War etc.

Cheers

Quoting Klaus (Reply 4): I've seen chilling parallels in the entire propaganda onslaught from the Bush administration from day one, with ever deepening consequences.

Are you intimately knowledgeable with how the average American reacts to such propaganda? As someone who lives here, I hear more people complaining about the Bush administration and offering their criticisims then those supporting Bush or (in my office) actually working.

It would seem to me that many Europeans who aren't in day to day contact with the wide spectrum of Americans all seem to think that we are Orwellian sheep doing everything that we are told, when nothing is farther then the truth. It is not our "facist policies" which make foreigners criticize the US, but our fallible foreign policy.

Believe me Bush propoganda is far from successful and it would seem to me that the world media seems to portray us as being mindless Bush followers which is far from the truth. Perhaps crap propaganda like this article is what leads to global misconceptions and misunderstandings.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 15): UALPHLCS From United States, joined Jun 2001, 3244 posts, RR: 29 Reply 15, posted Tue Apr 24 2007 17:01:10 your local time (1 hour 34 minutes 8 secs ago) and read 101 times:

  

6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release

This scares people. It is a kind of cat-and-mouse game. Nicholas D Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn, the investigative reporters who wrote China Wakes: the Struggle for the Soul of a Rising Power, describe pro-democracy activists in China, such as Wei Jingsheng, being arrested and released many times. In a closing or closed society there is a "list" of dissidents and opposition leaders: you are targeted in this way once you are on the list, and it is hard to get off the list.

In 2004, America's Transportation Security Administration confirmed that it had a list of passengers who were targeted for security searches or worse if they tried to fly. People who have found themselves on the list? Two middle-aged women peace activists in San Francisco; liberal Senator Edward Kennedy; a member of Venezuela's government - after Venezuela's president had criticised Bush; and thousands of ordinary US citizens.

This is pretty typical off all of her points. First she starts with a Fascist society's actions and then attempts to make a parallel that doesn't fit. She notes that in China dissenters were assiduously arrested and released. How the hell does that even lead one to think of the TSA?

As someone who works with the TSA daily, and yes they are a pain in the ass, those who are found to be on the NFL are typically questioned and not allowed to fly on the airplane. If they feel that they are unfairly on the list, they can appeal. I suppose that being forced to take a Greyhound bus or renting a car and drive can be depressing, but it is hardly as repressive as being arrested in China for dissent.

Other people who are on the list- Those who have expressed empathy and sympathy for the 9-11 hitchhikers, known members of Al Quaeda, those who have threatened crew members, those who have acted violently on previous flights, those who call for violent terrorist actions against targets, and those who get drunk and smack the FA's ass.

These are people who SHOULD not be able to fly. And yes I am aware of the mistaken identity cases, but with a relatively easy process, the TSA puts them on the "Cleared" list which I receive in tandom with the NFL everyday.

I'm all for questioning authority, but those who accuse it without proper arguments are just making asses of themselves.

Quoting T773ER (Reply 9): Have you heard of "checks and balances",

I have, and you have, but it's pretty obvious that this President and adminstration has never heard of them, or just doesn't give a shit about them.

I am going to put this down as step 11 even though it should be a 3 or 4.

Disarm the population-take away any methods they would have to stand up to the government.

Clearly the US isn't going that way anytime soon-thank god!!!

Quoting L-188 (Reply 25): am going to put this down as step 11 even though it should be a 3 or 4. Disarm the population-take away any methods they would have to stand up to the government.

Are you kidding me? The one most valid and POWERFUL rights the Founding Fathers of this Country granted us was the Right to bear arms. Just so that we may retain the right to overthrow Tyrants who oppose LIBERTY!!! Are you anti Liberty? Are you pro dictatorship? Even if it means you yourself must live under the laws/rules/regulations ofr someone else's idea of who and what you should be? God Bless the Internet for giving us the ability and opportunitiy to express ourselves. And what (pray, tell) People would have produced such an instrument other than a Free One?

I don't think we're headed toward fascism, but with all the rightie-wingnut useful idiots out there, anything is possible!  

Quoting LogansGirl (Reply 26): Are you kidding me? The one most valid and POWERFUL rights the Founding Fathers of this Country granted us was the Right to bear arms.

I know, that is why I am shocked it didn't make this list.

Quoting Fumanchewd (Reply 23): It would seem to me that many Europeans who aren't in day to day contact with the wide spectrum of Americans all seem to think that we are Orwellian sheep doing everything that we are told, when nothing is farther then the truth. It is not our "facist policies" which make foreigners criticize the US, but our fallible foreign policy.

Best post of this thread.

Quoting Fumanchewd (Reply 23): This is pretty typical off all of her points. First she starts with a Fascist society's actions and then attempts to make a parallel that doesn't fit.

Yes, it's a very common propaganda technique. It allows the author's points to seem reasonable, and any dissension from those points as an argument for something evil.

Take the last point in particular.

As I pointed out in today world there could be a situation in which the National Guard of a state is incapacitated. Causalities in a massive attack. Let's change the example from Oregon to New York. What if a massive dirty bomb went off in NYC. Do you think the NY and NJ Guard could handle the situation? The Guard is pulled fromt ehpopulation, many guard soldiers would be affected by the attack. Would it be reasonable to have PA, CT and MA Units come and help? The LAW she cites as a way of BREACHING the LAW, has a real world reasonable application. As a law filling a gap, how can it be cited as an example of breaching the law?

Could it be used in some illegal fashion? Possibly. Would it be used in the way Wolf describes?

Well, when I read the article in question, the title did not bode well, some parts were over-egged somewhat, but amongst all that were some unpalatable truths, mostly centred on the section on gulags.
As for the writer and when it appeared, it is very likely a syndicated article, which as this thread has shown, will be on the web.
But being 'Cowardly', I'd moderate the use of that insult when you consider the current US administration, many of their most fevered supporters too, are stuffed full of draft dodging chickenhawks-always the worse kind, since they believed in the conflict they made sure they'd avoid.

If Gitmo had been a temporary holding centre, as suspects were investigated and where suitable, sent for trail, it would have been long forgotten.
Now? It destroys US moral conviction. Puts you up there with China, Saudi, Burma even, not to mention places where similar activities take place, under a torture flag of convenience.
It is in fact a great terrorist recruiter.

There WAS a burst of hysterical new generation McCarthyism in the first couple of years after Sept 11th, like the original in the 50's, the main proponents of this were very often poor examples of human beings, McCarthy himself was a half mad drunk.

But, the US is not completely alone here in some respects. Here we've had a battle royal between government and judiciary over proposals such as extended detention without trial (but on UK soil, in the regular prison system with proper legal access).
Most times, the government has had to either cancel or water down proposals.
Whilst you may understand the government's frustration at times, if we are defending a democratic society, you cannot throw the baby out with the bath water.
But, at no stage, have those opposing these proposals, had a concerted government/media barrage aimed at them, one or two columnists, in not to be taken seriously tabloids, might rant, but the general consensus is that they are not traitors or anything like this, try telling the most senior judges and Law Lords they are, few will take you seriously.

If you think that Al Queda or similar pose a threat a tiny fraction of that of Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan or the USSR, you've issues of paranoia.
(How did you cope with the Cold War?)

1940, Britain is under a potential invasion threat, weeks of constant bombing will kill 1000's of civilians, displace over a million, vital supply lines are threatened, including for food.
The Abwehr, Nazi Germany's intelligence/sabotage arm, has a massive effort ranged against the UK.
But, the head of MI5 rules out any use of torture, saying 'I'd rather cut one of my own legs off', despite this, the efforts of Abwehr are a miserable failure, all through the war.
Some ARE interned, we are talking of numbers at most in the low 100's, actually for any length of time, the numbers are in the low 10's.

Virtually all are or were, members of the British Union Of Fascists, under Oswald Mosely.
He, are others, were only interned, for their own safety really, after April 1940, 8 months after the start of WW2. When the Norway campaign had large casualties.
I've seen colour footage of a small BUF march, in early 1940, it was allowed, that is the point.
Later in the war, most of these would be released.

THAT was a situation of real, elemental threat to the nation, not a bigger version of terror attacks which had plagued much of the world for the previous 30+ years.

The consensus now amongst most leading intel agencies, is that my capital city is the most likely to be hit (again), the second biggest, though really directly linked to the former, is LHR.
So, where I socialise mostly (using the transport element attacked in 2005), is the main target, where I work and live right near, being the second.

But like everyone I know, getting on with life is what counts, certainly not raising our collective blood pressure against those who question how the balance of security and freedom can best be preserved. Not descending into paranoia at the slightest thing. Sure, when you see UK born Islamists spouting hate, or plotting terror acts, you get angry, but you are hearing about them since they are known and/or have been caught. The security forces are doing their job then.

No one I know wants anything approaching torture, here or under a flag of convenience, sinister off-shore gulags, wants to see the shouting down of those genuinely seeking to provoke thought, in the name of preserving freedoms for us all. Or seeks to reign in a government that is very scared of the political consequences of another, and/or much bigger attack, as well the actual effects of one, because these people, most often senior political/legal establishment figures themselves, have all our freedoms in mind.

Bush is no Fascist, the article does not pretend to say he is, if not read through a red mist anyway, but he and his administration are careless, over secretive, have a lot to hide most likely (no big plots, just the usual, more examples of their own incompetence).

And no one gives a shit here if any recording artist makes the mildest of political points either, here or abroad, and they do, a lot of them. No mass e-mails, being abusive, including death threats, no record burnings or boycotts, no fat inbred singer mouthing off against those who do.
Even when questioning conflicts where UK forces are fighting, and sometimes dying in.

So, why not get over yourselves, try actually meaning all those platitudes about freedom, free speech etc, being true to them all the time, not just as an excuse to have an arsenal of firearms.
And stop doing Bin Laden's job, in part, for him-what do you think the TERROR part of terrorism means? Clue-it aint about a victory on some battlefield, it's more about modifying the behavior, thoughts and attitudes of the general public in the target country.

Quoting GDB (Reply 31): Bush is no Fascist, the article does not pretend to say he is, if not read through a red mist anyway, but he and his administration are careless, over secretive, have a lot to hide most likely (no big plots, just the usual, more examples of their own incompetence).

Agree on the secretive and incompetent part.. However the article clearly attempts to imply that the US government has Fascist policies which is tantamount to saying that he Bush is a Fascist.

Quoting GDB (Reply 31): So, why not get over yourselves, try actually meaning all those platitudes about freedom, free speech etc, being true to them all the time, not just as an excuse to have an arsenal of firearms.

Disagree. This is a very generalized statement that seems to be implying that we do not exercise our freedoms with responsibility. As I have stated before, many Europeans are equating our foreign policy with all of our policies, which is incorrect. I can understand by saying "freedoms" you perhaps mean freedom to adjust and amend our government to more competent foreign policy (which will happen at the next election), but our general purpose and domestic policy is one that you are not accurately discussing. I suppose that it is true ,in a partial way, that some of us do not revere or practice our freedoms in the proper manner. However, most of us do and you are absolutely incorrect to insinuate the mindless generalization.

Quoting GDB (Reply 31): Bush is no Fascist, the article does not pretend to say he is, if not read through a red mist anyway,

"It is my argument that, beneath our very noses, George Bush and his administration are using time-tested tactics to close down an open society. "

This is the lead sentence of the fifth paragraph.

While she doesn't come out and say "George W. Bush is a Fascist." It is very clear that that is exactly the thought she wants to imply and implant in the minds of her readers. It is her argument as she clearly states.

Quoting GDB (Reply 31): So, why not get over yourselves, try actually meaning all those platitudes about freedom, free speech etc, being true to them all the time, not just as an excuse to have an arsenal of firearms.

I can only assume you mean the personal arsenal of firearms people have in this country. I can tell you that no one in my family including my extended family owns a firearm. Yet those platitudes as you call them are important to us.

If you mean the national arsenal of the military then I would say to you the US is owned a refund for all the money the US taxpayer spent during the Cold War supplementing our allies militarily. Because of the US defense budget Europe was protected from the Soviet Union when it could not afford to maintain a large defense budget due to rebuilding. Japan almost totally depends on the US for it's defense South Korea as well.

In other words Europe, Japan and South Korea's economies have been subsidized by the US taxpayer. Our Military has supplemented your own reinforcing it so that those countries could spend that money elsewhere. Please note how many of the largest economies in the world have thrived under the protection of the US military.

If you think that the platitudes of Freedom are an excuse to support our Military then please begin to pay that money back so we can spend less on our military.

Perhaps it's because you live in a country without a written Constitution as a foundation, but those on the right here in the US see the Constitution as inviolable. True Conservatives as strict constructionists would fight attempts to subvert the Constitution, which is not as easy to do when the law is a written document as it is in a government without a written Constitution.

Are there fears that tyrants could subvert the Constitution. Sure, however, it has defenders on the right and the left in this country. Wolf's accusationis that the right is attempting to subvert it while the left is it's defender is pure propaganda.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 33): those on the right here in the US see the Constitution as inviolable.

Well, I'm on the left, and I consider it to be inviolable as well. That doesn't change the reality that it must continue to undergo interpretation in light of the present. So, depending on who the SCotUS interprets the Consitution, say from generation to generation, the effect of the Constitution may change, even if the wording does not. Just thought I'd throw that out there...

UALPHLCS, no, the article does NOT claim Bush is a fascist, it would be absurd to because he is not of course, it does mention the very different conditions in places where this did happen too.
No, it seems to be more about going down a slippery slope, that one day, you may well regret.
A bit here, a bit there, one day you might get a President who seeks to use these powers in a serious political/domestic crisis of some kind.
The acid test could be, could these new powers prevent a future Woodward and Bernstein from uncovering some criminal activity by a future administration?

I cited the gun issue because that seems to be the only issue when the much cherished US freedoms and constitution really gets played out.
Anyone questioning the Patriot Act was branded a traitor, even if these included veterans or others of impeccable loyalty to the USA.

As for the history lesson, the US post war (and undamaged by that conflict save for direct military casualties), had the happy advantage of what was good for the economy, also being an imperative for the world situation.
Keeping war ravaged Western Europe out of Communist hands was in the direct national interest of the US, military and economic, once isolationism ends, there is no going back.

Last year, the UK paid off the last of the war debt to the US, we paid our way, the UK maintained, even when it often could not really afford to, it's commitments to Western defence throughout. In the 1950's, this blunted the recovery from WW2, including a big effort in Korea, not a former or then colony, no direct linkage to the UK, still, 1000's fought and many died there. All the while the forces were also engaged in preventing communism in Malaya, trying to stem anti Western agitation in the Mid East, providing a large garrison in West Germany.
And FDR always attached strings to aid pre Pearl Harbour, we want this base, or this technology, or access to that market. Of course, this was often politically necessary for him.
But even after the US was in the war, Churchill once had to ask FDR 'Do you want me to beg to you like your pet dog?'

Post war, many agreements were torn up by the US, usually with no warning or consultation.
Not that we are not ungrateful for the huge contribution to WW2, but it was not an act of charity, despite what is so often cited in the US.

Quoting GDB (Reply 35): As for the history lesson, the US post war (and undamaged by that conflict save for direct military casualties), had the happy advantage of what was good for the economy, also being an imperative for the world situation. Keeping war ravaged Western Europe out of Communist hands was in the direct national interest of the US, military and economic, once isolationism ends, there is no going back.

You miss the point.

After the war Europe was able to rebuild channeling money that it would have had to use to maintain a larger military force against the Soviet Union because the US backed Europe up.

Even while the US did this so Europe could have the welfare states they have Europeans criticize the US military expenditures.

So the comment wasn't really about who owed what to whom. It was about the self-righteousness of Europeans who live in a country rebuilt, and protected in large part by the very people and by the very policies they criticize.

Quoting GDB (Reply 35): UALPHLCS, no, the article does NOT claim Bush is a fascist, it would be absurd to because he is not of course,

How can you deny what I quoted. Granted as I said she doesn't explicitly say Bush is a fascist, but she says it implicitly. Besides, calling Bush a fascist is exactly what a LOT of people on the left are explicitly saying. Naomi Wolf merely, and craftily I might add, reinforces what the looney anti-war crowd has been saying since 2000.

Quoting GDB (Reply 35): UALPHLCS, no, the article does NOT claim Bush is a fascist,

GDB, there is a second way to show that your assertion about Naomi Wolf is incorrect that has occurred to me. The title of her article is Fascist America in 10 Easy Steps. She then lays out those 10 steps with example of how, in her mind, the administration has taken those steps.

So if there are ten steps on the road to Fascism in America and The Bush Administration has taken all ten, Naomi Wolf is saying Bush is a Fascist.

You said yourself that that is an absurd conclusion to draw yet there we have it in print.

Well I'm no lawyer, the article seemed to my reading, to be yes, in part political thoughts of someone who most of the world would be seen as someone on the moderate centre-left, but is much more a warning.

So, you think that NATO should have been more like the Warsaw Pact? Jumping to attention at the bidding of the US?
The alliance claiming to prevent smaller nation states from invasion, or at least undue pressure, from a larger one, should mirror at least in part what they were trying to prevent?
What's wrong with this picture?

You and Americans of the same view are just going to have to accept that differences exist, even within allied nations.
Europeans think the same of some aspects of US society-the gun laws being one example, as you think of the some aspects of EU nations-though don't think for a moment that they are in some imagined monolithic bloc.
As a society, the UK is somewhere between the US and average EU model, the Netherlands are not the same as France, Spain is different to Germany.

During the Cold War, virtually all European NATO nations had conscription, had forces that were much larger than they would have been, had the USSR not existed.
Even the UK, with traditionally a smaller professional force, maintained at great cost-financial and to general recovery from utter bankruptcy after WW2, conscription right up to the early 1960's.
Since there were just so many security commitments out there.
The advent of the nuclear 'tripwire' both US and British, ended that. But even then, a peacetime large British Army based in Europe, Germany in this case, was a peacetime anomaly-at least since the time of Waterloo in 1815.

If you think for one moment that the US did what it did with NATO, out of charity, think again.
It greatly benefited the US, economically and security wise, that it was the morally right thing to do was a bonus, that this is so questioned and even resented in some quarters is sad, but hey, we hear a lot of paranoia mixed with hubris these days.

Before going with the usual, tired, simplistic, ill-informed cliches about 'gratitude' , consider the armed forces of the UK, have had only one year since 1945, not engaged in some active combat operations somewhere-1968.
Even the IRA (though they failed to mention it to their many US citizen backers-no wholehearted, unconditional support there in our 'War On Terror' ), were at leadership level, Marxists.

Outside of Europe, when US had thought they could transplant a US style society-at least in part, somewhere where there is no tradition of this-good as it may seem, has always ended in tears.

In fairness, I can think of one instance where the US had just cause to think that others were not pulling their weight, that was in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990's, but no one came out of that looked too good.
Even then, within the constraints of the initial UN operations, the UK provided a big chunk of resources, from an army nowhere near the largest in size.
A change of government, in 1997 (Blair), brought a change in attitude.

Germany of course had to wrestle with taking on the poor, dysfunctional society that had been East Germany, at great economic cost to them,
Of course, it was the right thing to do, not that they were about to turn away from re-unification, it was like England and Scotland suddenly having a long Communist Wales to have to modernise and re-form (or England and Wales having a collapsed Marxist Scotland.
Or even like having say 8-10 equivalents of US States-including industrial biased ones, suddenly renouncing Marxism and joining (or re-joining), the Union.

Had this article been called '10 Steps To A Fascist Britain', I very much doubt there would have been all this vitriol and name calling, some would have thought it's a bit over the top, or too fast and loose with facts maybe, but calling the author a traitor or coward, no, (I'm wiling to bet she's had a fair amount of death threats by chickenhawk keyboard warriors too).

The same newspaper, last year, had an article by their Washington Correspondent, who predicted, a week before the event, the results of the US Mid Terms almost totally correctly.
He also had some unkind words for the Democrats-in their likely unity and exploitation of this new political reality.
He still got a vast barrage of abusive e-mails, 'fuck off limey', 'who are you to tell us what to think?' 'Pinko' 'Commie' etc.

Hmmm, a correspondent cannot report, write articles from the place he is reporting from?
(Though I suppose the idea of foreign news coverage is alien to them).
They of course, would not read the on-line version of a foreign paper normally-unless they were looking for something/someone to abuse-what explains this mindset?
(The reporter did say, after he was proved correct in his assessment of the result, he would ask an apology from many of the senders-some hope!)

I think that if you are so secure in your beliefs, so at ease with who you are, where you live, of your society in general, you'd not indulge in such things.
Maybe it's like a teenage boy, who boasts of his many conquests of girls, when in fact he is still sexually innocent.

then again, I think the Nordic/Scandinavian nations are in general more happy and secure in their society, than many in the UK are, it's all a matter of degrees.

A very interesting and thought provoking thread. I don't have a lot to offer other than this ...

I would be much more happy if I saw fewer "No Way it's happening" comments and at least one "No Way it's going to happen!" What were those Joni Mitchell lyrics? "... you don't know what you've got, til it's gone".

Quoting GDB (Reply 39): You and Americans of the same view are just going to have to accept that differences exist, even within allied nations.

Granted. As I think I mentioned my bringing this up was rhetorical, no one is seriously thinking about asking Europe for some kind of payback. The issue I bring up is not so much a critique of European government policies which seem in large measure to realize that the stability of Europe was guaranteed by the US. My problem is with many in the European press and public who shoot their mouths off and preach to the US about our "militarism" and how the US military is the greatest danger facing the world, while living is a society that was protected by that very military. For example take a look at the comments in the Ronald Reagan thread. Read how the Europeans see Reagan as a militaristic wacko, and give the credit for ending the Cold War to the Russians.

All because they can't look at the hard reality that US military spending bankrupted the USSR in its attempts to keep up. Simplistic I know, The Pope and Lec Walesa also where major contributors and no historical even has a single cause. But they deny a major factor because it's incompatible with their politics.

Quoting GDB (Reply 39): If you think for one moment that the US did what it did with NATO, out of charity, think again.

No oh course not. It was in the US's best interest to have a strong Europe. To help protect itself, to have a wealthy trading partner, to be a united front against the Soviet Union.

Quoting GDB (Reply 39): Had this article been called '10 Steps To A Fascist Britain', I very much doubt there would have been all this vitriol and name calling, some would have thought it's a bit over the top, or too fast and loose with facts maybe, but calling the author a traitor or coward, no, (I'm wiling to bet she's had a fair amount of death threats by chickenhawk keyboard warriors too

I understand those people's anger. I deplore their methods. Some people just aren't articulate. What can I say? I can tell you that you're making a very sweeping generalization. I have found just as many on the left who would take this diatribe from Naomi Wolf hook line and sinker and defend it as truth with blind faith as people on the right who attack it clumsily and embarrassingly.

I never called Wolf a traitor. I do find it interesting she wouldn't have this printed in the US. I refuted her assertions methodically and calmly. Except when I was laughing at their absurdity.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 41): I never called Wolf a traitor. I do find it interesting she wouldn't have this printed in the US. I refuted her assertions methodically and calmly. Except when I was laughing at their absurdity.

But you could have called Naomi Wolf (she of the '150,000 women a year are dying of anorexia' rant) a moron and a lot of people would agree with you that she should go back to Yale or Harvard or wherever it was and demand her rmoney back because the education she was offered was wasted on her. Camille Paglia has plenty to say about this brainless skank.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Wolf

http://www.slate.com/id/45652/

turd

While we are far from a fascist state as even Ms. Wolf acknowledges, she is noting that some human and citizens rights are being eroded in the USA, compounded by fear mongering by President Bush and V.P. Cheney using 9/11 to keep themselves and the Republicans in power. What is happening today needs as some suggested about this article is a new term for what Bush is doing in office.
In support in part of Wolf's points is that President Bush, along with V.P. Cheney, are strong believers in the a concept of an "unitarian" Presidency, that is one where more power is centered around President/Executive branch and less with the Congress. There are a number of examples of how Bush and Cheney try to keep those supporting that concept, some of them noted above. Bush has dismissed significant parts of laws with Constitutionally suspect 'signing statements' claiming that parts of such laws take power away from the President. Another is on the firing of a number of Federal attorneys issue and stonewalling information from his Administration on it. He has found ways to hold back from the public millions of files of the Executive Department, including going back to his Father, from historical review and disclosure, as they may hurt GWB. One group of his most controversial acts is his claiming to be the sole person who can determine who is an 'enemy combatant', their legal rights or not having them, and who gets to stay or leave detention there. Then you have the 'Patriot Act', its renewal and minor revisions with it's terrible conflicts upon our Constitution, passed in massive haste with pressure from the President and a public desperate to prevent a new 9/11 - but instead creating far more problems.
We have had other close calls with Fascism, or greater centralization of power in the Executive with some saying the reforms and expanding of more central Federal powers in the Depression under President Roosevelt were fascist. Reminded by the classic film "All The Kings Men" which just watched as I write this, the movie was a light conceiled fictionalization on one of the closest encounters with a Fascist state. That was in the State of Louisiana in the late 1920's-early 1930's by Huey Long, where one man abused his powers of office to obscene levels. (In real life, as in the movie, Long was assainated by a political opponent).
Yes, we may never see anything like Hitler or Missolini or even Putin here, but if people ignore their part as citizens, they they will get the government they asked for.

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 43): Yes, we may never see anything like Hitler or Missolini or even Putin here, but if people ignore their part as citizens, they they will get the government they asked for.

I couldn't agree more. with this part.

Unfortunately there is little else in your assessment of the Bush Administration, at least, I can agree with.

The assertion I make is that the Democrats and the left and many many members of the media have considered George W. Bush's election in 2000 as illegitimate. Since then there as been efforts made over and over to portray the administration as usurping the Constitution. The Global War on Terror has not helped in this since security precautions necessary to defend ourselves and historically very mild in comparison with other administrations actions, as has been pointed out time and again, have been seen by people like Wolf as further evidence of some kind of coup.

Fact's are had the Florida elections not been challenged and George Bush been elected without the sour taste left in many opponents mouths these articles wouldn't be written.

The War on Terror is seen solely through the prism of the 2000 elections by some people. It is a grave mistake to look at national security through the prism of domestic politics. Yet the Democrats elected officials and the rank and file have been doing just that for several years now.

What stuns me is that we've wasted this much bandwidth talking about this crank, and that anyone in this world would spend any more time with it than they had to.
It's atrocity propaganda of the crudest sort, and you in Europe are being gulled, as you often are when you read something that seems to reflect poorly on your American cousins, you swallow it hook line and sinker.

What the hell happened to critical thinking east of Rockall?

Quoting T773ER (Reply 1): The US is not spiralling into a fascist government

Nope, but only because the citizens 'revolted' and voted in the Democrats. Even then Bush is still acting like he makes the rules (by threatening to veto the spending bill that calls for a withdrawl timeline). It's going to be VERY interesting to see how long this president (whom even his own party is begining to resent) will be able to hold off a time table. If nothing else it's time for W to start thinking about what his actions will do to a Republican candidate. If he keeps this    up we will have an African American or a Woman president elect at the end of '08 (Not that there is anything wrong with them save the fact they are the other lie and cheat party).

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 46): Nope, but only because the citizens 'revolted' and voted in the Democrats.

Those are the ya-hoos that I really worry about turning us into a facist state.

They blame the Republicans for everything wrong, just like the Nazi's blamed the jews for everything.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 47): Those are the ya-hoos that I really worry about turning us into a facist state.

Are you kidding me? At least a woman would be able to have an abortion and people could say what they wanted on the radio. Not that abortion rights are a big problem now, but if the Republicans had their way; the only way a woman would be able to get one would be in a back alley with a wire hanger. Oh, and by the way, the patriot act? Come on; the most fascist piece of legislation in America passed by a Republican majority. How dare you say Democrats are more fascist when most Republicans claim Democrats will make us less safe against attacks if they are elected on '08? Using Republican logic I would think a closed society would be more secure wouldn't it? Your statement is so rife with party line    I don't know why I'm bothering to respond, other then I respect you in mil/space. You need to re-think how much time you spend watching the 700 club, it's rotting your brain. PS, I'm not a Democratic schill, but your argument is so offensive it's the kind of rhetoric that makes democrats look appealing to disenfranchised voters such as myself.

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 48): PS, I'm not a Democratic schill

Damn, could have fooled me!   
But you're right about one thing. Democrats aren't fascists. They are socialists and communists.