Godwin's Law: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probablity of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 100%. "
The reason for the law was that, when such a discussion reached this point, the discussion was effectively over, and whoever had brought it up had lost the argument.
That is to say- people get worked up when they really hate something and begin to compare it to the Nazis or Hitler.
There has been a lot of comparison between that Austrian and the current president of the United States, and this may have promoted Godwin's Law up through the ranks. Plenty of people object to the comparison, for a variety of reasons. But is there more to it than merely 'we hate him so much'? Can some kind of proof be laid out and compared for accuaracy? Get your gag-reflex in check, we're about to see that guy's name a lot.
Hitler: Reichstag Fire
Bush: 9/11, theft of second election
Conclusion: while some believe Bush knew about 9/11 before it happened, and that his second election was fixed, it cannot be proven, so comparing 9/11 to the Reichstag fire is not valid. The Reichstag fire has been called Hitler's enabling moment, where he was assured dictatorship. 9/11 and the ensuing worry about our country's ability to protect itself can be viewed as the reason the second election results were never investigated- many believe the results were tampered with. If Bush somehow continues onward and becomes the dictator of this country, then it's safe to say the comparison is valid, but he hasn't. Yet. The passing similarity of the events is not enough- not a valid comparison.
Hitler: used the media to brainwash the country
Bush: used the media to brainwash the country
Conclusion: Bush does not have direct and exclusive control over the media, although most major media sources do parrot the whitehouse stance on 9/11. There is a full range of news from far right to far left. As with all wars, the CIA has done their job and correctly seeded the media with just what was needed, but that can't be proven- not until 50 years from now when it is revealed that, indeed, the CIA was doing what they have been for decades. Probably true, but yet unprovable.
Hitler: often claimed that god wanted him to rule Germany, and do what he was doing
Bush: often claimed that god told him what to do, encouraged him to be president
Conclusion: there are simply too many quotes in the press and on video to ignore this one, it's valid. The two are both examples of manipulative media-whores.
Hitler: spied on his own countrymen
Bush: spied on his own countrymen
Conclusion: as the media is slowly beginning to reveal, the Bush administration has taken liberties above and beyond that of law enforcement, spying on whomever they saw fit. this comparison is valid.
Hitler: gave riveting, powerful speeches
Bush: gives riveting, powerful speeches
Conclusion: ok, I included this as a joke. Sorry. Back to the comparison.
Hitler: was extremely secretive
Bush: is extremely secretive
Conclusion: this would depend on how much attention you were paying to Bush, and whether you thought that certain evidence or information was something any president should have to divulge- regardless of whether all previous presidents had. This comparison would take a lot of effort to call completely true- assuming anyone caring to think about this kind of thing would want more details, we'll say it's somewhat true.
Hitler: claimed to be one of the regular people 'just like you'
Bush: has used his 'just like you' image to his advantage
Conclusion: I had trouble finding historical references online specifically citing this behaviour, but as the inventor of the Volkswagen, 'the people's car', it's hard to ignore. Just like you, it's true.
Hitler: supporters followed and believed blindly
Bush: supporters follow and believe blindly
Conclusion: Many of Bush's followers will not stop to listen to any truth which makes him look bad whether it is provable or not. However, there is no way to prove the entirety of follower blindness for either leader. The fact that Bush was elected does not prove blind-follower-ness if there is the possibility that the election was rigged (and if it were, his followers wouldn't be blind, they'd be fabrications), so this whole argument is invalid.
Hitler: started a war for political reasons
Bush: started a war for political reasons
Conclusion: While the White House still insists it never lied or misled, it is widely accepted that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The war in Afghanistan which was started "to capture Osama Bin Laden" has ended and Bin Laden has still to be caught, and, in fact, the white house has stopped looking for him. The fact that there really is no connection between Bin Laden and Hussein, Al Qaeda and Iraq is completely ignored in the media- it's sad, really. This comparison stands as true.
Hitler: drastically altered laws to better suit his rule
Bush: drastically altered laws to better 'protect'
Conclusion: Hitler, thanks to the Enabling act of 1934, had complete lawmaking power. In the wake of 9/11, eager lawmakers rushed many alterations of rights and standing laws into the books in the name of better 'protecting' the citizens. Conclusion: valid.
Hitler: vilified Jews (and Many others) as enemies, killed them
Bush: vilified Afghani and Iraqi as enemies, killed them
Conclusion: invalid comparison, even if we accept that the Iraq war of '2004' was started for political gain- our wars haven't been in the name of protecting us since we fought the British off ages ago. The Many were citizens in Germany and other occupied areas, they were singled out in many cases by their own neighbors, rounded up and taken away. The Afghani and Iraqi killed were not and are still not considered USA citizens, they are not rounded up so much as killed like fish in a barrel in an un-matched battle with our gigantic military power- that is, these deaths happened under the guise of war, not secretly in internment camps. Civilian deaths continue to happen, and if they do, now that the 'war' is 'over', they could validate this comparison.
And now, having made that effort, these comparisons, I have to say, Bush is nothing like Hitler. Terrible historical figure or not, Hitler was a smart person who rode a political trend in his nation to its ugly end. Bush is simply a vacuous idiot who neither formulated nor controls any of what is happening- he is an excuse, a diversion, and a disgrace to our great nation.
The Nazi party, however, and our current administration, share likenesses due to the situations they found themselves in and the attitude they held before they ended up there. See also: "The Project for a New American Century". If they aren't cousins with the Nazis, I'll eat my hat. If you do not know what this is, then go look at the site. Read what they say. They are right-wing neocon warmongers- nothing more fancy, well-heeled skinheads. Their website has been up since 10/2001, but they formed in 1997.
The holocaust taught us a valuable lesson- had things gone just slightly differently, the Nazis might have covered up their war crimes. But those we lost have had their story told, and we now know of the atrocities which happened. Just like those who died at the hands of the Nazis, the USA citizens (among others) who perished on 9/11 due to the complicity or inaction of our current Thug regime should have the truth of their passing brought to light, and the perpetrators should be tried and prisoned for their actions.
Godwin's law will have to wait in this case. We've got terribly important things to take care of.