It is truly sad that the practice of invoking Nazism has become entirely commonplace. I know this is not scientific, but it is revealing. Doing a few Google searches:

Bush + Hitler = 2,590,000 pages
Clinton + Hitler = 2,180,000 pages
Republican + Hitler = 1,920,000 pages
Democrat + Hitler = 2,200,000 pages

If you sum the associations for Bush or Republicans and compare those for Clinton or Democrats, both are well over 4 million web hits and they differ from one another by only 3% as to which side is associated with Hitler more often.

Of course, this analysis does not take into account whether the association stated in the web page is being made in an accusatory case (in which similarity is asserted) or a defensive case (in which the accusation is decried or denied). Either way, it simply is happening far too often for civilized discourse and I think both sides fall into it far too easily.

Unfortunately, the RWNM has such an ability to dominate the mainstream discourse that the situation Glenn points out has arisen. Use of the term by the left is loudly villainized but given a nearly free pass by the neocons.

This appears to me to be a failure not just of those organizations with the noble task of preserving the cultural memory of one of civilization's greatest failures, but of our civilization itself in allowing the event to be trivialized. Historians will remind us that such trivialization is the first step to forgetting. Forgetting inevitably leads to repeating.

How close are we?

How do we step back from the brink?

The hallmark of Bush cronyism is to award massive contracts to the biggest, most powerful allies. KBR is probably the poster example, with its massive contracts for infrastructure and its obvious ties to Cheney. There is ample evidence these contracts were not bid, excluded other, more qualified, firms and are full of graft. Bush in a nutshell.

Why then, are the operational (combat) contractors divided up into nearly 200 companies? Blackwater is the largest, but most estimates I have read place their armed operatives in Iraq at less than 1,000. With this article citing 48,000 armed operatives, why split them up into such small groups and small contracts? Obviously, such splintering creates massive problems in logistics and control, as nearly 200 command structures and individual "contracts" are involved.

What is the driving reason behind the choice of such an obviously inefficient system? I can think of two possibilities, but neither seems totally satisfactory.

Is there a genuine fear that a large, single mercenary company would be capable of turning back on us? If driven purely by profit, could they be bought off?

Is this simply driven by the desire to keep the operations of these groups "below the radar"? By keeping them small, do the planners think this will keep the public from noticing what is really going on?

Like I said, neither of these explanations seem satisfying. Anyone have a better one?

I still go back to bin Laden's stated goal, from several of his communications in 2003 and 2004, where he makes it clear that his strategy is to engage the US in prolonged conflict in the Middle East. Based on his view of the downfall of the Soviet Union coming about from their over-extension in Afgahnistan, his point has some credibility. Many add that this collapse also was hastened by Reagan's massive military build-up that the Soviets tried to match, and it seems likely that both factors weighed heavily in the final outcome.

Sadly, Bush continues to play directly into this strategy, extending operations in Iraq beyond all reason. He continues to stretch the military near breaking, continues to provide massive recruitment incentives for al Qaeda and now wants to show more manliness by attacking Iran. All of this can be argued to be nothing more than giving in to this irrational fear and the need to be "manly" in the face of it.

I've seen no rational description of just how this band of poorly equipped and loosely organized fanatics can place our country in existential danger.

Of course, true courage would be to broker a peaceful Iraq withdrawal, engage in dialogue with Muslims to marginalize fanatics and move ahead with a domestic agenda while allowing small groups of special forces and intelligence agencies to pursue the operatives plotting against us.

Confession time: I must admit to a little venting that proved cathartic during the September 15 antiwar demonstration in Washington. When we reached the pathetically small band of counter-protesters, I couldn't resist shouting "Look, behind you, a terrorist!", followed by my best "girly-scream" and "Aw, look, they wet their pants". Childish, I know, but very fulfilling.