There is a long held Internet rule (first applied to Usenet and email listserve discussions) that, in a heated argument, the first person to mention Hitler automatically loses--it's just so predictable and unimaginative. I certainly think it can now be applied to blogs as well, if not human discourse in general. So:

You lose.

Loser.

If you are going to be talking in Israel about why US alliance is important, my guess is that the subject of "never again" might come up (especially given the tone of comments from Iran, and Hamas), and when it does come up, I think some reference to 1930's Germany might come up.

The issue of calling people Nazis when you are talking about something completely unrelated to Nazis is problematic. But Iran is acting like the Germans were acting - or they are saying similar things anyway.

I don't suppose you are at all familiar with the types of things that the Germans - the Nazis in particular - said about the Jews in the 1930s. I wouldn't be surprised to find that you never heard of Krystalnacht. While you probably know the name Auschwitz, I would be surprised if you could name 4 other death camps without access to Google. (Dachau, Bergan-Belsan, Buchenwald, Chelmno, ... can you name any others?)

You really need to come to grips with the fact that the Nazis did exist, they did aim to exterminate the Jews, and the Iranian government has stated its goal is to follow in those footsteps. Talking about this, doesn't make anyone a loser.

Saying you can't talk about Nazis and antisemitism in the world today, does make you a loser.

Well, the President was giving a speech and making a salient point. He wasn't in a "heated argument".

Funny thing, Hitler is actually a relevant topic when speaking before a crowd of Jews.

Now it's the Dems who've started a heated argument over...nothing, really.

So:

Being as you're the first person to mention Hitler in a blog comment, not me, that makes you the loser.

Or a dumbass. Take your pick.

Huh, great minds think alike... or something.

Couldn't have said it better myself, Gary.

Wah, Wah, wah...My feeeeelllllinnngss are hurt. That's what I'm hearing from Sen Obama. President Bush was reiterating a theme from time immoral.

And suddenly, Sen Obama, Sen Clinton and the rest of the Democrat Politburo crying their feelings were hurt, false political attacks, etc. Well, if the President of the US can't show any backbone abroad, then the Democrats need to rethink why they are running for President.

Obama-Maud'Dib has really thin skin. He takes every damn thing personally. What a douche!

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/15/bush-suggests-obama-wants-appeasement-of-terrorists/

The president did not name Obama or any other Democrat, but White House aides privately acknowledged the remarks were aimed at the presidential candidate and others in his party.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/05/16/bush_warns_of_talks_with_radicals/

White House officials indicated that the criticism applied to Obama, who has said that as president he would rely on greater diplomacy to improve relations with unfriendly nations.

Oh no! Diplomacy!? Like what Reagan did with the Soviet Union!? How terrifying!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24650494#24650494

"Privately, White House officials said the shoe fits the Democratic frontrunner."

So someone’s lying:
A) either the White House in their official denials or
B) the White House in their off-the-record remarks or
C) the various press outlets claiming to have gotten the off-the-record remarks.

But if it’s the last option, why hasn’t the White House denounced those off-the-record remarks and demanded the press reveal their sources since, in that case, there are no sources? They’re claiming no one in this administration gave those off-the-record remarks. So if they’re not real they’d undoubtedly want to clear that up right quick.

In other words, the only one that makes sense? The White House is lying when they claim Bush wasn’t talking about Obama.

How unusual. Leave a flaming bag of shit on the doorstep, ring the bell and run away.

Oh, B-O-O H-O-O.

If Obama's going to act like a thin-skinned little pussy just because his foreign policy naivety is called into question, he has no business running for President.

Face it, we're looking at Carter II here.

The same foreign policy--"talk to other countries"--that Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan all held?

Wow! I can't believe you called Reagan a pussy.

Um, Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan "talked" to the Soviet Union and China. And in each case with preconditions and from a position of strength.

Reagan didn't talk to tin-pot dictators like Khadaffi. He just shut him up but good. With airpower.

Obama isn't a pussy because because of his foreign policy expertise (or, rather, lack thereof). He's a pussy for whining when he's on the receiving end of a little criticism. Go re-read what I wrote, pinhead.

You don't hear Bush pissing and moaning like a little bitch when Obama hits him for "cowboy diplomacy".

If this tool can dish it out and not be able to take it he's in no way qualified to be President. Even some voters in his own party can see that.

Um, Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan "talked" to the Soviet Union and China. And in each case with preconditions and from a position of strength.

So...in other words, just what Obama's saying he'd do? Gracious. No wonder you're so upset!

Oh...wait...

Reagan didn't talk to tin-pot dictators like Khadaffi. He just shut him up but good. With airpower.

Um...that'd be the same Khadaffi who's still in power? Yeah, good call, Gary. Boy, did Reagan show him!

But now I'm confused. Are you saying Iran's not a serious threat? So you completely disagree with what John McCain said? And if it's not a serious threat, why are we so scared of 'em?

You don't hear Bush pissing and moaning like a little bitch when Obama hits him for "cowboy diplomacy".

Of course not. He's too much of a coward, so he hides behind "anonymous White House officials."

I love how you don't even bother to argue that the White House didn't lie. Even its most ardent supporters can't deny it anymore. It's just business as usual for this adminstration. What amazes me is that you're fine with that.

Khadaffi is in power but has been hiding in a hole for the last twenty years. His claim on the Gulf of Sidra was withdrawn and he ceased to be a concern. Actually, that worked out pretty well.

Is "Bush Lied" a Torette's-like tic with you guys are something?

Or do you just throw that one in when you want to change the subject?

Obama is ready to sit down with Ahmadinajad and ask "what can the U.S. do to make you happy so you won't pursue nuclear weapons technology?"

And Hamas just can't wait to have a friend in the White House.