The administration that cried "Hitler"
Glenn Greenwald wrote a great post yesterday about the administration's (and their supporters') insistence on casting every dime-store despot as Hitler these days. One of the things that drives me bonkers about this shit is that, when someone vaguely rational tries to draw a distinction between a guy like Saddam, for example, and Hitler, s/he is automatically cast as an appeaser, with no regard for important (and really not all that subtle) nuances like scope and the baseline capacity to engage in the sort of large-scale tyranny and destruction exacted by Hitler.
Intent notwithstanding, there's got to be some kind of regard for the means to realize that intent. The lying scumbags currently running this nation know that, which is why, even though Iraq didn't have the tools, and neither does Iran, they make all kinds of mendacious claims to attempt to create an illusion to the contrary. No one knows better than they do that--at minimum--the faÃƒÂ§ade of such means is a key component to selling the necessity of a war. It's so indicative of what opportunistic and dishonest bastards they are that while casting as spineless traitors any dissenters who point out that ability to act on intent is an important consideration in the decision to go to war, they simultaneously trump up the appearance of such ability to bolster their case.
Saddam Hussein and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are indecent, maniacal fuckwits, but that doesn't mean they were/are a threat to Americans even if they want(ed) to be. The administration didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t sell the Iraq war as a humanitarian intervention to protect the people most likely to suffer at the hand of Saddam--his own people--but as a preemptive strike against a nation that both intended and had the ability to harm the American people. Iran is now the same story. And once again, they're not selling it as a rescue mission on behalf of Iranians (or even Israelis), but as an American national security concern, which is patently false.