HuffPo Writer: At Least Hitler Meant Well--Unlike Bush

Just when you think the loony left can't get any more deranged and hateful toward George W. Bush, someone comes along and further lowers the bar.

Former Washington Post sportswriter, "Seinfeld" writer and executive co-producer Peter Mehlman did just that today in a Huffington Post article (h/t Ace) which said that President Bush is actually worse than Hitler because at least the German dictator meant well when he was trying to exterminate Jewish people.

Yahoo has a copy which I reproduce here in full just in case someone yanks it from both sites. As is often the case with liberals, Mehlman is incapable of expressing himself without using profanity:

Boy, America has had a lot of shitty presidents. Just take a stroll
down repressed memory land and look at that police line-up from
November 22, 1963 through January 1992. Ford may come out looking the
best of the bunch and he was widely acknowledged to be unable to walk
and chew gum. (Wisely, his advisors encouraged him to sit while

And really, Clinton could have been a lot better too.

So now we're six and a half years into Bush and everyone from Helen
Thomas on down is declaring him the worst president ever. What no one
is saying is the one overarching reason he's the worst: the Bush
administration is the first that doesn't even mean well.

With the possible exception of immigration reform -- and who knows
what grotesque financial incentive underlies that -- try to pinpoint
even one policy motivated by the desire to lessen human suffering, to
improve the life of citizens. Nothing. There is nothing.

As much as Democrats loathed Nixon, there was no denying he had some
noble goals. He tried for universal health care and... I'm pretty sure
there were other things.

As much as Republicans loathed Clinton, they had to know he cared
about people. Amazing how his "I feel your pain" quality became such a
disdainful joke. That sounds like a good quality in a president.

Even with the low poll numbers, liberals still feel stymied in
conveying just how bad this administration is. It's been the ultimate
frustration to consider the people who don't see Bush's malevolence: In
2004, rural America cited national security as their number one reason
for voting for Bush. But people in the major cities, where there's
actually a chance of being victimized by terrorism, people voted
against Bush. Frustrating. In the cities, where most people are utterly
at two with nature, people cited Bush's raping of the environment as a
major reason to vote against him. In rural America, where people fish
and hunt and generally do things outside, they voted for Bush. Sooooo
frustrating. On Sutton Place and in Harvard-Westlake, where kids go to
college after high school, they vote against Bush. In rural America,
from where the majority of tragically killed kids in Iraq soldiers come, they vote for Bush.

You could argue that even the world's worst fascist dictators at
least meant well. They honestly thought were doing good things for
their countries by suppressing blacks/eliminating Jews/eradicating free
enterprise/repressing individual thought/killing off rivals/invading
neighbors, etc. Only the Saudi royal family is driven by the same
motives as Bush, but they were already entrenched. Bush set a new
precedent. He came into office with the attitude of "I'm so tired of
the public good. What about my good? What about my rich friends' good?"

How can anyone not see it? It's not that their policies have been
misguided or haven't played out right. They. Don't. Even. Mean. Well.

I don't think it's too far to say that this type of thinking is what gets people lead into the gas chambers. It is nothing less than a systematic attempt to dehumanize anyone who dares to disagree with a world view which for all its rhetoric of tolerance and inclusiveness has components which jump for joy if a prominent Republican politician were decapitated on live television. This schmuck would probably hold the knife.

Iraq Online Media History
Matthew Sheffield's picture