HuffPo genius on Bush: At least Hitler and Stalin meant well

posted at 3:54 pm on June 24, 2007 by Allahpundit

And Bin Laden too by extension, of course. Tom Elia’s all over it. The author is Peter Mehlman, former co-executive producer and writer of “Seinfeld.” No doubt he’ll be reminding people of that fact shortly when he’s called on this and tries to play it off as a joke.

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.

In other words, whereas Hitler at least intended to usher in a golden, if Jew-free, age, Bush has never aspired to anything grander than wrecking everything he touches. What you’re seeing here is the ne plus ultra of leftist argumentation, where every policy disagreement devolves inevitably into accusations of bad faith and suspicions of ulterior motive. That’s why they’ve always been a bit uneasy with the “Bush is incompetent” meme, true though it may be: incompetence doesn’t speak to motive. It’s perfectly consistent to believe that Bush wanted to build a liberal democracy in Iraq but cocked up the planning so badly as to make it impossible; it’s not consistent if you also believe, as a matter of faith, that conservatives must and can only be motivated by greed or malice. That’s why Sullivan, for instance, has to resort to gobsmackingly vile shinola about “the Likud strategy” to square the circle. Sure they’ve made a mess of things — intentionally, to justify genocide. Which, ironically, by Mehlman’s lights, would constitute “meaning well.”

He’s also got some kind things to say about Republican voters and the immigration bill, which of course he suspects is motivated in Bush’s case by some hideous financial plot but not in, say, Ted Kennedy’s case, since he’s just “doin’ it for the people” or whatever.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Yeah another outberak of the “Hollywood Stupids”. Someone should notify the CDC.

Mindcrime on June 24, 2007 at 3:58 PM

Seung-Hui Cho meant well too.

csdeven on June 24, 2007 at 3:59 PM

It’s almost funny if it were just rhetoric, but you know this fool and his readers actually believe it. I take it back, it’s not almost funny, it is funny. I know it’s not politically correct to laugh at the mentally ill, but there it is.

Dash on June 24, 2007 at 4:06 PM

Look at the comments at huffpo. These people are nuts. Certifiably. Dear lord….

middleroad on June 24, 2007 at 4:13 PM

Yeesh. For the thousandth time: if Bush were anything like Stalin or Hitler, there would be no HuffPo, and all those breaking their arms trying to pat themselves on the back for “speaking Truth to Power” would all be spending time in “happy camps” instead of posting deranged screeds on the net.

Citizen Duck on June 24, 2007 at 4:22 PM

I don’t care if he means well or not, I care what he does.

Taxes, good. Destroying Taliban, initially, good. Opposing human embryo research on the government [people’s] dime, good.

Immigration, disaster. Understanding Islam, disaster. Iraq strategy, pretty damned bad. Rules of engagement, ludicrous and sucidal.

The road to hell is paved with well-meaning lunacies.

I’ll take someone who defends our country and Western Civilization, however he “means” it, over a do-gooding delusional multicultural sucidal fool with the “best intentions”.

Seinfeld writers should stick to New Yawka and Son of Sam jokes, and not dip into the Swiftian well with such a leaky bucket.

profitsbeard on June 24, 2007 at 4:33 PM

BDS to the power of 10.

infidel4life on June 24, 2007 at 4:44 PM

What is wrong with the Jews in entertainment? Do they have selective memory? I mean really!

Glynn on June 24, 2007 at 4:45 PM

I voted for Bush both times and I don’t consider him to be the sharpest tool in the shed but he prevented Al Gore and John Kerry from becoming President.

repvoter on June 24, 2007 at 4:49 PM

So is this the kind of thing that John Podesta thinks is in the “public good” to be on the airwaves?

WisCon on June 24, 2007 at 4:51 PM

Hey Allah, kinda reminds me of Blair’s speech against the media.

You remember this, right?

Bad Candy on June 24, 2007 at 4:53 PM

I’ll never watch Seinfeld again.

Halley on June 24, 2007 at 4:58 PM

Mehlman violated Godwin’s Law before he even posted it.

Carvin Guitar Man on June 24, 2007 at 4:58 PM

Hey, does Tom Lantos know about this yet?

Carvin Guitar Man on June 24, 2007 at 5:00 PM

What is wrong with the Jews in entertainment? Do they have selective memory? I mean really!

Glynn on June 24, 2007 at 4:45 PM

My theory is that they think that thinking of themselves as Jews is small-minded and particularist. Unless, of course, the Christianist ghost rears its ugly head. Not that I’m cynical.

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on June 24, 2007 at 5:03 PM

Look at the comments at huffpo. These people are nuts. Certifiably. Dear lord….

Oh no, no. Those are all right wingers, registered to comment at Huff Po and lined up, waiting for the signal, to say stupid, disgusting things and make the left look bad.

Just ask them, they’ll tell you.

Pablo on June 24, 2007 at 5:05 PM

This site is barely better

tomas on June 24, 2007 at 5:10 PM

Wow! That guy,

Peter Mehlman, former co-executive producer and writer of “Seinfeld.”

is ate up with hate! He’s probably a candidate for an exorcism.

Zorro on June 24, 2007 at 5:12 PM

Hitler and Stalin killed all their enemies. Mehlman is still alive trying to write network sitcoms. I suppose Bush is more cruel to his enemies, after all.

WasatchMan on June 24, 2007 at 5:15 PM

tomas on June 24, 2007 at 5:10 PM

Aww, is someone still sour about people not grabbing ankle for amnesty?

Pathetic. You compare a guy who pre-Godwin’s himself to people who oppose amnesty, who I have yet to see Godwin.

Bad Candy on June 24, 2007 at 5:25 PM

I swear, the only way to really be subversive anymore is to say something supportive of Bush. =\

ZK on June 24, 2007 at 5:25 PM

You all call him every name in the book just about…so you don’t have the right to complain about the left. You lost that.

tomas on June 24, 2007 at 5:29 PM

Godwinning yourself is on a different plane all together tomas, and you bloody well know it, and Bush hasn’t been called anything as bad here as what the left has dropped on a daily basis. This guy seems to be doing his best to go beyond Godwinning.

Bad Candy on June 24, 2007 at 5:32 PM

I perfectly confident in my opinion. I warned you guys about losing the high road and you have. You may win, but you have truly lost Anakin.

tomas on June 24, 2007 at 5:41 PM

Wow, that’s absolutely apalling. These libs really do have psychological problems.

CP on June 24, 2007 at 5:45 PM

I perfectly confident in my opinion. I warned you guys about losing the high road and you have. You may win, but you have truly lost Anakin.

tomas on June 24, 2007 at 5:41 PM

FAIL.

Bad Candy on June 24, 2007 at 5:55 PM

If Hitler had been just a little more competent and had a little bit stronger cryptography, this turd might well not even be here today mouthing such stupidity. I don’t suppose that ever crossed his mind eh?

But it would have been for a good cause, so that makes it OK.

Purple Avenger on June 24, 2007 at 5:57 PM

Oh noooz! We lost the high road!

I’m convinced. I’ll overlook any hideous act of malfeasance in order to keep the high road.

Lehosh on June 24, 2007 at 6:16 PM

I perfectly confident in my opinion. I warned you guys about losing the high road and you have. You may win, but you have truly lost Anakin.

tomas on June 24, 2007 at 5:41 PM

“Does anyone care what this guy thinks?”

“NO!”

WisCon on June 24, 2007 at 6:19 PM

Seung-Hui Cho meant well too.

csdeven on June 24, 2007 at 3:59 PM

Of course he did. Because you know, of course, no non-white/non-American/non-Christian/female/homosexual ever has bad intentions, no matter how wretched, ugly and evil the results are.

Just ask O.J. Simpson or Bobby Cutts–If They Did It.

baldilocks on June 24, 2007 at 6:27 PM

Did any one else catch this from Mehlman’s post?

In rural America, from where the majority of tragically killed kids in Iraq soldiers come, they vote for Bush.

Funny, I was always told by the Left that the military was made up mostly of poor minorities from the inner cities.

Vinnie on June 24, 2007 at 6:46 PM

This sounds similar to Margaret Cho and her “joke” about the President: He isn’t Hitler, but he could be if he f*king applied himself.

Mallard T. Drake on June 24, 2007 at 6:49 PM

Oh Yeah Melman. Heres some blowback forya! These claims must be true too cause I found them on the internets.

sonnyspats1 on June 24, 2007 at 6:51 PM

Mehlman schmehlmen !

sonnyspats1 on June 24, 2007 at 6:52 PM

Just more liberal mental masturbation. Obviously Bush isn’t really a dictator, because they aren’t cozying up to him like they do with Castro or Chavez or any other real tyrant they can find.

ReubenJCogburn on June 24, 2007 at 6:54 PM

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.

From Melman’s “essay.”

Dear President Bush: The left will never accept you, even when you champion one of their causes. They will always distrust your motives. Please come back to your base.

Mallard T. Drake on June 24, 2007 at 6:54 PM

I’ll never watch Seinfeld again.

Halley on June 24, 2007 at 4:58 PM

Ditto

Wade on June 24, 2007 at 7:23 PM

Dear President Bush: The left will never accept you, even when you champion one of their causes. They will always distrust your motives. Please come back to your base.

Mallard T. Drake on June 24, 2007 at 6:54 PM

Even if he came back, could anyone ever trust Benedict Boosh again? Not me.

Wade on June 24, 2007 at 7:29 PM

This is why I would rather take the side of the conservatives rather than the liberals of our age. Conservatives may call liberals naive, ignorant, communists or traitors. Liberals, however, constantly paint their political rivals as evil.

How can any moderate take such a stance seriously? Fine, you don’t like Bush’s policies, but do you have to go the extra mile of insanity to compare him with the worst dictators of our time?

Also, Mehlman, if you’re going to go that route, you would probably be better served painting Cheney as the evil one instead of Bush. From everything known about Bush, he does not fit that role at all. Cheney, however, has been ingrained in Washington since the Nixon era gave him a foothold. Nixon. Hello?? Who’s more likely evil, a Nixon-fellow or some rich Texan who thought it would be cool to be president like his dad?

If you’re going to write fiction based on real events, at least try to make it plausible.

Seixon on June 24, 2007 at 8:11 PM

Yeesh. For the thousandth time: if Bush were anything like Stalin or Hitler, there would be no HuffPo, and all those breaking their arms trying to pat themselves on the back for “speaking Truth to Power” would all be spending time in “happy camps” instead of posting deranged screeds on the net.

Citizen Duck on June 24, 2007 at 4:22 PM

With one exception, they wouldn’t be in the “happy camps” – they’d be with their head behind a tree and a bullet in it, with no trial, just because purges were cool.

Seixon, you started out good…then…

tomas is blind love to Bush 43 as csdeven is blind anti-love to F. Thompson.

Entelechy on June 24, 2007 at 8:18 PM

You all call him every name in the book just about…so you don’t have the right to complain about the left. You lost that.

Every name in the book? Inlcuding Hitler and Stalin? I don’t think so. Only a leftist like yourself could trivialise the lives of 126 million plus without the slightest twinge of sanity. And to think this is the same crowd that whines about “dispropionate response” when Israel tries to defend itself. You should relocate to the planet Earth although you may have trouble assimilating.

aengus on June 24, 2007 at 8:37 PM

I don’t remember who said this but it went something like

“If there is no tolerance of the distinction between good and evil soon there will be tolerance of evil”

Now Hitler and Stalin are really just mis-understood who meant well while democracies are just evil. This is disturbing.

Defector01 on June 24, 2007 at 9:13 PM

Your defenses ring hollow….it is probably too late to redeem yourselves.

tomas on June 24, 2007 at 9:47 PM

See, I knew it…thankless bastards

http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070624/NATION/106240047/1002

No concept of right and wrong.

tomas on June 24, 2007 at 10:03 PM

I can’t believe Ken Mehlman said those things

Levy on June 24, 2007 at 10:07 PM

Your defenses ring hollow….it is probably too late to redeem yourselves.

If our defenses ring hollow they why not crush us completely by actually responding to our comments? Is that so hard? I posted a comment mocking you and your ideas and you haven’t responded to it. Maybe liberal ideas are so inherently superior that they don’t need to be defended or even discussed.

aengus on June 24, 2007 at 10:19 PM

I can’t believe Ken Mehlman said those things

Levy on June 24, 2007 at 10:07 PM

HA! Maybe he’s a bit disgruntled after leaving the RNC, Levy.

Love Halftime Report, for the record.

Bad Candy on June 24, 2007 at 10:29 PM

See, I knew it…thankless bastards

I don’t get it Tomas. You say that we have called Bush the same kind of names that the left does. Yet you link to a story where republicans disagree with the president but did not call him one single name… What’s your point? Not to mention that the whole story disproves the lib lie that conservatives follow the president lockstep.

Gwillie on June 24, 2007 at 10:38 PM

I’ll never watch Seinfeld again.

Halley on June 24, 2007 at 4:58 PM

I never watched it before.

Hey Levy? When you were in L.A. a couple of weeks ago, was that to consult for THHNH or your own show on the Breitbart.TV network?

Would be a shame if the answer was “neither.”

ScottMcC on June 24, 2007 at 10:40 PM

Levy -Ha!

Bush as Hitler, I have never heard that before. Original.

Stormy70 on June 24, 2007 at 10:52 PM

If you Google “democide,” you’ll find R. J. Rummel’s site. He is probably the world’s expert on government’s killing people–having spent his life studying the issue.
His estimates are that four leftist leaders killed about 130 million people in the 20th Century. They are Mao Tse-tung (77 million), Joseph Stalin (43 million), Vladimir Lenin (4 million), and Pol Pot (2 million).
They were, as Mehlman says, true believers who thought they were doing good and that the ends justified the means. Ironically, that is still the progressives’ position today.
They ignore all evidence to the contrary that their philosophy doesn’t work for people are mainly built to work for their own self-interests. (Note Ted Kennedy’s attempt to kill the building of ocean wind generators near his estate.) Progressive ignore, too, the damage they are still doing. For example, more than 10 million Africans have died because of the progressive’s feel good DDT ban.
Indeed, despite the fact that about 90 percent of media people support the Democratic party (according to the recent analysis of political contributions), and the government supports NPR (which has been called “Demi-TASS.”), Mehman and his ilk are now trying to destroy talk radio and Fox news.
Despite the fact there is about a 6 to 1 ratio of Democratic college professors to Republicans, progressives are also attempting to destroy free speech on campus and in the work place. (Read George Will’s column today about the Oakland speech police.)
So now we know what progressive means: 1) progressive muzzling–which, of course, is the position your true believer opponent takes when he can’t out argue you and 2) retrogressive, unworkable social policies forced down your throat for your own good (as progressives see it). (Note the Massachusetts legislature’s recent refusal to allow citizens to vote on the gay marriage issue.) (An issue, which incidentally, I would support, but which still should be voted on.)
Joseph Stalin called progressives “useful idiots.” And Citizen Duck above is right. Had Stalin won, he would have hanged them from trees. I call them “dangerous idiots,” or doctrinAIReHEADS. If radical Islam wins, they will most certainly lose their heads. But they will cost us ours also.

Dr. Charles G. Waugh on June 24, 2007 at 11:28 PM

Bad Candy – thanks!

ScottMcC – shamefully, neither!

Oh, and me actually being somewhat serious about this here!

Levy on June 25, 2007 at 12:17 AM

Levy, great work on “meaining well”. So did Milosovich, Che, the ‘leaders’ in Dharfur, Rwanda, Burma/Myanmar, Somalia, Uganda…so do Messrs Putin and Chavez – they all ‘mean well’.

This is such an insult to all the victims of these monsters and their families. Where is the well-meaning of the human rights defenders from the Left?

Entelechy on June 25, 2007 at 1:26 AM

Sorry – s/b “meaning well”

Entelechy on June 25, 2007 at 1:27 AM

Dr. Charles G. Waugh on June 24, 2007 at 11:28 PM

Excellent comment Dr. Waugh – now, if only we could convey this to them.

Entelechy on June 25, 2007 at 1:35 AM

This is such an insult to all the victims of these monsters and their families. Where is the well-meaning of the human rights defenders from the Left?

Entelechy on June 25, 2007 at 1:26 AM

Apparently they think that Muslims “mean well” in their subjugation of women too, given the utter silence from the Left on that issue. Of course, standing up for the rights of millions of Muslim women who aren’t even allowed to go to school would require that liberals not be consummate hypocrites. So of course it’ll never happen.

ReubenJCogburn on June 25, 2007 at 1:47 AM

aengus on June 24, 2007 at 8:37 PM

tomas isn’t a leftist. He’s a consummate Bushbot and/or an Oval Office sock puppet!

Lehosh on June 25, 2007 at 7:09 AM

We need to impeach el president Benedict Bush he is bought, paid and…what a liberal called him hitler…why how dare they.

nuff said

tomas on June 25, 2007 at 7:26 AM

In one sense, Bush did live up to his promise of being a “uniter not a divider”.

Ann NY on June 25, 2007 at 10:29 AM

As much as I hate the famous Jew-killers (remember the Russian pogroms?), that point is very valid.

Hitler saw his people being stomped on by angry Allied nations and wanted to bring them back to glory. By stealing and murder, yes, but that was how the Nazis were legally elected to power – by providing the nation with jobs and food and housing.

Stalin thought that everyone could just share everything. Unfortunately he forgot about human nature, never mind his incessant purges.

But Bush? What the heck is he thinking?!

Dark-Star on June 25, 2007 at 11:56 AM

Stand back, the purges of those who oppose El Presidente are sure to be a bloody mess, making Hitler and Stalin look peaceful in comparison.

Or, you know… maybe not. Maybe this is completely retarded, and a better example for liberal stupidity is hard to find.

But I’m pretty sure it’s one or the other. Liberals, are you worried about Bush’s Military pulling an Elian and yanking you from your beds at gunpoint; or is this just masturbating about how you think you’d want to feel if you really got to face evil?

It seems it’s got to be one or the other. I doubt it’s the evil pogrom of those who oppose Bush (as I’ve seen no running, screaming, or blood in the streets) so I’m going to guess stupidity.

But hey, keep this up and maybe you can beat Bush in the upcoming election. Just act as completely unhinged crazy hateful psychotic as possible; and just maybe you can Stop Bush from being President past the 2008 election. Please bring your A-game crazy to the party for this one, to show the voters how much you really hate Bush and why he shouldn’t be re-elected.

gekkobear on June 25, 2007 at 1:18 PM

Why are you defending Bush? The left is clearly nuts and can’t get enough of talking about this guy, but I have had enough of him. I have voted for him twice, supported the Republican party for 30 years, contributed and done everything I can to promote the conservative cause of little taxes, small government and generally being left alone. Yet between Bush and the Republican congress I feel that I have been left alone on an empty beach. None of them listen and they all seem to have an agenda that is only slightly different from the Dems. With Bush recently giving the finger to us, not to mention all of his other failures as a president, why are you concerned what the left has to say about him? In fact, lets join them.

davidcaskey on June 25, 2007 at 2:23 PM

Dark-Star on June 25, 2007 at 11:56 AM

What on earth are you thinking? How did killing Jews hurt the Allied nations or bring Germany back to power?

Never mind his incessant purges?

Unbelievable. A break from reality this complete ought to be documented by professionals; go check yourself into the nearest mental hospital.

Laura on June 25, 2007 at 6:51 PM

It is not enought that people exhibit such pretentions as they do in this case.

They also exhibit a great deal of nastiness, arrogance, condescension, and self-absorbtion, and damned anyone that gets hurt by them doing so!

William

William2006 on June 26, 2007 at 2:08 AM

Why are you defending Bush?

why are you concerned what the left has to say about him? In fact, lets join them.

davidcaskey on June 25, 2007 at 2:23 PM

Doesn’t it seem like lying would be a waste of time? Why not stick to things that Bush really did and the motives he really has rather than making stuff up? Or do you think that ranting about the fascist, evil, worse than Hitler, BOOOOSH is going to get any credibility or make any difference?

His domestic spending is far too high, his unwillingness to use the veto caused significant spending and earmark issues, his immigration policy is 1986 rehashed, and some of his appointments weren’t well advised. None of this requires me to list Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc. or make stuff up, or attribute any motives to him, much less attributing the worst motives.

Sorry, when people make up their own set of “facts” to match their worldview in direct contrast to actual reality… I’m not joining in.

gekkobear on June 26, 2007 at 3:38 PM