It's even more curious when one tries to descry the "analogies" with which the editor "disagrees profoundly." One would seem to be the Hitler-Bush parallel, which Cockburn describes as "solidly in the respectable mainstream of political abuse" (although he does quote Dave Lindorff's delicious denial of a similarity: "It's going a bit far to compare the Bush of 2003 to the Hitler of 1933. Bush simply is not the orator that Hitler was.")
But I'd guess what ruffled the feathers in the editorial dovecote was the analogy suggested between our official parties. The Nation can't have columnists remarking on "the strange hysteria of Democrats about Bush as a leader of such consummate evil, so vile that any Democrat would be preferable. Any Democrat?"
Why, Cockburn seems to include even Democrats in the following: "As for warmongering, American Presidents and would-be Presidents don't need lessons from anyone. As Hitler freely acknowledged in his campaign bio, Mein Kampf, the debt was the other way round."
Hitler also mentions in that "campaign bio" that the Germans lost the Great War because the "Allies" were better propagandists. He announces that he and his confreres mean to go to school to them, for next time.
--CGE
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, mike larkin wrote:
>
> Why did the editors of The Nation feel it necessary to issue that "we
> disagree profoundly" disclaimer re: Cockburn's recent column on
> Hitler? It comes across as cowardly and spineless. Aside from his
> usual rhetorical shock and awe, he didn't say anything he hasn't said
> before. I actually thought it was one of his funniest pieces in a long
> time. It totally cracked me up.
>
> (Don't get me wrong: I'm a big fan of The Nation's current editorial
> regime. The magazine is superbly well-edited. They just need to chill
> out a bit.)