But what was really sickening was his likening of Iran's pursuit of nuclear energy to the rise of Hitler in the 1930s. I for one would like to know how he draws that conclusion, because it's a flat out lie.
First of all, there is no evidence to date to suggest Iran is anywhere close to having or obtaining nuclear weapons. As one blog put it:
"this accusation is not unfounded, however, one must keep in mind that no evidence has been presented which absolutely incriminates Iran as having nuclear bomb building intentions. Click the following link from the BBC for a chronological timeline of the crisis: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4134614.stm.And then of course we have the same tactic being used against Iran that was used against Iraq, namely, being required to prove a negative. Iraq had no WMDs, but even when it presented the demanded documentation to the U.N. it was taken as "proof" it was hiding something it didn't have. There is nothing Iran can do to prove its nuclear ambitions are anything but peaceful, because the minds of the accusers have already been made up; Iran is considered guilty, and nothing will dissuade the Bushies from pressing their lies before the United Nations Security Council saying Iran is guilty.
As one can see, Iran’s tactic has been mostly one of insistence upon its right to nuclear research and enrichment of uranium. Iran asserts this right from Article IV of the NPT of which Iran is a state member and signatory of the Additional Protocol."
But there lies the danger in making assumptions. After the fiasco in Iraq and the increasing overtures of war against it, Tehran may decide (or perhaps has already decided) that in the face of a growing threat from both Israel and the U.S. developing nuclear weapons might be the only way to maintain peace through mutually assured destruction. So even if Iran's nuclear ambitions are in fact peaceful and pragmatic (oil reserves have reached their peak, so unless a massive reduction in oil consumption occurs supplies will continue to dwindle, and that will require shifting to alternative energy sources) it is entirely possible that the country may decide to develop nukes in hopes of warding off an invasion Iran sees as inevitable.
But that train of thought never occured to Inglis, who chose to take the highly dishonest route of likening Iran's nuclear ambitions to the rise of Adolph Hitler in Germany.
Hitler rose to power at a time when Germany was about as broken economically as it could be, after the sanctions imposed by the Allied Powers following the first World War. He exploited the people's fear, humiliation, and thirst for revenge to instill an ultra-nationalistic fervor in the populace, building up a powerful war machine. And Hitler used that machine openly and flagrantly. Iran, on the other hand, is not an economically broken nation nor does it possess the military sophistication of the U.S. and Israel. The government is made up of religious fanatics, and they do have a lot of leftover hatred and resentment toward America and Israel, but many of these individuals are smart enough to realize they'd have no chance whatsoever fighting any war with the West, especially in a world where they could not count on the support of the rest of the region much less other potential or rising superpowers (such as China).
Not that Iran is as much of a cakewalk as Iraq was following the first Gulf War; I think it anticipates a U.S./Israeli invasion and is planning accordingly having watched what happened to Iraq. They know we cannot sustain a long-term war against guerrilla fighters, as the chaos in Iraq and the debacle in Vietnam proved. Furthermore, the invasion and occupation of Iraq has destabilized the region allowing Tehran to insinuate itself into the politics of the puppet-government installed in its former enemy nation. Chaos in Iraq from the civil war there, as well as the still-present threat from al-Qaeda, ensures that if another invasion does occur it will come at the price of opening up multiple fronts leaving the U.S. and Israel even more vulnerable to attack. Already our military is mired in Iraq and weakened by the incompetence and arrogance of Donald Rumsfeld from his slimy rock at the Pentagon.
But to draw any kind of parallel between Iran and Hitler is not only historically false, it is foolish. The same parallel was drawn between Saddam Hussein and Adolph Hitler, and most reasonable people at the time were ignorant enough of the facts to believe those lies and exaggerations. Americans are growing increasingly frustrated with the occupation of Iraq, recognizing it as a failure and a distraction from the war against al-Qaeda. They are also increasingly coming to realize they were lied to in the wake of 9/11 by a dictatorial regime bent on exploiting their fear and anger in order to puruse a personal political agenda, namely, global empire. They may not stand for a repeat performance in Iran, and are likely to take it out on the GOP this November.
That Bob Inglis and other Congressional Republicans are still so willing to help spread the same lies that led to war in Iraq speaks of the utter contempt these scumbags have for the intelligence of Americans. South Carolina's 4th District must make Inglis pay for his deceptions by voting him out of office in November.