In creating the public mood for the invasion of Iraq, Saddam Hussein - whom the US had supported in his war with Iran - was demonised and compared to Adolf Hitler.
This was particularly so over his use of poison gas against Kurds, which was compared falsely to the gassing of Jews at Auschwitz, and this hyperbole from the highest level framed a war of choice as one of necessity.
The neocons, despite their manifest failures in prediction ("We'll be met with flowers." "The war will be paid for by Iraqi oil", "It will cost $50 billion") and execution - the sectarian violence the invasion unleashed continues to this day - are, surprisingly, still taken seriously by some.
Now they're comparing Russia's Vladimir Putin to Hitler. That's irresponsible, inflammatory and a disgraceful misuse of the memories of the 50 million people killed as a result of one man's expansionist, racist and annihilationist ideology.
Saddam was never Hitler and neither is Putin. He's an autocratic leader of a country with a long history of conflicting interests with the West. He is also the man who pulled Obama's chestnuts out of the fire when the US President's mis-statements about a red line in Syria's use of chemical weapons was being used by Republicans and some Democrats to urge "surgical strike" bombing of Syria.
It was Putin who persuaded Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to give up those chemical weapons and the world is safer for it. Putin is also an ally of Iran and, though neocons would like to see the nuclear deal scuttled, it is on Putin the US will have to rely in its negotiations.
Those who believe Putin wants all of the Ukraine have a poor case. Militarily he could take it tomorrow, as the Ukraine Government is weak. So also is the economy. While Russia has no foreign debt - unlike the US et al - the Ukraine is heavily in debt. Russia gains little from reoccupying the Ukraine except taking on problems it does not need.
The people who most want to reinvigorate the Cold War are the neocons and their military/industrial complex.
They've been provoking the Russian bear and, so far, he's had his meal and not bitten off more than he can digest.
Die-hard supporters of the Iraq War, faced with the reality of a military campaign and occupation degenerating into a sectarian guerrilla war, often challenged critics with one irrelevant question: "Would you rather have had Saddam stay in power?"
This rhetorical device was intended to stymie objection. I have my own question for all these summer patriots who talked so easily of going to war then or now - "If you believe so much in the cause would you send your son or daughter to fight for it?"
