The rhetoric from the left seems to be toning down a bit. Now, George Bush is only compared to a minor tyrant who was mentally unstable - King George III of England, as opposed to Hitler.

Their George and Ours

This is the most ridiculous part of the analogy:

Then there is the declaration's boldest and most sweeping indictment of all, condemning George III for "transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation." Translate "mercenaries" into contract workers and proxy armies (remember the bloodthirsty, misogynist Northern Alliance?), and translate that last long phrase into Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.

So equipping an existing local army (the Northern Alliance) against a man who eventually killed 3,000 Americans is comparable to England having sent the Hessians (a third party) to the colonies to kill future Americans.

And aside from that, the Northern Alliance weren't misogynistic according to this 2001 article from Slate.com:

They aren't fanatics. While many of the Northern Alliance are devout and even orthodox Muslims, they have a very different reputation from the Taliban. When the Northern Alliance leader Ishmael Khan was in charge of Herat, girls went to school. When the Taliban took over, the girls were sent home. Generally speaking, the alliance culture is the culture of pre-Soviet invasion Afghanistan: easygoing, relatively liberal. They've never had any ambitions to export Islam at all.

Also, I may be wrong, but I believe that the majority of private contract workers are in Iraq to help rebuild and provide additional security to the civilian population. I don't think the Hessians came over here in the late 1700's looking to build new schools or roads for the locals.