Hello! You know George Bush's demeanor in the view of fiasco of America in the Middle East resembles me death agony of Adolf Hitler during final days of the Third Reich when Hitler sent even youngsters to die in a battle. You see, just like Hitler, Bush feels his time is running out therefore he sends more and more reinforcements to Iraq where American guys will have to engage in nonwinning nonsensical battle. It was surely at the direction of Bush that the Pentagon decided to abandon active-duty time limit which increases the Army by some 100,000 people over next five years.
As for that demonstrative, fairly public and hideous deterrence of execution of Hussein and his aides it was only good to strengthen anti-American sentiments all over the world - both in Moslem countries and other regions. Exactly for the reason of the witless and inhuman politics of president Bush and his cabinet, Moslem countries together with South American countries like Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and others are making attempts to unite together and create a united anti-American front. No doubt that America is strong for the time being but it is clear it won't last long especially if the whole world makes head against it

Commies, muslims, nuclear proliferators, leftists, marxists = Good
Americans >= Nazis, Hitler.
Americans, America = Bad

That's all you had to say.

I, for one, am tired of having any president (including Bush) compared to Nazis and/or Hitler.

After that, I didn't hear a thing you wrote because you have demonstrated to me that it wasn't worth reading.

I, for one, am tired of having any president (including Bush) compared to Nazis and/or Hitler.

To a degree it must be done... Only by remembering and judging the evils of the past does humanity prevent ourselves from repeating them. If we didnt have Hitler to hold up as a standard, our current leaders could very well just fly past them, and without the standard no one would have any reason to judge.

To a degree it must be done... Only by remembering and judging the evils of the past does humanity prevent ourselves from repeating them. If we didnt have Hitler to hold up as a standard, our current leaders could very well just fly past them, and without the standard no one would have any reason to judge.
Bullcrap. Neither Bush, nor Clinton, nor Reagan, nor Nixon were anything like Hitler in any way. Period. It is stupid to even make the suggestion that they were.

What soylent said.

Bullcrap. Neither Bush, nor Clinton, nor Reagan, nor Nixon were anything like Hitler in any way. Period.

When making comparisons to Hitler, most people think Jews and Holocaust and the like and of course those comparisons are vapid.

However, there are somewhat more than superficial similarities between Hitler's actions in response to the Reichstadt fire and Bush's in response to 9/11.

Bullcrap. Neither Bush, nor Clinton, nor Reagan, nor Nixon were anything like Hitler in any way. Period. It is stupid to even make the suggestion that they were.

And do you know why? Because Hitler existed, and we remind them. And if they ever seek any action that is at all hitler-esq, they are called on it, and if they ever dare to follow threw enough on a hitler like action, we will tear them down because we know whats coming... Or should know. Why? Because we constantly remind ourselves.

Besides--We are moving closer. We've now performed our first 'pre-emptive strike', which isnt really pre-emptive since a strike from Iraq was never going to happen. Therefor, we have invaded another country and occupied them for years now, and now we're sending more troops. The parralels are getting more clear. Certainly by now means are we there yet, but we are taking steps closer, via censorship, millitary plans in the middle-east, executive abuse of power, etc etc.

And do you know why? Because Hitler existed, and we remind them. And if they ever seek any action that is at all hitler-esq, they are called on it, and if they ever dare to follow threw enough on a hitler like action, we will tear them down because we know whats coming... Or should know. Why? Because we constantly remind ourselves.

Besides--We are moving closer. We've now performed our first 'pre-emptive strike', which isnt really pre-emptive since a strike from Iraq was never going to happen. Therefor, we have invaded another country and occupied them for years now, and now we're sending more troops. The parralels are getting more clear. Certainly by now means are we there yet, but we are taking steps closer, via censorship, millitary plans in the middle-east, executive abuse of power, etc etc.
Whatever you say.:rolleyes:

Look, nations have been conducting pre-emptive strikes against other countries since time began. There is nothing new here. That doesn't make Bush a little Hitler anymore than Clinton's pre-emptive attacks against Serbia made him a little Hitler. Oh, wait, Serbia didn't pose a threat to us either.

When Bush starts ordering soldiers to put Americans in gas chambers by the millions, then I'll accept the analogy.

I think we should make Swift wear flair and steal all his stuff.

Whatever you say.:rolleyes:

Look, nations have been conducting pre-emptive strikes against other countries since time began.[/QUOTE]

When was America's last pre-emptive strike, removal of leadership, and year after year occupation as the country fell into chaos?

Clinton's pre-emptive attacks against Serbia made him a little Hitler. Oh, wait, Serbia didn't pose a threat to us either.

Not every strike is similar. This was, for all reasons, war. I really dont know if you could constitute the serbia situation at all in the same light, in regards to power of attack, length of occupation, money spent, reasons, etc etc. But you do have the right of it to a degree-America is using its power more and more to push other nations around. I forget who, Jefferson or Washington I think, who said that America will end once it begins concerning itself to much in the business of other nations.

When Bush starts ordering soldiers to put Americans in gas chambers by the millions, then I'll accept the analogy.

And then you'll either be to late or dead. Good work. :nice:

When was America's last pre-emptive strike, removal of leadership, and year after year occupation as the country fell into chaos?

Not every strike is similar. This was, for all reasons, war. I really dont know if you could constitute the serbia situation at all in the same light, in regards to power of attack, length of occupation, money spent, reasons, etc etc.I see...so bombing people for "humanitarian" reasons is a-okay with you...as long as it doesn't cost a lot of money or take a long time.

You complained that Iraq was no danger to the USA...and therefore the attack was wrong. Well, I pointed out that Serbia wasn't going to attack the USA either. So, that must have been wrong as well. I didn't see you (or any other liberals for that matter) complaining then.


But you do have the right of it to a degree-America is using its power more and more to push other nations around. I forget who, Jefferson or Washington I think, who said that America will end once it begins concerning itself to much in the business of other nations.It was Washington. He warned us of "foreign entanglements". He was referring to treaties, mostly.

Anyway, why would you want to take advice from a slave-owning rapist anyway?:rolleyes:


And then you'll either be to late or dead. Good work. :nice:As long as we can keep commie liberals from taking away our guns, I don't think they're going to be marching us into ovens anytime soon. Of course, Hitler banned private ownership of guns. Why don't you call the Brady Campaign a bunch of Hitlers?

It's to bad our noob rubby hasn't the capacity to think.

To a degree it must be done... Only by remembering and judging the evils of the past does humanity prevent ourselves from repeating them. If we didnt have Hitler to hold up as a standard, our current leaders could very well just fly past them, and without the standard no one would have any reason to judge.

True, but let's use them on the right people, like Chaves.

He has just been given the power to rule by decree, which officially makes him a dictator, which has most likel;y been his plan all along. His "people" will almost certianly live to regret giving him that type of authority.

Our presidents come and go like clockwork, and none of them have been anything like Hitler. We always have peaceful transitions of power. There have been a few exceptions, but overall, this has been the case since our founding.

I believe that many people simply find it fashionable and cool to attack our president. We tend to give our own power away, and then act as though we've been betrayed by the very people we willingly give it to. People need to be more conscious of what it we're doing and why, but they aren't, and that's why history does repeat itself in many ways.

People do the same things and expect different results. Democrats are in a position where they believe that their party being in power (because they gave them that power by choice) will change the world; or at least the coun try, but it won't, in anysignificant way, because they're all in someones' pocket as they always have been. They haven't been in power a month and the corruption and fllip flopping is already well under way.

It's to bad our noob rubby hasn't the capacity to think.


More irony.. Besides a personal attack..

You lost me after the word Hitler! A better comparison is LBJ. Another President who bet it all on an adventure that got out of control.

Godwin's Law is hereby invoked.

Hello! You know George Bush's demeanor in the view of fiasco of America in the Middle East resembles me death agony of Adolf Hitler during final days of the Third Reich when Hitler sent even youngsters to die in a battle. You see, just like Hitler, Bush feels his time is running out therefore he sends more and more reinforcements to Iraq where American guys will have to engage in nonwinning nonsensical battle. It was surely at the direction of Bush that the Pentagon decided to abandon active-duty time limit which increases the Army by some 100,000 people over next five years.
As for that demonstrative, fairly public and hideous deterrence of execution of Hussein and his aides it was only good to strengthen anti-American sentiments all over the world - both in Moslem countries and other regions. Exactly for the reason of the witless and inhuman politics of president Bush and his cabinet, Moslem countries together with South American countries like Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and others are making attempts to unite together and create a united anti-American front. No doubt that America is strong for the time being but it is clear it won't last long especially if the whole world makes head against it

Hey I wonder what the world making head against it would look like?:confused:

I bet 'rubby' is either a sock puppet of a regular of 15 years old.

Hello! You know George Bush's demeanor in the view of fiasco of America in the Middle East resembles me death agony of Adolf Hitler during final days of the Third Reich when Hitler sent even youngsters to die in a battle. You see, just like Hitler, Bush feels his time is running out therefore he sends more and more reinforcements to Iraq where American guys will have to engage in nonwinning nonsensical battle. It was surely at the direction of Bush that the Pentagon decided to abandon active-duty time limit which increases the Army by some 100,000 people over next five years.
As for that demonstrative, fairly public and hideous deterrence of execution of Hussein and his aides it was only good to strengthen anti-American sentiments all over the world - both in Moslem countries and other regions. Exactly for the reason of the witless and inhuman politics of president Bush and his cabinet, Moslem countries together with South American countries like Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and others are making attempts to unite together and create a united anti-American front. No doubt that America is strong for the time being but it is clear it won't last long especially if the whole world makes head against it:nice:
100% agreed amigo! NO US president that I know of alienated more of the people of this earth against America than Bush. I doubt that even Nixon went so far as this guy.

:nice:
100% agreed amigo! NO US president that I know of alienated more of the people of this earth against America than Bush. I doubt that even Nixon went so far as this guy.

This precedes Bush man.

:nice:
100% agreed amigo! NO US president that I know of alienated more of the people of this earth against America than Bush. I doubt that even Nixon went so far as this guy.
Yeah, that's true. I'm starting to agree with you. We should do whatever other countries and people want us to do. That way, they'll like us. It's like a global popularity contest.

We should bend over and let Bin Laden **** us all in the ass.

Bin Laden?

He is at the end of a LOOOOOOONG line of Democrats that have been ***ing us in the ass since FDR!!!

Bin Laden?

He is at the end of a LOOOOOOONG line of Democrats that have been ***ing us in the ass since FDR!!!

Hahahaha..so true. The Democrat god, FDR, put Japanese-Americans (60% of which were US citizens) in prison camps. Truman used ordered the first and only nuclear attacks in history. Yet, libs only complain about Gitmo.

Democrats:

Party of slavery
Party of Japanese Interments
Party of the Atom Bomb
Party of Jim Crow
Party against civil rights
Party that started Viet nam


Nice record

:rolleyes: Democrats:

Party of slavery
Party of Japanese Interments
Party of the Atom Bomb
Party of Jim Crow
Party against civil rights
Party that started Viet nam


Nice record
Apperantly, none of that stuff is as bad as the War in Iraq or being pro-life.

Being FOR life is bad?

Now THAT is a typical anti-human leftist for ya!!

Being FOR life is bad?Well, they call it "anti-abortion"...and it seems that it's one of the most evil things a person can be. "What kind of father would take his own daughter's rights away?"

Now THAT is a typical anti-human leftist for ya!!Oh, no, you completely misunderstand. They're just anti-unborn human. They'll defend mass murderer's "right" to not be executed. It's the sophisticated thing to do.

Kill innocent unborn babies= a-okay! Kill criminals= evil.:rolleyes:

Kill innocent unborn babies= a-okay! Kill criminals= evil.

No kidding. "Logic" is not a word in the lexicon of the left.

Bush isnt a Nazi and I would agree the comparison is over the top. He is however stupid and the biggest threat to national security that exists today. His incompetence alone places the US at risk. Hitler wasnt incompetent just evil and in the end mad. Bush on the other hand is incompetent, stupid and has a very one sided perspective on the world as it is. With according to News week a 26% approval rating. So it appears 26% of the population are just as stupid as he is or stupider.

Bush isnt a Nazi and I would agree the comparison is over the top. He is however stupid and the biggest threat to national security that exists today. His incompetence alone places the US at risk. Hitler wasnt incompetent just evil and in the end mad. Bush on the other hand is incompetent, stupid and has a very one sided perspective on the world as it is. With according to News week a 26% approval rating. So it appears 26% of the population are just as stupid as he is or stupider.


They are far more stupid, they are after all the ones getting duped, and then they come here and talk about how smart they are and how stupid the "left" is.

These people are drooling imbeciles...

I, for one, am tired of having any president (including Bush) compared to Nazis and/or Hitler.


Absolutely.
Hitler joined a Bavarian regiment of the German army at the outbreak of war in August 1914, he served as a despatch runner, a dangerous assignment, wounded at the battle of the Somme in 1916 and gassed during a British attack in 1918. Promoted to corporal he was awarded the Iron Cross (2nd class), the Disinguished Services Military Cross (3rd class) and finally, a rare distinction for a lowly corporal, the Iron Cross (1st class).

Clearly any comparison with Bush would be ridiculous.

Bush isnt a Nazi and I would agree the comparison is over the top. He is however stupid and the biggest threat to national security that exists today. His incompetence alone places the US at risk. Hitler wasnt incompetent just evil and in the end mad. Bush on the other hand is incompetent, stupid and has a very one sided perspective on the world as it is. With according to News week a 26% approval rating. So it appears 26% of the population are just as stupid as he is or stupider.

I don't like Bush, but he's not stupid. He could never have become president if he was. That's a fact.

I love how the Left tries to portray Bush both as a bumbling moron and as an evil genius. It truly boggles the mind.

As for a "one-sided perspective", what did you expect? He was elected by a certain constituency to do certain things. He appealed to pro-life voters and NRA members. Why shouldn't he work to do the things those people voted him into office to do? I guess I just don't get that. People complain that politicians never keep their promises, but when one does try to keep them, all people can do is complain about how the guy isn't listening to the other side.

Clinton (for the most part) did the bidding of those who elected him. So does Bush. In fact, I can think of at least two broken promises of Clinton...but I can't think of any with Bush. Can you?

In fact, I can think of at least two broken promises of Clinton...but I can't think of any with Bush. Can you?

Yup! In his first term alone! After that we lost count!
According to a recent study by Knight Ridder, President Bush "will end his four-year term having fulfilled about 46 percent of the promises he made during the 2000 presidential campaign." As a comparison, President Clinton "fulfilled about 66 percent of the 160 commitments that he made during his first presidential campaign."

Despite having Republican control of both houses, "nearly a third of his agenda stalled or died in Congress."
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2004/10/21/bushs_promises.html

Yup! In his first term alone! After that we lost count!
I had a look at the link and it looks to me that they're counting a lot of "nos" for stuff that was blocked in Congress. I would still call that keeping his promise. He can't control Congress.

Anyway, one broken promise of Clinton's was something I approved of...welfare reform. Not every broken promise is a bad thing.

Either way, it looks like Bush isn't as inflexible as everyone seems to think. As I said...either he keeps promises or he's inflexible. You can't have it both ways, people.

I don't like Bush, but he's not stupid.

Debateable. Being "smart" is relative.

Bush may be intelligent in matters of oil pumps or running a baseball team but he's seriously lacking in-depth, cultural and historical "worldly" knowledge and diplomatic acumen. The breathtaking lack of tact he has often displayed also betrays how unsuitable he really is for the job. He may be "smart" in some ways but not as president.

What can one say when there are entire calendars with "Bushisms"...compilations of his mangled attempts at humor or to sound worldy with nuggets like "One of the great things about books is sometimes there are some fantastic pictures" -- a new looney quote everyday to look at and ponder "And this guy is President?"

I love how the Left tries to portray Bush both as a bumbling moron and as an evil genius. It truly boggles the mind.

Bush was, at best, a dupe for the men behind the curtain. Rove, Cheney and Wolfie and Rumsfeld were the brains of the operation. You have to know this. Now that Bush is out there essentially on his own -- Wolfie and Rummy gone, Cheney and Rove rendered all but impotent -- he's clearly rudderless and lame.

The breathtaking lack of tact he has often displayed also betrays how unsuitable he really is for the job. He may be "smart" in some ways but not as president.Anyone in the public eye as much as the president has those sorts of moments. Clinton once said a mummy was "hot". And remember when he called the German Chancellor "Helmut dude"?

I'm not saying Bush is better or worse than Clinton. All I'm saying is if you put someone...anyone...in front of cameras that often and ask them to talk, they're bound to say some stupid things. Lots of stupid things.


Bush was, at best, a dupe for the men behind the curtain. Rove, Cheney and Wolfie and Rumsfeld were the brains of the operation. You have to know this. Now that Bush is out there essentially on his own -- Wolfie and Rummy gone, Cheney and Rove rendered all but impotent -- he's clearly rudderless and lame.I've always wondered how people can believe a president is a "puppet" of one person or another (or a whole group of people). If Bush was a puppet for Rove, Cheney, etc, why didn't one of those guys just become president? If they were smart enough to put Bush in there, wouldn't they be smart enough to get one of them in instead? I don't get it...

And then there are the folks that say Bush planned, ordered and orchestrated the whole 911 attacks...lunacy.

I've always wondered how people can believe a president is a "puppet" of one person or another (or a whole group of people). If Bush was a puppet for Rove, Cheney, etc, why didn't one of those guys just become president? If they were smart enough to put Bush in there, wouldn't they be smart enough to get one of them in instead? I don't get it...

For the same reasons men like Reagan man the office: charisma and appeal. Let's face it: Dick Cheney has all the appeal of a kidney stone.

Even if Cheney wanted the office he couldn't attain it on that alone. He knows that he can do more to advance an agenda behind the scenes than Bush can in front of the cameras.

And then there are the folks that say Bush planned, ordered and orchestrated the whole 911 attacks...lunacy.

And those folks are as bad as those that say Bush had no inkling Bin Laden was determined to attack on US soil, that Bush didn't leverage the events of 9/11 to move on Iraq and so on...

For the same reasons men like Reagan man the office: charisma and appeal. Let's face it: Dick Cheney has all the appeal of a kidney stone.And you're saying Bush has charisma?


And those folks are as bad as those that say Bush had no inkling Bin Laden was determined to attack on US soil, that Bush didn't leverage the events of 9/11 to move on Iraq and so on...
I think presidents get reports on possible threats every day. They can't possibly act on every single one...or even depend on the complete accuracy of them...or when and where they'll be executed. It's a tough job. But, I will say one thing...years before 911, I could have predicted we'd have a "big one" eventually.

As for leveraging the events to go into Iraq...yes, I suppose he did. History will judge him harshly on it. But, that doesn't change the fact that we're there now and we're likely to stay for a good long time...regardless of who is president after the next election. That's the reality of the situation.

And you're saying Bush has charisma?

To many, yes. That ol' leanin' on the dais thing he does, the smirk & wink, the laid back style, the quaint, almost parochial rancher attitude and even the "nookyoular" thing... In the early days such nausiating stuff appealed to a great many people in "red" states.

Darth "Dick Cheney" Vader has no such appeal in any measure.

But, I will say one thing...years before 911, I could have predicted we'd have a "big one" eventually.

And what are you predicting now?

BTW, have you read "Against All Enemies" by Richard Clarke?

To many, yes. That ol' leanin' on the dais thing he does, the smirk & wink, the laid back style, the quaint, almost parochial rancher attitude and even the "nookyoular" thing... In the early days such nausiating stuff appealed to a great many people in "red" states.

Darth "Dick Cheney" Vader has no such appeal in any measure.
Hmmm...interesting. I guess I never gave it much thought.



And what are you predicting now?I'm predicting that another terrorist attack in the US is almost inevitable...no matter what we do (or don't do). We need to concentrate on avoiding (disrupting) it...prolonging the time before it happens...and responding decisively in the aftermath to reduce the loss of life.

I think local law enforcement, the FBI, the CIA, and the military need to be concentrating on their piece of the pie...and communicating where necessary. For example, if a citizen or beat cop observes something unusual, they need to be trained to act immediately if it's within their capabilities or know who to call if it isn't within their capabilities.

Sitting on our hands is not an option. The reality is, the United States has virtually unlimited economic and military power compared with terrorist groups. The United States can not be defeated by terror attacks that kill a few thousand people every 5 or 10 years.


BTW, have you read "Against All Enemies" by Richard Clarke?Nope.

:nice:
100% agreed amigo! NO US president that I know of alienated more of the people of this earth against America than Bush. I doubt that even Nixon went so far as this guy.

so, alienating people is now the equivelant of engineering the extermination of millions of 'undesirables'? you know, it is possible to be critical of those who rightly deserve criticism, without being utterly ridiculous. if there was a deep, genuine understanding of the topic, there would be no need to resort to such sensationalism.

SOYLENT GREEN: "I think local law enforcement, the FBI, the CIA, and the military need to be concentrating on their piece of the pie...and communicating where necessary. For example, if a citizen or beat cop observes something unusual, they need to be trained to act immediately if it's within their capabilities or know who to call if it isn't within their capabilities.

Sitting on our hands is not an option. The reality is, the United States has virtually unlimited economic and military power compared with terrorist groups. The United States can not be defeated by terror attacks that kill a few thousand people every 5 or 10 years"
----------------------------

Very true. Perhaps instead of dispersing the National Guard halfway around the world on a fool's errand they should be back home increasing the security on the poorly guarded coasts and borders of the US ?
Homeland Security needs a total overhaul, set up in a panic and poorly constructed, it should dispossess itself of FEMA, which is not part of any security apparatus and just adds more bureaucrats at the top end.The communication between squabbling agencies; CIA, FBI, NSA, Secret Service has to be regularised and not just paid lip service to.
There is much to be done and diverting funds destined for more Iraq slaughter would seem a good start.

Very true. Perhaps instead of dispersing the National Guard halfway around the world on a fool's errand they should be back home increasing the security on the poorly guarded coasts and borders of the US ?
Absolutely. I was a member of the Reform Party way back during the months preceeding the 2000 election. I made a speech on the floor of the national convention that I thought we should secure our borders with soldiers. At that time, the issue was illegal immigration...but the need for it is just as valid now as ever. I reason...if we have soldiers on the border between North Korea and South Korea, why don't we have soldiers on our own borders?


The communication between squabbling agencies; CIA, FBI, NSA, Secret Service has to be regularised and not just paid lip service to.That's the president's job. He's supposed to be overseeing all those agencies. He should get teh heads of all those agencies in a room and tell them how it's going to be...and if anyone has a problem with it, they can resign right now.

That's the president's job. He's supposed to be overseeing all those agencies. He should get teh heads of all those agencies in a room and tell them how it's going to be...and if anyone has a problem with it, they can resign right now.

The problem is the President appointed most of these nodding heads in the first place. They do as they're told, don't offer suggestions and guard their turf with ferocity. It would need a clean out of all the top men and appointing of people with the right background (not just GOP time servers) and a REAL Head of National Security boss with genuine powers (I'd suggest the Veep if he wasn't so obviously already in charge of everything!!)