Bush compares Iraq war to WW2

I listened to that speech. When do you suppose that idiot will realize that he is creating more terrorists than he is taking out?

That is one dumb son of a bitch.

The Five Morons Revisited

by Paul Craig Roberts

When the neocons launched the Bush administration's invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and announced plans for invading Syria and Iran, I labeled Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Rice "the Five Morons." With the passage of time, I see that I overestimated their mental capabilities.

The "cakewalk" war has now lasted longer than World War II with Nazi Germany, and no end is in sight. It has cost the U.S. taxpayers $310 billion in out-of-pocket costs, with many additional hundreds of billions coming due in veterans' medical bills and other expenses yet to be paid.

To carry on this pointless war, which has achieved nothing but death, destruction, and hatred of America, Bush has had to call up inactive reserves who long ago completed their active-duty service to their country and have managed to get on with their lives. It is well known that the older one gets the harder it is to find employment or the energy to restart a mothballed business. But Bush is too busy saving us from terrorism to care about people's lives.

Despite the lack of U.S. troops and Bush's inability to prevail in Afghanistan and Iraq, neocons in Bush's government are working around the clock to instigate war with Iran and Syria.

I thought that I had Rumsfeld pegged as the complete dolt, but I was stunned when I read Associated Press reporter Robert Burns' account of what Rumsfeld told 200 Navy aviators in a question and answer session at Fallon Naval Air Station on Aug. 28. "The thing that keeps me up at night," said Rumsfeld, is the success of terrorist groups in "manipulating the media."...

Ned Lamont Is No Clare Boothe Luce
By Jeffrey Lord
Published 9/1/2006 12:08:35 AM

The year was 1942.

After more than a decade of losing elections to Democrats, after three straight presidential losses to Franklin D. Roosevelt -- the man conservative Republicans loved to hate -- the scent of victory was at last in the air for the GOP.

But there was a problem, and a big one at that. The previous December 7th America had been attacked at Pearl Harbor. The attack was a disaster, killing 2,471 military and civilians and destroying a considerable portion of the U.S. Navy. For the second time in just over twenty years the country was now at war. Not only were we fighting the Japanese but the Germans and the Italians too.

In the partisan camps of the Republican Party there was considerable feeling that the fault for this lay personally with FDR. Some were convinced he either knew the attack was coming and let it happen to plunge the country into the war, or that he should have known and was simply incompetent. The man, they believed, was neither very bright nor very honest. Battlefields were now erupting in strange countries literally all over the world -- in Europe, Africa, Asia. So in circumstances like this, how does a political opposition approach the upcoming election?

Savage FDR? Run on a campaign of "Roosevelt lied and people died"? Should they go out and tell the American people just how dangerously incompetent the man was, that the best thing to do was make peace with Hitler and Japan's Hirohito, then elect Republicans who would simply force FDR to bring home the boys and let the rest of the world cope with chaos? After all, a few years earlier FDR himself had turned back an ocean liner filled with 937 Jews escaping the looming Holocaust. The idea of not making Hitler, Hirohito or Mussolini any angrier than they were was certainly one approach.

The Republicans did none of the above. Instead, with the President on the political ropes at last, with a burgeoning team of attractive GOP candidates all over the country they did something else.

They rallied to FDR.

<<<snip>>>>

As America readies for the traditional Labor Day kickoff of this year's election campaign, a look back tells us the world has certainly changed in 2006. In 1942, Republicans and Democrats both understood the dangers the country and the world faced.

What happened in 1942?

The Republicans won the election, gaining 44 new House seats and 10 in the Senate, not quite a majority, but erasing FDR's control. Dewey won in New York and was instantly bannered as a presidential sure thing. GOP gubernatorial candidates won across the country.

What was FDR's reaction? The news account of his post-election press conference reported FDR "laughs." Why? Said the headline: "Assumes New Congress is for Winning, So Why Should Poll Make Any Difference?"

And the Nazis and the Japanese? The so-called Axis Powers? What was their response? The New York Times editorial page trumpeted "an admission from Berlin that it would be 'harboring an illusion' to expect the Republican victory to bring any change whatever in the policy of the United States." Focusing on the silence of Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels, the paper concluded: "His silence is proof of the fact that we have made the unity of our purpose apparent to our enemies."

We're a long way from 1942.

The security of the civilized world depends on victory in the war on terror, and that depends on victory in Iraq.

Wow, what short memories you all have.

A2K sucks. You are the reason.