Analogies are cheap. And quite often wrong.
How about some of the terminology that the government is using these days, like "homeland" security, sounds like something straight out of NAZI Germany,
Oh, cut the crap. I'd call that a poor descriptive phrase. If yours was their intent, I think they could have done much better. "USA Patriot Act" wasn't bad, I thought, for an act that appears to gut the bill of rights.
How about Bush's blatent propaganda event on the aircraft carrier where he declared an end to the war?
Gimme something to worry about, OK? If THAT'S the best he can manage, he's in serious trouble.
They know how to use propaganda to get Bush reelected, no need for a coup.
I'd say his reelection is by no means assured. The apparent economic recovery is apparently stalling. THAT will have more to do with the outcome than anything else. A good economy could even save him from a mess in Iraq. Maybe.
But he will have to win straight up in 04, no tricks, no courts, no scandals. If he doesn't, there will be hell to pay.
If Bush is in trouble this time next year, we'll be attacking some poor defensless country with some sort of concocted rationale like going after a drug dealer (Panama) or WMD (Iraq).
You mean like your hero Slick, Monicagate, and Sudan?
Why is it Slick's undeclared, non-UN approved wars are never mentioned?
I have no idea why people vote for policies that spend $60 Billion to destroy and rebuild a country half way around the world, when they can look out their windows and see so many problems that need addressing right here at home.
Because sometimes those problems out your window will mean nothing if DON'T solve a problem halfway around the world.
The last war that was fought to really defend the U.S. from an outside threat was WW2.
Was it?
Or did an Anglophile finagle a way to come to the aid of Britain?
Read a book titled "A Man Called Intrepid". After you find out what the Brits were up to in this country with FDRs knowledge and aid, you begin to think we declared war on the wrong country.
You do know that the US had cut off shipments of oil and iron to Japan before Pearl Harbor, leaving them with 6 months supply of oil and that much time to act or submit to what they considered US domination of Asia, don't you?
And that at the time of Pearl Harbor, US destroyers were escorting British vessels carrying war materials across the Atlantic and they had secret "shoot on sight" orders with respect to German submarines? Does that fit your definition of "neutrality"?
Hitler's declaration of war on the US on December 8, 1941 has always been puzzling. The Tripartite Pact was a mutual-defense treaty; he had no requirement under it to aid Japan if it started a war with the US.
I figure he did because he figured he might as well make an existing state of war legal and official. At least he could shoot back then.
I see Mr. Duray is singing his swan song to you. I notice he failed to take up my offer of a bet that GWB WON'T try a coup in '04. I think we could agree on an amount (probably about $10- -a day's recycling income for him) and see if Admin Bob will hold the funds in escrow.
The courage of his convictions should tell you something. |
