The Reagans

[gldstwmn]

They were old weapons left over from the Iran-Iraq war buried in a shallow marsh in leaking plastic bags. Most likely they were forgotten about. There was a whopping 36 of them.

[dissention]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
They were old weapons left over from the Iran-Iraq war buried in a shallow marsh in leaking plastic bags. Most likely they were forgotten about. There was a whopping 36 of them.

All the more reason to worry, sweetie: that's another 36 votes in the bag for Shrub.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by dissention
All the more reason to worry, sweetie: that's another 36 votes in the bag for Shrub.

Between that and the 5 extra Latinos that are going to vote for him because of the immigration plan...woo.

[dissention]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Between that and the 5 extra Latinos that are going to vote for him because of the immigration plan...woo.

He's hoping to get the votes of many liberals because of his new plan. Excuse while I .

Seems like he's only a compassionate conservative when the elections are right around the corner. And just think, he'll still be wasting our money long after he's kicked out of office: the Shrub Presidential Library. It'll double as a portal to hell, ya know...

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by dissention
He's hoping to get the votes of many liberals because of his new plan. Excuse while I .

Seems like he's only a compassionate conservative when the elections are right around the corner. And just think, he'll still be wasting our money long after he's kicked out of office:

That's because he's already spent it for years to come.

[dissention]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
That's because he's already spent it for years to come.

Decades, not years. The combined efforts of Kennedy and Roosevelt himself couldn't fix this mess. We're f*cked for mnay, many years to come.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
They were old weapons left over from the Iran-Iraq war buried in a shallow marsh in leaking plastic bags. Most likely they were forgotten about. There was a whopping 36 of them.

Yes, but I do not want to hear anymore of "there were no WMD." From now on, please footnote that statement with "They were old weapons left over from the Iran-Iraq war buried in a shallow marsh in leaking plastic bags. Most likely they were forgotten about. There was a whopping 36 of them. " (I am joking BTW )

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Yes, but I do not want to hear anymore of "there were no WMD." From now on, please footnote that statement with "They were old weapons left over from the Iran-Iraq war buried in a shallow marsh in leaking plastic bags. Most likely they were forgotten about. There was a whopping 36 of them. " (I am joking BTW )

Okay, you asked for it.

[gldstwmn]

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0113-10.htm

Can PM Appease Bush?
by Thomas Walkom

Some refer to George W. Bush as another Hitler. This is a gross exaggeration. He has constructed no death camps and only one concentration camp — at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

While it does seem, in Nuremberg terms, that Bush could be called a war criminal (invading other countries on the flimsiest of pretexts), he has not engaged in genocide. Nor, unlike Volkswagen supporter Hitler, does he promote the production of small, cheap cars.

True, both came to power constitutionally (although under dubious circumstances and with the support of only a minority of voters). True, both masterfully used traumatic events at home (the 1933 Reichstag fire for Hitler; 9/11 for Bush) to make a frightened and resentful populace accept restrictions on civil liberties.

True, also, that the U.S. leader shares Hitler's taste for military costumes — although to be fair to the German dictator, he did serve on active duty in wartime.

But overall, the comparison is far from exact, lending credence to Karl Marx's famous comment that when history repeats itself, the first time is tragedy, the second, farce.

Still, for Canada and novice Prime Minister Paul Martin — currently trying to engage Bush in Monterrey, Mexico — there are certain similarities. Like central European nations of the 1930s, Canada finds itself next door to a powerful nation led by an unusually aggressive and perhaps slightly unhinged man. What to do?

It's generally forgotten now, but in the mid-'30s Hitler was not universally condemned as evil personified. Indeed, he had many admirers in Europe and North America — people who lauded his "leadership," who lionized his moral certainty (no namby-pamby moral relativism there) and who either forgave, or actively applauded, what was then called anti-Semitism and today would be labeled racial profiling.

World leaders were wary and respectful. Canada's then-prime minister, Mackenzie King, confided in his diary after meeting Hitler in 1937 that the dictator was "one who truly loves his fellow men and his country and would make any sacrifice for their good ... a man of deep sincerity and a genuine patriot ... a teetotaller."

Yet even King, an ocean away from Germany, recognized that Hitler's ambitions could cause trouble. Consider the difficulties of Germany's small neighbors. Should they stay resolutely neutral and hope for the best (Belgium, Switzerland), sign onto Hitler's security agenda (Austria, Hungary, Romania) or rely on agreements with other nations (Poland, Czechoslovakia)?

These are the choices Canada faces with Bush's America. Former prime minister Jean Chrétien attempted the Swiss solution — stay out of the aggressor's wars but continue to sell him whatever he needs. Hitler was comfortable with that level of tacit support. Bush appears to want more.

Martin seems to be veering to the Romanian model of more active support for Bush's military aims. I say "seems" because, as usual, Martin's actions to date have been rhetorical and procedural — setting up new committees, making vague promises.

Indeed, those far more familiar with Paul Martin's thinking than I whisper that, at heart, the new Prime Minister is no different from Chrétien here. If so, rhetoric will dominate — plus one or two substantive measures.

Like Chrétien, Martin will offer up the Canadian navy and special commando units to the U.S. (those interested in the level to which Canadian maritime forces are already under U.S. command should read Kelly Toughill's masterful piece in last Saturday's Star).

Like Chrétien, Martin will almost certainly sign onto Bush's missile defense scheme. Canada's hope, like that of Russia and Europe, is that missile defense will be harmless (it doesn't work), will provide juicy contracts for industry, and will focus Bush's attention away from invading small nations.

Will Martin go further? Leftish Liberals hope he will simply be a politer Chrétien: Don't join the aggressor's wars but don't call him a moron either.

Those on the right, including many of Martin's business supporters, want a version of the Austrian model: Anschluss (annexation) in everything but name. However, the U.S. has little interest in this so it's unlikely to happen.

Martin has vowed to keep the Canada-U.S. border open to commerce. This is an easy promise to keep since the Americans want that too. He said he would persuade the Americans to "respect" the Canadian passport. He won't get that. He may get an agreement on softwood lumber (which isn't up to Bush; even Hitler wasn't all-powerful). But Martin will get a lumber deal only if he gives the Americans everything they want.

My guess is that if Martin wants the U.S. president to like him, if he wants those coveted invitations to the ranch so useful for winning votes in Alberta, he will have to offer something more — that Canada will have to be a little more Romania and a little less Switzerland.

Switzerland, of course, survived World War II intact. Romania did not.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
[url]Some refer to George W. Bush as another Hitler. This is a gross exaggeration. He has constructed no death camps and only one concentration camp — at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

By all accounts, the camp at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba is a far cry from the Jewish and gay killing field concentration camps used by Hitler. I mean the Jews and gays were picked up off of the street for doing nothing and then tortured, experimented upon, and/or slaughtered in the name of promoting the Aryan race. In stark contrast, the prisoners at the camp at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba lost a war and were caught fighting for a rogue terrorist group that attacked the U.S. Moreover, by all accounts, although they are not at a Ritz Carlton, they have acceptable surroundings and are fed three times a day and sheltered. I mean even Bill Maher has no problem with their treatment

Interestingly, I think we should have send them to some sort of international court and have treated them like POW's even though they do not fall under that definition in the Geneva Convention because, inter alia, Al-Q was not part of an official army or militia of a country (Afganistan vehemently denied Al-Q was even in Afganistan much less part of the Afgan army). I think this would have made America look better and more compassionate in the eyes of the world. Moreover, I do not want to pay to hold them forever.

Originally posted by gldstwmn
True, both came to power constitutionally (although under dubious circumstances and with the support of only a minority of voters). True, both masterfully used traumatic events at home (the 1933 Reichstag fire for Hitler; 9/11 for Bush) to make a frightened and resentful populace accept restrictions on civil liberties.

Shhebus - Bush won the election by the way elections are won I hate it when people use the red herring of "he didn't win the popular vote!" Who cares - the New York Times has admitted W won Florida and, therefore, the electoral vote which is all that matters!

Also, does anyone really think that W should not have used 9/11 to invade Afganistan (Iraq nothwithstanding for some). Moreover, while I agree the Patriot Act goes too far, does anyone but the ACLU really think that tighter security measures are not warranted in airports after 9/11.

Originally posted by gldstwmn
True, also, that the U.S. leader shares Hitler's taste for military costumes — although to be fair to the German dictator, he did serve on active duty in wartime.

While I agree on some level that W landing on a ship in a fighter plane under a banner that said mission accomplished was in bad taste, I do love how the far left cannot stand that W was a fighter pilot. It just throws off their whole "W is an idiot" argument. I submit that even with the arguments that W was never there, you cannot have been both an idiot and a fighter pilot. As an aside, I never got why people were so hoorified W visited the troops over Thanksgiving. I mean that is his right as the Pres. and the Commander in Chief. But, I know people just can't get over the fact that W did it and will never see it as anything but a photo op.

Originally posted by gldstwmn
It's generally forgotten now, but in the mid-'30s Hitler was not universally condemned as evil personified. Indeed, he had many admirers in Europe and North America — people who lauded his "leadership," who lionized his moral certainty (no namby-pamby moral relativism there) and who either forgave, or actively applauded, what was then called anti-Semitism and today would be labeled racial profiling.

Hmm - this appears to support, albeit a little, my argument that the world did business with Nazi Germany on a regular basis until they were brought into the war.

Finally, as for Canada, I say, like Mexico and Cuba, we should buy it and make it part of the USA.

[strandinthewind]

My point ealier about charitable donations being made for tax purposes, etc. The alt. minimum tax needs to be ousted. along with the entire progressive tax system IMO

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108431,00.html

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
While I agree on some level that W landing on a ship in a fighter plane under a banner that said mission accomplished was in bad taste, I do love how the far left cannot stand that W was a fighter pilot. It just throws off their whole "W is an idiot" argument. I submit that even with the arguments that W was never there, you cannot have been both an idiot and a fighter pilot. As an aside, I never got why people were so hoorified W visited the troops over Thanksgiving. I mean that is his right as the Pres. and the Commander in Chief. But, I know people just can't get over the fact that W did it and will never see it as anything but a photo op.

Beacause both PR moves smacked of desperation a la Madge and Britney's kiss. Everything he does is in bad taste, bud. I especially love how this new space bull**** is taking precedent over Iraq. We've got weapons of mass distraction right here in this country.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Beacause both PR moves smacked of desperation a la Madge and Britney's kiss. Everything he does is in bad taste, bud. I especially love how this new space bull**** is taking precedent over Iraq. We've got weapons of mass distraction right here in this country.

I did not find the Thanksgiving trip in bad taste and thought it was a good thing, but understand you always will and won't I mean the vast majority of the troops' morale was boosted by that visit- remember the vast majority of the troops like W, even if others do not. That is why I say it was a good thing. Also, I get that the photo op is perhaps what is objected to, but all politician get the photo op. Hillary certainly did.

But, you do agree the Pres. has the right to visit the troops?


"We've got weapons of mass distraction right here in this country. : ITA, even though I am for space exporation.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I mean the vast majority of the troops' morale was boosted by that visit

That's why the suicide rate in Iraq has soared in the past six weeks?

He had the right to go over there, I just question his reasons for doing so; I thought it was in really bad taste. Then the admin comes back to the states and starts spouting these tall tales about their visit over there and photos of Bush and his fake turkey are being blasted across every newspaper; it left a very bad taste in my mouth.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
[B]. In stark contrast, the prisoners at the camp at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba lost a war and were caught fighting for a rogue terrorist group that attacked the U.S. B]

Maybe. How do we know since they have never been given the opportunity to have a hearing in open court and as it stands now they won't get that opportunity?