Pelosi lays into Bush

[Margalis]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/20/pelosi.bush/index.html

The part that disturbs me is this:

"Nancy Pelosi should apologize for her irresponsible, dangerous rhetoric," DeLay, R-Texas, said. "She apparently is so caught up in partisan hatred for President Bush that her words are putting American lives at risk."

Putting American lives at risk. Other than extremely tenuous arguments like "in the Middle East a show of weakness will be exploited" there is no justification for that statement. Compare that to say, sending over fewer troops than generals request or putting them in shoddy, unarmored transports.

Is there ANY time period for when this "it's unpatriotic to critisize us" rule is going to cease being in effect? Or is it just a convenient permanent addition to our rules of debate?


There as also this gem, straight from Republican talking points 101:

The San Francisco/Boston Democrats led by John Kerry have now adopted 'Blame America First' as their official policy," RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie said in the statement.

---

I guess the only thing we are allowed to say is "we trust in GW 1000%!!"

[Mesozoic]

Thats the thing about the post 9/11 political climate.  You can do whatever the fuck you want internationally, and then blame the opposition of treason when they point out that things aren't going so well.  The ultimate irony, as you pointed out, is that detractors get blamed for endangering the troops.  

Meanwhile GWB makes vague assertions that America will "meet every challenge."   Thats great, Prez.  Um, how?  

But by then Bush is back at the Outhouse in Crawford and various and sundry GOP senators and reps are pointing and yelling "Aid and comfort!!! Right there!!"  at anyone with a question.

[Paelos]

Actually, I think the rules of debate include the fact that you have to make trite anologys whenever you speak now:

"The emperor has no clothes," Pelosi, D-California, told reporters on Thursday. "When are people going to face the reality? Pull this curtain back."

But seriously, she makes a good point. She adequately points out the problems in the Bush administration and the policies with Iraq. I happen to agree with her that I think Bush thought that he would be considered a great savior to Iraq instead of still the infidel dog that he was before.

Still, what does that matter? The Democrats are still pounding on one key point, Bush has problems. DUH! Give me a plan in your speeches or something instead of constantly pointing out other's faults. It's complete reactionary politics. If they would just stop saying, here's what's wrong, and instead saying here's what we are going to do, that would be great.

[DarkDryad]

Ya know I tend to agree with ya. If the detractors actually offered a fucking alternative it may help speed things along but to sit and scream "hey you suck" and offer no alternatibve or even assist in things gets 2 things accomplished Jack and Shit.

[Joe]

Ya know I tend to agree with ya. If the detractors actually offered a fucking alternative it may help speed things along but to sit and scream "hey you suck" and offer no alternatibve or even assist in things gets 2 things accomplished Jack and Shit.

Hey man, after eight years of you fuckers bitching about Clinton, it's our turn, only we're right.

[Mesozoic]

To be fair, Bush has recalibrated our concept of failure.  In 1998, getting a blowjob in the Oval Office was a catastrophe.  

Nowadays, getting involved on a war in the Middle East to find WMD, then not finding any WMD, then losing soldiers every day to an insurgency that gains momentum within 6 six weeks of a planned turnover of power while investigating torture at a US camp is a "difficult time."

[Dark Vengeance]

I'm going to agree with Paelos once again. If Kerry focused more on a sensible alternative plan, instead of simply promoting himself as the Anti-Bush, I might actually give the guy a fair shake at the polls.

So far, from what I've seen, the dems aren't pushing their own plans....rather, they are just saying that the current plan sucks. Typical partisan watchdog bullshit...and I can appreciate it, as the GOP did it when Clinton was in office. But for that to become Kerry's platform in his presidential campaign is pathetic.

What's the average American know about Kerry? He's a senator from New England (I doubt most know the state), he served in Vietnam, and he isn't Bush. He's a sullen guy that bears a vague resemblance to a hound dog, and watching him speak is about as engaging as feeding pigeons at the park.

But particularly on foreign policy, all I see from Kerry's own site is that his plan is virtually identical to that of Bush. He talks about international cooperation, but then says that he won't let the international community handcuff us. Improve this, improve that....easier said than done. His primary plan is to "do it better".

The one thing I've liked when browsing his site is his plan to keep more jobs from going overseas. However, his plan, which he claims will cut corporate taxes for 99% of American businesses is hampered by the fact that he intends to repeal tax cuts for the high end. It counteracts itself....entrepreneurs make investments to make money, and to place higher tax burdens on them discourages them to take the risk...especially on any sort of a large scale. The plan helps John Q Public start his small town mom-and-pop business, but mom and pop aren't likely to create so many jobs....particularly in the manufacturing and energy sectors, as he suggests.

And the negativity that has just permeated everything he says....especially when his plans aren't so radically different....is just laughable. I just think that many of Kerry's supporters are going to be in for a rude awakening if he is elected....I don't think we're going to see the radical changes that I think so many expect.

Same pig, different dress....won't change the smell, because it's still a pig.

Bring the noise.
Cheers............

[Riggswolfe]

I can sum up my whole problem with the current state of things with this quote:

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all,
 it's the leaders of the country who determine
 the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag
 the people along whether it's a democracy, a
 fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist
 dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack
 of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

Who said this?

-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

If you don't know who this is or what the Nuremberg trials were then you need to go back to history class. Suffice it to say I was shocked when I ran across this quote as it is almost straight out of the Bush playbook.

"If we don't attack Iraq we're in imminent danger"

"All you people saying the war is in trouble are only aiding the terrorists!"

I'm a moderate who doesn't like Kerry or Bush but it doesn't take much to see the writing on the wall.

BTW, if you'd like more information about that quote you can find it here

[Dark Vengeance]

To be fair, Bush has recalibrated our concept of failure.  In 1998, getting a blowjob in the Oval Office was a catastrophe.  

Nowadays, getting involved on a war in the Middle East to find WMD, then not finding any WMD, then losing soldiers every day to an insurgency that gains momentum within 6 six weeks of a planned turnover of power while investigating torture at a US camp is a "difficult time."

While it's a funny point and all....isn't this simply indicative of the vastly different circumstances expereienced by these two administrations?

It's not as if Clinton was blowing a wad onto Monica's dress as planes were colliding with buildings, or the very foundation of our economy was being rocked by unprecedented corporate scandals.

Hell, if Clinton had faced the same circumstances, I'd have been okay with Monica being the official presidential cocksucker, and being paid to "slick Willy" on a daily basis.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

[Paelos]

But particularly on foreign policy, all I see from Kerry's own site is that his plan is virtually identical to that of Bush. He talks about international cooperation, but then says that he won't let the international community handcuff us. Improve this, improve that....easier said than done. His primary plan is to "do it better".

I think this is a very key point that got glossed over in the other thread. I agree with DV here about the Kerry foreign policy being not that different from Bush's except for some vague generalities about doing more.

Bush isn't doing enough on the war on terror, so Kerry will do more. He'll do more to make better alliances. He'll do more to work with Arab nations to catch terrorists. He'll get us out the problems with Iraq by handing it to the UN.

Um, great that's all well and good, but it's campaign headlines. In a forum like a website where you can detail out your goals and strategies for your Presidency, I see very little there. All those things are kin to saying that we will "Win hearts and minds." Sure that's what we need, but how? We know what Bush is trying to do, he's playing macho politics, big stick foreign policy in the middle east. Kerry wants to have the big stick out there but also win hearts and minds. Maybe Kerry has more of a Nerf bat policy than big stick.

[kidder]

Would you vote for this:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040517/en_afp/afplifestyle_cannes_film_040517173556

Or this:

http://www.thefirsttwins.com/

[Arcadian Del Sol]

I was going to offer a response but somebody already fired up the Nazi Quote Engine for teh win, and now the thread feels like a swim in a waste treatment tank: all soiled and stinks to high heaven.

Anyway, I seriously doubt that 2/3rd of this thread actually heard what she said for themselves. I did, and she wasn't openly critical of the President. She was a tool, and made a fool of herself on television. Period, end of discussion. Democrats openly criticize the president daily, but most of them do it without making jackasses of themselves.

On Kerry's foreign policy, he says "I'm going to restore relations with other countries." Okay John, how? "By going to the UN and working with the UN and yada yada UN..." Translation: I'm going to do a better job than Bush, nevermind the details. Um John? Election year hello? We'd like a few details if you please.

[Anonymous]

We're still waiting for details on the Iraqi turnover that occurs in six weeks.  Doesn't look like either presidential candidate has their shit together.

As for Pelosi, I'm not buying she made an ass of herself.  If anything, these things needed to be said almost four years ago.

[Margalis]

There is a real problem with the dems. They spoke up too late, and they don't have a good alternative.

They were deathly afraid that if they criticized and things DID go well they would look like cowards and idiots. People get fired (voted out) for making bad decisions, but they usually don't get fired for not making decisions.

It's easy to criticize after it's obvious things have gone wrong. Too bad they were too job-minded to speak up about their reservations up front.

[Mesozoic]

While it's a funny point and all....isn't this simply indicative of the vastly different circumstances expereienced by these two administrations?

It's not as if Clinton was blowing a wad onto Monica's dress as planes were colliding with buildings, or the very foundation of our economy was being rocked by unprecedented corporate scandals.

Are you suggesting that the war in Iraq has something to do with 9/11 or corporate scandals?

[Nebu]

I think the bottom line is that there is no simple solution.  Bush doesn't know what to do and continues to throw good money (and lives) after bad.  Kerry has no clue how to fix the situation as there really is no simple solution. We don't have any exit strategy and we have almost no support from the world community.  

The liberal stance against engaging in this conflict in the first place was founded to some degree on the idea that there was no plan in place for handling the aftermath.  We saw this in Vietnam... you send the troops in and then what?  The existence of guerrilla warfare demonstrated that there is local and regional support against US intervention.  It seems to me that Iraq is mixed on whether or not they even want us there.  Yes, we have done some good... some bad as well.

I also think it's naieve to think that the US is even involved in this because of a war on terrorism.  We're not there because we're some elite moral society, rather there are financial incentives for the US  entrenching a "friendly" political climate in the middle east.  There is an agenda for being there... I really don't get the feeling that we're proactively trying to save the world from terrorism as there are MANY places in the world filled with terrorist activities we have selectively turned our backs on.

[Riggswolfe]

I was going to offer a response but somebody already fired up the Nazi Quote Engine for teh win, and now the thread feels like a swim in a waste treatment tank: all soiled and stinks to high heaven.

Actually, the Nazi/Hitler thread killer only applies if you are doing something like saying Bush=Hitler. I'm not. I found the quote quite...enlightening. Face it. How many times have we gone to Code Orange? How many times before the war were we told that if we didn't Saddam was gonna give Terrorists WMDs? How many times have we heard the phrase "If you don't do X, the terrorists win." How many political commentators, IE Rush Limbaugh, have said that if you don't support the war you're anti-American?

Be honest now. Really, truly honest. I put up that quote not because it came from a Nazi (though honestly, what other regime in world history would have a better knowledge of what the quote says) but because, to be blunt, that IS the Bush Administration policy. Scare the public so we'll go to war.

Kerry's not any better from what I can tell, but, at this point I'd rather take a chance on the unknown than continue to be manipulated by Bush and Co.

[Dark Vengeance]

Are you suggesting that the war in Iraq has something to do with 9/11 or corporate scandals?

No, I'm suggesting that Clinton didn't face problems anywhere near the scope of those experienced by this administration.

Has Bush made mistakes? Absolutely. He won't admit to them, mainly because it's an election year, and he doesn't want to provide footage or soundbits to be used in Kerry campaign ads.

Clinton's mistakes paled in comparison, but the stakes have been substantially higher under Bush's watch. Making a direct comparison is apples and oranges, despite the fact that they had the same job title.

It's the difference between the 100 meter dash and the 100 meter hurdles. Clinton stumbled but didn't fall, Bush has knocked over a couple of hurdles but has managed to avoid falling down so far.

Bring the noise.
Cheers..............

[Dark Vengeance]

Actually, the Nazi/Hitler thread killer only applies if you are doing something like saying Bush=Hitler. I'm not. I found the quote quite...enlightening. Face it. How many times have we gone to Code Orange? How many times before the war were we told that if we didn't Saddam was gonna give Terrorists WMDs? How many times have we heard the phrase "If you don't do X, the terrorists win." How many political commentators, IE Rush Limbaugh, have said that if you don't support the war you're anti-American?

Be honest now. Really, truly honest. I put up that quote not because it came from a Nazi (though honestly, what other regime in world history would have a better knowledge of what the quote says) but because, to be blunt, that IS the Bush Administration policy. Scare the public so we'll go to war.

Kerry's not any better from what I can tell, but, at this point I'd rather take a chance on the unknown than continue to be manipulated by Bush and Co.

So, in other words, you aren't saying Bush = Hitler, and thus invoking Godwin's law. Instead you are saying that Bush = Goering and that Bush Administration policy = Nazi policy. It's Godwin's all the way man. You're making the inference that Bush = Nazi.

Bring the noise.
Cheers..............

[Chiastic]

Kerry's problem is that he just isn't very smart.

The thing about Iraq (as of right now) is that there aren't a whole lot of different ways to approach it.  You can try to get the UN to take over, you can flat bail, you can half-ass the entire project, install a pathetic government that won't last a week and then bail, or you can commit to slogging it out and hope for the best.  And how many of those plans are viable as a campaign strategy?

Kerry doesn't help himself by hammering on the adminstration's management of the occupation because he's going to inherit that clusterfuck if he wins and he's not going to be able to do a whole lot differently than the Bushies unless he gives Kofi & Co. one hell of a good blowjob.

Bush's great weakness is that he got us into this mess in the first place, and if I were Kerry, I'd be saying that I intend to deal with Bush's mess in the best way that I can and guaranteeing anybody who'll listen that there isn't going to be an Iraq 2 while I'm in office.

I'd say that I intend to refocus our foreign policy efforts on fighting terrorism by finding some way to get out of Iraq (or at least reduce our presence) without fucking it over, cooperating with the UN in its own AT efforts and employing the full extent of US economic and political influence with a side of  the implied possibility of tactical military strikes (it's about time those idiots at the Pentagon learned what the true potential of transformation is) to lean hard on the countries that we know are the big problems (I'm looking at Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and possibly Syria here).  There'd probably have to be a renewed commitment to Afghanistan somewhere in there, too.

Let's see, I'd also ramp up the efficacy of our foreign intelligence services (within reason) to allow us to better locate, track and assess both the terrorists themselves and their cashflow pipelines.  And I could go on all day.

Seriously, the man could talk for hours about all the shit that Bush should have done on foreign policy but didn't because he was too busy stumbling around in a messianic haze blabbering about freedom and democracy.

Not to mention all the shit that Bush seems to be just ignoring (or mostly ignoring).  North Korea, the fact that China is making imperialistic overtures toward Taiwan again, the Israeli/Palestinian shithole that continues to escalate, etc. etc.

Kerry just doesn't have his shit together.  BUT attacking him for not knowing exactly how he's going to secure UN help, etc. is just stupid.  Until he sits down with the relevant parties to see what it's going to take to bring them on board (last time I checked, we had pissed them off something fierce), how in the hell is he supposed to give you specifics?

[Xilren's Twin]

Kerry just doesn't have his shit together.  BUT attacking him for not knowing exactly how he's going to secure UN help, etc. is just stupid.  Until he sits down with the relevant parties to see what it's going to take to bring them on board (last time I checked, we had pissed them off something fierce), how in the hell is he supposed to give you specifics?

So b/c he can't know details until he has the job, the plan is to elect him, then he'll figure out what do to?

Yeah, that inspires tons of confidence.  We're right back to "doesn't matter what he does, anything is better than Bush" line of thought.

I'm sick of voting for the lesser of two weevils.  Give me someone to vote postively FOR.  Else it may be better to leave the current guy in office just b/c he wouldn't be starting back on square 1 again with the same messes.  There is no easy answer here.

One minor point of order...

Scare the public so we'll go to war.

Attempting to scare the public into support of your position is hardly new, and not constrained to one single party.  See the politics of Medicare & Social Security for recent examples or McCarthy for older ones.

Xilren

[Margalis]

The Bush admin tactics ARE very similar to Nazi tactics. You can invoke whatever moronic internet laws you want, that's still the case.

That doesn't mean Bush IS a Nazi or as bad as a Nazi...but the tactics are certainly very similar. Use fear and lack of information to get the public to support you.

Rather than invoking "Godwin's law" how about a REAL counter-argument? You haven't said anything that calls the analogy into question.

[Chiastic]

That doesn't mean Bush IS a Nazi or as bad as a Nazi...but the tactics are certainly very similar. Use fear and lack of information to get the public to support you.

Well, actually, equating Bush to the Nazis is kinda the idea there.  If George Washington had said the exact same thing, it would have never been quoted.  Why?  Because the quote just states the tactic and a belief that the tactic works.  It doesn't even try to judge (morally, ideologically, etc.) the practice in any way, nor does it delineate between the practice and what the Nazis used it to do (and why), which is why it relies soley on Goering's connection to the Third Reich and the popular perception that the Nazis were the embodiment of pure evil for its impact.  It's guilt by degrees of separation (Bush > scare tactics > Goering > Nazis > bad things), which is almost always a total load of bullshit.

In other words, Nazi comparisons are meaningless rhetorical cheap shots that make any conversation they occur in a thousand times more stupid (hence Godwin's law).

[cevik]

In other words, Nazi comparisons are meaningless rhetorical cheap shots that make any conversation they occur in a thousand times more stupid (hence Godwin's law).

Eh, act like a three year old, get compared to a three year old.  Act like a Nazi, get compared to a Nazi.  It's certainly not Margalis's fault that the Bush Administration borrowed their domestic policy from Hitler's Regime.

BTW:  http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/g/Godwin_s_Law.html">Godwin's Law simply states:  "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

[Chiastic]

Come on Cevik, you and I both know that Godwin's Law is actually used as an indicator of "thread decay" to such an overwhelming extent that the idea that a thread has outlived its usefulness at the moment someone mentions the Nazis is irreversibly wedded to the Law itself (especially considering that Godwin himself introduced the law as a counter-meme to people insisting on bringing Hitler into every discussion).

But we can place semantics ahead of reality if you want.  Just give me fair warning first, would ya?

And I'm hoping that the "act like a Nazi, get compared to a Nazi" bit is firmly tongue-in-cheek.  Because really, it's not like Hitler invented the idea of using scare tactics and ignorance/disinformation to get his way.  It's a time-honored political tactic that's actually been used by alot of people we currently lionize.  Have you ever seen some of the shit that some of the key players during the American Revolution said about the British?

[Margalis]

I still haven't hear why it's a bad comparison.

When we went into Kosovo and the Balkans, it was NOT because of some induced fear in the public and purposeful misinformation.

It pisses me off that most Americans think most of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi. The Bush people have done everything they can, without outright lying, to support that. They continuously point out Saddam/Al Queda connections even after they are shown to be bogus, put them in the same sentence as often as possible (guilt by sentence proximity!), etc etc.

The first Gulf War was not about fear for our own safety. Neither was Kosova, or Somalia, troop action in Haiti, etc. There was no manufactured imminent threat in any of those cases.

If the Nazi comparison really bothers you, how about we leave it out and just say this: The Bush people use fear bred by misinformation to gain support for the war and silence their detractors.
---

It always used to annoy me when feminists would repeat "500 thousand women die a year of anorexia." Years after that statement was proven false, you would still hear it, and you would NEVER hear a feminist volunteer to correct it. They would either be saying it or be silent when someone else said it, even if they knew it was false. Because people believing that helped the cause.

The Bush people are the same way. They are either repeating the misinformation or making zero effort to correct what they know is false. (The Jessica Lynch stuff is a good example, the original "account" was total fabrication, and the actual heros in the story are Iraqi doctors) Instead they grudgingly admit that some bit of information linking Iraq and Al Queda was false, then have Condi rice repeat it weeks later in a Post op-ed piece.

Or how about Colin Powell proclaiming that he had a tape that showed Bin Laden and Saddam were working together, when in the tape Bin Laden expressly says he dislikes Saddam? That was complete fabrication.

[Calantus]

Honestly guys... it was a quote to support his thinking on how the Bush Administration pushed the USA into war with Iraq. Forget Nazis, think <generic asexual being that would know> in place of whoever it was (don't care enough to double-check what nazi it was). It doesn't matter, his aim was "Bush Govt policy = cause fear to push war, heres a quote so I dont look like I pulled the idea out of my ass".

Personally I think the idea gives the Bush Administration too much credit, my impression is that they have been mostly rolling with the punches and pandering to what the people expect with all the code orange and whatnot.

Oh well, on with discussing nazis, you know you want to.

[Righ]

There is a real problem with the dems. They spoke up too late, and they don't have a good alternative.

When you say that they spoke up too late, are you inferring that in the presence they got in the media was ill-timed, or are you implying there is a time limit after rhetoric is aired beyond which further rhetoric is not permissable?

[ajax34i]

While we're on the topic of the Nazi's, how about we bring Commies into the discussion too?

I don't think there's a limit after which further rhetoric is not permissible.  And when you say that "the presence they got in the media was ill-timed" it implies that somehow they had no control of WHEN they got said presence in the media, which is probably not true.

I think he means that they either decided too late to speak the right things, or they didn't figure out what to do till it was too late (and thus spoke too late).

[Margalis]

The dems spoke up after things had obviously gone wrong, so it looked like Monday morning quaterbacking. They didn't start asking for a valid exit plan until after we were already in Iraq, and they all voted to give the President a blank check to wage war.

Some of them have been saying all along they thought the war was a bad idea, but most of their actions supported it anyway, because it was the popular thing at the time.

Now it looks like they are disagreeing in hindsight, and hindsight is 20/20 as they say.

[Riggswolfe]

It doesn't matter, his aim was "Bush Govt policy = cause fear to push war, heres a quote so I dont look like I pulled the idea out of my ass".

Thank god someone intelligent got it. (I believe one other of you also said I wasn't saying Bush=Hitler or Goering). I put the quote up because I was browsing Snopes (the Urban legend website) around the time this thread started and I saw that quote and was like "Holy shit, that IS Bush domestic policy".

I really don't care if it was a Nazi who said it or if it was Mr. Rogers. The fact is, it does feel like, especially with Iraq, that the idea is to keep the populace scared so they'll go along like sheep with what you say is "for the good of the country". Hell, mouthpieces like Rush Limbaugh have been saying that if you don't support the war you're anti-American since the beginning. (Another part of that quote: pacifist=non-patriotic).

Oddly enough I like the results of the war (Saddam deposed, sons killed) I just don't like that my country was manipulated into it, and that we are most likely creating the next generation of terrorists right now.

[Mesozoic]

Are you suggesting that the war in Iraq has something to do with 9/11 or corporate scandals?

No, I'm suggesting that Clinton didn't face problems anywhere near the scope of those experienced by this administration.

But he MADE this problem.  If this was about the War on Terrorism or simply dealing with the economy, I would agree with you.

But if you run into the tiger cage at the zoo, kick the Bengal in the nuts and get mauled Roy Horn-style, you don't get to lay in your hospital bed waving your upper arms around complaining about how hard your life is.

[Arcadian Del Sol]

The Bush admin tactics ARE very similar to Nazi tactics. You can invoke whatever moronic internet laws you want, that's still the case.

That doesn't mean Bush IS a Nazi or as bad as a Nazi...but the tactics are certainly very similar. Use fear and lack of information to get the public to support you.

Rather than invoking "Godwin's law" how about a REAL counter-argument? You haven't said anything that calls the analogy into question.

This is why people are reluctant to criticize Bush - because people already critizing him are doing so by making ludcrious Nazi comparisons, and people who might actually have a valid point WORTH COUNTERING are afraid they'll be lumped into the same kettle as people who think "BUSH AER JUS LIEK GOERING!1!!" is a really clever point.

[Tebonas]

Indeed, I fucking hate Goering. But he was quite intelligent if completely amoral. Comparing him with Bush is not fair.

[Riggswolfe]

This is why people are reluctant to criticize Bush - because people already critizing him are doing so by making ludcrious Nazi comparisons, and people who might actually have a valid point WORTH COUNTERING are afraid they'll be lumped into the same kettle as people who think "BUSH AER JUS LIEK GOERING!1!!" is a really clever point.

I'm beginning to see how Bush won. It seems that his voters cannot read. I understand it is easier to try to put people down and say "You're just saying he's a Nazi" instead of paying attention to the quote and the comparison made about tactics in the quote. NOTE: I never, nor did anyone else say "Bush is a Nazi. Bush is into genocide. Bush hates Jews. Bush gives speeches like Hitler! (Of course, as much as Hitler is hated, he gave awesome speeches, so that comparison would be truly ludicrous.)"

What was said, if you can READ, is that he uses tactics very similiar to the ones in that quote. He makes the public afraid to stir up a war and he decries people against the war as un-Patriotic.

Damn I hate debating with stupid people, it's just not fair.