Bush speech a flop? TERROR ALERT! TERROR ALERT!

[MichaeltheGreat]

No, no more than you're forbidden to mention Hitler and Cannae in the same sentence, and they have about the same correlation.

The issue with Bush is he's trying to hide behind 9/11 rather than addressing the real reasons (whatever they may be) behind the decision to commit so much of our combat capability for so long in Iraq.

And if Zarqawi is there, so what? What was Zarqawi's role in 9/11? He's someone of sympathetic ideology who picked his own fight after the fact (of 9/11) and chose to align himself with al Qaeda, big deal.

Are we the fourth Reich because of some neo-Nazi fools in camps in Idaho?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
No, no more than you're forbidden to mention Hitler and Cannae in the same sentence, and they have about the same correlation.

The issue with Bush is he's trying to hide behind 9/11 rather than addressing the real reasons (whatever they may be) behind the decision to commit so much of our combat capability for so long in Iraq.

And if Zarqawi is there, so what? What was Zarqawi's role in 9/11? He's someone of sympathetic ideology who picked his own fight after the fact (of 9/11) and chose to align himself with al Qaeda, big deal.

Are we the fourth Reich because of some neo-Nazi fools in camps in Idaho?

No, but if there were Neo Nazis planting car bombs in Washington several times a week, and the entire pacific northwest was barely within govt control due to actions of Neo Nazis and their allies, and the US government appealed to our allies, to help fight the neo nazis, while US troops were trained to do so, in order to avoid a neo Nazi takeover of the US, it would be wise for them to do so and to stay the course. And harping on the absence of a connection between the US and WW2 would be a distraction from the question of how to defeat the neo nazis.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

"No, no more than you're forbidden to mention Hitler and Cannae in the same sentence, and they have about the same correlation."

'"But our demands that the former regime hand him over were in vain,” Abdullah said.

“We had information that he entered Iraq from a neighbouring country, where he lived and what he was doing. We informed the Iraqi authorities about all this detailed information we had, but they didn’t respond,” the king said. '


"The issue with Bush is he's trying to hide behind 9/11 rather than addressing the real reasons (whatever they may be) behind the decision to commit so much of our combat capability for so long in Iraq."

the question now is what we do NOW. The people had the chance to dump Bush in 2004 and didnt. Hes a lame duck now, unless you want to impeach him. Whats under debate is what we do NOW.

"And if Zarqawi is there, so what? What was Zarqawi's role in 9/11? "

What was Mullah omar's? What was Gulbudin Hekmatyrs?

" He's someone of sympathetic ideology who picked his own fight after the fact (of 9/11) and chose to align himself with al Qaeda, big deal." He was in fact affiliated with AQ before 9/11, IIUC.
]

[lord of the mark]

a fuller discussion of Zarqs links to AQ

http://windsofchange.net/archives/005718.php