Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Gixer on October 06, 2004, 09:26:43 PM
-
Remember when Bush said that, well Charlie has got back with his report and it couldn't be any worse.
"Wait until Charlie gets back with the final report," Mr Bush said in June, fending off reporters trying to get him to admit that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction.
Yesterday, "Charlie", aka Charles Duelfer, the chief US weapons inspector, did get back - and his report could send shockwaves though an election campaign in which the Iraq issue already dwarfs all others.
Mr Duelfer's main finding, that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, was widely expected. But the thoroughness of the 1,000-page report, based on nine months of work by the Iraq Survey Group led by Mr Duelfer, is a massive blow to George Bush's rationale for going to war.
It is bound to be seized upon by John Kerry in his second debate with Mr Bush tomorrow as further proof that the President rushed to war without waiting for the facts.
In a clear bid to limit the damage, Mr Bush used a campaign appearance in the swing state of Pennsylvania yesterday to stress the "real risk", that Saddam would give weapons or know-how to terrorist groups. "This was a risk we could not afford to take," he declared.
Nonetheless, the President's record in office now looks less impressive than perhaps at any moment since the day in May 2003 when Mr Bush landed aboard the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln beneath a banner proclaiming "Mission Accomplished". Day after day, Mr Kerry hammers away at the gap between the President's rosy assertions and the bloody reality on the ground in Iraq.
One blow after another strike the President's credibility. First came the leak of an intelligence report commissioned by the CIA which suggested that Iraq might be sliding into civil war.
That was followed by the leaked speech of a senior CIA Middle East specialist, who said the agency had warned the White House before the war that an invasion would probably be followed by an insurgency and growing sympathy for radical Islam and its goals.
Next came Mr Bush's dismal showing in the first debate in Florida, when Mr Kerry at last turned the spotlight from 11 September and terrorism to the current disorder in Iraq. Within 48 hours, a long report in the New York Times showed how the administration deliberately played down the dissent of its own experts when it claimed Saddam had been purchasing aluminium tubes in order to build nuclear weapons.
Those revelations, combined with Mr Duelfer's conclusion yesterday that Saddam's nuclear programme between 1998 and 2003 had shrivelled from minimal to non-existent, make a mockery of the apocalyptic pre-war warning by Condoleezza Rice, the President's national security adviser, that if the US waited, the "smoking gun" proving Iraq's WMD threat might be "a mushroom cloud". This week, both Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, and Paul Bremer, the former US administrator in post-war Baghdad, have added to the embarrassment. Mr Rumsfeld cast doubt on links between Saddam and al-Qa'ida, another justification for going to war, while the former head of the Coalition Provisional Authority revealed how he had pressed, in vain, for more troops to stabilise Iraq.
The Duelfer report was not the only embarrassment for Bush yesterday. Another CIA report, leaked to the New York Times, is dubious that links existed between the Saddam regime and the Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, whose group has kidnapped and executed Westerners.
US charges that Iraq had relations with al-Qa'ida were largely based on claims that Saddam had sheltered al-Zarqawi followers. Now, even that assertion is being questioned.
-
Thousands.... Tens of thousands, even.... of words have been written here in this forum about the issue of Iraq and WMD.
Spanning several years.
Spamming several threads.
Mocking more than several people.
Well...
Today, to me, and no matter which bets have been won or lost previously, marks the official day that the last nail has been driven into that coffin.
I think that if anything should be learned from this - and I include myself - it should be that while we may feel so entirely convinced about whatever it is we may think, to the point where we attack and drive away our brethren, we very well could be wrong.
Dead wrong, even.
-
And you could be wrong, there could well be weapons buried or smuggled out of the country. Where are all the WMDs unaccounted for? When that question can be answered it can then be said there are none.
-
Nash, did you read the report, or at least the Key points?
I am guessing you did not; you only read the reporting of what the report said. Shame on you for being a sheep.
-
The report not only said he didn't have any WMD since '91, it said that they didn't even have the *ability* to produce them.
You cannot smuggle WMD into other countries if you cannot even create WMD in the first place.
-
Originally posted by Lizking
Nash, did you read the report, or at least the Key points?
I am guessing you did not; you only read the reporting of what the report said. Shame on you for being a sheep.
Shame on you for being wrong about that, too.
-
but Nash!
He was a threat because he wanted WMD.
C'mon man... get with the program.
-
You did not read the report, little sheep. Watch it, you may get ****ed.
-
Yup Sand you nailed it.
Basically:
"He desired WMD"...
That's it.
-
So the report confirms that, only by the use of force was Iraq removed as a threat?
I get it.
-
Er upon a re-read, yer right Liz... I didn't read the report itself. I thought you were implying that my conclusion was based solely on it.
-
The use of force is the only reason Iraq does not have WMD.
-
Screw the trolls... and more of this same BS.
Iraq = No WMD.
again....
Iraq = No WMD.
It is done, folks.
Good night, and drive safely.
-
Nash, was Iraq disarmed by UN resolutions, or was it by force?
Use your mellon for once and think about it.
-
The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither
was there an identifi able group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam.
Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991—after sanctions
were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that
which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion,
irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on ballistic
missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.
source (http://wid.ap.org/documents/iraq/041006keyfindings.pdf)
-
Originally posted by NUKE
The use of force is the only reason Iraq does not have WMD.
Unfortunately, that was 13 years ago.
-
In the "Key Findings" the ISG acknowledges that they cannot confirm the destruction of all of the WMD that Saddam was known to have possessed.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Unfortunately, that was 13 years ago.
Okay, you bit. :)
Back then Iraq was known to have WMD, yet we never considered invading them until they invaded Kuwait.
The UN passed some resolutions demanding Iraq withdraw from Kuwait.....Iraq refused and all the UN could do was pass another resolution.....to use force, but even that meant nothing.
What mattered was that the US put FORCE behind the UN resolutions, kicked Iraq out of Kuwait and FORCED Iraq to give up it's WMD. Am I right so far?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
What mattered was that the US put FORCE behind the UN resolutions, kicked Iraq out of Kuwait and FORCED Iraq to give up it's WMD. Am I right so far?
You state that as if the U.S. were the only country involved.
-
Vote for Kerry and let him drive the coun try into the ground.
Vote for Bush and let him drive this country into the ground.
I'm moving to Britain...
-
Some telling tidbits:
• ISG does not have a clear account of bulk agent destruction. Offi cial Iraqi sources and BW personnel, state that Al Hakam staff destroyed stocks of bulk agent in mid 1991. However, the same personnel admit concealing details of the movement and destruction of bulk BW agent in the fi rst half of 1991. Iraq continued to present information known to be untrue to the UN up to OIF. Those involved did not reveal this until several
months after the conflict.
• Dr. Rihab Rashid Taha Al ‘Azzawi, head of the bacterial program claims she retained BW seed stocks until early 1992 when she destroyed them. ISG has not found a means of verifying this. Some seed stocks were retained by another Iraqi offi cial until 2003 when they were recovered by ISG.
And from the beginning:
Nonetheless, the interview process had several shortcomings. Detainees were very concerned about their fate and therefore would not be willing to implicate themselves in sensitive matters of interest such as WMD, in light of looming prosecutions. Debriefers noted the use of passive interrogation resistance techniques collectively by a large number of detainees to avoid their involvement or knowledge of sensitive issues; place blame
or knowledge with individuals who were not in a position to contradict the detainee’s statements, such as deceased individuals or individuals who were not in custody or who had fl ed the country; and provide debriefers with previously known information. However, the reader should keep in mind the Arab proverb: “Even a liar tells many truths.”
-
Originally posted by Sandman
You state that as if the U.S. were the only country involved.
don't deflect my point. The use of force is what made Iraq comply with the UN back then, right?
-
Originally posted by texace
I'm moving to Britain...
Not me... Australia!
or...
New Zealand
or
Canada. :aok
-
Originally posted by NUKE
don't deflect my point. The use of force is what made Iraq comply with the UN back then, right?
Is it compliance if they were driven out by force?
-
This is just brilliant. Figures that for my very first ever presidential vote...I get to vote for who will do the least amount of damage in the next four years.
Kerry and his "change with the wind" platform...
...or...
Bush and his "Well, I thought they were there!" platform.
Great...no pressure here...:(
-
Well, if it'll make you feel any better texace, your vote will count for Bush no matter which button you push. ;)
-
The threat of force is only effective if you use it. He dicked us around for 12 years, then got all compliant when we had 150,000 boots on the ground. Even then, with that overt threat, he would not comply. That is why he had to go.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Is it compliance if they were driven out by force?
What? Compliance is compliance. Force made them comply....please tell me otherwise.
-
They didn't comply. They died.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
They didn't comply. They died.
now Sandman, does that bring anything to the debate or even make sense?
-
It's the part about Iraq complying with the UN and the Gulf War was what forced them to do so.
They didn't comply. They were destroyed. IIRC, the coalition casualites numbered in the hundreds while the Iraqi losses are estimated at anything from 25,000 to 75,000.
-
At least Sandman knows where the blame lies. If the Dems would just accept that fact, they might have a chance.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
It's the part about Iraq complying with the UN and the Gulf War was what forced them to do so.
They didn't comply. They were destroyed. IIRC, the coalition casualites numbered in the hundreds while the Iraqi losses are estimated at anything from 25,000 to 75,000.
lol.
What are you saying? Are you saying that Iraq suffered losses because they were FORCED to comply with UN resolutions? Isn't that all a part of the USE OF FORCE?
Without the use of force, nothing would have prevented Iraq from having WMD today. Tell me how I am wrong.
-
Oh hell... if you go that route, would Iraq have had a chemical weapons program if the U.S. hadn't given it to them?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Oh hell... if you go that route, would Iraq have had a chemical weapons program if the U.S. hadn't given it to them?
Christ you are a shifty devil!
The point ( remember the point) is that nothing but FORCE disarmed Iraq.
-
I hate being part of a smack-down against you Sandman, but damn.
-
Okay... so we've established that Iraq was disarmed after the Gulf War.
Where were you going with this?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I hate being part of a smack-down against you Sandman, but damn.
Premature jubiliation... first one to declare victory wins?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Premature jubiliation... first one to declare victory wins?
more like, first one to go off topic refusing to address the specific pint ( many times) loses by default.
-
I was on topic... I was just off on a tangent that you didn't like. :p
-
Damn Sandy...screw arguing with you :)
Tell you what. I'm going to make a nice F-14 model for you.
-
I love you man. :cool:
-
well, I like you :cool:
But if you want a nice F-14, I'm your guy!
-
<<< clip>>>.
Saddam was importing banned materials, working on unmanned aerial vehicles in violation of U.N. agreements and maintaining industrial capability that could be converted to produce weapons, officials have said. Duelfer also describes Saddam's Iraq as having had limited research efforts into chemical and biological weapons.
<<>>
-
None of which made him an immediate threat.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
None of which made him an immediate threat.
Was he a threat to the US when he invaded Kuwait?
-
No.
-
No, Nuke, he was a threat when he gave safe harbor to terrorists (Abu Nidal), provided support (Hamas homicide bomber bonuses) and training (Saloman Pak). Coupled with his attacks on his nieghbors, including Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Isreal, along with his failure to comply with UN sanctions made him a threat impossible to ignore.
-
A theat to do what exactly?
-
Originally posted by Lizking
No, Nuke, he was a threat when he gave safe harbor to terrorists (Abu Nidal), provided support (Hamas homicide bomber bonuses) and training (Saloman Pak). Coupled with his attacks on his nieghbors, including Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Isreal, along with his failure to comply with UN sanctions made him a threat impossible to ignore.
Abu Nidal's beef was with Israel, not the US. He hadn't hit "western" targets since the 1980's. Some of his last victims are believed to include PLO chiefs Abu Iyad and Abu Hul. You class him as a major threat to the USA?
Hamas likewise doesn't target US interests.
None of the claims made by Iraqi opposition sources regarding Salman Pak being used to train Islamic extremists have ever been sustantiated as far as I can tell. Bear in mind that these are the most likely the same Iraqi oppostion sources that Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz et al were so keen to listen to on the WMD issue prior to the invasion, but from whom they are now quietly distancing themselves.
So basically, your rationale is that the invasion was carried out in the interests of Israel, and on the basis of unsubstantiated claims made by unnamed sources whose other claims on Iraq are increasingly being proved to be baseless, correct?
-
Originally posted by Lizking
Nash, did you read the report, or at least the Key points?
I am guessing you did not; you only read the reporting of what the report said. Shame on you for being a sheep.
Did you read the part where most of the Iraqi top leaders thought they had WMD's?
-
since he stalled and jacked the uN around for 12 years...
glad Bush took action on the nutbag saddam
one less nutbag in the world...
ready to move on to the next one - either the one right next door with the towel on his head or slant eyes with the wild hair right around the corner
-
Originally posted by Eagler
since he stalled and jacked the uN around for 12 years...
glad Bush took action on the nutbag saddam
one less nutbag in the world...
Actually with all the recruiting that AQ is doing down there, it's more like several more nutbags in the world.
-
Originally posted by Krusher
Did you read the part where most of the Iraqi top leaders thought they had WMD's?
Interesting point,
If Iraqi leaders thought they had WMD I guess there intelligence was also bad. How were we supposed to know other wise? this includes Russia as they were just as fooled as the rest of the world. Kerry also believed they had WMD when it was not politely convenient to think otherwise.
Saddam did a good job of fooling the world, to good. Seems the old fox outsmarted himself.
I just love Monday morning quarterbacking as well as the next
-
Link to the Executive Summary of the new report. Very interesting reading, and not too long at 19 pages (a relative assessment from one used to reading gov't reports:)).
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf
-
Originally posted by texace
This is just brilliant. Figures that for my very first ever presidential vote...I get to vote for who will do the least amount of damage in the next four years.
Kerry and his "change with the wind" platform...
...or...
Bush and his "Well, I thought they were there!" platform.
Great...no pressure here...:(
Get used to it. Its been that way for a while.
Probably gonna be that way for the forseeable future too
-
Originally posted by Sandman
They didn't comply. They died.
Yea. Damn shame wasnt it? LOL
-
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/criswell.jpg)
Iraqi WMD will be found next to Jimmy Hoffa.
-
Americans who fell in "WMDs in Iraq" slogan are propably similar folks who though at Germany in thirties that Poland really was a threat to Nazi-Germany.
Propaganda is a very powerfull tool and it's understandable some of you, the weaker minds, fell to it :aok
-
Originally posted by Staga
Americans who fell in "WMDs in Iraq" slogan are propably similar folks who though at Germany in thirties that Poland really was a threat to Nazi-Germany.
Propaganda is a very powerfull tool and it's understandable some of you, the weaker minds, fell to it :aok
Really? Since you brought up the Nazis allow me to point out a few similarities between Hussein and Hitler. Both hated and would annihilate all Jews if they could. Both were strong arm dictators that murdered many of their own. Both aggressively invaded their neighbors looking to dominate their entire regions.
I think we learned something about this sort of aggression from WWII.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Really? Since you brought up the Nazis allow me to point out a few similarities between Hussein and Hitler. Both hated and would annihilate all Jews if they could. Both were strong arm dictators that murdered many of their own. Both aggressively invaded their neighbors looking to dominate their entire regions.
I think we learned something about this sort of aggression from WWII.
Funny, alot of people seem to find more comparisons between Bush and Hitler.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Like Hitler, President Bush was not elected by a majority, but was forced to engage in political maneuvering in order to gain office.
2. Like Hitler, Bush began to curtail civil liberties in response to a well-publicized national outrage, in Hitler's case the Reichstag fire, in Bush's case the 9-11 catastrophe.
3. Like Hitler, Bush went on to pursue a reckless ultra-nationalist foreign policy without the mandate of the electorate.
4. Like Hitler, Bush has accordingly improved his popularity ratings, especially with veterans and conservative Republicans, by mounting an aggressive public relations campaign against foreign enemies. Just as Hitler cited international communism to justify Germany's military buildup, Bush uses Al Qaeda and the Axis of Evil to justify our current military buildup.
5. Like Hitler, Bush promotes militarism while in the midst of a major economic recession (or depression). He uses war preparations to help subsidize defense industries (Halliburton, Bechtel, etc.) and presumably the rest of the economy on a trickle-down basis.
6. Like Hitler, Bush glorifies patriotism to stir up public support. He treats our nation's unique historic destiny almost as a religious cause sanctioned by God.
7. Like Hitler, Bush quickly makes and breaks diplomatic ties, and he makes generous promises that he soon abandons, as in the case of Mexico, Russia, Afghanistan, and even New York City.
8. Like Hitler, Bush envisages a future world order that guarantees his own nation's hegemonic supremacy rather than cooperative harmony under the authority of the United Nations (or League of Nations). He is willing to break the U.N. Charter in promoting this end.
9. Like Hitler, Bush scraps international treaties, most notably the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Convention on the Prohibition of Land Mines, the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Kyoto Global Warming Accord, and the International Criminal Court.
10. Like Hitler, Bush depends on an axis of collaborative allies, which he describes as a "coalition of the willing," to give the impression of having a broad popular alliance. These include the U.K. as compared to Mussolini's Italy, and Spain and Bulgaria as compared to, well, Spain and Bulgaria, both of which were aligned with Germany during the thirties and World War II.
11. Like Hitler, Bush possesses a war machine much bigger and more effective than the military capabilities of other nations. Today, Bush depends on a "defense" budget roughly equivalent to the combined military expenditures of the rest of the world.
12. Like Hitler, Bush is willing to invade other nations despite the opposition of the U.N. (League of Nations). He also has no qualms about bribing, bullying and insulting its members, even tapping their telephone lines.
13. Like Hitler, Bush pursues war without cutting back on the peacetime economy. He actually seeks to reduce taxes while conducting an expensive invasion and occupation of an "undesirable" nation.
14. Like Hitler, Bush launches unilateral invasions on a supposedly preemptive basis. Just as Hitler convinced the German public to think of Poland as a threat to Germany in 1939, Bush wants Americans to think of Iraq as a "potential" threat to our national security.
15. Like Hitler, Bush is willing to inflict high levels of bloodshed, with many thousands of casualties anticipated in Iraq, especially since the city of Baghdad--with a population of between 5 and 6 million--will be a primary target.
16. Like Hitler, Bush depends on a military strategy that features a "shock and awe" blitzkrieg beginning with devastating air strikes, then an invasion led by heavy armor columns.
17. Like Hitler, Bush is perfectly willing to sacrifice life as part of his official duty, as indicated by his unique record as a governor of Texas who was reluctant to commute death sentences.
18. Like Hitler Bush began warfare on a single front (Al Qaeda quartered in Afghanistan), but then expanded it to a second front with Iraq, only to be confronted with North Korea as a potential third front. Much the same thing happened when Hitler expanded German military operations from Spain to Poland and France, then was distracted by Yugoslavia before invading the USSR in 1941.
19. Like Hitler, Bush has no qualms about imposing "regime change" by installing Quisling-style client governments reinforced by full-scale military occupation under a military governor.
20. Like Hitler, Bush curtails civil liberties and depends on detention centers (i.e. concentration camps) such as Guantanamo Bay.
21. Like Hitler, Bush repeats lies often enough that they come to be accepted as the truth. Bush and his spokesmen argue, for example that every measure has been taken to avoid war (hardly true), that an invasion of Iraq will diminish (not intensify) the terrorist threat to the world, and that the U.S. is staging an invasion because the risks of inaction would be greater (not less). All of this is highly debatable. They likewise argue that Iraq is linked with Al Qaeda (which has yet to be proven), and that nothing whatsoever has been achieved by U.N. inspectors to warrant the postponement of U.S. war plans (which simply isn't true). They insist that Iraq hides numerous weapons it does not possess as well
as can be determined by U.N. inspectors, and they refuse to acknowledge the total absence of any nuclear weapons program in Iraq since the late nineties. As perhaps to be expected, they indignantly accuse everybody else of deception and evasiveness.
22. Like Hitler, Bush incessantly finds new excuses to justify war—from Iraq's WMD threat to the elimination of Saddam Hussein, to his supposed Al Qaeda connection, to the creation of democracy in the Middle East as a model for neighboring states, and back again to the WMD threat. As soon as one excuse for war is challenged, Bush shifts to another, but only to shift back again at another time.
23. Like Hitler Bush and his cohorts exaggerate ruthlessness by their enemies in order to justify their own. Just as Hitler cited the threat of communist violence to justify even greater violence on the part of Germany, the Bush team justifies a full-scale invasion of Iraq by emphasizing Saddam Hussein's crimes against humanity that were for the most part committed when Iraq was a client-ally of the U.S., supplied with both advisors and materiel (poison gas included) by our own government.
24. Like Hitler, Bush's Messianic ambition to bring about America's hegemonic dominance in the world makes him perhaps the most dangerous President in our nation's history, a rogue chief executive capable of waging any number of illegal preemptive wars.
25. Like Hitler, Bush has become so obsessed with his vision of a Manichaean conflict between good (U.S. patriotism) and evil (the anti-patriotic "other") that for many in contact with the White House he is beginning to seem as if he has lost touch with reality.
26. Like Hitler, Bush takes pleasure in the mythology of frontier justice. As a youth Hitler read and memorized the western novels of Karl May, and Bush retains into his maturity his fascination with simplistic cowboy values. He also exaggerates a cowboy twang despite his elitist education at Andover, Yale and Harvard.
27. Like Hitler, Bush misconstrues evolutionary theory, in Hitler's case by treating the Aryan race as being superior, in Bush's case by rejecting science for fundamentalist creationism.
Of course countless differences may be listed between Hitler and President Bush, most of which are to the credit of Bush. Nevertheless, the twenty-seven resemblances listed here are striking, especially since Bush's presidency this last couple of years must be compared to Hitler's early performance as German Chancellor, preceding the chain of events that culminated in World War II. As with Hitler, Bush's early successes in pursuit of global imperialism--whatever the cost to others--might well culminate in disaster, if not quite of the same magnitude.
-
hmmm ... it's pretty a troll Gixer ,I'll bite anyway
1. Perhaps , but Bush didn't overthrow the Parlement.
2. Yes but as far as I know it's for a limited period of time (even if I disagree strongly with this law).
3. see point 1 Bush election is valid according to Us laws.
4. right wing tradition and show the influence of the neo-con in his governement
5. no opinion here
6. Even Kerry is using the same trick , it's more the US society than the politic,mostly in my interpretation the sequell of the Vietnam's years.
7. no opinion here.
8. it started in the 60's and I don't think GWB is the one that started this.
9. no opinion here.
10. I would more write client than "axis of collaborative allies"
11. right
12. no opinion here.
To many points left I give up ... plus my coffee is cold now and I hate drinking a cold coffee !
-
Well that list sure gives something to think about.
-
Gixer,
1. BS
2. What civil liberties exactly have been curtailed?
3. BS
4. Difference here is that Hitler did it to garner support and gain the strength to conquer his neighbors. Bush declared war on terrorism as a result of repeated attacks.
5. Promotes militarism? How so?
6. Our patriotism? I just realized you are cutting and pasting someone else's rant. I won't waste further time with this.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Gixer,
1. BS
2. What civil liberties exactly have been curtailed?
3. BS
4. Difference here is that Hitler did it to garner support and gain the strength to conquer his neighbors. Bush declared war on terrorism as a result of repeated attacks.
5. Promotes militarism? How so?
6. Our patriotism? I just realized you are cutting and pasting someone else's rant. I won't waste further time with this.
BS.
Wow, this completely useless form of rebuttal sure is easy.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Gixer,
6. Our patriotism? I just realized you are cutting and pasting someone else's rant. I won't waste further time with this.
Ah, the catch of the day.
LMAO sorry that's just so funny. I said at the start "Funny, alot of people seem to find more comparisons between Bush and Hitler." I never said it was my opinion or that I believed in those statements, though alot do.
Sorry dude.
...-Gixer