So...when is the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor

[LynnTheDem]

going to be revised in US history books as being legal and the first documented use of the bush Doctrine?

Just wondering, now that bush declares preventive strikes to be legal.

[DIKB]

1. I don't think it ever will.

I think it's one of those repuke things. You know like christianity. "We don't have to follow the rules, only everyone else does."

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. It's only legal if a rw asshole does it.

Otherwise it's way beyond an impeachable offense.

[LynnTheDem]

5. Dang. I keep forgetting the "it's ok if you're a republican" part.

1. republicans can do anything they want and it's ok.

2. No one else can do anything unless a republican says they can...and even then, republicans may turn around afterwards and say it's not ok, because see #1.

3. If an act of terrorism happens 6 weeks into a Democrat president's term, he is responsible.

If an act of terrorism happens 6 months into a republican president's term:

A) It's not his fault.

and

B) It's the fault of the previous Democrat president.

No matter how many (54) warnings the republican president received in those 6 months.

4. All reality that differs from republican ideology is the fault of the "lying liberal media", but no republican will demand the return of the Fairness doctrine to stop the "lying liberal media"...and that makes total sense only to republicans.

5. With the number of abortions higher in red states than in blue states, and increase under a republican president, Democrats are "baby killers" and "pro abortion". This also makes total sense only to republicans.

6. All else falls under #1.

[unblock]

3. or hitler's invasion of poland

unlike japan, nazi germany actually invoked the bush doctrine (at least, the same principles) to justify their invasion of poland.

japan's claim was that the u.s. was already at war with them due to the way we were supplying russia and so on.

germany's claim on poland was that the poles were committing terrorist acts against germans, in germany but primarily in poland, and that the were plotting even bigger terrorist acts against germans.

why one sounds more like bush?

[DefenseLawyer]

4. I think it is sometimes lost on people that Hitler was a politician

and not just a "madman". He didn't just wake up one morning and start World War II. He didn't go on the radio in 1940 and say "Surprise! I'm a crazy evil motherfucker and we are going to kill everything in sight, so buckle up" No, every action they took was carefully sold to the German people as rational and necessary for their security. The Nazis didn't come to power with guns, they came to power with propaganda and most Germans were buying what they were selling. That doesn't mean the average German in the 30's was evil. Quite the contrary; because Hitler wasn't selling "evil", he was selling patriotism and national security.

[LynnTheDem]

6. Bingo.

Every time anyone posts remarking on the similarities between bush and Hitler's actions, such as the Patriot Act, the pre-emptive strikes against "terrorist" Iraq, the "dissent = treason" and the concentration camps and the demonization of groups of people (same groups, too; liberals, gays, women, religious groups not of the "accepted" group, artists, reporters, and other world leaders) and the widespread torture & abuse, the detaining indefinitely without charges, the constant TERRA TERRA TERRA, etc, the shrill start screeching about how bush has not (yet) having killed millions and to compare the two denigrates the suffering of the Jews.

Apparently it's just a matter of body count.

They don't have a clue that it took Hitler years before millions were killed, it wasn't just the Jews who suffered, and in fact Hitler did start off the same way bush has and is. The propaganda is so similiar it's frightening...ask the German people, they've been seeing bush as another Hitler for some time now. They should know.