Hi Chris,

>>You won't dignify my comments because I bitch-slapped you with facts that you find inconvenient to your argument. It also implies a less than complete and confused understanding of history and that you might be afraid to challenge me in that area - as well you should be if you knew my background.
>
>To base a WWII-to-IraqII comparison of Germany-Japan to the Iraq invasion of Kuwait in that both wanted the economic bennies, the natural resources, and the land of the countries they invaded is profound. I never would have noticed the similarity. I also understand that Hussein and Hitler spell their names with an H. Yet another eery similarity.
>
>If the US, after being attacked by Japan at Pearl Harbor, had attacked Japan's neighbor in response, then i think both wars would compare more favorably.

Wrong analogy. After 911 we attacked Afghanistan which was the hotbed for Al-Queda (the Japanese analogy). Later, we attacked Iraq. This is more akin to our getting active with Germany than with a Japanese neighbor because it was felt that Germany was the root of the problem much as this government felt that Iraq was one of the roots of the terrorism problem.

>Likewise, if FDR's administration had establish something comparable to Bush's White House Iraq Group and staffed it with politicos in order to market an attack on Japan, then i'd say that helps the comparison a bit.

Ahh, but FDR did! There's a fascinating book called "Empires on the Pacific" that came out a few years ago and details FDR and the American presses continual efforts to demonize and threaten the Japanese in the 1930's and 40's. In fact, there was a 1940 front cover Time magazine article talking about how we could use China as a base to destroy Japan's mainly wood and paper houses. The cover art showed red arrows of bomber streams converging on Japan. This was at least a year before Pearl Harbor.

>Were there Curveball and Niger forgery-like moments that the FDR administration held close to the teet, in contradiction to the advice supplied to the administration by FDR's own intelligence agencies?

Yup. The details escape me now but there were some pretty wild ideas floating around; contributing to the forced sequestering of Japanese-Americans.

>Back in the WWII day, did we have political appointees contradicting troop deployment levels made by Army generals like we did w/ Iraq in the hope of doing it on the cheap?

Chris, you're asking questions that make it easy for me to remember all of my reading/research. The answer is YES. Since this country is run by politicians and political appointees and the answer has always been "yes". I could give innumerable examples.

>Did they cut taxes during WWII?

No, they raised them. But what does that have to do with anything? The Bush tax cut came before 911.

>With the IraqII invasion, did we follow the "we were attacked, so we responded" model used in WWII? Did FDR create something comparable to Cheney & Rummy's Office of Special Plans inside the Pentagon and staff it with
neoconservatives to stovepipe the intel?

You're deviating from the Q&A here and leaning towards slanted accusations but I'll humor it for now. The 1st question has already been answered and the answer to the second is....YES. What do you think the OSS (later to become the CIA) was?

>Did FDR administration officials, several years prior to becoming FDR administration officials, advocate the toppling of the Japaneese guvmint... similar to the PNAC-associated people in Bush's administration? Did FDR find it necessary to declassify the status of a guvmint agent and then share this declassified info with a very limited group of reporters (who at the time were not aware of the declassified status of the information, including the timeframe several years later when they were required to testify under oath to a special prosecuter) and then for years pretend he didnt have any involvement in the declassifying of the agent's status? Did a large percentage of the American people during WWII incorrectly believe that another foreign entity participated with Japan in the bombing of Pearl Harbor as a result of the FDR administration conflating Japan with another country, similar to what the Bush administration did with 911 and Iraq? I'm
>guessing that some of this stuff wasnt necessary during WWII.
>

Now you're getting pure propagandic and not worthy of drawing parallels. If you hate Bush then be honest about it and not throw wild-eyed liberal moonbat junk into it and expect a rational response.

>> Iraq was not at war with anybody because they had been contained and not because they were oh-so-peaceful.
>
>> that doesn't mean the intent was not there.
>
>
>You're putting history in a blender a bit here. I dont recall the administration telling us that Iraq was contained (although the Brits told us). I also dont recall the administration telling us that Iraq intended to, at some time down the road, if we left them alone, although inspections were going on, that maybe, they might intend to try something. Instead, i remember that it was urgent and the threat was imminent.

And the fact that I have had to enlighted you by answering your oh-so-snide questions with hard, cold facts shows who has the lesser grasp of history.

Iraq was contained from the pure military standpoint - there was no way they were going to preemptively attack Iran or Kuwait (again). However, we had a lack of intelligence assets in country but we knew Abu Nidal was being hosted there. We also had no knowledge where the WMD were that we knew he had at one point (the last 3 Presidents agreed on that one while each was in office).

Inspections were NOT going on. There was a 5 year gap between the UN being kicked out and the UN being let back in. That's a long time for stuff to be hidden or moved to friendly neighbors.

And there was this weird policy Saddam had of giving the families of suicide bombers ... errr... 15 or 25,000 dollars (not sure of the exact amount). Plus, he kept challenging the No-Fly Zone keeping everyone on edge.

So do the math. You have an absolute dictator that you don't have enough information on his intent. You know that he at one point had chemical weapons and has tried to start a nuclear program seveal times. You know that he has provided safe passage and healthcare to known terrorists. You know that there are terrorists with extreme hostile intent towards the US but are not sure if these same terrorists are being supplied or armed by Saddam.

In this situation, can there be any doubt that the responsible position by a President would be to assume a grave threat? After all, he has a Constitutional oath to protect the American people.

Hindsight's wonderful, ain't it? It lets your types of folks look really smart in reverse.

As an aside, what really puzzles me is that why he didn't showboat when he did destroy or remove the WMD. That would have put pressure on the UN to remove sanctions and would have been an unbeatable PR move. I think there is still a story to be told there but we don't have the ending yet.

>"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
>• President Bush, 9/26/02

Yup, he might have. We know better now but not then.

>> You won't dignify my comments because I bitch-slapped you with facts that you find inconvenient to your argument.
>
>> I dislike partisan wonks on the right or left. Because they're shrill idiots.
>
>Regrettably, professing one's dislike of partison wonks/shrill idiots does not ensure that the person professing one's dislike isnt a partison wonk/shrill idiot. I agree that comments aluding to someone's drinking habits are shrill, but claiming to have virtually "bitch slapped" someone sounds equally shrill. Actually, "bitch slapped" sounds like terribly misplaced, self-congratulatory nonsense in this case.

Well, Chris, how fey of you to point that out! If by inference you're calling me a wonk then do it directly and don't hide behind thinly veiled rhetoric. Also, buddy, before questioning me make sure you have your facts and history correct and not just talk out of your butt on what you *think* is right. Because I put things in historical perspective analytically and conclude I agree with Bush doesn't make me a "wonk". It makes me responsible.

I have had to point out so many things you didn't know about FDR and WW2 that you thought were oh-so-clever to bring up shows that you're just not up for the argument.