I'm not saying Bush is exactly like Hilter... but there are alot of similarties. Many writters have currently wrote about this topic. Don't get me wrong Hilter was an extremely bad person and Bush hasn't done the same kind of violence. But when it comes to the way they got elected and they way to make descions.. is quite similar.

I was not trying to beat you up on this issue, your statement was fairly minor, but there has been a rash of people comparing others to Hitler in political circles lately, and it frustrates me.

Did you notice that yourself or did you see it on the Daily Show the other night?

You're right though, it is pretty stupid how polticians throw "Hitler" out there all the time.

Sure does make me sick when I hear the name Hitler in comparison to a politician. Just a poor scare tactic of which the American people hopefully know is bogus.

One thing that I liked about Reagan was that he connected very closely with the people. His speeches are absolutely amazing! If you ever get the chance, just read a couple of them. His speeches alone deterred many of the problems faced in those years by giving the American people confidence.

Many people were against Reagans decisions at during his time, just like the way it is with Bush now. However the outcome of Reagans presidency will not be forgotten. Yes I know Bush sucks at giving speeches and connecting with the people, but maybe we will look back at him in the future as a hero.

Only time will tell.

Then again, for every well loved and remembered president, there's a carter or a ford. Not bad guys, just not overly notable.

All this hype for some documents that don't exist? At least the stain on the dress was discovered.

Proof? Evidence?

There seems to be a lot of hype over a lot of things that may or may not have existed or occured in this world... Like the Miracles of Christ... Aliens... The parting of the red sea... male affectionate lesbians... the easter bunny...

They could all be myths as far as we know. Some just have a little more evidence than others...

here ya go sexy:

The Downing Street Memo & The Tin Foil Hatter's Tea Party


The Democrats haven't just gone "round the bend," they've gone round the bend, down the street, and off to fairy land, where the moonbats dance and play in the dappled moonlight and everyone capers around in their pretty tinfoil hats.

It starts with the Democratic equivalent of a little girl's tea party with her imaginary friends, a mock impeachment hearing for Bush. Now, you'd think that no one but the "Michael Moore crowd" would attend something that ridiculous and you'd be right. But unfortunately, the "Michael Moore crowd" now includes plemty of Democratic Congressmen and Senators.

Here's how things started off in cuckoo crazy land:

"Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) banged a large wooden gavel and got the other lawmakers to call him "Mr. Chairman." He liked that so much that he started calling himself "the chairman" and spouted other chairmanly phrases, such as "unanimous consent" and "without objection so ordered." The dress-up game looked realistic enough on C-SPAN, so two dozen more Democrats came downstairs to play along.
The session was a mock impeachment inquiry over the Iraq war. As luck would have it, all four of the witnesses agreed that President Bush lied to the nation and was guilty of high crimes -- and that a British memo on "fixed" intelligence that surfaced last month was the smoking gun equivalent to the Watergate tapes. Conyers was having so much fun that he ignored aides' entreaties to end the session."


Setting aside the ridiculous image of a US Senator acting like a small child with a gavel, the British memo referred to is The Downing Street Memo.

For those of you unfamiliar with the DSM, it's a run-of-the-mill British memo from 2002 that basically says the Brits thought America was going to go to war with Iraq and that the Bush administration was working to compile the intelligence information they had to make their case. Here's the part of the DSM that the loony left has primarily focused upon:

"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
So basically, we have a third hand account of what the perception was in Washington and the word "fixed," which the lefty kooks have seized upon to mean that evidence of WMD's was being forged, instead of what it obviously means, that Washington was trying to justify it's policy.

As a matter of fact, if you want proof that the Brits and Americans believed Saddam had WMD, you need look no further than -- the DSM. Check out this paragraph:

"For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary."
Yes, the same memo that the left is using in an attempt to claim that Bush tried to mislead the American people about Saddam's WMDs, confirms that the Coalition believed the Iraqis had them. You just can't make this stuff up.

In any case, the DSM is the left side-of-the blogosphere's new "Jeff Gannon". It's not a big story, it's not a big deal, but the lefty bloggers are absolutely obsessed with the story and have been going on about it for months.

Which leads us back to the Democrats imaginary impeachment tea party that's designed to show the kooks in the Democratic base that the Dems up on Capitol Hill are listening to them. You won't believe how bizarre things got before it was over -- or maybe you will:


"The session took an awkward turn when witness Ray McGovern, a former intelligence analyst, declared that the United States went to war in Iraq for oil, Israel and military bases craved by administration "neocons" so "the United States and Israel could dominate that part of the world." He said that Israel should not be considered an ally and that Bush was doing the bidding of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

"Israel is not allowed to be brought up in polite conversation," McGovern said. "The last time I did this, the previous director of Central Intelligence called me anti-Semitic."

Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.), who prompted the question by wondering whether the true war motive was Iraq's threat to Israel, thanked McGovern for his "candid answer."

At Democratic headquarters, where an overflow crowd watched the hearing on television, activists handed out documents repeating two accusations -- that an Israeli company had warning of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and that there was an "insider trading scam" on 9/11 -- that previously has been used to suggest Israel was behind the attacks.

The event organizer, Democrats.com, distributed stickers saying "Bush lied/100,000 people died." One man's T-shirt proclaimed, "Whether you like Bush or not, he's still an incompetent liar," while a large poster of Uncle Sam announced: "Got kids? I want yours for cannon fodder."

Conyers's firm hand on the gavel could not prevent something of a free-for-all; at one point, a former State Department worker rose from the audience to propose criminal charges against Bush officials. Early in the hearing, somebody accidentally turned off the lights; later, a witness knocked down a flag. Matters were even worse at Democratic headquarters, where the C-SPAN feed ended after just an hour, causing the activists to groan and one to shout "Conspiracy!"


It's almost hard for me to believe that there are actually Democratic Senators and Congressmen getting involved in this sort of farce. In fact, if it were April 1st, I'd suspect the Washington Post was pulling our legs.

But, maybe it's not so strange.

Hunter Thompson once said, "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." Well if you paraphrased that to say: "When the going gets weird, the pros turn weird," you'd have a pretty good description of John Conyers, James Moran, and a lot of other heavies in the Democratic Party. Maybe someone in the Democratic Party will start calling a "weirdo" a "weirdo," and it will help pull these Democrats back to reality.

Hat tip to The Corner for the story.