I read at article yesterday or today (but can't find it now) about some Civil Rights leader who was saying Bush was like Hitler. I just scanned the first few sentences and went on.
Then today, I saw that, in a speech yesterday, Rumsfield likened Chavez to Hitler. Hummm . . . .
Which is more like Hitler?
And which best fits the definition of a dictator?
Rummy added "We also saw corruption in that part of the world. And corruption is something that is corrosive of democracy."
Well, well . . . . Corruption? We can't have a government that has corruption, can we, Rummy?
OK, so our top Neos are complaining about the corruption of Chavez's legally elected government. Have they taken a recent look at ours? Bush just bought off the Abramoff prosecutor, and more evidence is coming to light about who was involved in the Plame affair, probably including Rove. And what about that revelation that ANOTHER of Bush's appointees, NASA's inspector general has been caught "suppress[ing] investigations of wrongdoing within NASA, and abus[ing] and penalize[ing] his own investigators when they persisted in raising concerns."
Rummy indicated that Chavez is a dictator. Maybe . . .
Wikopedia's definition of Dictator:
In modern usage, dictator refers to an absolutist or autocratic ruler who governs outside the normal constitutional rule of law through a continuous state of exception.
Do we know anyone else who is ruling "outside the normal constitutional rule of law through a continuous state of exception"? Hummm . . .
Actually Chavez has one thing over Bush. Rumsfield continued, "He's a person who was elected legally - just as Adolf Hitler was elected legally - and then consolidated power."
So Rummy, was your puppet "elected legally?" both times? Ask Al Gore.
Cheney has also been complaining that Chavez claims that the U.S. is spying on him, which, of course, could NEVER be true. We just don't do that sort of thing!
Like we never spied on Saddam, for instance . . .
The Guardian (not our wonderful "Liberal" mainstream media). today announced that a memo has surfaced, claiming that Bush told Blair that he was going to invade Iraq whether or not MD was found and whether or not the UN passed a second resolution. It It's there in Black and White. Lies and the Lying Liars who tell them!
quote from memo:
A memo of a two-hour meeting between the two leaders [Bush and Blair] at the White House on January 31 2003 - nearly two months before the invasion - reveals that Mr Bush made it clear the US intended to invade whether or not there was a second UN resolution and even if UN inspectors found no evidence of a banned Iraqi weapons programme.
There also seemed to be evidence of (SHOCK!) SPYING on Iraq.
quote from memo:
Mr Bush even expressed the hope that a defector would be extracted from Iraq and give a "public presentation about Saddam's WMD". He is also said to have referred Mr Blair to a "small possibility" that Saddam would be "assassinated".
http://apnews.myway.com//article/20060203/D8FHL2UG9.html
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/...
