Hitler conquered the whole of Europe (just about). Who did Saddam conquer in 2004, Basra?
2007-11-29 11:17:39 · 16 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
-
Why are neo-con politicians so eager to prey on the fears of their fellow neo-cons?
-
2007-11-29 11:18:59 · update #1
rabble rouser (below) WRONG ANSWER!
McCain was addressing Ron Paul and accused him of being an isolationist. McCain then said something about Paul's policies would have let Hitler win (or something to that effect).
2007-11-29 11:27:23 · update #2
LeAnne (below) I'm through posting the documented lies that Bush, Cheney, Condi, Rumsfeld, and Powell told the nation and the world.
Whomever does not know them by now simply has their head buried in the sand.
2007-11-29 11:28:45 · update #3
He didn't. He was speaking at Ron Paul's Isolationist views. That they were the same kind of views that allowed Hitler to take so much of Europe before we finally got involved.
2007-11-29 11:38:54 · answer #1 · answered by Mother 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The problem with your statement is that the "lies" you refer to are the ones that Clinton used to back his strikes against Iraq. The Democrats quoted them when saying that Saddam was a threat to the security and peace of the region.
It never ceases to amaze me when I see a Liberal whitewashing the contributions of the Democratic party in his rush to blame Bush for the war on terror.
Saddam did try to extend his Empire, he attacked Iran in the 80s and Kurwait in the 90s. The only reason he was turned back in the latter case was a very strong response by a REPUBLICAN president and the forming of a coalition against Saddam. Unfortunely no such response was formed against Hitler.
2007-11-29 11:35:42 · answer #2 · answered by smsmith500 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It's tough to be McCave... After he was Roved back in 1999, most of the country was on his side because he seemed like an honorable guy who just got slaughtered by a cut-throat team of character assassins. Now he's stuck between being that upstanding, moral guy who opposes torture and pandering to the uber-right, religio-servative base.
I honestly feel bad for him... He really seems like a decent guy who's party just went to crazy-ville without him. Now he's trying to keep one foot there with the base, and one foot in reality. I'm not going to vote for him, but he's a damn sight better than any other candidate in his party.
2007-11-29 11:30:14 · answer #3 · answered by Fretless 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Because McCain is losing the active duty military support rapidly to Ron Paul, which is why he lashed out at Paul last night.
2007-11-29 11:24:11 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
That's not what he said at all...
What McCain was refering to was the fact that Mitt Romney wants to keep torture a secret.... he compared Romney to Hitler... and I agree.
2007-11-29 11:25:10 · answer #5 · answered by rabble rouser 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
The several million people killed by Hussein's military, perhaps.
2007-11-30 05:02:46 · answer #6 · answered by eat me hillary 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Give him some slack He was tortured for 7 years.
But so was the rest of us and Bush still hasn't killed our spirit
Edit:
Thanks ChiGuy for not giving up on the truth ie "Bush's lie-based war"
2007-11-29 11:20:23 · answer #7 · answered by Guerilla Liberal fighter 3 · 4⤊ 3⤋
What war? Did Congress declare war without me hearing about it?
2007-11-29 11:20:39 · answer #8 · answered by DOOM 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
What is even worse, some Republicans actually believe it.
2007-11-29 11:45:13 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
ChiGuy, the "lie based war" rhetoric has run its course - you have convinced all but those who, unfortunately for you, are still waiting for some valid and verifiable proof of this ridiculous contention.
2007-11-29 11:26:01 · answer #10 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 2⤊ 5⤋