Rep. John Murtha Bio

09.01.2006

A 1917 History Lesson (79 comments )

READ MORE: Iraq, George W. Bush

I find it hypocritical and ironic that Secretary Rumsfeld and President Bush, in their latest speeches to spin the war in Iraq, both commented that "many still have not learned history lessons," as they drew inflammatory parallels between Nazism and today's war in Iraq designed only to provoke unreasonable fear in the hearts of Americans.

Clearly it was the ignoring of history that got President Bush and his ideological policymakers into the quagmire that now exists in Iraq. As history dictated, it was absolutely foolish to believe that by occupying Iraq, the United States would transform the country into a beacon of American style democratic ideals. The British failed in its occupation attempts during the early 1900s. You only have to press rewind to hear the now haunting yet familiar words of a British Commander in Baghdad in 1917 say, "Our armies do not come in to your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators." After a decade of fighting with the population they had forcibly "liberated," the British were finally expelled from what is today Iraq by a population who resented foreign occupation and control.

President George Herbert Walker Bush was obviously more astute than his son when it came to the learning of History lessons. During the first Gulf War he rejected the urging of many to march into Baghdad, fully understanding the complexities and pitfalls of such an act. President GW Bush should have spent a little more time under the tutelage of his much more insightful father.

This was a comment to the above speech:

Problem is, for most Americans, "history" is limited to last year's reality TV shows.

And to DUHbya, "history," like everything else in the world, refers to DUHbya.

Historians already overwhelmingly consider DUHbya a failed president and one of our worse leaders in history. If an historian or two manages to get on a reality TV show, the American people may start to realize it, too.

By: dreadneck on September 01, 2006 at 02:45pm
Flag: [abusive]

Even if they were not students of history, one viewing of Lawrence of Arabia could have told them that!

By: ScottCandage on September 01, 2006 at 02:45pm
Flag: [abusive]

Germany & Nazi's controlled much of Europe militarily. The Nazi's had a vast military. Compare this to today's Islamic nations & current insurgents, whose military could not defeat Russia, China, India, Britain or any of the other powerful militaries. To make Iraq or Iran a threat to our , or Western Europe's vast military is insane. Soviet Union lost as a empire, because it went bankrupt financially & morally. That is how we may lose.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Fascism is a radical totalitarian political philosophy that combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, extreme nationalism, militarism, anti-anarchism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism."

The whole Islamic Fascism propaganda ploy is totally asinine. Only those lobotomized Bush supporters who grunt their admiration for the charlatans will be duped. No logical arguments need be made to counter the obvious oxy moronic, non sequitur of the phrase.

It is interesting to apply the phrase Christo Fascism to the Bush Administration. The elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, nationalism, militarism and anti-liberalism abound in this junta. Given the anarchy they have brought to Iraq and their dealings with the Communist Chinese these two aspects are excluded. Thus the statements made by the Bush Administration are again diametrically opposed to reality.