I happen to agree with the 'humorous' OP.
That means I disagree with you (Dave).

sigh...

--
MH
'72 97  '77 96 '78 95  '79 96
'87 900T8

Different from whom? The Fox "News" Party line? Unexplainable? OK, I'll
explain it to you. Bush squandered $150B chasing ghosts in Iraq, waging a
vendeta war and seeing to it that his cronies make a killing on the killing.
We were led into a murderous war by a pack of lies crafted by a pack of
liers. It was bungled from the start. Inadequate troops, a fantasy land view
of possible scenarios, a complete ignorance of the culture. Most shocking to
me - they didn't support the troops (waving the flag doesn't count). Family
members had to raise money for armoured vests and armour plating for the
HumVee death traps!  Once the global beacon of freedom, under Bush America
has become a belligerent, warmongering, incipient police state. Now do you
get it?

U.S. News/Comment
Is Bush Hitler?
By Commentary
Mar 16, 2004, 09:07

March 16, 2004-I realize I am a few months behind the curve of
comparing Bush to Hitler, but there is one aspect of the comparison
that I don't think has been plumbed to its proper depth. No, I am not
talking about the vicious attacks against dissent, the dubious means
used to seize power, or the callous disregard for civil rights. Those
have been given their due. Instead, now that Bush is describing
himself as a "war president," I think it is appropriate to size up
Bush as he compares to the Furher as commander in chief, because both
serve as good examples of what happens when you hand the world's best
military to a petulant egomaniac.

It is popular among anti-semites and faux intellectuals to describe
Hitler as a military genius. I take issue with that characterization
because while Hitler's Germany did achieve some initial military
success, in my estimation those successes are more accurately
attributed to German engineering, rather than the tactical brilliance
of its political and military leadership. When you have the best
pitchers and the best hitters in the league, winning the pennant
doesn't necessarily make the manager a genius.

Hitler's biggest blunder was, of course, invading Russia. Intoxicated,
perhaps, by the success of the German military machine against
technologically inferior foes in Poland and France, Hitler decided to
open up the eastern front. The war with England wasn't yet won, but
Hitler's hubris was sufficient that he went against the advice of his
generals. In a very similar manner, Bush ignored the advice of scores
of military and civilian planners to attack Iraq, when the war against
al Qaeda was not quite over.

Even if one believes the Bush administration's propaganda, and feels
that Iraq was a sufficient threat that it was only a matter of time
before Saddam needed to be removed from power by force, it doesn't
take a genius to see that the timing of the war was misguided. Last
week's serial bombings in Spain, coming nine hundred and eleven days
after the September 11 attacks, were almost certainly organized and
executed by al Qaeda, and stand as a testament to the terrorist
group's ongoing capability to inflict mass murder in western
democracies at a time and place of their choosing.

Unfortunately, this did not have to be the case. While mistakes were
made in the conduct of operations Afghanistan, (the use of surrogates
at Tora Bora springs to mind), the fact is that the United States and
coalition partners were mostly successful in putting al Qaeda on the
defensive. This balance began to change when the military and
intelligence resources devoted to Afghanistan were redirected towards
Iraq in the winter and spring of 2004. While the initial attack in
Iraq proceeded with stunning speed, in the aftermath, the United
States found itself bogged down as an occupying force at an enormous
cost in both men and materials. Al Qaeda was able to regroup and
retrench, and the results are now evident in the blood of Spanish
citizens.

In a similar manner, Hitler's initial attack on Russia proceeded with
stunning efficiency. After crossing the Russian border in June of
1941, the German war machine quickly gobbled up huge portions of
Russian real estate. But when winter set in, the Germans found
themselves mired in a quagmire. In the meantime, German resources had
been diverted away from England, which enabled the English to develop
radar systems that provided the early warning capability that was
crucial to countering German attacks, both in the air and by U boats
in the North Atlantic.

Incoming Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Zapatero has it exactly
right. Right wing reactionaries who dominate the media in the United
States called his election just after the attacks in Madrid an
"appeasement" of al Qaeda, because he has promised to remove Spanish
forces from Iraq during the campaign. However, Spanish forces have
served continuously in Afghanistan, and while some of the
aforementioned right wing reactionaries have inaccurately claimed that
Zapatero has plans to remove them, he has made no such statement.

Quite the contrary, in his first public address after the election,
Zapatero told his fellow Spaniards "My top priority is fighting all
forms of terrorism. My first initiative will be seeking the political
support to focus all our resources in this direction.'' In light of
the bloody attacks last week, I have every expectation that Zapatero
has no intention of appeasing al Qaeda, and will continue to use, if
not expand, the Spanish forces pursuing al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

I rather doubt that Baghdad will prove to be the United State's
Stalingrad. At the same time, it might prove to be Bush's. If at some
point between now and next fall's elections al Qaeda mounts an attack
in the United States as bloody as that in Madrid, one can hope that
the voting public will finally see that Bush's war in Iraq was a
misguided diversion towards an enemy with little ability to attack the
United States, and away from a dangerous foe with the demonstrated
capability to do exactly that.