Bush warned against comparing D-Day to Iraq

[kskiska]

French officials fear George Bush will inflame anti-American sentiment in France this weekend by linking the D-Day landings with the invasion of Iraq.

Advisers close to Jacques Chirac have let it be known that any reference to Iraq during the 60th anniversary of the Allied invasion of France on Sunday would be ill-advised and unwelcome.

Both presidents will address second world war veterans and VIPs during a service at the American cemetery in Colleville-sur-Mer, Normandy.

"He'd better not go too far down the road of making a historical comparison because it's likely to backfire on him," said a source close to President Chirac.

He added that the French would not appreciate any public mention linking the events and said photographs of US soldiers torturing Iraqi prisons did not sit well with the image of D-Day heroes.

more…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/secondworldwar/story/0,14058,1229277,00.html

[Lautremont]

1. I know there's no comparison,

and you know there's no comparison. Dogs and mice know. Only the 'panzee needs to be told.

[0007]

5. .....in other words don't get wise bubble eyes

or I'll knock you down to peanut size.

[mmm]

12. that is a cool saying

is that a 0007 original?

[0007]

17. No. My son use to use that saying years 30 years ago while in

junior high. Don't know where it came from.

[Nlighten1]

9. LOL!

Welcome to DU!

Very funny

[Richardo]

15. Welcome to DU, Lautremont

:toast:

BTW: LOL - 'dogs and mice know' :D

[bluestateguy]

2. He's a guest in their country, so he better listen

The French have come to our assistance as much as we have done so for them: in 1778, when we weren't even a nation, in the first Gulf War, in Kosovo and in the Afghan War.

[argyl]

7. He'll be playing to the US audience.Couldn't care less about what France,

the rest of Europe,or the rest of the world thinks about it.

[markses]

21. He'll care if he's openly booed during his speech

He sure will care. There'll be a melee, as the French say.

[AZCat]

52. Don't you think they'll import their usual fawning crowd?

I thought this was part of Dubya's entourage anymore. God forbid that the little dictator ever come in contact with the great unwashed masses.

[markses]

55. I don't think they can

They'll import some, surely, but it's kinda hard to stage manage an international event of this sort from Karl Rove's office.

[AZCat]

58. They certainly won't let things like...

Common sense, international opinion, or money get in the way of an attempt. After all, it's only our money and reputation (meaning the US's, not Shrub's)!

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

13. The French Batallion In Korea Won 3 US Presidential Unit Citations

and suffered heavy casualties, seeing action in several major battles of the Korean war.

[robbedvoter]

3. b-but, but, but - isn't W Churchill? Saddam, Hitker?

I am confused.

[Zhade]

4. Since the invasion is more comporable to Hitler's invasion of Poland...

...the traitor would be wise to keep his fucking mouth shut on ANY Iraq-WWII comparisons!

[saigon68]

66. This guy isn't impressed

[Massacure]

6. I agree with this

It isn't worth giving Kerry ammunition at the expensive of what is left of our credibility.

[Kahuna]

8. Who wants to bet he does it anyway...

:puke:

[acmavm]

10. Oh I'm sure you're right. This is not a guy who has any idea of where to

draw the line. Tell the French that the D-Day landing and the liberation of their country from the Nazis just might cause a riot in the streets.

But again, I'm sure you're right.

[mmm]

11. he will for sure bring up 9/11, terra, and freedom

and yes, I guess he will bring up Iraq.
After all, he is 'giving France the opportunity' to
send troops into Iraq - how can he not bring up Iraq.

grrrrrrrrrrrr

[salin]

14. It is pathetic (and embarassing) that this warning would have to

be made in the first place, that Bush's lack of awareness of his audiences and his over indulged sense of bravado is so well known to anticipate that he would make such a blunder. The big question is how he will react now that the admonishment has been public. His pettiness and temper are reknown. Will he do this very thing just out of spite, regardless of how foolish it would be to advance the cause of garning the support he needs for UN involvement in Iraq (which is in his best political interest in order to demonstrate to the public that he is moving towards bringing the troops home)?

[Justitia]

48. Good Lord, so true!

What have we come to when I am actually praying someone with an ounce of sense will keep an eye on "the child" and keep their hand over his mouth???

Bush is a colossal disgrace to our country.

:grr:

[Geo55]

16. I hope he does.....

It's very pleasing to have an ass shoot himself in the foot.

[markses]

24. I hope he does too: It'll be a PR disaster

Can't even bring the President out of doors without riots and booing.

Go for yours, Chimpy. Play that shitty hand. I'm pretty sure there'll be plenty of British Normandy vets and American Normandy vets that'll join the now near universal condemnation...vocally.

I'd love to see Bush try to in-your-face the French in France, and desecrate this holy ceremony with his bullshit. Full exposure for wrongheadedness and general crassness is always a plus with this pack of thieves, though it would be sad that the Normandy vets would have to sacrifice once again to get rid of a fascist fucking bastard.

[Bhaisahab]

27. dude could you point me to the source of your sig line? eom

[markses]

34. Here ya go

Deleuze, Gilles and Felix Guattari. Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia volume 1 Tr. Robert Hurley, Mark Seem and Helen R. Lane. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983. p. 293.

[Bhaisahab]

36. thanks but darn

i thought it would be an online article i could read for free :(. now i'll have to buy the book! thanks again!

[catmandu57]

18. You know he will

chimp* is so insensitive, so completely ego centered, that he won't take anyone's feelings into account. The nation is going to get another black eye this weekend.

[slipperduke]

23. Black eye? Could be worth it....

I know it sounds bad, but I actually want him to bring up Iraq, embarrass himself, burn more bridges and if necessary, give America another black eye.

I'm a Brit and it's nothing against America, but I just want him to make enough of an arse of himself to convince the voters to sling him out later this year. Maybe it'll be worth another 6 months of international humiliation if it comes with the guarantee that the Republicans will be locked out of the White House for some time to come.


Incidently, I''m very glad to stumble across this website. The nature of my work has meant that I've had to spend far too long on Free Republic. I was beginning to lose faith in you guys, there's some very strange Americans on that website.......

[markses]

26. I'm an American, and I agree (with one proviso)

I would hope that he wouldn't be giving "America" another black-eye, but rather his illegitimate administration. Please recall that we did not elect these fuckwits.

They took power in fraud, criminality, and coup.

With any luck, they will depart in well-deserved disgrace.

As for ruining the ceremony, it is indeed sad that we have to make such choices. The D-day vets have sacrificed so much in the world-historical struggle against arbitrary rule and fascism, however, that asking them to make this one more sacrifice seems too much to bear. And yet, they have always gone above and beyond, so perhaps one more small contribution to the struggle would be their final hurrah...

[slipperduke]

28. If only...

The problem is that in Europe, America's reputation is already down the drain. Every Bush fuck-up is a smack in the face for decent, normal Americans. I've got a lot of friends from the US who have to continually state their opposition to Bush just for people to talk to them. And that's in the UK. I dread to think what it's like in France.

Hopefully he'll get booed off the stage at the first mention of his dirty little phoney war.

[livetohike]

39. Welcome to DU!

:hi:


We probably won't get to hear any dissent on our paralyzed media outlets. They'll cover it up with some of those forced "ooh-rahs" the military audiences give him.

[catmandu57]

38. Welcome aboard

Most of us here would be happy to see the idiot tripping over his tongue, we understand that the world anger is not directed at us, but at the evil that has stolen our government.
Don't spend too much time over there, it'll rot your brain.

[calimary]

65. Welcome to DU!

It's much nicer here!

[GCP]

67. Welcome from a fellow Brit

But WTH is your work that you spend time with the Dark Side over at freeperland?

:hi::toast:

[moondust]

19. No way he can resist his delusions of grandeur.

Even today he is drawing comparisons of his Grand War On Terra to WWII. He'll do absolutely anything to get into the Big Bad War Boss Hall Of Fame.

[ewagner]

40. Veiled references

He'll probably couch the WOT in terms of (they) fought for freedom on this beach in 1944 just like we're fighting for freedom today.

Remember, Karen Hughes is probably writing this speech and SHE will not pass up this chance to make Dubya look "Churchillian" and place his war(s) in a broader, more grandious context.

He won't pass up this opportunity and it will probably go off just about as well as the Aircraft carrier stunt.

[Geo55]

64. couched

couched"(they) fought for freedom on this beach in 1944 just like we're fighting for freedom today"

Even that is boo-able.....but the best ever would be that EVERYONE sits on their hands.....imagine....silence...beautiful

[BiggJawn]

20. He will ignore the warning.

Hey, if the French get pissed, he'll just issue an Order making it a Federal law that everyone sell "Freedom Fries" and "Freedom Mustard"

Here we go, more good Bordeaux poured into the streets....

What a dumbass, this boy-king of ours....

[Claire Beth]

47. yeah, he's too stubborn to take advice from anyone other than

his neo-cons.

[McHrozni]

22. Erm

It's not okay to compare:

(1)
- unseating of a Social-Nationalist government,
- bent on world domination,
- with a known stockpile of weapons of mass destruction,
- via military invasion,
- where a state of war already exists,
- for reasons of security and imperialism;

with

(2)
- unseating of a National-Socialist government,
- bent on world domination,
- with clear intent to develop, produce and use weapons of mass destruction,
- via military invasion,
- where a state of war already exists,
- for reasons of security and imperialism.

but it is okay to compare is with:

(3)
- defence of an installed puppet regime,
- bent on sitting tight and doing nothing,
- with no intent to get involved anywhere,
- against an invasion of foreign forces from abroad, bent on conquering the country.

It's obvious that Iraq is a lot more similar to Vietnam than D-Day. It would be hypocritical to say otherwise, I mean, look - (1) and (3) are almost identical, but (2) is totaly and completely different, it only has one or two common points!

McHrozni

[SidDithers]

29. LOL, that post was too funny...

Oh, wait, you were serious...

nevermind.

Sid

[Bridget Burke]

30. Glad to see that someone here...

Is willing to stand by "Their President"!

Touching loyalty.

[McHrozni]

43. Heh

Bush isn't my president, and I don't think he ever will be.

McHrozni

[markses]

32. Let's test out the comparison without all the abstraction, shall we?

unseating of a National-Socialist government

A necessary but not sufficient element. Was Saddam Hussein's regime fascist in its mode of organization? Probably. Then again, so are many of our allies (Uzbekistan comes to mind, as do several of our friends in what Bush calls "the neighborhood"). So, even by Bush's own standards, a necessary but not sufficient element.

bent on world domination

Saddam Hussein "bent on world domination"? In the same way as Hitler? A laughable claim, to be sure, since Mr. Hussein could barely dominate a third of his own country! We might accede to regional domination, as evinced by the Iran-Iraq War and the Kuwait land-grab, but even here we'd have to weigh intentions against capabilities. For example, I'd like to own a yacht. I might even be "bent on it," in the mode of a comic book villian (which is, of course, about the level of comprehension brought to situations by the imbecile conservatives in our country, who are leading us to ruin with their childishness and dementia). Doesn't mean it is even close to likely. So, the comparison manifestly fails on this point. But once we compare intentions and capabilities, we are led to the third and fourth absurdities.

with clear intent to develop, produce and use weapons of mass destruction

Once again we weigh intentions against capabilities. What we have all clearly learned in this Iraq debacle is that Iraq had - from all appearances - abandoned its weapons of mass destruction program. There are none, and there probably were none for quite some time. Point being, methods other than a murderous war were available, whereas no such other methods were available in June 1944. Again, a complete collapse of the comparison.

via military invasion

The most laughable notion of the bunch. Comparing the Iraqi Army to the Wehrmacht (and we'll leave out the comparison of the Iraqi air force to the Luftwaffe, since there appears to have been, well, no Iraqi air force, whereas history tells us there was clearly a Luftwaffe!) is somewhat like comparing Eddie Haskell of Leave it to Beaver fame to Lennox Lewis, of knock you on your fucking ass fame. Nobody with any sense would even dream of a comparison, lest he or she wake up and retain such slumbering idiocy. The notion of the Iraqi Army of March 2003 invading even a convenience store with a well armed clerk should send people of good sense into convulsive fits of laughter. But not our comic book reading conservatives, who have shown themselves as little more than a gullible pack of cretins, made all the more tragic for pretending to rationality.

where a state of war already exists

I'd agree that the sanctions and the air war on Iraq could be considered a "state of war," roughly speaking (both were immoral in the extreme in their operation, and should have been sped to conclusion earlier). But a June 1944 state of war? Once again, we are in LaLa Land. Here the comparison would only work by supreme abstraction, something like comparing an ant to an elephant, since they both have legs.

for reasons of security and imperialism

I'd accede to the latter, and not the former. This is, of course, the problem, since one could argue that security outweighed imperialism for US policy in 1944 (though both were, obviously, in play and inextricable), whereas in Bush's criminal invasion, security plays no real part (since the previous conditions didn't hold), and imperialism plays the only part. So, false again.

[McHrozni]

41. Yeah, let's

Government comparison:
It's true, hands down. Yes, there are other regimes like tha. There are also other countries like the US. It's completely immaterial.

Bent on world domination:
The goals and the means to achieve them were greatly different for Iraq, that is true. However, if Saddam could exten his rule, he would. His party wanted to annex Syria (and Syria wanted to annex Iraq), they couldn't agree on who would be in charge, so they failed. He tried to take Shatt-El-Arab from Iran. He counquered Kuwait. He threatned to invade and conquer Saudi Arabia. He bought off Jordan and made it it's puppet (that's why Jordan opposed Gulf War 1).
The only neighbor it didn't try to take land from or conquer outright, was Turkey.
Percentage wise, that's actualy more agressive than Nazi Germany. It didn't invade Sweden, Spain and Switzerland if you take just the larger countries on their borders.

So yes, I'd say Saddam wanted world domination, even more so than the Nazis. He just had much less to work with.

You obviously missed which country was which. It was the Nazis that were working on WMDs - nuclear bombs in particular - and Saddam was the one that had the known stockpile. There is no argument about it, I'm sure CIA and MI6 know full well what was sent to Iraq and what wasn't, having supplied it themselves and all. Saddam couldn't or wouldn't disclose what happened to it, and there was a vast paper trail of these weapons. It might have been a forgery by Iraqi intelligence, but why would they do that is beyond me.
Regardless, if you think a regime that had it's army stockpiles listed down to the last bullet and bolt somehow missed it's chemical grenades and missiles, you're severely contradicting yourself.

Via military invasion - I was reffering to the removal here. If you don't count 300.000+ troops a military invasion, then I suppose D-Day wasn't a military invasion either, and you again need a reality check.
Oh and by the way, you weren't very clear about it, but if you think the entire Wehrmacht of 1944 would stand a realistical chance against two divisions of Iraqi Republican Guards of 2003, you don't know much about military technology.

As for a state of war, it existed in all forms. Violations of airspace are an act of war, and so is blockade and piracy. So is the lack of any sort of peace treaty, which was the case since 1991.

Security? Saddam has been openly sponsoring Islamic terrorism in Israel, and was public about it. That alone is enough to say he was sponsoring continuoing violence in the region, and I think both of us agree that is vital to US security. Ergo, removing him was a matter of security.
Was it the best? Who knows. Destruction of Nazi Germany led to a period of time known as the Cold War, you know, so it's questionable if it wouldn't be better to let Nazis crush the Soviet Union first, and then force them into submission through other means (nukes).

So you see, you haven't made a very valid argument after all, though it was amusing.

McHrozni

[whosinpower]

45. Bent on world domination:

You must be aware how inconclusive the word "IF" is. (If Saddam could of extended his rule, he would of) You can say as much with many many national leaders today..."IF" they could, they would. IF South Korea could renegotiate with North and reunify they would....I suppose that is extending its rule.

And it seems to me that when it comes to world domination - the USA holds the record - albeit using a variety of methodology. Is that a rational to go to war against the US - because they are bent on continuing to dominate the world???? Granted, until recently, the US favored other methods of domination other than militaristic invasion, but it is domination, none the less.

No - comparing Saddam to Hitler disingenous. Saddam was a third rate, washed up, dictator, whose days were past. It is an obscenity to try to portray Saddam into something more than he is...but I suppose it makes some patriotic Americans feel more heroic.

And insofar as sponsoring terrorism, I wonder.....why is it that terrorism that is sponsored by the USA in Latin America gets a free ride, while middle eastern terrorism gains such traction??? How quickly the US put aside its recognition of its own threats with Al Qaida and firmly fixated on Islamic terrorism against Israel.

[markses]

50. Oh, boy

1) Having much less to work with is the key. That's the distinction between intention and capability that I thought I had drawn out clearly. Onviously not. I ask you now: At any time post-Gulf War I, did Mr. Hussein have the capacity to invade any other country whatsoever? The answer is clearly no. To compare Hussein post Gulf War to Hitler is laughable on its face, despite your bizarre divining of Mr. Hussein's desire, which appears to be very much a conjuring trick of first order. If he was prevented from realizing those desires substantially, then the desire is of little value, like a kid's dream. That said, you've still only managed to assert regional domination, however non-functional that wish was post-1991. To think that Mr. Hussein dreamed of world domination is a childish conceit, though no doubt rationalizes the subsequent slaughter and catastrophe accomplished with our tax money and in our name. For shame.

2) I see. If you are referring to the US military invasion, then I suppose they do have points in common. They were both invasions, much like the ant and the elephant both have "legs." However, since Saddam, unlike Hitler, neither occupied a foreign nation at the time of the invasion (in fact, he didn't even occupy his own nation!) nor posed any threat at all, the point of comparison is still necessary, but not sufficient. As for the Wehrmacht standing up to the Republican Guard, that would be an ultimately stupid comparison of your sort, for one would have to compare the capabilities of the Iraqi Republican Guard in its time and in reference to its particular historical configuration to the Wehrmacht in its time and in reference to its particular historical configuration, at which point, we'd be back to the Eddie Haskell/Lennox Lewis stage, as is rather obvious, despite foolish references to comparative technology.

3) Mr. Hussein's payments to the families of suicide bombers was certainly one small link in the problem of Israeli/Palestinian violence. One might argue that the continued occupation and settlement of the occupied territories is a far greater contributing factor, but I don't see a helluva lotta "security" related invasions erupting on that front. Besides, if Mr. Hussein's payments are the best you can do vis-a-vis security threats, then you sorta contradict your absurd "ruling the world thesis." Here's our tinpot dictator "bent on" (sorry, I can't get over the stupidity of this phrasing) world domination, and reduced to offering $10,000 to the families of dead killers who blow up restaurants and sweet sixteens? A monster, without doubt, but how the mighty have fallen, even in your estimation. Mr. Hussein was thoroughly contained (as you seem to admit with this silly reference).

To compare the invasion of Iraq to the liberation of Europe during the Second World War is an operation undertaken by only the most deranged elements of American society. It is absurd on its face.

[NickB79]

63. We based a war on "if"?!?!

"However, if Saddam could extend his rule, he would."

And if I could walk into a jewelry store and rob it blind I would. However, I have neither the means, nor the ability to evade law enforcement to do so. Saddam had neither the means to rule the world (he didn't even have the means to beat Iran until we GAVE him chemical weapons assistance), nor would he have been able to do so without international law enforcement stopping him. In case you didn't notice, the UN bitch-slapped Saddam's rag-tag army all the way back to Baghdad in the first Gulf War. We killed close to 100,000 of his troops, along with most of his armor and artillery. If he couldn't dominate the world in 1990, he sure as hell wasn't in any shape to do so 13 yrs later with less than half his previous forces in a deteriorating state.

"Saddam was the one that had the known stockpile."

If you would read further on what MI6 and the CIA have reported, the UN weapons inspectors stated they destroyed over 90% of the chemical and biological weapons Saddam had stockpiled 13 yrs ago. The remaining 10% would be so degraded after 13 yrs of storage that their destructive capabilities would be severely reduced. And if he had such a horrible stockpile, why didn't he use it upon our troops as they advanced? Was he afraid we'd get really angry, overthrow his regime, kill his sons, and capture him for execution for war crimes if he used WMD's? Oh wait, we did that anyways. He had nothing to lose using his WMD's, but he couldn't, because they didn't exist any longer.

I suppose his phantom WMD stockpile is safely buried in the desert somewhere. I can see it now: Saddam master plan was to raise from the dead after he was executed and take over the world with a teaspoon of rancid-milk-strength degraded WMD.

[AZCat]

35. The Nazis had Weapons of Mass Destruction?

That's news to me...

Maybe they had Weapons of Mass Destruction program related activities?

THAT must have been the reason we attacked those darn Nazis!

[McHrozni]

42. You learn something new every day

By the way, you know Nazis didn't want to go to war with United Kingdom and USA, right? It was the UK that declared war on them, and they declared war on the USA so they could stop military aid to their enemy (act of war).

McHrozni

[truthspeaker]

44. But they invaded Poland knowing the UK and France would back up Poland

And please back up the claim about the Nazis having WMDs. I know after WWII it was discovered their nuclear program was in its infancy and going nowhere.

BTW, I agree Saddam needed to be removed - eventually, in some manner. He was a minor, potential threat to regional security, not a pressing threat to US national security. Going in with guns blazing like a drunken cowboy while giving the finger to our allies and other world powers was not the best way to do it.

[AZCat]

46. That's where I'm confused...

The Nazis were working on the atomic bomb - that is why we accorded the Manhattan Project the urgency it had - but interviews with German scientists after the war and an investigation of German facilities showed conclusively that progress had been slight.

The U.S., however, had been making progress, and dropped two atomic devices in August 1945 in the only use of atomic or nuclear weapons (WMDs) in war.

[atreides1]

59. Small History Lesson

The UK and France went to war against Germany after Germany attacked Poland in 1939, it wasn't until the Japanese attacked the US in 1941, that Germany declared war on the US. This was two years later, and the US had be providing military aid to the UK since at least 1940.


You see Poland was an ally of Great Britain and France, and when it was attacked by Germany, it's allies declared war.

[AZCat]

61. We were assisting Russia also

Roosevelt unfroze funds for Russian assistance in January 1941 (although we didn't ramp up assistance until the summer). On June 22, 1941, Germany invaded Russia. We started escorting shipping to Vladivostok and Roosevelt fought fierce political opposition to get exports to Russia hopping.

[markses]

62. Don't forget to mention the numerous

attacks on US merchant marine vessels pre-Pearl Harbor, to wit:

http://www.usmm.org/casualty.html

U.S. Owned or Chartered Ships Attacked Before Pearl Harbor

At least 240 mariners were killed in action before Pearl Harbor. Complete list of attacks.

o SS City of Flint was seized by a German warship but her captain's diplomacy, and the intervention of Norway eventually freed the ship. Oct. 9, 1939
o El Sonador (Panama flag under U.S. charter) was torpedoed and sunk near the Shetland
Islands on February 18, 1940. Casualties unknown.
o SS City of Rayville struck a German mine off the Australian coast. Nov. 9, 1940. Crew 1 killed
o SS Charles Pratt torpedoed on Dec. 21, 1940 (Panamanian flag, U.S. owned and crewed) Crew 2 killed
o SS Robin Moor torpedoed by a U-Boat in the South Atlantic. May 21, 1941. No casualties
o SS Iberville mine dropped by German aircraft in Red Sea. August 11, 1941. No casualties
o Longtaker torpedoed and sunk in North Atlantic on August 17, 1941. Crew 24 killed, 3 survived
o SS Steel Seafarer attacked by German aircraft in the Gulf of Suez. Sept. 5, 1941. No casualties
o Montana torpedoed and sunk in North Atlantic on Sept. 11, 1941. Crew 26 killed
o Pink Star torpedoed and sunk in North Atlantic on Sept. 19, 1941. Crew 13 killed
o I. C. White (Panama) torpedoed and sunk in South Atlantic on Sept. 27, 1941. Crew 3 killed
o Bold Venture (Panama) torpedoed and sunk in North Atlantic on Oct 16, 1941. Crew 17 killed, 17 survived. This was a former Danish vessel taken over by the U.S.
o SS Lehigh torpedoed and sunk off the African coast. Oct. 19, 1941. No casualties
o Meridian (Panama flag under U.S. charter) was torpedoed and sunk in North Atlantic on Nov. 11, 1941. The entire crew of approximately 38 was lost (4 of the crew were Canadian, citizenship of others unknown).
o SS Astral, a tanker, vanished, torpedoed in the North Atlantic. Dec. 2, 1941. Crew 37 killed
o SS Sagadahoc torpedoed in the South Atlantic. Dec. 3, 1941. Crew 1 killed
o SS Cynthia Olson torpedoed in pacific one hour before attack on Pearl Harbor, Dec. 7, 1941. Crew 33 killed. 2 Army passengers killed

[TahitiNut]

51. Yeah, and coconuts are the same as cows.

:eyes: I'd go get my three-legged stool but I flushed already.

[ProfessorGAC]

60. Is There A Point?

Or do you drop opinions as if they were data and facts and expect everyone else to know what it is you're thinking.

Aside from the several factual errors in your OPINIONS, and that your obvious final opinion is based on OPINIONS, your post is devoid of any intellectual merit. Several mistakes, and still no actual point! An, amazing piece of rhetorical waste.
The Professor

[Justice]

25. Bush Will Say, Some Told Me It was Wrong To Compare...

but I say, those that say it would be wrong to compare D-Day to Iraq hate us for our freedom....

[rebellious woman]

31. The don't hate us, they HATE HIM!

[Jack Rabbit]

33. Bush should refrain from coming Iraq to D-Day

Since he will be present, the others will refrain from comparing it to what it more accurately resembles: Poland in 1939.

[underpants]

37. Can he spell D-Day?

:bounce:

[truthisfreedom]

49. it's good that he's going there. he's a lighning-rod for French hatred of

our country right now... and it's well-deserved. they need to see exactly what kind of a turd this man is, up close.

[JawJaw]

53. Enjoy your photo-ops, George

And when you've finished pretending to look contemplative and steadfast, and posing in front of vets' graves from the LAST century, maybe you could find some time in your busy fundraising schedule to visit some vets' graves from THIS century.

[Malva Zebrina]

54. For sure he will do it now

no one gonna tell him what to do and what to say-speshfully some French person. Bring em on!

[supernova]

56. Let him. Let Bush make an even bigger ass

out of himself than he already is. Let the world see what a buffoon we have foisted upon them.

[Barkley]

57. I agree with you 100%!

I think the French officials expect Bush to make
the comparisons and want to distance themselves ahead of time.

[PopSixSquish]

68. Since Bush Doesn't Read or Know Anything about History...

Here are some links he might want to review. These soldiers and thousands of other like them are the real story of D-Day and WWII. And notice that these men were members of the National Guard. They've been activated again to serve their country. Unlike the current cretin in the White House.

He and his minions created a phony war, complete with bands, flags, bells and whistles. But these men and women will pay the ultimate price and for what?

Even in W's addled mind, he cannot believe that these two times in history are remotely similar. And if he utters one word comparing them, he can go straight to hell.

Bedford, Virginia
http://www.dday.org/html/why_bedford.html

"Like eleven other Virginia communities, Bedford provided a company of soldiers (Company A) to the 29th Infantry Division when the National Guard's 116th Infantry Regiment was activated on 3 February 1941. Some thirty Bedford soldiers were still in that company on D-Day;"

29th Infantry Divsion
http://www.29thinfantrydivision.com/

"Forty-six guardsmen from Bedford were in the company, but only twenty-three survived that day. Within ten minutes every officer in the company was a casualty and the survivors found themselves pinned down by Germans shooting from the tops of nearby cliffs.

http://www.virginiaguard.com/news/march2004/Bedfordgathers.htm
"On March 4, 2004, the soldiers of 1 st Battalion, 116 th Infantry took their first step together as they marched from the National Guard Armory to the National D-Day Memorial in Bedford, Va. to join in America's war on terrorism."