Watch the documentary. Here it is again: Iraq For Sale: The War Profiteers ]. The State of Israel itself is a contentious issue that Republican defenders pretend are good people without warrant. Republicans have always supported them regardless of their ever more National Socialist attitudes similar to the Nazis they were targeted by. And their National Socialism is Constitutionalized! The belief that Christ will come down only when the Jewish Temple is rebuilt necessarily requires that Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians to support them.
Israel is the only liberal democracy in the Middle East. Any person of any faith can live safely there. Muslims don't have to fear for their safety living in Israel. Jews do have to fear for their safety living anywhere else in that region. And Israel is not anywhere remotely close to being "National Socialist." If some extremist Jew takes over the country with a dictatorship, granted him by the Israeli people, and declares that all Muslims must die, then that will be Hitler-like, but otherwise, the only countries in that region that resemble the Nazis are all of the ones bent on destroying Israel. And a documentary like that still doesn't prove that Bush was any dictator/tyrant/National Socialist.
See the Executive Order link in the previous post.
That just had to do with access by historians to the president's records after they leave office. It has nothing to do with the Iraq War.
Saddam didn't have WDMs. Where were you when the one single informant who gave the justification for the second Iraq War by Bush was blindly trusted without normal justification procedures that even a local newspaper is assured to follow? This wasn't a simple accidental oversight. All news publications, scientific journals, ordinary police officers, and any everyday Joe wants corroboration to determine any serious accusation to charge someone of offense. Am I able to accuse anyone of a crime, not to mention, in anonymity, and have someone, not just charged with whatever offense, but convicted without authorities corroborating the evidence? It isn't possible that even the dumbest President would not question it without being sincerely crooked and deceptive himself. And certainly, a whole large organization of highly trained CIA agents could not have had at least one person who would question the integrity of such a claim. It is like a guard at a Nazi an extermination camp declaring oddly that he didn't notice the population of people had any Jews!
Your criminal comparison doesn't hold here. You make it sound like Saddam Hussein was just minding his own business, then suddenly President Bush said, "He has WMDs! Let's invade!" Hussein had a history going back years regarding trying to acquire nuclear and chemical weapons (and having used chemical weapons) and of being a brutal tyrant. Colin Powell blew his reputation over this issue. He would not have done so had he not believed all of the evidence about Hussein's WMDs. and we know that Hussein did have the ability to quickly scale up his WMD production and he may have had WMDs but managed to move them out of the country prior to the invasion.
The Nazi Government was extremely small. To govern requires those who govern to have control on what happens. I think a "dictatorship" tends to suggest extremely limited government, wouldn't you say? Also, the Nazi's believed in economic freedom. That freedom was limited to the German Aryan race, however. In Americas origins, they too had a selective mindset as well, considering they didn't invite the large Native population as relevant to land ownership and other economic freedoms.
1) The Nazi government was not small. A dictatorship requires a large bureaucracy to run things. Also, the term "limited government" means limited with regards to being involved in people's lives.
2) The Nazis did not believe in economic freedom. They were a form of socialists and ran the economy via state direction (which also required a large bureaucracy).
3) America's treatment of the Native Americans and blacks was terrible, but it is something the country moved itself away from (and went through a civil war about in the case of the slavery).
You made more distinctions without actual differences in this quote more than ever. Conservative and Liberal are appropriately understood by intelligent people everywhere in the same way. You have to provide evidence where such and assumption that others presume otherwise rather than just making it up. Where you get the idea that anyone would ever presume "liberal" mean right is absurd. In fact, more likely, you yourself do not know the actual meanings. Liberalism, is understood everywhere to mean a political philosophy which grants the right of all individuals the freedom to do whatever they want whenever they want as long as they do not infringe on the same freedoms (liberty) of other people to do and be the same. For example, I am able to smoke pot, for instance, in such a philosophy, if only I act in such a way that it could not possibly limit another person's liberty to exist freely. This is considered contentious by some even who are 'liberal' because some believe that it does infringe on other people's rights to the liberties of life they choose. We do not allow murder because if I have such a freedom, then it means that I can limit another person's freedom to live.
Look up the Liberal Party in the United Kingdom or in Australia. Look up neoliberalism and critics of it. Liberal in other countries means right-winger from an economic standpoint. Only in America does it mean a left-of-center person. Conservative also has different meanings outside of the United States. In America, the left tend to adopt the socially-liberal aspects of liberalism but not the economic aspects. So-called liberals in this country seek to regulate and control pretty much every aspect of people's lives with the exception of abortion and same-sex marriage. Conservatives in America are very liberal economically and in most ways, but do seek to regulate people's lives regarding abortion, same-sex marriage, and sometimes sex period.
Contrary, Conservatives (a rather inexact term because only in a contemporary reference does it imply any special philosophy because the conservatives of Lincoln's day were actually of the Democratic Party which defended the older ways of slavery, for instance), want the older ways of religious absolutism of morality that dictates from things like the Bible what should be right or wrong, not a convention of people who vote for what is moral based on a freedom to do anything you want.
I agree that conservative is an inexact term, but the morality you speak of that conservatives in modern America adhere to only infringes on freedoms in certain ways which I mentioned above. Otherwise, it is very much a philosophy about allowing people the freedom to do anything they want. For example, you do not find conservatives in America seeking to dictate to people what kind of toilets they can keep in their homes, what kind of light bulbs they can use (the legislation was signed by Bush but the ban itself was inserted by Nancy Pelosi), what kind of shower head you can have in your shower, how much money you can make, what kind of car one can drive, etc...
President George W. Bush, in an address to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001 said, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You're_either_with_us,_or_against_us ] This source also references and links you to the actual speech in full. He didn't 'just mean' that. What you miss that other nations don't is that they pay attention to media more globally than most Americans. We watch all your media as well as our own with the same fervor. You miss how our own politicians act globally and then get American political responses.
I read the speech and saw the quote in context, and IMO it has been taken out of context. What Bush was saying is what I said, that if you are aiding the terrorists, you will not be considered a friend of the United States. If you are not aiding the terrorists, then you will be devoted to helping bring the terrorists to justice. In that sense, either countries were with the United States or with the terrorists. And I highly doubt that all that many non-Americans watch "all American media." For example I don't imagine the average French person or German person watching something like Fox News.
Prior to 9/11 Bush was pushing for war with Iraq and our countries were not convinced through the U.N. Bush was denouncing the U.N. because they wanted to act but the majority of all democracies represented by them did not have legitimate logical grounds for war. And on 9/11, Bush unilaterally decided to go to war without the U.N. (majority of all democratic nations) Only Britain and Australia gave their full support and were given this attention by America. Bush claimed in the speech things like Al Qaeda as being associated with Iraq which were blatantly false. Everyone supported the war in Afghanistan which was relevant because that is where the terrorist of 9/11 were from. We also all knew that the Arab nation was also at fault because that is where Osama Bin Laden's family, finances, and support were from. America tolerated the totalitarianism and tyranny of Arab and even Pakistan which were more of the cause of 9/11 than Muslims from anywhere else.
The UN is not representative of democracies, it is representative of quite a few tyrannies as well. It is really a joke of an organization. And some of the nations were not eager for any war because it would cost them money (France for example lost business with Hussein).
Every large country has it's horrors that they've done to their own people throughout history. It doesn't justify anything. But it should point out that acts done in the name of all political philosophies have equal credit to severe injustices. What bothers me is when people credit certain ideologies with the innate justification for atrocities that occurred inappropriately. Bush's acts for instance are due not to American ideology of philosophy. They are his and those who support him alone.
Bush did not slaughter anyone like the Soviets did their own people and others.