Hitler proposed aggression, saying his people were threatened and would be damaged if he didn't attack first. (Those Austrians-Czechs, etc., weren't attacking Germany.)

Hitler really wanted land.

Chamberlain supported his aggression, saying it would be limited.

GWB proposes to be an aggressor. Says he needs to protect his people. (No evidence those Iraqis are attacking the US.)

Blair supports his agression, saying it's only Iraq, would be limited.

GWB really wants oil, and Daddy's pride.

And LarryJ says there is a difference.

What, pray tell, is the difference in any real, not contrived, terms?

Now Sharon couldn't have drug anti-Semitism into this any better. Where none exists. What a concept! Safire should know better.

Any mind which can twist their way out of this is more crooked than that "pretzel" the President of the United States couldn't figure out how to chew.

Arf (musta been trying to walk at the same time)