This has been said before, but no conservative has ever learned anything on one trial. Unless it's how to run a Ponzi scheme, or other accounting miracles.

Lessee. In the middle and later '30s Hitler was taking over countries by threatening aggression. He managed to negotiate his way through most of them, marched on Hungary, I believe. He said innocent Germans were going to get hurt by these terrible regimes, and created phony incidents.

That was Hitler. An aggressor. Taking over other countries.

Chamberlain was the British PM who said that it would be wise to give Hitler Czechoslovakia. That's all Hitler wanted, and Hitler would aggress no more.

Now, is Saddam or Bush the aggressor? Clearly, Saddam is not threatening the US, is not massing troops on the borders of the US. The most he's said is that he will fight if attacked.

Saddam. Sitting there threatening no one. Minding his own business.

But Saddam used WMD. On battle plans drawn up by Reagan-Bush. In the US, the "masterminds" are guilty, too. Or were before Ashcroft. And the US has used WMDs, too, the last we know in Vietnam, though they did use gas in the caves of Afghanistan.

So, the aggressor now. Clearly Bush. Certainly isn't Saddam.

And the British PM. Saying "Give them just this one, then they'll quit." Chamberlain? Nope, Blair.

So, there are clear parallels here, but the aggressor isn't Hitler, it's Bush.

And the Brits are playing the same role, this time with a lip lock not on Hitler but on Bush. Blair just loves sucking up to and on American Presidents.

Arf (some things are just plain, well, plain)