Replies

Biographies of FDR, Truman, Ike, Churchill, Vandenberg, Warren, Jackson, Taft and Marshall and the several war bond drives 1940 - 1944 - - to name the ones that come to mind instantly, discuss precisely the internal politics of the WW II period. To attempt to use the legitimate debates that swirl around Bush's compulsion to attack Iraq and all of the many distictions that comprise a very real difference to any historical antecedent is a meaningless exercise in a mindless defense of ideology and party loyalty. It's undertaken by the same people who would be best described by the tale of the Emperor's New Clothes as fawning over the wonderful new invisible suit notwithstanding the boss'stark nakedness.

Blah blah blah, blah blah blah, blah blah blah. Once again, you haven't posted squat to back up your assertions. All you can do is blow smoke out your arse. So go pound sand. There was NO public political opposition to FDR's war efforts that even begins to compare with what Bush has faced from the Dems.

There was NO public political opposition to FDR's war efforts that even begins to compare with what Bush has faced from the Dems.

That's because the Nazis were a greater, more organized, and more lethal military threat than the Islamofascists.

Naturally, Pearl Harbor is going to create a more unified response than 9/11. We covered that earlier. The public wouldn't stand for it in 1942 because the Axis war machine was tearing the world apart at the seams, and people felt genuinely threatened. The Islamofascists today are a danger, but they're not Axis-level danger. You may not agree, but the average American, who by proxy is supported by the average congressman, feels that way.

If you have a keen desire to learn the variants of political opposition the biographies mentioned and the historical scholarship of that period are readily available. If you're looking for tutor I'm not interested.
Please excuse me while I walk down to the beach to pound the sand you requested.