see # 25
the comparrison is of the initial attack (Pearl Harbor and 9/11)
You’re just assuming that’s the comparison. He makes no specific implication to suggest that, other than that’s the only comparison that comes close to making sense. Still, when the statement is “damage done by imperial Japan”, I don’t see how you can just throw out everything they did after Pearl Harbor (which still had 2,350 deaths alone). Don’t mean to harp, but if we don’t have our facts straight, we really have no business attacking other for their misstatements. I also believe people throw around historical comparisons a little too comfortably, i.e. every politician comparing the holocaust to an issue they oppose, etc. I’d say a very significant difference, which begs Peral Harbor and 9/11 NOT to be compared in a vague and uninformed context, is the loss of servicemen at Pearl Harbor. Not to discount civilian deaths of course, but truly these are two completely different scenarios.
Also a heavy majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi Arabian, yes? Yet it seems no presidential candidate speaks of the need for change in U.S.-Saudi relations. Have I just not been listening enough?