“Except your argument re: FDR not striking pre-emptively was not THE argument. The argument was regarding the timetable for concluding the war. See the difference? “Start” vs. “Finish”?? Your tangental [sic] arguments will cause much trouble for you down the road… Don’t try this at home….”

Again, a lawyer would know that ALL the facts of a situation affect the outcome. And one of the critical facts in analysing a war plan is how the war got started in the first place.

Since FDR’s involvement at the onset of America’s declaring war on the Axis powers is diametrically opposite to Bush’s preemptive strike your analogizing exit strategies is so inappropriate it does not even make a tangential argument.

Your analogy also disregards an essential element to conducting warfare: the nature of warfare has not remained static over the past 60 years. Yet, if you were to carry out the analogy, FDR, or more appropriately, the Allied powers had a plan. The plan was carried out. Italy was overrun by Allied forces and surrendered. Germany was next. The plan was modified in the Pacific. Unwilling to fight the war of attrition Japan had hoped for, Truman ordered the first nuclear attack. Japan surrendered shortly thereafter.

Bush apparently did not take any contingencies into account. Overwhelming force was met with a disappearing army and a drawn out ‘insurgency.” There was no surrender. Even though Saddam was captured, he maintains his claim that he is the lawful President of Iraq. That claim under international law is not without merit, as you well (should) know. I say “should” because I don’t know if you have studied international law. I have, including a stint on the International Law Moot Court Competition Team at my law school.

One other point: Raising the issue of FDR’s war planning is irrelevent to the facts of this issue. Assuming this Administration failed to adequately plan for this war, how is that excused by pointing to any other administration? If anything, pointing fingers at previous Administrations merely concedes that this Administration failed to learn the lessons of the past.

Since War has such devastating consequences, the decision to go to war, and the planning for war MUST have the highest duty of care of any decision a government can make.

If you’re going to try to justify the actions of this Administration, you’ll have to present a better argument that what you’ve put forth so far.

PP – When one considers the “argument” of that “other one” – half truths and “sophisticated name calling (”moron”, “reichwing Nazi”) – it’s easy to conclude it has no argument.

In an amazing turn of events, Charlie Sheen’s statements have gotten the attention of CNN’s Showbiz Tonight, and their host, A.J. Hammer, and Infowars.com host (and radio host) Alex Jones, considered the world’s foremost authority on Bush’s criminal cabal, was featrued on CNN last night (March 23, 2006) for a full 20 MINUTES.

A.J. Hammer and Showbiz Tonight have a poll up right now on CNN.com, in fact, that asks, “Do you agree with Charlie Sheen that the U.S. government covered up the real events of the 9/11 attacks,” and the percentage of people saying “yes” has been going up steadily. At the time of this writing, 82% of over 13,000 people say yes, the government is covering up the real story – in other words, that “Bush did it.”

PLEASE GO TO CNN.COM AND VOTE IN THEIR POLL, AND LET THEM KNOW WE’RE NOT TAKING THEIR LIES AND BULLSHIT ANYMORE.

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/showbiz.tonight/

This is our chance to garner MSM attention for the truth, people! Please do all you can, and send the links to all your friends and family!

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/showbiz.tonight/

Ryan, the trolls really go after you. Since they can’t diffuse your spewing of facts and relevance, they resort to the sexual smears. They are obsessed with anything sexual. They apparently don’t reread their own posts or they might be really embarrassed to represent their party with such non-arguments.

They have nothing and no message. They are desperate and clinging to any bastion of the party that they let Rove and the like dismantle. They have put a permanent stain even worse than Nixon, who starts to look more respectable every day, comparatively speaking.

At least when they are spinning their yarn over here, they aren’t doing anything to help themselves and their party out of the jam they are in. Just no sense of logic. Was there a special school that trained these wierdos?

(S)he isn’t any better at case law. The poor thing didn’t even know what ‘mens rea’ meant (s)he thinks warrantless spying is constitutional. That’s something that no legitimate or respected attorney actually believes or states. Only the partisan hacks dare argue this, and they’ve been trashed by their protege’s for their stupidity.

Thank you for the compliment. But I would have expected a better rebuttal. As an attorney, you should know better than to raise a fallacious argument. It is far too easy to distinguish Bush’s War from FDR’s conduct in WWII.

FDR did not initiate WWII with a preemptive first strike. FDR did not set the timetable for America’s entry into the war but had to react to circumstances.

Bush, on the other hand, initiated the war with Iraq. He placed his armies, navies and airforces into the theater of battle on his timetable. He chose the day to begin the assault. Yet his plan apparently failed to take into account all but the best-case scenario. As a result events seem to be heading towards a worst-case scenario.

I hope for your client’s sake you are better at analogizing case law than you are at historical figures.

I see your responses are just as (in)coherent as ever.

Did you trip and hit your head again while getting off the shortbus today?

**** This does NOT surprise me ONE bit! Actually, this explains ALOT….

Mighty Moron, funny you ask. Once again for a ‘military’ person you seem woefully ignorant. Much has been written about the post-war planning that FDR did, perhaps you should read something for a change other than propaganda Nazi sites, you wouldn’t be such a boring stupid old hag.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684810271/beldarblog-20/002-3871234-1997641

So in otherwords you’ve been lying about your ‘history’. I’ll accept you admitting that you’re a liar – works for me.

I hate to be bothered to ‘educate’ you yet again, but the ACLU doesn’t get involved in ‘gangbanger’ cases, they get involved in cases where the civil rights of people are being violated. The chances of you being pro bono involved in a legal case with 2 ACLU attornies is beyond laughable!

It’s even more humorous when you consider that the ACLU has only been involved in less than 30 legal cases in the last 5 years NATIONALLY!

Bahaha, what an idiot you are! Do you know NOTHING? Wow Reichwingers are stupid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ACLU_Cases#2000s

Which one of these cases were you involved in again?