foxnews.com — This article slipped under the radar. Many don't know that Bush's current position is due largely to Nazi money (like many of the early MIC prototype companies) - Fox news reported this in 2003! - *Head explodes*
May 20, 2007 View in Crawl 4
jll3sonexMay 21, 2007
So he fell out at the end of the decade? Before the war? Before the extermination camps? Because Hitler was getting too f**ked in the head to be supportable? But Bush merely worked for the company - didn't actually do anything FOR Hitler/Germany?Sheesh. What the hell they teaching in school for History these days?Ya know, I'm getting more and more convinced there IS such a thing as BDS.
stepnw1fMay 21, 2007
Nooo... FOX itself, is embarrassing you, and those of you who try to dismiss this.
eatingpieMay 22, 2007
Wow. I don't expect truth to come out in the headline or subheading, but apparently NOBODY read the article."The documents do not show any evidence Bush directly aided that effort."No evidence. NO EVIDENCE!! From the article! But as of this point, we're at almost 2000 diggs with a headline and subheading that's a contradiction to what's stated in the article.Sheesh.-Pie
ownonMay 22, 2007
Most of the country was against getting involved in another war. FDR pulled a little sleight-of-hand. The Japanese code was broken and he knew that Pearl Harbor would be attacked (this is all documented). He had the newer ships put to sea and left the older ships in port to be destroyed by the Japanese. This not only gave him an excuse to declare war on Japan the next day but also made the U.S. look weak so that three days later Germany declared war on us. Of course, we in turn declared war on Germany making the UK happy.
hittnrunMay 22, 2007
stepnwlfdismissing a weak story, like this one, is what separates the grown-ups from the children. Now, grow up, you are an embarrasment. Even if the story were true, what does that have to do with the current president? If your brother were Charles Manson, would that make you responsible for mass murder? See, you're obsessing on something ridiculous and childish.
jll3sonexMay 22, 2007
Problem is - you look back a couple of generations and you're going to get all sorts of s**t tied together. AT THE TIME (IE, in historical context) the people weren't seeing themselves as doing anything wrong or unethical. Hell, I've got ancestors who owned a couple of slaves back in the early 1800s - does that mean I'm a racist bastard? No, it means I've got ancestors who owned a couple of slaves back close to 200 years ago. I didn't choose them, I'm merely descended from them. What they did doesn't affect what I do. It's called history - it's in the past. Blaming Bush for what his father did, ignoring the context of the event and what happened subsequently, doesn't quite cut it on the OMFG-o-meter.
bigturnsMay 22, 2007
"Fox news reported this in 2003..."And, so, what do you mean to imply - do you realize by 2003 the story was over 60 years old?Fox threw a story into the wind which, for anyone outside those milking cows, was a known issue.This just in, Fox news reports George Bush drove a Triple A baseball team and a moderately sized oil company into the ground...
stepnw1fMay 23, 2007
Looks as if the rotten apple didn't fall far from that apple tree, and you ate it like a good "german".