Jimmy D wrote:
> Of course, Churchill isn't cited as the
> war criminal and racist that he was because
> (1) his last stint as PM involved a war against
> a generally-accepted bad guy; and (2) he won.
> Blair & Bush may not win, while it's possible
> that they could become generally accepted as bad
Jimmy D. wrote:
Of course, Churchill isn't cited as the
war criminal and racist that he was because
(1) his last stint as PM involved a war against
a generally-accepted bad guy; and (2) he won.
Blair & Bush may not win, while it's possible
that they could become generally accepted as bad
guys.
It'
"Devine, James" wrote:
>
> Of course, Churchill isn't cited as the
> war criminal and racist that he was because
> (1) his last stint as PM involved a war against
> a generally-accepted bad guy; and (2) he won.
> Blair & Bush may not win, while it's possible
> that they could become generally accep
Of course, Churchill isn't cited as the
war criminal and racist that he was because
(1) his last stint as PM involved a war against
a generally-accepted bad guy; and (2) he won.
Blair & Bush may not win, while it's possible
that they could become generally accepted as bad
guys.
-- Jimmy D.
Fro
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6171.htm
History Forgave Churchill, Why Not Blair and Bush?
by Mickey Z.
19 July 2003 "dissidentvoice.org" -- On July 17, 2003, U.K. Prime Minister
Tony Blair addressed a joint meeting of the U.S. House and Senate. The
subject of WMD, of course, wa
