Technically, Churchill didnt get Hitler, since the conditions of his death was in question up until the fall of the Berlin wall. Most of us said he was in Argentina until the 1970's ( shades of Tora Bora...)

Todays Democrats would have questioned why FDR decided on a 'Europe First' strategy after Pearl Harbor, attacking Morocco in response to the Japanese attack. Todays Democrats would want to know 'where is the plan for peace?' in 1945, when we still have 60,000 troops in Germany today. The Marshall Plan wasnt underway until 1948 and didnt take root until 1950, Clearly Truman was incompetant in mishandling Europe and ignoring the greater threat it Korea.

Todays Democrats would rail about the mistake that FDR made in creating the manahattan project since Hitler didnt have any WMD's which is what he based the need for the project."Billions and Billions spent, and there was never a threat" Thats what they would say.

Once upon a time, Democrats song was "Happy Days Are Here Again' Today its "Up Against the Wall Redneck Mu**F***er!". Yesterdays Democrats would campaign at Wal Marts,follow Nascar,and join the NRA. Todays Democrats deride those same people and talk about how they stand with the little man.

Once upon a time, Democrats stood by israel. Today they say that Arafat is a partner for peace. Once upon a time a Democrat said 'Pay any price,bear any burden, face any foe in defense of liberty". Once upon a time Democrat stood in defiance of tyranny. Todays Democrat says the Venezuela was a good and fair vote while Florida is a sham. Todays Democrat smirks at the sight of Women voting in Afghanistan. Todays Democrat says that we have been cultural imperialists by helping being freedom to formerly enslaved people. Once upon a time, Democrats belived in liberty for all, Todays Democrat believes "freedom for me but not for thee".

Todays Democrat extends an open hand in prostrate support of tyranny while slapping down the enslaved.

"Churchill had six years to get Hitler. Did the fact that Germany wasn't conquered in 1942 make the victory irrelevant?"

That is a misleading, inaccurate, ridiculous analogy. The reasons are legion, but one of the (appallingly) obvious ones is that Great Britain and Germany were many orders of magnitude more evenly matched than the United States and al Qaeda. The United States accounts for approximately half of all the defense spending in the world: whatever al Qaeda's capabilities, suggesting that bin Laden is Hitler to Bush's Churchill is patently absurd.

You may now begin ignoring or distorting this perfectly obvious point.

Joshua,

Ignore, Schmignore. The analogy had nothing to do with relative strengths; it was about national attention spans.

And all the distortion is yours. Just because Al Quaeda isn't Nazi Germany doesn't make Bin Laden easier to find. Quite the opposite, in fact.

To reiterate: my point is that your analogy is completely inaccurate on pretty much every level except that Hitler was, most of the time, East of Churchill and Churchill spoke English.

The "national attention spans" angle doesn't hold up either: Nazi Germany had been bombing the shit out of Great Britain for two years at that point and had an expressed intention to invade. Attention spans were hardly an issue, and the stakes of the conflict were completely different.

I didn't say that bin Laden would be easier to find because al Qaeda isn't Nazi Germany. I said your analogy was misleading, inaccurate, and ridiculous. Your rebuttal hardly refutes my point.