28 November 2006

World War TWO or Iraq?

Is it true?

It seems that only ZENmud took the journalistic step of defining valid endpoints, the dates that make a calculating the duration of World War II possible, for comparison to the Iraq Quagmire and Nation Deconstructing, in his post of October 26, 2006:

"No Mission Accomplished"

Here's the question:

Was it Sunday, November 26, or Saturday, December 16, that marks the utter failure of Bush the Lesser to create his
Neocom-NirvanIraq Free Market Zone?

The Lap Dog MSM seems flustered, but why? Could they not publish the basis for their stated "calculations"? Why was their mathematics so poor?

:-) ZENmud
would love to hear from:

The Durango, Colorado Herald:

(November 12, 2006 / Slothower)

"The Iraq war has now lasted longer than U.S. involvement in World War II."

International Herald Tribune:

(November 23, 2006 / Rutenberg)
"the war in Iraq, whose duration will surpass that of U.S. involvement in World War II on Sunday."

USA Today:
(Posted Opinion November 26)

"Although, on Sunday, the 1,347-day-old Iraq war was being compared in duration to WWII..."

www.opinioneditorials.com :
(October 28, 2006 / Oaks)

"October 26, Terrence Hunt of the AP remarked how the U.S. involvement in Iraq will soon have lasted longer than our involvement in World War II. Ari Berman of The Nation made the same claim more than a month ago. And Rupert Cornwell of The Independent stated way back in August that “America’s (and Britain’s) disastrous war in Iraq has now lasted longer than the US involvement in the Second World War.” Each author uses the most convenient date for ‘beginning’ and ‘end’ of US involvement in World War II to make their point, but the actual length is not important for them."

These MSM press (IHT, USAToday) and others certainly could find inner peace and karma, just by sourcing from ZENmud - your Humble Narrator...


No comments: