Bush: Bin Laden's intentions as clear as Hitler's

[bishop]

this is what you call - desperation... whatever advisor told him that this would be a good rhetorical ploy miscalculated that the american public still could be swayed by the president's babbling.. after bush's legacy of incompetence and unaccountability, does he think that the same old parlor tricks will work this time?

someone should've yelled out, "yeah, we know they're still after us dumbass. and thanks to your adventure into iraq, there are a whole lot more terrorists for us to worry about."

CNN.com - Bush: Bin Laden's intentions as clear as Hitler's - Sep 5, 2006

"Bin laden and his terrorists' allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them," the president said before the Military Officers Association of America and diplomatic representatives of other countries that have suffered terrorist attacks. "The question is `Will we listen? Will we pay attention to what these evil men say?"' <snip> The president also said extremists from Islam's Shia sect are learning from Sunni extremists, and asserted the danger of the Shia-controlled nation of Iran. He said Iran is fighting a proxy war with the U.S. and Israel by funding and arming the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah. "Like al Qaeda and the Sunni extremists, the Iranian regime has clear aims. They want to drive America out of the region, to destroy Israel, and to dominate the broader Middle East," Bush said. "America will not bow down to tyrants." <snip> "The terrorists who attacked us on September the 11th, 2001, are men without conscience, but they're not madmen," he said. "They kill in the name of a clear and focused ideology, a set of beliefs that are evil but not insane."

the democrats' response was predictably unimpressive. and murtha's downright frightening.

"All the speeches in the world won't change what's going on in Iraq," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. "The truth is the president's policies have not worked and have not made us safer," said Sen. Thomas R. Carper, D-Delaware. Rep. John Murtha, a hawkish Democrat who voted in favor of the war but now favors withdrawing troops, said the administration has so badly botched the war that a draft might be necessary.

[RickSp]

Let's see - Bush is on vacaction in Crawford in August 2001and was presented in his daily briefing an intelligence report entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.’’ What did Bush do? He went back to chopping brush on the ranch.

In December 2001, Bin Laden was cornered in Tora Bora and how many of the 10,000 US troops in the region did Bush dispatch? 24, two dozen. That's it. Two Afghan warlords were hired to capture Bin laden. They were bribed. Bin Laden escaped.

In March of 2002, Bush said "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."

Now Bush uses Bin Laden's name 18 times in a 40 minute speech.

The Bush administration has no shame and no integrity. And regrettably the Democrats are either cowards or fools.

[ibm]

this is once again an open insult on the public's intelligence. "bin laden and his terrorists' allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them"? wow. what was hitler's intention? looks to me not only our prez is no english major, but nor is he good in history. shame on you, yale university.

[brien]

Quote by: bishop this is what you call - desperation... whatever advisor told him that this would be a good rhetorical ploy miscalculated that the american public still could be swayed by the president's babbling.. after bush's legacy of incompetence and unaccountability, does he think that the same old parlor tricks will work this time? someone should've yelled out, "yeah, we know they're still after us dumbass. and thanks to your adventure into iraq, there are a whole lot more terrorists for us to worry about." CNN.com - Bush: Bin Laden's intentions as clear as Hitler's - Sep 5, 2006 the democrats' response was predictably unimpressive. and murtha's downright frightening.

I warned of conscription months ago. I see it coming due to the unpopularity of the war in Iraq. Bush is a fool and I am not surprised that the average citizen has begun to ignore his idiodic speeches. The sooner we exit from the entire Middle East, the better off we will be in the US. Neither party has the guts to do this and as a result, not much will change after the elections, except whatever the Democrats will do will be ensconsed in the excuse it is reactionary politics to what Bush and the Republicans have done in the last six years.

For example, when they reinstitute the Draft, Murtha and his henchmen will blame the Republicans for blowing it in Iraq. Yet they all voted for this blunder and now all of the rats are jumping off the sinking ship. I don't care if "Bush lied and people died", the original vote was a vote of conscience and those that voted to invade Iraq must live with its consequences. They could have voted NO There was every reason for withdrawing from the Middle East in 2001 as there was in 1992, 1996, as there is today.

The Congress is full of cowards. They have this idea that the US must remain in the Middle East to protect freedom. Whose freedom? The Democrats talk about withdrawal from Iraq, but not from the Middle East. Iraq is a good start, but if the US doesn't follow through by exiting entirely from the Middle East, it will make no difference in the long run.

I don't want to sound like a broken record, but if the Europeans care, let them take over. If they don't, why should we care? If the UN can't manage the situation, then how can the US ever hope to manage it? Let the UN do either of two actions here:

1) Step up and manage the Middle East as it is led by the current leadership.

OR

2) Reconstitute itself with some real fighters, minus the US and finally take charge.

The US needs to get out of the Middle East, not just Iraq.

[bishop]

Quote by: brien I don't want to sound like a broken record, but if the Europeans care, let them take over. If they don't, why should we care? If the UN can't manage the situation, then how can the US ever hope to manage it?

really, i don't see the europeans as being entirely relevant.. our political establishment is hesitant to exit iraq and/or the region because that's a key strategic area for our empire. if we lose control over the middle east, there will be a fundamental shift in geopolitical power - in a way that will result in less u.s. influence in the world. europe would have a lot to gain from our withdrawal from the m.e. especially if the muslims really begin to price oil in euros. of course, you can't expect the politicians to publicly acknowledge this fact.

the only time that fact rears its ugly head is when people begin to talk about what would happen if we were to withdraw and iraq fell apart at the seams.. there's been very little debate about pros and cons of such an event both publicly and even on this site. the only thing we get from our horrendous "leaders" is the bushbot approach of staying the course, and the democrat twit approach of constant criticism without an alternative solution. (i can imagine a future democratic president blaming continuing problems on the mistakes that occurred during bush - which would be valid criticism, but we ought to expect more from our "leaders".) the libertarians have offered a withdrawal plan, but even they haven't talked much about the pros and cons of withdrawal.

bush thinks we need to stay, and he has years of experience in filling voters' heads up with fear mongering b.s. in order to win elections for himself and his corrupt party. the fool is going with what has worked in the past, hoping that the general public is even stupider than he is (something that was proven true in 2004).. i wonder how many of them will remember that he completely ignored bin laden just a few years ago, and focused all of his rhetoric against saddam. what could be the reason for all this newfound interest in bin laden, aside from elections and the fact that republicans are trying to distance themselves from this radioactive president (which is undoubtedly a blow to the chimp's petty ego)?

[Zeebadee]

"The president also said extremists from Islam's Shia sect are learning from Sunni extremists, and asserted the danger of the Shia-controlled nation of Iran. He said Iran is fighting a proxy war with the U.S. and Israel by funding and arming the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah."

Meanwhile, bush is shipping more cash, laser bombs, and cluster munitions to our proxy, Israel.

Hey, our proxy can beat up your proxy!

[RickSp]

Bush acknowledges secret CIA prisons

President Bush on Wednesday acknowledged the existence of previously secret CIA prisons around the world and said 14 high-value terrorism suspects — including the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks — have been transferred from the system to Guantanamo Bay for trials. The announcement from Bush is the first time the administration has acknowledged the existence of CIA prisons, which have been a source of friction between Washington and some allies in Europe. The administration has come under criticism for its treatment of terrorism detainees. European Union lawmakers said the CIA was conducting clandestine flights in Europe to take terror suspects to countries where they could face torture.

[brien]

Quote by: bishop really, i don't see the europeans as being entirely relevant.. our political establishment is hesitant to exit iraq and/or the region because that's a key strategic area for our empire. if we lose control over the middle east, there will be a fundamental shift in geopolitical power - in a way that will result in less u.s. influence in the world. europe would have a lot to gain from our withdrawal from the m.e. especially if the muslims really begin to price oil in euros. of course, you can't expect the politicians to publicly acknowledge this fact. the only time that fact rears its ugly head is when people begin to talk about what would happen if we were to withdraw and iraq fell apart at the seams.. there's been very little debate about pros and cons of such an event both publicly and even on this site. the only thing we get from our horrendous "leaders" is the bushbot approach of staying the course, and the democrat twit approach of constant criticism without an alternative solution. (i can imagine a future democratic president blaming continuing problems on the mistakes that occurred during bush - which would be valid criticism, but we ought to expect more from our "leaders".) the libertarians have offered a withdrawal plan, but even they haven't talked much about the pros and cons of withdrawal. bush thinks we need to stay, and he has years of experience in filling voters' heads up with fear mongering b.s. in order to win elections for himself and his corrupt party. the fool is going with what has worked in the past, hoping that the general public is even stupider than he is (something that was proven true in 2004).. i wonder how many of them will remember that he completely ignored bin laden just a few years ago, and focused all of his rhetoric against saddam. what could be the reason for all this newfound interest in bin laden, aside from elections and the fact that republicans are trying to distance themselves from this radioactive president (which is undoubtedly a blow to the chimp's petty ego)?

Well the Europeans would perhaps be forced to be relevant if we packed up lock, stock and barrel and left the Middle East completely. It is the oil they buy that comes from Iraq and they will have to negotiate it. When the Muslim Extremists take over their repective states like Lebanon and Iraq, it is their policies that will effect the Europeans with respect to the purchase of oil. Pre war Iraqi export of oil to the US was 10%., much less so than to Europe. Let France, Germany and Great Britain, negotiate with the likes of Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Hamas, and Hezbollah. The US has no sensible reason to be there.

That aside, the US strategic interest is here at home. We don't need a foreign policy driven by an insaitable appetite for oil. We don''t need to be "allies" with Israel simply to have a strategic "foothold" in the Middle East. And I know you would agree that we shouldn't be mortgaging our children's future by going in debt to the Chinese to finance a foriegn policy driven by oil that results in illegal wars.

The US is more than capable in protecting our homeland when and if the Muslim Extremists return to our shore to attack us. And when they do, they will be responsible for the carnage that will be released upon them. For example, if it is proved that the attackers come from Hezbollah that reside in Lebanon, then the US should give Hezbollah 24 hrs to give up the guilty, or suffer the consequences. The consequences being, total destruction so that they could never attack the US again.

[Matt W]

Quote by: brien Well the Europeans would perhaps be forced to be relevant if we packed up lock, stock and barrel and left the Middle East completely. It is the oil they buy that comes from Iraq and they will have to negotiate it. When the Muslim Extremists take over their repective states like Lebanon and Iraq, it is their policies that will effect the Europeans with respect to the purchase of oil. Pre war Iraqi export of oil to the US was 10%., much less so than to Europe. Let France, Germany and Great Britain, negotiate with the likes of Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Hamas, and Hezbollah. The US has no sensible reason to be there.

Not so much, brien. The majority of our oil & gas comes from Russia. Certainly in Northern Europe - I'd hesitate to draw that conclusion about Italy & Spain.

The end result is that the powers which currently have a political will to get involved, probably won't - as they don't really want to risk offending the 'old enemy' in the East - who has all sorts of interest in competitors being out of the market.

[brien]

Quote by: Matt W Not so much, brien. The majority of our oil & gas comes from Russia. Certainly in Northern Europe - I'd hesitate to draw that conclusion about Italy & Spain. The end result is that the powers which currently have a political will to get involved, probably won't - as they don't really want to risk offending the 'old enemy' in the East - who has all sorts of interest in competitors being out of the market.

Given, then who really has the "strategic" interest in the Muddle East? Why should the US bother. Why should Europe care if we exit completely? If the US exit really does leave a power vacuum, then so be it, it is not the US problem.

However, I do think Europe is more interested in the Middle East oil than it pretends to be merely through the fact that France was buying from Saddam during the UN oil embargo.

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: RickSp Let's see - Bush is on vacaction in Crawford in August 2001and was presented in his daily briefing an intelligence report entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.’’ What did Bush do? He went back to chopping brush on the ranch. In December 2001, Bin Laden was cornered in Tora Bora and how many of the 10,000 US troops in the region did Bush dispatch? 24, two dozen. That's it. Two Afghan warlords were hired to capture Bin laden. They were bribed. Bin Laden escaped. In March of 2002, Bush said "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." Now Bush uses Bin Laden's name 18 times in a 40 minute speech. The Bush administration has no shame and no integrity. And regrettably the Democrats are either cowards or fools.

Well, and Clinton did the same thing before him (as far as not getting the baddies when he had the chance). The current problem is the result of decades of political incompetence.

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: brien I warned of conscription months ago. I see it coming due to the unpopularity of the war in Iraq. Bush is a fool and I am not surprised that the average citizen has begun to ignore his idiodic speeches. The sooner we exit from the entire Middle East, the better off we will be in the US. Neither party has the guts to do this and as a result, not much will change after the elections, except whatever the Democrats will do will be ensconsed in the excuse it is reactionary politics to what Bush and the Republicans have done in the last six years. For example, when they reinstitute the Draft, Murtha and his henchmen will blame the Republicans for blowing it in Iraq. Yet they all voted for this blunder and now all of the rats are jumping off the sinking ship. I don't care if "Bush lied and people died", the original vote was a vote of conscience and those that voted to invade Iraq must live with its consequences. They could have voted NO There was every reason for withdrawing from the Middle East in 2001 as there was in 1992, 1996, as there is today. The Congress is full of cowards. They have this idea that the US must remain in the Middle East to protect freedom. Whose freedom? The Democrats talk about withdrawal from Iraq, but not from the Middle East. Iraq is a good start, but if the US doesn't follow through by exiting entirely from the Middle East, it will make no difference in the long run. I don't want to sound like a broken record, but if the Europeans care, let them take over. If they don't, why should we care? If the UN can't manage the situation, then how can the US ever hope to manage it? Let the UN do either of two actions here: 1) Step up and manage the Middle East as it is led by the current leadership. OR 2) Reconstitute itself with some real fighters, minus the US and finally take charge. The US needs to get out of the Middle East, not just Iraq.

I really hope that they don't succeed in reinstating the draft. It would kill me down to my very soul if my friends got shipped off to fight in some fool's errand. They're too gentle for that kind of forced barbarity.

I'm really not surprised that Murtha would want to do this. After all, it would generate great bad PR for the republicans. They can make it look like they actually have a plan of action to the people that criticize them for not having solutions, and they can deflect all of the negative response onto the republicans. Not that that excuses the republicans for the crap of their own creation. I'm so sick of the whole bunch right now.

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: Zeebadee "The president also said extremists from Islam's Shia sect are learning from Sunni extremists, and asserted the danger of the Shia-controlled nation of Iran. He said Iran is fighting a proxy war with the U.S. and Israel by funding and arming the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah." Meanwhile, bush is shipping more cash, laser bombs, and cluster munitions to our proxy, Israel. Hey, our proxy can beat up your proxy!

Does that surprise you? This is how we created the monster that was Afghanistan.

[brien]

Quote by: phoenix_fire I really hope that they don't succeed in reinstating the draft. It would kill me down to my very soul if my friends got shipped off to fight in some fool's errand. They're too gentle for that kind of forced barbarity. I'm really not surprised that Murtha would want to do this. After all, it would generate great bad PR for the republicans. They can make it look like they actually have a plan of action to the people that criticize them for not having solutions, and they can deflect all of the negative response onto the republicans. Not that that excuses the republicans for the crap of their own creation. I'm so sick of the whole bunch right now.

You know, I remember all too well the draft during the Viet Nam war. I was 18 when I was forced to register. I think I burned my card in the march on DC after Kent State because I don't have it in my box of "stuff" along with my political button for Eugene Mc Carthy.

I was fortunate to have a 2-S which was a student deferment in 1969. Then I was in a bad car wreck and got a 4-F, a classifaction where one is physically disqualified. Then they went to the "lottery" system and I drew a 356 out of a possible 366 birthdays in the year.

I knew people who went to Canada. I knew people who went underground and joined the SDS. I knew guys who were plucked right out of the next dorm room and shipped right out to "Nam". And of course I knew guys who never came back, or came back in an aluminum coffin. Their names on on the wall in DC.

Should the "draft" come back, young men will have to make difficult choices. Some that I would not want to go through again in my lifetime. Best of luck to your friends.

[phoenix_fire]

I would, in that case, be very interested in pointing out missionary opportunities in Canada.