“Award winning French filmmaker William Karel takes relentless aim at the President and his closest advisors…As with Michael Moore’s Farenheit 9/11 there is little territory left uncovered here. The impact of the Christian Right, the secret relationship between the Bush and the BinLaden family, and the premeditated decision to go to war in Iraq.�
Click here to either download the two part movie, or stream them.
“Many pronouncements made by this administration are outrageous. There is no other wordâ€? — Senator Robert C. Byrd
“This administration has chosen to use the propaganda tools of Hitler, Goering, and Goebbelsâ€? — Robert Steele, CIA Covert Operations
“It is starting to look like a third world republic – a banana republic that is.â€? — Robert Baer, CIA Covert operations
Thanks Christine for the heads-up!
Comments
Re(2): The World According to Bush
[quote]Foobarista: About Byrd, he has completely changed his stripes in the past couple decades…[/quote]
Not really. He is still a populist, chasing whatever it is that’s popular in his district at the moment. He still lets loose a racial epithet when it suits him, with no apology from him and no reprimand from the liberal media. And of course, he’s still a Democrat just like all those southern Klansmen were.
Steve
Re: The World According to Bush
Hmmmm. I am very impressed by those WWII photos of the traditional vacant French expression as all those Nazi troops marched by on the Champs Elysee.
Steve
Re(1): The World According to Bush
Actually, Longest Beard, there is quite a bit of misinformation out there, largely due to distortion by those opposed to Bush.
The provinces in Iraq contested by the insurgents are the same four that compose the Sunni Triangle where the resistance had been all along. I’d say the suicide bombings have put us on the back foot there. The Kurdish north and Iraqi south are not contested. It is the aim of the insurgents to defeat the coming elections, as stated in Zarqawi’s intercepted letter to Al Qaeda and predicted by the US military commanders months ago. The latest surge in violence promotes this goal. You should be against this attempted abortion of Iraqis fetal democracy.
What does Israel have to do with Iraq? Nothing.
I hate to spoil your rhetoric about a “lack of WMD” but one of those non-existent sarin artillery shells were used to attack our troops. We found a dozen other chemical shells that you think don’t exist.
The Dulfer Report reports that while there were no stockpiles of conventional WMD in Iraq (which the liberal media wrongly interprets as no WMD at all) there was a network of laboratories making all those chemical and biological weapons in small batches. They found documentation that they intended to package them in perfume bottles and such and send them to to Western Europe and the US. That sounds like support for terrorist operations to me.
May I remind you that the US did not invade Iraq to stop a conventional attack from Iraq using WMD. Iraq could not project its military power very far outside its borders. The threat that Iraq presented was a terror attack on the US using WMDs. The discovery of these weapons labs and their plans confirms that threat.
As for the charge of incompetency, we took over Iraq in a matter of weeks. That sounds pretty competent to me, especially considering Iran’s attempt to conquer Iraq went on for eight years and failed.
The charge of torture is nonsense. We didn’t exactly throw anybody in the plastic shredder in Abu Ghraib or throw them off a building or cut out their tongues or hang them from a ceilling fan or beat their feet. Not one even lost a drop of blood.
What actually happenned is that an unsupervised night shift of guards at an understaffed, undersupervised, overcrowded prison under daily attack from outside abused the Iraqi prisoners under their charge, Iraqis who had committed criminal offenses against other Iraqis. The abuse was wrong and the offenders charged by the US military. They are being tried now. The first one just got sentenced to eight years in prison this week.
America handled this crime fairly. I challenge you to produce one Arab country which has performed up to the American standard where prisoners have found to be abused. It is rather typical Arab hypocricy to castigate America for the single occassion of slight abuse of prisoners under its care when heavy abuse, real torture, and the occassional murder are the policy of Arab governments toward prisoners, many of whom have committed no crime at all. Should I start poking around the accounts of prisoners in Bahraini prisons and see what I find? Do they even feed the prisoners in Bahraini prisons?
If the Iraqis choose Shiite clerics for their leaders, then that’s their choice. Your accusation seems to imply that America should impose its choice on Iraq. How long would it take for you to condemn America for doing that? About one millisecond. It’s an intellectually dishonest criticism.
The Iraqis don’t seem to be very inclined toward Islamic theocracy so it just may be good for them to suffer through an inept Shiite leadership, boxing the political compass, to form a national consensus that religious leadership sucks. Afghanistan figured it out in their election. The Iraqis are much better educated than Afghans and are more likely to figure it out for themselves.
As for Iraq breaking up into a bunch of fanatical emirates, only the Sunni Triangle is in dispute. The Kurds are showcasing the Iraq of the future in the north. The Iraqi Shiites in the south seem to support the American restructuring of Iraq. In the four provinces in dispute, the rebels have made themselves unwelcome. Zarqawi has made himself hated. He will never be the leader of any Iraqi political entity. If an American bomb doesn’t fall on his head, the Iraqis will catch him and kill him. He’s doomed.
Steve
The World According to Bush
You guys are far too smitten with Michael Moore and “Fahrenheit 9/11”, his propaganda piece. I’m a bit aghast that well-educated people don’t see through such rhetoric. However, for those of you who may be interested in a rebuttal to F9/11, here is a link to an article by a guy who has collected all the counterpoints to Moore and assembled them in one place, calmly unravelling the nonsense:
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
When you’re done, take a long look in the mirror and ask yourself, “How could I fall for such obvious crap?”
You’re Welcome,
Steve
[Modified by: Steve The American (Steve) on October 23, 2004 11:35 AM]
The World According to Bush
I’m not sure I’d be quoting former Ku Klux Klansman Byrd as a source of enlightened Democratic opinion 🙂 Anyway, the moonbat brigade of angry bureaucrats and washed-up politicos sure has it in for Bush, to the point of degenerating to madcap Godwinism.
In any case, pretty much all the anti-Bush arguments with respect to Iraq have been demolished by the Dulfer report, which was rather outrageously spun anti-Bushward by the “objective” media.
Anyway, part of the reason for their vitriol is that, for all their bile, Bush looks more likely than not to win the election.
Not that I’m so thrilled. Bush could easily have been fruitfully attacked in numerous ways, but the method of moonbattery, Michael Moore, “International ANSWER” ex-Communists, and silly Hollywood millionairheads wasn’t it.
Had the Dems chose Lieberman or Gepheardt, they would have had a solid chance. They chose Lurch so they could avoid Old Yeller (Dean), and are likely to go down in flames over it.
The World According to Bush
It’s amazing how Bush has polarised not just his country, but the whole world; but according to polls by international media up to 80% of the world don’t want him as president, while half of the American voting public do.
It’s not up to us “observers” to decide the American elections in a little over a week today of course, however, what exactly escapes the 50% of Americans that 80% of the whole world take as truth? Are the 80% completely hoodwinked into thinking that Bush would be a disaster for the world if he is re-elected on Nov 2nd, or is it a vast conspiracy propogated by “liberals” in America and the rest of the world?
I don’t know. I just cannot understand how a cowboy can illicit so much emotion. But then, it might well be that it is not him who is cooking up emotions, but his elves, they seem to have a lot more digits to their IQ as Bush would trip on his.
Part of me wish that he will be re-elected so that the 80% + 50% could point and say “I told you so”, but then by that time this whole planet might be at loggerheads and fighting various wars aided and abetted by Mr. Bush and his cronies.
Re: The World According to Bush
Mahmood,
Anti-American feeling was all over Europe and the world long before Bush ran for President. The reasons for it are mostly illegitimate and wrong-headed. Ironically, the countries who have benefitted most from America are the centers of anti-Americanism, like Saudi Arabia and France.
To be blunt, most of the world is filled uneducated nitwits who get their information from state propaganda organs and religious demagogues. Their opinion can not be taken seriously on an American election. It would be like asking the world if Columbus should set sail west over the edge of the world. Most would probably have voted against it, thinking he would be eaten by sea monsters.
That said, to be perfectly, fair, a lot of Americans are uneducated nitwits. The other night I watched a focus group on a cable channel discuss the issues like outsourcing and taxes. It was pretty depressing to see what numbskulls they were. There are a lot of very nice nurse’s aides and factory workers who think that we should ban outsourcing to save American jobs and the government can just raise taxes to make more revenue. They are economic illiterates who will vote against their own wellbeing out of ignorance.
My sad realization is that a lot of Americans are going to choose their candidates in a few days based on some dumb reasons. Some are going to just vote like their friends do to be popular. Some women are going to vote based on which candidate they would rather sleep with. Some will vote because they think Bush is planning to draft them. Some will vote thinking Michael Moore’s F9/11 is a factual documentary. Some will vote because they have a head full of crap.
If you examine the fine details of each person’s reasons, it’s exasperating. Somehow it all works out in the aggregate, eventually. I hope.
And may I point out, we would not be at war without Al Qaeda launching an attack from Afghanistan that killed three thousand Americans going about their peaceful business. We would not be in Iraq had Saddam not attacked and menaced the US and his neighbors. Had Saddam complied with the UN resolutions, all of our troops in Iraq would be home in America.
The source for much of the current hostility comes from Saudi Arabia and its belligerent foreign policy of Wahhabi terror to create a worldwide Islamic empire. This violent religious empirialism is supported by the bulk of the Muslim world with a particularly intense support from the Middle East. It is the source for much of the evil afoot in Iraq and the world.
Let’s not forget who the aggressors were.
Steve
Re: The World According to Bush
Ok I asked for that one, and thank you for striking me down. Should’ve checked before posting.
Re(1): The World According to Bush
About Byrd, he has completely changed his stripes in the past couple decades, but is most widely known for his all-pork diet: he isn’t known as “Senator Bring Home the Bacon” for nothing. For some reason, West Virginia gets vast amounts of government largesse, particularly when the Dems are running the Senate. When it was fashionable to be an old-fashioned Southern racist Democrat, he was one. When it became fashionable to become the South’s Ted Kennedy – particularly if he could get more Dems in the Senate – he ran with it. But he always made sure that his state was swimming in pork.
(Sorry for the image if it offends Muslims – “pork” in the political sense means a politician gets the government to build public works or steers other national government funds in his area to show off to voters, particularly if they are useless or excessive.)
Re(2): The World According to Bush
That suits our esteemed Islamist MPs in particular very well and all other MPs we have been lumbered with in general!
Shows that whatever race, skin-hue, or differing language people speak, politicians are all the same!
Re(2): The World According to Bush
Look you’re going to have to cut down on the verbage because all of us have better things to do than wade through some windy, turgid, sub-Saving Private Ryan type explanation of US foreign policy. I tell you what, pal, how about as a test see if you can get you’re points over in less than 100 words rather than the usual 1000+. Sounds fair enough?
Re(1): The World According to Bush
IMO, there are reasoned criticisms to Bush’s Iraq policy (ie, should stabilize Afghanistan first, etc), and there are the silly moonbat arguments, ie Bush is stupid, Bush is a Zionist tool of evil Jewish neocons, Bush is in Halliburton’s pocket, etc etc. It is one thing to have reasoned criticisms, entirely another to use ad hominem attacks and Michael Moore-style conspiracy theories. Since these types of “arguments” don’t actually convert anyone but the already converted, it is little wonder that they aren’t impressing anyone but existing Bush haters as shown by most recent polls in the US.
As far as the rest of the world is concerned, there is a vast constitutiency in the world for “stability”, ie doing absolutely nothing. There are very easy ways to do nothing while appearing to “move forward”, and Clinton did them: work with the UN, support “moderates”, have a “peace process”, etc, and hope the bad guys either die or can be safely bought off (ie, Clinton’s North Korea appeasement policy, which Kerry wants to both bring back for North Korea and use for Iran). Doing nothing will always be the most popular thing to do.
The World According to Bush
The most apt description I’ve seen of Bush’s gormless ever vacant stare is that it’s like that of “a cow watching a train pass by”. The description’s by some Frenchman.
Re: The World According to Bush
What’s that Foobarista? “The anti Bush arguments on Iraq have been demolished by the Dulfer report”? Its good to see someone get up and say this. If America’s media wasn’t run by hordes of draft dodging liberals they’d be ticker tape celebrations in all of America’s major cities for conquering hero Bush. Instead the conspiring media’s disgacefully reporting large areas of Iraq off limits to American troops, links between the neocons and Israel, lack of WMD, incompetency, lies, torture and on and on.
But don’t worry, democracy for the Iraqi people’s round the corner. Looking at the most recent polls for Iraq, by January Baghdad should have a government run at best by an uneasy alliance between the local versions of women-hating Adel Mouwdah and Ali Salman. At worst you’re gonna have the country descend into a series of emirates each run by its own fanatical Al Zarqawi and engaged in a low level stop-start insurgencies.
The Bush Doctrine – an outstanding testament to the vision and intellectual prowess of its namesake.
The World According to Bush
The Democrats had their chance to field a candidate who would be able to take Bush, Instead they gave us a man who has sat in the Senate for 20 years without actually doing anything. A man who spent 4 months in Vietnam and came home and committed high treason, NOT the man for me. I think Kerry will win, and life will go on, Conservatives tend to be less violent, Liberals are against Killing and want everybody to make nice, except if you disagree with them, Then you are stupid, uninformed and just plain ignorant.
My heart cries for my country, I pray that we somehow get back to the idea that the differences are what make us great. I really do not care if the world hates America, but I wish they would not tell us we do not give enough or provide enough aid, If the world hates me get them the hell out of my pocket.
I do believe the US has more than enough to share, but it is maddening to for people to take what is given freely and then get bit in the ass for doing it.
My family is diverse, Husband hates Bush, thinks Kerry an idiot, but will vote for him. My daughter will go with the Green Party, I will proudly vote for GW. We live and love together , Discuss our reasons and respect each others opinions. This is the America I dream of.
GW is not stupid, He went to both Yale and Harvard, He managed to be elected the Governor and President. Kerry will support both Iran and North Korea. GW gave The Afgans free elections, Iraq will have elections in January. I believe History will be kinder to Blair, Bush and Howard, than the world is right now.
Don’t mention Israel
Oh yeah – I remember now: whatever you do, you’re not allowed to mention Israel and its place in neocons’ thinking in relation to the Iraq war. Even Michael Moore knew that one. You send these guys in to a hysteria of denials.
Tut tut, that was naughty of me.
Re: Don’t mention Israel
What does Israel have to do with the American invasion of Iraq?
Nothing.
Steve
[Modified by: Steve The American (Steve) on October 24, 2004 01:03 PM]
Re: The World According to Bush
Mahmood,
I am with others that really don’t care what the rest of the world thinks about America anymore, because I view it as doublespeak. I do not understand the logic in the thought process that accepts a world of dictators, terror and genocide in the name of “stability” while mouthing off about human rights and world peace and not willing to lift a finger to do anything about it.
How many people have to die daily, year after year, because collectively as a species, we are not willing to do anything about it and are content with business as usual as long as it doesn’t effect us? Tell me how the people of Iraq would have ever overthrown one of the worse human rights violators of all time. Tell me how the people of Bahrain are going to gain any shred of real freedom when they get thrown in jail for speaking their minds. Tell me how America adopting an isolationist policy would stop the spread of terrorism, stop the genocide in Sudan or help effect any moves toward reforms in the ME. So until the rest of the world lives up to the high standards they set for America, I don’t put much stock into what they say anymore.
Re: The World According to Bush
Anti-americanism existed way before Bush and 9/11. I am of the camp that simply does not care what the world thinks because it is all hypocrisy. This is the same world that protested America’s removing of Saddam, but didn’t give a damn when he was filling his mass graves and gives even less than a damn about the 30,000 people massacred in Sudan since March. Where are all the anti-war/anti-violence protestors that filled the streets before, during, and after the Iraq war? No Americans involved here, so who cares about dead Sudanese?
My European relatives were all against the Iraq war but when that conflict in Bosnia was going on, they asked me when the Americans were going to do something about it. This is the same crowd that let Hitler kill 6 million people before deciding that was a Bad Thing.
The world doesn’t need Bush to aid and abet their wars. They are quite talented at doing it themselves.
I am a Libertarian and will vote that way in November. Though my party has a snowball’s chance in hell of winning, their idealogy is correct. No more would we be the world’s policeman or it’s ATM machine.
Re: Don’t mention Israel
I know that both on the Left and Right there’s a squeamishness about mentioning Israel in the context of the Iraq War, with Left preferring Marxist oil lobby explanations best expressed by the banalities of Michael Moore, and the US PC Right virtually alone in publicly standing by Bush’s claims about WMD – claiming that one discarded chemical weapons shell justifies the invasion (surely tongue in cheek?).
The Neocons – Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith and the rest across the Bush administration, right wing think tanks and the media – have long campaigned for the removal of Saddam Hussein, making no effort to hide the fact that at least part of their intention in promoting war is to guarantee Israel’s security by eliminating its greatest military threats, forging a regional balance of power overwhelmingly in Israel’s favor, and in general creating a more friendly atmosphere for Israel in the Middle East.
The Iraq war represented a Flucht nach vorn – the possibility of an escape forward for Israel. As their slogan went “The road to Middle East peace lies through Baghdad�.
What’s amazing about the neocons is how easily they move from advising the Israeli government to pursue one policy than they end up in the US government arguing for exactly the same policy. Feith and Perle in 1996 drafting a policy paper for then Israeli premier Benyamin Netanyahu, that by 2002 had become US policy – sideline Arafat, the need to remove Saddam Hussein, changing the Middle East’s security environment for Israel’s strategic advantage.
Even Ha’aretz has been dazzled by the audacity of the neocons, saying that they “walk a fine line between their loyalty to American governments and Israeli interests.� But they’ve been able to get away with it because the neocons always frame their policies with the United States as the beneficiary of a recommended policy, with Israel always linked to the United States in the context of national interest.
I’m not sure whether they actually believe what’s good for Israel is good for America, or its just cynicism, I’d suggest the former except for the fact that many of the leading neocons – Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle,– have been during their careers the subject of high level investigations for espionage for Israel or in the case of Michael Ledeen on CIA files as an Israeli agent.
HELLO!!! MCFLY!!!
You know I’m the FIRST ONE to put a cork in anyone spouting off stupidity, and here I go again!
Iraq has everything to do with Israel’s security. Remember how they so daringly destroyed Iraq’s nuclear project at Osirak?
Iraq and Israel are separated by a vast expanse of desert and a Bridge over the River Jordan. Had Saddam ever felt secure enough to do so, he could have marched down in a day or so, stopping by for a snack in Amman. Israel has subdued Jordan and Egypt, reduced Lebanon to rubble and left Saudi Arabia tied up with gold plated Lexuses and silver-shitting race horses.
How’s this for alternative history? Had Saddam decided to welcome Khomeini’s revolution, they would have spent 8 years sitting on Kuwait and the Eastern province while driving the jews into the Mediterranean sea.
Just as Arabs scare their children with ghost stories of the blood-thirsty jew, jewish kids cry themselves to sleep, afraid of the march of the Republican Guard. Ariel Sharon may have a silver bullet with Yasser Arafat’s name on it, but he hasn’t forgotten how Saddam’s Scud missiles hit Tel Aviv in 1991.
Who did you think President Shrub was referring to when he said that Saddam was no longer a threat to his neighbors? Syria? Turkey? Iran? Jordan? Oh those four were scared shitless for the last 12 years. Kuwait? Saudi Arabia? I may give you that those two could easily have figured that Shrub would be the most receptive to “hey how about that Saddam fella?”. The fact of the matter is that the happiest man in the region was the most silent during the run up to the war, and he was further down the block.
Ariel Sharon has motive and opportunity, the Neocons wanted the opportunity and clearly had the means. (actually they have sufficient motives themselves)
It’s not like Israel was the Numero Uno Lobby for Gulf War II, there was plenty of motivation in Washington anyway. However, they had a boat load to gain from Saddam’s removal, FAR more to gain from Hussein in Chains than anyone else in the region HANDS DOWN. And that’s the raw truth.
Re: Don’t mention Israel
Oops – I forgot about Israel! That’s the ticket. I bow to the superior intellect 🙂
So, what would _you_ do about Israel, assuming that driving Israel into the sea isn’t an option.
Re: The World According to Bush
Typical – after all, the Frogs do lots of staring at cows, with all the money they get by looting the rest of Europe with the “common agricultural policy”. The problem they have with Bush is he got in the way of even more lucrative Froggy looting in the Middle East. To think that Bush would dare get in the way of Oil-For-Food and didn’t bow down and genuflect when the UN tried to order him about?
And to think that the French plan was only about a year from coming off after the sanctions go away – Saddam gets his nukes, TotalFinaElf gets its sweetheart oil contracts, and the French political class gets to grandstand for “peace”, “international law”, and fluffy kittens. Damn that idiot Bush!
And, to the canard about Bush’s “stupidity”, a report in the New York Times (not noted for its love of Dubya) indicates that Bush’s IQ is probably higher than Kerry’s: mid 120s, based on extrapolating scores that both took on various standardized tests.
Re: The World According to Bush
The US hasn’t quite bought into multiculti pomo anti-globo stuff in the way that Europe has, and its “conservatism” is proving to be every bit the intellectual equal of anything Europe puts on the table – and has what we call “scoreboard” to back it up. Postmodern welfare states sound all nice and cuddly, full of “compassion”, etc, but are running aground on the shoals of demographic and economic reality. Numerous European intellectuals and bureaucrats see this and are terrified that the winds of the world are turning against them, led by the US, the Anglosphere, the Asian Tigers, etc. THis is why they want to do silly tricks like world taxes collected by the UN (a French idea, natch), “tax harmonization”, the Kyoto treaty to hamstring the US, etc.
Of course, the cuddliness of these ideas, and the meanness of the Bush-led US in rejecting them, is why the US is so unpopular nowadays. Everyone wants to be a Nice Person, and it takes a leap of thought to get past the “obvious” Nice Person stuff. Most people never make this leap.
As for Iraq, this is another Nice Person issue: nice people don’t fight wars, love peace, try to avoid dictators, and work through the UN, buying UNICEF holiday cards with proper multiculti artwork. And they deplore massacres and genocides, and say “never again”, until they happen again.
Hindsight is twenty twenty
Driving Israel into the sea isn’t a realistic or even for that matter a desirable option.
Unfortunately, the realistic options never quite made it to the proverbial Arab Street. I won’t speak for anyone else, but I would have been happy with a two state solution. Israel is here to stay; historically they’re as much a part of the tapestry as the bones of Abraham. I don’t believe that it is politically feasible for either side to have All or Nothing. (Nevermind that it’s looking militarily feasible for Sharon)
Arafat should have taken Barak’s deal and then angled for the remaining two percent of the West Bank and Gaza Strip at a later date. Instead we’ve gone backwards, and he’s holed up in Ramallah.
After all the years of acrimony and conflict, 2000 offered the small window of hope that we could finally put it all behind. Instead, Sharon and Shrub are escalating tensions. The question of Palestine will not be resolved under either of those two. Instead they’re going to keep shitting on the Palestinian people saying “Here’s a taste of my ass that you’re going to have to kiss to get anywhere!”
Arafart
“Shrub” isn’t shitting on the Palestinian people, Arafart is. He robs them blind, his thugs beat up anyone who criticizes him, and he still manages to get popular support throughout the middle-east. The question of Palestine has less to do with “Shrub” than with Charon, Arafat, and Arab politics. Two Palestinian Prime Ministers have resigned, proof that Arafat is more interested in keeping the conflict going than in any real future for his people. The Palestinians get shredded in the process. The rest of the region whines incessantly about their plight but refuses to do anything constructive to move the plot forward.
Re: Hindsight is twenty twenty
I agree – Arafat blew it in 2000, although I wonder if he figured that if he came home with a deal, would he have ignited a civil war – or been killed – as it became plain that the “into the sea option” (or its cousin, “we vote them out of existence using the right of return”) was permanently off the table?
Sadly, I figure the only thing that can happen now is to have Israel pull out of the West Bank, finish up its wall, and have a “cold peace” of the Korean Peninsula variety for at least a few years and possibly a couple of generations. Palestine looks to me to be a mini-version of China circa 1945, with Arafat looking like Chiang Kaishek: a weak first among a collection of warlords. The tricky question for Palestine: who will be its Deng Xiaoping?
Getting away with 911
The biggest failure of Bush is that he’s allowed Bin Laden to get away with it. Kills 3000 Americans and walks a free man.
How this isn’t the number one issue in the US elections I cannot understand.
Re: Getting away with 911
Bin Laden did not get away with it. America has destroyed Al Qaeda’s leadership, base of operations in Afghanistan, and plenty of Al Qaeda grunts. We probably have more Al Qaeda leaders in our hands than Bin Laden has in his. And they’re talking.
Bin Laden is certainly not free. Where ever he goes, if he is alive, he walks under an American sky full of hostile eyes and sudden death. And Bin Laden is not really alive. He’s a dead man walking around. His future is dim.
Americans understand how hard it is to nail one person. We chased Patty Hearst for years before we caught her and she was right here in the US. We also understand Bush, who will wake up every morning asking his staff the progress on acquiring Bin Laden, whole or in pieces.
Steve
Re: HELLO!!! MCFLY!!!
You have Israel on the brain. Do you see Israel in your soup and in the clouds, too? America likes Israel and doesn’t want to see it destroyed but we not sitting around waiting for orders from Tel Aviv nor does Israel figure significantly in the calculation of our self defense. That Israel benefits from Saddam’s removal is a trivial happy effect of the American invasion of Iraq, not a reason.
I doubt Iraq could ever seriously threaten Israel unless it got nukes and the missiles to carry them. When Iraq tried to invade Saudi Arabia at Khafji during the first Gulf War, the attack was so inept that it bogged down quickly and fell apart from sheer incompetence. We didn’t even know until after the war that it was supposed to be a major offensive. We thought it was an armed reconnaissance. A few battalions of Marines cleaned it up without breaking a sweat. Some Saudis tagged along to pretend like they could defend their own country.
The Israeli military is a Western military, more than able to stop the feeble advance of a Third World army like Iraq’s.
I would suppose that Iraq’s neighbors who were threatened by Iraq were the ones it invaded in recent history: Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia.
Steve
Re(1): Don’t mention Israel
That’s quite a conspiracy theory you have cooked up there. I guess for you it wasn’t America that invaded Iraq. It was really the Zionists hiding on the Grassy Knoll who did Saddam in, huh?
Have you checked to see if any Zionists are hiding in your closet?
Steve
Re(1): Getting away with 911
Bin Laden’s a free man – free to make his recordings mocking you guys from wherever he is – Afghanistan/Pakistan/ British asylum seeker refuge/beach in Bali
You had you’re chance to catch the guy in the network of caves in Tora Bora, but instead of going in there and smoking him out America subcontracted the job to bearded tribesmen who let him get away – something to do with being, what’s the PC term, “casualty averse”.
I’d have thought Americans would have been super mad after 911 and volunteer to do the job themselves, but if you’ve got a commander in chief who himself proved “casualty averse” when it came to volunteering to fight in the jungles of Vietnam, I can understand why your forces kept engagement to a minimum distance of 15000 feet.
Bin Laden TV
I want to offer a clarification to the above post – the f**ker’s neither in a cave, asylum hostel or on a beach, but sitting in a TV studio offering his commentary of the US election campaign. For f**k’s sake, he’s not just got away with 911 but is at it again directly intervening in US politics. He may very well have Steve’s “million hostile American eyes” starring down on him, but they might as well be gawping up each other’s arses for all the good its done.
Still, at least he’s nailed the deadeyed Muslim denials that Al Qaeda wasn’t responsible for 911, ergo bombing the Taliban wasn’t justified. Ha. You must be feeling pretty stupid now.
So what’s the logic of endorsing Kerry, and thereby pushing the elections in Bush’s direction? He’s either:
a) stupid
b) trying to swing the election Bush’s way by causing maximum embarrassment to Kerry right at the end of the campaign.
Given the guy’s worldview, I’ve got to go for option a.
Re: Bin Laden TV
Longest Beard in Bahrain ..
I have to say that I agree with you. Butthead Bin Laden will be the friggin Achilles heel of America .. I dunno if he is stupid though .. He has been able to survive, and survive quite well .. playing peekaboo with the US, and then waving his flag , all the time chanting.. “u can’t catch me, u can’t catch me”
If it werent so tragic, I would be in hysterics .. the problem is, what was done in Iraq was justified in the name of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda .. if he is still running around and if the people or Iraq are slowly descending into civil war .. well then, what gives??
Re: Bin Laden TV
The relative importance of bin Laden personally is related to the fundamental debate between Bush and Kerry in the WoT: whether it is a “police action”, to be treated as a big law-enforcement effort like the War on Drugs, or whether it is truly a war, requiring the overthrow and building of states and geopolitical remaking of whole regions. While both sides would agree that bagging Osama is a huge deal, the “law enforcement” camp – which regards Osama as something like a big mob boss- would regard it as being more strategically important than the “war” camp, which would regard Osama as the dictator-on-the-run of a state in the process of being defeated. The “war” camp would regard Osama’s capture or (preferably) obvious and provable death as an important propaganda victory, but not enormously important strategically.
As to the particulars of his talk, even the most pro-Kerry media types couldn’t help but point out that bin Laden sounded like he was reading Kerry’s stump speech (even bashing the Patriot Act – I was waiting for his take on Medicare reform and funding for public arts…), spiced in with Michael Moore’s take on things. All that was missing was “I’m Osama bin Laden, and I approved this message” (a phrase that is required at the end of American campaign commercials).
Re(2): Getting away with 911
LB,
Your post is quite a bundle of errors. Allow me to clean it up.
[quote]Bin Laden’s a free man – free to make his recordings mocking you guys from wherever he is – Afghanistan/Pakistan/ British asylum seeker refuge/beach in Bali [/quote]
Since this latest offering on Friday, Bin Laden has not released an authenticated video recording since Nov 9, 2001. That’s nearly three years. The other videos released during those three years featuring Bin Laden was old video. However, it seems to be enough to convince you. Perhaps if they ran old videos of Saddam reviewing his troops you’d think he is back in command.
The question here is what a showboat like Bin Laden was doing all those years. Was he recovering from wounds suffered in a bombing near miss? Was he just a coward hiding in a hole somewhere, taking three years to find enough courage to even make a video way down deep in the dark end of his hole? Both?
[quote]You had you’re chance to catch the guy in the network of caves in Tora Bora, but instead of going in there and smoking him out America subcontracted the job to bearded tribesmen who let him get away – something to do with being, what’s the PC term, “casualty averse”. [/quote]
It is still uncertain whether Bin Laden was actually at Tora Bora. Even if he was present, it would appear he left early, after the first round of bombs.
Your second point is unsound as well. We could not have transported a large force to Tora Bora in time to seal it off. The commanders on the scene say that no amount of troops could have sealed it off. It’s very rough terrain which favors exfiltration by small parties. There were also tunnels, some as long as a mile, which helped escapees.
The entire thrust of your argument is fairly foolish. We killed plenty of defenders on Tora Bora. We captured their base. The bulk of the defenders were routed. It’s crazy to spin it into a defeat by saying one particular person was not captured.
[quote]I’d have thought Americans would have been super mad after 911 and volunteer to do the job themselves, but if you’ve got a commander in chief who himself proved “casualty averse” when it came to volunteering to fight in the jungles of Vietnam, I can understand why your forces kept engagement to a minimum distance of 15000 feet. [/quote]
It must be difficult for you to understand how a real military works and how the draft system works. If you have a fleet of aircraft to act as flying artillery on an enemy position, you don’t need to make direct infantry assaults on enemy positions. You just bomb them into oblivion. Your idea that it’s a better idea to lead with your troops instead of your aircraft is why Arab armies lose to Western armies. I wouldn’t want to dissuade you from this, though.
The other difficult part it appears for you to understand is that volunteering for the military is not evading the draft. While it is true that if you volunteer for the military and join it, you can not be drafted, the whole point of evading the draft is to avoid joining the military. I can explain that again to you a different way, if this way doesn’t penetrate.
I was in the military in 1973, years after Bush joined. It was not clear to any of us when the Vietnam war would end. We all assumed we would probably end up there eventually. As a fighter pilot, Bush was a prime candidate to be deployed to Vietnam. Plenty of Guard units were. Had the North Vietnamese been given bombers that needed interception, it is very likely Bush’s unit would have been deployed.
Your idea that flying a fighter is a safe place to be is also uninformed. Flying fighters is dangerous work. During my few years flying F-4s, I lost about one friend per year to accidents. My college room-mate died in a training accident in a fighter. You don’t have to make a big mistake to die, either. However, I can understand where you might not know this if all your information comes out of movies and comic books.
Steve
Re: Bin Laden TV
[quote]I want to offer a clarification to the above post – the f**ker’s neither in a cave, asylum hostel or on a beach, but sitting in a TV studio offering his commentary of the US election campaign. [/quote]
I doubt it. I don’t see any reason to believe his video was shot in a TV studio. The camera and lights could be set up anywhere. Like a cave. My guess is that it was done in a building in a friendly village. Everything seemed to be level like it had a regular floor. Wandering down into a city into a TV studio to shoot a video is way too dangerous for somebody who fears for his life so meticulously as Bin Laden. Pakistani cities are where many of his lieutenants have been captured.
When Bin Laden sent messages to his communications guy in Karachi, he used couriers who got their envelopes from cutouts who had not seen Bin Laden either. If Bin Laden won’t even reveal himself to his mailmen, he is not going to reveal himself in a Pakistani city.
The smart money is still on Bin Laden holed up in Waziristan.
[quote]For f**k’s sake, he’s not just got away with 911 but is at it again directly intervening in US politics. He may very well have Steve’s “million hostile American eyes” starring down on him, but they might as well be gawping up each other’s arses for all the good its done. [/quote]
Another foolish statement. An aggressive search for Bin Laden suppresses his freedom of movement and action. The terror attacks from Al Qaeda have dwindled to nothing within a couple years of Sep 11. That’s probably because we have killed or captured two thirds of Al Qaeda’s leadership and 3000 of the 5000 to 7000 Al Qaeda membership. I don’t know if you know this, but we destroyed their base of operations in Afghanistan, too. You can look it up in the papers. It’s pretty generous of you to spin all that as “getting away with 911.”
Bin Laden is not intervening in American politics. Nobody here in the US gives a damn what he has to say. We just want him dead and the sooner the better, much like a rat we spotted lurking in the back yard. His video is the equivalent of an unwanted endorsement for Kerry and a nice fruit basket for Bush. It reminds everyone that the central issue in this election is the war on Muslim terror. Two thirds of Americans rightly consider Bush the best choice to take that fight to the enemy. Bin Laden is helping reelect Bush.
[quote]Still, at least he’s nailed the deadeyed Muslim denials that Al Qaeda wasn’t responsible for 911, ergo bombing the Taliban wasn’t justified. Ha. You must be feeling pretty stupid now. [/quote]
Well said. However, the facts be damned, as far as the ignorant and prejudiced Arab masses are concerned. They can always explain away the facts by arguing this is a Hollywood trick or a Zionist plot or Bin Laden was captured by the CIA and drugged to make this video, etc. Being a dumb radical Muslim means never having to say you’re sorry.
[quote]So what’s the logic of endorsing Kerry, and thereby pushing the elections in Bush’s direction? He’s either:
a) stupid
…Given the guy’s worldview, I’ve got to go for option a. [/quote]
You’ve finally said something sensible here. Bin Laden is not only a stupid guy, generally ignorant of the world, specifically ignorant of America, but he is a radical zealot whose insane passions will undo him in the end. He thought his Sep 11 attack would unravel America while he remained safe in Afghanistan. What a colossal blunder on his part.
I’m particularly entertained by his call for American Muslims to leave the USA, like they’re going to leave the good life here. Fat chance.
For me, Bin Laden’s tape is oddly reassuring. It tells me that he has no more real power, only rhetoric. Just like the old American saying: Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach.
For terrorists like Bin Laden: Those who can, kill. Those who can’t, threaten.
Steve
Re(3): Getting away with 911
Steve,
All my information comes from “comic books and war movies”? How bitchy is that comment?
I see your flying fighter bombers coincided with America getting kicked out of Vietnam, giving you first hand experience of what its like to be on the losing side in a war. What does defeat taste like?
ps – BTW, that’s not an invitation to write a 10000 word rebuttal blaming the “hippies” in Washington. If you wanna do that, send it to Ho Chi Min orJane Fonda or whoever because I certainly aren’t going to wade through some old war stories.
Re(4): Getting away with 911
[quote]All my information comes from “comic books and war movies”? How bitchy is that comment? [/quote]
The truth does sting, does it not. It’s almost a natural law that those who know least about the US military have the greatest and least informed complaints against it.
[quote]I see your flying fighter bombers coincided with America getting kicked out of Vietnam, giving you first hand experience of what its like to be on the losing side in a war. What does defeat taste like? [/quote]
That’s quite a bucket of misinformation you’re carrying around. I didn’t start real flying until 1980. However, the Air Force won every campaign in which it was engaged in Vietnam. Perhaps your comic books say different. Likewise, the Army won every major engagement with the North Vietnamese forces. Contrary to the mythology to which you subscribe, the US military was never defeated in Vietnam.
When the last significant US troops pulled out of Vietnam in 1973, the South Vietnamese held their own against the North just fine until 1975, two years after the US military left. Then we stopped supplying the South Vietnamese military while the North continued to be supplied by China and Russia. In the end, South Vietnam lost because it ran out of beans, bullets, and bandages before the North did.
If you want to know what defeat tastes like, I suggest you ask your Arab neighbors. They have quite a bit of experience with it. You might try any Arab country which has tangled with Israel.
Hope That Helps,
Steve
Re(5): Getting away with 911
cool it boys…