0
   

Bush supporters' aftermath thread

 
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Nov, 2005 06:57 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Good rendition of the party line being repeated almost verbatim by every Democrat who received the memo.

May I point out that Dys, unlike you, is a veteran, so has standing to complain in this matter?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Nov, 2005 07:18 pm
Thomas wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Good rendition of the party line being repeated almost verbatim by every Democrat who received the memo.

May I point out that Dys, unlike you, is a veteran, so has standing to complain in this matter?


May I point out that virtually every male family member of my father's generation were veterans of WWII, many went on to Korea, I lost family and friends in Vietnam, and currently have family and friends serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, one currently recuperating from life threatening injuries? I believe I am entitled to appreciate the President's remarks today who affirmed those troops, thanked them for their service, reverently acknowledged the fallen and wounded, and could not have been more appropriate on any other day. If you did not hear the speech, and I'm pretty sure Dys didn't listen to it, you might want to rethink your criticism.

And Dys's remarks were almost verbatim the same hateful/critical rhetoric we are hearing from every Democrat who can find a camera or microphone to talk to today. Who are they to criticize the President for affirming the troops and their mission on Memorial Day? What better time to do it? They sure as hell haven't cooled their rhetoric of calling Iraq a failure and the President a liar. And they don't give a damn what day they do it on including today.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Nov, 2005 11:26 pm
Quote:
Bush Fights Back
With his Veteran's Day speech the president and his team seem committed to going on the offensive.

by William Kristol
11/21/2005, Volume 011, Issue 10

ON VETERANS' DAY, the president fought back. In a major speech Friday at Tobyhanna Army Depot in Pennsylvania, President Bush defended the war in Iraq. Most notably, he defended the probity and honesty with which his administration made the case for the war to remove Saddam. At last, the president confronted the slander that he "lied us into war"--a slander propagated by his opponents with amazing success.

Here is the key passage in Bush's speech:

While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. Some Democrats and antiwar critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs. They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein. They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction. And many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: 'When I vote to give the president of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat and a grave threat to our security.' That's why more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate, who had access to the same intelligence, voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power.

And then the president went on offense:

These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will. As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them. Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough. And our troops deserve to know that, whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our nation is united and we will settle for nothing less than victory.

Bush's counterpunch hit home. Ted Kennedy was upset. He found the speech "deeply regrettable." How dare the president try "to rebuild his own credibility?" How dare the president defend his honor--and the country's? For the nation's honor is at stake, too. If we went to war based on lies told by our president, then it is a disgrace to us all. It is a further disgrace that we reelected him. It is yet a further disgrace that Congress continues to support this war, by appropriating funds for it. It is a disgrace that Senator Kennedy has not moved to have the president impeached.

At least the anti-American left, which wants to get out of Iraq immediately and to impeach the president, is consistent. But Kennedy--and his colleagues like Sen. Harry Reid--do not really want to follow the logic of their accusations. They would rather just damage the president--and the country's foreign policy--and enjoy the political effect.

And the attacks have been working. In last week's Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey, 57 percent of Americans endorsed that proposition that the president "deliberately misled people to make the case for war with Iraq," compared to 35 percent who thought he "gave the most accurate information he had." Five months ago, those numbers were 44 percent "misled" versus 47 percent "accurate information." Eight months ago, shortly after Bush's second term began, there were only 41 percent who thought Bush had "misled" them, while 53 percent credited the president with being "accurate." No new information has appeared in those eight months. All that has happened is an unanswered assault by Bush's enemies. The White House figured the election was over and didn't recognize that the anti-Bush campaign would continue.

Now the president and his team seem committed to fighting back. They have the advantage that the facts are on their side. As several commentators have pointed out in this magazine and elsewhere--most recently Norman Podhoretz in the December Commentary--the Democratic charge that Bush lied us into war is itself a lie. Lies can work when unrefuted. In a healthy democracy, they tend to boomerang when confronted and exposed. Now Bush has begun to refute the lie. He needs to keep doing so, and also to continue making the positive case for why the war was right and necessary.

If the American people really come to a settled belief that Bush lied us into war, his presidency will be over. He won't have the basic level of trust needed to govern. His initiatives, domestic and foreign, will founder. Support for the war on terror will wane. The lie that Bush lied us into war threatens the Bush presidency in a way no ordinary political charge does. Bush needs to refute it--and to keep on refuting it--for his sake, for the nation's, and for the sake of the truth.

--William Kristol
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Nov, 2005 04:36 pm
Foxfyre
Shame on you for denigrating Dys' reaction to Bush's speech.

BBB
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Nov, 2005 05:43 pm
Shame on you for denigrating Fox's response to dys' response.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Nov, 2005 06:01 pm
shame on me for reading all these responses as if I gave a ratsass.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Nov, 2005 06:55 pm
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Nov, 2005 09:22 pm
Tico posted
Quote:
"We had no pre-war intelligence," said Sen. John Kerry, "History will show that none of the leading Democrats had substantial intelligence. Anyone who remembers what we did then knows that the president is making a baseless allegation. I think history will bear out my contention that we Democrats lacked the intelligence to make such an important decision."


Given that we've all seen and most of us have heard the grandiose speeches and pronouncements and have read the letters he co-signed, why isn't the media using his words here to pronounce Kerry a liar? All they have on Bush are 16 words in a State of the Union Speech that the U.K. still stands behind and there appears to be more and more evidence they were accurate after all.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Nov, 2005 09:25 pm
Al-Qaida is sounding more and more nuts:
Quote:
AL-QAEDA has threatened the Queen by naming her as "one of the severest enemies of Islam" in a video message to justify the July bombings in London.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1869849,00.html
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Nov, 2005 11:33 pm
There's very good news trickling out recently. The bombings in Jordon (OF MUSLIMS!!) a) turn fence sitting Muslims against AQ, and b) is evidence to many that Iraq is too hot for operations.

The surrounding Arab countries aren't too happy about it--but that will just force them to help us eradicate terrorists. And, they are incensed that AQ is attacking them.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Nov, 2005 11:45 pm
Re: Ddys
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
Yeah Foxfyre that reminds me very little of Don Rumsfeld. But, it might be one of the reasons we lost the war of Iraq.


If my history memory is correct, the US has not won a war since World War II.

BBB


I'm curious. Was this comment intended to make a point or was it simply conversational?

If the former, what might that point be?
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Nov, 2005 11:45 pm
dyslexia wrote:
Yeah Foxfyre that reminds me very little of Don Rumsfeld. But, it might be one of the reasons we lost the war of Iraq.


It's over?

That's news to most of us.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Nov, 2005 01:02 am
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
Yeah Foxfyre that reminds me very little of Don Rumsfeld. But, it might be one of the reasons we lost the war of Iraq.


It's over?

That's news to most of us.


Most influential comment in newspapers here opines that the Iraq invasion is a failure, i.e. has not achieved its aims, and matters will not improve in the forseeable future.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Nov, 2005 01:47 am
McTag wrote:
Most influential comment in newspapers here opines that the Iraq invasion is a failure, i.e. has not achieved its aims, and matters will not improve in the forseeable future.


Were these the same papers that in 1938 praised PM Chamberlain for the betrayls of Czechoslovakia & Poland at Munich?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Nov, 2005 01:54 am
Some media changed their names in the UK, others are owned by Mudoch now.

The main difference this time , however: they are not conform with the PM/government.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Nov, 2005 01:58 am
Yes, The former Manchester Guardian is now simply "The Guardian" (as Steve once indignantly pointed out to me).

I doubt that McTag reads any Murdoch papers,
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Nov, 2005 02:00 am
McTag wrote:


Most influential comment in newspapers here opines that the Iraq invasion is a failure, i.e. has not achieved its aims, and matters will not improve in the forseeable future.

Unforeseen by those afflicted with short-sightedness.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Nov, 2005 02:02 am
That might be so. But as commentators in The Telegraph (and Times said): "The case for war was spurious and British soldiers were sent to die on a false prospectus."

(responding to George, that is)
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Nov, 2005 09:28 am
A false prospectus? Maybe. That those who signed off on the mission knew it was a false prospectus? I don't believe that. And there are still many credible people who don't believe the prospectus was false at all.

I received the following from a California friend in my e-mail yesterday, so don't have link but the source is referenced. I think observations like this illustrate what a success in Iraq can accomplish on behalf of the whole world, and what failure could cost us.

He says
I thought this was an interesting piece and would like to see the associated documentary being prepared. This article provides an interesting insight into the historical background and mindset of terrorist suicide bombers.

Excerpt:
Quote:
Each victory of Bin Laden convinces 20 million moderate Muslims to become extremists.


September 12, 2005
"The psychology behind suicide bombings" By Pierre Rehov, French Documentary
Filmmaker

On July 15, MSNBC's "Connected" program discussed the 7/7 London attacks. One of the guests was Pierre Rehov, a French filmmaker who has filmed six documentaries on the intifada by going undercover in the Palestinian areas.

Pierre's upcoming film, "Suicide Killers," is based on interviews that he
conducted with the families of suicide bombers and would-be bombers in an attempt to find out why they do it. Pierre agreed to a request for a Q&A
interview here about his work on the new film. Many thanks to Dean Draznin and Arlyn Riskind for helping to arrange this special interview.

What inspired you to produce "Suicide Killers," your seventh film?

I started working with victims of suicide attacks to make a film on PTSD
(Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) when I became fascinated with the
personalities of those who had committed those crimes, as they were
described again and again by their victims. Especially the fact that suicide
bombers are all smiling one second before they blow themselves up.

Why is this film especially important?

People don't understand the devastating culture behind this unbelievable
phenomenon. My film is not politically correct because it addresses the real problem-showing the real face of Islam. It points the finger against a
culture of hatred in which the uneducated are brainwashed to a level where their only solution in life becomes to kill themselves and kill others in the name of a God whose word, as transmitted by other men, has became their only certitude.

What insights did you gain from making this film? What do you know that
other experts do not know?

I came to the conclusion that we are facing a neurosis at the level of an
entire civilization. Most neuroses have in common a dramatic event,
generally linked to an unacceptable sexual behavior. In this case, we are
talking of kids living all their lives in pure frustration, with no
opportunity to experience sex, love, tenderness or even understanding from the opposite sex. The separation between men and women in Islam is absolute.

So is contempt toward women, who are totally dominated by men. This leads to a situation of pure anxiety, in which normal behavior is not possible. It is no coincidence that suicide killers are mostly young men dominated subconsciously by an overwhelming libido that they not only cannot satisfy but are afraid of, as if it is the work of the devil. Since Islam describes heaven as a place where everything on earth will finally be allowed, and promises 72 virgins to those frustrated kids, killing others and killing themselves to reach this redemption becomes their only solution.

What was it like to interview would-be suicide bombers, their families and
survivors of suicide bombings?

It was a fascinating and a terrifying experience. You are dealing with
seemingly normal people with very nice manners who have their own logic, which to a certain extent can make sense since they are so convinced that what they say is true. It is like dealing with pure craziness, like interviewing people in an asylum, since what they say, is for them, the absolute truth. I hear a mother saying "Thank God, my son is dead." Her son had became a shaheed, a martyr, which for her was a greater source of pride than if he had became an engineer, a doctor or a winner of the Nobel Prize.

This system of values works completely backwards since their interpretation of Islam worships death much more than life. You are facing people whose only dream, only achievement is to fulfill what they believe to be their destiny, namely to be a shaheed or the family of a shaheed.

They don't see the innocent being killed, they only see the impure that they have to destroy.

You say suicide bombers experience a moment of absolute power, beyond
punishment. Is death the ultimate power?

Not death as an end, but death as a door open to the after life. They are
seeking the reward that God has promised them. They work for God, the
ultimate authority, above all human laws. They therefore experience this
single delusional second of absolute power, where nothing bad can ever
happen to them, since they become God's sword.

Is there a suicide bomber personality profile? Describe the psychopathology.


Generally kids between 15 and 25 bearing a lot of complexes, generally
inferiority complexes. They must have been fed with religion. They usually
have a lack of developed personality. Usually they are impressionable
idealists. In the western world they would easily have become drug addicts, but not criminals. Interestingly, they are not criminals since they don't see good and evil the same way that we do. If they had been raised in an Occidental culture, they would have hated violence. But they constantly battle against their own death anxiety. The only solution to this
deep-seated pathology is to be willing to die and be rewarded in the after
life in Paradise.

Are suicide bombers principally motivated by religious conviction?

Yes, it is their only conviction. They don't act to gain a territory or to
find freedom or even dignity. They only follow Allah, the supreme judge, and what He tells them to do.

Do all Muslims interpret jihad and martyrdom in the same way?

All Muslim believers believe that, ultimately, Islam will prevail on earth.
They believe this is the only true religion and their is no room, in their
mind, for interpret ation. The main difference between moderate Muslims and extremists is that moderate Muslims don't think they will see the absolute victory of Islam during their life time, therefore they respect other beliefs. The extremists believe that the fulfillment of the Prophecy of
Islam and ruling the entire world as described in the Koran, is for today.
Each victory of Bin Laden convinces 20 million moderate Muslims to become extremists.

Describe the culture that manufactures suicide bombers.

Oppression, lack of freedom, brain washing, organized poverty, placing God in charge of daily life, total separation between men and women, forbidding sex, giving women no power whatsoever, and placing men in charge of family honor, which is mainly connected to their women's behavior.

What socio-economic forces support the perpetuation of suicide bombings?

Muslim charity is usually a cover for supporting terrorist organizations.
But one has also to look at countries like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran,
which are also supporting the same organizations through different networks.

The ironic thing in the case of Palestinian suicide bombers is that most of
the money comes through financial support from the Occidental world, donated to a culture that utterly hates and rejects the West (mainly symbolized by Israel).

Is there a financial support network for the families of the suicide
bombers? If so, who is paying them and how does that affect the decision?

There used to be a financial incentive in the days of Saddam Hussein
($25,000 per family) and Yasser Arafat (smaller amounts), but these days are gone. It is a mistake to believe that these families would sacrifice their children for money. Although, the children themselves who are very attached to their families, might find in this financial support another reason to become suicide bombers. It is like buying a life insurance policy and then committing suicide.

Why are so many suicide bombers young men?

As discussed above , libido is paramount. Also ego, because this is a sure
way to become a hero. The shaheeds are the cowboys or the firemen of Islam. Shaheed is a positively reinforced value in this culture. And what kid has never dreamed of becoming a cowboy or a fireman?

What role does the U.N. play in the terrorist equation?

The UN is in the hands of Arab countries and third world or ex-communists
countries. Their hands are tied. The UN has condemned Israel more than any other country in the world, including the regime of Castro, Idi Amin or
Kaddahfi.

By behaving this way, the UN leaves a door open by not openly condemning terrorist organizations. In addition, through UNRWA, the UN is directly tied to terror organizations such as Hamas, representing 65 percent of their apparatus in the so-called Palestinian refugee camps. As a support to Arab countries, the UN has maintained Palestinians in camps with the hope to return into Israel for more than 50 years, therefore making it impossible to settle those populations, which still live in deplorable conditions. Four-hundred million dollars are spent every year, mainly financed by U.S. taxes, to support 23,000 employees of UNRWA, many of whom belong to terrorist organizations (see Congressman Eric Cantor on this subject, and in my film "Hostages of Hatred").

You say that a suicide bomber is a 'stupid bomb and a smart bomb'
simultaneously. Explain what you mean.

Unlike an electronic device, a suicide killer has until the last second the
capacity to change his mind. In reality, he is nothing but a platform
representing interests which are not his, but he doesn't know it.

How can we put an end to the madness of suicide bombings and terrorism in general?

Stop being politically correct and stop believing that this culture is a
victim of ours. Radical Islamism today is nothing but a new form of Nazism. Nobody was trying to justify or excuse Hitler in the 1930s. We had to defeat him in order to make peace one day with the German people.

Are these men traveling outside their native areas in large numbers? Based on your research, would you predict that we are beginning to see a new wave of suicide bombings outside the Middle East?

Every successful terror attack is considered a victory by the radical
Islamists. Everywhere Islam is expands there is regional conflict. Right
now, their are thousands of candidates for martyrdom lining up in training
camps in Bosnia, Afghanistan, Pakistan. Inside Europe, hundreds of illegal
mosques are preparing the next step of brain washing to lost young men whocannot find a satisfying identity in the Occidental world. Israel is much
more prepared for this than the rest of the world will ever be. Yes, there
will be more suicide killings in Europe and the U.S. Sadly, this is only the
beginning.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Nov, 2005 09:38 am
Foxy - check your email Smile
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 07/10/2025 at 03:55:34