Is it me or is Bush speaking of himself and his admin. when he speaks of Terrorists and Religious Radicals?

Question

Just stop and listen to him and substitute the word "ME" everytime he speaks of "terrorists", "religious idealogs", or "people who hate freedom" you will be absolutly astonished.....the normal babble he blubbers all of a sudden has a sense of meaning......I look forward to watching him speak now.........it gives me an idea of where he's at in his apocopalyptic mission from God

Answer 1

It's not just you. Obviously, there are a lot of us.

When George Bush or his lapdog Tony Blair act all indignant about "attacks on innocents," we need to remember that the U.S. and Britain are terrorist states in their own right, and on a much grander scale.

If you have any doubts about this, check out an article in a magazine called Electronic Iraq, written by one William Van Wagenen. This well-documented and footnoted article quotes from the original planning document for "Shock and Awe," developed by the U.S. National Defense University in 1996 and adopted by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as policy well before the start of the war, called for using aerial bombardment and other military resources for "controlling, affecting, and breaking the will of the adversary to resist." The approach goes on to call for attacking "means of communication, transportation, food production, water supply, and other aspects of infrastructure," with deliberate violence designed to be "all encompassing” in scope. (This strategy--because it targets food and water--it should be noted, is, on its own, a war crime.)

Luckily for Iraqis, the Pentagon in the end did not fully apply the strategy as laid out in "Shock and Awe" (a phrase which, by the way, is a pretty good synonym for "terrorize"). As Wagenen points out, the plan was to occupy and run Iraq after the defeat of Saddam, and so it was felt that the power grid, water system, etc., should not be destroyed. But clearly some elements of the strategy for intimidating the people of Iraq were adopted.

Wagenen, for example, writes in his article that on a visit to Baghdad, he was taken by a taxi driver to three government-owned shopping malls in the city, each of which had been completely devastated by U.S. bombs in the opening days of the attack. He says he was told that other street markets were similarly hit. One of these malls he visited, the Rashid Market in downtown Baghdad, was bombed with such precision that "no other buildings next to it, including a mosque, seemed to be harmed."

This is terrorism, pure and simple.

It might seem odd, if you are one of those who buy into the Bush rhetoric that America was "liberating" Iraqis from a brutal regime.

After all, how exactly are you "liberating" people if you bomb their markets and malls and deliberately seek to terrorize them with a Shock and Awe campaign that, in the words of a Pentagon official quoted by CBS News on the eve of the invasion, will mean "There will not be a safe place in Baghdad"?

The answer, of course, is that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was not and is not about liberation; it's about conquest and creation of, if not a colony, then a client state.

This is the invasion which our soldiers are today being asked to continue to defend with their weapons and their lives.

And make no mistake: Shock and Awe is continuing. The leveling of Fallujah, once a city of 300,000, was just another chapter. Many smaller such levelings of towns and villages are going on now.

The Nazis in World War II had a tactic, especially popular on the Eastern Front, of leveling any town or neighborhood where partisans were active. It's a tactic that the Israeli Army has been officially using against Palestinians for years.

American forces did the same thing in Vietnam, and they're doing it now in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Whatever they call it at the Pentagon or in the White House War Room, the real name for such a tactic is terrorism.

Answer 2

No, President Bush isn't a "terrorist". For our very own empowerment, we would desire to be careful contained in using words. The term "terrorism" is hard, to make valuable, yet we greater confuse already befuddling political problems with militancy (and unilateralism, and so on., and so on.) as quickly as we fail to renowned the fundamental untenability of nonstate militant protection of human dignity (or some fee being placed above human dignity). If terrorists at the instant are not, by potential of definition, nostate actors, we would have concern in organizing those political matters semantically and philosophically, Noam Chomsky besides the fact that.

Answer 3

Bear in mind that he doesn't write his own speeches. We never hear what he actually thinks. That's probably because with an IQ so low, not much thinking takes place.
So he is just spouting words written for him by his puppet masters.
However, this does give us an idea of what his puppet-masters are thinking, and I quite like your idea.
We known that they use him as a front line liar because he has no knowledge about anything, so we receive the full effect of their lies.
Yes, his puppet masters are the terrorists and religious radicals - luciferians in fact.

Answer 4

In order to save face with the rest of the world and to show that we as a nation are not as shallow we are perceived it is the duty of every American to vote out the incumbents and demand action from our representatives.

It's a shame we will have to spend millions and endure the "national secrets" issues in order to impeach Dubya.

If the Dems weren't so spineless this would have already happened. The Cons had Clinton's over lying about a bl*wjob. Isn't lying to get us to make his cronies rich off of Iraqi oil a little worse?

Answer 5

Why does everybody think that the liberals and the mass media have more info and intel on things on terrorism than any telligence agency in the world? It doesn't make sense to make such questional comments. why is always a bad thing now a days when someone ends a speech with God Bless you. It all makes me very confused.

Answer 6

i think i agree. i watched this press conference where he talks about other countries trying to adopt the same method used by US to interpret the geneva conventions as they wish, he really expects that people should find it obvious that the US admin is some sort of good and holy thing and whatever he does is correct. but the other countries are not allowed the same lattitude, seemingly! the other guys can't go against the geneva conventions and they should follow the law. why? cos they are not America... they are OTHERS.that's why. if he isn't on par with Ahmedinejad on xenophobic stakes i want to know who is?

Answer 7

If YOU substitute different words then you chage what is said. But YOU can think what ever you want.

You can read into people words what ever you want and never have to change a single word. It's like when Democrats say tax cuts only go to the rich. I read that as Democrats want every dollar they can get off me in taxes so they can have another program for someone who votes for them. *LOL* That does have a socialist ring to it doesn't it.

Answer 8

Most of our problems with the Muslim world stem from our own greed. In 1953 Iran wanted to nationalize the oil industry but the Brits had a company there called the Anglo Iranian oil co. that had interests in the oil. They were offered money for their interests but turned it down. Truman did not interfere but when Eisenhower got in they were able to convince him that Iran was in danger of allying with the Russians so with the aid of British and American intelligence they brought the shah to full power. The shah eventually became a brutal dictator but the people revolted and replaced him. This also led to the invasion by students of our embassy there. My point in telling you this is that in many ways we are responsible for the hate against us.
Reagan did nothing to try to sooth relations and in fact encouraged Saddam Hussein in his war with Iran. So you can blame who you wish, but to me it seems we got ourselves into this quandary and the best course of action would be to admit past mistakes and try for better relations. I really don't buy the fact that most Muslim nations really don't want peace with us. They know they would be annihilated if they were to seriously damage this country say with a nuclear or biological attack.

1 second ago

Answer 9

I see your point, except at least the terrorists have a reason to be angry - people have been screwing with them for the past 50-60 years, America is just in it for the money.

Answer 10

no actually he is speaking to the terrorist and their supporters namely the damnocrats