Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 1,713 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 583,553
Pageviews Today: 777,636Threads Today: 143Posts Today: 3,416
08:27 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

"We were not in Iraq on Sept. 11, 2001, and Al Qaeda attacked us anyway,"

 
Chance
Offer Upgrade

User ID: 29781
United States
10/08/2005 11:22 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
"We were not in Iraq on Sept. 11, 2001, and Al Qaeda attacked us anyway,"
Bush Likens War on Terror to Cold War
# Iraq is a staging ground for militants who seek a ´radical Islamic empire,´ he warns, and says 10 Al Qaeda plots have been foiled since 9/11.

By Warren Vieth and Josh Meyer, Times Staff Writers

WASHINGTON — President Bush on Thursday compared the war on terrorism to the struggle against communism and said a network of Islamic extremists was determined to use Iraq as a staging ground to topple moderate governments in the region and to "establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia."

Since the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush said, the United States and its allies have disrupted at least 10 Al Qaeda terrorist plots against the West, including three planned attacks on U.S. soil, and stopped at least five additional attempts to scout out potential targets in this country.

The White House later issued a list of the foiled plots, citing potential Sept. 11-style airliner attacks on both coasts, a plan to blow up apartment buildings and surveillance of gas stations, bridges and tourist sites nationwide. But several senior law enforcement officials interviewed later questioned whether many of the incidents on the list constituted an imminent threat to public safety and said that authorities had not disrupted any operational terrorist plot within the United States since the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Although the arguments Bush used in his lengthy speech were not new, he described the U.S.-declared war on terrorism and its link to Iraq in grander terms than previously, equating it to the Cold War that dominated U.S. foreign policy throughout the second half of the 20th century and comparing terrorist leaders Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab Zarqawi to such tyrants as Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler and Cambodia´s Pol Pot.

"Some call this evil Islamic radicalism; others, militant jihadism; still others, Islamo-fascism," Bush said in his remarks to the National Endowment for Democracy, a nongovernmental advocacy group in Washington. "Whatever it´s called, this ideology is very different from the religion of Islam."

Bush described what he saw as the depth of the terrorist threat on a day when New Yorkers were alerted to an unspecified threat to the subway system.

The speech, billed as a major policy address, came at the end of a weeklong effort by his administration to shore up popular support for the central tenets of his foreign policy. Bush´s approval rating has fallen to new lows in recent polls, and support for the Iraq war has declined.

The remarks also suggested a renewed effort by the administration to regain favor in the wake of criticism over its handling of Hurricane Katrina and were intended in part as a response to the antiwar movement, coming just weeks after a big demonstration in Washington and a monthlong protest outside his vacation home in Texas brought new visibility to the war´s opponents.

Bush, in his remarks, appeared to counter recent statements by military commanders in Iraq, including two generals who told lawmakers last week that the presence of U.S. troops was fueling the insurgency in Iraq and energizing terrorists across the Middle East.

Pulling out of Iraq, the president said, would not cause the anger of terrorists to subside.

"We were not in Iraq on Sept. 11, 2001, and Al Qaeda attacked us anyway," he said. "The hatred of the radicals existed before Iraq was an issue, and it will exist after Iraq is no longer an excuse."

It was not the first time Bush´s message differed from that of his generals. Over the summer, generals suggested that U.S. troops could begin coming home in the spring, but Bush insisted that they would remain in Iraq until the insurgency was defeated.

Bush said America´s failure to respond more aggressively to attacks in Beirut during the Reagan administration and Mogadishu, Somalia, during the Clinton presidency had convinced terrorists that they had a winning strategy: "They hit us and expect us to run."

Pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq would only reinforce that conviction, Bush said, and it would not happen on his watch. "Against such an enemy there is only one effective response," he said. "We will never back down, never give in and never accept anything less than complete victory."

He acknowledged the toll of the war in Iraq, where more than 1,900 U.S. troops and thousands of Iraqis have been killed, and said the casualty count would certainly rise. U.S. officials have predicted an upsurge of violence as Iraq´s Oct. 15 constitutional referendum nears.

On Capitol Hill, Republican leaders said the president´s speech demonstrated his "strong, principled leadership."

Democrats countered that Bush was perpetuating what they called a false linkage between the Sept. 11 attacks and the Iraq war.
more at link
edited to 50%

[link to articles.latimes.com]

Last Edited by SPUD on 10/04/2011 03:45 PM
The only difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is that the Democrats allow the poor to be corrupt, too.
~Oscar Levant
freaky
User ID: 317
United States
10/08/2005 11:34 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "We were not in Iraq on Sept. 11, 2001, and Al Qaeda attacked us anyway,"
We were in Iraq since the early 1990´s. We may have been hated over there; but Iraq was not a terrorist nation. Bin Laden and Saddam were enemies which the CIA made clear prior to our invasion of Iraq. Bush must be stoned.
Fantasia

User ID: 3539
United States
10/08/2005 11:41 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "We were not in Iraq on Sept. 11, 2001, and Al Qaeda attacked us anyway,"
Bush is not stoned...he is brain damaged from years of alcohol and drug abuse.
Frodo failed, Bush has the ring!
Athena

User ID: 6322
Puerto Rico
10/08/2005 11:44 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "We were not in Iraq on Sept. 11, 2001, and Al Qaeda attacked us anyway,"
No, that poster is right, he must be stoned. Stoned to death by the people. Can I throw the first stone?
Chance (OP)

User ID: 29781
United States
10/08/2005 11:44 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "We were not in Iraq on Sept. 11, 2001, and Al Qaeda attacked us anyway,"
Bush quoting the Koran to preach non-violence people in the middle east1doh1
The only difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is that the Democrats allow the poor to be corrupt, too.
~Oscar Levant
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 4085
United States
10/08/2005 11:45 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "We were not in Iraq on Sept. 11, 2001, and Al Qaeda attacked us anyway,"
I do believe our good president "forgot" about
this brief summation. It is not complete, it´s justa capsule of a very long story.

At the end of the Gulf War in 1991, the U.S., together with the UK (and France, which soon ended its participation) established a "no-fly" zone in northern Iraq, and then, in 1992, in the south. The ostensible reason was to protect the Kurds in the north and the restive Shi´a population in the south from Iraqi attack by prohibiting the presence of fixed wing Iraqi military planes in the area. U.S. and British planes have patrolled the no-fly zones ever since. After the "Desert Fox" bombing raids of December 1998, the U.S. began regular bombing in both zones in response to Iraq´s defensive moves of "locking on" radar or targeting the planes with anti-aircraft weapons, although no manned planes were ever hit. (Iraq has downed at least three "drone" aircraft without pilots.) In 1999, the only year for which reliable figures exist, the United Nations documented 144 civilians killed by U.S. bombing in the "no-fly" zones.

The U.S. claims that its bombing is to enforce UN resolutions, sometimes citing UN Resolution 688, which called on Iraq to protect the human rights of vulnerable communities. But no resolution, not 688 nor any other, mentions the creation of "no-fly" zones, let alone bombing or other military enforcement. When the UN resolution authorizing new inspections was passed in November 2002, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld claimed that Iraqi anti-aircraft defense against the bombers constituted a "material breach" of Iraq´s obligations, but numerous Security Council ambassadors as well as UN Secretary General Kofi Annan strongly disagreed.
Fantasia

User ID: 3539
United States
10/08/2005 11:45 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "We were not in Iraq on Sept. 11, 2001, and Al Qaeda attacked us anyway,"
lol Athena! Good one.


Hi, Chance!flower
Frodo failed, Bush has the ring!
Chance (OP)

User ID: 29781
United States
10/08/2005 11:53 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "We were not in Iraq on Sept. 11, 2001, and Al Qaeda attacked us anyway,"
hi Fantasia!

I´m with you on the dry drunk theory....if he was a stoner....we would have had a another Clintonesque administration with lots of photo ops of him at Mickey D´s....




stoner
The only difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is that the Democrats allow the poor to be corrupt, too.
~Oscar Levant
seer one
User ID: 7073
United States
10/08/2005 11:54 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "We were not in Iraq on Sept. 11, 2001, and Al Qaeda attacked us anyway,"
Maybe we should pull out of iraq like the democrats want. Then the islamic killing machine will know how cowardice we are. Then they can get back to killing american children and grandparents oh and your kids and wives and maybe you. The democrats are so smart maybe they can make a deal with ben laden to only kill conservatives and thier children. That would make that nut palozi. Then she and the crawford nut could watch and know what the killing would look like in the US instead of some raghead lazy fucks. I am very sure that would be going on over here if we were not over there. You leftys are the dumbest ass holes on earth, and the most gutless when it comes to politics. Me, I´d rather send people who join the service to protect this country than see the ones who are to old or young or defenceless die by terrorist in my home town, let them kill every last one of them over there.ppigtomato
Athena

User ID: 6322
Puerto Rico
10/09/2005 12:04 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "We were not in Iraq on Sept. 11, 2001, and Al Qaeda attacked us anyway,"
1057 - See the problem we ´liberals´ have with you is that we knew Bush was lying BEFORE he invaded Iraq. We KNEW it was a mistake to go there - we knew there was no reason to be there except to break things so Bush could award Haliburton contracts to fix the things we broke. You didn´t see it, you were still under Bush´s spell. Now that YOU see what a mistake it was, you want us ´liberals´ to come up with a solution as to how we should withdraw from this prediciment. Sorry dude, the blood is on your hands, not ours. We are creating so many terrorist by what we have done that it will come back to haunt us all. Pulling out now will create a civil war in Iraq, pulling out later will also create a civil war. Either way, Iraq will have a civil war. Why don´t you enlist and help play a part in it?
Chance (OP)

User ID: 29781
United States
10/09/2005 12:05 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "We were not in Iraq on Sept. 11, 2001, and Al Qaeda attacked us anyway,"
seeriously, you are a hoot!
1rof1
The only difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is that the Democrats allow the poor to be corrupt, too.
~Oscar Levant
Black Jim

User ID: 2894
United States
10/09/2005 12:08 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "We were not in Iraq on Sept. 11, 2001, and Al Qaeda attacked us anyway,"
#1057, you have terrorist in your brain,get drunk and fall asleep on a railroad track,this will make the terrorist go away,not to mention your skin rash.
Athena

User ID: 6322
Puerto Rico
10/09/2005 12:12 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "We were not in Iraq on Sept. 11, 2001, and Al Qaeda attacked us anyway,"
Black Jim,
I have been reading a lot of threads here and I think he needs oil of oregano because it rids the body of parasites. The little terrorist living in his bowels will shoot right out if he drinks enough oil of oregeno. Or so I have readrocket
Chance (OP)

User ID: 29781
United States
10/09/2005 12:14 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "We were not in Iraq on Sept. 11, 2001, and Al Qaeda attacked us anyway,"
if 1057 is seerious that train track thing might be a good ideer
The only difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is that the Democrats allow the poor to be corrupt, too.
~Oscar Levant
Fantasia

User ID: 3539
United States
10/09/2005 12:15 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "We were not in Iraq on Sept. 11, 2001, and Al Qaeda attacked us anyway,"
bushfing Is the f**king terrorist. This man has gone out of his way to be everything he told us he wasn´t when he stole the first election.

Remember how he said he was a uniter and not a divider?

Remember when he said he wasn´t into nation building?

Remember when he said he was a compassionate conservative?

The man lies so often that he even believes his lies.

By the way, I am not a liberal or a republican. I am an American!
Frodo failed, Bush has the ring!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 29745
United States
10/09/2005 12:16 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "We were not in Iraq on Sept. 11, 2001, and Al Qaeda attacked us anyway,"
7214, Just what are the facts here? I think the no fly zones had to do with Hussain killing the kurds?
Chance (OP)

User ID: 29781
United States
10/09/2005 12:21 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "We were not in Iraq on Sept. 11, 2001, and Al Qaeda attacked us anyway,"
well said, Fantasia


(I stopped buying into the whole republican vs. democrats thing shortly after bush was appointed prez in 2000)
The only difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is that the Democrats allow the poor to be corrupt, too.
~Oscar Levant
Black Jim

User ID: 2894
United States
10/09/2005 12:21 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "We were not in Iraq on Sept. 11, 2001, and Al Qaeda attacked us anyway,"
There is things afoot worst than Muslim terrorists.bushfing
Casual Observer
User ID: 701
United States
10/09/2005 12:40 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "We were not in Iraq on Sept. 11, 2001, and Al Qaeda attacked us anyway,"
"There is things afoot worst than Muslim terrorists"


The latest season of Survivor for starters.

yak
Daniel

User ID: 29841
United States
10/09/2005 03:49 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "We were not in Iraq on Sept. 11, 2001, and Al Qaeda attacked us anyway,"
He is attempting to Rally the civilian population around the flag in a Patriotic FERVOR like
HDR and Churchill yet
Der Fuhrer CHICKENSHIT King george is more like an
apathetic Hitler.

Hitler and the Rich for a Thousand years

then there is Der Fuhrer CHICKENSHIT King george

trying to install the NEW WORLD ORDER !!!

Both used/using Bullets & Bombs.

Al Qaeda and the Terrorists are in the White House !!

Daniel

history

News








Proud Member Of The Angry Mob