Early on King George stated the obvious, that we've taken the offensive against terrorists on every battlefield "and we'll accept nothing less than complete victory."
Just what is "complete victory" when dealing with terrorists? As Fearless Leader states a few paragraphs later, "It is foolish to think you can negotiate with them." Therefore, the only alternative seems to be total anihilation. That's a right big task, considering how many Muslims join the various jihads every day. And, how are we going to be certain we're rubbing out the right ones?
If you missed it on CNN, visit White House.gov and read what they officially mislabel as "President Discusses Global War on Terror," aka the transcript of Bush's Sept. 5 oratory (not at all a discussion), wherein he used low level intelligence each one should have already known to mesmerize this audience of senior military officers - what al Qaeda had planned, how American intelligence stopped those plans, and how the evildoers adapted.
According to King George, those who attacked us are men without conscience - but they're not madmen. "They kill in the name of a clear and focused ideology," a set of beliefs that are evil but not insane. These are violent Sunni extremists, "driven by a radical and perverted vision of Islam that rejects tolerance, crushes all dissent, and justifies the murder of innocent men, women and children in the pursuit of political power."
How coincidental... the United States is ruled, unwillingly except for a small minority, by an authoritarian cabal of ideologues, none of whom seem to have any conscience. They kill in the name of this ideology, spouting beliefs that are somewhat insane if not purposely evil. These religious extremists are driven by a radical and perverted vision of Christianity that rejects tolerance, crushes all dissent, and justifies the murder of innocent men, women and children in the pursuit of ultimate power.
In the Sept. 5 diatribe, King George actually has the chutzpah to blame Osama bin Laden (using quotes dating back to 2002) for the "media campaign... to create a wedge between the American people and their government." This will expose how our leaders are sacrificing people, money and resources for the benefit of big investors, especially the Jews.
Facts are facts, and we didn't need al Qaeda to point out to whom this Fascist Regime panders.
He refers to Osama's remarks about the defeat of American forces in Beirut in 1983 as "proof" we do "not have the stomach to stay in the fight." A silly example, after 23 years, from both points of view.
The real George W. Bush hubris arose - and the very one for which these military officers should have run him off the premises - when he invoked a comment by Zawahiri: Americans "know better than others that there is no hope in victory. The VietNam specter is closing every outlet."
The sheer arrogance to mention that country, and quote an enemy's cockeyed view of the war George avoided so avidly, was a slap in the face to each person in that room, as well as everyone who's worn the uniform of our Nation's Armed Forces with honor.
I can now answer Keith Olbermann's question: "Unequivocally, the man has absolutely no decency!"
By some strange bending of the time-space continuum, in three short sentences King George managed to blame Lenin's revolution for Stalin's policies of mass murders, then link them both to Nutty Nikita Khrushchev playing a "Global Thermonuclear Warfare" version of chicken with John F. Kennedy years after both of them had passed away.
He followed with a three-sentence lesson in the rise to power of one Adolf Hitler. Of course, he left out the part about how Grandpappy Bush got rich helping to launder Nazi money and advance Hitler's agenda.
Then fearless leader attempted to make the case that Osama bin Laden was the next Lenin or Hitler.
A ludicrous comparison, at best. First of all, bin Laden has no government. He isn't even a citizen of any given country. Lenin was a powerful political and military leader; Hitler was a high-ranking elected German official who weaseled his way into the office of Chancellor.
Next, the al Qaeda structure isn't set up to organize a community properly, much less a nation. And Bush is coming up with scenarios these dolts are bragging about, have been dreaming up for 10 to 20 years, about uniting the "Holy Lands."
Just what is "complete victory" when dealing with terrorists? As Fearless Leader states a few paragraphs later, "It is foolish to think you can negotiate with them." Therefore, the only alternative seems to be total anihilation. That's a right big task, considering how many Muslims join the various jihads every day. And, how are we going to be certain we're rubbing out the right ones?
If you missed it on CNN, visit White House.gov and read what they officially mislabel as "President Discusses Global War on Terror," aka the transcript of Bush's Sept. 5 oratory (not at all a discussion), wherein he used low level intelligence each one should have already known to mesmerize this audience of senior military officers - what al Qaeda had planned, how American intelligence stopped those plans, and how the evildoers adapted.
According to King George, those who attacked us are men without conscience - but they're not madmen. "They kill in the name of a clear and focused ideology," a set of beliefs that are evil but not insane. These are violent Sunni extremists, "driven by a radical and perverted vision of Islam that rejects tolerance, crushes all dissent, and justifies the murder of innocent men, women and children in the pursuit of political power."
In the Sept. 5 diatribe, King George actually has the chutzpah to blame Osama bin Laden (using quotes dating back to 2002) for the "media campaign... to create a wedge between the American people and their government." This will expose how our leaders are sacrificing people, money and resources for the benefit of big investors, especially the Jews.
Facts are facts, and we didn't need al Qaeda to point out to whom this Fascist Regime panders.
He refers to Osama's remarks about the defeat of American forces in Beirut in 1983 as "proof" we do "not have the stomach to stay in the fight." A silly example, after 23 years, from both points of view.
The real George W. Bush hubris arose - and the very one for which these military officers should have run him off the premises - when he invoked a comment by Zawahiri: Americans "know better than others that there is no hope in victory. The VietNam specter is closing every outlet."
The sheer arrogance to mention that country, and quote an enemy's cockeyed view of the war George avoided so avidly, was a slap in the face to each person in that room, as well as everyone who's worn the uniform of our Nation's Armed Forces with honor.
I can now answer Keith Olbermann's question: "Unequivocally, the man has absolutely no decency!"
By some strange bending of the time-space continuum, in three short sentences King George managed to blame Lenin's revolution for Stalin's policies of mass murders, then link them both to Nutty Nikita Khrushchev playing a "Global Thermonuclear Warfare" version of chicken with John F. Kennedy years after both of them had passed away.
He followed with a three-sentence lesson in the rise to power of one Adolf Hitler. Of course, he left out the part about how Grandpappy Bush got rich helping to launder Nazi money and advance Hitler's agenda.
Then fearless leader attempted to make the case that Osama bin Laden was the next Lenin or Hitler.
A ludicrous comparison, at best. First of all, bin Laden has no government. He isn't even a citizen of any given country. Lenin was a powerful political and military leader; Hitler was a high-ranking elected German official who weaseled his way into the office of Chancellor.
Next, the al Qaeda structure isn't set up to organize a community properly, much less a nation. And Bush is coming up with scenarios these dolts are bragging about, have been dreaming up for 10 to 20 years, about uniting the "Holy Lands."
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
