Lindaland
  Global Unity
  BUSH AND HIS DANGEROUS DELUSIONS! (Page 1)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2 
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   BUSH AND HIS DANGEROUS DELUSIONS!
Rainbow~
unregistered
posted October 12, 2006 10:43 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Bush & His Dangerous Delusions

by ROBERT PARRY

In George W. Bush’s world......

.....Saddam Hussein defied United Nations demands that he get rid of his weapons of mass destruction and barred U.N. inspectors;

al-Qaeda’s public statements must be believed even when contradicted by its private comments; and U.S. withdrawal from Iraq is unthinkable because it would let al-Qaeda “extend the caliphate,” a mythical state that doesn’t really exist.

There’s always been the frightening question of what would happen if a President of United States went completely bonkers!

But there is an equally disturbing issue of what happens if a President loses touch with reality.......

.....especially if he is surrounded by enough sycophants and enablers so no one can or will stop him!!!


At his Oct. 11 news conference, Bush gave the country a peek into his imaginary world....

......a bizarre place impenetrable by facts and logic.........

......where falsehoods, once stated, become landmarks and where Bush’s “gut” instinct, no matter how misguided, is the compass for finding one’s way.

In speaking to White House reporters, Bush maneuvered casually through this world like an experienced guide making passing references to favorite points of interest, such as Hussein’s defiance of U.N. resolutions......

banning WMD (when Hussein actually had eliminated his WMD stockpiles).

“We tried the diplomacy,” Bush said. “Remember it?

We tried resolution after resolution after resolution.”

Though the resolutions had worked – and left Hussein stripped of his WMD arsenal – that isn’t how it looks in Bush’s world, where the resolutions failed and there was no choice but to invade.

At other news conferences, Bush has filled in details of his fictional history.

For instance, on July 14, 2003, just a few months after the Iraq invasion, Bush began rewriting the record to meet his specifications.

“We gave him [Saddam Hussein] a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn’t let them in.

And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power,” Bush told reporters.


In the real world, of course, Hussein admitted U.N. inspectors in fall 2002 and gave them unfettered access to search suspected Iraqi weapons sites.


It was Bush who forced the U.N. inspectors to leave in March 2003 so the invasion could proceed.

Over the past three years, Bush has repeated this false claim about the barred inspectors in slightly varied forms as part of his litany for defending the invasion on the grounds that it was Hussein who “chose war,” not Bush.


Meeting no protest from the Washington press corps, Bush continued repeating his lie about Hussein showing “defiance” on the inspections.


For instance, at a news conference on March 21, 2006, Bush reprised his claims about his diplomatic efforts.


“I was hoping to solve this [Iraq] problem diplomatically,” Bush said. “The world said, ‘Disarm, disclose or face serious consequences.’ ...

We worked to make sure that Saddam Hussein heard the message of the world.

And when he chose to deny the inspectors, when he chose not to disclose, then I had the difficult decision to make to remove him.

And we did. And the world is safer for it.”

Determined to Invade

In reality, documentary evidence shows that Bush was determined to invade Iraq regardless of what U.S. intelligence found or what the Iraqis did.


For instance, the so-called “Downing Street Memo” recounted a secret meeting on July 23, 2002, involving British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his top national security aides.

At that meeting, Richard Dearlove, chief of the British intelligence agency MI6, described his discussions about Iraq with Bush’s top advisers in Washington.


Dearlove said, “Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”


At an Oval Office meeting on Jan. 31, 2003, Bush and Blair discussed their determination to invade Iraq, though Bush still hoped that he might provoke the Iraqis into some violent act that would serve as political cover, according to minutes written by Blair’s top foreign policy aide David Manning.


So, while Bush was telling the American people that he considered war with Iraq “a last resort,” he actually had decided to invade regardless of Iraq’s cooperation with U.N. weapons inspectors, according to the five-page memo of the Oval Office meeting.


The memo also revealed Bush conniving to deceive the American people and the world community by trying to engineer a provocation that would portray Hussein as the aggressor.

Bush suggested painting a U.S. plane up in U.N. colors and flying it over Iraq with the goal of drawing Iraqi fire, the meeting minutes said.

“The U.S. was thinking of flying U-2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in U.N. colours,” the memo said about Bush’s scheme. “If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach.”


Regardless of whether any casus belli could be provoked, Bush already had “penciled in” March 10, 2003, as the start of the U.S. bombing of Iraq, according to the memo.

“Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning,” Manning wrote. [NYT, March 27, 2006]


In other words, neither the U.N. inspectors’ negative WMD findings nor the Security Council’s refusal to authorize force would stop Bush’s invasion on March 19, 2003.

[For more on Bush's pretexts for war in Iraq.
Comfortable History

But Bush remains so comfortable with his fabricated history – and so confident that the White House press corps won’t contradict him – that he now sketches the false landscape in a few quick strokes, as in “Remember it?

We tried resolution after resolution after resolution.”


When Bush is not taking gullible people on a tour of his imaginary history, he is testing how well sophistry works as logic, such as his oft-repeated claim that Americans must believe what Osama bin Laden says.


“What I say to the American people when I’m out there is all you got to do is listen to what Osama bin Laden says” regarding al-Qaeda’s goals and the importance of Iraq, Bush said at the Oct. 11 news conference.


Yet, while Bush argues that bin Laden’s public ravings should seal the deal – and thus lock U.S. troops into Iraq for the indefinite future – Bush never considers the well-documented possibility that al-Qaeda is playing a double game, baiting the United States about leaving Iraq to ensure that U.S. troops will stay.

In a rational world – if one wanted to give any weight to al-Qaeda’s thinking – you would look at unguarded, internal communications, not the public propaganda.


For instance, more credence would be given to an intercepted Dec. 11, 2005, communiqué from a senior bin Laden lieutenant known as “Atiyah” to the then-chief of al-Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a document discovered by the U.S. military at the time of Zarqawi’s death in June 2006.


In the letter about al-Qaeda’s strategy in Iraq, Atiyah told Zarqawi that “prolonging the war is in our interest.”

A chief reason, Atiyah explained, was that Zarqawi’s brutal tactics had alienated many Iraqi Sunni insurgents and thus a continued U.S. military presence was needed to buy time for al-Qaeda to mend fences and put down roots.


The “Atiyah letter” – like a previously intercepted message attributed to al-Qaeda’s second-in-command Ayman Zawahiri – indicated that a U.S. military pullout could be disastrous for al-Qaeda’s terrorist bands, which are estimated at only about 5 to 10 percent of the anti-U.S. fighters in Iraq.


Without the U.S. military presence to serve as a rallying cry and a unifying force, the al-Qaeda contingent faced disintegration from desertions and attacks from Iraqi insurgents who resented the wanton bloodshed committed by Zarqawi’s non-Iraqi terrorists.


The “Zawahiri letter,” which was dated July 9, 2005, said a rapid American military withdrawal could have caused the foreign jihadists, who had flocked to Iraq to battle the Americans, to simply give up the fight and go home.


“The mujahaddin must not have their mission end with the expulsion of the Americans from Iraq, and then lay down their weapons, and silence the fighting zeal,” said the “Zawahiri letter,” according to a text released by the office of the U.S. Director of National Intelligence.


The “Atiyah letter,” which was translated by the U.S. military’s Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, also stressed the vulnerability of al-Qaeda’s position in Iraq.

“Know that we, like all mujahaddin, are still weak,” Atiyah told Zarqawi. “We have not yet reached a level of stability. We have no alternative but to not squander any element of the foundations of strength or any helper or supporter.”

Indeed, the “Atiyah” and “Zawahiri” letters suggest that one of al-Qaeda’s biggest fears is that the United States will pull out of Iraq before the terrorist organization has built the necessary political infrastructure to turn the country into a future base of operations.
The Caliphate Scam

Zawahiri was so concerned about the possibility of mass desertions after a U.S. withdrawal that he suggested that al-Qaeda leaders in Iraq talk up the “idea” of a “caliphate” along the eastern Mediterranean to avert a disintegration of the force.

Even with these two fretful al-Qaeda letters in hand, Bush continued to warn Americans about al-Qaeda’s intent to follow up a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq by turning the country into a launching pad for a vast Islamic “empire” that would spell the strategic defeat of the United States.
In a Sept. 5, 2006, speech, Bush declared, “This caliphate would be a totalitarian Islamic empire encompassing all current and former Muslim lands, stretching from Europe to North Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia,” Bush said. “We know this because al-Qaeda has told us.”


Bush returned to this theme in his Oct. 11 news conference.

His administration’s “strategic goal is to help this young democracy [Iraq] succeed in a world in which extremists are trying to intimidate rational people in order to topple moderate governments and to extend the caliphate,” Bush said.

“They want to extend an ideological caliphate that has no concept of liberty inherent in their beliefs.”


But – like much of Bush’s world – al-Qaeda’s “caliphate” doesn’t really exist.

Indeed, before the Bush administration took power in 2001, Islamic extremists had been routed across the Arab world, from Algeria to Egypt to Jordan to Saudi Arabia – explaining why so many al-Qaeda leaders were exiles holed up in caves in Afghanistan.


Plus, given the strife between Sunni and Shiite sects, it’s hard to conceive how a unified global Islamic “caliphate” would be imaginable.

Most likely, if the U.S. government dealt with Muslims with greater sophistication, they would take care of al-Qaeda and similar extremists like they did before.


In Bush’s world, however, the “caliphate” is not just a ploy by al-Qaeda leaders to keep impressionable young jihadists in line; it is an entity that would be “extended” if U.S. forces withdraw from Iraq.


So, as he rationalizes the horrendous death toll in Iraq – estimated at about 655,000 dead by researchers at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health – Bush doesn’t see a disaster of historic proportions.

In his world, the bloodshed is simply another reaffirmation of his decision to invade.


“I applaud the Iraqis for their courage in the face of violence,” Bush said.

“I am amazed that this is a society which so wants to be free that they’re willing to – that there’s a level of violence that they tolerate.”


It's difficult to envision any rational person making such a statement.


If anything, the level of killing in Iraq is a combination of sectarian violence and the determination of many Iraqis to drive out what they see as the American invaders.

But in Bush world, such realities never intrude.


Still, perhaps, the greatest danger from Bush's delusions is that they will come to supplant any American notion of reality and spell the doom of the United States as a democratic Republic based on an informed electorate.


Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.' This article is republished in the Baltimore Chronicle with permission of the author.


IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 12, 2006 11:46 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
It's difficult to imagine there are people in the United States so filled with hate they are prone to swallowing the BS leftist hate mongers shovel their way.

For instance, that memo radical leftist hate mongers love to bring up actually clears Bush of duplicity...lying about Saddam's WMD.

In that memo...the part the hate mongers never quote is a discussion as to what course of action the US and Britain should take..IF SADDAM USES HIS WMD AGAINST COALITION FORCES ON THE FIRST DAY OR OPENING DAYS OF A WAR

There's also a section dealing with the fact BUSH THINKS WAR WITH IRAQ IS INEVITABLE. Only a complete idiot, the kind of idiots who exist on the left wouldn't think that..since Saddam had stiffed the UN Security Council on 16 Resolutions demanding he live up to his ceasefire agreement. BTW, that ceasefire agreement contained many more articles than the one demanding Saddam get rid of his WMD.

I've shown you all this before Rainbow and you have no possible excuse to not know about it.

Blinded by hate is the perfect description of the state of radical leftists.

IP: Logged

Petron
unregistered
posted October 13, 2006 12:21 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
we've been thru this before too jwhop......heres the part you refer to

********

The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.

On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.
http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/memotext.html

********


its only natural that the military would ask what the consequences would be.......theyve been told all this b.s. about saddam having wmd........bush and blair had to come up with something to tell them........


"hehe ummmm yea, if saddam uses wmd then we're gonna nuke him fer sure....*snicker*"

IP: Logged

Petron
unregistered
posted October 13, 2006 12:26 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
heres another good one, sounds alot like bush.....

quote:
"Remember when the sky was falling, the troops were bogged down, the war plan was a failure, the Iraqi resistance was greater than anticipated and it was said this would be a long war? Remember? Remember it was all BS?"--jwhop

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 13, 2006 12:35 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary

So, here's Bush talking about Saddam Hussein using his WMD...in a secret meeting with Blair where there was no need for ANY pretense.

Kind of silly don't you think Petron...for leftists to continue to shriek Bush lied, people died?

Clearly, Bush and Blair thought Saddam had WMD....as did every other government and intelligence service on earth.

IP: Logged

DayDreamer
unregistered
posted October 13, 2006 12:44 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Great article Rainbow

I can't understand the psychology and mentality of people that support an administration that lies. It's sickening and terribly frightening that people overlook and go along with this corruption.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 13, 2006 12:45 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Saddam's military was defeated in about 3 weeks Petron.

Trying to confuse the issue isn't going to work with me. The US military was not bogged down when leftist blowhards were on CNN commenting on why the advance had stopped after a few days.

US forces had traveled so far and so fast into Iraq they had outrun their supply lines and paused to let them catch up. Period.


IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 13, 2006 12:48 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
And I can't stand traitors or those who support murderous terrorists and murderous terrorist regimes.

Saddam Hussein fit both categories.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 4415
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 13, 2006 12:52 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I wonder if it's even possible that someone from the Left has uttered, "Bush lied, people died," more than Jwhop. I kind of doubt it.

IP: Logged

Mirandee
unregistered
posted October 13, 2006 01:02 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
What makes Bush think the Iraqis are willing to tolerate " a certain level of violence?" That is not a statement by a rational person at all. Do the Iraqis have a choice in the matter? NO! It's not that they tolerate it. They just simply don't have a choice in the matter. Can they stand up and tell an invading force to stop the violence? If they felt for one minute they could I am sure they would.

IP: Logged

Mirandee
unregistered
posted October 13, 2006 01:03 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Bush also has a very distorted view of the U.S. Constitution. He is delusional about that too.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 13, 2006 01:05 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
It's not US forces who are deliberately killing innocent Iraqi civilians. It's the terrorists and Iraqi militias.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 13, 2006 01:07 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
You and Rainbow are the most delusional people I've ever encountered Mirandee...not to mention that your lies are legion.

IP: Logged

Rainbow~
unregistered
posted October 16, 2006 10:43 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Love you too, jwhop....

IP: Logged

Mirandee
unregistered
posted October 16, 2006 11:39 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

IP: Logged

Mirandee
unregistered
posted October 16, 2006 11:44 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
It's not US forces who are deliberately killing innocent Iraqi civilians. It's the terrorists and Iraqi militias.

They may not be killing them deliberately but then again, they aren't exactly protecting the innocent Iraqi citizens from the terrorists and Iraqi militia either.

Seems that with a lot of bombs and the largest weapons arsenal in the world we can take over a country in 3 weeks but controlling things in a country we have taken over seems to be another matter entirely.

Truth is that we don't have enough troops to get the job done.

IP: Logged

Bear the Leo
Newflake

Posts: 8
From: Germany
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 17, 2006 02:52 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Bear the Leo     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Actually Mirandee, China has the largest arsenal in the world. The US just is more advanced in technology than most. There are enough troops there. It is very difficult to fight and find an enemy that wont show themselves. If an Iraqi national helps the Coalition forces to find a terrorist/Iraqi Militia member they are either beaten or killed that is where the problem lies.

IP: Logged

Petron
unregistered
posted October 17, 2006 09:24 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Actually Mirandee, China has the largest arsenal in the world.--bear

lol!!

largest arsenal of what??!!

assault rifles? mortars?
just because china has the largest standing army doesnt mean they have a larger "arsenal"

the u.s. military beats china hands down in numbers of mechanized armor units, naval combat ships and subs, air force (bombers/fighters/ combat choppers and support units) , heavy anti tank missiles and surface-to-air missile defense systems .....not to mention the fact that this equipment is more technologically advanced and better maintained.......

this also doesnt include the U.S. arsenal of 'strategic' nuclear warheads, the largest in the world, a number that china cant even come close to ........


talk about delusional.....

IP: Logged

Bear the Leo
Newflake

Posts: 8
From: Germany
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 18, 2006 03:50 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Bear the Leo     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Thanks Petron but topic was about Arsenal not units for one. Yes, they even have more units if you want to get specific. Like I said the US has more technology, China has the bigger arsenal. Thanks for repeating that for me.

ar·se·nal (är'sə-nəl) n.
1. A governmental establishment for the storing, development, manufacturing, testing, or repairing of arms, ammunition, and other war materiel.
2. A stock of weapons.
3. A store or supply: an arsenal of retorts.

------------------
You are dismissed, Be gone!!

IP: Logged

Petron
unregistered
posted October 18, 2006 07:28 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

well thank you for confirming for me that you think 10,000 chinese firecrackers make a larger arsenal than 33 attack battalions of apache helicopters armed with the hellfire missile system......

IP: Logged

pidaua
Knowflake

Posts: 67
From: Back in AZ with Bear the Leo
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 18, 2006 07:50 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for pidaua     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Petron - He's asleep right now, but I am sure he will post back to you when he can.

He's right about what he said, you may not like it, but I think he has a bit more knowledge about the Military (specifically Military Intelligence) than you do.

IP: Logged

Petron
unregistered
posted October 18, 2006 08:22 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
oh i understand exactly the false impression bear was trying to convey pidaua....
any military analyst in the world would giggle at that statement.......

*************

ar·se·nal (är'sə-nəl) n.
1. A governmental establishment for the storing, development, manufacturing, testing, or repairing of arms, ammunition, and other war materiel.

******

The current (2005) United States military budget is larger than the military budgets of the next fourteen biggest spenders combined, and nearly seven times larger than China's, which places second.


The US military budget is that portion of the United States discretionary federal budget that is allocated for the funding of the Department of Defense. This military budget finances employee salaries and training costs, the maintenance of equipment and facilities, support of new or ongoing operations, and development and procurement of new equipment. The budget includes funding for all branches of the military: Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard.

For 2007, the budget was raised to a total of US$ 466 Billion.
[edit]

Budget for 2006

The military expenditure of the United States Department of Defense for fiscal year 2006 is:
Total Funding $441.6 Billion.

Operations and maintenance $124.3 Bil.

Military Personnel $108.8 Bil.

Procurement $79.1 Bil.

Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation $69.5 Bil.

Military Construction $12.2 Bil.

Department of Energy Defense Activities $17.0 Bil.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

IP: Logged

Petron
unregistered
posted October 19, 2006 01:16 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
ar·se·nal (är'sə-nəl) n.
1. A governmental establishment for the storing, development, manufacturing, testing, or repairing of arms, ammunition, and other war materiel.


GlobalFirepower GFP Ranking

Updated 09/21/2006

1 United States
2 Russia
3 China
4 India
5 Germany
6 France

http://www.globalfirepower.com/index.asp

__________


you are dismissed....be gone.....*yawn*

IP: Logged

Bear the Leo
Newflake

Posts: 8
From: Germany
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 19, 2006 04:46 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Bear the Leo     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Hey thanks for trying to deflect the first and original topic at hand.

You keep posting it in your posts. Here let me put the definition again because I dont think you are reading the whole definition.

The one from my original post is from the American heritage Dictionaries

"Arsenal.
1. A governmental establishment for the storing, development, manufacturing, testing, or repairing of arms, ammunition, and other war materiel.
2. A stock of weapons.
3. A store or supply: an arsenal of retorts."

Here it is from Wikipedia.

"An arsenal is an establishment for the construction, repair, receipt, storage and issue of weapons and ammunition."

You can call them what ever you want but by definition their "10,000 chinese firecrackers" as you call it (Arsenal) or stock is bigger. What you are talking about, is technology and training, not Arsenal.

But thanks for showing the U.S. is more technologically advanced and better trained than them.

------------------
You are dismissed, Be gone!!

IP: Logged

Petron
unregistered
posted October 19, 2006 06:43 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
the sourceless wonder strikes again!?

i'm not deflecting anything, youre the one still making an argument with nothing but your word to back it up.......ive posted credible sources

neither by unit, nor by dollar, nor by sheer explosive magnitude does china have the biggest arsenal, they only have more people.........case closed

IP: Logged


This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2 

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright © 2011

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a