🚀 go-pugleaf

On 2007-07-04 10:12:12 -0400, Joeseph P. Blow <jpblow@gmail.com> said:

> On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 13:17:14 GMT, Mike Smith <mws@wt.net> wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 22:48:31 -0400, Slim <slim@pickins.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> And yet, you continue to support a war against a country that was no 
>>>>> threat to us.
>>>>> 
>>>> What country would that be, dumbass? Do you even know what "no threat" means?
>>> 
>>> Iraq.
>>> 
>>> Bush said Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11/
>>> 
>>> Remember?
>> 
>> Thanks for posting more proof that you ARE a fuckin moron.
> 
> Denying bush said it? Of course you are, dupe.  Problem is, there are
> people who are still alive that REMEMBER him saying it.   You'll have
> to wait for them all to die to change history.
> 
>> 
>> In your demented brain, not having anything to do with 9-11 equals no
>> threat to our Nation.
> 
> Now you're claiming Iraq was a threat to our nation and _THAT's_ why
> bush attacked?  Poor neocon dupe, there's no fact in that talking
> point either.   They had neither the means nor the willingness to do
> anything to our nation.    Meanwhile, those that have indeed
> threatened and attacked our nation are still free. Still killing.
> Still laughing at the US (and especially at the likes of you who
> believed that by fighting an unjust war in Iraq we're somehow stopping
> terrorists from attacking the US and it's allies.   Ask England if it
> works.
> 
>> You are a fool.
> 
> Nice pkb you've got going there, Mike Smith.


Bush: Saddam was not responsible for 9/11
Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Tuesday September 12, 2006

George Bush last night admitted that Saddam Hussein had no hand in the 
9/11 terror attacks, but he asked Americans to support a war in Iraq 
that he said was the defining struggle of our age.
On a day of sorrow and remembrance, beginning with a moment of silence 
at Ground Zero and ending in a prime time TV address from the Oval 
Office, Mr Bush tried to steel Americans for the long war ahead against 
al-Qaida which he described as an epochal struggle.
His speech was also focused on November's congressional elections where 
the Republicans face a groundswell of discontent about the war in Iraq.
The president conceded some crucial ideological ground, formally 
disavowing the neo-conservative accusation that Saddam had played a 
role in the attacks on September 11 2001. But he was unapologetic about 
the decision to invade Iraq.
"I am often asked why we are in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was not 
responsible for the 9/11 attacks," Mr Bush said. "The answer is that 
the regime of Saddam Hussein was a clear threat. My administration, the 
Congress, and the United Nations saw the threat - and after 9/11, 
Saddam's regime posed a risk that the world could not afford to take.
"The world is safer because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power."
The admission that Saddam had no connection to the attacks on the World 
Trade Centre and the Pentagon was a departure for a president who is 
famously averse to any expression of regret. But Mr Bush, angling to 
regain the trust of US voters in his leadership of the war on terror, 
made another display of humility, admitting to other unspecified 
mistakes in the war on Iraq.
However, the president brushed aside any idea of an early exit from 
Iraq, saying a withdrawal of US forces would hand a victory to al-Qaida.
"Whatever mistakes have been made in Iraq, the worst mistake would be 
to think that if we pulled out, the terrorists would leave us alone. 
They will not leave us alone. They will follow us," Mr Bush said.
"If we yield Iraq to men like bin Laden, our enemies will be emboldened 
... they will gain a new safe haven ... and they will use Iraq's 
resources to fuel their extremist movement."
Last night's address crowned a series of speeches intended to retune 
the political agenda to the Republicans' traditionally strong suit: 
national security. Although the 2,600 US forces killed in Iraq now 
approaches the toll on September 11 and polls this month showed some 
60% of Americans opposed to the administration's handling of the war in 
Iraq, Mr Bush continues to inspire confidence for his leadership on 
terrorism and in matters of national security.
With that in mind, Mr Bush moved last night to cast himself as a 
wartime leader in the mould of the two US presidents who presided over 
the epic battles of the last century. Both were Democrats: Franklin 
Roosevelt against Germany and Japan in the second world war, and Harry 
Truman in the cold war.
Mr Bush said he was leading a struggle that in these early days may 
seem just as daunting as the beginning of the second world war. But he 
said that the war on terror was as much an existential struggle, and 
that America could not afford to lose heart now, despite the high cost 
in Iraq.
"The war against this enemy is more than a military conflict. It is the 
decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century, and the calling of 
our generation," he said. "If we do not defeat these enemies now, we 
will leave our children to face a Middle East overrun by terrorist 
states and radical dictators armed with nuclear weapons."


-- 
"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in 
England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after 
all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it 
is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a 
democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist 
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to 
the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL 
THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of 
patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY 
COUNTRY."
�
--Goering at the Nuremberg Trials