PDA

View Full Version : To combat low numbers, Bush ups the rhetoric... Now calling terror fight "WWIII"


Taco John
05-06-2006, 02:18 AM
Bush says fight against terror is 'World War III'
May 05 6:07 PM US/Eastern

US President George W. Bush said the September 11 revolt of passengers against their hijackers on board Flight 93 had struck the first blow of "World War III."

In an interview with the financial news network CNBC, Bush said he had yet to see the recently released film of the uprising, a dramatic portrayal of events on the United Airlines plane before it crashed in a Pennsylvania field.

But he said he agreed with the description of David Beamer, whose son Todd died in the crash, who in a Wall Street Journal commentary last month called it "our first successful counter-attack in our homeland in this new global war -- World War III".

Bush said: "I believe that. I believe that it was the first counter-attack to World War III.

"It was, it was unbelievably heroic of those folks on the airplane to recognize the danger and save lives," he said.

Flight 93 crashed on the morning of September 11, 2001, killing the 33 passengers, seven crew members and four hijackers, after passengers stormed the cockpit and battled the hijackers for control of the aircraft.

The president has repeatedly praised the heroism of the passengers in fighting back and so launching the first blow of what he usually calls the "war on terror".

In 2002, then-White House spokesman Ari Fleischer explicitly declined to call the hunt for Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda group and its followers "World War III."

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/05/060505220719.qnjzncm8.html

Taco John
05-06-2006, 02:19 AM
It's a dramatic jump to go from "sectarian violence" to full on World War III. Talk about a mach jump in rhetoric. We passed by "civil war" at the speed of light!

jAZ
05-06-2006, 03:54 AM
Too bad he descided to quit the fight to win "World War III" and decided to get all Cowboy with our Soldiers' lives by starting "Iraq War II" instead.

Had he stuck to his WWIII, he'd have Clinton type approval ratings right now.

Boozer
05-06-2006, 07:31 AM
So...what kind of odds are we looking at for Fox News to adopt this label? Due to Bush's extremely low approval ratings, I think it's gotta be fairly long. 4-1, 5-1? If he had 70% approval, I think it'd be a sure thing.

the Talking Can
05-06-2006, 08:37 AM
I bet we see WWIV by June.

Adept Havelock
05-06-2006, 12:06 PM
I bet we see WWIV by June.Nope.
"From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August."
They will wait until closer to the election before playing the "be afraid, be afraid!" card again.

I expect the drumbeat of hype to reach a high around late September, as they attempt a replay of the 2002 "roll-out' of fear mongering.

2:1 Rumsfeld states something along the lines of "We know where the WMD's are...they are somewhere N,S,E, or W of Tehran." :rolleyes:

FWIW- We already fought WWIII. It's also called "The Cold War". So technically, Bush is already one war off.

I figure in a few generations, the 20th century and WW 1,2, and 3 will all be viewed as we now view the "100 years war". The fundamental character of the war remained the same, i.e. Totalitarian nation-states vs. Democratic nation-states. Some of the players changed sides depending on what round it was, but the basic struggle remained about the same, IMO.

Ugly Duck
05-06-2006, 12:16 PM
It's a dramatic jump to go from "sectarian violence" to full on World War III. Talk about a mach jump in rhetoric. We passed by "civil war" at the speed of light!He's only saying the War on Terror is WWIII. Sectarian violence & civil war are terminologies applied to the Iraqmire conflict. Unless they can somehow finally manage to tie Osama to Sodom, they ain't the same war.

banyon
05-06-2006, 12:22 PM
He's only saying the War on Terror is WWIII. Sectarian violence & civil war are terminologies applied to the Iraqmire conflict. Unless they can somehow finally manage to tie Osama to Sodom, they ain't the same war.

OOOH OOOH!!!1!, BUT THERES THAT ONE GHUY THAT THEY MIGTVE MET IN PRAG EVEN THOUGH PRAG SAYS TEH DIDN'T, AND THEN HE WAS HANGIN WITH SOME KURDS IN THE NORTH AND GOT THAT HOPSITAL OPPERATION IN BAGDAD AND STUFF!1!!

Ugly Duck
05-06-2006, 12:30 PM
OOOH OOOH!!!1!, BUT THERES THAT ONE GHUY THAT THEY MIGTVE MET IN PRAG EVEN THOUGH PRAG SAYS TEH DIDN'T, AND THEN HE WAS HANGIN WITH SOME KURDS IN THE NORTH AND GOT THAT HOPSITAL OPPERATION IN BAGDAD AND STUFF!1!!Sorry - my bad. Hey.... you think there's any chance of us trying Sodom for 9/11 now that he's in custody?

banyon
05-06-2006, 12:52 PM
Sorry - my bad. Hey.... you think there's any chance of us trying Sodom for 9/11 now that he's in custody?

As long as we do it in secret without impartial magistrates or allow him to have a defense attorney I don't see why not.

Adept Havelock
05-06-2006, 03:36 PM
Sorry - my bad. Hey.... you think there's any chance of us trying Sodom for 9/11 now that he's in custody?Considering we have had the principal architect of the attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Shaikh_Mohammed), in custody since March 2003 and haven't bothered to try him I would seriously doubt it.

I suspect if we ever do, we will hear something about a trial around Aug. or Sep. 2006 or 2008. ;)

BucEyedPea
05-06-2006, 04:25 PM
Considering we have had the principal architect of the attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Shaikh_Mohammed), in custody since March 2003 and haven't bothered to try him I would seriously doubt it.

I suspect if we ever do, we will hear something about a trial around Aug. or Sep. 2006 or 2008. ;)

The info I have, and my sources so far have been correct about this stuff, is that the US doesn't really want a SH trial as it may just expose our own crimes along with his.

patteeu
05-06-2006, 10:03 PM
I bet we see WWIV by June.

It's already been done. Here is a Norman Podhoretz essay from September 2004. He counts the cold war as WWIII so this war is WWIV:


World War IV: How It Started, What It Means, and Why We Have to Win

This past spring, when it seemed that everything that could go wrong in Iraq was going wrong, a plague of amnesia began sweeping through the country. Caught up in the particulars with which we were being assaulted 24 hours a day, we seemed to have lost sight of the context in which such details could be measured and understood and related to one another. Small things became large, large things became invisible, and hysteria filled the air.

Since then, of course, and especially after the hand over of authority on June 30 to an interim Iraqi government, matters have become more complicated. But the relentless pressure of events, and the continuing onslaught both of details and of their often tendentious or partisan interpretation, have hardly let up at all. It is for this reason that, in what follows, I have tried to step back from the daily barrage and to piece together the story of what this nation has been fighting to accomplish since September 11, 2001.

In doing this, I have drawn freely from my own past writings on the subject, and especially from three articles that appeared in these pages two or more years ago.1 In some instances, I have woven sections of these articles into a new setting; other passages I have adapted and updated.

Telling the story properly has required more than a straight narrative leading from 9/11 to the time of writing. For one thing, I have had to interrupt the narrative repeatedly in order to confront and clear away the many misconceptions, distortions, and outright falsifications that have been perpetrated. In addition, I have had to broaden the perspective so as to make it possible to see why the great struggle into which the United States was plunged by 9/11 can only be understood if we think of it as World War IV.

much more (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/podhoretz.htm)

patteeu
05-06-2006, 10:16 PM
OOOH OOOH!!!1!, BUT THERES THAT ONE GHUY THAT THEY MIGTVE MET IN PRAG EVEN THOUGH PRAG SAYS TEH DIDN'T, AND THEN HE WAS HANGIN WITH SOME KURDS IN THE NORTH AND GOT THAT HOPSITAL OPPERATION IN BAGDAD AND STUFF!1!!

I'm unaware of the "EVEN THOUGH PRAG SAYS TEH DIDN'T" part. What are you talking about? My understanding is that they still believe the meeting took place but that our own intelligence services question it because they can't find any evidence that Atta left the US to go to Prague.

Nightwish
05-07-2006, 12:26 AM
I'm unaware of the "EVEN THOUGH PRAG SAYS TEH DIDN'T" part. What are you talking about? My understanding is that they still believe the meeting took place but that our own intelligence services question it because they can't find any evidence that Atta left the US to go to Prague.
I don't remember where it was at, but I read a transcript a couple years ago of an interview with the two Czech policemen, or army officer, or whatever they were, that had attempted to listen in on the conversation that took place during that meeting. I don't remember all the specifics, but I do remember that they were fairly unsure of exactly who was involved in the meeting, that they had information that Atta "might" be in Prague, but they were assigned only to try to find out what the Iraqi delegation was up to in Prague, that they didn't actually know if Atta was even involved in that meeting, only that he might be somewhere in the same city, and they were unable to get close enough to determine what was actually discussed in the meeting. Shortly after that, an Israeli newspaper took up the story, offering a lot of theories and maybes, but nothing of hard substance. Then some folks in the US took the ball from the Israeli article and started adding to the theories, but again, nothing of hard substance. The whole story is basically one gigantic game of "telephone line."

patteeu
05-07-2006, 12:42 AM
I don't remember where it was at, but I read a transcript a couple years ago of an interview with the two Czech policemen, or army officer, or whatever they were, that had attempted to listen in on the conversation that took place during that meeting. I don't remember all the specifics, but I do remember that they were fairly unsure of exactly who was involved in the meeting, that they had information that Atta "might" be in Prague, but they were assigned only to try to find out what the Iraqi delegation was up to in Prague, that they didn't actually know if Atta was even involved in that meeting, only that he might be somewhere in the same city, and they were unable to get close enough to determine what was actually discussed in the meeting. Shortly after that, an Israeli newspaper took up the story, offering a lot of theories and maybes, but nothing of hard substance. Then some folks in the US took the ball from the Israeli article and started adding to the theories, but again, nothing of hard substance. The whole story is basically one gigantic game of "telephone line."

I haven't heard that so if anyone else has heard this and knows what Nightwish is talking about, I'd be interested in a source.

What I have heard is that the Iraqi agent that was supposed to have participated in the meeting was captured and denies that it took place and, at least so far, no Iraqi documents confirming the meeting have been found.

There are plenty of reasons to be skeptical about this meeting, I just hadn't heard of a denial coming from anyone in the Czech government who would be in a position to know.

the Talking Can
05-07-2006, 07:57 AM
It's already been done. Here is a Norman Podhoretz essay from September 2004. He counts the cold war as WWIII so this war is WWIV:


much more (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/podhoretz.htm)[/i]

I always underestimate the insane.

WW 5 it is then, steel cage match...

patteeu
05-07-2006, 09:10 AM
I always underestimate the insane.

WW 5 it is then, steel cage match...

ROFL

banyon
05-07-2006, 09:26 AM
I'm unaware of the "EVEN THOUGH PRAG SAYS TEH DIDN'T" part. What are you talking about? My understanding is that they still believe the meeting took place but that our own intelligence services question it because they can't find any evidence that Atta left the US to go to Prague.
Prague Clears Iraq of Last Connection to al Qaeda

James Risen | New York Times | October 21, 2002


The Czech president, Vaclav Havel, has quietly told the White House he has concluded that there is no evidence to confirm earlier reports that Mohamed Atta, the leader in the Sept. 11 attacks, met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague just months before the attacks on New York and Washington, according to Czech officials.

Mr. Havel discreetly called Washington to tell senior Bush administration officials that an initial report from the Czech domestic intelligence agency that Mr. Atta had met with an Iraqi intelligence officer, Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, in Prague in April 2001 could not be substantiated. Czech officials did not say precisely when Mr. Havel told the White House to disregard the reports of the meeting, but extensive interviews with leading Czech figures make clear that he did so quietly some time earlier this year in an effort to avoid publicly embarrassing other prominent officials in his government, who had given credibility to the reports through their public and private statements in the months after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

The statements by those officials, including the Czech prime minister, had helped turn the reports of a meeting between an important Al Qaeda operative and an Iraqi spy into an international issue.

When the reports of a meeting between Mr. Atta and Mr. Ani came to attention in October 2001, they appeared to provide the most direct connection yet uncovered between the Sept. 11 attacks and the government of Saddam Hussein, and they set off a debate in Washington that continues today over whether a possible war with Iraq should be considered an extension of the global war on Al Qaeda and terrorism.

For months, American intelligence and law enforcement officials have cast doubt on the reports of the Prague meeting, which proved to be based on the statements of a single informant, and last week the director of central intelligence, George J. Tenet, told Congress that his agency could find no evidence to confirm that the meeting took place.

The White House has generally been cautious about using the reports of the Prague meeting to help make the case for war with Iraq. Yet the Prague meeting has remained a live issue with other proponents of military action against Iraq, both in and out of the government.

The disclosure of Mr. Havel's decision to inform the Bush administration that it should ignore the reports of a meeting comes after a year of confused and often contradictory statements from other Czech officials about the incident.

Interior Minister Stanislav Gross first gave public credence to the reports when he held a news conference in October 2001 to announce that Mr. Atta had come to Prague in April to meet with Mr. Ani, an intelligence officer who was working under diplomatic cover in the Iraqi Embassy.

More significantly, Czech officials say that Milos Zeman, then the Czech Republic's prime minister, privately informed Secretary of State Colin L. Powell about the intelligence reports, while Mr. Zeman was holding meetings in Washington in November, thus placing the credibility of the Czech government even more squarely behind the reports.

Mr. Zeman's statements, along with an assertion that Mr. Atta and Mr. Ani had met to plot an attack on the offices of Radio Free Europe in Prague, made it difficult for officials there and in Washington to easily brush aside the reports of the meeting. American counterterrorism specialists at the F.B.I. and the C.I.A. subsequently came under intense pressure to thoroughly investigate the matter.

But Czech officials who have investigated the case now say that Mr. Zeman and Mr. Gross spoke without adequately vetting the information or waiting for the Czech internal security service to substantiate the initial reports.

Officials say they also spoke without adequately consulting Mr. Havel, who was effectively excluded as others went to the press and the Bush administration. In the Czech political system, the president is the head of state, but the prime minister manages most day-to-day government affairs and is not necessarily from the same party as the president.

Mr. Havel, the playwright and former dissident who led Czechoslovakia out of Communism in the Velvet Revolution of 1989, moved carefully behind the scenes in the months after the reports of the Prague meeting came to light to try to determine what really happened, officials said. He asked trusted advisers to investigate, and they quietly went through back channels to talk with Czech intelligence officers to get to the bottom of the story. The intelligence officers told them there was no evidence of a meeting.

It was also clear they were irked that Czech political leaders had spoken out despite the caveats that had been placed on the initial report of the meeting. "I'm sure that the report was written carefully, in guarded language," a Czech leader who has reviewed the matter said.

The intelligence report of the Czech domestic intelligence agency on a possible meeting between Mr. Atta and Mr. Ani had come from a single informant in the local Arab community, and the information was treated skeptically by Czech intelligence experts because it had been provided only after the Sept. 11 attacks, after Mohamed Atta's picture had been broadcast on television and published in newspapers around the world, and even after the Czech press reported that records showed that Mr. Atta had traveled to Prague.

Officials of the intelligence service were said to be furious that Mr. Zeman had taken the information straight to the top of the American government, before they had a chance to investigate further.

After Mr. Havel's advisers reported back to him, the president told the Bush administration that reports of an Atta-Ani meeting could not be substantiated. "I think he tried to do it politely because he didn't want to embarrass anyone," a Czech leader familiar with the matter said.

Mr. Zeman declined to comment about his role in the case. Mr. Gross could not be reached, but in May he told a Czech newspaper that he stood by his initial statements about the meeting.

Today, other Czech officials say they have no evidence that Mr. Atta was even in the country in April 2001. In fact, American records indicate he was in Virginia Beach, Va., in early April. "The interior minister claims they did meet, but the intelligence people have told me that they didn't, that the meeting didn't happen," a senior official said(emphasis added).

rest of ny times article (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40816FB34590C728EDDA90994DA404482)

Adept Havelock
05-07-2006, 10:52 AM
I always underestimate the insane.

WW 5 it is then, steel cage match...

Close. Looks like wise old Uncle Albert was off by one or two. Oh well, even Sir Issac got a couple of things wrong.


I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.

patteeu
05-07-2006, 07:00 PM
Prague Clears Iraq of Last Connection to al Qaeda

James Risen | New York Times | October 21, 2002


The Czech president, Vaclav Havel, has quietly told the White House he has concluded that there is no evidence to confirm earlier reports that Mohamed Atta, the leader in the Sept. 11 attacks, met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague just months before the attacks on New York and Washington, according to Czech officials.

Thanks, banyon. I don't remember if I'd seen that or not. I appreciate you digging it up for me.

I don't know what the truth of the matter is, but it's worth noting that the Czech's haven't refuted the story in public. It's also worth noting that shortly after this NYTimes report, Havel's spokesman flatly denied that this conversation ever happened.

PRESIDENTIAL SPOKESMAN REJECTS 'NY TIMES' REPORT AS 'FABRICATION.' A spokesman for Czech President Vaclav Havel has dismissed a report in "The New York Times" claiming Havel told U.S. officials there is no evidence that suspected 11 September hijacker Mohammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague, CTK reported on 22 October. The 21 October report cited unidentified Czech officials as saying Havel discreetly called White House officials to cast doubt on the alleged meeting. "It is a fabrication. Nothing like this has occurred," Havel's spokesman, Ladislav Spacek, said of the alleged phone conversation. ("RFE/RL Newsline," 22 October)

http://www.rferl.org/reports/mm/2002/10/41-251002.asp


With stories like this one and the NSA surveillance piece (along with his recent book), I'm betting that James Risen doesn't get Christmas cards from the first family. LOL