Because bin-Laden says so

[bigtree]

I can't be the only one who's dumbfounded by Bush's obsession with the statements of bin-Laden and other terrorists. Bush seems enthralled with their words, and determined to respond to their every nuance. We all know how the terrorists hang on Bush's every word, indeed, bin-Laden himself must have been glued to his television set, watching c-span with pride today as the explainer-in-chief solemnly read off passages of propaganda from the terrorist's own speeches and dispatches.

As Bush recalled the horrors of 9-11, he took time to reflect on bin-Laden's gloating statements made in the aftermath. Did Bush really need to echo the taunts of the man he says is responsible for the violence to make the point that the attacks were "unparalleled" or "unmatched'?

The collapse of the Trade Towers was a devastating act; couched by those who took responsibility in elaborate justifications of nationalism and religiosity. But, the violence amounted to nothing more than murder by the perpetrators and accomplices. Whatever they wanted the killings to accomplish didn't necessarily have to occur. In fact, with most of the world allied against the attacks, there was no ideological victory, power shift, or territorial victory for the terrorists which was able materialize in their wake. The coalition of countries who supported the U.S. in their response helped invade Afghanistan and took away any permanent base of operations bin-Laden may have had there.

Yet, Bush seemed intent in his speech on elevating bin-Laden's aspirations; not as defeated ambitions, but as some unfulfilled destiny, as they may well be. The rebel leader has not been apprehended; in part, as a consequence of Bush's shift of the bulk of our forces and resources to Iraq in the middle of the hunt. Bin-Laden could be waiting out the chaos that he admits to have instigated, waiting to step out of the shadows and into his role as terror svengali to the masses. But he wouldn't have a thing to lord over if Bush hadn't followed his dare and invaded and occupied yet another Muslim-dominated country.

Bush amplified bin-Laden's goals today in the second latest installment of his fear and smear campaign. Did Bush really repeat bin Laden's assertion that, "al Qaeda spent $500,000 on the event, while America lost -- according to the lowest estimate -- $500 billion -- meaning that every dollar of al Qaeda defeated a million dollars of America?" Was Bush thinking of the $8 billion we are spending every month in Iraq alone with bin-Laden nowhere to be found there?

Did I really hear Bush repeat bin Laden's threat to "launch a media campaign to create a wedge between the American people and their government?" Is that a preemptive strike on domestic critics of his blundering imperialism? Is Bush suggesting that we should shun any action that bin-Laden says he agrees with? Was Bush really telling Americans that just because bin-Laden says Iraq is "a war of destiny between infidelity and Islam", that we should regard it as such and persist, even in the face of the negative effects of our own heavy-handed military occupation? The occupation has had the effect of creating more animosity and producing more individuals bent on violent reprisals against the U.S., our interests and our allies; not less, as Bush continues to claim.

Bush needs to decide what our nation's interests are in continuing the occupation of Iraq and adjust our troop's involvement there according to 'conditions on the ground', as he's said he intends, not on whatever blather comes from the propaganda of these muckrakers and murderers. We should not allow the policy and direction of our nation and military to be guided and dictated by the voice of these terrorist's violence.

[Monkeyman]

1. Ever think that's way they let him go

[bigtree]

5. they do have a symbiotic relationship

that enables them to sell themselves as defenders of their followers in their protection rackets.

[bigtree]

12. final and link

Because bin-Laden says so

by Ron Fullwood

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_ron_full_060906_because_bin_laden_sa.htm

http://www.opednews.com

[whistle]

2. George Dubya Bush is on the cusp of insanity

[bigtree]

6. he's reading a script this time

who's the author?

[The_Casual_Observer]

3. It's like this, if you don't vote for republicans, Bin Laden or one

of his agents will kill you, rape your wife and turn your children into jihadis. Why doesn't he cut to the fucking chase & cut out all the nuance?

[bigtree]

10. subtle

isn't he?

[fasttense]

4. The bushes financed Hitler's rise to power

and have no compunction with using crazy evil men. The bushes need the Bin Ladens like the Bin Ladens needs the bushes.

[bigtree]

11. partners in their respective protection rackets

no doubt

[Selteri]

7. It honestly got to sounding like he was pointing out

all of his own flaws or the flaws of the GOP. They were descriptions of the very things the GOP Neocons have said and done as well.

[lyonn]

8. Or, he seems to think the public hasn't heard all these Osama

declarations and info from "discovered" documents by Al Queda (sp?) Most of this info was in the files this bunch received from the Clinton Admin.

[bigtree]

18. he wants to re-explain it, just in case we didn't get the point

of his idiocy

[bigtree]

9. it does sound like he's listing his own crimes

almost like he hopes that, by labeling his adversaries with the monikers, he can deflect from his own muckraking, imperialistic militarism

[bigtree]

13. Bush Uses Bin Laden Quotes for War Rally

Sep 6, 2006 2:24 AM (8 hrs ago)


heh, so Nedra must have had the same notion as I did yesterday, watching Bush. I'm not the only one who notices Bush using bin-Laden's words to justify his own militarism.

By NEDRA PICKLER, The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Quoting repeatedly from Osama bin Laden, President Bush said Tuesday that pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq would fulfill the terrorist leader's wishes and propel him into a more powerful global threat in the mold of Adolf Hitler.

With two months until an Election Day that hinges largely on national security, Bush laid out bin Laden's vision in detail, including new revelations from previously unreported documents. Voters were never more united behind the president than in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, and his speech was designed to convince Americans that the threat has not faded five years later.

To make the administration's strategy more clear, the White House on Tuesday published a 23-page booklet called "National Strategy for Combating Terrorism," which Bush described as an unclassified version of the strategy he's been pursuing since Sept. 11, 2001. The booklet's conclusion: "Since the Sept. 11 attacks, America is safer, but we are not yet safe."

"If President Bush had unleashed the American military to do the job at Tora Bora four years ago and killed Osama bin Laden, he wouldn't have to quote this barbarian's words today," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. "Because President Bush lost focus on the killers who attacked us and instead launched a disastrous war in Iraq, today Osama bin Laden and his henchmen still find sanctuary in the no man's land between Afghanistan and Pakistan, where they still plot attacks against America."

more: http://www.examiner.com/a-266189~Bush_Uses_Bin_Laden_Quotes_for_War_Rally.html

[bigtree]

16. Al-Qaeda's 'Simon Says'

By Robert Parry
September 6, 2006

A common refrain from Republican leaders is that Americans must take the public statements of al-Qaeda seriously and then do the opposite. It’s a kind of reverse “Simon Says.” If al-Qaeda says leave Iraq, American soldiers must stay; if al-Qaeda says defeat George W. Bush and his party, Americans must return them to office.

President George W. Bush has made similar points while urging Americans to “stay the course.” For instance, earlier this year, Bush told a crowd in Nashville, Tennessee, that America’s only option in Iraq was “victory.”

“I say that because the enemy has said they want to drive us out of Iraq and use it as safe haven,” Bush said. “We’ve got to take the word seriously of those who want to do us harm.”

Bush returned to this theme of how Americans must take al-Qaeda’s words seriously in a Sept. 5 speech that essentially accepts the view of neoconservative hardliners who insist that the United States has no choice but to fight World War III with radical Islamists.

But does that make sense? Should Americans take al-Qaeda’s public pronouncements so seriously that this relatively small terrorist band is given a kind of jujitsu veto power over U.S. politics and foreign policy? Or should Americans assess a situation on their own and make judgments as to what’s best for the United States?


article: http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/090506.html

[bigtree]

17. Bin Laden’s Bounce

The White House hopes a renewed focus on domestic security can secure a GOP victory this fall.

WEB-EXCLUSIVE COMMENTARY
By Richard Wolffe and Holly Bailey
Newsweek
Updated: 6:08 p.m. ET Sept 5, 2006

Sept. 5, 2006 - There was a time when the White House considered Osama bin Laden so contemptible and so radioactive that it would rarely mention his name in any presidential speech. President Bush’s aides didn’t want to dignify the Al Qaeda leader by suggesting he was worthy of a presidential response. Moreover, they thought there was some danger in propagating the views of a figure who wanted to reach the widest audience—and possibly even send coded messages to his followers.

So when bin Laden released a tape late in the last election—in October 2004—the White House handled it delicately. In the final days of the closely fought campaign, Bush’s aides preferred to focus not on bin Laden but on how John Kerry was handling the tape. Bush challenged Kerry for what he called “Monday morning quarterbacking” on the war in Iraq, saying his criticism was “especially shameful in the light of a new tape from America’s enemy.”

Even earlier this year, after another audiotape from bin Laden, the White House dismissed the Al Qaeda leader’s words as irrelevant. When bin Laden offered a truce to the United States, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said simply, “We do not negotiate with terrorists.”

That was the old rhetoric of the war on terror. In the latest version of the war of words, the White House has elevated bin Laden to a mixture of foreign leader, historical icon and political adversary. Bin Laden’s words (and those of his henchmen) provided the backbone for Bush’s speech to military officers on Tuesday. Far from brushing aside bin Laden’s rants, Bush insisted they were a modern-day Mein Kampf, a guide to Al Qaeda’s global strategy. The White House now finds itself in the extraordinary position of selling the war on terror by citing the very man it ranks as public enemy No. 1.

article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14687615/site/newsweek/

[Beelzebud]

14. He who lives for the sake of combatting an enemy;

Has an interest in the enemy staying alive. --Neitzche

[bigtree]

15. that is the concurrent theme

"In the past, the ruling groups of all countries, although they might recognize their common interest and therefore limit the destructiveness of war, did fight against one another, and the victor always plundered the vanquished. In our own day they are not fighting against one another at all. The war is waged by each ruling group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact." -- Orwell, 1984

[TheFriedPiper]

19. Republicans use FEAR to achieve their political agenda

That makes them terrorists, by definition.

[bigtree]

20. state-sponsored