*Shakes Head* Sigh, Bush what in the hell are you thinking?

[elf6c]

Hmm, looks like not too many people are biting on the official line.

WASHINGTON - More people now think the war in Iraq has increased the risk of terrorism in the United States than think it has reduced that risk, a major shift on this issue since mid-April, says a new poll released almost two years after the Sept. 11 attacks.

In April, almost six in 10 thought the war in Iraq had reduced the risk of terrorism in this country, twice the number who thought it made the risk higher. But in the ABC News poll taken Sept. 4-7, about half, 48 percent said the war increased the risk, while 40 percent said it reduced the risk.

Overall, the public’s perception of the Bush administration’s handling of terrorism is still positive, though it has slipped in the last year.

Just over half, 55 percent, in the poll said the Bush administration is doing a good job dealing with the war on terrorism, while 44 percent said it has not done such a good job. That’s down from 73 percent who said a year ago that the Bush administration had done a good job.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&e=22&u=/ap/20030909/ap_on_re_us/attacks_polls_2

[seal_cleaner]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/09/10/binladen.tape/index.html

Great. Now that it’s “Mission Accomplished” in Iraq, we have PLENTY of time and troops to handle Bin Laden. Wait, wasn’t he the problem to start with? That can’t be right…

Fuckin’ shrub.

[ccwaterback]

I see the future as Iraqi people all driving SUVs and wearing blue jeans.

<<< Typical American Idiot

[elf6c]

As usual, The Onion is right on point:

“We’ve tried reasoning, but Their agendas are in direct opposition to ours,” Vice-President Dick Cheney said. “They stand in stark defiance of stated U.S. policy. We cannot and will not allow Them to dictate global policy.”

Many current U.S. policies regarding Them are outlined in a recent State Department report titled “Long Term Organizational And Regulatory Governmental Procedures: U.S. vs. Them.” According to the document, the standoff is a result of Their continued economic encroachment, Their ongoing reluctance to allow U.S. military bases on Their lands, and the refusal of many of Them to speak English.

“The U.S. is surrounded on all sides by Them,” Rumsfeld said. “Over 90 percent of the planet’s land mass is controlled by Them, and the territories immediately south, west, east, and north of the U.S. are all occupied by Them. Until we can correct this risky state of affairs, it is vital that we maintain our military readiness to intervene whenever and wherever They oppose us.”

Another key factor in the standoff is U.S. dependence on Them-controlled resources.

“The world’s petrochemical supplies are nearly exhausted,” National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said. “If we allow Them to control the only remaining fossil-fuel sources, how are we supposed to get our oil? By buying it from Them?”

http://www.theonion.com/3935/top_story.html

The fact that the article is a little to close to the truth is more then a little sad though.

Bonus Humor about Bush’s lackluster appeal to the UN:

http://www.theonion.com/3935/wdyt.html

Enjoy!

[RTFirefly]

[Firesign Theatre (Don’t Crush That Dwarf, Hand Me the Pliers)]
“…and I would not in any way want to put myself in a confrontatory position, either with the United Snakes, or with Them. And you can believe me, because I never lie, and I’m always right.”
[/Firesign]

[Firesign (How Can You Be in Two Places At Once)]
“Yes, Them too! A lot of Them, mostly Them and not many of Us! And that’s why we’re here and they’re there! So there, Mr. Monday Morning Quarterback, Mr. Wheelchair General!”
[/Firesign]

The Onion’s good, but Firesign Theatre had a thirty year head start.

[RTFirefly]

BTW, I betcha Bush on the aircraft carrier under the “Mission Accomplished” banner will be part of some major Democratic TV ads next year.

[elucidator]

Georgieeeeee Tirebiter!

“He’s not insane!”

[Cargogal]

Does everyone have such a short memory that we forget when Saddam was the touchyfeely good friend of ours in the '80s? We knew he had chemical weapons then - he was using them on his own people. But heck, nobody’s perfect…

Amercans have very, very, very short memories. And none shorter than our fearless (and clueless) leader.

[Typo_Negative]

*Originally posted by RobertP *
** Why the hell doesn’t someone in the American public wake up to this?? **

This being one of the more devisive issues in American politics, and on this very message board, I’d say many a American are hip to this fact.

[Seven]

Wait. I seem to recall a very large “Mission Accomplished” and a Mr Bush in a flight suit.

Doesn’t Mission Accomplished mean it’s over?

If it’s not over why would Mr Bush say Mission Accomplished?

I don’t get it. He couldn’t have LIED to us could he?

Naaaaa.

[RedFury]

*Originally posted by spooje *
**This being one of the more devisive issues in American politics, and on this very message board, I’d say many a American are hip to this fact. **

You might be right – in fact, I hope you are. But a full 70% remain in a hazy stupor:

**A poll released Saturday indicated that nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that Saddam was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, which were carried out by al-Qaida, even though terrorism experts and others describe only loose links between al-Qaida and Saddam.

Washington Post

**

[World_Eater]

70%? Yikes, what fucking idiots.

[seal_cleaner]

Well, everytime shrub talks about the war in Iraq, it’s the “War on Terror.” He deliberately wants that misunderstanding to continue. As I said in another thread, even if you don’t think he lied in the SOTU address, isn’t it alarming that public support of his policies is so dependent on the ignorance of the electorate? As president, shouldn’t at least a SMALL part of his responsibility involve honestly educating the public about world events?

[RedFury]

Well, seal_cleaner, if I was to give the Bush cabal any credit at all, it would have to be the way they’ve manipulated the American public ever since that fateful morning of exactly two years ago today. Sure, its been dishonest as hell, but it has been of the essense in pushing forth their agenda. And most people still don’t realize that said agenda had not only been written years ago, but that one of its contingencies for application was a ‘Pearl Harbour-like’ event.

Please note that I am not subscribing to any conspiracy theory vis-a-vis the attack; simply noting that this whole Iraq plan had been in the works for quite some time. And marketing it became that much easier after 9/11. From an outsiders perspective, it has been fascinating and repulsive all at once, to watch them put their plan into action. Fascinating to watch them manipulate the information to fit their purpose, repulsive to watch them succeed.

As to why only Americans bought it wholesale, I have my own pet theory, but that’s a topic for another thread.

[seal_cleaner]

*Originally posted by RedFury *
**As to why only Americans bought it wholesale, I have my own pet theory, but that’s a topic for another thread. **

I was speaking gently to ward off the neocon hijack.

So, start the thread. I have a few ideas of my own as to why many americans bought into the lies.

1. Racism
2. Manifest destiny lives!
3. Widespread ignorance about world affairs in general.
4. No sense or understanding of history.
5. Lazy, compliant media.
6. Intolerant evangelical streak in american character.

[Evil_Captor]

I think you should investigate the media angle very carefully. American media report on world events VERY differently than virtually all world media. It’s almost like they are being controlled by the Repubs. The 70 percent of idiots are simply the ones who get all their news from TV, radio and the papers. The Repubs do not control the Internet, but that is because they have correctly divined that the Internet doesn’t deliver enough votes to matter.

Plus, it would require massive reorgnaization of the Internet to control it the way the other media are controlled. Which the Patriot Act kinda gives them. They just havent tried to do it yet.

[Brutus]

*Originally posted by Evil Captor *
**…Which the Patriot Act kinda gives them. They just havent tried to do it yet. **

Which section of the Patriot Act specifically allows the gov’t to ‘reorganize the Internet’, etc? Shouldn’t be hard to provide a cite…

[Squink]

7. Inchoate fear of the unknown, morphed by 9/11 into xenophobia.

[elucidator]

Whats truly surpassing strange about the “70% believe…” thing is that I have seen any number of news reports, even front page, saying just that: 70% believe Iraq had a hand in 9/11, and it just ain’t so. So faulting media slant gets problematic when the media is reporting that people believe something thats not true.

Has this poll been updated lately? Has the number remained at 70% while the other poll numbers do imitations of David Caruso’s career?

[glee]

*Originally posted by smiling bandit *
You know, I strongly suspect the Iraqis are pretty glad we stopped Sadam from killing them. They seem to be pretty pleased with that.

Do you mean the Iraqis who died over a decade ago with poison gas that the US sold Saddam (to use on Iran)?
Or are there some recent massacres you have in mind?
I understand that more US troops have died since the war ended, than died in the war. This is your definition of ‘pretty pleased’ with the US?

*Originally posted by smiling bandit *
Secondly, I say this is cheap at twice the price. This is a pretty comprehensive package, calling for more troops to keep security (an idea which Iraqis recently said saluted themselves!) and a lot of investment in rebuilding the infrastructure. A lot of other nations will be getting a lot of benefit from this, not that many of them will admit it.

Oh, so Bechtel, Halliburton and a few other Republican Party contributors aren’t getting all the contracts?

*Originally posted by smiling bandit *
This is a expense now, but hey, the future Iraq may repay us a hundred fold as a friend and partner. Aside from the y’know, humanitarian reasons.

Especially if the US decides who is allowed to rule Iraq (no religious parties for a start).
And you think Bush invaded for ‘humanitarian reasons’.
That’s so sweet (and naive).

*Originally posted by smiling bandit *
I have a hard time understanding why all the “compassionate” liberals were so happy to let everyone else go hang why the “evil” conservatives wanted to stop the bloody tyrant.

Of course! For example, that picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam (having just sold him weapons of mass destruction) proves that the Republicans have been out to overthrow Saddam for decades. Their cunning plan has finally succeeded.

*Originally posted by smiling bandit *
Hypocrites, every last one of ya’.

Please don’t talk to yourself.

*Originally posted by smiling bandit *
Granted we seem to have been wrong about the WMD’s.

:eek:
You don’t know anything, do you?! Of course there are WMD’s in Iraq. That’s why Bush invaded. Plus of course Saddam was responsible for 9/11.

*Originally posted by smiling bandit *
On the other hand, Saddam had them in quantity just a few years ago (hell, he used them openly) and either acted as if they were still there.

Yes, we know he had them. Rumsfeld sold him some, for example.
And they are still there. Didn’t you read the intelligence reports just before the war started?

*Originally posted by smiling bandit *
He implicitly threatened us with them at times.

Yes, his possession of inter-continental ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads showed he was ready to invade the US.
And he was responsible for 9/11. :smack:

*Originally posted by smiling bandit *
Nevertheless, he did support terrorism financially.

Well that alone justifies the invasion. Why on earth Bush had to mention UN resolutions, or that Saddam was responsible for 9/11, I don’t know.
So when should the US invade Iran? Syria? N. Korea? Palestine?

*Originally posted by smiling bandit *
And again, it may be cruel to send servicemen to fight Baathist assassins,

A point frequently made by left-wingers on this very board, no doubt. :wally
Still at least the US public know that Saddam was responsible for 9/11, thanks to the Bush administration’s ‘regard for the truth’.

*Originally posted by smiling bandit *
As a side benefit, all the terrorists who otherwise might have been scheming another attack now have big, bright, heavily armed and armored targets. Who shoot back.

You forgot the other ‘benefits’ of the Bush strategy.

• Arab nations know that Bush will not hesitate to invade them, especially if ‘they were responsible for 9/11’ and have WMD’s (or Bush says they have them). That alone makes the region safe.
• the UN now knows that Bush is ‘the man’, and will unhesitatingly co-operate with him.
• several big Republican donor companies have recieved juicy contracts from Bush, so they will make further donations
• the World knows that Bush has eliminated all weapons of mass destruction, and the War on terrorism is nearly over

*Originally posted by smiling bandit *
Asking for some aid from other nations is simply a recognition that (a) a couple of them will be openly outed as the baldfaced liars and selfish bastards they are: France and Germany and (b) gives those who’ve been shocked by the atack on the UN, or simply wanted to sit the fence, a face-saving chance to sign up at little risk.

Ah, that wonderful phrase ‘face-saving’. Do you think it applies to Bush first saying to the UN “we can invade without you bastards” , and now begging for UN help?