On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 20:18:11 GMT, Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:

Last week our Great Leader gave a Great Big Press Conference to talk
about all the Really Super Things going on in the Middle East.

When asked how he reconciled his hard talk of the consequences of
leaving Iraq with the fact that the consequences wouldn't have existed
if we'd never invaded in the first place, he replied:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/08/20060821.html


THE PRESIDENT:

You know, I've heard this theory about everything was just fine until
we arrived, and kind of "we're going to stir up the hornet's nest"
theory. It just doesn't hold water, as far as I'm concerned. The
terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we
started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.


Q

What did Iraq have to do with that?


THE PRESIDENT:

What did Iraq have to do with what?


Q

The attack on the World Trade Center?


THE PRESIDENT:

Nothing.


Whoa!

Wait a second there.

Nothing?

Iraq had nothing to do with the attack on the World Trade Center?

Then why, in September of 2003, did 69% of people in a Washington Post
poll say "they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally
involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda," according to USA
Today?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

Where on earth could they have gotten that idea?

Please continue, Mr. President.


"Nothing, except for it's part of - and nobody has ever suggested in
this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack.

Iraq was a - the lesson of September the 11th is, take threats before
they fully materialize, Ken.

Nobody has ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were
ordered by Iraq."


Ah, I see - "ordered" is the operative word here.

Because it would be pretty darn difficult to claim that the Bush
administration has never linked the two.

See this thread in our Research Forum, for example.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x1293

So what else did George have to say about the situation in Iraq?


"I have suggested, however, that resentment and the lack of hope
create the breeding grounds for terrorists who are willing to use
suiciders to kill to achieve an objective.

I have made that case."


I see.

The future of Iraq rests on us getting rid of the "resentment and the
lack of hope" that creates "the breeding grounds for terrorists."

So how's that working out?

And you would have to be a vacant liberal (Oh that's right, you are
one) to not realize that problems like Iraq became more urgent after
9/11.

It's working absolutely fine for us. We removed the threat of a rogue
regime teaming up with al Qaeda covertly, we put our forces in the
region drawing the dimbulb jihadis like flies where they die in
numbers ten times greater then our fighting men.

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 20:18:11 GMT, Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:

Last week our Great Leader gave a Great Big Press Conference to talk
about all the Really Super Things going on in the Middle East.

When asked how he reconciled his hard talk of the consequences of
leaving Iraq with the fact that the consequences wouldn't have existed
if we'd never invaded in the first place, he replied:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/08/20060821.html


THE PRESIDENT:

You know, I've heard this theory about everything was just fine until
we arrived, and kind of "we're going to stir up the hornet's nest"
theory. It just doesn't hold water, as far as I'm concerned. The
terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we
started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.


Q

What did Iraq have to do with that?


THE PRESIDENT:

What did Iraq have to do with what?


Q

The attack on the World Trade Center?


THE PRESIDENT:

Nothing.


Whoa!

Wait a second there.

Nothing?

Iraq had nothing to do with the attack on the World Trade Center?

Then why, in September of 2003, did 69% of people in a Washington Post
poll say "they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally
involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda," according to USA
Today?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

Where on earth could they have gotten that idea?

Please continue, Mr. President.


"Nothing, except for it's part of - and nobody has ever suggested in
this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack.

Iraq was a - the lesson of September the 11th is, take threats before
they fully materialize, Ken.

Nobody has ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were
ordered by Iraq."


Ah, I see - "ordered" is the operative word here.

Because it would be pretty darn difficult to claim that the Bush
administration has never linked the two.

See this thread in our Research Forum, for example.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x1293

So what else did George have to say about the situation in Iraq?


"I have suggested, however, that resentment and the lack of hope
create the breeding grounds for terrorists who are willing to use
suiciders to kill to achieve an objective.

I have made that case."


I see.

The future of Iraq rests on us getting rid of the "resentment and the
lack of hope" that creates "the breeding grounds for terrorists."

So how's that working out?

And you would have to be a vacant liberal (Oh that's right, you are
one) to not realize that problems like Iraq became more urgent after
9/11.

It's working absolutely fine for us. We removed the threat of a rogue
regime teaming up with al Qaeda covertly, we put our forces in the
region drawing the dimbulb jihadis like flies where they die in
numbers ten times greater then our fighting men.

We basically outsmarted bin Laden

Of course they found out the US soldiers are still to hard as targets
so they've turned to wanton murder & mayhem against their own.

The only thing now keeping the insurgents and terrorists going is the
moral support they get from the Western political left (like you!) and
the sheer joy they get blowing up and shooting people for Allah (even
if they are all Muslims).

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 20:18:11 GMT, Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:

Last week our Great Leader gave a Great Big Press Conference to talk
about all the Really Super Things going on in the Middle East.

When asked how he reconciled his hard talk of the consequences of
leaving Iraq with the fact that the consequences wouldn't have existed
if we'd never invaded in the first place, he replied:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/08/20060821.html


THE PRESIDENT:

You know, I've heard this theory about everything was just fine until
we arrived, and kind of "we're going to stir up the hornet's nest"
theory. It just doesn't hold water, as far as I'm concerned. The
terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we
started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.


Q

What did Iraq have to do with that?


THE PRESIDENT:

What did Iraq have to do with what?


Q

The attack on the World Trade Center?


THE PRESIDENT:

Nothing.


Whoa!

Wait a second there.

Nothing?

Iraq had nothing to do with the attack on the World Trade Center?

Then why, in September of 2003, did 69% of people in a Washington Post
poll say "they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally
involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda," according to USA
Today?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

Where on earth could they have gotten that idea?

Please continue, Mr. President.


"Nothing, except for it's part of - and nobody has ever suggested in
this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack.

Iraq was a - the lesson of September the 11th is, take threats before
they fully materialize, Ken.

Nobody has ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were
ordered by Iraq."


Ah, I see - "ordered" is the operative word here.

Because it would be pretty darn difficult to claim that the Bush
administration has never linked the two.

See this thread in our Research Forum, for example.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x1293

So what else did George have to say about the situation in Iraq?


"I have suggested, however, that resentment and the lack of hope
create the breeding grounds for terrorists who are willing to use
suiciders to kill to achieve an objective.

I have made that case."


I see.

The future of Iraq rests on us getting rid of the "resentment and the
lack of hope" that creates "the breeding grounds for terrorists."

So how's that working out?

And you would have to be a vacant liberal (Oh that's right, you are
one) to not realize that problems like Iraq became more urgent after
9/11.

It's working absolutely fine for us. We removed the threat of a rogue
regime teaming up with al Qaeda covertly, we put our forces in the

region drawing the dimbulb jihadis like flies where they die in
numbers ten times greater then our fighting men.

We basically outsmarted bin Laden on that point because his power

comes from his "kill the nearest infidel if you can" brainwashing
tactic so his feckless followers naturally figure taking pot-shots at
US soldiers and making improvised bombs in Iraq is a damn sight

cheaper and easier than cobbling together elaborate missions over
half-a-decade while trying to blend in with Western culture and not
get addicted to HBO, Budweiser and titty bars.

Of course they found out the US soldiers are still to hard as targets
so they've turned to wanton murder & mayhem against their own.

The only thing now keeping the insurgents and terrorists going is the
moral support they get from the Western political left (like you!) and
the sheer joy they get blowing up and shooting people for Allah (even
if they are all Muslims).

"It is three years after the war and the situation in Iraq has visibly
deteriorated. Immediately after the war, cities like Baghdad were
burned and looted and under occupation, but there was still a hope
that buildings could be rebuilt and Iraq could be put back together.

I think as the months go by with no visible progress, especially in
the areas of security and infrastructure, Iraqis feel less and less
hopeful." -- Iraqi blogger "Riverbend"
http://www.opendemocracy.net/xml/xhtml/articles/3370.html


Nice work, George.

It's okay though, Our Great Leader has One Last Great Plan left for
the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - he's simply going to pretend they
don't exist.

From Salon:


On his way to vacation at his parents' compound in Kennebunkport,
George W. Bush stopped at a local elementary school Thursday to meet
with family members of U.S. troops who have lost their lives in Iraq
and Afghanistan.

After the meetings ended, Hildi Halley, whose husband died in
Afghanistan in June, said she told the president that it's "time to
stop the bleeding" and "swallow our pride and find a solution."

Bush's response?

Halley said the president told her that "there was no point in us
having a philosophical discussion about the pros and cons of the war."


By EarlG
Democratic Underground
http://www.democraticunderground.com/

Harry