Democrats & Liberals Archives

Are Bush's Actions Appeasement?

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, in his inimitable prose, called dissenters of the Iraq war and those who advocate an exit strategy, appeasers. He compared these dissenters to those who tried to appease Hitler. They were wrong and today’s appeasers are wrong, he proclaimed. This set me wondering. Did the adminstration of George W. Bush ever indulge in appeasement?

At first blush, it seems a ridiculous question to ask. After all, Bush is noted for his macho behavior. Nobody tells him what to do. He doesn't need "permission" from the UN or any country to do what he feels is right. You are either with him or against him. And he always "stays the course," regardless of what anyone else says. Appeasement? No way.

And yet, I have a few questions.

Would you call it appeasement when our armed forces allowed Osama bin Laden to escape from Afghanistan? He was trapped and we let him go. Later, fearless Bush announced that it was not necessary to capture Osama bin Laden. Is this the appeasement of a brutal dictator?

In Iraq, we made deals with the violent Shi-ite leader Muktada al Sadr. Unlike al Sistani, al Sadr was always causing trouble and is behind much of the violence taking place today. Is this appeasement of a Sheikh?

Pakistan developed the so-called Islamic Bomb under the leadership of Pervez Musharaff. The Bush administration welcomed this event. Would you say that this was appeasement of Musharaff?

Abdul Qadeer Khan is the founder of Pakistan's nuclear arms program, for which he was honored by Musharaff. Khan is also head of a worldwide nuclear arms network, that supplies North Korea and Iran with dangerous nuclear components. The Bush administration does not say "Boo" about this. To this day, the network continues to arm America's antagonists. Would you call such administrative action appeasement?

North Korea, led by Kim Jong-II, after we and many other countries warned them not to, recently ran a missile test. We promised consequences, but nothing happened. Is this appeasement of dictator Jong?

My answer is that I do not believe that any of these actions are forms of appeasement. These actions are due to the Bush administration's bombastic but bumbling and belligerent blindness.

Posted by Paul Siegel at August 31, 2006 5:40 PM
Comments
Comment #178588

I just posted this in another thread, but it seems even more relevent here:

http://www.slate.com/id/2148344/fr/rss/

Posted by: Kevin23 at August 31, 2006 5:54 PM
Comment #178595

Bush administration’s bombastic but bumbling and belligerent blindness. Posted by Paul Siegel at August 31, 2006 05:40

More alliteration please. Our relationship with Pakistan has to be the strangest to justify, it makes conspiracy theories look sensible, and the CIA opium nexus look correct. But really, our relationship with them is probably just based on the U.K. relationship, since Pakistan used to be part of British India. The Indus river, for which India is named, now runs mostly through this relatively new country of Pakistan, which has always seemed unfair to me. They could at least have made it the border, but then they could be TransIndia.

Posted by: ohrealy at August 31, 2006 6:26 PM
Comment #178601

We will not negotiate with, nor will we recognize terrorist-lead government, yet the current leader of Iraq belongs to the same group that help mold Hizbollah into the organization it is today. He is also extremely tight with Iran.

WHo should we take out first? Iran or the new Iraqi government? Or maybe we can get by with appeasement.

Posted by: tony at August 31, 2006 6:51 PM
Comment #178603

Paul,
It seems the Bush administration is approaching its own reckoning with Godwins Law: either you are a Nazi/fascist/islamic terrorist, or a conservative Republican Bush Supporter; at which point, the administration will end,

Posted by: phx8 at August 31, 2006 6:52 PM
Comment #178604

Fascism is a radical totalitarian political philosophy that combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, extreme nationalism, militarism, anti-anarchism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism.

Anyone who does not see Bush’s Administration as fascist, then I can only conclude that they wear blinders. Judeo-fascists?

Posted by: tony at August 31, 2006 6:57 PM
Comment #178610

Tony

On the other hand anybody who believes that he is a fascist, totalitarian authoritarian, should be heavily medicated.

Posted by: KeithG at August 31, 2006 7:09 PM
Comment #178616

KeithG -

Read the definition and apply it. Show me where Bush fails to meet the definition.

Posted by: tony at August 31, 2006 7:17 PM
Comment #178617

Show me where he does.

Posted by: Keith at August 31, 2006 7:19 PM
Comment #178618

Although I agree that any sane person would benefit from heavy medication after being exposed to the extreme incompetence.

Bush is a fasict, he’s just not very good at it.

Posted by: tony at August 31, 2006 7:20 PM
Comment #178623

“combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, extreme nationalism, militarism, anti-anarchism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism.”

ummm… do I need to be more specific?

Posted by: tony at August 31, 2006 7:24 PM
Comment #178624

Calling someone a fascist does not make it so. Anymore than calling someone like Howard Dean a lunatic makes it so. Only in Deans case it’s easier to show.

Posted by: KeithG at August 31, 2006 7:25 PM
Comment #178627

It is not my definition of fascism. Read up on the actual word and the look at the current Administration. If the definition fits… It does not, however, fit the current terrorist we face. They are theocratic, mixing in religious fanaticism with totalitarianism. However, without an actual government, they could never be equated to fascism - fascism is a form of government. Also, they have no control of the media, or corporate interests, or financial markets…

Just for further reading:

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm

http://www.socialistworker.org/2003-2/459/459_07_Fascism.shtml

http://www.zompist.com/fascism.html

It’s interesting reading - and mostly, the two “required” elements missing from Bush being a “true” fascist is that there was no violent overthrow of dissent, but this is simply defining today’s fascism by past fascist movements, and a true totalitarianism government. True this doesn’t exist, but I gauging on past actions, I think this only a diversion in reality, but not in spirit.

Posted by: tony at August 31, 2006 7:41 PM
Comment #178629

Or hell, let’s try another dictionary:

“”Fascism: Any program for setting up a centralized authcratic national regime with severely nationalistic policies, exercising regimentation of industry, commerce, and finance, rigid censorship, and forcible suppression of opposition.” —Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Forcible suppression of opposition might be a stretch, but I think the spirit is quite clear in statements equating opposition to Bush’s policies as supporting the terrorists or voting for a candidate might create terrorism (ie, Lamont…) or “you’re either with US or against US.”

Posted by: tony at August 31, 2006 7:47 PM
Comment #178631

Tony,

I can give you definitions all day long also. But if none of it applies what good does that do. Bush is a fascist because he believes in exercising the rights given to his office by the constitution and the legislature. He believes that the best thing for the country is a strong economy which means a strong private sector.

Actually the quote was “either you are with us or you are with the terrorists”.

Posted by: Keithg at August 31, 2006 7:54 PM
Comment #178636

Tony,

I can give you definitions all day long also. But if none of it applies what good does that do. Bush is a fascist because he believes in exercising the rights given to his office by the constitution and the legislature. He believes that the best thing for the country is a strong economy which means a strong private sector.

Actually the quote was “either you are with us or you are with the terrorists”.

Are you kidding, a link to the Socialist workers party?

And then there’s this quote from your last link:
“Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood”

Are you kidding me. No where in our society is there more obsession with community decline, humiliation and victimhood, than on the left. It’s always somebody else’s fault when I don’t succeed, is the mantra of the left in this country. I guess that means they’re fascists.

Posted by: Keithg at August 31, 2006 8:04 PM
Comment #178638

Keithg-

“Calling someone a fascist does not make it so”

True. And similarly:

“He believes that the best thing for the country is a strong economy which means a strong private sector”

Saying it doesn’t make it so.

“either you are with us or you are with the terrorists”

Saying it doesn’t make it true, or logical.

Posted by: Kevin23 at August 31, 2006 8:15 PM
Comment #178640

“I can give you definitions all day long also.”

OK - got for it.

I defined fascism and then showed how it applies to Bush. You can ignore that all you want, but at least try to prove your point… simply saying “nu huh” carries very little weight.

btw - I linked to various discussion of fascism… regardless of their political ideology. I’m not trying to prove anything more than some reading I’ve done.

How about this: I’ve argued that Bush is a fascist. You haven’t done anything to argue against that. Can you prove the the terrorists are fascists? (Do you think Bush, Rumsfield, Rice and Snow are correct in calling the current terrorists we face fascists?)

One point of interest: Fascists want to control the power and flow of financial markets… current terrorism aims to halt/destroy these financial markets.

Another: the current terrorist aim to rid the world of select governments… yet none has proposed setting up a government.

Posted by: tony at August 31, 2006 8:17 PM
Comment #178641

“OK - got for it.”

make that

“OK - GO for it.”

Posted by: tony at August 31, 2006 8:19 PM
Comment #178643

I guess this is what you call selective hearing.

The main stated goal of the Islamic fascist nazis. if a worl wide caliphate. Basically they want to overrun the entire world and place everyone under islamic sharia law.

Posted by: Keith at August 31, 2006 8:28 PM
Comment #178644

“No where in our society is there more obsession with community decline, humiliation and victimhood, than on the left. It’s always somebody else’s fault when I don’t succeed, is the mantra of the left in this country. I guess that means they’re fascists.”

Wow… have you never watched Bush or someone else in his Administration explain away the massive string of failures? he never succeeds and it’s never his fault. And what about the crocodile tears from the Christian Coalition about public persecution? What about the assinine arguments about activist judges? Flag Burning? Gay Marriage? (Seems a bit preoccupied with social decline…)

Posted by: tony at August 31, 2006 8:29 PM
Comment #178646

Tony,

You’re right when he made a speech the other day taking responsibility for FEMA’s poor response to Katrina. He must have been talking about someone else. All I’ve heard from the mayor and governor is excuses and it’s was someone elses fault.

What asinine arguments about activist judges? All I’ve heard are stories about judges who think that they know better than the people or the legislatures regarding the passage of laws.

I haven’t heard anything from the White House about Gay Marriage, what I have heard is about protecting marriage as it relates to one man and one woman.

Posted by: KeithG at August 31, 2006 8:40 PM
Comment #178649

“What asinine arguments about activist judges?”

And yet you can’t say why?

“All I’ve heard are stories about judges who think that they know better than the people or the legislatures regarding the passage of laws.”

OK…let’s hear them.

“I haven’t heard anything from the White House about Gay Marriage, what I have heard is about protecting marriage as it relates to one man and one woman.”

Except that the whole point is to deny marriage status to gays. Can you think of one other use for the law?

Asinine? Pot calling the kettle black.

Posted by: Kevin23 at August 31, 2006 8:58 PM
Comment #178650

“You’re right when he made a speech the other day taking responsibility for FEMA’s poor response to Katrina. He must have been talking about someone else. All I’ve heard from the mayor and governor is excuses and it’s was someone elses fault.”

— You mean the TV interview where he said that Katrina was really just a State and Local issue? Bad intelligence before Iraq? CIA. “Who would ever had guessed that teh levies would fail?” “Who would ever thought terrorist would’ve flown airplanes into buildings?” “Mission Accomplished.” Bush has failed, but he has not owned up to it… as for Matrina, it took him a year to say anything. He even said Brown was doing one heck of a job, before scapegoating Brown for Federal failures.

“What asinine arguments about activist judges? All I’ve heard are stories about judges who think that they know better than the people or the legislatures regarding the passage of laws.”
I do not know a single case where a judge passed legislation. Please explain.

“I haven’t heard anything from the White House about Gay Marriage, what I have heard is about protecting marriage as it relates to one man and one woman.”

Ummmm…. yea. Of course, that has nothing to do whatsoever with gay marriage. How silly of me.

Now - would you mind proving you attack on the left?

“No where in our society is there more obsession with community decline, humiliation and victimhood, than on the left. It’s always somebody else’s fault when I don’t succeed, is the mantra of the left in this country. I guess that means they’re fascists.”

“Calling someone a fascist does not make it so. “

Use arguments and proof…

Posted by: tony at August 31, 2006 8:58 PM
Comment #178651

Tony,


You called him a fascist I didn’nt. See that’s just it I don’t have to prove he’s not a fascist. I don’t need arguments and proof to say he isn’t.

You would have to prove he is, only you can’t do that because he isn’t.

If he is truly the fascist you say he is then I guess there won’t be an election in 2008. Because if he truly was what you say he is, he would never give up power.

Posted by: KeithG at August 31, 2006 9:05 PM
Comment #178652

Whether or not muslim terrorists are fascists or not is irrelevant. They are out to destroy our way of life and everything we believe in. Period, end of story.

Tony
Fascism: Any program for setting up a centralized authcratic national regime with severely nationalistic policies, exercising regimentation of industry, commerce, and finance, rigid censorship, and forcible suppression of opposition.” —Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Do you honestly believe Bush is a fascist? We do not yet have an authoritarion government or Bush would get his way all the time. Note social security reform, anti-torture laws, immigration reform, etc. We are centralized, we have state governments also. Bush favors deregulation of industry, not regulation. Bush is nationalistic, but not extremely so, at least not as extremely as most fascistic regimes. There is no censorship, we have a free press. Nor is there any forcible suppression of opposition, or Howard Dean and Cindy Sheehan would have gone to the big donkey in the sky long ago. Now you have something to argue. Go for it.

Posted by: Silima at August 31, 2006 9:08 PM
Comment #178653

oops. We are NOT centralized, at least not fascisticly so.

Posted by: Silima at August 31, 2006 9:09 PM
Comment #178656

As usual Tony’s talking straight. Thanks Tony.

Beyond what most of us know to be true of Iraq’s threat to the USA when we invaded I have one stupid question: which country posed a greater threat in 2002? Iraq? Iran? Maybe every country that has a strong Islamic presence?

I think Iran presented the greatest immediate threat after we took out Osama in Tora Bora, er, ah, should have! Where is Bin Laden?

Just how does having 140,000 troops stationed in Iraq play out to our advantage? Well, only if we totally anihilate Iran within 24 hours. There is no way that we can knock out all of their defenses with conventional weapons and they would hit our most accessable and vulnerable targets.

We stuck ourselves in between the “rock and the hard place” and no one in this admenstruation is honest enough to say, “we f**ked up”. And they never will. Bush & Co. are the true “appeasers” because they won’t be honest with the American people.

They (Bush, Rummy, & Cheney, et. al.) can only be thinking they can nuke our asses out of this. Well, I suppose someone had to be stupid enough to destroy the earth, why not us? Given their opinion on “greenhouse gases” I wonder if they don’t also doubt the effects of global radiation!

I can just hear Bush trying to explain that we’ll all be fine after our skin peels off and we stop vomiting blood. BTW when will his third term start?

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at August 31, 2006 9:27 PM
Comment #178657

“Bush would get his way all the time. “

The Congress has given him a blank check to do as he pleased. By definition, he is at least far far closer to being a fascist than the terrorists he is currently calling fascist. That make Bush hypocritical, and pretty stupid for not knowing our enemy any better than that. I’ve also stated that he’s simply a failure - including within his fascists leanings. it doesn’t mean the definition does not fit, it simply means he does not have the capacity to carry things through.

Social Security reform… where?
Anti-torture laws… the ones he refused to agree to until public pressure forced his hand. The same one that he noted he would only abide by when he felt like it?
Immigration reform? Sending 6000 troops to a border? Def. sounds more like fascism (those damn Mexicans are taking our job… community scapegoats are a huge part of fascism.)
Bush doesn’t want to regulate corporations, he wants them to have the freedom to move however they see fit (“combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, extreme nationalism, militarism, anti-anarchism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism.”)
“Bush is nationalistic, but not extremely so,” - Seriously… you mean that?!?!?
“There is no censorship, we have a free press. ” Except of course for tapping their phones without warrants…
“Nor is there any forcible suppression of opposition,” I covered that prior, but it still holds true within the context of a weakly functioning demacracy, you canonly have so much oppression of opposition. “You’re either with us or with the terrorists.” Again, it is oppression in spirit if not actual violent oppression. This is one of the few real failures of calling Bush a functioning or successful fascists… but success is hardly a Bush strong suit.
“We are NOT centralized, at least not fascisticly so.” Ask true Republicans about what’s happened under Bush to State’s rights…

———

“Whether or not muslim terrorists are fascists or not is irrelevant.” I can never see how misunderstanding such dangerous enemies could ever be considered irrelevant.

Posted by: tony at August 31, 2006 9:31 PM
Comment #178658

That’s an easy one.

Which country nwas in violation of numerous UN resolutions? Who was violating the terms of their surrender? Who was shooting at ours and British planes daily?
Who was openly supporting terrorists by paying off the families of suicide murderers in Israel? Who had gassed thousands of Kurds? Who had nuclear ambitions way before Iran? Who had already attacked two of its neigbors? Who lobbed SCUD missiles at Israel even though they were a noncombatant in the Gulf War?

Posted by: KeithG at August 31, 2006 9:34 PM
Comment #178659

“I can just hear Bush trying to explain that we’ll all be fine after our skin peels off and we stop vomiting blood. BTW when will his third term start?”

And all men are created equally bald! And the women, and the cats… Of course, anyone ever considered taking out their nuclear facilities with a bunkerbuster bomb? Of course, that would make most of the Middle East, and all of it’s oil too radioactive to ever use again… but just think positive effects on Global Warming!

Posted by: tony at August 31, 2006 9:36 PM
Comment #178660

Keith,
You write: “The main stated goal of the Islamic fascist nazis. if a worl wide caliphate. Basically they want to overrun the entire world and place everyone under islamic sharia law.”

What Islamic leader advocates a worldwide caliphate?

Iranian Shias are very different in their goals and aims from Lebanese Shias belonging to Hezbollah. These groups share a religious belief and some cultural similarities, but their ethnic and most of their cultures are very, very different. Hamas is predominantly Sunni. In Iraq, Sunnis & Baathists & Kurds & Kurdish communists & Iranian-allied Shias and nationalist Shias all fight each other for power. In Saudi Arabia… Kuwait… Do you need me to continue? How do these very disparate nations, ethnic groups, political philosophies, and competing religious sects comprise a threat to the US?

Are any of them terrorists? I would argue that outside of Al Qaida and directly related organizations, few of the groups I mentioned above qualify as terrorists, or threats to the national security of our country.

In fact, I would argue the Bush administration and its belligerent nationalism constitute a form of fascism. It would be more accurate to refer to them as corporatists.

Silima,
The Bush administration is not fascist in that it has not established totalitarian control. The media has been made into a substantially submissive estate through consolidation into corporate owned oligopolies in print, on tv, and on radio. Efforts to monitor civilian communications without warrants are already accepted by many Americans. The precedent of incarceration without trial has been set. Torture abroad is routine. Ever wonder what happened to all those terrorists captured over the years?

We have invaded a country based upon pretexts, and currently seem to be poised to do the same again.

Meanwhile, we ignore the case of a Somalia, where a compatriot of Osama bin Laden now rules, and where an organization very similar to the Taliban has taken control.

Personally, I think the Bush administration is closer to corporatism than fascism, because the Bush administration seeks to unify state and corporate power.

For a great essay on fascism, see the following link to an essay by Thom Hartmann, a liberal. It is well written, and great reading for anyone who wants to toss around words like “fascism.”

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0828-23.htm

Posted by: phx8 at August 31, 2006 9:36 PM
Comment #178662

OK - here’s another “easy” question. How many of the members of the Axis of Evil have become nuclear powers under this Administration?

Which of those three had the least chance of ever becoming one?

What date did the 2 newest nuclear powers from the “axis of evil” start their renewed progress towards becoming nuclear powers?

Posted by: tony at August 31, 2006 9:39 PM
Comment #178664

“Personally, I think the Bush administration is closer to corporatism than fascism, because the Bush administration seeks to unify state and corporate power.”

But they are doing this under the guises of Nationalism and Security and Fear of Immigrants (and Homosexuals and Liberals and Communists) and through an extremely active military around the world and a very strong layer of Christian mandates. Also, the use of secret prisons and White House legal exploration of torture, Gitmo, etc. lead me to believe that this is more that corporatism.

Posted by: tony at August 31, 2006 9:43 PM
Comment #178666

“As usual Tony’s talking straight. Thanks Tony.”

Thanks. Good to see you…

Hope everything goes well tonight - I live outside of Raleigh and the storm is starting to show up…

Posted by: tony at August 31, 2006 9:45 PM
Comment #178665

Tony

In the word of the President Reagan, “There you go again.”

When you use President Bush’s “You’re either with us or with the terrorist” as an answer to your stifling of opposition argument, is so out of context as to be rediculous.

That line was used after 9/11 to tell countries that were harboring terrorists that they should either do something about them or suffer the consequences. It had nothing to do with stifling debate in thos country.

Do you think Hitler or Musollini would let some lunatic woman and her fringe friends camp out for months outside their house.

Posted by: KeithG at August 31, 2006 9:45 PM
Comment #178667

“You’re either with us or with the terrorist”

I’m using that quote to encapsulate the pervasive mentality predicated by the Bush Administration after 9/11… I thought you would’ve picked that up.

Posted by: tony at August 31, 2006 9:49 PM
Comment #178668

phx8

Actually Ahminawackjob has said similar to that.

You don’t actually believe that Hamas and Hezbollah are not terrorist organizations. What part of intentionally targeteding civilians don’t you understand.

Posted by: KeithG at August 31, 2006 9:50 PM
Comment #178670

phx8

Whan you link to an article that starts off with:

“In the years since George W. Bush first used 9/11 as his own “Reichstag fire” to gut the Constitution and enhance the power and wealth of his corporate cronies, many across the political spectrum have accused him and his Republican support group of being fascists.”

Pablum like this is not going to help you make your argument.

Posted by: KeithG at August 31, 2006 9:53 PM
Comment #178673

KeithG-
Obsession with community decline: Gay Marriage, Abortion, Godlessness, welfare queens, adulteration of the free market, takeover by socialists, obscenity and indencency in the media.

With Humiliation: Repeated incidents have occured where party figures have gotten into trouble, bringing shame on their party. The response? Kick them out? Acknowledge the problem? No, the response has been to attack and discredit those who report things that are bad for the Republican’s image The trope of the Liberal Media being out to get the party is constantly used to generate sympathy for the Republican situation when they get caught with their pants down.

With Victimhood: Reverse Discrimination, liberal media bias, the war being sabotaged by the press and the liberal elites rather than being screwed up by their own people. Attacking folks and holding up legislation because people thought your bridge to nowhere was a tacky expense. Religious conservatives take the separation of Church and State to be part of an active campaign to shut Christian religion up.

So on and so forth.

I don’t think the Republicans are fascists, but unfortunately they’re getting too good at laying the groundwork and taking up the characteristics of folks like that. The Republicans have to remember that Democracies obligate people to talk things out if they want anything done. If they want things to go quicker they might want to choose better words and facts.

As for the Iraq war, in what way was Iraq more of a threat to us than Iran, Syria, North Korea or any of a number of other countries with dictators and WMDs? Saddam was nothing special when we invaded, not compared to other enemies.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 31, 2006 10:15 PM
Comment #178675

Stephen

As the saying goes even paranoids have enemies.

Maybe the reason the administration is leary of the media is because of things like the non-
Plame case. For three years the left and the press villified the White House and Karl Rove in particular. Some said he should be executed if found guilty. Now comes the true story. Richard Armitage the Asst Secretary of State under Powell told Robert Novak about Plame and since he was not a friend of the administration he decided to keep quiet while people were drug through the mud. Since he told people in the Justice and State dept’s about this after it happened it seems to be it would not have been hard to find out the truth if the press was actually looking.

Posted by: KeithG at August 31, 2006 10:25 PM
Comment #178676

KeithG,
Iran is a Shia country, ethnicity Persian. They share religious beliefs with Shias in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanon, but being Persians, they most definitely do not share most of their cultural/ethnic make-up. Suggesting Iran would form a caliphate makes no sense. None. In Iraq, the US is supporting the Iranian-backed parties, the SCIRI & Dawa (both former terrorist groups). The Iraqi nationalists, under al-
Sadr and his Mahdi Army, oppose the Iranian allied groups and are virulently anti-US & anti-Israel.

It is absurd to pretend there is some sort of monolithic islamic fascism out there.

Here is a quote from that Hartmann essay. Hartmann extensively quotes Vice President of the United States Henry Wallace, who served with FDR. The essay by Wallace is dated April 9. 1944:

“They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective toward which all their deceit is directed is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection.”
Finally, Wallace said, “The myth of fascist efficiency has deluded many people. … Democracy, to crush fascism internally, must…develop the ability to keep people fully employed and at the same time balance the budget. It must put human beings first and dollars second. It must appeal to reason and decency and not to violence and deceit. We must not tolerate oppressive government or industrial oligarchy in the form of monopolies and cartels.”

Posted by: phx8 at August 31, 2006 10:25 PM
Comment #178678

What relevance does any of that have?

Posted by: KeithG at August 31, 2006 10:33 PM
Comment #178680

OK I will settle this argument.DUBYA hasn’t got the brains to be a FACIST.I doubt that he could spell FACIST,let alone look it up in a dictionary,but if he could I still dont think he’d get it.Now DICK CHENEY,theres a FACIST.

Posted by: Frankster at August 31, 2006 11:07 PM
Comment #178686

These threads are starting to remind me of the group of blind men, each feeling a small part of the elephant. Everybody takes a truth or two, a reasonable assumption or two and starts building these incredible diatribes totaly divorced from reality. Maybe the topics are too general, maybe discussions should be about speciffic issues.

Posted by: Rene at September 1, 2006 12:39 AM
Comment #178688

Interesting post, Paul.

You left out the China spy plane incident, where Bush apologized to China when their fighter jet damaged our spy plane over international waters, forced it to land in China, held our pilots hostage, and then finally sent the plane back — in little pieces. The Chinese were still chuckling over that one when I was there earlier this year.

And then there was the time Bush payed off the al Qaeda-linked terrorist group Abu Sayyaf:

The U.S. government facilitated a ransom payment to Al Qaeda-linked terrorists in the Philippines last week for the release of an American couple but the two have not been freed, Fox News has learned.

Paying off terrorists is the very definition of appeasement, isn’t it? What a hypocrite.

Posted by: American Pundit at September 1, 2006 12:54 AM
Comment #178690

“Saddam was nothing special when we invaded, not compared to other enemies.”

Stephen Daugherty,

The sad thing is that Bush is right when he now says that if we “cut-n-run” Iraq will turn into a new and more efficient training ground for Al Queida. More unfortunate is that the same will hold true even 10 or 20 years from now.

We’ve passed the point of no return. IMO we must be honest with the American people and reinstate the draft, raise taxes thru the roof, and “get-r-dun”! It shouldn’t take more than 40 or 50 years.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at September 1, 2006 1:00 AM
Comment #178703

Posted this over on Jack’s Democratic Toad article, then realized it could be used here as well…

As Jack and others up-thread have mentioned the overuse of the word fascism, perhaps an overview is in order.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_allen_l__060831_14__characteristics_.htm


This overuse of the word fascism by the Bush administration is a way of muddling Americans’ thinking, and distorting the definition of a word that has increasingly been used by their political opponents to characterize Bush’s administration. This manipulation and distortion of language was recognized by George Orwell; below are quotes by him.

“Political language… is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

“Sometimes the first duty of intelligent men is the restatement of the obvious.”

In regard to the second quote, there is no such thing as Islamofascism, just as there is no Christofascism. There is fascism, period. Two critical aspects of fascism to my mind are the enmeshing of state and religion, and the strong, inseperable alliance of government and corporate entities, where the government exists to service corporate wishes and policy.

Posted by: Tim Crow at September 1, 2006 4:57 AM
Comment #178704

Well, actually three critical aspects—the third being an unceasing, strident and ubiquitous militarism.

Posted by: Tim Crow at September 1, 2006 5:01 AM
Comment #178706

KeithG,

That’s an easy one.

Which country nwas in violation of numerous UN resolutions?

Russia? Israel? Iraq? North Korea? Iran? Syria? Egypt? Ivory Coast? Bosnia/Serbia?
You name it.

Who was violating the terms of their surrender?

Probably every surrenders…

Who was shooting at ours and British planes daily?

Germany. Oh, you mean not during WWII but in Iraq, right? Then… Iraq.

Who was openly supporting terrorists by paying off the families of suicide murderers in Israel?

Syria, Iran. OBL, maybe.

Who had gassed thousands of Kurds?

Iraq. Iran while targetting Iraquis, also. Poor Kurds.

Who had nuclear ambitions way before Iran?

Russia, UK, France, China, Israel, India, South Africa, Pakistan, North Korea, Iraq, Saudi Arabia. And pretty much every nations these days have or had..

Who had already attacked two of its neigbors?

Thru History? Pretty much every country who happened to have two neigbors or more.
France did, several times. Germany did too. China, Russia, Oh, yes, Iraq and Israel are included.

Hum, how your question apply to nations who happened to have one of no neighbors? Since when it’s more wrong to attack two or more of your neighbors than two or more far away nations? Does distance turns wars into just wars?

Who lobbed SCUD missiles at Israel even though they were a noncombatant in the Gulf War?

Iraq.

Okay, my turn now:

Who first used nukes on civilians?
Who did since?
Why?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 1, 2006 5:31 AM
Comment #178707

KeithG,

“You’re either with us or with the terrorist”. […]

That line was used after 9/11 to tell countries that were harboring terrorists that they should either do something about them or suffer the consequences.

Not exactly. It was more targetting nations’s neutrality in his so-called War On Terror[ism]. Check the line speech context again.
Ironically, it was during a conference with Chirac about Afghanistan war. I guess Bush “You’re with me or you’re evil” undiplomatic warning didn’t stop France, along much worldwide nations, opposition to Iraq War anyway.

It had nothing to do with stifling debate in thos country.

True. It was targeted toward “partners”. Telling nations “you should do something, inactivity in war against terrorism is siding with terrorists” is not a good way to build a coallition, if you ask me.
But, hey, Bush did far worse on diplomatic landscape since, like NOT supporting a cease fire resolution for weeks.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 1, 2006 6:05 AM
Comment #178732

“Who first used nukes on civilians?”

The US and I’m tired of apologizing to the Left for doing it. There were good reasons for it at the time and I fully support Truman’s decision to do so. Given the circumstances I would fully support a repeat performance. The veil of guilt and self-loathing that the Left carries over this incident is disgusting.

Posted by: Charles Adams at September 1, 2006 10:18 AM
Comment #178734

“The US and I’m tired of apologizing to the Left for doing it. There were good reasons for it at the time and I fully support Truman’s decision to do so. Given the circumstances I would fully support a repeat performance. The veil of guilt and self-loathing that the Left carries over this incident is disgusting.”

OK, so then maybe Iraq feels equally justified in using their chemical weapons (1980s) If the terrorism is left up to such subjective thoughts as using WMDs when “it feels right at the time” then I doubt there ever would be a justification for calling someone a terrorist.

BTW - the left hates loosing the moral high ground, and if that makes us study our past actions and admitting guilt of past actions, then that at least keeps us honest. It’s about being realistic and honest with our reasons for war and judgments against others. If you consider the heart of terrorism the indiscriminate killing of civilians, then you will never get a more atrocious example of that than dropping an atomic bomb on a densely populated major city.

Posted by: tony at September 1, 2006 10:35 AM
Comment #178743

Charles Adams,

“Who first used nukes on civilians?”

The US and I’m tired of apologizing to the Left for doing it. There were good reasons for it at the time and I fully support Truman’s decision to do so.

Oh damned, I should have make it clear that you must answer the three questions in block as the last one is the most interesting. Even if I’m sad US was the first nation to do it, I’m not enough fool to think that no other nation will have done that but the US.

What really matter now and here is the fact that nobody else did it since and why.

Given the circumstances I would fully support a repeat performance. The veil of guilt and self-loathing that the Left carries over this incident is disgusting.

Supporting nuking iranians civilians sounds far more disgusting to me, but you mileage may vary, it seems.

Could you, please, enlight us about the given circumstances allowing you to fully support nuking a nation people (“again” doesn’t matter here)?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 1, 2006 11:18 AM
Comment #178744

step 1: retribution = retribution + (time*violence)
step 2: go to step 1

Posted by: tony at September 1, 2006 11:20 AM
Comment #178763

offthehook: NO! I do know a few dems, and like them. But they are always willing to give the very bad people the benefit of the doubt (Stalin, VC, Khmere Rouge, Pol Pot, Sandinistas—these were all just “agrarian reformers”, no?). Now, it appears to some of us that they are shrugging off the threat from international islamists. And we cannot allow that to happen.

Posted by: nikkolai at September 1, 2006 12:35 PM
Comment #178767

offthehook (ie offhisrocker)-

Paul is simply showing through examples that this administration is nowhere near consistent in its foreign policy, despite its assurances that they are merely taking a consistent and simple approach (complexity = weakness; yet our best analysts cannot figure out exactly what our foreign policy is). Most of us picked up on this, but obviously you did not. Or maybe you were just hell-bent on bashing those on the left…even at the cost of looking like you cannot understand basic comparative analysis.

And the thought of Saddam knitting is supposed to be scary? I’d much rather concentrate on legitimate threats in an effective way before I run into Iraq (a nation that had not had garbage collection in some places since 1991) with no exit strategy. Why do you feel Saddam was a bigger threat to America (and you could care less about Iraqi oppression…otherwise you’d be screaming about North Africa) than the nations Paul mentioned?

Nikkolai-

“Now, it appears to some of us that they are shrugging off the threat from international islamists”

What is an international islamist? And why are they presenting such a threat? Seems like an aweful big generalization, which shows that you have no clue who the enemy is. You call the enemy “terrorism”. I’m guessing you believe “terrorism” is any brown person who prays more than once a day?

And who is shrugging off the threat? Not invading Iraq would have been shrugging off a threat? From Saddam attacking us? Do you have any idea what you are talking about? If it were anywhere near as simple as you let on, then we must have the most incompentent military force in the world. I do not believe this to be true. So let me ask you…why do you hate our troops?

Posted by: Kevin23 at September 1, 2006 1:09 PM
Comment #178774

Offthehook-

OK…so you admit this war to be merely a prelude to many other wars. That is definitely not the popular sentiment, and it certainly is not the way our leaders present it to the American public. So either you are much more enlightened than even your most esteemed American brethren, or you are talking out of your ass. And that wouldn’t even mean you’re wrong. It just means you are taking an educated guess.

Where we differ is in patronage. I do not subscribe to the theory that attacking a state will do anything to diminish the will of its citizenry to use terror tactics. So, in other words, all the wars in the world, based from an Iraqi base or not, are utterly pointless if the enemy is just a tactic and thus constantly changes faces and state-sponsorships.

Posted by: Kevin23 at September 1, 2006 1:41 PM
Comment #178777

“If you cant see the importance of Iraq you should let the professionals do the war planning”

Fine. When will this begin to happen?

Posted by: Kevin23 at September 1, 2006 1:42 PM
Comment #178776

offthehook,

“The Republican party will stay in power untill the American people regain trust in the Democrat party which is decades away!”

The Republican party will stay in power only until the American public realize they’ve been had.

“You are right the dems.refuse to give the U.S.A. any kind of Victory in the Global war on Terror.”

I’m not a Democrat, but I won’t give this administration any kind of victory in the “Global war on terror” until we actually achieve one.
You guys all crow about the “dubious” achievements in Iraq. I give credit where credit is due.
Our troops have persevered under the worst leadership America has ever seen. Held their heads up after one debacle after another. Been forced to make due without the best equipment.

All because Rumsfeld wanted to do this on the cheap.

You guys continue to bring up WW2, yet had we committed the forces necessary to do the job right, our troops wouldn’t be facing the sectarian fighting they are being forced to referee.
Yes, Saddam was firing at our planes in the “no fly zone”.
Just how many did they shoot down?
That was none.
We shot down two of our own helicopters, those were the only casualties.

Posted by: Rocky at September 1, 2006 1:42 PM
Comment #178784

Yada, yada, yada.

Posted by: Rocky at September 1, 2006 2:05 PM
Comment #178785

“When you weaken the President of the United States of America you weaken the United States of America.”

Now that’s complete bunk. The President of the United States is weak by his own devices… he has embarrassed us and created generational hatred of United States around the world. Bush is a moron in a bubble completely detached from the real world. (Don’t just look at this political track record, feel free to go back over his entire failed life.)

The right to freely criticize our leaders is at the heart of being an American. You sound like a real patriot… how about acting like one.

Posted by: tony at September 1, 2006 2:07 PM
Comment #178788

“It started January of 2001.It takes time to win major wars and even longer when the opposition party is on the side of the enemy for political gain!When you weaken the President of the United States of America you weaken the United States of America.”

So now this is a major war? Where’s the draft? And now you accuse all democrats of siding with the terrorists. Beautifull how you demonstrate your willful ignorance. And suddenly holding the president accountable to the constitution is a weakness? He never got “weakened”. He got reminded that he was not a dictator. And he has been given more latitude than most presidents could have ever dreamed they’d be given.

Your points are so baseless that I’m starting to wonder if you care one bit about knowing facts, or if you are simply trying to ruffle feathers…in which case, way to unite and not divide!

Posted by: Kevin23 at September 1, 2006 2:20 PM
Comment #178789

“You can criticize your leaders but you can not celebrate the victories of the enemy and rob the American military of their Victories like most leaders on the left do!”

Prove it! Name a single victory by the enemy celebrated by Democratic leaders.

At least the Democrats understand the difference between fighting terrorists and running a political campaign.

Posted by: tony at September 1, 2006 2:22 PM
Comment #178790

“You can criticize your leaders but you can not celebrate the victories of the enemy and rob the American military of their Victories like most leaders on the left do!”

A complete dillusion. Utter baseless crap. Begs the question: Why say something you know to be wrong? Everyone knows its crap, so you don’t help your cause one bit. If I were Bush, I’d want to keep you off of my side.

Posted by: Kevin23 at September 1, 2006 2:25 PM
Comment #178791

offthehook,

“It takes time to win major wars and even longer when the opposition party is on the side of the enemy for political gain!”

You don’t think FDR had opposition?

Compared to who we fight now, in WW2 we fought two vastly better equipped opponents, on two separate continents, and defeated them in four years.
We had no satellites, no night vision, and grossly inadequate tanks.
Our guys used M-1s.

It is Bush that is using this war for political gain.
Rumsfeld is incompetent, and Cheney, well don’t get me started on Cheney.

We’ve screwed the pooch, don’t you get that?

Posted by: Rocky at September 1, 2006 2:26 PM
Comment #178792

—-Kevin23— President Bush has altered by 850
time, with his signing statements, the Constitution of the United States an I realize
other Presidents have altered some, but President
Bush has become an extremist to the 8th. degree! He used all the isms that his feeble
pea brain could muster at the American Legion
yesterday, an came up with every fear tactic
he could think of. I am sorry to say if Americans
are dumb enough to elect any Republicans this November, they deserve all the consequences that
follow .

Posted by: DAVID at September 1, 2006 2:28 PM
Comment #178797

“Compared to who we fight now, in WW2 we fought two vastly better equipped opponents, on two separate continents, and defeated them in four years.We had no satellites, no night vision, and grossly inadequate tanks.
Our guys used M-1s.”

But we had Betty Grable, the Hope-Crosby road shows, chewing gum, lots of oil, an infectious enthusiasm, a moral certitude… and, thankfully, had the a-bomb first.

Posted by: Tim Crow at September 1, 2006 2:46 PM
Comment #178800

“Giving those who wish to kill us the same rights as Americans I would say Celebrates the Victory of the enemy.”

No one is saying foreigners must be given the same rights, but they ARE saying we cannot violate international law (which became national law when approved by congress…Bush literally claims that the executive has the power to ignore treaties under the unitary executive theory).

“Telling the world that the American Military are made up of Killers and Rapests”

Sometimes the truth hurts. And no one claimed it to be a problem with all troops, just those troops. No one wanted anything but accountability.

“Crying because we tap telephone lines of the enemy helps the enemy.”

People are asking questions for damn good reason. Any time you take away a right, or you interpret a law to increase power to invade people’s privacy, you have a responsibility to do it in a responsable, narrowly tailored, and transparent way.

“In W.W.11 Kerry,Mertha Polosi would have been hung from the highest tree for the things they have said about this country”

Nope. I challenge you to provide even one example. AND they would likely have had leadership who would not force retired generals to go public with sensative info to facilitate much needed change. They would have done it in-house. This administration doesn’t listen to the experts, they purport to be experts. No one has yet to show any example of their “expertise” having ANY benefits to Americans.

Posted by: Kevin23 at September 1, 2006 3:06 PM
Comment #178801

“Then the Democrats Were exactly like the Republicans today!”

Hear that? FDR was exactly like a modern republican. Wow. Anyone from the red isle want to speak up? This one is a gimme.

Posted by: Kevin23 at September 1, 2006 3:07 PM
Comment #178802

do not feed the trolls-trolls undermine threads

do not feed the trolls-trolls do not respond

do not feed the trolls - trolls antagonize for sport

Posted by: CPAdams at September 1, 2006 3:08 PM
Comment #178803

“Giving those who wish to kill us the same rights as Americans I would say Celebrates the Victory of the enemy.”
——
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”

I’d say it is uniquely American.

“Crying because we tap telephone lines of the enemy helps the enemy.”

Fighting to uphold the Constitution - very American as well - is the issue here. No one wants to prevent surveillance of suspected terrorists, we just want our President to follow our laws. (Otherwise, it tyranny, and we’ll have to have a civil war and all that crap.)

“Telling the world that the American Military are made up of Killers and Rapests i would say aides the enemy.”

No one has said any of that crap… but accepting that those evil elements exist and allowing them to thrive in our military - ruining the reputation and honor of those good soldiers… those elements within out military ranks must be prosecuted. Or do you honor the tactics of our enemies?

“In W.W.11 Kerry,Mertha Polosi would have been hung from the highest tree for the things they have said about this country.”

So you long for a time when your party might be able to openly persecute opposition. How very fascist of you!

Posted by: tony at September 1, 2006 3:09 PM
Comment #178804

CPAdams…

Sorry, you are right.

Do NOT Feed the Trolls. (DOH!)

Posted by: tony at September 1, 2006 3:10 PM
Comment #178806

CPAdams-

When you’re right, you’re right.

Posted by: Kevin23 at September 1, 2006 3:22 PM
Comment #178814

CPAdams:

Good to hear from you—several days ago I was wondering where you were, and up you jump!:-)

Posted by: Tim Crow at September 1, 2006 4:25 PM
Comment #178816

CPAdams…

You’re right, that was going nowhere.

Posted by: tony at September 1, 2006 4:34 PM
Comment #178817

“The Baghdad coroner’s office reported 1,600 bodies arrived in June and more than 1,800 in July, 90 percent of which were assessed to be the result of executions.”

Bush says we’re there until we are Victorious. Is that when Iraq runs out of civilians?

Posted by: tony at September 1, 2006 4:39 PM
Comment #178826

Tim Crow,

But we had Betty Grable, the Hope-Crosby road shows, chewing gum, lots of oil, an infectious enthusiasm, a moral certitude… and, thankfully, had the a-bomb first.

And US had a draft at this time.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 1, 2006 5:21 PM
Comment #178890

Another quality example of Bush’s appeasement (that was the origin of this thread, right) which I don’t believe was mentioned was his decision to remove our troops from Saudi Arabia, which happened to be OBL’s stated primary reason for the 9/11 attacks.

Bush gave OBL and the other ‘Islamo-Republicans’ their 2nd greatest victory by complying with this demand. Way to go, George.

Posted by: wallster at September 2, 2006 12:57 AM
Comment #178919

Hey Tony try this [Bush fits them all:
Dr. Lawrence Britt, a political scientist,
studied the fascist regimes of Hitler
(Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto
(Indonesia), and Pinochet (Chile). He found the
regimes all had 14 things in common,
the identifying characteristics of fascism.

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism -
Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of
patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs,
and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere,
as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
[See: 9/11, War on Terrorism, Flag waving]

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights -
Because of fear of enemies and the need for security,
the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that
human rights can be ignored in certain cases
because of “need.” The people tend to look
the other way or even approve of torture,
summary executions, assassinations,
long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
[See: Guantanamo and Iraq torture squads]

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause – -
The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy
over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe:
racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals;
communists; socialists, terrorists, etc. [Duh! All too familiar!]

4. Supremacy of the Military -
Even when there are widespread domestic problems,
See: Education, Environment, Energy, Medicine, etc.]
the military is given a disproportionate amount
of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected.
Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
[See Iraqi War bills, … 200 BILLION and climbing]

5. Rampant Sexism -
The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost
exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes,
traditional gender roles are made more rigid.
Opposition to abortion is high, and homophobia
and anti-gay legislation is national policy.
[Duh! All too familiar!]

6. Controlled Mass Media -
Sometimes the media is directly
controlled by the government, but in other cases, the
media is indirectly controlled by government regulation,
or sympathetic media spokespeople [See: Fox, Sinclair]
and executives. Censorship especially in war time.
[See: Iraq/Afghanistan ]

7. Obsession with National Security -
Fear is used as a motivational tool
by the government over the masses.
[See: Rove/Bush campaign]

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined -
Governments in fascist nations tend to use
the most common religion in the nation as a tool
to manipulate public opinion.
Religious rhetoric and terminology is common
from government leaders, even when the major tenets
of the religion are diametrically opposed
to the government’s policies or actions.
[See: born again President, et al,
Vs Separation of Church and State]

9. Corporate Power is Protected -
The industrial and business aristocracy of a
fascist nation often are the ones who put
the government leaders into power,
creating a mutually beneficial business/government
relationship and power elite.
[See Carlyle Group and Haliburtan]

10. Labor Power is Suppressed -
Because the organizing power of labor is the only
real threat to a. fascist government,
labor unions are either eliminated entirely,
or are severely suppressed.
[See Reagan Vs Air Traffic Controllers]

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts -
Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open
hostility to higher education, and academia.
It is not uncommon for professors and other academics
to  be censored or even arrested.
Free _expression in the arts is openly attacked,
and governments often refuse to fund the arts.
[See: Bush Vs Science and PBS]

12.    Obsession with Crime and Punishment -
Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost
limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often
willing to overlook police abuses and even forego
civil liberties in the name of patriotism.
[See: The Patriot Act] There is often a national
police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
[See: FEMA]

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption -
Fascist regimes are almost always are governed
by groups of friends and associates who appoint
each other  to government positions and
use governmental power and authority to protect
their friends from accountability.
It is not uncommon in fascist regimes
for national resources and even treasures
to be appropriated or even outright stolen
by government leaders.
[See: Social Security and National Debt]

14. Fraudulent Elections -
Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a sham.
Other times elections are manipulated
by smear campaigns
[See: Rove/Bush campaign Vs McCain/Kerry],
use of legislation to control voting numbers
[See: unverifiable electronic machines
(Diebold: “I will do anything to re-elect Bush!”)]
or political district boundaries [See: Texas]
and manipulation of the media
[See: No press conferences for 6 months].
Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries
to manipulate or control elections.
[See: United States Supreme Court, 2000]

Posted by: Terie Gold at September 2, 2006 12:09 PM
Comment #178930

Terie -

Wow, thanks. I find it amazing that Bush uses FASCISM to describes the terrorists… which is hypocritical and (as for the terrorists) just moronically wrong. It’s not just obnoxious, it’s extremely dangerous… to mislabel and misunderstand the enemy we face. The fact that it is all done for political leverage makes it that much more appalling.

Posted by: tony at September 2, 2006 1:43 PM
Comment #178940
That’s an easy one.

Which country nwas in violation of numerous UN resolutions?

Israel…at least 46 resolutions…

Posted by: Lynne at September 2, 2006 3:52 PM
Comment #179165

offthehook

When you weaken the President of the United States of America you weaken the United States of America.
Exactly. Which is why the REPUBLICANS are responsible for 9/11. Because they so weakened the Clinton administration that it could not respond to the growing terrorist threat.

CPAdams-
Sorry for feeding the troll, but I couldn’t resist.

Posted by: Elliott at September 4, 2006 4:19 PM
Post a comment