As Goes Aznar, So Goes Bush?

Bush Ignored Terror Threat, Sought To Blame Saddam for 9/11

I think thats a little unfair on Bush,before 9/11 no-one would ever have thought terrorists would or could hijack 4 planes & crash 2 of them into NYC. America never really suffered terrorist attacks apart from McVie but he was home grow. How the Bush administration handled the aftermath is hard to say-they learnt the hard way.

Bush is Hitler Reincarnated

Those who do not remember history are condemmed to repeat it

Originally posted by steve52 I think thats a little unfair on Bush,before 9/11 no-one would ever have thought terrorists would or could hijack 4 planes & crash 2 of them into NYC. America never really suffered terrorist attacks apart from McVie but he was home grow. How the Bush administration handled the aftermath is hard to say-they learnt the hard way.

But the thing is, Bush was warned that terrorists could hijack planes and crash them into buildings. I believe he recieved the warning on sept 6th 2001, but he ignored it.

Originally posted by Digital Mike Binoche Bush is Hitler ReincarnatedThose who do not remember history are condemmed to repeat it

He doesn't have to explain, that's the stupidest quote I've ever seen on any message board, ever, and I've occasionally perused the Yahoo Boards, so that should tell you something.

Good God man, think before you post. I'm not a big fan of Bush, but come on! I was just about to tell you about the greatness of having a framed "Blue" poster in your living room. Nothing like seeing Binoche every breakfest, and then out you come with that quote.

Originally posted by Stephen Smith > Originally posted by Digital Mike Binoche> Bush is Hitler Reincarnated> > Those who do not remember history are condemmed to repeat it

He doesn't have to explain, that's the stupidest quote I've ever seen on any message board, ever, and I've occasionally perused the Yahoo Boards, so that should tell you something.

Good God man, think before you post. I'm not a big fan of Bush, but come on! I was just about to tell you about the greatness of having a framed "Blue" poster in your living room. Nothing like seeing Binoche every breakfest, and then out you come with that quote.

bush is in the same line as hitler, stalin, mao, franco, sharon, et al.

an authoritarian fundamentalist, who sees fit to abuse language, and even tragadies (911) to fulfill his ideological objectives. also remember, he wasnt elected by a majority of his subjects.

i wouldnt aggree with that "news" article. im sure that today bush is being told stuff like "40 million of your subjects are essentially fucked if they get sick" , not that he gives a toss. the "president" gets lots of threats, "intel" and info every day.

i wouldnt personally blame him for 911 like the article tends to, his reaction to it , and the escalation of the (2way) "war on terror" is a different story.

but i guess im in "old europe" here, and i dont realise that "freedom" involves "sacrifice".

im off for some freedom bread, and fredom wine , with extra freedom cheese, after a freedom film, with mrs binoche myself

Bush the same as Hitler or Stalin? I must have missed the bits where he sent millions of people to their deaths in concentration camps. But why let the truth get in the way when you can make glib statements instead? For the record I'm no fan of Bush (or Blair) but to liken him to Hitler is utter bollocks.

Originally posted by steve52 I think thats a little unfair on Bush,before 9/11 no-one would ever have thought terrorists would or could hijack 4 planes & crash 2 of them into NYC.

really? we talked about this possibility several times in my terrorism and political violence class in grad school. 9/11 wasn't exactly a huge surprise--perhaps the magnitude of the act was (the buildings collapsing), but not the act itself.

Originally posted by Philip Collins Bush the same as Hitler or Stalin? I must have missed the bits where he sent millions of people to their deaths in concentration camps. But why let the truth get in the way when you can make glib statements instead? For the record I'm no fan of Bush (or Blair) but to liken him to Hitler is utter bollocks.

take that yacht of yours around the world phil, and see the effects of american foerign policy, and its internationalisation of neo liberal market forces some(the occupation of iraq - 11000 dead, and counting) of which may be directly attributed to autocrat bush, others represenative of the ideology he supports (sweat shop 20 hour days arent the same as concentration camps?).

Originally posted by Clockwork C > Originally posted by Philip Collins> Bush the same as Hitler or Stalin? I must have missed the bits where he sent millions of people to their deaths in concentration camps. But why let the truth get in the way when you can make glib statements instead? For the record I'm no fan of Bush (or Blair) but to liken him to Hitler is utter bollocks.

take that yacht of yours around the world phil, and see the effects of american foerign policy, and its internationalisation of neo liberal market forces some(the occupation of iraq - 11000 dead, and counting) of which may be directly attributed to autocrat bush, others represenative of the ideology he supports (sweat shop 20 hour days arent the same as concentration camps?). Sorry, which particular fucking yacht might this be? And presumably being a snotty nosed little student you've got a vast experience of this big wide world have you? Re. numbers killed in Iraq, how many did Saddam kill? There's your Hitler figure who personally oversaw the killing of thousands not some puppet president who didn't invent liberal market forces. By the way I don't think the invasion of Iraq has been handled at all well - the removal of Saddam is obviously a good thing but the lack of thought as to what to do next is embarrassing... And no sweat shops aren't the same as concentration camps - millions died there and I don't think your trivialisation of them benefits anybody.

There's no getting through, I'm not gonna argue w/someone that's got their ears jammed closed to anything but the far left party line.

The best anyone can do is listen to all sides. Don't listen exclusively to the left, and left media sources, ditto the right. You're as blinded about Bush, as Bush supporters are about his biggest foibles.

first up:im not in any far left party (all cults, espically the fucking swp), and certainly dont subscribe to "a party line".

no 2 mass murderers are the same. hitler,stalin pol pot, even che went about large scale killing for a variety of reasons.

guantanamo bay is a concentration camp . innocent or guilty (im sure theres both in xray) people are being kept and tortured there , by bush, in violation of their basic human rights. for an`insight into what that experience feels like, no book is better than brian keenans "an evil cradiling" - cept he was kidnapped by arabs. no body knows who enters or leaves , who is killed, and who is beaten senseless.

paul o niell, bushs (and every warmonger since regan) fiscal man released over 20,000 official us government documents for a book to be written on the bush administration . granted he was proberbally pissed at getting fired by bush, however the official minutes dont lie(and you cant "accuse" him of rampant leftist tendancies). the gist of the book : bush and his men (and woman) were obsessed about "regieme change" in iraq. bush had decided upon the war on terror before deciding on a reason. of all the "intel" he got from the cia, which was the exact same as bush, he couldnt see any reason justifying war in iraq. 911 provided the perfect means of social manipulation.

under 4000 public sector workers got killed by a mass murderer with a beard on september 11 2001. 11000, and counting , is the amount of deaths in just 1 (major) piece of foerign policy of mr bush , and his (not elected by a majority) regieme. the list is endless. it really is.

i don't like bush, but here's one big difference:

i'm allowed to say that i don't like bush. those who disagreed with hitler never had that opportunity.

Originally posted by AgentWood i don't like bush, but here's one big difference:i'm allowed to say that i don't like bush. those who disagreed with hitler never had that opportunity.

not if youre in the bay!

who got elected by a majority of their people? not bush.

Originally posted by Clockwork C > Originally posted by AgentWood> i don't like bush, but here's one big difference:> > i'm allowed to say that i don't like bush. those who disagreed with hitler never had that opportunity.

not if youre in the bay!

who got elected by a majority of their people? not bush. Yet again you're trivialising the situation - Bush is hardly rounding up anyone who disagrees with him and putting them in Guantanamo Bay now, is he? Unlike Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Saddam, The Taliban et al...

All I have to say is Richard Clarke is worth as much as a dirty douche; he wants his 15 minutes of fame. He was an anti-terrorist official during Reagan, papa Bush, Clinton, and baby Bush, and frankly he did a horrendous job. Underground WTC bombing in '93, Oklahoma City, USS Cole, and the most recent WTC. Oh and I will not even begin mentioning all the foreign terrorist attacks with implications on the States. He did not present a plausible plan to attack Al Qaeda to baby Bush, so Bush did not heed his warnings. He did a shoddy job in his post, and instead of rightfully pointing the finger at his former office, instead he decides to take the easy way out and blame Bush.

Oh and Bush is not Hitler, I prefer thinking of him as Mussolini. ;)

I think the interesting bit that came out of all of this was the way Bush rushed to lay the blame at Saddam's feet, the same way Aznar rushed to blame Eta.

Of course, with Aznar, it was at least reasonable to assume that Eta was a strong suspect, although Aznar discounted any other possibility, a position that cost his party the election.

With Bush, out of 100 National Security meetings, exactly 2 of those meetings dealt with terrorism. And when terrorists struck, his response was to assume that it was Saddam, although there was no rational basis for such an assumption. The laughable part of this tragedy (tragedy in the literature sense) is that Bush is still trying to make an Al Quaeda/Saddam connection.

As for DMB's statement that Bush is Hitler reincarnated, if you're looking for a comparison of crimes against humanity, I think it would be easy to find evidence of war crimes and other crimes against humanity attributable to Bush. At the same scale as Hitler? No, but then, Bush hasn't been in power as long as Hitler, either. Let's not forget that Hitler was also democratically elected (in fact, it's questionable whether there was anything democratic about Bush's election). And let's not forget that Bush is to the right of Hitler on the economic scale, although Hitler was slightly-- slightly-- more authoritarian than is Bush. And let's not forget that America in 2004 is a different situation than Germany in the 1930's. I think that if we're going to compare them on the basis of war crimes, Hitler is clearly more onerous (but give Georgie some time-- I'm sure he can rise to the challenge). But if we can imagine the rise of a right -wing authoritarian government in America, I believe it would happen gradually, step-by-step, loss of civil liberty-by-loss of civil liberty. Friendly, creeping fascism. That is something that Bush is clearly doing now.

Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr I think the interesting bit that came out of all of this was the way Bush rushed to lay the blame at Saddam's feet, the same way Aznar rushed to blame Eta. Of course, with Aznar, it was at least reasonable to assume that Eta was a strong suspect, although Aznar discounted any other possibility, a position that cost his party the election.With Bush, out of 100 National Security meetings, exactly 2 of those meetings dealt with terrorism. And when terrorists struck, his response was to assume that it was Saddam, although there was no rational basis for such an assumption. The laughable part of this tragedy (tragedy in the literature sense) is that Bush is still trying to make an Al Quaeda/Saddam connection.As for DMB's statement that Bush is Hitler reincarnated, if you're looking for a comparison of crimes against humanity, I think it would be easy to find evidence of war crimes and other crimes against humanity attributable to Bush. At the same scale as Hitler? No, but then, Bush hasn't been in power as long as Hitler, either. Let's not forget that Hitler was also democratically elected (in fact, it's questionable whether there was anything democratic about Bush's election). And let's not forget that Bush is to the right of Hitler on the economic scale, although Hitler was slightly-- slightly-- more authoritarian than is Bush. And let's not forget that America in 2004 is a different situation than Germany in the 1930's. I think that if we're going to compare them on the basis of war crimes, Hitler is clearly more onerous (but give Georgie some time-- I'm sure he can rise to the challenge). But if we can imagine the rise of a right -wing authoritarian government in America, I believe it would happen gradually, step-by-step, loss of civil liberty-by-loss of civil liberty. Friendly, creeping fascism. That is something that Bush is clearly doing now.

Please name one civil liberty that you have lost at the hand of President Bush.

The fact that you even entertain a Bush to Hitler comparison is very disturbing to me. If Bush were really Hitler, you'd have a representative of the Gestapo kicking in your door right about now.

I know you have more historical perspective than what you've displayed here. Good G_d, man...........

Originally posted by Philip Collins

who got elected by a majority of their people? not bush.

Yet again you're trivialising the situation - Bush is hardly rounding up anyone who disagrees with him and putting them in Guantanamo Bay now, is he? Unlike Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Saddam, The Taliban et al...

erm yes.

almonso is correct, us foerign policy is different to that of 1930s germany, for reasons social, historical, etc.

this is a wider issue than one man. empires have always existed - be they roman, british, (briefly) nazi, stalinist, etc. the empire of choice today is the us. like all preceeding empires, it has pillaged all arounf it, in the name of "civilization", reaping rewards for a few greedy capitalists, at the expense of BILLIONS.

im not into 2nd class grography, nor am i into pinning all the worlds problems on 1 monkey. just beware of what he represents.

Originally posted by Philip Collins > Originally posted by Clockwork C> > > > Originally posted by Philip Collins> > Bush the same as Hitler or Stalin? I must have missed the bits where he sent millions of people to their deaths in concentration camps. But why let the truth get in the way when you can make glib statements instead? For the record I'm no fan of Bush (or Blair) but to liken him to Hitler is utter bollocks.>

take that yacht of yours around the world phil, and see the effects of american foerign policy, and its internationalisation of neo liberal market forces some(the occupation of iraq - 11000 dead, and counting) of which may be directly attributed to autocrat bush, others represenative of the ideology he supports (sweat shop 20 hour days arent the same as concentration camps?). Sorry, which particular fucking yacht might this be? And presumably being a snotty nosed little student you've got a vast experience of this big wide world have you? Re. numbers killed in Iraq, how many did Saddam kill? There's your Hitler figure who personally oversaw the killing of thousands not some puppet president who didn't invent liberal market forces. By the way I don't think the invasion of Iraq has been handled at all well - the removal of Saddam is obviously a good thing but the lack of thought as to what to do next is embarrassing... And no sweat shops aren't the same as concentration camps - millions died there and I don't think your trivialisation of them benefits anybody.

*applauds Phil*

Originally posted by Shelley Blair > Originally posted by Philip Collins> > > > Originally posted by Clockwork C> > > > > > > Originally posted by Philip Collins> > > Bush the same as Hitler or Stalin? I must have missed the bits where he sent millions of people to their deaths in concentration camps. But why let the truth get in the way when you can make glib statements instead? For the record I'm no fan of Bush (or Blair) but to liken him to Hitler is utter bollocks.> > >

take that yacht of yours around the world phil, and see the effects of american foerign policy, and its internationalisation of neo liberal market forces some(the occupation of iraq - 11000 dead, and counting) of which may be directly attributed to autocrat bush, others represenative of the ideology he supports (sweat shop 20 hour days arent the same as concentration camps?). Sorry, which particular fucking yacht might this be? And presumably being a snotty nosed little student you've got a vast experience of this big wide world have you? Re. numbers killed in Iraq, how many did Saddam kill? There's your Hitler figure who personally oversaw the killing of thousands not some puppet president who didn't invent liberal market forces. By the way I don't think the invasion of Iraq has been handled at all well - the removal of Saddam is obviously a good thing but the lack of thought as to what to do next is embarrassing... And no sweat shops aren't the same as concentration camps - millions died there and I don't think your trivialisation of them benefits anybody.

*applauds Phil*

i couldnt see phils post. must be low on vitiman a.

i was refering to the phil collins. every summer the balded one seems to take it around the world. dont know (or want to) where i read that.

im not snotty nosed, or little, but i am a student, and as coldplay have shown in their well thought out hand markings, and deep deep lyrics, students have seen the big wide world too anyhow , thats a bit of a patronising sentement isnt it? because you havent got a 9-5 job (and, as it happens, i do), and have ideas on the world that havent been coloured by a life of struggle, bills, mortgages, etc (although i havent been immune to those either, as you assume) , you cant have opinions?

as i said, you cannot compare directly the work of bush (whom i use as the main player in current u.s. foerign and domestic policy, or at least a representative and practitioner of it) to that of hitler and the nazis, the chairman and the party, stalin, etc, for reasons techinal , social, economic, geopolitic, etc.

my point : empires, for as long as they have existed, have reached out, killing at will and ceasing land (these days capital - essentially the same). all in the name of civilzing the world, and remaking it in the model of the empire. for instance the british empire in ireland(taking it pre the establishment of the irish state), spannish in south america, etc etc...the same is true of u.s. foerign policy(eu autocrats, blair, etc are extending upon it). as the "superpower" in the western world, u.s. foreign policy oversees that 25% of the worlds population has 80%of the world's wealth at its disposal, and uses a greater % again of its energy.

the economic policies of bush are reesponsible for the deaths of as many, proberbally more than (for instance) stalins 5 year economic plans. this is evidentally clear. your bullshit personal attacks dont add anything to this debate either.

Originally posted by Clockwork C > Originally posted by Shelley Blair> > > > Originally posted by Philip Collins> > > > > > > Originally posted by Clockwork C> > > > > > > > > > Originally posted by Philip Collins> > > > Bush the same as Hitler or Stalin? I must have missed the bits where he sent millions of people to their deaths in concentration camps. But why let the truth get in the way when you can make glib statements instead? For the record I'm no fan of Bush (or Blair) but to liken him to Hitler is utter bollocks.> > > > > >

take that yacht of yours around the world phil, and see the effects of american foerign policy, and its internationalisation of neo liberal market forces some(the occupation of iraq - 11000 dead, and counting) of which may be directly attributed to autocrat bush, others represenative of the ideology he supports (sweat shop 20 hour days arent the same as concentration camps?). Sorry, which particular fucking yacht might this be? And presumably being a snotty nosed little student you've got a vast experience of this big wide world have you? Re. numbers killed in Iraq, how many did Saddam kill? There's your Hitler figure who personally oversaw the killing of thousands not some puppet president who didn't invent liberal market forces. By the way I don't think the invasion of Iraq has been handled at all well - the removal of Saddam is obviously a good thing but the lack of thought as to what to do next is embarrassing... And no sweat shops aren't the same as concentration camps - millions died there and I don't think your trivialisation of them benefits anybody.

*applauds Phil*

i couldnt see phils post. must be low on vitiman a.

i was refering to the phil collins. every summer the balded one seems to take it around the world. dont know (or want to) where i read that.

im not snotty nosed, or little, but i am a student, and as coldplay have shown in their well thought out hand markings, and deep deep lyrics, students have seen the big wide world too anyhow , thats a bit of a patronising sentement isnt it? because you havent got a 9-5 job (and, as it happens, i do), and have ideas on the world that havent been coloured by a life of struggle, bills, mortgages, etc (although i havent been immune to those either, as you assume) , you cant have opinions?

as i said, you cannot compare directly the work of bush (whom i use as the main player in current u.s. foerign and domestic policy, or at least a representative and practitioner of it) to that of hitler and the nazis, the chairman and the party, stalin, etc, for reasons techinal , social, economic, geopolitic, etc.

my point : empires, for as long as they have existed, have reached out, killing at will and ceasing land (these days capital - essentially the same). all in the name of civilzing the world, and remaking it in the model of the empire. for instance the british empire in ireland(taking it pre the establishment of the irish state), spannish in south america, etc etc...the same is true of u.s. foerign policy(eu autocrats, blair, etc are extending upon it). as the "superpower" in the western world, u.s. foreign policy oversees that 25% of the worlds population has 80%of the world's wealth at its disposal, and uses a greater % again of its energy.

the economic policies of bush are reesponsible for the deaths of as many, proberbally more than (for instance) stalins 5 year economic plans. this is evidentally clear. your bullshit personal attacks dont add anything to this debate either. Oh right so making an 'hilarious' comment about a yacht 'cos I've got the same name as a celeb is ok then and not 'bullshit' is it? What's the bald one got to do with me or my opinions? You talk in absolutes - things being 'evidently clear' and suchlike - when it simply isn't the case at least not to me and I suspect many others. Coldplay? Students? Well they were once - they went to the same college as I did, by the way...

my'hilarious' comment was out of order, but not so bitter as "snotty little student" , but i am beyond giving a crap (as im sure you are) about suchlike.

i dont talk in absoultes, but my opinions are paramaterised by certain factual absolutes. i havnt exact figures re how many people died cause of stalins economic plans, nor us economic system/associated foerign policy. what is factually evident though, is that one existed in russia for a matter of decades, the other is absolutely global, and from kids getting blown up in iraq, to kids carrying guns in west africa, to the 0.75 million of americans who die without any assisted social healthcare each year, has a far wider reach.

just for the record, i wasnt the one to bring hitler and the like into this discussion (that was mrs binoche), i would just like to point out that those who have siezed, or we have sacrificed power to today are abusing it , not in the same way, but in the same form, and with roughly the same objectives as many before.

I would like to add that Bush is definitely not Hitler.

Things here in Oz aren't much better. Anyone who publicly opposes our involvement in Iraq is immediately branded by our government as a terrorist sympasiser.

Our government line changes too. Hoping to get reelected our the line was "we could be next". ie we need a strong government After Spain it now is:" there is no increased level of threat to Oz".

As a part american I feel that I can point a few things out to our american friends. Patriotism is good. However, one should be able to see things objectively. Just because someone makes a crticsim of your country our your president does not mean they are making a personal attack on you. And, if you looked at their arguments, then perhaps you might see that they have a point or two. It is precicely attitudes like that America can do no wrong, that also make you ask why does so much of the world hate us?