Bush calls terror fight WWIII

by **sunny** » Sat May 06, 2006 11:08 am

<a href="http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,19043507-38198,00.html">www.news.com.au/story/0,1...98,00.html</a> Bush calls terror fight WWIII From: Agence France-Presse From correspondents in Washington May 06, 2006 US President George W. Bush has said the September 11 revolt of passengers against their hijackers on board Flight 93 had struck the first blow of "World War III". In an interview with the financial news network CNBC, Mr Bush said he had yet to see the recently released film of the uprising, a dramatic portrayal of events on the United Airlines plane before it crashed in a Pennsylvania field. But he said he agreed with the description of David Beamer, whose son Todd died in the crash, who in a Wall Street Journal commentary last month called it "our first successful counter-attack in our homeland in this new global war, World War III". Mr Bush said: "I believe that. I believe that it was the first counter-attack to World War III. "It was, it was unbelievably heroic of those folks on the airplane to recognize the danger and save lives," he said. Flight 93 crashed on the morning of September 11, 2001, killing the 33 passengers, seven crew members and four hijackers, after passengers stormed the cockpit and battled the hijackers for control of the aircraft. The president has repeatedly praised the heroism of the passengers in fighting back and so launching the first blow of what he usually calls the "war on terror". In 2002, then-White House spokesman Ari Fleischer explicitly declined to call the hunt for Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda group and its followers "World War III".

by **greencrow0** » Sat May 06, 2006 6:55 pm

When Bush talks like this it is just more evidence of how involved he is in the 9/11 mass murder hoax. There is no way that a) Passengers could have been talking on cell phones at that altitude b) The debris pattern could have spread out over 8 miles if the plane ploughed into the ground. c) There could have been NO military planes in the air with 2 hours of warning time. d) Rumsfeld didn't mis-speak himself and refer to a 'missile' bringing down the plane. GC

by **dbeach** » Sat May 06, 2006 7:56 pm

"Bush calls terror fight WWIII" translates as bush wants WW III so be scared cuz ya gonna get it what a useless way to serve humanity. makes me ill that many Vets died believing in Freedom .. so pigs like bush can start nuclear annihilation PRAY for these sickos.. Please don't hate them ..Hate only feeds LOOSH!! he is conditioning the masses to accept WW III as inevitable which is his vision for CREATION and maybe not the same vision as our Creator whomever they may be??? bush was born to destroy humanity DO NOT underestimate him TRY not to hate him pray for him.. I am very sad..

by **StarmanSkye** » Sat May 06, 2006 8:15 pm

Uhm, Rummy referred to a missile hitting the Pentagon; He said, "The people who ... shot down the plane in Pennsylvania." <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2004/US/12/27/rumsfeld.flt93/index.html">edition.cnn.com/2004/US/1...index.html</a> --quote-- ...in his remarks, Rumsfeld referred to the "the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania." A Pentagon spokesman insisted that Rumsfeld simply misspoke, but Internet conspiracy theorists seized on the reference to the plane having been shot down. --quote-- In this interview (<a href="http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2001/t11182001_t1012pm.html),">www.defenselink.mil/trans...2pm.html),</a> he said, "The missile to damage this building (Pentagon) and similiar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center." I'm not aware that Rummy said anything about an actual "missile" shooting-down Flight 93. But from the evidence I'm familiar with, I believe the flight was shot-down. AFATG: I tend to think of the Cold War as WW III; And so, the US's GWOT on behalf of Pentagon and State Dept. perpetuating neocolonial exploitation via corporate globalization, perhaps provoking a decades-long conflict precipitating a global pre-emptive nuclear war by nations collectively arrayed to challenge US geostrategic hegemony (ie., possibly consisting of Russia, China, and India) might well be considered the opening salvos of WW IV. I sort-of doubt America's pre-eminent military-imposed Imperium will be allowed to stand, especially if it leads to significant disruptions in trade/availability of critical resources, spreading regional insecurity, political and economic crises, spread of fascist ideology and populist resistance militancy, and further undermining/trivialization of International Laws, organizations and treaties/agreements (ie., as the US has done with the UN, Geneva Conventions, and Nuclear Proliferation). Eventually, I don't think the US will be able to dodge the day of reckoning for having become a reckless rogue state threatening world peace, having been subverted by corrupt, criminal, dangerous 'leaders'. Like Nazi Germany -- unless somehow the citizens can restore a decent measure of just rule and rein in their own homegrown fascist monster demons before the world community acts in self-defense first (or natural catastrophe happens). Starman

by **dbeach** » Sat May 06, 2006 9:41 pm

rummy the chickenhawk is famous for his arrogance and he being a kisss ass insider is easily replaced. He did 2 slips although maybe not quite Freduain slips he slipped his words up under pressure whichcih many Pols do CUZ TRUTH does come out even in these most deceitful of days "Here's what Rumsfeld said Friday: "I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon, the people who cut off peoples' heads on television to intimidate, to frighten – indeed the word 'terrorized' is just that. Its purpose is to terrorize, to alter behavior, to make people be something other than that which they want to be." Several eyewitnesses to the crash claim they saw a "military-type" plane flying around United Airlines Flight 93 when the hijacked passenger jet crashed – prompting the once-unthinkable question of whether the U.S. military shot down the plane. Although the onboard struggle between hijackers and passengers – immortalized by the courageous "Let's roll" call to action by Todd Beamer – became one of the enduring memories of that disastrous day, the actual cause of Flight 93's crash, of the four hijacked airliners, remains the most unclear. Several residents in and around Shanksville, Pa., describing the crash as they saw it, claim to have seen a second plane – an unmarked military-style jet. " <a href="http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42112">www.wnd.com/news/article....E_ID=42112</a> <a href="http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/Missile-Not-Flight-77.html">www.the7thfire.com/Politi...ht-77.html</a> "Defense Secretary: "and the missile to damage this building" Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was interviewed on 12 October 2001 by Lyric Wallwork Winik (yes, that's her real name), a columnist for Parade, the magazine that comes in many Sunday newspapers across the US. Although Parade is one of the most mainstream magazines imaginable (think People meets the Saturday Evening Post), Winik blindsided Rumsfeld with a question that few reporters/interviewers have the guts to ask: "This is a question that's been asked by many Americans, but especially by the widows of September 11th. How were we so asleep at the switch? How did a war targeting civilians arrive on our homeland with seemingly no warning?" Rumsfeld is apparently shaken by this young reporter's forthrightness. First, he admits what few else dare: "There were lots of warnings." Immediately after this sentence, though, the Secretary starts to qualify it. He subtly plays the "we didn't connect the dots" card: "The intelligence information that we get, it sometimes runs into the hundreds of alerts or pieces of intelligence a week. One looks at the worldwide, it's thousands. And the task is to sort through it and see what you can find." Although he doesn't directly say it, it would seem that Rumsfeld is insinuating that the poor, understaffed, shoestring intelligence and defense establishments can't put together intelligence in a timely manner. Now things get really bizarre. After admitting that there were plenty of warnings, he says it was up to the FBI and especially state and local law enforcement to deal with the imminent terrorist attack: "And as you find things, the law enforcement officials who have the responsibility to deal with that type of thing -- the FBI at the federal level, and although it is not, it's an investigative service as opposed to a police force, it's not a federal police force, as you know. But the state and local law enforcement officials have the responsibility for dealing with those kinds of issues." To sum up Rumsfeld's explanation: 1) The warnings were there; 2) the Defense Department and the intelligence community couldn't figure them out; but anyway 3) it was up to the FBI, state law enforcement, and local police to uncover and prevent the worst terrorist attack in US history. And here's something to kick around. Still answering this question, Rumsfeld goes on to make a strange statement: "It is a truth that a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any technique and it's physically impossible to defend at every time and every place against every conceivable technique. Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center. The only way to deal with this problem is by taking the battle to the terrorists, wherever they are, and dealing with them.""

by **StarmanSkye** » Sun May 07, 2006 12:26 pm

This seems a likely thread to place this article in -- as it's another take, by Fisk on Hersh, on Bush's apparant WW III obsession. This article by Fisk is on the utter inability or unwillingness of anyone to get much traction on speaking truth to power -- This is STILL what gets me, that the whole goddamn nation seems incapable of shaking-off the catatonic spell the Bush Regime sems to have placed onnit; Sure, a lot of words and energy of opposition and criticism on a local level, but nothing (or very, very little, anyway) gets thru or translates to the higher offices of power -- aided in no small measure by a traitorous media and a trivialized, manipulated Congress. Like sleepwalking to perdition or off a cliff. It's the damnest thing. Starman <a href="http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article360845.ece">news.independent.co.uk/wo...360845.ece</a> Beating About The Bush? Not With Hersh By Robert Fisk <a href="http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=2&contentid=348...">www.conspiracyplanet.com/...tid=348...</a> Saturday, May 6, 2006 Sy Hersh:Collapse of US Congress,Military & Media by ROBERT FISK (THE INDEPENDENT) Sy Hersh is an ornery, cussed sort of guy, not one to suffer fools gladly. As the man who broke the My Lai story and the atrocities at Abu Ghraib, I reckon he has a right to be ornery from time to time and cussed. He's dealing with powerful folk in Washington, including one George W Bush who would like to cut him down. And when Hersh wrote as he did in The New Yorker this month that "current and former American military and intelligence officials" have said Bush has a target list to prevent Iran obtaining nuclear weapons and that Bushs "ultimate goal" in the nuclear confrontation with Iran is regime change again! you can see why Bush was worried. "Wild," he called the Hersh story. Which must mean it has some claim to veracity. So when I cornered Hersh at Columbia University in New York and dropped him a note during a Charles Glass presentation asking for an interview, I expected a stiff reply. "Anything you ask," he scribbled obligingly on a piece of paper. His own lecture was frightening. Bush has a messianic vision and intends to go down in history (probably he has chosen the right direction) as the man who will have "saved" Iran. "So we're in a real American crisis ... we've had a collapse of Congress ... we have had a collapse of the military ... the good news is that when we wake up tomorrow morning, there will be one less day (of Bush). But that is the only good news." Hersh might have said that we'd also had a "collapse" of the media in the United States, a total disintegration of the Ed Murrow/Howard K Smith/ Daniel Elsworth/Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward school of journalism. The greying, bespectacled, obscenity-swearing Hersh is about all we have left to frighten the most powerful man in the world (save for the jibes of Maureen Dowd in The New York Times). So it's good to know he's still doing some fighting, including other journalists on his target list. "I know some serious generals," he says. "I can't urge them to go public. They'd be attacked by Fox (TV), and the (New York) Times and The Washington Post would wring their hands. It's a mechanism. You don't get rewarded in the newsroom for being a malcontent." Journalists on the mainstream papers are largely middle-class college graduates not reporters who came up the hard way like Hersh's street reporting in Chicago in his early days. They have largely no connection to the immigrants' society. "They dont know what it's like to be on social welfare. Their families weren't in Vietnam and their families are not in Iraq." The BBC, too, has "fallen off the way". So what is the Hersh school of journalism? "In my business, I get information I check it out and I find it's not true that's what my business is. Now there is (also) stuff in the military from people I don't know I don't touch it ... "I was seeing (President) Bashar (Assad of Syria) at the time of the assassination of (former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq) Hariri. There was obviously bad blood between Bashar and Hariri. Bashar was saying that Hariri wanted to take over the cell-phone business in Damascus. To this day I don't know what happened. I saw Bashar from 11am until 1pm (on February 14, 2005). He talked about what a thief Hariri was. I didn't write it." And there goes a scoop about bad blood, I said to myself. But on Iran, it was something different for Hersh. He was talking to a contact. "I brought up Iran. 'It's really bad, he said. 'You ought to get into it. You can go to Vienna and find out how far away (from nuclear weapons production) they are.' Then he told me they were having trouble walking back the nuclear option with Bush. People don't want to speak out they want the shit on my head. As Hersh said in his New Yorker report, nuclear planners routinely go through options "We're talking about mushroom clouds, radiation, mass casualties, and contamination over years," he quotes one of them as saying but once the planners try to argue against all this, they are shouted down. According to another intelligence officer quoted by Hersh, "The White House said, 'Why are you challenging this? The option came from you'." In other words, once the planners routinely put options on the table, the options become possibilities to be considered rather than technical reports. "That whole Johns Hopkins speech," Hersh goes on, referring to the address in which Bush attacked Hersh's own article, "he talked about the wonderful progress in Iraq. This is hallucinatory and there are people on a high level in the Pentagon and they can't get the President to give this up. Because it's crazy. "In the UK, you might have some crazy view but you knew it was. But these guys (in Washington) are talking in revelations. Bush is a revelatory at bedtime he has to take a nap. It's so childish and simplistic. And don't think he's diminished. He's still got two years ... he's not diminished. We've still got a Congress that can't articulate opposition. This is a story where I profoundly hope, at every major point, that I'm wrong. Hersh has also been casting his wizened eye on the Brits. "Your country is very worried about what Bush is going to do your people" Hersh means the Foreign Office "are really worried. There are no clearances ... no consultations." In Washington, "advocating humanity, peace, integrity is not a value in the power structure ... my government are incapable of leaving (Iraq). They don't know how to get out of Baghdad. We can't get out. In this war, the end is going to be very, very messy because we don't know how to get out. We're going to get out body by body. I think that scares the hell out of me." It's all put neatly by one of Hersh's sources in the Pentagon: "The problem is that the Iranians realise that only by becoming a nuclear state can they defend themselves against the US. Something bad is going to happen." What was that line from Bogart as Rick Blaine in Casablanca, when he asked Sam, his pianist, what time it is in New York? Sam replies that his watch has stopped, and Bogart says, "I bet they're asleep in New York. I'll bet they're asleep all over America." Except for Hersh.

by **PeterofLoneTree** » Sun May 07, 2006 12:47 pm

Starman, I got an "error" on your "conspiracyplanet" link. Try this instead: <a href="http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=2&contentid=3489">www.conspiracyplanet.com/...entid=3489</a>

by **dbeach** » Sun May 07, 2006 1:49 pm

"This is STILL what gets me, that the whole goddamn nation seems incapable of shaking-off the catatonic spell the Bush Regime sems to have placed onnit; Sure, a lot of words and energy of opposition and criticism on a local level, but nothing (or very, very little, anyway) gets thru or translates to the higher offices of power -- aided in no small measure by a traitorous media and a trivialized, manipulated Congress. Like sleepwalking to perdition or off a cliff. It's the damnest thing. Starman" weel said I would substitute one word satanic for catatonic bush is a satanist the whole born again christain is a stage prop... the USA cannot shake off the satanic spell cuz its so deceiving ,powerful and inviting.. "Usual Suspects" movie.the hero says the greatest trick the devil evr played on planet earth is to convince people that he does not exist... I am misquoeting but ya get the gist??

Bush calls terror fight WWIII

Bush calls terror fight WWIII

Re: Bush calls terror fight WWIII

Re: Bush calls terror fight WWIII

Re: Bush calls terror fight WWIII

Re: Bush calls terror fight WWIII

Bush's Messianic Vision: Fisk on Hersh

Re: Bush's Messianic Vision: Fisk on Hersh

Re: Bush's Messianic Vision: Fisk on Hersh

Who is online