Posted on 09/27/2001 6:56:04 AM PDT by Tai_Chung
The terrorist atrocities inflicted on the US have give rise to a new rumor mill that grinds out stories that range from the banal to the bizarre. But a story out of the Middle East has more credibility than most, particularly in certain quarters. Some cooler and more intelligent heads in the Arab world have concluded that Bush has outfoxed the fanatical bin Laden.
Like all fanatics bin Laden is narrowly on his mission while being disconnected from the real world. Far from being the educated man he is said to be he, like his suicide-bombers, is remarkable ignorant of the West, specially the US. Although some of his followers have been educated at Western Universities their education has been confined to technical subjects like engineering. Those, for example, who attended US universities learnt nothing of US history or cultural values, confusing topless bars, which some of them enjoyed, with moral decay and lack of will. The sad fact is that what little they knew of US history and policies came entirely from the countrys anti-American left, which has painted a grossly dishonest picture of America that neatly fitted in with these terrorists anti-American dogma thus blinding them further to the political and military consequences of their actions.
As our editor pointed out at a recent seminar in Australia, being narrowly focused to the exclusion of all else is part of the terrorists Achilles heel. And so it is with bin Laden. Believing himself to be the hand of God and a follower of the one true faith, or his fanatical version of it, means he operates with an open loop. Therefore there is no negative feedback mechanism to correct his distorted picture of the world. There are no advisers to council restraint or retreat because like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc., he literally believes himself to be the only one capable of interpreting events and predicting their consequences.
Now we have bin Ladens fundamental weakness. Being truly ignorant of American history and knowing nothing of the countrys political system he has made the mistake of drawing the wrong lesson from a narrow range of fairly recent events by interpreting it in terms of his world view: the refusal of George Bush seniors to finish off Saddam Hussein, the hasty retreat from Somalia, the successful bombing of US embassies and military bases in Saudi Arabia, the attack on the Cole and Clintons self-serving pinprick responses to terrorism.
In bin Ladens fantasy America would either respond in a Clintonesque way and so demonstrate to the world its cowardly nature or it would blindly strike out, killing hundreds if not thousands of innocents and so inflame the whole of the Islamic world. (Notice how closely his apocalyptic vision resembles the extreme lefts one of a world-wide revolution against capitalism).
He got neither. Instead of grabbing the initiative he made a terrible blunder. His actions pulled the US together, awakening in it a steely resolve that can have only one outcome. Instead of retreating or immediately striking out, President Bush set about building up a mighty military force not only to destroy bin Laden but to demonstrate to the rest of the world the consequences of attacking America. Afghanistan has been isolated, its borders sealed.
Battle lines have been drawn and are being supported with varying degrees of enthusiasm. Russia, Tajikstan. Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, even Iran, Pakistan and China are cooperating. British special forces (SAS) are already operating in the country while American special forces are moving in. A coordinated plan consisting of concentrated air attacks on terrorist camps and Taliban installations, special forces assault teams, and the cooperation of the Northern Alliance is being put into action. None of this, so the story goes, is supposed to be happening.
Moreover, there are rumors that the scale of the forces that bin Laden has unleashed has caused subterranean cracks to appear within the Talibans ranks, with some of them wondering why they should have to take the fall for bin Laden. The smarter ones know they are not popular among the mass of Afghans, and that if properly equipped and supported by Western powers the Northern Alliance would drive them back to their mountain villages that is if the locals dont hang them from cranes and artillery barrels first.
Afghan refugees are relating tales of an increasing number of Taliban acts of banditry and rape as order collapses in the towns and cities. The wholesale kidnapping of non-Pashtun males aged between 15 and 30 for military service smells of panic because the Taliban knows these males belong to hostile ethnic minorities. These are not the actions of men who believe in their own invincibility.
So to some Arab observers Bush has already won. But surely if bin Laden is killed other bin Ladens will arise. There is only one bin Laden, thank God. This latter-day Mahdi is just another religious millenarian who promises paradise by driving out the infidel, the cause of the faithfuls misery. Such people have been a curse throughout history.
Im not saying that terrorism will end with bin Laden, only that his head must be the first to roll if victory is to be achieved. Once this is done, the invisible war against terrorism will accelerate, from the freezing of bank accounts to the assassination of terrorist organizers and the smashing of their networks.
The strategy, as explained to me, is basically simple. Make an example of bin Laden, demonstrate overwhelming military power and the will to use it against states that harbor and train terrorists; isolate the terrorists physically and squeeze them psychologically. The ultimate aim is the elimination of state-sponsored terrorism.
Explaining this away is going to take some inspired slithering, but I have confidence in you.
As an alternative, of course, you could apologize for your dishonest claim and resolve to post henceforth in a way that will win the respect of honest people. I merely mention this in passing...
You didn't mention that.
But then why would you when it doesn't fit your theory that it was just Gore that Hammer was in bed with. Truth is Hammer was just as cozy with Republicans as he was with Democrats. Being as how he was a crooked oil man you should've figured he just had to be connected to the Bushes.
Bouncer - 1 Interesting Times - 0
You're gonna have to do better than that
More lies; more distortion.
Armand Hammer was convicted, not for his real crimes, but for violating campaign finance laws in the 1970s. Bush Senior pardoned him years later when he was old and sick, which was in my opinion a mistake.
But your multi-color html distractions don't exonerate Gore Senior from acting on Hammer's behalf as an agent of Soviet influence.
Truth is Hammer was just as cozy with Republicans as he was with Democrats.
Please be so good as to provide evidence that refutes Zelnick's description of Gore as Hammer's primary contact in Congress. You'll understand our reluctance to take you at your word...
You might want to pay special attention to the following lines in this:
operations were carried out with the knowledge of, among others, President Ronald Reagan, Vice President George Bush [and others...]
All of the individuals charged were convicted, except for one CIA official whose case was dismissed on national security grounds and two officials who received unprecedented pre-trial pardons by President Bush following his electoral defeat in 1992.
For the intellectually challenged the first quote means Bush knew about it and was involved. The second one shows he covered it up.
Here is another Iran/Contra link about Bush.
The indictment contained documents revealing that President Bush had been lying for years with his claim that he was "out of the loop" on the Iran-contra decisions
"Our findings led us to the possibility not only that George Bush knew from the start, and was kept informed, but that the diversion actually ran through the office of the Vice President."
--Dan Rather in The Camera Never Blinks Twice, 1994.
"There is new written evidence tonight concerning what President Bush knew -- and when he knew -- about the secret deal that sent some of America's best missiles to Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini. The Grand Jury evidence raises new questions about whether Mr. Bush is telling the truth."
--Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, October 30, 1992.
New York Times article
Mr. Weinberger was scheduled to stand trial on Jan. 5 on charges that he lied to Congress about his knowledge of the arms sales to Iran and efforts by other countries to help underwrite the Nicaraguan rebels, a case that was expected to focus on Mr. Weinberger's private notes that contain references to Mr. Bush's endorsement of the secret shipments to Iran.
In one remaining facet of the inquiry, the independent prosecutor, Lawrence E. Walsh, plans to review a 1986 campaign diary kept by Mr. Bush. Mr. Walsh has characterized the President's failure to turn over the diary until now as misconduct.
But in a single stroke, Mr. Bush swept away one conviction, three guilty pleas and two pending cases, virtually decapitating what was left of Mr. Walsh's effort, which began in 1986.
Mr. Walsh bitterly condemned the President's action, charging that "the Iran-contra cover-up, which has continued for more than six years, has now been completed."
Is that enough for you IT? I've got LOTS more....
Yeah, I use that same line a lot in reference to Bill Clinton. Freepers always engage in inspired slithering when repeating their charges against him(just because $100 million tax dollars worth of investigation couldn't hang a parking ticket on him doesn't mean you have to start telling the truth). Remember, unlike the lie you're trying to sell about Bush - when it comes to Filegate, Travelgate, Paula Jones, Vince Foster, Ron Brown, looting of White House/Air Force One and any of the other looney stories you've concocted - no one was ever charged, tried, convicted or pardoned.
As an alternative, of course, you could apologize for your dishonest claim
But I posted another link for you here. Nothing dishonest about me, hell I've got about a million more links on this.
and resolve to post henceforth in a way that will win the respect of honest people. I merely mention this in passing...
You merely try to BS your way out of this. Sorry Sparky I'm not letting you weasel out. You're trying to claim that Bush had nothing to do with Iran/Contra and the whole world knows that ain't so....
Please be so good as to provide evidence that refutes Zelnick's description of Gore as Hammer's primary contact in Congress.
Why? No crime was committed (remember - no evidence), why should I care if Gore Sr. was Hammers contact. Hammer was real nice to his friends - he gave Reagan a $1 million GIFT! Now we could say that was REAL INKY and that there was probably some quid pro quo there. But you know what, it wasn't illegal. Hammer was free to use Gore Sr. as a contact and free to give a $1 million gift to Reagan. This may come as a surprise to you but Congressman are THERE to be our contacts with the government.
You'll understand our reluctance to take you at your word...
Yeah, I know - the truth hurts and I've given you a ton of truth here to which you have YET to respond.
Unless, you loved the Sandinistas and got a woody over hamstringing counterintelligence.
Conservatives love America and American supremacy. Liberals feel guilt about everything and loathe their own existence.
The fact is, you lied the content of your own link, you lied about the nature of Hammer's conviction, and you lied about Hammer's relationship with Republicans. Now, for variety, you post some links to other liars, then hoot and thump your chest in absurd triumph.
Nothing dishonest about me...
And some people say leftists have no sense of humor.
Wow, an agent of Soviet influence! Just what exactly did Gore Sr. do on behalf of the Soviets? Was he ever charged with anything? Was he spying for the Soviets? Inquiring minds want to know?
You see, I won't fall for a typical "murky allegation with no support" kind of argument. If Gore Sr. actually DID something illegal to aid the Soviets then show us the proof.
Because without proof you can make up any wild ass innuendo about anybody. For instance, what if Gore Sr's brother was actually (and openly) working with the Communists? Why that would make Al Gore's Uncle a Communist sympathizer! You could make up all kinds of wild ass theories about family involvement with the Communists. Boy, I bet that would really look ugly. Kind of like this guy <-click here.
Man I bet with all you Freepers we could make up some wild theories about what's going on there????
But what do we tell the children?
It's the law damn it!
We tell the children it's a cruel world. There is a right for a people to do what is good and moral and unpopular. We also tell them it's the President's obligation to conduct foreign policy and not be interfered with by meddling congresscritters.
I have no fresh evidence.;^)
Bib Laden suffers from new-money angst. In Saudi Arabia he was already a social outcast to whom the entrances his father's cash bought were brick walls. If he was ever in a London party he was probably handed coats and told to bring another Beefeaters as he stood around staring at the floor.
He has all of Hitler's inferiority complex.
Remarkably enough, I posted a large book excerpt on that topic in this very thread. If you're interested in the subject, you could always have someone read it to you.
You see, I won't fall for a typical "murky allegation with no support" kind of argument.
Too funny.
Well, that's enough entertainment for me. Tell your guys to send over the varsity next time...
The strawman.....
you lied the content of your own link
I said Bush was involved in Iran/Contra and gave you several links. Every link I quoted from had the exact quote in the link. Show me one that didn't - yuo can't because you've lied and set up a strawman argument.
The tiwsted logic....
you lied about the nature of Hammer's conviction,
I never said what he was convicted for (show me the line where I said what he was convicted for Mr. Liar, Liar pants on fire)
You tried to tar Gore Sr for being Hammer friend (as though there was some 'crime' to that).
you lied about Hammer's relationship with Republicans
Once again you lie and ignore the facts. I said he was pardoned by Bush and that he gave Reagan $1 million. Both are FACTS without dispute. I don't know what other relationship he had with Republicans but those two facts sure seem pretty cozy (BTW dufus, the link was to a FreeRepublic thread where your fellow Freepers were making that claim).
Defintely absurd, have you been reading what you posted? Maybe it's time for your medication.
Triumph, no you're too easy - it's not sport. You can't argue coherently and have no sense of humor. You see, responding LIAR LIAR LIAR every time someone gives you a fact isn't an "argument" - it's nonsense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.