Zawahiri - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Salomon · 08-04-2005, 04:58 PM

Zawahiri (al-qaeda #2 guy) makes an appearance on tv tday, and not 45 minutes later Bush is responding publicly. Does anyone know if this timeline is correct? Maybe Zawahiri released his statement last night, and Bush responded to it this afternoon, but the way the news (cnn) put it together, there was only a 45 minute delay between Zawahiri's statement and Bush's response. Does Bush always react so quickly to what al-qaeda has to say? Or does Bush just have something to say regardless, maybe in light of all those marines who were killed this week? He even took the opportunity to voice the objectivs for iraq once again. I find all this very confusing. What do you guys think???

meembo · 08-04-2005, 05:08 PM

Bush has made a point of pushing the hard line in the last couple of days, making sure to use the phrase "war on terror" instead of the less forceful euphemisms that Rumsfeld likes to use. Also, Bush is in vacation, and it's important that he reacts quickly and visibly to "homeland security" issues.

joshbaumgartner · 08-04-2005, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by meembo

Bush has made a point of pushing the hard line in the last couple of days, making sure to use the phrase "war on terror" instead of the less forceful euphemisms that Rumsfeld likes to use. Also, Bush is in vacation, and it's important that he reacts quickly and visibly to "homeland security" issues.

Regarding the GWoT vs. GSAVE debate, I hear Bush was upset to find out about re-titling it a struggle versus a war. I've always thought Bush seems very proud to be a "War President" and I was confused to hear the Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism as it didn't seem like something Bush would be into doing. That it was done without going through him first made things clear up in that regard.

Politically, I think Bush is right on this one, his political situation won't gain anything by changing the name in a way that appears 'softer' than a war. He staked himself against John Kerry's plans to focus on the terrorists and limit our Iraq engagement, and this name change would indicate acceptance of some of those things Kerry had proposed. This doesn't do the Prez any good.

Salomon · 08-04-2005, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by meembo

...Also, Bush is in vacation, and it's important that he reacts quickly and visibly to "homeland security" issues.

That makes sense. He was quick to address Zawahiris statement, and under the circumstances which i didn't know about, a quick response makes sense.

I hadn't heard anything about the "GSAVE" phrase until here. Quite interesting; i like it...what broght it about I wonder???

ObieX · 08-04-2005, 06:28 PM

All of GWB's speeches all sound exactly the same, I'm not sure why he even bothers to make them anymore. He should just make a 30 second commercial that says the same stuff he's been saying all along and just play it once a day. The result would be exactly the same.

Quote:

Bush is in vacation

When is he NOT on vacation? He's coming up on 1 year total worth of vacation time. To me that doesn't seem like a record a president should be working on during war time.

host · 08-04-2005, 10:30 PM

The "thug in chief" is again setting records for the amount of vacation time that he has been so.....busy racking up....before....and since.....9/11....while he orders other people's children....to their deaths.....

Quote:

http://www.cleveland.com/schultz/ind...070.xml&coll=2
We die along with these kids'
Thursday, August 04, 2005
Connie Schultz
Plain Dealer Columnist

As Jeanette Schroeder rounded the corner

of her front yard with the lawn mower, she spotted two Marines standing at her brother Paul Schroeder's front door Wednesday.

Immediately, she knew............

http://www.cleveland.com/schultz/ind...l=2&thispage=2

We die along with these kids'
Page 2 of 5

It was the same battalion that lost five Marines on Monday.

It was the same battalion in which her nephew, Augie, served.

Jeanette just knew.

She nodded when they asked if she knew the family next door in her Cleveland neighborhood.

"He's my brother," she said. "They probably didn't hear the doorbell."

She was sure her brother and his wife, Rosemary Palmer, were upstairs, hovering over their computer as they frantically searched the Internet for any news about the latest group of Marines who had been killed in Iraq.

Earlier that morning, Rosemary had given Jeanette a printout quoting skeletal news reports about the attack on Marines in Haditha. After reading it, Jeanette had a bad feeling. She prayed all the way to her doctor's appointment. She prayed on her drive to the grocery store, too, and all the way home.

Please, God, not Augie.

Now, about 10:30 a.m., two Marines were standing in her yard, asking to speak to Augie's parents.

Aunt Nettie - that's what Augie always called her - offered to run into her house to call his parents

"No," one of the Marines said gently. "We have to talk to them in person."

Jeanette ran through Paul's back door and started to scream.

"Paul! Paul! Get down here. Just get down here now!"

Paul and Rosemary saw the grim faces on the men at their door and they knew, too. They stood motionless as one of the Marines began to speak.

"We regret to inform you that Edward August Schroeder II . . ."

And they knew.

Two weeks ago, Augie had called home from Iraq after spending 26 days in the field. They had not heard from him for five weeks, and their son's voice seemed to reflect a change in his convictions about this war.

"When he first arrived in Iraq in March, he was full of optimism about what his good intentions could accomplish," Paul said.

But Augie's enthusiasm eroded over time, and his father said he will never forget what his son told him.

"The closer we are to departure, the less 'worth it' this has become," Augie said.

We die along with these kids'
Page 5 of 5

"I hope people forgive me for what I have to say," he began. "I just don't care anymore."

He listed who he blamed for Augie's death.

"I hold the Bush administration responsible, from the president through the secretaries of state and defense and all those who have had a hand in starting this war.

"I also hold every Democrat in Congress who voted to authorize this misadventure as accomplices."

His son, he wrote, "died doing his duty. So have some 1,800 other Americans.

"Augie did his duty at every turn, from being an emergency medical technician while still in high school, a lifeguard, a Boy Scout, an active church member, and, of course, as a Marine. For all this, we consider him a hero.

"To honor him, I no longer can sit still, just keeping quiet and being politically correct."

In her own way, Augie's mother also issued a statement. She made the call at 8:18 Wednesday morning, about two hours before she learned that Augie was dead.

Rosemary had sobbed the day Augie enlisted. She had begged him not to go to Iraq. On Wednesday, hers was the desperate plea of a mother trying to find out if her son was still alive.

She left this phone message for Plain Dealer reporter Brian Albrecht, who has steadfastly chronicled the war's impact here:

"This is Rosemary Palmer," she said. "I'm the mother of one of the many Marines who are deployed right now. My son is currently in Haditha and we just heard the news story this morning that 14 Marines in Haditha were killed.

"We are all obviously going nuts . . . I know you can't give out the names of people who haven't been notified, but if you have those names of the ones who have died, if you could let us know as soon as possible, I would really appreciate it - because we die along with these kids . . ."

Her voice broke.

She recited her number.

Then she hung up the phone.

The war president is on vacation.....again.....while other Americans pay the ultimate price....on his orders....and his lieutenants strive mightily to "stay on message"....while their "commander" twists the facts...and other people's kids.....1800 of them now......continue to die. Will 58,000 Americans again have to die to convince enough of us to end the madness....the lies....this time ?

Quote:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/08/04/news/bush.php
GRAPEVINE, Texas President George W. Bush has publicly overruled some of his top advisers in a debate about what to call the conflict with Islamic extremists, saying, "Make no mistake about it, we are at war."

In a speech on Wednesday, Bush used the phrase "war on terror" no less than five times......

............"We're at war with an enemy that attacked us on September the 11th, 2001," Bush said in his address, to the American Legislative Exchange Council, a group of state legislators. "We're at war against an enemy that, since that day, has continued to kill."

Bush made a nod to the criticism that "war on terror" is a misleading phrase in the sense that the enemy is not terror but those who use terrorism to achieve their goals. But in doing so, he used the word "war," as he did at least 13 other times in his 47-minute speech.

"Make no mistake about it, this is a war against people who profess an ideology, and they use terror as a means to achieve their objectives," he said.

General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in an address to the National Press Club on July 18 that he had "objected to the use of the term 'war on terrorism' before, because if you call it a war, then you think of people in uniform as being the solution."

Myers said then that the threat instead should be defined as violent extremists, with the recognition that "terror is the method they use."

After Bush's speech, the White House tried to hammer home the point that the "war" phraseology was still administration policy. It sent reporters excerpts from an address delivered Tuesday by Rumsfeld in which he backed away from the new language.

"Some ask, are we still engaged in a war on terror?" Rumsfeld said. "Let there be no mistake about it. It's a war. The president properly termed it that after Sept. 11. The only way to defend against terrorism is to go on the attack."

Bush is spending the rest of August at his vacation home in Texas.

Salomon · 08-05-2005, 10:18 AM

That last article was interesting, host. It seems that Bush is making up policy "on the fly". I have reservations about how he is handling things in foreign policy. Do we really need a president so aggressive in his dealings with the rest of the world? Maybe, maybe not...time will tell.

joshbaumgartner · 08-05-2005, 10:38 AM

To be fair, in this case, it isn't so much making it up on the fly as asserting the same thing he's asserted from day one which is that it is war. This seems like a case of his guys who are used to pretty much directing themselves to a degree accidently pushing a button and having to step off of it quickly.

reconmike · 08-05-2005, 01:07 PM

Not to sound crass about a brother dieing in combat, but Augie's father should just shut up with his rantings and blamings over his sons death.
His son signed a contract to join the Marines, where whould he expect to end up doing this? Good chance would be a combat zone.
If he was drafted, then his father could rant all he wanted to. But then again many men have died to allow Augie's father to rant. So rant away.

joshbaumgartner · 08-05-2005, 01:16 PM

Yeah, pretty crass, I must admit. The guy loses his son and you're saying he shouldn't be so upset?

The thing that makes our military different from so many others is that our troops aren't supposed to be just thrown away at the whim of their leaders. They are willing to sacrifice and do whatever is called for, but the other side of the bargain is that their sacrifice be for something meaningful and for the greater benefit of the country as a whole. Augie fulfilled his part of the bargain. It is perfectly fair to then to point out when the other side is not keeping up their end.

Josh

host · 08-05-2005, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reconmike

Not to sound crass about a brother dieing in combat, but Augie's father should just shut up with his rantings and blamings over his sons death.
His son signed a contract to join the Marines, where whould he expect to end up doing this? Good chance would be a combat zone.
If he was drafted, then his father could rant all he wanted to. But then again many men have died to allow Augie's father to rant. So rant away.

reconmike....at best.... "Augie's" CIC is a duplicitous, intentionally misleading, propagandist. At worst, he is a war criminal deeply enmeshed in a criminal conspiracy. In either scenario, the CIC has broken the commitment to our troops to only order them into combat in cases where it is "absolutely necessary". The invasion and occupation of Iraq, hardly rises to a level of necessity. These special circumstances and the insincerity and demonstrated lack of credibility of the "vacation president", masquerading as the "wartime president", create the circumstances that compell Augie's father to speak out and denounce Bush. This is as patriotic and as "American" an act, as any you will witness, under these extraordinary circumstances. Bullshit is no substitute for sincere leadership.Augie "signed a contract".....that is true...but he contracted with officials who swore to "uphold and defend" the Constitution. These "officials" cannot even keep their "story" straight. If Augie's father can, by his remarks, influence the inevitable process of bringing our CIC to accountability for his unnecessary "war of aggression", another father may not have to experience the loss, frustration, and emptiness that he has to. Do you believe that the father of a brave, dead, US Marine, would choose to believe that his son died for "nothing"? Bush and his neocons did that to Augie and his father, when they started this war.

Quote:

<a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030131-23.html">http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030131-23.html</a>
THE PRIME MINISTER: Adam.

Q One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?

THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.

Yet.....Bush still implies, this week,,,that his illegal invasion of Iraq is somehow "connected"...

Quote:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/08/04/news/bush.php
GRAPEVINE, Texas President George W. Bush has publicly overruled some of his top advisers in a debate about what to call the conflict with Islamic extremists, saying, "Make no mistake about it, we are at war."

In a speech on Wednesday, Bush used the phrase "war on terror" no less than five times......

............"We're at war with an enemy that attacked us on September the 11th, 2001," Bush said in his address, to the American Legislative Exchange Council, a group of state legislators. "We're at war against an enemy that, since that day, has continued to kill."............

reconmike, you fall victim to Bush's duplicity when you post criticism here of a man whose son was stolen from him, under false pretenses, by your "vacation president". Please reconsider your post. Augie's father is a patriot. Can you say the same of Bush, with any conviction?

Our CIC does not even subscribe to his own rhetoric....but he orders other American's sons and daughters to there deaths as he repeats his own, empty, BS....whatever it takes.....

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0040806-1.html
August 6, 2004

President's Remarks to the Unity Journalists of Color Convention
Washington Convention Center
Washington, D.C.

Q Good morning. My name is Mark Trahant. I'm the editorial page editor of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and a member of the Native American Journalist Association. (Applause.)..............What do you think tribal sovereignty means in the 21st century, and how do we resolve conflicts between tribes and the federal and the state governments?

THE PRESIDENT: Tribal sovereignty means that, it's sovereign. You're a -- you've been given sovereignty, and you're viewed as a sovereign entity. And, therefore, the relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities.............

........Q Mr. President, this week, General Tommy Franks, your former CENTCOM commander has been on tour, talking about his book, talking about his Iraqi experience. And he conservatively estimated two to four more years of a large-scale American presence in Iraq. This morning there is fresh fighting in Najaf, Nasiriyah, Samara. What is the mission at this point, for 140,000 American forces? And how will we know when they're done? (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: The mission is for the -- their mission is there to be a democratic Iraq, where they have elections to elect their government. That's the mission, to help them achieve that. And that's important. And that's necessary work. The tactics to achieve that are, one, we help provide security to the Allawi government as they move toward elections. Obviously, there are people there that are still trying to disrupt the election process. They can't stand the thought of a free society in the midst of a part of the world that's just desperate for freedom. These people don't like freedom. You know why? Because it clashes with their ideology. We actually misnamed the war on terror, it ought to be the struggle against ideological extremists who do not believe in free societies who happen to use terror as a weapon to try to shake the conscience of the free world. (Laughter.)

No, that's what they do. They use terror to -- and they use it effectively, because we've got good hearts. We're people of conscience, they aren't. They will cut off a person's head like that, and not even care about it. That's why I tell you, you can't talk sense to them. Maybe some think you can, I don't. I don't think you can negotiate with them. Let me --

Quote:

http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breakin...5647-6162r.htm
Commentary: An unwinnable war?

By Shaun Waterman
UPI Homeland and National Security Editor

Washington, DC, Sep. 6

........ So it is encouraging to hear Bush himself make several little-noticed allusions to an understanding that terrorism is not what his war is against.

"We actually misnamed the war on terror," he told delegates to the Journalists of Color Convention in Washington Aug. 6. "It ought to be 'the struggle against ideological extremists who do not believe in free societies who happen to use terror as a weapon to try and shake the conscience of the free world.'"

Bush seems to have intended the remark as a joke -- and the audience certainly took it as one -- but last week he repeated it, stripped of hyperbole, in all seriousness. "Frankly, the war on terror is somewhat misnamed," he told Time magazine, "It ought to be called the struggle (against) a totalitarian point of view that uses terror as a tool to intimidate the free."

But here is Bush seems to be trying a neat trick -- abandoning the useless definition of the enemy as terrorism, but replacing it with one so wide and general that it can still do the necessary work in Israel and elsewhere. ..........

Quote:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5866571/
Today show
Updated: 1:35 p.m. ET Sept. 2, 2004

LIMA, OHIO

..........Lauer: You said to me a second ago, one of the things you'll lay out in your vision for the next four years is how to go about winning the war on terror. That phrase strikes me a little bit. Do you really think we can win this war on terror in the next four years?

President Bush: I have never said we can win it in four years.

Lauer: So I’m just saying can we win it? Do you see that?

President Bush: I don’t think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world — let's put it that way. .........

Elphaba · 08-05-2005, 03:48 PM

It seems the staff have brought the president up to speed on the new sound bite.

08-04-2005, 04:58 PM	#1 (permalink)
Salomon Loser	Zawahiri Zawahiri (al-qaeda #2 guy) makes an appearance on tv tday, and not 45 minutes later Bush is responding publicly. Does anyone know if this timeline is correct? Maybe Zawahiri released his statement last night, and Bush responded to it this afternoon, but the way the news (cnn) put it together, there was only a 45 minute delay between Zawahiri's statement and Bush's response. Does Bush always react so quickly to what al-qaeda has to say? Or does Bush just have something to say regardless, maybe in light of all those marines who were killed this week? He even took the opportunity to voice the objectivs for iraq once again. I find all this very confusing. What do you guys think???

08-04-2005, 05:08 PM	#2 (permalink)
meembo Junkie Location: Connecticut	Bush has made a point of pushing the hard line in the last couple of days, making sure to use the phrase "war on terror" instead of the less forceful euphemisms that Rumsfeld likes to use. Also, Bush is in vacation, and it's important that he reacts quickly and visibly to "homeland security" issues. __________________ less I say, smarter I am

08-05-2005, 01:07 PM	#9 (permalink)
reconmike Thank You Jesus Location: Twilight Zone	Not to sound crass about a brother dieing in combat, but Augie's father should just shut up with his rantings and blamings over his sons death. His son signed a contract to join the Marines, where whould he expect to end up doing this? Good chance would be a combat zone. If he was drafted, then his father could rant all he wanted to. But then again many men have died to allow Augie's father to rant. So rant away. __________________ Where is Darwin when ya need him?

08-05-2005, 03:48 PM	#12 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	It seems the staff have brought the president up to speed on the new sound bite. __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

08-05-2005, 10:18 AM	#7 (permalink)
Salomon Loser	That last article was interesting, host. It seems that Bush is making up policy "on the fly". I have reservations about how he is handling things in foreign policy. Do we really need a president so aggressive in his dealings with the rest of the world? Maybe, maybe not...time will tell.

08-05-2005, 10:38 AM	#8 (permalink)
joshbaumgartner Insane	To be fair, in this case, it isn't so much making it up on the fly as asserting the same thing he's asserted from day one which is that it is war. This seems like a case of his guys who are used to pretty much directing themselves to a degree accidently pushing a button and having to step off of it quickly.

08-05-2005, 01:16 PM	#10 (permalink)
joshbaumgartner Insane	Yeah, pretty crass, I must admit. The guy loses his son and you're saying he shouldn't be so upset? The thing that makes our military different from so many others is that our troops aren't supposed to be just thrown away at the whim of their leaders. They are willing to sacrifice and do whatever is called for, but the other side of the bargain is that their sacrifice be for something meaningful and for the greater benefit of the country as a whole. Augie fulfilled his part of the bargain. It is perfectly fair to then to point out when the other side is not keeping up their end. Josh