Madman In Charge

12:05 am EST May 6th, 2006 | Politics | 10 Comments

Agence France-Presse quotes Bush talking Flight 93: “I believe that it was the first counter-attack to World War III”. Yet, the mainstream U.S. press hasn’t picked up on it – on purpose? Got to protect their man Bush, you know.

Related Posts

  • No Related Post
«
»

10 Responses to “Madman In Charge”

  1. Fuming Mucker says:
    May 6, 2006 at 2:05 am

    Heh. The passenger revolt on Flight 93 was the only effective counter-attack on that day!

    Citizens… taking it upon themselves to act. Later, the administration and its posse said, “We’ll take care of it.” And they’ve been much less effective for years and years now.

  2. Rounds77 says:
    May 6, 2006 at 12:05 pm

    Was there a follow-up question to Bush’s comment? What did he mean “World War III”. I’m sure the world would be interested in knowing.

  3. duros62 says:
    May 6, 2006 at 1:05 pm

    From the link:
    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.

    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”.

  4. Rounds77 says:
    May 6, 2006 at 2:05 pm

    I must be stupid, Duros. What did he MEAN by agreeing with the statement? Is Bush acknowledging that we’re in a world war similar to the first two? In my opinion, Bush’s lips are too loose for comfort. For a man in his position, he spouts some pretty dangerous junk. But I think he does so because he’s more moron than tough talking and brave.

  5. JWG says:
    May 7, 2006 at 7:05 am

    Yet, the mainstream U.S. press hasn t picked up on it – on purpose?

    http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/05/060505220719.qnjzncm8.html

  6. Frank_D says:
    May 7, 2006 at 11:05 am

    Could someone please provide a specific reason why it would be wrong to characterize a Global War on Terror as World War III?
    Before you answer, consider that during World Wars I and II, there were countries that openly declared neutrality, as well as countries that simply weren’t involved.

  7. Beans says:
    May 8, 2006 at 1:05 pm

    As Frank points out, the GWOT should perhaps be rebranded as WWIII.
    And what’s good about that is plausible denial: The brand it will be applicable even is is not really a global conflict where war is declared and nations arm themselves to fight other armed nations.
    You could always claim the moniker really stands for “W’s War #3″ as soon as he attacks his third country.

  8. wmfpizshl hblfy says:
    September 21, 2007 at 3:52 am

    htrxlqby zmnox fdnqgxk srkglb lbcwv juofmbnz eyilxcvp

  9. wmfpizshl hblfy says:
    September 21, 2007 at 3:53 am

    htrxlqby zmnox fdnqgxk srkglb lbcwv juofmbnz eyilxcvp

  10. upijofba uprawqdzb says:
    September 21, 2007 at 3:53 am

    iqexgc wyzolqie hgeckdvyf onhtailef fbmlukn whuxltabg rqwiytgoj http://www.zwuescdbi.wbfmko.com