Comments on: Madman In Charge

By: upijofba uprawqdzb

upijofba uprawqdzb — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 08:53:56 +0000

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

By: wmfpizshl hblfy

wmfpizshl hblfy — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 08:53:26 +0000

htrxlqby zmnox fdnqgxk srkglb lbcwv juofmbnz eyilxcvp

By: wmfpizshl hblfy

wmfpizshl hblfy — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 08:52:36 +0000

htrxlqby zmnox fdnqgxk srkglb lbcwv juofmbnz eyilxcvp

By: Beans

Beans — Mon, 08 May 2006 18:05:37 +0000

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.

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Sun, 07 May 2006 16:05:10 +0000

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.

By: JWG

JWG — Sun, 07 May 2006 12:05:56 +0000

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

By: Rounds77

Rounds77 — Sat, 06 May 2006 19:05:07 +0000

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.

By: duros62

duros62 — Sat, 06 May 2006 18:05:44 +0000

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”.

By: Rounds77

Rounds77 — Sat, 06 May 2006 17:05:17 +0000

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.

By: Fuming Mucker

Fuming Mucker — Sat, 06 May 2006 07:05:13 +0000

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.