More left wing paranoia...

[Fairweather]

It seems the right-wing paranoia of just a few years ago has been replaced by a more virulent form that not only infects the general populace, but so-called political leaders as well! Add Madeline Albright to the list of (along with Dean/McDermott) conspiracy-kook's hall of fame.........

 

Albright: Bin Laden Comments Were 'Tongue-in-Cheek'

Wednesday, December 17, 2003

 

WASHINGTON — Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (search) insisted Wednesday that she was just kidding when she wondered aloud whether the Bush administration is holding Usama bin Laden (search) captive, waiting to break him out at the best political moment.

PARAM NAME="wmode" value="opaque

 

It was a "tongue-in-cheek comment and was not intended in any other way," Albright told Fox News.

 

But witnesses to Albright's comment said the ambassador did not appear to be joking Tuesday when she suggested President Bush may reveal bin Laden's capture as an "October surprise" (search) before next November's presidential election.

 

Albright was in the Fox News studio's green room waiting to appear on an evening program when she made the remark.

 

"She said, 'Do you suppose that the Bush administration has Usama bin Laden hidden away somewhere and will bring him out before the election?'" said Fox News analyst and Roll Call executive editor Mort Kondracke. "She was not smiling."

 

Two makeup artists who prep the guests before their appearances also reported that Albright did not ask her question in a joking manner.

 

Democrats have long attacked Bush for his conduct in the war on terror, but conspiracy theories are gaining in frequency. Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, a presidential candidate, has several times suggested that Bush was told in advance of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks by Saudi Arabia.

 

After Saddam's capture last weekend, Washington Democratic Rep. Jim McDermott (search) made the charge that Bush staged it to win points at home.

 

Colleague Rep. Norman Dicks, D-Wash., scolded McDermott for the comment, and the White House said it would not address such charges.

 

"I don't think I have to dignify every ridiculous comment that's made out there," White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said.

 

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist predicted political fallout would follow Saddam's capture. Frist, R-Tenn., said some Democrats would readjust and adopt new strategies, even to the point of diminishing the significance of Saddam's capture.

 

Political strategists have added that conspiracy theories do nothing to help the political debate, and warned Democrats to be careful in their allegations.

 

"Maybe [McDermott] is trying to be coproducer with Oliver Stone (search) of his next conspiracy movie," said James Lake, a former adviser to President Reagan. "It certainly fits into that category and I think -- to go a step further -- I think former Secretary of State Madeline Albright is walking on very thin ice here to suggest that the president already has Usama bin Laden captured."

 

"I think it is probably not a good thing to do this," said Elaine Kamarck, former senior campaign adviser to Al Gore. "I remember years ago when we made one attempt to kill Usama bin Laden by sending that missile into Sudan, all the Republicans said, 'Oh this was Bill Clinton's way of diverting attention from the Monica Lewinsky scandal.' That was unfair at that time, and frankly, I think accusations that somehow we have Usama and President Bush is holding him for political purposes, I think that's unfair at this time."

 

As for bin Laden's whereabouts, Turkish intelligence officials told the Associated Press that bin Laden recently proposed attacking a military base used by U.S. troops in Turkey, but tight security around the facility forced the terrorists to go after softer targets instead.

 

Terrorists then bombed two synagogues, the British consulate office and a British-owned bank in Istanbul. In those attacks, Muslims were killed, angering the Al Qaeda (search) leaders, according to the Turkish officials.

 

Bush said in a television interview Tuesday night that the Al Qaeda leader is still on the run, but vowed again that the United States will capture him.

[sexual_chocolate]

for me, the above info is less indicative of "the left"'s paranoia than it is of the general paranoia that this president has sown, both domestically AND internationally.

 

never before have we experienced such a divisive president, hated by so many around the world.

 

This, to me, seems to be the real problem here.

[JoshK]

But to fairweather the fact that 5.8 out of 6 billion people on the planet either dislike, distrust or hate the guy doesn't matter a bit. It's obvious his little view of the world is correct and everybody else's is wrong...

[Fairweather]

But to fairweather the fact that 5.8 out of 6 billion people on the planet either dislike, distrust or hate the guy doesn't matter a bit. It's obvious his little view of the world is correct and everybody else's is wrong...

 

Fact check, please. From whence do your statistics originate?

 

...or are these just numbers you (once again) spewed forth from the cobwebed recesses of your prostate?

[To_The_Top]

I'm Pretty middle of the road politically, but after traveling outside the country five times extensively SINCE 9-11, there is a real sense of "what the heck is that cowboy going to do next ?!?". Not that it really matters, just an observation.

It's like sometimes we are in a fish bowl, and everyone outside can see around it.

[sexual_chocolate]

disregard his numbers, and address the irrefutable point he makes: George Bush is not a much-liked figure internationally.

 

I would put his popularity at something close to Hitler's during his hey-day. I would put his ACTIONS close to Hitler's, also.

[murraysovereign]

OK, hang on a sec. As one of those internationally who doesn't much care for W and his foreign policy, I can say with great certainty that I in no way equate him or his actions with Adolph Hitler. To do so would trivialise Hitler's crimes, and ultimately would be an insult to all who died at the hands of the Nazis, and to all those who died trying to stop them.

 

Hell, even Saddam - as bad as he was - wasn't "another Hitler". He was, as Gwyn Dyer put it: "just your average, run-of-the-mill, Middle-Eastern thug. He's a nasty little man, but he's not Hitler." To suggest that President Bush - as much as I might disagree with some of his decisions and actions - is in any way even remotely comparable to Hitler is itself monstrous.

[Fairweather]

 

I would put his popularity at something close to Hitler's during his hey-day. I would put his ACTIONS close to Hitler's, also.

 

Ideas like those you have expressed above are the very reason you, and those like you, are being marginalized and 'left out' of the real debate.

 

Welcome back SC! .....NOT.

[Wopper]

 

I would put his ACTIONS close to Hitler's, also.

That is just an asinine statement.

[willstrickland]

How about citing the source of this "news report"? I'm curious of the source because it sounds like a fucking sewing circle gossip hour. To wit:

 

Hairdresser Tanya "Pooh Bear" Roberts, told reporters Wednesday: "That old lady, you know the one with the dyed hair? She was saying some bad things about Mr. Bush. And when Morty tried to tell her the truth, she was jus downright rude. She said 'Morty, you stuttering fucking imbecil, go sp sp sp spray your bullshit to someone who cares Y-Y-Y-Ya fuckin retard'. Now there was no reason for that, no reason at all for her to talk to Morty like that. Morty is such a kind man. Last year he even bought me a new velvet Elvis painting to hang in my doublewide"

 

Seriously, this report sounds like some stupid-assed Hannity/O'Reilly circle jerk. And before Puget even chimes in...I am NOT a "lefty" "Liberal" or anything remotely close as he seems to want to believe. Makes it more convenient for him I suppose. I hold centrist libertarian views.

[sexual_chocolate]

OK, hang on a sec. As one of those internationally who doesn't much care for W and his foreign policy, I can say with great certainty that I in no way equate him or his actions with Adolph Hitler. To do so would trivialise Hitler's crimes, and ultimately would be an insult to all who died at the hands of the Nazis, and to all those who died trying to stop them.

 

Hell, even Saddam - as bad as he was - wasn't "another Hitler". He was, as Gwyn Dyer put it: "just your average, run-of-the-mill, Middle-Eastern thug. He's a nasty little man, but he's not Hitler." To suggest that President Bush - as much as I might disagree with some of his decisions and actions - is in any way even remotely comparable to Hitler is itself monstrous.

 

I think you are giving Hitler just a tad bit too much credit here. Various forces enabled a single human to act in the manner Hitler did; his actions were in no way isolated from a larger zeitgeist.

 

And in no way does my comparison between Hitler and George Bush trivialize the attrocities of the Hitler regime; while in no way discounting these attrocities, there were many other aspects to his regime than the pograms and his militaristic expansionism.

 

1. George Bush is a nationalist through and through, believing in (at least with his propaganda) the god-given superiority of the United States of America. He uses this concept in much the same way that Hitler did in his oratories;

 

2. George Bush has unilaterally abrogated international treaties that have stood for the last 25 years, treaties that have helped to halt the proliferation of the most dangerous weaponry ever known to man. Hitler also reneged on international treaties, using similar arguments as George Bush has for justification;

 

3. Hitler faced international condemnation for his military incursion into a sovereign country. Enough said here, I think....

 

4. Hitler abridged existing legal constraints to consolidate state power; anyone read the patriot act lately?

 

5. Hitler cowed his domestic political enemies by questioning their patriotism, loyalty to the motherland, etc.. We've all seen it here.

 

6. Hitler divided the world into good and evil, with his side of course good, and "the other" evil. Anyone noticed the "good/evil" rhetoric spewing forth from our good George Bush?

 

7. paralegal military tribunals for show trials.

 

8. Hitler spelled out his vision for world conquest before he ever took power; perhaps ye all should visit www.pnac.org for a compelling look into the minds of the architects of our current administration?

 

When I compare George Bush to Hitler, I don't do it lightly. I don't do it simply for grandiose effect.

 

I truly do believe George Bush to be one of the most vile and inhuman attrocities to have soiled our political landscape for quite some time. His utter disregard for human life matches that of the man he now so proudly talks of disposing (remember his diatribes bragging about how many inmates he put to death in Texas? Incredible!).

 

Well, I doubt I'll get much agreement with these positions of mine, but truly I do believe in them. I hope our reason can help us in time.

[willstrickland]

Yes, Sexy, you do it exactly for grandiose effect. What you left out of your list there was the fact that Hitler was a genocidal maniac. You might have a comparison with Hitler/Milosovich.

 

I think Bush is a terrible president and I'll do what I can to make sure he is not re-elected , but the guy ain't Hitler you drama queen.

[Fairweather]

 

And in no way does my comparison between Hitler and George Bush trivialize the attrocities of the Hitler regime;

Yes, it does.

while in no way discounting these attrocities, there were many other aspects to his regime than the pograms and his militaristic expansionism.

Our current military expeditions cannot, in any way, be described as 'expansionist'

 

1. George Bush is a nationalist through and through, believing in (at least with his propaganda) the god-given superiority of the United States of America. He uses this concept in much the same way that Hitler did in his oratories;

I don't see it that way. All contemporary American presidents have referred to America as 'the greatest nation on god's green Earth, etc..... You can't take this too literally. But then, we are a hybrid nation of sorts-an amalgum of some of the best (and yes, worst) the world has to offer. We lured this brain trust here with the promise of free expression and no real limits on attainable riches.

 

2. George Bush has unilaterally abrogated international treaties that have stood for the last 25 years, treaties that have helped to halt the proliferation of the most dangerous weaponry ever known to man. Hitler also reneged on international treaties, using similar arguments as George Bush has for justification;

You are probably referring to START II. A treaty made with The USSR. A nation that no longer exists.

 

3. Hitler faced international condemnation for his military incursion into a sovereign country. Enough said here, I think....

Iraq was not a wholly soverign nation. If you recall, they signed a treaty at the end of the Gulf War in which they failed to abide. Soverign? Semantics.

 

4. Hitler abridged existing legal constraints to consolidate state power; anyone read the patriot act lately?

Have you? This comparison is contemptable. If I recall, the Senate vote was 99 for. Did GW threaten each potential dissenter with death as Hitler did?

 

5. Hitler cowed his domestic political enemies by questioning their patriotism, loyalty to the motherland, etc.. We've all seen it here.

I've heard it on talk radio, and read it in certain publications....but I have never heard our president say it or even insinuate it. Again, please provide specifics. I don't see it.Again, Hitler didn't 'cow' political opponents with words. He killed them.

 

6. Hitler divided the world into good and evil, with his side of course good, and "the other" evil. Anyone noticed the "good/evil" rhetoric spewing forth from our good George Bush?

Again, you lack specifics re Hitler's use of good/evil. Hitler divided the world into Aryan and non-Aryan. This is more akin to the way radical Islam divides peoples into 'believers' and 'infidels'.

 

7. paralegal military tribunals for show trials.

Haven't seen 'em yet! Have you? Regardless, the detainment of non-uniformed combatants is within the bounds of the Geneva Conventions.

 

8. Hitler spelled out his vision for world conquest before he ever took power; perhaps ye all should visit www.pnac.org for a compelling look into the minds of the architects of our current administration?

Sorry, but I no longer link to unknown sites posted by the radical fringe. I don't want my machine to be associated with such sites in any way.

 

When I compare George Bush to Hitler, I don't do it lightly. I don't do it simply for grandiose effect.

 

I truly do believe George Bush to be one of the most vile and inhuman attrocities to have soiled our political landscape for quite some time. His utter disregard for human life matches that of the man he now so proudly talks of disposing (remember his diatribes bragging about how many inmates he put to death in Texas? Incredible!).

 

Well, I doubt I'll get much agreement with these positions of mine, but truly I do believe in them. I hope our reason can help us in time.

What are your thoughts re Franklin Roosevelt? Surely he is responsible for more death than GW by a factor of many hundreds, if not thousands. He also stood up against a domestic isolationist/peace movement. How about Truman? Should we have let S Korea fall to totalitarians? How about JFK? He led us into Vietnam. LBJ? Kept us there. How about Clinton's actions in the Balkans? He had no UN approval.

You seem to be blinded to world history by your hatred of one man. I won't question your patriotism. Just your intellect.

[JayB]

Hey - SC is back!

 

It's good to see you back, but I must admit that I am a bit dissapointed to see that you merely compared Bush to Hitler rather than claiming that Bush is - literally - Hitler. Not like Hitler, not bearing a resemblance to, not distressingly similar in your eyes - actually Hitler. One and the same. What gives?

 

Being the charitable guy that I am, though, I'm willing to write this off as a momentary lapse that came about as a result of your prolonged sabbatical from this site, and I am confident that you will return to your old form in due time.

 

In the meantime I have an exercise for you. Read through the paper I have linked to in the passage below, then claim that it was actually the US that armed Hussein. That'll help get you back in top form, comrade.

 

"As far as Hussein is concerned, The US was hardly alone in supporting him, and I have posted a link that shows total arms sales by country that shows that France and Russia in particular were more active in arming Iraq than the US by far. Link It's all right there on the graph on page 22. To summarize - between 1973 and 1995 the US exported 5 million dollars worth of arms to Iraq. In the same period, the UK exported 330 million dollars worth, France sold them 9.2 billion dollar's worth (That's 1840 times more than the US exported), Russia exported 31.8 billion dollars worth of arms to Iraq, and China was a distant second with 5.5 billion in exports. These are facts. So please address them before you go on claiming that the US is uniquely responsible for arming Iraq."

 

 

 

 

 

[sexual_chocolate]

in reply to fairweather:

 

no it doesn't.

 

 

Yes it can, and should, in that our military performs the function of securing vital assets, and creating a climate conducive to what I call fiscal neo-empery (although the "neo" prefix isn't needed).

 

 

1. i agree, and in this they have shared the most base tribal sentiments that the concept of nationalism has to offer.

 

Furthermore, i don't quite understand your segue into how we "lured" someone here with "no real limits on attainable riches."

 

I would argue that our entire foreign policy is based on the fact that "riches" are quite limited, forcing us in our greed into an incredibly base end-game which will necessarily result in the continuing havoc that we foment internationally.

 

2. the treaty was still quite pertinent; do you really think that a resumption in the research of nuclear technology leads to a safer world for your children? perhaps you do; i don't.

 

3. Iraq, by any legal definition, was a sovereign state. The invasion, by any legal definition, was illegal. I know that international law has become somewhat secondary in today's brave new world, unless it serves the policy aims of the US....

 

4. Hitler seized power with the aid of a cowed and compliant body politic; he was in no position to threaten anyone with death initially. Only after power had been given to him did he usurp total extra-legal control.

 

I believe the congressional vote was an atrocity on par with what happened in Germany (as was the vote authorizing Bush to use military force); congress should NEVER relinquish this much control to a president. What they did was cowardly and absolutely myopic.

 

 

5. "you are either with us or against us." Pretty effective, really.

 

6. Read "Mein Kampff", or any of Hitler's demagogic masterpieces.

 

7. Please! The detention of the individuals at Guantanamo is entirely outside the protocols of the Geneva Conventions! That's why the US refuses to call them "prisoners of war"!

 

8. Well, it is true that www.pnac.org is part of the radical fringe, but hardly in the way you suspect. Hahahahahaha! (By the way, afraid the powers that be might frown upon your freedom to gather information? Buahahahaha! they got you!)

 

 

fdr: not sure.

truman: not sure.

jfk: bad move.

lbj: bad move.

clinton: oof. not sure.

 

 

Yes, there are times when my anger boils to hatred. I try not to let it get the best of me.

 

As far as my "patriotism" goes, I'd rather you question it than my intellect, although questioning either one is fine by me! (pnac: it's out to getcha!)

[sexual_chocolate]

JayB, get your facts straight:

 

Bush is not Hitler, yet he eats babies for breakfast.

 

And what is this apologist drivel about who armed whom? France and Russia (Soviet Union) aren't playing the hypocrisy game that the US is; plus in no way am I supporting the arms trade anyway.

 

And furthermore, I have never seen a more contemptible apologist for US foreign policy than you, sir; I suppose next you'll make some sort of reactionary claim that opposition to the civil rights movement was justified because state control is more important than individual rights? Of course you will....

[JayB]

Just read that last post. Awesome.

 

Once you finish with that chart, follow up with a glib dissmissal of the mass graves in Iraq. Then rail against the illegal use of force that brought about the end of the slaughter in Kosovo (not sanctioned by the UN either, remember?). Great stuff. Keep it coming

[JayB]

"And what is this apologist drivel about who armed whom? France and Russia (Soviet Union) aren't playing the hypocrisy game that the US is; plus in no way am I supporting the arms trade anyway."

 

But SC, Mon Cherie! The paper (hint - read it) demonstrates clearly that the French, the Germans, the Russians, and the Chineese had much deeper economic and millitary ties with Hussein than the US did, yet rather than addressing the consequences of their past policies and joining the effort to get rid of him - they continuously lobbied to undermine the efficacy of the sanctions intended to limit his ability to rearm, and did business with him right up to very moment of the invasion. They had no qualms about selling him arms and making contracts with him long after any strategic rationale for supporting him had vanished - but wouldn't single soldier to the effort to get rid of him, contribute a cent to rebuilding the country or provide the personel necessary to stabilize the country, perpetually frustrated and denounced the US's efforts to rid the world of the regime that they were even more complicit in nurturing and sustaining - then went onto herald Hussein's capture in the most glowing terms and issue proclamations about how wonderful this development was for both the world and the people of Iraq? How is that not hypocritical? This should be good.

 

"state control is more important than individual rights? Of course you will...."

 

Yeah - because that's what I've consistently supported here all along. State control trumping individual rights.

 

Glad to see you returning to top form so quickly comrade!

 

Cheers

[iain]

I'd like to point out this thread starts with a fox "news" article. That in itself is ridiculous.

[Winter]

Ok ok maybe Bush isn't akin to Hitler. But what about Bobo?

 

[minx]

 

[willstrickland]

[JoshK]

Fairweather, you seem to live in a complete vacuum devoid of any sort of undestanding of what goes on outside of this country, or, for that matter, your right wing circle. Yes, I made up the 5.8 out of 6 billion figure. You would have to be dumb, however, not to realize that the VAST majority of the people on this globe do NOT like your leader one bit right now. Hell, your leader didn't even get enough votes to be popularly elected in *this* country! He was protested in every mainstream country just 6 or 8 months ago (and they continue) and opinion polls continue to show 70, 80, 90% of the citizens of many countries opposed to his actions. These aren't fringe countries either, but our former allies.

 

You allow yourself to get so entirely caught up in the us vs. them mentality that you fail to realize that your views are NOT the views shared by most everybody else. Furthermore the people here that you try to box into the radical left are quite similar in views to what you'll find throughout most other developed countries in the world. It is the views of you and your "patriotic" right wing buddies who are viewed as radical to most others.

 

I feel sorry that you live such a close-minded, constantly paranoid life.

[willstrickland]

[willstrickland]