August 31, 2004
Sumbitch Finally Tells The Truth...
...and this is the thanks he gets?
In an interview on NBC-TV's Today show, Bush vowed to stay the course in the war on terror, saying perseverance in the battle would make the world safer for future generations. But he suggested an all-out victory against terrorism might not be possible.
Asked "Can we win?" Bush said, "I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that the -- those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."
...
"The war on terrorism is absolutely winnable," [John] Edwards said later on ABC's Nightline.
...
"To suggest that the war on terror can't be won is absolutely unacceptable," said Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Hey John? Hey Joe? Go (to paraphrase the Vice President) fuck yourselves. Not only was the President correct in stating that the "war" cannot be won, but to "suggest" that the "war" should be won, on the terms the Democrats find "acceptable" (bombing, shooting, and torturing innocent civilians; occupying sovereign nations and re-writing their economic laws while serving as de facto guarantor of Israel's 37-year occupation of Palestine; firing off hundreds of tonnes of radiological munitions and developing a new generation of "useable" nuclear weapons for future use against the "bad guys"; destroying homes of "suspected" "insurgents"; holding detainees indefinitely without charge, or simply offing "suspected" "terrorists" on sight; laying siege to whole cities, and razing them to the ground; "allying" with savage dictators, warlords, and fundamentalist regimes -- even those responsible for wanton nuclear proliferation; "spanning the globe" with dozens of military bases; staging coups d'etat against elected leaders; destroying peasants' lives and livelihoods via chemical warfare, in the name of fighting "narco-terrorists") is a fucking travesty.
You want to "win" the "War On Terror", Joe? How about putting on Dubya's fucking flight suit, setting your ass in a bomber, and getting to work using these methods against the world's most dangerous terrorist state -- namely, the USA? You think that would be "acceptable" to the American people, fuckhole?
No? Then why should it be "acceptable" to any other people? Why should we be surprised when they resist?
Posted by Eddie Tews at August 31, 2004 04:21 PM
Comments
Eddie's usual drivel, calling the U.S. the greatest terrorist state in the world. I love how Eddie constantly refers to Iraqi "civilians" he doesn't even know as "innocent." How the fuck do you know how innocent they are or aren't, Eddie? By your own admission, the entire Iraqi population hates our guts and resists the "occupation." If that's the case, and knowing how quickly Muslims rally to "jihad", then a plethora of these "innocent civilians" are taking up arms against the U.S. I mean, these resistance fighters are coming from SOMEWHERE. So to call them innocent is to pontificate, and you know it. You just love to toss that word around when describing Iraqis b/c it suits your argument. But as usual, you are completely incorrect. And besides, how "innocent" are men who wear no uniform, hide amongst civilians, and use civilian structures (e.g. hospitals) as bases of operations? Innocent my ass!
President Bush was right, although he (as usual) misspoke. What he was implying was that the use of terrorism can never be stopped, which is true. But keep in mind that terrorism is a TACTIC, not an ethos. Islamo-fascists are not the only terrorists in the history of the world. The Irish Republican Army has used terrorism to accomplish its goals, just to cite one example. So the terrorism itself can never be stopped as long as someone has the will to kill someone else. The ethos behind terrorism, however, CAN BE crushed and defeated. But the fact of the matter is that as long as we have human civilizations, the world will never be rid of terrorism of some sort or degree. -- Posted by: Greg Taylor on April 4, 2005 09:47 PM