PDA

View Full Version : Bush, and His Use of "Appeasement"



stephanie
05-16-2008, 11:14 PM
Oh My..

Posted by Bruce Ramsey


Democrats are rebuking President Bush for saying in his speech to the Knesset, here, that to “negotiate with terrorists and radicals” is “appeasement.” The Democrats took it as a slap at Barack Obama. What bothers me is the continual reference to Hitler and his National Socialists, particularly the British and French accommodation at the Munich Conference of 1938.

The narrative we're given about Munich is entirely in hindsight. We know what kind of man Hitler was, and that he started World War II in Europe. From the view of 1938, what Hitler was demanding at Munich was not unreasonable, according to the prevailing idea of the nation-state. His claim was that the German-speaking areas of Europe--and ones that thought of themselves as German --be under German authority. He had just annexed Austria, which was German-speaking, without bloodshed. There were two more small pieces of Germanic territory: the free city of Danzig and the Sudetenland, a border area of what is now the Czech Republic.

read the rest..
http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/edcetera/2008/05/bush_and_his_use_of_appeasemen.html

Joe Steel
05-17-2008, 06:07 AM
Ironic, isn't it.

Bush is more like Hitler than Obama is like Chamberlain.

April15
05-17-2008, 01:00 PM
Ironic, isn't it.

Bush is more like Hitler than Obama is like Chamberlain.
No shit!

ranger
05-17-2008, 01:20 PM
Oh My..

Posted by Bruce Ramsey


Democrats are rebuking President Bush for saying in his speech to the Knesset, here, that to “negotiate with terrorists and radicals” is “appeasement.” The Democrats took it as a slap at Barack Obama. What bothers me is the continual reference to Hitler and his National Socialists, particularly the British and French accommodation at the Munich Conference of 1938.

The narrative we're given about Munich is entirely in hindsight. We know what kind of man Hitler was, and that he started World War II in Europe. From the view of 1938, what Hitler was demanding at Munich was not unreasonable, according to the prevailing idea of the nation-state. His claim was that the German-speaking areas of Europe--and ones that thought of themselves as German --be under German authority. He had just annexed Austria, which was German-speaking, without bloodshed. There were two more small pieces of Germanic territory: the free city of Danzig and the Sudetenland, a border area of what is now the Czech Republic.

read the rest..
http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/edcetera/2008/05/bush_and_his_use_of_appeasemen.html

Hitler wrote a fucking book about his plans and then followed them to the letter. The book was published in 1925. Shouldn't have been too hard to figure out what the man was up to. Between a book and all of his speeches that he gave, promising to restore Germany to its former status as a world power. Chamberlain was a fucking moron who wanted to believe anything to avoid a war. Guess what, he got the war anyway and how many people died. If the Brits had said no from the get go, Hitler was in no position to launch an attack. If he had launched the attack anyway, he would have gotten his ass kicked and WWII would have been months, not years long.

Seems to me, Imanutjob over in Iran is doing the same things with his speeches. Also seems to me that we should take the man at his word and kick his ass before he can do what he wants. But, you pussy ass liberals would rather wait until he's launched a nuke at Israel before you do something about it. Watch the world go up in a radioactive ball of fire if Obama gets in office.

Kathianne
05-17-2008, 01:22 PM
No shit!

How do you reach that conclusion?

Sitarro
05-17-2008, 02:09 PM
Ironic, isn't it.

Bush is more like Hitler than Obama is like Chamberlain.

In what way, dumbass? Back up your asinine, childlike statement, dumbass.

April15
05-17-2008, 04:45 PM
How do you reach that conclusion?This may be hard to understand but talking with your enemy is not appeasement until you capitulate.
Using religion and half truths to get war powers is reminsent of fascism.

Kathianne
05-17-2008, 05:31 PM
This may be hard to understand but talking with your enemy is not appeasement until you capitulate.
Using religion and half truths to get war powers is reminsent of fascism.

Including the 'other side' that you are talking with, right?

April15
05-17-2008, 09:15 PM
Including the 'other side' that you are talking with, right?NO! George Wrong Bush is who I refer to.

actsnoblemartin
05-17-2008, 11:10 PM
you wanna provide some proof or atleast explain why or do you just wanna call people names?


Ironic, isn't it.

Bush is more like Hitler than Obama is like Chamberlain.

actsnoblemartin
05-17-2008, 11:12 PM
how about some proof instead of just rhetoric?


This may be hard to understand but talking with your enemy is not appeasement until you capitulate.
Using religion and half truths to get war powers is reminsent of fascism.

ranger
05-17-2008, 11:16 PM
This may be hard to understand but talking with your enemy is not appeasement until you capitulate.
Using religion and half truths to get war powers is reminsent of fascism.


To some people in this world, talking is capitulation.

Kathianne
05-18-2008, 03:28 AM
NO! George Wrong Bush is who I refer to.

Ah, but it takes two sides to successfully engage. You may have missed the 10 years of diplomatic gestures, UN condemnations, resolutions, building fast and furious, with the US fully participating. That was followed by another intense 15 months of negotiations, which failed. When diplomacy and negotions fail, war follows.

Joe Steel
05-18-2008, 07:04 AM
In what way, dumbass? Back up your asinine, childlike statement, dumbass.

Bush sent tanks into Iraq.

Dumbass.

jimnyc
05-18-2008, 09:24 AM
Bush sent tanks into Iraq.

Dumbass.

Then what are the Democrat leaders that have sent troops and heavy armor into battles? And the one who killed 150,000 people instantly?

namvet
05-18-2008, 10:07 AM
I thought it was a good shot at the half breed. remember Osama says we have 57 states :lol:

appeasement: How to Enrage a democrap (democrap)

Sitarro
05-18-2008, 11:24 AM
Bush sent tanks into Iraq.

Dumbass.

Yea but only after he had the United States Air Force soften them up with a serious and accurate bombing campaign, Saddam asked for it, he got it.:salute:

Obama is more like Buckwheat than President Bush is like Spanky.:laugh2:

red states rule
05-19-2008, 07:17 AM
So lets see. It is OK for the left to insult Pres Bush by calling him Hitler, and a madman. It is fine for libs to call his foreign policy cowboy diplomacy.

But libs meltdown when Pres Bush reminds people how some tried to appease Hitler in the 1930's

Ok, I got it now

More liberal double standards

bullypulpit
05-19-2008, 07:19 AM
The truly delicious irony here is that George W. Bush accuses others of appeasement when he had an active Nazi sympathizer in the family...His grandfather, Prescott Bush.

<blockquote>George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.

The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.

His business dealings, which continued until his company's assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz - <a href=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar>The Guardian</a></blockquote>

Hmm...We didn't hear anything on THAT nasty little turd in the punchbowl of Bush's 2004 election bid from the dreaded MSM.

red states rule
05-19-2008, 07:22 AM
The truly delicious irony here is that George W. Bush accuses others of appeasement when he had an active Nazi sympathizer in the family...His grandfather, Prescott Bush.

<blockquote>George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.

The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.

His business dealings, which continued until his company's assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz - <a href=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar>The Guardian</a></blockquote>

Hmm...We didn't hear anything on THAT nasty little turd in the punchbowl of Bush's 2004 election bid from the dreaded MSM.

My, you thin skinned libs are so desperate. No names mentioned, nothing about the election - yet you libs are in a tizzy

Guilty conscience BP?

bullypulpit
05-19-2008, 10:13 AM
My, you thin skinned libs are so desperate. No names mentioned, nothing about the election - yet you libs are in a tizzy

Guilty conscience BP?

Nothing to feel guilty about. Come to think of it, I didn't mention any names or anything about the election either.

<blockquote>"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along."

"We have heard this foolish delusion before," Bush said. "As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."</blockquote>

"Some seem to believe...", Who is this mysterious "Some"..."? It's the Administration catchphrase for any who oppose his failed policies in Iraq and Afghanistan. The only delusion lies with Bush and McCain in their insistence on continuing to pursue the Bush administration's failed doctrines. His speech was little more than rehashing the same old bullshit..."Elect a democrat and you'll die...".

But as I said before, Bush really has no room to talk about appeasement. After all, Grampa Prescott was a full blown Nazi sympathizer. But golly, didn't right wingers call Eisenhower an "appeaser" after his meetings with Nikita Kruschev? And then there was Reagan who was branded an "appeaser" by the right wing after his meetings with Mikhail Gorbachev and the START treaty. Oh and Kennedy was called an appeaser by the right after settling the Cuban Missile crisis. Had Nixon been in the White House, it would have been the end of the world. Nixon was listening to Curtis LeMay who was busy going all "Buck Turgidson"..."Sure we'd get our hair mussed...20 or 30 million dead...tops..."
Although LeMay estimated we'd only lose 5 or 6 cities in a nuclear exchange.

red states rule
05-19-2008, 10:17 AM
Nothing to feel guilty about. Come to think of it, I didn't mention any names or anything about the election either.

<blockquote>"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along."

"We have heard this foolish delusion before," Bush said. "As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."</blockquote>

"Some seem to believe...", Who is this mysterious "Some"..."? It's the Administration catchphrase for any who oppose his failed policies in Iraq and Afghanistan. The only delusion lies with Bush and McCain in their insistence on continuing to pursue the Bush administration's failed doctrines. His speech was little more than rehashing the same old bullshit..."Elect a democrat and you'll die...".

But as I said before, Bush really has no room to talk about appeasement. After all, Grampa Prescott was a full blown Nazi sympathizer. But golly, didn't right wingers call Eisenhower an "appeaser" after his meetings with Nikita Kruschev? And then there was Reagan who was branded an "appeaser" by the right wing after his meetings with Mikhail Gorbachev and the START treaty. Oh and Kennedy was called an appeaser by the right after settling the Cuban Missile crisis. Had Nixon been in the White House, it would have been the end of the world. Nixon was listening to Curtis LeMay who was busy going all "Buck Turgidson"..."Sure we'd get our hair mussed...20 or 30 million dead...tops..."
Although LeMay estimated we'd only lose 5 or 6 cities in a nuclear exchange.

You are not the only moonbat trying to rewrite history BP. Liberals have earned their rep as appeasers, and you are making sure they are known as the party of surrender and appeasemnt


Bush Still Won't Accept Blame for Pearl Harbor
Today, the Shrub went through the robotic motions of honoring the brave men, womyn, and transgendered who died at Pearl Harbor thanks to his family's relentless quest for absolute power. No doubt, Bush naively believes that being born five years after that day of infamy excuses him from any guilt. But if the dead could speak, they'd cry out from their watery graves and demand he apologize and atone for his complicity in the attacks.

It's common knowledge that the Shrub's grandfather, Prescott Shrub Bush, bankrolled the Third Reich out of his own pockets, but the rabbit-hole of treachery and betrayal goes much deeper than anyone could possibly have imagined. As I will reveal, the Bush family not only orchestrated the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, but conspired with some of history's most notorious figures in order to assume control of the White House for decades to come.

It was the summer of 1941. Senator Prescott Bush covertly met with fellow Skull & Bones members Gen. Hideki Tojo, Joseph Goebbels, and Fatty Arbuckle to hatch an insidious plot so secret that only a few Democrat Underground members and that weird guy at the comic book store know about it. On the 7th of December, Japan would launch a "surprise attack" on the U.S. Naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, launching a war and allowing young naval aviator George Herbert Walker Bush pad his political resume with a phony act of heroism at sea. In return, Arbuckle would use his Hollywood connections to disgrace Tojo's political adversary, Ministry of Finance Kiichi Miyazawa, in an elaborate sex scandal involving an underaged prostitute and a syphillitic goat. Goebbels would provide beer and brauts.

Just as planned, the Pearl Harbor attacks came by complete surprise, and the entire U.S. Pacific Fleet was destroyed. George H.W. Bush went off to war, and was shot down over Iwo Jima. His crewmates and fellow Skull and Bonesmen perished, but he was "miraculously" pulled from the water and would shamelessly use his military service for political gain years later. Back in Tokyo, Tojo patiently awaited for Prescott Bush to fulfill his part of the bargain and destroy his political rival, Miyazawa.


On August 9, 1945, atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki - bombs built with uranium procured by Prescott Bush's Vanadium Corporation. Japan quickly surrendered, and Tojo was captured by the allies and summarily executed without a trail. Newly appointed Chancellor of Germany, Joseph Goebbels, took his own life outside a Berlin-area Piggly Wiggly, and Fatty Arbuckle became embroiled in a career-ending sex scandal of his own. Miyazawa, on the other hand, was promoted to the Japanese Diet, which monitors and controls the Nipponese sushi trade. For a while it seemed as if the Bush Dynasty would evade meeting their obligations in the sinister pact.

The Bushies would soon learn, however, that there was still a bill to be paid, and it would be paid with liquid assets.

Flash forward to 1992. In the midst of a failing political campaign, President George Herbert Walker Bush attends a state visit in Tokyo, Japan. Journalists would later describe the President as appearing pale and disoriented, at least more so than usual. Perhaps out of guilt over the needless deaths of his old crewmates, or from stress over troubles with his coke-addicted, alcoholic son, the president is overcome by a wave of nausea. He opens his mouth, and for a moment it appears as if he's going to speak. Instead, he shocks the world by vacating the contents of his stomach all over the Japanese Prime Minister...none other than Kiichi Miyazawa himself.

In ancient Japanese culture, being ralfed on by dinner guests was considered such a dishonor that the victims often committed ritual suicide before the puke even dried. Japan had long since abandoned the barbaric Samurai Code, but the stigma of being a vomit receptacle remained. Shamed and disgraced, Miyazawa was forced out of office with a vote of "no confidence" less than one year later, and the old pact between Prescott Bush and Admiral Tojo was finally fulfilled.


However, Miyazawa was from from finished. While Geedumbya ascended to the throne, the disgraced prime minister plotted his revenge. As a member of the powerful Trilateral Commission, he was able to secure documents that would both expose the Bush family's involvement in the Pearl Harbor attacks, and completely exonerate Fatty Arbuckle. Determined to get the damning evidence to the American press, he entrusted it with his nephew, a commercial fisherman operating off the coast of Hawaii. In February of 2001, just weeks after Bush stole the presidency, the Japanese trawler Emime Maru was destroyed by the U.S.S. Greenville. All aboard the vessel were killed - including Miyazawa's nephew, who had mere days before deposited the documents in a safety deposit box at the Manhattan branch of Fuji Bank - located in the south tower of the World Trade Center.

Paranoid conspiracy nuts will have fun with that little morsel, but we all know the real reason Bush ordered the 9/11 attacks was to steal Iraq's oil. Nonetheless, the evidence of Bush's treachery was destroyed forever, along with any hopes of seeing him brought to justice for his crimes.

As I expected, Dumbya didn't mention any of this in his pretty little speech today. Like he always does, he'll evade responsibility, pass the buck, and allow 2,000 brave servicemen to remain helplessly trapped at the bottom of the ocean just so he doesn't have to pay them their social security.

http://blamebush.typepad.com/blamebush/2004/12/bush_remembers_.html

midcan5
05-19-2008, 05:54 PM
The initial post was good, it brings to attention the complexity of looking at the past and Monday morning quarterbacking. I doubt there are many that understand the circumstances of the Hitler appeasement, it was not long after WWI and few wanted another war so soon. The action viewed from history was wrong but viewed from the time and the circumstances was more understandable. War may have started sooner. But move forward to 2008 and call someone who talks diplomacy an appeaser similar to Chamberlain and you soon realize how little most people know about history. But then does this administration know anything? Anyone see OBL lately? or those WMDs?

http://www.historyguide.org/europe/munich.html

Gaffer
05-19-2008, 06:23 PM
The initial post was good, it brings to attention the complexity of looking at the past and Monday morning quarterbacking. I doubt there are many that understand the circumstances of the Hitler appeasement, it was not long after WWI and few wanted another war so soon. The action viewed from history was wrong but viewed from the time and the circumstances was more understandable. War may have started sooner. But move forward to 2008 and call someone who talks diplomacy an appeaser similar to Chamberlain and you soon realize how little most people know about history. But then does this administration know anything? Anyone see OBL lately? or those WMDs?

http://www.historyguide.org/europe/munich.html

OBL is either in pakistan or iran. In either case we have to invade a sovereign country to get him. When do you want to start?

When last spotted the WMD's were heading into syria. They are either in the hands of hezbollah now or have been returned to their country of origin, russia.

bullypulpit
05-20-2008, 04:32 AM
OBL is either in pakistan or iran. In either case we have to invade a sovereign country to get him. When do you want to start?

When last spotted the WMD's were heading into syria. They are either in the hands of hezbollah now or have been returned to their country of origin, russia.

Well, now...just how did you come by this intel? I'm sure the Bush administration would love to hear it. For all Bush's initial bluster about "dead or alive", Bin Laden remains at liberty and save for occasional, conveniently timed audio tapes, remains unheard from. Oh, and let's not forget that Al Qaeda has reconstituted itself to pre-9/11 levels while Bush has hand the majority of US ground forces tied down in Iraq.

As for the WMD's...ummm you know <a href=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4169107.stm>Charles Duelfer</a>, the chief US weapons inspector reported in 2005 that "...Iraq had no stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons at the time of the US-led invasion nearly two years ago". And I thought the only person still stupid enough to believe that Iraq's WMD's went to Syria, a long discredited bit of disinformation, was Sean Hannity. I stand corrected

red states rule
05-20-2008, 05:25 AM
Well, now...just how did you come by this intel? I'm sure the Bush administration would love to hear it. For all Bush's initial bluster about "dead or alive", Bin Laden remains at liberty and save for occasional, conveniently timed audio tapes, remains unheard from. Oh, and let's not forget that Al Qaeda has reconstituted itself to pre-9/11 levels while Bush has hand the majority of US ground forces tied down in Iraq.

As for the WMD's...ummm you know <a href=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4169107.stm>Charles Duelfer</a>, the chief US weapons inspector reported in 2005 that "...Iraq had no stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons at the time of the US-led invasion nearly two years ago". And I thought the only person still stupid enough to believe that Iraq's WMD's went to Syria, a long discredited bit of disinformation, was Sean Hannity. I stand corrected

Here you go BP. Now you can "redeploy" to yet another thread


A senior Syrian journalist reports Iraq WMD located in three Syrian sites
06 January, 2004

AFP

Nizar Nayuf (Nayyouf-Nayyuf), a Syrian journalist who recently defected from Syria to Western Europe and is known for bravely challenging the Syrian regime, said in a letter Monday, January 5, to Dutch newspaper “De Telegraaf,” that he knows the three sites where Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) are kept. The storage places are:

1- Tunnels dug under the town of al-Baida near the city of Hama in northern Syria. These tunnels are an integral part of an underground factory, built by the North Koreans, for producing Syrian Scud missiles. Iraqi chemical weapons and long-range missiles are stored in these tunnels.

-2- The village of Tal Snan, north of the town of Salamija, where there is a big Syrian air force camp. Vital parts of Iraq's WMD are stored there.

-3-. The city of Sjinsjar on the Syrian border with the Lebanon, south of Homs city.

Nayouf writes that the transfer of Iraqi WMD to Syria was organized by the commanders of Saddam Hussein's Special Republican Guard, including General Shalish, with the help of Assif Shoakat , Bashar Assad's cousin. Shoakat is the CEO of Bhaha, an import/export company owned by the Assad family.

In February 2003, a month before America's invasion in Iraq, very few are aware about the efforts to bring the Weapons of Mass Destruction from Iraq to Syria, and the personal involvement of Bashar Assad and his family in the operation.
Nayouf, who has won prizes for journalistic integrity, says he wrote his letter because he has terminal cancer.

http://www.2la.org/syria/iraq-wmd.php

red states rule
05-20-2008, 05:47 AM
Please, tell me again how liberals are NOT appeasers....


A lib writes how appeasing Hitler would have been fine as well as the current crop of terrorists


May 16, 2008 8:52 AM

Bush, and His Use of "Appeasement"

Posted by Bruce Ramsey


Democrats are rebuking President Bush for saying in his speech to the Knesset, here, that to “negotiate with terrorists and radicals” is “appeasement.” The Democrats took it as a slap at Barack Obama. What bothers me is the continual reference to Hitler and his National Socialists, particularly the British and French accommodation at the Munich Conference of 1938.

The narrative we're given about Munich is entirely in hindsight. We know what kind of man Hitler was, and that he started World War II in Europe. But in 1938 people knew a lot less. What Hitler was demanding at Munich was not unreasonable as a national claim (though he was making it in a last-minute, unreasonable way.) Germany's claim was that the areas of Europe that spoke German and thought of themselves as German be under German authority. In September 1938 the principal remaining area was the Sudetenland.

So the British and French let him have it. Their thought was: "Now you have your Greater Germany." They didn't want a war. They were not superpowers like the United States is now. They remembered the 1914-1918 war and how they almost lost it.

In a few months, in early 1939, Hitler ordered the invasion of what is now the Czech Republic—that is, territory that was not German. Then it was obvious that a deal with him was worthless--and the British and French did not appease Hitler any more. Thus the lesson of Munich: don't appease Hitlers.

But who else is a Hitler? If you paste that label on somebody it means they are cast out. You can't talk to them any more. And it has gotten pasted on quite a few national leaders over the years: Milosevic, Hussein, Ahmadinejad, et. al. In particular, to apply that label to the elected leaders of the Palestinians is to say that you aren't going to listen to their claims to a homeland. I think they do have a claim. So do the Israelis. In order to get anywhere, each side has to listen to the other. To continually bring up Hitler, the Nazis, the Munich Conference and “appeasement,” is to try to prolong the stalemate.
http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/edcetera/2008/05/bush_and_his_use_of_appeasemen.html

bullypulpit
05-20-2008, 06:49 AM
Here you go BP. Now you can "redeploy" to yet another thread


A senior Syrian journalist reports Iraq WMD located in three Syrian sites
06 January, 2004

AFP

Nizar Nayuf (Nayyouf-Nayyuf), a Syrian journalist who recently defected from Syria to Western Europe and is known for bravely challenging the Syrian regime, said in a letter Monday, January 5, to Dutch newspaper “De Telegraaf,” that he knows the three sites where Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) are kept. The storage places are:

1- Tunnels dug under the town of al-Baida near the city of Hama in northern Syria. These tunnels are an integral part of an underground factory, built by the North Koreans, for producing Syrian Scud missiles. Iraqi chemical weapons and long-range missiles are stored in these tunnels.

-2- The village of Tal Snan, north of the town of Salamija, where there is a big Syrian air force camp. Vital parts of Iraq's WMD are stored there.

-3-. The city of Sjinsjar on the Syrian border with the Lebanon, south of Homs city.

Nayouf writes that the transfer of Iraqi WMD to Syria was organized by the commanders of Saddam Hussein's Special Republican Guard, including General Shalish, with the help of Assif Shoakat , Bashar Assad's cousin. Shoakat is the CEO of Bhaha, an import/export company owned by the Assad family.

In February 2003, a month before America's invasion in Iraq, very few are aware about the efforts to bring the Weapons of Mass Destruction from Iraq to Syria, and the personal involvement of Bashar Assad and his family in the operation.
Nayouf, who has won prizes for journalistic integrity, says he wrote his letter because he has terminal cancer.

http://www.2la.org/syria/iraq-wmd.php

Long discredited and uncorroborated.

<blockquote>It is unlikely Iraq shipped banned weapons material into Syria before the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, according to report released by the Iraq Survey Group, a CIA/Pentagon team searching for Iraqi weapons programs.

In October, the group said that the 1991 Persian Gulf War likely destroyed Iraq's capabilities of producing weapons of mass destruction and that Iraq had none when the United States invaded. - <a href=http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/04/26/iraq.main/>CNN</a></blockquote>

You got nothin'.

red states rule
05-20-2008, 06:51 AM
Long discredited and uncorroborated.

<blockquote>It is unlikely Iraq shipped banned weapons material into Syria before the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, according to report released by the Iraq Survey Group, a CIA/Pentagon team searching for Iraqi weapons programs.

In October, the group said that the 1991 Persian Gulf War likely destroyed Iraq's capabilities of producing weapons of mass destruction and that Iraq had none when the United States invaded. - <a href=http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/04/26/iraq.main/>CNN</a></blockquote>

You got nothin'.

Saddam general:
WMDs in Syria

Another former confidant of ex-dictator
makes claim, also links Iraq to al-Qaida


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 15, 2006
1:00 am Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com

A former general and friend of Saddam Hussein who defected but maintains close contact with Iraq claims the regime supported al-Qaida with intelligence, finances and munitions and believes weapons of mass destruction are hidden in Syria.

Ali Ibrahim al-Tikriti, southern regional commander for Saddam Hussein's Fedayeen militia in the late 1980s, spoke with Ryan Mauro of WorldThreats.com.

Known as the "Butcher of Basra," al-Tikriti commanded units that dealt with chemical and biological weapons. He defected shortly before the Gulf War in 1991.

Last month, Saddam Hussein's No. 2 Air Force officer, Georges Sada, told the New York Sun Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were moved to Syria six weeks before the war started. Sada claimed two Iraqi Airways Boeing jets converted to cargo planes moved the weapons in a total of 56 flights. They attracted little attention, he said, because they were thought to be civilian flights providing relief from Iraq to Syria, which had suffered a flood after a dam collapse in 2002.

Discussing Saddam's support of terrorism, al-Tikriti said the dictator's regime sponsored Palestinian groups with logistical and material support.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48827

bullypulpit
05-20-2008, 07:13 AM
Please, tell me again how liberals are NOT appeasers....


A lib writes how appeasing Hitler would have been fine as well as the current crop of terrorists


May 16, 2008 8:52 AM

Bush, and His Use of "Appeasement"

Posted by Bruce Ramsey


Democrats are rebuking President Bush for saying in his speech to the Knesset, here, that to “negotiate with terrorists and radicals” is “appeasement.” The Democrats took it as a slap at Barack Obama. What bothers me is the continual reference to Hitler and his National Socialists, particularly the British and French accommodation at the Munich Conference of 1938.

The narrative we're given about Munich is entirely in hindsight. We know what kind of man Hitler was, and that he started World War II in Europe. But in 1938 people knew a lot less. What Hitler was demanding at Munich was not unreasonable as a national claim (though he was making it in a last-minute, unreasonable way.) Germany's claim was that the areas of Europe that spoke German and thought of themselves as German be under German authority. In September 1938 the principal remaining area was the Sudetenland.

So the British and French let him have it. Their thought was: "Now you have your Greater Germany." They didn't want a war. They were not superpowers like the United States is now. They remembered the 1914-1918 war and how they almost lost it.

In a few months, in early 1939, Hitler ordered the invasion of what is now the Czech Republic—that is, territory that was not German. Then it was obvious that a deal with him was worthless--and the British and French did not appease Hitler any more. Thus the lesson of Munich: don't appease Hitlers.

But who else is a Hitler? If you paste that label on somebody it means they are cast out. You can't talk to them any more. And it has gotten pasted on quite a few national leaders over the years: Milosevic, Hussein, Ahmadinejad, et. al. In particular, to apply that label to the elected leaders of the Palestinians is to say that you aren't going to listen to their claims to a homeland. I think they do have a claim. So do the Israelis. In order to get anywhere, each side has to listen to the other. To continually bring up Hitler, the Nazis, the Munich Conference and “appeasement,” is to try to prolong the stalemate.
http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/edcetera/2008/05/bush_and_his_use_of_appeasemen.html

Actually the writer shows how continual use of the Hitler analogy shuts down avenues for any meaningful negotiation. Was it appeasement for Eisenhower to negotiate with Kruschev? Was it appeasement for Kennedy to negotiate with Kruschev? Was it appeasement for Reagan to negotiate with Gorbachev? No. It was was bringing all of America's powers of reason and persuasion to the table and negotiating with our opponents to avert war or worse. Have we as a nation become so craven and insecure that the only way we can achieve our policy objectives is to attempt to beat our enemies into submission? That is the implication made by Bush and John McCain with their accusations of appeasement. Theirs is the politics of fear...a card the GOP has played since 9/11. The world is a dangerous place, and you don't make it any safer by engaging in "Paris Hilton" diplomacy..."I don't like you so I'm not going to talk to you!".

bullypulpit
05-20-2008, 07:16 AM
Saddam general:
WMDs in Syria

Another former confidant of ex-dictator
makes claim, also links Iraq to al-Qaida


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 15, 2006
1:00 am Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com

A former general and friend of Saddam Hussein who defected but maintains close contact with Iraq claims the regime supported al-Qaida with intelligence, finances and munitions and believes weapons of mass destruction are hidden in Syria.

Ali Ibrahim al-Tikriti, southern regional commander for Saddam Hussein's Fedayeen militia in the late 1980s, spoke with Ryan Mauro of WorldThreats.com.

Known as the "Butcher of Basra," al-Tikriti commanded units that dealt with chemical and biological weapons. He defected shortly before the Gulf War in 1991.

Last month, Saddam Hussein's No. 2 Air Force officer, Georges Sada, told the New York Sun Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were moved to Syria six weeks before the war started. Sada claimed two Iraqi Airways Boeing jets converted to cargo planes moved the weapons in a total of 56 flights. They attracted little attention, he said, because they were thought to be civilian flights providing relief from Iraq to Syria, which had suffered a flood after a dam collapse in 2002.

Discussing Saddam's support of terrorism, al-Tikriti said the dictator's regime sponsored Palestinian groups with logistical and material support.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48827

Ooooh...! WorldNetDaily...! I'll take the word of the Iraq Survey Group.

red states rule
05-20-2008, 07:18 AM
Actually the writer shows how continual use of the Hitler analogy shuts down avenues for any meaningful negotiation. Was it appeasement for Eisenhower to negotiate with Kruschev? Was it appeasement for Kennedy to negotiate with Kruschev? Was it appeasement for Reagan to negotiate with Gorbachev? No. It was was bringing all of America's powers of reason and persuasion to the table and negotiating with our opponents to avert war or worse. Have we as a nation become so craven and insecure that the only way we can achieve our policy objectives is to attempt to beat our enemies into submission? That is the implication made by Bush and John McCain with their accusations of appeasement. Theirs is the politics of fear...a card the GOP has played since 9/11. The world is a dangerous place, and you don't make it any safer by engaging in "Paris Hilton" diplomacy..."I don't like you so I'm not going to talk to you!".

We all know the modern Dem party is the party of appeasement - that is why they metled down over Pres Bush's speech

As far as Gorby, Reagan had him beaten. The US had deployed missiles in Europe, and had built up the military

I remember the libs screaming how Pres Reagan was going to start WWIII. They had a fit when Pres Reagan called the the "evil empire"

Today, Dems have a pine of Jello, and the terrorists know it. That is why they are backing them in the election

retiredman
05-20-2008, 07:42 AM
Ooooh...! WorldNetDaily...! I'll take the word of the Iraq Survey Group.


precisely. AND...it's a two year old article!

red states rule
05-20-2008, 07:47 AM
precisely. AND...it's a two year old article!

It shows where the WMDS went. Your idea to stop terrorism is to say "Pretty please stop being terrorists"

bullypulpit
05-20-2008, 07:56 AM
We all know the modern Dem party is the party of appeasement - that is why they metled down over Pres Bush's speech

As far as Gorby, Reagan had him beaten. The US had deployed missiles in Europe, and had built up the military

I remember the libs screaming how Pres Reagan was going to start WWIII. They had a fit when Pres Reagan called the the "evil empire"

Today, Dems have a pine of Jello, and the terrorists know it. That is why they are backing them in the election

Ummm...It was the right wing that labeled Reagan an appeaser...The same folks who are hurling that particular epithet at Obama and the Democrats now. Oh, and didn't Grampy McSame say that negotiation with Hamas was a viable option in 2006? Is he an appeaser as well?

Your shit is weak.

retiredman
05-20-2008, 07:57 AM
It shows where the WMDS went. Your idea to stop terrorism is to say "Pretty please stop being terrorists"


it shows one cockamamie theory about where the WMD's went...and the Bush administration's very own Iraq Study Grop has completely debunked that theory as having ZERO value.

My idea of stopping terrorism is to aggressively confront the terrorist organization that attacked us and take steps to neutralize them completely....my idea is NOT to tie ourselves to the occupation of a country that had nothing to do with the attacks on us especially when such an occupation is counterproductive to our war against our real enemies.

red states rule
05-20-2008, 07:59 AM
it shows one cockamamie theory about where the WMD's went...and the Bush administration's very own Iraq Study Grop has completely debunked that theory as having ZERO value.

My idea of stopping terrorism is to aggressively confront the terrorist organization that attacked us and take steps to neutralize them completely....my idea is NOT to tie ourselves to the occupation of a country that had nothing to do with the attacks on us especially when such an occupation is counterproductive to our war against our real enemies.

So surrender to the terrorists is Iraq, and cower to the rest

Sounds like a plan you would come up with

retiredman
05-20-2008, 08:07 AM
So surrender to the terrorists is Iraq, and cower to the rest

Sounds like a plan you would come up with

surrender? I never said anything about surrender. Did Britain surrender Palestine in 1948?

cower? I said aggressively confront the terrorist organization that attacked us and take steps to neutralize them completely.... that does not mean cower in any way.

The point was: you post a two year old bullshit article and can't defend it because you KNOW that the Bush administration's own Iraq Study Group blew holes in the idiotic "WMD's went to Syria" fairytale.

red states rule
05-20-2008, 08:11 AM
surrender? I never said anything about surrender. Did Britain surrender Palestine in 1948?

cower? I said aggressively confront the terrorist organization that attacked us and take steps to neutralize them completely.... that does not mean cower in any way.

The point was: you post a two year old bullshit article and can't defend it because you KNOW that the Bush administration's own Iraq Study Group blew holes in the idiotic "WMD's went to Syria" fairytale.

Another source

Jack Kelly: A Syrian sidestep?
About those Iraqi WMDs: More signs are pointing to a neighborly transfer
Sunday, February 05, 2006

Last week a man who had been deputy chief of Saddam Hussein's air force claimed Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war began.

Special Republican Guard brigades loaded yellow barrels with the skull and crossbones sign on each barrel onto two airliners from which the seats had been removed, Georges Sada said. There were 56 flights in all.
"Saddam realized this time the Americans are coming," Mr. Sada told The New York Sun, one of a handful of news organizations which took note of what he had to say.

There are grounds for skepticism. Mr. Sada was deputy chief of the Iraqi air force during the first Gulf War, not the more recent one, and his account of the movement of WMD to Syria is secondhand.

Mr. Sada said he was told of the WMD transfer by the pilots of the two airliners, who approached him after Saddam was captured.

But Mr. Sada's is only the most recent of a series of accounts by people in a position to speak with authority who say (some of) Saddam's chemical and biological weapons wound up in Syria.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06036/649858.stm


You, and your party, wants to run like hell from the terrorists, and the world know it

Libs are getting the reputation they earned. Cowards and apeeasers

retiredman
05-20-2008, 08:16 AM
Another source

Jack Kelly: A Syrian sidestep?
About those Iraqi WMDs: More signs are pointing to a neighborly transfer
Sunday, February 05, 2006

Last week a man who had been deputy chief of Saddam Hussein's air force claimed Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war began.

Special Republican Guard brigades loaded yellow barrels with the skull and crossbones sign on each barrel onto two airliners from which the seats had been removed, Georges Sada said. There were 56 flights in all.
"Saddam realized this time the Americans are coming," Mr. Sada told The New York Sun, one of a handful of news organizations which took note of what he had to say.

There are grounds for skepticism. Mr. Sada was deputy chief of the Iraqi air force during the first Gulf War, not the more recent one, and his account of the movement of WMD to Syria is secondhand.

Mr. Sada said he was told of the WMD transfer by the pilots of the two airliners, who approached him after Saddam was captured.

But Mr. Sada's is only the most recent of a series of accounts by people in a position to speak with authority who say (some of) Saddam's chemical and biological weapons wound up in Syria.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06036/649858.stm




it is the same two year old source....same story... same Mr. Sada... same thing that was debunked by your president's own ISG.:lol:

red states rule
05-20-2008, 08:17 AM
it is the same two year old source....same story... same Mr. Sada... same thing that was debunked by your president's own ISG.:lol:

Nice dodge. It is best to go with your strengths. You have so few to begin with