Support NeoGAF

[Dan]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060505/pl_afp/usattacksbushwwiii_060505220719

Bush says fight against terror is 'World War III'
Fri May 5, 6:07 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US
President George W. Bush said the September 11 revolt of passengers against their hijackers on board Flight 93 had struck the first blow of "World War III."
ADVERTISEMENT

In an interview with the financial news network CNBC, Bush said he had yet to see the recently released film of the uprising, a dramatic portrayal of events on the United Airlines plane before it crashed in a Pennsylvania field.

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".

Bush said: "I believe that. I believe that it was the first counter-attack to World War III.

"It was, it was unbelievably heroic of those folks on the airplane to recognize the danger and save lives," he said.

Flight 93 crashed on the morning of September 11, 2001, killing the 33 passengers, seven crew members and four hijackers, after passengers stormed the cockpit and battled the hijackers for control of the aircraft.

The president has repeatedly praised the heroism of the passengers in fighting back and so launching the first blow of what he usually calls the "war on terror".

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."

Yeah. As if this man's view of the war on terror wasn't scary enough already.

 

[FlameOfCallandor]

older than the hills

 

[Dan]

Has Bush ever declared that we are in the midst of World War III before? That's news to me.

 

[CoolTrick]

Almost like he WANTS to start World War III for the legacy.

 

[ronito]

Almost like he WANTS to start World War III for the legacy.

He's a republican president. Starting a war is like home run, starting a world war is a grand slam. I keed, I keed.

Spoiler

or do I?

 

[MrSardonic]

this guy needs to be buried in a mine shaft and forgotten about

 

[Link1110]

He's a republican president. Starting a war is like home run, starting a world war is a grand slam.

QFT. The republicans first president taught them this. Lincoln suspended habeus corpus and jailed his opponents (Like Bush on steroids,) not to mention that the civil war wasn't all that popular in its day, but since he started a war, history forgave him all his transgressions.

 

[littlewig]

You can't fight terrorism with tanks and guns!

 

[Dan]

QFT. The republicans first president taught them this. Lincoln suspended habeus corpus and jailed his opponents (Like Bush on steroids,) not to mention that the civil war wasn't all that popular in its day, but since he started a war, history forgave him all his transgressions.

I'd say Lincoln's transgressions were forgiven because he finished the war, ended slavery (for one reason or another) and successfully maintained the union.

Edit: Oh, I see. Incognito already posted this. My bad. I scanned the first and second page and didn't see anything.

 

[littlewig]

I'd say Lincoln's transgressions were forgiven because he finished the war, ended slavery (for one reason or another) and successfully maintained the union.

Yep, if you're going to take control, atleast be in the right, successfully follow through, and when everything is all said and done, return things back to normal.

This President has failed on all three points.

 

[timmy]

A lot of neo-cons have been calling it World War IV for the past few years, with the cold War being World War III.

I don't know. Whatever.

 

[Ahriman]

with the cold War being World War III.

Don't know about the current "World War", but Cold War definitely deserves the WW3 label.

 

[Hitokage]

QFT. The republicans first president taught them this. Lincoln suspended habeus corpus and jailed his opponents (Like Bush on steroids,) not to mention that the civil war wasn't all that popular in its day, but since he started a war, history forgave him all his transgressions.

The constitution lists rebellion as one of the two valid reasons to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, to Lincoln's credit. The confederates also shot first, and Wilson and FDR weren't Republican.

 

[Ecrofirt]

It really looks like it's turning into WWIII, that's for sure.

 

[APF]

It really looks like it's turning into WWIII, that's for sure.

I'd say it doesn't look like that at all. WW3 rhetoric may have resonated with me at the time of the Afghanistan campaign, but so much has changed in terms of the overall WOT that it seems meaningless at this point (and so too do the Orwell-baiting comments about perpetual war).

 

[littlewig]

First of all, there is no more War on Terror, there was never a War on Terror, and there will never be a War on Terror.

This adminstration has done little to nothing to stop terrorism. All this adminstration cares about is to prepetuate their way of economics throughout the world with politics and fear. These guys are getting rich off Terror.

Okay, now the main point, there is a lot of hostility around the world directly because of the actions this adminstration has taken. The Arab nations hate the US and even now our allies are jumping on the "Hate the US" bandwagon.

With Iran and North Korea both trying to get nuclear weapons, I pray there is no spark to set the dynamite off, or there really will be a WWIII.

The only way I can see us avoiding another World War is if we get a new adminstration. It's not a good thing that our President already thinks we are in WWIII. One little incident can set WWIII in motion.

 

[Hitokage]

I'd say it doesn't look like that at all. WW3 rhetoric may have resonated with me at the time of the Afghanistan campaign, but so much has changed in terms of the overall WOT that it seems meaningless at this point (and so too do the Orwell-baiting comments about perpetual war).

I'd have to agree to an extent. Despite all the rhetoric about the war on terror and all the legislative measures pushed forth using it as an excuse... the Bush Administration seems totally uninterested in actually fighting it or otherwise making us safer.

 

[Zefe]

So, when does Bush's administration ends? Is he elegible for re-election? I'm sorry I'm not familiar with US politics.

 

[Ecrofirt]

And then, thousands of years from now... someone will dig just a little too deep.

 

[VisionaryQuest0]

So, when does Bush's administration ends? Is he elegible for re-election? I'm sorry I'm not familiar with US politics.

Oh, Thank GOD no. US president's can only have up to two-terms. He is on his second term and it isn't up until 2008 unfortunately.

 

[littlewig]

So, when does Bush's administration ends? Is he elegible for re-election? I'm sorry I'm not familiar with US politics.

2008, but Bush can be impeached earlier.

Also, is there anyway to get a whole new Adminstration instead of just impeaching the President? Like a forced early election?

 

[Kobun Heat]

So, when does Bush's administration ends? Is he elegible for re-election? I'm sorry I'm not familiar with US politics.

Yeah, he'll be up for reelection again in 2008. If he wins this time, it becomes what is known in the Constitution as a "hat-trick" and he will hold the office until he dies.

Oh, Thank GOD no. US president's can only have up to two-terms. He is on his second term and it isn't up until 2008 unfortunately.

Don't lie to the kid, he's here for an education.

Also, is there anyway to get a whole new Adminstration instead of just impeaching the President? Like a forced early election?

Yes, although the technical term is a "do-over," but this can be defeated if a simple majority of Congress invokes the "no takebacks" clause.

 

[ElyrionX]

Yeah, he'll be up for reelection again in 2008. If he wins this time, it becomes what is known in the Constitution as a "hat-trick" and he will hold the office until he dies.

Don't lie to the kid, he's here for an education.

Yes, although the technical term is a "do-over," but this can be defeated if a simple majority of Congress invokes the "no takebacks" clause.

That's not funny. Why are you being a dick?

 

[APF]

I'd have to agree to an extent. Despite all the rhetoric about the war on terror and all the legislative measures pushed forth using it as an excuse... the Bush Administration seems totally uninterested in actually fighting it or otherwise making us safer.

I have to disagree to an extent; leaving aside the war in Iraq (which, even if you believed it to be a key element to the global WOT, would/will not have produced meaningfully-positive gains until a generation has passed, IMO), the Administration has done a lot to combat terrorism, and with much of the world actually following suit--again despite public disagreements over Iraq. The problem is, IIRC even if you leave out Iraq, overall attacks/incidents have gone up.

 

[RonaldoSan]

War!? This is not war! I don't see no tanks rolling down the streets of new york.