That's excellent work from someone in the Bush camp

The Coffee Shop
1

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4503176,00.html

President Bush might have been able to say it was simply a slip of the tongue when he confused two terrorists in a campaign speech Monday in New Hampshire. Trouble is, he’s made the same misstatement at least 10 times before.

During remarks in Derry, N.H., Bush said the late terrorist Abu Nidal killed Leon Klinghoffer, a 69-year-old Jewish American who died after being tossed - along with his wheelchair - off a hijacked cruise liner named Achille Lauro in 1985.

Do you remember Abu Nidal?'' Bush asked the crowd. He’s the guy that killed Leon Klinghoffer. Leon Klinghoffer was murdered because of his religion. Abu Nidal was in Baghdad, as was his organization.‘’

He repeated the mistake Monday evening at a campaign event in New York City: ``Abu Nidal was a cold-blooded terrorist killer who killed Leon Klinghoffer.‘’

Actually, it was Abul Abbas, the leader of a violent Palestinian group, who killed Klinghoffer.

The White House had no immediate comment on the mix-up.

Abbas, who was captured in Baghdad last year, was the mastermind of the Achille Lauro hijacking. His faction of the Palestinian Liberation Front operated out of Tunisia until the cruise ship attack, then relocated to Iraq. U.S. officials say Abbas died of heart disease on March 10 while in U.S. custody in Iraq.

Abu Nidal, a Palestinian renegade, died in Baghdad in 2002. His terrorist organization had been blamed for scores of atrocities, including the 1985 attacks on Rome and Vienna airports in which 20 people were killed and the 1986 attack on a synagogue in Istanbul in which 22 Jewish worshippers were massacred.

Bush’s mistake, overlooked for weeks, is buried in his stump speech - in the section where he makes a case that Saddam Hussein had links to terrorist groups. Indeed, Abu Nidal is believed to have had connections to the former Iraqi leader. But he didn’t kill Klinghoffer.

Remember Abu Nidal?'' Bush asked Aug. 28 in Lima, Ohio. He’s the guy that killed Leon Klinghoffer because he was Jewish? He found safe haven in Iraq. In other words, terrorist groups were in this guy’s country.‘’

We knew Saddam Hussein's record of aggression and his support for terror,'' he told another crowd Sept. 13 in Battle Creek, Mich. Abu Nidal, the guy who killed Leon Klinghoffer, he and his organization were in Baghdad.‘’

He had terrorist ties,'' Bush told an audience Sept. 16 in Blaine, Minn. Remember Abu Nidal? He was the guy that killed Leon Klinghoffer. He was in Baghdad, and so was his organization.‘’

2

Accidental lies, intentional lies, Bush, Kerry, blah, blah…

Old Joke:

How can you tell if a politician is lying?

His(her) lips are moving.

3

This is a story. The President confuses the deeds of two murderous thugs that were guests of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and that are now, thankfully, both dead. Now, a real story would be to document every single position that Senator Kerry has ever taken on Iraq. Or to count the number of dead when Senator Kerry got his way, the US left SE Asia and the Communists that Senator Kerry was meeting with in Paris took control of Vietnam and Cambodia. Or to document the current suffering of the Vietnamese and Cambodian people because of what John Kerry’s Paris friends did to those countries.

4

Ah, excellent points all. Veeeery relevant. I was hoping you would point this out because we can talk about the second part of this.

Cast your mind back to 1985 if you will - GWB surely has. Do you remember whose side Saddam was on in those days? Do you remember anyone going to visit him from the US during that time period?

I can post a URL to a picture of someone called Rumsfeld shaking Saddams hand if you want me to.

5

Do you remember anyone going to visit him from the US during that time period?

meeting with a current enemy of the state and a future enemy are not really the same thing are they? I don’t see how Rumsfeld meeting with Saddam relates to what Kerry did?

As to the original post, it is embarassing but the point he was making is still valid and the fact that no one has caught it til now shows it doesn’t matter to anyone. A terrorist killed a guy in a wheelchair for being Jewish. That is the point.

6

Adults sometimes have to pick between the lesser of two threats. In the 1980s, Saddam’s Iraq was believed to be a smaller threat than Khomeni’s Iran. When Saddam invaded Kuwait, we changed our mind. New evidence about Saddam. New conclusion about him. New policy implemented.

In the early 1970s, John Kerry picked America’s Communism foes over America’s allies. The result: three million people died. In one of his few consistent positions, John Kerry still believes that he was right to oppose US policy in SE Asia before it decided to abandon these people to their fate. You would think that helping to get 3,000,000 people killed would make you change your mind about the Communists. It did not change John Kerry’s mind. Insted, he continued to oppose US efforts to fight the Communists and continued to support Communist expansion into other countries.

7

Rummy keeps getting Saddam and OBL mixed up in speaches.

8

To be fair, it’s not like things were going great and then John Kerry went to Paris, and then all of the sudden 3 million people died. John Kerry didn’t switch sides, he went to Paris to listen to the other side of the story, along with a lot of other people from a lot of other countries. Criticize him all you want for talking to the North Vietnamese, but no responsible person can directly blame him for the spread of communism and the deaths of 3 million people.

9

Actually, John Kerry was a very influential in the movement that led to the US decision to abandon millions in SE Asia. Of course, anyone that protested the war has the same moral complicity in what the Communists did as anyone that appeased Nazi Germany had for the Holocaust. Probably more, because Communism had a 50 year record of evil by the late 1960s while Nazism was a relatively recent phenomenon when Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlin were busy concluding treaties with Hitler.

Things were also going quite well in Vietnam in 1973. The NVA held less territory than it had held in the better part of ten years. The NVA had just suffered a substantial military defeat at the hands of almost exclusively South Vietnamese troops, with US air support. It was only when the US Congress refused to honor its obligations under the Treaty of Paris (1973) to resupply South Vietnam that the Communists gained the upper hand and were able to accomplish their goals.

It is one thing for a young John Kerry to miss the fact the Communists were evil incarnate. We all make mistakes. It is quite another for John Kerry not to learn from his mistake and to continue to support Communists efforts and oppose US efforts to stop them for another 15 years. It is yet another mistake for John Kerry not to recognize or want to fight evil today. Of course, it’s been a couple days since he announced that he would unilaterally withdraw from Iraq; he will no doubt change his position again soon.

10

A terrorist killed a guy in a wheelchair for being Jewish. That is the point.

Well, forgive me, but I thought the point was that the terrorist in question was supported by Saddam in 1985, and this was justification for invading Iraq now. Why else would it be in his speech? Is there a big group of Jewish wheel chair bound swing voters he was appealing to?

The fact that people who advise him and write his speeches can’t be bothered getting the name right doesn’t bother you?

11

Adults sometimes have to pick between the lesser of two threats. In the 1980s, Saddam’s Iraq was believed to be a smaller threat than Khomeni’s Iran. When Saddam invaded Kuwait, we changed our mind. New evidence about Saddam. New conclusion about him. New policy implemented.

Gosh , so this is how the grown-ups think? Thanks for the insight. So according to you, Saddam was doing nothing underhand until he invaded Kuwait?

12

If you can’t read, then there is no point trying to debate with you.

13

I understand your point about the link and it is a fair point. I agree that it is emarassing that someone didn’t catch it and has repeated the error. It is also embarassing that no one else (in or out of the staff) hasn’t noticed it and corrected it. My point is that the fact that they credited the wrong scumbag with the killing doesn’t have any effect on the point he is making.

Embarassing and dumb mistake yes, but his point is isn’t diluted by the error.

Side note:

Did you see the clip of him at his speech, I believe from yesterday? He was talking to a man who had come to America as a young boy and didn’t speak any English and the man was telling his story to the crowd. The many said I didn’t speak a stitch of English and it is my second language. Bush jumped in and said to effect, “well you know many people think English is my second language too” The man replied “we can work on our English together” Just thought is was funny and nice to see that the president, whoever it is, can be human enough to make fun of himself and to do it in public.

14

What can’t I read - that you want to talk about Kerry on a Bush thread? Or that you think that US policy back then was justifed even though circumstances/events/action changed very little between the time period that Saddam was in favour and when his country was worth invading?

16

**circumstances/events/action changed very little between the time period that Saddam was in favour and when his country was worth invading? **

**changed very little **you mean like the UN resolutions, plan to assassinate a president of the US and the invasion of Kuwait? Saddam may have been the same but the circumstances certainly were not.

From Bush’s speach to the UN

"as America and Europe supported autocratic right-wing governments on the cynical premises that they at least promised to keep pumping oil and kept out communists. Now President Bush not only renounces such past opportunism, but also confesses that “for too long, many nations, including my own, tolerated, even excused, oppression in the Middle East in the name of stability.” as America and Europe supported autocratic right-wing governments on the cynical premises that they at least promised to keep pumping oil and kept out communists. Now President Bush not only renounces such past opportunism, but also confesses that “for too long, many nations, including my own, tolerated, even excused, oppression in the Middle East in the name of stability.” http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005658

17

Actually, John Kerry was a very influential in the movement that led to the US decision to abandon millions in SE Asia. Of course, anyone that protested the war has the same moral complicity in what the Communists did as anyone that appeased Nazi Germany had for the Holocaust.

I heard John Kerry clubbed baby seals in Greenland to make a seal coat for Teresa…

18

Wow, that’s a radically different tack, wouldn’t you say? I wonder what the neo-cons have to say about that. It couldn’t possibly be electioneering, could it?

19

That bastard - I bet he ate the flesh and spread her ketchup all over it too…

20

**Wow, that’s a radically different tack, wouldn’t you say? I wonder what the neo-cons have to say about that. It couldn’t possibly be electioneering, could it? **

You mean his quote from the UN speech? Sure it could be but I think he means it. Iraq is a stand out example of giving up stability to face down oppression wouldn’t you say? I think that, at times, we are forced to support and deal with people we would rather kill but they are the least horrible option at the time.

My analogy to Saddam: I had a lab who we found out had cancer, they did tests to determine the type etc and gave us our options to treat it. We couldn’t afford the full treatment with kemo treatments costing about $1000 a shot (or close) and he would need something like 5 or more. The other options were to remove the tumor and then do a dose of kemo and hope we got all of it and killed what was left. We chose that option which seemed reasonable at the time and provided best chance for his survival in our financial situation. (By the way, the full treatment wouldn’t garauntee his survival either)

We did the surgery and the kemo treatment and our beloved Lab bounced back with in a day or so, problem solved. Well, until about week later when he got even more sick to our shock so we took him back and the diagnosis was that he actually had two kinds of cancer! When we killed the first cancer it allowed the second, extremely aggressive, form to explode in growth and take over his body in a shockingly short time. The first tumor was repressing growth of the second, how could we have known? (Because the 2nd cancer was basically dormant it didn’t show on the test which detect very small amounts of the cancer) He died in less that 2 weeks of his surgery to remove the tumor.

We knew Saddam was bad but we left him there to prevent a more aggressive cancer and maintain stabality, but like with my lab you have to face the cancer eventually.

21

That’s not fair!! You can’t bring pets into it!!

I don’t disgree with the analogy - I just have problems with the approach. Hind sight is 20/20 etc. Saddam HAD to go bad for him to be defined as such; it doesn’t apparently matter how many people he was killing/oppressing when was ‘our’ good guy. I think it is inconsistent, and if we can leave behind the “well, that how the world works, Johnny” patronising, it is the cause of much of what we are seeing now in thw world. And it is also very attractive to those with less than saintly motives/deep pockets. I’m not exhonerating other countries from this, I think most (if not all) developed nations do it and see it as parts of the benefits of membership, as it were. But that still doesn’t make it right in my opinion.