More stupid Bush = Hitler nonsense

June 22 - Ghost of a Flea caught something that did slip many of us by, an article in the Chicago Sun-Times that proves that those who are journalists should look a little harder at themselves before attacking (Flea: Hitler.)

Anti-Semitism is on the rise in Europe and Canada, yet it seems to me that articles like the one in the Sun-Times would tend to encourage notions of an International Jewish Conspiracy, which I hardly think is the president's fault unless he is being accused of appointing too many people with Jewish surnames to his administration (and what the hell is that about, anyway? I recognize German surnames, but how does one know they are Jewish?) and if that's a criticism, it implies that those who object are anti-Semitic.

In plain English: since when do Americans judge a person's politics and motives by their surname or colour of their skin? Those who bandy words like neo-con and hint that it has Jewish roots are doing more harm to our country's ideals than the terrorists could possible achieve, or, if you prefer, are helping the terrorists achieve their aims, one of which is for the USA to stop supporting Israel.

It never escaped most of us that the war on terror would, by necessity, have to take on Arafat. That unprincipled scoundrel failed to take President Bush's Road Map seriously; this was not only anticipated but expected, but what Arafat didn't understand was that it was indeed his last chance to be relevant. Now he sits amid the rubble. Who says there is no justice?

The worst anyone can really say about President Bush is that he says what he means and means what he says. So they accuse him of failing to lie! Only a fool could think that a failure in leadership.

Who didn't understand that removing Saddam also removed a major financier of terrorism directed against Israelis? The Palestinians certainly understood it, and those who chose to duck that fact again reveal more about themselves and their anti-Semitism than than any laboured comparisons of President Bush to Hitler.

Who leaked information that the redacted portions of the 2002 report on terrorism covered up Saudi complicity? Was it by chance Democrats? So who is inciting hatred and suspicion?

And yet the staff of the Sept. 11 Commission has found no evidence that top Saudi officials have given money to al Qaeda (No Saudi Payment to Qaeda Is Found.)

The new account, based on 19 months of staff work, asserts flatly that there is "no evidence" that the Saudi government or senior Saudi officials financed the group, which is led by Osama bin Laden.

In 2002, a joint Congressional committee was reported to have concluded the opposite in a classified study that was then the most extensive on the issue.

Senator Bob Graham, a Florida Democrat and co-chairman of the committee that issued the report, said at the time, "In my judgment there is compelling evidence that a foreign government provided direct support through officials and agents of that government to some of the Sept. 11 hijackers."

Although he did not name the Saudi government, those familiar with the committee's report at the time said it focused on Saudi Arabia.

This would be the report released last July of which portions were redeacted, leading many to speculate that it was done to cover up financial support by Saudi officials and the Royal family with al Qaeda.

With Saddam Hussein, we need to find documents, photos and commemorative coin to prove there were ties between Saddam and al Qaeda.

With the Saudis, we need only rumours and speculation to prove ties.

The latest report is based on a broader range of interviews and much greater access to classified documents than the Congressional report, people with knowledge of both operations said.

In addition, members of the presidential commission traveled to Saudi Arabia twice in the inquiry, officials from Saudi Arabia and from the commission said.

Adel al-Jubeir, a senior adviser to Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, said the Sept. 11 commission's findings "vindicate what we have been saying all along — that Saudi officials, the Saudi government, the royal family, had no role in funding whatsoever."

[...]

The revised account was detailed in a staff report that also sought to correct what it described as other widespread misperceptions involving Al Qaeda.

[...]

With highly classified documents previously inaccessible to those outside the government, the commission's staff painted a picture of Al Qaeda that differs in other important ways from what have been widespread perceptions.

It said there was "no persuasive evidence" that Al Qaeda relied on the drug trade as an important source of revenue, or raised money by trafficking in diamonds in the chaotic nations of West Africa.

Mr. bin Laden has less personal wealth than has been widely believed, the report says. Though he is a member of a wealthy family and received about $1 million a year until he was cut off in 1994, Mr. bin Laden never received the $300 million inheritance that has become the stuff of folklore, the report said.

"Contrary to popular understanding, bin Laden did not fund al Qaeda through a personal fortune and a network of businesses," the report said. "Instead, Al Qaeda relied primarily on a fund-raising network developed over time."

It said that Mr. bin Laden himself was only a small contributor to Al Qaeda. But it said that the organization spent an estimated $30 million a year before the Sept. 11 attacks, with as much as $20 million going to the Taliban government in Afghanistan, which provided Al Qaeda with a haven.

[...]

The report said that Mr. bin Laden had first set his sights on attacks on the United States in 1992. But it casts doubt on the idea that he and his organization played any role in the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center or the thwarted 1995 plot in Manila to blow up a dozen American airliners.

I don't know the truth about Saudi complicity with al Qaeda. I'm willing to keep an open mind, however, until there is actually evidence as opposed to Democrat electioneering tactics.

One of the oldest tricks in the book is to attack others over the things for which the attackers are guilty. We've seen it in spades this election cycle, wherein the Democrats are attacking the current administration for being unprepared for Sept. 11 and overlooking their eight years in office and feckless responses to attacks that took place on their watch.

A Democrat president would have been just as unprepared Sept. 11 as a Republican president, but the country would have had far less faith in a Democrat administration that had reduced the military than in a Republican one because the GOP has always been strong on defense (at least in recent history.)

Now we have a renewal of the Bush=Hitler theme, and it too disguises guilt: the liberal media continues to pretend that Arafat, Saddam and their fellow travellers are not fascists and tries to avert recognition of the truth by pretending that the US president is.

How pathetic.

Posted by: Debbye at 07:12 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1207 words, total size 8 kb.