Bush claims weakness attracts terrorist attacks

[Mike_from_NoVa]

From the dope's speech the other night... "We have learned that terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength - they are invited by the perception of weakness." http://www.theiowachannel.com/news/2462432/detail.html Could he be right?

I kind of think hatred or enemity attracts terror regardless of the victims weakness. it seems like historically, like with the IRA vs. Britain, or Hamas vs. Israel, etc., the terrorists don't really give a rip how strong the opponent was/is, they just hate 'em and want to smack 'em hard. All the strength in the world can't prevent murderous hatred from being expressed in terrorist acts.

All that said, I am open to a theoretical proof why the strength/weakness dynamic trumps hatred as a cause of terrorism.

Edit: to add link

[LuminousX]

1. And since terrorists are attracted to Bush

time to elect someone else for the job and get his weak ass out of the office he stole.

[demnan]

2. No, I agree with Whistle-ass on this one

He was perceived as a weak President who was selected and forced on the American people and the world at large.

Any competent President would have had Osama's ass by now, can you imagine what Clinton would have done to this turkey? He would have pinpointed the guy with intelligence a hell of a lot better than Whistle-ass and Rummy.

As long as Bush is President I believe we are in grave danger.

[Yupster]

15. I'm not a Clinton fan on terrorism (or much else)

The First World Trade Center bombing took place at the very beginning of his term. Then the embassy bombings in Africa, then the Cole Bombing, and the terrorism camps in Afghanistan were moving terrorists throughlike an assemply line right out in public. We knew where he was, knew what he was doing.

We saw what Clinton would do with this turkey. For eight years the answer was not very much.

Afghanistan was a very difficult place to invade. We had no bases, or even friends in neighboring countries. The country is land-locked so we didn't even have a way to get our people in or keep them supplied.

My own suspicion is that if Clinton were still in office, we would be still trying to tighten UN sanctions on the Taliban government in Afghanistan and Osama would still be running his camps rigt out in the open in Afghanistan protected by the Taliban government.

I don't see anything in his history that leads me to believe that he would have risked the major intervention that it would have taken to oust the Taliban or shut down Osama's camps. When he had proof against Osama, he shot some cruise missiles off into the mountains.

I see Clinton's eight years mostly as wasted opportunities, and not just on terrorism. With the economy and the stock market booming, and the government awash in money, Clinton chose not to go for universal health insurance, not to change social security, not to fight the corporations. I see him with a great opportunity, and he basked in it instead of taking advantage of it.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

19. The masterminds behind the 1993 WTC bombing are in jail

how did Clinton fail there?

[Yupster]

20. He left the terrorist camps operate

right in the open to graduate more classes of terrorists and send them around the world.

Arresting them after they've blown up their stuff isn't much of a victory.

By that standard, Bush suceeded on 9-11 because the perpetrators are all dead.

[Cocoa]

3. your examples are exactly the evidence against this

Israel and n. Ireland, you're exactly right, the theory fails there.

Plus, if I'm going to ask someone how to prevent attacks, I'm not going to ask the guy that let it happen, didn't fire anyone, and did all he could to block any investigation. Call me crazy.

[Wetzelbill]

4. Funny that the best

way to fight and end terrorism is to not participate in it. Political violence is reciprocal and the U.S. and Israel are rogue states that breed it. The last time I check 9-11 didn't happen in Canada and they don't have much of a penchant for fighting or building a military. Do they even have nukes?

[Maple]

10. No, Canada has no nukes

never did.

I'd also point out that the UK and Israel have been attacking from strength for years...in the case of the UK for generations....it never stopped anything.

Finally in the UK they are at least trying a political solution....with all it's speed bumps along the way...but it's a far cry from the old days of bombs everywhere.

[ixion]

5. Weakness doesn't attract terrorism

lying, arrogant, corrupt politicians do.

[reachout]

7. Yes, of course!

Terrorists attack America becuase we've been running around the world for 50+ years demonstrating our weakness! That's why everyone is angry with us. Weakness!

[patdem]

6. This reminds me of 'The Burning Bed' movie with Farah Faucett

Now her husband was VERY strong...beat her at every opportunity and she was cowered by his strength....so she just waited till he was sleeping and lit the bed on fire...he was dead! Sorry, we cannot watch for every eventuality at all times...that is impossible. Now if her husband had just not beat her unmercifully he would not have been killed! Duh!

This policy makes no sense to me??? :grr:

[Wetzelbill]

9. It makes perfect sense

when you consider it is perpetuated by greedy globalizers who want to rape and pillage every nation in the world damn the consequences of lives and future generations. Never underestimate the ability of a bunch of crazy, rich, white guys to exploit the poor, indigenous populations of the world for profit.

As far as real world practicality, these guys are regressive, counterproductive and definitely the worst administration ever. Nothing they do makes sense in terms of what would benefit mankind.

[disgruntella]

8. oddly enough

I visited the freeper thread on the Bush speech Sunday night - they all interpreted the reference to "weakness" as a not-so-subtle diss on the Clinton administration. Go figure. :eyes:

Edit: I didn't understand this statement at all. Sounded like Orwell-speak.

[JHB]

13. No, it was obvious to me...

...he was pointing fingers at Clinton.
He was still linking Iraq to 9/11, so why wouldn't he still spout the RW/neocon opinion of Clinton's policy?

[Brotherjohn]

14. I was just listening to an interview laying the blame on Clinton...

...for 9-11. Some author who wrote a book about terrorism and how, apparently, it's all Clinton's fault. Don't remember the guys name. It was on some pro-Bush radio show (not Limbaugh).

Although giving credit for Clinton busting up the Millenium plot and a few smaller ones, he said Clinton just wasn't focused on terrorism. He implied Clinton could do lots of things well, but his focus was intermittent at best and so things fell through the cracks. He said Clinton had "warnings", like the earlier bombing on the WTC, etc., and ignored them.

Excuse me, but didn't this terrorist attack occur almost a year after Clinton was out of office?!?

Excuse me, but didn't the U.S. receive specific evidence from German and Israeli intelligence agencies, among others, that a large scale attack on the U.S. was imminent?!?

Excuse me, but didn't the Clinton White House advise the Bush White House early on that Al Qaeda would (or at least should) be their number one priority (I recall someone saying they told the Bushies that they "would be spending more time on Al Qaeda than any other issue")?!?

Excuse me, but didn't John Aschroft release a list of priorities for the Justice Department upon taking office... a list that did not contain ONE reference to terrorism?!?

Excuse me, but didn't the CIA and FBI, under Bush, have evidence of specific plots by terrorists to hijack airliners in the U.S. in the months before 9-11, and didn't the CIA brief the White House on this less than a month before 9-11?!?

Excuse me, but didn't U.S. officials during Bush's tenure take at least one of the hijackers into custody prior to 9-11, fail to search his computer hard-drive because the Justice dept. turned down a warrant request (the computer had info on the 9-11 plot), and also allow two other hijackers into the country although despite the fact that they were on a "watch" list?!?

Excuse me, but (if certain sources are to be believed), didn't John O'Niell, ex-head of FBI counter-terrorism who died in the WTC bombing, complain that he was resigning because the Bush White House was obstructing investigation into Osama Bin Laden and Saudi-linked terrorism?

Excuse me, but wasn't bush on vacation for a month before 9-11?!?

Excuse me, but I just had to rant. The only president who was not focused on terrorism was George W. Bush. The only president upon whose watch 9-11 happened was George W. Bush.

[disgruntella]

18. good points there

I rolled my eyes at all those freeper posts -- "Oooh, he gave it to Clinton there!" It's like Clinton-bashing is the only joy freepers have left to cling to in the face of all the bad news for the neocons.

[Brotherjohn]

11. Our "strength" in Iraq has certainly attracted a lot of terrorism...

And, if I'm not mistaken, are not the two biggest reasons why Al Qaeda even exists, according to Al Qaeda:

1) American military presence in the Mid-East?
2) American military support of Israel?

And aren't both of these things exercises in strength?

[damnraddem]

12. Well, that WOULD explain why so many attacks have occurred ...

on his watch.

[uptohere]

17. one ?

the others have been elsewhere.

Like all criminals, they will strike where its easiest. That doesn't rule out the US but it is still far easier to do these operations in other countries.

[Yupster]

16. I think guys like Osama are going to hit us

because they can, regardless of whether we behave strong or weak.

He will stop hitting us when we become part of the Dar Es Salaam, and even then he'll probably hit us anyway because he'll be unhappy with the sect we've chosen.

[Q]

21. All Bush* wants is perpetual war...

...to cover his trail of crimes and enrich his family, friends and supporters. Everything else is simply...cake.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

22. Bush's weakness DOES attract terrorist attacks

I don't think it's a coincidence that the terrorists attacked under Bush's regime. They knew that Bush was too compromised by his Binladen and Saudi business partners to do anything to stop them.

We were warned by the UK, Germany, France, Israel, India, and a few other allies about 911, over and over again, and the Bush administration chose to ignore the warnings.

So far they have outright lied about 911 over and over again.

[noiretextatique]

23. "bring it on"...does that 'invitation' ring a bell, resident dumbass?

he's right...his misadministration is the very epitome of weakness, given how it came into being. the coup certainly invited terrorism...that certainly was perceived as weakness :dunce:

why do they let him speak?!?! :grr: