Fighting in the Heart of Liberal Madison for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This blog will focus on liberal hypocrisy and the small, but significant victories of the right at the University of Wisconsin - Madison.

19 January 2006

Find the Bin Laden Quote: A Freedom Fighter Exclusive Game

It's time for a Freedom Fighter exclusive game: Find the Bin Laden Quote. I put three anti-war quotes from anti-war websites and speakers (Ms. Sheehan), and an excerpt from Bin Laden's latest video tape. It is interesting how the one that started this war on terror is starting to sound like the ones that want to stop the war. But enough opining, lets start the game...

1:

For just as they botched the most important story of our time -- the Bush administration's transparently deceptive campaign to launch a war of aggression against Iraq -- the clubby mavens are now missing the crowning achievement of this vast crime: the mother of all backroom deals, a cynical pact sealed by murder, unfolding before our eyes. The Administration's true objective in Iraq is brutally simple: U.S. domination of Middle East oil.

2:

The only people who will benefit from the war on Iraq are the elite wealthy oil men who finance Bush's election campaigns, and people like Bush who have huge personal investments in the oil industry. Oil company profits have already increased by fifty percent this year because of the war
3:
[America] has been overtaken by murderous thugs... gangsters who lust after fortunes and power; never caring that their addictions are at the expense of our loved ones, and the blood of innocent people near and far... The US government is now ruled by murderous hypocrites... criminals who should be arrested, charged appropriately, confined behind bars... In their secret hiding places, while celebrating newly won fortunes with their fellow brass, these men must surely congratulate themselves with orgies of carnal pleasure as they mock the dwindling multitudes who are yet so blind as to mistake them for God's devoted servants.
4.
There is no problem in this solution, but it will prevent hundreds of billions from going to influential people and war lords in America - those who supported Bush's electoral campaign - and from this, we can understand Bush and his gang's insistence on continuing the war.
Now, what's your Answer? 1, 2, 3, or 4?

Check the links below:

1. (link)

2. (link)

3. (link)

4. (link)

15 Comments:

Blogger Robert said...

Wow. I thought bin Laden was #3 for sure.

Great work, Mrs. Sheehan. Thanks for making us all so proud.

Thu Jan 19, 01:49:00 PM CST

 
Anonymous Clark Station said...

I thought it was either 3 or 4.

Thu Jan 19, 02:08:00 PM CST

 
Anonymous Rayhouse said...

I thought 2 or 4. Three was just too mean to be Bin Laden, he's smarter than that.

Thu Jan 19, 02:10:00 PM CST

 
Anonymous Tom said...

my first guess was 2 or 4 as well.

Thu Jan 19, 03:05:00 PM CST

 
Blogger the Rising Jurist said...

I totally thought it was #3. Man, Sheehan is nuts.

Thu Jan 19, 09:22:00 PM CST

 
Blogger Bill said...

Hey Bob, even Bush says something I agree with from time to time. Like this, for example

President Bush, in his weekly radio address, broadcast less than two hours before Mr. Assad spoke, made clear that he was demanding a full withdrawal before planned elections in Lebanon in May.

"Syria has been an occupying force in Lebanon for nearly three decades, and Syria's support for terrorism remains a key obstacle to peace in the broader Middle East," Mr. Bush said, escalating a weeklong campaign to pressure the Assad government.

"Today, America and Europe are standing together with the Lebanese people," he said, citing the Security Council resolution, which requires that "all foreign forces be withdrawn, and that free and fair elections be conducted without foreign influence."


Gee... if only he applied that philosophy to Iraq... imagine, a nation-state's military being the institution of terrorism!!

But you can't argue with the facts. Do you know how many people have died in Iraq, as a result of the occupation?

Osama bin Laden was right about something, when he talked about "influential people and war lords" ... oh gee, that sounds kind of like Dwight D Eisenhower's "Military-Industrial-Complex" speech, from January 17th, 1961.

Another interesting fact, that I'm sure Bob didn't know... Osama bin Laden never used the term "Al Qaeda" until AFTER the US government blamed 9-11 on "Al Qaeda." Watch The Power of Nightmares, a BBC documentary, on how the US and British governments fabricated a mythology of Islamic terrorism, in order to scare their citizenry into supporting a never-ending global war.

And if you were to read the link on the number of deaths resulting from the war in Iraq, its clear that this "war on terror" has already taken MANY times the number of lives as the actions of isolated terrorist cells (all acting on their own accord) have taken.

Now please tell me Bob... if Osama bin Laden is a terrorist, what does that make Bush? An ultra-terrorist? Hyper-terrorist?

Fri Jan 20, 02:32:00 PM CST

 
Blogger Bill said...

I might add, Bob, that The Power of Nightmares contains extensive interview footage with founders and insiders of the neo-conservative movement, all of whom still support the "war on terror."

Fri Jan 20, 02:46:00 PM CST

 
Anonymous nathan Jung said...

I love how these replies focus on bashing Cindy Sheehan, while restricting comments about Bin Laden to observing his supposed acuity. Way to rail on a mother recently deprived of her eldest son. And, you know, this is besides the childishness inherent in comparing those against the war to terrorists themselves. I mean, really, that's just an unwarranted insult, lacking all respect, propriety, or argumentative coherence. You should be ashamed of yourselves for treating your fellow citizens in such a manner, whether you agree with them or not.

Fri Jan 20, 03:39:00 PM CST

 
Blogger RT the LT said...

Nate,
The anti-war left are becomings pawns in Bin Laden's terrorist plans. He knows he will NEVER defeat the American Military, but he can manipulate the American people. He sounds more like an anti-war activist now than a terrorist and that should be a cause for concern.

Fri Jan 20, 04:24:00 PM CST

 
Anonymous nathan jung said...

ONCE AGAIN:

anti-war does not equal political left.
anti-war does not equal terrorist, pawn or otherwise.

these are the constructions of a public relations machine, and do not wear well on your fellow citizens, bob. I'd say that those suppporting this war from its outset have been far better pawns than any anti-war individuals in expanding terrorist influence and destruction, and have been the victims of far more egregious manipulation, but that'd be substituting one false dichotomy for another. The point is, equating anti-war activists with Bin Laden, or somehow suggesting that they're under his control, is seriously incorrect and an insult to the democratic right to protest.

Fri Jan 20, 04:50:00 PM CST

 
Blogger the Rising Jurist said...

I just think it's scary how much she sounds like a terrorist. The rhetoric is shockingly similar.

Fri Jan 20, 08:56:00 PM CST

 
Blogger Bill said...

Bob-

The neo-conservative right actually has more history supporting Islamist movements than does the anti-war left. Reagan and Rumsfield helped fund bin Laden and other Islamist group, when the USSR invaded Afghanistan in the 1980s.

You really need to see The Power of Nightmares. It documents very thoroughly the symbiotic relationship between the U.S. neo-conservative movement and the Islamist movement, going all the way back to the late 1940s.

Sun Jan 22, 03:34:00 AM CST

 
Blogger Bill said...

Also, Bob-

Define Terrorism!!

Obviously a terrorist is someone who commits acts of terrorism.

So what is terrorism? Attempting to strike TERROR into people's minds, through the use of violence, for political gain, or in order to achieve some political goal.

Oh gee, kind of sounds like what the United States government is doing in the Middle East right now.

Unless you are going to tell me that being Arab is a neccessary condition for being a terrorist, which would mean that Timothy McVeigh was not a terrorist?

Sun Jan 22, 03:41:00 AM CST

 
Blogger the Rising Jurist said...

The U.S. is not attempting to intimidate a people or a government into agreeing to U.S. demands.

Part I was a deliberate move to depose a leader. Part II is us sticking around to help quell insurgents while the country attempts to build a democratic government out of the remains of a dictatorship.

Although I take your point—that what is terrorism is largely in the eyes of the beholder—it is ridiculous to call what we're doing there terror.

Sun Jan 22, 12:13:00 PM CST

 
Blogger Bill said...

TRJ-

It is ridiculous to call what the United States government (NOT "we") in Iraq, building a democratic government.

They are putting a puppet regime, which has already been fully integrated into the globalized neo-liberal world order.

Oh, and of course, we can't forget the one law from Hussein's regime (from 1987) that the US military is still enforcing outlawing labor unions. Gee... I wonder why...?

Mon Jan 23, 02:47:00 AM CST

 

Post a Comment

<< Home