Representative Press Blog

Steve Meyer wrote, "Your 'Bush Lied' assertion is weak, and misses the point. Bin Laden's fatwa was widely reported when it was issued, and again after each of the terrorist attacks since then. While it was not repeated verbatim on the evening news, I do recall reading it in the paper and on the internet. What Bush has said about the terrorist's motivations is not original - many others have come to the same conclusions. What Bush has said is more of an assessment of the motives rather than a direct quote from Bin Laden."'

No Steve, you miss the point. Bush lied about why we were attacked, Bush lied about the motives. Bush told us why we are being targeted for attack and what he said is a lie, "America was targeted for attack because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world. And no one will keep that light from shining." President Bush September 11, 2001

Bush tells us, "The war against terror goes on." Bush then tells us a lie about why, "It goes on because we love freedom and we're not going to change and our enemies hate freedom. It goes on because there are cold-blooded killers who have hijacked a religion. It goes on because we refuse to relent." President Bush September 1, 2003

Bush is lying and others are helping spread the lie. I never said that if you searched you couldn't find the complete sentence from the fatwa. I said that what is widely reported is only the first half and that there is a clear pattern of omitting the part that states the motives. I mentioned CBS and the CIA are playing the same game by not mentioning the part with the motive.

You seem to be trying to make the point that the lie doesn't matter since a person could if it occurred to them research the facts and find out what the truth actually is. What I am saying is that the public does not deserve to be fed lie. By not pointing out that what Bush said wasn't true and by omitting the motives when talking about terrorism, people are spreading a lie about why we are being attacked. People are serving powerful interests by "playing the game". I never said there was an actual censorship that made telling these facts forbidden. No, it is a societal and financial pressures that intimidate some and select others who conform out of ignorance. Some people surely know what they are doing when they omit the motives and talk about "our freedoms." The result is many people are fooled by Bush's lie. Are you trying to act like this is not the case?!? My first comment in this thread was met with a sarcastic response which mocked "my thesis". Writing about why the terrorists attacked, this person responded by saying, "I thought it was because a backwards, angry, extremist organization with zero respect for other religions, other sects within their own religion and half of their own population got it into their minds that the West was evil and so would benefit from the opportunity to convert or die.

Steve writes, "you said:
"I have talked to too many people who insist that it isn't foreign polices but rather "our freedoms" that are what motivates the terrorists to attack us."
Most people assume that they are talking to a reasonable person who isn't being an obtuse pain in the ass.
Unfortunately you're a Chomsky fan, so they have to explain every little thing. The foreign policies of the US (and other nations) are in a general sense BASED UPON our common national principles, which include our freedoms."

Steve, you are the one being obtuse. I wrote and you quoted, "people who insist that it isn't foreign polices but rather "our freedoms"" and you come back with nonsense. Your argument is that people who insist that the motive isn't our foreign polices are not wrong because our foreign polices are our freedoms?
You are tying desperately to spin something out of your nonsense but readers here I don't think will be so quick to play along with your game.

Steve writes, "Lastly, you finish with a perfect Chomskyite sentence:
"It also has been insinuated by some and insisted out right by others that it is "anti-Semitic" to say that hatred of US support for Israel a motive!!" Break it down, everyone: "It also has been insinuated by some and insisted out right by others..." Ah, the passive voice. So much easier to distort with. With this clever turn of phrase you make the accusation, while still denying that you made the accusation that others insinuated something. 'Others' made it, even though you said it. Sorry if I gave the other readers a headache."

I think you need a course in logic 101. What you are saying doesn't make sense. Others have indeed said it. For example Norma Sherry wrote, "Rumors abounded after 911 ..., that 911 was retribution to the U.S. for their misguided support of the Zionist country, Israel. However outlandish and absurd these contradictions to the reality may be, there remain individuals willing to propagate such falsities for the mere chance to rid us of the bothersome, loathsome Jew." letter

Steve writes, "Continuing with your last statement: "...that it is "anti-Semitic" to say that hatred of US support for Israel a motive!!" Splitting hairs again. Hatred of US support for Israel is commonly anti-semitic. "

No, it isn't. Although an anti-Semite may hold that opinion, the opinion itself is not anti-Semitic AT ALL.
You can't play the game that a legitimate opinion is "commonly" anti-Semitic.
Just as thinking OJ Simpson is guilty is not racism AT ALL. A racist may have the opinion but the opinion itself is not racist AT ALL. You can't go around tainting legitimate opinions because it suits your agenda. It is an underhanded and dirty tactic.


Steve insists, "Not mentioning this anti-semitism is what people get mad about, since it is so obvious; yet obtuse Chomskyites don't see fit to mention it. Which is why people in general think that someone missing the obvious anti-semitism is also an anti-semite. Not an unreasonable assumption in my opinion, since it would make no sense to appear to be an anti-semite when you're not."

Steve, you are really off the wall and TOTALLY unreasonable.