Smoking Gun: Bush had his propaganda ready just 2 hours after the towers collapsed

Considering the 'fog of war', Bush's words were prophectic.


Bush's "Today, freedom itself was attacked" statement was clearcut propaganda. There's little doubt of that by many, but here I'd like to underscore the significance of the timing of this statement, which I've yet to see.


Timeline:

8:46am: American Airlines Flight 11 impacts WTC1

9:02am: United Airlines Flight 175 impacts WTC2
After 2nd Impact and leaving the classroom: Bush calls Cheney & Mueller ("CIA AT WAR", page 194): Discussion unspecified

9:57am: Air Force One airborne. Circled the local area, presumed by on onboard journalists to pick up local newscasts, while everyone argued over where to fly Bush.
www.cooperativeresearch.org...

9:59am: South Tower collapses.

10:28am: North Towers collapses.

10:35am: Air Force One departs Sarasota local area headed for Barksdale AFB

11:45am: Air Force One lands at Barksdale AFB, Louisiana, and begins preparing for for the taped statement.

12:00pm (roughly):

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah -- a member of both the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary Committees -- said that he had just been "briefed by the highest levels of the FBI and of the intelligence community." "They've come to the conclusion that this looks like the signature of Osama bin Laden, and that he may be the one behind this," Hatch said
archive.salon.com...

12:36pm: Bush tapes statement, then the traveling party headed back for Air Force One.



1:06pm (roughly): Bush statement aired

2:50pm: Air Force One lands at Offutt AFB, Nebraska.

3:15pm: Bush teleconference:

Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet said the agency was still assessing who was responsible, but the early signs all pointed to al Qaeda.
9/11 Commission Report, page 326
www.ibiblio.org...

"Sir, I believe its al Qaeda. We’re doing the assessment but it looks like, it feels like, it smells like al Qaeda." - George Tenet
www.cbsnews.com...

4:30 p.m.: The president leaves Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska aboard Air Force One to return to Washington.
archives.cnn.com...

8:30pm: Bush Gives Third Speech to Nation, Declares Bush Doctrine


Propaganda extra:
PNAC Member / CIA Director James Woolsey thumbs Iraq just 2 hours after 9/11


Bombshell?:

CIA Agent "Mike", in his interview with Ronald Kessler, in Kessler's authoritative book "THE CIA AT WAR" (page 195), claims that he briefed President Bush about who he thought had done it, shortly after taking off from Barksdale AFB. This is after Bush had made his 'authoritative' statement about what was attacked.

The president asked "Mike" who he thought had done it.
"I would bet everything on Bin Laden".
...
Bush asked how long it would take to know if bin Laden was responsible. Based on previous attacks, "Mike" said, it would probably be a mater of days.

Problems:

What was Bush doing declaring that freedom itself was attacked at 12:36am, when he didn't yet have enough input to determine what was actually happening?

Then there's Hatch's CNN claim that he was briefed "that this looks like the signature of Osama bin Laden", at roughly 12:00pm.

But that doesn't mean that Bush heard those assessments. Bush spoke with FBI Director Mueller after the 2nd impact, but that doen't mean Mueller was yet in a position to give a valid assessment.

FBI Director Robert Mueller says that an essential clue came from one of the hijacked planes before it crashed. A flight attendant on American Flight 11, Amy Sweeney, had the presence of mind to call her office as the plane was hijacked and give them the seat numbers of the hijackers. “That was the first piece of hard evidence," says Mueller. "We could then go to the manifest, find out who was sitting in those seats and immediately conduct an investigation of those individuals, as opposed to taking all the passengers on the plane and going through a process of elimination.”
www.cbsnews.com...

Bush had "Mike" with him, but cell phone calls weren't allowed by anyone on board, while comms on AIr Force One were so jammed Bush allegidly had trouble reaching even Cheney, so it's not like "Mike" had constant access to info. But regardless, even if "Mike" did have outside communications, he didn't personally brief Bush on his Bin Laden hunch until after Bush's press statement.

The Language:

What is this "freedom" that was "itself attacked" that Bush was speaking of without any known outside influence? It's simple: The "freedom" of our elite masters, who use our nation as their tool, to imperialistically dominate the globe. It's called by many names, but the one I prefer is "American Imperialism".

"Fr eedom" = Imperialism: It's in the Language

This was the real reason of the attacks, regardless of your view on the entire 9/11 controversy. This especially goes for if you subscribe to the conspiratorial view, as the event was used to trigger the final phase of intensive hegemonic global domination.

For those of you who reject the conspiratorial view, it's time to come to your senses and realize the obvious truth to why all the terrorists in the world hate US. Facing such is a direct contradiction, because Bush still lies about this to this very day, which brings us to the dilemma.

The Dilemmas:

The dichotomy of innocence would state that Bush was using a blanket metaphor as America being the beacon of freedom in the world. The problem there is Bush's words reign as true prophecy as he uses there words to this day in virtually every speech on the subject, and later that even when he reiterated that sentiment he declared his "Bush Doctrine". Next the problem becames the reality that the "Bush Doctrine" was actually the "PN AC Doctrine", which was drawn up long in advance of 9/11.

The bare "First Truth perspective" would state that he was referring to American Imperialism in general as the "freedom" that attacked. This is a disaster in itself, as this clearly would show that Bush is fully aware of the American Imperialism agenda (goes without saying really), and his first priorities that day were to sow the propaganda to ensure the furtherance of said imperialist agenda. That reality, in conjunction with the fact that even the 9/11 Commission Report states that there were 'te ns if not hundreds of thousands of terrorism warnings' before 9/11, and Richard Clarke admitting that 'Bush wasn't that concerned with terrorism', on top of all of the other warnings many are aware of... the "Let It Happen On Purpose" view becomes nearly impossible to refute.

The dichotomy of true conspiracy, in this case, would simply build upon the above. In this view, everything admitted is intentional disinformation, and the accounts could be used to support such a case.

[edit on 22-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

This is ridiculous. Any clever PR person or even Bush himself could come up with that stupid quote in less than 5 minutes. Its just Bush being a NeoCon. Its not like it wasn't obvious we were being attacked by somebody. Its quite a stretch to say one quote is a smoking gun, in fact its totally illogical.

Dont get me wrong, I do beleive it could have been an inside job. But the evidence comes from the attack itself, not some offhand neocon statement.

I get the feeling you didn't read the entire thing before throwing that statement.

Actually I read all of it and watched the videos. I still think its Bush just being the neocon idiot he is, that or some PR person that handed him a notecard beforehand. You presented no obvious evidence that this quote was premeditated as a pretext for for an all out war on the attackers of "freedom".

I am not saying what you presented didnt play a role in his words, but it could have just as easily been Bush making it up on the spot. There is no way to no. Making some timeline of his day isn't evidence, and it does nothing to support your stance that this was premeditated propaganda. This is just another example of you doing a few google searches and tying together loose theories just to make America look bad.

sorry, but you didn't fool me.

Well if you actually understood what a neocon is, and the mindset that drives them, then you'd understand that they're an sophisticated ideology driven by the subjectation and imperial authoritarian domination of the world.

This fact, in conjuction with Bush's statements (which he uses to this day), completely demonstrate that Bush was already planning on how to use the 9/11 attacks to fulfill his social groups premediatated plans on how to manage the world only hours after the collapses and while he was rather isolated on Air Force One.

That in place, with the known facts related to known warnings and everything else that demonstrates how 9/11 could have been stopped, how are we to believe that Bush m.o. all along wans't to fulfill such imperial ambitions that they had long before Bush wa seven elected???

That's the best I could do at the moment. It's late... do you have some real substance refutations besides dismissing using any timeline and known facts/admissions to try to understand what happened? Feel free to use the quote feature here at ATS to build actual arguments.

Well, I remember that morning all too well. I watched each plane as they struck their targets. With the first one, I thought it must be a terrible accident... some sort of malfunction, but with the 2nd one I knew something was up.

Still, a few hours later, when I saw that first statement by Bush, I recall thinking.... "How can he know who did this? It could have been anyone. It could have been a terrible computer error for both planes. It could be someone from This country, making a political statement... It could also be just about any country out there! How can they know this was who they think it is... so fast? Wouldn't someone wanting to really do some damage to this country, and make a "point" have aimed a plane for the White house, rather than 2 businesses in New York?" It bugged me even then.

When he "declaired war" and started saying it was al Qaeda, etc. my thought was "How can they know exactly WHO did this, so fast? With most murders, it can take weeks, months, or even years to put the pieces together. He's already laying the blame and striking back, and the DUST hasn't even settled yet!"

Whilst I don't profess to 'know' the mindset of a NeoCon, the fact that they are said to be heavily influenced by the writings and teachings of Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss gives me some idea.

In his book, ‘In The Concept of the Political’, Schmitt wrote about the duality of human endeavour. He saw morality as a battle between right and wrong; aesthetics as the battle between beauty and ugliness; and economics as the battle between profit and loss. Politics, however, had a different dynamic; it was the battle between friend and enemy. Whereas other forms of endeavour revolved around competition, politics demanded annihilation.

In the book, Schmitt writes:

The political is the most intense and extreme antagonism. War is the most violent form that politics takes, but, even short of war, politics still requires that you treat your opposition as antagonistic to everything in which you believe. It's not personal; you don't have to hate your enemy. But you do have to be prepared to vanquish him if necessary.

Anyone recognise Saddam Hussein and maybe even bin Laden in that last sentence?

In an exchange of letters between Strauss and Schmitt, Strauss shows he agrees.

The ultimate foundation of the Right is the principle of the natural evil of man; because man is by nature evil, he therefore needs dominion. But dominion can be established, that is, men can be unified, only in a unity against - against other men. Every association of men is necessarily a separation from other men. The tendency to separate (and therewith the grouping of humanity into friends and enemies) is given with human nature; it is in this sense destiny, period

You only have to take a look at the list of key administration figures and other noteable NeoCons who have been tutored in the Straussian way to understand how we are we are.

The saying goes... "where theres smoke theres fire", but I don't see either here....

Yes, I used to be a supporter of President Bush, I still am but only to the extent of he's our elected leader and I support the office more than the man. ( yes ATS has opened my eyes ).

The morning of September 11, 2001 was an extraordinary day, nothing like that had happened against the United States since Pear Harbor and I know that the two events are not really comparable, as there was war going on at the time of Pearl.

After the attacks, you know that one of the President's first thoughts was that he would want to address the nation. What would he say? In my opinion and if I was President, I would want the people of my country to know that our "freedom" had been attacked and that we would hunt down and get those responsible".

Now, who could be responsible? Well, who had attacked the U.S. before? Who disliked us enough to be so bold as to try it again? Of course the first choice would be OBL.

The morning of the attackes, I too at first thought it was an accident, but after the 2nd impact and events there after, it was an attack I was glad that our government was in place and that at least they were talking to us and not leaving us in the dark.

just my thoughts, I doubt we'll ever really know the TRUTH, behind that terrible day.

FBI Director Robert Mueller says that an essential clue came from one of the hijacked planes before it crashed. A flight attendant on American Flight 11, Amy Sweeney, had the presence of mind to call her office as the plane was hijacked and give them the seat numbers of the hijackers. “That was the first piece of hard evidence," says Mueller. "We could then go to the manifest, find out who was sitting in those seats and immediately conduct an investigation of those individuals, as opposed to taking all the passengers on the plane and going through a process of elimination.”
www.cbsnews.com...

Since none of the hijackers were ON THE PASSENGER LISTS, what in the hell would knowing the seat numbers tell you? This is utter baloney from the FBI.

Originally posted by Pootie

FBI Director Robert Mueller says that an essential clue came from one of the hijacked planes before it crashed. A flight attendant on American Flight 11, Amy Sweeney, had the presence of mind to call her office as the plane was hijacked and give them the seat numbers of the hijackers. “That was the first piece of hard evidence," says Mueller. "We could then go to the manifest, find out who was sitting in those seats and immediately conduct an investigation of those individuals, as opposed to taking all the passengers on the plane and going through a process of elimination.”
www.cbsnews.com...

Since none of the hijackers were ON THE PASSENGER LISTS, what in the hell would knowing the seat numbers tell you? This is utter baloney from the FBI.

Of course it is. I'm sure the calls from the planes were made up too. Cells phone are supposed to be off during flight. Phones have a airplane mode feature you can set it in or it automatically goes into airplane mode. Surrounded by metal anyway your not gonna get a decent signal.

Even when I travel to Tennessee my phone goes into roaming. Some even go out of range. So the story about the cell phone calls from the plane has to be made up.

[edit on 5/22/2007 by Leyla]

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Bush's "Today, freedom itself was attacked" statement was clearcut propaganda. There's little doubt of that by many, but here I'd like to underscore the significance of the timing of this statement, which I've yet to see.

I honestly don't see any significance at all to this statement, or the timing of it. It was pretty clear after the 2nd tower was hit, and after the Pentagon was hit, that there was at least the appearance of an attack against the U.S. It doesn't take any complicity or foreknowledge to come up with a line like "freedom itself was attacked" in the hours after the attacks. If Dan Rather would have said this same line on the air would it mean he was in on it too?

I'm pretty sure that everyone in the nation was reasonably sure that two planes flying directly into the tallest two buildings in America was some sort of terrorist attack...

My advice; if you are a supporter of the theory that our own government designed the terror attacks of 9/11, stop looking for evidence that isn't there. Honestly, if you want to turn people on to your already shaky and unpopular theory, bring up the more relevant points. This type of uber-paranoia will only turn people off to your idea and make them view you as an over-zealous basement troll.

Originally posted by nick7261
I honestly don't see any significance at all to this statement, or the timing of it. It was pretty clear after the 2nd tower was hit, and after the Pentagon was hit, that there was at least the appearance of an attack against the U.S. It doesn't take any complicity or foreknowledge to come up with a line like "freedom itself was attacked" in the hours after the attacks.

Why would anyone ever say that "freedom itself was attacked"?? It's not like we ourselves are even "free", in the land of permissions, subversion, marginalization of the public, the shredding of the US Constitution, multinational corporations having the same "rights" as US citizens rigged elections, no privacy, limited social mobility, and etc.

What does that even mean? I've offered up tons of explaination of the meaning of that statement, meanwhile no one has explained much of anything to the contrary at any of these junctures. Again, if I'm right about what that "freedom" means, it shows that Bush was laready planning on how to use the attacks as an "oppritunity" to carry out their open plot for global domination, after Bush campaigned on not doing any "nation building".

And again, assuming he was just talking off the top of his head, is Bush and his immediate propagandists ("PR staff") some sort of prophets to use their intuition on that hectic morning to choose the same words that he habitually uses to this day?

If Dan Rather would have said this same line on the air would it mean he was in on it too?

That depends. Since The Media is Pro-Military-Imperialism Biased, there is a certain level of complicity in all media personalities who parrot official lines and keep the public completely ignorant and in denial about what the most basic (hegemonic) truths about this Empire is. Since most people still apparently don't understand why the terrorists out there in the world hate US, the media are near the top of the list of who to blame for that reality. But it could also be said that many of the media personalities are indoctrinated with the same ignorant nationalism that prevents them from being able to interpret what is what and why things are happening. Lastly, it could even be argued that it would depend on who down there at the establishment controlled media center was typing things into Dan Rather's telepromtper, sorta like who these people are who write Bush's speeches for him.


[edit on 22-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Why would anyone ever say that "freedom itself was attacked"??

Because whether you believe it or not, the foundation of the U.S. economic and political system is based on the God given, unalienable rights, i.e., freedoms. When the U.S. is attacked, it's not really a far stretch to create the metaphor that freedom itself was attacked.

It's not like we ourselves are even "free", in the land of permissions, subversion, marginalization of the public, the shredding of the US Constitution, multinational corporations having the same "rights" as US citizens rigged elections, no privacy, limited social mobility, and etc.

You really don't have a clue of what you're talking about, do you? Try spending a few weeks in China and then come back and do an essay on the difference between the freedoms we have in the U.S compared to the freedoms people have in China.

Again, if I'm right about what that "freedom" means, it shows that Bush was laready planning on how to use the attacks as an "oppritunity" to carry out their open plot for global domination, after Bush campaigned on not doing any "nation building".

For the sake of argument, let's say that 9/11 was actually carried out by al-Qaeda. Attacking al-Qaeda is then reasonable in order to protect U.S. citizens. It's a far cry from global domination.

And again, assuming he was just talking off the top of his head, is Bush and his immediate propagandists ("PR staff") some sort of prophets to use their intuition on that hectic morning to choose the same words that he habitually uses to this day?

You don't have to be a prophet to take a wild guess that 9/11 was carried out by some enemy of the U.S., and then to create a metaphor that freedom itself was attacked.

Since most people still apparently don't understand why the terrorists out there in the world hate US, the media are near the top of the list of who to blame for that reality.

The terrorists in the world are a tiny, tiny, tiny, smaller than minuscule amount of the people in the world. Even if the terrorists hate the U.S., and even if you claim to know why the terrorists hate the U.S., it's silly to think that any nation should have a policy of attempting to appease a few thousand people. Follow this to its logical conclusion. If the U.S. policy was designed to make the terrorist not hate the U.S. anymore, then it would be the terrorists who would be dictating the U.S. policy for what is in the terrorists' best interest.

I personally think you've swallowed a different sort of blue pill... one given out by the U.S.-hating, liberal/socialists who think everything about the U.S. is evil. You're overlooking all the good that the U.S. has done in the world. The U.S. is the wealthiest nation in the world because it's provided the most value in the world. Money changes hands as an exchange of value. I know this is heresy to socialists who believe that those with more money than them somehow achieved their wealth immorally.

Is the U.S. perfect? Of course not. But it is one of the few countries in the world where people from another country can come here, work hard, add value to other people's lives, and live a happy and comfortable life, relatively free from government interference and outside threats.

You know how I know this is

Because no president was caught more unprepaired the GW. You can't tell me he knew what was going on. No one who knew what was going on would want to appear to be that big of a fool.

Excellent writeup. I'll comment when available. A Pictorial Time line would go grate for this in showing at which moments in time the inconsistencies begin to occur, which was supposed to be when Bush gave his speech about attacking freedom even though he had no intelligence available to make that statement.

IgnoranceIsntBlisss

[edit on 22-5-2007 by Cerkit Breaker]

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Considering the 'fog of war', Bush's words were prophectic.
[...]
What was Bush doing declaring that freedom itself was attacked at 12:36am, when he didn't yet have enough input to determine what was actually happening?

Excellent thread starter IIB, a flag and a four stars for that timeline and those videos. Well part of the answer as to why bin Laden was fingered from minute one, is as Orrin Hatch said "this looks like the signature of Osama bin Laden." That had been the model of the threat, outlined in reports and growing in stature since the mid-90s at least. Suicide attacks, symbolic attacks, synchronized attacks. A nebulous global threat, diffuse and hard to track, and conversely easy to fabricate connections with extracted confessions and doctored data, etc. A perfect enemy for the New American Century and the obvious culprit. No top secret stuff here. These were initial hunches that proved remarkably correct on "closer examination." But initially the attack itself is what told Bush’s advisers, who told Bush, who told the world. In the cell phone age, this could happen in the first phone call. He might've guessed it himself after Andy Card's whisper.

But the freedoms that were attacked, this is key. It was indeed scripted out for Bush, but not likely in any memo – the message was encoded in the attack itself. The response to the evil would be the inverse of what they wanted – to destroy our centrality to World Trade (WTC), our military might to project that (Pentagon) and our leadership that ties the two together (White House or whatever till our own good citizens intervened and sacrificed themselves). The defense clearly would be military, towards a global market centered on NY, with strong leadership and continued citizen sacrifice. In a nutshell, imperialism.

This is why you're right on mark in your analysis, but they didn't just decide on this after the fact, it was written right in to the flight paths of the very planes. This whole thing shows how they leveraged the attacks for gain, how they may have seen that gain coming and opened the window for it, or for that matter programmed it all themselves. The symbolism was perfect, the horror exquisitely complete, the choices remarkably clear-cut.

Ergo IMO Bush's exact words about the attack reveal far less than the the attack itself that enabled those words. One could be chalked up to presidential rhetoric, the other is hard mechanics that just played out far too well for comfort. But these mini-speeched and other clues are a key pivot point in the evolution of the mythology and response and worth revisiting and breaking down.



[edit on 22-5-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Originally posted by Royal76

Because no president was caught more unprepaired the GW. You can't tell me he knew what was going on. No one who knew what was going on would want to appear to be that big of a fool.

Exactly. Why appear an unprepared dunce when you can keep your dignity but just admitting "hell yeah, we let it happen. We're smart, we know a good opportunity when we see it."

Originally posted by Leyla

Originally posted by Pootie

FBI Director Robert Mueller says that an essential clue came from one of the hijacked planes before it crashed. A flight attendant on American Flight 11, Amy Sweeney, had the presence of mind to call her office as the plane was hijacked and give them the seat numbers of the hijackers. “That was the first piece of hard evidence," says Mueller. "We could then go to the manifest, find out who was sitting in those seats and immediately conduct an investigation of those individuals, as opposed to taking all the passengers on the plane and going through a process of elimination.”
www.cbsnews.com...

Since none of the hijackers were ON THE PASSENGER LISTS, what in the hell would knowing the seat numbers tell you? This is utter baloney from the FBI.

Of course it is. I'm sure the calls from the planes were made up too. Cells phone are supposed to be off during flight. Phones have a airplane mode feature you can set it in or it automatically goes into airplane mode. Surrounded by metal anyway your not gonna get a decent signal.

Even when I travel to Tennessee my phone goes into roaming. Some even go out of range. So the story about the cell phone calls from the plane has to be made up.

[edit on 5/22/2007 by Leyla]

My thoughts exactly. Not only are there to be no cell phones in use on a plane.... what airline attendent in her right mind would have been thinking of calling someone with the seat numbers??? I'm sure, being only human like the rest of us, her thoughts were on staying alive and helping others, if she could. She was most likely scared out of her mind, and even if there WAS the possibility of making a call like this, she never would have done that. Think about it. She'd just seen these nut balls go off shouting and threatening people, and take over the plane. Can anyone actually see her looking around for empty seats, to see what their seat numbers were? Wow... this lie is so bad that it just makes the whole thing look even MORE fishy!!! How could anyone be so dumb as to think everyone would actually BUY that story???

Originally posted by nick7261

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Why would anyone ever say that "freedom itself was attacked"??

Because whether you believe it or not, the foundation of the U.S. economic and political system is based on the God given, unalienable rights, i.e., freedoms. When the U.S. is attacked, it's not really a far stretch to create the metaphor that freedom itself was attacked.
You really don't have a clue of what you're talking about, do you?

Answered here:
America: Land of the Elite, Home of the Slave
Inflation eating US alive: $7.25 will be worth less than $5.15 before Minimun Wage raises in 2009

You're entitled believe whatever you want, but your opinions ased on preconceptions and beliefs dont trump factual truth.

But please do try to debunk those and all of my other threads I keep providing to back up my conclussions (in contrast of you "refuting" pages and pages with a few mere paragraphs).

Try spending a few weeks in China and then come back and do an essay on the difference between the freedoms we have in the U.S compared to the freedoms people have in China.

"oht, it's worse ove rthere so therefore it's perfect over here."

Can you tell me what kind of fallacy that is?

For the sake of argument, let's say that 9/11 was actually carried out by al-Qaeda. Attacking al-Qaeda is then reasonable in order to protect U.S. citizens. It's a far cry from global domination.

Al Qaeda came into existence thanks to American Imperialism, and that's taking the "official view". THen there's even harsher possibilities, which shows even more insight into this American Imperialism that I keep talking about:
Al Qaeda: "The CI-A Team"

You don't have to be a prophet to take a wild guess that 9/11 was carried out by some enemy of the U.S., and then to create a metaphor that freedom itself was attacked.

So is there any doubt that those first words on the matter have rang the same everyday since? Considering that they do remain the primary language to this day, it lays a parallel with being prophetic. SO then the question of what this "freedom" is that he's talking about. Well, do you actually believe that people spent years planning and carrying out 9/1 because they hate it the fact that people can "choose" whether or not they want to be religious, and so on? These people are just inherently evil right? It had nothing to do with American Imperialism, thier motives, right? Bush saw an attack and by intuition knew who they were and what they were attacking? Wouldn't that be prophetic

The terrorists in the world are a tiny, tiny, tiny, smaller than minuscule amount of the people in the world. Even if the terrorists hate the U.S., and even if you claim to know why the terrorists hate the U.S., it's silly to think that any nation should have a policy of attempting to appease a few thousand people.

Right, but it's ok to bomb and maim hundreds of thousands of innocents to squash that "tiny, tiny, tiny, smaller than minuscule amount of the people in the world"?

Follow this to its logical conclusion. If the U.S. policy was designed to make the terrorist not hate the U.S. anymore, then it would be the terrorists who would be dictating the U.S. policy for what is in the terrorists' best interest.

Follow this conclusion: If the US wasn't the worlds preeminent imperialist state, we wouldn't even have a "foreign policy" and we wouldn't care about them whatsoever, and therefore they wouldn't care about US. "We've" been over there for over 50 year literally dictating those people. Dig that.

I personally think you've swallowed a different sort of blue pill... one given out by the U.S.-hating, liberal/socialists who think everything about the U.S. is evil.

Ah, and the right-wing political bias is finally shown. Whatever. I used to be that knee-jerk Bush supporting ignoramous like you and the rest. I woke up, starting with overcoming my political bias. Here's some good places for you to start:
www.google.com...
www.google.com...

Until you do, fMRI brain scans studies show that you'll self-decieve yourself to maintain your ideal beliefs.

You're overlooking all the good that the U.S. has done in the world.

And you're overlooking all of the bad things that "we've" done:
America's death toll on the world: 27,000,000++

The U.S. is the wealthiest nation in the world because it's provided the most value in the world.

Um, yeah, it got that way by accident. It did so by mere LUCK?
Or it did so by dominating the rest of the globe wherever it could? Correct, see 27M++ link above for some quick examples.

relatively free from government interference and outside threats.

See that inflation link above.

[edit on 22-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]