This is from an Australian news site. Searching for it elsewhere only pulls up stories from India and other countries. I wonder why this hasn’t been reported here.

If Bush really believes this, then the talk about attacking Iran makes more sense. A world war isn’t limited, by definition, to just one country. It can be fought anywhere simulaneously. And in this day and age, a world war pretty much implies nuclear weapons are at least talked about. What aren’t we being told?

Whenever I hear about Bush and nukes and the Middle East I can’t help remembering articles about how he has come to believe we are in apocalyptic times and that he is to help bring Armageddon about. Hey, it’s his words, not mine.

Bush calls terror fight WWIII

US President George W. Bush has said the September 11 revolt of passengers against their hijackers on board Flight 93 had struck the first blow of “World War III”.

In an interview with the financial news network CNBC, Mr Bush said he had yet to see the recently released film of the uprising, a dramatic portrayal of events on the United Airlines plane before it crashed in a Pennsylvania field.

But he said he agreed with the description of David Beamer, whose son Todd died in the crash, who in a Wall Street Journal commentary last month called it “our first successful counter-attack in our homeland in this new global war, World War III”.

Mr Bush said: “I believe that. I believe that it was the first counter-attack to World War III.

“It was, it was unbelievably heroic of those folks on the airplane to recognize the danger and save lives,” he said.

Flight 93 crashed on the morning of September 11, 2001, killing the 33 passengers, seven crew members and four hijackers, after passengers stormed the cockpit and battled the hijackers for control of the aircraft.

The president has repeatedly praised the heroism of the passengers in fighting back and so launching the first blow of what he usually calls the “war on terror”.

In 2002, then-White House spokesman Ari Fleischer explicitly declined to call the hunt for Osama bin Laden’s Al-Qaeda group and its followers “World War III”.

Here is an interesting commentary on a Chis Mattews show last month that brought up how nuking Iran would start WWIII.



  1. doug says:

    if WW3 encompasses the Global War Against Terrorism and/or an attack on Iran and/or the war in Iraq, shouldnt it really be WW4, since the Cold War included a number of Hot Wars (Korea, Vietnam) and WMD crises (Cuba Missile Crisis, USSR and China getting the Bomb)?

    or is this just one of those “lets argue about whether this particular inflammatory terminology (i.e. is Iraq in a “civil war”) applies, and has no real underlying meaning?

  2. Mike Abundo says:

    So it’s not really the war for hearts and minds.

    It’s the war in Bush’s mind.

  3. ranron says:

    Yes it is World War III. Remember the US is the world and all the other nations, well they don’t really count.

  4. Gary Marks says:

    Rather than waging war on the terrorists, we really should be ringing their doorbells and telling them about Jesus. Oh, by the way, God is doing a heckuva job.

    On a more serious note, I’m not really convinced that Bush sees himself as being chosen to bring Biblical prophesy to fruition. Religion has been used throughout history to achieve political objectives, and I’m not convinced Bush is any different in this regard. If a portion of the population is convinced that Bush is acting within God’s will, those are people who will not subject his actions to critical scrutiny any more than they subject their own religion to critical scrutiny. They simply have faith, and that kind of unquestioning support is enough to swing an election that otherwise might be based on a silly thing like competence.

    Better insight into Bush’s thinking concerning America’s role in the world might come from reading about “Project for the New American Century” (PNAC), a neocon think tank with which most of Bush’s foreign policy advisers have been involved (Cheney and Rumsfeld were among the founders). When the PNAC makes plans to maintain global economic and military dominance, someone really important should be on your side–why not God? And that raises a really good question… Is PNAC using Bush for the NeoChristian support he brings to the table?

  5. James Hill says:

    The WW3 comment was made by Bill O’Rilley years ago: Quoting a hack like Chris Mattews only shows how far behind you are.

    Is it world war three? In scale of importance to world war one and world war two, yes. In terms of ‘tact’? No… at least not yet.

  6. AB CD says:

    Well with Palestinians and other Muslim countries celebrating 9/11 and Osama, then sometimes all it takes is recognizing when the war is at your door.

  7. xully says:

    We have to make the Middle-East safe for Jewish people, even if we have to kill all the Arabs. Right?

  8. Johnny says:

    “The WW3 comment was made by Bill O’Rilley years ago: Quoting a hack like Chris Mattews only shows how far behind you are.”

    yeah like o’reily is any better he is an incredible asshole and he should get fired for the “dopey” stuff he says

  9. James, age 14 says:

    –Okay, so we have a pro-life Republican President who claims to be a Christian, and suddenly it’s the end of the world!! Yes, he goes to war when we are attacked; isn’t the President’s job??? These left-wing idiots are absolutely horrified at having a President like Bush; they claim it makes America a “theocracy”. Can you believe it??

    It’s a scary world at there! When I start hearing about slavery, genocidal dictators and tribal warfare, I really start to wonder, why can’t these guys get their act together?? We haven’t been having that shit since the eightteen-hundreds! Bush has one of the most stressful jobs on the planet: trying to negotiate with the Ahmadinejads of the planet. (This is the guy who took Americans hostage, remember!) He doesn’t seem to want to be on his best behavior, either: just make peace with Israel, sell us your oil, and keep your mouth shut. Instead, he wants to support terrorism in Iraq, cut off oil, threaten the whole world with nuclear warfare, and wipe Israel off the map.

    Ahmadinejad would be perfectly happy to invade & destroy Iraq for many reasons: first of all, there are American soldiers there who could march on Iran should tensions increase (and they most likely will). Secondly, he would make a perfect ally to the Islamic terrorist there, because he is a terrorist himslef. Third, Iraq is a major oil competitor, which Iran’s Madman would love to have. Fourth, Iran & Iraq have been mortal enemies for decades.

    We have a little joke: Bush is the fix-it man! He goes around the world looking for problem people. People like bin Laden, al-Zarqawi, Saddam…. When he finds them he tries to fix them; if they won’t let him fix them, then he blows their head off.

    Now put yourself in the White House, and imagine you’re having to deal with those “problem people”. Even worse: imagine you are dependent on those “problem people” for oil for your country. You are forced to try to make peace, but they keep threatening to stop selling oil, destroy oil tankers from other nations, promote terrorism in another country you are occupying, and wipe your allies off the map. How would you handle them??

    I’d blow their head off!

  10. joshua says:

    Hey Paul……I want some of that coffee!!!

    It dosen’t take a very bright person to figure out we are at war. If we aren’t……does that mean all the anti-war folks were just out making noise for the sake of it?

    It must be nice to be so damn perfect that people can call others by all the names I see coming out of some of the left wing posts in here and other sites. You all have had your shorts in a wad ever since Clinton got stains on Monicas dress and lied about it. Time to get over it, and remember that your Americans to, and so are the Republicans and Conservatives. Hysteria and tin foil hat stuff dosen’t solve our problems.


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 5420 access attempts in the last 7 days.