Weird Stuff/Unexplained
See other Weird Stuff/Unexplained Articles
Title: Tony Bennett in bizarre rant as he claims 'America caused 9/11' and 'George Bush told me he regretted the war in Iraq'
Source:
Daily Mail Online
URL Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art ... ed-Iraq-rant-Howard-Stern.html
Published: Sep 20, 2011
Author: Daily Mail Reporter
Post Date: 2011-09-20 23:28:17 by Sebastian
Keywords: None
Views: 44528
Comments: 64
Tony Bennett spoke about 9/11 and the Iraq war on Howard Stern's Sirius radio show Legendary singer Tony Bennett said in an interview with Howard Stern on Monday night that 'we caused' the 9/11 attacks. He also went on to say that President George W. Bush confided in him that the war in Iraq was a mistake. Speaking on Stern's Sirius Radio show, Mr Bennett, who describes himself as a pacifist, said: 'They flew the plane in, but we caused it. 'Because we were bombing them and they told us to stop.' Stern had asked the singer, a World War II vet, how the U.S. should deal with the terrorists responsible for the World Trade Centre attacks. 'But who are the terrorists?' Mr Bennett said, according to ABC News. 'Are we the terrorists or are they the terrorists? Two wrongs don't make a right.' The 85-year-old spoke of the night in 2005 when then-President Bush made that astonishing statement. Mr Bennett said: 'He told me personally that night that, he said, 'I think I made a mistake".' The event was in honour of Mr Bennett and he said he believed Mr Bush made the admission because he liked the singer. Mr Bennett said that his experiences as a teenager in combat in the Second World War forever changed his position on war. Haunting: Bennett said his views on war and 9/11 are shaped by his time in the U.S. Army during the Second World War 'I'm anti-war,' he said. 'It's the lowest form of human behaviour.' He was drafted by the U.S. Army in November 1944 and served as an infantryman in Europe, moving across France, and later into Germany. He said: 'The Germans were frightened. We were frightened. Nobody wanted to kill anybody when we were on the line, but the weapons were so strong that it overcame us and everybody else. The day before his controversial remarks Bennett celebrated his 85th birthday gala in New York on Sunday, joined daughters Joanna, far left, Antonia, far right, and Susan Crow Mr Bennett credited the Army with allowing him to study singing. He said: 'The first time I saw a dead German, that's when I became a pacifist.' He told Mr Stern that he was left forever shaken by the sight of death. The big guns were there: Former President Bill Clinton joins Bennett on stage at his 85th Birthday Gala in New York on Sunday Mr Bennett said: 'It was a nightmare that's permanent. 'I just said, "This is not life. This is not life".' That's why, he added, that he agrees with Mr Bush. He said: 'To start a war in Iraq was a tremendous, tremendous mistake internationally.' The night before, Mr Bennett, who is currently promoting his new album, Duets II, enjoyed a star-studded party in his honour at his 85th Birthday Gala Benefit for Exploring the Arts at The Metropolitan Opera House in New York. Guests included Bill Clinton, Elton John and Robert DeNiro.
But he also admitted that his two years of service gave him enough time to witness the horrors of war.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 64.
#7. To: Sebastian (#0)
'Just shut up and sing' comes to mind. Of course he has the right to say anything he wants - that has absolutely nothing to do with military service - but this just makes him look like a kook.
I wouldn't have phrased it that way - "America caused 9/11" - but I've tried to get past the sound bytes and consider what is behind this train of thought. You can easily dismiss it when it's a statist whacko like Michael Moore or a religious whacko like Louis Farrakhan saying it, but it's more difficult when it's someone like this. Bennett has seen the horrors of war up close and personal - I tend to give more weight to what people like that say. Putting right or wrong motives aside for a moment - the truth is the US HAS interfered in other nations' political affairs. That is an indisputable fact. And, when a nation does that, it is not unreasonable to expect blow-back. I AM NOT SAYING THE JIHADISTS WERE JUSTIFIED IN ATTACKING US ON 9/11. What I am saying is this: when nation #1 is perceived as meddling in nation #2's internal affairs, it is not surprising that perceived meddling will create resentment by lunatic factions in nation #2 and they will attempt to retaliate. Ron Paul is accused of being a {{{shudder}}}} isolationist (he's not), but this is the point he tries to make and gets shouted down for it. We are not minding our own business here at home (or have we already solved problems like illegal immigration and a crappy economy?).
Not only that,but he has been mostly apolitical his entire life. Not saying he hasn't voted or supported different candidates,but he has never been out there promoting one party or national candidate over another. BTW,he was just on tv a few minutes ago saying he had been misunderstood,and that nobody loved America more than he does,and that he has a fuller explanation of what he meant on a web site. Presumably his own web site.
He has to clarify his statement for the FOX right wing whacko nationalists. Left leaners are not the ones being offended by Bennett's comments - its the right wing kneejerk tea party types that are jumoing all over this. It's the Dixie Chicks all over again - I guess the right wing whack job contingent (and this article is from a right wing leaning neocon rag in the UK) fears that these messages will filter down to their mind control right wing zombies and change their minds - and they can't let that happen.
FOX News - check Can you write in anything other than stereotypes? Here's a clue - I'm about as "right-wing" as you can get, but I have no use for the endless wars that statists like LBJ, Clinton, the Bushes and now Obama seem to be determined to get us in. So wise up - if you're capable.
You know what a Venn Diagram is? Your views intersect with a large aspect of those on your right wing universe I labeled kooks. I am "right wing" as well but I embrace a right wing that wants no part of unregulated capitalism and is for a safety-net with a dollop of nationalism. In Europe it is called the "social market" but it is found all over the world as the standard form of govt and economy mix. Since you espouse an economic system based on ideology with no real world analog - I must place you in the kook category - despite my agreeing with your non intervention stance.
Given the economic situation of the European countries you love so much; the collapse of the statist USSR; the horrors of Statist Nazi Germany; the collapse of Fascist Italy; and the wonders of Statist Cuba and China; and now the imminent economic collapse of the once great USA (to name just a few) - I'll take MY ideology over yours any day.
No it did not. The USA's economy was in one panic (what they called economic crisis back then) after another. The only think saving the country was free/cheap land and that most people could grow their own food and not starve. Where did you get your bullshit that the USA was an economic paradise back then? That is why I can not make you an ally - people like you that distort the truth - and invent realities to justify your world view fiction are dangerous and must be exposed for the know-nothing kooks you are. Banking Panics in the US: 1873-1933 Prior to the passage of deposit insurance legislation in 1933 banking panics were a recurrent feature of U.S. banking history. Three phases of that panic experience can be identified depending upon the type of regulatory framework in place: the pre-Civil War era, the National Banking era, and the era of the Federal Reserve System. Federal regulation was absent in the antebellum period with panics in 1819, 1837, 1857 and incipient panics in 1860 and 1861. During the National Banking era, banking panics occurred in 1873, 1893, and 1907 with incipient panics in 1884 and 1890. After the Federal Reserve Act was passed in 1913, there were four full-scale banking panics, one in 1930, two in 1931, one in 1933 and a localized panic in Chicago in 1932.
No it did not. The USA's economy was in one panic (what they called economic crisis back then) after another. The only think saving the country was free/cheap land and that most people could grow their own food and not starve. Where did you get your bullshit that the USA was an economic paradise back then? You really should brush up on your reading comprehension. "Worked pretty well" is not the same as "economic paradise." In your limited experiences, have you ever noticed that most things run in cycles? You have droughts then you have floods. You have the seasons. Likewise, in economics you have boom and bust cycles. Like farmers who plan for inevitable droughts, wise people used to survive the bust cycles by smart planning and preparation. And yes, not to sound cold, but some people through lack of planning or other factors did suffer. That's called life. It's unfair. Some people prosper. Some don't. Don't like it? Take it up with God. All people like you can do is create governmental systems that spread misery, limit freedoms and eventually collapse of their own weight and corruption. You seem to believe mankind is perfectable - and that he can create a perfect system. I challenge you to cite one - just one - of your socialist European utopias that is not (or soon to be) an economic basket case. If you can - do us all a favor and relocate there. We have too many Obama voters here already.
For all of those "144 years" we were an agrarian based economy that gave little thought to education and advancement. Wages, for most, were substance and we created a statutory underclass - mostly in the South but in some Northern states as well. It worked like shit. And, in post WWII, as the globe advanced on US and UK dollars, we stood still...every nation that requires a living wage and health care and unquestioningly supplies as many dollars their education system needs is doing better than the US. The US is hell bent on going backwards...under the encouragement of people like you...
There are no replies to Comment # 64. End Trace Mode for Comment # 64.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#9. To: Badeye (#7)
Of course he has the right to say anything he wants - that has absolutely nothing to do with military service - but this just makes him look like a kook.
#14. To: Get Outta Dodge! (#9)
You can easily dismiss it when it's a statist whacko like Michael Moore or a religious whacko like Louis Farrakhan saying it, but it's more difficult when it's someone like this. Bennett has seen the horrors of war up close and personal - I tend to give more weight to what people like that say.
#17. To: sneakypete, Get Outta Dodge! (#14)
(Edited)
BTW,he was just on tv a few minutes ago saying he had been misunderstood,and that nobody loved America more than he does,and that he has a fuller explanation of what he meant on a web site. Presumably his own web site.
#23. To: Godwinson (#17)
He has to clarify his statement for the FOX right wing whacko nationalists.
"right wing" - check
"whacko" - check
#47. To: Get Outta Dodge! (#23)
Here's a clue - I'm about as "right-wing" as you can get, but I have no use for the endless wars that statists like LBJ, Clinton, the Bushes and now Obama seem to be determined to get us in.
#52. To: Godwinson (#47)
Since you espouse an economic system based on ideology with no real world analog
My ideology was in sync with pretty much everyone in mainstream US Gov't pre-FDR. It worked pretty well for about 144 years (1789-1933). - I must place you in the kook category - despite my agreeing with your non intervention stance.
Coming from you - the notorious inquisitionist who would like to see protestants and heretics burned at the stake (which puts you in about the same class as a Muslim kook jihadist) - I CONSIDER THAT AN HONOR, SIR!
#53. To: Get Outta Dodge! (#52)
(Edited)
My ideology was in sync with pretty much everyone in mainstream US Gov't pre-FDR. It worked pretty well for about 144 years (1789-1933).
#56. To: Godwinson (#53)
(Edited)
It worked pretty well for about 144 years (1789-1933).
#64. To: Get Outta Dodge! (#56)
You really should brush up on your reading comprehension. "Worked pretty well" is not the same as "economic paradise."
Replies to Comment # 64.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]