OT-POL-Bin Laden alive, shills for Kerry

"James T. Kirby"
> Frank Ketchum wrote:

> > Kerry is the one who has a demonstrable history as a flip flopper. To
> > accuse Bush of it is laughable.


> Right, Bush is the bull in the arena, head down, nostrils flared, full steam ahead.
> Don't forget to add the blinders so that right degree of tunnel vision is there
> as well.

> Impressive.


Impressive indeed. That's how the liberal thinks. Steadfast determination
is a character flaw while waffling for popularity's sake is an asset. Is
it a wonder why kids and underachievers are usually liberal?

Frank Ketchum <[email protected]> wrote:

> Democrats don't pull October suprise this election cycle, so Bin Laden does
> it for them...

Uh, Bush is the one who would pull an October surprise.

> Yes, oh yes apparently Bin Laden is alive and he has decided to show his
> face after hiding for over a year.

Looked pretty good considering Bush's own people say they know the
region where he is located and supposedly he requires special medical
treatment. I guess Bush really meant it when he said that he didn't care
much about catching him. I must say all the sad sheeple idiots who
declared he was cowering in a cave sure look stupid.

> Why right now, a mere 4 days before our
> election you ask? Well it doesn't take a genius to deduce that he is
> pushing for the defeat of George W Bush.

No, it takes an idiot. Bush is the best thing that has ever happened to
the guy. Let's see, he wants a radicalized Arab world, he wanted the
overthrow of Saddam to be replaced by a Muslim guided government...
should I go on? Damn, could anyone be better for him than Bush? Constant
incompetence. Constant corruption. Constant dishonesty. Constant
arrogance. Talk about a complete symbiosis.

> If you recall, right before the
> Spanish elections this year Al Qaida attacked a subway station in Spain in
> order to affect the election. They were sucessfull by causing the incumbant
> to loose.

False. The incumbent was headed for defeat before the attack and he
botched the response to the attack so badly that he sank even further.
He blamed the Basque separatists for the bombings. Tsk, tsk... turned
out to be a lie. Not every country gladly swallows incompetence and
dishonesty.

Its worth noting that the leader of the attack stated that there would
be no attacks before the US election.

> Immediatly after, the Spanish pulled their troops and support for
> the war on terrorism.

They took their troops out which isn't the same for "support for the war
on terrorism" which is more of a religious statement than anything else.
If you can explain how a "war" can be fought against a technique of
combat, let's hear it.

Now it is plain that if that is really him on the
> tape, he wants to have the same effect on the American election. Why is
> this? It is obvious that he would rather have Kerry in control of our fight
> against terrorism. He obviously would prefer 4 years of Kerry over 4 years
> of Bush.

So every terrorism expert, I have ever read is wrong and old fascist
Frank knows better? What could be better than Bush? A complete
incompetent with a bizarre one world government philosophy built through
a global Jihad complete with nutcases like Boykin and Cheney.

> This sort of nukes the whole notion that the war in Iraq has
> nothing to do with the war on terror, doesn't it? If we really had lost
> focus on the war, why would Bin Laden pop up right now? When are you, Mr.
> Kerry, going to pull your head out of your ass and realize that this
> constant unfounded and idiotic criticism of Bush in a time of war really has
> dire consequences?

Take your Nazi bullshit and shove it up your ass. If you hate America so
much that you think that Bush's personal and permanent war means that
corruption and criminality and gross incompetence can't be criticized,
get out. "Time of war." WHAT A JOKE. WHAT ANTI-AMERICAN TRIPE. The
one-worlders who you have dedicated allegiance to, talk about the "war"
taking generations. So no criticism of the worst president in history
for generations.

> There was a time when politics ended at the water's
> edge. I guess that was also a time when the Democratic party was a little
> respectable.

What a joke. The republican party has abandoned any principles or
morals, not that they ever had many. WTF is your criticism? That a
citizen would actually ask why 100s of billions are being flushed away
along with the lives of kids?

Go ahead, make a *REAL* criticism. I dare you.
>
> Quote from "Bin Laden":
>
> "It never occurred to us that the commander in chief of the American forces
> would leave 50,000 citizens in the two towers to face those horrors alone at
> a time when they most needed him." "Because he thought listening to a child
> discussing her goat and its ramming was more important than the planes and
> their ramming of the skyscrapers." "(The strikes had to be carried out)
> within 20 minutes before Bush and his administration noticed."
>
> - So Bin Laden been listening to John Kerry or his surrogates
> campaigning.

lol... only traitorous citizens would view the grand and glorious
imperial leader while he cowered in fear. Do you even know anything
about the events on 9/11? Do you know what Bush did? Have you seen him
doing nothing while the attack was taking place? Have you heard the
seven different versions he gave of the events in the school or the
three different versions of what happened after that? Poor George ran to
an underground bunker and left Dick the Satanic whore in charge who
ordered a plane shot down and was IGNORED.

> This is such a moronic point that democrats have been making
> and now Bin Laden is repeating it.

Yeah, cowardice and failure should be praised.

> How does it feel to give talking points
> to our enemies Mr. Kerry?

REALITY gave talking points to bin Laden. Why is it that republican
always argue that the facts are partisan?

> How about the statement from Saddam Hussein
> himself that references the the US went to war only to put money in
> Haliburton's pocket? Instead of being enraged at Bush, why aren't you
> enraged that your party is giving talking points to our enemy?

Now you lost me. When did Saddam become our enemy?

> Who exactly
> is your enemy these days anyway senator?

Who is George's? Kerry is pretty straightforward. George flip-flops
daily.

> What next, Bin Laden saying that
> John Kerry could wage a smarter more effective war on terrorism?

Anyone could do better.

> Or perhaps
> Bin Laden will say that John Kerry voted for the $87 billion before he voted
> against it.

LMAO... did you say the democrats made moronic arguments? LOL... the
bill came up several times in different versions. Only a complete
sheeple would demand that all legislators must automatically approve the
version endorsed by the Supreme Leader. Kerry voted differently on
different versions, so he is bad somehow. And when the administration
threatened to veto different versions, which they did three times, that
is acceptable. Would love to hear the spin to defend that.

> Perhaps Bin Laden will purchase some commercials on American
> television denouncing the swift boat vets.

Hell, the Swiftboat Slimers for Satan? Any Christian would condemn that
filth.
>
> So there you have it. There is clearly a choice on Tuesday, vote for Bush
> or vote as Bin Laden would prefer you to vote.

Same thing.



Here. This is what a senior CIA counter-intelligence official who was
head of the unit that tracked bin Laden says:

For Osama bin Laden the American invasion and occupation of Iraq were
like "a Christmas present you long for but never expected to receive" -
a gift from Washington that "will haunt, hurt, and hound Americans for
years to come."

[...]

"U.S. forces and policies are completing the radicalization of the
Islamic world, something Osama bin Laden has been trying to do with
substantial but incomplete success since the early 1990's. As a result,
I think it fair to conclude that the United States of America remains
bin Laden's only indispensable ally."

*********************************
*********************************
*********************************

Did you read that? Thanks sheeple.

Fletis Humplebacker <!> wrote:

> > > Kerry is the one who has a demonstrable history as a flip flopper. To
> > > accuse Bush of it is laughable.
>
>
> > Right, Bush is the bull in the arena, head down, nostrils flared, full
> > steam ahead. Don't forget to add the blinders so that right degree of
> > tunnel vision is there as well.
>
> > Impressive.
>
>
> Impressive indeed. That's how the liberal thinks.

Typical conservative morals. He is obviously referring to the loopy,
fanatical old man. The same one who declared that Bush was wrong about
terrorism and that a technique of combat could be defeated because
techniques of combat were used in warfare. (No, I can't explain what he
means, but then neither can he.) He also declared that voting
differently on different versions of a bill were cowardly and
hypocritical, although ironically he failed to mention that the Bush
administration three times threatened to vote no if they didn't get
dictatorial powers over the money.

> Steadfast determination
> is a character flaw

Without doubt. From the bible to the tomes of history, being steadfast
in favor of corruption, crime or out of ignorance is a character flaw.
Being steadfast in the Bush doctrine of one world government is a
character flaw.

> while waffling for popularity's sake is an asset.

Well, this is what Bush did. Are you in favor of it or opposed to it?

It was slime thrown by the paragon of evil and hero of conservatives,
one of the greatest dirty-tricksters in modern history, Karl Rove. While
Bush has waffled on virtually everything, with a notable exception of
calling himself steadfast and determined, Kerry didn't.

Is
> it a wonder why kids and underachievers are usually liberal?

Yawn... the people who founded the country were liberal. The country is
founded on liberal principles, which are under full scale assault. While
it isn't PC to refer to the founding fathers as stupid assholes, that is
certainly what modern conservatism asserts, including your childish
regurgitation of disinformation.

Speaking of Kerry, his fate was presaged by Orwell as much of current
events is:

"He fought bravely at the Battle of the Cowshed," said somebody.

"Bravery is not enough," said Squealer. "Loyalty and obedience are more
important. And as to the Battle of the Cowshed, "I believe the time will
come when we shall find that Snowball's part in it was much exaggerated.

-G. Orwell, Animal Farm (and Corsi and O'Neill)

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 03:42:45 GMT, "Frank Ketchum"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Democrats don't pull October suprise this election cycle, so Bin Laden does
>it for them...
>
>http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041029/D861CS9O0.html
>http://reuters.myway.com/article/20041029/2004-10-29T232910Z_01_L29154645_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-SECURITY-BINLADEN-DC.html
>
>Yes, oh yes apparently Bin Laden is alive and he has decided to show his
>face after hiding for over a year. Why right now, a mere 4 days before our
>election you ask? Well it doesn't take a genius to deduce that he is
>pushing for the defeat of George W Bush. ...


You gotta be kidding. Bush had done more damage to this country
than terrorists could ever dream of accomplishing.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> There is a world of difference between democratic opposition to the
> president and what we have been seeing out of the Kerry campaign. During
> WWII, there were several spirited campaigns against FDR, but the politics
> stopped before accusing FDR of lying about the war, getting our troops
> involved needlessly, or mishandling the war effort.
>
Last time I looked, FDR didn't START that war. Big difference.

--
There ARE no Iraqi WMDs!

Jim Jim JIm...... are you really hypothesizing that if Kerry won this
election that they wouldn't hate us as much???

Here's what wrong with your argument.

First you say it would serve Bin Laden well to have the enemy well defined.

Then you say it wouldn't serve us well..... moron.

On 1 Nov 2004 15:53:42 -0800, [email protected] (Fred the Red Shirt)
wrote:

>Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>>
>>
>> There is a world of difference between democratic opposition to the
>> president and what we have been seeing out of the Kerry campaign. During
>> WWII, there were several spirited campaigns against FDR, but the politics
>> stopped before accusing FDR of lying about the war, getting our troops
>> involved needlessly, or mishandling the war effort.
>
>That may have something to do with FDR not being caught
>in bald-faced lies.
>

There you go with the bald-faced lies statement again. Once again,
making a decision based upon the intelligence estimates provided to one and
then later finding those estimates to be wrong DOES NOT MAKE A LIAR! When
the invasion was launched, multiple reasons for launching the invasion were
made, one of which was disarming Saddam. The arguments for the invasion
were NOT manufactured in sequence, they were stated initially, up-front.
Once again, more than one reason was given for the invasion of Iraq, prior
to the invasion.


>>"Wrong war, wrong
>> place, wrong time!" what the @#$% kind of message do you think that sends
>> to our enemies? That we are a united country intent upon the destruction
>> of those who have sworn to destroy our way of life? Or do you suppose such
>> rhetoric emboldens them with knowledge that we are divided and that perhaps
>> a few well-placed attacks will give those opposing our current actions the
>> upper hand and make us cut and run?
>
>Last I heard, and indeed every time he has spoken on the subject, Kerry
>said we woudl send more troops to Iraq and redouble the effort to get
>other nations to send more troops too.
>

Well, your statement is half right if you parse it properly. Yes, the
last you heard, every time Kerry has spoken out on this issue, he has said
he would send more troops. However, this is only his latest position based
upon what is playing in Peoria. "Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time!"
doesn't sound like overwhelming support for the war effort or the troops or
for sending more troops. But then that quote is a few months old, so,
technically speaking, your statement above is correct, "last you heard and
every time [lately] he has spoken on the subject, Kerry said we would send
more troops" Insulting the current allies doesn't sound like the way to
win friends and influence others to support our effort. Kerry's had more
positions than the Kama Sutra.



>You may doubt that he will be able to do that but it is pretty hard to
>imagine that sort of talk embolden's the enemy.
>
>> -- the North
>> Vietnamese are on record as saying they were ready to capitulate but were
>> emboldened by the anti-war effort to stick it out to victory.
>
>Where is that record located?

One instance:
<http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/8/3/160248.shtml>
" The record of Kerry and fellow pro-Communist North Vietnam comrades was
cited by General Vo Nguyen Giap, the military commander of North Vietnamese
forces, in his 1985 memoir. Giap wrote that, "if it were not for the
disunity created by... stateside protests, Hanoi would have ultimately
surrendered."

Are the memoirs of a North Vietnamese general good enough as a reference?
You accept the word of Saddam as good enough for him not having WMD's, so I
would expect you to also accept the word of a North Vietnamese communist
when praising the anti-war movement for its victory.

>
>The North Vietnamese had fought for an entire generation and knew
>full well that we would never invade North Vietnam.

Why would they know that? Because we were allowing politicians to run
the war? What brought them to the bargaining table? Could it have been
the sustained bombing campaign of Hanoi?

"Frank Ketchum" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> I am just sick and tired of watching the enemy repeat the talking points of
> the party in opposition to our president. I dont think the tape will have
> any effect in reality on the election, it just bothers me that on areas of
> national security our enemy is listening to us and repeating the idiocy of
> the left. This sort of thing didn't used to happen in politics.

Nonsense. W's being president is a fluke, in spite of his
protestations beforehand as to how he could get along in bi-partisan
environment. In fact, W is an arrogant, learning-disabled little
person, who's had huge effect diminishing our country in the eyes of
the world, especially those he alleges to sell democracty to. Maybe
if he'd stayed awake in class at Yale, or didn't take a pass into Yale
on Daddy's coat-tails?

Who does he appeal to besides jingoists? Rah, Rah Joe McCarthy!

Not to mention his threat to democracy with arrogation of legal
powers, insistence on secrecy, and reluctance to allow dissenting
view(s). May he pack up his pretzels soon!

John

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:
>Robert Galloway <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>> Bin Laden's preference for Kerry sounds like the best endorsement for
>> Bush I can think of.
>>
>
>The translations I have seen indicate a disdain for Bush, rather than
>a preference for Kerry.
>
>If you take into consideration that bin Laden in not stupid, but he
>presumes most of Bush's supporers are, then one can easily see whom
>he would rather have as President.
>
>Consider the last time he chose to influence an American Election he
>bombed the Cole to promote a change of administrations.
>
And how well did that work?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

"mel" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Jim Jim JIm...... are you really hypothesizing that if Kerry won this
> election that they wouldn't hate us as much???
>
> Here's what wrong with your argument.
>
> First you say it would serve Bin Laden well to have the enemy well defined.
>
> Then you say it wouldn't serve us well..... moron.

No, they would certainly still hate us, but they have the dual
advantage now
that everyone else in the world hates us too (or at least hates Bush -
I find
most people overseas still pretty congenial to a casually-met
American, even if they are ready to ask us why we elected someone who
seems to have crawled out of the lowest reaches of a cesspool). Why
give up that edge in exchange for a new face that could possibly shift
the overall tenor of world opinion? I wouldn't
be surprised if there were some sort of terrorist action on Monday,
just to make absolutely sure that we re-elect Bush.

Now, for the rest your post - what is "it"? I don't remember saying
some "it"
wouldn't serve us well?? Maybe it was someone else.

JK

"mel" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> <snip> Why give up that edge in exchange for a new face that could possibly
> shift
> the overall tenor of world opinion?
>
> This question is exactly where I form my differences with your candidate.
>
> Point #1- I do not want the leader of my country defining what's best for
> America by what other countries think. Do I think Bush has done the best
> job of this? No...I do not....but at least it's an American definition by
> America for America.
>
> Point #2- I do not want the leader of my country to allow the rest of the
> world to think it governs us....it doesn't. In 1776 we declared our
> independence. Maybe it's just me but I sort of value that. Does that mean
> we will always be right? No...it doesn't....but I hope to God it never
> changes.
>
> Point #3- I do not want the leader of my country to ever forget which
> opinions of America are important and which ones would be nice to have but
> unnecessary......


Gosh Mel - (dopeslap to own forehead) - Thanks for enlightening me on
the importance of attributing no importance whatsoever to what 9/10 of
the planet thinks. How could I have been so confused?

Where are we here? Mid 30's, Germany? I feel a strange sense of
disorientation.

When do we extend point #3 to include which opinions of Americans
themselves are important, and which are nice but unnecessary?

Jim Kirby

In article <[email protected]>, "James T. Kirby" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Standing up to the Russians? Well, he had the advantage of dealing with a
>system that
>was crumbling from within. He may have helped that along some,

He certainly did; even the Russians acknowledge this. "Helped that along some"
is a bit of an understatement; do a Google search on <"Gennady Gerasimov"
Reagan> for details.

>but he (or at least the notion that that system should go away) had a lot of
>support from allies as well as from
>subject populations living under its subjugation. He didn't have to fire any
>shots or invade anyone - the system collapsed on its own. It was ready to.

Yes, indeed, it was ready to -- but hardly anyone among Western political
leaders realized that. When Reagan took office, the predominant mode of
thinking in the West was that we would have to accept the continued existence
of the Soviet Union for the foreseeable future. Reagan had the wisdom and
insight to recognize the inherent weaknesses in the Soviet system, and the
will and determination to exploit them to bring about its collapse.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

Frank Ketchum said:

>> Who is George's? Kerry is pretty straightforward. George flip-flops
>> daily.
>
>And I suppose Bush is married to a billionair ketchup airess too.

Airess - HA HA HA, Try heiress...
And your point is?


Greg G.

Hmmm - another profound statement. One of these days you may actually work
your way up to a full sentence that has meaning Keith. And perhaps even add
some value to this group...........naaaahhh, I doubt it.

Yes - I really mean it.

"Frank Ketchum" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Democrats don't pull October suprise this election cycle, so Bin Laden does
> it for them...

Do you think Americans will vote against Bush, just because Osama bin
Laden is saying bad things about Bush? No, Americans hate bin Laden.
When bin Laden denounces Bush, it's likely to help Bush win votes!

Bin Laden and his kind may be vicious and evil, but they are
definitely not stupid. So why would they send a tape like that -- a
tape that would probably help Bush? Hmm.

"Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Nate Perkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Frank Ketchum" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > > Democrats don't pull October suprise this election cycle, so Bin Laden
> does
> > > it for them...
> >
> > Do you think Americans will vote against Bush, just because Osama bin
> > Laden is saying bad things about Bush? No, Americans hate bin Laden.
> > When bin Laden denounces Bush, it's likely to help Bush win votes!
> >
> > Bin Laden and his kind may be vicious and evil, but they are
> > definitely not stupid. So why would they send a tape like that -- a
> > tape that would probably help Bush? Hmm.
>
> IMHO, I don't think the tape has much impact either way.

I agree with you.

"Frank Ketchum" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Nate Perkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Do you think Americans will vote against Bush, just because Osama bin
> > Laden is saying bad things about Bush? No, Americans hate bin Laden.
> > When bin Laden denounces Bush, it's likely to help Bush win votes!
> >
>
> I am just sick and tired of watching the enemy repeat the talking points of
> the party in opposition to our president. I dont think the tape will have
> any effect in reality on the election, it just bothers me that on areas of
> national security our enemy is listening to us and repeating the idiocy of
> the left. This sort of thing didn't used to happen in politics.

It disgusts me to see anything coming out of bin Laden, too. I'd just
as soon that we really had got him "dead or alive." And it ticks me
off that he's still running around thumbing his nose at us.

But where I may disagree with you is in the notion that democratic
opposition to the president somehow aids the enemy. If we abandon the
right to free speech, then we forfeit a fundamental right of democracy
-- and the terrorists will have their victory.

> > Bin Laden and his kind may be vicious and evil, but they are
> > definitely not stupid. So why would they send a tape like that -- a
> > tape that would probably help Bush? Hmm.
>
> In order to accept this premise, first you would have to believe that Al
> Qaida has a good understanding of how Americans think. They don't.
> Absolutely not. They think that beheading our citizens on tape will make us
> quake in our boots and leave the country. They don't understand that it
> only makes us more mad, not afraid. Bin Laden being able to predict what
> his message would do the election, not likely. Bin Laden repeating the same
> tired retoric as John Kerry, outrageous. Will Bin Laden announce next the
> George W. Bush plans to privative social security?

A lot of those guys were educated in the US. They were trained in our
culture, and they were trained to blend in here (and they did). They
are smart and dangerous, and we can't afford to underestimate them.

Most all of us would be pleased if bin Laden and the rest of al Qaeda
were wiped off the face of the earth. I cast my vote (early voting)
last week, and it was cast largely on the basis of which president I
believed would be more effective at getting that job done.

Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On 31 Oct 2004 20:15:29 -0800, [email protected] (Nate Perkins)
> wrote:
>
> >"Frank Ketchum" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >> "Nate Perkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> >
> >> > Do you think Americans will vote against Bush, just because Osama bin
> >> > Laden is saying bad things about Bush? No, Americans hate bin Laden.
> >> > When bin Laden denounces Bush, it's likely to help Bush win votes!
> >> >
> >>
> >> I am just sick and tired of watching the enemy repeat the talking points of
> >> the party in opposition to our president. I dont think the tape will have
> >> any effect in reality on the election, it just bothers me that on areas of
> >> national security our enemy is listening to us and repeating the idiocy of
> >> the left. This sort of thing didn't used to happen in politics.
> >
> >It disgusts me to see anything coming out of bin Laden, too. I'd just
> >as soon that we really had got him "dead or alive." And it ticks me
> >off that he's still running around thumbing his nose at us.
> >
>
> Something we agree upon

Excellent :-)

> >But where I may disagree with you is in the notion that democratic
> >opposition to the president somehow aids the enemy. If we abandon the
> >right to free speech, then we forfeit a fundamental right of democracy
> >-- and the terrorists will have their victory.
> >
>
> There is a world of difference between democratic opposition to the
> president and what we have been seeing out of the Kerry campaign. During
> WWII, there were several spirited campaigns against FDR, but the politics
> stopped before accusing FDR of lying about the war, getting our troops
> involved needlessly, or mishandling the war effort. "Wrong war, wrong
> place, wrong time!" what the @#$% kind of message do you think that sends
> to our enemies? That we are a united country intent upon the destruction
> of those who have sworn to destroy our way of life? Or do you suppose such
> rhetoric emboldens them with knowledge that we are divided and that perhaps
> a few well-placed attacks will give those opposing our current actions the
> upper hand and make us cut and run? Note that this is the same thing that
> Kerry's "democratic opposition" to the war in Vietnam did -- the North
> Vietnamese are on record as saying they were ready to capitulate but were
> emboldened by the anti-war effort to stick it out to victory. No one is
> advocating taking away anyone's free speech rights. However, once the
> debate has been held, the vote taken, and the troops committed, it is time
> to stop trying to resurrect the debate and support the troops in the
> mission to which they have been committed. To do otherwise only serves to
> bolster those we are fighting and get your neighbors sons & daughters,
> husbands and wives who are fighting for our country killed or placed in
> additional danger. Kerry's actions have been consistent with his past --
> the rhetoric and debate he has raised has been of the kind that encourages
> those with whom we are fighting, giving them hope that should he be
> elected, the US will abandon the fight, tuck tail and run -- pursuing them
> only through the UN and other "law enforcement" actions. The activities of
> his sister in Australia campaigning for the opposition party in order to
> undermine our alliance, the constant attack on those with whom we are
> allied as the coalition of the bribed, the coerced, and the unwilling does
> not serve the national interest, either now or in the future even if (Lord
> forbid!) Kerry is elected president. Do you think those countries will
> look favorably upon him as our elected leader given his publically
> expressed opinion of them?

Some people seem to have the idea that no matter how badly things go
and no matter how egregious the mistake, that it's somehow providing
comfort to the enemy to criticize the president. Personally I think
that this is one of the most dangerous ideas that we are faced with.
It undermines the core of our democracy. Our president is a civil
servant, responsible to free speech, the press, and ultimately to the
voters. Democratic debate can be messy, but it's what separates our
country from many lesser nations. Ultimately, free speech is what
separates our great country from the two-penny dictatorships and
theocracies.


> >> > Bin Laden and his kind may be vicious and evil, but they are
> >> > definitely not stupid. So why would they send a tape like that -- a
> >> > tape that would probably help Bush? Hmm.
> >>
> >> In order to accept this premise, first you would have to believe that Al
> >> Qaida has a good understanding of how Americans think. They don't.
> >> Absolutely not. They think that beheading our citizens on tape will make us
> >> quake in our boots and leave the country. They don't understand that it
> >> only makes us more mad, not afraid. Bin Laden being able to predict what
> >> his message would do the election, not likely. Bin Laden repeating the same
> >> tired retoric as John Kerry, outrageous. Will Bin Laden announce next the
> >> George W. Bush plans to privative social security?
> >
> >A lot of those guys were educated in the US. They were trained in our
> >culture, and they were trained to blend in here (and they did). They
> >are smart and dangerous, and we can't afford to underestimate them.
> >
> >Most all of us would be pleased if bin Laden and the rest of al Qaeda
> >were wiped off the face of the earth. I cast my vote (early voting)
> >last week, and it was cast largely on the basis of which president I
> >believed would be more effective at getting that job done.
>
> If you honestly believe that the person who has come down on the wrong
> side of history, time and time again, from the war in Vietnam -- meeting as
> an active reservist with those with whom we were fighting (you do realize
> the horror of the killing fields that our abandonment of Vietnam led to,
> don't you?) to his opposition to Reagan by supporting unilateral
> disarmament rather than the "peace through strength" that won the cold war,
> to his opposition to Gulf War I, then you are sadly deluded.

Well, I don't think Kerry was on the wrong side of history. Vietnam
was a debacle, the epitome of terrible foreign policy and lack of a
plan. Out of Vietnam came the Powell Doctrine, which (at least until
a couple of years ago) they still taught in the US military Command
College. It was a good doctrine, intended to avoid repeating
mistakes. We should still be following the Powell Doctrine.

As to whether the Cold War was won by Reagan's placement of the
Pershings in Europe, etc etc, I tend to disagree. Remember that
Reagan also initiated the START treaty, which eventually led to the
end of the nuclear arms race. But most historians will agree that the
Cold War was won because the Soviet Union collapsed of its own weight
and its own economic inefficiency.

> I suspect rather that you cast the vote you did because you never viewed
> Bush as the legitimate president, would never support a Republican
> president and that Kerry represented the "anybody but Bush" selection.

There is some truth in that ... I accepted the reality of, but never
liked Bush. I never thought he was intelligent or prudent, and those
are qualities that I look for in a president.

On the other hand, I was never one of those with a "Not My President"
bumper sticker on my car. Had Bush been true to his word as a fiscal
conservative, as a socially moderate "compassionate conservative," as
a "uniter not a divider," and had he been right about Iraq and WMD --
then I would certainly be voting for him today. Heck, I'd probably be
a big supporter. And I bet that Bush would have an approval rating in
the mid-60 percent range now instead of being at 47%.

For me it's simple: I am a fiscal conservative and a social moderate.
Bush is neither. And while I admire his tough talk in the war on
terror, but I am appalled at his lack of judgement and results in
conducting it. I voted for several Republican presidents in the past,
but I didn't vote for this one.

Bin Laden's preference for Kerry sounds like the best endorsement for
Bush I can think of.

bob g .

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

> Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
>>
>> There is a world of difference between democratic opposition to the
>>president and what we have been seeing out of the Kerry campaign. During
>>WWII, there were several spirited campaigns against FDR, but the politics
>>stopped before accusing FDR of lying about the war, getting our troops
>>involved needlessly, or mishandling the war effort.
>
>
> That may have something to do with FDR not being caught
> in bald-faced lies.
>
>
>>"Wrong war, wrong
>>place, wrong time!" what the @#$% kind of message do you think that sends
>>to our enemies? That we are a united country intent upon the destruction
>>of those who have sworn to destroy our way of life? Or do you suppose such
>>rhetoric emboldens them with knowledge that we are divided and that perhaps
>>a few well-placed attacks will give those opposing our current actions the
>>upper hand and make us cut and run?
>
>
> Last I heard, and indeed every time he has spoken on the subject, Kerry
> said we woudl send more troops to Iraq and redouble the effort to get
> other nations to send more troops too.
>
> You may doubt that he will be able to do that but it is pretty hard to
> imagine that sort of talk embolden's the enemy.
>
>
>>-- the North
>>Vietnamese are on record as saying they were ready to capitulate but were
>>emboldened by the anti-war effort to stick it out to victory.
>
>
> Where is that record located?
>
> The North Vietnamese had fought for an entire generation and knew
> full well that we would never invade North Vietnam.
>

Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

Tom, Tom, Tom. I had such high hopes that your vow would be met. Now
this close and you blew it...and with a blank post at that.

Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Please tell me that you are not a school teacher.
>
> On 1 Nov 2004 06:38:26 -0800, [email protected] (David Hall) wrote:
>
> >Tom, Tom, Tom. I had such high hopes that your vow would be met. Now
> >this close and you blew it...and with a blank post at that.
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Tom.
>
> "People funny. Life a funny thing." Sonny Liston
>
> Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
> tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
> http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1

You are in luck, I'm not. The kids are safe and happily learning how
to use condoms and other such important academics.

Dave Hall

On 31 Oct 2004 07:35:30 -0800, [email protected] (Jim Kirby) wrote:

>"mel" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> <snip> Why give up that edge in exchange for a new face that could possibly
>> shift
>> the overall tenor of world opinion?
>>
>> This question is exactly where I form my differences with your candidate.
>>
>> Point #1- I do not want the leader of my country defining what's best for
>> America by what other countries think. Do I think Bush has done the best
>> job of this? No...I do not....but at least it's an American definition by
>> America for America.
>>
>> Point #2- I do not want the leader of my country to allow the rest of the
>> world to think it governs us....it doesn't. In 1776 we declared our
>> independence. Maybe it's just me but I sort of value that. Does that mean
>> we will always be right? No...it doesn't....but I hope to God it never
>> changes.
>>
>> Point #3- I do not want the leader of my country to ever forget which
>> opinions of America are important and which ones would be nice to have but
>> unnecessary......
>
>
>Gosh Mel - (dopeslap to own forehead) - Thanks for enlightening me on
>the importance of attributing no importance whatsoever to what 9/10 of
>the planet thinks. How could I have been so confused?
>

Yep, and during the 1980's 9/10 of the world thought Reagan was a
war-mongering cowboy who was going to lead the world to destruction. Had
he/we listened to and cared about that opinion (as well as Kerry's support
for unilateral disarmament), we would still be facing the Soviet Union, the
Berlin Wall and the iron curtain. I suspect the people in some of those
countries now no longer a part of the FSU (former Soviet Union) are glad
that "world opinion" was not the driving force during that period of time.




>Where are we here? Mid 30's, Germany? I feel a strange sense of
>disorientation.
>
>When do we extend point #3 to include which opinions of Americans
>themselves are important, and which are nice but unnecessary?
>
>Jim Kirby

"Nate Perkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Do you think Americans will vote against Bush, just because Osama bin
> Laden is saying bad things about Bush? No, Americans hate bin Laden.
> When bin Laden denounces Bush, it's likely to help Bush win votes!
>

I am just sick and tired of watching the enemy repeat the talking points of
the party in opposition to our president. I dont think the tape will have
any effect in reality on the election, it just bothers me that on areas of
national security our enemy is listening to us and repeating the idiocy of
the left. This sort of thing didn't used to happen in politics.

> Bin Laden and his kind may be vicious and evil, but they are
> definitely not stupid. So why would they send a tape like that -- a
> tape that would probably help Bush? Hmm.

In order to accept this premise, first you would have to believe that Al
Qaida has a good understanding of how Americans think. They don't.
Absolutely not. They think that beheading our citizens on tape will make us
quake in our boots and leave the country. They don't understand that it
only makes us more mad, not afraid. Bin Laden being able to predict what
his message would do the election, not likely. Bin Laden repeating the same
tired retoric as John Kerry, outrageous. Will Bin Laden announce next the
George W. Bush plans to privative social security?

Frank

That's really a profound statement ... and sums up all your wisdom on this
subject I guess.



"Unisaw A100" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>

In article <[email protected]>,
"Frank Ketchum" <[email protected]> wrote:

> <Greg G.> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Airess - HA HA HA, Try heiress...
>
> lol, yeah
>
> > And your point is?
>
> Kerry is the one who has a demonstrable history as a flip flopper. To
> accuse Bush of it is laughable.

As a person who is independent and dislikes the choice they have to make
on Tuesday, I think the flip-flop issue is negated by the President and
VP saying that that there was a direct link between the terrorist attack
and Iraq. Add to that the flip-flop that we had to take out Saddam
because of WMDs, no, because he brutally killed people in his country,
no wait, because the folks there want and will get Freedom. Oh, yeah,
and that Iraqi oil will pay for the war.

I don't think either DweedleDee or DweedleDumb have the interest of the
average US working stiff. They are, like most politicians above the
local level, in their own little worlds and have very little sense of
what the working people of the US are really going through.

But, here I sit, just 5 miles from the Northern border. I have my
firearms cleaned and loaded, to do my part to repeal the horde of
Muslims who will invade us after the election.

GGG

--
Geof
To contact me: [email protected]

<snip>Last time I looked those people were Saudi's. Why are we attacking
Iraq?

The prospect of an American military occupation of Iraq, or even an
American-backed Iraqi government in Baghdad. This scenario raises the
possibility that Iraq, a nation with the world's second-largest known oil
reserves - one that will be eager to produce at maximum capacity to fund
post-war rebuilding - will march to a tune written not in Riyadh but in
Washington, possibly positioning a future Iraqi government to supplant Saudi
Arabia as the world's energy superpower.

"If Iraqi oil is fully developed and Iraq reaches 7 (million) to 8 million
barrels of oil a day in four or five years, then Iraq will replace Saudi
Arabia as the guarantor of world oil supplies," says Dr. F.J. Chalabi, a
former deputy oil minister in Iraq who now runs the Center for Global Energy
Studies in London. "In effect, the oil weapon is neutralized."

That prospect is why we were attacked in the first place.

friggin' off topic crap in every newsgroups. This shit sucks, for the
record!!


"Frank Ketchum" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Democrats don't pull October suprise this election cycle, so Bin Laden
does
> it for them...
>
> http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041029/D861CS9O0.html
>
http://reuters.myway.com/article/20041029/2004-10-29T232910Z_01_L29154645_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-SECURITY-BINLADEN-DC.html
>
> Yes, oh yes apparently Bin Laden is alive and he has decided to show his
> face after hiding for over a year. Why right now, a mere 4 days before
our
> election you ask? Well it doesn't take a genius to deduce that he is
> pushing for the defeat of George W Bush. If you recall, right before the
> Spanish elections this year Al Qaida attacked a subway station in Spain in
> order to affect the election. They were sucessfull by causing the
incumbant
> to loose. Immediatly after, the Spanish pulled their troops and support
for
> the war on terrorism. Now it is plain that if that is really him on the
> tape, he wants to have the same effect on the American election. Why is
> this? It is obvious that he would rather have Kerry in control of our
fight
> against terrorism. He obviously would prefer 4 years of Kerry over 4
years
> of Bush. This sort of nukes the whole notion that the war in Iraq has
> nothing to do with the war on terror, doesn't it? If we really had lost
> focus on the war, why would Bin Laden pop up right now? When are you, Mr.
> Kerry, going to pull your head out of your ass and realize that this
> constant unfounded and idiotic criticism of Bush in a time of war really
has
> dire consequences? There was a time when politics ended at the water's
> edge. I guess that was also a time when the Democratic party was a little
> respectable.
>
> Quote from "Bin Laden":
>
> "It never occurred to us that the commander in chief of the American
forces
> would leave 50,000 citizens in the two towers to face those horrors alone
at
> a time when they most needed him." "Because he thought listening to a
child
> discussing her goat and its ramming was more important than the planes and
> their ramming of the skyscrapers." "(The strikes had to be carried out)
> within 20 minutes before Bush and his administration noticed."
>
> - So Bin Laden been listening to John Kerry or his surrogates
> campaigning. This is such a moronic point that democrats have been making
> and now Bin Laden is repeating it. How does it feel to give talking
points
> to our enemies Mr. Kerry? How about the statement from Saddam Hussein
> himself that references the the US went to war only to put money in
> Haliburton's pocket? Instead of being enraged at Bush, why aren't you
> enraged that your party is giving talking points to our enemy? Who
exactly
> is your enemy these days anyway senator? What next, Bin Laden saying that
> John Kerry could wage a smarter more effective war on terrorism? Or
perhaps
> Bin Laden will say that John Kerry voted for the $87 billion before he
voted
> against it. Perhaps Bin Laden will purchase some commercials on American
> television denouncing the swift boat vets.
>
> So there you have it. There is clearly a choice on Tuesday, vote for Bush
> or vote as Bin Laden would prefer you to vote.
>
> Frank
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

<snip>Gosh Mel - (dopeslap to own forehead) - Thanks for enlightening me on
the importance of attributing no importance whatsoever to what 9/10 of
the planet thinks. How could I have been so confused?

So to you, it's more important that the world sees us as a nation they can
pressure into conforming to their ideology as opposed to our own? That's
the opinion of 9/10 of the world you value? Heck Jim! We ought to hand over
all our weapons so they won't think we're too powerful. We wouldn't want to
offend anybody. Now I see so clearly. The scales have fallen from my eyes.
If every body likes us then they will leave us alone and let us do whatever
we want..... as long as we ask permission first. After all... we are just a
fledgling country. Not yet capable of mature and rational thought. We only
think our citizens have the best opportunities in the world. Bad America!
Bad! Take your punishment like a man and learn from it. You brought it on
yourself. When you learn to treat your people like the rest of the world
then you can come out and play .....

"Nate Perkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Frank Ketchum" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > Democrats don't pull October suprise this election cycle, so Bin Laden
does
> > it for them...
>
> Do you think Americans will vote against Bush, just because Osama bin
> Laden is saying bad things about Bush? No, Americans hate bin Laden.
> When bin Laden denounces Bush, it's likely to help Bush win votes!
>
> Bin Laden and his kind may be vicious and evil, but they are
> definitely not stupid. So why would they send a tape like that -- a
> tape that would probably help Bush? Hmm.

IMHO, I don't think the tape has much impact either way.

todd

It aint just Osama. The whole world hates Bush, and US. Osama has enough
balls to make a tape to proclaim it.

Frank Ketchum wrote:
> Democrats don't pull October suprise this election cycle, so Bin Laden does
> it for them...
>
> http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041029/D861CS9O0.html
> http://reuters.myway.com/article/20041029/2004-10-29T232910Z_01_L29154645_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-SECURITY-BINLADEN-DC.html
>
> Yes, oh yes apparently Bin Laden is alive and he has decided to show his
> face after hiding for over a year. Why right now, a mere 4 days before our
> election you ask? Well it doesn't take a genius to deduce that he is
> pushing for the defeat of George W Bush. If you recall, right before the
> Spanish elections this year Al Qaida attacked a subway station in Spain in
> order to affect the election. They were sucessfull by causing the incumbant
> to loose. Immediatly after, the Spanish pulled their troops and support for
> the war on terrorism. Now it is plain that if that is really him on the
> tape, he wants to have the same effect on the American election. Why is
> this? It is obvious that he would rather have Kerry in control of our fight
> against terrorism. He obviously would prefer 4 years of Kerry over 4 years
> of Bush. This sort of nukes the whole notion that the war in Iraq has
> nothing to do with the war on terror, doesn't it? If we really had lost
> focus on the war, why would Bin Laden pop up right now? When are you, Mr.
> Kerry, going to pull your head out of your ass and realize that this
> constant unfounded and idiotic criticism of Bush in a time of war really has
> dire consequences? There was a time when politics ended at the water's
> edge. I guess that was also a time when the Democratic party was a little
> respectable.
>
> Quote from "Bin Laden":
>
> "It never occurred to us that the commander in chief of the American forces
> would leave 50,000 citizens in the two towers to face those horrors alone at
> a time when they most needed him." "Because he thought listening to a child
> discussing her goat and its ramming was more important than the planes and
> their ramming of the skyscrapers." "(The strikes had to be carried out)
> within 20 minutes before Bush and his administration noticed."
>
> - So Bin Laden been listening to John Kerry or his surrogates
> campaigning. This is such a moronic point that democrats have been making
> and now Bin Laden is repeating it. How does it feel to give talking points
> to our enemies Mr. Kerry? How about the statement from Saddam Hussein
> himself that references the the US went to war only to put money in
> Haliburton's pocket? Instead of being enraged at Bush, why aren't you
> enraged that your party is giving talking points to our enemy? Who exactly
> is your enemy these days anyway senator? What next, Bin Laden saying that
> John Kerry could wage a smarter more effective war on terrorism? Or perhaps
> Bin Laden will say that John Kerry voted for the $87 billion before he voted
> against it. Perhaps Bin Laden will purchase some commercials on American
> television denouncing the swift boat vets.
>
> So there you have it. There is clearly a choice on Tuesday, vote for Bush
> or vote as Bin Laden would prefer you to vote.
>
> Frank
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I know I am going to get flamed but, you have to expect that when you
respond to a political post.

I hear all this crap about Bush is great, Bush sucks; Kerry is great,
Kerry sucks. Bottom line is they are both running for the office of
President of the United States. One branch of the ferderal US
government. The Executive Branch. Listen, he can say he wants to go
to do this or do that; make a law, verto a law, go to war, whatever.
But it is Congress who makes these things a reality in the end, even
the going to war part (which Kerry voted for using the same
intelligence information given to Bush and Clinton before that).

You can vote for whomever you want but if anybody thinks that one
person makes or breaks this country is wrongheaded. I agree this
country is backsliding but it isn't because of Bush or Clinton or Bush
before him or even Regan. Mehtinks we all need to look at the people
we vote as our congressmen and Senators. We need to look at the
Predisent as the person who suggests who should go on the Supreme
Court (which Congress needs to approve, too).

We need to look at who we vote for at our state levels and, probably
most of all, at our local levels. We still live in a federation as
best I remember. That means most of government is (and should be) at
the local level, then state, then the federal level.

Boy oh boy, if anybody thinks that any other person is going to do
things 100% the way they would do it personally is living in a fantsy
world. People who vote strictly party lines is being foolish. People
who take a simplistic view to the things that are happening around us
and in the world are not doing their homework.

The world doesn't hate us because of our President. They hate us the
way many people hate, say, the Yankees. In other words, they are
jealous. Plain and simple. (And I am sure I am going to bet flamed
for saying that.)

No one person makes or breaks the economy.

No one person will make the soaring costs of health care disappear.
No one person will make a barrel of oil cheaper.

People can bitch about things all they want but the fact of the matter
is not one of us can do any better because we don't know all the
facts. It's sort of like when everybody knows exactly what could have
and maybe should have been done (or not done) in a football game come
Monday morning. That isn't hard. But I will bet you a dollar to a
donut these same people would do no better and quite possibly worse
than any of the players.

My question is why are people still striving to come to this country.
Why do the people I know from other countries (like Italky, Russia,
South Africa, India, and China) all think this is the best place in
the world and are happy to be here and don't want to go back? Why do
they tell me us Americans don't know how good we have it and ask why
we bitch?

Why don't we all shut up and simply vote.

I've Bin Laden up my pickup with a shiny new saurus, pics here

http://www.ledamachinery.com.au/cgi-bin/oscommerce/popup_image.php?pID=108

12", 260kg (gross is 320kg [Unisaw is 240kg]), 3hp 240v 15A 50" fence. Same
saw sans sliding table but with Suva style (overhead) vacuum guard system.
It was extra to get the laser removed. It has a retractable riving knife.

I may well be the first wreckah to have a workshop on wheels, as I have no
idea how I am going to get the thing off my pickup when it gets home.

I dubbest him BUFF (Big Ugly Fat Fellah) cuz he's on roids.


Groggy

(OK, it's Taiwanese:
http://www.europac.com.tw/01_Woodworking_Machinery/Sawing_Machines/Tilting_Arbor_Saw/03_tilting_arbor_saw.htm)

> allied as the coalition of the bribed, the coerced, and the unwilling does
> not serve the national interest, either now or in the future even if (Lord

And furthermore the coalition includes Saudi Arabia
(http://www.WhoIsBush.com) and Iran (http://www.iranian.ws). With
partners like those, we don't NEED France!

You really are a blithering idiot. Do you have any idea how much Bin Laden
would want Bush to win?
He wants the enemy focused and well identified, and with world opinion against
him. What better
recruiting tool could he have? What better means of keeping his cohort
focussed and dedicated?

You are a moron.

Jim Kirby



Frank Ketchum wrote:
> Democrats don't pull October suprise this election cycle, so Bin Laden does
> it for them...
>
> http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041029/D861CS9O0.html
> http://reuters.myway.com/article/20041029/2004-10-29T232910Z_01_L29154645_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-SECURITY-BINLADEN-DC.html
>
> Yes, oh yes apparently Bin Laden is alive and he has decided to show his
> face after hiding for over a year. Why right now, a mere 4 days before our
> election you ask? Well it doesn't take a genius to deduce that he is
> pushing for the defeat of George W Bush. If you recall, right before the
> Spanish elections this year Al Qaida attacked a subway station in Spain in
> order to affect the election. They were sucessfull by causing the incumbant
> to loose. Immediatly after, the Spanish pulled their troops and support for
> the war on terrorism. Now it is plain that if that is really him on the
> tape, he wants to have the same effect on the American election. Why is
> this? It is obvious that he would rather have Kerry in control of our fight
> against terrorism. He obviously would prefer 4 years of Kerry over 4 years
> of Bush. This sort of nukes the whole notion that the war in Iraq has
> nothing to do with the war on terror, doesn't it? If we really had lost
> focus on the war, why would Bin Laden pop up right now? When are you, Mr.
> Kerry, going to pull your head out of your ass and realize that this
> constant unfounded and idiotic criticism of Bush in a time of war really has
> dire consequences? There was a time when politics ended at the water's
> edge. I guess that was also a time when the Democratic party was a little
> respectable.
>
> Quote from "Bin Laden":
>
> "It never occurred to us that the commander in chief of the American forces
> would leave 50,000 citizens in the two towers to face those horrors alone at
> a time when they most needed him." "Because he thought listening to a child
> discussing her goat and its ramming was more important than the planes and
> their ramming of the skyscrapers." "(The strikes had to be carried out)
> within 20 minutes before Bush and his administration noticed."
>
> - So Bin Laden been listening to John Kerry or his surrogates
> campaigning. This is such a moronic point that democrats have been making
> and now Bin Laden is repeating it. How does it feel to give talking points
> to our enemies Mr. Kerry? How about the statement from Saddam Hussein
> himself that references the the US went to war only to put money in
> Haliburton's pocket? Instead of being enraged at Bush, why aren't you
> enraged that your party is giving talking points to our enemy? Who exactly
> is your enemy these days anyway senator? What next, Bin Laden saying that
> John Kerry could wage a smarter more effective war on terrorism? Or perhaps
> Bin Laden will say that John Kerry voted for the $87 billion before he voted
> against it. Perhaps Bin Laden will purchase some commercials on American
> television denouncing the swift boat vets.
>
> So there you have it. There is clearly a choice on Tuesday, vote for Bush
> or vote as Bin Laden would prefer you to vote.
>
> Frank
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


--
James T. Kirby
Center for Applied Coastal Research
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19716

phone: 302-831-2438
fax: 302-831-1228
email: [email protected]
http://chinacat.coastal.udel.edu/~kirby

Frank Ketchum wrote:
> "p_j" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:1gmfzfy.12kkgu61amqxjcN%[email protected]...
>
> In an effort to bridge the gap between our ideologies, I found something to
> help you launch a new conspiracy theory.
>
> http://www.wral.com/news/3875756/detail.html
>
> Now, just say that Karl Rove is behind it and guilty of attempted murder.
> Kerry will jump up by a couple points!
>
>
OK. I'll say it. Karl Rove was behind it - in fact, he did it himself!

There. Feel better?

JK

Mark & Juanita wrote:
> On 31 Oct 2004 07:35:30 -0800, [email protected] (Jim Kirby) wrote:
>
>
>
> Yep, and during the 1980's 9/10 of the world thought Reagan was a
> war-mongering cowboy who was going to lead the world to destruction.

I admit to being one of those, and am somewhat surprised in retrospect
how reserved he was in that regard. In the end, he concentrated most of
his efforts on destroying the remaining structure of the New Deal, paving the
way for the strong shift towards the right in US politics that has subsequently
occured.
Judged by his agenda, he would have to be considered a massively successful
president.
Of course, I didn't agree with much of his agenda.

Standing up to the Russians? Well, he had the advantage of dealing with a
system that
was crumbling from within. He may have helped that along some, but
he (or at least the notion that that system should go away) had a lot of
support from allies as well as from
subject populations living under its subjugation. He didn't have to fire any
shots or invade anyone -
the system collapsed on its own. It was ready to.

Fast forward to the present. I now know how to tell a war-monger from someone
who isn't.
If you have a war-monger in the whitehouse, you will be at war. I suspect that
if Iraq was as
clean an operation as expected or hoped, then we would probably have moved on
to the next stop
(I'm not even ready to guess where that would have been) - I don't think that
we will ever be
without a military operation ongoing somewhere under the present regime. In
the end, though, Iraq
will be messy enough to keep them busy for the balance of the next four years.

But the most troubling aspect of all of this is the notion that it is somehow
right or rational to formulate a view
of the world and what is right for it in a vacuum, and then act on it. This
implies no intention of stepping outside
the process and trying to evaluate success or failure either before or after
the fact. That is not rational, that is
just stubbornness. Reagan lived in a world where people could see the benefit
of his international policy
intentions, even if they didn't agree with his methods always. Bush lives in
a world where no one is convinced of
the validity of his intentions at all. There is a difference there.

Had
> he/we listened to and cared about that opinion (as well as Kerry's support
> for unilateral disarmament), we would still be facing the Soviet Union, the
> Berlin Wall and the iron curtain. I suspect the people in some of those
> countries now no longer a part of the FSU (former Soviet Union) are glad
> that "world opinion" was not the driving force during that period of time.

"World opinion" was the driving force at that time, both from within the
communist system and from without.
We didn't tear down the Berlin Wall. Germans tore down the Berlin Wall.

>

Frank Ketchum wrote:
> <Greg G.> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Airess - HA HA HA, Try heiress...
>
>
> lol, yeah
>
>
>>And your point is?
>
>
> Kerry is the one who has a demonstrable history as a flip flopper. To
> accuse Bush of it is laughable.
>
>

Right, Bush is the bull in the arena, head down, nostrils flared, full steam ahead.
Don't forget to add the blinders so that right degree of tunnel vision is there
as well.

Impressive.

"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>> There is a world of difference between democratic opposition to the
>> president and what we have been seeing out of the Kerry campaign. During
>> WWII, there were several spirited campaigns against FDR, but the politics
>> stopped before accusing FDR of lying about the war, getting our troops
>> involved needlessly, or mishandling the war effort.
>>
> Last time I looked, FDR didn't START that war. Big difference.

last time i looked US citizans didn't fly a few planes into the wtc.

> --
> There ARE no Iraqi WMDs!

Charles Spitzer wrote:
> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>[email protected] says...
>>
>>> There is a world of difference between democratic opposition to the
>>>president and what we have been seeing out of the Kerry campaign. During
>>>WWII, there were several spirited campaigns against FDR, but the politics
>>>stopped before accusing FDR of lying about the war, getting our troops
>>>involved needlessly, or mishandling the war effort.
>>>
>>
>>Last time I looked, FDR didn't START that war. Big difference.
>
>
> last time i looked US citizans didn't fly a few planes into the wtc.

Last time I looked those people were Saudi's. Why are we attacking Iraq?


>
>
>>--
>>There ARE no Iraqi WMDs!
>
>
>


--
James T. Kirby
Center for Applied Coastal Research
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19716

phone: 302-831-2438
fax: 302-831-1228
email: [email protected]
http://chinacat.coastal.udel.edu/~kirby

I don't normally jump in on these but I hate extremism.

How exactly has George Bush hurt the country more than the killing of
almost 3 thousand civilians, the total destruction of several (more
than 2) buildings in NY and the damage to the Pentagon, abd the barve
people in PA, the bombing of the Cole and the 2 embassies, the daily
attacks on our soldiers and the kidnapping and gruesome beheading of
innocent American civilians. Bush is worse than the people that kidnap
civilians and saw their heads off with knives?

Vote for and promote anyone you want. That's your right. But please
don't make such preposterous statement, there may actually be someone
out there that stupid enough to believe you.

GregP <[email protected]> wrote in message
> You gotta be kidding. Bush had done more damage to this country
> than terrorists could ever dream of accomplishing.

It sounds more like he just saw F 911, except I think Moore
knows how many people worked in the WTC.

I'm sure Bush is royally pissed at bin Laden. Because of the
attacks on September 11, Bush had to put off invading Iraq for
a year.

--

FF

Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
>
> There is a world of difference between democratic opposition to the
> president and what we have been seeing out of the Kerry campaign. During
> WWII, there were several spirited campaigns against FDR, but the politics
> stopped before accusing FDR of lying about the war, getting our troops
> involved needlessly, or mishandling the war effort.

That may have something to do with FDR not being caught
in bald-faced lies.

>"Wrong war, wrong
> place, wrong time!" what the @#$% kind of message do you think that sends
> to our enemies? That we are a united country intent upon the destruction
> of those who have sworn to destroy our way of life? Or do you suppose such
> rhetoric emboldens them with knowledge that we are divided and that perhaps
> a few well-placed attacks will give those opposing our current actions the
> upper hand and make us cut and run?

Last I heard, and indeed every time he has spoken on the subject, Kerry
said we woudl send more troops to Iraq and redouble the effort to get
other nations to send more troops too.

You may doubt that he will be able to do that but it is pretty hard to
imagine that sort of talk embolden's the enemy.

> -- the North
> Vietnamese are on record as saying they were ready to capitulate but were
> emboldened by the anti-war effort to stick it out to victory.

Where is that record located?

The North Vietnamese had fought for an entire generation and knew
full well that we would never invade North Vietnam.

--

FF

Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On 1 Nov 2004 15:53:42 -0800, [email protected] (Fred the Red Shirt)
> wrote:
>
> >Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >>
> >>
> >> There is a world of difference between democratic opposition to the
> >> president and what we have been seeing out of the Kerry campaign. During
> >> WWII, there were several spirited campaigns against FDR, but the politics
> >> stopped before accusing FDR of lying about the war, getting our troops
> >> involved needlessly, or mishandling the war effort.
> >
> >That may have something to do with FDR not being caught
> >in bald-faced lies.
> >
>
> There you go with the bald-faced lies statement again. Once again,
> making a decision based upon the intelligence estimates provided to one and
> then later finding those estimates to be wrong DOES NOT MAKE A LIAR!

No, ignoring the best available intelligence which is what he did,
makes him a liar.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/quarterly_reports/s-2002-1303.pdf

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/quarterly_reports/s-2003-232.pdf

<http://www.iaea.org/search97cgi/s97_cgi?action=browse&directory=2003ma&CategoryResultStart=0&showSum=false&showGroups=&advOptions=true&browseCategory=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iaea.org%2FNewsCenter%2FMediaAdvisory%2F2003&queryCategory=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iaea.org%2FNewsCenter%2FMediaAdvisory%2F2003&ResultStart=21&ResultTemplate=Iaea/ma_stnd.hts&&viewtemplate=Iaea/macvw_smpl.hts&resTemplate=&searchType=strict


Submitting forged documents to the IAEA makes him a liar by proxy.

UNMOVIC employed helicopters so that they could arrive on site within
hours of receiving the latest intelligence from the US. That
intelligence always turned out to be wrong. At some point you
have to start to wonder why.

Claiming he chemical hydrogen generators were tranportable fermenters
was a lie. Look at the compressed gas cylinders. If you want to
collect trace organics from the gases evolved by fermentation
you'd use activated carbon filters, condensers or scrubbers. You
wouldn't collect and compress all the gas into cylinders just to
trap those trace components. That's nuts.

If you read through the Bush administrations statements about what
the UN found in Iraq and compare that to what the UN says it found
in Iraq you find frequent false statements about what was in the
UN reports. We're not talking about differences in assessment of
the in intel, we're talking about deliberate mistatements about
the contents of the report.

Try this:

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/19723.htm

Anthrax - Iraq declared producing nearly 8,500 liters
but denied its ability to produce dry agent. UN inspectors
believe Iraq may have produced 26,000 liters and can produce
dry agent.

That 8,500 liters figure appears to have come from this UN report:

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm

A report to the UN made a month before the State department webpage
was last updated. Dr Blix confirms for us that Iraq has declared that
it produced about 8,500 litres of this [anthrax, FF] biological
warfare
agent, but also goes on to say which it states it unilaterally
destroyed
in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this
production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.

As to how much additional anthrax Iraq could have made Blix tells us
5,000 liters. Let's keep in mind that the State Department is NOT
presenting their own independent assessment. They cite the UN as
their source and the UN gives us a different figure.

Now check out the column on the right side of that page under the
bold red header: IRAQ WEAPONS FACTS.

Anthrax: Iraq declared 8,500 liters; the UN estimated 26,000

That's another distortion, beyond what they say out there in the
middle
of the page. The UN did not estimate that Iraq produced 26,000 liters
of undeclared anthrax, the UN estimated that Iraq could have produced
5,000 liters of undeclared anthrax.

And I didn't see anywhere that the UN had determined that Iraq could
have produced dry agent.

SO you see the Bush administration presenting half-truths, half lies
and lies in their campaign of lies and deceit.


The biggest lie told by Bush was that Iraq had not complied with
the demand for declaration, inspections and disarmament. The agencies
tasked with receiving that cooperation make it completely clear that
the were receiving that cooperation.

>
> >>"Wrong war, wrong
> >> place, wrong time!" what the @#$% kind of message do you think that sends
> >> to our enemies?

It tells them that we going to change our plans and come after them
again
instead of making new enemies. Our enemies will no longer be safe in
their sanctuaries as they have been since we diverted to Iraq. Mind
you, Afghanistan was a diversion from Bush's point of view. He had
to put off the invasion of Iraq for a whole year because of Osama bin
Laden.


> >> That we are a united country intent upon the destruction
> >> of those who have sworn to destroyos our way of life?
> >> Or do you suppose such
> >> rhetoric emboldens them with knowledge that we are divided and that perhaps
> >> a few well-placed attacks will give the opposing our current actions the
> >> upper hand and make us cut and run?

No, it tells them that we are going to go after them again and
take the war to them instead of renewing hostilities with old
impotent enemies. We'll be going back to Afghanistan, Pakistan,
the Sudan, Somalia -- wherever they are as soon as we clean
up the mess we made in Iraq.

> >
> >Last I heard, and indeed every time he has spoken on the subject, Kerry
> >said we would send more troops to Iraq and redouble the effort to get
> >other nations to send more troops too.
> >
>
> Well, your statement is half right if you parse it properly. Yes, the
> last you heard, every time Kerry has spoken out on this issue, he has said
> he would send more troops.

Every time he has been asked about his plans for Iraq he has said he
will send more troops and do his best to get more countries to do the
same. We have to get this business in Iraq over with in order to
take the war to our enemies.

...

> >
> >> -- the North
> >> Vietnamese are on record as saying they were ready to capitulate but were
> >> emboldened by the anti-war effort to stick it out to victory.
> >
> >Where is that record located?
>
> One instance:
> <http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/8/3/160248.shtml>
> " The record of Kerry and fellow pro-Communist North Vietnam comrades was
> cited by General Vo Nguyen Giap, the military commander of North Vietnamese
> forces, in his 1985 memoir. Giap wrote that, "if it were not for the
> disunity created by... stateside protests, Hanoi would have ultimately
> surrendered."
>
> Are the memoirs of a North Vietnamese general good enough as a reference?

No. Nor is Newsmax a good reference for what is to be found in
other sources.

http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/10/8/112447.shtml

Surely 500 tons of anything qualifies as a "stockpile."
And press reports going back more than a decade give no
indication that weapons inspectors had any idea the Iraqi
dictator had amassed such a staggering amount of nuke fuel
until the U.S. invaded.

That's when the International Atomic Energy Agency was
finally able to take a full inventory, and suddenly the
500-ton figure emerged.


Here is a link to a pre-invasion (1997) report that addresses,
in part, the quantity of yellowcake which, as of that time
"remains in Iraq, under the control of the IAEA".

http://www.iraqwatch.org/un/IAEA/s-1997-779-att-1.htm

I personally wrote to Carl Limbacher and directed him to the
IAEA reports online a few weeks ago. Would you mind letting
me know when Newsmax issues a retraction?

> You accept the word of Saddam as good enough for him not having WMD's,

No, that is a blatant lie. I don't even recall ever hearing Sadam
Hussein
making a statement on the subject let alone trust him on it. I
accepted the evidence as it became available.

Before the invasion Bush made it clear that Iraqi disarmament
would be sufficient to prevent the invasion. He was lying.

> >
> >The North Vietnamese had fought for an entire generation and knew
> >full well that we would never invade North Vietnam.
>
> Why would they know that? Because we were allowing politicians to run
> the war? What brought them to the bargaining table? Could it have been
> the sustained bombing campaign of Hanoi?

They knew we learned from our invasion of North Korea.

--

FF

Robert Galloway <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Bin Laden's preference for Kerry sounds like the best endorsement for
> Bush I can think of.
>

The translations I have seen indicate a disdain for Bush, rather than
a preference for Kerry.

If you take into consideration that bin Laden in not stupid, but he
presumes most of Bush's supporers are, then one can easily see whom
he would rather have as President.

Consider the last time he chose to influence an American Election he
bombed the Cole to promote a change of administrations.

--

FF

[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:
> >Robert Galloway <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:<[email protected]>...
> >> Bin Laden's preference for Kerry sounds like the best endorsement for
> >> Bush I can think of.
> >>
> >
> >The translations I have seen indicate a disdain for Bush, rather than
> >a preference for Kerry.
> >
> >If you take into consideration that bin Laden in not stupid, but he
> >presumes most of Bush's supporers are, then one can easily see whom
> >he would rather have as President.
> >
> >Consider the last time he chose to influence an American Election he
> >bombed the Cole to promote a change of administrations.
> >
> And how well did that work?


Dunno, but as you will recall he only needed 300 voters in FL to
switched from Gore to Bush.

--

FF

"p_j" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1gmfzfy.12kkgu61amqxjcN%[email protected]...

In an effort to bridge the gap between our ideologies, I found something to
help you launch a new conspiracy theory.

http://www.wral.com/news/3875756/detail.html

Now, just say that Karl Rove is behind it and guilty of attempted murder.
Kerry will jump up by a couple points!

"p_j" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1gmfzfy.12kkgu61amqxjcN%[email protected]...
>
> Uh, Bush is the one who would pull an October surprise.
>

Uh, Bush isn't the one who pulled one the first time he ran. It was Gore
trotting out the old DUI 3 days before.

> No, it takes an idiot.
hmmm

>
> Its worth noting that the leader of the attack stated that there would
> be no attacks before the US election.
>

Of course there won't be any attacks. I wonder why that is? Are they being
nice to us now?

>
> They took their troops out which isn't the same for "support for the war
> on terrorism" which is more of a religious statement than anything else.
> If you can explain how a "war" can be fought against a technique of
> combat, let's hear it.

Well, you almost got to a point there. Try saying something like "explain
how a war can be fought against an ideology". Better luck next time. All
wars are fought with techniques of combat on each side.

>
> So every terrorism expert, I have ever read is wrong and old fascist
> Frank knows better?
> Take your Nazi bullshit and shove it up your ass.

So typical. Bush supporters are idiots, fascists, Nazis, etc... Why don't
you spend some of your energy name calling and actually develop some
convincing arguements to your side instead of all the conspiracy bullshit?

>
> What a joke. The republican party has abandoned any principles or
> morals, not that they ever had many. WTF is your criticism? That a
> citizen would actually ask why 100s of billions are being flushed away
> along with the lives of kids?
>
> Go ahead, make a *REAL* criticism. I dare you.

Bush has bi-partisan support for his war. There really is no argueing this
point so I don't see what you are even talking about. I am saying that the
democrat party is flailing around because they have lost all of the power in
washington. House, Senate, Presidency. It's really funny to watch them
when they are out of power because it spawns your kind of sock puppet hatred
and vitriol towards anyone with an opposing viewpoint.

>
> lol... only traitorous citizens would view the grand and glorious
> imperial leader while he cowered in fear. Do you even know anything
> about the events on 9/11? Do you know what Bush did? Have you seen him
> doing nothing while the attack was taking place? Have you heard the
> seven different versions he gave of the events in the school or the
> three different versions of what happened after that? Poor George ran to
> an underground bunker and left Dick the Satanic whore in charge who
> ordered a plane shot down and was IGNORED.
>

I guess if you get your news from Farehheit 911 then I can see why your
opinions are slanted the way they are.

>
> Now you lost me. When did Saddam become our enemy?
>

I guess you're right. We will probably nominate him for the head of the UN
when Kofi retires.

>
> Who is George's? Kerry is pretty straightforward. George flip-flops
> daily.
>

And I suppose Bush is married to a billionair ketchup airess too.

>
> Anyone could do better.
>

Anyone - clearly the only word that qualifies Kerry in the minds of the
people.

>
> LMAO... did you say the democrats made moronic arguments? LOL... the
> bill came up several times in different versions. Only a complete
> sheeple would demand that all legislators must automatically approve the
> version endorsed by the Supreme Leader. Kerry voted differently on
> different versions, so he is bad somehow. And when the administration
> threatened to veto different versions, which they did three times, that
> is acceptable. Would love to hear the spin to defend that.
>

I understand this. It is part of being a senator.

> Hell, the Swiftboat Slimers for Satan? Any Christian would condemn that
> filth.

You forgot to call them brown shirts. Typical. I seriously doubt that you
sir are a christian.

>
> Here. This is what a senior CIA counter-intelligence official who was
> head of the unit that tracked bin Laden says:
>
> For Osama bin Laden the American invasion and occupation of Iraq were
> like "a Christmas present you long for but never expected to receive" -
> a gift from Washington that "will haunt, hurt, and hound Americans for
> years to come."
>

Now the CIA is the defacto truth in the world huh? You guys should make up
your minds.

>
> "U.S. forces and policies are completing the radicalization of the
> Islamic world, something Osama bin Laden has been trying to do with
> substantial but incomplete success since the early 1990's. As a result,
> I think it fair to conclude that the United States of America remains
> bin Laden's only indispensable ally."
>

Yawn. Hey it's been fun reading your post. Good luck on Tuesday. I don't
mean "good luck, may your candidate win" I mean "good luck finding your way
to your local polling place."

Frank

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 00:09:06 -0400, "leonard" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>He loves W so much he sent this message! I would not be surprised if George
>HW bush sent him the money to make the video.Bin laden needs the incumbent
>coward from Crawford to stay uncaught and alive!
>
>
Actually, if you look very, very closely you can see that it is really Rove
in his Halloween costume. Not bad, huh?

<Greg G.> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Airess - HA HA HA, Try heiress...

lol, yeah

> And your point is?

Kerry is the one who has a demonstrable history as a flip flopper. To
accuse Bush of it is laughable.

He loves W so much he sent this message! I would not be surprised if George
HW bush sent him the money to make the video.Bin laden needs the incumbent
coward from Crawford to stay uncaught and alive!


Len
"Frank Ketchum" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Democrats don't pull October suprise this election cycle, so Bin Laden
> does it for them...
>
> http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041029/D861CS9O0.html
> http://reuters.myway.com/article/20041029/2004-10-29T232910Z_01_L29154645_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-SECURITY-BINLADEN-DC.html
>
> Yes, oh yes apparently Bin Laden is alive and he has decided to show his
> face after hiding for over a year. Why right now, a mere 4 days before
> our election you ask? Well it doesn't take a genius to deduce that he is
> pushing for the defeat of George W Bush. If you recall, right before the
> Spanish elections this year Al Qaida attacked a subway station in Spain in
> order to affect the election. They were sucessfull by causing the
> incumbant to loose. Immediatly after, the Spanish pulled their troops and
> support for the war on terrorism. Now it is plain that if that is really
> him on the tape, he wants to have the same effect on the American
> election. Why is this? It is obvious that he would rather have Kerry in
> control of our fight against terrorism. He obviously would prefer 4 years
> of Kerry over 4 years of Bush. This sort of nukes the whole notion that
> the war in Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror, doesn't it? If
> we really had lost focus on the war, why would Bin Laden pop up right now?
> When are you, Mr. Kerry, going to pull your head out of your ass and
> realize that this constant unfounded and idiotic criticism of Bush in a
> time of war really has dire consequences? There was a time when politics
> ended at the water's edge. I guess that was also a time when the
> Democratic party was a little respectable.
>
> Quote from "Bin Laden":
>
> "It never occurred to us that the commander in chief of the American
> forces would leave 50,000 citizens in the two towers to face those horrors
> alone at a time when they most needed him." "Because he thought listening
> to a child discussing her goat and its ramming was more important than the
> planes and their ramming of the skyscrapers." "(The strikes had to be
> carried out) within 20 minutes before Bush and his administration
> noticed."
>
> - So Bin Laden been listening to John Kerry or his surrogates
> campaigning. This is such a moronic point that democrats have been making
> and now Bin Laden is repeating it. How does it feel to give talking
> points to our enemies Mr. Kerry? How about the statement from Saddam
> Hussein himself that references the the US went to war only to put money
> in Haliburton's pocket? Instead of being enraged at Bush, why aren't you
> enraged that your party is giving talking points to our enemy? Who
> exactly is your enemy these days anyway senator? What next, Bin Laden
> saying that John Kerry could wage a smarter more effective war on
> terrorism? Or perhaps Bin Laden will say that John Kerry voted for the
> $87 billion before he voted against it. Perhaps Bin Laden will purchase
> some commercials on American television denouncing the swift boat vets.
>
> So there you have it. There is clearly a choice on Tuesday, vote for Bush
> or vote as Bin Laden would prefer you to vote.
>
> Frank
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

BobS wrote:
>That's really a profound statement ... and sums up all your wisdom on this
>subject I guess.


Continue to fuck yourself Bob.

No really, I mean it.

UA100

On 31 Oct 2004 16:48:05 -0800, [email protected] (Ron) wrote:

>I don't normally jump in on these but I hate extremism.
>
>How exactly has George Bush hurt the country more than the killing of
>almost 3 thousand civilians, the total destruction of several (more
>than 2) buildings in NY and the damage to the Pentagon, abd the barve
>people in PA, the bombing of the Cole and the 2 embassies, the daily
>attacks on our soldiers and the kidnapping and gruesome beheading of
>innocent American civilians. Bush is worse than the people that kidnap
>civilians and saw their heads off with knives?
>
>Vote for and promote anyone you want. That's your right. But please
>don't make such preposterous statement, there may actually be someone
>out there that stupid enough to believe you.
>
>GregP <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> You gotta be kidding. Bush had done more damage to this country
>> than terrorists could ever dream of accomplishing.


Do you really believe that killing people is the objective, rather
than a means to a goal ? The goal is to destroy our society
and our ability to control what we choose to control, no ?

And, parenthetically, if we had sent a proper-sized force to invade
Iraq, we would not have to have thousands of poorly trained and
even more poorly defended and supported "consultants,"
"contractors," and hired laborers trying to make a few extra bucks
because the Bush economy is best at "creating" McDonalds jobs,
we would have fewer victims being burned and beheaded.

<snip> Why give up that edge in exchange for a new face that could possibly
shift
the overall tenor of world opinion?

This question is exactly where I form my differences with your candidate.

Point #1- I do not want the leader of my country defining what's best for
America by what other countries think. Do I think Bush has done the best
job of this? No...I do not....but at least it's an American definition by
America for America.

Point #2- I do not want the leader of my country to allow the rest of the
world to think it governs us....it doesn't. In 1776 we declared our
independence. Maybe it's just me but I sort of value that. Does that mean
we will always be right? No...it doesn't....but I hope to God it never
changes.

Point #3- I do not want the leader of my country to ever forget which
opinions of America are important and which ones would be nice to have but
unnecessary......

On 31 Oct 2004 20:15:29 -0800, [email protected] (Nate Perkins)
wrote:

>"Frank Ketchum" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> "Nate Perkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> > Do you think Americans will vote against Bush, just because Osama bin
>> > Laden is saying bad things about Bush? No, Americans hate bin Laden.
>> > When bin Laden denounces Bush, it's likely to help Bush win votes!
>> >
>>
>> I am just sick and tired of watching the enemy repeat the talking points of
>> the party in opposition to our president. I dont think the tape will have
>> any effect in reality on the election, it just bothers me that on areas of
>> national security our enemy is listening to us and repeating the idiocy of
>> the left. This sort of thing didn't used to happen in politics.
>
>It disgusts me to see anything coming out of bin Laden, too. I'd just
>as soon that we really had got him "dead or alive." And it ticks me
>off that he's still running around thumbing his nose at us.
>

Something we agree upon

>But where I may disagree with you is in the notion that democratic
>opposition to the president somehow aids the enemy. If we abandon the
>right to free speech, then we forfeit a fundamental right of democracy
>-- and the terrorists will have their victory.
>

There is a world of difference between democratic opposition to the
president and what we have been seeing out of the Kerry campaign. During
WWII, there were several spirited campaigns against FDR, but the politics
stopped before accusing FDR of lying about the war, getting our troops
involved needlessly, or mishandling the war effort. "Wrong war, wrong
place, wrong time!" what the @#$% kind of message do you think that sends
to our enemies? That we are a united country intent upon the destruction
of those who have sworn to destroy our way of life? Or do you suppose such
rhetoric emboldens them with knowledge that we are divided and that perhaps
a few well-placed attacks will give those opposing our current actions the
upper hand and make us cut and run? Note that this is the same thing that
Kerry's "democratic opposition" to the war in Vietnam did -- the North
Vietnamese are on record as saying they were ready to capitulate but were
emboldened by the anti-war effort to stick it out to victory. No one is
advocating taking away anyone's free speech rights. However, once the
debate has been held, the vote taken, and the troops committed, it is time
to stop trying to resurrect the debate and support the troops in the
mission to which they have been committed. To do otherwise only serves to
bolster those we are fighting and get your neighbors sons & daughters,
husbands and wives who are fighting for our country killed or placed in
additional danger. Kerry's actions have been consistent with his past --
the rhetoric and debate he has raised has been of the kind that encourages
those with whom we are fighting, giving them hope that should he be
elected, the US will abandon the fight, tuck tail and run -- pursuing them
only through the UN and other "law enforcement" actions. The activities of
his sister in Australia campaigning for the opposition party in order to
undermine our alliance, the constant attack on those with whom we are
allied as the coalition of the bribed, the coerced, and the unwilling does
not serve the national interest, either now or in the future even if (Lord
forbid!) Kerry is elected president. Do you think those countries will
look favorably upon him as our elected leader given his publically
expressed opinion of them?

>> > Bin Laden and his kind may be vicious and evil, but they are
>> > definitely not stupid. So why would they send a tape like that -- a
>> > tape that would probably help Bush? Hmm.
>>
>> In order to accept this premise, first you would have to believe that Al
>> Qaida has a good understanding of how Americans think. They don't.
>> Absolutely not. They think that beheading our citizens on tape will make us
>> quake in our boots and leave the country. They don't understand that it
>> only makes us more mad, not afraid. Bin Laden being able to predict what
>> his message would do the election, not likely. Bin Laden repeating the same
>> tired retoric as John Kerry, outrageous. Will Bin Laden announce next the
>> George W. Bush plans to privative social security?
>
>A lot of those guys were educated in the US. They were trained in our
>culture, and they were trained to blend in here (and they did). They
>are smart and dangerous, and we can't afford to underestimate them.
>
>Most all of us would be pleased if bin Laden and the rest of al Qaeda
>were wiped off the face of the earth. I cast my vote (early voting)
>last week, and it was cast largely on the basis of which president I
>believed would be more effective at getting that job done.

If you honestly believe that the person who has come down on the wrong
side of history, time and time again, from the war in Vietnam -- meeting as
an active reservist with those with whom we were fighting (you do realize
the horror of the killing fields that our abandonment of Vietnam led to,
don't you?) to his opposition to Reagan by supporting unilateral
disarmament rather than the "peace through strength" that won the cold war,
to his opposition to Gulf War I, then you are sadly deluded.

I suspect rather that you cast the vote you did because you never viewed
Bush as the legitimate president, would never support a Republican
president and that Kerry represented the "anybody but Bush" selection.

Please tell me that you are not a school teacher.

On 1 Nov 2004 06:38:26 -0800, [email protected] (David Hall) wrote:

>Tom, Tom, Tom. I had such high hopes that your vow would be met. Now
>this close and you blew it...and with a blank post at that.



Regards,
Tom.

"People funny. Life a funny thing." Sonny Liston

Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1

<snip>What a joke. The republican party has abandoned any principles or
morals, not that they ever had many. WTF is your criticism? That a
citizen would actually ask why 100s of billions are being flushed away
along with the lives of kids?

Go ahead, make a *REAL* criticism. I dare you.

speaking of flushing away, lives of kids and morality......nope.. never
mind... not going there.

<snip>the enemy focused and well identified <~~"it"