NationStates Jolt Archive

The new Osama tape came out! Now how the fuck do you explain your idiotic president letting him escape our grasp, how do you explain that Bush went into Iraq without capturing Osama, AND HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN HIM SAYING "IM NOT WORRIED ABOUT OSAMA BIN-LADEN ANYMORE." Are you all on drugs, EXPLAIN YOURSELVES DAMN IT!

Terrorists for Bush.

Not that I support bush, but osama is just a figurehead and the one who really does the planning is Al-Zawahiri.

Not that I support bush, but osama is just a figurehead and the one who really does the planning is Al-Zawahiri.

But Osama planned the whole dang thing.

Not that I support bush, but osama is just a figurehead and the one who really does the planning is Al-Zawahiri.
Not that I support Bin-Laden, but Bush is just a figurehead and really doesn't do any planning...

How easy do you think it is to capture Osama Bin Laden anyway? I could just as easily blame our last president for letting him go, or did you not know about that? John Kerry isn't going to find him either, but you won't use it against him. This whole campaign is one big dupe used to pit Americans against Americans just so you won't pay attention to how screwed up the government is with both of these parties in control.

How easy do you think it is to capture Osama Bin Laden anyway? I could just as easily blame our last president for letting him go, or did you not know about that? John Kerry isn't going to find him either, but you won't use it against him. This whole campaign is one big dupe used to pit Americans against Americans just so you won't pay attention to how screwed up the government is with both of these parties in control.

Bush gave him about a 3 month head start, than after a little while of looking gave up, and diverted his attention to Saddam.

Think about this. Osama is basically telling the American people to vote for Kerry. So that means we should do what he says so we won't be attacked again. ;)

TERRORISTS FOR KERRY!!!!!!

The new Osama tape came out! Now how the fuck do you explain your idiotic president letting him escape our grasp, how do you explain that Bush went into Iraq without capturing Osama, AND HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN HIM SAYING "IM NOT WORRIED ABOUT OSAMA BIN-LADEN ANYMORE." Are you all on drugs, EXPLAIN YOURSELVES DAMN IT!
If you go to a GOP blog site, you'll see how they explain it - and if it wasn't so close to a major election that's going to have world-wide ramifications, their excuses and answers would be hilarious. And surreal. But as it is, they're downright frightening.

Some have done resorted to calling it the Osama/Kerry video.
Why?
(best leave your logic at the door, as you won't have use for it from now on)
Instead of one might naturally expect, a discussion about why did Bush sit there for several minutes doing nothing, then take time to have a photo op before finally contacting Cheney who was dealing with the whole horrible mess. Or a discussion about why, when they had Osama cornered in Tora Bora, they didn't force the issue and deal with him. Or why did he suddenly go from Public Enemy #1 to 'He's not a priority at all right now' in less than a year, thus allowing him to recover and recoordinate his attacks (notice how much healthy and better fed he looks now?). Or a dozen other issues that need to be addressed. Instead, they've focused on this:

In the Video, Osama makes a derisory comment about Bush reading 'My Pet Goat' while the attacks were happening (in fact he got it wrong and said a girl was reading it to him).
Now here's where it gets convoluted and bizarre:
Because that's one of the most memorable scenes in 'Farenheit 9/11', some Bush supporters have latched onto this as 'proof' that Osama must have seen said film, and that implicity implies he supports Michael Moore, and by default, vice versa.
Now, because Michael Moore was at the Kerry convention, that (well, of course! :rolleyes: ) must mean that Kerry, because of his support of Moore, naturally supports Osama (and vice versa). Some have gone so far as to imply Kerry had a hand in having the video released just before the election.
Such is the thought processes of the ppl you're dealing with.

I thought this thread was going to be about female pubic hair topiary. :(

You guys are missing the point. As I see it (from a right wing newspaper no less) Osama wasn't telling people which way to vote, he was giving people information which sounded remarkably like truth.

Here's a scary article for all of us:

Arabs Worried About the Impact of ‘Second US Civil War’
Amir Taheri, Arab News

JEDDAH, 25 October 2004 — Normally it is Washington that worries about stability in Arab countries.
These days, however, there is much official nail biting in Arab capitals over the threat of instability in the United States.
“What we are witnessing in the United States is their second civil war,” says an Arab diplomat posted to Washington. “The difference is that this war is waged in the media, in churches, on the hustings, and inside many American homes.”
That next week’s presidential election is the closest in US history seems certain. What is causing concern in Arab and other capitals is that the intense passions unleashed by both sides could provoke instability and violence regardless of who wins.
Arab diplomats, speaking on condition of anonymity, claim that the Democrats, many of whom believe their party was robbed of victory in 2000, are determined to fight hard to dislodge President George W. Bush from the White House.
Fears that the “American street” might explode, in the fashion often attributed to the “Arab street,” may well be exaggerated. But the possibility of US government becoming paralyzed for weeks, if not months, as a result of disputes over election results cannot be discounted.
Both President Bush and his Democrat challenger Sen. John Kerry start from a solid support base of around 40 percent of the electorate each. The remaining 20 percent consists of undecided or floating voters whose decision could affect the outcome in 12 states still up for grabs.
In the 2000 presidential election the closeness of the results in the state of Florida provoked a legal duel that was ultimately decided by the US Supreme Court. This time the experience of Florida could be repeated in many other states.
Both Republicans and Democrats have already set up legal headquarters in Florida, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, Oregon, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Ohio, West Virginia and New Hampshire. Most polls show the two candidates neck-and-neck in those states. That means the outcome could be decided by a few dozen or a few hundred votes. Some of the states have laws under which if the margin of victory is less than half of one percent a recount is automatically conducted. Others have no such laws, forcing the loser to take the matter to court on other grounds such as possible fraud.
The Florida fight in 2000 dragged on for more than a month. Similar fights in a dozen or more states could last longer. And that could put American decision-making on autopilot, so to speak.
“The prospect of the US being unable to take urgent decisions for months cannot be taken lightly,” suggests an Arab diplomat. “Such paralysis could be dangerous in our region where the situation remains volatile. The war in Iraq, the dispute over Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the UN fight with Syria over Lebanon, and the Israeli plan to withdraw from Gaza cannot be put on the backburner for months.”
The calendar of events for the three months ahead is unusually full in the region.
• Three weeks after the American election Egypt will host an international conference, in Sharm al-Sheikh on the future of Iraq. A lame-duck US administration bogged down in domestic electoral disputes would lack the clout and he credibility to provide leadership.
• A few days after that the International Atomic Energy Agency will have to decide whether to refer Iran to the United Nations’ Security Council for an allegedly illegal nuclear program.
• Also in November Hamed Karzai is scheduled to be sworn in as the first directly elected president of Afghanistan, and to form a new Cabinet. Again, the US is required to play a central role in bringing the rival factions together to ensure a smooth transition to a pluralist system in Kabul.
• Early in December UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan is scheduled to report on Syria’s compliance with resolution 1559 that requires the withdrawal of foreign troops from Lebanon. Political paralysis in Washington could render action impossible, thus deepening the crisis in Lebanon.
• In January, Iraq is scheduled to hold elections for a Constituent Assembly to approve the draft of a new constitution for submission to popular vote in a referendum. The perception that the US is too pre-occupied with domestic electoral disputes to focus on Iraqi elections could encourage the forces that are fighting to disrupt the process of democratization in Baghdad.
• In February, Israel is expected to start withdrawing troops from Gaza. This would require American leadership in forming an international peacekeeping force.
If Bush wins the Democrats are certain to do all they can to delay the finalization of the results through litigation.
But even if Kerry wins, the transition might not be as smooth as in 2000. The Republicans are likely to retain control of the Senate; and that would give them the possibility of delaying the formation of a Kerry administration by vetoing his nominees for key posts.
“It may be exaggerated that we are biting our nails in worry,” says an Arab official. “But we need contingency plans to cope with a situation in which the US is busy with its domestic fights.”

The new Osama tape is out?! Alright! He's my favourite gangsta rapper!

The new Osama tape is out?! Alright! He's my favourite gangsta rapper!

w0rd. :cool:

Yeah, but we don't do things like that here. Wasn't the last election the most closely fought one in history before this one will be? There was no blood shed after that election and the debacle that was Florida. Regardless of who wins, the other side will just go about bitching and moaning for the next four years about how awful the winner is, just like people have been doing about Bush. It won't change anything.

If the US government does become paralyzed long enough, the Arab regimes will fall. It's as simple as that. Israel doesn't want that. America doesn't wanter. And these cronies who rule the Middle East don't want that.

Also, something that amuses me, out of that list of serious concerns of the Arab world that a close election might hinder, how many do we hear about on American news?

Hey all, I'm a Kerry supporter, not only because I'm an unrepentant Democrat, but because of Bush's failed policies, most notably, his failure to even catch Osama bin Laden BEFORE 9/11. Contrary to what most Republicans want you to believe, the Clinton Administration did a very good job in stopping many terrorist attacks, including an al-Quieda agent from bringing a small nuclear weapon into New York via Canada (not that our great neighbors up north aren't doing a great job fighting terrorist either, they just accidentally let that one slip.) Now, the Clinton administration failed to capture Osama solely because of lack of time and not lack of information. The powers-that-be, including counter-terrorism guru Richard Clarke set it up so that the following President, whether it be Bush or Gore, could pick up where Clinton left off and catch bin Laden in a matter of months. Unfortunately, the Bush administration did not see Osama as a threat, or terrorism for that matter, and put it on the bottom of the White House to-do list, ignoring Clarke's reasoning and evidence ("Osama planning to fly planes into World Trade Center" is NOT ambiguous, Condi!) They chose to focus our defense on Reagan's failed "Star Wars" plan, because, you know, terrorists love to shoot high-powered nuclear missles into outer space to attack us. In the meantime, Clarke and his contemporaries attempted to get more funding out of John Ashcroft (his boss) to fight terrorism, it was turned down on Spetember 10. Little ironic, that the next day, over 3000 Americans died because of terrorist attacks, which is what Clarke tried to get Bush to realize. So, what has the Bush administration done, other than make a Vietnam out of Iraq and let Osama escape, yet again, AND alienate all but, like, three or four of our allies? They have repeatedly balmed the Clinton administration for not fighting terrorism good enough. Excuse me, I have to throw up because of the lack of responsibility our current Commander-and-Chief demonstrates.

The new Osama tape came out! Now how the fuck do you explain your idiotic president letting him escape our grasp, how do you explain that Bush went into Iraq without capturing Osama, AND HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN HIM SAYING "IM NOT WORRIED ABOUT OSAMA BIN-LADEN ANYMORE." Are you all on drugs, EXPLAIN YOURSELVES DAMN IT!

I think your the one on drugs here.... just calm down man and maybe rephrase your question so that it sounds more...sophisticated

Maybe al-Qaeda wants Kerry to win so they can attack us again. So we vote for Bush. But what if al-Qaeda knows that, and they really want Bush to win so we'll inspire more fanatics to al-Qaeda's cause? Then we should vote Kerry. But what if al-Qaeda knows that we know, and they actually do want Kerry to win? Obviously we should vote for Bush. But what if al-Qaeda knows we know they know we know? Then we need to vote for Kerry. But what if they know we know they know we know they know we know. Then we should vote Bush. But what if....

The fact is, Osama does not give a crap who wins. I'm sorry. That's an inescapable fact. Republican bloggers would love you to believe he's endorsing Kerry, but their reasons are pathetic. Read the transcript for yourself. He flat out says he doesn't care who wins. He also says 9/11 was as successful as it was because of Bush, but that's something else entirely.

I don't support Bush, but the way you're personally attacking anyone who does...well, it's idiotic, to say the least. I guess that is the sad evolution of all online forums these days.

I don't support Bush, but the way you're personally attacking anyone who does...well, it's idiotic, to say the least.

I must say that with this election being one of great passion on both sides, it's hard not to personally attack supporters. As I am staunch left-winger, I find myself doing it all the time. It doesn't mean it's right, but it's hard not to get upset about what's going on.

I don't think Osama cares at all who wins... and I tend to agree: if elected, Kerry will only use vaseline so it doesn't hurt as much, if I may say... but I find it funny to hear all these Bush lovers screaming "Osama wants us to vote for Kerry, let's vote Bush!", this even fact is an indication that his reappearance is rather an advantage for Bush, like everything that scares people (fear prevents you from using your brain, if you have one) and draws attention away from the Iraq disaster...

... just a question, did any american here read the full text of his intervention and if one did, what did he think about it?

Contrary to what most Republicans want you to believe, the Clinton Administration did a very good job in stopping many terrorist attacks, including an al-Quieda agent from bringing a small nuclear weapon into New York via Canada (not that our great neighbors up north aren't doing a great job fighting terrorist either, they just accidentally let that one slip.) Now, the Clinton administration failed to capture Osama solely because of lack of time and not lack of information. The powers-that-be, including counter-terrorism guru Richard Clarke set it up so that the following President, whether it be Bush or Gore, could pick up where Clinton left off and catch bin Laden in a matter of months. Unfortunately, the Bush administration did not see Osama as a threat, or terrorism for that matter, and put it on the bottom of the White House to-do list, ignoring Clarke's reasoning and evidence ("Osama planning to fly planes into World Trade Center" is NOT ambiguous, Condi!) They chose to focus our defense on Reagan's failed "Star Wars" plan, because, you know, terrorists love to shoot high-powered nuclear missles into outer space to attack us. In the meantime, Clarke and his contemporaries attempted to get more funding out of John Ashcroft (his boss) to fight terrorism, it was turned down on Spetember 10. Little ironic, that the next day, over 3000 Americans died because of terrorist attacks, which is what Clarke tried to get Bush to realize. So, what has the Bush administration done, other than make a Vietnam out of Iraq and let Osama escape, yet again, AND alienate all but, like, three or four of our allies? They have repeatedly balmed the Clinton administration for not fighting terrorism good enough. Excuse me, I have to throw up because of the lack of responsibility our current Commander-and-Chief demonstrates.



How did Clinton stop that millenium bombing plot? He didn't. It was only because of an alert border agent who discovered the explosives. Basically luck. I guess you think Clinton and Reno were personally responsible for watching that section of the border.

Clinton failed to capture Osama because of the fact that he treated terrorism as a law enforcement issue, thus he was extremely weak on terror. Sure he launched a few cruise missiles here and there, but when you blow up tents and aspirin factories, it doesn't really do much but make the enemy angry. Can we blame Clinton for 9/11 since he angered the terrorists more?

Your "guru" Richard Clarke wasn't really a brilliant "guru" was he? Heck, how many terrorist attacks did the US suffer when he and Bill were in office? Let's just add up a couple: USS Cole, First WTC bombing, Embassey bombings, and perhaps even the OKC bombing (which may or may not have had Iraqi ties). How many attacks have occured during GWB's time in office?

Clarke is a miserable failure who was trying to cover his butt by "exposing" anything damning about the Bush administration. Also it has been proven that he has been flip-flopping on his statements about what really happened. It all leads back to the Clinton years, and their utter incompetence when it came to NS. Kind of makes you wonder what Sandy Burglar was actually smuggling out of the National Archieves. Could it have been documents damning the Clinton administration and their handling of radical Muslim terrorists?

One last thing: Clinton had just about the same amount of time to capture OBL. He even had chances to capture him, but was too busy covering his own ass from his serious issues to respond in this countries best interests. Truely a great legacy.

Perhaps if our last president hadn't been too pbusy having oral sex to deal with this bin Ladin guy...

Maybe al-Qaeda wants Kerry to win so they can attack us again. So we vote for Bush. But what if al-Qaeda knows that, and they really want Bush to win so we'll inspire more fanatics to al-Qaeda's cause? Then we should vote Kerry. But what if al-Qaeda knows that we know, and they actually do want Kerry to win? Obviously we should vote for Bush. But what if al-Qaeda knows we know they know we know? Then we need to vote for Kerry. But what if they know we know they know we know they know we know. Then we should vote Bush. But what if....

Oh no! How will we ever reconcile Free Will with an Omniscient Osama?

Funny how Clinton didn't have time to capture Bin Laden but he had time to pardon many criminals as he left office...

Funny how Clinton didn't have time to capture Bin Laden but he had time to pardon many criminals as he left office...


Oh and get a hummer from some skanky biatch, and take that Cuban boy from his new home in Florida at gunpoint, and give him back to a dictator. Also had enough time to sell nuclear secrets to the Chinese.

Think about this. Osama is basically telling the American people to vote for Kerry. So that means we should do what he says so we won't be attacked again. ;)

TERRORISTS FOR KERRY!!!!!!

Did you even watch the video? He did not say to vote for Kerry, he said it doesnt have anything to do with Kerry or Bush, you just have to change your way of LIVING, fast.

You know I am realy geting annoyed at all the people saying the terorrists suport Kerry. Here's a little fact for you out of my local paper, which to cut of any claims of a "liberal bias" is the biggest paper in Nebraska a state that has gone Democratic all of three times in the past century, I ran is indoursing BUSH. Say what :eek: thats right the third nation in the Bloody Axis of Bloody Evil is supporting BUSH. But how can that be aren't allthoughs terrorist deathly afraid of Bush because tough stance on the war on terror. Of course not because all that that stance has done is exasperate the root causes for terrorism thus making recruting easier for them.

Oh no! How will we ever reconcile Free Will with an Omniscient Osama?

Oh no indeed (http://members.rogers.com/dariuszalina/omni-osama.jpg).

w0rd. :cool:
w3rd :cool: :cool: :cool:

How easy do you think it is to capture Osama Bin Laden anyway? I could just as easily blame our last president for letting him go, or did you not know about that? John Kerry isn't going to find him either, but you won't use it against him. This whole campaign is one big dupe used to pit Americans against Americans just so you won't pay attention to how screwed up the government is with both of these parties in control.

So, american elections are just a sham to divide us against eachother? Well, maybe if Bush "wins" again he will repeal the Constitution and liberate us from that evil plot, huh? :rolleyes:

How did Clinton stop that millenium bombing plot? He didn't. It was only because of an alert border agent who discovered the explosives. Basically luck. I guess you think Clinton and Reno were personally responsible for watching that section of the border.

Border patrol agents are part of the executive branch, and guess who is the head of the executive branch (funding, training, placement). By your logic, Bush didn't capture Saddam, the troops did, and thus, Bush had nothing to do with his capture. Can you see the flaw in the logic?

Clinton failed to capture Osama because of the fact that he treated terrorism as a law enforcement issue, thus he was extremely weak on terror. Sure he launched a few cruise missiles here and there, but when you blow up tents and aspirin factories, it doesn't really do much but make the enemy angry. Can we blame Clinton for 9/11 since he angered the terrorists more?

Bush has angered the terrorists in nations that are not Iraq, by invading Iraq much more than a few cruise missile launches. Regardless of Clinton, 9/11 happened ON BUSH'S WATCH. You claim that Clinton failed to capture Osama ue to his policy. Now, 3 years after 9/11, Bush has ALSO failed to capture Osama, and is diverting resources from his capture to Iraq. At best, his policy on Osama is on par with Clinton's.

Your "guru" Richard Clarke wasn't really a brilliant "guru" was he? Heck, how many terrorist attacks did the US suffer when he and Bill were in office? Let's just add up a couple: USS Cole, First WTC bombing, Embassey bombings, and perhaps even the OKC bombing (which may or may not have had Iraqi ties). How many attacks have occured during GWB's time in office?

Richard Clarke is no more the propagandist than Wolfowitz.

As for GWB's track record...

A major attack that killed more Americans than all the ones you mentioned combined, and countless numbers of insurgent attacks that are easily terrorism upon American troops. Why would they buy plane tickets if they can bomb us in their own corner of the world.

Also, despite whatever you want to think, the OKC bombing was done by a white guy, and WAS a matter of law enforcement, notmilitary intervention. If you try to count that as terrorism, then the belt-way sniper also is. Yet, the sniper was caught by law enforcement.

Clarke is a miserable failure who was trying to cover his butt by "exposing" anything damning about the Bush administration. Also it has been proven that he has been flip-flopping on his statements about what really happened. It all leads back to the Clinton years, and their utter incompetence when it came to NS. Kind of makes you wonder what Sandy Burglar was actually smuggling out of the National Archieves. Could it have been documents damning the Clinton administration and their handling of radical Muslim terrorists?

Actually, it all dates back to Reagan, when 200 Americans were killed in an embassey attack in Bhutan, and he just pulled us out rather than fighting terrorism.

One last thing: Clinton had just about the same amount of time to capture OBL. He even had chances to capture him, but was too busy covering his own ass from his serious issues to respond in this countries best interests. Truely a great legacy.

He was busy trying to protect himself from obvious right-wing attacks that dogged his every move. How much taxpayer money and precious time was wasted by Ken Starr to prove that the Clinton's just made a bad business move in the 'whitewater scandal'?

Also, I'll repeat, George W. Bush ALSO has not captured Osama bin Laden, and after the incident in spain, he has also clearly not left Al-Qaeda impotent to attack.

So, american elections are just a sham to divide us against eachother? Well, maybe if Bush "wins" again he will repeal the Constitution and liberate us from that evil plot, huh? :rolleyes:

well maybe you can shut up if you are still wineing about the last election you are pathetic GET OVER IT, I repeat GET OVER IT,

you know just as well as anyone else bush would not repeal the constitution, he can't phiscally do that dumbsh*t
(it is not a power of the executive branch or any branch of the government for that matter dumbsh*t)


you________me
:rolleyes: :sniper:

Not that I support Bin-Laden, but Bush is just a figurehead and really doesn't do any planning...

Amen

Funny how Clinton didn't have time to capture Bin Laden but he had time to pardon many criminals as he left office...

Yeah, and no republican president would ever use his pardoning powers. :rolleyes:

And it's all Clinton's fault for getting a blowjob. No fault falls on the Republicans who tried to bring him down by impeaching him for lying about his private life.

The new Osama tape came out! Now how the fuck do you explain your idiotic president letting him escape our grasp, how do you explain that Bush went into Iraq without capturing Osama, AND HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN HIM SAYING "IM NOT WORRIED ABOUT OSAMA BIN-LADEN ANYMORE." Are you all on drugs, EXPLAIN YOURSELVES DAMN IT!

Terrorists for Bush.I thank god for people like you, to make the left look even more stupid than it is, which is really a feat.

The new Osama tape came out! Now how the fuck do you explain your idiotic president letting him escape our grasp, how do you explain that Bush went into Iraq without capturing Osama, AND HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN HIM SAYING "IM NOT WORRIED ABOUT OSAMA BIN-LADEN ANYMORE." Are you all on drugs, EXPLAIN YOURSELVES DAMN IT!

Terrorists for Bush.

you are on drugs dude
a.) CALM HE F*CK DOWN
b.) GET WHATEVER IS UP UR *SS BACK OUT
c.) what would have Gore done, he woulda nothing dumbsh*t

STFU Kramers Itern you suck ur mom's teet

Now how the fuck do you explain your idiotic president letting him escape our grasp
Kerry couldn't of caught him either. You think having a different president changes the luck our armed forces have?

how do you explain that Bush went into Iraq without capturing Osama
He went there to cheer up the troops, which Kerry didn't do. Why should he wait to capture Osama until going to Iraq? That's stupid, then everybody would just call him a pussy for waiting.

[QUOTE=Kramers Intern]HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN HIM SAYING "IM NOT WORRIED ABOUT OSAMA BIN-LADEN ANYMORE."[QUOTE]
I'd like to see your source on that one.

This is your typical close-minded democrat. S/He'd make up anything to get mad at the president, just don't listen to them.

Yeah, and no republican president would ever use his pardoning powers. :rolleyes:

And it's all Clinton's fault for getting a blowjob. No fault falls on the Republicans who tried to bring him down by impeaching him for lying about his private life.

continues to shoot the sh*t outta Druthulhu
:rolleyes: - - - - - - :mp5:

well maybe you can shut up if you are still wineing about the last election you are pathetic GET OVER IT, I repeat GET OVER IT,

you know just as well as anyone else bush would not repeal the constitution, he can't phiscally do that dumbsh*t
(it is not a power of the executive branch or any branch of the government for that matter dumbsh*t)


you________me
:rolleyes: :sniper:

QUESTION: when was the last time I was "whining" about the 2000 election?

HINT: you'll have to go back a couple months, if it's even still there. Try using the "Last Page" link.

Also, duh! ...dumpshit. We all know that the president does not have the "physical" ( :rolleyes: ) power to get rid of the Constitution. But from your own assertion that I can "shut up", we all know how much value he and his supporters (you) place on democracy, don't we, dumbshit?

Each person has their own thoughts and beliefs. If some people like Bush, yelling at them and stating this is not going to help. It will just piss them off royaly, and get you flamed. Maybe a few Kerry fans will come in, but this is basically religious and athiest debate if you compare them correctly. You are not going to change some one's opinion on this, and you are a bad person for trying to change thoughts and beliefs, a constitutional right (God damn I hate American polocies)

How easy do you think it is to capture Osama Bin Laden anyway? I could just as easily blame our last president for letting him go, or did you not know about that? John Kerry isn't going to find him either, but you won't use it against him. This whole campaign is one big dupe used to pit Americans against Americans just so you won't pay attention to how screwed up the government is with both of these parties in control.

maybe but bush had a good chance. He then decided what the hell let's use guys who were just fighting against us instead of our trained troops. Bush has a very small brain

continues to shoot the sh*t outta Druthulhu
:rolleyes: - - - - - - :mp5:

HINT: stop using blanks. :rolleyes:

The new Osama tape is out?! Alright! He's my favourite gangsta rapper!
i always thought he was pop

I cannot find the video.

I thank god for people like you, to make the left look even more stupid than it is, which is really a feat.

i thank god for people on the right like Bush who make it oh so easy to criticize because he has a small brain and has to use Karl Rove's and Dick Cheyney's. How is asking why bush said that he doesn't care where osama is stupid you are not even as smart as bush (which is saying something)

Kerry couldn't of caught him either. You think having a different president changes the luck our armed forces have?


He went there to cheer up the troops, which Kerry didn't do. Why should he wait to capture Osama until going to Iraq? That's stupid, then everybody would just call him a pussy for waiting.

[QUOTE=Kramers Intern]HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN HIM SAYING "IM NOT WORRIED ABOUT OSAMA BIN-LADEN ANYMORE."[QUOTE]
I'd like to see your source on that one.

This is your typical close-minded democrat. S/He'd make up anything to get mad at the president, just don't listen to them.

1. Bush used warlord's troops not ours to try and capture osama
2. Bush invaded a country to cheer up our tropps i cannot imagine some soldier aying "Hell yes we are invading a country a chance to die! yipee!
3.Try the manuscript from bush's press confrence's, that clip has been played many a time on CNN, ABC etc.

1. Bush used warlord's troops not ours to try and capture osama
2. Bush invaded a country to cheer up our tropps i cannot imagine some soldier aying "Hell yes we are invading a country a chance to die! yipee!
3.Try the manuscript from bush's press confrence's, that clip has been played many a time on CNN, ABC etc.

the first bit of the quote went weird for some reason, the part which is mine is just this here.

If bin Laden wants Kerry to be the next President, isn't that good enough reason for our people to re-elect Bush? Doesn't that tell y'all something? bin Laden is afraid of a Republican administration- but he's not afraid of Kerry, or of a Democratic administration.

If bin Laden wants Kerry to be the next President, isn't that good enough reason for our people to re-elect Bush? Doesn't that tell y'all something? bin Laden is afraid of a Republican administration- but he's not afraid of Kerry, or of a Democratic administration.

do you have any fucking proof of that or did you just pull it out of your ass?
Iran which is on the axis of evil by the way, endorses bush so shut the fuck up

Any way, the president has the power to control the troops for 90 days.

Congress has to pass a vote after it, and it has been longer then 90 days. So the Congress also voted for it. Also John Kerry flip flops way to much.

I live in Arizona, and I can tell you what happened at VSU once. The president of VSU was elected once. Can't remember his name, but he would always go for what is popular, making sure that the people made up his mind for him so he would be a "good" president. He flipped from putting money into science departments for better equipment, then to supplying the histroy sects. with more books, and so on and so forth. He drove VSU into an all time low on money. That is why I support Bush.

If Kerry were to do that, then we would be even further in debt. It seems he is going for the most popular side, letting the people control him, while Bush stands strong to what he does.

-Edit: Sorry it was Virginia... Point is still the same though.

bin laden isn't pro-kerry, he's just anti-bush. they don't go hand in hand.

how sweet it is that bush says he doesn't really care about osama bin laden anymore and then lies about it later. HOW CAN YOU DEFEND THAT?!

Iran which is on the axis of evil by the way, endorses bush so shut the fuck up
Perhaps to give the Democrats ammo?

how sweet it is that bush says he doesn't really care about osama bin laden anymore and then lies about it later. HOW CAN YOU DEFEND THAT?!
Source? Besides the dumbass that started this thread?

bin laden isn't pro-kerry, he's just anti-bush. they don't go hand in hand.

how sweet it is that bush says he doesn't really care about osama bin laden anymore and then lies about it later. HOW CAN YOU DEFEND THAT?!

correct and he is on camera saying it to. eat this bush lovers :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

Are the smileys nesccesarry? Seriously, this is not a big enough issue to fight over. Kerry Would not make a good president (see the arguement n page 4).

Besides, people do not always realize what is best for them until it happens. One of the Czars started giving freedom, and educating the people, but the assassinated him because he would not give them all of the proper freedoms. They were put back under an ironfist rule...

Can we blame Clinton for 9/11 since he angered the terrorists more?
Yes, but Bush is also making not only terrorists, but all Arabs angrier.

To quote a certain Roman, "Let them hate us as long as they fear us"

They won't do anything about it. They do not like it, but we are hunting down the people who attacked our lahnd. If they help us fight and destroy those people, they get us out of their land. They probably realize this.

Any way, the president has the power to control the troops for 90 days.

Congress has to pass a vote after it, and it has been longer then 90 days. So the Congress also voted for it. Also John Kerry flip flops way to much.

I live in Arizona, and I can tell you what happened at VSU once. The president of VSU was elected once. Can't remember his name, but he would always go for what is popular, making sure that the people made up his mind for him so he would be a "good" president. He flipped from putting money into scince departments for better equipment, then to supplying the histroy sects. with more books, and so on and so forth. He drove VSU into an all time low on money. That is why I support Bush.

If Kerry were to do that, then we would be even further in debt. It seems he is going for the most popular side, letting the people control him, while Bush stands strong to what he does.

-Edit: Sorry it was Virginia... Point is still the same though.

Bush isnt strong on what he does, before the RNC, he said the war on terror cant be won, than Kerry hammered him than he said, yes we can win the war on terror! Is that a omg it is! Its a Flip Flop! Omg! Dubya! A flip Flop! Oh my god!

I ran is indoursing BUSH.


Hukd on fonix werkd 4 me... :headbang:

http://ganns.com/Humor/Proposed_2004_Election_Ballot.gif

:p

Perhaps to give the Democrats ammo?


Source? Besides the dumbass that started this thread?

Im a dumbass? Really, at least Im not voting Republican this Nov. 2nd. go to www.factcheck.com if its not there, I dont know, you could probably google it.

You still don't present a good case. That is a minor flip flop, and keeping to what the war is about. Anti-Terrorism. Truth is, there will always be people who hate us and it cannot be won.

Kerry has flip flopped on MAJOR things, like the War on Terrorism, supporting the troops, and other things.

The war has some good comming of it.

1) Iraqis saved, Saddam out of power (he was an oppresive dictator that killed many people)
2) In Kuwait, Saddam used Chemical Weapons to take it over, starting Desert Storm.
3) Many terrorist organizations are still a little shooken,m and many terrorists (but not nearly all) are either dead or considering to change their ways.

Also John Kerry flip flops way to much.
So does Bush.

Border patrol agents are part of the executive branch, and guess who is the head of the executive branch (funding, training, placement). By your logic, Bush didn't capture Saddam, the troops did, and thus, Bush had nothing to do with his capture. Can you see the flaw in the logic?



Bush has angered the terrorists in nations that are not Iraq, by invading Iraq much more than a few cruise missile launches. Regardless of Clinton, 9/11 happened ON BUSH'S WATCH. You claim that Clinton failed to capture Osama ue to his policy. Now, 3 years after 9/11, Bush has ALSO failed to capture Osama, and is diverting resources from his capture to Iraq. At best, his policy on Osama is on par with Clinton's.



Richard Clarke is no more the propagandist than Wolfowitz.

As for GWB's track record...

A major attack that killed more Americans than all the ones you mentioned combined, and countless numbers of insurgent attacks that are easily terrorism upon American troops. Why would they buy plane tickets if they can bomb us in their own corner of the world.

Also, despite whatever you want to think, the OKC bombing was done by a white guy, and WAS a matter of law enforcement, notmilitary intervention. If you try to count that as terrorism, then the belt-way sniper also is. Yet, the sniper was caught by law enforcement.



Actually, it all dates back to Reagan, when 200 Americans were killed in an embassey attack in Bhutan, and he just pulled us out rather than fighting terrorism.



He was busy trying to protect himself from obvious right-wing attacks that dogged his every move. How much taxpayer money and precious time was wasted by Ken Starr to prove that the Clinton's just made a bad business move in the 'whitewater scandal'?

Also, I'll repeat, George W. Bush ALSO has not captured Osama bin Laden, and after the incident in spain, he has also clearly not left Al-Qaeda impotent to attack.

lol

So does Bush.
On flip flops
Kerry > Bush

Kerry probabbly has as many flip flops as Bush, but he does them on Major things.

Hukd on fonix werkd 4 me... :headbang:

http://ganns.com/Humor/Proposed_2004_Election_Ballot.gif

:p

You know the fact that the only counterargument you could come up with to my stance was to point out that there are typos in my typing only strengthens my case.

QUESTION: when was the last time I was "whining" about the 2000 election?

HINT: you'll have to go back a couple months, if it's even still there. Try using the "Last Page" link.

Also, duh! ...dumpshit. We all know that the president does not have the "physical" ( :rolleyes: ) power to get rid of the Constitution. But from your own assertion that I can "shut up", we all know how much value he and his supporters (you) place on democracy, don't we, dumbshit? LOLOLOL HAHAHAHA

H

What is the point of this thread? To have a debate? Or to convert Bush lovers? Or just get up in their faces and piss them off?

It is pointless, because you can not convert some on over the internet, they will just prove you wrong to every issue, or even if you do beat them in a debate, they still will continue to enforce what they believe.

Yes, but Bush is also making not only terrorists, but all Arabs angrier.

Exactly. Bush should put more effort in finding Osama Bin Laden, and also exterminating the terrorist groups in Iraq. This way, he might gain a little respect from normal, righteous Arabs, who probably hate the terrorists as much as he does. If he leaves Iraq without doing this, the country will remain a mess. On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if Bush just left the Iraqi people to their own. That's exactly what his father did at the end of Gulf War I in 1991, when he incited the Shiites to rise up against Saddam, and after that, didn't support them, so Saddam's forces could take their bloody revenge.

Typical of many Kerry supporters I have seen, constantly attack the ones they can fight against, and ignore the ones they can't prove wrong...

The war has some good comming of it.

1) Iraqis saved, Saddam out of power (he was an oppresive dictator that killed many people)
2) In Kuwait, Saddam used Chemical Weapons to take it over, starting Desert Storm.
3) Many terrorist organizations are still a little shooken,m and many terrorists (but not nearly all) are either dead or considering to change their ways.

I'm by no means a political person and take my opinions with a grain of salt, but I really don't see a lot of good in these points.

1) Iraqis saved? Let's see, about 3000 civilian Americans died during 9/11. in turn, the US war on Iraq has taken the lives of - Just remembering a blurb quote from Yahoo, sorry - 100,000 civilian Iraquis. Dosn't that seem a bit wrong? And let the people put who they want i power and live with it. It's not the US's job to enforce rule on other nations. Oh right! They helped put that dictator in power anyway!

2) Saddam used chemicals. The US used bullets and missiles. Dead is dead so what matter? If I were facing a vastly stronger army in war I know I'd use whatever weapons I had at my disposal.

3) Terrorist organizations shaken? Er, call me just cynical, but where did that info come from? I'd not doubt the war could just as easily given birth to new terrorist groups and angered existing ones. And what about the States? Does it not fund groups to over throw governments and leaders? Place their value system on other countries? Isn't that a lot of the motive behind most terrorist acts? I mean not to sound like I'm on a flame war here, please, but in reality, the US does more 'terrorism' then any other country. I'd say most every country has a hand in that cookie jar too.

Bush doesn't flip flop on major issues? Please....

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=118263

1) Iraqis saved? Let's see, about 3000 civilian Americans died during 9/11. in turn, the US war on Iraq has taken the lives of - Just remembering a blurb quote from Yahoo, sorry - 100,000 civilian Americans. Dosn't that seem a bit wrong? And let the people put who they want i power and live with it. It's not the US's job to enforce rule on other nations. Oh right! They helped put that dictator in power anyway!
That number is an inflated number from a survey the authors themselves admit had limited precision.

I thought it was suppose to be that 100,000 Iraquie civilians were killed, but either way it is a horrible loss of life.

Typical of many Kerry supporters I have seen, constantly attack the ones they can fight against, and ignore the ones they can't prove wrong...

Isn't this what Bush does? Bush attacked Iraq, because he was sure he could fight Saddam's out of date (Soviet) army. At the same time, he seemed to be ignoring Bin Laden...

That number is an inflated number from a survey the authors themselves admit had limited precision.

Eep! Sorry, heh. made a mistake there. Ment to say 100,000 civilian Iraquis. Not Americans. But prolly still inflated yes. However even if that number was exaggerated by double making it 50,000, it's still a ludicris number compared to 3,000. Even a quarter of it is far more. But most Americans don't seem to care about Iraquis lives. They only care about the number in their own nation. If a million innocents of another nation die to avenge a thousand in America, I don't think many Americans would bat an eye.

Eep! Sorry, heh. made a mistake there. Ment to say 100,000 civilian Iraquis. Not Americans. But prolly still inflated yes. However even if that number was exaggerated by double making it 50,000, it's still a ludicris number compared to 3,000. Even a quarter of it is far more. But most Americans don't seem to care about Iraquis lives. They only care about the number in their own nation. If a million innocents of another nation die to avenge a thousand in America, I don't think many Americans would bat an eye.
Actaually, I heard it was 1.2 trillion innocent Iraqi babies were murdered by imerialistic America's murderous war! :rolleyes:

To show how off this survey is, Iraq Body Count, which is by no means pro-war or pro-Bush, reports a maximum of 16,352. Yes, high compared to around 3,000 that died in 9/11. Its still under five times less than the 100,000 number.

Actaually, I heard it was 1.2 trillion innocent Iraqi babies were murdered by imerialistic America's murderous war! :rolleyes:

How easily you roll your eyes at the number. Sure, there's all kinds of propaganda in there. The number is most likely much lower, like I mentioned, but look at it any way and with as much cynicism, you can't deny the point stands. More civilian Iraquies have died then Americans and most American's who support the war don't care.

To show how off this survey is, Iraq Body Count, which is by no means pro-war or pro-Bush, reports a maximum of 16,352. Yes, high compared to around 3,000 that died in 9/11. Its still under five times less than the 100,000 number.

That does sound a far more realistic number. Five times less then 100,000, yes, but also about five times more then 3,000.

i really don't understand how half the idiots in this country are for bush. :confused:

i really don't understand how half the idiots in this country are for bush. :confused:
Look at your post. Look closely. What does it add to this forum, and to the world? Nothing. There are plenty of Forums for Dmeocrats to spew this at each other and clap eath other on the back.

um clinton let him escape more then bush