Bi-Polar Bear wrote:no matter if the tape is a fraud or a triple red alert genuine emergency bush would not allow anything to be brought out in the media that might jeopardize his reelection at the eleventh hour.....
Interesting observation, Bear. But the question is: would such a tape, if legitimate, help Bush as it confirms his push for a war on terror?
Or would it help Kerry, as it would display the possibility of an attack?
Frankly, I don't think any political spin should be put on it, as it could be a very serious matter....
Personally, I would find any alert this week to be unbelievable. I wouldn't trust the authenticity, short of an actual incident, due to so many false alerts just this year.
Wouldn't change my vote.
Well, squinney. You scooped Peter Jennings. Just got through watching that questionable tape.
Here's the problem with the "false alarms". If the govt didn't say anything and an attack happened you same people would be pissed that they didn't and would pull the "when did they know, how did they know and how long did they know about it?"
Then we run into the problem of the govt who cried wolf. If they let us know about so many of them people will not believe it. I would rather hear the cry of wolf then nothing at all. That way if something happens at least we were warned.
As noted above, what happened in Spain could very well happen here. I really, really hope that it doesn't.
ul wrote:THE EFFECTS OF GOVERNMENT-ISSUED TERROR WARNINGS ON PRESIDENTIAL APPROVAL RATINGS
CONCLUSION
The present research sought to evaluate whether the threat of terrorism increases support for standing leaders. To test this idea I investigated Gallup poll data on presidential approval to see if it increased following government-issued terror warnings. I found consistent evidence supporting the hypothesis that government-issued terror warnings led to increases in President Bush?s approval levels. Further, I found evidence that the threat of terror may lead to more positive evaluations of the president on a dimension largely irrelevant to terrorism, his handling of the economy. I was unable to establish how long these effects typically last. I leave that question, and further exploration of the empirical regularities observed, to future research.
CURRENT RESEARCH IN SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
AN ELECTRONIC JOURNAL
University of Iowa
Publication Date: September 30, 2004
The Australian government used such tactics in the election before last - the "threat" being from unarmed asylum sinkers in a sinking boat.
Not that I know this is a ruse - but it has been predicted spookily often...
Now that Bin laden has entered the mix, I would think it would be difficult for any but the most inspired conspiracy theorist to assert that terrorist threats are a last minute ploy by Karl Rove.
I saw on the news that John Kerry is already trying to spin the tape towards the argument that we wouldn't have had to worry about Bin Laden if George Bush hadn't let him slip away in Tora Bora.
Actually, I don't have a problem with this argument being made. I do have a problem with it being made by John Kerry as, despite his recent campaign rhetoric, he endorsed the use of Afghan fighters to carry the ball at Tora Bora.
I know a lot of people are sick of the flip flop charges, but that doesn't make them any less a concern. The man has proven time and time again, even to the point where it is comical, that he will say anything and take any position that might advance his political goals.
What I find amazing is that he continues to be supported by the Left even while he is, rhetorically, morphing into W.
Oh how the Left howled when Bush tossed around Evil labels, and yet we now have John Kerry vowing at his rallies to seek out and destroy Evil in the world, and to do whatever it takes to hunt down the terrorists and kill them. Whatever it takes? Even if that means invading Iran or Syria? Even if that means bombing a mosque or a hospital or a school?
What happened to the mantra that we can't hope to kill all of the terrorists, that we have to address the issues that give rise to terrorists?
I suppose Kerry's supporters can comfort themselves with the knowledge that he's only saying these things to win the votes of the neanderthals around the country who see things in black and white and thirst for vengeance and blood. He doesn't really mean this stuff. He just has to say these things so he can win the election and then he'll adopt a nuanced approach to foreign policy.
Irrefutable....Bin Laden responsible (from his own lips) for 9/11
Irrefutable....he's walking around
Irrefutable...bush took the majority of our military and financial resources and directed them away from Bin Laden and mired us in Iraq...which is a mess.
Irrefutable...that is f*#ked up.
What other reason do you need to vote him out?
I find the reelection of the moron to be more "Scary' than the warning from Bin Ladin. At this juncture who can do more damage to the nation and the world Bush or Bin Ladin?. Bin Ladin can be fought controlled while Bush the omnipotent one cannot.
IMO the video was issued at this time because Bin Ladin is in favor of a Bush reelection. Since Bush has been his greatest ally in the recruitment of new disciples and increase of his popularity throughout the Moslem world.
Irrefutable.... Bush is a moron.
Irrefutable.... Bush takes from the poor/middle class and gives to the rich.
Irrefutable.... Bush prevents Americans from buying their meds in Canada because he claims "they are not safe", yet he turns to Canada when he's in need of flu shots.
Irrefutable... Bush is backing the pharmaceutical companies, which is very bad.
Irrefutable... Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11, yet he is free, on tv and in our faces simply because Bush pulled most of the military out to attack a country who was no obviously no threat.
Irrefutable... On 9/11 when the first of the twin towers was struck, Bush continued his talks with the children at the school he was at and from what I read in Squinney's post above, Bin Laden says that this gave them 3 times more time than they needed to carry out their mission.
Irrefutable... Bush has fed the American people nothing but lies from the get go.
Irrefutable... Bush is also threatening other countries and has negatively changed what the rest of the world thinks of America.
I could go on, but this is good for now. I hope you don't mind me continuing you Irrefutable roll Bear, lol.
Montana wrote:Irrefutable.... Bush is a moron.
Irrefutable.... Bush takes from the poor/middle class and gives to the rich.
Irrefutable.... Bush prevents Americans from buying their meds in Canada because he claims "they are not safe", yet he turns to Canada when he's in need of flu shots.
Irrefutable... Bush is backing the pharmaceutical companies, which is very bad.
Irrefutable... Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11, yet he is free, on tv and in our faces simply because Bush pulled most of the military out to attack a country who was no obviously no threat.
Irrefutable... On 9/11 when the first of the twin towers was struck, Bush continued his talks with the children at the school he was at and from what I read in Squinney's post above, Bin Laden says that this gave them 3 times more time than they needed to carry out their mission.
Irrefutable... Bush has fed the American people nothing but lies from the get go.
Irrefutable... Bush is also threatening other countries and has negatively changed what the rest of the world thinks of America.
I could go on, but this is good for now. I hope you don't mind me continuing you Irrefutable roll Bear, lol.
You and bipo have a strange definition of
irrefutable. Out of your combined litany only one assertion is truly irrefutable, and another is likely to be true but not irrefutable.
As for the one I've highlighted above, just what is irrefutable?
1) That from what you read Bin Laden says Bush's initial reaction to 9/11 gave him three times as much time to carry out his plan.
or
2) That Bush's initial reaction to 9/11 gave Bin Laden three times as much time to carry out his plan.
Bush with his thin mean lips, squinty eyes, dull expression and stupidity hanging on every word scares the hell out of me. He is the enemy within.
A picture of Bin Ladin and Bush side by side could be captioned the Evil Twins
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:Montana wrote:Irrefutable.... Bush is a moron.
Irrefutable.... Bush takes from the poor/middle class and gives to the rich.
Irrefutable.... Bush prevents Americans from buying their meds in Canada because he claims "they are not safe", yet he turns to Canada when he's in need of flu shots.
Irrefutable... Bush is backing the pharmaceutical companies, which is very bad.
Irrefutable... Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11, yet he is free, on tv and in our faces simply because Bush pulled most of the military out to attack a country who was no obviously no threat.
Irrefutable... On 9/11 when the first of the twin towers was struck, Bush continued his talks with the children at the school he was at and from what I read in Squinney's post above, Bin Laden says that this gave them 3 times more time than they needed to carry out their mission.
Irrefutable... Bush has fed the American people nothing but lies from the get go.
Irrefutable... Bush is also threatening other countries and has negatively changed what the rest of the world thinks of America.
I could go on, but this is good for now. I hope you don't mind me continuing you Irrefutable roll Bear, lol.
You and bipo have a strange definition of
irrefutable. Out of your combined litany only one assertion is truly irrefutable, and another is likely to be true but not irrefutable.
As for the one I've highlighted above, just what is irrefutable?
1) That from what you read Bin Laden says Bush's initial reaction to 9/11 gave him three times as much time to carry out his plan.
or
2) That Bush's initial reaction to 9/11 gave Bin Laden three times as much time to carry out his plan.
Irrefutable...you are mighty damn sure of yourself Finn....
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:Finn d'Abuzz wrote:Montana wrote:Irrefutable.... Bush is a moron.
Irrefutable.... Bush takes from the poor/middle class and gives to the rich.
Irrefutable.... Bush prevents Americans from buying their meds in Canada because he claims "they are not safe", yet he turns to Canada when he's in need of flu shots.
Irrefutable... Bush is backing the pharmaceutical companies, which is very bad.
Irrefutable... Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11, yet he is free, on tv and in our faces simply because Bush pulled most of the military out to attack a country who was no obviously no threat.
Irrefutable... On 9/11 when the first of the twin towers was struck, Bush continued his talks with the children at the school he was at and from what I read in Squinney's post above, Bin Laden says that this gave them 3 times more time than they needed to carry out their mission.
Irrefutable... Bush has fed the American people nothing but lies from the get go.
Irrefutable... Bush is also threatening other countries and has negatively changed what the rest of the world thinks of America.
I could go on, but this is good for now. I hope you don't mind me continuing you Irrefutable roll Bear, lol.
You and bipo have a strange definition of
irrefutable. Out of your combined litany only one assertion is truly irrefutable, and another is likely to be true but not irrefutable.
As for the one I've highlighted above, just what is irrefutable?
1) That from what you read Bin Laden says Bush's initial reaction to 9/11 gave him three times as much time to carry out his plan.
or
2) That Bush's initial reaction to 9/11 gave Bin Laden three times as much time to carry out his plan.
Irrefutable...you are mighty damn sure of yourself Finn....
Now you are using the term correctly.
I used it correctly the first time....and I am damn sure of myself.......
Irrefutable: It is time this election was over and people can stop claiming things like that Bush/Kerry are morons/evil/demons etc irrefutable.
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Will Osama Help W.?
By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: October 31, 2004
WASHINGTON — Some people thought the October surprise would be the president producing Osama.
Instead, it was Osama producing yet another video taunting the president and lecturing America.
After bin Laden's pre-election commentary from his anchor desk at a secure, undisclosed location, many TV chatterers and Republicans postulated that the evildoer's campaign intrusion would help the president.
O.B.L., they said, might re-elect W.
They follow the Bush strategists' reasoning that since President Bush rates higher than John Kerry on fighting terror, anytime Americans get rattled about Iraq and Al Qaeda, it's a plus for the president. And Republicans can keep claiming that Al Qaeda wants the "weak" Democrat elected, even as some intelligence experts suggest the terrorists prefer that the belligerent Mr. Bush stay in power because he has been a boon to jihadist recruiting, with his disastrous occupation of Iraq and his true believer, us-versus-them, my-Christian-God's-directing-my-foreign-policy vibe.
The Bushies' campaign pitch follows their usual backward logic: Because we have failed to make you safe, you should re-elect us to make you safer. Because we haven't caught Osama in three years, you need us to catch Osama in the next four years. Because we didn't bother to secure explosives in Iraq, you can count on us to make sure those explosives aren't used against you.
You'd think that seeing Osama looking fit as a fiddle and ready for hate would spark anger at the Bush administration's cynical diversion of the war on Al Qaeda to the war on Saddam. It's absurd that we're mired in Iraq - an invasion the demented vice president praised on Friday for its "brilliance" - while the 9/11 mastermind nonchalantly pops up anytime he wants. For some, it seemed cartoonish, with Osama as Road Runner beeping by Wile E. Bush as Dick Cheney and Rummy run the Acme/Halliburton explosives company - now under F.B.I. investigation for its no-bid contracts on anvils, axle grease (guaranteed slippery) and dehydrated boulders (just add water) .
Osama slouched onto TV bragging about pulling off the 9/11 attacks just after the president strutted onto TV in New Hampshire with 9/11 families, bragging that Al Qaeda leaders know "we are on their trail."
Maybe bin Laden hasn't gotten the word. Maybe W. should get off the trail and get on Osama's tail.
W. was clinging to his inane mantra that if we fight the terrorists over there, we don't have to fight them here, even as bin Laden was back on TV threatening to come here. The president still avoided using Osama's name on Friday, part of the concerted effort to downgrade him and merge him with Iraqi insurgents.
The White House reaction to the disclosures about the vanished explosives in Iraq was typical. Though it's clear the treasures and terrors of Iraq - from viruses to ammunition to artifacts - were being looted and loaded into donkey carts and pickups because we had insufficient troops to secure the country, Bush officials devoted the vast resources of the government to trying to undermine the facts to protect the president.
The Pentagon mobilized to debunk the bunker story with a tortured press conference and a satellite photo of trucks that proved about as much as Colin Powell's prewar drawings of two trailers that were supposed to be mobile biological weapons labs.
Republicans insinuated that it was a plot by foreign internationalists to help the foreigner-loving, internationalist Kerry, a U.N. leak from the camp of Mohamed ElBaradei to hurt the administration that had scorned the U.N. as a weak sister.
In their ruthless determination to put Mr. Bush's political future ahead of our future safety, the White House and House Republicans last week thwarted the enactment of recommendations of the 9/11 commission they never wanted in the first place.
While pretending to be serious about getting a bill on reorganizing intelligence agencies before the election, the White House never forced Congressional Republicans to come to an agreement. So the advice from the panel that spent 19 months studying how the government could shore up intelligence so there wouldn't be another 9/11 may be squandered, even though Dick Cheney's favorite warning to scare voters away from Mr. Kerry is that we might someday face terrorists "in the middle of one of our cities with deadlier weapons than have ever before been used against us," including a nuclear bomb.
Wow. I feel safer. Don't you?
