Jump to content


Is Bin Laden A Democrat?


Mikesgirl1
 Share

Recommended Posts

Bin Laden, Democrat?

John Ashcroft hints that Osama wants Kerry in the White House.

By Timothy Noah

Posted Wednesday, May 26, 2004, at 4:28 PM PT

 

Chatterbox has no quarrel with Attorney General John Ashcroft's assertion, conveyed in a May 26 press conference, that al-Qaida would like to attack the United States sometime "this summer or fall." Al-Qaida has demonstrated a keen interest in slaughtering Americans, and according to Ashcroft, "credible intelligence from multiple sources indicates that Al Qaida plans to attempt an attack on the United States in the next few months." This administration may have a poor record interpreting data from its spy agencies, but it would be reckless in the extreme to ignore Ashcroft's analysis. (An ounce of prevention, etc.) Chatterbox further agrees with Ashcroft that the upcoming G-8 Summit in Sea Island, Ga, (June 8-10), Democratic convention in Boston (July 26-29), and Republican convention in New York (Aug. 30-Sept. 2) are all potential targets.

 

But Chatterbox does have a wee problem with Ashcroft's not-so-subtle insinuation about what al-Qaida would hope to achieve by attacking the United States "this summer or fall," by which Ashcroft apparently means "sometime before election day." Here is what he said:

 

The Madrid railway bombings were perceived by Osama bin Laden and Al Qaida to have advanced their cause. Al Qaida may perceive that a large-scale attack in the United States this summer or fall would lead to similar consequences.

 

It's plausible that al-Qaida was pleased (though hardly satisfied) by its apparent influence on the Spanish election three days after the bombings. Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar and his Popular Party lost; Jos? Luis Rodr?guez Zapatero and his Socialist Party won; and Zapatero promptly made good on his campaign promise to withdraw Spain's 1,300 troops from Iraq. Anything that weakens, even symbolically, the coalition effort in Iraq, or smacks of appeasement by America's allies, is obviously bad for the United States, and anything bad for the United States is clearly good for al-Qaida.

 

Ashcroft's supposition is that Bin Laden would like to influence our elections in the same way he influenced Spain's. What would "similar consequences" mean for the United States? Defeat for the hawkish incumbent at the polls, and an Iraq policy gone soft. Ashcroft all but said, "Osama Bin Laden wants you to vote for John Kerry."

 

Chatterbox thought Ashcroft would show a greater aptitude for imagining the thought processes of an insane religious fanatic. Back here in the real world, it's highly doubtful that Bin Laden cares a fig about whether the American infidels elect a Democrat or a Republican as their next president. Although Kerry has been critical of Bush's Iraq policies, it's far from clear that Kerry would pull American troops out of Iraq any faster than Bush would. Both men can be counted on to maintain a keen interest in destroying al-Qaida; to paraphrase Ed Harris in the movie Apollo 13, appeasement is not an option. If Bin Laden has paid any attention at all to the Great Satan's presidential race, he has surely concluded, like George Wallace in 1968, that there isn't a dime's worth of difference between the major-party candidates.

 

But let's assume, for argument's sake, that Bin Laden really does want to influence the American election, if only to demonstrate that he can. (If you're a terrorist, maybe the number of civilians you kill eventually becomes a tedious metric, and you start looking for other ways to measure success.) If Bin Laden were truly interested in American politics, then surely he would know?or someone would tell him?that the overwhelmingly likely political result of an attack against the United States in the months leading up to Election Day would be a landslide victory for Bush. Anyone who's ever seen an American western knows that when the Commanche attack, the settlers circle the wagons and take orders from John Wayne. Hell, even Chatterbox would have to consider giving the commander-in-chief four more years in office, on the theory that you shouldn't change horses in midstream. If Bin Laden wants you to vote for anyone, it's Bush.

 

Ashcroft obviously didn't mean to suggest that. The truth is that Bin Laden doesn't want to influence Americans. If he did, he'd hire Hill & Knowlton. Bin Laden wants to kill Americans. That's what Sept. 11 was all about. And that's why, no matter who gets elected, we will continue to hunt Bin Laden down and, in all likelihood, kill him.

 

Bin Laden could care less about our elections. He is not even alive at this point anyway (who knows). Ashcroft really gets on my nerves! :angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Guest Juanky

I sincerely doubt that Osama Bin Laden is registered into the Democratic Party of the United States. However, to say any influential figure (believe it or not, Bin Laden is an influential figure whether he is alive at this point or not) doesn't care what happens in the elections of the leader of the Free World is foolish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anything AL Qaida would keep inactive through the elections. It's not like Kerry is captain foreign policy or Mr. Anti-terrorism.

Of course he is not Mr. Anti-terrorism, that is Bush's job right now... :blink: isn't it?

 

I love how blanket statements are thrown around about a candidate the half of you don't even now. And as for foreign policy... Please! Kerry can teach a thing or two about foreign policy to this administration.

 

I reiterate my statement. Al-Qaeda could give a rat's ass whether John Kerry or Bush are elected. He will continue to want to kill Americans regardless of who is in power, do not make that mistake. I just happen to think that Bush can't handle the job. He is actually the best Al-Qaeda recruiting and PR agent Osama could have ever dreamed of. :thumbdown

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Juanky

If they cared about the election in Spain why would they not care about the election in the US? It's very naive to think something like a presidential election, though being an internal issue, isn't a very big issue in outside countries. Any group that has any say in the world today, whether it be a positive say or a negative say, cares who the President of the United States is. That is a fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is Bin Laden a democrat? Bwhahaha!

 

But I pose this question: If he is alive, who is he rooting for to win this election? :mischief2 Peace. :cool

If Hitler's alive, who do you think he wants to win this election?

 

Yeah, because Bin Laden obviously mistook Clinton for rep when he bombed The Cole.

 

The tactics some will swoop to is despicable...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is Bin Laden a democrat? Bwhahaha!

 

But I pose this question: If he is alive, who is he rooting for to win this election? :mischief2 Peace. :cool

If Hitler's alive, who do you think he wants to win this election?

 

Yeah, because Bin Laden obviously mistook Clinton for rep when he bombed The Cole.

 

The tactics some will swoop to is despicable... Bin Laden hates America, Rune, not President Bush.

 

The point I was making was that George W. Bush is gonna keep at 'em, and Bin Laden probably knows that he's safer with John Kerry in office. Peace. :cool

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is Bin Laden a democrat?? Bwhahaha!

 

But I pose this question:? If he is alive, who is he rooting for to win this election?? :mischief2 Peace.? :cool

If Hitler's alive, who do you think he wants to win this election?

 

Yeah, because Bin Laden obviously mistook Clinton for rep when he bombed The Cole.

 

The tactics some will swoop to is despicable... Bin Laden hates America, Rune, not President Bush.

 

The point I was making was that George W. Bush is gonna keep at 'em, and Bin Laden probably knows that he's safer with John Kerry in office. Peace. :cool Thats ridiculous. Utterly ridiculous. Amazing... :banghead

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, I don't think the Democrats could be compared to that monster, but it is true that the terrorists would prefer to see a weaker president (ie Kerry) in office than a strong president in Bush. Bush has a policy against terrorism: It is going down. Kerry's policy is not the one of a leader, but of a follower. (His policy is uses the UN)

 

Now the UN had Cuba on it's human rights council. The UN is a joke

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, I don't think the Democrats could be compared to that monster, but it is true that the terrorists would prefer to see a weaker president (ie Kerry) in office than a strong president in Bush. Bush has a policy against terrorism: It is going down. Kerry's policy is not the one of a leader, but of a follower. (His policy is uses the UN)

 

Now the UN had Cuba on it's human rights council. The UN is a joke

"That Joke" was the same group you used in The WMD thread to state that The UN's statements were the reason we went to war because we were following them.

 

Which is it, because I can't judge between two different opinions stated by one person?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, I don't think the Democrats could be compared to that monster, but it is true that the terrorists would prefer to see a weaker president (ie Kerry) in office than a strong president in Bush. Bush has a policy against terrorism: It is going down. Kerry's policy is not the one of a leader, but of a follower. (His policy is uses the UN)

 

Now the UN had Cuba on it's human rights council. The UN is a joke

"That Joke" was the same group you used in The WMD thread to state that The UN's statements were the reason we went to war because we were following them.

 

Which is it, because I can't judge between two different opinions stated by one person? We went to war because it was in the best interest of the United States to put Saddam Hussein's regime out of power. He was breeding ground for terrorists or haven't you seen the video of the poor kid from Philly who got his head chopped off?

 

Visit this site if you want to see why we are in Iraq.

http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/index.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a Bush fan, but I can guarantee that the terrorists would much rather have Kerry win in November than Bush.

 

Kerry has shown me nothing to prove he is interested in beefing up or even maintaining national security, and that is what scares me the most about him.

 

P.S.-Please Liberals, don't bombard me with BS links proving Kerry is big on national security, cuz i'm not dumb enough to buy it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a Bush fan, but I can guarantee that the terrorists would much rather have Kerry win in November than Bush.

 

Kerry has shown me nothing to prove he is interested in beefing up or even maintaining national security, and that is what scares me the most about him.

 

P.S.-Please Liberals, don't bombard me with BS links proving Kerry is big on national security, cuz i'm not dumb enough to buy it.

The other day I told my friend he was a bad friend but then told him not to try and prove he was a good friend. Yeah...that makes sense. :whistle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, I don't think the Democrats could be compared to that monster, but it is true that the terrorists would prefer to see a weaker president (ie Kerry) in office than a strong president in Bush. Bush has a policy against terrorism: It is going down. Kerry's policy is not the one of a leader, but of a follower. (His policy is uses the UN)

 

Now the UN had Cuba on it's human rights council. The UN is a joke

Getting tired of reading stuff ending with "Peace"...

 

Anyways, how can you make a statement like that about Kerry being a "Weak president" before the guy's even in office. That is a, frankly, dumb statement.

So, look into your crystal ball and tell me if Arnold Schwarzeneggar's going to be president one day and how he'll be.

 

Anyways... Saying Osama is rooting for anyone isn't really relevant. So, if a Democrat wins he's going to celebrate? Or attack us more? And yet there;s supposed to be a threat against this country right now. Who wants who to win is irrelevant at this point...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, I don't think the Democrats could be compared to that monster, but it is true that the terrorists would prefer to see a weaker president (ie Kerry) in office than a strong president in Bush. Bush has a policy against terrorism: It is going down. Kerry's policy is not the one of a leader, but of a follower. (His policy is uses the UN)

 

Now the UN had Cuba on it's human rights council. The UN is a joke

Getting tired of reading stuff ending with "Peace"...

 

Anyways, how can you make a statement like that about Kerry being a "Weak president" before the guy's even in office. That is a, frankly, dumb statement.

So, look into your crystal ball and tell me if Arnold Schwarzeneggar's going to be president one day and how he'll be.

 

Anyways... Saying Osama is rooting for anyone isn't really relevant. So, if a Democrat wins he's going to celebrate? Or attack us more? And yet there;s supposed to be a threat against this country right now. Who wants who to win is irrelevant at this point... How can a statement be made about Kerry and him being weak before he's in office? Well, lets see...

 

If you could, please describe Kerry's comprehensive foreign policy plans for the next upcoming four years, should he be elected.

 

Here's a hint, there is none.

 

Even some Dems are sniping at Kerry because he has done NOTHING to differentiate himself from Bush on Iraq and terror, other than to say that he would use the UN (Who doesn't want to get all that involved anyway) in Iraq. Oh, and he said he wants to treat terror suspects with law enforcement, not the military. Great, instead of treating terrorists like war criminals, I would really rather want to see some terror suspect get 10-20 in some federal prison for blowing up a couple dozen people.

 

And as for calling people dumb.... Beleiving that a Democratic president would be more prepared to create, develop and implement an acceptable foriegn policy that a Republican is the dumbest thing I've heard in awhile.There isn't a single Democratic president in the last 50 years that had any idea about how to administer foreign policy.

 

You want to harp on economy and jobs and social reform, tell me about the Dems. But when it comes to doing anything outside of the US, the Dems need to stay home and let someone with some clue as to what is gouing on do the dirty work.

 

But then again, it's not like Kerry is lauded as the second coming for his plans on the economy or creating jobs or anything domestic either.

 

Once again, the Dems miss the boat. They had a shot to defeat a weak Republican president. But instead of running a moderate Dem with cross-over appeal the best they can come up with is a flaming New England liberal who is about as dynamic as a wet fart. Call me in 4 years when you run that uber-b***h Hillary. Then it'll be even more fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is Bin Laden a democrat?? Bwhahaha!

 

But I pose this question:? If he is alive, who is he rooting for to win this election?? :mischief2 Peace.? :cool

If Hitler's alive, who do you think he wants to win this election?

 

Yeah, because Bin Laden obviously mistook Clinton for rep when he bombed The Cole.

 

The tactics some will swoop to is despicable... Bin Laden hates America, Rune, not President Bush.

 

The point I was making was that George W. Bush is gonna keep at 'em, and Bin Laden probably knows that he's safer with John Kerry in office. Peace. :cool Thats ridiculous. Utterly ridiculous. Amazing... :banghead :blink: Why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Getting tired of reading stuff ending with "Peace"...

 

:boo-woo

 

Brian, why don't you just come out and say you don't like me? I've seen a few of these jabs directed solely towards me now.

 

I say it cause I mean it. Peace. :cool

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, I don't think the Democrats could be compared to that monster, but it is true that the terrorists would prefer to see a weaker president (ie Kerry) in office than a strong president in Bush. Bush has a policy against terrorism: It is going down. Kerry's policy is not the one of a leader, but of a follower. (His policy is uses the UN)

 

Now the UN had Cuba on it's human rights council. The UN is a joke

Cape.... Just a simple question JUST WHAT THE HELL HAS BUSH DONE FOR THE PEOPLE OF CUBA?

 

I really don't understand why Cubans stick to this "I'm a Republican to death" shtick. When the Republican party by all means and standards could give a crap what happens to Cuba. You are like a little dog at the end of the table waiting to get some scraps from the masters... :mad :

 

Kerry is "weak"? How is that? I guess going AWOL makes you a stronger, powerfull leader... :whistle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...