YASNY Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 Kerry says Bin Laden's taped message cost him the election. Have some cheese with that whine? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 (edited) Laden was probably a draw. For everyone who voted against Bush and his campaign against terror, there was one person voting for Bush and his campaign against terror. Added: Didn't Bin Laden blame Bush? Now if Bush wuld just blame Kerry we could have Edited November 19, 2004 by Texsox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonxctf Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 only Fox News would report a story on what Kerry "said" without including an actual quote from him. Remember now.. this is Geraldo reporting, not a reputable anchorman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilliamTell Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 Kerry lost because the Republicans got nearly everyone out to vote in the election. They had a lot better representation then the democrats when there are more democrats than republicans in the nation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 Kerry lost because the Republicans got nearly everyone out to vote in the election. They had a lot better representation then the democrats when there are more democrats than republicans in the nation. GOP voters are generally older and old people take their voting more serious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngelasDaddy0427 Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 The real problem is that Bin Ladin needed Bush to win and the gullible portion of America bought right into it. With Bush in office he was no worries about being captured because with Bush he isn't a top priority (and he has even said so himself) while with Kerry he would of been a priority and he would of had someone on his ass hunting him. But as long as we give Bin Ladin what he wanted thats all that counts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngelasDaddy0427 Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 Plus Bin Ladin thrives on the stereotype of the ignorant American. As long as Bush is in office he has new terrorists lined up around the block to join him. The way or terror becomes useless when all you do is make more then you ever started with in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted November 20, 2004 Author Share Posted November 20, 2004 only Fox News would report a story on what Kerry "said" without including an actual quote from him. Remember now.. this is Geraldo reporting, not a reputable anchorman. For the record, Geraldo did quote Kerry. There's nothing politically explosive about this, just an interesting fact. Why the doubt? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 The real problem is that Bin Ladin needed Bush to win and the gullible portion of America bought right into it. With Bush in office he was no worries about being captured because with Bush he isn't a top priority (and he has even said so himself) while with Kerry he would of been a priority and he would of had someone on his ass hunting him. But as long as we give Bin Ladin what he wanted thats all that counts. So I missed it, what was Kerry's plan for capturing Bin Laden? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmmmmbeeer Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 Kerry lost because the Republicans got nearly everyone out to vote in the election. They had a lot better representation then the democrats when there are more democrats than republicans in the nation. Actually, in a comprehensive survey from August, sponsored by a non-partisan group, 57% of Americans consider themselves "conservative". As usual, I don't have a link being I read this awhile back, but take it for what it's worth to ya. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngelasDaddy0427 Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 So I missed it, what was Kerry's plan for capturing Bin Laden? Well actually looking for him would have been a good start... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 Well actually looking for him would have been a good start... So you are trying to tell me that they aren't looking for him? Geesh, you are brainwashed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 So you are trying to tell me that they aren't looking for him? Geesh, you are brainwashed. Who's brainwashed? "We want people to think 'terrorism' for the last four days," said a Bush-Cheney campaign official. "And anything that raises the issue in people's minds is good for us." A senior GOP strategist added, "anything that makes people nervous about their personal safety helps Bush." He called it "a little gift" [the failure to capture or kill Osama as yet] saying it helps the President but doesn't guarantee his reelection. Who's brainwashed? Bush on Osama: "I don't think too much about him." That, of course, is a direct quote. In the third debate Kerry repeated that quote verbatim, reminding Bush and the awake 49% of the country that Bush's self-proclaimed disinterest in the former number one target of the War on Terror was, well, a little unnerving. Bush then somehow managed to say, straight-faced, that Kerry's VERBATIM QUOTE "was an exaggeration." Who's brainwashed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 Who's brainwashed? Who's brainwashed? Bush on Osama: That, of course, is a direct quote. In the third debate Kerry repeated that quote verbatim, reminding Bush and the awake 49% of the country that Bush's self-proclaimed disinterest in the former number one target of the War on Terror was, well, a little unnerving. Bush then somehow managed to say, straight-faced, that Kerry's VERBATIM QUOTE "was an exaggeration." Who's brainwashed? So where does that say he isn't looking for him? You seem to have left that part out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 So where does that say he isn't looking for him? You seem to have left that part out. Well, it seems the first step in looking for him is to actually to, you know..., be thinking about him. Or am I missing something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 Well, it seems the first step in looking for him is to actually to, you know..., be thinking about him. Or am I missing something? Would it be a better image for Bin Laden if he knew that Bush was sitting around thinking of him all of the time? I can see the headlines about Bin Laden being in Bush's head right now. Either way it was a lose-lose question. No matter what answer he would have given, he would have gotten eaten alive for it. This is one of those issues, how I can't see how capturing the most wanted man in the world couldn't out-wiegh any bonus points on terrorism. Parading Bin Laden in front of a court would have been worth 5% in the polls. If you don't agree with me, remember what Bush's poll numbers did after the capture of Hussein? The approval for everything to do with the war went up huge over night. The capture of Bin Laden would be infinately bigger, as he has pulled off many direct attacks on this country and our interests. To think that Bush doesn't care about capturing Bin Laden, is short sighted at best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 I agree that capturing the guy would have been THE slam dunk. Short that, they had to play tthe fear card and it worked weel for tham. The truth is that when Chimpy decided to take up the family vendetta in Iraq it necissitated a shift in focus and pretty much guaranteed failure in hunting down bin Laden. But, yes, it was probably better for him to say, 'you know Osama's no big deal,' than to say, 'you know, I'm a complete f*** up and we have no idea what we're doing. On that much we agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted November 21, 2004 Author Share Posted November 21, 2004 I agree that capturing the guy would have been THE slam dunk. Short that, they had to play tthe fear card and it worked weel for tham. The truth is that when Chimpy decided to take up the family vendetta in Iraq it necissitated a shift in focus and pretty much guaranteed failure in hunting down bin Laden. But, yes, it was probably better for him to say, 'you know Osama's no big deal,' than to say, 'you know, I'm a complete f*** up and we have no idea what we're doing. On that much we agree. They had to play the fear card? Are you implying that Bush called Bin Laden and asked him to make that tape? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted November 21, 2004 Share Posted November 21, 2004 (edited) They had to play the fear card? Are you implying that Bush called Bin Laden and asked him to make that tape? I'm not implying anything, Yas. I'll paste this again... "We want people to think 'terrorism' for the last four days," said a Bush-Cheney campaign official. "And anything that raises the issue in people's minds is good for us." A senior GOP strategist added, "anything that makes people nervous about their personal safety helps Bush." I'm not, nor have I ever been a Bush-Cheney campaign official or a GOP senior strategist. There's no need to imply anything, they are quite happy to lay it ouut for anybody paying attention. The whole up and down with the terror levels, based on three year old information sometomes, based on made up information at other times, based on nothing (excuse me, "redible, non-specific evidence") much of the time.... You don't think any of that falls into the category of playing the fear card? Wow. Edited November 21, 2004 by FlaSoxxJim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted November 21, 2004 Author Share Posted November 21, 2004 Since this thread was based on Kerry's comments about the tape, that's where I came to the conclusion you were implying that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted November 21, 2004 Share Posted November 21, 2004 OK, got it. No, I only chimed in when Jeckle suggested that actually focusing on bin Laden would be a better approach for capturing him than NOT focusing on him ala' the GWB approach. And in fact that was a difference promised by the Kerry campaign. So I thought Jeckle's response to SS' apparent suggestion that Kerry never touched on the subject (i.e., 'had no plan') was on target. It actually got to be a broken record on Kerry's part... 'pinned down...', 'mountains of Tora Bora', and whatnot. Kerry suggested it would have been prudent to maybe close on the deal, whereas GWB decided he had already spent too much fretting over the guy and it was time too not worry so much about him. I mean, it's not like he was the cause of 9-11 or anything, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.