Bin Laden and Chomsky

[Heads22]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/20...bl-tape-ir.html

 

 

Scroll down.

 

Damn you Soxy.

[kapkomet]

Yea, I gotta say a call out from Binnie is not exactly what you want to be known for... so if Noam's views are embraced by Binnie, what exactly does that say?

 

 

[mr_genius]

I think that message was actually written by Chuck Shumer. Don't plagerize, Osama.

 

Edit: well, except the low taxes part. that kind of came out of nowhere.

Edited September 7, 2007 by mr_genius

[kapkomet]

Now I'm not jking here... seriously (and I haven't read the whole thing, it's just contextual at this point) but damn near everything he said are Democrat talking points. HOW SAD IS THAT?

[Gregory Pratt]

Now I'm not jking here... seriously (and I haven't read the whole thing, it's just contextual at this point) but damn near everything he said are Democrat talking points. HOW SAD IS THAT?

 

The CIA believes bin Laden wanted Bush to win the 2004 election because Bush is a conservative Christian and that plays well with the donors.

 

HOW SAD IS THAT?

 

Really, though. I didn't know "everyone become a Muslim" was a Democratic talking point but I guess that's why you're here to teach, eh?

[kapkomet]

That's about the only thing in there that wasn't. If I get some time this weekend, we'll play compare the quotes game.

 

[Gregory Pratt]

Yeah, but it's such a sleazy thing to say. There are plenty of right-wing terror groups that everything you believe in falls into but you have absolutely no interest in genuine political discourse. You believe what you believe and everything else is a sarcastic crack. That's okay, though. Good for you.

[mr_genius]

Now I'm not jking here... seriously (and I haven't read the whole thing, it's just contextual at this point) but damn near everything he said are Democrat talking points.

 

It's true.

[mr_genius]

The CIA believes bin Laden wanted Bush to win the 2004 election because Bush is a conservative Christian and that plays well with the donors.

 

yea right. no offense, but i think you just made that up.

Edited September 8, 2007 by mr_genius

[Gregory Pratt]

yea right. no offense, but i think you just made that up.

 

THe CIA spent significant time analyzing the 2004 tape, as they always do, looking for a reason for it to be released days before the election. They concluded that he was secretly trying to get hte public to think of him and thus strengthen Bush by threatening the nation from outside. Why? Not because he thinks htey're soft or anything -- CIA, FBI, everyone with half a brain...they all understand that Democrat/Republican doesn't really mean much to the War on Terror as nobody seriously running for President is going to roll over for al-Qaeda, but Bush is a fundamentalist Christian who uses and has used words like "Crusade" to describe his war and so you've got a brilliant propaganda campaign on your hands. It's easier to paint the country as a Muslim-hating place if a Christian fundie is elected and re-elected even after his wars, which the mideast generally detests.

 

It's in several books about the CIA/War on Terror. The most recent one, if I recall correctly, that I read is The One Percent Doctrine. But you don't give a s*** about what the CIA says or what their speculation is or any of that. You don't know much about terrorist, terrorism, terrorist thought, terrorist training -- you don't know much about what the government does to fight them, you haven't looked too deep into it. Have you? IF you did, you'd know full well why al-Qaeda would want Bush in there. And I'm not saying that as a political condemnation. I'm not like you and Kap -- I don't believe that just because a bad guy says something in support of someone means much about that someone.

 

So, whatever. I don't even know why I bother explaining the analysis or anything like that. You and Kap don't genuinely care about what the CIA says, what anybody says, bcuz Dems r bad, and everything else BEGS for a sarcastic, irreverent, irrelevant response.

[jackie hayes]

Yeah, but it's such a sleazy thing to say. There are plenty of right-wing terror groups that everything you believe in falls into but you have absolutely no interest in genuine political discourse. You believe what you believe and everything else is a sarcastic crack. That's okay, though. Good for you.

That's giving way too much credit, unless I missed the Meet the Press where Harry Reid claimed that corporations killed JFK and called for the death of democracy in favor of theocracy. Don't give common hackery credibility just to appear fair.

[Gregory Pratt]

Here's more. And there's plenty more out there on this specific subject.

 

Osama bin Laden is a strategist and a propagandist, and frankly I'm insulted that someone would suggest I made "that" up as if 1. I would 2. I don't have a clue about the subject.

 

Here's this:

 

Ron Suskind noted that the CIA analysis of the video led them to the consensus view that the tape was designed strategically to help President Bush win reelection in 2004. Deputy CIA director John E. McLaughlin noted at one meeting, "Bin Laden certainly did a nice favor today for the President." Suskind quoted Jami Miscik, CIA deputy associate director for intelligence and Alan Premel former DCI Task Force supervisor, as saying "Certainly, he would want Bush to keep doing what he’s doing for a few more years."[2]

 

Here's Slate's take on it days after it happened:

 

The debt is to President Bush, who has spent the three years since the Afghan war doing everything he could, inadvertently, to help Bin Laden. He let Bin Laden get away, turned our attention to Saddam Hussein, and conducted both prewar diplomacy (if I may use that word) and the postwar occupation of Iraq in a manner perfectly calculated—or rather, not calculated—to discredit the United States and piss everyone off. Bin Laden couldn't have scripted it better.

 

It wasn't scripted, of course. Bush would gladly kill the leaders of al-Qaida with his bare hands. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that he'd gladly do to them what he did to the North Vietnamese: send somebody else to kill them. Anyway, with the worst intentions, Bush did Bin Laden the best favor.

 

Now Bin Laden is returning the favor with poetic symmetry. With the worst intentions, he's brought Bush the best possible October surprise, short of turning himself over to the NYPD. Bin Laden would like to see Bush thrown out of office, like that Spanish prime minister with the mustache who served as our beard for the Iraq invasion. If Bush loses, Bin Laden thinks he'll have another scalp to hang on his wall, or cave, or whatever it is. He'll claim to have brought down the president.

 

Except he won't bring down the president. More likely, by showing up four days before our election, he'll scare Americans into re-electing Bush. The only thing that keeps a clear majority of us from recognizing Bush as the worst president in memory is that history has graced him with such an ugly adversary. Bush hasn't had to do anything well. All he's had to do is point out that he's on your side and that the guy on the other side is a mass-murdering lunatic. For a blissful month and a half, we managed to cut through that shtick and notice how badly Bush has run the country. Now Bin Laden has brought the shtick back. Bush can talk about his values instead of his record. He can stop running against John Kerry and go back to running against people who hate America and murder children.

 

I remember when Bush addressed Congress after Sept. 11. I thought history had given him a mission he couldn't screw up. Bush had only two virtues—moral clarity and resolve—and a terrorist attack on our country called for both of them. I didn't realize that his judgment was so bad it could turn these virtues into vices, confusing two enemies and letting the more dangerous one get away.

 

Later, I remember defending the buildup to the Iraq war. Some of my friends refused to support the war because it was Bush's. I thought that was petty of them. Now I understand. When you support a president going to war, you don't get your war. You get his.

 

That's the story of Bush. Clear intentions, lousy judgment, counterproductive results. I love his intentions as much as I hate Bin Laden's, but the two men turn out to be well-matched. Bin Laden pisses people off and drives them into the arms of Bush. Bush pisses people off and drives them into the arms of Bin Laden. Bush keeps Bin Laden in business; Bin Laden keeps Bush in office. With clear intentions and lousy judgment, Bin Laden has shown up on the eve of our election, full of the same impenetrable self-assurance Pat Robertson noticed in Bush. No doubt Bin Laden hopes to assist, or at least take credit for, the president's defeat. And no doubt the results will be counterproductive. I just hope they aren't counterproductive enough, because this is one codependent relationship the world can't afford.

 

Guess I just made it up, though. Right right. Goodnight!

[Gregory Pratt]

That's giving way too much credit, unless I missed the Meet the Press where Harry Reid claimed that corporations killed JFK and called for the death of democracy in favor of theocracy. Don't give common hackery credibility just to appear fair.

 

I have zero interest in blaming Kap or Genius or any of the other Republicans here for the actions, thoughts or motivaitons of right-wing terror groups even if they have similarities with them, as they certainly do by sheer nature of being in the same party and same side. I think it's sleazy as hell and I won't engage in that. I was just pointing out.

 

--

 

PS: this thread's title is bad, Heads. THis is far more important than "bin Laden and Chomsky," but this thread wasn't serious from the start. For shame.

 

On the plus side, I've got a party tonight and it isn't even democratic.

[jackie hayes]

I have zero interest in blaming Kap or Genius or any of the other Republicans here for the actions, thoughts or motivaitons of right-wing terror groups even if they have similarities with them, as they certainly do by sheer nature of being in the same party and same side. I think it's sleazy as hell and I won't engage in that. I was just pointing out.

 

--

 

PS: this thread's title is bad, Heads. THis is far more important than "bin Laden and Chomsky," but this thread wasn't serious from the start. For shame.

 

On the plus side, I've got a party tonight and it isn't even democratic.

No, I didn't mean the "right-wing terror groups" comment. Only the "Yeah". I read the transcript, and, no, it doesn't resemble what Democrats say, in the least. You shouldn't even say "Yeah", it may be similar, if it's not at all similar. Even giving that much was giving FAR too much.

 

Fwiw, the "right-wing terror groups" comment is a terrible comparison.

[Chet Lemon]

I think Bin Laden is in the Democrat party.

[kapkomet]

Yeah, but it's such a sleazy thing to say. There are plenty of right-wing terror groups that everything you believe in falls into but you have absolutely no interest in genuine political discourse. You believe what you believe and everything else is a sarcastic crack. That's okay, though. Good for you.

Hey, I'm not the one saying s*** that used to be what people would roll in their graves over. JFK and people of his time have to be rolling in their graves seeing the Democrat party of today OPENLY embrace defeat in a time of war ALL for political power. It's not for debate, it's not for "the good of the country", it's for POWER.

 

Let me tell you something, since you're too young to get it: when people in MY government openly and brazenly work against people who I know personally that are in harms way by statements like "OH LOOK, WE'LL GAIN SEATS IN 2008 IF IT KEEPS GOING [LIKE THIS]" - that's a mighty f*** YOU. I have NO respect for representatives of MY government who in my opinion border on treason by agreeing with talking points of Osama Bin Ladin.

 

To you, it's just political discourse. To me, it starts becoming personal when I see stuff like this. Then people like you wonder why I get so cynical and "sarcastic" when it comes to the Democrat party. Today's Bin Ladin tape pretty much explains why - especially when I see Schumky Schumer and Harry Reid RUN for the cameras to try and grow a backbone, all for political power. At that point, they are not worthy of political discourse, as you put it. But, you'll never understand, because you believe what you believe, and that's okay, though. Good for you.

[sox4lifeinPA]

Hey, I'm not the one saying s*** that used to be what people would roll in their graves over. JFK and people of his time have to be rolling in their graves seeing the Democrat party of today OPENLY embrace defeat in a time of war ALL for political power. It's not for debate, it's not for "the good of the country", it's for POWER.

 

Let me tell you something, since you're too young to get it: when people in MY government openly and brazenly work against people who I know personally that are in harms way by statements like "OH LOOK, WE'LL GAIN SEATS IN 2008 IF IT KEEPS GOING [LIKE THIS]" - that's a mighty f*** YOU. I have NO respect for representatives of MY government who in my opinion border on treason by agreeing with talking points of Osama Bin Ladin.

 

To you, it's just political discourse. To me, it starts becoming personal when I see stuff like this. Then people like you wonder why I get so cynical and "sarcastic" when it comes to the Democrat party. Today's Bin Ladin tape pretty much explains why - especially when I see Schumky Schumer and Harry Reid RUN for the cameras to try and grow a backbone, all for political power. At that point, they are not worthy of political discourse, as you put it. But, you'll never understand, because you believe what you believe, and that's okay, though. Good for you.

 

Gregory Royal Pratt:

[Texsox]

Hey, I'm not the one saying s*** that used to be what people would roll in their graves over. JFK and people of his time have to be rolling in their graves seeing the Democrat party of today OPENLY embrace defeat in a time of war ALL for political power. It's not for debate, it's not for "the good of the country", it's for POWER.

 

Let me tell you something, since you're too young to get it: when people in MY government openly and brazenly work against people who I know personally that are in harms way by statements like "OH LOOK, WE'LL GAIN SEATS IN 2008 IF IT KEEPS GOING [LIKE THIS]" - that's a mighty f*** YOU. I have NO respect for representatives of MY government who in my opinion border on treason by agreeing with talking points of Osama Bin Ladin.

 

To you, it's just political discourse. To me, it starts becoming personal when I see stuff like this. Then people like you wonder why I get so cynical and "sarcastic" when it comes to the Democrat party. Today's Bin Ladin tape pretty much explains why - especially when I see Schumky Schumer and Harry Reid RUN for the cameras to try and grow a backbone, all for political power. At that point, they are not worthy of political discourse, as you put it. But, you'll never understand, because you believe what you believe, and that's okay, though. Good for you.

 

Talk about hyperbole

"To conclude," bin Laden says, "I invite you to embrace Islam." He goes on to say: "There are no taxes in Islam, but rather there is a limited Zakaat [alms] totaling 2.5 percent."

 

Bin Laden thinks we should lower taxes. You treasonous bastard for agreeing with him.

[Rex Kickass]

Hey, I'm not the one saying s*** that used to be what people would roll in their graves over. JFK and people of his time have to be rolling in their graves seeing the Democrat party of today OPENLY embrace defeat in a time of war ALL for political power. It's not for debate, it's not for "the good of the country", it's for POWER.

 

Let me tell you something, since you're too young to get it: when people in MY government openly and brazenly work against people who I know personally that are in harms way by statements like "OH LOOK, WE'LL GAIN SEATS IN 2008 IF IT KEEPS GOING [LIKE THIS]" - that's a mighty f*** YOU. I have NO respect for representatives of MY government who in my opinion border on treason by agreeing with talking points of Osama Bin Ladin.

 

To you, it's just political discourse. To me, it starts becoming personal when I see stuff like this. Then people like you wonder why I get so cynical and "sarcastic" when it comes to the Democrat party. Today's Bin Ladin tape pretty much explains why - especially when I see Schumky Schumer and Harry Reid RUN for the cameras to try and grow a backbone, all for political power. At that point, they are not worthy of political discourse, as you put it. But, you'll never understand, because you believe what you believe, and that's okay, though. Good for you.

 

Withdrawal only means defeat if staying in means victory.

 

The administration has never defined what victory would exactly be. And that's the problem. It's hard not to lose when you don't have a plan to win. Or even a definition of what winning means.

 

Some people like to point to Anbar province as proof of success in the Surge. Anbar only received an increase of 3,000 troops. Much less than most other places in Iraq. And it's gotten so secure, that it's no longer the deadliest region in Iraq, merely the second deadliest. Behind Baghdad. You know, where everyone lives.

 

Oh and Kap, if you wanna cherry pick quotes - we totally could here.

 

Thus, you elected the Democratic party for this purpose, but the Democrats haven't made a move worth mentioning.

 

Did you say this or Bin Laden? Wait, I've never seen you two in the same room....

 

Anyone else notice that he's lost the gray in his beard?

 

Does this mean he's combing Grecian Formula in it? And if that's the case, why are we allowing Greece to sponsor terror like that?

[Gregory Pratt]

Hey, I'm not the one saying s*** that used to be what people would roll in their graves over.

 

JFK and people of his time have to be rolling in their graves seeing the Democrat party of today OPENLY embrace defeat in a time of war ALL for political power. It's not for debate, it's not for "the good of the country", it's for POWER.

 

Let me tell you something, since you're too young to get it: when people in MY government openly and brazenly work against people who I know personally that are in harms way by statements like "OH LOOK, WE'LL GAIN SEATS IN 2008 IF IT KEEPS GOING [LIKE THIS]" - that's a mighty f*** YOU. I have NO respect for representatives of MY government who in my opinion border on treason by agreeing with talking points of Osama Bin Ladin.

 

To you, it's just political discourse. To me, it starts becoming personal when I see stuff like this. Then people like you wonder why I get so cynical and "sarcastic" when it comes to the Democrat party. Today's Bin Ladin tape pretty much explains why - especially when I see Schumky Schumer and Harry Reid RUN for the cameras to try and grow a backbone, all for political power. At that point, they are not worthy of political discourse, as you put it. But, you'll never understand, because you believe what you believe, and that's okay, though. Good for you.

 

You accuse me of being too young to "get it." Listen: I fully understand what al-Qaeda, war and terrorism are, thanks. I watched the 9/11 attacks same as you, maybe deeper as I was at the hospital when the second plane hit live. There are few people here as willing to concede that I don't know everything because I am young, but I flatly refuse to accept any insinuation that because I'm young you can teach me about terrorism. I know I know far more about al-Qaeda's history, leadership, operations, goals, aims, desires than you. I know I know far more about the Muslim religion than you do. I know that because of the way you talk about this, the way you would accuse with nothing but a shallow article as evidence the Democratic Party and all of its inhabitants of "sharing" bin Laden's talking points when in fact you couldn't be further from the truth. If you had a clue what al-Qaeda is you'd understand it is above and beyond political ideologies and it doesn't have anything more than a passing resemblance to American political ideology. They come from a very different world and have very different goals than anyone here in America who is not an Islamic theocrat bent on the caliphate. And that's about the end of that. Anybody who would accuse bin Laden of being a shill for the Democratic Party or worse loses all credibility on the subject. And that's about as far as this conversation will go because you either don't know what you're talking about or you simply don't care to give it genuine, serious thought and conversation. You approach all political news like a reactionary. Everything is "f***ING DEMOCRATS!11111111111111" or "/GREEN f***ING REPUBLICANS, SAYS THE DEMOCRATS!" and "bin LADEN LOVES SCHUMER!"

 

It's cute to watch right-wingers dance about accusing Democrats of being like bin Laden and laughing about it but it's so wrong on moral, political and intellectual levels. Who cares about that, though?

 

PS: al-Qaeda =/ Iraq.

[Gregory Pratt]

Gregory Royal Pratt:

 

I did not.

[kapkomet]

You accuse me of being too young to "get it." Listen: I fully understand what al-Qaeda, war and terrorism are, thanks. I watched the 9/11 attacks same as you, maybe deeper as I was at the hospital when the second plane hit live. There are few people here as willing to concede that I don't know everything because I am young, but I flatly refuse to accept any insinuation that because I'm young you can teach me about terrorism. I know I know far more about al-Qaeda's history, leadership, operations, goals, aims, desires than you. I know I know far more about the Muslim religion than you do. I know that because of the way you talk about this, the way you would accuse with nothing but a shallow article as evidence the Democratic Party and all of its inhabitants of "sharing" bin Laden's talking points when in fact you couldn't be further from the truth. If you had a clue what al-Qaeda is you'd understand it is above and beyond political ideologies and it doesn't have anything more than a passing resemblance to American political ideology. They come from a very different world and have very different goals than anyone here in America who is not an Islamic theocrat bent on the caliphate. And that's about the end of that. Anybody who would accuse bin Laden of being a shill for the Democratic Party or worse loses all credibility on the subject. And that's about as far as this conversation will go because you either don't know what you're talking about or you simply don't care to give it genuine, serious thought and conversation. You approach all political news like a reactionary. Everything is "f***ING DEMOCRATS!11111111111111" or "/GREEN f***ING REPUBLICANS, SAYS THE DEMOCRATS!" and "bin LADEN LOVES SCHUMER!"

 

It's cute to watch right-wingers dance about accusing Democrats of being like bin Laden and laughing about it but it's so wrong on moral, political and intellectual levels. Who cares about that, though?

 

PS: al-Qaeda =/ Iraq.

The truth of the matter is it runs way deeper then a political ideology, but it puts your little panties in a dander when I compare American political ideology to that of Al Queda, because it's partially true.

 

Now about the personal s*** you are throwing my way. Don't you DARE tell me what I know and what I don't know. You better get that straight away before I flame bomb your ass for public consumption. Do you get that? You have no f***ING clue what I know and what I don't, and what I study and what I don't, or what I really think and what I don't... so please just stop while you're ahead. I STRONGLY suggest you drop the personal rhetoric or it's going to get really rough. I'm saying that as being nice, this time. You always think you have to have the last word, I suggest on this, you drop it and don't. If you want to stick to the issues, fine. I didn't start this, but I can sure keep it going. I'll drop it, but I better not see anything else personal about you telling me what I think and what I don't... because this board is CLEARLY not representative of what I do really think or know, and I'll leave it at that.

[Gregory Pratt]

The truth of the matter is it runs way deeper then a political ideology, but it puts your little panties in a dander when I compare American political ideology to that of Al Queda, because it's partially true.

 

Now about the personal s*** you are throwing my way. Don't you DARE tell me what I know and what I don't know. You better get that straight away before I flame bomb your ass for public consumption. Do you get that? You have no f***ING clue what I know and what I don't, and what I study and what I don't, or what I really think and what I don't... so please just stop while you're ahead. I STRONGLY suggest you drop the personal rhetoric or it's going to get really rough. I'm saying that as being nice, this time. You always think you have to have the last word, I suggest on this, you drop it and don't. If you want to stick to the issues, fine. I didn't start this, but I can sure keep it going. I'll drop it, but I better not see anything else personal about you telling me what I think and what I don't... because this board is CLEARLY not representative of what I do really think or know, and I'll leave it at that.

 

EDITED. We'll talk in private.

Edited September 8, 2007 by Gregory Pratt

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Girls, you're all pretty.

 

Now everybody play nice or I gotta step in. Then, I'd be there to suspend people and chew bubble gum...and I'm all out of bubble gum.

 

That said...

 

Critics of the Iraq war have been saying that the war was a folly since before the invasion. I'd hate to say we told you so but we told you so.

 

This whole current strategy of continued presence in Iraq reminds me of Homer in the tar pit.

 

"I'll pull my legs out with my arms and pull my arms out with my face."

 

We've thrown the beliefs of true democracy (when leaders either choose not to listen or overtly state that they will not listen to the voice of the population in the country), representative government and the Constitutional protections that we cherish and want to espouse to the rest of the world into the rubbish bin by our activities in a war based on fallacious reasoning and having a continued presence there putting more Americans and Iraqis into a meat grinder. Every time there is a renewed call to bring the soldiers home, we are told to wait. Then we get reports that are supposed to be written by a general but was actually going to be ghost written by the White House. The Iraqi armed forces are rife with sectarianism and cannot stand alone because they have no pressure to clean up their act since they know that the "white man's burden" is felt by American elites/greed for no-compete contracts to companies and mercenaries will be there to continue the march to what appears to be a damned endless war. The neoconservatives and the GOP elite went out and f***ed up a country beyond repair for their own goals of uninhibited capitalism for military arms providers and other companies or their own deluded sense of the international chess match in which the whole globe is their playground. They've f***ed up every last step of the damned process yet here we are as a country saying -- "Okay, have a few more months." What the Hell have these people in government done to earn the slightest bit of trust that they could or should be allowed to try a new strategy in this Iraq issue? It is maddening.

 

And how about bin Laden's language being similar to the distaste that most Soxtalkers (and not just Dem posters) have for the US political process?

"So in answer to the question about the causes of the Democrats' failure to stop the war, I say: they are the same reasons which led to the failure of former president (John F.) Kennedy to stop the Vietnam war. Those with real power and influence are those with the most capital," bin Laden said.

 

"And since the democratic system permits major corporations to back candidates, be they presidential or congressional, there shouldn't be any cause for astonishment -- and there isn't any -- in the Democrats' failure to stop the war," he says.

[mr_genius]

THe CIA spent significant time analyzing the 2004 tape, as they always do, looking for a reason for it to be released days before the election. They concluded that he was secretly trying to get hte public to think of him and thus strengthen Bush by threatening the nation from outside. Why? Not because he thinks htey're soft or anything -- CIA, FBI, everyone with half a brain...they all understand that Democrat/Republican doesn't really mean much to the War on Terror as nobody seriously running for President is going to roll over for al-Qaeda, but Bush is a fundamentalist Christian who uses and has used words like "Crusade" to describe his war and so you've got a brilliant propaganda campaign on your hands. It's easier to paint the country as a Muslim-hating place if a Christian fundie is elected and re-elected even after his wars, which the mideast generally detests.

 

It's in several books about the CIA/War on Terror. The most recent one, if I recall correctly, that I read is The One Percent Doctrine. But you don't give a s*** about what the CIA says or what their speculation is or any of that. You don't know much about terrorist, terrorism, terrorist thought, terrorist training -- you don't know much about what the government does to fight them, you haven't looked too deep into it. Have you? IF you did, you'd know full well why al-Qaeda would want Bush in there. And I'm not saying that as a political condemnation. I'm not like you and Kap -- I don't believe that just because a bad guy says something in support of someone means much about that someone.

 

So, whatever. I don't even know why I bother explaining the analysis or anything like that. You and Kap don't genuinely care about what the CIA says, what anybody says, bcuz Dems r bad, and everything else BEGS for a sarcastic, irreverent, irrelevant response.

 

So some partisan hack wrote a book that is "proof" that Bin Laden really likes GW Bush. Give me a break. I could point out like 30 books stating the opposite. Dems are weak on terror, it's been proven by their actions. They could have killed Bin Laden but Clinton didn't want to offend any muslims, and if you don't offend them they will leave you alone -- oh wait, that has proven to be incorrect.

 

Ron Suskind

 

Ok, I just read some of his New York Times and Esquire articles, the guy has a blatant agenda. Seriously, he's about as objective as Ann Coulter.

Edited September 8, 2007 by mr_genius