kimmy

He might say that, but what BC2004 will say if it's required to support his idol, vs what BC2004 actually believes, might be two different things. BC2004's real views are given in comments like these: And truth be told, BC2004 is right. Kerry and his Democrat buddies had/have little stomach to stay in Iraq, and no interest in pursuing further military action against countries like Iran or other military action in the "war on terrah." I also doubt whether very many of your Michael Moore-worshipping buddies think it didn't matter who won the 2004 election. OBL doesn't need him. But he's sure been a big help. Bush's resolve is unquestioned, something that can't be said of Kerry or the Democrats. With Bush in the White House, OBL could count on 4 more years of exactly the same. And who knows if Kerry would have ever achieved the level of enmity that Muslim fanatics feel towards Dubya. You keep saying it didn't matter who was president, but I don't think very many people actually agree with you on that point. And I doubt that OBL agreed with you on that point in 2004 when he made that tape. -k

The CIA screwed up the intelligence that led to the invasion of Iraq? Are you sure about that? That there was a motive is obvious from the timing of the message. Kerry and Bush and every political analyst and media outlet on the planet recognized as much and said as much on the very day the tape appeared. You're not going to argue that OBL wasn't attempting to influence the US election, because that would be silly. So what influence did he hope he might have? By 2004, many people had made the observation that every time Bin Laden came out with a new tape, Bush's popularity went up. And surely he did not think an 18 minute attack on Dubya would do anything except help Bush. Only a little bit of common sense is required to see that the message "Bin Laden hates Bush!" "Bin Laden fears Bush!" "Bin Laden wants Kerry to win!" could only hurt Kerry and help Bush. It is obvious what effect the message was intended to have. So once you've looked at the easy questions-- whether OBL was trying to influence the US election, and which direction he wanted to influence it in-- you should start thinking about the more difficult question: why? -k

No, not specifically from you. But it has been a mantra of a great many right wing types for years. I just find it interesting at how quickly the mantra got amended when I suggested that Bush Sr's handling of Iraq part 1 was far wiser than Bush Jr's handling of Iraq part 2. Leaving aside quibbling over how "neatly" Iraq part 1 was wrapped up, I still think the original point stands: the aftermath of the first Gulf War was minor compared to the aftermath of the second. And I can't see how anybody could disagree. By any measure-- financial cost, American/allied death toll, civilian deaths in the aftermath, humanitarian issues-- Bush Sr's war was better by an order of magnitude than Dubya's foolish adventure. -k

Andrew makes an excellent point here. Why, after many centuries of tolerating and engaging in slavery, child labour, segregation, "non-personhood" of women, and so on, did Christians begin to change their views on these issues in the just past couple of centuries? What changed? The Bible itself didn't change, but maybe wider-spread literacy and greater access to printed material among the common classes changed religious views? Did some social factor result in a more enlightened interpretation of who "thy neighbor" might encompass? The explanation that the "Judeo-Christian Ethic" alone was the driving force behind ending these social injustices fails, because for such a long time, it didn't. -k

sweet chicken. I've learned many surprising things in the past few days. For years I've heard about how Bill Clinton and Kofi Annan and the UN and Elf-Petrofina and Maurice Strong were to blame for the failure of the sanctions against Iraq. But apparently it's George H.W. Bush's fault. And for years we've been hearing how it was Bill Clinton's fault that the Islamists got so brave-- Somalia, Al Qaeda, that stuff. But apparently that was George H.W. Bush's fault too. Whatever it takes to make excuses for Junior. Yes, the claim that American's just didn't care about OBL by 2004 is obviously pretty weak. I'll be back in day or two with some stuff for Sulaco. -k

None of that actually constitutes evidence that the tape isn't what it appears to be. Is there no credible source anywhere who has studied the tape and said "this doesn't appear to be real"? Ask your new buddy BUSH CHENEY 2004 whether he thinks Kerry would have had the same international policies as Bush. All of those things became much bigger stories when the truth was found out than they were when the lies were in the first place. You keep saying that the media only cares about ratings and scoops. Well, there's a big scoop out there for anybody who can show the 2004 tape to be fake. It's been 3 years. What's taking them so long? -k

Well, actually, you forgot Poland. Yeah, if creating a power-vacuum in Iraq weren't so goddamn stupid, it would have been a goddamn genius thing to do. As David St Hubbins said, "it's such a fine line between stupid and clever." And as Dick Cheney explained in some detail in the YouTube video CLRV provided, the problems that you're stuck with after overthrowing Saddam were well understood 12 years before Dubya went and did it. Yep. He's a gigantic f-up, but he still won. What a damning indictment of John Kerry. -k

"Not that strong a candidate"? Compared to two clueless losers that Dubya squeaked out victories against, Bill Clinton was King Kong, Godzilla, and Chuck Norris all rolled into one. My understanding is that George H.W. Bush was defeated primarily on domestic policy (that "read my lips, no new taxes" thing, I'm given to understand?) and not his handling of international affairs. George H.W. Bush handled the first Gulf War in a way that should have been the blueprint for how the post-Cold-War world worked. He got the result that he wanted, but more importantly he did it in a way that raised America's prestige and esteem in the world (and carried all of the West on its coat-tails) to a level even higher than it was when Reagan and Gorbachev put an end to the Cold War. And then he lost to one of the most popular presidents in recent history, in an election that was decided because his handling of the country's economy was not as skillful as his handling of international affairs. Dubya? He's won squeaker victories over two of the biggest stiffs ever to seek political office. He's embroiled his country in a situation that has cost thousands of Americans their lives, cost hundreds of billions of dollars, has no end in sight, and has harmed America's (and all of the West's) prestige in the world. While you and I tend to agree on a great many things, I guess we disagree on this. I strongly disagree with Truthies and their ilk, and I have always strongly supported the invasion of Afghanistan and subsequent efforts to exterminate the Taliban and rebuild that country. But I feel no need to apologize or make excuses for Dubya when it comes to Iraq. It's been a farce. As daddy always said, "one can not polish a turd." -k

My theory is not about the IMPACT of the Osama video, it is about his MOTIVE for MAKING IT. Whether he actually influenced the voters or not, HE BELIEVED HE COULD. HENCE THE VIDEO. Gawd. Are you being deliberately obtuse?? Again, the CIA is pretty sure that it *was* intended to. Reread the quote I supplied if you're unclear on that point. Yes, American voters are now world-clase geopolitical spelling-bee champs. hmmm. All of them? Care to put a percentage on that? 50%? 70%? 90%? Hey, maybe a whopping 94% of American voters were so savvy about the politics of the Muslim world by the time of the 2004 election that they didn't pay any attention to the new OBL video. That still leaves 6% who weren't. Did I mention the poll results showed Bush gaining from 4 to 6 points over Kerry from the last poll before the video to the first poll after the video? Seems to me I mentioned that. Did you see those poll results, Dick? What did you think of those poll results? How many terror attacks between 1991 and 2003 were actually directly related to the first Gulf War, defiling of sacred lands, etc etc? How many dead can you credibly link *specifically* to that war? Billions in damages? Wow. As opposed to a tab for the current debacle could be a TRILLION? Because I can't recall any who actually pointed specifically to that invasion as the reason for their attack. Sure, some may have mentioned it in passing, but it's usually (if not always) mentioned in passing along side the Usual Arab Grievances (Israel, Palestine, let our people go, Western blasphemy, Great White Satan, etc.) No war or its aftermath is exactly "neat", but the first Gulf War was pretty close. Especially when contrasted against the current exercise in Iraq, which is the explicit and sole cause of a hell of a lot more carnage and death and terrorism than ever came from the first Gulf War. -k

The video was broadcast all over the world. Anybody who wanted to analyze it was free to do so. If Al Jazeera played a tape that its audience perceived to be a fake, or especially one that its audience perceived to be a fake created by the US, the damage to Al Jazeera's reputation (not to mention their office buildings) would have been far more costly than any short-term ratings boost. this is ridiculous. You don't believe the videotapes are real because nobody with an Official Al Qaeda Membership Card stuck around to say that they're real tapes?I suppose that when your income tax assessment arrives, you don't think it's real because Stephen Harper didn't deliver it in person? 1. Looks real, sounds real. Lots of people, not just the CIA but also media people who have followed OBL closely, believe it's the real deal. That there was apparently no "independant" authentication doesn't disprove the tape. 2. Doesn't matter who delivered it. 3. The timing of it makes perfect sense when one remembers that OBL is a strategic thinker with an interest in maintaining and building conflict between the West and the Muslim world. Now, if it's obvious that the tape is fake, why don't you provide some actual evidence? huh? Why's it damn funny? Didn't you just say the timing was suspicious because it might have aided Bush in the election? yup, you just said that. If you are LOLing at the idea that Bin Laden could influence US voters by making a video, then you are LOLing at the very premise that your whole "boogeyman" theory is built on. Bush is a hated name in the Muslim world, while Kerry is a big fat zero. Bush acts without the international community, while Kerry talked endlessly of building bridges and making friends and extending olive branches. Bush is committed to staying in Iraq for as long as it takes for the new government to establish law and order, while Kerry blathered about making a "timetable for withdrawal" and probably would have caved in even faster if he actually got into office because of pressure from other Democrats. It's ludicrous to say that OBL would have considered either outcome to be equal. -k

Blame the following administration and the UN for failing to enforce the terms of Iraq's surrender. Unresolved? The first Iraq invasion was neatly resolved. The objectives were achieved and a long-term plan was put in place, at a cost of thousands fewer lives and about a trillion less dollars than the current situation. The current Iraq invasion remains unresolved and no resolution is anywhere in sight. It's your opinion that OBL was trying to help Kerry win the election? It's the CIA's opinion that OBL was trying to help Bush win the election. I've already quoted top directors John McLaughlin and Jami Miscik on that point. None of us know for sure what he intended, but the people who have studied him most carefully believe his actions were intended to help Bush. -k

The foresight shown in the reasons he gave for not going to Baghdad appears to have been proven out thanks to Junior's big misadventure. -k

The whole POINT that I was making relates to what OBL wanted to accomplish in his videos. Truthies point to the 2004 video and say "it's a fake! the Bushies produced it as a boogieman to help Bush get re-elected!" or else they say "OBL is working for Bush!" I was explaining that Bin Laden had strategic motives to release that video, and that one need not believe in wacky conspiracy theories to understand why he did it. Which is to say: what Osama wanted to accomplish was THE WHOLE FRICKIN POINT of what I was writing about. In polls taken prior to the video's release, polls showed a narrow lead for Bush or a statistical tie. The first poll after the video showed Bush with a 6 point lead, with just 3 days to go before voting. You can't discount that, especially when the final outcome of the election was very close. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../ixnewstop.html It's not drivel. If Dubya possessed 1/10 of the wisdom of his father, all of this would have turned out far better. You're right about that much. Truthie and anti-war types talk about OBL as if he was the only reason the West went to war, when in fact he's only the figurehead of what we're fighting against. Whether OBL is still alive or not doesn't change anything. -k

That lesson was given when the West went to Afghanistan to show Mullah Omar the folly of harboring terrorists and attempting to force a compromise on issues on which there can be no compromise. The lesson taught to the Muslims in October 2001 was crystal clear. Sadly, that lesson has been thoroughly muddied since then. What have Muslims learned from, for instance, the invasion of Iraq under false pretenses? Or from the travesty of Abu Ghraib? If you think back to the weeks following 2001, the entire world was united behind America. The entire world said "we support you in doing what you must to avenge this horrible act." Even the Taliban regime's few friends on the world stage shrugged their shoulders and said "just go." I am very proud that Canada supported and participated in the invasion of Afghanistan. I have never wavered from that position. I consider it one of the great tragedies of my lifetime that all of this international goodwill and unity with America has been squandered foolishly. Dubya had the world lined up behind him to help fight for justice, reason, and all the good things that western civilization is supposed to stand for. 6 years later, all of that has gone up in smoke, and much of the world probably feels that America's actions have shown very little in the way of justice or reason and the other virtues we're supposed to hold high. -k

Insults reveal my frustration at talking to somebody who keeps avoiding the fundamental question with dodges and red herrings. My claim is that OBL wanted Bush to win the 2004 election, and made the 2004 video tape with the intention of provoking US voters to vote for Bush. It's not a "fault ridden construct" unless you can make a credible case as to why OBL would want Kerry to win. "Lol, Muslims were mad way before Dubya took office!" doesn't address the issue. "Lol, lotsa dead Al Qaeda recruits!" doesn't address the issue. "Lol, Bill Clinton woulda just fired some cruise missiles and call it a day!" doesn't address the issue. Make your case, Mr Vice President. Address the claim that OBL wanted Bush to win the 2004 election, and made the video tape with the intent of provoking US voters to vote for Bush. I've furnished a quote from a CIA director that they believe OBL wanted Bush to win the election and for "Bush to keep doing what he's been doing for a few more years. You? All you've got is "Osama's Bin Hidin, Lol!" -k

Did I say that Muslim terrorists only hate the US because of Dubya? Did I say that Kerry winning would have smoothed over everything with the Muslim world? Of course not. I pose a simple question: which election result would be *better* for OBL? If you can't recognize that Bush's policies since 9/11, and particularly the invasion of Iraq, have been of tremendous benefit to Bin Laden's cause, then you're beyond help, my friend. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Osama_bi...igence_response -k

I was addressing the position that Truthies usually take: "wasn't it convenient that the 2004 OBL tape showed up just 4 days before the 2004 US election?" Of course it was no coincidence. The timing of it was intentional. "LOL, it's almost as if OBL was helping Bush win the election, LOL!" Of course he was. "LOL, so why was OBL helping Bush win the election? The video is a fake made by Bush to help him get re-elected! Or if it's not a fake, then OBL is working for Bush!" No. Wrong. The reasons OBL wanted Bush to win the 2004 election are obvious. As for you, Mr Vice President... please use your head for a moment instead of reacting to criticism of Bush like Pavlov's dog reacted to bells. Do you think OBL is a smart guy, or a dumb guy? Do you think OBL released a video 4 days before the 2004 election without having any idea of what effect it might have on American voters? Once you've thought about that question for a bit, spend some time thinking about why OBL would want Bush to win. Did OBL want Bush to win because Bush is beloved in Albania? Did OBL want Bush to win because policy-analysts in Tehran are mistrustful of Democrats? Or did OBL want Bush to win because the mere mention of Bush causes angry young men all over the Middle East to join groups like Al Qaeda? Just think on that. Take as long as you need. -k

I don't think I said that all Muslims wanted John Kerry to win. Nonetheless, I think you'd have to be pretty dense to not recognize the widespread demonization and personal hatred directed toward Dubya in the Muslim world. And you'd have to be pretty dense to not recognize that this widespread hatred of Bush is politically useful for those Muslims who make use of it for their own advantage. -k

uh, what's your point? -k

You appear to be the one did not read the articles. M.Dancer's article asserts that this regulation is used to extract additional money-- from 900 to 7000 euros-- from Jews who want to rent an apartment. http://ejpress.org/article/14874 -k

The contents of the tape would have been highly controversial in the entire Arab world. The decision to play it would not have been made lightly. The stakes for Al Jazeera would have been a lot higher than some ratings grab. They wouldn't have broadcast it if they didn't consider it credible. You haven't actually provided any reason to think that the 2004 video *isn't* credible. Uh, somebody who is delivering video-tapes for Al Qaeda is probably not going to stick around so that their credentials can be checked. Why did Bin Laden initially deny any connection to the 9/11 attacks? Because his goal has been to united the Arab world against the US. He knew that if he denied the attacks, the Arab world would view a US attack against him as unjustified aggression. By 2004, with most of the Arab world furious with Bush, there was no longer any reason to deny the attacks. Some people respond "yah well why did he send out a video just in time to help Bush win the election huh huh huh?" Well duh. Why wouldn't he. With Bush doing such a great job of turning the Muslim world against America, of course Bin Laden wanted Bush to win the election. Why let Bush get replaced by somebody who Muslims didn't hate? Why let Bush get replaced by somebody who wants to build some kind of truce with the Muslim world? John Kerry winning the 2004 election would have been a big setback for what Bin Laden had been working for. Somebody has a quote in their signiture that says, essentially, that George W. Bush has done everything that Osama Bin Laden could have hoped for. You have not yet provided any information supporting your claim that the 2004 tape is fake. However, I am confident that when or if you do, it'll be from some half-baked conspiracy website. Feel free to prove me wrong, if you can. -k

Firefighters, police, and military all have rigorous physical standards which are enforced at hiring time and are stated as part of the job description. I mentioned in my previous message that some employees have legitimate reasons for discriminating on a basis of physical ability. How does U-Haul apply? They stand behind a counter, sign paperwork, and hand you keys. Wow, grueling. Some of the employees also move the vehicles around in the parking lot. Exhausting. Some of them even have to wash the vehicles or vacuum the interiors. Astounding. How could an obese person do this kind of stuff? Some employers also have legitimate reason for monitoring employee drug or alcohol use. If U-Haul feels they have legitimate reasons for involving themselves in their employees' personal affairs, let them make that case. "We're trying to help them loose weight!" doesn't cut it. You probably don't find very many morbidly obese night-club waitresses either. What of it? -k

The article posted by Monsieur Dancer says: So it sounds as if this regulation is still in use, even if only as a means of extracting money. Perhaps Scribblett only just found Jewsweek. Does it matter?Why is that an issue? Perhaps if you want your Jewish News faster you should hire a news-clipping service to keep you more up to date. That sounds like a fascinating subject. Perhaps you should start a thread on it. -k

I agree. If an employer has a specific reason for a policy against obesity (for instance, employees who are required to work in confined areas or who are required to have some amount of physical stamina) then state it in the job requirements and don't hire somebody who doesn't meet those requirements. This is simply BS. I'm also curious about how this will be carried out. Are all the employees lined up, measured, put on scales? Or does a manager go around and say "Joe's looking fat. I'm going to dock him $13." And, if these employers feel justified in policing their workers' personal health, they should be consistent. Why just single out weight and smoking? When they're lining up employees to stand on a scale, they should also get them to pee in a cup. That way, they can also identify employees who use alcohol and drugs. I don't have stats to back this up, but I would bet big money that employers lose a lot more employee productivity and sick-days to alcohol-related absenteeism and underperformance than they do to anything resulting from obesity. Y'know, I really do hope somebody sues the bloody hell out of U-Haul for this. "I am suing for $13 dollars in financial damages, plus a million dollars for stress, humiliation, discrimination, and being so god-damned stupid as to think you could get away with treating your employees like this." -k

I don't *like* to talk about it, but I can't allow such BS to stand unchallenged. The red herring is the FBI Most Wanted list, for reasons I just explained to GostHacked. (see above.) I choose to discuss what the article actually says, not what you say the article says. I have no interest in indulging your reading comprehension problems. The lawyer interviewed in the article contends that the closest the 2001 tape comes to a confession is the part where bin Laden says "we asked each of them to go to America." That's far from a direct confession. The 2004 tape contains the first direct confession. The 2001 tape contains no such confession, though coyly hints at it. What's your point, btw? Al Jazeera isn't a red herring, for two reasons: * They wouldn't have broadcast the tape if they didn't believe it was authentic. * While truthies like to claim that US media are government puppets, they have a harder time saying that about Al Jazeera. So there you go. I think the Arab world's leading media voice is a more credible judge of the tape's authenticity that you are. Any good reason why I should take your word for it (or some half-baked conspiracy website's word for it) over the Arab world's top media outlet? -k