Osama bin Laden is dead

[jbg]

His ratings have been in the toilet consistently since his last election.

Very typical of second terms. It's an unfortunate bi-product of term limits.

[bush_cheney2004]

Sorry, had to return to address that comment. His ratings have been in the toilet consistently since his last election.

Yes, but he is doing a helluva lot better than the US Congress, which sank to about 15%

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/7/18/91423.shtml

Maybe the US Congress needs a boost from Usama?

[kuzadd]

re: OBL tapes

1. none of the tapes were independently verified, why? If they were verified and found to be real, that would only benefit further the US admin. Why doesn't the US admin. have them verified to bolster there case ,then?

OBVIOUSLY, if they were found to be not authentic, they would work to the detriment of the US administration, hence, no independent verifciation.!

2.Kimmy assumes that Aljazeera playing them gives them some sort of validity, another false assumption. it gives them validity only in the mind of someone who is not thinking merely reacting.

Kimmy"

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.

You assume playing the tapes would have been highly controversial, I doubt it, highly.

What's interesting is that you think that.

The stakes for Aljazeera, were the same as for any other media outlet, run with the scoop before someone else does. I cannot understand why you think a business, in the business to make money , through higher ratings and grabbing bigger bucks for advertising, I don't understand why you think otherwise.Media priorities, a scoop, higher ratings and more profits. Aljazeera is a business. It's not a charity.

kimmy:

Uh, somebody who is delivering video-tapes for Al Qaeda is probably not going to stick around so that their credentials can be checked.

really, kimmy, then how do we REALLY know that anyone is actually delivering tapes for AlQuaeda? WE don't!

Another assumption!

You have not yet provided any information supporting your claim that the 2004 tape is fake.

yet, there is not one iota of evidence to support that tape as credible,

1.no independent verification, which as stated would have only bolstered the US's claims, yet, it did not happen.

2.who the heck knows who delivers or mails the tapes? it could have came straight from Rendon group.

3.The timing of it which may have aided the Bush re-election campaign, also makes it suspect.

here's where we get into another half-baked claim by kimmy

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.

and a dam funny one to boot!

You are empowering OBL alot!

Also demonstrating an irrationality based in fear, I am assuming.

BushCheney is correct, do you really think that, OBL needs Bush, as president, to inflame the Muslim world, that is hilarious!

US foreign policy, through the years has done a good job of that irregardless of who has been President!

US foreign policy would have continued on, inflaming Arabs, even if Kerry had been president!

US presidents may change, foreign policy stays on track!

Therefore it is more credible to say the release of the tapes benefited Bush, in his push for re-election, by pushing the fear button amongst the populace. it just might have given Bush the edge despite BC's claims as Bush plays the 9/11 card quit alot, and still does.

In summary unless any of the tapes were independently verified which would have only bolstered the US claims,YET, never happened. (think about that Kimmy) They are totally non-credible as evidence of anything.!

The tapes being "authenticated' by the very administration that stood to benefit from them, (BUT, not independently) wether it was to justify wars , or win elections, should raise enough suspicions in a rational thinker to discard them as anything but, credible.

The one thing they serve very well as, is war-time propaganda!

As propaganda they serve to bolster the official 9/11 story which also benefits the US again, in it's foreign policy aspirations.

BC is correct in that no one KNOWS for certain wether he is dead, or not. I still sit firmly in the he is dead camp.

I also do not deem credible the nonsense wrt the Taliban aiding OBL either, they simply were not that kind of regime. More along the lines of we're the boss and you will not usurp us at all!

They would have had very little tolerance of OBL, as he could have challenged there authority.

Much like Saddam and Alquaeda, no way, no how!

[bush_cheney2004]

...The tapes being "authenticated' by the very administration that stood to benefit from them, (BUT, not independently) wether it was to justify wars , or win elections, should raise enough suspicions in a rational thinker to discard them as anything but, credible.

Agreed...any attempt by the Bush Administration to actively "authenticate" and leverage such tapes would have back-fired badly, much the way we saw Spain go post Madrid bombing. Usama just doesn't have the kind of political legs he used to have with the American public because other dynamics have come into play, then and now. He is only useful for general purpose propaganda, like Smokey the Bear (who is definitely dead).

Even the most casual American voter has a broader understanding of the landscape, having learned of Saudis/Wahabis, Sunni, Shia, Kurds, Turks, Taliban, etc., even if only superficially. Usama Yo' Mama and Al Qaeda are now just part of the mix.

[Sulaco]

Kimmy:

The "wisdom" of George Bush Sr. was to rile up the Shias and Kurds of Iraq and leave them to suffer. That wisdom led to a cease fire difficult to enforce, sanctions that, by the arguments of those who now claim they wanted sanctions all along, killed a hundred thousand per year, the oil for food programme and, frankly, the mess today.

Call Bush what you will but wise he was not. He was a bureaucrat and like all bureaucrats he did not act with vision. Rather he needed to bring along as many people as he could to spread the blame before he moved foreward, and he left behind carelessly those who relied on him - and who gave him cover.

Wisdom seem to now be a stand in for calcification.

In addition on the general argument. You rely, in your claim, that OBL is very intelligent - thus the result he got must have been the one he expectedf and thus intended. You're arguing backward. Via same argument OBL was seeking the fall of the Taliban and the loss of his sanctuaries.

Assuming OBL was smart he also saw the demoralizing effect the "defeat" in somalia had on the US - no US meddling in Arab colonization of Africa from that time on. It also galvanized OBL's movement. Arguably then his goal would be to seek US withdrawal for that very effect.

The point is: Smart men make mistakes and those mistakes can be amde at any point of their reasoning. OBL is included. Most consequences are unintended.

Your method of argument explains too much.

Edited August 13, 2007 by Sulaco

[Sulaco]

And to tie it all back on itself: That's of course why you think Bush Sr. was filled with wisdom. because he attempted to avoid unintended consequences by moving carefully. Amsuingly all that got him was shit in iraq and shit in Somalia but furthermore left nothing resolved. However the bureaucrat always creates cover - I acted prudently so the consequences cannot be my fault.

Bah!

[CLRV]

The "wisdom" of George Bush Sr. was to rile up the Shias and Kurds of Iraq and leave them to suffer.

The man who actually called the shots, then as now,

on that issue in 1994.

[Sulaco]

The man who actually called the shots, then as now,

on that issue in 1994.

Well... Dick Chaney is here from time to time. Drops by and throws his two-cents in. Why don't you ask him to what extent the Bushes have merely been puppets of this evil mastermind.

Edited August 13, 2007 by Sulaco

[kimmy]

The man who actually called the shots, then as now,

on that issue in 1994.

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

[kimmy]

The "wisdom" of George Bush Sr. was to rile up the Shias and Kurds of Iraq and leave them to suffer. That wisdom led to a cease fire difficult to enforce, sanctions that, by the arguments of those who now claim they wanted sanctions all along, killed a hundred thousand per year, the oil for food programme and, frankly, the mess today.

Call Bush what you will but wise he was not. He was a bureaucrat and like all bureaucrats he did not act with vision. Rather he needed to bring along as many people as he could to spread the blame before he moved foreward, and he left behind carelessly those who relied on him - and who gave him cover.

Wisdom seem to now be a stand in for calcification.

...

And to tie it all back on itself: That's of course why you think Bush Sr. was filled with wisdom. because he attempted to avoid unintended consequences by moving carefully. Amsuingly all that got him was shit in iraq and shit in Somalia but furthermore left nothing resolved. However the bureaucrat always creates cover - I acted prudently so the consequences cannot be my fault.

Bah!

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.

In addition on the general argument. You rely, in your claim, that OBL is very intelligent - thus the result he got must have been the one he expectedf and thus intended. You're arguing backward. Via same argument OBL was seeking the fall of the Taliban and the loss of his sanctuaries.

Assuming OBL was smart he also saw the demoralizing effect the "defeat" in somalia had on the US - no US meddling in Arab colonization of Africa from that time on. It also galvanized OBL's movement. Arguably then his goal would be to seek US withdrawal for that very effect.

The point is: Smart men make mistakes and those mistakes can be amde at any point of their reasoning. OBL is included. Most consequences are unintended.

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

[bush_cheney2004]

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.

So let me get this straight......the previous "invasion" of Iraq and associated defiling of sacred land by infidels which led to numerous acts of terrorism, thousands dead, and billions in damages was "neatly" resolved? Even if Usama was dead he would be laughing in his grave!

[kimmy]

re: OBL tapes

1. none of the tapes were independently verified, why? If they were verified and found to be real, that would only benefit further the US admin. Why doesn't the US admin. have them verified to bolster there case ,then?

OBVIOUSLY, if they were found to be not authentic, they would work to the detriment of the US administration, hence, no independent verifciation.!

The video was broadcast all over the world. Anybody who wanted to analyze it was free to do so.

2.Kimmy assumes that Aljazeera playing them gives them some sort of validity, another false assumption. it gives them validity only in the mind of someone who is not thinking merely reacting.

You assume playing the tapes would have been highly controversial, I doubt it, highly.

What's interesting is that you think that.

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.

really, kimmy, then how do we REALLY know that anyone is actually delivering tapes for AlQuaeda? WE don't!

Another assumption!

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?

yet, there is not one iota of evidence to support that tape as credible,

1.no independent verification, which as stated would have only bolstered the US's claims, yet, it did not happen.

2.who the heck knows who delivers or mails the tapes? it could have came straight from Rendon group.

3.The timing of it which may have aided the Bush re-election campaign, also makes it suspect.

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?

here's where we get into another half-baked claim by kimmy

and a dam funny one to boot!

You are empowering OBL alot!

huh? Why's it damn funny? Didn't you just say the timing was suspicious because it might have aided Bush in the election?

3.The timing of it which may have aided the Bush re-election campaign, also makes it suspect.

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.

BushCheney is correct, do you really think that, OBL needs Bush, as president, to inflame the Muslim world, that is hilarious!

US foreign policy, through the years has done a good job of that irregardless of who has been President!

US foreign policy would have continued on, inflaming Arabs, even if Kerry had been president!

US presidents may change, foreign policy stays on track!

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

[jbg]

So let me get this straight......the previous "invasion" of Iraq and associated defiling of sacred land by infidels which led to numerous acts of terrorism, thousands dead, and billions in damages was "neatly" resolved? Even if Usama was dead he would be laughing in his grave!

Hmmmm. The Land of Israel was defiled by the Romans, and many after. The Roman Empire controlled much of Europe. Ought the Jews avenge this defiling, and leave thousands who have nothing to do with the defiling dead?

[kimmy]

You don't get to play with the motives of voters or results of an election just to match you theory about the impact of one Usama video.

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??

He was old news by then. To suggest that a strategically timed video from Usama tilted the election is folly, as there were other issues of far more relevance to Americans, which varied by state. Indeed, the electoral results were not much different than in 2000, before we even had an interest in "Usama videos". Had the Democrats not run a flawed peacenik candidate with fractures on other key domestic issues, President Bush would have lost the election, regardless of "Usama videos".

My reference to Iran's "endorsement" of Bush was not just an academic exercise to challenge your assertion about the "muslim world". It also had no impact on American voters, nor was it expected to. Usama Bin Hidin' could expect no more and no less.

Again, the CIA is pretty sure that it *was* intended to. Reread the quote I supplied if you're unclear on that point.

Even the most casual American voter has a broader understanding of the landscape, having learned of Saudis/Wahabis, Sunni, Shia, Kurds, Turks, Taliban, etc., even if only superficially. Usama Yo' Mama and Al Qaeda are now just part of the mix.

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?

So let me get this straight......the previous "invasion" of Iraq and associated defiling of sacred land by infidels which led to numerous acts of terrorism, thousands dead, and billions in damages was "neatly" resolved? Even if Usama was dead he would be laughing in his grave!

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

[bush_cheney2004]

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.

But you did say it was neatly resolved...and this is nonsense. Of course you can't recall specifically that Americans and other infidels in Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations contributed to the rise of terrorism against US interests, because it would undermine your theory about peace, love, and harmony after Gulf War I.

Before the second invasion of Iraq, the World Trade Center was attacked twice. Before the second attack, it was a matter of US Public Law to overthrow Saddam's regime (October 1998). Clinton promptly bombed 100 sites in Iraq (December 1998). (President Bush wasn't inaugurated until January 2001)

[kimmy]

Jr. is a two-termer. His father a one-termer and against not that strong a candidate. That shows something.

"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.

That's exactly why I say you and Bush-Cheney 2004 are on the same page. As am I.

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

[bush_cheney2004]

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.

OK...why would it matter either way...you live in Alberta, Canada. That the American, British, and Australian leadership felt otherwise is of a wee bit more importance. If Iraq were recovering "neatly" and not a fractured hotbed of sectarian violence, George Bush would have been declared a goddamn genius. But being re-elected President of the United States will just have to do instead.

[kuzadd]

Kimmy falsely believes the tapes are valid because the Bush admin says so.!

Kimmy falsely believes the tapes are valid because Aljazeera played them.!

Kimmy denies that validation of the tapes, which could have only bolstered the Bush regime case,as NOT necessary. Therefore it should not have been done. ???? Incredible and non-credible!

As the Bush regime, would never mislead, propagate falsities, falsify intel, etc., to advance a an agenda (facetious and hilarious).

Kimmy falsely believes it would have made a difference to Arabs ,based on who was President,(because of some nonsensical rhetoric, about Bush/BinLaden.)

Different presidents, same foreign policy! No one believes Kerry would have done a thing different wrt ME policy, then Bush, the domestic rhetoric would have changed, and not much In summary:

Kimmy doesn't grasp the FACT, the President is irrelevant the policy is the same!

why? because that would blow a big hole through a nonsensical belief.

Too bad about the tapes, wrt perception of them being false, causing AlJazeera to lose face.

More nonsense!

Mass media, shoots itself in the foot repeatedly with falsities, your point is irrelevant!

Where to begin, Jessica Lynch,Pat Tillman, WMD's, all dutifully reported, all BS!

GW1 we had , for ONE: the Kuwaiti princess doing her schtick in front of "congress"2: the bullcrap about the Iraqi troops massed outside of Saudi Arabia, all dutifully reported on , and in all seriousness, of course! Both false claims!

in summary, Kimmy, seems blinded by a hatred, of "truthies",thereby avoiding looking at facts, preferring to lean on rhetoric and name calling.

BTW: OBL: Never have I heard it said of him that he was very smart, nor have I read that anywhere. Arrogant, very arrogant, full of bravado, not smart, though.

Edited August 14, 2007 by kuzadd

[kuzadd]

bush_cheney2004:

Agreed...any attempt by the Bush Administration to actively "authenticate" and leverage such tapes would have back-fired badly

He is only useful for general purpose propaganda, like Smokey the Bear (who is definitely dead).

Now BC!

It don't happen often, but I agree,TWICE, here with your statements!

He is useful for general purpose propaganda.

He is good to ramp up the fear factor, rather in the way of, remember, the "bad man" is still out there.

[Sulaco]

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

That's silly. The neat resolution resulted in massive repression that led to no-fly zones. It also resulted in an arms control regime that was ignored by Saddam from the get go. Furthermore it resulted in a sanctions regime in general that by 2000 was under attack on every front. The French and Russians were trading around it - agitation for abolishing it was gaining steam. And, in my humble opinion, there is no question the sanctions were mainly effective at lowering the Iraqi people's standards of living.

You're just trying to shift the blame on the next administration so that your theory re. Bush Sr. can stand. But the architect of that status quo was Bush Sr.

As for the claim that OBL's objective was to see Pres. Bush reelected - quoting CIA operatives is hardly helpful. The agency has demonstrated its incompetency in the lead up to this war, since then, and frankly for amny years prior. They also appear to have an institutional ahtred of Pres. Bush. Without having seen prior attempts by OBL to influence elections (I don't think anyone is claiming his other tapes have had the goal of influencing elections one way or another), they claim that this was one such and claim to know his desires. Ridiculous. Especially given that OBL has not shown much political savvy prior to releasing that tape and had never demonstrated much interest in domestic politics. But again the theory plays into certain modes of thinking about this conflict and Pres. Bush's decisions.

So of course you, like they work backward. You conclude OBL must be intelligent and that his tape must ahve been meant to do what actually occured. You assume a motive. And then you work backward to bolster our argument. There is no a priori support for the claim.

Edited August 14, 2007 by Sulaco

[GostHacked]

BushCheney2004...

OK...why would it matter either way...you live in Alberta, Canada. That the American, British, and Australian leadership felt otherwise is of a wee bit more importance. If Iraq were recovering "neatly" and not a fractured hotbed of sectarian violence, George Bush would have been declared a goddamn genius. But being re-elected President of the United States will just have to do instead.

If that time comes, then I will gladly eat every bad word I have said towards and about GW Bush. I am not sure if there is a genius in there, for the line between genius and total idiot is a fine, fine line. His track record seems to prove that he is not really on the genius side of that fine line.

Sulaco

You're just trying to shift the blame on the next administration so that your theory re. Bush Sr. can stand. But the architect of that status quo was Bush Sr.

He also tries to shift the blame to previous administrations as well. We all know how much BC2004 loves the Clinton Administration. Sure sounds like a Bush Apologist to me.

He is useful for general purpose propaganda.

He is good to ramp up the fear factor, rather in the way of, remember, the "bad man" is still out there.

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/presents/bin.laden/ This is comming out just in time for this thread. And shows how valid the OBL thing really is. Some of you dismiss it as it is no longer the main focus on the war on terror, but he is still the most wanted man in the United States. Or how does that work, get put on the FBI's most wanted list, but never really pursued.

It is like having a huge intricate rap sheet at the Police Station, but no one there really wants to pursue the case anymore. More important things need to take place.

[kuzadd]

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/presents/bin.laden/ This is comming out just in time for this thread. And shows how valid the OBL thing really is. Some of you dismiss it as it is no longer the main focus on the war on terror, but he is still the most wanted man in the United States. Or how does that work, get put on the FBI's most wanted list, but never really pursued.

It is like having a huge intricate rap sheet at the Police Station, but no one there really wants to pursue the case anymore. More important things need to take place.

hey gosthacked, oh the OBL thing is very valid as a propaganda tool don't get me wrong, I firmly believe this is his only use, any more!

His face is always reared, when the fear-o-meter needs upping.

I think rather then being the "main focus", of the war on terror ,which went from OBL and Afghanistan, to Saddam in Iraq, which way next Mush in pakistan? the guy in Iran?.

Since the Bush regimeis continually giving us so many boogey-men!

But OBL, is the one, that is consistently dragged out as the 9/11 boogey man, when we need some fear injections. So he, OBL, is the main focus of the 9/11 fear campaign, from which grows the perpetual justification for the war on terror.

In other words he is the mascot, he is the Ronald McDonald of "the war on terror"

I mean every good campaign needs, a mascot, for a spokesperson!

The war on terror, whichever way it is taken, always has OBL, and his Hamburgler sidekick, to do what needs to be done, to ramp up fear, and scare some people ......

That is literally how cheezy and obvious it is.

Edited August 14, 2007 by kuzadd

[kimmy]

OK...why would it matter either way...you live in Alberta, Canada. That the American, British, and Australian leadership felt otherwise is of a wee bit more importance.

Well, actually, you forgot Poland.

If Iraq were recovering "neatly" and not a fractured hotbed of sectarian violence, George Bush would have been declared a goddamn genius.

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.

But being re-elected President of the United States will just have to do instead.

Yep. He's a gigantic f-up, but he still won. What a damning indictment of John Kerry.

-k

[kimmy]

Kimmy falsely believes the tapes are valid because the Bush admin says so.!

Kimmy falsely believes the tapes are valid because Aljazeera played them.!

Kimmy denies that validation of the tapes, which could have only bolstered the Bush regime case,as NOT necessary. Therefore it should not have been done.

???? Incredible and non-credible!

As the Bush regime, would never mislead, propagate falsities, falsify intel, etc., to advance a an agenda (facetious and hilarious).

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"?

Kimmy falsely believes it would have made a difference to Arabs ,based on who was President,(because of some nonsensical rhetoric, about Bush/BinLaden.)

Different presidents, same foreign policy! No one believes Kerry would have done a thing different wrt ME policy, then Bush, the domestic rhetoric would have changed, and not much In summary:

Kimmy doesn't grasp the FACT, the President is irrelevant the policy is the same!

why? because that would blow a big hole through a nonsensical belief.

Too bad about the tapes, wrt perception of them being false, causing AlJazeera to lose face.

More nonsense!

Ask your new buddy BUSH CHENEY 2004 whether he thinks Kerry would have had the same international policies as Bush.

Mass media, shoots itself in the foot repeatedly with falsities, your point is irrelevant!

Where to begin, Jessica Lynch,Pat Tillman, WMD's, all dutifully reported, all BS!

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

[kimmy]

I am not sure if there is a genius in there, for the line between genius and total idiot is a fine, fine line. His track record seems to prove that he is not really on the genius side of that fine line.

sweet chicken.

He also tries to shift the blame to previous administrations as well. We all know how much BC2004 loves the Clinton Administration. Sure sounds like a Bush Apologist to me.

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.

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/presents/bin.laden/ This is comming out just in time for this thread. And shows how valid the OBL thing really is. Some of you dismiss it as it is no longer the main focus on the war on terror, but he is still the most wanted man in the United States.

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

Edited August 16, 2007 by kimmy