Um...yah (2)

kufyit · Post by **kufyit** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 8:05 pm

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/ ... index.html

Pretty low. What an embarrasment.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 8:20 pm

Impressive spin there.

Kuf, what's your opinion? Who do you think Al Qaeda would rather have as president, and why?

And why do you think it's inappropriate for someone else to voice their opinion? After all, Kerry implied that "foreign leaders" would like him to be president and I didn't see you up in arms about that.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 8:22 pm

Funny, I don't think he's saying anything the whole Bush campain hasn't been saying the whole time. Bush is basically running on the theme that he'll be better at getting rid of alQueda than Kerry will.

Hastert says al Qaeda would operate with more comfort if Kerry were elected.

What's so outrageous about that?
He also says alQueda would like to affect the election...
Well he's only guessing but I'd have to say I share his opinion on both counts. There's no misrepresentation of fact there or even proposing something far from the realm of probability.

On the other hand, how about the McCauliff quote:

"And I remind you that, you know, we could have done a lot better," McAuliffe said on CNN's "Late Edition."

"The president of the United States, on August 6th of 2001, was told in his briefing that America was going to be attacked by al Qaeda and they may use airplanes," McAuliffe said, referring to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

"He didn't call the FAA. He didn't leave his monthlong vacation. He sat down there."

Man! Talk about misrepresenting the facts! And he has the balls to call Hasterts comments "outrageous"! He's quite a hypocrit to say there is "no room for this in our political discourse." and follow it with such BS!!

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 8:34 pm

Actually, woodchip, McAuliffe's a woman. It's hard to tell, though, especially when you read crap like that

.

kufyit · Post by **kufyit** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 8:36 pm

He is implying that if we elect Kerry, we run the risk of another terrorist attack. THERE IS NOT EVIDENCE THAT THAT WOUDL BE THE CASE. He is using the events of 9/11, and fear, for political gain. He is whoring the deaths of thousands of civilians to promote his party. If you can't see how low this is, well...whatever.

In regards to future terrorist attacks (which will happen), this is one step away from placing some degree of fallibility on the outcome of the election. And that is wrong.

I know you understand.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 8:38 pm

Terry M. is either a man, or an East German Olympic female. He just happens to have a somewhat feminine name.

kufyit · Post by **kufyit** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 8:43 pm

And who do I think AlQ would rather have as President? You're joking right? I don't think AlQ gives two shAts who is President. Jesus man, are you nuts?

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 8:49 pm

kufyit wrote:He is implying that if we elect Kerry, we run the risk of another terrorist attack.

This is the same WRONG conclusion you posted in the first "um...yah" thread. But neither time has it been the implication.

In the first thread, the implication was that, IF there was another terrorist attack, THEN Kerry would respond to it like a dope.

In this thread, the implication is that AQ would rather have John Kerry (who has said he'll defend the US *after* an attack) than George Bush (who's said he'll keep after Al Qaeda until they crumble, in response to the 9/11 attack) in charge. There's also an implication that, due to AQ's successes in Spain, they might try the same thing in the US.

I don't see anything wrong with this statement. Certainly, the possibility of AQ trying to replicate what they did in Spain is a real one. And it seems likely to me that AQ would rather have Kerry than Bush, because on Bush's watch AQ's leadership has been pretty much gutted, and to them, "anybody but Bush" would be better. (For those saying "yeah, but look at all the new recruits"... if AQ loses one top-level commander but gains 3 untrained recruits, IMO, we come out ahead. And I doubt they're getting all that many new recruits.)

kufyit · Post by **kufyit** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 8:55 pm

Lothar wrote: In this thread, the implication is that AQ would rather have John Kerry (who has said he'll defend the US *after* an attack) than George Bush (who's said he'll keep after Al Qaeda until they crumble, in response to the 9/11 attack) in charge.

Show me where Kerry has said that he will only defend America after an attack.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 9:02 pm

He hasn't said he'll "only" defend America after an attack. But that's the only time he's given any definite "I'll defend America" statement -- if attacked, he's willing to respond (not even "definitely", just "willing", from what I remember.) And he's continually saying that he won't do what Bush did. So what do you think that means his position is?

The difficulty with trying to argue this is, as I've said, Kerry seems intent on making it hard to nail down his positions. I can't tell you for sure that he's ONLY willing to defend America after an attack, because he hasn't said that. I don't know if he'll pull out of Afghanistan or Iraq, because he won't say. But I can tell you that the only time he's given indication of his willingness to attack is in response to new attacks on American soil -- he hasn't given a definite statement that "I'll keep going after the terrorists." That certainly doesn't give me confidence that he'll keep going after AQ.

That's really the thing for me... Kerry doesn't give me confidence that he'll keep going after AQ. Bush does. I'm sure AQ knows this too -- they know Bush will keep up military operations, while Kerry hasn't given any definite indication. So it seems reasonable to me that they'd rather have Kerry than Bush. Like I said in my last post, to them, "anybody but Bush" would be better.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 9:10 pm

Kerry's last position was he'll take the troops out of Iraq in 4 months. If that happens, BOOM, civil war in Iraq and the most powerful faction in Iraq in the absence of U.S. troops is Iranian backed fundamentalists who are the equivilent of al Queda.

Kufyit, if you really don't think al Queda would prefer Bush out of the White House then I think you are not thinking straight!
No one has done damage to them until Bush. And Kerry pulling the troops out creating a percieved victory for islamists in Iraq would make al Queda bigger than Saddam ever was.
You are engaged in dishonest debate or you really are ignorant on this matter to say you don't think al Queda gives a damn about Bush losing the election.

kufyit · Post by **kufyit** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 9:16 pm

Will Robinson wrote:No one has done damage to them until Bush.

They haven't been an issue, a threat to America's "interests" since Bush, Will.

All I have heard Kerry say is that he will continue with the War in Iraq. Please show me where he has said otherwise.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 9:17 pm

Even I see that he's trying to scare people into not voting for bush.

If you really think AQ actually is watching the political process, you've spent too much time in fantasyland.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 9:43 pm

Ferno wrote:If you really think AQ actually is watching the political process, you've spent too much time in fantasyland.

If you think AQ is ignorant of, or uninterested in, the political process, you're living in fantasyland.

Were you paying attention to what happened in Spain? AQ made their attack just before elections, and they put out messages to the effect of "get your troops out of Iraq or we'll do worse." Sure enough, anti-war candidates came from behind to win in a landslide. AQ cares about who leads other countries, and if they see an opening to influence elections in a way that's favorable to them, they'll take a shot.

It wouldn't surprise me if there are certain AQ higher-ups whose job is to watch elections in certain countries and come up with strategies to influence them. They're as smart as any other group -- AQ wants to influence elections, Focus on the Family wants to influence elections, NAMBLA wants to influence elections, and on down the line. It just so happens that, unlike groups that run TV ads, AQ's preferred method involves lots of dead civilians.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 10:08 pm

"AQ cares about who leads other countries, and if they see an opening to influence elections in a way that's favorable to them, they'll take a shot."

So because Spain's anti-war candidates won means they've influenced elections? Seems to me that's closer to a coincidence than outright influence.

BTW.. was there an election influenced when chechens held that school hostage? no. and that was apparently and hastily linked to AQ.

besides.. where's the evidence that AQ wants to influence elections? all I've heard was speculation coming from right wing individuals.

So far all I've seen was they want troops out of Iraq, no matter the cost.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 10:44 pm

kufyit wrote:Please show me where he has said otherwise.

He has taken about every position you can think of, in the last couple of months he has criticized Bush for planning to leave Iraq too soon...for planning to stay too long...If elected Kerry has said he would leave in months...in years...to increase troops indefinitely....to decrease troops but no date given...etc. etc...flip....flop....

From the Washington Post

"Early in the campaign, Kerry maintained that it was impossible to predict when U.S. troops would return home without talking to the commanders in the field. He even suggested increasing the number of U.S. troops. This summer, however, Kerry set a new goal of reducing troops by the end of his first term. But in an interview with National Public Radio in early August, he said he could "significantly" reduce troops during the first six months of his administration -- a new position aides immediately set out to soften in private conversations with reporters."

Bush has clearly sent the message: We're there and we're in it for the victory.

Kerry has been sending a message too: He's not sure and he seems to be basing his decision on what other people think instead of what he knows is right.

kufyit wrote:They haven't been an issue, a threat to America's "interests" since Bush,...

Not sure what your point there is. Are you saying al Queda is now a non-threat because of Bush? If so, that's supposed to be a bad thing for Bush?

Pebkac · Post by **Pebkac** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 10:51 pm

They haven't been an issue, a threat to America's "interests" since Bush, Will.

Well, this is just al-qaeda by themselves.

In 1993 they attacked the WTC for the first time, failing to bring the building down.

In 1996 they sent a truck bomb into the Khobar Towers barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, killed 19 Americans.

Osama bin Laden issued his fatwah in February 1998. This literary jewel was recorded onto tape and disseminated throughout Middle East.

In August of that same year, US Embassies were bombed in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224 people.

In December of 1999, US Customs agents foiled a plot to bomb the Seattle millenium celebrations when they arrested an Algerian smuggling explosives into the country.

In 2000, they bombed the USS Cole in Yemen, killing 17 US Sailors.

We all know what happened in 2001. In that same year, there was also the idiot with the bomb in his shoe. 2002 was a banner year, they blew up a synagogue in Tunisia, a hotel in Karachi, the American Consulate also in Karachi, a nightclub in Bali, and a hotel in Kenya. There were six more attacks in 2003, and four so far in 2004. And that is just one group.

In short, what exactly do you mean when you say they weren't a problem for us until Bush?

All I have heard Kerry say is that he will continue with the War in Iraq. Please show me where he has said otherwise.

"We want those troops home, and my goal would be to try to get them home in my first term," Kerry said, speaking to a fellow Vietnam War veteran who asked about his timetable for withdrawal at a campaign stop in Pennsylvania.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 11:13 pm

Ferno wrote:So because Spain's anti-war candidates won means they've influenced elections?

No -- because Spain's anti-war candidate jumped from being way down in the polls to winning a solid victory, and this huge jump came directly after the Madrid bombings, I'm assuming the bombings had something to do with the jump.

Granted, I only have one data point. But I don't think it's a big stretch to say AQ swung that election.

was there an election influenced when chechens held that school hostage?

No. But that's not relevant.

I never said AQ's actions are *all* meant to influence elections. Only that it's not beneath them to make an attack if they think they can successfully influence an election. That's almost certainly what they were doing in Spain -- bomb a couple days before the elections, put out statements saying to get the troops out of Iraq, and watch the anti-war candidate get a huge jump in the polls.

So far all I've seen was they want troops out of Iraq, no matter the cost.

And what would be a good way to get the troops out of Iraq? Get somebody other than Bush in office. Of course, they have bigger goals than "troops out of Iraq", but I don't need to explain that to you.

Let me ask you this: if AQ thought it would benefit them to get their candidate of choice into office in the US, do you think they'd sit back and ignore our elections? If the same was true in France, Germany, Canada, Andorra, or anywhere else in the world, do you think they'd sit back and just let it happen? Or do you think they'd wield whatever influence they could?

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 11:24 pm

interesting case lothar.. but I'm still not convinced it they were trying to be influential. the dates are too close together. Like i said, it smells more of a reactionary measure than anything else.

IMO influence means something that's pushed way before an actual event occurs. more than 48 hours anyway.

But something tells me that they're not going to do what you think they are gonna do.

"if AQ thought it would benefit them to get their candidate of choice into office in the US."

you're assuming AQ actually not only likes, but backs an american. they want ALL americans dead.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 11:41 pm

I don't think it's a case of them "liking" Kerry. It's a case of wanting the one man who is definitely bent on hunting them whever they go out of power. Kerry is the weaker man in their eyes.

I also think if they understand us they won't attack to try and influence the election because I think it would guarantee Bush a victory.
If I was al Queda I'd do a lot of kidnappings and video of hostages suffering, *not* killing them but showing them held in miserable conditions. Combine that footage with demands that we change our Iraq policy etc. Of course the election is almost here so it's too late for the attrition of a hostage scenario to wiegh heavy on the voters...whew, thank allah.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 12:02 am

"I also think if they understand us they won't attack to try and influence the election because I think it would guarantee Bush a victory."

that's more or less what I was thinking.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 7:05 am

Top Gun wrote:Actually, woodchip, McAuliffe's a woman. It's hard to tell, though, especially when you read crap like that .

You dream of me at night or sump'n?

The biggest thing that al Q. has for Kerry is Kerry's statement that he will only "react" and not "preempt".
al Q. knows that all Bush needs is a whiff of where al Q. may be operating and he will attack. If Bush knows a country is harboring al Q. Bush will attack that country. Kerry will wait around until another 9/11 happens before doing anything and even then Kerry has said he will go through the UN. Given what we now know about the oil for bribes money going to France, Germany and Russia, this presents a similar situation where a future terrorist attact on america results in refusal by certain security council member nations authorising any actions. So what does the sand fish Kerry do then?
Secondarily by not going the preemptive route, Kerry allows al Q to build up new bases and prepare for another major attack against the U.S. Kerry would have been far smarter to agree with the Bush doctrine and instead focus on internal issues.

Now Kuffjob, isn't this type of reponse much better than:
Kuffy you are the liberal suk.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 7:36 am

Dream of you? I was referring to McAuliffe's viewpoints as being so ridiculous; I then insulted her by stating the obvious fact that no one can tell if she's a woman or a man

. As for you, I'll stick with nightmares

.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 7:49 am

Ummmm top...I hadn't posted in this thread when you refered to me

kufyit · Post by **kufyit** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 9:31 am

Uh, not really Woodchip. You're black and white rhetoric just isn't true. Kerry has never said, nor even hinted, at any of the things you and your camp have claimed. Have you read the Kerry/Edwards book outlining their proposals and platform? I didn't think so.

In terms of Iraq and the War on Terror, there are hardly ANY differences between Bush and Kerry. Go read it, then get back to me. Have you read the 9/11 Commission report? It's bipartisan, with full support from both Kerry and Bush.

Hedre is a quote from the most recent issue of The Economist, a fairly conservative publication with one thing in mind: free trade.

Anyone who doubts the force of America's gathering consensus should study the Kerry campaign, which proposes little different from Mr. Bush in terms of future action.

Before you start blabbing about "facts" Woodchip, why don't you read a little bit first. It isn't enough to stick to your right-wing publications only because, very often, they will lead to misinformation. You, Lothar, Bash, Will, keep saying how Kerry will be weak, Kerry will let the terrorists regroup, Kerry will blah blah. Show me some evidence; save yourselves from looking like propagandists. But you can't, because ther is no evidence that Kerry will be weaker on the war on terror than Bush.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 10:33 am

We showed you Kufyit, you just refuse to open your eyes.

Bush=one message:anti-islamikazi=strength=bad for islamikazi's

Kerry=conflicting messages:room for islamikazi at table=weak=good for islamikazi's

kufyit · Post by **kufyit** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 12:07 pm

I mean show me Will. Just because you say it doesn't mean it's true. Show me evidence. Give me links.

Pebkac · Post by **Pebkac** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 1:22 pm

Here it is again.

"We want those troops home, and my goal would be to try to get them home in my first term," Kerry said, speaking to a fellow Vietnam War veteran who asked about his timetable for withdrawal at a campaign stop in Pennsylvania.

This will allow Iraqi, Iranian, and Syrian terrorists to "regroup" and it will also be taken by the enemy as a sign that their methods work, thus making us look weak to them. This will only serve to embolden them and encourage further violence.

The Washington Post is not a right-wing publication so there is no reason for you to dismiss this Kerry quote out of hand.

kufyit · Post by **kufyit** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 1:53 pm

Will Robinson wrote:Kerry's last position was he'll take the troops out of Iraq in 4 months.

Washington Post

Kerry: Pull Troops From Iraq in 4 Years

Nice to see you know your facts Will. Or were you just exaggerating?

Is "trying" to have them out in four years that unreasonable?

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 2:11 pm

yeah kuf... he said 4 years in the WaPo. He's said 4 months elsewhere (though it'd be hard to find it -- I quit bookmarking pages where he gave his positions.) He's also said he'll stay as long as he has to. Sometimes he says the WoT is a priority; other times he acts like it doesn't even exist. He just can't put out a consistant message for me to latch on to.

Oh, and you know how Kerry is like "we need to drum up international support"? Implying, of course, that he'd be able to bring France, Germany, and Russia to the table. Well, I doubt he'll do that, since he can't even manage to not alienate our own allies. Not only does he call them the "coalition of the bribed and coerced" (way to be diplomatic), but his campaign is currently doing a get-the-vote-out overseas effort in Australia and talking bad about the Australian PM (here.) Kerry's sister even blames the PM's support for the US for terrorism:

Asked if she believed the terrorist threat to Australians was now greater because of the support for Republican George W. Bush, Ms Kerry said: "The most recent attack was on the Australian embassy in Jakarta -- I would have to say that."

"Pretty low. What an embarrasment."

kufyit · Post by **kufyit** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 2:23 pm

Well, that is pretty low. I'd have to agree with you there, Lothar.

However, I simply cannot believe that Kerry said four months. That is an outrageous time frame that I have a hard time buying. I'll search myself I guess..

Pebkac · Post by **Pebkac** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 2:41 pm

Well, though not surprising, it would seem there's some confusion on Kerry's Iraq position. He wants to remove the troops within four years, he wants to begin doing this within six months of taking office. Here, from the USA Today:

The Democratic nominee startled even his own advisers recently when he said he hoped to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq within six months of taking office.

There, now we can move past the whole "months or years?" argument. They are both two pieces of a really bad idea.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 4:27 pm

kufyit wrote:Is "trying" to have them out in four years that unreasonable?

I gave you one link that cataloged about three diffrent positions, you must have skimmed it.

The whole point is Kerry isn't even in the White House yet and he's talking about getting out of Iraq in dramatic numbers in the first 6 months, he has, as I said, suggested 4 months....4 years...whatever.

Bush has suggested we will not leave until Iraq is stable.

Stable means islamikazi's from al Queda and/or Iran aren't in charge.

Kerry hasn't included that important point in his random-policy-of-day that I know of all though *anything* is possible with him apparently.

Kerry is repeating his last war effort and it's not good for america:
If you were the enemy on the verge of giving up in the waining days of americas involvement in Vietnam you were wise to hold out to see where the anti-war movement took the U.S. policy. While you were waiting you killed a lot of americans. When the U.S. turned tail and ran you were really happy because although at one point you were about to give up and the next moment you had american prisoners you didn't have to release and the americans were leaving!

Flash foward aproximately 38 years and you're the enemy in Iraq. Bush has been killing your men around the world, stealing your funding, intimidating your supporters, etc. If you're thinking of giving up before you become one of the dead, before your family and friends end up dead you might want to wait because just like in the Vietnam conflict Kerry is out there working against the president talking about ending the occupation starting almost immediately if he's elected so you wait and keep fighting...
Who knows, you may just get to kill a few more americans and end up watching the U.S. pull out of Iraq! Certainly worth waiting for, after all Kerry and his anti-war efforts have worked for the enemy before.

Don't tell me the enemy doesn't have a dog in this hunt. Their dog is Kerry.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 5:41 pm

Kerry must feel content that he has a hero's place in North Vietnams war Museum...right next to Jane Fonda. I bet Kerry is looking for the same kind of honorarium from al Queda.

Hostile · Post by **Hostile** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 5:43 pm

Just a thought about influencing the elections....Whether they actually influenced them or not is irrelevent. They think they did and so in their minds they did. That should be enough for them to strategize their next move of action or inaction.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 5:48 pm

and now the same Kerry who voted for the war, against the 87 billion, for the 87 billion, etc... and has said he'd have still voted for the war even knowing what he knows now... has decided he wouldn't have ousted Saddam. Wow, that sure instills confidence...

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 7:28 pm

I've got a court jesters costume that might be Kerry's size.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 12:08 am

notice how there are no digs about bush....

Bold Deceiver · Post by **Bold Deceiver** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 9:24 pm

kufyit wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/ ... index.html

Pretty low. What an embarrasment.

Mmmmm. Try this -- Pick the guy you think Al Quaeda would prefer as president. Then vote for the other guy.

Love him or hate him -- landslide, Bush.

Yer buddy,

BD

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 9:37 pm

I don't see how al qaeda prefers Kerry

Um...yah (2)

Um...yah (2)

Re: Um...yah (2)