[Corsair]

I just saw a story on AOHell news which said that the same Iranian radio station which first reported the capture of Saddam is now saying that the U.S. captured Osama "a long time ago" and that Rumsfeld's recent visit to Afghanistan had to do with the "arrest".

If this is true, and the public hasn't been informed, then Bush will keep Osama as the ace up his sleeve until September, then produce him claiming that he has just been captured, and win the election. And the U.S. gets four more years of right-wing militarism.

[an0n]

I'll put this as nicely as I can:

[size=10]DUH![/size]

[Thorn]

At least you get an election...
Chretien retired and we get this new guy just like that...

[TopAce]

I doubt Bush will ever be reelected.
Of course I do not know how many people support Bush's theory about the Iraqi weapons of mass destructions. And how many people find his actions ....... right.

I can hardly believe this Osama thing. So why did the news about Saddam's capture go public?

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by TopAce

Of course I do not know how many people support Bush's theory about the Iraqi weapons of mass destructions. And how many people find his actions ....... right.
 

I think in the former case that Bush sold the war more on 'justice for Saddam' than anything else (i.e. finishing his daddy's work).

[IceFire]

Originally posted by Thorn
At least you get an election...
Chretien retired and we get this new guy just like that...

And you would rather vote for Belinda Stronik?

Election is scheduled for the spring...probably April or May I'd be thinking.  We'll have elected a new government (or the same one) before the Americans can figure out if they have Osama or not.

[Bobboau]

I've been one of the biggest suporters for Bushish's military actions, but if there is even a sligt chance that that is true, I will be the first one calling for impeachment

[Thorn]

Originally posted by IceFire

And you would rather vote for Belinda Stronik?

Election is scheduled for the spring...probably April or May I'd be thinking.  We'll have elected a new government (or the same one) before the Americans can figure out if they have Osama or not.

Good point.
See.. this is why I dont vote, I dont like any of them....

[Rictor]

Originally posted by IceFire

And you would rather vote for Belinda Stronik?

Election is scheduled for the spring...probably April or May I'd be thinking.  We'll have elected a new government (or the same one) before the Americans can figure out if they have Osama or not.

David Orchard should go off and form his own party. Hell, I'de vote for him. Better than the CA/PC conglomerate winning. And frankly, I'm not much liking Martin. He looks like a fence-sitter extrordinaire. Too bad Chretien had to go, he was an awesome PM.

____

As for the American election, if Bush were to produce bin Laden imminently before the election, he'd probably win. As in the previous election, the media would keep any controversy hush hush until after. And even if they didn't, there would be enough sheep willing to buy it to guarantee Bush a victory. The Dems just don't have a strong candidate. I mean, they're all Republicans lite, so the left is divided.



Nader for Prez!!!

[Rictor]

Bah, these threads are always so formulaic.

So instead, heres some funnay.

Elftor chooses a candidate

[SadisticSid]

An Iranian radio station, an accurate source for news on US activities? funny

[Corsair]

I'm gonna legalize crack!

This is going to end up just like Wag the Dog...

[Stryke 9]

About as accurate as US television I'd bet.

[Nuclear1]

Once again, I see such love for America and Bush floating around these forums

For one, Corsair, do not trust those online news sources. They rarely tell the truth, and just put things up to sell and get more hits. What if AOL put up that Saddam really didn't massacre thousands of his own people? Believe it now?

TopAce, the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq were an intelligence error on the part of the CIA (note: most were still Clinton appointees who had the same information under Clinton), not another reason for Bush to go to war and, as DG put it, "finish his daddy's work". Might I note, many of the problem's we're putting up with now are Clinton problems. We're dealing with North Korea because Clinton administration officials leaked out nuclear secrets to them. We're dealing with Iraq because Clinton was more interested in bombing medicine factories than ousting Saddam.

Bush is going to get re-elected, and not only because Kerry or Edwards couldn't match him anyway or the spoiler that is Ralph Nader.

[Stryke 9]

Originally posted by Stryke 9
So, to summarize, everything that's gone wrong under Bush is Clinton's fault, everything that's gone right (what little there is) is all Bush?

This is not a new refrain. Nor is it fooling anybody.

I am getting so very tired of how little people seem to think before posting when it comes to politics on this forum. It's like a bunch of talking dolls with pull-strings; there are maybe five "points" made total, tossed out in random order over and over and bloody over again.

I've got a radical idea- whenever a new thread starts, don't pretend that everything you ever heard or read before that thread never happened, reverting to the same mind-numbing horse**** that got smacked around to death in a dozen other threads! Wild, huh? It's just crazy enough that it might work!

[Kazan]

Originally posted by nuclear1
TopAce, the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq were an intelligence error on the part of the CIA (note: most were still Clinton appointees who had the same information under Clinton),

agreed


 

Originally posted by nuclear1
not another reason for Bush to go to war and, as DG put it, "finish his daddy's work".

yep

Originally posted by nuclear1
Might I note, many of the problem's we're putting up with now are Clinton problems.  

so it's clinton bashing time eh?

Originally posted by nuclear1
We're dealing with North Korea because Clinton administration officials leaked out nuclear secrets to them.

Bull****, cite your source

Originally posted by nuclear1
We're dealing with Iraq because Clinton was more interested in bombing medicine factories than ousting Saddam.

Bull****, cite your source

Originally posted by nuclear1
Bush is going to get re-elected, and not only because Kerry or Edwards couldn't match him anyway or the spoiler that is Ralph Nader.

bull****

for bush to get reelected he has to go against the force of history -- no president in the history of the united states has been reelected when the first two economic quarters of the election year were negative - no matter how positive all the previous ones were -- ALL OF BUSH'S QUARTERS HAVE BEEN NEGATIVE

Second Bush has lied to the american people and is a corporate whore

Third Bush is a fundamentalist [bigot] and a fundie xian is bad as a fundie muslim.  Not everyone in this country think's he's right.

[diamondgeezer]

Originally posted by nuclear1
not another reason for Bush to go to war and, as DG put it, "finish his daddy's work"

Psst... I'm not Aldo

[HotSnoJ]

dangit, I'm in another one.  

Bull****, cite your source

Dude, it was all over the news!!!

so it's clinton bashing time eh?

well if you think bush was bad, clinton was worse.

Second Bush has lied to the american people and is a corporate whore

"Bull****, cite your source". No this guy is a "corporate whore".

Third Bush is a fundamentalist [bigot] and a fundie xian is bad as a fundie muslim. Not everyone in this country think's he's right.

You think a christian guy like bush is as bad as the dudes who slammed into the WTC and Pentagon?

[Thorn]

Originally posted by HotSnoJ
You think a christian guy like bush is as bad as the dudes who slammed into the WTC and Pentagon?

So you support him purely because of his religious beliefs?

[diamondgeezer]

Originally posted by HotSnoJ
You think a christian guy like bush is as bad as the dudes who slammed into the WTC and Pentagon?

You think a christian person can't be as bad as a muslim (or any other faith you want to mention) person?