George Bush will do ANYTHING to be re-elected...

[PhiLLer]

It wouldn't surprise me if they "found" Bin Laden somewhere in November, Bush will use any tactics to get himself re-elected and looking at the latest polls the yanks a stupid enough to get him back for another 4 years. God, you'd think they'd learn from mistakes.

 

[Brondbyfan]

It's possible. But I think the idea of a possible "October Surprise" has been out there long enough that if bin Laden is found soon, it would actually be a negative for Bush. People will start asking questions: was Bush really just grossly inept in the Battle of Tora Bora, or did he intentionally let bin Laden get away in order to capture him at a more convenient time? Was bin Laden in fact captured at a previous time and held "on ice" until the election? I don't doubt they entertained the possibility, but the backlash would be enormous. Bush is screwed here, if he captures bin Laden now everyone knows what's up, and if he doesn't he will rightly be criticized for his massive failure in capturing the man who killed 3000 Americans, who Bush swore to get "dead or alive."

What Elder says is a distinct possibility though. Remember, this administration is largely composed of Reaganites, and Reagan negotiated with the Iranians through GHW Bush to hold onto the hostages through the 1980 election, promising them weapons in exchange for the hostages. Is it any wonder the hostages were released right at Reagan's inauguration? 9/11 was great for Bush, and considering his approval rating is very low again he might try a scheme like this to boost his popularity again.

 

[Vagegast]

I'm not a big conspiratist and I didn't think the October surprise would be possible in practice. But than I read an article in The New Republic. Not the October surprise, but the July surprise. Just read the article. I'll post the whole thing since TNR is subscription-only.

PAKISTAN FOR BUSH.
July Surprise?
by John B. Judis, Spencer Ackerman & Massoud Ansari

Post date 07.29.04 | Issue date 07.19.04

[Editor's Note: This afternoon, Pakistan's interior minister, Faisal Saleh Hayyat, announced that Pakistani forces had captured Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, a Tanzanian Al Qaeda operative wanted in connection with the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. The timing of this announcement should be of particular interest to readers of The New Republic. Earlier this month, John B. Judis, Spencer Ackerman, and Massoud Ansari broke the story of how the Bush administration was pressuring Pakistani officials to apprehend high-value targets (HVTs) in time for the November elections--and in particular, to coincide with the Democratic National Convention. Although the capture took place in central Pakistan "a few days back," the announcement came just hours before John Kerry will give his acceptance speech in Boston.]


Late last month, President Bush lost his greatest advantage in his bid for reelection. A poll conducted by ABC News and The Washington Post discovered that challenger John Kerry was running even with the president on the critical question of whom voters trust to handle the war on terrorism. Largely as a result of the deteriorating occupation of Iraq, Bush lost what was, in April, a seemingly prohibitive 21-point advantage on his signature issue. But, even as the president's poll numbers were sliding, his administration was implementing a plan to insure the public's confidence in his hunt for Al Qaeda.

This spring, the administration significantly increased its pressure on Pakistan to kill or capture Osama bin Laden, his deputy, Ayman Al Zawahiri, or the Taliban's Mullah Mohammed Omar, all of whom are believed to be hiding in the lawless tribal areas of Pakistan. A succession of high-level American officials--from outgoing CIA Director George Tenet to Secretary of State Colin Powell to Assistant Secretary of State Christina Rocca to State Department counterterrorism chief Cofer Black to a top CIA South Asia official--have visited Pakistan in recent months to urge General Pervez Musharraf's government to do more in the war on terrorism. In April, Zalmay Khalilzad, the American ambassador to Afghanistan, publicly chided the Pakistanis for providing a "sanctuary" for Al Qaeda and Taliban forces crossing the Afghan border. "The problem has not been solved and needs to be solved, the sooner the better," he said.

This public pressure would be appropriate, even laudable, had it not been accompanied by an unseemly private insistence that the Pakistanis deliver these high-value targets (HVTs) before Americans go to the polls in November. The Bush administration denies it has geared the war on terrorism to the electoral calendar. "Our attitude and actions have been the same since September 11 in terms of getting high-value targets off the street, and that doesn't change because of an election," says National Security Council spokesman Sean McCormack. But The New Republic has learned that Pakistani security officials have been told they must produce HVTs by the election. According to one source in Pakistan's powerful Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), "The Pakistani government is really desperate and wants to flush out bin Laden and his associates after the latest pressures from the U.S. administration to deliver before the [upcoming] U.S. elections." Introducing target dates for Al Qaeda captures is a new twist in U.S.-Pakistani counterterrorism relations--according to a recently departed intelligence official, "no timetable" were discussed in 2002 or 2003--but the November election is apparently bringing a new deadline pressure to the hunt. Another official, this one from the Pakistani Interior Ministry, which is responsible for internal security, explains, "The Musharraf government has a history of rescuing the Bush administration. They now want Musharraf to bail them out when they are facing hard times in the coming elections." (These sources insisted on remaining anonymous. Under Pakistan's Official Secrets Act, an official leaking information to the press can be imprisoned for up to ten years.)

A third source, an official who works under ISI's director, Lieutenant General Ehsan ul-Haq, informed tnr that the Pakistanis "have been told at every level that apprehension or killing of HVTs before [the] election is [an] absolute must." What's more, this source claims that Bush administration officials have told their Pakistani counterparts they have a date in mind for announcing this achievement: "The last ten days of July deadline has been given repeatedly by visitors to Islamabad and during [ul-Haq's] meetings in Washington." Says McCormack: "I'm aware of no such comment." But according to this ISI official, a White House aide told ul-Haq last spring that "it would be best if the arrest or killing of [any] HVT were announced on twenty-six, twenty-seven, or twenty-eight July"--the first three days of the Democratic National Convention in Boston.



The Bush administration has matched this public and private pressure with enticements and implicit threats. During his March visit to Islamabad, Powell designated Pakistan a major non-nato ally, a status that allows its military to purchase a wider array of U.S. weaponry. Powell pointedly refused to criticize Musharraf for pardoning nuclear physicist A.Q. Khan--who, the previous month, had admitted exporting nuclear secrets to Iran, North Korea, and Libya--declaring Khan's transgressions an "internal" Pakistani issue. In addition, the administration is pushing a five-year, $3 billion aid package for Pakistan through Congress over Democratic concerns about the country's proliferation of nuclear technology and lack of democratic reform.

But Powell conspicuously did not commit the United States to selling F-16s to Pakistan, which it desperately wants in order to tilt the regional balance of power against India. And the Pakistanis fear that, if they don't produce an HVT, they won't get the planes. Equally, they fear that, if they don't deliver, either Bush or a prospective Kerry administration would turn its attention to the apparent role of Pakistan's security establishment in facilitating Khan's illicit proliferation network. One Pakistani general recently in Washington confided in a journalist, "If we don't find these guys by the election, they are going to stick this whole nuclear mess up our asshole."

Pakistani perceptions of U.S. politics reinforce these worries. "In Pakistan, there has been a folk belief that, whenever there's a Republican administration in office, relations with Pakistan have been very good," says Khalid Hasan, a U.S. correspondent for the Lahore-based Daily Times. By contrast, there's also a "folk belief that the Democrats are always pro-India." Recent history has validated those beliefs. The Clinton administration inherited close ties to Pakistan, forged a decade earlier in collaboration against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. But, by the time Clinton left office, the United States had tilted toward India, and Pakistan was under U.S. sanctions for its nuclear activities. All this has given Musharraf reason not just to respond to pressure from Bush, but to feel invested in him--and to worry that Kerry, who called the Khan affair a "disaster," and who has proposed tough new curbs on nuclear proliferation, would adopt an icier line.

Bush's strategy could work. In large part because of the increased U.S. pressure, Musharraf has, over the last several months, significantly increased military activity in the tribal areas--regions that enjoy considerable autonomy from Islamabad and where, until Musharraf sided with the United States in the war on terrorism, Pakistani soldiers had never set foot in the nation's 50-year history. Thousands of Pakistani troops fought a pitched battle in late March against tribesmen and their Al Qaeda affiliates in South Waziristan in hopes of capturing Zawahiri. The fighting escalated significantly in June. Attacks on army camps in the tribal areas brought fierce retaliation, leaving over 100 tribal and foreign militants and Pakistani soldiers dead in three days. Last month, Pakistan killed a powerful Waziristan warlord and Qaeda ally, Nek Mohammed, in a dramatic rocket attack that villagers said bore American fingerprints. (They claim a U.S. spy plane had been circling overhead.) Through these efforts, the Pakistanis could bring in bin Laden, Mullah Omar, or Zawahiri--a significant victory in the war on terrorism that would bolster Bush's reputation among voters.

But there is a reason many Pakistanis and some American officials had previously been reluctant to carry the war on terrorism into the tribal areas. A Pakistani offensive in that region, aided by American high-tech weaponry and perhaps Special Forces, could unite tribal chieftains against the central government and precipitate a border war without actually capturing any of the HVTs. Military action in the tribal areas "has a domestic fallout, both religious and ethnic," Pakistani Foreign Minister Mian Khursheed Mehmood Kasuri complained to the Los Angeles Times last year. Some American intelligence officials agree. "Pakistan just can't risk a civil war in that area of their country. They can't afford a western border that is unstable," says a senior intelligence official, who anonymously authored the recent Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror and who says he has not heard that the current pressures on Pakistan are geared to the election. "We may be at the point where [Musharraf] has done almost as much as he can."

Pushing Musharraf to go after Al Qaeda in the tribal areas may be a good idea despite the risks. But, if that is the case, it was a good idea in 2002 and 2003. Why the switch now? Top Pakistanis think they know: This year, the president's reelection is at stake.

Massoud Ansari reported from Karachi.

John B. Judis is a senior editor at TNR and a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Spencer Ackerman is an assistant editor at TNR. Massoud Ansari is a senior reporter for Newsline, a leading Pakistani news magazine.

That did it for me.

There was another article in the TNR by Ansari about how an American official revealed the identity of an al-Qaeda computer whiz to was working undercover for Pakistan against al-Qaeda. I'll post it if anyone wants it.

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by Brondbyfan
It's possible. But I think the idea of a possible "October Surprise" has been out there long enough that if bin Laden is found soon, it would actually be a negative for Bush. People will start asking questions: was Bush really just grossly inept in the Battle of Tora Bora, or did he intentionally let bin Laden get away in order to capture him at a more convenient time? Was bin Laden in fact captured at a previous time and held "on ice" until the election? I don't doubt they entertained the possibility, but the backlash would be enormous. Bush is screwed here, if he captures bin Laden now everyone knows what's up, and if he doesn't he will rightly be criticized for his massive failure in capturing the man who killed 3000 Americans, who Bush swore to get "dead or alive."

What Elder says is a distinct possibility though. Remember, this administration is largely composed of Reaganites, and Reagan negotiated with the Iranians through GHW Bush to hold onto the hostages through the 1980 election, promising them weapons in exchange for the hostages. Is it any wonder the hostages were released right at Reagan's inauguration? 9/11 was great for Bush, and considering his approval rating is very low again he might try a scheme like this to boost his popularity again.

I think you're right Brondby. If Osama was magically found right before the election, it would look so damn stupid and obvious that it would be a negative for him. I really think it's better for Osama to be "found" after the election... If Bush wins in Novemeber, and then Osama turns up, he's a hero... If he loses in November and Osama pops up before January, he's a hero on his way out of office which will look good for the history books.

I don't put anything past our government, be it Republican or Democrat controlled.

 

[Brondbyfan]

Good article Vagegast. I think Pakistan has been dogging it when it comes to pursuing Al Qaeda and the Taliban because overt cooperation with the Americans would weaken Musharraf's already tenuous grip on the country. But now, as the clock ticks down before the election, a combination of carrot and stick from Bush might force them to work a little harder. It would be a perfect front for bin Laden's capture, since it will look less suspicious than "Hey, guess what, Marines got him!" I like to think that the American people would be smart enough to see what's going on, but given Bush's contempt for them, the administration probably don't care.

Also, let's not forget the possibility that Bush might not only try and get him after the election in case he wins, but also if he loses. If Kerry is elected in November I don't doubt that Bush will redouble efforts to capture bin Laden anyway to take that potential feather away from Kerry's cap. If Kerry gets in there with a real strategy and captures bin Laden it will reveal what a sham neocon leadership of the war on terror has been.

 

[Elder]

"EXCLUSIVE // Mon Sep 20 2004 11:58:02 ET
STATEMENT FROM Shifty RATHER:

Last week, amid increasing questions about the authenticity of documents used in support of a 60 MINUTES WEDNESDAY story about President Bush's time in the Texas Air National Guard, CBS News vowed to re-examine the documents in question—and their source—vigorously. And we promised that we would let the American public know what this examination turned up, whatever the outcome.

Now, after extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the confidence in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them journalistically. I find we have been misled on the key question of how our source for the documents came into possession of these papers. That, combined with some of the questions that have been raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where—if I knew then what I know now—I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question.

But we did use the documents. We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry. It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting without fear or favoritism.

Please know that nothing is more important to us than people's trust in our ability and our commitment to report fairly and truthfully."


Eat it Brondby. Maybe now you will stop ignoring the story and admit you were wrong. The problem you have is admitting that you were wrong after all of your high and mighty posts about "credible sources" and the like. You were blinded by your hatred for George Bush and was willing to believe ANYTHING that came out against him. You are now no better than the Swift Boat people you loathe so much.

But I'd still have a beer with ya.




http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040920/D857GCCG2.html


For those who believe there is left wing media bias, this story is just another example for them to use. Why did CBS and Rather go all out on this story, using someone who hates George Bush and is a left wing political hack, to try and hurt the sitting President? Why didn't they interview or run any news stories on the Swift Boat Vets? They jumped right into the fire against Bush, but when questions were raised against Kerry, they ignored them on the basis that they were right wingers.

It's a bad day for the media...

 

[Lee86]

sorry to disturb whith such a dumb question but is there a quite recent snapshot about the current 'standings'? in early september W had a pretty big advantage.. any changes since then?

 

[Brondbyfan]

Now wait a minute, are you aware of the information that has come out on this "Buckhead" Freeper guy who came out two hours after CBS aired the documents with a highly technical analysis of the documents positing they are fakes? Who is he? An impartial expert on 1970's typewriter technology? Nope.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationalpolitics/2002039080_buckhead18.html

He's just a lawyer from Atlanta who is intricately linked to the Republican party and with a long-standing vicious grudge against the Democratic party. So it seems to me that if these are fake, and that isn't what CBS is saying, then my theory all along stands, that they were faked by Republican operatives looking to discredit the Bush AWOL claims and draw attention away from the undeniable fact that records released by Bush himself reveal that he did not fulfill his contract in numerous ways, the most egregious being failing to join up with a unit in Boston. And again, CBS isn't saying these are fake. They're saying they made a mistake in judgement in airing them because apparently the numerous experts they checked with aren't giving them the degree of certainty they would like. The posibility exists that they were duped by Republican operatives looking to embarrass them. How is this indicative of liberal bias? The media certainly made far worse mistakes in judgement in repeatedly airing lies that Clinton was caught by Secret Service agents while in compromising positions with Lewinski, or that he tried to get Lewinsky to lie to the Paula Jones grand jury. If anything, the apology is evidence of conservative bias. When did you ever hear NBC apologize for letting Drudge spew unfounded vitriol against Clinton on Meet the Press? When did CNN apologize for letting Novak pimp Unfit for Command when his family stands to profit from every mention on the air? Hell, a rough analogue to this situation is CNN and MSNBC airing the discredited Swift Boat ads, which have been proven to be false, and I don't see any apology from them.

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by Brondbyfan
Now wait a minute, are you aware of the information that has come out on this "Buckhead" Freeper guy who came out two hours after CBS aired the documents with a highly technical analysis of the documents positing they are fakes? Who is he? An impartial expert on 1970's typewriter technology? Nope.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationalpolitics/2002039080_buckhead18.html

He's just a lawyer from Atlanta who is intricately linked to the Republican party and with a long-standing vicious grudge against the Democratic party. So it seems to me that if these are fake, and that isn't what CBS is saying, then my theory all along stands, that they were faked by Republican operatives looking to discredit the Bush AWOL claims and draw attention away from the undeniable fact that records released by Bush himself reveal that he did not fulfill his contract in numerous ways, the most egregious being failing to join up with a unit in Boston. And again, CBS isn't saying these are fake. They're saying they made a mistake in judgement in airing them because apparently the numerous experts they checked with aren't giving them the degree of certainty they would like. The posibility exists that they were duped by Republican operatives looking to embarrass them. How is this indicative of liberal bias? The media certainly made far worse mistakes in judgement in repeatedly airing lies that Clinton was caught by Secret Service agents while in compromising positions with Lewinski, or that he tried to get Lewinsky to lie to the Paula Jones grand jury. If anything, the apology is evidence of conservative bias. When did you ever hear NBC apologize for letting Drudge spew unfounded vitriol against Clinton on Meet the Press? When did CNN apologize for letting Novak pimp Unfit for Command when his family stands to profit from every mention on the air? Hell, a rough analogue to this situation is CNN and MSNBC airing the discredited Swift Boat ads, which have been proven to be false, and I don't see any apology from them.

I did read a story about this guy you are talking about. But all fingers at the moment are being pointed at this one Democrat, who also tried to give the Kerry campaign the information. I think his name is Burkett or something. To their credit, it looks as if the Kerry campaign turned him down.

I think you are going way out on a limb to suggest this is a Republican plot... The two main people behind the story are known Democratic haters of George Bush. BUT, if a Republican guy did have a hand in the story, it still makes the documents a fraud, THEY ARE, and it still doesnt' let CBS and Shifty Rather off the hook. And of course CBS isn't saying the documents are fake... they have had their ass handed to them over the past week by the entire media, and I am surprised that they even admitted there were problems with them. They are fake, end of story.

The bias that could be shown is that Rather, and CBS, immediately went to air with a false story using known democratic political contributors, false documents, and two weeks worth of denials in order to harm a sitting President during an election. The point being that the Swift Boat veterans got NO coverage from Rather and CBS because there were political connections involved. I might not be explaining it in a coherant manner, but do you get my point? The apology is what should have been done, not because of conservative bias, but because of shoddy "journalism."

regarding the Swift Boat ads. I don't know if there is a connection between the ads that are shown on TV and the policy of the shows that are run on TV. They pay for time, just like Moveon.org does, and get their "message" out.

By the way, the extreme conservative news channel "Fox News" fired Matt Drudge over a show in which he showed some mangled up babies after an abortion... What did Drudge say that was wrong about Clinton? If he was right about what he said, then no apology should be made by NBC.

 

[Brondbyfan]

Wait, did you seriously just say that the Swift Boat liars got NO coverage? That has to be a joke, right? Not only did the networks devote two solid weeks of coverage to their discredited claims, CNN and MSNBC are airing their ad. And I don't care if they paid for it like anyone else, the ads in questions demonstrably and shamelessly edit Kerry's testimony to warp his recitation of testimony by other soldiers into accusations. Responsible news networks have a duty not to misinform their viewers like that. As for Fox and Drudge, that they hired this irresponsible right-wing gossip monger at all says all you need to know about their political leanings and journalistic integrity. His appearance on the much revered, longest running show on TV, Meet the Press, deserved an apology, as he claimed there were literally "hundreds" of women Clinton slept with or harrassed who would testify against him. That may fly on Fox but it shouldn't on MTP. Sadly, it did.

Again, nothing has been proven one way or the other about the documents, except that Killian's secretary said the sentiments expressed are true. I think the question that needs to be answered here is how this "Buckhead" responded so quickly and so completely to a subject he would seem to have no knowledge of.

 

[Vagegast]

Drudge Report: 35% Right

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by Brondbyfan
Wait, did you seriously just say that the Swift Boat liars got NO coverage? That has to be a joke, right? Not only did the networks devote two solid weeks of coverage to their discredited claims, CNN and MSNBC are airing their ad. And I don't care if they paid for it like anyone else, the ads in questions demonstrably and shamelessly edit Kerry's testimony to warp his recitation of testimony by other soldiers into accusations. Responsible news networks have a duty not to misinform their viewers like that. As for Fox and Drudge, that they hired this irresponsible right-wing gossip monger at all says all you need to know about their political leanings and journalistic integrity. His appearance on the much revered, longest running show on TV, Meet the Press, deserved an apology, as he claimed there were literally "hundreds" of women Clinton slept with or harrassed who would testify against him. That may fly on Fox but it shouldn't on MTP. Sadly, it did.

Again, nothing has been proven one way or the other about the documents, except that Killian's secretary said the sentiments expressed are true. I think the question that needs to be answered here is how this "Buckhead" responded so quickly and so completely to a subject he would seem to have no knowledge of.

Brondby, I'm talking CBS only. There was no 60 Minutes report about the Swift Vets...

About Clinton... he possibly raped a woman... never denied it. Rememeber that. There are many women who have crossed the path of Clinton... Some ended up as front page news, some were paid off, one became Senator, and some disapeared into the fog. Drudge probably wasn't far off.

I still can't believe you won't admit the documents in question were forgeries. THEY ARE!!! The whole story is BOGUS, I repeat... BOGUS. Bush, while not the model National Guard student, fulfilled ALL of his duties except taking a physical it seems. He earned enough points every year to get honorably discharged. You may not like it, but it's true. And the fact that the story hasn't stuck for election after election, no matter how many times the dems try, says it all for why Democrats keep losing to this man.

 

[Brondbyfan]

I still can't believe you won't admit the documents in question were forgeries. THEY ARE!!! The whole story is BOGUS, I repeat... BOGUS. Bush, while not the model National Guard student, fulfilled ALL of his duties except taking a physical it seems. He earned enough points every year to get honorably discharged. You may not like it, but it's true. And the fact that the story hasn't stuck for election after election, no matter how many times the dems try, says it all for why Democrats keep losing to this man.

This paragraph right here I think is strong evidence for the fact that Republicans operatives planted these documents. Because you're drawing two false conclusions here, false conclusions that to be fair will be drawn by a lot of the rest of the country to the benefit for Bush. One, that because CBS says they regret airing the documents that it means they are fake, and two, that even if these documents are proved fake, that it somehow detracts from the mountain of evidence that Bush did not fulfill his Guard duties. He missed drills and tried to make them up, but not within the proper time limit. As you mentioned, he failed to take his physical, which coincided with the implementation of random drug testing in the TANG. And despite an obligation to join with a Guard unit in Boston, he failed to do so. So I don't think my Republican plant theory is as far fetched as it seems. We've got a history of such incidents from Karl Rove (bugging his own office in 1986, sending Bush debate prep tapes to Gore in 2000), a Republican lawyer who seems to have a mysteriously rapid and intricate knowledge of 1970's typewriters, and an outcome serving their agenda.

By the way, first you claimed the Swift Boar Liars got, and I quote, "NO coverage from Rather and CBS." Now you're saying there was no 60 Minutes report on them. Which is it Elder? Because by my calculations there are approximately 166 hours of CBS programming a week which are not devoted 60 Minutes, and to claim that because there was no 60 Minutes report on Swift Boat Liars for Bush is equivalent to, and I quote again, ""NO coverage from Rather and CBS" seems deliberately misleading.

As for the Clinton rape allegations, there were also all sort of Vince Foster murder allegations and Hillary-lesbian allegations he didn't answer either. Doesn't make them any more than fantasies promulgated by reactionaries like Drudge and Falwell and Robertson. Bush has never denied the allegations that he murdered Mel Carnahan and Paul Wellstone to try and maintain Republican control of the Senate. But if the media devoted as much time to that as to the ludicrous Clinton tin foil hat theories, you'd be hollering "LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS!!!!"

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by Brondbyfan


Bush has never denied the allegations that he murdered Mel Carnahan and Paul Wellstone to try and maintain Republican control of the Senate.

You've officially lost control... and I consider you a complete nut job.






Holy ****, never heard that one before. Poor Mel, Bush murdered him! hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhhhhahahahhahahahahhaha


Bloody hell, you've lost it. Bush is now at fault for every thing that goes bad in this country, even planes crashing!

Man... get a ******* grip.




PS. Bush didn't have to kill anyone to maintain control of the Senate. All that Bush had to do was let democrats and liberals like you open their mouths and have the country listen closely... they haven't liked the Democratic liberal message for 10 years now... I still can't believe you wrote that.. how can I take you seriously???

 

[Brondbyfan]

There you go, that allegation is NUTS, but the idea that Clinton raped a woman and killed Vince Foster who was having an affair with Hillary Clinton, who, somehow, is also a lesbian, deserves coverage. I didn't say Bush DID kill Carnahan and Wellstone, I'm saying he didn't deny it, which is true. And since you seem to think Clinton not denying ridiculous rape allegations means he did it, you must think Bush murdered the senatorial candidates in question. As per usual, you're dishonestly manipulating the context of my writings. Don't you ever feel ashamed of it?

 

[Dave]

LOL can't believe how stupid this country is.

The country is still pissed about the Defeat of Vietnam, thats why all this ******* rambling continues about these political candidates.


If America would of won Vietnam, there wouldn't be no discussion of this **** in year 2004.

But Viet-Nam proved not to mess with the commie !!


VIVA LA REVOLUCION!!

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by Brondbyfan
There you go, that allegation is NUTS, but the idea that Clinton raped a woman and killed Vince Foster who was having an affair with Hillary Clinton, who, somehow, is also a lesbian, deserves coverage. I didn't say Bush DID kill Carnahan and Wellstone, I'm saying he didn't deny it, which is true. And since you seem to think Clinton not denying ridiculous rape allegations means he did it, you must think Bush murdered the senatorial candidates in question. As per usual, you're dishonestly manipulating the context of my writings. Don't you ever feel ashamed of it?

I never mentioned Vince Foster or Hillary being a lesbian (she obviously is though and who gives a rats ass anyway).

I have never heard anyone accuse Bush of murdering Mel Carnahan before until you brought it up! I am still cracking up. And no, I don't feel ashamed of "manipulating" your writings. For those of you scoring at home, here is exactly what Brondby wrote.

" Bush has never denied the allegations that he murdered Mel Carnahan and Paul Wellstone to try and maintain Republican control of the Senate."

Hard to take that out of context! But wouldn't you deny a rape allegation if it wasn't true? Didn't he have to payoff certain women for things he denied? But wait, this is BIll Clinton, who didn't actually tell the truth about certain things. So it doesnt' seem so far fetched that he may have raped a woman...

But, he's probably your hero, with Hippo Al Gore following right behind. Whatever floats your boat big shot.


*EDIT* If if you were just trying to make a comparison with the Mel thing... don't you see the difference in credibilty over Bush murdering someone by crashing his jet, and Clinton raping someone... mind you Clinton has a history of sexual affairs and accusations against him from various women... Don't you think it wouldn't even deserve a comment by Bush whether he murdered Mel or not? Just silly.

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by Dave
LOL can't believe how stupid this country is.

The country is still pissed about the Defeat of Vietnam, thats why all this ******* rambling continues about these political candidates.


If America would of won Vietnam, there wouldn't be no discussion of this **** in year 2004.

But Viet-Nam proved not to mess with the commie !!


VIVA LA REVOLUCION!!

Moron, did you get banned and come back with a new name?

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Elder
Moron, did you get banned and come back with a new name?

whos Moron?

 

[Brondbyfan]

" Bush has never denied the allegations that he murdered Mel Carnahan and Paul Wellstone to try and maintain Republican control of the Senate."

Hard to take that out of context!

And yet somehow, you did. You claimed I was arguing that he did, in fact, kill those men, which was a flagrant lie, designed to get you out of the fix you got yourself in by asserting that not denying crazy, baseless allegations is proof of guilt. And now you're saying that because Clinton liked sex, and wouldn't dignify the unfounded allegations of for-profit Clinton haters like Falwell and Drudge, he's a rapist. I like sex too, and I've never denied raping anyone, I guess that makes me a rapist.