Bush campaign bumper sticker links Kerry to Bin Laden - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-20-2004, 03:26 PM   #1
ONE
love, blood, life
 
zoney!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: six metro locations
Posts: 11,293
Local Time: 11:22 AM
Bush campaign bumper sticker links Kerry to Bin Laden

Quote:
Bumper sticker links Kerry, Bin Laden
Associated Press -- July 20, 2004
LOUISVILLE, Ky. -- A Republican lawmaker says it was inappropriate for a GOP office to display a bumper sticker declaring: ``Kerry is bin Laden's Man. Bush is Mine.''

Kentucky Rep. Anne Northup said she found out about the stickers over the weekend and doesn't want any more distributed. ``What campaigns need to center on, debates need to center on and the party needs to focus on are ideas,'' she said.

Jefferson County GOP chairman Jack Richardson IV said the stickers were so popular that GOP headquarters ran out Friday. He won't distribute more, but is trying to locate their source for those who want them. ``I believe in the question this bumper sticker raises,'' Richardson said.

Bill Garmer, chairman of the Kentucky Democratic Party, said the sticker equates a decorated Vietnam veteran with Osama bin Laden - ``one of the greatest enemies of the United States.''

``It goes way over the line,'' he said.

A spokesman for the Kerry campaign previously called on GOP lawmakers to condemn the sticker, saying it was a ``hateful and mean-spirited smear campaign.''
I am trying to find the "question" this bumper sticker raises.

I mean, wouldn't Bin Laden want BUSH to stay in office? It is Bush who's military directives decided to focus on Iraq rather than the hunt for Osama, right? It was BUSH that ignored warnings that Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda would try to attack the U.S. with civil aircraft (according to the 9/11 Report).
__________________

__________________
zoney! is offline  
Old 07-20-2004, 04:05 PM   #2
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 05:22 PM
This is supposed to raise a question? What the hell? Kerry has some sort of connection to bin Laden? What sort? It's a mystery to me. I have yet to hear him mention the guy's name. Maybe he'll do it at the Convention next week. But that's not what I'd call a connection of any sort. It's ridiculous. He's never met the guy.
__________________

__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 07-20-2004, 04:07 PM   #3
Refugee
 
ThatGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Vertigo
Posts: 1,277
Local Time: 09:22 AM
I think the question it raises is, "Why does Jack Richardson IV hate America?"

And further reasons why Kerry might not be bin Laden's man, but someone else might be.
__________________
ThatGuy is offline  
Old 07-20-2004, 05:55 PM   #4
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 12:22 PM
Quote:
The Arabian candidate wouldn't openly help terrorists. Instead, he would serve their cause while pretending to be their enemy.

After an attack, he would strike back at the terrorist base, a necessary action to preserve his image of toughness, but botch the follow-up, allowing the terrorist leaders to escape. Once the public's attention shifted, he would systematically squander the military victory: committing too few soldiers, reneging on promises of economic aid. Soon, warlords would once again rule most of the country, the heroin trade would be booming, and terrorist allies would make a comeback.

Meanwhile, he would lead America into a war against a country that posed no imminent threat. He would insinuate, without saying anything literally false, that it was somehow responsible for the terrorist attack. This unnecessary war would alienate our allies and tie down a large part of our military. At the same time, the Arabian candidate would neglect the pursuit of those who attacked us, and do nothing about regimes that really shelter anti-American terrorists and really are building nuclear weapons.

Again, he would take care to squander a military victory. The Arabian candidate and his co-conspirators would block all planning for the war's aftermath; they would arrange for our army to allow looters to destroy much of the country's infrastructure. Then they would disband the defeated regime's army, turning hundreds of thousands of trained soldiers into disgruntled potential insurgents.

After this it would be easy to sabotage the occupied country's reconstruction, simply by failing to spend aid funds or rein in cronyism and corruption. Power outages, overflowing sewage and unemployment would swell the ranks of our enemies.

Who knows? The Arabian candidate might even be able to deprive America of the moral high ground, no mean trick when our enemies are mass murderers, by creating a climate in which U.S. guards torture, humiliate and starve prisoners, most of them innocent or guilty of only petty crimes.

At home, the Arabian candidate would leave the nation vulnerable, doing almost nothing to secure ports, chemical plants and other potential targets. He would stonewall investigations into why the initial terrorist attack succeeded. And by repeatedly issuing vague terror warnings obviously timed to drown out unfavorable political news, his officials would ensure public indifference if and when a real threat is announced.

Last but not least, by blatantly exploiting the terrorist threat for personal political gain, he would undermine the nation's unity in the face of its enemies, sowing suspicion about the government's motives.
See, though, you can't fit this on a bumper sticker. That's probably why liberalism has been on shaky ground, because it doesn't fare well for the American semi-literate. No, all they want is a baseless bumper sticker. Yee-haw! :P

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 07-20-2004, 06:54 PM   #5
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,271
Local Time: 11:22 AM
Hmm. Such a mature action from people who, last time I checked, were grown-ups. . So Bush supporters are bothered when people link Bush to Hitler (as they should be-I'm not a fan of Bush, but the Hitler bit is a tad extreme), but they can link Kerry to Bin Laden? O-kay.

Granted, both sides can say whatever they want (free speech and all) and link the candidates to whomever they want. But it's an awfully immature move.

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 07-20-2004, 08:00 PM   #6
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:22 PM
Re: Bush campaign bumper sticker links Kerry to Bin Laden

Quote:
Originally posted by zoney!


I am trying to find the "question" this bumper sticker raises.

I mean, wouldn't Bin Laden want BUSH to stay in office? It is Bush who's military directives decided to focus on Iraq rather than the hunt for Osama, right? It was BUSH that ignored warnings that Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda would try to attack the U.S. with civil aircraft (according to the 9/11 Report).
The Military forces used in the invasion of Iraq, primarily heavy armor divisions, would not have been used in any hunt for Bin Ladin, so this idea that focus was taken off Bin Ladin or Al Quada is false. There are 7 times as many troops in Afghanistan right now, as there were in November 2001 when the Taliban were pushed from power.

It was Bush that was trying to develop a plan to Destroy Al Quada rather than simply roll them back as the prior administration was planning to do. The Clinton administration had 8 years to take on Al Quada while the Bush administration only had 7 months.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-20-2004, 08:12 PM   #7
Refugee
 
ThatGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Vertigo
Posts: 1,277
Local Time: 09:22 AM
Can you give me an estimate of the number of trrops in Afghanistan in November 2001 vs. the number of troops in Iraq when the US invaded?
__________________
ThatGuy is offline  
Old 07-20-2004, 08:42 PM   #8
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 05:22 PM
Re: Bush campaign bumper sticker links Kerry to Bin Laden

Quote:
Originally posted by zoney!


I am trying to find the "question" this bumper sticker raises.

I mean, wouldn't Bin Laden want BUSH to stay in office? It is Bush who's military directives decided to focus on Iraq rather than the hunt for Osama, right? It was BUSH that ignored warnings that Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda would try to attack the U.S. with civil aircraft (according to the 9/11 Report).
Most likely it doesn't matter who's in office to bin Laden. He's been scheming and plotting against the U.S. for years. He won't change his tune should we get a new president in November. As long as he's on this planet he's not going to change one bit. It's the country, not the president, to him.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 07-20-2004, 11:44 PM   #9
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by ThatGuy
Can you give me an estimate of the number of trrops in Afghanistan in November 2001 vs. the number of troops in Iraq when the US invaded?
The number in Afghanistan in November 2001 was under 5,000 while the number involved with the invasion of Iraq was around 100,000.

Realize though that the requirements for both missions were very different. The majority of the 100,000 troops involved in the invasion of Iraq were forces that were either "Heavy Armor", "supporting Heavy Armor" or were attached and involved with Air assets dedicated to combating a large heavy Armor force of over 400,000 that Saddam had. In addition, there were no friendly indiginous forces in Iraq comparable to the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan.

Most of the Units currently in Iraq are not the type of units that would be suited or involved in a man hunt in the remote mountains of Afghanistan.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-21-2004, 12:59 AM   #10
Refugee
 
ThatGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Vertigo
Posts: 1,277
Local Time: 09:22 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


The number in Afghanistan in November 2001 was under 5,000 while the number involved with the invasion of Iraq was around 100,000.

Realize though that the requirements for both missions were very different. The majority of the 100,000 troops involved in the invasion of Iraq were forces that were either "Heavy Armor", "supporting Heavy Armor" or were attached and involved with Air assets dedicated to combating a large heavy Armor force of over 400,000 that Saddam had. In addition, there were no friendly indiginous forces in Iraq comparable to the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan.

Most of the Units currently in Iraq are not the type of units that would be suited or involved in a man hunt in the remote mountains of Afghanistan.
Okay, thank you for the explanation. So, how many of the 100,000 in Iraq were not in some way involved with Heavy Armor?
__________________
ThatGuy is offline  
Old 07-21-2004, 07:09 PM   #11
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by ThatGuy


Okay, thank you for the explanation. So, how many of the 100,000 in Iraq were not in some way involved with Heavy Armor?
Between 20,000 and 30,000 troops were strictly light infantry, coming from the 101st Air Assualt Division and one Brigade of the 82nd Airborne division and parts of the Marine 1st MEF which was reconfigured with double the heavy Armor it normally has. The 101st Air Assault Division was not used heavily during the invasion though and was held primarily in reserve.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-21-2004, 07:25 PM   #12
Refugee
 
ThatGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Vertigo
Posts: 1,277
Local Time: 09:22 AM
So that was 20,000 to 30,000 troops that could have been used to hunt bin Laden? Or is there another reason that these troops couldn't have been used?
__________________
ThatGuy is offline  
Old 07-21-2004, 09:43 PM   #13
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by ThatGuy
So that was 20,000 to 30,000 troops that could have been used to hunt bin Laden? Or is there another reason that these troops couldn't have been used?
There many other brigades and divisions that are similar in composition to the 101st Air Assault Division and othe light infantry units that were available while these units were in Iraq, for missions in Afghanistan, IF, they were needed.

Remember that US forces in Afghanistan destroyed the Talibans grip on power, captured and killed thousands of members of Al Quada, and continue to find members of Al Quada and the Taliban scattered through the area.

The point here though, is that the invasion force in Iraq was not diverted from Afghanistan. Even the light infantry units that could be involved in missions there were not specifically needed at that moment as there were other light infantry units in the Army, Marines, and Guard and Reserve that could performed that job that were at home.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-21-2004, 10:56 PM   #14
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 09:22 AM
I think we're taking this stuff too seriously.....
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 07-22-2004, 12:36 AM   #15
Refugee
 
ThatGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Vertigo
Posts: 1,277
Local Time: 09:22 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
The point here though, is that the invasion force in Iraq was not diverted from Afghanistan. Even the light infantry units that could be involved in missions there were not specifically needed at that moment as there were other light infantry units in the Army, Marines, and Guard and Reserve that could performed that job that were at home.
You're right, they those forces weren't diverted from Afghanistan. They were never sent in the first place.
__________________

__________________
ThatGuy is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com