The official Election Day 2006 thread!

[najeena]

The Bin Laden tape released in 2004 prior to the elecction was judged by goverment agencies to be a calculated boost for Bush. They like our presence in Iraq, it's great for recruitment. There must have been plans for a scary response to the election's outcome, no matter who won the day.

 

[deep]

There should have been a recount in Virginia
and perhaps Montana, too.


Allen let down his supporters.

In an election that close a recount would have been reasonable.

It most likely would not have changed the outcome.

And this is what Allen and Webb should have said.

But, why not validate the system is working properly.

That a what? .003 per cent win did occure.

Let the 7000 vote margin of victory be validated.

what if a recount swung 5000 votes different, in either direction.

Allen still wins, but we know we have a problem?

And what if the recount only has a 29 vote difference, we know the system is working fairly well.

Why not find out???

 

[80sU2isBest]

I don't know if you are clueless or just ignorant of the facts in 1980

but, the Iranian revolutionaries were very happy with Reagan's election, they called Carter the great Satan.


Reagan went on to trade arms for hostages with them, too.

So Reagan was very good for the Ayatollah.

I don't doubt that they called him "The Great Satan". They call America in general the "Great Satan" all the time. And if you don't know that, you are the clueless one.

I don't see how that proves they were happy Reagan became President.

And it also does nothing to disprove what I said about the current election; Al Qaeda is happy the Dems are in power because they feel it will benefit them.

 

[80sU2isBest]

The Bin Laden tape released in 2004 prior to the elecction was judged by goverment agencies to be a calculated boost for Bush. They like our presence in Iraq, it's great for recruitment. There must have been plans for a scary response to the election's outcome, no matter who won the day.

Government Agencies said that Al Qaeda released that audio tape to help Bush win the election? Where's the source for that claim?

 

[BVS]

And still no one has given me any other possible explanation for the reason Iraqi Al Qaeda are happy that the Dems are in power.
And there never will be another explanation because you all know I'm right. You may not agree with me that National Security will suffer under the Dems, but using your common sense, you know Al Qaeda agrees with me on that point, and that is why they rejoice over the Dems getting power.

This is what they do. They taunt, this is part of the role of terrorists strike terror. In any form. Regardless of Rummy staying in or out they would have made a comment. Don't fool yourself into thinking any different. They said the same thing when Bush was re-elected.

There are two lie that the GOP has sold you all very well for the last decade; that they are the only party that can defend the country, and that they are the moral party. Both are lies and I'm glad some came to realize that this time around.

 

[80sU2isBest]

This is what they do. They taunt, this is part of the role of terrorists strike terror. In any form. Regardless of Rummy staying in or out they would have made a comment. Don't fool yourself into thinking any different.

I didn't say anything about Rumsfeld leaving. I said the terrorists are happy the Dems are in power. Statements by the Iraqi Al Qaeda leader and an Iranian Ayatollah prove that.

They said the same thing when Bush was re-elected.

They didn't congratulate the American people for electing Bush. You know that.

There are two lie that the GOP has sold you all very well for the last decade; that they are the only party that can defend the country,

No, it's not the GOP that has convined me that the Dems can't run the war on terror. It is the stances the Dems have taken on certain issues that have shown me they are unwilling to do what's necessary.

and that they are the moral party.

As far as my most important moral issue is concerned, the GOP IS the moral party. The GOP platform is to stop the killing of innocent babies; the Dem politicians want women to retain the right to kill their babies, some liberal judges even going so far as to overturn a ban on partial birth abortion, that Satanic procedure in which the baby's body is pulled out of the mother and the head is crushed while still in the mother. If it seems I'm angry, it's because I am. This slaughter of innocent babies has got to stop!

 

[BVS]

I didn't say anything about Rumsfeld leaving. I said the terrorists are happy the Dems are in power. Statements by the Iraqi Al Qaeda leader and an Iranian Ayatollah prove that.

Either way, they are going to taunt. This is what they do. You obviously weren't here in FYM during the last election.

They didn't congratulate the American people for electing Bush. You know that.

Sure about that?

 

[A_Wanderer]

I don't think it's wise to be voting based on what Islamists say or threaten; and that cuts both ways.

 

[BVS]

Exactly!!!

 

[BVS]

As far as my most important moral issue is concerned, the GOP IS the moral party.

Ask yourself why when having the majority there wasn't a push to ban abortion. A stance means nothing without action.

The truth is many say they are against but will never push anything because deep down they want the choice when their daughters, wives, or sisters get raped or their life is in danger.

But I guess they're just satanists...

 

[80sU2isBest]

I don't think it's wise to be voting based on what Islamists say or threaten; and that cuts both ways.

Who is talking about voting based on what Islamists say?

I said that the Islamist are gald the Dems are in power.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Ask yourself why when having the majority there wasn't a push to ban abortion. A stance means nothing without action.

They knew they didn't have enough support at the time to overturn Roe v. Wade in one swoop, so they were taking steps in that direction:

(1) Partial Birth Abortion banned (even though a lib judge overturned it)
(2) Parental Notice adopted by some states
(3) South Dakota Governor banned all abortions

All of these causes were championed by the GOP

The truth is many say they are against but will never push anything because deep down they want the choice when their daughters, wives, or sisters get raped or their life is in danger
But I guess they're just satanists...

Why do you mock my use of the term "Satanic" when describing Partial Birth Abortion? How else would you decsribe the crushing of the skull of a baby who is so close to full term? It's barbarism, plain and simple.

Partial Birth Abortion is never necessary. Many doctors have said that:

"There are no medical circumstances in which a partial-birth abortion is the only safe alternative. We take care of pregnant women who are very sick, and babies who are very sick, and we never perform partial-birth abortions. . . . There are plenty of alternatives. . . . This is clearly a procedure no obstetrician needs to do." F. Boehm, Dr. OB, Vanderbilt U. Med. The Washington Times, May 6, 1966, p. A1

Dr. Warren Hern, author of the late term abortion medical text said, "I would dispute any statement that this is the safest procedure to use. The procedure can cause amniotic fluid embolism or placental abruption." AMA News, Nov. 20, 1995, p. 3

Dr. Pamela Smith, Director of Medical Education, Dept. of Ob-Gyn at Mt. Sinai Hospital in Chicago, has stated: "There are absolutely no obstetrical situations encountered in this country which would require partial- birth abortion to preserve the life or health of the mother." And she adds two more risks: cervical incompetence in subsequent pregnancies caused by three days of forceful dilation of the cervix, and uterine rupture caused by rotating the fetus in the womb.

Joseph DeCook, Fellow, Am. Col., Ob/Gyn, founder of PHACT (Physicians Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth), stated: "There is no literature that testifies to the safety of partial birth abortions. It’s a maverick procedure devised by maverick doctors who wish to deliver a dead fetus. Such abortions could lead to infection causing sterility." Also, "Drawing out the baby in breech position is a very dangerous procedure and could tear the uterus. Such a ruptured uterus could cause the mother to bleed to death in ten minutes.".."The puncturing of the child’s skull produces bone shards that could puncture the uterus." (Congressman Charles Canady (R-FL), 7/23).

 

[redhotswami]

As far as my most important moral issue is concerned, the GOP IS the moral party. The GOP platform is to stop the killing of innocent babies; the Dem politicians want women to retain the right to kill their babies, some liberal judges even going so far as to overturn a ban on partial birth abortion, that Satanic procedure in which the baby's body is pulled out of the mother and the head is crushed while still in the mother. If it seems I'm angry, it's because I am. This slaughter of innocent babies has got to stop!

Interesting that you bring this up. What I think is the one of the most deceptive things the GOP does is to call itself the Moral Party. I can't stand how Bush adopted the pope's "culture of life" term, and he only applies that to one issue.

For me, being pro life includes a heck of a lot more than abortion. What about all the innocent black men who have died at the archaic death penalty that STILL exists? What about all those on death row? There's innocent loss of life there for sure.

My pro life continues beyond birth, which it seems to me is what the GOP primary focuses on. Did you know that more abortions tend to occur when a republican is in power? That's because less money is going into social services, because he wants to put most of it in military spending. And honestly, if you really wanna get rid of abortion, then elect more republicans into the supreme court, because they are the ones who are in charge of the court decisions.

How about after the children are born?? The public education system can really use some help. No child left behind my ass. Most people in the k-12 field can tell you the horrors that has brought about. How is that pro-life?

Oh gosh and the environment is a mess. The GOP's policies are killing it off. But yet they want to force women to have babies and make them live in this mess???

Fetuses are dying, but honestly, after they are born, the GOP's policies do very little to protect their lives. How about raising the minimum wage instead of those worthless tax cuts? Again, lets look at the big picture here about making life better for citizens.

Oh and last but certainly not least, the war in Iraq. Even JP2, from which Bush took the "culture of life" theme, warned him, telling him that launching that pre-emptive strike would be opening the gates of hell. How is going to war like that promoting a culture of life????

So, I'm pro-life too, but that includes beyond birth. The GOP has done a great job on uniting on that issue, but really, they need to be consistent if they want to keep with such a powerful theme as "culture of life". I on the otherhand, am not going to force women to have babies, especially since the gov't does little to follow through with protecting the child. We need to clean up our environment, fix up this problem with the war, revamp our education system, and abolish that damn death penalty.

Taking these into effect, the Dems are the moral party IMHO.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Sure about that?

If you can find me even one quote from a terrorist in which joy is expressed that Bush was elected, I will publically admit I was wrong.

 

[najeena]

http://mediamatters.org/items/200610310011
As Media Matters for America has noted, the CIA reportedly determined that bin Laden's intention was to assist in the re-election of President Bush.

 

[80sU2isBest]

For me, being pro life includes a heck of a lot more than abortion. What about all the innocent black men who have died at the archaic death penalty that STILL exists? What about all those on death row? There's innocent loss of life there for sure.

I have publicly stated many times that I am against the death penalty because innocent people do get executed on occasion. However, there is a BIG difference. Referring to the death penalty, innocent people are not publicly targeted for execution, except in rare extreme cases in which corrupt evil men can pull off a conspiracy to purposely kill an innocent person. It just doesn' happen that much.

The abortion industry on the other hand, targets victims that are 100% innocent and everyone knows it.

And honestly, if you really wanna get rid of abortion, then elect more republicans into the supreme court, because they are the ones who are in charge of the court decisions.

The Supreme Court justices are not elected; they are appointed. Bush was able to get 2 pro life judges in there within the period of a year. Pretty good numbers, I'd say.

How about after the children are born?? The public education system can really use some help. No child left behind my ass. Most people in the k-12 field can tell you the horrors that has brought about. How is that pro-life?

I have a friend who is a teacher, so I know of the shortcomings and abysmal failures of No Child Left Behind. But the key word is "failure", not "intentional malice". Bush wanted to do good for the children and "failed".

Abortion has no such good intentions toward babies. Abortion kills babies.

Fetuses are dying,

They're not just "dying". They're being murdered, by the hundreds of thousands annually.

but honestly, after they are born, the GOP's policies do very little to protect their lives. How about raising the minimum wage instead of those worthless tax cuts? Again, lets look at the big picture here about making life better for citizens.

So you raise the minimum wage, and companies can't/won't hire as many people. So how does that help - what has been gained?

Oh and last but certainly not least, the war in Iraq. Even JP2, from which Bush took the "culture of life" theme, warned him, telling him that launching that pre-emptive strike would be opening the gates of hell. How is going to war like that promoting a culture of life????

Ask that question of the many people whom otherwise would still be getting tortured and murdered on a daily basis by a ruthless dictator whose sons also enjoyed raping women in the streets.

So, I'm pro-life too, but that includes beyond birth. I on the otherhand, am not going to force women to have babies, especially since the gov't does little to follow through with protecting the child.

You might be prolife for some people, but how can you say you are prolife for fetuses when you want people to have the right to murder them?

Taking these into effect, the Dems are the moral party IMHO.

I disagree completely, of course.

 

[80sU2isBest]

http://mediamatters.org/items/200610310011
As Media Matters for America has noted, the CIA reportedly determined that bin Laden's intention was to assist in the re-election of President Bush.

Media Matters admits its stance against Conservative media, so let's begin from that foundation. Please show me the actual CIA findings rather than what some "watchdog" group says is in a book by a journalist.

 

[redhotswami]

I have publicly stated many times that I am against the death penalty because innocent people do get executed on occasion. However, there is a BIG difference. Referring to the death penalty, innocent people are not publicly targeted for execution, except in rare extreme cases in which corrupt evil men can pull off a conspiracy to purposely kill an innocent person. It just doesn' happen that much.

The abortion industry on the other hand, targets victims that are 100% innocent and everyone knows it.

I know you're against the DP, I was referring to the GOP in general. It is hypocritical. Regardless if it is an innocent person or a fetus, life is life.

The Supreme Court justices are not elected; they are appointed. Bush was able to get 2 pro life judges in there within the period of a year. Pretty good numbers, I'd say.

Yeah I messed up on my point for that one. My bad

I have a friend who is a teacher, so I know of the shortcomings and abysmal failures of No Child Left Behind. But the key word is "failure", not "intentional malice". Bush wanted to do good for the children and "failed".

Abortion has no such good intentions toward babies. Abortion kills babies.

I see your point here, but my argument is consistency. I personally don't way one over the other, I think both are contrary to the culture of life. Instead of weighing out causes and focusing on one, lets keep the consistently.

So you raise the minimum wage, and companies can't/won't hire as many people. So how does that help - what has been gained?

I don't think this is much of an argument that will convince me to change my opinion. Right now many people earning minimum wage:
have insufficent income to meet family's basic needs
cannot afford health care
are not allowed flexibility and support to care for their family
do not have safe and affordable housing
do not work in a safe and healthy work environment
are not given security in time of economic adversity and retirement
do not have the right to organize and collectively bargain

people working low-wage jobs are so essential to our country, yet policies (and very often people) treat them like crap. we force them to live and work in conditions we wouldn't dare come near. pro-life to me means supporting the lives of our brothers and sisters.

Ask that question of the many people whom otherwise would still be getting tortured and murdered on a daily basis by a ruthless dictator whose sons also enjoyed raping women in the streets.

What about the people that are getting tortured and abused by our soldiers? Some of our soldiers are really going into homes of people, killing people who live there, while they "search" for someone. There have been loads of ruthless tactics on our side too.

You might be prolife for some people, but how can you say you are prolife for fetuses when you want people to have the right to murder them?

I want all of our children born into a society where they are guaranteed a right to a healthy and safe life so they can grow up and reach their potential.

I disagree completely, of course.

Of course We're on two opposite sides of the spectrum. We can agree to disagree, nothin wrong with that.

 

[BonosSaint]

If you can find me even one quote from a terrorist in which joy is expressed that Bush was elected, I will publically admit I was wrong.

In fact, the theory that terrorists have a preference for Kerry in November runs counter to a March 17 Reuters report that suggests precisely the opposite: In a statement issued by the Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades, which took responsibility for the Madrid bombings and claims to have links to al Qaeda, the group voiced its support for the reelection of President Bush, who, according to the statement, "deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200407090004

___________________________________________________

"We change and destroy countries," the statement said. "We even influence the international economy, and this is God's blessing to us."

The statement tells American voters that Abu Hafs al-Masri supports the re-election campaign of President Bush: "We are very keen that Bush does not lose the upcoming elections."

The statement said Abu Hafs al-Masri needs what it called Bush's "idiocy and religious fanaticism" because they would "wake up" the Islamic world.

Parts of the statement were released Wednesday night by the editor of another London-based Arabic newspaper, Al Hayat. The editor read parts of the statement to The Associated Press in Cairo.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114489,00.html

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2006/10/29/142954/98

 

[A_Wanderer]

Who is talking about voting based on what Islamists say?

I said that the Islamist are gald the Dems are in power.

No, they will only be glad when the USA is under their Sharia system and a sort of clerical fascism dominates the entire world. Short of that you are an infidel and deserve death and eternal punishment - I don't think that a distinction is made because you vote Republican, Democrat or Green. It's arrogant to be pointing to the rantings of these groups for political point scoring when there are genuine deficiencies that can be highlighted and attacked.

 

[zepher25]

so the point you pro life people are getting at is- beacuse a baby is conceved it should eliminate the womans right to chose her own medical treatment and loose control over her own body. for the record Abortion is not murder beacuse murder is defined by a person ending another persons life and since a baby is not legally recognised as being alive until it takes its first breath it cannot, by definition, be murder.

 

[redhotswami]

so the point you pro life people are getting at is- beacuse a baby is conceved it should eliminate the womans right to chose her own medical treatment and loose control over her own body. for the record Abortion is not murder beacuse murder is defined by a person ending another persons life and since a baby is not legally recognised as being alive until it takes its first breath it cannot, by definition, be murder.

There's really no way I can fully articulate in here my opinions about the abortion topic, only because I myself also hit walls and find contradiction in my own reasoning. It is a complicated issue indeed.

As for your point, I'm also concerned for women's rights as well. From my understanding, if abortion is made illegal, then it is the women who are criminalized, right? Perhaps Drs too, but mostly women? And then what happens to the father?? Is he just ignored? He plays just as important of a role in creating the child, but I don't know if he would face charges for that. That opens up another can of worms. And that's when I throw my arms in the air in frustration.

Also, a family friend lives in a country/time where abortion is outlawed, and she was so desperate she took it out herself with a hanger. Now she can never have children. This is why I think instead of abolishing it altoghether, maybe the solution is to provide more social services, so that people do not feel the need to do such a harmful procedure out of desperation. Eliminating abortion is not getting at the root of the problem with unwanted pregnancies.

And to offer a different perspective, I don't think abortion should even be federally mandated. Just like with the death penalty, I think it is something that the states should decide for themselves. granted, I'd rather not there be a death penalty at all, but since both issues are at about the same level of controversy (at least for me) I think they should be enforced in the same manner.

As for your being alive point...I think that that opinion differs for many people. Cells definitely show signs of life early on,so perhaps the baby is not legally recognized as living just yet, but it is at least signtifically recognized as living...at least I think so...I could be wrong but I did poorly in Biology.

In short, it is hard for me to say where one person's rights end and another's begins on this issue. It has been something that I do think about, and I try to read up on it to clarify some more...but it still spins my head in circles. Pro-choice doesn't necessarily mean pro-abortion. It comes from respect of women's rights. I do feel comfortable knowing that if I do have an unexpected/unwanted pregnancy (like rape or something), that I am not forced to abort it, nor am I forced to carry it for 9 months and give birth to it. Pregnancy is emotional strain on the woman, and carrying a child who resulted from a tragic and horrific event can really emotionally scar someone.

It appears as though I have derailed this thread. sorry! back to the topic at hand:

Yay Webb

 

[BVS]

Why do you mock my use of the term "Satanic" when describing Partial Birth Abortion? How else would you decsribe the crushing of the skull of a baby who is so close to full term? It's barbarism, plain and simple.

One of my dearest friends, someone who use to post here, her sister had to have a late term abortion to save her life. It's the hardest thing she's ever had to deal with. I by no means would ever relate anything satanic about her she's one of the closest things to God I know on this planet.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Well I am coming down firmly anti-life so that any support I ever have for anything that may involve some death as a result is not considered hypocricy

As far as being legally a human being it's birth or conciousness; so a severe brain damage even people in coma are still humans but an embryo; not so much.

 

[maycocksean]

One thing that I think gets ignored in the heated debate over abortion is that--like many things--the two sides are arguing from two different baseline assumptions, which is why they can never agree.

The "pro-life" side assumes the embryo/fetus is a living human being and likes to paint the opposition as supporting murder.
(What they either don't know, or don't want to admitt is that the other side is surely not advocating murder--they are not convinced that the embryo or fetus can be considered a living human being. Even some of the posts supporting the pro-choice POV on this thread make this clear).

On the other hand the "pro-choice" side assumes that the embryo/fetus is a part of the womans body and likes to paint the opposition as wanting to control what a woman does with her body (What they either don't know or don't want to admitt is that the other side does not want to control women's reproductive choice, they are convinced that they are protecting innocent human life).

The one thing that really bugs me about the abortion debate is the absolute demonization of the opposing side. It's dishonest and unhelpful.

If the pro-lifers want to change people's minds they've got to start focusing on convincing pro-choicers that they are taking human life, rather than just labeling them "baby killers". And likewise, pro-choicers must convince pro-lifers of the opposite--that this is not taking human life.

 

[maycocksean]

No of course we won't. Why would we apologize to the world? Most of the world loves the election results. Especially the terrorists.


In fact, the Iraq Al Qaeda leader wants to thank the American people for putting the Dems in power:

Sorry, 80's but this is really a nonsensical argument you're making here. It's the sort of thing that one would expect to hear on talk radio, but I think we can raise the level of discourse a bit.

Whether intentional or not, I think you're spinning this article. And it can be spun the other way, if we focus on these quotes instead:

the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq mocked President Bush as a coward whose conduct of the war was rejected at the polls, challenging him to keep U.S. troops in the country to face more bloodshed.

Al-Muhajir, an Egyptian also known as Abu Ayyub al-Masri, boasted that al-Qaida in Iraq is moving toward victory faster than expected because of Bush's mistakes.

He also said Bush was "the most stupid president" in U.S. history.

"We call on the lame duck not to hurry his escape the way the defense secretary did," al-Muhajir said in reference to Rumsfeld's resignation as Pentagon chief on Wednesday.

"Remain steadfast on the battlefield, you coward," said al-Muhajir, who took over leadership of al-Qaida in Iraq after Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed in a U.S. airstrike in June.

These quotes would suggest the terrorists know that Bush has failed in his attempts to be defeat them--and are mocking him for it. Their references to the recent election really just seem to be be saying "See even your own people realize you suck! How smart they were to get rid of your supporters." You would have us believe that the terrorists are relieved or happy that Bush lost because he was such a force to be reckoned with but the terrorists don't seem to be saying anything like that. They don't seem to be very much afraid of Bush or have much respect for him at all. They're not rejoicing in the stupidity of the American people in electing leaders who will be "soft" on terrorism, they are rejoicing in the "stupidity" of our president who has been unable to defeat them.

I'll grant you the terrorists are probably no less "afraid" of the Democrats--A_Wanderer summed that up pretty well in one of his posts-- but that was hardly the point of this braggadacio-laced statement.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Oh man, that's really awful

A Florida voter may have unwittingly lost hundreds of thousands of dollars by using an extremely rare stamp to mail an absentee ballot in Tuesday's congressional election, a government official said on Friday.

The 1918 Inverted Jenny stamp, which takes its name from an image of a biplane accidentally printed upside-down, turned up on Tuesday night in Fort Lauderdale, where election officials were inspecting ballots from parts of south Florida, Broward County Commissioner John Rodstrom told Reuters.

Only 100 of the stamps have ever been found, making them one of the top prizes of all philately.

Rodstrom, a member of the county's Canvassing Board, said he spotted the red and blue Inverted Jenny on a large envelope with two stamps from the 1930s and another dating to World War Two.

The nominal value of the four vintage U.S. Post Office stamps was 87 cents, he said.

"I thought, 'Oh my God, I know that stamp, I've seen that stamp before,"' said Rodstrom, 54, who dabbled in stamp collecting as a boy. "I'd forgotten the name. I just remembered there was a stamp with an upside-down biplane on it and that it was a very rare, rare stamp."

Rodstrom said he did not examine the envelope's postmark, but it had no return address and the ballot was disqualified because it gave no clue as to the identity of the voter.

Election officials have been too busy certifying the outcome of Tuesday's race to have the stamp authenticated, Rodstrom said.

A block of four of the stamps sold for almost $3 million last year, however, and Rodstrom said the one that turned up Tuesday night could fetch about $500,000 for Broward County at auction.

"It's now government property," he said.

A postmark on a stamp usually would hurt its value but Rodstrom said the story behind this one -- plus the fact that it is joined by other old stamps on the envelope -- might actually increase its worth.

Rodstrom said he doubted the stamp would ever be handed over to someone claiming to have mailed it inadvertently.

"It would be hard to prove, I guess you would have to say it was a person who had Alzheimer's," he said.

 

[redhotswami]

Wow, so not only did this person miss out on the cash prize, but he/she also didn't have his/her vote counted!

 

[redhotswami]

I thought this was interesting. 80s, Tom P. goes on to address some of the issues I brought up earlier, and suggests the "moral shift"...I don't know what the better term is for it.

Who Voted and Why? A Roundtable Discussion on the Ethnic, Religious and Social Makeup of Voters in the Elections
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/10/1426225

It also points out some really interesting figures about the young people and about some non-white voters.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Sorry, 80's but this is really a nonsensical argument you're making here. It's the sort of thing that one would expect to hear on talk radio, but I think we can raise the level of discourse a bit.

Whether intentional or not, I think you're spinning this article. And it can be spun the other way, if we focus on these quotes instead:

These quotes would suggest the terrorists know that Bush has failed in his attempts to be defeat them--and are mocking him for it. Their references to the recent election really just seem to be be saying "See even your own people realize you suck! How smart they were to get rid of your supporters." You would have us believe that the terrorists are relieved or happy that Bush lost because he was such a force to be reckoned with but the terrorists don't seem to be saying anything like that. They don't seem to be very much afraid of Bush or have much respect for him at all.

I'll grant you the terrorists are probably no less "afraid" of the Democrats--A_Wanderer summed that up pretty well in one of his posts-- but that was hardly the point of this braggadacio-laced statement.

I don't deny that he insulted Bush. I would expect no less of him. These terrorists have shown us in the past how cocky they are, even at times when they were facing immenint catastrophe - remember the "Minister Of Disinformation" who kept insisting that the allies weren't anywhere close to Baghdad and were losing, even as the walls around him were falling down?

You would have us believe that the terrorists are relieved or happy that Bush lost because he was such a force to be reckoned with but the terrorists don't seem to be saying anything like that. They don't seem to be very much afraid of Bush or have much respect for him at all. They're not rejoicing in the stupidity of the American people in electing leaders who will be "soft" on terrorism, they are rejoicing in the "stupidity" of our president who has been unable to defeat them.


Terrorists do not love America, they hate America, and yet he specifically congratulated the American People on how they voted in the elections. Do you think this congration was because he actually felt any good will or empathy toward the United States? No, of course not! In that same article, he vowed to burn down the White House. If he considered Bush and the Republicans a failure in the war on terror, he would want them to remain in office. He wouldn't be rejoicing that they had been replaced.