Osama's Back And He's Angry At Bush

Science > Abortion > Osama's Back And He's Angry At Bush

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 5 of 7

Topic:	Science > Abortion
User:	"Gactimus"
Date:	29 Oct 2004 09:14:51 PM
Object:	Osama's Back And He's Angry At Bush

I have to admit, I thought Osama died back at Tora Bora and I'm quite surprised that he
has done his first new video since December of 2001.
On the one hand, I am of course displeased that old weird beard is still breathing air.
On the other hand, since he is alive, I can anticipate the sweet, sweet, pleasure of
hearing that we killed that low down, dirty, *****.
I'd also encourage to read his statement because not only does he take credit for 9/11
(take that you tinfoil hat loonies), but as Crush Kerry ably pointed out, it sounds like
a bunch of Democratic talking points.
There was one point in particular that Osama that really jumped out at me,
"It never occurred to us that the commander in chief [Bush] would leave 50,000 citizens
in the two Towers to face those horrors alone at a time when they most needed him,
because he thought listening to a child discussing her goat was more important."
I guess Osama has been watching "Fahrenheit 9/11" in his little hole out in Pakistan
because that's something that movie really hammered home...or maybe he was listening to
Kerry campaign spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter who said,
"John Kerry is not the type of leader who will sit and read 'My Pet Goat' to a group of
second-graders while America is under attack".
Straight from the mouthpiece of the Kerry campaign to Osama's ears.
Furthermore, while Osama didn't officially endorse a candidate he did spend most of his
statement attacking George Bush. And if America's foremost enemy, a guy who's
responsible for 9/11, spends a good portion of a video slamming Bush while saying
nothing negative about Kerry...well, draw your own conclusions about which candidate
would do a better job of protecting us from terrorists and vote accordingly...
.

User: "Anon E. Mouse"
Title: Re: Osama's Back And He's Angry At Bush	30 Oct 2004 07:57:07 AM

In article <vOCgd.14168$UC4.7077015@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>,
gactimus@xrs.net says...

I have to admit, I thought Osama died back at Tora Bora and I'm quite surprised that he
has done his first new video since December of 2001.

On the one hand, I am of course displeased that old weird beard is still breathing air.
On the other hand, since he is alive, I can anticipate the sweet, sweet, pleasure of
hearing that we killed that low down, dirty, *****.

I'd also encourage to read his statement because not only does he take credit for 9/11
(take that you tinfoil hat loonies), but as Crush Kerry ably pointed out, it sounds like
a bunch of Democratic talking points.

There was one point in particular that Osama that really jumped out at me,

"It never occurred to us that the commander in chief [Bush] would leave 50,000 citizens
in the two Towers to face those horrors alone at a time when they most needed him,
because he thought listening to a child discussing her goat was more important."

I guess Osama has been watching "Fahrenheit 9/11" in his little hole out in Pakistan
because that's something that movie really hammered home...or maybe he was listening to
Kerry campaign spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter who said,

"John Kerry is not the type of leader who will sit and read 'My Pet Goat' to a group of
second-graders while America is under attack".

Straight from the mouthpiece of the Kerry campaign to Osama's ears.

Furthermore, while Osama didn't officially endorse a candidate he did spend most of his
statement attacking George Bush. And if America's foremost enemy, a guy who's
responsible for 9/11, spends a good portion of a video slamming Bush while saying
nothing negative about Kerry...well, draw your own conclusions about which candidate
would do a better job of protecting us from terrorists and vote accordingly...

Wow! You know, someone who thought of bin Laden as a diabolical
mastermind might think that he *wanted* us to think what you think! But
*surely* bin Laden doesn't want Bush continuing to ***** off the Islamic
world and create terrorist recruits! Surely not! No, he just must be
scared of big, bad, bumbling Bush. After all, what if a few of the new
US/Iraqi oil wells overflow and inadvertantly drown bin Laden!?
.

User: "David W. Barnes"
Title: Re: Osama's Back And He's Angry At Bush	29 Oct 2004 09:18:47 PM

In article <vOCgd.14168$UC4.7077015@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>, Gactimus
<gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:

I have to admit, I thought Osama died back at Tora Bora and I'm quite
surprised that he
has done his first new video since December of 2001.

On the one hand, I am of course displeased that old weird beard is still
breathing air.
On the other hand, since he is alive, I can anticipate the sweet, sweet,
pleasure of
hearing that we killed that low down, dirty, *****.

I'd also encourage to read his statement because not only does he take credit
for 9/11
(take that you tinfoil hat loonies), but as Crush Kerry ably pointed out, it
sounds like
a bunch of Democratic talking points.

There was one point in particular that Osama that really jumped out at me,

"It never occurred to us that the commander in chief [Bush] would leave
50,000 citizens
in the two Towers to face those horrors alone at a time when they most needed
him,
because he thought listening to a child discussing her goat was more
important."

I guess Osama has been watching "Fahrenheit 9/11" in his little hole out in
Pakistan
because that's something that movie really hammered home...or maybe he was
listening to
Kerry campaign spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter who said,

"John Kerry is not the type of leader who will sit and read 'My Pet Goat' to
a group of
second-graders while America is under attack".

Straight from the mouthpiece of the Kerry campaign to Osama's ears.

Furthermore, while Osama didn't officially endorse a candidate he did spend
most of his
statement attacking George Bush. And if America's foremost enemy, a guy who's
responsible for 9/11, spends a good portion of a video slamming Bush while
saying
nothing negative about Kerry...well, draw your own conclusions about which
candidate
would do a better job of protecting us from terrorists and vote accordingly...

You are an unbelievable moron. I'm GLAD you support Bush.
.

User: "Tim Smith"
Title: Re: Osama's Back And He's Angry At Bush	29 Oct 2004 09:34:45 PM

In article <vOCgd.14168$UC4.7077015@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>, Gactimus
wrote:

Furthermore, while Osama didn't officially endorse a candidate he did
spend most of his statement attacking George Bush. And if America's
foremost enemy, a guy who's responsible for 9/11, spends a good portion of
a video slamming Bush while saying nothing negative about Kerry...well,
draw your own conclusions about which candidate would do a better job of
protecting us from terrorists and vote accordingly...

The obvious conclusion is that Bin Laden wants you to think he fears Bush
more than Kerry, so that Bush will be reelected and continue his ineffective
policies toward terrorism.
--
--Tim Smith
.

User: "David W. Barnes"
Title: Re: Osama's Back And He's Angry At Bush	29 Oct 2004 09:46:14 PM

In article <95Dgd.14052$ta5.13397@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

In article <vOCgd.14168$UC4.7077015@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>, Gactimus
wrote:

The obvious conclusion is that Bin Laden wants you to think he fears Bush
more than Kerry, so that Bush will be reelected and continue his ineffective
policies toward terrorism.

Some middle eastern leaders have stated that it used to be difficult to
find people who would become suicide bombers, etc. Since Bush, they
are turning people away.
.

User: "Jason McNorton"
Title: Re: Osama's Back And He's Angry At Bush	29 Oct 2004 09:49:55 PM

In article <291020041946145461%

says...

In article <95Dgd.14052$ta5.13397@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

In article <vOCgd.14168$UC4.7077015@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>, Gactimus
wrote:

The obvious conclusion is that Bin Laden wants you to think he fears Bush
more than Kerry, so that Bush will be reelected and continue his ineffective
policies toward terrorism.

Some middle eastern leaders have stated that it used to be difficult to
find people who would become suicide bombers, etc. Since Bush, they
are turning people away.

You're right, we need a president that will cower to the islamic
terrorists and give in. Then they'll like us like they did on 9/11.
.

User: "David W. Barnes"
Title: Re: Osama's Back And He's Angry At Bush	29 Oct 2004 09:53:32 PM

In article <MPG.1becbd4fd838607898979b@news-40.giganews.com>, Jason
McNorton <jmcno@comcast.net> wrote:

In article <291020041946145461%

says...

In article <95Dgd.14052$ta5.13397@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

In article <vOCgd.14168$UC4.7077015@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>, Gactimus
wrote:

Furthermore, while Osama didn't officially endorse a candidate he did
spend most of his statement attacking George Bush. And if America's
foremost enemy, a guy who's responsible for 9/11, spends a good portion
of
a video slamming Bush while saying nothing negative about Kerry...well,
draw your own conclusions about which candidate would do a better job of
protecting us from terrorists and vote accordingly...

The obvious conclusion is that Bin Laden wants you to think he fears Bush
more than Kerry, so that Bush will be reelected and continue his
ineffective
policies toward terrorism.

Some middle eastern leaders have stated that it used to be difficult to
find people who would become suicide bombers, etc. Since Bush, they
are turning people away.

You're right, we need a president that will cower to the islamic
terrorists and give in. Then they'll like us like they did on 9/11.

THEY? You give these loons way too much credit - they aren't that
organized. The WTC attack occurred under Bush. Now he hopes to claim
he is protecting us?
I understand you are afraid. I understand you want the American people
to be afraid. I don't believe the American public is as cowardly as
you claim. Bush has proven to be a coward. The American people are
generally brave. Go push fear somewhere else.
.

User: "Jason McNorton"
Title: Re: Osama's Back And He's Angry At Bush	29 Oct 2004 09:59:40 PM

In article <291020041953321717%

says...

In article <MPG.1becbd4fd838607898979b@news-40.giganews.com>, Jason
McNorton <jmcno@comcast.net> wrote:

In article <291020041946145461%

says...

In article <95Dgd.14052$ta5.13397@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

In article <vOCgd.14168$UC4.7077015@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>, Gactimus
wrote:

Furthermore, while Osama didn't officially endorse a candidate he did
spend most of his statement attacking George Bush. And if America's
foremost enemy, a guy who's responsible for 9/11, spends a good portion
of
a video slamming Bush while saying nothing negative about Kerry...well,
draw your own conclusions about which candidate would do a better job of
protecting us from terrorists and vote accordingly...

The obvious conclusion is that Bin Laden wants you to think he fears Bush
more than Kerry, so that Bush will be reelected and continue his
ineffective
policies toward terrorism.

Some middle eastern leaders have stated that it used to be difficult to
find people who would become suicide bombers, etc. Since Bush, they
are turning people away.

You're right, we need a president that will cower to the islamic
terrorists and give in. Then they'll like us like they did on 9/11.

THEY? You give these loons way too much credit - they aren't that
organized. The WTC attack occurred under Bush. Now he hopes to claim
he is protecting us?

I understand you are afraid. I understand you want the American people
to be afraid. I don't believe the American public is as cowardly as
you claim. Bush has proven to be a coward. The American people are
generally brave. Go push fear somewhere else.

You've got to be kidding. 9/11 was planned for a long time, under
clinton. The first WTC bombing was under him as well. Since 9/11,
we've been safer. It's not fear, it's just showing how the DNC and bin
laden share the same ideals.
.

User: "Abd-er-Rahman III"
Title: Re: Osama's Back To Aid Bush Campaign ... Bu$h's sleazy alliance with al Qaeda	30 Oct 2004 07:32:57 AM

Bush let both zarqawi and Bin Laden escape
Tora Bora, Nov. 2001: Bush let corrupt Afghan warlord's be bribed and
Bin Laden escape
Kurdistan, mid 2002: Bush decided not to kill Zarqawi because it would
undermine his war message
---------------------------
Holy Zarqawi
Why Bush let Iraq's top terrorist walk.
By Daniel Benjamin
Posted Friday, Oct. 29, 2004, at 2:08 PM PT
Why didn't the Bush administration kill Abu Musab al-Zarqawi when it
had the chance?
That it had opportunities to take out the Jordanian-born jihadist has
been clear since Secretary of State Colin Powell devoted a long
section of his February 2003 speech to the United Nations Security
Council. In those remarks, which were given to underscore the threat
posed by Saddam Hussein, Powell dwelt at length on the terrorist camp
in Khurmal, in the pre-invasion Kurdish enclave. It was at that camp
that Zarqawi, other jihadists who had fled Afghanistan, and Kurdish
radicals were training and producing the poison ricin and cyanide.
Neither the Khurmal camp nor the surrounding area were under Saddam's
control, but Powell provided much detail purporting to show Zarqawi's
ties to the Baghdad regime. His arguments have since been largely
discredited by the intelligence community. Many of us who have worked
in counterterrorism wondered at the time about Powell's claims. If we
knew where the camp of a leading jihadist was and knew that his
followers were working on unconventional weapons, why weren't we
bombing it or sending in special operations forces�especially since
this was a relatively "permissive" environment?
In recent months, the mystery of the administration's inaction has
only grown. News reports�including, most recently, one in the Wall
Street Journal this week�make it clear that military leaders and the
CIA felt Zarqawi was a threat that could and should be removed. On at
least three occasions between mid-2002 and the invasion of Iraq, the
Pentagon presented plans to the White House to destroy the Khurmal
camp. Each time the White House declined to act or did not respond at
all.
It is impossible to see that refusal as anything other than an
enormous blunder. This week Zarqawi claimed responsibility for
executing 49 Iraqi army recruits. Since shortly after Saddam was
toppled, Zarqawi's Tawhid wal Jihad group has been astonishingly
effective at undermining the U.S. occupation. These operatives have
killed wholesale, with a long string of car and truck bombs to their
credit, and they have killed retail, with the videotaped executions of
hostages, which have become must-see TV in the Muslim world and are
driving contractors and NGOs out of the country. There is no reliable
tally of Zarqawi's victims, but it would not be surprising if it was
over 1,000. The issue of why no attempt to get him was made has become
even more pungent since President Bush began pointing to Zarqawi in
response to Sen. John Kerry's contention that Iraq was a diversion
from the war on terror.
Despite numerous press inquiries and questions from Capitol Hill, the
administration has never given a straight answer about why it held
back. Some officials have offered the excuse that there was no
certainty that Zarqawi would be present at the camp when an attack
took place. This is unpersuasive. Even if there was no guarantee�and
recently retired military officials say the terrorist was, in fact,
living at the site�there should have been some urgency about
destroying a camp where jihadists were producing ricin. This isn't a
parlor gamer: In early 2003, British police dismantled a jihadist cell
that was linked to Zarqawi and was planning attacks involving ricin.
What seems evident is that the administration viewed Zarqawi as a
lower-tier concern, despite his well-known history of running an
Afghan terrorist training camp and conducting terrorist operations in
Europe. The White House was unwilling to divert any effort from the
buildup for war in Iraq to this kind of threat.
The idea that states are the real issue and terrorists and their
organizations are of secondary concern has been present throughout the
Bush presidency. Although the 9/11 commission wrote its report in a
spare, non-judgmental tone to preserve bipartisan unity, its
description of the long, aimless road the administration took to the
first meeting of its national security Cabinet on the issue of
al-Qaida on Sept. 4, 2001, speaks volumes. By contrast, the first
"principals" meeting on the issue of regime change in Iraq took place
in January 2001, shortly after Bush's inauguration.
After 9/11, senior officials such as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, simply refused to believe the
assessment of the intelligence community that Iraq had no hand in the
attack and that al-Qaida operated independently of state support. In
the Pentagon's conduct of operations in Afghanistan, the overwhelming
focus was on unseating the Taliban, the effective state power, while
less attention was paid to pursuing al-Qaida, which had just killed
nearly 3,000 people on American soil. Thus we had the debacle at Tora
Bora, where our subcontractors, the militias of Afghan warlords,
allowed Osama Bin Laden to escape.
Similarly, the relentless focus on Saddam Hussein has led to the
removal from Afghanistan of key intelligence and special operations
assets, including much of the elite commando unit Task Force 5. This,
like the case of the pulled punch against Zarqawi, suggests that the
Bush team continued to believe that states were the key threats in the
post-9/11 world; terrorist groups could easily be swept up after the
rogue nations had been dispatched. The much vaunted doctrine of
pre-emption was employed against Iraq�a state that was effectively
deterred from attacking the United States�while undeterrable
terrorists were left to their own devices.
It seems never to have occurred to President Bush and his advisers
that in a globalized world, where borders are porous and technologies
of massive destructiveness are available, hidden networks can be far
more dangerous than a state, which can be threatened and contained.
Yet that surely has been the lesson of the last three years. It is an
added irony that the administration's inability to fully assimilate
the threat from "non-state actors" is leading, thanks in part to
Zarqawi, to the failure of its effort to reinvent Iraq as a stable
democracy in the Middle East.
.

User: "David W. Barnes"
Title: Re: Osama's Back And He's Angry At Bush	29 Oct 2004 10:09:19 PM

In article <MPG.1becbf8cd709cc298979c@news-40.giganews.com>, Jason
McNorton <jmcno@comcast.net> wrote:

In article <291020041953321717%

says...

In article <MPG.1becbd4fd838607898979b@news-40.giganews.com>, Jason
McNorton <jmcno@comcast.net> wrote:

In article <291020041946145461%

says...

In article <95Dgd.14052$ta5.13397@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

In article <vOCgd.14168$UC4.7077015@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>, Gactimus
wrote:

Furthermore, while Osama didn't officially endorse a candidate he
did
spend most of his statement attacking George Bush. And if America's
foremost enemy, a guy who's responsible for 9/11, spends a good
portion
of
a video slamming Bush while saying nothing negative about
Kerry...well,
draw your own conclusions about which candidate would do a better
job of
protecting us from terrorists and vote accordingly...

The obvious conclusion is that Bin Laden wants you to think he fears
Bush
more than Kerry, so that Bush will be reelected and continue his
ineffective
policies toward terrorism.

Some middle eastern leaders have stated that it used to be difficult to
find people who would become suicide bombers, etc. Since Bush, they
are turning people away.

You're right, we need a president that will cower to the islamic
terrorists and give in. Then they'll like us like they did on 9/11.

THEY? You give these loons way too much credit - they aren't that
organized. The WTC attack occurred under Bush. Now he hopes to claim
he is protecting us?

I understand you are afraid. I understand you want the American people
to be afraid. I don't believe the American public is as cowardly as
you claim. Bush has proven to be a coward. The American people are
generally brave. Go push fear somewhere else.

You've got to be kidding. 9/11 was planned for a long time, under
clinton.

How the hell could you possibly know that? That is very unlikely.

The first WTC bombing was under him as well.

And they were ALL captured and brought to justice under Clinton. Too
bad we can't say the same for Bush. Of course, Bush and the Bin Ladens
are good friends.

Since 9/11,
we've been safer.

Keep telling yourself that.

It's not fear, it's just showing how the DNC and bin
laden share the same ideals.

Idiot. The Bin Laden Family and the Bush Family are VERY good friends.
<http://www.americanfreepress.net/10_07_01/Bush___Bin_Laden_-_George_W__
B/bush___bin_laden_-_george_w__b.html>
Most Americans are brave. Bush wants them to be cowards.
Stop being such a coward. Why are you so afraid?
.

User: "Frank Dwyer"
Title: Re: Osama's Back And He's Angry At Bush	01 Nov 2004 09:04:06 AM

David W. Barnes wrote: