Hammering Bush about Osama

Post #186,074 by JayMehaffey 12/5/04 7:30:03 PM Reply	Hammering Bush about Osama Hammering Bush about Osama would have been a fairly risky strategy, because if Kerry went that way and Osama was caught it would kill Kerry's election chances. Attacking Bush about the concept of the 'war against terror' was a non-starter. It's far to cereberal and subtle a point to be made in American politcs. Worse, the press would oppose losing one of their ready made media issues. Jay Note, I don't think many involved in the media would intentional oppose Kerry to keep their media issue alive. But there is a big, unconcious bias against playing down anything they can press as a top billing news item. The press would continue to play the 'News you can't afford to miss: WAR ON TERROR' bits as their top news items because they get the ratings.
Post #186,080 by mmoffitt 12/5/04 9:01:10 PM 12/5/04 9:04:17 PM Reply	Au Contraire, mon ami. It was an easy argument to make. Bullet points: 1) Al Qaeda operatives tried to bring down the WTC during Clinton's presidency. 2) The Al Qaeda operatives were arrested AND ARE STILL IN PRISON for their efforts. 3) Bush, et. al. were asleep at the switch. 4) Had they been as competent as the Clinton Admin, Osama would be in prison and many of our young "patriot heroes" would still be alive and at home because we wouldn't have needed the Iraq Circus to divert our attention from the incompetence of this administration. Now, I've no great faith in the Murican Sheeple, but if you put it in those 4 bullet points, I believe even they could get it. [Edit] sp. grammar bcnu, Mikem Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer. (Just trying to be accepted in the New America) Edited by mmoffitt Dec. 5, 2004, 09:04:17 PM EST Expand All History
Post #186,109 by Ashton 12/5/04 11:15:26 PM Reply	Don't think so____alas.. Shrub is IN via the Evangelicals, the Rovian Ministry of Propaganda and .. GodGunsGays: the Righteousness-inaction of the plaincountryfolk. [And we'll never know fershure - the %Diebolds sans-paper-trail] 'Logic', reason? historical review of events + performance!? THESE DON'T MATTER TO TRUE BELIEVERS and.. the US is lousy with THOSE. er, QED? (ie I believe that, only next events/DEATHS - if they prove sufficiently-still FUCKED - might create some changes. But words? discourse?! changing of emotional commitment to trite slogans?!? NEVER) Luck to us all.
Post #186,135 by mmoffitt 12/6/04 8:37:03 AM Reply	<Heavy Sigh> Alas, you are most likely correct. I guess I just haven't watched enough Trinity Broadcast Corporation, 700 Club, Swaggart, Baker, Hinn, etc. ad plenty-o-nauseum to "get" Americans. I've always held that whatever one chose to "believe" was none of my business. But these damned born-again'ers are acquiring entirely too much socio-political power in this country. I've heard others (including Molly Ivins) say that they aren't going to leave and neither should progressives; arguing that we must now "take back" America. But, to what end? Clearly at least half of the Americans who bothered to vote in November aren't worth saving. I don't want to live with them. I don't want to have anything to do with them and I damned sure don't want them making any decisions for me. What's left, except to leave? bcnu, Mikem Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer. (Just trying to be accepted in the New America)

Welcome to IWETHEY!