Monday, November 01, 2004

He Wanted It to Be Much More…But It Wasn't.

It was a tape –not a bomb. That was UBL’s October Surprise.

In Madrid it was pre-election bombs and in Australia it was pre-election bombs….BUT in Afghanistan it was empty threats and a tape. Now, in America on the eve of the 2004 Presidential election, it would seem that we also get the tape and the threats without the bombs.
I think we can all agree on a non-partisan level that Bin Laden and Al Qeada WANTED to hit us before the election. But they didn’t.

Logical conclusion: Because they couldn’t.

Subsequent logical conclusion: The ‘War on Terror is being waged successfully enough that Bin laden was not able to mobilize the desired attacks on Afghanistan’s elections…or on ours. The proof is the tape.

This should say it all. Not only have we not had an attack on our soil since September 11th (and many have been attempted and thwarted), but now we see visible proof that Bin Laden and his minions are weakened --enough that they were not able to follow through with pre-planned and promised attacks on this country.

Regardless of the outcome of tomorrow’s race, this Nation owes a debt of gratitude to President Bush and his relentless crusade to rid the world of those who would kill us. These are serious times with serious consequences…My Grandfather once said, ‘Believe none of what you read, a quarter of what you hear and only half of what you see’... I have seen nothing from Kerry –not one distinguishing accomplishment in 20 years. What I have seen is a tape which was made by the man who slaughtered 3,000 Americans on one day…a man that promised more ‘spectacular attacks’…a man that was unable to deliver due to the vigilance of the President of the United States of America.

Mr. President, you have earned my vote.

15 comments:

Kevin F said...

Come on. Kerry has done lots of things.

He renamed a building in Waltham, MA after a WWII Medal of Honor recipient.

I put a whole list of his "accomplishments" on my blog last night as a matter of fact.

ALa said...

Kevin: I stand corrected! LOL!
Kevin does indeed have a list of Kerry's senate accomplishments over the past 20 years juxtaposed with Bush's accomplishments over the past four years-- at His Site....

Donal said...

So the reason your voting for Bush is because no one has attacked our country in 3 1/2 years- that al Qeada has been largely dismantled. This is true but what about future terrorist organizations- they are not going to go away if Iraq becomes self governing and democratic. He has failed on the broader war on terror. Whay has Bush donee to minimize the threat of radical Islam- that is the serious, long term threat we face if we do not address it it will remain a problem long after Al Qeada and bin Laden have been consigned to the ash heap of history. A free, democratic Iraq (one that doesnt hate us) if it comes into being may help but it wont rid us of it. Bush has made it so that moderate Muslims who want democracy cannot accept US help because it gives the appearnce of being American puppets. Bush has not created an NSC 68 http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nsc-hst/nsc-68.htm (which gave a strategic outlook for fighting communism that lead eventually to the end of the cold war) for terrorism and that is an enormous failing.

RBP said...

80% of the population of Iraq are Shiite Muslim's. If we set up a "real" democracy in Iraq, it will benefit Iran more than it benefit's the US.

Meanwhile, Iran is going ahead with it's nuclear weapons program. Just like North Korea, Iran knows, the best way to prevent the US from invading is to actually HAVE WMD.

We are not safer, we are not better off.

Kerry in a landslide!

Kat said...

I would like to know while JFM and Donal insist the president has no plans to defeat terrorism, what is JF Kerry's plan? Get allies? to do what? How do you understand and defeat radical Islam? By talking to it?

Bigandmean said...

Ala,
Thanks for your hard work over the past several months in working towards our President's re-election. You did your part with class and courage and it's very much appreciated.

RBP said...

Kat- I never "insisted" that Bush has no plan to defeat terrorism.

That's just another lie.

Invading Iraq does not make us safer from terrorism.
Now that's the truth.

Kerry will stop lying to us and tell us the truth!
KERRY IN A LANSLIDE!!!!!

McWizard said...

Sorry to inform you JFM that Senator Kerry is a pathological Liar and will never "stop lying to us".

ALa,
Faghann iarraidh iarraidh eile. "Seeking for one thing will lead to the discovery of other things."

Beto

"So come good folks unite and we'll take up the fight
And smash the foul might of imperious greed
As the old system crashes, stands up to its lashes,
we'll Scatter its ashes along with its seed
I hope and I pray that may God speed the day
When it's battered and beggared and burning in Hell
And the shrieks and the groans of the empire's old moans
Cannot drown out the tones
Of sweet Liberty's Bell

Tom said...

JFM:

"We are not safer, we are not better off."

Yeah, I'll bet you hardly have enough money to upgrade to a flat screen plasma TV and a 4Ghz desktop. How can Americans live in such squalor?

Caleb said...

IT WAS BUSH! who let america down on sept 11th. dont forget that the largest terrorist attack on American soil happened while he was in office. Bush should go down as one of the worst presidents in American history. He has tanked the economy, and killed hundreds of hard working Americans.

Defeat Islam? Are you part of the Crusades? Why dont you read some history books to find out what happened the last time people tried to defeat islam with force etc.

Aunt Bitchy said...

Caleb:

Let's be intelligent for one minute...okay?
George W. Bush was in office what like 6-8 months...before September 11th happened...OKAY...and it probably took about how long to plan an attack of that magnitude??? Right! So why bother yourself with the facts, that would be too much trouble. Vote Michael Moore for president...Moron!

Donal said...

Kat the president has no plan that would lead to the reduction of the terrorist threat- its going to be a long road- if we dont develop some strategy it will take longer. Rumsfield said in his memo something to the effect- are we in a situation that the more terrorists we kill the behinder we get? The answer is yes and what has the president done? nothing. Kerry might not have a plan either and if in 4 years he fails I'll vote for somebody else until we get a president who relaizes this- the sooner the better. I dont blame the president for 9/11- he did well when the target was obvious we're reaching the stage where the answers stop being obvious and he doesnt realize that.

Snave said...

All the Bin Laden tape says to me is that the guy is still alive, still out there, still planning... more than three years after the 9-11 attacks. It begs the question "Why hasn't Osama Bin Laden been captured?" I don't know the answer to that, I'm sure it's far more complex than I realize... although it seems to me that a key component of winning the war on terror should be to capture him.

The current administration has had three years to catch Bin Laden. If there was any "mission accomplished" I wanted to see from the Bush team, it was that one. Some might argue that Saddam Hussein is much worse than Osama Bin Laden, but I think the opposite, and I wish our admininstration had thought that way and demonstrated such by concentrating much harder on Afghanistan right after 9-11. If Bush's "Mission Accomplished" photo-op had been due to Bin Laden's capture, I wouldn't be critical about it at all. Bin Laden was and still is a direct menace to the United States, no attacks in the last three years notwithstanding.

I agree Bin Laden or other similar types would have loved to hit us before the election. I am very glad no terrorist plans have succeeded in our country for the last several years, and I will give Bush credit for doing some of what has had to be done. While I am sure we HAVE beefed up our security and our intelligence, I am also sure Bin Laden is just waiting for what he feels is the right moment to attack again. With terrorist groups, timing is everything.

Prior to 9-11, I don't think Bush was overly concerned about terrorism. Since then, he has been vigilant (as anyone would be) which shows that he is capable of learning from his mistakes and from the mistakes of previous administrations (including Clinton's).

The fact that we have not been attacked in three years should not diminish the fact that the author of the last attacks is still out there, waiting to attack us again.

With Kerry in charge, the war on terror will continue. It won't end simply because a Democrat has been elected to the presidency. A Kerry presidency will not automatically mean that we have let our guard down. I believe Kerry wants to get Bin Laden as much as anyone does, and that he will continue to actively work toward that goal. He may fight a war on terror in ways that are different than Bush would do, and there will be endless arguments about what approach is best... but the real fact is, as long as Osama Bin Laden and people like him are out there, there will be a war on terror. No US president would want to give up the fight.

Tom said...

Snave:

"I believe Kerry wants to get Bin Laden as much as anyone does ..."

Based on what? He talks a good game, but for someone so "nuanced", he sure misses the point of the Bin Lden tape.

It behooves the US to get Bin Laden by working from the outside in - meaning wipe out his moronic followers first and leave this dork standing alone. To kill or capture him without first dimantling his network turns him into a martyr.

Kerry's empty rhetoric (and yours) about making Bin Laden the focus rather than a wider war on terrorism that isolates and humiliates these monkeys and thus elminates their recruitment apparatus is one of the best arguments against letting Democrats handle national security.

ALa said...

Snave:
Bush was in office for 8 mths. and Clinton 8 yrs.. Captured Al Qaeda have said that 9/11 was 5 1/2 yrs. in the planning --which means if Clinton would have taken Bin Laden when Sudan offered him up 9/11 would have never happened...
Aside from that (the hero of the left) 'terrorism Czar' Richard Clarke said that the Bush Admin. had increased funding and a plan for Al Qaeda by FIVE FOLD before 9/11 and received no 'plan' from the Clinton Admin.
You can't blame the President for Bin Laden not being caprtured...what you are doing is blaming the troops --if he were able to be captured...he would be. Our best are over there looking for him. Find me in Philly...I am 5'2 and I have blonde hair...