cascadian

Of course he criticized Bush no one is disputing that.

That's not obvious at all. That's an inference that you're making on the behalf of Bin Laden. I would argue that neither would make Bin Laden happy. Do you really think that getting Kerry elected would make Bin Laden say, "Oh cool. Nevermind"

We don't have an endorsement, we have an inference. Thanks.


So what would be the point of even implying it? That doesn't make any sense either.

In comparison to Sweden the differences would be marginal.

Erm... now you're changing your story. The MEMRI article states a completely different rationale for it being a Kerry endorsement. That is: he was directing it at US states instead of the entire US.

__________________
"Fear is the mind killer."
~Bene Gesserit

independent_thinker2002

I didn't see the "vote Democrat" anywhere in that. You read into that what you wanted to. I am not surprised.

__________________
☠☠☠☠☠

I am a Tiki Bar Tarte, you wanna mount Le Penseur Bronze

CaptainCourtesy

Carter is representing Carter, not Democrats. Your attempt to connect these dots fails. Just because Carter is a Democrat does not mean that Democrats authorized or even support his decision to visit Hamas, no matter how much you want to spin it to make it seem that way.

Oh, an by the way, Obama denounced Carter's visit:
Obama criticizes ex-President Carter's Hamas meeting - Yahoo! News

__________________
"Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

====||:-D

aquapub

"Criticized" downplays the point here. Bin Laden condemned Bush's policies and warned of more attacks if they were continued...right before Election 2004. It was entirely reasonable for people to widely interpret the tape as a Kerry endorsement.

"Oh cool. Nevermind"...?!? Are you serious?

Of course Kerry winning wouldn't make Bin Laden stop fighting us, quite the contrary, it would embolden him and advance his interests...which is why Bin Laden gave this endorsement to Kerry.

And around and around we go.

Bin Laden warned us right before Election Day not to allow Bush's policies to continue or we'd get attacked. The only way that could happen is if we elected Kerry. But he also knew if he specifically said, "vote for Kerry," it would egregiously backfire. So he left it at an indirect endorsement.

If you doubt that Bin Laden is firmly in the Democrat camp, consider how identical his angry rhetoric is to that of the far left, condemning the new Democrat Congress for not managing to surrender Iraq to jihadists:

Bin Laden chastised American voters, saying, 'You permitted Bush to complete his first term, and stranger still, chose him for a second term,' allowing him to 'murder our people in Iraq and Afghanistan.'

The Democrats' taking over Congress amounted to nothing, he said, except 'they continue to agree to the spending of tens of billions (of dollars) to continue the killing and the war (in Iraq) ...'

...and if THAT doesn't convince you, maybe the fact that Bin Laden has also advocated liberal policy positions on things like global warming will.

"After discussing world events such as global warming, bin Laden told Americans 'to embrace Islam.'"

UPI. September 7, 2007. Bin Laden tape criticizes Bush, policies.

The differences being...Kerry surrendering Iraq to terrorists outright and Bush fighting them until the war was won? Yeah, those differences are nearly un-detectable.

Um...nope. My assertion since the very beginning of this sub-topic was that Bin Laden endorsed Kerry. That has not changed.

Bin Laden threatening us with mass murder right before Election Day if we did not reverse Bush's policies? Yeah, how could anyone read a Kerry endorsement into that?

The only one seeing what they want to rather than the obvious truth here is you.

Democrats authorized sending Carter to appease North Korea while they went nuclear. Democrats authorized Nancy Pelosi to go meet with terrorists in a similar thwarting of US anti-terror policies.

Their history is vividly clear on appeasement and surrender. It's their preferred position on virtually everything.

A politically-timed adjustment brought on by Obama embarrassing himself against Hillary when he said he would meet virtually immediately with terror-states like Iran, without any conditions whatsoever:

"Obama has said he would be willing to meet with Iran's leader in the first year of his presidency without conditions..."

Associated Press Online. October 30, 2007. Giuliani: Dems Will Change Minds on Iraq.

__________________
http://www.patrioticunderground.com/

tecoyah

I gotta say Aquapub...I am so very glad you are not in a position to make policy decisions for my country. Your attempts to come off as some expert in diplomatic, military, and international affairs is getting a bit tiresome. If by chance, anything you proclaim made sense it might be a different story, but as it is you seem nothing but a Bush Doctrine Spewing Machine, and I think we can all appreciate the quality of decisions our President has made in world affairs.
The Adage "Know Thy Enemy" needs to be in play here somewhat, and though I can appreciate clandestine Data gathering it only makes sense to use all means at our disposal to figure out how to quell terrorism in the world...part of that is...well...Talking To Them!
I must admit it is a very sad situation that the only one willing to take this logical step is an inept Ex-President who borders on insane. I wonder what would have happened if someone who actually represents our government and had the power to speak diplomacy had been sent to work on this mess? I seem to remember we have a Camp somewhere....Uh Daniel...Derrel...No...David...Yeah, Camp David. There was a time when we used to invite leaders to negotiate peace, and try to talk out our differences. Now we simply do the "Aqua"....and Blow **** up. We have seen just how effective this approach can be. Fortunately, we also have something I like to call History, to show us the power of negotiation and compromise.

__________________
Self-Banned

aquapub

Off-topic personal attacks will get you nowhere. Disagreeing with those who are apparently incapable of learning from the near 100% failure rate of talking Islamic terrorists into peace is in no way "attempting to come off as an expert." It's just the natural side effect of paying attention and thinking for yourself.

It's not my fault that sheep won't learn from history.

The herd also acted agast at Reagan's reversing course from Democrat trademarks like appeasement, detente, and surrender...but Reagan's way defeated the Soviets, and I suspect it's the only thing that will work on Islamic terrorists as well. Give war a chance. Appeasement and talking terrorists into peace obviously doesn't work. Democrats have thoroughly proven that.

Sad...in the sense that Carter should know better than anyone that appeasing aggressors just leaves you playing into their hands, being that he's built his entire disaster of a career demonstrating that with one failure after another. Can you name a single situation in which Carter did this and it did not produce an emboldened enemy in a far better off position?

Sorry you have such an aversion to winning strategies.

Meetings with the US are currency. They carry their own legitimizing value and need to be used as leverage. You don't hand that out for free to lunatic fundamentalists looking to mass murder civilians. Hillary Clinton embarrassed the crap out of Obama in a debate a while back by pointing out that widely accepted reality. Now his position on this is that the US should not meet enemies without conditions, that way the message is clear: compliance is the only way to get what you want.

He gets it now, why can't you?

As soon as Hamas acknowledges Israel's right to exist, stops slaughtering infidels, and renounces the targeting of civilians, we should meet with them, but not until that moment, and until then, our single objective should be to destroy them.

Whether you are referring to Israel and Palestine or Iraq, both are examples that reinforce MY position here, not yours. Iraq-15 years without a stitch of progress...because we were doing things the Carter/Tecoyah way. Palestine-decades of failure to secure peace...because we were doing things the Carter/Tecoyah way.

__________________
http://www.patrioticunderground.com/

Bad Biscuit

[QUOTE]Not really. In fact Hamas will keep a tight grip on their power for a long long time. Fatah holds no ideological support base but only vested interests.

Yes, and Fatah has brought their people very little. Hamas brings them not much either, but with one exception. Self respect.



Not gonna happen. You may ignore them, but no one else ever will. To remove a government someone actually has to remove them, you cant ignore people to death or exile.



Thats a testament to pure ignorance.



He's been no better or worse than any American, that is to say ineffective due to continual pro israeli blind spots.



No thats not history, thats hyperbole.

What savages? Thats another debate.
Making peace requires something to be given to one's enemy's.

__________________
Current Favourite: Bon Bons

PERSONAL ABUSE WILL NOT BE TOLERATED. YOUVE BEEN WARNED.

tecoyah

We made excellent progress after Desert Storm, and in fact we obviously prevented Saddam from building a weapons program (as testified by the fact there wasn't one), had him castrated from any real ability to inflict harm outside his borders, and decimated the ground forces of his country. The Palestinian situation has progressed quite a bit, in fact I think they had an election awhile back. The fact that you don't like who they elected (either do I) does not change the reality that they have embraced democracy.

__________________
Self-Banned

aquapub

And Palestinians can't eat under Hamas. Consult that hierarchy of needs thing. I'm pretty sure food and basic security come before ideology.

Self-respect? For voting in savages bent on mass-murdering women and children? For destroying their own neighborhoods and throwing themselves into ceaseless turmoil, food shortages, and violence? Somehow the first thing that comes to mind to describe someone ruining everyone's lives around them to endorse monsters isn't "self-respect."

Embargoes and sanctions happen all the time. All it takes is organizing it. And no, you do not have to remove a foreign government by force to destroy it. You can use their own people against them, which isolation, when Democrats will allow it to work, easily accomplishes.

Because it would be so much more "enlightened" to adopt a policy with a 100% failure rate, the Carter-Tecoyah policy, the one of trying to talk Islamic jihadists into not mass murdering people.



That's what I thought. You can't point to a single example Carter getting this to work...so rather than looking for a more intelligent solution to Islamic savagery, one with a little backbone to it, one that deals with reality and human nature, you make BS excuses for non-stop liberal policy failures.

Then again, I challenge you to provide a single example of this approach you advocate working against Islamic terrorists. We tried it for eight years under Clinton, 4 years under Carter, and the result, each and every time: not a stitch of progress. That's history. Try paying attention to it sometime.

Wrong. Making peace with animals like the ones we're talking about can and should only be done with leverage or annihilation.

__________________
http://www.patrioticunderground.com/

aquapub

Were we talking about destroying an entire people for not liking one of our allies?

We were talking about destroying a terrorist group, Hamas, for relentlessly mass-murdering women and children. Try to keep up.



False. There was one. And because the Carter/Tecoyah approach failed so miserably, it had to be destroyed by military force by the Israelis, which liberals promptly condemned Israel for.

Unless you count the fact that he was a prolific terror-sponsor against our primary ally, and had a record of using WMD to commit genocide. And I thought liberals were against putting our own self-interest before stopping genocidal maniacs? Or is that only when it involves countries that couldn't possibly benefit the US to liberate, like Bosnia or Darfur?

Terrorism against Israel has been greatly reduced, but only because the Carter/Tecoyah crowd was finally disregarded and security walls were built.

Them having embraced democracy (which pre-dated the election of Hamas) is irrelevant.

__________________
http://www.patrioticunderground.com/