Print

[BCfosheezy]

http://newsvote.bbc....ast/6137082.stm

A statement purportedly from the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq hails the defeat of Republicans in the US mid-term polls.



The audio message, whose authenticity has not been verified, was published on Islamist websites and was said to be the voice of Abu Hamza al-Muhajir.

The Democrats' victory in Tuesday's Congressional elections was a move in the right direction, the speaker said.

Outgoing US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had stepped down to flee the Iraqi battlefield, he added.

He told US President George W Bush to "stay on the battleground".

"I tell the lame duck (US administration) do not rush to escape as did your defence minister. "The American people have taken a step in the right path to come out of their predicament... they voted for a level of reason," the voice said. Muhajir, also known as Ayyub al-Masri, has been identified by US forces as the successor to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, killed in a raid in June 2006.

[pug_ster]

What nut would promote terrorists propaganda?



Maybe you can ask the fear mongers themselves.

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Nov 14 2006, 10:20 PM)

What nut would promote terrorists propaganda?



Maybe you can ask the fear mongers themselves.

 

Posting this article is nothing like making a fear ad. There is nothing scary in it. I wondered what people here might have to say about Al Qaeda rejoicing over the Democrat win. How is posting a REAL news article promoting terrorist propaganda?.... Simply because it could be looked at negatively towards the Democrats it's bad?

[pug_ster]

You call it on what you think real news.  The Republicans lost all creditability and are so desparate for Americans to vote for them that they used terrorists to make a point.

Al Qaeda have been making threats since Regan was president, but you never see Republicans use them to campagain for votes until Bush came along.

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Nov 15 2006, 06:06 PM)

You call it on what you think real news. The Republicans lost all creditability and are so desparate for Americans to vote for them that they used terrorists to make a point.

There is no election coming up so your point is hilariously wrong. This is a real story. It aired on all news outlets. It's on BBC NOT Fox. Why do you proclaim anything negative against the democrats as propaganda?

QUOTE

Al Qaeda have been making threats since Regan was president, but you never see Republicans use them to campagain for votes until Bush came along.

Obviously the fact that the U.S. was never attacked on its own soil until Bush's term does not warrant listening to these claims. HAHA!!!

[pug_ster]

It is not news that is against Democrats.  Al Qaeda make threats all the time.  You twist the idea around that the Democratic led congress and senate will pull out when the person who can pull the troops is Bush and not the Senate and Congress.  Meanwhile, Republican politicans believes that this war still can be won and hold on hope on the Baker commission to wave a magic wand and the problem is all fixed.  Conservative and liberals experts says there is no 'victory' that Bush imagined years ago where you see Shites, Sunnis and kurds dancing together over defeat of Saddam.

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Nov 15 2006, 08:25 PM)

It is not news that is against Democrats. Al Qaeda make threats all the time. You twist the idea around that the Republican led congress and senate will pull out when the person who can pull the troops is Bush and not the Senate and Congress. Meanwhile, Republican politicans believes that this war still can be won and hold on hope on the Baker commission to wave a magic wand and the problem is all fixed. Conservative and liberals experts says there is no 'victory' that Bush imagined years ago where you see Shites, Sunnis and kurds dancing together over defeat of Saddam.

You're right, the news is FOR the democrats but that is beside the point. I never twisted any idea around. If so how did I do that? I NEVER said the Republican(I think you meant democrat) led house and Senate(Congress is both) will pull out.

Also, Bush is not the only one who can pull the troops out. Congress can override the president and had to approve the troops staying. This is all in the system of checks and balances that our constitution put in place. Basically you're wrong on all counts.



It's not that Republicans believe the war can be won. It's that they KNOW it HAS to be won. Losing the war on terror is not acceptable. Anyone with any sense knows that. Nobody thinks anyone can fix it. It's going to take time and nobody has EVER said anything different other than the democrats who won this election by making claims that they'd either pull out or speed up the process.



Even Bush said that it has been different from what they invisioned. What happened was the extremists who would be attacking and planning attacks on civillians are now attacking our troops overseas. Most Iraqi's have rejoiced over the fall of Saddam.

[gcskate27]

anyone else notice how gas prices were down before the election but rose dramatically after?

 

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(gcskate27 @ Nov 15 2006, 08:45 PM)

anyone else notice how gas prices were down before the election but rose dramatically after?

 

 

They didn't here....

[pug_ster]

QUOTE(BCfosheezy @ Nov 16 2006, 03:43 AM)

You're right, the news is FOR the democrats but that is beside the point. I never twisted any idea around. If so how did I do that? I NEVER said the Republican(I think you meant democrat) led house and Senate(Congress is both) will pull out.

Also, Bush is not the only one who can pull the troops out. Congress can override the president and had to approve the troops staying. This is all in the system of checks and balances that our constitution put in place. Basically you're wrong on all counts.

Well, the problem is that Democrats don't have 60% majority so they can't override Bush's veto anyways.

QUOTE

It's not that Republicans believe the war can be won. It's that they KNOW it HAS to be won. Losing the war on terror is not acceptable. Anyone with any sense knows that. Nobody thinks anyone can fix it. It's going to take time and nobody has EVER said anything different other than the democrats who won this election by making claims that they'd either pull out or speed up the process.
Even Bush said that it has been different from what they invisioned. What happened was the extremists who would be attacking and planning attacks on civillians are now attacking our troops overseas. Most Iraqi's have rejoiced over the fall of Saddam.

The war HAS to be won is not a strategy.  Sometimes you have to lose the battle in order to win the war.  Besides, the popularity of the war will go down dramatically next year when the Democratic congress will start holding hearings on how Bush misled us into the war.  By then, Bush's approval ratings will go to the 20's and probably into the teens.  He will be the worst president in history since James Buchanan who couldn't stop the Civil war.

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Nov 16 2006, 08:31 AM)

Well, the problem is that Democrats don't have 60% majority so they can't override Bush's veto anyways.

If they were to make a strong case against it and have some legitimate points then they could get the 66 votes necessary in the senate to veto the president. Since they can't do that then it won't happen. It's 2/3, not 60%.

QUOTE

The war HAS to be won is not a strategy. Sometimes you have to lose the battle in order to win the war. Besides, the popularity of the war will go down dramatically next year when the Democratic congress will start holding hearings on how Bush misled us into the war. By then, Bush's approval ratings will go to the 20's and probably into the teens. He will be the worst president in history since James Buchanan who couldn't stop the Civil war.

I liked how the senators yesterday tried to tell the general what was not a strategy. It was just as meaningless as when you say it now. Nobody claimed it was a strategy except for you. Simply saying "what's going on is not a strategy" is not a strategy. The democrats have no plan. The American people have given them a chance to do it better than Bush like they said, and bottom line is they are not going to. They don't have a clue. Nobody has even so much as given a rational thought on what to do. All I've heard is, pull out. Cut off funding, or stay the course which we're already doing. Since pulling out and a timed withdrawal are not valid options, I'm looking forward to what the democrats do.

Also, your wild speculation on the president is unncecessary. We already know how you feel about him, nobody cares to hear your predictions.

[pug_ster]

QUOTE

Also, your wild speculation on the president is unncecessary. We already know how you feel about him, nobody cares to hear your predictions.

Nixon was dogged by watergate, Regan by Iran Contra, and Clinton by Monica.  All was done because of Congress.  You can say that I am making wild speculations.  A year from now, you will eat your words.

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Nov 16 2006, 09:02 AM)

We can argue about whether Democrats, Republican or top Generals have a plan or not. Before the election, the media asks whether we should pull troops or not. Now the media asks when we should pull out. In about 2 years, you will see a Democrat running for president with a pullout plan.

You depicted how the media tells people what to think rather than letting the public hear the facts and form their own opinions. Without that you said nothing. In 2 years the Democrats might have a half-ass plan. So far all they do is wait on the Republicans to take a stand and then set up shop on the other side of the street.

QUOTE

Nixon was dogged by watergate, Regan by Iran Contra, and Clinton by Monica. All was done because of Congress. You can say that I am making wild speculations. A year from now, you will eat your words.

Nixon and Clinton were deemed to do something unconstitutional. Not sure what you're talking about with Regain. So far, nobody has came up with anything Bush has done that is unconstitutional. Even IF these bloodhounds come up with something to attempt to accuse the president of I wouldn't eat my words because all it would mean is you had a lucky guess. I don't think you will..... someone will eat their words and there is a great chance that it's not going to be me. The liberal spin wagon will do their best, but at the end of the day I think the American people will be tired of hearing how bad the Republican plan is without being countered by a better plan or any plan at all. The liberals may have convinced them over time that the war is for nothing, but they will not stay there long once they realize there is no substance.

[pug_ster]

QUOTE(BCfosheezy @ Nov 16 2006, 07:20 PM)

You depicted how the media tells people what to think rather than letting the public hear the facts and form their own opinions. Without that you said nothing. In 2 years the Democrats might have a half-ass plan. So far all they do is wait on the Republicans to take a stand and then set up shop on the other side of the street.

The Republicans complaining that Democrats have no plan is clearly a smokescreen of Republican's failures.  The Democrats can ire retreat all they want but Bush won't listen to them so what's the use?  
 

QUOTE

Nixon and Clinton were deemed to do something unconstitutional. Not sure what you're talking about with Regain. So far, nobody has came up with anything Bush has done that is unconstitutional. Even IF these bloodhounds come up with something to attempt to accuse the president of I wouldn't eat my words because all it would mean is you had a lucky guess. I don't think you will..... someone will eat their words and there is a great chance that it's not going to be me. The liberal spin wagon will do their best, but at the end of the day I think the American people will be tired of hearing how bad the Republican plan is without being countered by a better plan or any plan at all. The liberals may have convinced them over time that the war is for nothing, but they will not stay there long once they realize there is no substance.

The Gingrichites who staged Clinton's impeachment are not of moral ground.  Newt, Richard Armey, Tom Delay, Henry Hyde, Robert Livingston, and Dan Burton, who burned Clinton have marriage issues or corruption issues.  Those same type of people from the Republican corruption machine protected Bush from being investigated.  Since they lost their majority, the Democratic Congress will be pushing the buttons on what kind of investigations they want.  When the investigation on how Americans are misled on going to War on Iraq goes full swing, the republicans have to distance themselves from Bush and those Repubs won't be talking about 'staying the course' in Iraq anymore.

[throwingks]

What did Clinton do that was deemed unconstitutional?