Reamond
|
posted on February 4, 2004 10:54:09 AM new
An election forecast: We’ll get bin Laden
Sen. Grassley sees terrorist nabbed by Nov. 2 vote
He doesn’t bother to attend secret CIA briefings of his fellow senators because he seldom learns anything he hasn’t read in the newspapers, but Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) is convinced the U.S. will track down the elusive mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks before November.
“Obviously, he’ll be caught between now and the election,” Grassley said Monday when asked if he’s disappointed that Osama bin Laden hasn’t been killed or captured.
“I think they’re on his trail now in a way they haven’t been all year,” Grassley said. “It will happen because we will be able to divert more resources [to hunting down bin Laden].”
Sen. Chuck Grassley: Confident Osama bin Laden will be captured.
Grassley, who’s an overwhelming favorite to win a fifth term in November, declined to say why he’s so confident that bin Laden will be brought to justice. But it certainly didn’t come from one of those secret CIA briefings.
“I think it’s legitimate for me to question all of our intelligence information because that I never learned anything from those briefings that I hadn’t learned in the newspapers. If they don’t know anything more than they’re telling us, what’s the use of having an intelligence agency, and why bother to brief us?”
Although President Bush’s re-election prospects would no doubt be boosted if bin Laden is found, Grassley said Democrats may have a better chance if Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) wins his party’s presidential nomination rather than the current front-runner, Sen. John Kerry (Mass.).
“ I would say that Senator Kerry is more of a threat than [Howard] Dean but less of a threat than Senator Edwards” because of the latter’s strength in the South, he said.
|
gravid
|
posted on February 4, 2004 11:00:37 AM new
He's too polite to say if they catch him they probably will hold him 'until they make a positive ID' which will just happen the optimun number of days before the election to win the biggest munber of votes.
|
Linda_K
|
posted on February 4, 2004 11:17:38 AM new
I hope we do. Those who support this President's actions will be elated. Those who are anti-Bush will never be happy no matter what happens. Saddam's capture is the perfect example of that. Crying out "where's binladen, where's Saddam?", then we get Saddam and they act like it didn't matter. This would be no different.
Re-elect President Bush!!
|
Reamond
|
posted on February 4, 2004 11:38:32 AM new
Those who support this President's actions will be elated
So you're saying that if Bush has delayed catching OBL until it can make an election difference it's OK ?
|
replaymedia
|
posted on February 4, 2004 12:02:15 PM new
Does it really matter as far as the election goes if they announce having Bin Laden Today or in October? Either way would wreck one of the Democrats main harping points.
I don't see much benefit to get had by waiting to capture him later, and it would wipe out Bush if it ever leaked that they had him or knew his whereabouts all along.
I'm sure they have stepped up their effort to finding him. They got Saddam, so all those people on his case can now be used on the Bin Laden hunt. They've probably doubled their manpower now that half their targets have been captured.
-------------------
Replay Media
Games of all kinds!
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on February 4, 2004 12:09:51 PM new
What difference does it really make, if bin laden's caught or not?
|
plsmith
|
posted on February 4, 2004 12:17:30 PM new
bin Laden's probably been holed-up in the VIP suite at the Sands, Jiddah, for over a year, just like Idi Amin.
We'll trot him out after Halloween... 
|
Fenix03
|
posted on February 4, 2004 12:23:22 PM new
Well -- unlike Saddam, I do believe that we are safer with Bin Laden in custody. He is not the be all and end oll of terrorism but he is the head of the snake and since many of his most trusted aids have already been captured or killed I think getting Bin Laden out of play it will at damage the machine enough and long enough for intelligent agencies to hopefully get a better grip on the situation.
As to why it will make a difference in an election? Because the sad fact is that many Americans don't really think, they just react.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
|
Linda_K
|
posted on February 4, 2004 12:32:38 PM new
No Reamond, that's not what I'm saying. If BL is caught it's my opinion it would be immediately announced....just like it was with Saddam.
--------------------------
BinLaden being captured will change nothing as far as eliminating the continuing threat. He has many supporters/followers and someone else will just fill his spot and continue on with their plans. Just as our country will continue on with it's war on terrorism under another four years of this administration.
No matter what else is going on, American's aren't stupid enough to put an anti-war president in office during these times.
Re-elect President Bush!!
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on February 4, 2004 12:43:30 PM new
Fenix, I'm not sure I agree with that. It's almost like saying that getting rid of Pablo Escobar did the drug trade in. As long as there's money to be made in promoting hatred, especially deceiving when disguising itself as a religious venture, there'll be many bin ladens.
|
ebayauctionguy
|
posted on February 4, 2004 12:47:48 PM new
Hey Reamond, you are always bashing Bush and I was wondering who you are going to be voting for president.
------------------------------
It CAN be done. -Ronald Reagan
|
Helenjw
|
posted on February 4, 2004 12:50:19 PM new
linda says..."No matter what else is going on, American's aren't stupid enough to put an anti-war president in office during these times."
Most Americans want to end war. Terrorism can best be fought with international cooperation, intelligence, and preparedness...all of which Bush has demonstrated his miserable inadequacy to handle.
Helen
[ edited by Helenjw on Feb 4, 2004 12:54 PM ]
|
Linda_K
|
posted on February 4, 2004 01:01:22 PM new
Most Americans want to end war. Sure....
Terrorism can best be fought with international cooperation, intelligence, and preparedness...
There have been many countries giving their cooperation to this administration and it's war on terrorism. On the preparedness issue....you and your ilk might just want to go back and read the way the democrats voted when it came to funds being spent on our intelligence agencies and our military. The dems most often voted against spending the funds in that area, just as Kerry did. Clinton reduced funding to our military for 7 out of his 8 years as president. That's the democrats method of preparing. lol
Re-elect President Bush!!
|
rawbunzel
|
posted on February 4, 2004 01:05:32 PM new
I would vote a anti this war president in. This war was wrong on every level.Unless of course you like being lied to and taken for a ride. I don't.
Do you believe that anyone that is anti the Iraq war would be anti all war under any and all conditions?
You kid yourself.
But then...that is more than apparent from your posts.
All religions are equally right
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on February 4, 2004 01:06:08 PM new
"... you and your ilk... "
That sounds like something Twelve would say, not you. 
|
Helenjw
|
posted on February 4, 2004 01:10:25 PM new
There's really no difference, Kraftdinner between linda and twelvepole.
never was...after the moderators left.
Helen
|
ebayauctionguy
|
posted on February 4, 2004 01:11:09 PM new
Helen you are absolutely wrong as usual. We are at war with Muslim extremists and we have 3 options:
1. We can try to contain them and accept frequent terrorist attacks from them.
2. We can kill'em all
3. We can try to spread freedom and democracy in the Arab World.
Democrats (and the UN) choose option #1 while George Bush and Republicans choose option #3. Freedom and democracy is the only thing that will defeat Islamic fundamentalism other than nuclear weapons.
------------------------------
It CAN be done. -Ronald Reagan
|
rawbunzel
|
posted on February 4, 2004 01:15:28 PM new
We are at war with Muslim extremists... not countires. You don't have a war on a whole country to get a group of extremists. That takes a totally new approach and international cooperation. You know, like the one Bush said we would see in this "new kind of war"...looks like the same old type of war to me. Guess the new kind wasn't dramatic enough.or something.
Maybe he lied about that too.
All religions are equally right
[ edited by rawbunzel on Feb 4, 2004 01:16 PM ]
|
Helenjw
|
posted on February 4, 2004 01:26:31 PM new
Helen you are absolutely wrong as usual. We are at war with Muslim extremists and we have 3 options:
1. We can try to contain them and accept frequent terrorist attacks from them.
2. We can kill'em all
3. We can try to spread freedom and democracy in the Arab World.
Democrats (and the UN) choose option #1 while George Bush and Republicans choose option #3. Freedom and democracy is the only thing that will defeat Islamic fundamentalism other than nuclear weapons.
If it wasn't so tragic, you answer would be laughable, ebayauctionguy. I'm impressed that at least you recognized more than two options though. That's some improvement.
We are not spreading freedom and democracy in the Arab World.
We can't "kill'em all" because they are scattered all over the world and not confined within a few countries. They are even located here.
And, similarly, we can't confine them because they are scattered.
The only way to handle terrorists is as I stated before...improve international relations, cooperate with the international community, improve intelligence and improve our defense and preparedness.
Helen
[ edited by Helenjw on Feb 4, 2004 01:32 PM ]
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on February 4, 2004 01:34:51 PM new
LoL Helen & Rawbunzel! 
Ebayauctionguy, that's the latest version. Here's what I remember...
-Iraq was harbouring terrorists
-Iraq was harbouring al qaeda terrorists
-Iraq had terrorist training camps
-Iraq had nuclear weapons
-Iraq had nuclear weapons pointed at the U.S.
-A gyroscope was found under a rose bush that could be used in making a nuclear weapon
-Iraq might have WOMD
-Iraq might have chemical and biological WOMD
-Iraq might have had a program aimed at acquiring nuclear weapons
-Saddam was bad and needed ousting
-Iraq needed to become a democracy
Did I miss anything?
|
ebayauctionguy
|
posted on February 4, 2004 01:35:58 PM new
Helen, your solution is basically containment (option #1).
That's not good enough for Republicans. We want to change to Arab world. A free and democratic Iraq might work or it might not work. But it's worth a try.
------------------------------
It CAN be done. -Ronald Reagan
|
Fenix03
|
posted on February 4, 2004 01:36:11 PM new
::As long as there's money to be made in promoting hatred, especially deceiving when disguising itself as a religious venture, there'll be many bin ladens.::
I do not disagree with the concept that many will atempt to step into his shoes. What I do not believe is that they will immediately have the same access to his resources or be as intelligent.
The risk that supporters hold is much greater than it was a few years ago and if Bin Laden were to be caught they would want confirmation that the network had not been compromised and that they were not at risk of being discovered. That takes time. That is time of inactivity and reorganization can be vey beneficial to intelligent agencies.
Side Note about US Intelligence - The one thing I do nt understand is why the US intelligence machine is not actively recruiting in the Chaldean communitites. There have been so many leaks and problems with Farsi translators being sympathitic to the causes why are they not turning to the one community that is native speaking and for whom the issues of Islam have been taken out of the picture. (for those unaware- Chaldeans are Catholic Iraqis with large populations in San Diego and Detroit)
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
|
Helenjw
|
posted on February 4, 2004 02:02:43 PM new
Helen, your solution is basically containment (option #1).
I stated my solution, ebayauctionguy at the end of my previous comment. How can you presume to tell me what I think.
Helen
|
rawbunzel
|
posted on February 4, 2004 02:09:18 PM new
ebayauctionguy,since republicans want a free and democratic Iraq and to change the Arab world [I do wonder how the Arabs feel about that]how will those republicans feel...no..how do they feel, knowing that Afghanistan has turned right back into a Taliban/fundimentalist like country except in Kabul and it is slipping fast.How will they feel when Bush turns Iraq over to the UN or fundamentalists just to wash his hands of the whole mess ?
Will you then think that Bush is wrong?
Can anything he does make you think he can make a wrong decision?
All religions are equally right
|
reamond
|
posted on February 4, 2004 03:06:46 PM new
A "pull-out" in Iraq this June will mean that Iraq will become another Iran with a radical Islamic government. Same with Afghanistan.
Bush has turned out to be a loser all the way around. I guess all the rumors were true- he is an idiot.
It doesn't really make any difference what democrat beats him, we need a regime change.
|
