« Afternoon Mix: Zen, meat, Australians news, I'm Rick James, Bitch and An opening between the legs | Main | silence is golden »

The Tiger or the Lady

So here's a question for you: Let's take a trip to imagination land, where we see that the Islamofacist terrorists - that would be al-Qaida, all of its offshoots and spinoffs and copy cats and whatever the rebels in Iraq are calling themselves now and - are now able to vote for the President of the United States. Kerry or Bush?

Comments

Obviously they will vote for Kerry as he is preaching isolationism and that is their end goal - to get America to tuck its tail between its legs, run home and never question what happens in the Middle East as its none of our concern.

That and they hate Bush - or was that western civilization? I get those two mixed up sometimes.

They'd vote for Bush because his policies work wonders for their recruitment numbers. More ham-fisted foreign policy means more terrorists.

Nader.

That said this is rather silly. Similar to whether capturing Hussein means we're "winning" the war on terror or the Spanish bombing mean we're "losing" the war on terror. If John Kerry says tomorrow that he is going to be tough on the Saudis and will continue to bring the fight to the terrorists. He gets my vote.

To my knowledge, Kerry hasn't spoked about withdrawing our troops or hiding under the bed with a blankie. I still have my doubts but if he showed some balls and told us what we are going to do abotu terorism without having to make it sound touchy feely. He gets my vote.

Who would the terrorists want? Either. With Bush in office they can be pump up their funding and recruitment? If Kerry is demonstrably different in office, and suppose he were to withdraw, they can claim they beat the Great Satan. They really don't care and it's strangely a "win-win" proposition for them.

so let me see if I understand what you mean:

Bush= Hero of all that's free and good

Kerry= Hero of all that is bad and evil

Think your taking this to far. I refuse to let you convince me that a vote for Kerry is a vote to support terrorism.

Gee, I wonder. Once again Europe repeats itself appeasing ruthless brutality. The terrorist attacks in Madrid prove once and for all Bush's "ham-fisted" policy was right regarding the Alqaeda/Iraq connection. Kerry's assertion that European leaders are rooting for him convinced me to vote for Bush. By the way, I'm a registered democrat.

Hm. For the rank-and-filers, they could probably care less if it's the Vanilla Satan or the Strawberry Satan that gets elected. Both are equally ideologically unacceptable; they won't hate America any more or less than they do now because of who gets in.

For the leadership, it depends on whether they have any operations inside the US ready to roll, and when said ops could be pulled off. If they had something ready for before November, they'd probably want Kerry to win afterward. If they have something planned for sometime between 2005 and 2008, they'd probably rather have that attack weaken a Bush 2nd term presidency than have it radicalize a 1st term Kerry. If they've got nothing, I'm not sure...

Ryan, of course it's silly. That's why it takes place in imaagination land.

Drew: read between the lines much? It was an open ended question that I really don't know the answer to. Lighten up, dude. You're real far down on my list of people to indoctrinate into the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. In fact you're number 678 and I'm only up to 340.

I'll call you when your number is up.

"Ryan, of course it's silly. That's why it takes place in imaagination land."

I know Michelle. Sorry if it sounded a bit perturbed, I had just finished a conversation regarding whether the Spain bombings mean we are winning or losing the war.

Y'know, I'm going back to not reading your political posts. You and your commenters just keep saying the same things over and over: it's all Clinton's fault, Bush is a noble warrior prince, Kerry is going to invite Osama to set up his headquarters in the Lincoln Bedroom (but only if Chirac says it's OK). Did I forget anything? Oh, yeah -- HILLARY!! HILLARY!! HILLARY!!

When you think of something else to say, give me a call. I'll be over here in the music and PETA posts (my veal-parm hero was delicious).

Further thoughts and a fear.....if Al Queda thinks they can now swing elections, how dangerous would it be for Kerry to come out and say he wants to withdraw our troops? Wouldn't that give Al Queda the nod to go ahead and pull of an attack with an election similar in the foreign policy differences that parties in Spain had?

That scares me. Kerry can talk about being nicer to France all he wants but the second he starts taking a Kucinich line...well my vote will have been cast. I know it seems schizo with the Kerry or Bush posting because frankly...I haven't made up my mind.

Not that it really matters anyway, because I expect that the preference of the Terrorists would be to see both men dead, not elected. In fact, I am pretty sure that is the hope they have for all of us.

However, since we are in imagination land. Clearly Kerry. Since he has essentialy taken the stand that invading Iraq was wrong, and since Saddam himself was a terrorist - well you do the math.

Saddam was a terrorist you say?!
Thats just crazy talk!

Defense guy...why does your last link on "talk" say virus?

Ryan,

Didn't even notice that. Hey, it says lucifer too. I don't think it will hurt you.

Good to know I have some time :).

Seriously though why would Kerry be such a bad choice for President. I'm not saying Bush did a bad job on trying to protect America but we should at least be open to the idea Kerry might win and listen to some of his ideas...

I bet a fair number of them already get to vote, so why not do some exit polling? I know one thing for sure, their superstitious apocalyptic zero-sum worldview is closer to GW's than it is to mine.

Michele, this will be my first Republican vote, and a proud one at that, no nose holding here.

I would like to add thisÖ

A problem with this debate is that in all the detail their really is just one question to ask. Are we at War? This is truly what the argument is about. Through all the arguing at the detail level about multilateralism, lies, civil liberties and assumptions that Kerry could possibly do as well or better are really just qualifiers to that belief. If one believes we are truly at War, we donít change captains, we donít argue about phantom arrests of librarians, phantom abuses of detainees, deficits, civil liberties, etc. That would be distracting and borderline ridiculous, especially when historically measured we are MORE THAN WITHIN BOUNDS on such issues. Check the WWII deficit levels, Lincoln and Habeas Corpus, FDR and Japanese detainments, LBJ and true lies. This president is more than restrained and honest by comparison. If one believes the War is farcical, or at best, a police action. All these sacrifices are certainly unnecessary, encroaching upon civil liberties and downright subversive. So the argument really is this. Are we at War?

Those who truly believe we are at war have one choice, Bush. Those who don't follow the Spaniards.

To answer the question the terrorists want Kerry period.

"They'd vote for Bush because his policies work wonders for their recruitment numbers"

And your evidence is, David? In my opinion, the Spanish bombing incident and it's success should have increased recruitment far more than GW's retaliation after 9-11. At least I have a logical conclusion based on the OBL tapes found after the invasion of Afganistan. What do you have? A weak Socratic argument in which your personal observations actually have any merit? Please don't cite Western journalists in your justification (they are similarly impaired).

Drew - much better response the second time... I've got my reasons why Kerry wouldn't be as good, but I'll give both of us a least 3 months to confirm our views.

"superstitious apocalyptic zero-sum worldview"

Okay, zwichenzug, as a Christian I'll give you a pass on the superstitious and apocalypic viewpoints (even though I've heard these ridiculous assumptions that the Bush administration in trying to bring about the Apocalypse)... But zero-sum?? That's a socialist concept. Come on, understand your rhetoric before you spew it (I think you were looking for the phrase: black and white).

This reminds me of an old Letterman bit. It was a attempt to start the next popular saying, along the lines of "Where's the beef"? One of the gags had an older lady saying, "Hmmm...I wonder what Hitler would do in a situation like this?" I take little interest in the possible political views of people who would destroy democracies if they had a chance.

The answer is "Osama." They'd run him as an independent promising death to all Jewish-Americans and Christians, and an end to all pork subsidies and pork-barrel spending.

Sort of like Buchanan, except for the "Death to Christians" part...

Ryan and David,
You have bought into the myth that this is beefing up AQ numbers and it is as much of a myth as the rising of the Arab street that we have been waiting for since forever.
If you don't believe me how about UBL himself.
I believe he said something about when people see a strong horse? Well right now the US is the strong horse and UBL is in fear of losing his life. They are still recruiting or course but nothing like they were before we hit Afganistan.

I find it amusing that the anti-war types have seamlessly transitioned from "AQ and Saddam are nothing alike and would never work together" to "AQ blew up Spain to avenge Saddam's dead, gay sons".

(Who knew Heathers could teach you foreign policy?)

So which one is the Tiger? I thought it was me! ;)

"I find it amusing that the anti-war types have seamlessly transitioned from "AQ and Saddam are nothing alike and would never work together" to "AQ blew up Spain to avenge Saddam's dead, gay sons"."

You are killing me.

Would this "imagination land" be California? I'm not so sure we won't have any terrorists voting . . .

JFH

No, I meant zero-sum. I don't know why you think it has something to do with socialism. I'm thinking game theory. Also, I had black and white in there but it just seemed like one two many adjectives.

I'll make you a deal: assume that I mean what I say, and I'll do likewise for you. ok?

I'm with Jerry. Now back to Rick James:

"I can't believe I'm reminiscing about Charlie Murphy kicking MY ass!"

They'd vote for Bush, 'cause at this rate, he'll end up alienating the entire world, isolating the U.S. so they can attack us without our allies interfering.

I don't think this is a question so much as a statement.
And it would indeed appear that we are losing the war on "Terror", since most admit to being a one-issue voter this election cycle.
People would elect Charles Manson if he managed to convince them that he will protect us all.

Terror does reign supreme anymore.
That said, let Bush ride out his presidency.
Then maybe we'll get a decent candidate in 08, and since all presidents trip up in their second term, let the ride continue!

I don't think this is a question so much as a statement.
And it would indeed appear that we are losing the war on "Terror", since most admit to being a one-issue voter this election cycle.
People would elect Charles Manson if he managed to convince them that he will protect us all.

Terror does reign supreme anymore.
That said, let Bush ride out his presidency.
Then maybe we'll get a decent candidate in 08, and since all presidents trip up in their second term, let the ride continue!

Since I'm a simplistic Jacksonian, I say they would want Kerry. Kerry thinks terrorism should be treated as a law enforcement problem, and has said so. We all know how well that works.

The terrorists would vote for Bush. He's been rather splendid towards them. He's entertained their leaders at his ranch, and his predecessors have created and amply funded them. It's a no brainer, really. Hell, Detroit gave Saddam the key to the city in the 80's; I wonder what goodies Bush has in store?

Pakistanis love Bush, as he enables them to continue harbouring terrorists and pursuing a nuke program.

Saddam and UBL have been at Bush's ranch? No wonder we couldn't find them, then! Ooh, Kim Jong Il must be there, too.
/sarcasm

Saddam's a terrorist. That's news to me!

I'm talking about the leaders of the 15 of 19 highjackers - the Saudi's!

http://www.cnn.com/2002/images/08/28/top.bush.bandar.jpg

Kerry, but only because Bush is the current leader of the enemy. If Kerry was the incumbant and Bush the challenger, they'd vote for Bush.

I live in Massachusetts, and let me tell you: Kerry is tough son of a bitch. He's was a district attorny, a prosecutor, and he was a good one. He was a brave soldier, too, as you all know.

Bush is NOT a tough person; he's really more easy-going and fun-loving, and he's soft inside. Bush is a shoulder-shrugger. Cross John Kerry and he'll nail you to the door.

They would probably go for Kerry, just because as A Random Passerby said, Bush is the one currently in office. As soon as Kerry was elected, it would be "Death to Kerry."

Everyone yelling at each other and insulting each other on both American political sides would do well to remember that al Qaida is the real enemy, not the political party opposing yours. No matter how fervently you dislike the other party, they are going to do their best to beat the terrorists. If they fail miserably, the voters will let them know about it.

Neither John Kerry nor George Bush is the Anti-Christ, folks (that honor actually goes to the miserable entity known as Bud Selig).

Is this a trick question? I'd vote for Kerry. Re-electing Bush means the 4th ID is gonna come stomp out my skeevy terrorist heart!

I think the more important question is this: now that Spain has a checkmark next to it on the target list, which one of our allies in Iraq will be the next to suffer a terrorist attack?

I'm not expecting an attack on American soil. I see more of a systemic effort by Al Queda et al to alienate all other countries from the United States, utilizing a series of well-timed attacks that will take out as many innocent lives as possible.

These are dark days, indeed.