Pray with me

Comments

# William said on October 28, 2004 11:35 PM:

Did President Bush capture Osama Bin Laden?
He had 3 years time.

# William said on October 29, 2004 12:03 AM:

Make them take enough Viagra for thier genitals to explode.

# William said on October 29, 2004 7:22 AM:

Sam: I don't think he has, no.. Rumor has it he's waiting until Monday so I'll have to get back with you then. BTW, nice sight. That's some really interesting stuff you have over there, and new too.

But, uhh, what exactly does that have to do with my getting spammed? Has Osama been doing it?

# William said on October 29, 2004 11:20 AM:

Scott- that would be the ultimate in justice

# William said on October 29, 2004 11:57 AM:

I like "Make them smell michael moore's dirty underwear". Considering what comes out of his mouth, the other end's gotta be awful !!!

# William said on October 29, 2004 1:11 PM:

Sam:
How hard is it to find one person in the world? Pretty damned difficult if you don't use technology. If you don't use a cell phone, a credit card, or your own international papers than it's almost IMPOSSIBLE to find someone. The only difference in finding someone today versus say 100 years ago is technology. One of the only incentives in finding Bin Laden is the monetary reward. Bin Laden is worth more than what we're offering, so that isn't much incentive to people on ratting him out.

Most likely he's dead and no one's going to say anything about it. If Al-Qaeda says nothing, they still have a following. If Bin Laden is toast, they're not far behind. They'd be keeping that charade going as long as they could if that were the case.

Bill:
Cancer of the ass is more appropriate. You can cover your face, but when you can't crap normally because you have a baseball at the end of your rectum, you're screwed. It would hurt more than cancer of the face, which is a more fitting punishment if we were "allowed" to rain punishment from above.

# William said on October 29, 2004 4:29 PM:

Jeremy:

How about both of them? BTW, did you check out Sam's sight? Don't bother him with reality - he's obviously a devout believer in Micheal Moore and Lord knows, if Kerry was president, we'd have killed Osama, balanced the budget, kicked Sadaam's a33, the French would love us so much they'd repay their WWII debt and welcome American Films and Culture, and all of the radical Islamists would be trembling in their boots and ultimately tell their followers to face America and pray every day at 4:00 instead of Mecca.

Bush has made some major screw ups to put it mildly, but you notice that's where all the attention is - on Bush. Old Sam didn't mention how exactly Bush should have gotten Osama or how Kerry would have. And I guess the fact that he's hiding somewhere and no one has seen him in a few years means - nothing. And certainly he wouldn't imply that we had Osama in Tora Bora because the intel we had there was from the same CIA that told us Saddam had WMD so certainly Kerry would have been too 'smart' to believe any intel from them. Oh well, at least we'll know who the president is some time next year. www.tradesports.com has the going rate for certification by Dec 13 at 80 - http://www.tradesports.com/jsp/intrade/contractSearch/ . That's yucky.

# William said on October 29, 2004 10:20 PM:

Both would be a little harsh though do-able I suppose. If I had to pick one it'd definately be rectal cancer since it would affect more than cancer of the face.

I checked out Sam's site after I posted and you are right. It appears anything anti-Bush is considered Gospel to some.

Kicked Sadaam's ass? Haven't we already done that with Bush? We obliterated their army. Iraq NOW is simply insurgents of Syria and wherever just trying to get a crack at the "white devil". Sadaam has very little to do with Iraq now at all. I think I understand what you mean though.

Intelligence is only as good as the person gathering it. I wouldn't be surprised if some people were using it as a source of power, silently pushing their agenda on the White House. The thing about America is: there is (or should be) a balance of power. The legislative branch can only do so much, as can the judicial or executive. After 9/11 those balances were thrown around because of the Patriot Act and a couple of other bills (proposed by CONGRESS, NOT Bush himself). It'll take some time and lawmaking skills to put that balance back into play but I don't suspect Bush OR Kerry would be the one to see that through. Bush is too busy focused on the war and needs this to go forward. Kerry is too focused on himself and wouldn't dare give up power even if it's power that branch shouldn't rightfully have.

I'm keeping dibs on this though. Maybe in 20 years I'll go "But what about the checks and balances crap you skewed after 9/11? When are you going to fix it? The war's over you can stop playing games. I still wouldn't blame it on Bush or any one person because it had to be done then. Looking back it COULD have been differently but is it Bush's fault because AMERICA (everyone, Congress, every damn person) wanted us to act swiftly? Had he waited for some perfect Bill, we'd still be waiting to go to war. I'd rather us throw something into play and retract it later than to wait 3 years to get into the game only realizing we're fighting a lost cause. We're not as bad as people think we are, but the media feeds off hype, frenzy, chaos, and greed.

# William said on October 29, 2004 11:06 PM:

Jeremy:

Yah, Sam just have said to himself while watching FatassHeit 7-11 "I know, I'll get me a blog and start enlightening the world."

It's funny because as Andrew Sullivan pointed out much of Osama's speech has been heard before:
<<SO HE'S ALIVE: Bummer. I'd hoped he was buried under rubble. What to make of the rant? The parroting of idiotic Michael Moore points was a little pathetic for an alleged spiritual mastermind. And the re-calibration of the rationale for 9/11 - again retroactively talking of Palestinians - was the usual vile opportunism. But why release a tape just before the elections? The obvious impact will be to help Bush. Any reminder of the 9/11 attacks will provoke a national rallying to the commander-in-chief. The deep emotional bond so many of us formed with the president back then is Bush's strongest weapon in this election, and OBL has just revived it. The real October Surprise turned out not to be OBL's capture (sorry, Teresa!) but OBL's resilience. I have a feeling that this will tip the election decisively toward the incumbent. A few hours ago, I thought Kerry was headed for victory. Now I think the opposite. I also have a sinking feeling that that was entirely bin Laden's objective.
>>

# William said on October 29, 2004 11:34 PM:

sorry for the spam. And sorry for hijacking that post.

At least you guys had some time thinking about him BEFORE
the tape aired.

I never watched Fahrenheit 9/11. Its a piece of propaganda. Why should I watch it. It would not surprise me.

But an argument is not a wrong one, just because an idiot uses it too.

My point is very simple:

After 9/11 there was one thing to do: Get those who did it.

Bush didn't do that.

# William said on October 30, 2004 12:23 AM:

Sam:

First of, I owe you an apology. From the brevity of your post I wrongly assumed that you just here to bash Bush. Moreover your point about an argument not being wrong just because an idiot uses it is absolutely correct and I couldn't agree more. Since it's obvious that you're a serious poster...

To the substance of your point: It's not Bush's fault any more than it's Clinton's, Bush Sr or any other past president. Take Eric Rudolph for instance, the Olympic bomber. It took 5 years to get him. He eluded authorities through 2 administrations because he lived off the grid. But unlike Osama, he lived here in the states with only a few supporters. If you want to make the point that Bush f**** up becuase we still don't have the person responsible for Anthrax mailings - I'm totally with you 100%. But think about it - both the Democrats and Republicans would be instant heroes if they caught the Anthrax sender. Yet he's eluded authorities. Theodore Kaczynski eluded authorities for over 20 years and if it weren't for his relatives turning him in - it would have been longer. Bush, more particularly, the American military has marginalized Bin Laden. Assuming the current tape is authentic, can you ever imagine Bin Laden making such a complacent statement prior to 9/11? Did Al Queda ever offer the west a truce prior to 9/11? The bastard should be dead but he's been marginalized to the point that he's not a major player any more. The Taliban told us flat out they wouldn't turn him over. Even France wouldn't be that bold today.

Now, more importantly - as to whether or not OBL should be priority 1 or not. I think he should NOT be. If Bush solely went after OBL then the case of him politicizing 9/11 would be a lot stronger. Do you care who's responsible for the next terrorist attack assuming there is one? Would it matter one bit? The number 1 priority should be to hit anyone you are sure is going to try to attack you as quickly as you can. Sure, Bush isn't quite living up to this standard. By all rights Saudi Arabia should be a atomic wasteland today. Buddying up to Pakistan was a huge slap in the face to India - a country we should be giving a lot more respect to. But why would it matter if we got Bin Laden and let someone else that's easier to catch slip through the cracks? It's a simple case of triage and you have to get what you can when you can. Bush's #1 priority should be whoever it is that's most likely to hit us. To that end, if a one man show had the ability to <fill in major terrorist attack here> and Bush didn't address that first, he'd be criminally negligent in my opinion.

Assume for a second though that you don't buy either of these two arguments. What exactly is it Bush should have done? Can you name one course of action that would have guaranteed results? And think about it, if there was one, why would Bush risk his whole political career when a sure kill like getting Osama would have Guaranteed his presidency and almost certainly given him the popularity to pretty much do whatever he wanted to in regard to Iraq? The Tora Bora thing? The same CIA that told us WMD in Iraq was a Slam Dunk came up with this intel and there was a TON more agreement in the international intelligence community on Saddam's WMD stockpile. Moreoever, didn't we drop two DaisyCutters on Tora Bora? I haven't heard of anything, good, bad or indifferent happening there because, well, no one is alive there anymore. A friend of mine in the DOD told me that the whole purpose of the daisycutters was that they would cause enough flames to thoroughly consume the oxygen in the caves - something which could be far more 'effective' in terms of distance than even most nukes would be unless we deployed a nuke in the caves at ground level. Ballistic missiles are all designed to detonate above the ground to maximize coverage and all of them were made during the cold war - which means they weren't designed to target subterrianian scenarios. I'm no military expert so I can't say that I"m right just because one of my frat brothers told me all of this but it's not a very difficult concept to believe. Besides, using a Nuke would have really stirred the 'international community' cespool, I mean pot.

Obviously you have pretty strong convictions here and I'm sure you have some pretty good reasons for holding them - I'd like to hear what they are. As I said, I'm not stating I'm 'right' on this one, but I have yet to hear a convincing argument (or even a halfway sane one that doesn't involve some Carlysle group conspiracy) and I'm open to hear one.

Again - I'm sorry for my quick fire remarks at the beginning - I was wrong to do that.