Too funny. John Kerry was talking about Hussein 2 months after 9-11.
Finally, the Kerry camp may regret calling attention to that McLaughlin transcript.  Earlier in the interview--which, remember, took place two months after 9/11, in the middle of our Afghan campaign against the Taliban--McLaughlin asks Kerry "What do we have to worry about [in Afghanistan]?" Here's the last part of Kerry's answer:
I have no doubt, I've never had any doubt -- and I've said this publicly -- about our ability to be successful in Afghanistan. We are and we will be. The larger issue, John, is what happens afterwards. How do we now turn attention ultimately to Saddam Hussein?
How do we deal with the larger Muslim world? What is our foreign policy going to be to drain the swamp of terrorism on a global basis? [Emphasis added]
one has to wonder how many beers jethro had in him at the time.
Jethro is actually rather subdued. Even after four or five beers.
Too funny. John Kerry was talking about Hussein 2 months after 9-11.
This morning as I was getting ready for work, I was listening to AM1500. The guy on there (I think Bob Davis is his name) was reading quotes from Liberals regarding Iraq.
It was quite entertaining how their stance has changed.
And the whole point is that YOU never spent 8-10 weeks getting YOUR ass kicked in Boot Camp... So the next time, keep your pie-hole packed tightly, and don't lie about fighting some Marine... Because unless he WAS drunk, pissing his pants Drunk,
you wouldn't stand a chance.
As usual you have no idea what you are talking about, fold. You live in your make believe little world. Well, reality is much different than that.Â
And by the way, Jethro... YOU have claimed that you were a trial-lawyer, many times.
The irony...
Irony? Â what irony? That is your make believe world clouding out reality-AGAIN!
Oh, OK. You are NOTa Trial Lawyer then, and you have never claimed to be one, is that right Jethro?
I am an an attorney. However, I don't do a lot of trial work.
I mean, I want to make sure I know, so that there isn't any misunderstanding about it anymore...?
There shouldn't be. But I don't quite get what it is that you think is ironic.
Either you are capable of handling a "Trial" as an attorney, or you are not... "Sometimes", doesn't qualify.
You need to distinguish between trial attorneys and other types. I am capable, but there are others better at it than me. I have only had three jury trials. The hearings that I do handle are bench trials.
Jethro, it is IRONICthat you would support a man for Prez that is determinedto limit your means of EARNING a living and more than that, by Representing people who have reasonable claims against those that they sue, in a Trial. I mean, as a Trial Lawyer...if you are one, as I said before.
I told you that I do not consider myself a trial attorney. And if you were able to comprehend the difference you might realize that tort reform will not effect most attorneys.
Perhaps some of you are aware of a story that ABC has a new terror warning tape. Drudge has had it on for a few days. I waited to reserve judgement. ABC said that it was witholding until it could be verified. And I gave them kudo's for that. The tape has since been verified as authentic. It still wans't released. Then Drudge apparently asked ABC why they hadn't. Here's what they said.
One ABC source, who demanded anonymity, said Thursday morning, the network was struggling to find a correct journalistic "balance" before airing any story on the video.
"This is not something you just throw out there while people are voting," the ABC source explained.
Pardon me? Not something you just throw out there while people are voting? So even though the tape has been authenticated You decide to not go with it because of the election? I guess witholding the info is o.k because you decide it is.
And for the kicker.
ABCNEWS withheld portions of an alarming new al Qaeda videotape which warns the next terror attack will dwarf 9/11 from the CIA when they submitted the video for analysis, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned
So they decide to withold that portion to the CIA. What if there's other intell on it? Don't people have a right to know? Why would they withold the part referencing Bush and then go on to say that "This is not something you just throw out there while people are voting," the ABC source explained
No, but every 'terrorist intel' since 9/11 pretty much says that. You wanna talk about sick of things. I agree that the public needs to know what's going on but these 'updates' are presented as nothing more than scare tactics. "It's going to make 9/11 look like childs play" bla bla fucking bla. What can I do different? Isn't everyone in a position to protect already in a high state of alert? Do they do something different when that lame ass terror alert level moves? Doubtful.
I think he was pissed. And understandably so. I could delete mine as well. To muck BS going on right now. I can't wait until Tuesday is over. If there is a clear winner that is.
You're right CM I am pissed, that's also why I deleted them.
No, but every 'terrorist intel' since 9/11 pretty much says that. You wanna talk about sick of things. I agree that the public needs to know what's going on but these 'updates' are presented as nothing more than scare tactics.
I agree, that's what pisses me off even more though. They shouldn't get to decide it. They shouldn't be witholding info from the CIA. It looks like they'll air it now. Tell me one other time they've waited to "authenticate" a tape from the jihaidiots? How many times have we heard. "The tape's authenticity has not been confirmed" Then they run it anyway. Thye've sat on it all week. Then say well because of the election we don't know how we'll handle it.
The time of year and/or events shouldn't sway the decision to provide all the info they have. That's what we were also saying about a possible Osama capture. Just do it and don't worry about who you might affect in the polls. You're going to get the inevitable BS from each side anyway.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- After a technical analysis, the CIA cannot determine whether a videotape obtained by ABC News in Pakistan featuring a man claiming to be affiliated with al Qaeda is authentic, a U.S. intelligence official said Thursday.
"We have been unable to verify the tape's authenticity," the official said.
. . .
A U.S. official said there were "real questions about its authenticity."
By that, the official said, he meant that it was not clear whether the tape was prepared by someone affiliated with al Qaeda and taking orders from its leaders, or whether it was a hoax.
With the presidential election just days away, officials are wary of a possible trick by an impostor.
"Without being able to authenticate it, it's just some guy talking on a tape," the U.S. intelligence official said.
How many other threat tapes have these jihaidiots made that we have seen all over the news? See if this sounds familiar. (Insert news anchor voice) "A new tape released today shows Akbar Al Whahoooie making new threats against the United States and the West today, the pentagon has not yet confirmed the tapes authenticity".Sound familiar? We've seen bunches of them. Yet this one they held. It's all fine and good if they held it for purely journalistic reasons. But when a source says essentially we are holding it because of the election, I have to ask why that is?
If the story was "old," why did the White House at first claim that they only found out about the missing explosives a couple of weeks ago?
Maybe because they weren't missing and the White House thought it was something new. But of course the Times story is being proven wrong every hour. Maybe instead of being rash like Kerry and jumping to wild consclusions, maybe you should be patient and keep up with the news.
"But of course the Times story is being proven wrong every hour."
As of this hour, you can't say that.
"WASHINGTON (AP) -- An Army unit removed 250 tons of ammunition from the Al-Qaqaa weapons depot in April 2003 and later destroyed it, the company's former commander said Friday. A Pentagon spokesman said some was of the same type as the missing explosives that have become a major issue in the presidential campaign.
But those 250 tons were not located under the seal of the International Atomic Energy Agency -- as the missing high-grade explosives had been -- and Pentagon spokesman Larry Di Rita could not definitely say whether they were part of the missing 377 tons."
The problem is that Kerry jumped to a conclusion for political expediency without knowing what happend and it appears without caring. The UN's own documents warned that the explosives could be taken out without damaging the seals. Do you want a commander in chief that jumps to rash conclusions knowing that there is information that doesn't support his conclusions with his finger on the nuclear button?
"Do you want a commander in chief that jumps to rash conclusions knowing that there is information that doesn't support his conclusions with his finger on the nuclear button? "
Too funny. John Kerry was talking about Hussein 2 months after 9-11.
Finally, the Kerry camp may regret calling attention to that McLaughlin transcript.  Earlier in the interview--which, remember, took place two months after 9/11, in the middle of our Afghan campaign against the Taliban--McLaughlin asks Kerry "What do we have to worry about [in Afghanistan]?" Here's the last part of Kerry's answer:
one has to wonder how many beers jethro had in him at the time.
Jethro is actually rather subdued. Even after four or five beers.
Too funny. John Kerry was talking about Hussein 2 months after 9-11.
This morning as I was getting ready for work, I was listening to AM1500. The guy on there (I think Bob Davis is his name) was reading quotes from Liberals regarding Iraq.
It was quite entertaining how their stance has changed.
Didja call him a jarhead? Not that I recall.
assault and battery is a crime.
I thought you respected the law.
[Edited by molegrass on Oct 26, 2004 at 11:21am.]
Mindbomb used to listen to Tom Waits
He probably still does.
Not when coming to the defense of another, crabhole.
"Quit talking to me crabgrass" - Torpedo-8
And the whole point is that YOU never spent 8-10 weeks getting YOUR ass kicked in Boot Camp... So the next time, keep your pie-hole packed tightly, and don't lie about fighting some Marine... Because unless he WAS drunk,
pissing his pants Drunk,
you wouldn't stand a chance.
As usual you have no idea what you are talking about, fold. You live in your make believe little world. Well, reality is much different than that.Â
And by the way, Jethro... YOU have claimed that you were a trial-lawyer, many times.
The irony...
Irony? Â what irony? That is your make believe world clouding out reality-AGAIN!
[Edited by on Oct 27, 2004 at 06:34am.]
assault and battery is against the law
Oh, OK. You are NOTa Trial Lawyer then, and you have never claimed to be one, is that right Jethro?
I am an an attorney. However, I don't do a lot of trial work.
I mean, I want to make sure I know, so that there isn't any misunderstanding about it anymore...?
There shouldn't be. But I don't quite get what it is that you think is ironic.
it's against the law
Either you are capable of handling a "Trial" as an attorney, or you are not... "Sometimes", doesn't qualify.
You need to distinguish between trial attorneys and other types. I am capable, but there are others better at it than me. I have only had three jury trials. The hearings that I do handle are bench trials.
Jethro, it is IRONICthat you would support a man for Prez that is determinedto limit your means of EARNING a living and more than that, by Representing people who have reasonable claims against those that they sue, in a Trial. I mean, as a Trial Lawyer...if you are one, as I said before.
I told you that I do not consider myself a trial attorney. And if you were able to comprehend the difference you might realize that tort reform will not effect most attorneys.
fold, it is amazing the contortions that your mind goes through.
Not when coming to the defense of another, crabhole.
Not when coming to the defense of another, crabhole.
And since when did you give a shit about laws? Because it's Jethro...laughable.
It's ironic that Fold is supporting a vet basher.
"Quit talking to me crabgrass" - Torpedo-8
I don't quite know what's going on, but for the record Jethro never claimed to be a trial lawyer.
I think the most he's ever said is that he's attorney.
Most attorneys are not trial lawyers.
[Edited by on Oct 27, 2004 at 09:11am.]
Perhaps some of you are aware of a story that ABC has a new terror warning tape. Drudge has had it on for a few days. I waited to reserve judgement. ABC said that it was witholding until it could be verified. And I gave them kudo's for that. The tape has since been verified as authentic. It still wans't released. Then Drudge apparently asked ABC why they hadn't. Here's what they said.
One ABC source, who demanded anonymity, said Thursday morning, the network was struggling to find a correct journalistic "balance" before airing any story on the video.
"This is not something you just throw out there while people are voting," the ABC source explained.
Pardon me? Not something you just throw out there while people are voting? So even though the tape has been authenticated You decide to not go with it because of the election? I guess witholding the info is o.k because you decide it is.
And for the kicker.
ABCNEWS withheld portions of an alarming new al Qaeda videotape which warns the next terror attack will dwarf 9/11 from the CIA when they submitted the video for analysis, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned
So they decide to withold that portion to the CIA. What if there's other intell on it? Don't people have a right to know? Why would they withold the part referencing Bush and then go on to say that
"This is not something you just throw out there while people are voting," the ABC source explained
."Â Â Why would they do that? Hmmmm.
Â
But just remember L2F, there is no liberal media. Hush hush, nothing to see here.
The game plan is anything that helps Bush bury it. Anything that hurts Bush, run with it for days.
We're all gonna die by Tuesday. Mark my words.
Sheesh!
Anyone here said that?
No, but every 'terrorist intel' since 9/11 pretty much says that. You wanna talk about sick of things. I agree that the public needs to know what's going on but these 'updates' are presented as nothing more than scare tactics. "It's going to make 9/11 look like childs play" bla bla fucking bla. What can I do different? Isn't everyone in a position to protect already in a high state of alert? Do they do something different when that lame ass terror alert level moves? Doubtful.
ABC NEWS TO AIR TERROR TAPE ON WORLD NEWS TONIGHT AT 6:30 EST
L2F,
Why did you delete those posts? Just curious.
I think he was pissed. And understandably so. I could delete mine as well. To muck BS going on right now. I can't wait until Tuesday is over. If there is a clear winner that is.
You're right CM I am pissed, that's also why I deleted them.
No, but every 'terrorist intel' since 9/11 pretty much says that. You wanna talk about sick of things. I agree that the public needs to know what's going on but these 'updates' are presented as nothing more than scare tactics.
I agree, that's what pisses me off even more though. They shouldn't get to decide it. They shouldn't be witholding info from the CIA. It looks like they'll air it now. Tell me one other time they've waited to "authenticate" a tape from the jihaidiots? How many times have we heard. "The tape's authenticity has not been confirmed" Then they run it anyway. Thye've sat on it all week. Then say well because of the election we don't know how we'll handle it.
The time of year and/or events shouldn't sway the decision to provide all the info they have. That's what we were also saying about a possible Osama capture. Just do it and don't worry about who you might affect in the polls. You're going to get the inevitable BS from each side anyway.
"This is not something you just throw out there while people are voting," the ABC source explained.
God forbid people be informed before an election.
Some dirtball talkin' trash.
You guys want it both ways with the media. Sit on stories you don't like and go with others.
Where have any of us said we should sit on stories?
The only instance I can see sitting on one, is where national security or loss of life is possible because of said story.
Some dirtball talkin' trash.
The NYT really ought to stop doing that. I agree.
I wish Matt Drudge would stop.
Insulting the "New Media," I am. Sin of the new century,
You guys want it both ways with the media. Sit on stories you don't like and go with others.
If the story was "old," why did the White House at first claim that they only found out about the missing explosives a couple of weeks ago?
The "threat" is dubious at best, it would seem:
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/US/10/28/terror.tape/
What your Desktop does at night
This takes a little while to download but it is so cute.
Subject: What your Desktop does at night
http://www.rio.com.br/animation/iconstory.htmTurn your volume up
Cool
How many other threat tapes have these jihaidiots made that we have seen all over the news? See if this sounds familiar. (Insert news anchor voice) "A new tape released today shows Akbar Al Whahoooie making new threats against the United States and the West today, the pentagon has not yet confirmed the tapes authenticity".Sound familiar? We've seen bunches of them. Yet this one they held. It's all fine and good if they held it for purely journalistic reasons. But when a source says essentially we are holding it because of the election, I have to ask why that is?
My question is, what makes this one any diferent?
That's my point, they showed all the other ones right away but this one is suddenly held back.
If the story was "old," why did the White House at first claim that they only found out about the missing explosives a couple of weeks ago?
Maybe because they weren't missing and the White House thought it was something new. But of course the Times story is being proven wrong every hour. Maybe instead of being rash like Kerry and jumping to wild consclusions, maybe you should be patient and keep up with the news.
"But of course the Times story is being proven wrong every hour."
As of this hour, you can't say that.
"WASHINGTON (AP) -- An Army unit removed 250 tons of ammunition from the Al-Qaqaa weapons depot in April 2003 and later destroyed it, the company's former commander said Friday. A Pentagon spokesman said some was of the same type as the missing explosives that have become a major issue in the presidential campaign.
But those 250 tons were not located under the seal of the International Atomic Energy Agency -- as the missing high-grade explosives had been -- and Pentagon spokesman Larry Di Rita could not definitely say whether they were part of the missing 377 tons."
The problem is that Kerry jumped to a conclusion for political expediency without knowing what happend and it appears without caring. The UN's own documents warned that the explosives could be taken out without damaging the seals. Do you want a commander in chief that jumps to rash conclusions knowing that there is information that doesn't support his conclusions with his finger on the nuclear button?
"Do you want a commander in chief that jumps to rash conclusions knowing that there is information that doesn't support his conclusions with his finger on the nuclear button? "
No, and I'm not voting for one.
No, and I'm not voting for one.
The hell you aren't.
of course he is. you don't kill your business partner's son.
of course he is. you don't kill your business partner's son.
You're so fucking full of shit, how can you stand your own stench?
wow, so much hate.
of course he is. you don't kill your business partner's son.
Thanks for the insight Crabs.
You're the one full of hate.
You have so much hate for Dubya that you'll believe any crazy ass conspiracy theory presented to you.
I tell you another thing... Osama Looks QUITE Alive, to me.
Yes and probably in Pakistan. Should we invade ?