| Author |
Message |
    
Mustt_mustt
Citizen
Username: Mustt_mustt
Post Number: 66
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 27, 2004 - 9:14 pm: |     |
from Media Matters
"Terrorists want Kerry": The conservative mantra gains voices as it loses credibility
On September 20, FOX News Channel host John Gibson became the most recent in a long line of media figures to echo the Republican suggestion that terrorists would prefer a victory for Senator John Kerry over President George W. Bush in November. Gibson used his "My Word" editorial segment of The Big Story with John Gibson to assert: "Of course they'd [terrorists] like to see Kerry win, because it means Bush would get kicked out of the White House."
Gibson's comment comes in the wake of House Speaker Dennis Hastert's (R-IL) September 18 suggestion that Al Qaeda would operate with more comfort if Kerry is elected. Vice President Dick Cheney, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, and President Bush have all made similar recent statements.
Media Matters for America has documented numerous instances of media figures adopting the Republican claim that terrorists prefer Kerry, which they have done despite a conspicuous lack of evidence to support that claim. In fact, as MMFA has noted, Reuters reported evidence on March 17 that suggests precisely the opposite: In a statement claiming responsibility for the Madrid bombings that killed nearly 200 people in March, the Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades -- a terrorist organization claiming ties to Al Qaeda -- said it wants to see Bush reelected in November. And on September 21, The Guardian reported that the British ambassador to Italy, Sir Ivor Roberts, called Bush "the greatest recruiting sergeant for Al Qaeda."
Nevertheless, conservatives in the media have loyally propagated this baseless claim:
On September 19, CNN senior political analyst and American Enterprise Institute resident fellow Bill Schneider claimed that Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda "would very much like to defeat President [George W.] Bush" in November's presidential election.
On September 16, Roll Call executive editor Morton M. Kondracke claimed that, "for all I know," the growing insurgency in Iraq was "designed ... to help elect [Senator] John Kerry."
On August 11, radio host Rush Limbaugh touted an August 11 Washington Times article about a possible Al Qaeda plot to disrupt the U.S. elections that quoted an unnamed "U.S. intelligence official" who claimed, "The view of Al Qaeda is 'anybody but Bush.'"
On July 8, MSNBC host Chris Matthews asked if Al Qaeda is "trying to get people to vote Democrat for president."
On June 8, FOX News Channel host Oliver North claimed that "every terrorist is hoping John Kerry gets elected."
On June 5, critic, author, and FOX News Channel political analyst Dick Morris penned a column in the New York Post titled "Terrorists for Kerry" in which he asserted: "It is obvious that Osama and his allies all want Bush out."
On May 27, CNN justice correspondent Kelli Arena reported: "[T]here is some speculation that Al Qaeda believes it has a better chance of winning in Iraq if John Kerry is in the White House." Arena neglected to report the source of this "speculation," which was consistent with claims that have been made by Bush administration officials and prominent Republicans.
— J.C.
|
singlemalt
Citizen
Username: Singlemalt
Post Number: 588
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Monday, September 27, 2004 - 9:17 pm: | |
I think the terrorist want Bush to lose. It's an opinion shared by many. |
argon_smythe
Citizen
Username: Argon_smythe
Post Number: 248
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, September 27, 2004 - 9:28 pm: | |
Must be true then! I'm convinced! |
singlemalt
Citizen
Username: Singlemalt
Post Number: 590
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Monday, September 27, 2004 - 9:31 pm: | |
Not saying or implying it's true. Just saying it's not that crazy an opinion to think the terrorists would prefer Bush lose the election.
They really do hate him as we all know. |
Sylad
Citizen
Username: Sylad
Post Number: 816
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Monday, September 27, 2004 - 9:37 pm: | |
President Bush as done more to the fight terror than all previous administrations, regardless of party.
|
Maple Man
Citizen
Username: Mapleman
Post Number: 332
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Monday, September 27, 2004 - 9:43 pm: | |
Al Qaeda really wants Bush in office, so they want you to THINK they really want Kerry, so then to spite them you'll vote for Bush.
Unless they think we've got it all figured out, and then maybe they really want Kerry, but if we think that means they really want Bush, then we'll vote for Kerry.
On the other hand, maybe that's what they expect us to do. Maybe we should just...
 |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 2496
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 27, 2004 - 10:01 pm: | |
Well let's look at this. The terrorists of Madrid -- did they want Aznar's successor from his party who would be a four-square backer of Bush to win in Spain? If so, why bomb Madrid as they did? Or was it to firm up support for Aznar's party because they wanted that to happen but something went horribly wrong and they're cowering in fear now that Zapatero is in office?
Is Al Qada capable of lying?
For Brock to pick up the line that terrorists would prefer Kerry and call it a talking point is ridiculous. I thought the same of Kerry, Dean, Kucinich, Clark, Sharpton and just about everyone else except Joe Lieberman. All by myself, without the help of anyone.
And there is a liberal bias out there. Of those cited as evidence, all but the CNN reporter at the end are pundits. When we talk about bias, it's not from those who's slants and prejudices are readily apparent and admitted to -- that's fair. Media Bias refers to reporters claiming objectivity while foisting their own opinions into the story.
And it's really quite simple. If you're a terrorist, you would rather go up against someone who is inclined to retreat over one that will go on offense. There's no mystery here, folks. |
Maple Man
Citizen
Username: Mapleman
Post Number: 337
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Monday, September 27, 2004 - 10:47 pm: | |
on the other hand, if your goal all along has been to set the Middle East ablaze, you'd want the guy who shoots from the hip.
why are we even debating this? all the Republicans at the RNC kept talking about the threats we face. And that's with Bush in office.
the whole premise that al Qadea cares who's in office in the U.S. flies in the face of facts. They attacked when Clinton was in office, they attacked when Bush was in office, and no one believes they've stopped planning future attacks. |
ffof
Citizen
Username: Ffof
Post Number: 2865
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, September 27, 2004 - 10:50 pm: | |
I don't think they care. And, I think they're probably all darn fired up at this point. No mystery there, folks.
|
JMF
Citizen
Username: Jmf
Post Number: 35
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 7:55 am: | |
I can't see why they would want Bush to lose. We have already shown that if they hide well enough, Bush will divert our military efforts and attack someone else. |
Mark Fuhrman
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 658
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 7:57 am: | |
Maple Man--I was watching The Princess Bride the other day, and your 9:43 post sounds like it came right out of the famous poison goblet scene.
I could not agree with you more. The Islamist terrorists could care less who is in office, and it is disingenuous at best (if not downright immoral and cowardly) for Cheney et al to intimate otherwise. |
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 115
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 9:28 am: | |
The single largest attack on United States soil happened under President Bush's watch. Instead of going after the culprits, he invaded a country that has no significant connection to the people who knocked down our buildings. Who do you think the terrorists want in office for four more years?
The fact that this discussion is even on the table, i.e. the terrorists are still around, says it all about the incompetent Bush administration. BUSH FAILED TO GET THE TERRORISTS! What happened to Osama "dead or alive?" |
singlemalt
Citizen
Username: Singlemalt
Post Number: 600
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 9:42 am: | |
Robert - you need to get a grip on reality bud. |
Guy
Citizen
Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 175
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 10:00 am: | |
Robert , you point out the fundamental difference between Bush and Kerry in regards to the War on Terror.
Bush views this as a global war on terror that begins with Al Qeida but doesn't end there.
Kerry sees Al Qeida as the only enemy terror group. |
JMF
Citizen
Username: Jmf
Post Number: 38
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 10:03 am: | |
singlemalt,
Robert is right. What happened to "Osama, dead or Alive" and how did Bush go from that to..
"I don't know where he is.You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him"
You don't spend much time on him?
NOT CONCERNED!!!???!!! |
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 118
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 10:04 am: | |
Guy: You are right, and Americans will vote accordingly. I'd amend your Kerry perspective to read that he sees Al Qaeda as the most important priority RIGHT NOW, as they are the group that is most active and able to attack us again. Unlike the Iraqis. While I don't necessarily disagree about disposing Saddam, I felt we needed to finish the job against the most immediate threat...and move on from there. |
jjkatz
Citizen
Username: Jjkatz
Post Number: 250
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 10:05 am: | |
Actually Robert was pretty much on the mark until he asked, "Who do you think the terrorists want in office for four more years?"
Fact is that bin Laden wants us all dead no matter who is President. The only President he'd even consider tolerating would be one willing to abandon Israel, which neither of these candidates is about to do.
So get real, people. On both sides. |
DrFalomar
Citizen
Username: Drfalomar
Post Number: 312
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 10:07 am: | |
Why would terrorists want Bush to lose? They are one for one on his watch. Bush let 3000 Americans die. Bush created the greatest terrorist recruiting center the world has ever known, battle-ravaged Iraq, out of the one place in the Middle East where Al Quaida had no presence at all. Bush has isolated America from its allies and given nascent police states, such as Putin's Russia, a model for behavior and excuse for it, the "war on terror." Good Lord, Osama bin Laden hit the damn jackpot with George Bush. |
notehead
Citizen
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 1534
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 2:51 pm: | |
I don't think Al Quaeda thought there was really much difference amongst American politicians... until W. But now they realize that they've never been luckier than to have this dolt in the Oval Office. W failed to recognize the threat of Al Quaeda; he failed to protect us from 9/11; he failed to thoroughly deal with the Taliban OR Al Quaeda; and he has created a royal goatscrew in Iraq that our own CIA recognizes as a mess that we might never be able clean up.
Do the right thing, and vote for Kerry/Edwards. |
singlemalt
Citizen
Username: Singlemalt
Post Number: 618
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 2:55 pm: | |
LOL. Kerry/Edwards could not win dog catcher this election. Since Mondale / Ferraro there has not been a bigger joke of candidates. |
dacar
Citizen
Username: Dacar
Post Number: 127
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 7:23 pm: | |
Edwards on Imus this morning said her and kerry would change "many things". realized afgan war was handled poorly "a long time ago" but voted for Iraq war anyway. suprised by the response by a trial lawyer |
Mustt_mustt
Citizen
Username: Mustt_mustt
Post Number: 73
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 8:22 pm: | |
Dacar, I think lawyers are brilliant folks, more often than not. More power to John Edwards who hasn't forgotten his lower middle class upbringing and I always thought he spoke to it in a very honest way!!! How he became a trial lawyer and made millions (29 of them) as opposed to Bush who failed miserably in every enterprise he initiated (including this war) and yet made more than $30 million is something that demands an investigation that could possibly be headed by Robert Novak? What do you think? Do you know what Bush did for a living before he became the Gov. of Texas? Educate me.
|
Insite
Citizen
Username: Insite
Post Number: 356
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 9:36 pm: | |
I like the comparison between John Kerry and a basset hound.
Both bark a lot at both the family and the strangers, ignore you when they are bored, and move to another room when you yell at them (plus the looks).
Unless Soros can really get out the 5+ million underage/ignorant voters he says he can (with promises of drug deregulation and such), Kerry is done. Better start offering cigarettes to the homeless for votes again .... |
dacar
Citizen
Username: Dacar
Post Number: 128
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 12:05 am: | |
here you go mustt.......let me know if you need anything else
Edwards Sets Up Professional Corporation Where He Was Only Employee … Avoids Medicare Taxes On $5 Million. “Edwards, a trial lawyer, set up a professional corporation in 1995, in which he was the sole employee and shareholder. Edwards then paid himself a salary of $ 600,000 and $ 540,000 in 1996 and 1997, according to a personal disclosure statement he was required to file with the secretary of the Senate. At the same time he collected $5 million each year in dividends from his corporation. Edwards was required to pay Medicare taxes on his salary, but under this arrangement he was not required to pay Medicare taxes on his corporate dividends.” (Rob Christensen, “Faircloth Claims Edwards Avoided Payroll Taxes,” The [Raleigh] News & Observer, 10/14/98
Edwards Personal Fortune: $38 Million. “He became rich [representing plaintiffs], racking up more than $175 million for his clients from 1985 to 1997 and amassing a personal fortune of at least $38 million, according to North Carolina Lawyers Weekly.” (James C. Mckinley, Jr., “A Journey From A Mill Town Ends With A Run For President,” The New York Times, 1/12/04)
|
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 3938
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 9:34 am: | |
Dacar, are you saying Edwards's wealth makes him poorly qualified to hold office? |
Insite
Citizen
Username: Insite
Post Number: 358
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 12:44 pm: | |
wealth made at the expense of doctor's, insurance companies, and my health care costs. plus he "used" the tax system to garner even more for hiumself. Can you spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E? For the working man my a#$ |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 3944
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 12:49 pm: | |
Anyone who doesn't use the tax system for his betterment is acting foolishly. I don't feel it is hypocritical to advocate raising taxes and still try to reduce one's own tax liability. If Joe Blow is allowed a particular deduction, I have no guilt in taking the same one. I'd be foolish not to.
|
Phenixrising
Citizen
Username: Phenixrising
Post Number: 12
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 1:11 pm: | |
"The single largest attack on United States soil happened under President Bush's watch. Instead of going after the culprits, he invaded a country that has no significant connection to the people who knocked down our buildings. Who do you think the terrorists want in office for four more years?
The fact that this discussion is even on the table, i.e. the terrorists are still around, says it all about the incompetent Bush administration. BUSH FAILED TO GET THE TERRORISTS! What happened to Osama "dead or alive?"
DITTO!
Hmmm… wasn't it Cheney who made the claim that terrorist would "mostly likely strike if Kerry took office?" Hah!
3000 civilians died under his watch (opps I forgot Bush's watch). Then again…who's really running the country?
The Pakistan President implied the other day because of Bush's pre-emptive strike on Iraq, the world is a LESS safer place. One thing for sure…more terrorist groups are being formed because of this fiasco in Iraq. |
DrFalomar
Citizen
Username: Drfalomar
Post Number: 319
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 1:16 pm: | |
dacar
setting up a personal corporation is done all the time by people in all sorts of professions for precisely the reason you state: to avoid taxes, as well as personal liability. it's hardly unusual or even underhanded that edwards would do this. instead, he would be a fool not to. |
Phenixrising
Citizen
Username: Phenixrising
Post Number: 13
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 1:21 pm: | |
"wealth made at the expense of doctor's, insurance companies, and my health care costs. plus he "used" the tax system to garner even more for hiumself. Can you spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E? For the working man my a#$"
Can we say Halliburton! Talking about citizens footing the bill. "As the Halliburton whistle-blowers told Rep. Henry Waxman, whenever concerns were raised within Halliburton about consistent overcharges, people were told, "Don't worry ... it's cost-plus." As the Center for Corporate Policy points out, the top executives of the contracting firms make 30 to 175 times as much as a U.S. Army general with 20 years experience, and nearly 2,000 times the pay of entry-level soldiers.
Some of the outrageous overcharges in Iraq are being investigated. And of course the investigations are paid for by the taxpayers, as well."
Hmmm, Cheney again! |
dacar
Citizen
Username: Dacar
Post Number: 129
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 1:47 pm: | |
If Haliburton is so evil why did Clinton give Cheney more contracts?
And I cannot set up a shell coproration to avoid paying taxes on legitimate income and neither should people on both sides like Edwards |
Insite
Citizen
Username: Insite
Post Number: 363
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 8:42 pm: | |
I am for offshore bank accounts and money laundering too. If the crooks can get away with it, why shouldn't I ? |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 3961
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 1, 2004 - 8:16 am: | |
You misunderstand me. Is that deliberate? I mean if an avoidance (not evasion, that's different) mechanism is legal, then expect people to take advantage of it. If it is illegal, then hope that the law catches and penalizes the violators. |
dacar
Citizen
Username: Dacar
Post Number: 137
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, October 1, 2004 - 11:19 am: | |
I agree and would apply that to Cheney and Edwards
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page