Support NeoGAF

[Santo]

It's funny how the Bush administration (there was an article in yesterday's new york times) says that Kerry is using scare tactics (regarding social security going private under bush) to win this election, when really Bush and Cheney are SO much worse. This is an AP news story from today:

By ANDREW WELSH-HUGGINS, Associated Press Writer

CARROLL, Ohio - Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) on Tuesday evoked the possibility of terrorists bombing U.S. cities with nuclear weapons and questioned whether Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) could combat such a threat, which the vice president called a concept "you've got to get your mind around."

"The biggest threat we face now as a nation is the possibility of terrorists ending up in the middle of one of our cities with deadlier weapons than have ever before been used against us — biological agents or a nuclear weapon or a chemical weapon of some kind to be able to threaten the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans," Cheney said.

"That's the ultimate threat. For us to have a strategy that's capable of defeating that threat, you've got to get your mind around that concept," Cheney said.

Cheney, speaking to an invitation-only crowd as he began a bus tour through Republican strongholds in Ohio, said Kerry is trying to convince voters he would be the same type of "tough, aggressive" leader as Bush in the fight against terrorism.

"I don't believe it," the vice president said. "I don't think there's any evidence to support the proposition that he would, in fact, do it."

Cheney praised the recent elections in Afghanistan (news - web sites) but said they don't mean the U.S. mission there is finished.

"Does that mean it's over now and we can walk away? No, it doesn't," he said. "This is three yards and a cloud of dust. There's no touchdown passes in this business. We'll stay as long as we need to help them train their own security forces, which we're doing actively so they can take over responsibility for their own security."

In a campaign appearance Monday in Johnstown, Pa., Cheney criticized rival vice presidential candidate John Edwards (news - web sites) for going "overboard" in his comments about Kerry's support of unrestricted federal funding for stem cell research, which Bush and Cheney oppose. He also accused Edwards of giving people "false hope."

FULL ARTICLE: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041019/ap_on_el_pr/cheney

 

[ManDudeChild]

His attack on America's going to be HUGE

 

[MetatronM]

I, for the record, still hate Cheney far, far more than I hate Bush.

 

[DarienA]

His attack on America's going to be HUGE

Exactly he's not talking about terrorists... he's telling you his own plans... HE'S TAUNTING US!!!!

 

[Overseer]

I, for the record, still hate Cheney far, far more than I hate Bush.

Same. The guy is a racist moron that can't tell the difference between a Nuclear attack and his daily heart attack.

 

[Outdoor Miner]

Could it be that Halliburton=Skynet?

 

[xsarien]

"That's the ultimate threat. For us to have a strategy that's capable of defeating that threat, you've got to get your mind around that concept," Cheney said.

Yeah, it'd be nice if we had one. Too bad we don't.

 

[siamesedreamer]

What's wrong with what he's saying considering Kerry himself said nuclear proliferation is (in his opinion) the single greatest threat the the US?

 

[xsarien]

What's wrong with what he's saying considering Kerry himself said nuclear proliferation is (in his opinion) the single greatest threat the the US?

Because once again, he's saying that if we don't vote Bush/Cheney, we're all doomed.

 

[demon]

Have a fucking heart attack already.

 

[DaCocoBrova]

His scare tactics are so fucking annoying...

"Move out the country then b!tch!"

 

[siamesedreamer]

Because once again, he's saying that if we don't vote Bush/Cheney, we're all doomed.

And he has a right to that opinion.

 

[GG-Duo]

And he has a right to that opinion.

and a right to by hypocritical.

 

[xsarien]

And he has a right to that opinion.

Yes he does, no matter how myopic, misinformed, dangerous, naive, and fear-inducing it might be.

 

[duderon]

Yes he does, no matter how myopic, misinformed, dangerous, naive, and fear-inducing it might be.

booyah.

 

[ErasureAcer]

The only attack on American Soil that is coming...is the one if Bush/Cheney is reselected or even elected as the leaders of this country.

 

[Overseer]

The only attack on American Soil that is coming...is the one if Bush/Cheney is reselected or even elected as the leaders of this country.

Right. If Cheney ever became president then Meals on Wheels is DOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMED!!!!!!!!!

 

[bob_arctor]

LOL. Who in the hell thinks this way? What, the second Kerry takes office, here come the terrorists! OMG! He can't stop them! The US will be a large, gaping, wet pussy of a country just waiting to get fucked by the droves of terrorists presently cowering in fear of the Bush administration and their iron vise grip on our safety! With Bush in office, we can all have babies without the fear of terrorists eating them! Isn't that enough to convince you?? VOTE BUSH!

Just fucking unreal.

 

[DarienA]

LOL. Who in the hell thinks this way? What, the second Kerry takes office, here come the terrorists! OMG! He can't stop them! The US will be a large, gaping, wet pussy of a country just waiting to get fucked by the droves of terrorists presently cowering in fear of the Bush administration and their iron vise grip on our safety! With Bush in office, we can all have babies without the fear of terrorists eating them! Isn't that enough to convince you?? VOTE BUSH!

Just fucking unreal.

Fervent Bush supporters

 

[bjork]

HIS DAUGHTER IS GAY OMG

 

[OG_Original Gamer]

So how the hell were supposed to know if he was going to be tough on terrorism or not before he got in office(Bush)?

Because he was a death penalty Governer, Bush could care less about the possiblities that a inmate on death roll could be innocent, as long as he got his kills.

Its like saying Kerry doesn't love his country, Bush was really tough when he got that memo. But it was to vague. Would it be okay if Kerry said it was to vague.

 

[Diablos]

Hmm. I remember reading about this possibly happening, oh when, a few weeks after 9/11 in Time Magazine? Way to scare the public for no reason once again, Dick Chain.

 

[Dan]

Bush/Cheney use scare tactics with terrorism, national defense and foreign policy.

Kerry/Edwards use scare tactics with healthcare, social security and other domestic issues.

Both suck.

 

[Cerebral Palsy]

Kerry/Edwards use scare tactics with healthcare, social security and other domestic issues.

:lol

Promising healthcare reform, over pandering to the corrupt insurance and pharmaceutical companies like Bush, is a scare tactic? It's obvious Bush is going to do absolutely nothing on this issue if he is re-elected. Bush has repeatedly said with him in office the government won't intervene and do something about our healthcare mess. No no no, people should have choices! You know, they should be able to pick which insurance company, or drug brand they want to be fucked up the ass by. People should be able to decide how to spend their money, not the government! See, Insurance company "A" can fuck you, or insurance company "B" can fuck you. You get to decide which one to choose! Good ol' Republican way of thinking. Pander to industry and let the little guy be fucked out of the little he has. Hey, at least you're free to make your own choices without the government's aid!

 

[DECK'ARD]

There's a documentary on the BBC tmrw about the current climate of fear, who's responsible for it, why it's happening, and who stands to gain most from it.

Should be interesting ...

 

[Dan]

:lol

Promising healthcare reform, over pandering to the corrupt insurance and pharmaceutical companies like Bush, is a scare tactic? It's obvious Bush is going to do absolutely nothing on this issue if he is re-elected. Bush has repeatedly said with him in office the government won't intervene and do something about our healthcare mess. No no no, people should have choices! You know, they should be able to pick which insurance company, or drug brand they want to be fucked up the ass by. People should be able to decide how to spend their money, not the government! See, Insurance company "A" can fuck you, or insurance company "B" can fuck you. You get to decide which one to choose! Good ol' Republican way of thinking. Pander to industry and let the little guy be fucked out of the little he has. Hey, at least you're free to make your own choices without the government's aid!

What?

The scare tactic is that they keep acting like all of these things will disappear if Bush is reelected, just like Bush says with terrorism if Kerry is reelected. You know, if Bush is elected social security will disappear. If Bush is elected millions of Americans will lose their medical coverage over the next four years. Etc. Basically, if Bush is elected, something important to you is absolutely doomed.

Scare tactics have nothing to do with truth. It's still using the fear of some vague possibility to gain a vote and both campaigns are using it with regard to different things. Both candidates are running around saying that if the other is elected, something is doomed ina big, scary way. Fact.

I've seen plenty of as-objective-as-they-come reporters and analysts say this same thing over the past couple weeks. I'm not sure what the big deal is, except a knee-jerk reaction and protect-the-hive mentality that can't admit that the Kerry campaign uses some less-than-savory tactics as well as the Bush camp.

 

[Cerebral Palsy]

What?

The scare tactic is that they keep acting like all of these things will disappear if Bush is reelected, just like Bush says with terrorism if Kerry is reelected. You know, if Bush is elected social security will disappear.

Kerry quote, please.

And who knows if all of our current healthcare problems will disappear. Chances are they won't in only the next 4 years. But you know what, at least Kerry is willing to try and make changes for the better, instead of turning a blind eye in favor of industry. What has Bush done, besides refusing to let government intervene in our corrupt healthcare system, that makes you think re-election will change anything?

If Bush is elected millions of Americans will lose their medical coverage over the next four years.

Well, millions have lost their medical coverage over the previous 4 years. And millions upon millions more never had health coverage. Again, What has Bush done to make you think he'll do something about it this time?

Etc. Basically, if Bush is elected, something important to you is absolutely doomed.

Voting Bush is voting for more of the same shit we've had to put up with for 4 years. He won't budge on his policies, and they aren't working. Again, what do you think Bush will do to make our healthcare mess better? Are we doomed!? Probably over dramatic, but people will continue to lose health coverage, and not afford the drugs they desperately need. 4 more years of broken promises is what you want?

Scare tactics have nothing to do with truth. It's still using the fear of some vague possibility to gain a vote and both campaigns are using it with regard to different things.

IMO, 4 more years of Bush isn't a scare tactic, but a real threat. Bush and the Republicans have pissed the last 4 years away domestically, and don't get me started on foreign policy and Iraq. And I would rather vote for a vague possibility of change, than the same shit for another 4 years.

Both candidates are running around saying that if the other is elected, something is doomed ina big, scary way. Fact.

No, Bush/Cheney are running around telling parents we'll be hit with a bigger terrorist attack, possibly nuclear or biological, and their children will die if we don't re-elect Bush. Forget the fact that their children are already dying in a fraudulent war in Iraq. Then we have Kerry running around saying our healthcare system will continue to be fucked if you vote for Bush. Wow, Kerry is obviously in the wrong here. Calling out Bush for refusing to let the government intervene in our corrupt healthcare system. I mean, Bush/Cheney say our lives are at stake if we don't vote for Bush. I see your point.

I've seen plenty of as-objective-as-they-come reporters and analysts say this same thing over the past couple weeks. I'm not sure what the big deal is, except a knee-jerk reaction and protect-the-hive mentality that can't admit that the Kerry campaign uses some less-than-savory tactics as well as the Bush camp.

So, Kerry promising reform in the domestic issues we face, issues that Bush has ignored in his last 4 years in office, is now a less-than-savory tactic? You're a Republican aren't you?

 

[firex]

I'll tell you what, I'd like the republican spin machine do the advertising campaign for a new console.

 

[Dan]

Ugh, I'm not responding to any of that directly because you're failing to understand one thing: I don't need to even have an opinion on either candidates' positions in order to realize that many of their campaign strategies reside with scare tactics.

I don't have a fucking clue why you think I'm defending Bush. This has nothing to do with who's committing the greater wrong. I'm not defending either of their positions, or attacking either. I'm saying that their CAMPAIGN STRATEGIES are "less-than-savory." Read much? All you have to do is watch campaign clips on TV from each of their daily stops. You'll see plenty of scary sensational promises of what will happen if the other pair is elected. This isn't that tricky.

Jesus.

 

[DopeyFish]

I'll tell you what, I'd like the republican spin machine do the advertising campaign for a new console.

it's the only way nintendo can win!

 

[Santo]

What?

The scare tactic is that they keep acting like all of these things will disappear if Bush is reelected, just like Bush says with terrorism if Kerry is reelected. You know, if Bush is elected social security will disappear. If Bush is elected millions of Americans will lose their medical coverage over the next four years. Etc. Basically, if Bush is elected, something important to you is absolutely doomed.

Scare tactics have nothing to do with truth. It's still using the fear of some vague possibility to gain a vote and both campaigns are using it with regard to different things. Both candidates are running around saying that if the other is elected, something is doomed ina big, scary way. Fact.

I've seen plenty of as-objective-as-they-come reporters and analysts say this same thing over the past couple weeks. I'm not sure what the big deal is, except a knee-jerk reaction and protect-the-hive mentality that can't admit that the Kerry campaign uses some less-than-savory tactics as well as the Bush camp.

There's a huge difference between what Bush calls "Kerry's scare tactics to do anything to get into the White House" and what Bush and Cheney are actually saying. The big deal is that we're two weeks away from election and the Bushies are trying to scare people into thinking that if Kerry is elected we'll not only be attacked on our own soil again, but the next attack could be as deadly as a nuclear weapon.

As far as saying that Kerry is using scare tactics, that's a very distorted comment from Bush himself that people seem to eat up (and the reason for that is because every news station airs and re-airs his damn speeches over and over with the same comments).

Here's what Kerry is and has been saying:

As for Social Security, Kerry said Bush's economic policies have put it "on a dangerous road. Now he's asking for another four years to privatize the program, and undo the sacred compact we've made with our seniors," the Democrat said in an appearance in Wilkes-Barre, Pa.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=1&u=/ap/20041019/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_rdp


And this is true because that dangerous road has been taking all the money from social security and putting it into the war in Iraq without any idea of how they're going to make it up. You see, the Bushies like to borrow money from every program out there to funnel money into the war and they have NO IDEA how they're going to come up with that money for programs like social security when it's due.

As for Kerry's comments about Bush privatizing the program, those are absolutely words from Bush's mouth. The problem with privatizing it is that it will be so insanely expensive to switch over the program like this because there is absolutely no system in place to handle individual accounts. This is the reason they didn't do it when Bush first got into office when he WANTED to get the thing running:

"Bush campaigned in 2000 on a program to partially privatize Social Security by giving younger workers the option of diverting some of their payroll taxes into private investment accounts. But the proposal has languished in large part because of sizable transition costs that some estimate would top $1 trillion."

...people in congress knew it was too damn expensive. Now the estimates are much higher for its costs. If we didn't do it when we had a surplus we sure as hell can't afford to do it when we have our largest debt ever.

 

[unkasa]

What I find appalling is the constant implication that attends comments of this sort: that being, the democrats will not assiduously strive to defend our country in times of crisis. Listening to Cheney, the uninformed will assume that Kerry and Co. are disinclined to combat threats posed against our national security. What purpose would be served by an administration that does nothing to stave off the threat of millions of our citizens perishing in a terror strike. Would the incumbency of a response not be as obvious to Kerry as it is to Bush?

Sadly, the media, acting at the behest of interests in control of the republican party, does not take this administration to task for their devious perversion of language. Instead of objectively reporting on blatant distortions by this administration, comments of this nature are relayed by "news" outlets divorced from journalistic scrutiny.

 

[Cerebral Palsy]

Ugh, I'm not responding to any of that directly because you're failing to understand one thing: I don't need to even have an opinion on either candidates' positions in order to realize that many of their campaign strategies reside with scare tactics.

I don't have a fucking clue why you think I'm defending Bush. This has nothing to do with who's committing the greater wrong. I'm not defending either of their positions, or attacking either. I'm saying that their CAMPAIGN STRATEGIES are "less-than-savory." Read much? All you have to do is watch campaign clips on TV from each of their daily stops. You'll see plenty of scary sensational promises of what will happen if the other pair is elected. This isn't that tricky.

Jesus.

I get your point. Damn Kerry for promising change. His unsavory tactics need to be ended.

 

[unkasa]

And he has a right to that opinion.

And we, as citizens of this nation, have a right to hold this pathological liar accountable for his fear-mongering. Cheney and his acolytes are purveyors of intimidation and fear, painting John Kerry as a man who would impotently respond to challenges posed against our nation's welfare. He, like Bush, is a megalomaniacal asshole without shame.

 

[Dan]

Santo - I'm not taking Bush's word for this. I don't take anything I hear from either Bush or Kerry on their campaign stops as even a remote representation of any truth. I've heard portions of Kerry's speeches, and I've heard portions of Bush's speeches. I couldn't care less about the positions they hold. Both still employ fear more than intelligent discourse as a way of maintaining votes.

Cerebral Palsy - I can only roll my eyes at you. I'm not saying I'm against Kerry's proposals. I'm against the manner in which he often seeks to persuade people of them. Same as Bush, same as most politicians for that matter, since speaking in firm black-and-white scenarios is so much easier than making a good intelligent case. But hey, if it's easier to just fend off even equal criticism of both candidates as some kind of ignorant Republican attack on Kerry, sure, whatever helps you sleep at night.

 

[Zilch]

I'm not taking sides here, but if there ever was another huge terrorist attack on the US I'm sure you guys would be quick to blame Bush/Cheney's administration for failing to protect the country.

Just sayin'.

 

[unkasa]

Bush/Cheney use scare tactics with terrorism, national defense and foreign policy.

Kerry/Edwards use scare tactics with healthcare, social security and other domestic issues.

Both suck.

The equivalency is lost on me. Bush's shameless framing of Kerry as weak on national security is bereft of substance -- while heavy on fear-mongering, xenophobia, and delusive fantasies of an appropriately waged war on terror. Conversely, Kerry's diagnosis of the domestic malaise suffered by this country, substantiated by a comprehensive enumeration of policy that this administration has enacted, is accurate. There is no likeness between the two approaches to articulating their respective platforms.

 

[Santo]

I'm not taking sides here, but if there ever was another huge terrorist attack on the US I'm sure you guys would be quick to blame Bush/Cheney's administration for failing to protect the country.

Just sayin'.

What?? I would probably blame them if the CIA knew a month ahead of time Osama and his gang had plans to fly planes into New York and Washington and then it really happened even though the Bushies had plenty of time to prepare for such an attack.

 

[Cerebral Palsy]

Cerebral Palsy - I can only roll my eyes at you. I'm not saying I'm against Kerry's proposals. I'm against the manner in which he often seeks to persuade people of them. Same as Bush, same as most politicians for that matter, since speaking in firm black-and-white scenarios is so much easier than making a good intelligent case. But hey, if it's easier to just fend off even equal criticism of both candidates as some kind of ignorant Republican attack on Kerry, sure, whatever helps you sleep at night.

Equal criticism? Not in your case. Bush/Cheney are saying our lives are threatened if we don't re-elect them... And you're calling the Kerry campaign equally as guilty for "scarring" Americans into belieiving millions more could lose their healthcoverage under Bush? After milllions have already lost their coverage over the last 4 years he has been in office, and has refused to change his policy? Sounds more like you're being insanely easy on Bush despite his over the top re-election fear tactics, and very harsh on Kerry for simple promises of change.

 

[xexex]

- I'm not taking Bush's word for this. I don't take anything I hear from either Bush or Kerry on their campaign stops as even a remote representation of any truth. I've heard portions of Kerry's speeches, and I've heard portions of Bush's speeches. I couldn't care less about the positions they hold. Both still employ fear more than intelligent discourse as a way of maintaining votes.

true. because the same scum if not the same type of scum controls both parties and the president, regardless of if it's Kerry or Bush.

 

[Dan]

The equivalency is lost on me. Bush's shameless framing of Kerry as weak on national security is bereft of substance -- while heavy on fear-mongering, xenophobia, and delusive fantasies of an appropriately waged war on terror. Conversely, Kerry's diagnosis of the domestic malaise suffered by this country, substantiated by a comprehensive enumeration of policy that this administration has enacted, is accurate. There is no likeness between the two approaches to articulating their respective platforms.

It's not their points that I'm discussing. It's the manner in which they make them. I've been flipping on CNN around lunch time lately and there's typically live coverage of either a Kerry or Bush campaign stop, and I just see both preying on fear in supporting their arguments rather than intelligently making their case. I think it's a shame too, because I think Kerry has all the assets to destroy Bush in rather factual and impressive ways, but I see him dumbing down his arguments to just making people scared of what Bush could do. A little of that might be okay if not justified, but I don't like how both sides of this campaign have really pushed on with this 'ends justify the means' way of campaigning. I just hear a lot of promises for what the other candidate will and will not do, made in such extravagant ways, that's it's kinda sickening that someone out there is influenced by that.

 

[Dan]

very harsh on Kerry for simple promises of change.

This is the part you're not getting. I'm not referring to promises he makes of what HE'LL do. I'm referring to comments I've seen him make about wild promises of what will happen if Bush is elected.

It's part of my point, there's this significant focus on painting doom and gloom scenarios in voters' minds of what would happen if the other candidate were elected. I just don't see that kind of reliance on fear as a healthy one for American politics. It's not moving in the right direction.

 

[Loki]

The equivalency is lost on me. Bush's shameless framing of Kerry as weak on national security is bereft of substance -- while heavy on fear-mongering, xenophobia, and delusive fantasies of an appropriately waged war on terror. Conversely, Kerry's diagnosis of the domestic malaise suffered by this country, substantiated by a comprehensive enumeration of policy that this administration has enacted, is accurate. There is no likeness between the two approaches to articulating their respective platforms.

Hey Futami.

(my apologies if I'm mistaken, btw)

 

[unkasa]

It's not their points that I'm discussing. It's the manner in which they make them. I've been flipping on CNN around lunch time lately and there's typically live coverage of either a Kerry or Bush campaign stop, and I just see both preying on fear in supporting their arguments rather than intelligently making their case. I think it's a shame too, because I think Kerry has all the assets to destroy Bush in rather factual and impressive ways, but I see him dumbing down his arguments to just making people scared of what Bush could do. A little of that might be okay if not justified, but I don't like how both sides of this campaign have really pushed on with this 'ends justify the means' way of campaigning. I just hear a lot of promises for what the other candidate will and will not do, made in such extravagant ways, that's it's kinda sickening that someone out there is influenced by that.

Well, what you're characterizing as fear, is really nothing more than harsh truth. Along with his acolytes in Congress, Bush has sought various means of undermining the middle-class at every turn -- from healthcare to education. What Kerry is delineating happens to be an uncompromised illustration of just how insidious this administration's policy has been for the past 4 years. Furthermore, he and Edwards are conveying what they anticipate, should Bush win a second term. There is a huge difference between fear-mongering and appealing to the conscience of a nation under siege by a Christian, ultra-conservative, neo-fascist agenda.

 

[Dan]

Eh, I'm just not sure... that's a mighty fine line. I think there are better ways of doing it that are based more on intelligence rather than stimulating so much fear. I get the feeling that Kerry watches as Bush takes the fear-mongering further step-by-step, and then he figures, hey, I might as well too as long as I make sure Bush is always one step further.

 

[Cerebral Palsy]

This is the part you're not getting. I'm not referring to promises he makes of what HE'LL do. I'm referring to comments I've seen him make about wild promises of what will happen if Bush is elected.

It's part of my point, there's this significant focus on painting doom and gloom scenarios in voters' minds of what would happen if the other candidate were elected. I just don't see that kind of reliance on fear as a healthy one for American politics. It's not moving in the right direction.

Please provide quotes. Kerry has constantly said re-electing Bush will be 4 more years of the same, as Bush refuses to admit any mistakes. Sounds pretty much right on to me.

 

[Dan]

Please provide quotes. Kerry has constantly said re-electing Bush will be 4 more years of the same, as Bush can admit no wrong. Sounds pretty much right on to me.

I don't have quotes, nor do I care to go find any. I watch it on TV, I'm not scribbling down notes or looking up transcripts.

And again, for the THOUSANDTH time in this thread, I'm not arguing that Kerry, or even Bush, is wrong. I'm saying that there are more intelligent ways to prove a point without relying on so much fear. It's just so demeaning to the entire democratic process. That's it from me, since you clearly haven't read any of my last few posts.

 

[Raven.]

Exactly he's not talking about terrorists... he's telling you his own plans... HE'S TAUNTING US!!!!

"The biggest threat we face now as a nation is the possibility of terrorists ending up in the middle of one of our cities with deadlier weapons than have ever before been used against us — biological agents or a nuclear weapon or a chemical weapon of some kind to be able to threaten the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans," Cheney said.

AGAIN? We all know where these would go off, hopefully they won't unleash'em if they lose... hopefully he's bluffing... cause to retain power through the patriot... after many a member of this administration committed perjury... and with a new independent investigation likely... the witnesses who DEMAND the truth must be dealt with...

Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders "Consciously" Let it Occur

The truth must be revealed, an independent investigation as called by the families of the victims must finally take place

Bush administration and their iron vise grip on our safety! With Bush in office, we can all have babies without the fear of terrorists eating them! Isn't that enough to convince you?? VOTE BUSH!

I know you speak in an ironic tone, but from the other thread:

DAY 121:

The Central Intelligence Agency now has fewer case officers assigned to its Osama bin Laden unit than it did on September 11, 2001. Michael F. Scheuer, the former chief of the unit, said in a letter sent to Congress that "there has been no systematic effort to groom al-Qaeda expertise among Directorate of Operations officers since 11 September. Today, the unit is greatly understaffed because of a 'hiring freeze' and the rotation of large numbers of officers in and out of the units every 60 to 90 days—a process in which experienced officers do less substantive work and become trainers for officers who leave before they are qualified to support the mission. The excellent management team now running operations against al-Qaeda has made repeated, detailed, and on-paper pleas for more officers to work against the al-Qaeda—and have done so for years, not weeks or months—but have been ignored."

(Sources: James Risen, "C.I.A. Unit on bin Laden is Understaffed, a Senior Official Tells Lawmakers," New York Times, September 15, 2004. See article at: nytimes.com. "CIA Officer: al-Qaida Efforts Still Lag," The Associated Press, September 17, 2004. See article at: nytimes.com. Spencer Ackerman, "Iraq'd," The New Republic Online, September 16, 2004. See article at: tnr.com.)

 

[Diablos]

Don't you guys love how Bush pronounces Nuclear?

"NUKE-U-LAR" :lol

It's NUCLEAR. NU - CLEAR. "NEW CLEAR" really fast.

 

[Cerebral Palsy]

Don't you guys love how Bush pronounces Nuclear?

"NUKE-U-LAR" :lol

It's NUCLEAR. NU - CLEAR. "NEW CLEAR" really fast.

I like how he says terrorists also. Sounds like he's saying tourists, or tear-ists. I can't decide.