It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

al Qaeda votes for Kerry, attack pending.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2004 @ 06:31 AM
link   
Top Democrats slapped back Sunday at a remark by House Speaker Dennis Hastert that al Qaeda leaders want Sen. John Kerry to beat President Bush in November.

Are they willing to attack for it?
 



edition.cnn.com
At a campaign rally Saturday in his Illinois district with Vice President Dick Cheney, Hastert said al Qaeda "would like to influence this election" with an attack similar to the train bombings in Madrid days before the Spanish national election in March.

When a reporter asked Hastert if he thought al Qaeda would operate with more comfort if Kerry were elected, the speaker said, "That's my opinion, yes."

Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe called Hastert's comments "disgraceful," saying there was "no room for this in our political discourse."

"If John Kerry is perceived as being weak on the war, then of course, his election would be perceived as a good thing by the terrorists," Feehery said in a written response to questions about Hastert's remarks.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


"The fact that John Kerry can't make up his mind about the war only strengthens that perception."

I have no doubt that these terrorists will go as far as they can to infulence this election.

Neither the Bush campaign nor the White House had any comment on Hastert's remarks.

"I doubt that Osama bin Laden is likely to weigh in on our presidential election."

[edit on 9-20-2004 by Valhall]



posted on Sep, 20 2004 @ 06:54 AM
link   
Let the countdown to Cheney's unapologetic "clarification" of another preplanned bonehead comment begin.

He knows what he's saying. He knows it gets headlines. And he equally knows he'll have to correct and clarify himself later. You can't tarnish pure evil, so what's Cheney got to lose? Frankly if he suddenly started making sense, his supporters would probably be disappointed. Loyalty oath groupies aren't looking for a well balanced meal, just red meat.

In contrast I am so proud of how John Edwards is campaigning right now.
I know the right likes to spin him as a "no show" in the national spotlight, but that's because positive messages don't bleed or lead.

I just heard a detailed piece covering all Edwards has been doing on a highly classified secret radio signal offering real news only I get called NPR.


Man, Edwards is hitting the mill towns. If Bush was there at some point in the last 3 years, and you've been laid off since, Edwards has personally shaken your hand in the past month. That means he's not in major markets (which are liberal anyhoo), but in real towns with real people with real problems...and actually addressing them.

And he still gets heckled everywhere he goes by roving protestors for the rich.
I just heard tape of the "four more years" people that follow him around into the hardest hit economocally depressed areas trying to shout him down. He foils them so skillfully, you'd almost think they were pro-Edwards plants. They might as well be.


And the result isn't a backasswards sniping ridiculous claim like Cheney's daily brain fart on page 2 of the Politics Section, it's Edwards headlines and full front page coverage in small town papers one after another all across the country.



posted on Sep, 20 2004 @ 07:24 AM
link   
A vice president must be qualified to be president.
Edwards isn't qualified YET. He's a good speaker,
and he has some experience, but not enough.
I predict that 8 or 12 years from now he WILL be
qualified to run on a ticket as VP. He has potential.



new topics
 
0

log in

join