Bin Laden hints major assassination

[sameoldsht]

Bin Laden hints major assassination (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040811-123531-3824r.htm)

"The view of al Qaeda is 'anybody but Bush.'"

Rather telling isn't it?

[nothumb]

Yeah, these guys found a top-secret laptop and they're TELLING EVERYONE about it, giving Kid Qaeda plenty of time to duck and run if they happen to be in that little black book. Great.

And the same guy who decides it's a good idea to leak recently recovered intelligence and let these goons know we're on to their little scheme also thinks it's appropriate to slip in a message that Osama wants Bush out of office.

Right.

This is really, really garbage.

NT

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
Rather telling isn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]

So, an unidentified "official" said, "The view of al Qaeda is 'anybody but Bush'."

Yes, that is rather telling. I've always put a lot of credence in quotes from unidentified sources.

[Ray Zee]

i finally found something i agree with them on.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
i finally found something i agree with them on.

[/ QUOTE ]

You could run into problems with the secret service for even hinting at Presidential assassination in public, and you are postiing under your real name.

I assume you just meant "I agree with 'Anybody but Bush'"

[cardcounter0]

Yes. It is amazing that any one would swallow the BS contained in this article. Looks like a lot of 'unamed govt. officials' playing CYA and justifying their recent actions in NJ, NY, and Wash. No mention of them blowing the Pakistan operation to catch more terrorists with this publicity. Surprised that no one is claiming that Osama has a Kerry/Edwards bumper sticker on his camel.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
So, an unidentified "official" said, "The view of al Qaeda is 'anybody but Bush'."

Yes, that is rather telling. I've always put a lot of credence in quotes from unidentified sources.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does one really need to put any credence in the report to know that it is true regardless?

[Bubbagump]

Assuming that there is any merit to this (and I'm not convinced there is), I have to question the wisdom behind disclosing this and other such intel to the general public. If it's true, why do we want to tip of the terrorists just how good our intel is? If it's not true, it does not benefit us to have the terrorist thinking our intel analysts are a bunch of incompetent boobs, they don't need any more help in this department as it is.

Bubbagump

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, an unidentified "official" said, "The view of al Qaeda is 'anybody but Bush'."

Yes, that is rather telling. I've always put a lot of credence in quotes from unidentified sources.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does one really need to put any credence in the report to know that it is true regardless?

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually think that al Queda is rooting for Bush to get reelected. If he's defeated, there is a much greater chance for international cooperation and alliances in dealing with their threat. They are also benefiting from the resentment that the majority of the world now has against the U.S. The goodwill and cooperation that we had from virtually the entire world in overthrowing the Taliban has been totally squandered.

[cjromero]

I am not an ardent Bush supporter and will concede that credible arguments can be made for voting against him, but anyone who really believes that a simple "regime change" in Washington will have a significant effect on international cooperation and alliances, particularly those with European countries, doesn't know much about the way certain countries think or what their true motivations are.

France and Germany were never going to provide significant military or monetary assistance in Iraq, no matter who sat in the Oval Office. Those two countries, along with Russia, did significant business with Iraq, and they viewed an American invasion as threatening to their respective short-term and long-term economic interests. As members of the UN Security Counsel, those three countries agreed with the rest of the members that Iraq had WMDs. They simply valued their economic interests above whatever threat they perceived Iraq posed to them. There isn't anything inherently wrong with taking that approach, but to suggest that France, Germany, and Russia opposed the Iraq invasion because they dislike President Bush is just plain silly. If they thought a regime change in Iraq was in their interests, they would have supported it irrespective of who sat in the Oval Office.

Since the end of WWII, the U.S. has almost always taken the lion's share of the burden in military operations around the world, both in terms of troops and money. Bosnia. Kosovo. The first Gulf War. And on and on.

And in case you haven't noticed, most of the international community is helping the U.S. in global efforts against terrorism. Iraq is a totally separate issue. We have received significant help with our efforts in Afghanistan and other places.