City of Roses
|Neither does he influence me.
I voted over a week ago and defend my choice. And I am not thrilled with the fact Kerry is not quite anti-war and thus according to Osama will continue to influence terrorist attack instincts by promising to "hunt and kill the terrorists". However, knowing Nader is an insufficient choice who actually does represent my interests far more, I'll go with the one who will strike more selectively rather than go dancing around bombing Falluja and Najaf on and on. Kerry also strikes me as more sensible in approaching the issue of terrorism by believing we shouldn't let it dominate our lives and water-cooler conversations, while Bush believes otherwise.
Here's the full transcript of his speech, by the way:
According to the transcript, if this is in fact an authentic tape and this is bin-Laden, he justifies the attacks on the World Trade Center towers to the 1982 permitting of Israel by America to invade Lebanon and seeing the destruction of two towers in the nation.
Apparently he wanted to take the "rejection and tyranny" and mimic the emotions back at us by striking an identical pair of towers.
All acts of terrorism are wrong and should be denounced, period. I believe as wrong as it was to allow an invasion like that 22 years ago, violent revenge is cruel, never solves anything and mentioning what he based his attack on doesn't change anything about how menacing and cold September 11th was.
The bottom line here is, no matter if Bush or Kerry is elected, terrorism is not going to cease to exist. And we're not going to resolve the conflict by fighting fire with fire, we need to form some type of diplomacy that doesn't involve artificial arms.
As for the rest of his speech, I think this tape could be spun both ways in the final three days of the campaign.
I was thinking when I read the end of this transcript, "Did Osama see "Fahrenheit 9/11"? Mentioning Bush and his seven minutes of silence in a Florida second-grade classroom is quite coincidental, and it made me wonder if this is in fact a fake tape, this could intensely hurt the Kerry campaign and make it seem like a fabricated unilateral production to strike at Bush's credibility.
I, myself, defend how Bush reacted the first seven minutes after the attack. I felt cold and silent inside for a while too. Tens of millions of us did. I cried to myself most of the day, though my following response unlike many others was not out of anger saying "Who did this, I want to get my hands on those guys and choke them and...", it was out of sadness that there are such menacing, hateful people in the world who'd even think of doing this, but throwing stones wouldn't amount to anything.
No, I don't blame Bush for his first response after the attack. I blame him for his responses following that, after September 14th, etc. I was actually one of a majority of Americans who felt Bush was actually doing a good job leading the nation immediaely after the attack. I felt maybe the embracing-one-another atmosphere could last for more than a week and bring the world closer together. How I wish that was true, but Bush chose instead to lead with impatience, seething and impromptu.
Should the former theory be the case, it could be over for Kerry and Bush will inevitably be re-elected.
But this could work very well for Kerry too. Kerry and his colleagues could go out there and keep hammering out, "When we had Osama surrounded at Tora Bora, suddenly the president decided to invade Iraq, and let Osama get away. Now look at where we are. Osama is still at large, and because of the president's irresponsibility, Osama is threatening to attack America again."
This will be an interesting story to see evolve by Tuesday.
"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20