Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 11/1/2004 10:58:44 AM EST


-"my name is Osama Bin Laden, and I approve this message"
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 11:03:54 AM EST
IBTL
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 11:04:04 AM EST
LOL
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 11:05:52 AM EST

Originally Posted By theBUBBAMANcan:

-"my name is Osama Bin Laden, and I approve this message"



"Thank you for shopping at Quiki Mart"

Link Posted: 11/1/2004 11:06:21 AM EST

Originally Posted By _DR:
IBTL



+1
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 11:07:11 AM EST
How Can Anyone Vote For This Guy?!?

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

John Kerry continues to step in it. The Pentagon now has officially said that these explosives -- they're not "weapons" and they are not "munitions;" they're not "musicians," either; they're not "ordnance." It is explosives that were stored at the Al Qaqaa dump outside Baghdad. The Pentagon says they weren't there when we got there. Basically here's what you need to know. The issues are quite simple in this. It wasn't 380 tons; it was three tons, as ABC reports. The New York Times is still trying to carry this story forward. No story yet ever can say when those weapons went missing, when those explosives went missing. But it wasn't 380 tons; it was three tons. There's still no evidence it was removed when the United States was in Iraq and guarding the dump.

The UN refused requests to destroy the stuff all the way back to 1995, and John Kerry is running around attacking our troops for not guarding explosives that were likely removed before we got there. He is continuing to base his campaign on a lie. He is continuing to step in it, and it may not be showing up at the polls, folks, but this is the kind of thing that's making him look like an utter fool to a lot of people that we're not talking to, that the pollsters are not talking about to but who are following the story. Believe me, there's enough counter news out there to the New York Times and CBS that the people are getting the truth about this story, that Kerry jumped on nothing, and that he is actually ending up making the case for going into Iraq in the first place.


You know, I asked this question in a brilliant and stirring monologue last week, and I'm going to ask the question again: How can one single American consider actually voting for this man? Like I said yesterday in my wager -- in case you missed this, this is another brilliant part of yesterday's program -- I made the following bet if anybody would take it: If Kerry and Edwards for some reason are not on the ticket on Tuesday -- this is hypothetical -- if they resigned on Monday; if they said, "No mas! We give up. We've made too big a fool of ourselves; we're gonna leave;" If they're not on the ticket, that ticket with nobody on it is going to get the same number of votes as it's going to get with Kerry on it. You could get a Democrat ticket empty that would get as many votes as Kerry is going to get because the votes are coming in and they're going to be all aimed anti-Bush, not for Kerry.

What Kerry is doing is shoring up the Bush base with this kind of thing. But when you get right down to it, how can anybody consider voting for this guy with what he has said about U.S. soldiers? He has been critical of U.S. soldiers since he got back from Vietnam, consistently so, consistently in favor of turning over our security and defense and our independence in a way to the United Nations. We are at a time of war. We're in a time of serious war, and Senator Kerry -- I read something today that I believe. Some people are analyzing some of the people that support Kerry, and much of the so-called liberal support for Kerry, and I want to qualify this. I think there is any. I think there is liberal hatred at Bush, but the people are going to vote for the Democratic ticket actually believe that what Kerry is saying about staying the course and making sure we do the right thing in Iraq in a "smarter, more effective" way.

They think he's going to pull us out of there. They think that we're going to come home. They don't believe what Kerry is saying, either! They're convinced they know who he is, he's a liberal anti-war activist from the sixties, a rich, spoiled baby boomer, and they think he thinks just like they do and that when he wins the election, if he does, he's going to bring everybody home. We're going to get out of there real fast, and he has to say other things just to have a chance at getting elected. About this "smarter and more effective"? He's got this line he'll fight "a smarter and more effective war." Take a look at this campaign. Is there anything smarter or more effective about his campaign? He jumped on a story that's not true and he's still trying to sell it! Even his own campaign foreign policy advisors have undercut him. "Well, we don't know what's true. We don't know what's what."

Kerry does, and he's out there saying he knows, and he's continuing even today! Now, is this smarter? Is this more effective? Is this in any way representative of somebody who's cool, calm and collected in the heat of battle, or is this somebody that's impetuous and prone to panic and really believes that an alliance with his friends at the UN and in the mainstream media is all it takes to fool the American people? Because that's what he's trying to do. You know, when you go into the ballot box on Tuesday, it's one thing if people from Ohio or Michigan or Florida, battleground states, end up deciding this, but do you want Mohammed ElBaradei determining who the president is? Do you want the New York Times defining themselves who the president is? You want them in charge of democracy? You want Mohammed ElBaradei? You want terrorists who have endorsed Kerry? You want them to be largely responsible for who gets elected in this country? 60 Minutes? CBS?

I mean, that's who's trying to shape the election here. It's one thing when the people vote, but with Mohammed ElBaradei clearly now... By the way, the Russians have denied this. Bill Gertz has a story today that quotes John Shaw, deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security saying in an interview that he believes the Russian troops, Special Forces, "working with Iraqi intelligence almost certainly remove the high explosive material that went missing from the Al Qaqaa dump." Now, quite naturally, the Ruskies here are denying this. I knew they would. Of course the Ruskies are going to deny it. What do you expect them to say, (Vintage Cold War-era Ruskie impression) "Oh, yes, ve vere caught. Ve did it." Of course they're not going to do that. They're going to deny it, which is unfortunate. To me, it doesn't matter who took these things out; they weren't there. They were were removed. There's no question in my mind.


Look I'm using common sense. There's no question in my mind Saddam did this. You're about to be attacked. You want to move your explosives away from where everybody knows they are. You move 'em out in the open or you get 'em out of the country. Whoever moved 'em is irrelevant. The fact is they're gone. Kerry is trying to say that they were stolen and pilfered under our watch, under the watchful eye of U.S. troops and a bungling bungler George Bush. This 380 tons -- which is now three tons of explosives -- was somehow moved while we were not paying that attention. It's impossible to move that much in the first place the way it's being described with us there, but it happened before we got there. Who moved it is irrelevant. The point of this is John Kerry.

It's not even the New York Times anymore. It's not 60 Minutes because they're not going to reform. They're not going to. This is who they are. But this guy running for president is still trying to make a mountain out of this story and it's totally fraudulent and totally untrue. Whoever moved this stuff, to me, is a side issue, and to the extent that it gives Kerry a talking point. I can just hear him today, "And our frieeeeends, the Russians, have deniiiiied the Bush allegaaaation that they mooooooved those weapons. Those weapons were stoooooolen while Bush was not looking." He's going to give him an opportunity to stay on this, which actually may not be too bad, because the longer he stays on it the more idiotic that he looks, but stop and think of this man. "Wrong place, wrong war, wrong time." All of a sudden now -- and there were "no weapons of mass destruction," and "Bush lied."

Let me tell you something about these explosives at the Al Qaqaa dump. They are used for weapons of mass destruction. These are not, by the way... There's this cockamamie group. If you think liberal demagoguery doesn't affect this war, try this story: "An armed group claimed in a video Thursday to have obtained a large amount of explosives missing from a munitions depot, the Al Qaqaa dump, and threatened to use them against foreign troops. A group calling itself al-Islam's Army Brigades," Nobody's heard of this bunch yet, "said it had coordinated with officers and soldiers of the American intelligence to obtain a huge amount of these explosives that were in the Al Qaqaa dump. The claim couldn't be independently verified."

If they've got them, why are they waiting? I thought Kerry said they were being used now! Kerry's been saying all week that the stolen, missing explosives are being "used on our kids now." He was all historical about this yesterday. Now here comes this group. They used to call this "giving aid and comfort to the enemy," because what you have now is some radical terrorist group or some bunch of people that are calling themselves terrorists now trying to capitalize on this. They want Bush defeated, so they say, "Yep, we're the ones that got it, and guess what? We did it in league with the U.S. intelligence services." Will John Kerry have the guts? Will John Kerry have the guts to go on the campaign trail today and quote this terrorist group as a source that would confirm the New York Times version of the story, that the weapons, that the explosives vanished under the bungling moves and eyes of George W. Bush?

Will he have the guts to do this? Will he? Well, some would say, "Will he have the stupidity?" but either way. Here you have the New York Times running a fraudulent story acres story that is not true. It's been picked up by CBS. Well, CBS and the New York Times are trying to coordinate it. CBS, it turns out, wanted the New York Times to wait till this Sunday, so they could run it the same day. This is Howard Kurtz today. Jeff Fager talking to Bill Keller, who is the big editor of the New York Times, they're trying to wait and run the story both the same day; Keller said, "No, it's starting to leak out there on the Internet," which it was on Sunday night. Drudge had a blurb that it was coming, and Keller then said, "Besides it wouldn't be fair to the White House to wait till next Sunday because they wouldn't have a chance to respond."


Uh, does this not give you an idea the New York Times editor considers his own news story to be a charge that the White House might have to respond to, gives us a little indication of what they opened that this would be? They ran with it when it was unauthenticated, when it was not true. Their source is dubious, Mohammed ElBaradei, and now because of the New York Times and CBS collusion with John Kerry a phantom terrorist group has popped up in Iraq saying they've got the stuff, they got it in collaboration with American intelligence and military officials and they're going to use it. I just would love for John Kerry to say, "See? Theeeeere's a group that sprung up and said they haaaaave it, and they gooooot it, and they got it in collaboration with ooooour troops, with our military, because George Bush is a buuuuuungler," something. Wouldn't you just love it? I'm praying that Kerry says it. (Laughing.)

Well, let me tell you something. It's not that far out of the realm. John Kerry has said Bush "misled us" about weapons of mass destruction, and then he says those weapons of mass destruction were left unguarded. John Kerry throughout this campaign has said, "We were misled about weapons of mass destruction. There was no reason to go to Iraq. All we've done is stirred up a terrorist's hornet's nest," followed by "Those weeeeeapons of mass destruction were left unguaaaaaarded." There aren't any; there are. Whatever needs to be for Kerry to go on his fantasy campaign each and every day he'll make it up! He says, "The saaaaanctions were working; Saddam was contaaaaained." Yeah, sanctions were working. Saddam was contained. We should have let the inspectors stay in there.

"Those weapons of maaaaaass destruction were left unguarded." There were 380 tons in just one place, Al Qaqaa; 400,000 tons seized and/or destroyed, even more than that, maybe. It turns out the 380 tons is now three tons. This man has been all over the map ridiculing his own country, making the case for the invasion of Iraq in the first place. Now when it's confirmed that the story is not as it was reported in the New York Times, does he give it up? He does not. He continues with it even though his own foreign policy people, including little Ricky Holbrooke and Jamie Rubin, a/k/a Mr. Christiane Amanpour, are also saying that nobody can know what the facts are.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

I want to illustrate a point. I want to take you back to yesterday and a question that I raised and a little frustration that I expressed on this program. Yesterday was big news all over the media, AP, all these stories everywhere about the exciting total eclipse of the moon last night, and I was reading. You know me. I'm a big moon guy -- lunar moon, I mean. I like looking up at the moon in the sky, when it rises over the ocean. There are many other moons. I'm not interested in those. But the moon in the sky is a big deal to me. I'm in awe of it, when it rises over the ocean, full moon. I mean, I make an appointment every month to make sure I see it. So an eclipse, a total eclipse in perfect view is a big deal, so I'm reading these news stories on both Tuesday and Wednesday trying to find out when.

The news story just say, "Wednesday night two-thirds of the continental United States will have one of the best views ever for a total lunar eclipse." I would dig deep and I dug deep and I dug deep trying to find the "when." I couldn't find the "when"! The mainstream media wouldn't tell me the "when"! What good was the story if it was not containing the "when," w-h-e-n? So I had to do it myself. I had to take it upon myself to go find out the times. So I called up my trusty search engine, Sherlock, on my Mac OS10 system, and I went there. I went to Space.com and I found it, and that's how I found out when the total eclipse of the moon was going to be last night. Now, how many of you yesterday realized what I did? The lunar eclipse, the media left out a key detail in all of their stories yesterday and the day before about the eclipse, and that was "when."

Well, what is the key element missing in the New York Times story about the missing 380 -- or three tons, whatever -- of explosives from Al Qaqaa? When! The media has not told us when it went missing. We got a pretty good idea it went missing before we got there. If you put the timeline together -- which I have here, if you want to go through it -- the timeline gives a 28-day period where this stuff could have vanished before we got there, after UN inspectors had tagged it and ostensibly sealed it. There's a 28-day period of time before we got there. You know, the 3rd Infantry Division, there's are not the slackers.

These are heroes! They didn't see the stuff when they got to the Al Qaqaa dump, and the 101st Airborne, they're not slackers, either, and they didn't find it when we got there on April the 10th. The 3rd ID got in there on April the 6th. So it continues to be a story largely made up -- an old story, by the way. This is not new. It's been repackaged so that John Kerry can run out there and start making his phony case that it all happened recently as the result of looting because the Bush administration has no "plan for peace," quote, unquote. The egg is on Kerry's face. He just doesn't know it. He's got a "smarter, more effective" way to do things, but he doesn't realize when he looks like a fool. He's beginning to look like a fool and, well, again, I hope he continues.

END TRANSCRIPT

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/weekend_sites/102504_102904/content/rush_is_right.guest.html

Link Posted: 11/1/2004 11:10:53 AM EST
Osama already voted via absentee ballot here in Ohio........
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 11:16:24 AM EST
Forgive my stupididity, but what's IBTL??
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 11:19:23 AM EST

Originally Posted By theBUBBAMANcan:
Forgive my stupididity, but what's IBTL??

Ya this I would like to know???
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 11:20:07 AM EST

Originally Posted By jt325i:
Osama already voted via absentee ballot here in Ohio........



He voted absentee in Florida also............
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 11:21:10 AM EST
In Before The Lock, getting an extra post added to your post count for an off topic thread.

Damn, the longest IBTL I ever had.
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 11:21:22 AM EST
In Before the Lock
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 11:22:45 AM EST
LOL, IBTL!!!
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 11:23:15 AM EST
In before the lock (posting before a mod locks the thread)

if this link works it should help youwww.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=192390
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 11:31:42 AM EST
I voted for John Kerry because I'm an anti-gun retarded fucking moron that couldn't understand the facts if you made me listen to them for 12 hours straight..

Anonymous Idiot
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 11:37:27 AM EST
+1
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 11:37:28 AM EST
I B T L
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 11:41:06 AM EST
I saw a truck the other day that had an NRA sticker on the left and a Kerry / Edwards sticker on the right. How fucking confused can you be?
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 11:50:36 AM EST
I have a hard time believing that a Vietnam vet could vote for Hanoi John, but, I've met at least two rabid liberal pro (anti-Bush) Kerry voters.... Hells bells, running to the window to see if Hell has frozen over.

Blackhorse
11th ACR
Vietnam, 67/68
Vietnam vet agains John Kerry
defeating Kerry would be like having the parade we never had
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 11:54:00 AM EST
W. W. O. V. F.?

Who Would Osama Vote For?

Wake up America.
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 11:55:51 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/1/2004 11:55:51 AM EST by new-arguy]
OT
Top Top