« Separation of Church and Wal-Mart? | Main | Candidates in Church »

October 30, 2004



This article has a ridiculous headline:

"Is OBL Lying to the American people?"

Help me, dear bloggers: When has he ever told the truth?


I would assume the headline was intended to be ironic...you know, this being election season and all, the season in which candidates are often accusing each other of "lying to the American people," and since this tape is seen by many as an attempt to influence the election....

Padre K

Isn't it obvious? By reminding us of (and confirming at that) his role in 9/11, it's a patent stoke in the fires of a Bush victory.

But why?


If Bush wins in 2004, it's a virtual shoe in for Hillary in 2008; Maureen Dowd is already gushing about it. With Hillary in office, terrorists will have a virtual red carpet at their feet to waltz in and do as they will.

Please. It's just too obvious...


Who's ever accused OBL of being a political genius? He's a political bungler (along with a demonic killer) - he puts out a tape on the eve of an election that will, in all likelihood, assist his arch-enemy's reelection effort! Ha! What a doofus!


And if it was an attempt to influence the election, he clearly isn't up-to-date on when early voting begins.


So far, OBL's "intervention" has helped neither candidate in the polls. It does however remind voters of the primacy of national security.

Maclin Horton

I'm bummed by the appearance of the OBL tape--because I've been telling anyone who cared to listen since sometime in 2002 that he was almost certainly dead and the periodic audio tapes faked. I do so hate to be proven wrong.

You can tell OBL knows his Michael Moore.

I'm not at all sure this helps W. Or K, for that matter. My limited observations among friends & family indicate that reactions are based on what people already think: pro-K people think "this reinforces our point about W letting the Head Bad Guy get away", while pro-W people think "this reminder of the Head Bad Guy reinforces our point that K is a frivolous candidate."

Padre K, I guess you know Walter Cronkite thinks this is a Republican dirty trick. As for Hillary's being a shoo-in in 2008, granted she certainly looks like the strongest candidate now, but an awful lot can change in four years.


If Democrats nominate Hillary in 2008, they will lose another presidential election. Democrats seem to think that California and New York represent all of America and that most Americans are as liberal as many New Yorkers and Californians are. Presidential elections are won in PA, IA, OH and many of the smaller conservative states in the South and Mountain West. If Democrats keep fielding ultra liberals, they will never have another president.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)