Mainly because Canada has the ultimate self-defense... being located right next door to the United States. Canada is like the younger brother who never learned how to fight because his older brother is the biggest bully on the block. Hey, I'm not knocking it- and I'm not condoning American excesses- but don't get all morally superior. Canada gets a hell of a free ride while largely keeping its hands clean of dirt and blood. I mean, do Canadians ever seriously consider why, with their enormous territory, they have virtually no military to speak of? It's not because they never piss anyone off- I mean, Poland wasn't exactly antagonizing Germany in 1939, that I recall.
I'm slightly confused. This system seems to deal with 'sidewinder'-style missiles - ie: small, very fast, and can easily destroy a tank/plane/humvee.
More than slightly. It says there are six, identical "pickup-sized" chemical laser modules. The number of shots is limited by the amount of chemicals used to fuel the reactions generating the laser light. While it might be good for taking out aircraft, smaller missiles, or ground targets, no way in hell this thing would be practical for intercepting RPGs, bullets, that kind of thing.
The questions we really need to be asking are: Should we have gone into Iraq? Did we plan the occupation correctly? Did we make a mistake in disbanding the Iraqi military? Did we screw up by not securing caches and stockpiles of high explosives, RPGs, and portable SAMs? Does our government have a sufficient grasp of reality and the strengths and weaknesses of military and diplomatic approaches to put a stable government in place? Do our tactics, goals, and foreign policy make people less likely to take up arms against our soldiers, and civilians, or more likely?
These are the major issues. None of these are technology issues. Unfortunately, Americans have a bad habit of thinking every problem is a technology problem, and furthermore that if technology hasn't solved it in the past, we just haven't used technology which is sophisticated and expensive enough.
Hel-LO out there! What about the threat to world order posed by maniacal, white-cat owning supervillains? How are we supposed to protect ourselves from that menace?
Seriously though, yeah,it's kind of overkill. Considering that the most deadly attack against the US in half a century was carried out using boxcutters.
There are also lots of hermaphrodites (sea slugs, for instance), transsexuals (various types of fish which start out female and then transform into males) and asexuals (the most famous being whiptail lizards, which reproduce without sex).
Nature is far more open-minded and pragmatic than an evangelical Christian. If a gene is on the whole more useful than harmful, it tends to perpetuate itself.
Spending money to stimulate the economy isn't a bad thing, and deficit spending may be a reasonable way to do that. The problem is that Bush's tax cuts didn't primarily go to the people who could have done the most, and could have used them the most- the middle and lower income brackets. Hell, even Warren freakin' Buffett, the uber-Capitalist, has said all this is boneheaded, unfair, and greedy. The whole thing is Bizarro Robin Hood: take from the poor, give to the rich. Christian values my ass.
I'm starting an armed resistance movement, supported by a Canadian-based group of fighters called the "Free American Forces", modeled on Chalabi's "Free Iraqi Forces". We'll get the French to fund the whole thing.
Join me in the hills, democratic brothers! Any freedom fighter who dies in the glorious fight to liberate our country goes straight to Democratic Heaven, where nubile, liberal virgins await!
...having thwarted efforts to create new superheroes who might stop him, LawyerMan's sinister plan for world domination draws one step closer to fruition!
I'm sick of liberals who think that the President and his staff are the only officials that we hold accountable in this country.
When has Bush ever been held responsible? When has he ever admitted to a mistake? Was he held responsible for ignoring warnings about Osama bin Laden being determined to strike inside the United States? Was he held accountable for not planning the occupation of Iraq? Has he been held accountable for the massive deficit caused by his tax cuts? Has he been held accountable for the massive cockup of Falluja (when we first went in)? Quite the contrary, he's actually managed to capitalize on these errors.
Maybe I'm completely wrong about Bush being bad for the nation... all I can say is, check back in a few years, and if he's fucked up completely (like he's done the first four years) don't say we didn't warn you.
I'm not sure it matters anymore. The problem is, democracy depends on an informed public making decisions, but the public isn't informed, and doesn't want to be informed.
It was posted elsewhere on/. that CNN regularly leans towards the Republicans.
I can't even think of how many times I have seen stupid celebrity worship and random bullshit on the CNN webpage instead of real news. Right now it's a flag-waving piece, "U.S. honors veterans", as the top story (while there's a massive battle on in Fallujah), along with some celebrity nonsense (Princess Anne, Justin Timberlake), something about the White House puppy (thank you, CNN, for keeping us informed), a story designed to shock and titillate ("woman pleads guilty to dumping girl's body in trash")... and a few real news stories.
Being left-leaning, I used to think that this incredible lack of content was designed to cover up the incompetencies of the Bush Administration. But after following it for a while, I don't think that CNN slants left, or slants right. They just slant towards sucking.
It's easy to blame CNN. Unfortunately, people don't want to be challenged. People don't want to be woken up to reality. People don't want to be informed, they just want to be entertained. And increasingly, CNN gives that to them.
'The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved.'
By this, I suppose the Bush administration means the defeat of John Kerry.
Seriously, though. No matter how bitter and cynical you feel about the election of George "Dumber than a Lobotomized Chimp" W. Bush, just remember that Truth, Justice, and the American Way live on...
The thing is, you expect anomalies. Events with a 1% chance of occurring will, on average, occur in 1% of the counties. It would be weird if there *weren't* any anomalies.
There's an even simpler explanation than a massive, devious conspiracy on the part of Rove: the American people are dumb as shit. I don't know if I care anymore, though. I mean, hell, I've been fighting a system which benefits me by giving me tax breaks and letting the poor suckers who can't afford it pay a higher percentage. If they want to give me more money though, shit, who am I to question that? If they want to send their kids off to die in the Middle East, well, who am I to stand in their way. And sure, Bush's incompetent war on terror will increase the odds of an attack. But my odds are still vastly greater of being killed by a car, or one too many Big Macs than a terrorist fanatic.
Which takes a lot of air out of the theory that the major parties will make substantial changes to appeal to independents. Some of these independents are forever going to say "So the two major parties are running Mother Teresa and Stalin? They're just the same, lesser of two evils. That's not a choice! My candidate is the only real choice!"
It's hard to imagine two more completely opposite candidates than Bush and Kerry. If you don't find this a meaningful choice, you will not find any election a meaningful choice- so there is absolutely no reason for the parties to try to get your vote.
In his official biography, I see no mention of a female in his life. In fact, all I saw that might hint to his personal status was the following paragraph:
"Hobbies include photography (including darkroom developing), camping, sailing, canoeing, mountain-climbing, scuba-diving (starting at age 12), skydiving, hang-gliding, snow-skiing, shooting (pistol, rifle and bow-and-arrow) and motorcycling. He also enjoys exploring all types of museums and libraries."
Sounds straight out of a personal ad to me- the only thing missing was "long walks on the beach".
And don't believe any of those rumors about a girlfriend. Just vicious, dispicable mudslinging attack politics by the Republicans!
As a Canadian I can tell you that this is the first time that I see people who seems to care more about an American election than about our own last one. I think many people around the world feel the same.
Since you already live in Canada, where to you move to if Bush wins?
Thats like asking a kid to wait until Christmas to know what presents he got. Even if he can't open them before hand, he will try staring at them and shaking them in order to guess what he got.
I like your idea- I'm going to run up to voters, stare at them, and then grab ahold and shake them.
Things are rarely that simple. Assume that were true for a moment, however. Let's say I give you a chance to vote for (a) Ideal Third Party Candidate, (b) George W. Bush, and (c) Josef Stalin. (was gonna use another WWII dictator there for a second, but you know, Godwin's Law). George and Josef are tied in the polls. Now personally, I can't stand Bush. He's about the last person on earth I'd vote for and I think the nation is in big trouble if he wins. But would I seriously say to myself, "well, George W. is evil, and Stalin is evil. So I'm gonna vote my conscience and vote for the ideal third party guy who can't win."
Most of life is the choice between two evils. To invade Iraq or not? Invading kills Iraqi civilians and US troops, and that's bad. Not invading means that the country suffers under U.N. sanctions, and Saddam continues to torture and kill his citizens, and that's bad. Either way, it's a raw deal for the Iraqis and they suffer and people call us evil.
As for third party candidates- I think they're like that girl who seems perfect because you can't have her. When she's out of reach, she's an angel. Once you can actually have her, then you start to notice the flaws- she never shuts up, her laugh is annoying, she's a nag, she's crosseyed whatever. For instance, look at Perot. At first, he seemed like a breath of fresh air in the stale atmosphere of partisan politics. Fresh ideas! A man from outside the Beltway! The more it looked like he actually had a chance in hell, the more people took a close look and went, "Wow- this guy is a total wack job." If the media gave Nader and Badnarik the same attention they gave Kerry and Bush, you can bet all sorts of stuff would pop up- maybe some unscrupulous behavior, contradictions or changes in politics, whatever.
The grass on the other side is always greener, and we always want what we can't have.
Jesus, the democratic process doesn't allow for "the most important election", it allows for "ELECTIONS" in general. All of them are equally important.
In principle, I agree: we should all get off our asses, get out, and vote. In practice I would disagree for a couple of reasons. First of all, the circumstances facing the nation differ from election to election. When Clinton faced reelection, the nation faced no major domestic or international crises. The economy was pretty good and while there were a lot of brushfires overseas, and a lot of long-term issues which needed to be addressed, nothing which demanded immediate action. Today, we face the "war on terror". We may differ on how to fight it, or whether it is really a war, but I think most reasonable people agree that this is an important conflict which will influence our nation as profoundly as any event since Viet Nam.
The second reason is that the nature of the candidates varies from election to election. The choice between George HW and Clinton was between center-right or center-left (oh, those were the days...). The choice between Kerry and Bush is left or hard right. The choice is (for all intents and purposes) binary but the magnitude of the difference between candidate 1 and candidate 0 may be greater from election to election. Both camps pretty much agree that the world will end if the Other Guys is elected.
To hear Kerry talk, he seems to believe that Bush is dishonest and incompetent and has accomplished nothing of note either domestically or in his foreign policy.
Well, MOST people who follow the situation in Iraq closely believe that the Bush administration is incompetent. Where do we begin? Letting looters run wild? Not securing the arms depots (not just the high explosives, all kinds of stuff was left unguarded- hell they stood by and watched as insurgents carried weapons off)? Disbanding the army? Going into Fallujah? "Flip-flopping" and getting out of Fallujah when it got a little too messy? Total cockup start to finish.
Afghanistan has been done better but there is still more of the country under the control of the Taliban and warlords than Karzai. Half-assed, but not a total cockup.
Bush on the economy has been something of a failure. Sure, we're coming out a recession, and I'm sure the tax cuts helped that- they could hardly hurt. But instead of directing the money where it would do the most good (the middle class) it went to where it did much less good (the wealthiest people in America) and created a massive budget deficit that will take years to pay off. This didn't help the economy so much as it helped the rich. The recovery has been far from amazing.
Socially? Most people feel he did a good job post 9-11. But it's amazing to see how much that has been messed up. He said he'd be a uniter, and he hasn't been- he's divided this nation. America is now more divided than it has been since the Viet Nam War. For some people he's been a good leader. If you're rich, right wing, and/or Christian he's great. But he seems to think that everyone else can go fuck themselves.
Finally, how about those American values like freedom and our rights that he is supposed to be protecting? Under the Bush administration we have seen people locked up without trial for years at a time. Four years ago if you said that America would do that I'd never have believed it. Sure, governments do that. But just the bad guys- the USSR, China, Nazi Germany- right? Those kinds of governments lock up people without trial. Not the good old freedom-loving USA.
I could go on forever. As for mandates, let's not get started on that. Bush lost the popular vote, so he has no mandate.
Assuming that there's a finite supply of "them". As it stands, killing a terrorist often involves taking out women and children in surrounding buildings, moreso if we miss him. There's the old Greek myth of the hydra: for every head you chop off, another grows in its place. Iraq has become a giant training ground for terrorists. Many of them are probably going to go on to found their own extremist cells in the future.
Clearly, the strategy of chopping off heads is not working. That's why we need to bomb more women and children. Without people growing up to replace the terrorists we kill, al Qaeda will be finished. It's tough work, but if we are resolute we can accomplish it. Sure, the U.N. will be against it, but who cares. They're just a bunch of ineffective, bureacratic pussies. Freedom is winning.
Well, you gotta say that he did underline one of Kerry's talking points (that Osama bin Laden is still at large). But what the hell does it matter who he prefers?
It sort of helps Bush and it sort of doesn't. It helps Bush because Bush has defined himself by his opposition to the evil bogeyman of terrorism, and here is the ultimate bogeyman, Osama bin Laden appearing just in time for Halloween. Insofar as voters act based on fear, it will help Bush.
The news says Bush is kinda quiet about it, and thinking about it I'm not sure what Bush would say. "Vote for me, I'll kick bin Laden's ass". Voters might turn around and ask, "So why haven't you done that at any point over the past four years?" If voters use their brains, this may turn things against Bush. It's hard to say. The government's reaction here may be what matters, like with Spain. Voters weren't giving in to the terrorists, they were pissed off that their government lied to them. So Bush is in a bit of a bind. If he says nothing, that plays to charges that he's ignoring bin Laden. But any promises to go after bin Laden look a litle hollow considering that the guy is sitting there making fun of you for sitting on your ass reading My Pet Goat. Of course, Kerry can't do anything to exploit the situation without looking like he's... well, exploiting it.
It's also that Bush is the best Al Quaeda recruiter that anyone could imagine. Sure, we've destroyed a nominal number of terrorists and training camps, but all the intelligence agencies report that new recruits pour in far faster than we are able to kill them.
I agree. The sad thing is, however, that people will probably look at this tape and go "Oh no! Terrorists are still out there! Bush is against terror, so we'd better vote for him!" Of course, if Bush is so effective against terror why the hell is Osama still out there?
I thought it was interesting that he was aware of the "My pet goat" thing. I guess Osama's a Michael Moore fan?
Slashdot Mirror
Mainly because Canada has the ultimate self-defense... being located right next door to the United States. Canada is like the younger brother who never learned how to fight because his older brother is the biggest bully on the block. Hey, I'm not knocking it- and I'm not condoning American excesses- but don't get all morally superior. Canada gets a hell of a free ride while largely keeping its hands clean of dirt and blood. I mean, do Canadians ever seriously consider why, with their enormous territory, they have virtually no military to speak of? It's not because they never piss anyone off- I mean, Poland wasn't exactly antagonizing Germany in 1939, that I recall.
More than slightly. It says there are six, identical "pickup-sized" chemical laser modules. The number of shots is limited by the amount of chemicals used to fuel the reactions generating the laser light. While it might be good for taking out aircraft, smaller missiles, or ground targets, no way in hell this thing would be practical for intercepting RPGs, bullets, that kind of thing.
The questions we really need to be asking are: Should we have gone into Iraq? Did we plan the occupation correctly? Did we make a mistake in disbanding the Iraqi military? Did we screw up by not securing caches and stockpiles of high explosives, RPGs, and portable SAMs? Does our government have a sufficient grasp of reality and the strengths and weaknesses of military and diplomatic approaches to put a stable government in place? Do our tactics, goals, and foreign policy make people less likely to take up arms against our soldiers, and civilians, or more likely?
These are the major issues. None of these are technology issues. Unfortunately, Americans have a bad habit of thinking every problem is a technology problem, and furthermore that if technology hasn't solved it in the past, we just haven't used technology which is sophisticated and expensive enough.
Seriously though, yeah,it's kind of overkill. Considering that the most deadly attack against the US in half a century was carried out using boxcutters.
Nature is far more open-minded and pragmatic than an evangelical Christian. If a gene is on the whole more useful than harmful, it tends to perpetuate itself.
Scientists have observed animals voting against gay marriage in the wild, so it must be natural and right.
Spending money to stimulate the economy isn't a bad thing, and deficit spending may be a reasonable way to do that. The problem is that Bush's tax cuts didn't primarily go to the people who could have done the most, and could have used them the most- the middle and lower income brackets. Hell, even Warren freakin' Buffett, the uber-Capitalist, has said all this is boneheaded, unfair, and greedy. The whole thing is Bizarro Robin Hood: take from the poor, give to the rich. Christian values my ass.
Join me in the hills, democratic brothers! Any freedom fighter who dies in the glorious fight to liberate our country goes straight to Democratic Heaven, where nubile, liberal virgins await!
...having thwarted efforts to create new superheroes who might stop him, LawyerMan's sinister plan for world domination draws one step closer to fruition!
When has Bush ever been held responsible? When has he ever admitted to a mistake? Was he held responsible for ignoring warnings about Osama bin Laden being determined to strike inside the United States? Was he held accountable for not planning the occupation of Iraq? Has he been held accountable for the massive deficit caused by his tax cuts? Has he been held accountable for the massive cockup of Falluja (when we first went in)? Quite the contrary, he's actually managed to capitalize on these errors.
Maybe I'm completely wrong about Bush being bad for the nation... all I can say is, check back in a few years, and if he's fucked up completely (like he's done the first four years) don't say we didn't warn you.
I'm not sure it matters anymore. The problem is, democracy depends on an informed public making decisions, but the public isn't informed, and doesn't want to be informed.
I can't even think of how many times I have seen stupid celebrity worship and random bullshit on the CNN webpage instead of real news. Right now it's a flag-waving piece, "U.S. honors veterans", as the top story (while there's a massive battle on in Fallujah), along with some celebrity nonsense (Princess Anne, Justin Timberlake), something about the White House puppy (thank you, CNN, for keeping us informed), a story designed to shock and titillate ("woman pleads guilty to dumping girl's body in trash")... and a few real news stories. Being left-leaning, I used to think that this incredible lack of content was designed to cover up the incompetencies of the Bush Administration. But after following it for a while, I don't think that CNN slants left, or slants right. They just slant towards sucking.
It's easy to blame CNN. Unfortunately, people don't want to be challenged. People don't want to be woken up to reality. People don't want to be informed, they just want to be entertained. And increasingly, CNN gives that to them.
By this, I suppose the Bush administration means the defeat of John Kerry. Seriously, though. No matter how bitter and cynical you feel about the election of George "Dumber than a Lobotomized Chimp" W. Bush, just remember that Truth, Justice, and the American Way live on...
There's an even simpler explanation than a massive, devious conspiracy on the part of Rove: the American people are dumb as shit. I don't know if I care anymore, though. I mean, hell, I've been fighting a system which benefits me by giving me tax breaks and letting the poor suckers who can't afford it pay a higher percentage. If they want to give me more money though, shit, who am I to question that? If they want to send their kids off to die in the Middle East, well, who am I to stand in their way. And sure, Bush's incompetent war on terror will increase the odds of an attack. But my odds are still vastly greater of being killed by a car, or one too many Big Macs than a terrorist fanatic.
Which takes a lot of air out of the theory that the major parties will make substantial changes to appeal to independents. Some of these independents are forever going to say "So the two major parties are running Mother Teresa and Stalin? They're just the same, lesser of two evils. That's not a choice! My candidate is the only real choice!"
It's hard to imagine two more completely opposite candidates than Bush and Kerry. If you don't find this a meaningful choice, you will not find any election a meaningful choice- so there is absolutely no reason for the parties to try to get your vote.
I don't like the guy, but you've got to admit that Al Qaeda's leadership is a hell of a lot smarter than ours.
Sounds straight out of a personal ad to me- the only thing missing was "long walks on the beach".
And don't believe any of those rumors about a girlfriend. Just vicious, dispicable mudslinging attack politics by the Republicans!
Since you already live in Canada, where to you move to if Bush wins?
I like your idea- I'm going to run up to voters, stare at them, and then grab ahold and shake them.
Things are rarely that simple. Assume that were true for a moment, however. Let's say I give you a chance to vote for (a) Ideal Third Party Candidate, (b) George W. Bush, and (c) Josef Stalin. (was gonna use another WWII dictator there for a second, but you know, Godwin's Law). George and Josef are tied in the polls. Now personally, I can't stand Bush. He's about the last person on earth I'd vote for and I think the nation is in big trouble if he wins. But would I seriously say to myself, "well, George W. is evil, and Stalin is evil. So I'm gonna vote my conscience and vote for the ideal third party guy who can't win."
Most of life is the choice between two evils. To invade Iraq or not? Invading kills Iraqi civilians and US troops, and that's bad. Not invading means that the country suffers under U.N. sanctions, and Saddam continues to torture and kill his citizens, and that's bad. Either way, it's a raw deal for the Iraqis and they suffer and people call us evil.
As for third party candidates- I think they're like that girl who seems perfect because you can't have her. When she's out of reach, she's an angel. Once you can actually have her, then you start to notice the flaws- she never shuts up, her laugh is annoying, she's a nag, she's crosseyed whatever. For instance, look at Perot. At first, he seemed like a breath of fresh air in the stale atmosphere of partisan politics. Fresh ideas! A man from outside the Beltway! The more it looked like he actually had a chance in hell, the more people took a close look and went, "Wow- this guy is a total wack job." If the media gave Nader and Badnarik the same attention they gave Kerry and Bush, you can bet all sorts of stuff would pop up- maybe some unscrupulous behavior, contradictions or changes in politics, whatever.
The grass on the other side is always greener, and we always want what we can't have.
In principle, I agree: we should all get off our asses, get out, and vote. In practice I would disagree for a couple of reasons. First of all, the circumstances facing the nation differ from election to election. When Clinton faced reelection, the nation faced no major domestic or international crises. The economy was pretty good and while there were a lot of brushfires overseas, and a lot of long-term issues which needed to be addressed, nothing which demanded immediate action. Today, we face the "war on terror". We may differ on how to fight it, or whether it is really a war, but I think most reasonable people agree that this is an important conflict which will influence our nation as profoundly as any event since Viet Nam.
The second reason is that the nature of the candidates varies from election to election. The choice between George HW and Clinton was between center-right or center-left (oh, those were the days...). The choice between Kerry and Bush is left or hard right. The choice is (for all intents and purposes) binary but the magnitude of the difference between candidate 1 and candidate 0 may be greater from election to election. Both camps pretty much agree that the world will end if the Other Guys is elected.
Accidental microwavings A little cheese on top and they're CDlicious.
Well, MOST people who follow the situation in Iraq closely believe that the Bush administration is incompetent. Where do we begin? Letting looters run wild? Not securing the arms depots (not just the high explosives, all kinds of stuff was left unguarded- hell they stood by and watched as insurgents carried weapons off)? Disbanding the army? Going into Fallujah? "Flip-flopping" and getting out of Fallujah when it got a little too messy? Total cockup start to finish.
Afghanistan has been done better but there is still more of the country under the control of the Taliban and warlords than Karzai. Half-assed, but not a total cockup.
Bush on the economy has been something of a failure. Sure, we're coming out a recession, and I'm sure the tax cuts helped that- they could hardly hurt. But instead of directing the money where it would do the most good (the middle class) it went to where it did much less good (the wealthiest people in America) and created a massive budget deficit that will take years to pay off. This didn't help the economy so much as it helped the rich. The recovery has been far from amazing.
Socially? Most people feel he did a good job post 9-11. But it's amazing to see how much that has been messed up. He said he'd be a uniter, and he hasn't been- he's divided this nation. America is now more divided than it has been since the Viet Nam War. For some people he's been a good leader. If you're rich, right wing, and/or Christian he's great. But he seems to think that everyone else can go fuck themselves.
Finally, how about those American values like freedom and our rights that he is supposed to be protecting? Under the Bush administration we have seen people locked up without trial for years at a time. Four years ago if you said that America would do that I'd never have believed it. Sure, governments do that. But just the bad guys- the USSR, China, Nazi Germany- right? Those kinds of governments lock up people without trial. Not the good old freedom-loving USA.
I could go on forever. As for mandates, let's not get started on that. Bush lost the popular vote, so he has no mandate.
Clearly, the strategy of chopping off heads is not working. That's why we need to bomb more women and children. Without people growing up to replace the terrorists we kill, al Qaeda will be finished. It's tough work, but if we are resolute we can accomplish it. Sure, the U.N. will be against it, but who cares. They're just a bunch of ineffective, bureacratic pussies. Freedom is winning.
It sort of helps Bush and it sort of doesn't. It helps Bush because Bush has defined himself by his opposition to the evil bogeyman of terrorism, and here is the ultimate bogeyman, Osama bin Laden appearing just in time for Halloween. Insofar as voters act based on fear, it will help Bush.
The news says Bush is kinda quiet about it, and thinking about it I'm not sure what Bush would say. "Vote for me, I'll kick bin Laden's ass". Voters might turn around and ask, "So why haven't you done that at any point over the past four years?" If voters use their brains, this may turn things against Bush. It's hard to say. The government's reaction here may be what matters, like with Spain. Voters weren't giving in to the terrorists, they were pissed off that their government lied to them. So Bush is in a bit of a bind. If he says nothing, that plays to charges that he's ignoring bin Laden. But any promises to go after bin Laden look a litle hollow considering that the guy is sitting there making fun of you for sitting on your ass reading My Pet Goat. Of course, Kerry can't do anything to exploit the situation without looking like he's... well, exploiting it.
I agree. The sad thing is, however, that people will probably look at this tape and go "Oh no! Terrorists are still out there! Bush is against terror, so we'd better vote for him!" Of course, if Bush is so effective against terror why the hell is Osama still out there?
I thought it was interesting that he was aware of the "My pet goat" thing. I guess Osama's a Michael Moore fan?