Source

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Al-Qaida supporters suggested in a Web site message this week they would welcome a pre-election terror attack on the U.S. as a way to usher in a McCain presidency.

The message, posted Monday on the password-protected al-Hesbah Web site, said if al-Qaida wants to exhaust the United States militarily and economically, "impetuous" Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain is the better choice because he is more likely to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"This requires presence of an impetuous American leader such as McCain, who pledged to continue the war till the last American soldier," the message said. "Then, al-Qaida will have to support McCain in the coming elections so that he continues the failing march of his predecessor, Bush."

SITE Intelligence Group, based in Bethesda, Md., monitors the Web site and translated the message.

"If al-Qaida carries out a big operation against American interests," the message said, "this act will be support of McCain because it will push the Americans deliberately to vote for McCain so that he takes revenge for them against al-Qaida. Al-Qaida then will succeed in exhausting America till its last year in it."

Mark Salter, a senior McCain adviser, said he had heard about the Web site chatter but had no immediate comment.

The message is credited to a frequent and apparently respected contributor named Muhammad Haafid. However, Haafid is not believed to have a direct affiliation with al-Qaida plans or knowledge of its operations, according to SITE.

SITE senior analyst Adam Raisman said this message caught SITE's attention because there has been little other chatter on the forums about the U.S. election.

SITE was struck by the message's detailed analysis - and apparent jubilation - about American financial woes.

"What we try to do is get the pulse of the jihadist community," Raisman said. "And it's about the financial crisis."

Al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden issued a videotape just four days before the 2004 U.S. presidential election directly addressing the American people.

Everybody remember when the ABC News reporter pissed McCain off by asking how getting shot down was a credential?
 Good.

Now, does anybody remember how he responded when he regained composure? I can't find the exact quote, but it was something like "it taught me to love America by taking it away." Now, this is all well and good, but it leaves one question: what does that say about his feeling toward America before he was shot down?

Here is Obama on Clinton:
"And you can rest assured that when we finally win the battle for universal health care in this country, she will be central to that victory. When we transform our energy policy and lift our children out of poverty, it will be because she worked to help make it happen. Our party and our country are better off because of her, and I am a better candidate for having had the honor to compete with Hillary Rodham Clinton."

Now, what type of position does that sound like? In my opinion, the answer is definitely not VP, it is senator.

Please read this article. Here's a nice selection for those of you who are lazy:
"According to the bill, the makeup of the committee tasked with selecting judges - which has remained the sam sincethe early 1950swill be altered. This panel reflects synergy between the legislative branch, executive branch, judicial branch and the Israel Bar. It is comprised of three Supreme Court justices, including the court president; two ministers, including the justice minister who acts as head of the committee; two members of Knesset; and two representatives of the Israel Bar. The committee boasts a majority of jurists so as to highlight its commitment to preserving the sanctity of the legal profession; an emphasis on professional abilities is considered a decisive factor in the nomination of judges. These considerations serve as the criteria by which Supreme Court justices - who are required to demonstrate a wide range of legal expertise, competence and efficiency in view of the court's enormous workload - are picked

The latest proposal will mandate that 11 members serve on the panel, this time with a greater political representation. The bill stipulates that one of the newly created panel slots be occupied by the chairman of the Knesset's Constitution, Law and Justice Committee. In effect, this move would reduce the Supreme Court's involvement in selecting justices. The proposed law also states that the Supreme Court president would be the sole justice on the panel; the other two seats would be manned by two retired judges or by two former District Court judges."
It should be noted that this body seems to be tasked with selecting judges for nomination.

Now, the thing is that I would kill for the US to use the structure stipulated in the bill, let alone the current Israeli system. And before you say it's unconstitutional, remember that there are executive committees for pretty much every other selection process.

So now I ask you: why can't we have this?

As this plays with judicial selection, I'd say this should be both muckraker and election central.

Is there anything preventing a 25-25 split (50-50 at half strength)?

Clinton: I move for no man.Obama: So be it!Obama and Clinton: Aaah!, hiyaah!, etc. [Obama beats Clinton in Iowa and Virginia]Obama: Now stand aside, worthy adversary.Clinton: 'Tis but a scratch.Obama: A scratch? You're behind in the delegates!Clinton: No, I'm not.Obama: Well, what's that, then?Clinton: I've had worse.Obama: You liar!Clinton: Come on, you pansy! [clang] Huyah! [clang] Hiyaah! [clang] Aaaaaaaah! [Obama beats Clinton on Super Tuesday and in Potomac primaries]Obama: Victory is mine! [kneeling] We thank Thee Lord, that in Thy mer--Clinton: Hah!The skies will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect! Come on, then.Obama: What? BLACK KNIGHT: Have at you!Obama isn't a Muslim, as far as I know
Obama: Eh. You are indeed brave, Senator, but the fight is mine.Clinton: Oh, had enough, eh?Obama: Look, you stupid bastard. You've got no states left.Clinton: Yes, I have.Obama: Look!Clinton: Just a flesh wound.I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our baseObama: Look, stop that.Clinton: Chicken! Denounce and reject him Chickennn!Obama: Look, I'll have your leg. [Ayers reference] Right! [whop] [Obama cleans up in Indiana and North Carolina]Clinton: Right. I'll do you for that!Obama: You'll what? Clinton: Come here!Obama (supporters): What are you going to do, bleed on me?Clinton: I'm invincible!Obama (supporters): You're a looney.Clinton: The Black Knight always gets hard working voters: white voters! Have at you! Come on, then. [whop] [Obama gains needed delegates in Kentucky and wins in Oregon]Clinton (supporters): Oh? All right, we'll call it a draw and take Vice President. ARTHUR: Come, Edwards. BLACK KNIGHT: Oh. Oh, I see. Running away, eh? You yellow bastards! Come back here and take what's coming to you. I'll bite your legs off! I remember what happened to RFK!
Yeah, that was fun. This was a quick project, so I'm sure most of you guys could do it better.

I just read this article, and I must say that this is very interesting. It argues that all we think we know about Puerto Rico is dubious, if not wrong, and the actual result of the primary is anybody's guess.
For example, did you know that only one poll was taken on the Puerto Rican populace, and it was taken by a local paper with no polling experience back in April?

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

I've also thought of such jokes as "Senator Obama's plan change my arguments into windmills is a slap in the face to the millions of voters in the remaining primary states and to Senator Clinton's 17 million supporters."

You know, at the beginning of this electing, I would have laughed at the concept, but now I really wouldn't put it past her. I even get the distinct feeling that she'd try something if she was made Secretary of Homeland Security, which is the last position on the line of succession.

So we all know that bush tried to trivialize the Shoah to support his petty politicking (odd spelling). Does anybody know how the Knesset, which includes members who actually remember what appeasement and Nazism were, react to this?

Turn on Comedy Central and watch the rerun tomorrow to catch what you missed, 'cause Stewart's on a roll, and Colbert can only go up from here!

It ends up that Obama admires another reverend who's said some inflammatory things. I mean, look at this:

"God didn't call America to engage in a senseless, unjust war. . . . And we are criminals in that war. We've committed more war crimes almost than any nation in the world, and I'm going to continue to say it. And we won't stop it because of our pride and our arrogance as a nation. But God has a way of even putting nations in their place...And if you don't stop your reckless course, I'll rise up and break the backbone of your power."

So I ask you, why won't senator Obama denounce the man who said these things? Why won't senator Obama denounce Martin Luther King?

I must say, this real one from a Clinton rally in Texas takes the cake:
"We need to clean up the white house, and we need a woman to do it!"
Wrong in so many, many ways.

I saw it on youtube a while back, and will see if I can get it. If any of you can find it, please post the link.


Any of you have chants you'd like to share?

So, I'd say this discussion is quite a simple one: say why you picked the candidacy you support, and discuss your reason and the reasons of others in a polite fashion (except for you, "present" and gotalife. You are allowed to post your reasons and participate in the discussion of your reasons, but I don't have the patience to police you in the discussion of others' reasons, which I know I would have to do if I let you, as I've been here long enough to predict your lack of common courtesy).

I'll start by saying I am an early Obamanaut, having picked him, I believe, before Iowa.
The reason for this is a strange one, being an admittedly niche issue that really doesn't effect (affect? screw it, I'm lazy) me directly.
I picked him over video games.
Obama is the only prominant candidate (as opposed to Mike Gravel [god only knows what he thinks], Kucinich, and, lets face it, Bill Richardson [my secondary choice]) who hasn't villainized them and called for their restriction, as opposed to Clinton, who is one of the most vocal critics of video games on the left.
Now, many of you are probably thinking "video games? He chose his candidate over video games? And he said that it doesn't effect him directly: does that mean he doesn't even play video games?" Well the answers are yes, yes, and my game system is a PS2, my newest game is Kingdom Hearts 2, and I never get around to playing anything anymore, so yes, though the other site I'm active on is Penny Arcade, and I'm somewhat in the culture.
So now the younger among you are probably thinking "omgwtfbbq?" and the older among you are thinking "what the hell does omgwtfbbq mean?" and both young and old are probably thinking "why won't he stop with the question and answer writing?"
The answers are:
1)If you think about it, does the gas tax holiday thing really matter, as it was never going to pass? Of course it did, and the reason it does is the same as why Clinton's rhetoric on video games matter. They both show that Clinton is willing to say or do anything to score political points.

The "harm" of video games is the most vacuous issue in modern politics (and yes, I have been paying attention for the last eight years). Video games are no more harmful than television, movies, punk, graffiti, rock, rock 'n roll, comic books, science fiction, jazz, radio (probably much less that this, as I video games have yet to produce a national panic resulting in people fleeing their towns and Hitler calling it "evidence of the decadence and corrupt condition of democracy."), swing (flappers, anyone?), ragtime, records, minimalism, burlesques, the printed word, writing, or auxiliary verbs. The opposition to them, just like all the things listed above, is pure pander, and a distinctive trait of a person not to be trusted in a position of governance (unless the person is really old and/or stupid, in which case he might actually believe it).

2) ongwtfbbq stands for "oh my god, what the f-ck, barbecue, and is an acronym used in half-serious surprise or perplexity.

3) Because I like this structure.

Could anybody explain why it's a huge controversy when the Chinese government puts down violent riots (there's a video of a little Han girl being tortured, so don't question the presence of violence) in Buddhist Tibet and it's a huge controversy, but it can put down a peaceful protest in Muslim Xinjiang without any complaint outside of the rare protester in a middle eastern country (hell, the Times even buried the news on the last page of the international section when it reported the event).

Now, you might say that the "splittists" in Xinjiang are terrorists, but that would be based upon information coming from the same people saying the Dalai Lama was planning to suicide bomb China himself.

Now, the only thing I can see that really differentiates the two is the fact that the Tibetans are Buddhists and the Uyghurs are Muslims, which definitely hurts our image among Muslims, who are probably thinking "what the hell?".