ChristiansUnite Forums

Athens, Ohio:
The North American Anarchist Convergence, meeting at Ohio University, has decided that this year they are going to go to the polls and vote for John Kerry, since that is the only way they can vote against Bush.

Hmmmm......Kerry now has the Communist Party USA, the National Socialist Democrats, NOW, NEA, and the Anarchists on his side.

*******shiver*******shudder*******

I guess next we'll have Jacque Chirac, Gerhard Schroeder and Osama jumping on the Kerry bandwagon.

PA silently supports Kerry in US election

Aug. 17, 2004 0:51
by  LAMIA LAHOUD

Palestinian officials are quietly pinning their hopes on Democratic candidate John Kerry winning the US presidential election.

Former US Middle East envoy Denis Ross is likely to be reappointed should Kerry win the American elections, a Palestinian Authority source said.

Ross has contacted with Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei and other Palestinian officials during recent visits to the region. He unofficially briefed the Palestinians on the potential new administration's Middle East plans, the source said.

Palestinians expect Kerry's Middle East policy to be closer to that of former US president Bill Clinton.

During the presidential election, senior Palestinian officials openly endorsed George W. Bush against Al Gore. The same PA officials who were outraged when Clinton placed the blame for the failure of the Camp David peace talks on PA Chairman Yasser Arafat now admit they have been disappointed and say any other administration "can only serve their interests better."

"We don't want to repeat the same mistake so let's wait and see who will win the elections and how they will deal with the Middle East," a PA Foreign Ministry official said. "I do not believe Kerry wants to publicize any plans for the Middle East or any contacts with the Palestinians so as not to hurt his election campaign," the official added.

He did not think Kerry's outlook will be very different from Bush's policies.
Kerry might appoint former national security adviser Sandy Berger as secretary of state, in which case Ross is likely to be appointed Middle East envoy, another PA source confirmed.

"We believe the [pro-Palestinian Authority] State Department will play the major role again, instead of the national security adviser and secretary of defense," another source reported.

Qurei is trying to convince the American administration and Democrats of his proposal to deploy armed policemen in Palestinian cities in the West Bank to enforce law and order and enable an IDF withdrawal.

Israel has not yet responded to a PA demand for a senior security meeting to coordinate the deployment of PA policemen and agree on the type of weapons they would be allowed to carry and their numbers.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1092626412129&p=1078113566627

Brothers,

Kerry is scary = Skerry!

More is unveiled by the day. I give thanks that Christians are still allowed to voice their opinions in America. Many may take that freedom for granted and not appreciate it until we are silenced. That time may come soon enough.

Love In Christ,
Tom

It must also be remembered that, Freedom is not free. Freedom, must at all times be fought for, not discarded as Kerry would do.
You have terrorists, Communist Party USA,  National Socialist Democrats, NOW, NEA, and the Anarchists. All these groups are agains Freedom as we know it. :'(

"Skerry"!


Ollie

That is even more "skerrier" than our being in Iraq because of misinformation.

Ollie.

What is really "skerry" is any of this information true?
Or is someone taking advantage of peoples gullibility?

Watch and pray.

Ollie

Fascism is prevalent in America and that is not only "skerry" but "out of the bush.


Ollie

Brother Ollie,

Every country in the world with decent intelligence services were in complete agreement. One also has to remember that both houses had the same conclusion, including Kerry. Kerry has gone back and forth so many times on his Iraq stance that nobody really knows what he believes. One also has to look at the results of the bi-partisan 911 committee. It's all available for anyone to read, and it contradicts nearly all of Kerry's stances. However, he may change his stance again tomorrow or next week. President Bush didn't lie or mislead anyone. The WMD issue is almost a joke. The entire world knows that Iraq had them and used them. Anyone who has followed the news might guess rightly they are in Syria.

Well, the latest stance of Kerry is we had to fight Iraq, regardless of WMD and everything we know now. The only thing he claims he would have changed is the number of allies, the biggest being France, Germany, Russia, and China. Well, they were all in bed with Saddam violating UN sanctions and making tons of money on illegal arms sales, bribes, and absolute corruption of the oil for food program. In looking at the big picture, it was not in their interest to be allied with the US and fighting Iraq. THEN, there is also the matter of illegal activities and corruption being unveiled. That was done and is still being done. The UN was in it up to their eyeballs. NOW, it's simply a matter of how bad the US wants them to look to the rest of the world. After all, the UN cow hangs in the balance, right along with France, Germany, Russia, and China. For future politics, who knows how bad they should be fried??

Brother Ollie, there are links all over the Internet to read original documents. You don't have to listen to the news to get the straight info. In fact, you shouldn't let the news, ads, movies, etc. help you know what actually happened. Take the spin off of it and look for yourself.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Brother Ollie, there are links all over the Internet to read original documents. You don't have to listen to the news to get the straight info. In fact, you shouldn't let the news, ads, movies, etc. help you know what actually happened. Take the spin off of it and look for yourself.

Amen!  :)

I'm beginning to think that our having no television is a real blessing!

But we have "Christians Unite" for very unbiased intelligence.  ;D

"Take the spin off of it and look for yourself."
"there are links all over the Internet to read original
documents"
 ::)

Ollie

Don't shoot the messenger.   ;)

Grace and Peace!

Oh yes...the thought of that - that- that - "man" - in the White House definitely makes me shiver and shudder.  There is definitely something wrong with that man and if he wins, kiss America as we know it good-bye, once and for all.  He'll destroy us - if the terrorists don't first.  You enjoy your freedom? Vote for GW!!!  

yadda ~ Whatever...  I still don't know if I am going to vote or not.  My vote don't count anyways....    :-[

The legal watchdog group Judicial Watch announced the release of recently declassified documents that indicate Sen. John Kerry accepted laundered contributions from the communist Chinese government for his 1996 re-election campaign.

In exchange, Judicial Watch suspects, the presidential candidate might have arranged meetings between Chinese aerospace executives and U.S. government officials.

"These disturbing FBI documents raise further questions about Sen. Kerry's involvement in what looks like a quid pro quo [cash for meetings] with the communist Chinese," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

An Insight magazine report published by WND earlier this month revealed a new photograph has emerged showing the Massachusetts senator in Beijing working with a company associated with the Chinese military.

Judicial Watch obtained the FBI documents, related to the "Chinagate" investigation in the 1990s, through Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act.

vote Vote VOTE! Vote for W! Did you know that a large number of Christians don't vote? If every Christian went out there and voted, we would have drastically different results. Don't say that your vote doesn't count! Too many people say that! Enough people say that and don't vote, and it ends up counting! So vote Vote VOTE! I would if I could!

    Hmm... I don't know why I try, but these boards fascinate me.  Anyways, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend".  Groups who hate George Bush support John Kerry, why?  Because they hate George Bush, it doesn't mean John Kerry is an anarchist or a communist or a terrorist, it just means they have only two choices.  The European community dislikes George Bush because he insulted them.  So they would obviously support John Kerry.  Anarchists are a bunch of goons (and a giant, giant minority), but I imagine that since George Bush is religious, well then they hate him, so then all they have is John Kerry.  Who would they vote for? Ralph Nader?  So they vote for John Kerry (well not the terrorists or Europeans), there won't be a policy shift.  Presidents want to stay president, if the people want protection from terrorists, then by golly they will get it because if they don't then the president (and anyone involved) losses their jobs (and their sweet paycheck). Why do you think there is such a huge emphasis on both of these things?  Because both sides just happen to be about it?  
   I confess, I don't like Bush, I believe he did lie, and that if he would just come out and admit it, things would be better.  I am not a giant Kerry fan, I've followed his campaign (and yes he has one), I don't believe he is a "flip-flopper", just really boring and in need of someone to write his speeches to be less confusing.  But as I said, I dislike Bush so I really only have one choice.  Personally I don't think any president has the power to destroy America, the ability to do that lies with the people and all of the elected officials.

Oklahoma Howdy to Yoyostick,

I consider it to be a duty to vote. Realistically, if I don't take the time to vote, I shouldn't be allowed the time to complain. Some Christians are misinformed by those who twist Scriptures and say that Christians should not vote, hold public office, be police officers, be school teachers, etc. I believe that the exact opposite is true and Biblical. Christians should never sit down, shut up, or otherwise fail to stand up for JESUS. I feel that we deny HIM with silence.

There never will be a presidential candidate who will be even close to measuring up to Biblical teachings, morals, values, and ethics. In this election there is no comparison between the two candidates - NOT EVEN CLOSE. One is an imperfect Christian, and nobody knows who the other one is. One does have a record of trying to be a Christian, and the other has a record of standing against everything Christians hold dear.

I would ask every Christian to pray about this, register to vote, AND GO VOTE!!

Love In Christ,
Tom

AMEN Tom

Go in peace with God
Bob

"Hmmmm......Kerry now has the Communist Party USA, the National Socialist Democrats, NOW, NEA, and the Anarchists on his side."

Hmmm, indeed. That doesn't necessarily equate Kerry to be of their persuasion. Consider Wilson and how he turned on "Tamminy Hall" as president after they endorsed Him for election.


Don't these people sometimes have their own candidates?




Pray Hard.

ollie

A question:

Why did the Bush administration cut veteran"s benefits and facilities after the troops, (future veterans), went into Iraq?

ollie

??? Last Prez I know of that did major hacking was Billy C. Have I missed something? ???

heehe the title for this thread is so funny ;D.

I don'tlike Bush :-\ :-\.......he kills people ya know :P

  Thursday, April 29, 2004 10:05 a.m. EDT
Kerry Flip-flops on Missing WMDs

While the Washington press corps seems to have missed it, WABC Radio's Steve Malzberg has been playing a clip of Sen. John Kerry in his biggest flip-flop yet - showing the presumptive Democratic nominee suddenly admitting that Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction may soon turn up.

It's quite a turnaround for Kerry, who just a few weeks ago was complaining: "George Bush sold us on going to war with Iraq based on the threat of weapons of mass destruction. But we still haven't found them. ... We were misled about weapons of mass destruction."

Key Kerry backer Howard Dean has been even more adamant, insisting to CNN earlier this month: "There were no weapons of mass destruction. ... This is Bushgate, which is far more serious than Watergate."

But Tuesday night on MSNBC's "Hardball," Kerry retreated.

"It appears, as they peel away the weapons of mass destruction issue - and we may yet find them," he told host Chris Matthews. "Look, I want to make it clear. Who knows if a month from now, three months from now, you find some weapons? You may."

Coincidentally or not, Kerry's reversal came a day after the Jordanian government announced that WMDs from Syria were part of an al-Qaida plot to kill 80,000 people in Amman with poison gas. At least one of the plotters has admitted he was trained in Iraq.

The top Democrat's flip-flop also followed news that a suspected weapons of mass destruction production facility in Baghdad - disguised as a perfume factory - unexpectedly blew up, killing two GIs who were searching the plant.

 

*gasp* Who did he kill?  ::)

 ::)well didn't kill anyone by hand...well he might of done ???...who knows.  He was responceable the Iraqi peoples deaths though.

Hello Luke O,

Saddam Hussein killed a minimum of 300,000 people by low estimates, but realistically over 500,000 people. He was a little Hitler trying to grow into a big Hitler, and he did pretty well in reaching his goal. He invaded his neighbors, tried genocide on portions of his own people, and he defied a stack of resolutions that would have meant peace. If someone did something, it would be Saddam and his henchmen.

What we are doing is fighting terrorists on their own soil instead of letting them do a thousand more 9-11s on our soil. We didn't choose this war. War was internationally declared on us by the terrorists long before 9-11. It's sad that we didn't believe them until after 9-11. Now, it's just a matter of where the battles will be fought. They will come get us if we don't go to them. They are determined to kill us, and the battles will come to our soil sooner or later. In the meantime, our country has chosen to fight them wherever they are in the world. We really don't have a large number of choices if we wish to survive.

Love In Christ,
Tom

 ::)  ::) Luke, Luke, Luke..... What would Molly say?  ;)

hahaah she doesn't like politics....so i'm guessing she would be proud 8).

Back to the subject, i am by not means advoctating that Sadaam is a good man or anything.  But the US and the UK have no evidence that he was to blame for it.  You make a reference to Hitler, funny enough thousands and thousands of people rpotested again the war in the UK, but one man ignored it and carried on (of course that one man being Tony Blair) now surely that is also Hitler-esk dictatorship, i see no democracy.


On the subject of terrorism, can someone define what that is for me, i define it as terror caused on innocent people, but obviously i must be wrong then, cause if that was the case USA bombing Iraq qould also be terrorism.  Come to think of it i can't decifer the difference between Iraq attacking the US(which they might not have done) and the US attacking Iraq.  And where are the weapons of mass destruction???....yeah funny how politicians are trying to sweep that statement under the carpet

Luke, they were obviously moved or destroyed. The whole world knew they were there. Further, Saddam used them, and there are mass graves to prove it. So, why didn't he cooperate with the inspectors or obey the UN resolutions? Several investigations SUGGEST that they were moved into Libya or Syria.

Love In Christ,
Tom

They might of been moved, saying that thought Iraq probably bought them of the US in the first place.  Plus let's review both countries the US and Iraq, both countries have weapons of mass destruction, and at the moment i'd say the US are the most unstable with them.  Answer me this, Sadaam knew he was going down, so why didn't he fire the weapons of mass destruction at the US or UK then? i mean he'd have nothing to loose would he.

The whole UN resoultions thing is stupid, would the US let any other country come into America and have a look at there weapons of mass destruction, i don't think they would, Iraq simply did what the US would do. in my opinion anywayz

President Bush continues to oppose allowing American seniors to purchase lower-priced, FDA-approved medicines from Canada.[1] His administration has claimed those prescription drugs would be unsafe, and is working to block a vote on bipartisan Senate legislation to make reimportation legal.[2] But as a new drug industry whistleblower notes, the scare tactics are dishonest and untrue.

Dr. Peter Rost, vice-president of marketing for the pharmaceutical company Pfizer, recently came out and debunked the White House's argument, saying reimportation "has been proven to be safe in Europe" and that "The safety issue is a made-up story."[3] Rost's comments are consistent with the Bush administration's own FDA officials who have been unable to provide any evidence that medicines from Canada are unsafe.[4]

President Bush's opposition to reimportation is backed by the drug industry - the same special interest that has donated lavishly to the GOP. According to the non-profit watchdog Public Campaign, the drug industry has given Republican candidates more than $36 million since 1999. President Bush has raked in more than $418,000 from the pharmaceutical industry, and lists many drug industry executives and lobbyists as his top fundraisers.[5]

Sources:

1. "Big Pharma fears a Kerry win will lead to curbs on drug prices," The Independent Portfolio, 9/22/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3486872&l=59520.
2. "Frist won't bring drug import legislation up for vote," The Tennessean, 9/16/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3486872&l=59521.
3. "Surprise Support For Drug Importing," Washington Post, 9/14/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3486872&l=59522.
4. "FDA lacks examples of Canadian drugs harming Americans," Knight Ridder, 11/26/03,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3486872&l=59523.
5. "Paybacks: Prescription Drugs," Public Campaign, 8/2004,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3486872&l=59524.

(http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0UgCJAiMaLWKipRc8A*LAb631uqFFZ76dwaSeVKkPEuQQK12SOiRnaONkYNsQUcOUHFWysSkMEs5itmDkiIBlQQjjkZfkT0W4WbNqmcgcgp!epHFlRDPzReAwF6GLQQWE/BushCabinetPraying1.jpg?dc=4675492074856074801)

Worth a thousand words  :)

I got this in an email about 1 month ago. Does any know if this was really said????

Don't know whether or not he said this, but here it is... (things that make you
>go, "hmmm")
>
>The Lord has a way of revealing those of us who really know him, and those that
>don't!  Think about it!  Kerry gave a big speech last week about how his faith
>is so "important" to him.  In this attempt to convince the American people that
>we should consider him for president, he announced that his favorite Bible
>verse is John 16:3.
>
>Of course the speech writer meant John 3:16, but nobody in the Kerry
>camp was familiar enough with scripture to catch the error.  And do you know
>what  John 16:3 says?  John 16:3 says; "They will do such things because they
>have not known the Father or me."  The Spirit works in strange ways.

 

Wow, very interesting, poohbear.


Verbalizing John 16:3 is quite a bit different than saying John 3:16 - it doesn't flow off the tongue quite as easily.

So it's difficult realizing someone wouldn't recognize it immediately, when they read it, unless they really had never heard of it before.

It sounds authentic.  I sure would like to know if it were true or  not.

Quite funny.  And ironic - to say the least!

I know, now when I listen to there speaches I really pay attention to every word.....Who ever caught that one was right on que....I think that is something to think about. That we arent really listening to everything that they say. And scarey to think those little things could really make a difference on who you vote for ect.....

While the current report from US Weapons leader Duelfer is making the rounds, being played up by the news media, and trumpeted loudly by the Kerry campaign as "proof", the following two items of "proof" are being quietly ignored.  Why?
-------------------------------------------------
Another chemical weapon has been discovered in Iraq – a 122-mm Borak rocket warhead containing sarin traces, according to an exclusive report in Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, the premium, online intelligence newsletter published by WorldNetDaily.com.

 The warhead was found earlier this month, and U.S. military commanders believe there are more to be found.

In fact, according to G2B's military sources, chemical attacks are expected in Baghdad.

 In May, at least two other projectiles were found with traces of chemical weapons – mustard gas and sarin.

 On May 2, the U.S. Explosive Ordnance Disposal team found an improvised explosive device in the Baghdad area. It was later found to be a 155-mm round with a cracked nose in the fuze-well area. The technical escort unit performed testing using a mass spectrometer and found traces of sulfur mustard.

 The Army concluded the projectile was most likely an old Iraqi round from the Iran-Iraq war era and not one improvised by anti-U.S. terrorists.

 In addition, in a totally separate incident on May 15, the same disposal team found another 155-mm projectile in the Baghdad area that tested positive for the nerve agent sarin. In this case, the round was set up as an IED, but it is not clear the terrorists were aware of the nerve agent inside the projectile.

------------------------------------------------

(CNSNews.com) - Iraqi intelligence documents, confiscated by U.S. forces and obtained by CNSNews.com, show numerous efforts by Saddam Hussein's regime to work with some of the world's most notorious terror organizations, including al Qaeda, to target Americans. They demonstrate that Saddam's government possessed mustard gas and anthrax, both considered weapons of mass destruction, in the summer of 2000, during the period in which United Nations weapons inspectors were not present in Iraq. And the papers show that Iraq trained dozens of terrorists inside its borders.

One of the Iraqi memos contains an order from Saddam for his intelligence service to support terrorist attacks against Americans in Somalia. The memo was written nine months before U.S. Army Rangers were ambushed in Mogadishu by forces loyal to a warlord with alleged ties to al Qaeda.

Other memos provide a list of terrorist groups with whom Iraq had relationships and considered available for terror operations against the United States.

 Among the organizations mentioned are those affiliated with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Ayman al-Zawahiri, two of the world's most wanted terrorists. Zarqawi is believed responsible for the kidnapping and beheading of several American civilians in Iraq and claimed responsibility for a series of deadly bombings in Iraq Sept. 30. Al-Zawahiri is the top lieutenant of al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden, allegedly helped plan the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist strikes on the U.S., and is believed to be the voice on an audio tape broadcast by Al-Jazeera television Oct. 1, calling for attacks on U.S. and British interests everywhere.

----------------------------------------------------------------

And a final note of who (besides the communists, socialists, neo-nazi's and others) is now pulling for (s)Kerry to win.
------------------------------
The Muslim American Political Action Committee has formally endorsed Sen. John Kerry for president.

 "What does it mean for Muslim Americans if President Bush is re-elected?" asked Mukit Hossain, president of MAPAC, in making the announcement. "It means more constricting laws and policies to curtail the civil liberties of the Muslim Americans, and harsher foreign policies toward Muslim countries - in the name of combating terrorism. It also means a continuing and menacing rise of anti-Muslim sentiment in America, covertly nurtured by the neoconservatives, and openly fanned by government officials like Lt. General (William) Boykin and Attorney General John Ashcroft."

 Hossain, a telecommunications entrepreneur who emigrated from Bangladesh, said the decision to endorse Kerry came after months of considerations, discussions with Muslim American leaders across the country, and extensive dialog with the Kerry campaign and the Democratic Party leadership.

Hi Poohbear!  Welcome to CU (http://www.rr-bb.com/images/smilies/welcome.gif)

I was a little shocked the first time I heard that one too.  But SincereHeart (I believe it was, or maybe Ollie?) pointed out that this was on snopes.com as false.

Try this link.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/bibleverse.asp

Grace and Peace!

Evangelist,

Brother, I think that I know why the mainstream news picks and chooses what they do. They are ultra liberal and would hate to see George Bush remain as President of the United States. George Bush represents everything they hate, so they are either omitting news that would be positive for George Bush, or they are grossly distorting what has the potential to be negative. It's unbearable for them to have a Christian in the White House, especially one who has taken a stand for Biblical teachings (i.e. anti-abortion, anti-same sex marriage, prayer, the mere mention of Jesus Christ, preservation of traditional American values that are most definitely Christian).

Love In Christ,
Tom

I just want to make another general comment here. Anarchists are nto against freedom in any way. Anarchists are dedicated to true freedom, especialy in the case of speech.

They aren't "terrorists", they want free media and public rights that are being stripped away.

Their difference is that they don't want any form of governemnt at all; which would be Great if they were all Christian; which is part of why I'm going to scold you all for being so critical of a group you seem to know little to nothing about.

God said he'd prefer Israel had no king and followed God alone. This is actually similar to what anarchists have in mind. The bad side difference is that hey'd have a sort of comitee or a panel to make widespread decisions; which would lead right back to a Luciferian state of mind in a different direction.

I dealt with all kinds of anarchists in 25 years of police work. I know more than I want to know about them. Most of the ones I know are sitting in prison. Civilized societies just don't buy or tolerate the overall view of anarchists which can be generally stated as:  no rules, no law. The result of such backward thinking is "rule in a jungle mentality, dog eat dog, survival of the fittest, and only the strong survive." The society, in general, has no rules, law, or obligation to protect the weak, the ill, the children, or the elderly. Baboons have a better system of civilization than most anarchists.

I would simply say: NO THANKS JITC!

Tom

(http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0TQCJAp8X!aMTTC1iMK38VXDOtyEgTEsMhmjpdEBWHVq1Nz3I2fnAJ17F8YSaxFy3d4bue1z8Z9wBxOdNjsLai0xnBVrkciKV8bQ8crQfdq!GpPDe42J9QA/voter%2520test.jpg?dc=4675492779745714510)

(http://www.rr-bb.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif)

stop it!  your killin me!

Main Entry:  an·ar·chist
 Pronunciation:  'a-n&r-kist, -"när-
 Function:  noun
1 : one who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power
2 : one who believes in, advocates, or promotes anarchism or anarchy; especially : one who uses violent means to overthrow the established order
- anarchist or an·ar·chis·tic  /"a-n&r-'kis-tik, -(")när-/ adjective


Similar to what God had in mind? They (anarchists) would have a committee or panel to make decisions??

It would seem that you don't have a complete grasp on what anarchists are, or truly believe...in other words, you seem to know little to nothing about them.

Consider yourself scolded and Expose(d).

All I can say about anarchists is:

(http://www.sirinet.net/~blkidps/a4.gif)(http://www.sirinet.net/~blkidps/a4.gif)(http://www.sirinet.net/~blkidps/a4.gif)(http://www.sirinet.net/~blkidps/a4.gif)(http://www.sirinet.net/~blkidps/a4.gif)(http://www.sirinet.net/~blkidps/a4.gif)(http://www.sirinet.net/~blkidps/a4.gif)(http://www.sirinet.net/~blkidps/a4.gif)

 ;D

lol...luv that smiley

BUSH SENDS MIXED SIGNALS ON TERRORISM

At last night's debate, President Bush said that we could not hope to defeat terrorists if we have a leader who sends mixed signals. Bush said, "you cannot lead if you send mixed messages. Mixed messages send the wrong signals to our troops. Mixed messages send the wrong signals to our
allies."[1] But, throughout his presidency, Bush has sent mixed messages on fundamental terrorism-related issues.

For example, in September 2001 Bush said that he was determined to capture Osama bin Laden "dead or alive."[2] Six months later Bush said, "I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him."[3]

In April of this year, Bush said that we could win the war on terrorism.[4] Then, on August 30, he said "I don't think you can win [the war on terror]."[5] The next day, he said "Make no mistake about it, we are winning and we will win [the war on terror]."[6]

Sources:

1. "Transcript: Does Bush see Kerry character flaws?," CNN.com, 10/01/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3486872&l=60179.
2. "Wanted: Dead or Alive," ABC News, 9/17/01,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3486872&l=60180.
3. "President Bush Holds Press Conference," The White House, 3/13/02,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3486872&l=60181.
4. "President Addresses the Nation in Prime Time Press Conference," The White House, 4/13/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3486872&l=60182.
5. "Bush: 'You cannot show weakness in this world'," Today Show, 8/30/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3486872&l=60183.
6. "Remarks by the President of the American Legion," The White House, 8/31/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3486872&l=60184.

(http://www.protestwarrior.com/gallery/protestwarriors/18.jpg)

(http://www.protestwarrior.com/gallery/protestwarriors/22.jpg)

(http://www.protestwarrior.com/nimages/signs/thumb/pw_sign_15.jpg)

(http://www.protestwarrior.com/nimages/signs/thumb/pw_sign_24.jpg)