Does the republican party want a terrorist act on the US?

Let me start by saying I certainly am no fan of Obama or the democrats either. But some republican politician(I dont know his name) said it would benefit McCain in his run for Pres. if a terrorist act happenned.Look how the Bush administration was able to use Bin Laden and the terrorist card to fool the American public.-----Of course they(the Bush/Cheney administration) did get alot of help from Al-Jazeera,I mean CNN and Fox news.lol

 

His name was Charlie Black, and he's one of McCain's top aides. He told Fortune Magazine that a new terrorist attack "would be a big advantage" to McCain.

9/11 was the best thing that ever happened to the Republican party. While few of them would be as misguided to publicly admit it, I'll bet plenty of them are secretly hoping for another terrorist attack prior to the election so they can continue to pursue their anti-American agenda.

On a related note, Republican idol Rush Limbaugh has also said he's "dreaming of riots" in Denver during the upcoming National Conference because that would ensure a Republican win.

 

^^^Very well said,and very true.Also on a related note: Rush Limbaugh is a moron,but I blame the mainstream media alot more.Thats why I compare Americas mainstream media and how low they have sunk to Al-Jazeera news.I think most intelligent people are more scared of getting a mild sunburn than a terrorist act happening in the US..

 

The neocons have said numerous times how another attack on US soil (or interests overseas) would help the Republicans, and it no doubt would. That's why I would not be surprised to see something big happen leading up to the elections. I really think the establishment wins regardless if McCain or Obama wins. But they also want to continue their war agenda in the Middle East. If they were to continue forwarding the same policies that are being carried out under the Republicans, people might start to wake up and realize there is no difference between the parties. So they just might push for McCain. We are hearing all this talk about going into Iran. Well, another convenient false flag attack to be blamed on Iran would not be out of the question in the next several months. This way they would get their war with Iran and a Republican president at the same time.

 

I blame the mainstream media alot more.

Yeah, hearing news delivered in Newspeak truly hurts. Thank heavens for the BBC and others.

 

I don't know how much you watch/listen to the BBC, but it can be a very frustrating exercise listening/watching BBC news.

http://www.biased-bbc.blogspot.com/

 

Bill Kristol has said almost the same, and since he and PNAC folks took us into war in Iraq. I find it scary that right now when we may be on the verge of escalating conflict in the Middle East he's making these noises. We don't just need a change we need a thinking congress, and an independent thinking president that hasn't paid for his campaign with promises to special interests.

 

If you rely on any one single news source for your information, then you're unlikely to obtain an unbiased picture of what's going on. That's why the Internet is such a great tool. We can read the same story from a number of sources, countries and outlooks, and thus obtain a reasonable idea of what really happened.

I'm always wary however, of any news source which claims to be "unbiased", or worse, any that obsess over bias in other news sources.

Case in point: I took a look at the Blog you quoted. Once I saw phrases like
"But since when did the BBC care about our military", and "the gaping maw of the Stalinist NHS", as well as seeing phrases like "BBC gay agenda", and quotes from the Daily Mail (now there's an unbiased news source - not) that tells me that the author of this blog isn't exactly speaking from the middle of the road himself.

On the other hand, I'll bet that he thinks Fox News is "Fair and Balanced".

 

The ironic and absurd part of this whole situation is the Bush/Cheney administration NEVER had any intention to protect people from terrorism.Quite the opposite,they welcomed it with open arms the second they got in office.

 

Agreed, when it got to the point where the site started criticising the BBC for reporting on the prime minister's speeches about Zimbabwe. (which obviously has nothing to do with the fact that he's the PM and everything to do with him being left wing :S) I got a little suspicious, I tend to read a few different news sites. Granted, the ones I read will have a left wing bias, but meh, I read with a left wing bias anyway.

 

I agree.
The internet is a great tool, I hope we all use it to its full potential.
I'd hope SunLion does not just read/listen to the BBC.
With him saying: "...and others", I suspect he does not just use the BBC.

I've not seen the words "unbiased" in relation to that Blog.
It just seems a depositary of peoples thoughts on the grand 'ol BBC
(check out the links on the right).

No, I doubt the Blogger is speaking from the "middle of the road".
But he does not have to.
If you notice he uses quotes from a varied selection of media, The Mail being just one.
We all selectively pick points to suit our argument, like you have just done.
I have no idea if he thinks Fox News s "Fair and Balanced", and don't really care if he does.
I suspect he does not concern himself thinking about any other media, or compare any other media to the BBC.

I was just giving another perspective of the BBC - which we agree is a good thing.

 

Regarding that site reporting bias from the BBC, if someone who watched only American television news were to go to that site, they'd have no idea what it's even about. Our own television news is that dumbed-down. The BBC is entirely listenable.

 

True. But those that do should know the BBC is not the epitome of unbiased info.
It has scrutiny of which we should be aware of.