Doggedly searching for the crux of the biscuit.
Flash back to last August, when Bush administration officals (and their token Democratic lapdog) were outraged, outraged, that Howard Dean accused the Bush administration of having political motivations for the seemingly endless string of color-coded terror alerts.
Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut went so far as to say "nobody in their right mind" would believe that Bush would "scare people for political reasons."
Vice President Dick Cheney shot back directly Wednesday at a campaign rally in Missouri. "There have been some commentary from some of our critics -- Howard Dean comes immediately to mind -- saying somehow that this is being hyped for political reasons, that the data that we collected here, the casing reports that provided the information on these prospective attacks, is old data, four or five years old. That just tells me that Howard Dean doesn't know anything about how these groups operate." [...]
Responding to Dean's latest assertion, Bush campaign spokesman Terry Holt dismissed him as a "bizarre conspiracy theorist. This shameful display of angry partisanship from Howard Dean is more of the angry face of the Democratic Party, and it's not helping us win the war on terror."
Yeah, that nutjob Howard Dean. Care to guess how many terror alerts have been announced in the eight months since the election? Here's a hint: you can count them on no hands. Since "nobody in their right mind" could have believed that Bush would try to scare people into voting for him, I can only assume that we must have already won the war on terror, right?
TrackBackWell, to be fair, America's resolve for re-electing Bush probably scared the terrorists away ;-)
Posted by: Brad R. at June 28, 2005 05:49 PMThat commercial with the wolves was fucking scarey, wasn't it? I bet those terrorists...
Oh, wait, that was meant to scare... um, I'm confused.
Posted by: Sterling at June 28, 2005 09:17 PMWhat about the bizarre and irresponsible conspiracy theory that Saddam was in some way behind 9/11?
Posted by: John Johnson at June 29, 2005 09:48 AMConspiracy: (2) a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot).
Hmmm, as a self-proclaimed Conspiracy Theorist—I have thrown out my share of crazy plans but the election-time terror level fluctuations didn’t “shock and awe” me. Remember in spring of 2004 when big news involved the steady rise of gas prices? I found this article (www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/12/national/main611310.shtml) and my first thought was, “Damn, gas was *only* a 1.76 a gallon. That’s Cheap!”
But rising gas prices threatened American summer-time travel (i.e., threatened Haliburton's Dollar, Dollar Bills y’all), so the Homeland Security Department's response was to issue a statement on “possible terror threats to public transportation”. Crap, I’ll even give you a fox news source, so you know it’s not part of the “liberal” plot. www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115987,00.html
Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction (which then became "WMD", which is eerily reminiscent of "WWJD" ...how's that for a Spin Conspiracy)
Quick buy duck tape to be safe (here's a website for some extracurricular activities for the extra duck tape...www.ducktapeclub.com/ducktivities/)
Haliburton gets lots and lots of money via no bid contracts including the construction of "Detention Center #6".
Really, are you a Conspiracy Theorist if you think something smells like tuna, or are you just paying attention?