Alternate Universe Reuters is now reporting that top US officials confirm there was a near simultaneous terror attack on ten US-bound airplanes. All flights were lost within 20 minutes of each other on their path from the United Kingdom to the United States.
AUReuters reports President Kerry will address the nation in a couple hours once he returns to Washington from the “White House On The Cape” in Nantucket. In a statement hurriedly released by the White House, Kerry says “if this was a terror attack, I will hunt down and kill the terrorists where ever they are.”
He also expressed shock at the attack since he has personally been in constant UN-mediated negotiations on the “terror problem” with Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, North Korea, Sunni Iraq, and Syria.
In the wake of these first reports, AUBlogger Andrew Sullivan has sharply criticized President Kerry’s reponse to the War on Terrorists, as it is commonly known in the media. On his blog, Sullivan posted …..
Kerry made a fundamental mistake after his withdrawal from Iraq in February 2005. He became obsessed with Bin Laden. But any fool knows that the terror problem is more than this one man. Kerry has diverted all of the resources to hunt Bin Laden in caves, while thousands of other terror cells have been formed after the Iraqi withdrawal and civil war.
All Kerry has done is cut and run out of Iraq and throw money at “First Responders.” Last I checked, there were no “First Responders” at 35,000 feet!
More as this story develops…..
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
This is the funniest thing I ever read! Kudos to whoever wrote this fun piece of fiction.
Regards,
Peter H.
Bravo!
SNL’s version with President Gore was far more believable and funnier too.
I’m sure that a strongly-worded note expressing our “concern”, on White House stationery, will put things right.
The fact that President Kerry can negotiate in French is the critical difference.
I kind of like the K-Mart Blue Light Special effect at the top of the post. It fits. In Michigan, it’s synonymous with failure.
TMI: KMart was hdqtrd in Michigan, its leadership was mostly Democrat biz types. After they ran the company into bankruptcy and forced mostly blue-collar employees into unemployment and welfare rolls… they tried to get the State to pay for the benefits.
The leadership exited with $32m in severance bonuses, the Democrat Governor ended up with $165,000 in campaign contributions from the biz leaders there and the workers got the pink slips. The BigLabor leaders offered: “We’re in a transitioning economy. Retraining is the key for these workers.” Yeow. To find jobs stacking shelves? Working on a loading dock?
Oh, BigLabor meant the guys in the shirts & ties… ahh.
Oh and is the President Kerry address to the nation where he finally releases his Naval records to the public –455 days after signing the 180’s but thwarting public review of the files?
President Kerry?!?
Dear Lord, no!
That would put Vera right over the edge-
Gin soaked raisins for everyone!
Make mine a double, Vera darling.
Regards,
Peter H.
Andrew Sullivan….again. And what’s so sad about it this time is that the concept for the post was lifted from his recent piece in New York or the New Yorker, which is found in this universe.
as a previous poster pointed out, you really should write this blog in crayon at this point. Not only are conservatives sore winners, they now have to come up with “fan fiction” as a way to “prove” their points.
Sean (#10) – Interesting since I don’t read the New Yorker or New York in any universe. I just figured Sullivan’s flight from President Kerry at the first sign of distress would be instantaneous…also in any universe.
Kevin (#11) – this is far from fiction. Kerry has (eventually) opposed every single tool in the War on Terror that was used to stop the terror plot planned for Aug. 16, 2006.
Bruce,
I think what President Kerry (I am dreaming) would be against is the use of those tools at the sole discretion of the executive branch. He is looking for presidential oversight.
This is something that he might have learned from LBJ. If congress would have stepped in and reclarified the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, we might not have had that mess of Vietnam
#12. But you do read Andrew Sullivan and his blog-like parallel universe piece has already been posted. And please don’t tell us that you don’t read Andrew Sullivan. You would have to for this blog to ask such “Does Andrew Sullivan read Gay Patriot?” and “IS GayPatriot the New Andrew Sullivan?” Serious case of Jan or even Cindy going on here. You stole the concept and didn’t do it justice, even by the standards of your own universe.
13: Well then, how about the “fan fiction” where we actually completed the job in Afghanistan, captured Bin Laden and most of his cronies, didn’t piss off the majority of our allies and didn’t go to war in Iraq under false pretenses?
September 11, 2006: 5 years after the attacks on our nation, killing thousands of innocent people and Bin Laden still has yet to be captured. Pathetic
Five years since 911 and no attacks on US soil: EXCELLENT!
Naysayers: PATHETIC!
For five years after the first World Trade Center bombing, there were no attacks on “US soil” either. And yet it was bombed again on 11 Septmeber 2001.
So what exactly does “five years since 911 [sic] and no attacks on US soil: EXCELLENT!” actually mean? Nothing.
And you will have to say nothing if you want to go along with the administration’s, and the Democrats’, claims that we are still unsafe. If you say we are safe, then there’s no need for the fear-mongering anymore, no?
The story of the boys and Condi crying wolf will come to an end in a few weeks–when they lose Congress. No one seems to be listening to the cries anymore anyway; instead, just some fan fiction followers creating alternate universes.
If we had been attacked since 911 you would probably say Bush failed…so, what is YOUR point unless you want it both ways and heck, liberals love that so no surprise.
The operative phrase is “we are SAFER” and no one said “safe.” Further, if someone thinks we have not improved our means of inter and intra agency communications since 911 so that intelligence data can be shared…not much I can do someone’s lack of common sense. That fact alone means we are safer since our awareness is far greater today than 5 years ago.
Of course, why should our current Republican-led government actually capture/kill Bin Laden? It’s politically more advantageous for them to keep people scared so they can continue to claim how they’re keeping us “safe”. But then that boogey man Bin-Laden is allllllllllways out there, just lurking out of sight, so keep the Republicans in power to keep you “safe”.
Let’s recap Kevin & Company’s recent blogbloats:
The Left criticizes Bush for getting us into a WOT –when one wasn’t even needed– just some soothing words of diplomacy over at the UN would have done it.
The Left criticizes Bush for talking tough about going after Osama and wanting him Dead or Alive and Bush’s penchant for cowboy rhetoric and then skewer him when each top terrorist is killed with the taunt… but it aint Osama.
The Left criticizes Bush for going into Iraq on the wrong premise with faulty intelligence that their leaders believed and advanced, not using enough troops but nickel & dime-ing the approrpiations process and then undercuts the mission and troops.
The Left ankle-bite and disingeniously undercut American resolve for the war and then criticize Bush for the bad polls and the public not liking the WOT-Iraq. (Who exactly likes war, anyway?)
The Left criticize Bush for waiting so long before getting top terrorists and when one is nabbed, criticize him for not getting Osama yet.
The Left criticize Bush for using spending too much on domestic terror prevention and not in the right places, then hammer him for delays on the subway or in the terminals as silly, unneeded inconveniences.
The Left criticize Bush for telling us to be careful and reminding us that the terrorists intend us harm and that amounts to scare and fear tactics.
Finally, the Left criticize Bush for creating a highly charged partisan environment– because some see them as traitors and unpatriotic –in the great tradition of the Democrat Left.
Seems like Bush can’t win. Except in 2000, 2002, 2004 and likely in 2006.
#20: So are you saying, Kevin, that bin Laden isn’t actually a threat?
If so, why are you and the rest of your fellow leftists screaming that we need to get him?
Again, this shouldn’t surprise us; as a typical talking-points-dependent Democrat, you never question your own rhetoric, even when it contradicts itself, as long as it’s anti-Bush.