You know, someone willing to take the thinking up a tier or two might realize that busting a terrorist or two with a load of records and information might, just might, result in an increase in arrests in the near future.
Did you go back and chart all the arrests in Pakistan and eastern Afghanistan to see if the timing was "suspicious?"
Or maybe since the Left has established that throughout 2003 and 2004 EVERY piece of good news out of the war must obviously be politically-motivated, it wouldn't really matter.
See here:
For a good time, go to Google and input the word "surprise" with the name of any month in front of it, i.e. "February surprise."
Could someone please inform me which dates between now and the election it would be acceptable to capture a terrorist without raising suspicion that somehow the entire Afghanistan/Pakistan/Iraq antiterror sweep is somehow being organized in real time by the cold and brilliant mind of George W. Bush?
There are enough people out there for whom it's painfully obvious the election in 2000 occupies a much larger space in their minds than 9/11. Don't play their game.
Current Events » in reply to I hate it when conspiracy theorists start predicting well.
re: conspiracy theorists
The whole thread (33 posts)
- Seized terror files years old?
- Please don't forget that the 911 plot was years old as well
- re: Seized terror files years old?
- Yeah, Bowser. Bush set it all up in Pakistan, just so he could have an alert. (n/t)
- I hate it when conspiracy theorists start predicting well.
- re: conspiracy theorists
- I hate it when conspiracy theorists start predicting well.
- If the terror alerts are causing so much of a problem, then how are they helping Bush?
- Yeah, Bowser. Bush set it all up in Pakistan, just so he could have an alert. (n/t)
