Originally Posted by baby boo
What, you don't understand that paragraph? Did I suddenly break into Portugese or something?
What I said (for the benefit of the slower members of BW like yourself) is that liberals have claimed that Bush deliberately has avoided killing Bin Laden because his existence justifies Bush's war on terror and the justice department's expansion of police powers (wiretapping etc.). What I said was that this assumption is preposterouos because 1) Even if you accept this cynical theory, killing Bin Laden would give Bush a tremendous boost in the polls so he would, indeed, have a good rationale to do so and 2) since Al-Queda is decentralized Bin Laden's death would not obviate the need to continue provisions of the Patriot act to protect Americans from renants of this organization that will survive without him.
Now the next time you don't understand something just go back into your trailer and re-read it until it sinks in.
I was just trying to work through the broken syntax, spelling errors and grammatical illusions you call writing.
First, to get this out of the way, it’s Portuguese, preposterous, and remnants. You do not capitalize the E in ‘even’ in the series or put a comma after ‘indeed’. Further, you would want to put a comma after ‘decentralized’.
Now, you need not worry about my speed or ability to keep up with you. You only need to worry about having my complete and undivided attention. Now, about this theory of yours.
Exactly who in the collective of liberals claim that Bush deliberately has avoided killing OBL because his existence justifies Bush’s war on terror? I have never heard, or read a single offering of that theory. It sounds more like a Rush whisper than a real opinion.