Headlines from Europe

Portugal: "Bush to unilaterally declare victory"
Spain: "US Presidency up in the air waiting for the definite recount in Ohio"
France: "Ghost of 2000 imbroglio resurges"
UK: "Bush edges towards poll victory"
Germany: "Whitehouse proclaims Bush the winner"
Austria: "Bush is the winner"
Italy: "Bush one step from victory"

I know this is a few days olds (Monday), and not a headline, but it is my all time favorite - I just had to post it here Eggy

Editorial opinion

'Aftenposten' endorses Kerry
Never before has a US presidential election captured so much interest and attention. Now Norway's "newspaper of record," the relatively conservative Aftenposten, has even published an editorial endorsing John Kerry, calling incumbent George W Bush "an American accident."

All of the article can be read here

Have a good day and thanks for your time

---

If people over here really thought Bush was an accident, then he would have been voted out of office by a HUGE margin. But they don't, and in the states he won, he did so with comfortable margins.

Hehe, I like that one.

From Al Jazeera:

Bush nears winning post
White House considers Bush's electoral count to be at 269
Wednesday 03 November 2004, 13:56 Makka Time, 10:56 GMT

Just because there's a majority doesn't automatically make it right.

Besides, were it Kerry winning, you'd be screaming bloody murder.

Yay partisanship!

LF

OMG, a Democrat that's actually willing to admit that the popular thing isn't always the right thing!

Latest US election headlines from Transylvania:

For four years the country has listened to the Demcrats whine and snivel because the 2000 election was not decided by a majority vote, now your changing your story? Perhaps it's this wishy-washy attitude of the Democratic candidate that caused him to lose in the first place?

The election was a "catastrophic success:" Catastrophic for the country, a success for Bush and his cronies.

Here we go for four more years, whee.

11:40 eastern:
From the desks of the Al Qaeda news agency (ok...one guy with a video camera in a tent).

"Kerry concedes; Bush re-elected - Oh Shit!"

Perhaps it was because Bush and his deputies evoke God in their speeches every chance they get, thus swinging the right-wingers their way? Perhaps it's the way Bush and Cheney threatened the American people with terrorist attacks if they voted for Kerry. Or maybe it's just them trying to scare Americans every day with new "terror alerts". Or maybe it's the lack of free information around lately? How IS the war in Iraq going now, anyway? Oh, right, it's not a war anymore... Mission Accomplished, right? Gotta get those A-rabs...

After all, Iraq DEFINITELY has Weapons of Mass Dest^H^H^H^H is certainly tied to Osama Bin Lad^H^H^H^H^H is now safe for Democracy and God.

When the revolution comes, you will be the first against the wall.

LF

Independent with Libertarian leanings, thanks very much.

I voted Libertarian in the 2000 elections.

LF

The facts are out there if you choose to seek them. Religion and politics are a scary mix. We now have a president who not only declares moral superiority of the christian sect but also considers himself a leader of divine providence. We will now have four more years of bloody preemptive wars, oppression of rights, increased defecit, loss of employment, persecution of religious dissenters...for some reason I just cannot be happy about this development.

As I said before I am not a Liberal. I am a constitutionalist and libertarian. I do not whine. I am saddened and angry that America actually thinks the Neo Conservative religious movement's crusade against non christian nations and non christian americans is a good thing. Let's hope that our children do not get drafted into this crusade. Let's hope that the Pat act II does not come to fruition. Hope, I have very little.

To gloat that 1/2 of the Americans have been ousted from their ability to have a role in the decisions in this country is a sad thing. Nice way to stop partisan ideas.

How would that be any different if Kerry had won? It would just be the other half.

And, in all honesty, it's not "half" by far. It's the relatively small percentages that are extremists that would be disenfranchised, regardless of who won.

Are you kidding? Bush is losing the war on terror. The Al Qaeda are probably quite happy with this result.

In any event, the "war on terror" is not about eliminating terror, it's about feeding tax money to the arms manufacturers and maintaining the status quo in world power. You don't eliminate terror by killing and maiming hundreds of thousands abroad, that just fuels terror.

Agree.
1. Recruitment up? check.
2. Number of explosions and kidnappings up? check.
3. Visibility in the world community up? check.
4. Enemy divided down the middle? check.
5. Enemy seperated from its allies? check.
6. Enemy has been distracted from capturing main terrorist leaders? check.
7. Enemy has infuriated formerly neutral countries? check.
8. Enemy economy suffering under billions and billions of war and homeland security debt? check.
9. Enemy living in fear? check.

Really, how many planes have flown into buildings since 9/11? How many dirty bombs have gone off in the U.S.? We completely decimated a terrorist government in Afghanistan and we are disrupting the finances of many Al Qaeda cells. Sure, the cockroaches have now all scurried under various pieces of furniture, but it's pretty evident that they don't operate with the same ease they enjoyed in the 90's-early 2000's. Bush is looking bad in Iraq, which (as any Liberal will tell you) did not support Al Qaeda or fund terrorism worldwide...supposedly. If anything, now terrorists are flooding INTO Iraq to oust the Americans....which is good. Better they face our armed troops than a group of business travellers on a redeye to NYC. Loosing? Not really, our leader can easily be found in residence at the White House, their leadership hides like vermin in cold, dark caves.

ROFL.

Xto, terrorists are in their element when working covertly. The picture of "cockroaches under the furniture" and "vermin in cold, dark caves" shows your poetic skills but for the terrorist it's probably just a nice picture of home, sweet home.

In contrast, I don't think that fear and terror at home is normal for people in a free country, yet this is clearly what the majority that elected Bush thought, since that was his main ticket.

So yes, Al Qaeda is winning hands down so far.

Interesting. Exactly how did you develop this wonderful ability to know the hearts and minds of a population group that you're not even a member of, and have nothing in common with?

Contrary to what you may believe, politicians don't decide what the constituents' "hot-button" issues are.

The key wonderful ability (called arithmetic) was taught to me in school, and I noticed that it didn't figure very highly on the list of important issues in this US election.

I then used that ability to understand the published numbers on the final ballot box, which indicated clearly (but by a small margin) which issues were considered to be of most importance by the voters.

If one assumes that the majority voted on the primary election issues, rather than using a pin blindfold or some other method, then the Occam's Razor interpretation is that fear and terror at home was the key issue for them, since that was the key message hammered out in every single campaign message by the winning candidate.

So you see, it's a very logical interpretation of the election results, without recourse to conspiracy theories nor advocacy.

Where's the issue?

The issue is you claiming to know what's important to me, when you don't have a clue.

You must have mixed me up with someone else who claimed to know what's important to you, since I did not.

The statistics of the election are not in any doubt, but they are purely statistical --- they only say something about the preferences of the statistical majority. They say nothing at all about any one person.

I disagree, there is no way that Al Qaeda's being ousted from a country they and the Taliban controlled (including the supply support, lodgings & training camp space, ability to obtain visas, etc.) and put into an 'on the lamb' state, could be construed as a benefit to them.

As for the homefront, don't confuse caution and preparation for fear. America was sucker punched on 9/11, mostly because we ignored the gravity of the previous attacks (WTC1, Cole). Instead, we happily went through the 80's, 90's, & early 2000's in a bovine-like manner, unconcerned with those elements plotting against us. Then we were hit, we reeled, we collected ourselves, we dealt with our attackers' powerbase (and further went to war with a country that had nothing to do with the attack...). Now we stand, fists up, back to going about our business....albeit with a clearer awareness of what elements are against us in the world, and with actual plans and actions working to thwart them. America has now re-elected the president that the terrorist hated most, logic would dictate that a fearful population would have elected the candidate least likely to incite the Islamists (like...*cough*...Spain, for instance). Even given the Patriot Act, has any American's life (besides those who have lost someone, of course) really changed as fundimentally as Bin Ladin's has since Afghanistan? Do we still have running water, cable, grocery stores, a job, electricity, emergency services, and a constitution?

Still, what is the alternative? Should we not fight against terrorism, and instead pull the covers over our collective heads and try to return to the blissful memories of the ninties? Did the previous administration give us any guidance in how to handle this matter (beyond blowing up sand with a cruise missle)? Were the Dems giving any indication on how they were going to handle the war on terrorism (not Iraq) any differently than the Bush administration? Will well-meaning intentions, offerings of peace, supplies of aid, or simple abandonment of the war on terrorism end the jihad against us?