[Kate]

First of all, it's Osama bin Laden. I thought you made a typo in the first post, but you did it twice so I had to correct you.

Originally Posted by forre

Here, he speaks about the war that wasn't necessary in that scale that took place. That is not important. The important thing for the TV-watchers is that the country could have saved 200 billion bucks to catch Usama. It's how the phrase is interpreted in the mind.

That's not how it was interpreted in my mind. They could have used the 200 billion for their health and education issues. The U.S. were very close to catching Osama bin Laden, when Bush suddenly said that he is, and I quote, "not worried about him [Osama] so much".

Originally Posted by forre

Bush could come with the counter phrase as "to spend 200 billion bucks on a project of catching one person is irresponsible. It's like throwing money for probably nothing". Etc.

I'm sorry, you lost me here.

Originally Posted by forre

So at this point we see that Kerry's argument is empty in itself but it may work on the voters as it seems have worked on some of you. It's was a good strategy to gather some points from Kerry's side.

And how did you get to this conclusion?

Olga, you're confusing me. Aaaaaahhh. I want to understand you so I can respond, but you're making it really hard for me to understand what you're saying.

Ok, let's make it easier. Why do you support Bush and don't support Kerry? Give me reasons with quotes. I'll do the same. That should be simple and logical.