Was using the search menu to find "assasination attempt on Pres. Bush and this website was one that came up: 2-4 Weeks Before the Presidential Election Note: I am a Democrat and NOT a fan of Bush, yet my heart hurts like crazy at the thought of what's going to happen to George W. Bush this year. About 4 weeks before the election, George W. will be making a speech at an elementary school, and upon his exit (outside the elementary school) he will be gunned down in a firestorm of bullets that will also injure several children and kill a young blonde haired, blue eyed nine year old boy as well. The scene will be reminiscent of the assasination of Robert F. Kennedy. I feel the school may be in Florida - the SPACE COAST to be exact, like in Titusville or Cocoa Beach. The country will be in terrible shock, the insane Arab-American gunman will be painted as an Anti-Bush John Kerry devotee and as a result, Kerry and his running mate John Edwards will respectfully drop out of the race... allowing Dick Cheney to run uncontested... However, just days before the election, Howard Dean (who will join the race LAST minute) will be unsurprisingly defeated. Barbara Bush will have a massive heart-attack 2 weeks after her son's death and never fully recover. The economy will go into a major tailspin but stabilize upon the re-election of Dick Cheney. DICK CHENEY WILL SERVE 2 TERMS AS PRESIDENT and keep us at war THE WHOLE TIME... against the faceless "terrorists". He will turn out to be the country's MOST UNLIKED PRESIDENT OF ALL TIME. By the end of his second term, 80% of Americans will believe that he was the driving force behind Bush's murder. Why He Did It: At the end of August, Bush campaigns that if re-elected, he will pull ALL military personnel out of the Middle East as a result of the Miami terrorist attacks. This news makes Americans happy and the defense industry furious. They approach Cheney and promise to give him the power and the hit on Bush if he STAYS AT WAR WITH IRAQ and the Middle East. Believe it or not, Libya's Kadafi was even asked to "supply" the hitman to kill Bush in exchange for favorable relations and Lots of $$$ to him and his country. In other words, this is the JFK assasination all over again. That's all. I pray I am just a creative, insane person or that all of this will be stopped in time. I pray I am wrong and that this is just my imagination.
Here's the URL for the website from where this prediction came: http://www.prophecies.us/article.php?sid=282
Is this an Oliver Stone website?
That's just a modern, tin-foil version of the "LBJ had JFK killed" stories.
Please, those of you who are praying for President Bush also consider praying for the Pope, even if you aren't Catholic. There was a prophecy concerning the death of both in the same year. You really don't want that to happen. Other terrible events would occur following their deaths. Going to turn out the light and pray...
Well, this same 'psychic' predicted that 5 cruise ships would blow up in Miami on August 15th. Didn't happen. 'False prophet' - case closed.
Do they have an address where we can send the tin foil?
This is either nuts or a threat to President Bush.
Well .. I'm not buying this.
First of all .. if you're going to prophesy about people you better have a good handle on their character. I don't see that working in this prophesy and I would therefore reject it.
What Miami terrorist attack in August?
I feel better now that you printed the wacko fortune teller.
Hmmm... I wonder if the "psychic" that issued that prophecy is hearing strange clicks on his telephone today...
Quick exit from Iraq is likely
September 20, 2004
BY ROBERT NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST Advertisement
Inside the Bush administration policymaking apparatus, there is strong feeling that U.S. troops must leave Iraq next year. This determination is not predicated on success in implanting Iraqi democracy and internal stability. Rather, the officials are saying: Ready or not, here we go.
This prospective policy is based on Iraq's national elections in late January, but not predicated on ending the insurgency or reaching a national political settlement. Getting out of Iraq would end the neoconservative dream of building democracy in the Arab world. The United States would be content having saved the world from Saddam Hussein's quest for weapons of mass destruction.
The reality of hard decisions ahead is obscured by blather on both sides in a presidential campaign. Six weeks before the election, Bush cannot be expected to admit even the possibility of a quick withdrawal. Sen. John Kerry's political aides, still languishing in fantastic speculation about European troops to the rescue, do not even ponder a quick exit. But Kerry supporters with foreign policy experience speculate that if elected, their candidate would take the same escape route.
Whether Bush or Kerry is elected, the president or president-elect will have to sit down immediately with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The military will tell the election winner there are insufficient U.S. forces in Iraq to wage effective war. That leaves three realistic options: Increase overall U.S. military strength to reinforce Iraq, stay with the present strength to continue the war, or get out.
Well-placed sources in the administration are confident Bush's decision will be to get out. They believe that is the recommendation of his national security team and would be the recommendation of second-term officials. An informed guess might have Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state, Paul Wolfowitz as defense secretary and Stephen Hadley as national security adviser. According to my sources, all would opt for a withdrawal.
Getting out now would not end expensive U.S. reconstruction of Iraq, and certainly would not stop the fighting. Without U.S. troops, the civil war cited as the worst-case outcome by the recently leaked National Intelligence Estimate would be a reality. It would then take a resolute president to stand aside while Iraqis battle it out.
The end product would be an imperfect Iraq, probably dominated by Shia Muslims seeking revenge over long oppression by the Sunni-controlled Baathist Party. The Kurds would remain in their current semi-autonomous state. Iraq would not be divided, reassuring neighboring countries -- especially Turkey -- that are apprehensive about ethnically divided nations.
This messy new Iraq is viewed by Bush officials as vastly preferable to Saddam's police state, threatening its neighbors and the West. In private, some officials believe the mistake was not in toppling Saddam but in staying there for nation building after the dictator was deposed.
Abandonment of building democracy in Iraq would be a terrible blow to the neoconservative dream. The Bush administration's drift from that idea is shown in restrained reaction to Russian President Vladimir Putin's seizure of power. While Bush officials would prefer a democratic Russia, they appreciate that Putin is determined to prevent his country from disintegrating as the Soviet Union did before it. A fragmented Russia, prey to terrorists, is not in the U.S. interest.
The Kerry campaign, realizing that its only hope is to attack Bush for his Iraq policy, is not equipped to make sober evaluations of Iraq. When I asked a Kerry political aide what his candidate would do in Iraq, he could do no better than repeat the old saw that help is on the way from European troops. Kerry's foreign policy advisers know there will be no release from that quarter.
In the Aug. 29 New York Times Magazine, columnist David Brooks wrote an article (''How to Reinvent the GOP'') that is regarded as a neo-con manifesto and not popular with other conservatives.
''We need to strengthen nation states,'' Brooks wrote, calling for ''a multilateral nation-building apparatus.'' To chastened Bush officials, that sounds like an invitation to repeat Iraq instead of making sure it never happens again.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak20.html