That Time magazine article was the biggest crock of crap to come down the pike. That was it. The Clintons had NO plan or intentions of dealing with terrorism at all. They did nothing after Khobar Towers. Nothing after the U.S.S Cole was bombed. They handled as a LE problem, which was a mistake. The terrorists saw this as weakness. That's the truth, but I forgot, you liberals and the truth are about as far apart as NYC and Los Angeles. Live in the your fantasy world, people who actually are in reality will protect you. I know you think you're funny droning on and on, but at least for your sake, even if you don't give a damn about him, that Bush is trying to use the military to protect your ass and freedom to make a total ass of yourself on the internet, which you have. I've come to the realization that you people are becoming about as desperate and pathetic as I've ever seen you. It is almost...hilarious.
Bama, read this. Plenty of blame to go around. http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/613twavk.asp?pg=1 I expect a report on my desk first thing in the morning.
Wow, your mission is accomplished if you actually wanted to make me even 0.05% as angry as you are habitually. The ass in this picture will be clear to most readers. One. Last. Time. Loving my country, which I do, does not equal lining up behind an administration that, in my view, is greatly harming my country. I appreciate that Bush may well believe he is taking the best course of action. I am not so cynical as to think he goes to bed chuckling about sinister plans. I believe he himself has good intentions at a very fundamental level. But I respectfully, scientifically, and almost categorically disagree with his actions and words. I respect your opinion, your former service in the marines, and your right to your views. However, I have absolutely no respect for your persona, as it is manifest in these parts, and I have no respect for your dismissive lectures on blind nationalism, especially as I work and will continue to work for the education and scientific advancement of my country, as I have done my entire adult life. I don't pretend that's a more worthy contribution than someone else's, but it damn sure is not less worthy. Nuts to you, sir, and good day.
Now that the 2004 campaign has started, guess what? The Bushies start looking for Osama real hard... http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/03/04/binladen.search/index.html High-tech snooping for bin Laden Thursday, March 4, 2004 Posted: 8:23 PM EST (0123 GMT) WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. forces searching for al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden along the mountainous border between Pakistan and Afghanistan will soon implement high-tech surveillance tactics in the region, enabling them to monitor the area 24 hours a day, seven days a week, CNN has learned. It's believed that the constant surveillance of the border region and the "squeeze play" by U.S. and Pakistani forces surrounding the mountainous frontier will present the best chance ever to net the world's most-wanted terrorist, who has eluded capture since U.S. troops launched a search for him in late 2001. . . .
I don't expect you to sit here and just love Bush. You have the right to disagree. But you people will only realize much later in life that Bush.....was right. He showed a pair of functioning male organs when we needed them. One of these days, you will realize you owe all of the admin officials and GWB himself a debt of gratitude. Bush has (with the exception of his domestic agenda, which I agree is not beneficial to our country) strengthened us on the world stage and put the terrorists on the run. His tax cuts have spawned the growth those on the right said would happen. And that is enough. If we can just REALLY cut spending. So good day to you as well.
interesting that the two women quoted in the news article have been "politicising" this issue for some time: and here she is in aa letter to the nytimes last july: and Kristen Breitweiser: and here she is in an article for Salon last September: interesting how the news left this out...
If anything these quotes show people upset by the politicizing of the event. Those quotes do show them being upset with how some things have gone regarding events post 9/11. Being upst, and/or dissatisfied doesn't equal politicizing 9/11.
And since they have evolved into the spokespeople for the families pushing for the truth, it's no surprise their name shows up more often.
Yes. For pursuing policies that thoroughly discredit neo-con foreign policy and trickle-down economics in the minds of Americans and thw world. I, for one, would welcome the Republican Party back.
Before you paint with this broad brush, you might want to look at one of the more recent threads on terrorism.
they're spokepeole for soem families who are pursuing some of the wilder conspiracy theories out there. of course they have the right to say whatever they feel. i only wish the media had found some slightly more open-minded victims families for their story.
the journal's got a nice editorial about this issue today: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004777 -- REVIEW & OUTLOOK Is 9/11 an Issue? President Bush talks about his record, and Democrats demand that he shut up. Friday, March 5, 2004 12:01 a.m. September 11, 2001, marked the worst foreign attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor--the bloodiest ever on the American mainland. It's certainly been the defining event of George W. Bush's Presidency. But according to Democrats and their media echo chamber, it now shouldn't be a campaign issue. Yes, that was the message being peddled in yesterday's papers by reporters provided with outrage-laden quotes from a single firefighters' union and activist relatives of victims of the World Trade Center attacks. With a series of new campaign ads featuring fleeting images of Ground Zero, they charge, Mr. Bush is "exploiting" the tragedy. "I'm disappointed but not surprised that the President would try to trade on the heroism of those fire fighters in the September 11 attacks," said International Association of Fire Fighters President Harold Schaitberger, who happens to have endorsed John Kerry way back in September. "It's a slap in the face of the murders of 3,000 people," said outspoken victims' family activist and litigant Monica Gabrielle. The theme was quickly picked up by television talkers. Please. We write this from offices that are 200 yards from Ground Zero and were rendered uninhabitable for almost a year by the attack. (The photo below was the view from our windows.) The threat of another such assault, and how to prevent it, has dominated our politics for three years. From tax cuts designed to save the economy from the double-whammy of terrorism and recession, to the Patriot Act, to regime change in Afghanistan and Iraq as part of Mr. Bush's "forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East," just about every recent major policy is inextricably linked to the event so mildly depicted in these Bush ads. Isn't an election supposed to be about such things? Even Democrats know that it is, so they are manufacturing this outrage for a political purpose: President Bush still polls extremely well on his handling of the war on terror, and Democrats are trying to define the debate in a way that keeps him from playing to his strengths. The polls also show that Mr. Bush scores well as a "leader," so Democrats are also trying to stop him from reinforcing that image. But what is Mr. Bush supposed to do, stop being President? Incumbency clearly has its large (and sometimes unfair) advantages. Yet try as we might, we can't seem to recall similar outrage about Bill Clinton's use of incumbency when he was running for re-election--at least not outrage that got any media traction. Where, for example, was the tut-tutting about the former President "exploiting" the Oklahoma City bombing by giving an election-year speech there in April 1996? We'd also take the current handwringing a bit more seriously if we heard any similar worries about John Kerry "exploiting" his service in Vietnam. One of the oddest things about the hullabaloo over the Bush ads is that these are precisely the kind of campaign spots the self-appointed media referees always say they like: positive, and focused on the candidate's message and record, not on tearing down the other guy. Despite Mr. Kerry's crocodile tears about the Republican "attack machine" and "smear" campaign, neither the President nor any other high-ranking Republican has so far taken a serious jab at either Mr. Kerry's character or his record. Yet in case they eventually do, Democrats are also busy trying to take that off the table. When Georgia Republican Saxby Chambliss recently talked about Mr. Kerry's Senate votes against most U.S. weapons systems, he was assailed for attacking Mr. Kerry's "patriotism." This is an extension of the Max Cleland-as-martyr myth, asserting that it was somehow unfair for Republicans to attack the former Georgia Senator and Vietnam vet in the 2002 elections for his vote against the Homeland Security department. So the Bush campaign is being presented with something of a Catch-22: Any attempt to talk about the President's own record will be branded "exploitative," while any talk about Mr. Kerry's will be called an attack on his "patriotism." Our advice to Mr. Bush is to choose his message and ignore the whining. As for Democrats, they'd be wise to get over the idea that Mr. Kerry's Vietnam biography will cover them on the defense issue. For most Americans, 9/11 was the defining event of a generation, and they'll want to hear a serious debate about which candidate has the best policies to keep them safer in the years ahead. The more Democrats complain about Mr. Bush running on national security, the more voters may suspect that Democrats don't have any serious anti-terror ideas of their own.
In January 2002, just a few months after nearly 3,000 people died in the attacks, Bush told House and Senate leaders in a meeting at the White House... "I have no ambition whatsoever to use this as a political issue"
Why is this is a myth? There is nothing mythical about the GOP and Chambliss running ads comparing a paraplegic amputee Vietnam vet to Osama Bin Laden, and questioning his patriotism in order to get Chambliss elected (trick-knee, 4-F). THat's not myth, that's reality.
Yeah, it's one thing to criticize a vote, but to compare a war hero and three-time amputee to OBL and Hussein is disgusting. I will never get over that.
Thank you! Here is someone who disagrees with Bush's policies but still maintains a level head. Refreshing. For the record, I saw the ad last night and I really don't see what all the fuss is about. Judging by the 'uproar', I was expecting something much worse. Yes, I'm voting for Bush but like GV, I would have a big problem with the ad if it was using "stock" footage of 9/11.
9-11 changed everything... __________________ Q Some of the families of the 9/11 victims have criticized the President for using these -- using 9/11 footage in those ads. Are you exploiting the situation, and what do you say to that? MR. McCLELLAN: Actually, September 11th was a defining moment for our nation. It was an experience that all Americans shared. It is the reason we are still at war on terrorism. And all of us, as Americans, shared in the experience of that tragic day. And it is vital to our future that we learn what September 11th taught us. September 11th changed the equation in our public policy. It forever changed our world. And the President's steady leadership is vital to how we wage the war on terrorism. Q Shouldn't that be off-limits to politics, Scott, that tragedy? MR. McCLELLAN: September 11th? September 11th, as I said, it taught us that we must confront dangers before it's too late, and that we must continue to take the fight to the enemy. There's a clear choice for Americans in how we confront the threats of terrorism. Q But the President -- the party is using it for political purposes. I mean, it's pretty clear now -- MR. McCLELLAN: Look, these are threats that didn't happen overnight; that September 11th taught us that we must confront these threats by taking the fight to the enemy. All right, thanks, sorry. END 9:06 A.M. PST
