[warmspit]

..does this make any sense>? 9/11 happened under his watch, while he vacationed and ignored warnings....why is he still trying to use it to campaign on?

Just curious, repubs: why does this NOT point out his incompetence to you, but instead inspires you to vote for the guy? what is your logic here?

[boots]

Dude. There are so many better reasons to dislike this administration than this. Here's just one example; http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...readid=233075. (I know, you started that one too.)

There were too many problems in the system that Bush inherited. It was no single administration's fault. Rather, it is the cumulative effort going back to at least about Nixon's time, but probably much further back than that. This one isn't even worth trying to use as a political issue.

[Spliffdaddy]

John Kerry admits to participating in war crimes in Vietnam and he still uses his service as the primary issue he campaigns on.

now that's hilarious.

[BlueSky]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
John Kerry admits to participating in war crimes in Vietnam and he still uses his service as the primary issue he campaigns on.

now that's hilarious.

9/11 happened under Bush's watch, while he vacationed and ignored warnings and he still uses 9/11 as the primary issue he campaigns on.

Now that's hilarious.

[icruise]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
John Kerry admits to participating in war crimes in Vietnam and he still uses his service as the primary issue he campaigns on.

now that's hilarious.

Which war crimes were those?

[boots]

Originally posted by Icruise:
Which war crimes were those?

Killing civilians.

[ThinkInsane]

Originally posted by Bluesky:
9/11 happened under Bush's watch, while he vacationed and ignored warnings and he still uses 9/11 as the primary issue he campaigns on.

Now that's hilarious.

9/11 was planned for years under Bill Clinton's watch, by a criminal terrorist that he failed to apprehend. What's your point?

[BlueSky]

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
9/11 was planned for years under Bill Clinton's watch, by a criminal terrorist that he failed to apprehend. What's your point?

That he vacationed and ignored warnings and he still uses 9/11 as the primary issue he campaigns on.

[BRussell]

What bothers me is that 9/11 was the best thing to happen to Bush. He was not a well-liked president in his first year, until 9/11 happened, and then he obtained the highest recorded approval rating of any president in Gallup's polling history. BC04 talk about it constantly. And yet it was a failure. And I think they've responded, even afterwards, to 9/11 in an obviously backward fashion, exacerbating the problem rather than reducing it.

[BlueSky]

Originally posted by BRussell:
What bothers me is that 9/11 was the best thing to happen to Bush. He was not a well-liked president in his first year, until 9/11 happened, and then he obtained the highest recorded approval rating of any president in Gallup's polling history. BC04 talk about it constantly. And yet it was a failure.

It's the "Who's Your Daddy" syndrome. US is attacked, citizens grasp for guidance and leadership. In that kind of panic, any port in a storm will have to do.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Bluesky:
That he vacationed and ignored warnings and he still uses 9/11 as the primary issue he campaigns on.

Actually, he campaigns on the response to 9/11, and on preventing future attacks that could be 9/11 times 1000.

Why that's, 911,000!



Anyway, please run around for the next week trying to blame 9/11 on Bush. Please also wear a Kerry button as you do it.

[BlueSky]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Actually, he campaigns on the response to 9/11, and on preventing future attacks that could be 9/11 times 1000.

As I recall, Bush's "response" to 9/11 was to turn to page 17 of "My Pet Goat".

Anyway, please run around for the next week trying to blame 9/11 on Bush. Please also wear a Kerry button as you do it.

Thanks, I will. And please accept this nifty new bumper sticker thingy as a token of my generosity:

[boots]

Originally posted by Bluesky:
As I recall, Bush's "response" to 9/11 was to turn to page 17 of "My Pet Goat".

And what would you have done? Jumped up and screamed? Walked demurely out of the room?

Does that instantaneous response matter? If he had done anything different in the first 30 minutes, would it have made a difference?

I think, all things considered, that not panicking was a good response.


And you know I'm not a GW fan, but there are so many better arguments as to why Bush is a poor leader. These are just petty.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by warmspit:
..does this make any sense>? 9/11 happened under his watch, while he vacationed and ignored warnings....why is he still trying to use it to campaign on?

I don't consider 9/11 to be a Bush failure. There was very little Bush could have done about it. Rather, I consider a systemic failure of the American government, including decisions made relative to the Middle East by Presidents going all the way back to Truman, to be partially responsible for 9/11. I consider the reaction of the Arab world to that failure to be at least equally responsible.

[BlueSky]

Originally posted by boots:
And what would you have done? Jumped up and screamed? Walked demurely out of the room?

Does that instantaneous response matter? If he had done anything different in the first 30 minutes, would it have made a difference?

I think, all things considered, that not panicking was a good response.

Who said anything about panicking or not panicking? How about stand up, excuse yourself and tend to the job at hand when told that the country is under attack?

[boots]

Originally posted by Bluesky:
Who said anything about panicking or not panicking? How about stand up, excuse yourself and tend to the job at hand when told that the country is under attack?

And he did. It just took him a few more minutes that you seem to think it would have taken you. Again, had he gotten up immediately and left, would it have saved a single life? No.

[BlueSky]

Originally posted by boots:
And he did. It just took him a few more minutes that you seem to think it would have taken you. Again, had he gotten up immediately and left, would it have saved a single life? No.

Had he gotten up immediately and left, would it have demonstrated that he's even remotely capable of leading? Possibly, at least for the moment.

[boots]

Originally posted by Bluesky:
Had he gotten up immediately and left, would it have demonstrated that he's even remotely capable of leading? Possibly, at least for the moment.

Leading what? The response mechanism is already in place whether the President is johnny-on-the-spot or not.

You are really making more of this that it deserves. How about bringing up the facts that Bush and Co. kept implying the link between A.Q. and Iraq. Or how Saddam had weapons that he could use almost immediately (even though the inspectors said that wasn't the case)?

Get an issue that really has some substance. This is diversionary fluff and you know it.

[BlueSky]

Originally posted by boots:
Get an issue that really has some substance. This is diversionary fluff and you know it. You are really making more of this that it deserves.

In the big picture, it most definitely is of minor importance. YOU are making more of it than it deserves. I simply replied to Spliff with what has become legendary in the first moments of 9/11.

I did not imply that a nation is paralyzed or that Armegeddon is about to happen. You accuse me of blowing it out of proportion when in fact it is you who is doing so. Take a pill, or better yet, drink more Kool-Aid.

Furthermore, in your responses to both warmspit's and my posts, you give us grief for making ONE point instead of making perhaps a thousand others.

I don't think anyone is up to the task of making the complete case against Bush in one post or thread...at least I don't have that kind of energy or time. Lots of points to talk about, one at a time is good enough for me.

We're just hangin' out and talkin' some points, no need to find a cure for cancer right this moment.

[boots]

:shakes head:

I didn't start the thread. I did say it was a stupid thing to keep harping on. Now I'm accused of blowing it out of proportion because you keep arguing that it is important?

No wonder Kerry isn't winning in a landslide. His supporters can't prioritize and make effective arguments.

Whatever, man. Keep making stupid arguments that really don't have any merit.

[warmspit]

Originally posted by boots:
:shakes head:

I didn't start the thread. I did say it was a stupid thing to keep harping on. Now I'm accused of blowing it out of proportion because you keep arguing that it is important?

No wonder Kerry isn't winning in a landslide. His supporters can't prioritize and make effective arguments.

Whatever, man. Keep making stupid arguments that really don't have any merit.

actually, I think Kerry WILL win in a landslide, but that has little to do with this topic.

-- my question is, 9/11 is a failure to protect this country. Whether you want to spread the blame to previous administrations, even so, it is a FAILURE TO PROTECT, and under Bush's watch. To keep using it to campaign FOR Bush to show he can protect us defies logic. What I am wondering is how does this work for bushites? Under what argument can you think the guy who stood back while you got suckerpunced is the guy you trust to keep other people from suckerpunching you?

If your argument THEN is that he invaded Afghanistan, ok....but then he diverted troops to Iraq and let Bin Ladin slip away...so, again, you can't even argue he really went after the guy who suckerpunched you, instead, he pretended to, then took a left turn and started punching another guy who didn't suckerpunch you, because he thought the new guy looked at him funny. Meanwhile, the guy who suckerpunched you goes free. When you ask

bush about it, he says the first guy isn't really all that important.

see? How is this logically a strong point to campaign on?

[gerbnl]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Actually, he campaigns on the response to 9/11, and on preventing future attacks that could be 9/11 times 1000.

Why that's, 911,000!

Actually (9/11)*1000 is only 818.18181818 :sigh:

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by gerbnl:
Actually (9/11)*1000 is only 818.18181818 :sigh:

I guess you haven't seen the movie.

[BlueSky]

Originally posted by boots:
:shakes head:

I didn't start the thread. I did say it was a stupid thing to keep harping on. Now I'm accused of blowing it out of proportion because you keep arguing that it is important?

No wonder Kerry isn't winning in a landslide. His supporters can't prioritize and make effective arguments.

Whatever, man. Keep making stupid arguments that really don't have any merit.

YOU keep arguing that it's important. Let me map it out for you:

1) I make ONE point indicative of his lack of leadership abilities.
2) You take me to task for not making a thousand OTHER points.

My last post said it all, boots.

[gerbnl]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I guess you haven't seen the movie.

Clearly! but then... i saw several other movies!

Even so...
I'd be very obliged if you cared to point out the movie that sports the amazing math.

[boots]

Originally posted by warmspit:
actually, I think Kerry WILL win in a landslide, but that has little to do with this topic.

More power to you. As it stands, there is nothing to support that happening. Perhaps I will be pleasantly surprised.

If your argument THEN is that he invaded Afghanistan, ok....but then he diverted troops to Iraq and let Bin Ladin slip away...so, again, you can't even argue he really went after the guy who suckerpunched you, instead, he pretended to, then took a left turn and started punching another guy who didn't suckerpunch you, because he thought the new guy looked at him funny. Meanwhile, the guy who suckerpunched you goes free. When you ask bush about it, he says the first guy isn't really all that important.

see? How is this logically a strong point to campaign on?

Now, that is the real argument. I was willing to go along with Afghanistan. I think we should have been actively looking at Afghanistan (and the Taliban specifically) long before the Budda's were blown up, but given what reality was on Sept 11, I was with him. He lost me when he shifted focus and tried to sell it off as an extension of the same thing. Mis-direction and mis-representation. Those are serious issues. But that isn't simply because 9/11 happened in the first year of his watch.


As for why trust the person who let you get sucker-punched? Well, a lot of things have been changed. The question is whether or not you think the changes are effective. Some of them I do, some of them I don't.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by gerbnl:
Clearly! but then... i saw several other movies!

Even so...
I'd be very obliged if you cared to point out the movie that sports the amazing math.

Here

[BRussell]

Originally posted by boots:
:shakes head:

I didn't start the thread. I did say it was a stupid thing to keep harping on. Now I'm accused of blowing it out of proportion because you keep arguing that it is important?

No wonder Kerry isn't winning in a landslide. His supporters can't prioritize and make effective arguments.

Whatever, man. Keep making stupid arguments that really don't have any merit.

The question of how we should deal with terrorism is arguably the central question in this election. The 9/11 commission criticized a number of things that happened in the Bush admin. It's not some conspiracy theorist's fantasy. They screwed up in a variety of ways. They should have taken some responsibility for what happened. Why? So they could make changes to make sure it didn't happen again. But by denying any responsibility they made it more difficult to make changes. They didn't want a commission to look into what happened. They didn't want extensive gov't changes, for example to the CIA or the Dept. of Homeland Security.

And the Bush campaign regularly attacks Kerry for his actions before 9/11. That's the whole point of this "wolves" ad that they think is so effective and saved until the last week of the election. It's their central attack against Kerry - that his history shows that he won't be effective on terrorism. If Kerry is open to attack on his pre-9/11 terrorism views and actions, why in the world should criticism of Bush be off limits? It shouldn't be. He's a friggin public servant, they work for us, and they have no immunity from criticism, especially over one of the most important events in recent US history.

[itai195]

Originally posted by BRussell:
And the Bush campaign regularly attacks Kerry for his actions before 9/11. That's the whole point of this "wolves" ad that they think is so effective and saved until the last week of the election. It's their central attack against Kerry - that his history shows that he won't be effective on terrorism. If Kerry is open to attack on his pre-9/11 terrorism views and actions, why in the world should criticism of Bush be off limits? It shouldn't be. He's a friggin public servant, they work for us, and they have no immunity from criticism, especially over one of the most important events in recent US history.

Exactly, not to mention that the wolves ad is misleading because it refers to the first bombing of the WTC, not 9/11 (the phrase it uses, IIRC, is 'after the first terrorist attack on America...'). If dredging up pre-9/11 dirt is the line of attack that the Bush campaign wants to pursue, then it's fair game for Kerry to respond in kind.

[boots]

Originally posted by BRussell:
And the Bush campaign regularly attacks Kerry for his actions before 9/11. That's the whole point of this "wolves" ad that they think is so effective and saved until the last week of the election. It's their central attack against Kerry - that his history shows that he won't be effective on terrorism. If Kerry is open to attack on his pre-9/11 terrorism views and actions, why in the world should criticism of Bush be off limits? It shouldn't be. He's a friggin public servant, they work for us, and they have no immunity from criticism, especially over one of the most important events in recent US history.

And that's an idiotic argument too. (Not you pointing this out, but the wolves attacking the weak.) Both sides are capable of making stupid arguments - usually trying to deflect from a real issue. The 9/11 commission wasn't nearly as critical of Bush's administration as many here would like to think. It was a lot harsher than others here would like to think.

Truth is: hind sight is 20/20. The electorate (at least those I've talked with) understand that. So Bush is able to run on the structural changes that have happened since 9/11...even if he fought them kicking and screaming, he had to sign the bills that made it happen.

Kerry's record, as far as I can tell, is under attack POST 9/11. Specifically the funding issues and his criticism of parts of the Patriot Act (which is mischaracterized as an all out assault on it). The accusation is that he doesn't understand what 9/11 meant and is therefore STILL living pre-9/11. The links are there. Some are pretty weak, but they are there.

Bush's argument is that 9/11 changed everything...Kerry's is that 9/11 changed nothing. I think both of them are right. And this is where I see the thrust of the ads: misreading what Kerry meant by 9/11 changed nothing.

[gerbnl]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Here

Ah, that one... Hmmm, afaik it doesn't even have a release date here and azareus is currently too busy with japanese stuff... It'll have to wait, alas.

PS: found it, it will screen in theaters in 2005 goddammit! And then they find it strange bittorrent is so popular over here...

[itai195]

Looks like boots was also misled into believing the ad referred to Kerry's post-9/11 actions.

http://factcheck.org/article291.html

[boots]

Originally posted by itai195:
Looks like boots was also misled into believing the ad referred to Kerry's post-9/11 actions.

http://factcheck.org/article291.html

You could say that, had I ever seen the ad. I've only seen bits of it (I channel surf when political ads come on)...I'm basing my comments on his stump speeches. Bush is trying to say that Kerry is still living in the pre-9/11 world. Makes sense that some of the morons would make that into a misleading ad. But if one accepts that premise, then anything pre-9/11 is fair game as he hasn't changed any. But I stand behind the statement that it is a stupid argument (see below).


This is an awesome example of controlling an election by only presenting certain issues. Issues that, when you really consider them lack substance (either they are lies, are issues that the candidate can't really control, or they are such gross exaggerations as to be laughable). But once one side brings it up, the other side has to respond. Pretty soon, people are just spinning in the mud over an issue that really doesn't do anything but focus attention on a non-issue, while real problems...like missing explosives...or real numbers (healthcare, unemployment)...or, heaven forbid, someone should suggest an issue that the media hasn't paraded... go ignored. I've yet to really see a thread about any plan (from either candidate) that goes through and discusses strength and weaknesses in a rational way. So far it's been who can scream loudest. Why do we let this happen? Sure, we can't control the ads either campaign makes, but we are on a bulletin board where we can have serious discussion about whatever issue we want. Yet we fall for the "opponent's" strawmen and build our own, never touching anything solid.

It's a sad commentary on the political process in America.

[cold_reality]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
John Kerry admits to participating in war crimes in Vietnam and he still uses his service as the primary issue he campaigns on.

now that's hilarious.

No...this is

[tie]

Originally posted by boots:
Get an issue that really has some substance. This is diversionary fluff and you know it.

Not really. When the nation was attacked, Bush's response was to sit and read a children's book. Maybe there was nothing he could have done. But that is in hindsight. At the moment, he couldn't have known that.

This is not diversionary because the country could be attacked again. It isn't safe to have a leader asleep at the wheel.

Originally posted by warmspit:
See? How is this logically a strong point to campaign on?

Logic has nothing to do with it. See the other recent thread where Luddite Republicans attacked Nobel laureates.

I think if Bush had responded more vigorously to our failure on 9/11, we could have avoided the mistakes we have made in Iraq. And if we were now responding to the mistakes we are making in Iraq, instead of pretending they don't exist, the Iraqi reconstruction would go faster and we would be better prepared for the next crisis (or even for Bush's next nation-building exercise disguised as a crisis).

[vmpaul]

It's not just the fact that 9/11 happened on his watch. It's not Bush's fault AQ attacked America. The fault should always lie with them. It's the failure to do the most basic type of action to avoid an attack I find most disturbing.

Here's 2 examples. First one is post-9/11, the other pre-9/11.

This is from Nicholas D. Kristof's piece in the NYTimes (9/25/04) entitled "Twisting Dr. Nuke's Arm". It comes from the Pakistan leader's visit to the UN recently.

If a nuclear weapon destroys the U.S. Capitol in coming years, it will probably be based in part on Pakistani technology. The biggest challenge to civilization in recent years came not from Osama or Saddam Hussein but from Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of Pakistan's atomic bomb. Dr. Khan definitely sold nuclear technology to Iran, North Korea and Libya, and, officials believe, to several more nations as well.

But, amazingly, eight months after Dr. Khan publicly confessed, we still don't know who the rest of his customers were. Mr. Musharraf acknowledged as much in an interview.

"I can't say surely that we have unearthed everything that he's done, but I think we have unearthed most of what he's done," Mr. Musharraf said. Translated, that means: I'm afraid you're eventually going to find out about other transactions that we're still trying to hide.

American intelligence experts haven't been able to interrogate Dr. Khan, and Mr. Musharraf claims that the U.S. has not even asked to do so. "Let me put the record straight: nobody asked us to be allowed to question him," Mr. Musharraf said.

President Bush apparently did not ask for that direct access at his meeting on Wednesday with Mr. Musharraf, and it's clear that the administration is not pressing the issue. Why? Because Mr. Bush in this election season has another priority: getting Mr. Musharraf to help catch Osama.

I find it mind-boggling that no one in the Intelligence community or the White House has even requested to speak to Dr. Khan. Even the most basic investigation would call for Khan to be questioned.


We're all aware of the famous PDB on Aug 6th but what amazes me is that given the warning of possible hijackings , Bush did nothing to counter that threat. Bush's response has always been that it never indicated the exact date and time of an attack. But isn't the threat of hijackings and the risk to hundreds of lives enough to do something? A simple call to his Transportation Sect'y to investigate or beef-up security would have been the minimal action one would expect but nothing was done, according to the 9/11 Report.

From the final 9/11 report

The result was an article in the August 6 Presidential Daily Brief titled “Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US.”It was the 36th PDB item briefed so far that year that related to Bin Ladin or al Qaeda, and the first devoted to the possibility of an attack in the United States.
....

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in NewYork.
....

We have found no indication of any further discussion before September 11 among the President and his top advisers of the possibility of a threat of an al Qaeda attack in the United States. DCI Tenet visited President Bush in Crawford,Texas, on August 17 and participated in PDB briefings of the President between August 31 (after the President had returned to Washington) and September 10. But Tenet does not recall any discussions with the President of the domestic threat during this period.