Political Ad Exploiting WTC & 9-11

[PRRPILL]

I guess you are all right, We were warned of the imminent threat. So in order to stop the planes flying into the buildings, we should stop flying in total, because we have no idea which building, in which city, they are going to hit. Then we need to stop shipping from using our ports, have road blocks leading into all major cities to search the dars and trucks. We need to take many more precautions in banking, schools, food supplies, water supplies, power beneration, and petro-chem plants. They have a modified version of this in effect. It is called the Patriot Act. Look at the flak he is taking for that.
After all Bush must be at fault. He was warned. I wonder how many warnings we get a day. Should we take precautions for all. Then we blame Bush if they happen. Then if they don't we blame him for being an alarmist.
The hatred of Bush is ludicrous. He was in office for 20 months. Even if he had known they were going to hit on the day they did, there was very little he could do to stop it.
He would have been blamed for the massive ruckus that ensued, the terrorists would have postponed the event, and Bush lambasted by everyone for being an alarmist.
The Democratic Party is not interested in the Security and welfare of the US citizens. All they want is the Power of the Government, so they can go back to changing the US into a crappy Liberal Pseudo European country. Name me one European country, or any country that has got it right.
I think the biggest problem is that a lot of people have too much time on their hands, and need to get busy in another direction.
I know one thing, none of the Anti-Bush posters on this site have been victims of terrorism. If they had, they would understand that true terrorism happens when the country is not united.
I don' care what oil you use. When you screw up the US we all lose.

 

[keith]

Even the New York Post can figure this one out, LOL.

(MRS.) KERRY'S CASH CONNECTION

Keith.

 

[Al]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JohnnyO:

Originally posted by PRRPILL:
[qb] If Kerry IS elected, would all government agencies, military, contractors, etc. be forced to stop buying Heinz ketchup because of conflict of interest? Maybe time to call my broker and go long on Hunt's just in case.

---

Hahahahaha Good one.

 

[PRRPILL]

Sorry for the misinformation. You should see my checkbook.

 

[JohnnyO]

quote:

---

Originally posted by PRRPILL:
Sorry for the misinformation. You should see my checkbook.

---

S'all right. People here still blame Reagan for the steel mills closing, nevermind that the layoffs started in late 1979-early 1980 and he never took office until Jan 1981. I know, I worked there then.

 

[labman]

No doubt about it, 911 was a major intelligence failure. Fortunately much of the American public is intelligent enough to realize that Bush hadn't had time to fix the mess he inherited. To the late start on transition due to Al Gore's Florida charade, add the Democrats stonewalling on confirming appointees. Why didn't Mueller have the FBI straightened out, he was in office 2 weeks?

Even a well set up intelligence establishment may have had a hard time sorting through all the chaff for things on flying jets into buildings. It is so much easier now to see what was really important.

We worry about terrorism too much anyhow. After all, millions of Americans survived 911, and will survive future attacks. Forget security, and elect Kerry who will take better care of certain special interests than Bush is.

 

[Al]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JohnnyO:

quote:

---

Originally posted by PRRPILL:
Sorry for the misinformation. You should see my checkbook.

---

S'all right. People here still blame Reagan for the steel mills closing, nevermind that the layoffs started in late 1979-early 1980 and he never took office until Jan 1981. I know, I worked there then.

---

That reminds of my brother who worked at the Pittsburgh (U.S. Steel) He was union at the time but was a tad brighter than most. He told me " The dumb bstrds are standing there picketing as the equipment was moved out the back door. We both still get a chuckle about that one.

 

[TC]

"But anyway I'm sure the Clinton administration was well aware of the possibility of a strike like this and carefully passed it on."
__________________________________________

AL: Actually the Clinton folks DID pass on this info to the Bush administration, not that the possibility of a large-scale terrorist attack by Al Queda wasn't well known. From a CNN report NINE MONTHS before 9/11: "One of the first questions that will land on the desk of the new (Bush) administration will be Osama Bin Laden." http://edition.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/europe/12/14/world_12_14.a.tm.tm/

But evidently the Bush administration was more interested in getting an oil pipeline built through Afghanistan, greasing the wheels with a $43 million gift to our good buddies, The Taliban, in April 2001. http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcolumn/01_columns/052201.htm

"Former President Bill Clinton says he warned President George W. Bush before he left office in 2001 that Osama bin Laden was the biggest security threat the United States faced. Speaking at a luncheon sponsored by the History Channel on Wednesday, Clinton said he discussed security issues with Bush in his 'exit interview,' a formal and often candid meeting between a sitting president and the president-elect. 'In his campaign, Bush had said he thought the biggest security issue was Iraq and a national missile defence,' Clinton said. 'I told him that in my opinion, the biggest security problem was Osama bin Laden.'" (Reuters 10-16-03)

On CNN's "Late Edition" TWO MONTHS BEFORE 9/11, Senator Dianne Feinstein said, "Intelligence staff have told me that there was a major probability of a terrorist incident within the next three months." Prior to 9/11, Feinstein was chair of the Technology and Terrorism Subcommittee. "In fact, I was so concerned that I contacted Vice President Cheney's office that same month to urge that he restructure our counter-terrorism and homeland defense programs to ensure better accountability and prevent important intelligence information from slipping through the cracks...Despite repeated efforts by myself and staff, the White House did not address my request. I followed this up last September 2001 before the attacks and was told by Cheney Chief of Staff 'Scooter' Libby that it might be another six months before he would be able to review the material." http://www.senate.gov/~feinstein/Releases02/attacks.htm

The White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security, chaired by Al Gore, was commissioned in Clinton's second term with a charter to "study matters involving aviation safety and security," with numerous recommendations later submitted to improve aviation anti-terrorism efforts. Not wanting to adopt a Clinton project, the Bush White House ignored the study. http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/212fin~1.html

At a July 5, 2001 White House gathering, Richard Clarke, counter-terrorism official from the Clinton administration, stated that "Something really spectacular is going to happen here, and it's going to happen soon." In a late November interview, former Clinton advisor Sidney Blumenthal said, "Richard Clarke was Director of Counter-Terrorism in the National Security Council. Clark urgently tried to draw the attention of the Bush administration to the threat of al Qaeda. It was on that day that George W. Bush received his last, and one of the few, briefings on terrorism. I believe he told Richard Clarke that he didn't want to be briefed on this again, even though Clarke was panicked about the alarms he was hearing regarding potential attacks. Bush was blithe, indifferent, ultimately irresponsible." http://www.rogerebsen.com/openmind/bush-knew.htm

It is noteworthy that the Bush administration HAS NOT DENIED ANY OF THE ABOVE COMMENTS.

[ March 09, 2004, 09:20 PM: Message edited by: TC ]

 

[labman]

Clinton had almost 4 years to act on the report and didn't. You are slamming Bush for not acting on a 4 year old report in 8 months? Stunts like this undermine your credibility more than Bush's.
http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/212fin~1.html

 

[PRRPILL]

Monday morning quarterbacking is easy. We can go back and see all the warnings we want. You mention Gores study. Where does it mention boxcutters. They didn't use guns, explosives, grenades, etc. They used legal box cutters. If Clinton had adopted the reccomendations of the 1997 report, they still did not mention boxcutters. I think Clinton also ignored Gore's study. I think that believing Clinton told Bush in an exit interview, is as believable as "I did not have Sex with that woman...."
Dianne Feinstein is hardly an impartial voice. Your other scource is as whacko as the rest of the left.
If Bush reacts to these many attacks and inuendo, it would give credance to them, and the BS would start again.
Let's see, the Al Quaida attacked us, and we blame Bush. You forgot the one where the Jewish people did not come to work on 9/11. There are about a million more. It's all BS.
Bush had nothing to do with 9/11.
Why don't we start some BS about Clintons role in the Cole bombing, The attacks in Africa, and a whole bunch of other stuff.
Their jobs are hard enough, without the whacko stuff thrown at them.

 

[GROUCHO MARX]

What's funny is the 2 months after WJC took office, the WTC was first attacked, yet I heard no one blame WJC for this event.

Eight years after that event and a host of others on foreign soil, the WTC is attacked again. The Bush bashers place the blame on DUBYA. Who is making the event political?

This is where they have no credibility, it is still about Florida.

 

[JohnnyO]

quote:

---

Originally posted by PRRPILL:
He was in office for 20 months.

---

Wrong, 9 months. Elected in 2000, inaugurated in Jan 2001. Plane crashes in Sept 2001. Otherwise a great post IMO.

If Kerry IS elected, would all government agencies, military, contractors, etc. be forced to stop buying Heinz ketchup because of conflict of interest? Maybe time to call my broker and go long on Hunt's just in case.

 

[Drew99GT]

Well, we can ***** and complain about the political explotation of 9/11 and who's to blame. The fact is, we are still to this day extremely vulnerable to another attack exeeding 9/11s destruction 1000 fold. Lost keys at major US nuclear weapons facilities etc.? Why aren't we as citizens outraged at that kind of BS. We're wasting too much energy and time arguing about the past when a future attack might be speeding towards us like a freight train. The pundits and idiots that set the national debate have basically forgotten the lessons of 9/11 with their political bickering.

 

[JohnnyO]

It's looking more like it's the Dems exploiting the 9/11 vicitms' families now. A small number of people belonging to a left fringe group, getting their money from Kerry's rich wife's foundations, and all mouthing the same talking points from the Dems.

 

[TC]

"Dianne Feinstein is hardly an impartial voice. Your other scource is as whacko as the rest of the left."
__________________________________________

I'm curious, is there something that conservatives put in their water to make them so rabidly hateful of anything and anyone related to Clinton that they can't see the truth even when it slaps 'em in the face? Is it a vitamin deficiency or something?

The Bush adminsitration has basically insisted all along that "None of this could have been foreseen." So, this begs the question: Was Feinstein demonstrating "partiality" or "wacko" behavior when she stated on CNN's "Late Edition" TWO MONTHS BEFORE 9/11, "Intelligence staff have told me that there was a major probability of a terrorist incident within the next three months."

If EVERYBODY else knew something was coming, with many signs indicating an aviation-based attack, how come the incompetent Bush Keystone Kops did not?

 

[labman]

One more in a string of really stupid posts. Yes Dianne knew something might happen. Did she suggest we need to stop letting people on airliners with box cutters? Did anybody? It was only about a week before that I even heard of using a box cutter as a weapon. Of course the biggest joke on this thread was this link, http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/212fin~1.html. Bush was slammed for ignoring a report given to Clinton at the beginning of Clinton's second term. If Clinton ignored it for 4 years, you liberals should be trying to cover it up.

[ March 13, 2004, 09:04 PM: Message edited by: rugerman1 ]

 

[TC]

Finally!!! Thanks to a new poll on this very topic, we can now have a definitive answer to this debate, which I'm sure GROUCHO will be able to put a wonderfully pro-Bush spin on (no need to let the facts get in the way, Groucho). The jury's in: Comments of Bush's "exploitive" and "ghoulish" motivations have been confirmed.

"Undecided voters, by a 2-1 margin, feel it was inappropriate for President Bush's re-election campaign to use images from the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in a television commercial, according to a poll released Friday. Among those who have not yet decided who they will support in the November presidential election, or say they could change their minds, 52 percent thought the ad was inappropriate while 27 percent said it was appropriate, according to the results of the National Annenberg Election Survey."
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...e=10&u=/ap/20040312/ap_on_el_pr/bush_ads_poll

LABMAN: But you seem to have trouble grasping the Bush administration's lies and deceptions regarding 9/11. Condi Rice's comments in summer 2002 were typical: "I don't think that anyone could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center." Actually, that precise possibility of airliners used as weapons WAS WELL DOCUMENTED, AND HAD ALREADY BEEN ATTEMPTED BY AL QUEADA ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS (France and Phillipines, to name two). It is Bush lies like this that have people up-in-arms, but apparently such lies sit well with you, for motivations unknown.

[ March 13, 2004, 09:04 PM: Message edited by: rugerman1 ]

 

[DJ]

Are you serious

making comments about another member being able to put a pro-Bush spin on things. Then I guess it would be fair to make comments about how you can turn anything against Bush. (I edited out an inflamatory remark I made)

Sorry guys for being imflamatory but the "anyone but Bush" thing irritates me to no end, now if you legitamately support another candidate based on his/her stands on issues fine, but the anybody but Bush thing just pushes uneducated voting.

[ March 13, 2004, 07:11 PM: Message edited by: DJ ]

 

[Mystic]

It is possible to debate things here and have differing points of view without attacking each other personally. Politics and religion can be explosive subjects. But can we agree on one thing-we all have the right to disagree.

I had a post a while back where I asked a simple question-what did you thing of the 'Passion of the Christ' movie? The post went way off course with people getting into heated debates over whether Jesus actually lived or not and all kinds of stuff like that.

Look-I personally would like to see Bush re-elected even though I am a Democrat. Now others can't stand Bush and want Kerry (or anybody) elected instead. I am for Bush and others are against him. Fine. So we should be able to just discuss the ISSUES and not imply that somebody is off their rocker for supporting Bush or for supporting Kerry.

I personally believe that Jesus existed and that his influence on the human race changed Western Civilization. Somebody else can believe in the Earth Goddess, or worship golden idols, or whatever. If I don't attack your religious beliefs why attack mine?

How about if we lay off pounding each other and JUST DISCUSS THE ISSUES!

 

[GROUCHO MARX]

TC, thanks for the opportunity. "2 to 1 of undecided voters".

Now whom might they be? It doesn't say voters, but undecided voters, clearly that's a mandate. Given that the vast majority of registered voters are (including Mystic and myself) Democrats, I wonder what percent of these "undecided" would be registered Democrats?


'