Hijexx wrote:
] I remember a while back this was the stated mission from
] Bush's handlers, to exploit 9/11 for political advantage. And
] so it begins.

Well, I haven't seen the ad, but I don't see it as exploitation, I see it as stating a fact. No matter who's elected as President, I see one of their top jobs as protecting the country from another such event. It's not just a trivial occurrence that is being taken advantage of because we happen to have an emotional photo -- 9/11 was the greatest challenge that our country faced during the course of Bush's presidency. How he dealt with that challenge *is* crucially important.

To put it another way: For me, it's a key issue to note that since 9/11, there *hasn't* been another such (successful) attack, even though there have been multiple threats of such, and multiple attempts.

If people are going to blame Bush for everything that goes wrong, then I believe that they should also give him credit for some of the things that go *right*. And say what you will, we haven't had another 9/11 while on his watch.

Don't get me wrong: There are plenty of things that I dislike about Bush -- but as far as his passion for national security, I agree with him and think he'd still be a good leader. The question for me as to who I vote for though, is whether all the things that I *disagree* with him on are going to outweigh the things that I agree with.

Elonka wrote:
] Well, I haven't seen the ad, but I don't see it as
] exploitation, I see it as stating a fact. No matter who's
] elected as President, I see one of their top jobs as
] protecting the country from another such event. It's not just
] a trivial occurrence that is being taken advantage of because
] we happen to have an emotional photo -- 9/11 was the greatest
] challenge that our country faced during the course of Bush's
] presidency. How he dealt with that challenge *is* crucially
] important.

[ There's no doubt about it... 9/11 was a test for the entire nation... an event that changed a great deal about how we live in and think about the world. I think it's perfectly fair for George W. Bush to get on the podium and talk about the leadership he displayed in the aftermath of 9/11. I think it's appropriate for him to justify decisions he's made on the basis of the tragedy.

But that's not what I see going on here. That message could have been conveyed in many ways, but the campaign chose to use very specific emotionally charged imagery to sell the point. Not facts. Not arguments. Emotional respose. That's what's offensive, i think. Republicans accuse Democrats of fear-mongering on issues like the economy and health care and medicare, but the fear machine in the heart of DC has been relentlessly focused on national security for 3 years, so I can only think pot, meet kettle. I think i could do with a lot less fear on both sides of all these issues.

My politics are no secret, but when Bush says things like "9/11 Changed the face of america" i don't disagree with the statement, but i do start thinking about the way things changed, and how many of the changes have been detrimental to our liberties, greedy, or shortsighted, and how ultimately he's the responsible party.

] And say what you will, we haven't had another 9/11 while on
] his watch.

God willing, we won't, but the underfunded Homeland Security department isn't why, and neither are CAPPS II or PATRIOT Act. I can only hope there's activity going on that I'm not seeing, but the public records don't point to a lot of quality initiatives here at home.

Incidentally, you can watch the ads online if you've got a fast pipe, which i imagine covers most of us folks : http://www.georgebush.com/tvads/ -k]

Elonka wrote:

} It's not just
] a trivial occurrence that is being taken advantage of because
] we happen to have an emotional photo -- 9/11 was the greatest
] challenge that our country faced during the course of Bush's
] presidency. How he dealt with that challenge *is* crucially
] important.

One thing that concerns me is that most people believe the attack on Afghanistan was a reaction to the 9/11 attacks. It was actually well underway with respect to planning and logistics. Pakistan had been told earlier that summer that we were coming in.

The attack on the Taliban was not vengeance for 9/11, it was business as usual. I think that's how most people think Bush "dealt" with the challenge, by avenging America against the purported culprits.

] If people are going to blame Bush for everything that goes
] wrong, then I believe that they should also give him credit
] for some of the things that go *right*. And say what you
] will, we haven't had another 9/11 while on his watch.

You could phrase that another way: We had the 9/11 attack under his watch. We witnessed our standard operating procedures for intercepting errant aircraft fail that day. 67 airplanes had been intercepted that year under standard operating procedures. Why not on 9/11?

Something else interesting:

ABC journalist John Cochran was traveling with the President. He reported on ABC TV on Tuesday morning:

"Peter, as you know, the president's down in Florida talking about education. He got out of his hotel suite this morning, was about to leave, reporters saw the White House chief of staff, Andy Card, whisper into his ear. The reporter said to the president, 'Do you know what's going on in New York?' He said he did, and he said he will have something about it later. His first event is about half an hour at an elementary school in Sarasota, Florida."
--'ABC News' Special Report 'Planes crash into World Trade Center' (8:53 AM ET) Tuesday 11 September 2001

So he knew about it before he went into the school. More evidence that he knew, Cheney on 9/16 meet the press:

"VICE PRES. CHENEY: ...As best we can tell, they [American Flight 77] came initially at the White House and...

"MR. RUSSERT: The plane actually circled the White House?

"VICE PRES. CHENEY: Didn't circle it, but was headed on a track into it. The Secret Service has an arrangement with the F.A.A. They had open lines after the World Trade Center was... "

He stopped talking where the elipses were. It's pretty clear he meant "HIT" though. So the Secret Service (with the President that day) had open lines of communication with the FAA at the time the WTC was being attacked.

So the Secret Service at that point knew what the FAA knew. The FAA "suspected" that flight 11 had been hijacked at 8:20. (Newsday 23 September 2001, 'Air Attack on Pentagon Indicates Weaknesses') And acc... [ Read More (0.2k in body) ]

Hijexx wrote:
] One thing that concerns me is that most people believe the
] attack on Afghanistan was a reaction to the 9/11 attacks. It
] was actually well underway with respect to planning and
] logistics. Pakistan had been told earlier that summer that we
] were coming in.

?! Whats your source for "Pakistan had been told earlier that summer." Thats a pretty wild accusation. If you're going to throw it, have a verifiable reference.

Bin Lauden was involved in the 1998 embassy bombings. There was a UN resolution ordering the Taliban to turn him over to the US, they refused, and we decided to let them off the hook, mostly because Clinton accidentally blew up a pharm plant in the sudan and had lost a lot of face as a result. Of course we had war plans. These people blew up two of our embassys. We have all kinds of war plans and logistics worked out for sorts of scenarios. You don't want to be the victim of an attack and then stand there for 6 months scratching your head while you start looking into how to deal with it. If you have an enemy out there you have a plan for how to deal with him if you have to.

Decius wrote:

] ?! Whats your source for "Pakistan had been told earlier that
] summer." Thats a pretty wild accusation. If you're going to
] throw it, have a verifiable reference.

Not an accusation, just stuff I've found through my research.

BBC:

"A former Pakistani diplomat has told the BBC that the US was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban even before last week's attacks.

Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1550366.stm

Guardian:

The warning to the Taliban originated at a four-day meeting of senior Americans, Russians, Iranians and Pakistanis at a hotel in Berlin in mid-July. The conference, the third in a series dubbed "brainstorming on Afghanistan", was part of a classic diplomatic device known as "track two".

...

The three Americans at the Berlin meeting were Tom Simons, a former US ambassador to Pakistan, Karl "Rick" Inderfurth, a former assistant secretary of state for south Asian affairs, and Lee Coldren, who headed the office of Pakistan, Afghan and Bangladesh affairs in the state department until 1997.

According to Mr Naik, the Americans raised the issue of an attack on Afghanistan at one of the full sessions of the conference, convened by Francesc Vendrell, a Spanish diplomat who serves as the UN secretary general's special representative on Afghanistan. In the break afterwards, Mr Naik told the Guardian yesterday, he asked Mr Simons why the attack should be more successful than Bill Clinton's missile strikes on Afghanistan in 1998, which caused 20 deaths but missed Bin Laden.

"He said this time they were very sure. They had all the intelligence and would not miss him this time. It would be aerial action, maybe helicopter gunships, and not only overt, but from very close proximity to Afghanistan. The Russians were listening to the conversation but not participating."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,556279,00.html

There are more examples I could cite. So far, I've not heard or seen any retractions or rebuttals from the officals named.

] Of course we
] had war plans. These people blew up two of our embassys. We
] have all kinds of war plans and logistics worked out for sorts
] of scenarios. You don't want to be the victim of an attack and
] then stand there for 6 months scratching your head while you
] start looking into how to deal with it. If you have an enemy
] out there you have a plan for how to deal with him if you have
] to.

Agreed. However, my point was that most people perceive the invasion of Afghanistan as a response to 9/11. It was actually planned ahead of time.

Did Bush lie? Here's a quote from his Oct. 7th address:

"We did not ask for this mission, but we will fulfill it. The name of today's military operation is Enduring Freedom."

Operation Enduring Freedom was pitched as a response to the 9/11 attacks. You decide.

Hijexx wrote:
] BBC:
]
] "A former Pakistani diplomat has told the BBC that the US
] was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the
] Taleban even before last week's attacks.
]
] Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by
] senior American officials in mid-July that military action
] against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of
] October."
]
] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1550366.stm
]

OK, *THAT* is interesting. I'm popping this back out to my MemeStream. I'm not terribly suprised that they were planning to attack Afghanistan. Obviously it should have been done sooner. However, it does put the situation in a slightly different light.

However, there IS a response from the US in the Guardian story:

Mr Simons denied having said anything about detailed operations. "I've known Niaz Naik and considered him a friend for years. He's an honourable diplomat. I didn't say anything like that and didn't hear anyone else say anything like that. We were clear that feeling in Washington was strong, and that military action was one of the options down the road. But details, I don't know where they came from."

It IS understood, as presented in the Guardian story, that the US was trying to get BL out of Afghanistan, and the use of force was on the table, but the idea that they had a specific October timetable is rather amazing.

Decius wrote:

] It IS understood, as presented in the Guardian story, that the
] US was trying to get BL out of Afghanistan, and the use of
] force was on the table, but the idea that they had a specific
] October timetable is rather amazing.

Good catch on the US diplomat saying he didn't know where the details came from. I guess it comes down to the classic case of hearsay then.

Here's Niak in a BBC interview:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1550000/audio/_1550366_afghan01_arney.ram

The BBC reporter states that Niak quoted former US Assistant Secretary of State Karl E. Inderfurth as follows (why, oh why, are these people never actually put on record?)

This threat was stated more definitively in July by former US Assistant Secretary of State Karl E. Inderfurth at the UN-sponsored international contact group on Afghanistan in Berlin. Inderfuth is quoted by Niaz Niak, a former Pakistan Secretary who was present at this meeting, as saying "if the military action went ahead, it would take place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest." Niaz Niak, relayed this in an interview with George Arney of the BBC Press and asserts that there is proof of an evolved plan against Osama Bin Laden 6 weeks before Sept 11.

Here's an article about India joining the military plans in Afghanistan pre 9/11:

http://www.indiareacts.com/archivefeatures/nat2.asp?recno=10∓ctg=policy

Indian officials say that India and Iran will only play the role of "facilitator" while the US and Russia will combat the Taliban from the front with the help of two Central Asian countries, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, to push Taliban lines back to the 1998 position 50 km away from Mazar-e-Sharief city in northern Afghanistan.

Military action will be the last option though it now seems scarcely avoidable with the UN banned from Taliban-controlled areas. The UN which adopted various means in the last four years to resolve the Afghan problem is now being suspected by the Taliban and refused entry into Taliban areas of the war-ravaged nation through a decree issued by Taliban chief Mullah Mohammad Omar last month.

Diplomats say that the anti-Taliban move followed a meeting between US Secretary of State Collin Powel and Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov and later between Powell and Indian foreign minister Jaswant Singh in Washington. Russia, Iran and India have also held a series of discussions and more diplomatic activity is expected.

And cross-checking from Janes about the India military action:

http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jir/jir010315_1_n.shtml

I dunno man, where there's smoke there is fire. It just seemed too convenient to me when all the shit went down that all of a sudden, a month later we were invading Afghanistan.

Elonka wrote:
] If people are going to blame Bush for everything that goes
] wrong, then I believe that they should also give him credit
] for some of the things that go *right*. And say what you
] will, we haven't had another 9/11 while on his watch.

Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
[Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.

Acidus wrote:
] Elonka wrote:
] ] If people are going to blame Bush for everything that goes
] ] wrong, then I believe that they should also give him credit
] ] for some of the things that go *right*. And say what you
] ] will, we haven't had another 9/11 while on his watch.
]
] Sorry Elonka, I can't resists :-)

Yeah yeah I know. And Bush kept dragons and UFOs away, too. ;)

Seriously though, I get *so* tired of people blaming Bush for everything under the sun, but then never giving him credit for anything good that happens. It just reeks of hypocrisy to me. If someone isn't able to present a balanced perspective on things, and all they do is point out the negative, it just sounds like whining.

] Seriously though, I get *so* tired of people blaming Bush for
] everything under the sun, but then never giving him credit for
] anything good that happens. It just reeks of hypocrisy to me.
] If someone isn't able to present a balanced perspective on
] things, and all they do is point out the negative, it just
] sounds like whining.

I agree, nit-picking people and ignoring the positive is wrong. I also felt like posting a simpsons quote today!

Elonka wrote:

] Seriously though, I get *so* tired of people blaming Bush for
] everything under the sun, but then never giving him credit for
] anything good that happens. It just reeks of hypocrisy to me.
] If someone isn't able to present a balanced perspective on
] things, and all they do is point out the negative, it just
] sounds like whining.

The Bush residency hasn't really left me with any positive impressions. I regard his Presidency as illegitimate. The Supreme Court disagrees though so I'm only left with my opinion and the evidence of voter fraud in Florida. Surely you heard about the voters who were taken off the rolls because of convictions they received in . . . 2007? Yeah, lots of that happened in 2000.

So is this whining? I vote. I feel that I can and should have a voice. To me, Bush was appointed, not elected. He has waged a war based on lies and deception. I do blame him for that. I don't see that he's done anything in my interests. How can I present a balanced perspective on the things I like about Bush? Want me to make some stuff up?

I'll throw out a hypothetical situations where I might give him a check mark in the "plus" column: (1) If he stops wrapping himself up in 9/11 imagery for the campaign. Stick to the facts, don't meld your image with professional video cuts into the tragedy. Don't appeal to emotion, appeal to reason. (2) If he testifies about 9/11. It would honor the dead and the grieving if he would tell us everything he knew before 9/11 and when and what he knew that day. (3) If he admits the war in Iraq was not ever truly about WMD. Tell us that you never intend to leave Iraq. Tell us about Cheney's secret Energy Task Force meetings that were about how to best secure the oil interests in Iraq for the "suitors." Tell us that the world's oil production will peak soon, and that's the reason we're going to colonize the Middle East.

I still wouldn't like the guy if he came clean on all of this, but the acts themselves would at least be respectable.

Elonka wrote:
] If people are going to blame Bush for everything that goes
] wrong, then I believe that they should also give him credit
] for some of the things that go *right*. And say what you
] will, we haven't had another 9/11 while on his watch.

Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
[Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.

Sigh ... so many levels ...

Elonka wrote:
] If people are going to blame Bush for everything that goes
] wrong, then I believe that they should also give him credit
] for some of the things that go *right*. And say what you
] will, we haven't had another 9/11 while on his watch.

Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
[Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.

Laughing Boy wrote:
] Elonka wrote:
] ] If people are going to blame Bush for everything that goes
] ] wrong, then I believe that they should also give him credit
] ] for some of the things that go *right*.
]
] Sure. Just as soon as the Republicans decide to stop blaming
] Clinton for everything gone wrong under the sun during and
] after his presidency. There was good AS WELL AS BAD under
] Clinton; under EVERY president. Its partisan politics my dear
] - ANY way you slice it.

Seems like this country runs on hate. Lately in particular. Z-mag... hate hate hate... National Review... hate hate hate.... here on Memestreams... the only discussions that break out are everyone at everyone else's throats... we're so blind to the other side. So incapable of seeing eachother's perspective... And in november we choose between two people whose backgrounds are so similar they might as well be the same person. The thing you learn traveling overseas is that we're really all the same. The things that make us differ are neat but not fundamental... We all have the same problems.... We all have the same needs... And yet we can't put our identity before our "identity" and if anything the internet has made this worse. I love my people, but they are lost lord, and I have no idea how to fix it, and all of your representative seem to be shills.

Decius wrote:
] Laughing Boy wrote:
] ] Elonka wrote:
] ] ] If people are going to blame Bush for everything that goes
]
] ] ] wrong, then I believe that they should also give him
] credit
] ] ] for some of the things that go *right*.
] ]
] ] Sure. Just as soon as the Republicans decide to stop
] blaming
] ] Clinton for everything gone wrong under the sun during and
] ] after his presidency. There was good AS WELL AS BAD under
] ] Clinton; under EVERY president. Its partisan politics my
] dear
] ] - ANY way you slice it.
]
] Seems like this country runs on hate. Lately in particular.
] Z-mag... hate hate hate... National Review... hate hate
] hate.... here on Memestreams... the only discussions that
] break out are everyone at everyone else's throats... we're so
] blind to the other side. So incapable of seeing eachother's
] perspective... And in november we choose between two people
] whose backgrounds are so similar they might as well be the
] same person. The thing you learn traveling overseas is that
] we're really all the same. The things that make us differ are
] neat but not fundamental... We all have the same problems....
] We all have the same needs... And yet we can't put our
] identity before our "identity" and if anything the internet
] has made this worse. I love my people, but they are lost lord,
] and I have no idea how to fix it, and all of your
] representative seem to be shills.

Wow!! very well spoken, I have to agree, although we know there is a problem there doenst seem to be a simple answer to it. sigh, there never is.......

Decius wrote:

] Seems like this country runs on hate. Lately in particular.
] Z-mag... hate hate hate... National Review... hate hate
] hate.... here on Memestreams... the only discussions that
] break out are everyone at everyone else's throats... we're so
] blind to the other side. So incapable of seeing eachother's
] perspective... And in november we choose between two people
] whose backgrounds are so similar they might as well be the
] same person. The thing you learn traveling overseas is that
] we're really all the same. The things that make us differ are
] neat but not fundamental... We all have the same problems....
] We all have the same needs... And yet we can't put our
] identity before our "identity" and if anything the internet
] has made this worse. I love my people, but they are lost lord,
] and I have no idea how to fix it, and all of your
] representative seem to be shills.

When you say "your representative" are you speaking of a lord's men?

I've heard that hate with conservative talk radio as well. I was tuned into G Gordon Liddy one day and heard him screaming on air how "this war is against the dirty, savage Muslims!" No shit. Wish I had a tape recorder.

I think 9/11 tore this nation apart already in many subtle ways, in our ways of having political discourse. There can be only two forms of thought, pro or anti. Bush set the tone from here on out with:

"Over time it's going to be important for nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity, ... You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror."

That was said at a news conference, it was pretty well covered if you want to source it. That was the jewel though I thought. He's threatening all nations right there. Isn't that a form of terrorism in and of itself?

I can't be on the same page as someone so black and white about the issues. He's casting himself as a Jesus or something. Does this sound familiar?

"He that is not with me is against me"

From Matthew 12:30. I don't buy in either doctrine. I like option three: I'm not with Bush or the terrorists.

Elonka wrote:
] If people are going to blame Bush for everything that goes
] wrong, then I believe that they should also give him credit
] for some of the things that go *right*.

Sure. Just as soon as the Republicans decide to stop blaming Clinton for everything gone wrong under the sun during and after his presidency. There was good AS WELL AS BAD under Clinton; under EVERY president. Its partisan politics my dear - ANY way you slice it.

] And say what you
] will, we haven't had another 9/11 while on his watch.

Yea, well cross your fingers, knock on wood, grab a horse shoe, and pick all the 4 leaf clovers you can find. al Qaeda has shown they are calculated and patient in their attack plans. Another major attack WILL happen again - just as the department of homland security has repeatedly warned us. Only a matter of time.

If it doesn't happen on Bushs watch, its because he got lucky - not because he is some great leader. -LB