Bush exploits 9-11

[Guest Cerebus]

Do you honestly believe Clinton could have done ANYTHING about BinLaden during his terms? Bush cant find him now in the midst of a massive manhunt...

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/spec...esponse/1056573

 

"Clearly, not enough was done," said Jamie Gorelick, a former deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration. "We should have caught this. Why this happened, I don't know. Responsibilities were given out. Resources were given. Authorities existed. We should have prevented this."

 

Said Nancy Soderberg, a former senior aide in Clinton's National Security Council, "In hindsight, it wasn't enough, and anyone involved in policy would have to admit that."

 

At one point, in May 1998, prior to the embassy attacks, Clinton planned a special operations nighttime strike on bin Laden using elite military teams, said Sen. John F. Kerry, D-Mass., who spent six years on the Intelligence Committee. A former Clinton administration official confirmed the attempt, and said the troops were deployed to a base in Europe. But the president never gave the go-ahead.

 

"There were arguments at the Pentagon about risks," said Kerry. "I know they didn't think it was wise."

[Guest thebigjig]

Do you honestly believe Clinton could have done ANYTHING about BinLaden during his terms? Bush cant find him now in the midst of a massive manhunt...

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/spec...esponse/1056573

This really shouldn't turn into a finger pointing game... because the fact of the matter is, we've never waged a war on terror before 9/11. Bush ignored terrorism before the attacks and so did Clinton... and so did Reagan

 

We learned the hardway, but we cannot assign blame to a single administration... if we criticize Bush, we must be fair and talk trash about every administration, INCLUDING the ones that helped create the monster known as Al Quaida

[Guest Cerebus]

I didn't bring it up Jig, but I called snuffbox on his error.

[Guest thebigjig]

I didn't bring it up Jig, but I called snuffbox on his error.

I know, I was just commenting on the matter

[snuffbox 0]

I am an independently thinking libertarian.

Sure, you are. And I'm the Queen of Prussia...

Yeah...I know, I know...if your not pro-Bush, you must be a Democrat then. I get your math, and judging by your 'arguements', its not at all suprising.

[snuffbox 0]

I didn't bring it up Jig, but I called snuffbox on his error.

Absolutely cerebus. I agree with you, obviously Clinton had information on terrorism too...every president has.

 

The first world trade center attack was by Bin Laden, and during Clinton's first term correct?

 

Im just saying that this is what Bush bases his entire presidency on so he has to stand behind all this ALOT stronger. Exploitation, imo, is not a sign of strength.

[NoCalMike 0]

Do you honestly believe Clinton could have done ANYTHING about BinLaden during his terms? Bush cant find him now in the midst of a massive manhunt...

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/spec...esponse/1056573

This really shouldn't turn into a finger pointing game... because the fact of the matter is, we've never waged a war on terror before 9/11. Bush ignored terrorism before the attacks and so did Clinton... and so did Reagan

 

We learned the hardway, but we cannot assign blame to a single administration... if we criticize Bush, we must be fair and talk trash about every administration, INCLUDING the ones that helped create the monster known as Al Quaida

I wouldn't say our government has ignored terrorism, hell they have supported many terrorist groups plans/projects worldwide throughtout history, however maybe they just underestimated the threat terrorism posed to America, so now all of the sudden terrorism seems to be a huge issue because of 9/11, although Al Qaeda and other filthy muslim terrorists are still commiting attacks, all that is ever brought up anymore is that "oh well AMERICA hasn't been attacked in 2 years" blah blah. I mean it is not azif before 9/11, America was being attacked daily, and Bush came in and put a stop to it. I would imagine 9/11 was a very well thought out plan that took a lot of time to develop and carry out and any other attack in the future would be the same. So maybe next time our stategy for war should be to catch and/or kill the attackers, not a completely different country because it is run by an "evildoer"

[snuffbox 0]

Do you honestly believe Clinton could have done ANYTHING about BinLaden during his terms? Bush cant find him now in the midst of a massive manhunt...

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/spec...esponse/1056573

This really shouldn't turn into a finger pointing game... because the fact of the matter is, we've never waged a war on terror before 9/11. Bush ignored terrorism before the attacks and so did Clinton... and so did Reagan

 

We learned the hardway, but we cannot assign blame to a single administration... if we criticize Bush, we must be fair and talk trash about every administration, INCLUDING the ones that helped create the monster known as Al Quaida

I wouldn't say our government has ignored terrorism, hell they have supported many terrorist groups plans/projects worldwide throughtout history, however maybe they just underestimated the threat terrorism posed to America, so now all of the sudden terrorism seems to be a huge issue because of 9/11, although Al Qaeda and other filthy muslim terrorists are still commiting attacks, all that is ever brought up anymore is that "oh well AMERICA hasn't been attacked in 2 years" blah blah. I mean it is not azif before 9/11, America was being attacked daily, and Bush came in and put a stop to it. I would imagine 9/11 was a very well thought out plan that took a lot of time to develop and carry out and any other attack in the future would be the same. So maybe next time our stategy for war should be to catch and/or kill the attackers, not a completely different country because it is run by an "evildoer"

'The words of a true liberal'

-slapnuts coulter

 

 

 

 

I agree with you though Mike. The war on terrorism is being fought in entirely the wrong fashion by Bush and Co. Angering, disenfranchising our own, and attacking other countries will only piss off more people and increase threats.

 

Its really really sickening and frightening that our president would do this to us.

Edited March 5, 2004 by snuffbox

[Firestarter 0]

Angering, disenfranchising, and attacking other countries will only piss off more people and increase threats

"Disenfranchising" other countries?! Did you really just say that?

 

Jesus God.

[snuffbox 0]

Angering, disenfranchising, and attacking other countries will only piss off more people and increase threats

"Disenfranchising" other countries?! Did you really just say that?

 

Jesus God.

yeah I did...I forgot two words in my original post. Its fixed, thanks Marney.

[Firestarter 0]

I forgot two words in my original post. Its fixed, thanks Marney.

Welcome. Thank goodness, I thought you seriously meant to type that for a sec.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Yeah but come on... lets be fair. The Clinton administrations record on fighting terrorism isn't exactly the greatest, although it's not nearly as bad as some republicans would have you believe

The (in)actions of one idiot do not excuse another, especially when the other one is the one is the one on the ballot.

[Guest thebigjig]

Yeah but come on... lets be fair. The Clinton administrations record on fighting terrorism isn't exactly the greatest, although it's not nearly as bad as some republicans would have you believe

The (in)actions of one idiot do not excuse another, especially when the other one is the one is the one on the ballot.

I agree, I agree... I just dont think its fair to single out one administration and let the entire blame reside on that administrations shoulders

[JangoFett4Hire 0]

From the Boston Globe

 

"I think it's outrageous that he should use our grief to promote his candidacy," said Wright Salisbury of Lexington, Mass., whose son-in-law was killed in New York. "I understand why he's doing this. He's trying to cover himself with the flag. He's trying to justify the war in Iraq by saying it had something to do with 9/11."

[NoCalMike 0]

Yeah but come on... lets be fair. The Clinton administrations record on fighting terrorism isn't exactly the greatest, although it's not nearly as bad as some republicans would have you believe

The (in)actions of one idiot do not excuse another, especially when the other one is the one is the one on the ballot.

I agree, I agree... I just dont think its fair to single out one administration and let the entire blame reside on that administrations shoulders

Well conservatives pretty much blame everything bad going on in this country on "this is how Clinton left the country for us when he left office"

[Guest thebigjig]

Yeah but come on... lets be fair. The Clinton administrations record on fighting terrorism isn't exactly the greatest, although it's not nearly as bad as some republicans would have you believe

The (in)actions of one idiot do not excuse another, especially when the other one is the one is the one on the ballot.

I agree, I agree... I just dont think its fair to single out one administration and let the entire blame reside on that administrations shoulders

Well conservatives pretty much blame everything bad going on in this country on "this is how Clinton left the country for us when he left office"

of course... republicans can only DREAM of having a president that get the things accomplished like my man W.J.

 

 

Its just jealousy... drives them nuts

 

 

So, when all else fails... blame Clinton

[rising up out of the back seat-nuh 0]

IMHO, basing a campain around nationalism is heading down entirely the wrong road.

[Vern Gagne 0]

From the Boston Globe

 

"I think it's outrageous that he should use our grief to promote his candidacy," said Wright Salisbury of Lexington, Mass., whose son-in-law was killed in New York. "I understand why he's doing this. He's trying to cover himself with the flag. He's trying to justify the war in Iraq by saying it had something to do with 9/11."

What's your point? A relative doesn't like the President. Big deal. Many relatives of victims like the President, and have no problem with the ads.

[Guest Cerebus]

From the Boston Globe

 

"I think it's outrageous that he should use our grief to promote his candidacy," said Wright Salisbury of Lexington, Mass., whose son-in-law was killed in New York. "I understand why he's doing this. He's trying to cover himself with the flag. He's trying to justify the war in Iraq by saying it had something to do with 9/11."

What's your point? A relative doesn't like the President. Big deal. Many relatives of victims like the President, and have no problem with the ads.

I, for one, don't have a problem with it and not only did a good friend die I was there on Manhattan when the attacks hit. Not that I don't respect this person's opinion. I understand where he's coming from...but I just don't see it.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Cerebus, would you mind if it was your friend draped under the flag in that scene?

 

I'm trying to figure out where your disagreement is. That he simply isn't exploiting it as badly as some people say he is, or that people's deaths are open season for political marketing.

[Guest Cerebus]

Cerebus, would you mind if it was your friend draped under the flag in that scene?

 

I'm trying to figure out where your disagreement is. That he simply isn't exploiting it as badly as some people say he is, or that people's deaths are open season for political marketing.

That was a firefighter's coffin, not a dead body lying on the side. My disagreement is just because Bush put a second of his commercial with a scene from 9/11 that fits in with the rest of his commercial, which is showing challenges he faced during his term as president, doesn't mean he's politically marketing it any more than he's politically marketing the dot-com bust (which was also in the ad). He's using it, in my opinion, to visually reprsent 9/11, not to exploit it. You don't agree with me that's fine.

 

And I mentioned my friend because I wanted to let people know where I was coming from. I'm not going to mention her again, so don't ask me any more hypotheticals about it. That goes for the rest of you guys too.

[snuffbox 0]

Cerebus, would you mind if it was your friend draped under the flag in that scene?

 

I'm trying to figure out where your disagreement is. That he simply isn't exploiting it as badly as some people say he is, or that people's deaths are open season for political marketing.

That was a firefighter's coffin, not a dead body lying on the side. My disagreement is just because Bush put a second of his commercial with a scene from 9/11 that fits in with the rest of his commercial, which is showing challenges he faced during his term as president, doesn't mean he's politically marketing it any more than he's politically marketing the dot-com bust (which was also in the ad). He's using it, in my opinion, to visually reprsent 9/11, not to exploit it. You don't agree with me that's fine.

 

And I mentioned my friend because I wanted to let people know where I was coming from. I'm not going to mention her again, so don't ask me any more hypotheticals about it. That goes for the rest of you guys too.

I have no intentions of asking you to speak about your friend.

 

I will just say that your situation gives your opinion that extra depth of perspective.

[Highland 0]

I think Bush should be free to use 9/11. in fact he should use it, as it defined his presidency, but he has to be careful in how he uses it. Either way, he won't be able to escape offending people.

Edited March 6, 2004 by Naibus

[snuffbox 0]

I think Bush should be free to use 9/11. in fact he should use it, as it defined his presidency, but he has to be careful in how he uses it. Either way, he won't be able to escape offending people.

Hes been struggling to escape doing that on a rather startling regularity...

[Vyce 0]

Yeah but come on... lets be fair. The Clinton administrations record on fighting terrorism isn't exactly the greatest, although it's not nearly as bad as some republicans would have you believe

The (in)actions of one idiot do not excuse another, especially when the other one is the one is the one on the ballot.

I agree, I agree... I just dont think its fair to single out one administration and let the entire blame reside on that administrations shoulders

Well conservatives pretty much blame everything bad going on in this country on "this is how Clinton left the country for us when he left office"

of course... republicans can only DREAM of having a president that get the things accomplished like my man W.J.

 

 

Its just jealousy... drives them nuts

 

 

So, when all else fails... blame Clinton

Oh?

 

And you don't possibly see, for one second, that many of the liberals in this country possess a hatred of Bush that is just as fierce - and utterly irrational - as was the hatred of Clinton by conservatives?

 

It's the same. If anything, the attacks against Bush are even MORE vicious. Even the worst of the Clinton haters didn't compare the man to Hitler.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Even the worst of the Clinton haters didn't compare the man to Hitler.

Well, in 1996 we didn't have every idiot with broadband in his home and a video editing program.

 

I'm sure if the internet was as widespread and accessable.

 

And hey, even on today's internet, look hard enough through Google and you'll find the wacko you're looking for. And guess what can be found on that site, hmm?

 

Or another...

 

 

...Or another.

[NoCalMike 0]

Yeah but come on... lets be fair. The Clinton administrations record on fighting terrorism isn't exactly the greatest, although it's not nearly as bad as some republicans would have you believe

The (in)actions of one idiot do not excuse another, especially when the other one is the one is the one on the ballot.

I agree, I agree... I just dont think its fair to single out one administration and let the entire blame reside on that administrations shoulders

Well conservatives pretty much blame everything bad going on in this country on "this is how Clinton left the country for us when he left office"

of course... republicans can only DREAM of having a president that get the things accomplished like my man W.J.

 

 

Its just jealousy... drives them nuts

 

 

So, when all else fails... blame Clinton

Oh?

 

And you don't possibly see, for one second, that many of the liberals in this country possess a hatred of Bush that is just as fierce - and utterly irrational - as was the hatred of Clinton by conservatives?

 

It's the same. If anything, the attacks against Bush are even MORE vicious. Even the worst of the Clinton haters didn't compare the man to Hitler.

Not hitler No, but he was pretty much called a Communist on a daily occassion complete with the Crown/Cicle(sp?) for the C in Clinton, t-shirts~!

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

OMG I'M SO OFFENDED!!!

 

 

HE'S USING THE BLOOD OF OUR BOYS TO GET ELECTED TO YET ANOTHER TERM AS PRESIDENT!!!

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Needs more bodies being dragged out of rubble, actually. NOTHING SAYS PATRIOTISM LIKE DEAD PEOPLE.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I bet FDR would have if Photoshop was around back then...