Little Question

[Some Guy 0]

Does anyone else see the irony of the "Where are the jobs Mr. President" liberals forcing several radio hosts off the air and as such out of jobs? I though they were teh party of the little people. I find the fact that they are forcing a blactivist station off the air to be the best example of their hypocracy.

[NoCalMike 0]

Does anyone else see the irony of the "Where are the jobs Mr. President" liberals forcing several radio hosts off the air and as such out of jobs? I though they were teh party of the little people. I find the fact that they are forcing a blactivist station off the air to be the best example of their hypocracy.

Well they are democrats, which is just as pro-establishment as republicans, so no I don't find it suprising or ironic, just sad.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I also want to mention that even though the hosts might be big Dem activists, management could just be people beholden to the mighty dollar above all political causes, who saw a niche and decided to fill it.

[Firestarter 0]

Amusing article about Day One.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

New figures came out...something along the lines of 750K jobs created in the last 6 months, from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics

 

Bush has got to love that

[Firestarter 0]

It's only what we've been saying would happen around this time for more than a year now, and what everyone with a clue has known was inevitable all along. Guess that demolishes another Democrat talking point. I wonder what they'll seize on next?

 

Oh yeah, we're soft on terrorists...

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

But ... but ... didn't the unemployment rate just rise?...

[Guest MikeSC]

Does anyone else see the irony of the "Where are the jobs Mr. President" liberals forcing several radio hosts off the air and as such out of jobs? I though they were teh party of the little people. I find the fact that they are forcing a blactivist station off the air to be the best example of their hypocracy.

Maybe we should state that the jobs have been outsourced.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

New figures came out...something along the lines of 750K jobs created in the last 6 months, from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics

 

Bush has got to love that

And yet unemployment still went up .1% Also, 308,000 jobs were created in march. Which would mean the last 5 months were pretty dim.

[Guest MikeSC]

It's only what we've been saying would happen around this time for more than a year now, and what everyone with a clue has known was inevitable all along. Guess that demolishes another Democrat talking point. I wonder what they'll seize on next?

 

Oh yeah, we're soft on terrorists...

Well, there's this now:

'US knew al-Qa'ida would attack cities with aeroplanes'

 

'I saw papers that show US knew al-Qa'ida would attack cities with aeroplanes'

Whistleblower the White House wants to silence speaks to The Independent

By Andrew Buncombe in Washington

02 April 2004

 

A former translator for the FBI with top-secret security clearance says she has provided information to the panel investigating the 11 September attacks which proves senior officials knew of al-Qa'ida's plans to attack the US with aircraft months before the strikes happened.

 

She said the claim by the National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, that there was no such information was "an outrageous lie".

 

Sibel Edmonds said she spent more than three hours in a closed session with the commission's investigators providing information that was circulating within the FBI in the spring and summer of 2001 suggesting that an attack using aircraft was just months away and the terrorists were in place. The Bush administration, meanwhile, has sought to silence her and has obtained a gagging order from a court by citing the rarely used "state secrets privilege".

 

She told The Independent yesterday: "I gave [the commission] details of specific investigation files, the specific dates, specific target information, specific managers in charge of the investigation. I gave them everything so that they could go back and follow up. This is not hearsay. These are things that are documented. These things can be established very easily."

 

She added: "There was general information about the time-frame, about methods to be used ­ but not specifically about how they would be used ­ and about people being in place and who was ordering these sorts of terror attacks. There were other cities that were mentioned. Major cities ­ with skyscrapers."

 

The accusations from Mrs Edmonds, 33, a Turkish-American who speaks Azerbaijani, Farsi, Turkish and English, will reignite the controversy over whether the administration ignored warnings about al-Qa'ida. That controversy was sparked most recently by Richard Clarke, a former counter-terrorism official, who has accused the administration of ignoring his warnings.

 

The issue ­ what the administration knew and when ­ is central to the investigation by the 9/11 Commission, which has been hearing testimony in public and private from government officials, intelligence officials and secret sources. Earlier this week, the White House made a U-turn when it said that Ms Rice would appear in public before the commission to answer questions. Mr Bush and his deputy, Dick Cheney, will also be questioned in a closed-door session.

 

Mrs Edmonds, 33, says she gave her evidence to the commission in a specially constructed "secure" room at its offices in Washington on 11 February. She was hired as a translator for the FBI's Washington field office on 13 September 2001, just two days after the al-Qa'ida attacks. Her job was to translate documents and recordings from FBI wire-taps.

 

She said said it was clear there was sufficient information during the spring and summer of 2001 to indicate terrorists were planning an attack. "Most of what I told the commission ­ 90 per cent of it ­ related to the investigations that I was involved in or just from working in the department. Two hundred translators side by side, you get to see and hear a lot of other things as well."

 

"President Bush said they had no specific information about 11 September and that is accurate but only because he said 11 September," she said. There was, however, general information about the use of airplanes and that an attack was just months away.

 

To try to refute Mr Clarke's accusations, Ms Rice said the administration did take steps to counter al-Qa'ida. But in an opinion piece in The Washington Post on 22 March, Ms Rice wrote: "Despite what some have suggested, we received no intelligence that terrorists were preparing to attack the homeland using airplanes as missiles, though some analysts speculated that terrorists might hijack planes to try and free US-held terrorists."

 

Mrs Edmonds said that by using the word "we", Ms Rice told an "outrageous lie". She said: "Rice says 'we' not 'I'. That would include all people from the FBI, the CIA and DIA [Defence Intelligence Agency]. I am saying that is impossible."

 

It is impossible at this stage to verify Mrs Edmonds' claims. However, some senior US senators testified to her credibility in 2002 when she went public with separate allegations relating to alleged incompetence and corruption within the FBI's translation department.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americ...sp?story=507514

So, because one piece of intel in a sea of millions received every day was "ignored" --- and don't ask how anything could have been: Shut down every major city with a skyscraper for any of the possible date ranges listed? --- it shows that Bush ignored the threat?

 

And this woman just seems like an embicile? He knew attacks were going to happen in a few months?

 

So --- WHAT THE BLOODY HECK WAS HE SUPPOSED TO DO ABOUT IT?

 

I swear, the left is so moronic about this. I am honestly glad Pearl Harbor didn't happen today. God knows how much heat FDR would take for it.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Shut down every major city with a skyscraper for any of the possible date ranges listed?

 

[...]

 

So --- WHAT THE BLOODY HECK WAS HE SUPPOSED TO DO ABOUT IT?

Put more security in air travel?

 

 

Seems a lot simpler than shutting down cities.

[Guest MikeSC]

Shut down every major city with a skyscraper for any of the possible date ranges listed?

 

[...]

 

So --- WHAT THE BLOODY HECK WAS HE SUPPOSED TO DO ABOUT IT?

Put more security in air travel?

 

 

Seems a lot simpler than shutting down cities.

Such as?

 

Racial profiling? Yeah, that wouldn't cause problems.

 

Make getting to your flights take longer? Before 9/11, do you recognize how insanely bad of an idea that would be to most people?

 

Have guys on planes with guns? Heck, they have a hard time getting support for that NOW.

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

God knows how much heat FDR would take for it.

FDR?

 

You must have meant Hoover...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Make getting to your flights take longer? Before 9/11, do you recognize how insanely bad of an idea that would be to most people?

So? It's goddamn national security. You don't put that on hold because a few jet-setters and business class flyers are upset about waiting 5 minutes.

[Guest MikeSC]

Make getting to your flights take longer? Before 9/11, do you recognize how insanely bad of an idea that would be to most people?

So? It's goddamn national security. You don't put that on hold because a few jet-setters and business class flyers are upset about waiting 5 minutes.

And seeing as how nobody saw this as a threat, the backlash from irate people (and don't think the Dems wouldn't have joined the chorus --- they did have the Senate at that point, I believe) would have made it unworkable for the President.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

And seeing as how nobody saw this as a threat, the backlash from irate people (and don't think the Dems wouldn't have joined the chorus --- they did have the Senate at that point, I believe) would have made it unworkable for the President.

-=Mike

We're not talking about airport lockdowns. We're talking about additional passenger screening proceedures.

[Guest MikeSC]

And seeing as how nobody saw this as a threat, the backlash from irate people (and don't think the Dems wouldn't have joined the chorus --- they did have the Senate at that point, I believe) would have made it unworkable for the President.

        -=Mike

We're not talking about airport lockdowns. We're talking about additional passenger screening proceedures.

And do you have any idea how much griping there would be about that?

 

Heck, people grumble now AFTER all of this happened.

-=Mike

...Plus, you'd have airline execs griping that cruise ships don't get this treatment, so we'd have to do cruise ships. Then passenger buses. Then AmTrak...

[Guest MikeSC]

It's only what we've been saying would happen around this time for more than a year now, and what everyone with a clue has known was inevitable all along. Guess that demolishes another Democrat talking point. I wonder what they'll seize on next?

 

Oh yeah, we're soft on terrorists...

KERRY UPDATE:

 

Despite jobs boost, Kerry still blasts Bush economic record

2 hours, 25 minutes ago  Add U.S. National - AFP to My Yahoo!

 

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites) welcomed figures released showing the creation of 308,000 jobs in March, but the Massachusetts senator blasted President George W. Bush (news - web sites)'s economic record.

 

"After three years of punishing job losses, the one month job creation announced today is welcome news for America's workers. I hope it continues," Kerry said.

 

"But for too many families, living through the worst job recovery since the Great Depression has been, and continues to be, far too painful," he said.

 

"With nearly 2.6 million private sector jobs lost during the Bush presidency, Americas families need and deserve a new economic strategy."

 

Kerry touted his plan to create 10 million jobs if he is elected president.

 

Opinion polls have shown that the economy and jobs are top concerns among Americans ahead of the November 2 election.

 

The March job figures show the economy churned out jobs at the fastest rate since April 2000, the clearest sign yet of a comeback from the popping of the late 1990s Internet bubble and the September 11, 2001, attacks.

 

"In every single month of this administration, we havent seen the creation of a single manufacturing job in America," Kerry said.

 

"Thats why Ive proposed a strategy that revitalizes our manufacturing sector and puts us on track to create 10 million new jobs in the next four years."

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1506&u=/afp/20040402/ts_alt_afp/us_vote_economy_kerry_040402181256&printer=1

Well, Kerry is still all upbeat about things. Somebody might need to teach the boy about proper levels of rhetoric. He just sounds silly.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

And do you have any idea how much griping there would be about that?

 

Heck, people grumble now AFTER all of this happened.

That's still the most incredibly lame excuse.

 

I can't even begin to fight it because it's so lame. Any President who would neglect national security so travelers can get on the plane faster ought to be impeached.

 

Kerry ought to just move to talking about deficit spending until the jobs thing deflates, again, like it always does.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

And do you have any idea how much griping there would be about that?

 

Heck, people grumble now AFTER all of this happened.

That's still the most incredibly lame excuse.

 

I can't even begin to fight it because it's so lame. Any President who would neglect national security so travelers can get on the plane faster ought to be impeached.

 

Kerry ought to just move to talking about deficit spending until the jobs thing deflates, again, like it always does.

Sadly, no President (Bush, Clinton, etc.) would not have been able to do what Bush has done post-9/11 in regards to security measures unless a plane or two crashed in the WTC.

 

And I would have never thought that one of Kerry's biggest offensive against a Republican president would be his out-of-control spending...

[Some Guy 0]

And do you have any idea how much griping there would be about that?

 

Heck, people grumble now AFTER all of this happened.

That's still the most incredibly lame excuse.

 

I can't even begin to fight it because it's so lame. Any President who would neglect national security so travelers can get on the plane faster ought to be impeached.

 

Kerry ought to just move to talking about deficit spending until the jobs thing deflates, again, like it always does.

Do you really believe that?

 

Picture this: Presidetn Bush comes on TV in May 2001 and says that there is a grave threat of international terroists hyjacking planes with boxcutters and then flying them into both towers of the WTC and the Pentagon. So we're going to lock down the borders, nationalize airline security, and cause you, the American public to have to wait in even longer lines to get on planes. That means that if you have an 8:00 am flight, you'll have to arrive at the airport at 6:00 am. So lets get started!

 

People on both the right and the left would have thought he was fucking crazy. The "has he fell of the wagon" jokes would have started. He would have be accused of driving the country into to hysteria to avoid that fact that the "Bush Recession" is ongoing, and to try to legitimize his "judicially appointed presidency".

The right would have said, "you want to nationalize airline security? What, are you ficking nuts?!"

 

This never would have gone over with the public. To think it would have, or even that Bush knew 9/11 would happened and ignored it for (insert conspirisy theory here) is just naive, but out and out stupid.

 

Instead the left follow the leader like lemmings and tune into the news every night to here more of Dick Clarke's American Grandstand and whatever horseshit that Kerrey has to montonely spew and think that him droning "Bring it on!" with all the enthusiasm of a man awaiting a rectal exam is catchy, cute, and the ticket to "taking back our country." (Apparently to the depression days of the New Deal).

[NoCalMike 0]

And do you have any idea how much griping there would be about that?

 

Heck, people grumble now AFTER all of this happened.

That's still the most incredibly lame excuse.

 

I can't even begin to fight it because it's so lame. Any President who would neglect national security so travelers can get on the plane faster ought to be impeached.

 

Kerry ought to just move to talking about deficit spending until the jobs thing deflates, again, like it always does.

Do you really believe that?

 

Picture this: Presidetn Bush comes on TV in May 2001 and says that there is a grave threat of international terroists hyjacking planes with boxcutters and then flying them into both towers of the WTC and the Pentagon. So we're going to lock down the borders, nationalize airline security, and cause you, the American public to have to wait in even longer lines to get on planes. That means that if you have an 8:00 am flight, you'll have to arrive at the airport at 6:00 am. So lets get started!

 

People on both the right and the left would have thought he was fucking crazy. The "has he fell of the wagon" jokes would have started. He would have be accused of driving the country into to hysteria to avoid that fact that the "Bush Recession" is ongoing, and to try to legitimize his "judicially appointed presidency".

The right would have said, "you want to nationalize airline security? What, are you ficking nuts?!"

 

This never would have gone over with the public. To think it would have, or even that Bush knew 9/11 would happened and ignored it for (insert conspirisy theory here) is just naive, but out and out stupid.

 

Instead the left follow the leader like lemmings and tune into the news every night to here more of Dick Clarke's American Grandstand and whatever horseshit that Kerrey has to montonely spew and think that him droning "Bring it on!" with all the enthusiasm of a man awaiting a rectal exam is catchy, cute, and the ticket to "taking back our country." (Apparently to the depression days of the New Deal).

your assumption that only one side is full of horseshit is pretty hilarious. Do you honestly believe the Bush administration has been on the straight & narrow about this whole situation?

[Vyce 0]

New figures came out...something along the lines of 750K jobs created in the last 6 months, from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics

 

Bush has got to love that

And yet unemployment still went up .1% Also, 308,000 jobs were created in march. Which would mean the last 5 months were pretty dim.

Jesus fucking Christ, just accept the good news for what it is, and nothing more.

 

You're as bad as Mike is. Not EVERYTHING has to be about fucking politics.

 

Your attitude does NOTHING for your cause and only makes you seem petty. If 300k jobs got created last month, I sit back, have a drink, smoke a cigar, and call it a good day.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Jesus fucking Christ, just accept the good news for what it is, and nothing more.

Of course it's good news.

 

If it keeps up, it's great news. I'm certainly skeptical of that, but my political commented was aimed to Mike who wanted to take a shot at Kerry while he was delivering it.

[Some Guy 0]

your assumption that only one side is full of horseshit is pretty hilarious. Do you honestly believe the Bush administration has been on the straight & narrow about this whole situation?

Straight and narrow as far as what? That he didn't know 9/11 would happen? No one did. That he may not have talked to Dick Clarke as much as Clarke would have liked? Do I think that the Bush administration has been on the straight and narrow as far as 9/11 is concerned? Yes, for the most part I do. Do I think that this 9/11 hearing is nothing more than political randstanding and an infomercial for Clarke's book? Yes, I do. I think it's nonsense to think that any and I mean any, regardless of party would ignore legtimate intelligence saying that terroists were going to hyjack and fly planes into buildings.

 

I was joking a little bit about how the right would only be mad about the nationalizing of airline security. Many other things would have been brought up. But the pres. would have most likely been ignored by the GOP while the Dems would have accused him of "wagging the dog."

[Guest MikeSC]

New figures came out...something along the lines of 750K jobs created in the last 6 months, from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics

 

Bush has got to love that

And yet unemployment still went up .1% Also, 308,000 jobs were created in march. Which would mean the last 5 months were pretty dim.

Jesus fucking Christ, just accept the good news for what it is, and nothing more.

 

You're as bad as Mike is. Not EVERYTHING has to be about fucking politics.

 

Your attitude does NOTHING for your cause and only makes you seem petty. If 300k jobs got created last month, I sit back, have a drink, smoke a cigar, and call it a good day.

Whoa, what's up with me being the standard-bearer of political bias here? Last time I checked, JOTW, Tyler, NoCalMike, etc. tended to be just as set --- if not MORE set in their views than I am. Heck, if we ever discussed Bush's DOMESTIC policy agenda, you'd recognize that I'm hardly a blind Bush partisan. We only discuss his foreign policy and, yes, I think he's done an admirable job. He's the best foreign policy President we've had in many years --- if not ever. He's had to deal with a total shift in focus as to what we need to be concerned about and has done so with far too many people griping because they don't like it. He's put OUR interests in the forefront of his concerns (as a President SHOULD do).

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Whoa, what's up with me being the standard-bearer of political bias here? Last time I checked, JOTW, Tyler, NoCalMike, etc. tended to be just as set --- if not MORE

 

Hey now. I'm no more biased than anyone else in the folder.

[Guest MikeSC]

Whoa, what's up with me being the standard-bearer of political bias here? Last time I checked, JOTW, Tyler, NoCalMike, etc. tended to be just as set --- if not MORE

 

Hey now. I'm no more biased than anyone else in the folder.

Tyler, embrace your biases. You got 'em. Why are you afraid to admit it?

 

You don't like Bush. State it. There is no reason to be afraid of it.

-=Mike

...Oh, Some Guy is right --- if Bush tried to tighten airline security before 9/11, the backlash from the voters would have been so ridiculous that it would not be feasible.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

I admit I don't like Bush, but I fail to see how that makes me more biased than anyone else.

[Guest MikeSC]

I admit I don't like Bush, but I fail to see how that makes me more biased than anyone else.

Tyler, don't pretend that you're not. I'm telling you that you are.

 

And it's not a bad thing.

 

Having no opinion on major issues shows a LACK of intellect, not having more of it.

-=Mike