Should President Bush use images of 9/11 in his campaign ads?

[LostInSpace]

Bush ads anger some 9/11 families. I don't know what all the rukus is about. I find nothing wrong with doing that.

""When I look at the ads and I see Bush speaking over the pictures of Ground Zero, I know in my heart that President Bush failed the 3,000 Americans that died there on that day," Patty Casazza, whose husband died in the attacks, told CNN." How in heck did Bush fail. If you read in my other posts that the blame should be with Clinton (for sitting on his butt)and Kerry (for decreasing funds to our intelligence agencies) Link to my post. What I wish the news media would do is list what political persuasion the people who make these comments are.

[Guest]

Come on, we all know what the ruckus is about.

The Presidents reactions and what he did after 911 shows that he is a strong leader, and will defend this country against all comers.

This footage reminds people of this.

The press and the democrats know that the public has a short attention span, and the fervor of 911 is over, they don't want people reminded of it, because it will cost them the election.

Bush and Cheney, by reminding the American people about 911, also remind them about how and what Bush did. This, the Democrats cannot abide.

It's typical politics, and CNN is the poster child for the Democratic party, no if's and's or but's.

[Grizzle]

quote:

---

Originally posted by LostInSpace:

Bush ads anger some 9/11 families

. I don't know what all the rukus is about. I find nothing wrong with doing that.

---

Is it right to even raise this question? These are people that lost loved ones on that day. I think they are entitled to express their feelings without it being considered a "rukus".

[LostInSpace]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jaguar:

It's typical politics, and CNN is the poster child for the Democratic party, no if's and's or but's.

---

Oh yeah, a big agreement on that. I watch CNN alot and every time they talk politics it's Can Kerry beat Bush, will Kerry be able to overcome the campaign treasure the Republicans have etc... I've yet to know from watching CNN what the heck is Kerry's campaign all about other than beating Bush.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grizzle:

Is it right to even raise this question? These are people that lost loved ones on that day. I think they are entitled to express their feelings without it being considered a "rukus".

---

. I agree but CNN is making the big deal about it and people making false statements like it was Bush's fault. Trying to sound like it's the entire country in an uproar over this. And listen, I lived thru it. I watched it unfold outside my window. There's no telling if I'm not going to die myself from this attack down the road from all the carcinogens spewing in the air from the two towers. Not just me but everyone in the city. I don't see a problem with the ads. But I do find an issue with CNN trying to blow this all outa proportion.

[ 03-04-2004, 05:35 PM: Message edited by: LostInSpace ]

[Guest $iLk]

quote:

---

I've yet to know from watching CNN what the heck is Kerry's campaign all about other than beating Bush.

---

And we shall find that to be very apparent as time drags on and the two close in debate.

[Steve Schacher]

It's the same question as asking how familes who lost sons in Viet Nam feel about Kerry using Viet Nam in his ads and stump speeches, but you don't hear people making that comparison.

[Steve Schacher]

Today's Wall Street Journal editorial, Is 9/11 an Issue? President Bush talks about his record, and Democrats demand that he shut up.

quote:

---

September 11, 2001, marked the worst foreign attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor--the bloodiest ever on the American mainland. It's certainly been the defining event of George W. Bush's Presidency. But according to Democrats and their media echo chamber, it now shouldn't be a campaign issue.

Yes, that was the message being peddled in yesterday's papers by reporters provided with outrage-laden quotes from a single firefighters' union and activist relatives of victims of the World Trade Center attacks. With a series of new campaign ads featuring fleeting images of Ground Zero, they charge, Mr. Bush is "exploiting" the tragedy.

"I'm disappointed but not surprised that the President would try to trade on the heroism of those fire fighters in the September 11 attacks," said International Association of Fire Fighters President Harold Schaitberger, who happens to have endorsed John Kerry way back in September. "It's a slap in the face of the murders of 3,000 people," said outspoken victims' family activist and litigant Monica Gabrielle. The theme was quickly picked up by television talkers.

Please. We write this from offices that are 200 yards from Ground Zero and were rendered uninhabitable for almost a year by the attack. (The photo below was the view from our windows.) The threat of another such assault, and how to prevent it, has dominated our politics for three years. From tax cuts designed to save the economy from the double-whammy of terrorism and recession, to the Patriot Act, to regime change in Afghanistan and Iraq as part of Mr. Bush's "forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East," just about every recent major policy is inextricably linked to the event so mildly depicted in these Bush ads. Isn't an election supposed to be about such things?

Even Democrats know that it is, so they are manufacturing this outrage for a political purpose: President Bush still polls extremely well on his handling of the war on terror, and Democrats are trying to define the debate in a way that keeps him from playing to his strengths. The polls also show that Mr. Bush scores well as a "leader," so Democrats are also trying to stop him from reinforcing that image.

But what is Mr. Bush supposed to do, stop being President? Incumbency clearly has its large (and sometimes unfair) advantages. Yet try as we might, we can't seem to recall similar outrage about Bill Clinton's use of incumbency when he was running for re-election--at least not outrage that got any media traction.

Where, for example, was the tut-tutting about the former President "exploiting" the Oklahoma City bombing by giving an election-year speech there in April 1996? We'd also take the current handwringing a bit more seriously if we heard any similar worries about John Kerry "exploiting" his service in Vietnam.

One of the oddest things about the hullabaloo over the Bush ads is that these are precisely the kind of campaign spots the self-appointed media referees always say they like: positive, and focused on the candidate's message and record, not on tearing down the other guy. Despite Mr. Kerry's crocodile tears about the Republican "attack machine" and "smear" campaign, neither the President nor any other high-ranking Republican has so far taken a serious jab at either Mr. Kerry's character or his record.

Yet in case they eventually do, Democrats are also busy trying to take that off the table. When Georgia Republican Saxby Chambliss recently talked about Mr. Kerry's Senate votes against most U.S. weapons systems, he was assailed for attacking Mr. Kerry's "patriotism." This is an extension of the Max Cleland-as-martyr myth, asserting that it was somehow unfair for Republicans to attack the former Georgia Senator and Vietnam vet in the 2002 elections for his vote against the Homeland Security department.

So the Bush campaign is being presented with something of a Catch-22: Any attempt to talk about the President's own record will be branded "exploitative," while any talk about Mr. Kerry's will be called an attack on his "patriotism." Our advice to Mr. Bush is to choose his message and ignore the whining.

As for Democrats, they'd be wise to get over the idea that Mr. Kerry's Vietnam biography will cover them on the defense issue. For most Americans, 9/11 was the defining event of a generation, and they'll want to hear a serious debate about which candidate has the best policies to keep them safer in the years ahead. The more Democrats complain about Mr. Bush running on national security, the more voters may suspect that Democrats don't have any serious anti-terror ideas of their own.

---

[Guest $iLk]

Can somebody point out which parts of these videos are damaging to the families of 9/11 victims and what is so controversal about any of them?

Bush Ads

I just watched all of them... there's like a half second clip of the firefighters raising a flag in the WTC area... you'd have to pause to take it all in. And this is supposed to be terrible?

Maybe people ought to look at the groups that expressed outrage - groups that already have endorsed John Kerry...

[Steve Schacher]

It's starting to look like the group that is complaining about the ads, "The September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows," is a 501©3 non-profit organization funded by grants from the Heinz family. Teresa Heinz is married to Senator John Kerry.

Is it any wonder that the media had already found outspoken representatives, who are coached to repeat the same lines, within one day of the ad airing?

Stay tuned...

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Schacher:

It's starting to look like the group that is complaining about the ads, "The September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows," is a 501©3 non-profit organization funded by grants from the Heinz family. Teresa Heinz is married to Senator John Kerry.

Is it any wonder that the media had already found outspoken representatives, who are coached to repeat the same lines, within one day of the ad airing?

Stay tuned...

---

I'm shocked... shocked....

The Democrats misrepresenting themselves? Nah, no way.....LOL

Sounds pretty typical to me.

Can't get a groundswell? Create one.....

[Guest $iLk]

As the "Godfather" himself was going on about yesterday... you have all this outrage by comments from a couple widows hitting the front page - while none of those who don't have a problem with it even count.

Watch the videos for yourself and see if you think it's distasteful.

The democrats don't want him to use 9/11 because his handling of the war on terror is still high in the approval ratings.

[Steve Schacher]

FDR Campaign Button

http://www.museumofworldwarii.com/images/TourPictures/08a_Roosevelt-plaque_lge.jpg>

So much for Democrats opposed to recalling imagary of attacks for political purposes. Where's the crying over the family's sensitivities? We lost a thousand troops on the USS Arizona alone.

Oh, the hypocricy! The hypocricy!

[ 03-05-2004, 08:36 PM: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]

[Steve Schacher]

Here's a great amateur essay that I found on what just happened with the "outrage" over the Bush ads:

quote:

---

September 11 families say Bush campaign treading on the dead....

so reads the headline. It makes one think that Bush has enraged every member of every family who lost someone on September 11. It gives the idea that Bush has crossed the line and disrespected the victims of our nation's tragedy....

....then you read "the rest of the story".

The article has quotes from some women like Rita Lasar, who lost her brother. Rita says, "Ground Zero is a sacred site ... find some other way to run a campaign without stepping on the bodies of our dead." In passing it mentions that Rita is a steering committee member of the group, September 11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows.

Then another article quotes Colleen Kelly as saying, "It's absolutely inappropriate ... There are certain memories and certain images that I consider sacred." Colleen Kelly leads the group, September 11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows.

Now just reading these articles leaves the average person with the feeling that these women would have no political agenda, they're simply mourning victims of a national tragedy who are voicing their heartfelt, personal feelings in reaction to a few ads supporting President Bush in the Presidential campaign. But let's take a closer look....

Peaceful Tomorrows Organized primarily by families of victims, Peaceful Tomorrows seeks to open up a public dialogue about appropriate alternative responses to the September 11 tragedies. Efforts will be made to raise awareness of the complex issues involved in responding to terrorism and influence the US policy towards more effective, democratically-based responses to terrorism in both domestic and foreign policy.

That is the description of the group as presented on a list of projects sponsored by the Tides Center of Pennsylvannia.

http://www.tidescenter.org/project_detail.cfm?id=60053.0

But who is the Tides Center? Known as the Tides Center for Pennsylvania, formerly the Tides Center for Western Pennsylvania, it is none other than a creation of the Tides Foundation and Center, headquartered in San Francisco, and two Pennsylvania-based foundations -- the Vira Heinz Endowment and the Howard Heinz Endowment-- chaired by Teresa Heinz Kerry, heir to the Heinz food company fortune and wife of Democrat presidential contender Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts.

That's right.... these poor outraged victims are simply pawns in the political workings of the Democrat Party.

Tides works like this: When a high-profile donor wants to give money to a group with an extreme agenda but doesn't want its fingerprints on the donation, it simply gives the money to The Tides Foundation in the form of a "donor- advised donation." Tides then passes that money on to the desired recipient, masking the real source of the cash. As anti-war activist Drummond Pike (who set up the Tides Foundation in 1976 for the express purpose of keeping donors' identities unknown) told the Chronicle of Philanthropy, a publication for the nonprofit world, "Anonymity is very important to most of the people we work with."

And, the amount of "hidden money" handled by the Tides Foundation is considerable. Since its founding, the relatively little-known foundation has made over $300 million in grants. In 2002 it amassed assets of $139 million and had an income of $59.3 million. Between 1995 and 2001, $4.3 million of that money came from the Howard Heinz Endowment. In 2002, it and the Vira Heinz Endowment blessed The Tides Center, a San Francisco spin-off of the Tides Foundation, with another $190,000 while the two endowments gave $1.6 million to the new Tides Center for Western Pennsylvania.

If all this movement of money between the Tides Foundation, Tides Center, two Heinz Endowments and Pittsburgh's new Tides Center for Western Pennsylvania has you shaking your head, let's talk about your money. You, the taxpayer.

Nearly $8 million in taxpayer money flowed into the Tides Center in the form of federal grants made by eight different agencies between 1997 and 2001. They include the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Energy. Does this mean your tax dollars also are going to fund the Tides Center for Western Pennsylvania, a creation of the Howard Heinz Endowment, which in 2001 was worth a breathtaking $788.6 million in 2001? With the Tides Center for a partner, we will likely never know.

What we do know is that, with Tides as a partner, the Heinz Endowments now keep interesting company.

The Tides Center also manages the Youth Gender Project whose goal is to "empower and support transgender, gender-variant, intersexed and gender-questioning youth and young adults." I freely admit, not all of these terms are in my spell-checker.

Grant recipients also include the Iraq Peace Fund that has so far granted $489,000 to 27 groups to promote anti-war marches and their coverage by the news media, as well as the mission of one of those groups, MoveOn.org, whose purpose is to defeat George W. Bush.

While groups such as these and dozens of others organized and/or financed by the Tides Foundation and Center are relatively recent in their origin and transient in their nature, many are more established and pervasive in their influence.

The Ruckus Society, which received over $200,000 in Tides money between 1999 and 2002, was begun in 1995 to train activists in violent protest against biotechnology, globalization and the World Bank. It incited property destruction in the Seattle riots of 1999 and Washington, D.C., the following year. However, Ruckus director John Sellers didn't see the wanton destruction of property as being violent at all. He told Mother Jones magazine, " I make a distinction between violence and destruction of property. Violence to me is against living things. But inanimate objects? I think you can be destructive, you can use vandalism strategically. It may be violence under the law but I just don't think it's violence."

The Natural Resources Defense Council, another Tides project, destroyed many apple farmers in Washington state with its phony Alar pesticide scare. It "leaked" a false report that Alar, used by the state's apple growers there, caused cancer, particularly in children. Even movie stars signed onto the hoax, testifying before Congress about Alar's dangers. Sales of apples plummeted before the hoax could be debunked.

Finally, the American Medical Association concluded, "The Alar scare of three years ago shows what can happen when science is taken out of context or the risks of a product are blown out of proportion." Unfortunately, that conclusion came too late to save the livelihoods of many growers.

Unfortunately, too, it came too late to prevent NRDC from cashing in to the tune of $700,000 from a book on the bogus scare.

But that seems to be what Tides and its dozens of its related organizations are about: money, a flagrant disregard for the truth, and even disdain for the law.

So, in the end, we don't really have heartfelt outrage by a few victims' family members, we have a concerted, coordinated political campaign, cloaked in a shroud of mourning, waging war against George W. Bush in his bid for reelection. I think we all should be completely outraged as the Democrat's use of this tactic as one of the lowest, most vile examples of disgraceful political gamesmanship in modern history.

Now all the pieces are coming together. You see, as these "outraged" family members were touring the airwaves, there was a peculiar familiary to their comments. Despite being on numerous different media outlets in different cities at different time, most of them repeated the same four or fives lines - VERBATIM. The Democrat talking points certainly found their way to the fax machines last night, didn't they?

Additionally, in Bal Harbour, Fla., the International Association of Fire Fighters Union, which endorsed Kerry early in the presidential race, approved a resolution asking the Bush campaign to pull the ads and urging him to apologize to the families. The union formally endorsed John Kerry in the Fall of 2002. Many rank and file firefighters, when asked, said they did not share their union leader's sentiments. It's a shame Katie Couric failed to ask for their opinions on national television.

Isn't it telling the tactics the Democrats have to use to challenge Bush? Doesn't it say much about their message, their party and their candidate? They can't deliver an honest statement or valid solution to the American public. They are wrapped in their little world millions of miles out of touch with the average, mainstream American that they must stoop to illegal, unethical and immoral actions to get a point across.

But you see, not all victims' relatives were angered by the television campaign. "It speaks to the truth of the times," said Jennie Farrell, who lost her brother in the attacks. "September 11 was something beyond the realm of imagination, and George Bush . . . led us through one of the darkest moments in history."

"These images honor those whose lives were lost," said Debra Burlingame, whose brother, Charles, was the pilot of the plane that hijackers crashed into the Pentagon.

So here we have it. Some victims' families have come out to say the message Bush is advancing honors their fallen relatives. Reactions that are truly from the heart. And then you have the Left, positioning union bosses to claim outrage in the name of their disagreeing union members, and using questionable activist organizations, hidden behind layers of endowments and charities to exploit victims' families for the sake of gaining political power for their candidate.

It is truly sickening what they've come to and it makes me wonder what we're in for over the next eight months. God help this nation.

---

Here's a partial transcript from shows that ran on NBC, CNBC, CNN and MSNBC of the repetitive phrases that gave them away:

quote:

---

VOICE ONE: I think for someone like President Bush who has not cooperated with this commission, who has stonewalled this commission.

VOICE TWO: This president and his administration blocked the creation of the commission, have stonewalled the commission.

VOICE ONE: If this was realistic from the morning of September 11th, it would show President Bush before a group of children listening to them read while, uh, the Twin Towers were burning.

VOICE TWO: If he wants to show a picture of 9/11 depicting what he was doing, it should be a picture of him sitting and reading in a classroom to school children. That's where he was on 9/11.

VOICE ONE: And we need to find out why 3,000 people were murdered on his watch.

VOICE TWO: You know, this happened on his watch.

---

[Guest BaBaBooey]

Just some interesting things about 9/11 that you should read and process as you see fit.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.net/timelin...restingday.html

http://www.takebackthemedia.com/true911.html

I don't know how you can tolerate Rush Limbaugh, Steve. But I will say you parroted him eloquently. The fact is that Bush has not been forthcoming in regard to the events of 9/11. He first twiddled his thumbs allowing for the commission to be formed. Then he went and tapped HENRY KISSINGER to head it (thankfully that was smacked down). Condi Rice then balked at having to testify and even the President still has set no firm date to appear. Add to that the GOP threatening not to extend the 9/11 commission the 60 days they had requested until public opinion forced their hand.

Listen, I voted for George W. Bush. I won't make the same mistake twice. I do not believe that he should take any credit for any of the heroism of September 11. He was anything but heroic and he was anything but a leader. Hell he attacked Iraq and now says BY HIS OWN WORDS, there is no connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. Sure Hussein was a piece of sh*t but I still don't appreciate being lied to. I also don't appreciate our military being extended to its limit or the fact that we are blowing through our resources at a record pace.

I read some of the propaganda being parroted time and time again about how we kicked the crap out of Iraq in record time. Wow... we kicked the crap out of a country we put into the stoneage militarily 10 years prior. Our soldiers are brave but even our soldiers say it wasn't much of a fight (yes there were some individual incidents of heavy duty fighting I'm speaking GENERALLY so please don't give me some BS about Jessica Lynch). Where is the cheap oil from the 51st state... how is it that this administration with all of it's contacts to the energy industry is talking SHORTAGES this summer. Oh wait... they stopped the arctic drilling, right... we had it coming for that. Ofcourse you could choose to believe that bit of propaganda as well, whilst we sit on the second richest oil reserve on the globe (remember they were gonna pay for this new freedom we gave them with cheap oil for us?). No, Venezuela has been destabilized (one of our largest oil trading partners) and the administration has allowed their BUDDIES to gouge the American public. What is it that Rush says, "You pay more for a gallon of water than a gallon of gas." Hmmm... right, we'll see how the public responds to that logic. Remember, I'm a Republican I know what the name of the game is. I'm sure I'll be called a socialist now but I think I'm the last remaining conservative. The 9/11 buck STOPS with Bush. The economy STOPS with Bush. Pandering to the hysterics that threaten free speech STOPS with Bush. Thankfully, I also believe that the reign of G.W. STOPS 11/04. Let's all pray for that. I don't relish a democratic President again, I hated Clinton... but I love Democracy more than I love my OUT OF CONTROL party.

Peace

[Steve Schacher]

Propaganda aside, what about the "outrage" over the 9/11 ads that I posted is untrue?

The clues were the similar talking points. The facts are that Democrats used their war leadership as campaign issues, so what is wrong with Bush doing so now? The facts are that the ONE group, repeated over and over by the media to make it seem wide-spread, is financed by Teresa Heinz-Kerry.

As far as Iraq and connections to Al Qaeda:

The problem, as I see it, is with trying to draw a straight-line connection when Bush declared a War on Terrorism in general. Bush named an Axis of Evil, but he also said that "you're either with us or with the terrorists." Iraq was a money spigot. By taking out Iraq, Bush dried up a major source of money that funded terrorist cells.

Sure, we went after the Taliban in Afghanistan because they were directly responsible for the attacks on 9/11. But in the larger War On Terrorism, Iraq was involved, if only as a safe haven training ground for terrorists, at least as a funder of terrorism (perhaps only for suicide bombers in Israel, perhaps larger involvement).

[Wolferz]

So,Some of the sinister agents who are behind everything that goes on in Washington are now exposed.

PHILANTHROPISTS.

People with more money than they know what to do with and in their ever increasing greed to keep it out of Washington, They form these foundations masked as non-profit organizations, then turn around and steal every hard working American's tax money in the form of Government handouts, simply by putting money into a candidate's campaign fund.

The candidates aren't concerned with the real issues that plaque this country. They throw up these smoke screens to mask what is really going on. The unbridled raping of America by those with a load of cash in the bank.

And they aren't going to stop with this country, they want all the rest too.

But who am I to voice my opinion to any of these greedy bastages? I am a speck in their eyes. A mouse who for all intensive purposes to them is looking to steal something from them and leave droppings in their Genuine Silverware drawer.

To take care of us, there have been traps set in the law to catch us. Under the guise of the Homeland security Act. God forbid that they be exposed for what they really are. Murderers and Rapists

[Fallout2man]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Schacher:

Propaganda aside, what about the "outrage" over the 9/11 ads that I posted is untrue?

The clues were the similar talking points. The facts are that Democrats used their war leadership as campaign issues, so what is wrong with Bush doing so now? The facts are that the ONE group, repeated over and over by the media to make it seem wide-spread, is financed by Teresa Heinz-Kerry.

---

Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because the party you chose uses a despicable tactic doesn't suddenly make it acceptable.

quote:

---

As far as Iraq and connections to Al Qaeda:

The problem, as I see it, is with trying to draw a straight-line connection when Bush declared a War on Terrorism in general. Bush named an Axis of Evil, but he also said that "you're either with us or with the terrorists." Iraq was a money spigot. By taking out Iraq, Bush dried up a major source of money that funded terrorist cells.

---

Dried up what? All he did was remove Sadam from power. The people there seem to mostly hate us now that we aren't leaving. The suicide bombings and other such attacks will probably continue on some level until we finally leave, and when we do Iraq will either A) have a new dictator, or become a fundamentalist islamic state, which will now hate the USA for trying to control the nation under the pretense of "freeing" it. We've accomplished Zero in Iraq, the only way we'd ever control it is to kill the native populace and then send people from the USA over to colonize it.

quote:

---

Sure, we went after the Taliban in Afghanistan because they were directly responsible for the attacks on 9/11. But in the larger War On Terrorism, Iraq was involved, if only as a safe haven training ground for terrorists, at least as a funder of terrorism (perhaps only for suicide bombers in Israel, perhaps larger involvement).

---

This is laughable, is the Taliban despicable, you bet ya, are they directly responsible for 9/11? That's a load of BS. The Taliban was attacked because we had reason to believe Osama Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 and that he was in Afghanistan. The Taliban supposedly refused to turn him over, however realistically I doubt they honestly knew where he was even if he was in the country at the time. They probably said they did to make themselves not look incompotent and/or make themselves look good by "standing up to the USA."

A war on terror is not like some war on a nation. You can't just send your soldiers off in planes and boats and bomb X land and kill off so many uniformed soldiers and be done with it. Terrorists will always exist as long as there's someone discontent with things and stupid enough to believe resorting to violence is the best way to do things.

If we really wanted to stop the terrorists, we'd just pull our military out of foreign nations. Honestly what business do we have putting our military anywhere outside of the US except for "protecting corporate interests?" Which I can bet Bush&Co are keen on doing. All they want is to not have the USA running their governments for them. There's no more "red mennace" we must somehow feel obligated to "protect the world from." We need to stop being policemen and focus on our own problems inside the nation for once. It's true it won't stop all terrorist attacks, as there'll always be nuts like McVeigh and Kazinsky(spelling?), but we'll signifigantly lower the number of people out to do such things.

[Guest $iLk]

quote:

---

If we really wanted to stop the terrorists, we'd just pull our military out of foreign nations.

---

So the crux of your argument is that we are somehow responsible for other people's actions and that they would all play nice in their sandbox countries if we'd just do as they ask and stick our head in the sand while they brutally force their view of Islam on the populaces of their countries?

Surely terrorist attacks are being prevented if we'd drop the whole 'threatening' Homeland Security and quit beain 'mean' by searching people's luggage at airports.

quote:

---

but we'll signifigantly lower the number of people out to do such things.

---

Right... just like quitting actively pursuing murder suspects will mean less murders overall.

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fallout2man:

Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because the party you chose uses a despicable tactic doesn't suddenly make it acceptable.

---

What kind of dreamworld do you live in?

I'm glad that you're not in charge, or we'd have at least 1 terrorist attack a day.

The old "if we leave them alone, They'll leave us alone?"

Yeah Right, what are you 14 or something?

They won't leave us alone, if we had pulled every soldier out of every country, if we had left the Taliban alone, if we had left Saddam alone.

If we had said, OK, we were bad, we're sorry we made you angry, we will just pull all our soldiers home.

1: Oil would be $5 a gallon

2: we would have had 10's of thousands of casualties from terrorist attacks.

3: AlQuaeda would have gotten and probably used WMD, gotten from Saddam Housien.

4:The Terrorist organizations would be 100's of time larger then they are no.

5: The middle east would now be totally the crazy terrorist Islam, instead of the moderately crazy Islam.

6: We wouldn't be safe ANYWHERE in the United States.

7: Israel would no longer exist

They hate us because we are not Muslim, they hate us because we are the strongest country on earth.

They will do whatever is necassary to destroy us.

The only way to insure our security is to destroy them FIRST, and that is what we have been doing and will continue to do.

If Clinton and his criminal cronies in the Democratic party had not destroyed our intelligence networks, had not gutted our military, had not made sorry with every tinpot dictator and Muslim crazy in the world, we would never have had a 911.

Pull your head out of the sand and come to reality.

These are NOT normal people, these are not people you can make nice with, and give concessions to.

Concessions=weakness, and therefore they will attack us. Look at Israel and the Palestinians for a clue about that.

The more you give them, the more they will attack.

You need to figure out what reality is, because your little dreamland will get us all killed.

[Kevin Trotter]

So I guess in a nutshell, the people who lost family members on 9/11 are only entitled to an opinion if it happens to agree with the Admin. Otherwise thier feelings are discredited and written off as a political ploy. You people are unbelievable! And BTW, everyone who disagrees with "certain opinions" does not have thier head in the sand, they simply view things differently. That is still allowed in this country isn't it?

Thier is NO ONE in this community who is right on every issue and morally superior. Everyone is wrong about something and anyone who believes thay are incapable of being on the wrong side a debate needs to seriously consider therapy.

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Race Bannon IV:

So I guess in a nutshell, the people who lost family members on 9/11 are only entitled to an opinion if it happens to agree with the Admin. Otherwise thier feelings are discredited and written off as a political ploy. You people are unbelievable! And BTW, everyone who disagrees with "certain opinions" does not have thier head in the sand, they simply view things differently. That is still allowed in this country isn't it?

Thier is NO ONE in this community who is right on every issue and morally superior. Everyone is wrong about something and anyone who believes thay are incapable of being on the wrong side a debate needs to seriously consider therapy.

---

First off, if the organization was not financed indirectly by John Kerry, then our opinions would probably be a little different, but since the organization IS financed indirectly by John Kerry, you have to be suspicious of the motivations.

2nd of all, when you have some apologist that sounds like Gore posting his same nonsense that created 911, you have to wonder where their brain is.

Being apologetic and saying we're sorry, and backing off, and pulling our guys out of hotspot because terrorists attacked them does NOT work.

He is saying that if we had said we are sorry, pulled ALL our guys from around the world, that the terrorists would have left us alone.

The guy is nuts, and is lacking in some serious critical thinking skills.

[Kevin Trotter]

What about the Firemans Association that said pretty much the same thing? Does everyone who disagrees with Bush have to be immeditaely discredited?

[LostInSpace]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Race Bannon IV:

What about the Firemans Association that said pretty much the same thing? Does everyone who disagrees with Bush have to be immeditaely discredited?

---

That's not my stance at all on this issue. Everyone has a right to voice their opinion. My issue is with the so called "Fair and Impartial" news media. Just last night CNN still aired a news segment 9/11 families in uproar over bush campaign ad. Meanwhile, they are not harping on the amount of 9/11 families coming out in support of the Bush ad with the same fervor as with the families that oppose the ad. Why is that? Could it be they know that would be the end of media frenzy they've created over this to fill in air time. Just have a look at this I came across Some 9/11 families show support for Bush ads. Just look at that title "SOME". 22 (and I'm fairly sure there is more) is not "SOME". It's like they are saying "AW shucks there goes our news story". Time and Time again I keep hearing news commentators ask experts they have on their show ask "do you think this controversy will dissipate?" what they are really asking "How long do you think we can soak this media frenzy we've created last before we need to create another one?" I think Kerry's book with a cover picture of Marines carrying an American Flag upside down is disrespectful to marines living or dead and should be made just as much an issue as the Bush-ad. But have you heard a peep about this book on the news? I haven't that's for sure. Damn, I'm still waiting to find out what Kerry's campaign issues are.

[ 03-07-2004, 02:33 PM: Message edited by: LostInSpace ]

[Grizzle]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Race Bannon IV:

What about the Firemans Association that said pretty much the same thing?

---

One Conservative political pundit described them as "fat-cat Fire Fighters Union bosses feasting on caviar"- Lowell Ponte. So it doesn't matter that these were the guys bearing the brunt of 9/11, they don't support Bush so they are the enemy.

quote:

---

Does everyone who disagrees with Bush have to be immeditaely discredited?

---

From a Conservatives point of view, yes.

As for Clinton gutting the military, sure he cut the budget a bit, but "gutting" is hardly the term.

US Military Budget in Billions (just the high and low points)

1991 = 319.7

1992 = 302.6

1996 = 266.0

2000 = 295.0

Today = 400 billion (more than the combined total of all other major countries, the closest being Russia with about 65 billion)

Also, while the country was busy gobbling up the Lewinisky scandal, Clinton was trying to pass an Anit-Terrorism bill in Congress, it eventually got passed but not after some stonewalling by the Republican congress (they thought that expanded use of wire-taps was unnecessary, go figure.)

As for specific terrorist acts during his reign:

WTC: Perps caught, tried, convicted serving 240 years.

1995 Bombing of US Military Training center in Riyadh: Saudi government denied permission for US to question the men the Saudis claimed did it. They were beheaded by the Saudi Govt.

1996 bombing Khobar Towers - Saudi gov't again refused to let the FBI questions suspects. In 2001 a US Grand Jury convicted 13 men for this crime. They were never extradicted and remain in Saudi custody.

1998 Bombing of US Embassies, of the 21 suspects, 4 with ties to Bin Laden were convicted and serve life in prison, 14 are still at large and 3 are fighting extradition.

2000 USS Cole since this happened so late in Clintons term, it's unlikey much would have happened in the 3 months before he left ofice, nevertheless the Yemini Gov't refused US access to suspects.

And finally a quote from John S Harris of the Washington Post:

In August 1998, when [Clinton] ordered missile strikes in an effort to kill Osama bin Laden, there was widespread speculation ÔÇö from such people as Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) ÔÇö that he was acting precipitously to draw attention away from the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal, then at full boil. Some said he was mistaken for personalizing the terrorism struggle so much around bin Laden. And when he ordered the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House after domestic terrorism in Oklahoma City, some Republicans accused him of hysteria.

. . . the federal budget on anti-terror activities tripled during Clinton's watch, to about $6.7 billion. After the effort to kill bin Laden with missiles in August 1998 failed ÔÇö he had apparently left a training camp in Afghanistan a few hours earlier ÔÇö recent news reports have detailed numerous other instances, as late as December 2000, when Clinton was on the verge of unleashing the military again. In each case, the White House chose not to act because of uncertainty that intelligence was good enough to find bin Laden, and concern that a failed attack would only enhance his stature in the Arab world.

. . . people maintain Clinton should have adapted Bush's policy promising that regimes that harbor terrorism will be treated as severely as terrorists themselves, and threatening to evict the Taliban from power in Afghanistan unless leaders meet his demands to produce bin Laden and associates. But Clinton aides said such a policy ÔÇö potentially involving a full-scale war in central Asia ÔÇö was not plausible before politics the world over became transformed by one of history's most lethal acts of terrorism.

Clinton's former national security adviser, Samuel R. Berger . . . said there [was] little prospect . . . that Pakistan would have helped the United States wage war against bin Laden or the Taliban in 1998, even after such outrages as the bombing of U.S. embassies overseas.

Now can we stop with the Clinton is to blame for everything rant?

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grizzle:

Now can we stop with the Clinton is to blame for everything rant?

---

No we can't, because he caused the main events that allowed 911, he is the one that refused to take Ossama when he was offered to us.

He is the one that started a war, every time one of his illegal actions caused him to be investigated.

Clinton was a criminal president, he was negligent and treasonous.

I hope the man burns.......