I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
Bush ran and hid and then didn't stop wetting his pants until 3 days later.
Beautiful!
One of the my great frustrations has been the conventional wisdom that the President is strong in the areas of national security when, for the reasons you listed and many more, that should be the area where we can most effectively attack him. Why, oh why, was this not a consistent theme throughout the primary season?
I preferred this line: The only great leadership Bush showed after 9/11 is that he miraculously failed to shit his pants while giving a speech post-9/11.
(Although we don't actually KNOW that.)
I couldn't agree with you more. What the hell has this 'great war time leader' done? Bill Clinton was in Australia when 9/11 happened and still beat chimpie to the scene in New York City. I think the Kerry team should hit the bushies every god damn day with every thing but the kitchen sink.
(Although we don't actually KNOW that.)
A little decorum please? Ew.
Loved every word you wrote, Atrios! Let's hope the Kerry camp is listening ... Keep up the great work!!!!
BTW, you'll notice I was first, but did I make a big deal out of it? Pretty classy, wot???
The MDS is just another in a long line of boondoggles. It will be deployed before it's even passed one unrigged test. This isn't about defending the country; it's about lining the pockets of GOP contributors.
Why, oh why, was this not a consistent theme throughout the primary season?
Clark and Dean brought it up a few times. Kerry said a couple of times that Bush's foreign policy was the most inept and ideoligical in modern history. The media may not have put too much emphasis on the criticism though (what a surprise).
Candidates would generally have been careful not to attack Bush too much instead of talking positively about themselves. That can change now but Kerry might still not want to attack Bush too much on his incompetency. Leave that to proxies.
I remember Bush's speech before Congress after the 911 attacks, and I remember thinking to myself "This idiot has no real understanding of anything he's saying. He's just reading, but he's not even doing that very well. He's in way over his head."
But the next day it quickly became conventional wisdom that Junior had hit one out of the park.
As Yglesias pointed out yesterday at TAPPED, the timer's ticking on this window of opportunity to completely reframe the debate on defense, international relations, and homeland security. I don't think Kerry himself can start this, though.
Regarding Marshall's speculation about why the Bushites "has had this run of stumbles", I think the answer is simple. They've always made decisions based on politics, and been richly rewarded for it. Now that the politics aren't working out perfectly, they're trying their hand at decisions based on policy.
They're not having any beginner's luck.
Good point and well put. These pussy democrats have their little focus groups that tell them "don't criticise the president because he's respected" so it becomes a reinforcing myth of his "great leadership" after September 11.
I remember old dubya flying around America, not daring to set down anywhere. Although I'm not sure what Gore would've done, I know in my gut that someone like Mcain (not someone I particularly agree with) would have got on a plane and flown directly to NY. "The people I lead are in trouble I must be with them," rather than "let's get me safe and then figure out how to respond". What kind of world do we live in when someone can act in such a panicked way on September 11, then three years later run commercials to get re-elected talking about how brave he was?
Kerry needs to take a page out of the JFK playbook. He needs to go completely hawk on Bush's ass and stage a media as his first major policy address where he should detail Bush's failure to prevent 9/11 and then his failure to respond. He should call them out as they incompetent political opportunists that they are. Coverage of this speech would blanket the media and stir up a lot of controversy. Kerry might even take a hit from Bush die-hards. But he will have effectively gut-punched the white house and grabbed the media spotlight and it will all be free.
The conventional press is still afraid to write about the sheer cowardice that the president displayed immediately after 9/11. It will take some work, and perhaps some 'off-hand' comments by kerry to explore exactly how cmd. bunnypants reacted to the atrocity. The info is readily available, but needs to be put together. The big media guns are still afraid to talk about it.
I can sum up the foreign policy of John Kerry and the Democrats quite succinctly:
Find bin Laden, bend over, and beg him not to push too hard. Repeat with Chirac, Schroeder, and anyone else who doesn't like us. Then thank them, and drag America cowering into a hole, hoping we won't get hurt.
Face it dummycrats, on the war on terror and on foreign policy, you have JACK SHIT. Compared to anything you might come up with, the Bush foreign policy record will look like a shining star.
Why we didn't step up that threat two years ago is obvious - we had to mobilize for Iraq and this gang can't walk and chew gum at the same time (frankly, they can't do them separately either).
Ain't that the truth!! Let's count the examples, shall we?
Masterful stuff, A. You've earned that TiVo.
This wonderful summation should form the framework for the foreign policy part of Kerry's acceptance speech. I'd like to see how the 'lib' press could report on the Dem convention and avoid reporting these damning truths.
Now, could you please get to work on the economy section?
A big amen to the whole post (and this from an atheist...).
I am constantly baffled when I hear the conventional wisdom repeated ad nauseum that Shrimp displayed great leadership in the war on terror. Really, what the hell is that supposed to mean? What did he do (never mind do better) than just about any other person would have done as president?
Going after the Taliban was a given. *Any* president, Repub. or Democrat would have done the same - the only difference, as Atrios points out, is that Shrub actually screwed that up.
Certainly, it is very unlikely that others would have gone to war with Iraq: just as well, since not only is that not related to the "war on terror", but it is becoming increasingly apparent to more and more people that that is so. Indeed, Iraq is proving to be a huge distraction, particularly in resources, from the anti-terror effort.
As a final aside, I note that "Bush as great leader in war on terror" was the CW even before the run-up to the war on Iraq, so it can hardly be said that this action resulted in the CW...
Great writing! How can you distribute it wider? Send it to Kerry? The NYTimes (with a little editing for 'decency')? Atrios, you're getting wider and wider coverage so you're having a bigger voice in the debate. I just hope people are reading this. I'm going to try to link it to my family and friends, but they're part of the 'choir'.
(Should the fact that bush/cheney didn't send up jets on 9/11 to intercept the last two planes be added?)
"Billions for missle defense" while reservists from MO have to take donations from their friends and neighbors to armor their HumVees before deploying to Iraq -- yah, that is the usual Bush priority.
Not enough body armor for troops in Iraq -- but Chalabi gets 4 million a year for bum "intelligence" and Halliburton charges for theoretical (unmade, unserved) dinners.
Don't you just love the fantastic way that the Commander in Chief runs his operations? Makes us proud, doesn't it?
Scorpio
http://scorpio.typepad.com/eccentricity
firebrand,
I wanted to rebut your point post by post, but I couldn't find anything meaningful.
Man it must suck to be a Bush fanboy.
We're in an alternative world where the sequence of events can be layed out so clearly and damningly, yet talk to someone in a "red" state (is Red for totalitarian?) and all they seem to know about is that gays are a threat to their marriage...wow..unreal..tell your friends
Well said Atrios and I might mention his domestic homeland security pretty much sucks wind as well, what with spending millions on ridiculous and ineffective programs like CAPPS instead of beefing up security around likely targets, like say nuclear power plants.
I'm sure you all remember those reporters who wandered around in one a few weeks ago for at least 15 or 20 minutes before they were questioned (and arrested).
Libby
Kerry needs to make a major speech outlining Bush's mistakes on TWOT. Then maybe the media might start pusahing these ideas. People like Clark have already laid the groundwork-- Kerry needs to nail it home.
Firebrand-- you're a fool. Just who was CinC during 9/11 and who let OBL get away from Tora Bora by not committing enough troops?
bravo
bravo
Rove to ad agency:
RE: New Slogan
"Hey! Our guy didn't shit his pants"
Where's that anagram generator?
"rebut your point post by post"
Ha ha
That should be 'rebut your post point by point', doh.
"maybe the media might start pusahing these ideas"
= "maybe the media might start pushing these ideas"
I'm glad to see the first stringers like Atrios and Marshall are amplifying a tactical theory that many of us lowly blog comment posters have already been saying for months. This needs to make its way into the Dem campaign. If it does, it will be great example potential power of meme-generating genetic algorithm that is the blogoshere.
The Dems will always have domestic politics on their side. Bush has so hopelessly fucked up the economy that he's never going to get it back, and is need to appeal to his theocon base are just going to alienate swing voters. In short, in terms of domestic politics, he's toast.
So the Dems should press the issue on foreign policy and security. Weaken him there, and he's totally finished. And it should be easy, because we can destroy him and his clique merely by speaking the truth.
I still believe that if the Dems find the courage to go against the inside-the-beltway conventional wisdom, and play the incredibly strong hand that they have against these "lying crooks", there's no way that Bush wins without cheating.
You know, when I type fast I drop articles and prepositions like crazy...
George Bush didn't rally the American people. The American people rallied behind the office of the presidency, as they would have any other chief executive after an attack upon the nation.
Whereupon they were betrayed by that corrupt man, who, by deliberate and systematic falsehoods, used the power of that great office to steer the nation into an unjust war.
I never quite understood how the media permitted Shrub to get away with his "run and hide" routine during the 9-11 tragedy. Someone wrote recently that Kerry's character was formed by, among other things, his Vietnam experience. Shrub's character supposedly was formed by 9-11. When did the Presidency become a proving ground for adolescent males to test their "balls?" In my opinion, he was an adolescent before 9-11 and responded like the dry-drunk he is afterward. Are we confusing leadership with cheer-leading skills?
Macho posturing by Bush & Co. on defense/terror is just that.
Scratch the surface and look at the House of Saud, House of Bush story coming out, or the Halliburton price gouging fiascos. These guys are getting nervous, and I've never seen a worse administration when it comes to playing defense.
It will be death by a thousand cuts.....
Thank you, Atrios. As a New Yorker, I always wondered how our President got credit, when he was absent during the crisis, and it was Rudy Giuliani doing his work.
The only thing I would add, however, is that Bush
immediately tried to turn the events to his ulterior political purposes. His recent exploitation of our tragedy is a consistent thread in his presidency, not an election-year novelty.
we never found Bin Laden?
Doesn't Pakistan have him? Certainly the Kurds had Saddam. Spider hole for Osama too?
Who was that masked sparkler? I wouldn't mention bending over in a sentence in praise of Prince Preciousfoot,seeing how KY 'ed his life has been. It most be awful to buy shit when you expected a diamond and then have to wear it anyway in public and describe it as the Fecalstone
Shorter Atrios:
Dear Democrats,
Attack.
Attack, attack, attack.
Attack again. And again.
And again.
Never has a better strategy been been so brilliantly rendered. You da man.
I never quite understood how the media permitted Shrub...
The media doesn't permit anything by itself--it is the duty of the opposition party to hold the president's feet to the fire. The Dems have been hiding under rocks ever since Big Bad Newt. No wonder the press has skewed so strongly right.
Just to follow up on the perverse Orwellian notion that Bush has been great in the anti-terror effort...
Most of what Bush has done has been *very bad* for the anti-terror effort. The very basic things necessary to prevent a recurrence of 9/11 remain unaddressed: more resources for first responders, more money for port inspections and airport security - all due to a fundamental ideological persuasion against expending those resources. He was adamantly opposed to a Homeland Security department, again for ideological reasons. What's that? Yes - *Bush was opposed to a Homeland Security Department*! It was the *Democrats* who pushed for it, until one day, out of thin air, up became down, black became white, not only were we not at war with Oceania, but we had never been at war with Oceania, down the memory hole...it became Bush's idea.
It's very important that the electorate be clubbed over the head with these facts. Otherwise, in the event of a terrorist attack on the US between now and election day (see Spain), there will be a rallying around Bush again - unless the people can (as they should) be persuaded that it's Bush's fault. This may seem crass, but it's not like the Republicans would be above using tragedy for political gain...
And don't forget the real reason he bombed the stone age country back to the stone age was in order to end a civil war which had been preventing Unocal from building a pipeline across the stone age country. And that once Unocal got its pipeline The BFEE was all done with said country. But I don't think I'll see Kerry mentioning this.
Christ, now we have wingnuts referring to W as a "shining star." What the fuck is next? Maybe Asscroft can write a song about W soaring on the wings of an eagle. Oh, wait, that's already been done. How about a song extolling his brush-clearing abilities? Leave out the part where he looks scared shitless when he operates a chain saw.
the Bush foreign policy record will look like a shining star.
No, firebrand- that's not a shining star--your nose is so far up W's ass that you're seeing out his mouth when he opens it.
In thinking this over, I fear I may have been too harsh on Bushco by claiming that they haven't done anything that anyone else would have done in the anti-terror effort (and in fact have done most much worse).
They did come up with that lovely Living colour scheme for terror alerts.
Except Martha Stewart is *so* last week...
Shorter Brownshirt D: "I know you are, but what am I?"
No turkee from Unka Karl for that shitty post, bwah... try again!
firebrand,
I wanted to rebut your post point by point, but I couldn't find anything meaningful.
Man it must suck to be a Bush fanboy.
Magnum | Email | Homepage | 03.13.04 - 10:38 am | #
Stab, twist, wiggle, yank.
I'm not imagining it. The trolls have been getting stupider and more illiterate lately, haven't they?
There's anothing reason for Kerry to attack on national security - because Bush is surely going to attack him on it, and only by keeping the initiative can Kerry steer the dialogue onto friendly ground, and frame the debate.
In particular, Kerry should define the issue of his voting record as a question of vision and priorities. "I want to buy equipment for our first responders; George Bush wants to build another submarine to lauch nuclear missiles as Russia."
Kerry needs to take a page out of the JFK playbook. He needs to go completely hawk on Bush's ass and stage a media as his first major policy address where he should detail Bush's failure to prevent 9/11 and then his failure to respond. He should call them out as they ,incompetent political opportunists that they are. Coverage of this speech would blanket the media and stir up a lot of controversy. Kerry might even take a hit from Bush die-hards. But he will have effectively gut-punched the white house and grabbed the media spotlight and it will all be free.
libertas | Email | Homepage | 03.13.04 - 10:30 am | #
This is the right approach! The hell with the proxies. Pound them into the dirt.
Attack! Attack! Attack!
From what I've read around the 'net and elsewhere, the Dems are well prepared for an October surprise, whenever it comes! And it needs to be said that bin Laden is merely the symbolic head of a huge, multifaceted, international terrorism network which has been around for years and years. Nothing would change if bin Laden were captured except (and this is crucial) his capture would bring on a lethal, symbolic response, wouldn't it! If they get bin Laden, tighten your seat belts or -- maybe -- quit flyin'.
Slightly OT, but later today Kerry is supposed to challenge Bush to a series of monthly debates.
link to Reuters story
"Surely, if the attack ads can start now at least we can agree to start a real discussion about America's future," Kerry said in remarks prepared for delivery in Quincy, Illinois, later on Saturday.
I can't begin to imagine the sheer entertainment factor of a monthly debate with these two. We'll be lucky to get one.
MUST BE SPOKEN REGULARLY:
If there is another attack on American soil before the year's end, it is due to Bush's FAILURE to properly handle the National Defense, and NOT due to the wiley ways of olive-skinned Evil Doers.
This needs to be HAMMERED into the sheeple's heads NOW.
I take issue with Josh saying that preznit turkee can win on national security since it was his "national security" that resulted in the WTC buildings being destroyed with thousands of lives being tragically lost. He stood there, on the RUINS and said "we will get these guys..." but didn't finish the sentence, "...just before the election but just after we invade an oil-soaked country to enrich our energy buddies."
Sorry, but the tide has turned and I think bush loses on every issue.
They ran 2 "positive" ads which were immediately bashed and dropped, they ran 2 "negative" ads which backfired and resulted in a new meme "muhammed Horton" being attached to the preznits already miserable failure of a strategery.
and Kerry now backed the cornered animal further into the corner by alleging that bushCo can't run a positive ad because there is NOTHING POSITIVE to run on so they resort to negative ads that only backfire again and again.
Preznit turkee can't run a positive ad and when he runs a negative ad, kerry bashes him, and rightfully so, for a sitting preznit to run a negative ad when if they were so electable, they could run positive ads.
Bush loses, Amurka wins.
Beautiful.
Just beautiful.
Damn but that's a fine post, Atrios.
I thoroughly agree with Streaker, upthread: this is the sort of thing that should be very widely disseminated.
More like this, please.
of course the one argument the dems can't rebut is that we haven't had another attack on America since 9/11 and the anthrax attacks. Therefore Bush has "succeeded".
I personally think the 9/11 attacks were a total fluke and could never be done again, and there may even have been some funny business to allow them to occur. But still, Bush CAN say that he's prevented another attack (although we don't even know if another one has been tried).
So the dems have to be a little careful of falling into the trap of saying that Bush has been a complete failure on national security.
Firebrand called me a dummycrat!
I'm telling!
Fuckin' A, man, that's absolutely right.
On another note, I just ordered a cool "vintage style" John Kerry 2004 T-shirt... definitely hipper design than whatever the repulicans will be wearing. kerrygear.com is the place to go for that. (oh, and it's union-printed, too)
It has not quite hit the Bushies yet that their party is over in politicizing 9/11. It's going to bite them in the ass come convention time.
I'm not imagining it. The trolls have been getting stupider and more illiterate lately, haven't they?
filkertom | Email | Homepage | 03.13.04 - 10:57 am | #
Their task is huge, their tools meager.
Firebrand called me a dummycrat!
I'm telling!
Compared to anything you might come up with, the Bush foreign policy record will look like a shining star.
actually, i agree that when compared to the millions of lost jobs, trillions in debt, white staffers going on record stating they were made to lie to congress about medicaid budget numbers, stonewalled investigations into the political slam machine and the energy task force, and other instances of misleadership too numerous to mention bush's foreign policy is the only potential shining star of his campaign by necessity.
even trash will shine in a shithole.
War is a FAILURE of foreign policy. It certainly was Bush 41's failure that caused the invasion of Kuwait and now the Shrub goes Dad one better with not one, but two wars. To me, that is a massive failure of foriegn policy.
The Art of War says that true vistory comes from not fighting. So why do people keep pointing to W as being strong on defense?
My guess is because when these chickenhawks talk about putting boots on the ground, they're not talking about their boots.
We All Know that George Bush showed "great leadership" after 9/11. How do we know that? Well, because the goddamn Democrats keep saying it.
just so. great post.
You said it. "strong on defense" the the bushCo mind means strong on offense.
Any nation can GO to war. It's PREVENTING a war that separates the bastards from the heros.
vistory = victory.
d'oh.
As I have said before.. You just don't need Kerry out there bashing Bush over security issues you need surrogates to be all over the media... coordinated repeating that there are still unanswered questions about what happen on 911? how did we let Bin Laden escape when we had him trapped in tora bora and how did we go to War in Iraq when there was no WMDs?
Wes Clark was really articulating these positions well and I would be using him in the media to reinforce.. that Bush's policies have made America less safe.
While it is now harder to sneak a nail clipper onto an airplane, we are in fact no safer today than we were on 9/10. The Madrid bombings could be repeated on any train or subway by any backpack bombers who so desire.
You know, I've always hated people who would tourture little animals, (or big animals for that matter), but there is some forbidden little thrill at poking a troll and watching him spit and snarl and his head turns around ala Linda Blair as he watches the hated "libruls" having a good time making fun of his Dear Leader. If I were you, troll boy, I'd be pushing hard for some Club Fed amenities because once the Democrats have subpoena power again your whole crooked gang is headed for jail.
Another one: military families are slowly beginning to organize an antiwar movement. WaPo article
For military families to organize against the Iraq war beforehand and during its first year, Cline [now president of Veterans for Peace and an early member of Vietnam Vets] observes, is like "Vietnam on speed."
i saw some ex-intelligence types saying on tv that the biggest problem with the war on terror is that bush and ashcroft and ridge have too much of a cops and robbers mentality instead of the cold war secret agent mentality. it's like "find the bad guys and catch 'em." for example, when the feds discovered the "terror cell" in buffalo, they just outright arrested them. what the cia would have done in the cold war was infiltrate the cell, find out what and who they know, try to get established with the higher ups, and bring down the whole network, or a least a more significant branch of the network than six american muslims who once met bin laden for ten minutes. bushco is simply too narrow minded for that. or they recognized that infiltration takes years and wouldn't have scored the immediate political points necessary for the run up to war in iraq.
Bravo! Exactly right!!
More ammo on the incompetent invaders just breaking from Australia today:
Our pilots refused to bomb 40 times
My blog post on the subject
Tullius,
But if Cuba gets an ICBM, we got that covered with our trillion dollar Star Wars defense.
What, we don't?
Oh, shit.
I think it's critical that our next president be able to defend our country more effectively than George W. Bush can.
That's why I'm going to vote for a nine-year old blind Amish girl.
To borrow from the Japanese:
"Tora, Tora, Tora!"
On the eve of a so-called "major operation" in Afghanistan - Afghanistan, where the enemy is - we have 13,500 troops in the entire country. And we have 130,000 troops bogged down in the quagmire of Iraq, where the enemy is not.
Important post you got here Atrios.
Telling the country that Bush is a national security risk is as easy as
ONE
TWO
three
toss in an ad showing the Child King FROZEN in his chair after he was told the country was "under attack"..... explain to the democrats it is ok to say..."George Bush is BAD President." ...and this evil will be toast.
as I said above, Bush can defend his record by saying we haven't another attack since 9/11.
Of course, we must point out that he was a complete and horrible failure in protecting us prior to 9/11-- particularly given that the Al Qaeda threat was clearly growing and Clinton's people warned him of it. This can't be stressed enough as far as I am concerned.
Frankly, I think there is enough shit out there to impeach Bush ten times over if we had enough fighting democrats in congress.
Atrios;
This analysis would be strengthened and made more useful to the opposition if you also provided clear, succinct rebuttals to the major Wingnut counterpoints. The one that jumps to mind first is that "No attacks have occurred on US soil since 9/11 so Bush must be doing his job well."
Did Kerry vote to appropriate money for the MDS? Maybe that's why he isn't condemning it.
great rush of a post, atrios.
sovereign eye, you nailed it. the dems were rallying behind the c-in-chief and it was the right thing to do. then.
we must write cogent letters to the editors of our local papers, we must assure our reps that we stand behind them
(hey, the parade is going that way! go lead it!)
and intend to vote, and we must continue to give funding to kerry and other dems, and even greens, to clean this corrupt trash out of power.
and we of course need to maintain our sense of humor.
so, how do we get better trolls?
maybe we should get firebrand and ricky hooked on oxycontins?
it worked for rush.
Excellently said...
I agree with those upthread pushing for more voices- I want to see a lot more of Clark, and as many of the others as we can get out there. I'd love it if Kucinich could swing up here to Minnesota... he's well-liked here and we could use the bolstering to make sure people don't burn off their vote on Nader or another fringer.
On the crooked liars... Attack, attack, attack. Never let up. Not "don't let up until they're beaten"... NEVER let up. We can never again allow these bastards the upper hand. We need to keep pounding them as long as the Republican party holds a single office.
what the cia would have done in the cold war was infiltrate the cell, find out what and who they know, try to get established with the higher ups, and bring down the whole network, or a least a more significant branch of the network than six american muslims who once met bin laden for ten minutes.
Which is probably what they were doing on 9/11.
They KNEW something was up, but nobody upstairs was willing to let them wrap up the network. So they watched them get on planes, probably wondering "Hey, Atta's getting on a plane today. I wonder where he's going this time?"
Simple as that, really, IMO.
Kerry has the opportunity to attack in a constructive way because Bushco has left so many opportunities.
He needs to pick one discernable angle and keep hammering. It is going to take a while to penetrate the thick layers of shibboleth that have been layered on America for the past three years. So, that's why the angle has to be "positive."
Something like: the war on terror will last a long time; it will consume lots of resources. We have to make sure our investments are well thought out and provide a return. 200B and counting on a non-threat is a terrible investment. Pissing off allies is a terrible investment. BB's on missle defense is a terrible investment. Here's where we should make investments. . .
By the way, if bin Laden had been caught right away, where would the threat have been that justified Iraq?
Even now, there has to be at least one boogey man out there to keep the terror going.
Don't forget wholesale decimation of our civil liberties under the Patriot Act and other objectionable laws. For instance, the FBI is currently seeking to expand even wider the scope of its wiretap powers.
>Of course, we must point out that he was a complete and horrible failure in protecting us prior to 9/11
read the articles in my post. That will accomplsh that. There is much more including info on the TWO bills proposed in congress in EARLY 2001 designed to get the country to prepare for an attack. Bush told BOTH of those bills to take a hike till Unka Dick had time for national security - as he did with the Hart Rudman report.
Bush has been a national security risk since the Supreme Court gave him the presidency.
read about those bills HERE
Besides Jose Padilla, who was alleged to be thinking about a radiological bomb, how many al-Qaeda terrorist plots in the US have been foiled?
Al-Qaeda hasn't tried any more attacks possibly because an attack that kills 20-30 people won't cut it compared to 9-11.
Didn't the Taliban offer to turn Bin Laden over to the US back in 2001 as long as his trial was held according to rules of international, rather than US justice standards? And didn't the US say no? I think the sticking point was the availability of the death penalty. There must be some documentation on this?
Has Jon Keree offically won the Democratic nomination yet? I though this Tuesday was the day he could officially wrap it up. If so, perhaps that would be the time to unleash the guns of war on national security. Please correct me if I am wrong. It's early here on the West Coast...
Bush's performance in the aftermath of 9-11 was pathetic. Most people refrained from saying so at the time because it would have been unseemly. Well, that time has long passed. I would like to hear one specific example that illustrates his "leadership" during that time. Oh yes, that bullhorn scene, blown up by Frum and others into Churchill's "blood, sweat. toil, and tears."
The "Bush is soft on terror" meme needs to start in the grass roots. We need to write our local papers explaining that we won't vote for Prince Awol because he's done a bad job on protecting America. For everyone's convenience I've posted a 450 word and a 250 word version on my blog (http://pudentilla.blogspot.com/
2004_03_01_pudentilla_archive.html#107892955732999
769) which all your readers should feel free to cut and paste.
We can thank the psychotically sex-obsessed conservative right, who went after Clinton for engaging in consensual sex which most likely distracted him from the Hart-Rudman report.
Conservative wingnuts spent $70 million trying to impeach Clinton for lying about sex, and all we have to show for it is 9/11 and 3,550+ dead Americans.
Once the dipshit cleaned out his pants he then joked about hitting the trifecta effectively laughing at the trama that Americans were going through. He is a disgusting little coward.
egg is thoughtful above, but when has Kerry ever shown much rhetorical vigor or daring? He needs a transplant of Dean-Clark plain-speaking.
egg is thoughtful above, but when has Kerry ever shown much rhetorical vigor or daring? He needs a transplant of Dean-Clark plain-speaking.
How can you attack, attack, attack after you just took out Howard Dean for attacking?
The Dems has swapped out a powerful and vociferous here-and-now candidate for a subtile, nuanced candidate with career baggage clattering behind him, including his vote for the IraqWar sideshow.
>>By the way, if bin Laden had been caught right away, where would the threat have been that justified Iraq?
Egg: You win the "Pass This On To The Kerry Campaign" Award this morning. Brilliant, cogent argument.
In essence, BushCo turned aim on a squirt gun while sitting in the mouth of a cannon.
Game, set, match.
From the annals of LexisNexis:
Copyright 2001 Boston Herald Inc.
The Boston Herald
September 12, 2001 Wednesday
HEADLINE: ATTACK ON AMERICA; Bush: America 'will pass this test' - Attack compared to Pearl Harbor
BYLINE: By Joe Battenfeld and Andrew Miga
BODY:
[...]
Bush was forced into seclusion for much of the day aboard Air Force One and at several military installations.
By nightfall, U.S. military officials were giving ominous messages that they were prepared to strike back at the suspected terrorists.
"Most of the focus is on bin Laden for this attack," U.S. Sen. John F. Kerry said in a Herald interview. "We have had a lot of intelligence over these last few months about a bin Laden attack."
Kerry, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations and Select Intelligence panels, and others said U.S. agencies have been expecting an attack for months.
[...]
"It's a day that will change our lives in this country for a long time," said Kerry. "It is a cowardly, craven attack on innocent people that hits at the heart of our cherished freedoms."
Bush, who was traveling in Florida when the attacks occurred, returned to Washington late yesterday after shuttling between several military installations in Louisiana and Nebraska.
Vice President Dick Cheney was in charge during meetings in the White House's basement situation room, while Secretary of State Colin Powell hurried back from a trip to South America.
Bush's absence from Washington during the crisis spurred questions about his whereabouts but aides said he was taking needed security precautions.
Seeking to quell any questions about his leadership, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Bush was eager to get back to the White House.[...]
But there were signs of dissent on Capitol Hill, where some lawmakers wondered if the Bush administration or the military had ignored obvious signs of a pending major terrrorist attack.
Some lawmakers said after they received high-level briefings they were left with questions about whether warning signs of a terrorist attack were ignored.
bravely bold prez georgie
so bravely ran away
bravely ran away away
when danger reared it's ugly head
he bravely turned his tail and fled
Yes brave prez georgie turned about
And gallantly chickened out..
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat
wonder if the Python folks would license it for an ad?
Clearly, Atrios is 100% correct ... example: James Carville on MTP last week saying that Bush was great after 9/11.
"Concede Nothing" March 7
more.....
Copyright 2001 Guardian Newspapers Limited
The Guardian (London)
September 13, 2001
HEADLINE: Attack on America: President: Warning of long battle as White House projects calm: Bush faces his moment of truth as the world waits for response
BYLINE: Julian Borger in Washington
When the attacks began, the president was instantly swept away by the secret service, following contingency "protocols" laid down for use in time of war. He was taken to a military base in Louisiana and then the strategic air command in Nebraska, before political concerns finally took the upper hand over security anxieties and he returned to Washington to bolster the administration's insistence that it remained in control.
In contrast to his frenetic predecessor, Bill Clinton, who had the reputation of working through the night, Mr Bush has tried to project unruffled calm. Yesterday, his spokesman, Ari Fleischer, told journalists that after addressing the nation on television at 8.30pm on Tuesday, Mr Bush held an hour-long meeting with his national security council and then retired for the evening to the residential section of the White House
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
bushie went beddy-bye.....
one more...............
Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company
The New York Times
September 12, 2001, Wednesday, Late Edition - Final
HEADLINE: A DAY OF TERROR: CONGRESS;
Horror Knows No Party As Lawmakers Huddle
BYLINE: By ALISON MITCHELL and KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
DATELINE: WASHINGTON, Sept. 11
BODY:
Dozens of members of Congress from both parties stood side by side on the East Front of the Capitol tonight and declared they would stand united behind President Bush and not bow to an attack on the nation's freedom.
At a twilight tableau intended to help calm the nation, with Capitol flags at half-staff, the leaders of House and Senate said that Congress would return to session first thing Wednesday as a statement that they would persevere in tragedy.
After their leaders spoke, the lawmakers unexpectedly punctuated their unity by bursting into a rendition of "God Bless America." Many lawmakers hugged. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, was in tears.
Representative Bob Barr, a Georgia Republican, said there was a "tremendous question about why we didn't have some warning."
Maybe Moore's new documentary will cover all of the 9/11 stuff to our great satisfaction. Time will tell.
Dean's a good man but the Repukes, with the aid of the whore media, would have torn him to shreds. They would have pummeled him with the "he dodged the Vietnam draft so he could go skiing in Aspen" bit, while praising W for his on-again off-again TANG service. The public likes simple stories. Now the Dems can hit them with: "Kerry = war hero. W = chickenshit deserter."
Atrios' post=shorter Howard Dean for the past 15 months.
Where have you people been? Dean has been hammering Bush on his reckless and irresponsible national security since day one.
The Bushies are SO weak in this dept, and Howard has been (along with Krug) one of the very few to point it out.
Seems like few here noticed....
Too bad cuz Unrelenting Offense is the way to beat the Thugs.
Fortunately, we get to see Dean and Condi Rice on MTP tomorrow morning discussing 9/11 and the Iraq War. Take it to her Howie!
Nur Al-Cubicle (great name, btw) asks: "How can you attack, attack, attack after you just took out Howard Dean for attacking?"
Well, pretty easily actually. That's the great thing about being a politician: picking the bones of your vanguished opponents' campaigns for any useful ideas and appropriating them as your own isn't just acceptable, it's basically a required survival trait.
Bushco the gang that can't talk straight
why does everyone think Bush is so strong on foriegn policy? Everyone seems to have forgotten his campaign 4 years ago, when he couldn't even name many foreign leaders, and it was generally accepted that he was clueless on foreign policy. Why has everyone forgotten this, and what can we do to make them remember?
I wish someone with some money would form a 527 with "national security" in its name and start running ads blasting bush on foreign policy and 9/11.
We need less protectin' and more moral domestic, foreign and economic policy.
You can't keep tabs on every immigrant and citizen, every train, subway, tanker and plane, every Muslim in western Asia, and every Salafist in Africa, every truck, car and waterworks.
We have to end these jackassed, cynical covert operations (like using Islam to fight the commies). We have to put the breaks on the Penal Code and Law of Public Order (Franco's crackdown on the left of 1975 which has resurfaced in the USA as PATRIOT).
If only Kerry would move away from platitudes and homilies to military service and lay out a vision that going to take us 180 degress away from Bush.
Hmm...
Bush can't find or kill bin Laden. He allows numbers of al-Qaeda to escape to Pakistan and becomes 'distracted' by Iraq for a year or so. Huge blasts in Madrid possibly by al-Qaeda. Why would a terrorist attack give a boost to Bush?
If you follow the trail, Bush is indirectly responsible, by negligence, for the attack in Madrid.
or is that too tin foil?
The Dems do have truth on their side, but should also remember that poetic "interpretations" of the truth are important. Not everything that Kerry and his surrogates say has to be verified as for a court of law. That's sure as hell not how the GOP plays the game--just get the stuff out their and let it bounce around in the voters' minds.
So, in regard to two big bugaboos:
1. Assume OBL will be found before the election. Start NOW to ask "Why have they waited until just before the election to find Osama?" The point being, these lying crooks play politics with our national security.
2. Assume, too, that there will be another terror strike. Start to say NOW that Bush has failed to make us more secure.
3. Tie both of the above to cronyism and war profiteering, including the bin Laden-Bush family ties.
FWIW, here's my contribution to the Democratic ad campaign:
Split screen, Bush reading to kids, plane hitting tower, digital time being recorded. Show Card telling him, continue digital time. Bush continues reading. Second plane hits, digital time being recorded. Bush continues reading. Back up and freeze frame on his awful glazed look. Then run the banner underneath ....
Steady leadership? Time for change.
Many national Democrats have said W did a good job with 9/11 -- is that a problem?
I think even bush said a couple of sympathetic things about Bill Clinton and then proceeded to blame him for everything, including (some repugs) 9/11.
Bush's cheerleaders are so only becasue they are oblivious to the facts. During the week Americans couldn't fly who flew bin Laden's family out of the country?
Prior to Bush's coup d'etat when he took over the White House, any hijacked plane was escorted by jet fighters within ten minutes. Why on 9/11 did hijacked planes go unescorted for 40 minutes? Was Bush sitting stock still in that classroom so that he couldn't order a shootdown?
Well said, Atrios.
Bush DIDN'T show great leadership after 9/11 and the pink tutus oughta stop saying he did.
Susan G, a version of your ad does exist at TakeBackTheMedia.com:
Bush Knew - An American Requiem
I happen to think that e-mailing this link so that others may watch it on the web may be more effective than a 30 second television spot.
I read this morning in the paper that the military is spread so thinly that more than likely, Nat. guard members who have already done a year in Iraq and come back to the U.S. are going to have to be re-deployed.
And in Spain, people interviewed by BBCs The World are blaming the train bombing on Al Qaeda and think it's the fault of the U.S. for dragging the Spanish government with it into the middle east. That's just opinions of some, but it reflects the thinking elsewhere about George Dubya's War on Terra.
The president of South Korea has been impeached, North Korea has nukes; Pakistan has been giving nukes and nuke info away -
So tell me again what a great job this administration is doing on fighting terrorism. We have an over-used military spread out all over the place, our economy is in shreds, the entire rest of the planet resents and hates us - could it get any better?
I think the tragic attack in Spain is a reminder of how Bush has made some major mistakes while waging his War on Terra.
The War in Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time.
Here's how waging war on Hussein was wrong.
-wrong threat assessment and analysis(no wmd's, no terrorist ties, not a threat)
-wrong priority, we rushed to war removal of Hussein was high priority in the war on terror...why?
-wrong policy action-massive invasion of a non threatening country. N
Keep it comin', please. OW! OW-OW! OUCH, stumbles, grabs his foot, curses, OW, OW-OW-OWWWWWWWHOA, THAT EFFIN' HURT! shrub, after kicking Rover square in the nuts, landing one to the ample backside of "Little" Dennie Hastert, takin a swipe at Foster, missing, connecting with a coffee table left over by the Clintons in the Oval Office, and hurting his big toe yet again, gotta watch that toe, doesn't want to give himself a concussion. And, lastly, sung to the cadence of any generic military boot camp training song, "George and Dickie, they don't know, how to save their ass, with their numbers so low, sound off, one, two, sound off, three, four."
I think the tragic attack in Spain is a reminder of how Bush has made some major mistakes while waging his War on Terra.
It is also a warning of how terror attacks can affect politics. Most reports I've read are saying that a close race has been blown wide open in favor of the current right wing government. We'll see.
...Bush is indirectly responsible[..] for the attack in Madrid.
Nope, that would be the Phalanagist ex-tax collector Aznar, hand-picked by Franco's man, Manuel Fraga. How smart are you to go to an unnecessary war in the Middle East when 80% of the population is against it, and you're a stone's throw from North Africa, in the throes of civil war, unrest and an a decades-long Islamic insurgency?
A lot of those street marches were not Aznar-friendly. And by the way, where's the signs solidarity from the USA? After 9/11, Madrid and Barcelona had huge outdoor demonstrations of sympathy. Where were the US crowds yesterday?
The president of South Korea has been impeached, North Korea has nukes; Pakistan has been giving nukes and nuke info away -
So tell me again what a great job this administration is doing on fighting terrorism.
Yeah! Tena's got yer frickin talking point right HERE!
hey i'm a long time lurker, very infrequent poster here and i must defend myself after seeing the troll use my name.
you'll notice a different email address for the troll, obviously a fake address.
thanks for letting me clarify - this site has been a life saver for me, turned me on to Howard Dean last year and I got heavily involved in the Philly Dean group. This place helped me get off my ass and get involved.
couldn't agree more about the main thrust of the post - Bush has been nothing but a cipher to me.
if george has made us so safe, why isn't that evidence showing up in polls.
all we need to do is make the TRUTH KNOWN.
John Kerry’s Terrorism Talk: Tough AND Smart
Echoing what others have said...
Although many in the progressive blogosphere are understandably reluctant to say so explicitly, WE ARE VERY CONCERNED THAT THERE MAY BE A MAJOR TERRORIST ATTACK ON U.S. SOIL SOMETIME BETWEEN NOW AND THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN NOVEMBER. Furthermore, we are not only concerned about the potentially tremendous loss of American lives; we are also concerned about how such a development might affect John Kerry’s chances in the general election. There. It’s been said. That wasn’t so hard was it? So how do we, and more importantly, how does John Kerry ensure that his electoral prospects aren’t negatively affected if such a scenario materializes? It’s really quite simple: Blame Bush early and often! Bear with me, the strategy is not nearly as crude as it sounds.
John Kerry has to begin working NOW to make certain that George W. Bush does not gain any additional political capital from the deaths of Americans at the hands of terrorists. Kerry should begin planting the seeds of blame in every stump speech, in every media appearance, and in every press release. The basic message is as follows: After 9/11 we should have made it our all-consuming mission to completely wipe out Al-Qaeda. Instead, Bush shifted the focus from Al-Qaeda to Saddam Hussein, allowed Al-Qaeda time to regroup, and FAILED TO TAKE THE STEPS NECESSARY TO PROTECT AMERICANS FROM THE VERY REAL THREAT THAT WE MAY, IN THE NEAR FUTURE, BE THE VICTIMS OF ANOTHER TERRORIST ATTACK.
This line of attack serves several important purposes for John Kerry. First, it shows that Kerry is actively engaged on the question of how best to protect Americans lives. Second, it allows Kerry to position himself as the more focused and more responsible guardian of American safety while simultaneously avoiding the mistake of trying to out-hawk the hawks. Third, it puts the Bush team on the defensive and forces them to justify their failure to devote the necessary resources to protecting the homeland (border integrity, first responders, state budget shortages, sea ports). Finally, in the event of a terrorist attack on American soil, this strategy gives the Kerry team the ability to say “I told you so” rather than being forced to bow down and show respect for Bush. “My heart and the hearts of all Americans go out to the families of the victims. But ladies and gentlemen this didn’t have to happen. George W. Bush has again failed to protect the lives of American citizens. My first act as President of the United States will be to…” This strategy ensures that every terror attack between now and the election (foreign or domestic) that could possibly be the work of Al-Qaeda represents another failure for the Bush administration in the war on terror. In short, every terrorist attack would serve as a testament to the Bush administration’s wrong-headed strategy and their failure to eradicate Al-Qaeda when we had the chance. Genius isn’t it?
Salt Water, thanks for the link. GREAT ad I will send to all.
I still have the evil urge to turn his own stupid campaign slogan against him though with a little liberal punctuation.
firebrand - Hey, nice to see you. This place has saved the sanity of almost everyone who posts comments here.
when the towers fell
Bush ran like the bitch he is
then he said go shop
Monkey
surveillance and infiltration are much different things. the ex-intelligence types were expressing their frustration that Bushco hadn't been using spies at all, just paid informants overseas. it was their take that spies can be much more effective when dealing with underground networks than cops. and infiltration and arrests aren't mutually exclusive. obviously, if the feds had given the airport the heads up on Atta, then things could have turned out quite different. personally, i know shit about the CIA, but i found it quite interesting to hear some careermen dissing Bushco's approach.
IMO?
"Im a loving guy" wailed a weepy eyed Bush on worldwide television,his first address to a worried nation.The "wimp factor" was ignored,even in these times of a reinvigorated and determined Democratic Party.Why?
Reframing National Security/Defense
Promote these when you call into talk radio, post on message boards and write letters to newspapers:
"Bush was asleep at the wheel on 9/11."
"In the year before 9/11 Mohammed Atta worked 24-7 to achieve his goal of murdering 3,000 Americans on US soil while Bush spent more time on vacation than any president since Dick Nixon."
"A President's job is to sort through all the national security information & advice from his people --some of it conflicting-- and make the correct judgements. With Iraq, Bush proved he can't tell the differnece between good advice and bad advice, good intelligence and BS."
"Does anyone really believe George Bush can tell the difference between good defense priorities and bad ones? Does anyone relly believe George Bush is qualified to tell us a Star Wars Missile Shield is a better way to spend $10 Billion than homelend security?"
"The next American president must be able to unify world governments around defeating international terrorists. Having misrepresented the Iraq threat, George Bush will never be trusted at his word; he is the single biggest obstacle to unifying the world against terrorists."
haiku jimmy - great haiku - it's exactly what happened.
God, how I love this red meat!
Amazingly, there are still those who slumber in this country, and take it for granted that Dear Leader has nothing but good intentions.
Kerry should start the attack this way:
We gave President Bush the benefit of the doubt when he launched the attack on Afghanistan with a minimum of troops, and relied on corrupt local warlords to find bin Laden for us. We gave the President the benefit of the doubt when he said Saddam had WMD ready to raise mushroom clouds over our cities. We gave the President the benefit of the doubt when he ignored his own generals' advice and attacked Iraq with minimum troops and no plan for reconstruction. We gave him the benefit of the doubt when he preferred to ignore the growing crisis in the Palestinian territories, refused to engage North Korea and left it to its own dangerous devices, and alienated most of the global community by summarily cancelling hard-fought treaties on global warming and non-proliferation. We gave President Bush the benefit of the doubt when he opposed the thorough investigations 9/11 security failures, made excuses for the distortions of intelligence on Iraq, and laughed off the exposure of an undercover CIA operative by members of his administration. We gave the President the benefit of the doubt when he stayed in the air most of that day on 9/11.
After three years of an administration that cynically plays on our patriotic desire to put aside doubts and support it--despite one failure, misstep and prevarication after another--we are left with no doubts at all. President Bush has done precious little to make us more secure from terrorist attack.
He has, instead, squandered billions in wars that have failed to secure their proper objectives while creating fresh brigades of sworn enemies. He has alienated our most reliable allies. He has enriched his corporate cronies with no-bid defense contracts. He has cut funding to the very people who would be responsible for dealing with another attack, cut combat pay, cut veteran's benefits. He has played on folks' fears with every vague Orange Alert.
Is this any way to strengthen America for the fight against a shadowy, determined enemy? [Insert list of policy initiatives here...]
Thank you, Tena.
nur,
Are you saying that there are still Franco backers? I thought that sonofabitch died a long time ago.
TD: Yes, Aznar is a Franco fanboy and Berlusconi is a Mussolini fanboy. Dubya's best pals.
Get Moveon.org to start the ball rolling, and Kerry to run with it:
Why was Sandy Berger's briefing ignored during the transition? Because the Bushies were too interested in the missile defence boondoggle and establishing their ideological credentials to pay any notice.
What happened in those August briefings? Bush was on yet another holiday.
Why are veterans' medical benefits being cut?
Why the 'cut and run' from Afghanistan?
Why the inadequate supplies for the supposedly best-equipped armed forces in the world when they finally got diverted to Iraq?
Why are Humvees deathtraps on wheels?
Why is homeland security still being underfunded in prime targets such as NYC, compared to not-particularly-prime targets such as Podunksville, Nebraska? (Because New Yorkers don't vote GOP.)
Etc.
But yes, we need some non-establishment Democrats to break rank here and abandon the conventional wisdom that Bush was oh-so-tuff post-9/11, when that toughness extended to:
a) Bombing the shit out of Afghanistan;
b) Paying off a bunch of thugs to do the work on the ground;
c) Letting Bin Laden get away.
d) Leaving Afghanistan basically in the hands of said thugs, to be paid off again and again, or risk them being paid off by someone else.
The free pass Bush has received got us:
1. The PATRIOT Act
2. The joint resolution for Operation Doin' It For Daddy In I-Raq
3. Operation Flightsuit.
So, perhaps a brief shot of Flightsuit Boy and that Mission Accomplished banner, followed by the names of all the Americans killed in Iraq since (or, to avoid allegations of 'exploitation', a running count) might be worth sketching out for an ad.
Do you think if President George W. Bush is re-elected we will have, at least, one more war?
Did you answer yes? I bet most people would say 'yes' when asked this question, and then re-evaluate who they are supporting for president. Maybe they would think about living at war for four more years. Try asking someone else this question, see what happens.
The PP is the descendant of the l'Alianza popular, where all the Phalangists went in 1979. But with the commies out, Aznar has been able to pull the PP towards the center right and appeal to the Christian Democrats.
The PP is run like the Republican Party, with think-tanks, Christianity, nationalism in high doses and zero tolerance dissention. The new guy, Rejoy, is comes out of the Alizana popular too.
You know, when I type fast I drop articles and prepositions like crazy...
mondo dentro
we could tell you were typing fast since it came out in italics
Does anyone else here recall the news footage of Bush disembarking his Presidential helicopter late at night, either the night or 9/11 or the next night, and Bush with shoulders slumped and him staggering away?
Wish MoveOn cd get hold of that footage...
Pudentilla, please don't post long URLs in the comments section.
The blow out the Haloscan formatting and make it very difficult for others to read the comments.
It's VERY EASY to embed a URL link in your comments.
Please see the web pages I've set up at:
http://tinyurl.com/2bzyk,
or:
http://web.newsguy.com/christucker/tips.html
for details on how to embed a URL, use tinyurl.com or use the "HOMEPAGE" field above the comments boc.
Thank you for your kind attention!
"Maybe Moore's new documentary will cover all of the 9/11 stuff to our great satisfaction. Time will tell.
Prof Boot"
I just wish we could trust
Moore to gat all his facts right, and not just run with whatever sounds best to him. I mean, his heart's in the right place, and he can be wicked funny, but what's needed here is credibility, given the almost mind-numbing seriousness of the charge. "To illustrate a principle, one must exaggerate much and one must omit much ", some old dead Frenchman said, and Moore has certainly illustrated a few principles. What we need here, though, is an expose of wrongdoing that will play in Peoria.
The Right will still think he sucks, the Left will still think he rocks, but it's the Shroedinger's Voters in the Soft Chewy Center™ that really count.
Don't you just hate that?
Democrats need to make the point that only with a strong economy can we defeat the terrorists. Bush, by running huge deficits and by causing slow job growth is hindering our effort to take on the evil doers.
The only winner when America runs a huge deficit is Osama Bin Laden.
nur,
But they won't come right out and say they're Nazi sympthathizers? I mean, let's not have a reprise of the Spanish Civil War.
Said it before, I'll say it again, shrub is shooting himself in the foot so frequenly now that he must be down to three or for toes, if the shit keeps flying at this pace, come Nov., the Miserable Failure will have to be wheeled around the WH in a frickin' wheelchair. Might get him the sympathy vote though.......
" This place has saved the sanity of almost everyone who posts comments here.
Tena"
And addicted more than a few of us...
this is a great post with a great thread. i hope kerry or some of his surrogates (who i think have been very weak on pundit shows) take note.
i don't know sqaut about economics. of course it's clear bush is just running the country for his rich buddies, just like reagan did, albeit, perhaps not so brazenly. can anyone say "crooked (war mongering) liars"
i don't know, nor do i care how well kerry will be on economy. but clearly one of the most pressing concerns of the new cent. is nuclear proliferation and international terrorism.
some one up the thread said "The next American President must be able to unify the worlds goverments around defeating international terrorism" and in this regard it is very clear that bush is the great divider.
just watched a couple of talkin heads on FOX noting how kerrys' campaign responded to the econ. portion of bushes ads and not the weak on terrorism part. but it is, and perhaps this is blind faith, my belief that kerry has the sophistication and foriegn policy experience to take this country and more importantly the world in that 'unified direction'. it seems so important to me that even tho i don't believe in politics, haven't voted in 27 years of eligibility, i registered as a dem. this to be sure i could vote for kerry in fl. primary. and even tho it was a done deal i did go and vote. they better not screw it up i think the safty of the free world depends on it.
KICK his ASS KERRY (not that i'm angry or angry or anything) peace, charley
I was once in an on-the-job accident. I was the victim of another person's error. As I rehabed, people were very kind to me, solicitous and generous. I remember thinking in a small-minded way "this ain't so bad, if I didn't hurt like hell." I also knew it was only a break and wouldn't last.
It reminds me of Bush and 9-11. Only, he recieved the outpouring of support, without feeling any pain. And he thought he could manipulate things so we'd all just keep giving.
That's what really has America pissed, I think. He and his well-placed friends usurped our poin for their selfish interest. I dearly hope we don't let them get away with it, but I'm a long way from gloating.
" This place has saved the sanity of almost everyone who posts comments here.
Tena"
And addicted more than a few of us...
And as we approach the first anniversary of the start of the Iraq War, I remember fondly all the ppro-war types that used to flock here and to other blogs, heavily criticizing us for our anti-war positions, calling us all sorts of lovely names and questioning out patriotism.
I miss the little darlings. Where, oh where, have they gone?
our patriotism
Re: "Hey! Our guy didn't shit his pants"
Where's that anagram generator?
I think this is the perfect advice for a Smirking Chimp who insists he's a united, not a divider: "Shh! Deny thy disputatious grin"
on Social Security "reform": "Duh! I spy shortsighted annuity"
on supporting the troops: "I shortsighted; punish any duty"
on being aWol: "Thy distinguish duty person? Ha!"
on resisting creation of 9/11 commission: "Hey, stop Saudi NY shindig truth"
I remember fondly all the pro-war types that used to flock here... Where, oh where, have they gone?
But, pie, did you support Saddam Hussein? Hm? Didya? Didya?
There. How was that? Does that make you feel all nostalgic?
Absolutely right. We need to say this loud and clear.
>>" This place has saved the sanity of almost everyone who posts comments here.
Tena"
And addicted more than a few of us...
Goober
I'm happy to say that I gave up swearing and posting at Eschaton for LentTM.
Aw . . . goddamnit.
Thank you, Atrios! We need to cry it from the rooftops: Bush is weak on defense. Bush fiddled while New York City burned.
Bush ignored the Hart-Rudman report. Bush ignored the Gore Commission repost on aviation safety. Condi didn't hold any meetings on terrorism before 9-11. Ashcroft called for cuts in the counterterrorism budget for the FBI. Junior was on a month-long vacation in Texas. and on and on ad nauseum.
Now he is stonewalling the 9-11 Commission and condescends to give them more than the alloted hour to ask his Highness questions. What a miserable record.
Goober and pie - Yes, addictive is right. But I thank the gods and goddesses for this addiction on a daily basis by continuing to spend more time here than I probably should. It has taken me about a year to finally realize that I'm not going to be able to guilt myself out of doing this - I actually believe it is important. How's that for rationalization?
********************************************
I'm still convinced that if there is another attack in the U.S. prior to the election, Chimpy will hang for it. He and Rove better be praying like mofos that it doesn't happen.
That post is exactly right. We shouldn't back down on national security, or the war on terrorism.
The truth is, the Bush administration took their eye off the ball. Instead of doing the job (they had bipartisan consensus to do it for crying out loud), they decided to turn it into something a lot more visible for political gain.
These guys are not ready for prime time. They're rookies. They're know-nothings. They're not serious about terrorism. We need to send the little boys and girls to bed so the adults can get back in charge.
"Bin Laden, the stated architect of the 9/11 attacks..."
Other than the blatantly bogus Osama videotape, has there been any hard evidence that OBL was the mastermind?
Kevin is right that huge deficits weaken our country and make us all more vulnerable. I think that Kerry should tie that into the picture on the miserable state of our foreign policy.
Excellent post. From Atrios' keyboard to Kerry's ear. If we can't fuck up the SCLM's Bush=9/11 hero meme, we can't win and possibly don't deserve to.
Somebody upthread mentioned Jose Padilla. This case has always struck me as the very worst of Bushco's diversionary bullshit (besides Iraq). You may recall, P was arrested in the immediate wake of FBI veteran Colleen Rowley's incredibly damning cong testimony about her regional office doing everything it could to stymie and thwart probes of Al-Q plans. Padilla's arrest was ballyhooed by Ashcroft as a major deal that saved us from a nuke terror attack. I remember the the WaPo's 180-pt headlines and pages of coverage, sidebars, etc. I recall sitting at the lunch table with my colleagues, poring over the coverage and observing things like only in paragraph 18 do they say what he was actually accused of doing, and on what evidence. And buried deep inside the paper, even the WaPo had to admit it was basically a few thoughts in his head and a drawing. He had NO plan in any sense of the word, NO network, NO materials or records of any attempts to acquire them, NO specialized technical knowledge, in short no goddamn nothing but some street-loser karma and a passing acquaintance at some point with some Afghan mujahedeen. My colleagues were as struck as I was by my pointing out this example of the Post serving as total Bushco megaphone on such paper-thin pretext.
To me Padilla is the most chilling (yet, anyway) example of poster boy for Bushcroft's war on terror, which on their terms is strictly psyops on us all. Some Kafka for our age should novelize P as the most perfectly wrong-place wrong-time sap in post-9/11 US history. Padilla is truly us all, without the protective veneer of whiteness and/or social respectability that we imagine will save us from these insane power-mad monsters.
"Was Bush sitting stock still in that classroom so that he couldn't order a shootdown?"
I've wondered that myself. I mean, the FAA knew there were four hijacked airliners and one had already crashed into WTC when Bush went into that classroom.
Bush's response was "What a bad pilot, nyuk nyuk!" Now, most people know that commercial jetliners do not just slam into buildings - even when a plane is in distress and going down, pilots will do everything to get a plane away from population centers, as was the case with Alaska Flight 163 that crashed in the Pacific Ocean while trying to make an emergency landing at LAX. And Bush, who lets us know almost daily he was a brave fighter pilot shuttling tropical plants to Texas, should have known this was not just a "bad pilot".
The fact he sat in that classroom and continued reading just stinks to high heaven.
OT, but anyone feel a draft?
Time to study history. Tonkin Gulf, Reichstad Fire, Pearl Harbor, ad nauseum. The US has not had a terrorist attack under w's "great leadership", because he hasn't need another one yet.
It's been somehow overlooked that the plan to invade Afghanistan, for which Bush is given far too much credit as a rapid reponse to 9/11, was actually in the planning stages since at least the previous MAY 2001. 9/11 just made it much ore convenient to spin.
Full details and links at
http://
www.cooperativeresearch.n...Aafghanwar.html
Yep, we can all return to being the punching bag for al-qaida that Clinton cast us as before 9/11.
There. How was that? Does that make you feel all nostalgic?
Thanks, mondo. Now it makes me want to take Attila up there and sla...
Attila, everyone here knows who's to blame for failing to follow up on the Clinton administration's strategy to target Al Qaeda.
When Richard Clarke's book comes out at the end of the month, you are going to look like an even bigger fool.
Quit while you're behind, will you? You can't back up anything you say with facts, because you don't have any.
Now git.
[i]Thousands of Taliban and al Qaeda members were allowed to escape to Pakistan, defeating much of the purpose of said bombing,[/i]
Kerry -- and every true American -- should ask the Bush administration about Qunduz (aka Kunduz).
That was the place where thousands of Taliban, al Qaeda and their Pakistani military "advisors" were holed up at the height of the US campaign against Taliban.
What happened to them?
Rumsfeld let Pakistani planes evacuate thousands of "sensitive" personnel from Qunduz.
And now we are back to square# 1 for the umpteenth time, trying one more spring offensive.
This administration has screwed with US national security for some crazy alliance with the Pakis and the Saudis.
Here's one I came up with last night:
"George W. Bush spent 200 billion of your dollars, 500 hundred American lives, and a precious year of the world's War on Terror keeping Saddam Hussein from giving weapons he didn't have to terrorists he didn't know. Is this responsible leadership?"
I got a whole lot of variations on that one.
Something that was sort of mentioned up-thread, but...
Bush's economy is so bad that we're in deeply in debt to China and Saudi Arabia. Forget for a moments about his inability to catch OBL and the idiocy of Iraq's threat...
When we go in debt to another country, we basically become a debtor and they become the bank. We give them Treasury Bills to make up the real-money difference that we can't pay them.
If China and Saudi Arabia called in ALL the debt we owed them tomorrow, we simply would not be able to pay. Our, and the world's economy would pretty well implode. Of course, China and the Saudis don't really want this to happen, but they could leverage enough pressure on us to make our economy go bad for a very long time.
This could be used as a form of economic terrorism. We don't have an ecomonic army, but Bush treats the debt like its his best friend, happily forgetting that Saudi's flew the planes into the towers, and oh yeah, China has WMD's pointed right f'n at us!!!!
He says he's tough on terror, yet we treat China, a nation that has the most to gain from American losses, like our best friend, despite their obvious antipathy toward us. This is a solid foreign policy? Remember how he kowtowed to the Chinese after they stole our spy plane? He's only good at kicking tiny countries, apparently.
He's an idiot, and worse yet, a bully. Our economy hangs in the balance, and yet he won't turn back from the void...
LOL! Follow up on what? How many times did al-qaida hit us under Clinton? Do mean he FINALLY was going to do something REAL about it? Funny, he had eight years. Or is this "clinton plan" just something else cooked up at the end of his term to cover for his failures.
Having mulled this over, I think the following phrasing may well be a useful way to frame the war policy of the Bush administration and their weaknesses on defense:
America was attacked under the leadership of George W. Bush because the terrorists who did so knew that President Bush might be foolish enough to seek retribution against the wrong country, which is exactly what President Bush foolishly did.
***
While perhaps a useful way to frame the debate, however, I don't happen to believe that the foregoing is exactly accurate (tending to believe that Al Qaida is still a front group of the CIA), therefore I cannot in good conscience swear to the proposed meme. Those who do find agreement in it are welcome to do with it as they wish.
TK, yeah, the real long-term threat is China, and the real clear and present danger is the jihad-spreading Saudi Arabia.
But I guess too many of W's friends and family have money at stake in these countries.
So yeah, Salt Water, that is why he attacked the wrong country. It is as if FDR had attacked The Philippines to avenge Pearl Harbor.
The easy rejoinder to Freeperati trolls and a reminder to all thinking Americans:
"George W. Bush: Also president on 10 September, 2001."
LOL! Follow up on what? How many times did al-qaida hit us under Clinton? Do mean he FINALLY was going to do something REAL about it? Funny, he had eight years.
Uh oh, looks someone forgot one of the most basic of traditional values: "two wrongs don't make a right". Of course, you neocons never take responsibility for anything, do you?
But, OK--you've got a point, Attila the Neocon. It was much better for the country that the unpatriotic slimeballs on your side of the aisle distracted Clinton and the ENTIRE FUCKING INTELLIGENCE APPARATUS for 8 years out of sheer spite, and ended up humiliating and weakening him AND THE ENTIRE COUNTRY in the eyes of our foes. And for WHAT exactly? For having a sex life.
Sanctimonious, traitorious scum.
Look, all you need are 20 cold-blodded thugs and an architect to blow shit up. If that's terrorism then how do you fight it? Profiling all of us as a terrorist until proven innocent?
While Bush has everyone apprehensive about the next terra strike, he's winning. Because this is turning our attention away from seeing that he's cutting taxes, transferring wealth to wealthy, gutting as many environmental protections and government services.
It should be added, regarding my proposed meme, that this tack may likely rub the wrong way with Americans who at some point or another in some way or another supported the Iraq Action.
This possibly accounts for the popularity of Sen. Kerry over the more consistent stances of Rep. Kucinich and Gov. Dean, as people seem to sympathize with Kerry's error which reflects their own misunderstanding.
Crunchy - Bush's sitting in that classroom after he was told the country was under attack that just drives me wild. I cannot get my head around the idea of a president being told that the country is under attack and then just continuing to sit in a classroom and read to preschoolers. It doesn't make any fucking sense whatsoever.
>Didn't the Taliban offer to turn Bin Laden over to the US back in 2001 as long as his trial was held according to rules of international, rather than US justice standards? And didn't the US say no? I think the sticking point was the availability of the death penalty. There must be some documentation on this?
Amy, I saw something on this at the whitehouse.gov site. It was a question asked during a press briefing about an Indian newspaper reporting that OBL might be handed over to some authorities. Ari, or whoever, was doing the briefing said "You'd have to ask State about it."
Atrios- shouldn't that be miserable failure in your post?
He's an idiot, and worse yet, a bully.
He has bad judgement and, worse, he's an ideologue. Unfortunately, he's only the tip of the iceberg of a retrograde powerful political movement that will drive our country over the cliff.
Salt Water:Actually, for a lot of people, that's really "what went wrong" with the Dean campaign.
In a nutshell, Dean was seen as too forthcoming on those various mistakes. People who were either undecided, or actually made the same mistake were deeply insulted.
Actually, you have to add the whole tone of his campaign, which was "We're not perfect, we can do better", which I think turned off a lot of casual Dems, who actually like thinking that America is perfect.
Just my opinion...
How many times did al-qaida hit us under Clinton? Do mean he FINALLY was going to do something REAL about it? Funny, he had eight years. Or is this "clinton plan" just something else cooked up at the end of his term to cover for his failures.
attila
quality vs. quantity. bush was asleep at the wheel for months leading up to 9/11, ignoring warnings from Berger and the intelligence agencies. now, it's understandable that bush wouldn't have taken the warnings too seriously, seeing as how he doesn't read the paper and thus never heard of al queda or maybe even the WTC, but you can be sure clinton would have at least tried to respond to the warnings.
now, git along little doggie.
This analysis would be strengthened and made more useful to the opposition if you also provided clear, succinct rebuttals to the major Wingnut counterpoints. The one that jumps to mind first is that "No attacks have occurred on US soil since 9/11 so Bush must be doing his job well."
Anthrax.
....the Miserable Failure will have to be wheeled around the WH in a frickin' wheelchair. Might get him the sympathy vote though.......
the kid
like Bob Roberts?
Atila the Neocon blames the Clenis for 9/11, but how does he explain this from The Boston Herald
September 12, 2001:
"Most of the focus is on bin Laden for this attack," U.S. Sen. John F. Kerry said in a Herald interview. "We have had a lot of intelligence over these last few months about a bin Laden attack."
Kerry, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations and Select Intelligence panels, and others said U.S. agencies have been expecting an attack for months.
Your neocon friends were asleep at the wheel FOR MONTHS, Attila, regardless of what was done in the Clinton Administration. What happened in the Clinton Administration is irrelevant. It was your buddies in charge of the nation's security from January 20, 2001 to September 11, 2001. The Bush Administration HAD BEEN EXPECTING AN ATTACK FOR MONTHS.
It must be hard to be a Bush Apologist these days.
Something no one on this thread has mentioned, but that should definitely be part of Kerry's attack on Bush's national security "credentials":
Bush has completely ignored the protocols that were put in place under Clinton to allow us to purchase Soviet nuclear stockpiles, so that the economically-strapped republics of the former Soviet Union wouldn't be tempted to sell them to less savory parties. Bush has done nothing to secure these stockpiles. There they sit, ready and waiting for any terrorist who makes a high enough bid to finally break the resolve of those in charge of guarding them in these economically ravaged countries. They are ticking time bombs.
Meanwhile, thank God we got Saddam and have a missile defense shield that doesn't work!
I wonder how many of these nuclear warheads we could have secured with the $200 billion + Bush squandered on his Excellent Iraqi Adventure and his Star Wars boondoggle?
Keery should promise that if elected,
he will release all PDFs (presidential
daily briefings from CIA) so that
the 9-11 commission and Congress,
yes Congresss requested but were
rebuted by Bush, can see if our prez
was warned by the CIA pre-911.
Kerry should also promise that he will
release all 911 related materials ie
FAA, NORAD, etc..these records are
being classified as we speak.
I am confident that Cheney issued
orders to NORAD to stand down waiting for further instructions from the WH and the prez but Cheney refered to it as "order to shootdown".
Remember Meyers was NORAD boss on 9-11 , yes the same Meyers who is the chairman of joints chiefs today. No coincidenece, friends like the national guard boss today is the same guy who helped destroy his NG records in TX.
Bush is known for his loyalty so all of these events happen for reasons.
Amy and Eliza: Yes, there was some negotiation, but the Taliban was not recognized as a legitimate government, its human rights record was dismal, it was engaged in a protracted civil war. The only money it was getting was in return for shutting down the country's opium industry. Al-Qaida had become an important source of funds and a defacto imperial guard for the Taliban leadership. Its influence had already displaced that of a number of Afghan warlords within the upper echelons. It is suspected that the puritanical wahhabinist al-Qaida, for instance, were behind the demolition of the Banyan Buddhas. How serious were the Taliban about handing over bin Laden? Probably not very serious, and maybe not able to make a deal.
Clinton had arrived at the point, after two years of chasing Osama with missiles and the disappointment of having a plan to use Pakistani commandos destroyed by Pervez Musharref's coup, of planning an invasion of Afghanistan (plans for which were left on Bush's desk, essentially, and formed the basis of the October 2001 invasion, according to Condoleeza Rice). Clinton had personally ordered the arming of the Predator drones with missiles (no mean feat given that the missiles way as much as the drone) after a Predator may have spotted bin Laden. These were deployable in summer 2001, but Bush's CIA and the Pentagon squabbled over rules of engagement and who was to operate them. When those missiles weren't deployed by Bush, the United States was pretty much, and unknowingly, committed to invasion.
About the Busheviks not being able to walk and chew gum at the same time, in retrospect the "escape" of Osamma from Tora Bora looks rather more sinister than mere ineptitude. We now know that the real war they began to plan for after 911 was Iraq. Afghanistan was just a prelude.
With that in mind, it doesn't require a tinfoil hat to realize that the triumphant capture of evildoer number one in '01 or early '02 would have put a big damper on using 911 as the "pearl harbor event" to justify agressive war on Iraq in '03.
If they really had Osamma on Tora Bora, did they let him go? Steady leadership.
Anthrax.
That doesn't count, Seraphiel. That stuff was done by decent God-fearin' Amurricans. Gotta stop that One-World government that the Jew-and-Homosexual lobby are pushing for.
Attila, Last I checked Clinton isn't running to be the President in 2004. So please, quit running against him and using him as Bushco's scapegoat and cover.
Anyway, fwiw I seem to remember many republican criticisms of "Wag the Dog" incident when Clinton did attempt that missile strike against OBL. Funny how that is with rethuglicans, Clinton was damned when he did act against OBL, but now he's damned because he didn't do enough. Can't have it both ways, although that doesn't stop rethugs from trying.
Lastly from what I know it was also rethuglicans in Congress that are responsible for sponsering many counter-terrorism funding cuts during Clinton's tenure and the early Bush budgets. Ashcoft himself cut that part of his budget.
I agree wholeheartedly that Kerry needs to start putting his national security/foreign policy/war on terror plans at the center of his campaign. I disagree, however, that he should just focus on where Bush failed. Sure, he should mention the 8 months of Bush taking terrorism lightly and the corrupt, inept and ideological campaign in Iraq. But he needs to place HIS strategic vision at the center. His UCLA speech did a nice job laying it all out. And strangely (or not so strangely), on a strategic level, it sounded a lot like Bush. Retain the right to use pre-emptive force. Attack states that harbor terrorists. Use all means - including military, intel and law enforcement - to track down terrorists and infiltrate and destroy terrorist networks. There were some strategic differences. Encourage our allies to work with us - not by ceding our sovereignty to the French but by recognizing that even our troublesome allies play important roles in the larger campaign (like in Afghanistan where French and German troops play leading roles). Expand the military by 40,000 troops. Most of the strategic vision is similar to Bush's. The differences, for the most part, are matters of tactics and execution.
Kerry needs to put this front and center. Right now, because Kerry just came through a Democratic primary where voters rate WOT as a lower concern than the general electorate, Kerry might be mistaken for Kucinich. Kerry is not Kucinich and he needs to let voters know that. Right now Bush leads on the war on terror issue by about 62 to 37. If Kerry came forward with his vision on defense then the number will close to around 53 to 47. At this level the war on terror becomes less of a Bush plus. And more importantly, Kerry makes himself more immune to external events (finding Osama).
You need to apologize for saying this out loud.
Yep, we can all return to being the punching bag for al-qaida that Clinton cast us as before 9/11.
Attila the Neocon
I don't remember Bush warning of the gathering threat of terrorism from Al Queda during the 2000 campaign. Would you direct me to any comments he made on the subject prior to 911?
The one that jumps to mind first is that "No attacks have occurred on US soil since 9/11 so Bush must be doing his job well."
Part of a response to that issue would be Ridge's recent statement that the threat from Al Qaeda is as high as it has ever been. (Google for it.)
I agree wholeheartedly that Kerry needs to start putting his national security/foreign policy/war on terror plans at the center of his campaign...But he needs to place HIS strategic vision at the center.
I don't disagree in principle, Elrod--but these two things are really one and the same. You can't talk about your vision without talking about the limitations of the old one.
And strangely (or not so strangely), on a strategic level, it sounded a lot like Bush.
Politically speaking, Elrod, that's why attacking failures is so important: it makes for a better distinction. Saying "the previous guy is a fuck up, and I'm not" is much more clear to the voters who make their decisions based entirely on what they see on the boob tube.
I don't remember Bush warning of the gathering threat of terrorism from Al Queda during the 2000 campaign.
That's because at that time he was focused on a far greater threat: a long period of peace and prosperity with a liberal at the helm of the government.
Kerry needs to start putting his national security/foreign policy/war on terror plans at the center of his campaign.
I agree Kerry should go on the offensive on that issue, but I disagree that it should be the center of the campaign.
Polls show that voters care most about economic issues right now, which is actually very rational -- few Americans actually face a threat of death or injury by terrorism. On economic issues, Bush is perceived as weak and is actually weak, and voters give Dems and Kerry much more credibility on those issues. It adds up to a strong win for Kerry on the most important issue on voters' minds.
Facing Bush down on national security is something that must be done, but it's both less important and harder to do than on economic issues. Bush is actually weak, but is perceived as being strong, on national security. So the perception needs to be overcome, which is never easy to do.
OT: Spain arrests 3 Moroccans and 2 Indians, as well a 2 Spaniards of Indian origin in connection with Thurday's bombings.
Also, unreported in the US press, scuffling broke out during yesterday's demos in Spain as protesters alleged a cover-up. Most Spaniards don't believe the ETA story and think that AQ was behind the bombings.
Get Wesley Clark in front of the camera *now*.
sharkbabe, thanks for that concise summaryof the bullshit/nightmare that is the Padilla case. The heart of it is, he's an american citizen, he was arrested on US soil, he's never been charged or allowed to see a lawyer. Stop the thugs.
I was a poet an I didn't know it
Preznit give me turkee gats 1/2 credit for inspiration
Don't laugh (or I'll kill you)
Here goes:
Georgi Porgie President of lies
Slaps the CIA and makes them cry
But when the terrorists came out to play
Georgie Porgie ran away
OT. Spanish police find an unexploded bomb wired to a cellphone in the train wreckage. Arrests were made after tracing purchase of the phone's SIM card.
Most Spaniards don't believe the ETA story and think that AQ was behind the bombings.
Some are speculating that the government doesn't want AQ tied to the attack, since they fear then they would be held responsible because they allied themselves with Bush. (I won't say "allied with the US", since Bush and the Neocons do not represent the US--they represent only their own interests, at our expense.)
Yep, we can all return to being the punching bag for al-qaida that Clinton cast us as before 9/11.
Attila the Neocon
---------
I don't remember Bush warning of the gathering threat of terrorism from Al Queda during the 2000 campaign. Would you direct me to any comments he made on the subject prior to 911
-------
Don't have to. All Bush is going to have to do is point to is what happened AFTER 9/11 as opposed to the absence of any action during the previous strikes al-qaida made during the previous 8 years, thus emboldening them to make ever bigger attacks.
Crunchy - Bush's sitting in that classroom after he was told the country was under attack that just drives me wild. I cannot get my head around the idea of a president being told that the country is under attack and then just continuing to sit in a classroom and read to preschoolers. It doesn't make any fucking sense whatsoever.
Sure it does. He was expecting someone else to do something. I'm sure he thought:
"America is under attack? Well, I'll just sit here on my ass for about 15 minutes because I don't want to scare these kids by leaving in the middle of their reading to me. Plus, Cheney is really in charge, I'm sure he'll take care of it."
His behavior is especially irresponsible because this stop WAS ON HIS PUBLIC ITINERARY. That means that any assassins KNEW WHERE HE WAS.
Heads should have fucking ROLLED at the SS for not picking his ass up and tossing him in the Van.
Polls show that voters care most about economic issues right now, which is actually very rational
As I said above, the Dems already OWN domestic policy, in reality and in the polls. Furthermore, those polls will change in a heartbeat with the first bomb blast.
No, Kerry must position himself so that (1) he attacks Bush's supposed strength, forcing him to waste resources defending himself; and (2) if there is a terror strike it will be seen as proof positive of Bush's incompetence.
Reposted from my comment at Matthew Gross' blog:
A bank teller I know only slightly was commiserating with me about rising gas prices. Out of the blue she said that it was the Middle Eastern countries that want to get rid of Bush that are raising the prices on purpose. It took my breath away. I mentioned that Bush was in the oil business before he was president and maybe it's his cozy relationships with Exxon, Mobile, etc that was causing this. Oh no, she said, the was Bush's rightous war on terror and the evil Middle East that was to blame.
And this from an otherwise smart woman in the heart of Florida. So, if the Kerry campaign wants to win, this is what they'll have to address and soon.
grytpype,
When I say central to the campaign I don't mean at the expense of the economy. I just mean that Kerry can't put defense at the bottom of some list. That will look like he's running scared. We can make national defense into a Kerry winner or at least a wash. But we can't do that by pretending that most voters don't care about it deeply.
Mondo centro,
I disagree that focusing on Bush fuckups is enough. The retort could easily be, "well how would you have done it differently?", or "Monday morning quarterback". If Kerry lets voters know how strong his strategic stance is on terror - and voters, including many disaffected Republicans and Independents, really do pay attention to this (what do you think Wesley Clark's campaign was all about) - then that puts him in position to critique Bush's failure to follow a coherent vision. It also shields him in case Osama appears out of a birthday cake in October. If Kerry's defense policy is nothing more than "Bush fucked up", and then Bush gets Osama (forget the obvious politicization of it that everyone around here recognizes), then Bush's failures get explained away quite easily as minor setbacks in a larger and more successful effort.
All Bush is going to have to do is point to is what happened AFTER 9/11
That's interesting. That's all Kerry is going to have to do, too.
Generalisimo Francisco Franco is STILL CRITICALLY DEAD
Anybody need the news for the hearing impaired version ?
The arrest in Spain today of 3 Moroccans and 2 Indians in connection with the Madrid bombings may suggest that Bush shares some of the blame for dragging Spain, against the wishes of its people, into the Iraq war. Talk about foreign policy disasters!
Don't have to. All Bush is going to have to do is point to is what happened AFTER 9/11 as opposed to the absence of any action during the previous strikes al-qaida made during the previous 8 years, thus emboldening them to make ever bigger attacks.
You, sir, are a fucking idiot.
Let me start with your name. Atilla was a terrorist. Why are you sporting a TERRORIST'S name as your psuedonym? You know what Attila's people used to do? They would pick a village in the region they were invading, encircle it, and KILL EVERYTHING IN IT. Men, women, children, animals.
Then they would demand tribute from the surrounding countryside. Effective, but not exactly very noble or worthy of emulation.
Bush's "actions after 9/11" have been HORRIBLE in every sense of the word.
Afghanistan: OBL not caught yet. AQ still active, Taliban still active. US controls Kabul, Warlords control countryside, and Opium crop this year largest ever.
Iraq: Chaos.
World: Massive damage to US credibility. Next time we say "Country X has WMD", we're NOT going to be believed.
Rogue States: No longer a need for WMD, since Iraq has popped the aura of invincibility balloon we used to have. Now countries can see that all you need to deter a US invasion are RPGs, IEDs, and dedication.
AQ: Still around, recruiting is high, plenty of sympathetic groups willing to follow their example, thanks to the Crusade Bush launched.
Homeland Security: Bush FOUGHT DHS for MONTHS, until it became clear that it was going to have strong bipartisan support, then it suddenly became his darling. How is this leadership? You tell me.
9/11: He SAT THERE FOR 15 MINUTES after being told "America is under attack." Nuff said.
Although one could mention that he pushed for bills that would exempt the airlines from being sued for negligence, which might have subpeonaed documents from his administration. Also, money promised but never delivered for first responders, port security, etc.
If Bush thinks he's got a sterling record for his post 9/11 behavior, he's in for a rude fucking awakening.
The only great leadership Bush showed after 9/11 is that he miraculously failed to shit his pants while giving a speech post-9/11. Just about everything else has been a total disaster .
Wait a minute... I was busy in the backyard with my BBQ and beer... Are you saying? No. It can't be, it just can't be...WHEN did ALL this HAPPEN?
BTW I called my neighbor. His dog shat in my yard AGAIN. I'm gonna have to pull that bush he likes out.
Don't have to. All Bush is going to have to do is point to is what happened AFTER 9/11 as opposed to the absence of any action during the previous strikes al-qaida made during the previous 8 years, thus emboldening them to make ever bigger attacks.
Attila the Neocon
Sort of hard to do much of anything with the right-wing looking up your crack for 8 years.
If Kerry's defense policy is nothing more than "Bush fucked up"
Elrod, like I said, I don't disagree with you in principle. But I did not say that Kerry should just focus on Bush's fuckups. I said two things: "Bush fucked up" (what the previous guy did) "and I won't" (what I'll do).
Wonkish position papers are important, but getting all wonkish is a sure-fire loser on the campaign trail and in the sound bite world.
I cannot get my head around the idea of a president being told that the country is under attack and then just continuing to sit in a classroom and read to preschoolers. It doesn't make any fucking sense whatsoever.
It makes perfect sense when you realize he's a dimwitted puppet of the guys who are really in charge.
Terry Mac's a piece of shit anyway, but if there's any deviation from this flawless policy pearl Atrios posted and Dim party line in the next months, especially something like Kerry apologizing for telling the truth while the mic was still on, it will be cause for Unpleasant Letters to be sent.
Quoth the Rove: Attack! Attack! Attack!
Just read an article in Time about some of the people that are thought to be on the short list for National Security Adviser or Secretary of State. They include Berger, Holbrook, Biden, and Mitchell. Some of Kerry's advisers feel his commitment to intelligence reform would require a Republican as Secretary of Defense, who'd be able to secure the support of Captiol Hill in the battle with the Pentagon over funding, since the Pentagon controls 90% of the spy budget.
One name being considered?
John McCain.
Where o where has my little troll gone
the Dems already OWN domestic policy,
OK, but we can't take that for granted. The advantage the Dems have on domestic policy needs to be exploited. That's how we beat George the Greater, by the way.
atrios for vp!
No time to read the whole thread, but don't forget the outing of Valerie Plame. Nuclear proliferation may be our greatest national security threat. Bush and his cronies damaged the effort to stop it by their crass political vendetta. And Bush could have gotten to the bottom of it immediately. He is still protecting the persons who are a threat to our national security. We should be screaming about this.
A bank teller I know only slightly was commiserating with me about rising gas prices. Out of the blue she said that it was the Middle Eastern countries that want to get rid of Bush that are raising the prices on purpose. It took my breath away. I mentioned that Bush was in the oil business before he was president and maybe it's his cozy relationships with Exxon, Mobile, etc that was causing this. Oh no, she said, the was Bush's rightous war on terror and the evil Middle East that was to blame....
vachon
maybe you should have said something along the lines of: "yeah, just like the utility companies in CA had to raise prices because they caused that 'shortage.' I think it's because the oil companies know that this is the last chance that they'll have to loot since aWol's going down"
All Bush is going to have to do is point to is what happened AFTER 9/11 as opposed to the absence of any action during the previous strikes al-qaida made during the previous 8 years...
You mean the strikes the brownshirts (like Lott) loudly and publically denounced as unneeded? Or the actions Clinton's staff put directly in front of Tipsy's chief advisors when they moved into the White House that were completely ignored?
Or the reports from his own intelligence services that Tipsy was too fucking drunk to listen to during his "vacation" on August 6, 2001?
Answer any one you want, you moronic brownshirt fuck. Then start kissing the Clenis' ass.
Attila, your forgetting one major thing. Bush had 8 f-ing months to do something! He was in charge. He was briefed numerous times about the threat Al qeada posed and did nothing about it! What was Bushco's plan for dealing with Al qeada pre 9-11? As others have noted, there weren't any plans, Why? You will never be able to pass that off epecially since Al qaeda continues to perpetrate attacks as noted from the tragic events in Madrid. But go ahead and keep blaming Clinton for all of Dubya's blunders, he's not running for office.
Well, this is not exactly a surprise now, is it? Fucking bastards always were more interested in messing around with other people's governments than with actually protecting their own country. Fucking seize all their property (other than giving them serviceable hard-ons, capital punishment means nothing to cons; Bush would be much more upset with government seizure of all his assets).
And if I didn't make it clear enough for you, brownshirt, let's make it simple enough for even an imbecile like you to figure out: You can't spell "9/11" without W!
Best to Unka Karl...
A little less vague and maybe someone in a turtleneck would notice if he wasn't predisposed to domestic policy news:
Washington has been channeling hundreds of thousands of dollars to fund the political opponents of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez - including those who briefly overthrew the democratically elected leader in a coup two years ago.
Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act reveal that, in 2002, America paid more than a million dollars to those political groups in what it claims is an ongoing effort to build democracy and "strengthen political parties". Mr Chavez has seized on the information, telling Washington to "get its hands off Venezuela".
The revelation about America's funding of Mr Chavez's opponents comes as the president is facing a possible recall referendum and has been rocked by a series of violent street demonstrations in which at least eight people have died. His opponents, who include politicians, some labor leaders, media executives and former managers at the state oil company, are trying to collect sufficient signatures to force a national vote. The documents reveal that one of the group's organizing the collection of signatures - Sumate - received $53,400 (£30,000) from the US last September.
OK, but we can't take [domestic politics] for granted.
Agreed, grytpype. It's a difficult balancing act.
All Bush is going to have to do is point to is what happened AFTER 9/11 as opposed to the absence of any action during the previous strikes al-qaida made during the previous 8 years, thus emboldening them to make ever bigger attacks.
Attila the Neocon
You might have a smidgen of an argument if Bush's asshats had lifted a finger against Al-Qaeda between inauguration and 9/11. Instead, Cheney's anti-terrorism taskforce threw out the Hart-Rudman recommendations and never even convened a single meeting.
A prime example would be the Bushies' failure to act on the outgoing administration's conclusion in Jan 2001 that Bin Laden was behind the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen.
When Clinton fired 70 cruise missiles into Afghanistan in 1998 to attack Al-Qaeda training camps, two weeks after our embassies were bombed in Africa, the cock-hunting Republicans shouted wag-the-dog, as if this was all an irrelevant distraction from the more important issue of Monica Lewinsky.
over at lazypundit he has just posted that Kerry failed to make a statement on the Madrid bombings
Kerry has made a statement and did so promptly when will lazypundit make the correction.
Yeah. That's why the White House has done all it could to stymie inquiries into presidential conduct between 21 January and 11 September 2001. Because they're confident that they can point to Bush's record after 11 September and erase whatever feelings of betrayal Bush's negligence before 11 September might engender in the American people. Unfortunately for us, Karl Rove is a lot smarter than Attila, here. He remembers the shitstorm that hit the White House in the late summer of 2002, with a Murdoc rag displaying a banner headline "BUSH KNEW." Another one of those and Karl might have to get a real job.
I'm actually nostalgic for the day when we had the occaisional thinking troll stop by. If this Attila is the best the Freeperati have, I can only imagine that the rest of the freeps are out secretly trying to get jobs with the Kerry campaign, or lined up at an Armed Forces Recruiting Center hunting a frontline billet in the Clash of Civilizations, and have sent this cannon fodder here to distract us while they slip out the back door.
(Just kidding with that Recruiting Center part. No way would that happen.)
Attila needs to change his name to:
Attila bin conned
Woo hoo. Thousands of Spaniards protest in front of PP Party headquarters
From Il Corriere [Milan]
Thousands of protesters in Spain have gathered in from of Partito Popolare headquarters in Madrid. They are demanding the resignation of the government, which they allege attempted to cover up the news of the arrests [see upthread] until Monday to keep their hold on power but have been thwarted by public indignation and outcry. As the protesters are clamoring to 'send the PP packing' in tomorrow's election, [Aznar's successor]Mariano Rejoy is on live TV now, calling the demonstration illegal and undemocratic.
Mondo centro,
Kerry doesn't have to get wonkish on his WOT vision. He can boil it down to a crisp speech with lots of punchy slogans. In fact, he should do it on the Senate floor where he can get free air time (though not in Senatorialspeak). It should be part of introducing his bill to aid US troops. Have the whole Democratic Senate there to cheer him on.
But Kerry voted against supporting the troops in Iraq.
Oh, wait, he voted against an appropriation gutted of any meaningful oversight by Republicans who have used that flaw to enrich their friends at the expense of the troops. Had others in congress been as patriotic and honest, we wouldn't have had all the Halliburton fraud and other waste.
Yep, we can all return to being the punching bag for al-qaida that Clinton cast us as before 9/11.
Attila the Neocon
Where to begin...
1. 9-11 was under bushies watch and it was much bigger than a punching bag. I guess it is Clinton's fault that bush ignored ALL of the intel beforehand. The current admin doesn't have cahones and likes to blame Clinton. What kind of leadership is that?
2. Learn how to spell Al Qaeda. Unless... you don't think they are a major threat.
3. Do you know what a NeoCon is? I'm pretty sure Attila wasn't one.
What was "heroic" about Bush post 9/11? He merely gave the Pentagon, the most awesome military machine in history, authorization to attack Afghanistan. All the skill and bravery was displayed by the armed forces. Bush merely did what any president would have done, the only thing he could do.
Bush merely did what any president would have done, the only thing he could do.
Except that he, of course, didn't see it through and fucked it up.
Miserable Failure.
now lazypundit justifies not correcting the error because he couldn't fnd it on google news
he's now explaining not only is he lazy but ignorant
Life on Planet Glenn --if he can't find it it didn't happen.
email him pundit@instapundit.com and demand he take down or correct the post that claims Kerry has made no statement on the bombings in Madrid when he did so on Thursday. The lack of media covering Kerry's statement is not his fault.
And unlike Bush he tries not to politicize other people's tragedies
Bush did throw out the first pitch after 9-11. Where was Kerry?
Anyone who has not seen this should; it's ten minutes of BBC News Night with Greg Palast on George W-for-Wahhabi bin Saud bin Laden al Bush and his little dual loyalty problem. Or at least it would be if Bush gave a single American's life about this country.
3000 people died on our soil because of his faithful service to his Saudi friends. Far from anything like "strong on defense" Bush is a positive problem, an enemy of the state, a traitor and a terrorist and he should be arrested.
gomen, forgot to add that it's real player.
And, lest we forget, this administration LIED for a full 8 months after the 9/11 attacks, continuing to claim "we had NO WARNING of any attacks." Which of course was subsequently parsed as "we had vague warnings but had NO IDEA what form the attacks would take, or where, or when."
Which is why Ashcroft stopped flying commercial flights in June 2001.
Bush did throw out the first pitch after 9-11. Where was Kerry?
Kerry was in DC on 9/11 and 9/12 while your scared little bushie was cowering in a corner, going to bed early. Throw out the first pitch your lying ass. Bush displayed himself to be the coward he is.
"I'm still convinced that if there is another attack in the U.S. prior to the election, Chimpy will hang for it. He and Rove better be praying like mofos that it doesn't happen.
Tena "
i'd be more worried they'll let it happen again, in say october, and suspend elections entirely.
their greed is apparently not sated yet.
OT- let's all call our reps today and ask them to re-vote on the medicare bill, now these new revelations are out.
it could work.
c'mon, kerry. rope a dope.
Kerry has raised more than $10 million on the Internet since he March 2.
If we keep it up at this pace, that would be over 20 million a month.
I know I have sent in three contributions in the last two weeks! And I will continue to do so.
Dig deep into those pockets...
c'mon, kerry. rope a dope.
Indeed. Hit 'em with the right fist (national security) until September. Take away any initiative that the GOP convention would have in bringing terrorism back into the debate. Don't ever take it out of play. Then, just when Rove is struggling to figure out how Kerry managed to pull even with Bush in the polling numbers on national security, hit 'em with the left fist (it's the economy stupid).
Kerry during the debate:
Not only is Bush a failure on national security, but he's spent the past eight months talking exclusively about terrorists while the economy continues to sputter. I for one believe the economy is also a matter of national security.
No job security, no social security and no national security. That's the legacy Bush has left us. America it's time for a change.
Phredd,
The "pitch" was sarcasm. Do you remember how all the pundits were saying how brave it was for Georgie boy to pitch a baseball? IMHO He did throw like a girl. Probably too much chearleading in school and not enough of the guy sports.
"Bush ran and hid and then didn't stop wetting his pants until 3 days later."
But before the coward could get his tail between his legs and head for the hills, he sat there with the monkey look and his thumb up his ass for five minutes after being told of the second hit on the WTC. Remember, the only thing this moron did before 9/11 was attend fundraisers and "read" to photo-op second graders.
Bush is not only a coward, he's a sissy. Ever see a picture of him on a horse on his "ranch" down in Texas? Of couse you haven't. He's afraid of horses! Lace Panties is afraid of horses! Some Texas rancher! Why, even the brain-dead Reagan had the balls to climb on the back of a horse and sit there smartly.
Did I mention Bush was a cheerleader? A cheerleader, for chrissakes! What more proof do you need that this pussy is light in the loafers. You show me a redneck NASCAR dad who likes Bush and I'll show you a redneck NASCAR dad whose slip is showing.
Damn straight on that leadership thing. Who knew all that cheerleading experience would be so helpful?
He is the only cheerleader I have ever seen avoid the game on purpose.
I guess that he finally decided he had to go; Guliani was stealing all his thunder. It was way too obvious... W. tucked his teeny tiny tail in his pants and ran to the site in a desperate panic about not being the center of attention.
Spanish police find an unexploded bomb wired to a cellphone in the train wreckage. Arrests were made after tracing purchase of the phone's SIM card.
Police work and procedures are absolutely KEY to counter-terrorism.
Anyone who says otherwise is a liar with an agenda.
I think what Democrats did, praising Bush's leadership after 9/11 was necessary just to give the sorry coward some confidence.
Bush had an incredible moment where partisanship could have been set aside for the nation's good, but he chose to exploit the moment instead.
THAT may be Bush's greatest failure.
Atrios,
You're getting better with age. Keep up the good work and pass on your words of wisdom to the Kerry camp.
outsource this:http://www.cafeshops.com/crazymichaels
OT: More trouble for Bush's boy Aznar:
The Spanish government, and particularly Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, has been linked by the mercenaries to the coup. He was alleged to be in line to get oil concessions from Moto.
link
You're getting better with age. Keep up the good work and pass on your words of wisdom to the Kerry camp.
Luxor
hopefully Big John is reading the blog of Atrios "Smith" right now, wondering why he's getting all these contributions from
"How many times did al-qaida hit us under Clinton? Do mean he FINALLY was going to do something REAL about it? Funny, he had eight years. Or is this "clinton plan" just something else cooked up at the end of his term to cover for his failures."
Attila, you're obviously unaware that after Clinton left office and briefed the incoming administration, the Bush administration scaled DOWN the counterterrorism effort.
Police work and procedures are absolutely KEY to counter-terrorism.
Excuse me, but don't you mean the key to post-terrorism? I'd say moral foreign policy, for starters, is the key to counter-terrorism.
Meanwhile, spontaneous protests against the PP in Spain spread to Barcelona, Santiago de Compostela, Bilbao, Seville, Gajon, Valencia and Valladolid.
Phredd,
The "pitch" was sarcasm.
Neo the AttilaCon
Sorry, Neo. I must have been too far into my Righteous Outrage mode. My bad. Now that I think about it, that was funny....
Actually Atilla, there are Al Queda attacks on American targets every day since March last year. They are all happening in Iraq, at least if we believe George W. Bush himself. After all, is it not they, and "Saddam Loyalists" who are killing on average an American a day over there?
As much whiskey as Bush used to drink, never heard about him getting into a fight. I used to drink whiskey and get into fights every weekend. Got chipped teeth and scars on my head and even a bite mark on my shoulder when some dude bit me during a fight. Bush must have only smacked Laura around.
(and just to add, are they still "Saddam Loyalists" now they've got no chance of ever restoring him to power? And more intruiging still, if it's not foriegn terrorists killing American's in Iraq, does this mean the "Fly Paper Strategy" is now officially nonsense...?)
George Donaldson,
I gotta love your way of putting the Bush masculinity problem.
Bush's whole life has been built around the idea that other, real men have to do the heavy lifting for him. I mean, the guy cheerleads the Vietnam War, but makes sure that, for him, it is NOT a participatory sport. In business and in government, it's always been the same: he's on the sidelines, with some real peppy talk, but everyone else does work.
Isn't that what some people would call an effete, entitled, maybe even effeminate, aristocrat?
Neo,
You're killing me. The first pitch at Yankee Stadium in October 2001 was the ONLY time I approved of George W. Bush. I'm not kidding. I refer to that moment as the one time when I didn't despise Bush.
He's a Yankee fan? Ugh, even more reason to despise him.
Also, Bush THREE times told the military to back off from attacking Zarqawi in Iraq because he wanted those terrorist camps still there to help justify the war. See:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/
Atilla, aren't you embarassed about having obsessed over Clinton's dick and sperm for eight years?
Excuse me, but don't you mean the key to post-terrorism? I'd say moral foreign policy, for starters, is the key to counter-terrorism.
I should have said a major key.
Finding guys with boxcutters or backpack bombs can't be done with a military force -- cases must be investigated on an individual basis with an ear to the ground.
"George Bush didn't rally the American people. The American people rallied behind the office of the presidency, as they would have any other chief executive after an attack upon the nation.
"Whereupon they were betrayed by that corrupt man, who, by deliberate and systematic falsehoods, used the power of that great office to steer the nation into an unjust war."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
This phenomenon is exactly why mainstream Democrats were too chickenshit to attack a president on national security, until two years passed and it was "safe."
It's this lemming-like American political culture: too many people feel some kind of "patriotic" obligation to rally around "our commander-in-chief" in wartime. And true, there is a bipartisan tendency to do it under any president. Carter got CINC blips in the polls after the seizure of the hostages, the invasion of Afghanistan, and the failed rescue mission.
Americans, unfortunately, forget how to be Americans during "wartime." Our liberties come, not from "our troops" (name the last war that was actually for "our liberties"), but from our own population's native distrust of authority and willingness to resist being pushed around by the government. In wartime, these same anti-authoritarian hell-raisers put aside their skepticism and hard-headedness, and feel morally obligated to believe whatever they're told by "our leaders."
If you believe in the small-r republican theory of government, the "office of the presidency" is nothing but the hired help. It is entitled to no more respect (and no less criticism and scrutiny) than the city dog-catcher.
Any people that rallies around the office of the presidency without asking tough questions, deserves to be betrayed.
In addition to Gen. Clark, the Dem's have a formidable stable of military experts, veterans and decorated war heroes who should be in the spotlight advancing the message of Bush's national security incompetence. Short list:
fmr. Sen. Bob Kerry
Sen. Daniel Inouye
Rep. Fred Murtha
fmr. Sen. Gary Hart
Rand Beers (works for Kerry campaign)
fmr. Sen. Max Cleland
***As much whiskey as Bush used to drink, never heard about him getting into a fight. I used to drink whiskey and get into fights every weekend.***
After one of his drunken adventures, a 30-something-year old W challenged his 50-something-year-old father to fight "mano-a-mano." Ha! I can just hear him saying it. What a girl.
the child king fails again. from CJR
The report was a devastating indictment of the "fragmented and inadequate" structures and strategies already in place to prevent, and then respond to, the attacks on U.S. cities, which the commissioners predicted. Hart specifically mentioned the lack of preparation for "a weapon of mass destruction in a high-rise building." But the report was not simply alarmist. It was unusually constructive, avoiding grandiose language for a step-by-step blueprint of what urgently needed to be done to create a National Homeland Security Agency, revive the frontline public services, and pull together the forty discrete official bodies with responsibility for national security.
......
Hearings were scheduled for the week of May 7. But the White House stymied the move. It did not want Congress out front on the issue, not least with a report originated by a Democratic president and an ousted Republican speaker. On May 5, the administration announced that, rather than adopting Hart-Rudman, it was forming its own committee headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, who was expected to report in October. "The administration actually slowed down response to Hart-Rudman when momentum was building in the spring," says Gingrich.
_________
note: Cheney's group never met...
Bush FAILS again. Totally not prepared for the job.
Bush administration officials told former Sens. Gary Hart, D-Colo., and Warren Rudman, R-N.H., that they preferred instead to put aside the recommendations issued in the January report by the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century. Instead, the White House announced in May that it would have Vice President Dick Cheney study the potential problem of domestic terrorism -- which the bipartisan group had already spent two and a half years studying -- while assigning responsibility for dealing with the issue to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, headed by former Bush campaign manager Joe Allbaugh.
The Hart-Rudman Commission had specifically recommended that the issue of terrorism was such a threat it needed far more than FEMA's attention.
Before the White House decided to go in its own direction, Congress seemed to be taking the commission's suggestions seriously, according to Hart and Rudman. "Frankly, the White House shut it down," Hart says. "The president said 'Please wait, we're going to turn this over to the vice president. We believe FEMA is competent to coordinate this effort.' And so Congress moved on to other things, like tax cuts and the issue of the day."
pie:
When Richard Clarke's book comes out at the end of the month, you are going to look like an even bigger fool.
I am anxiously awaiting this book. It comes out a week from Tuesday IIRC, but I haven't heard anything other than rumour as to its contents. Has any one seen/heard of an excerpt or review?
If the rumours are true, it's going to be absolutely devestating. That is, if the media decides the story isn't too complicated for people to understand.
It's this lemming-like American political culture: too many people feel some kind of "patriotic" obligation to rally around "our commander-in-chief" in wartime.
It's the downside of having a head of state or commander-in-chief who's an elected official. You don't get that, say, in Australia or the UK, where war's done in the name of HMQ, rather than the PM. Perhaps you need a constitutional amendment to distance the c-in-c-ship from the presidency?
Rumor has it that Bin laden has been captured.
check out www.witnessreport.com
Well, if we had concentrated all of our effort (money and people we are currently using in Iraq) to root out the real terrorists, maybe the tragedy in Spain may have been avoided.
bin laden captured just before clarke's book?
hmmm.
check the body for freezer burn.
Spanish police find an unexploded bomb wired to a cellphone in the train wreckage. Arrests were made after tracing purchase of the phone's SIM card.
Police work and procedures are absolutely KEY to counter-terrorism.
Damn straight. The Bush Administration needs to drop the John Wayne bullshit and go learn how counter-terrorism is really done, with behind-the-scenes effective policing and investigation, in Europe.
Most European countries have faced enough real terrorist threats for decades from the IRA, ETA, Red Brigades, Baader-Meinhof, Algerians and the rest to develop countermeasures that, strangely enough, do not involve invading unrelated countries in the Middle East.
I have been bleating about these same issues since 9/11 and the boy idiot and his Keystone Kops bungled the aftermath.
Only to our horror has the true extent of the bungling, etc, become so obvious.
It is one of the reasons why Dean initailly was so successful, he articulated what we felt in our hearts and were screaming to our fellow choir members.
I have never understood the role playing of gentlemen politicians that the Dems have been playing, vs. the Republicans tactics of hardball.
Why does it take a Howard Stern to point out that the emporer has no clothes and never did?
While I do not want to sink to the scumbag level of the Repugs in their lies, and total disrespect for humanity, there is nothing wrong with speaking the fucking TRUTH! Nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade, as we have too much at stake to be polite anymore. The truth will expose these vermin and they will be slinking away after election day, unless they electronically steal the election, which is not out of the question.
And speaking of that, why are not the Dems in the most safe seats calling for all voting machines to have a paper trail? Why are they not howling from the roof tops about the electronic election fraud that has already taken place? I guess our only hope is to send Bev Harris' book and website to Howard Stern and let someone with balls tell the world about what may lie in store for our nation if we don't get these things fixed.
Dear President Bush:
Thank you for teaching me that politics matters.
I'll be voting D this year.
Dear President Bush:
Thank you for teaching me that political apathy is for suckers.
I'll be voting D this year.
Dear President Bush:
Thank you for challenging me to raise my voice.
I'll be voting D this year.
Pointing out that Bush 'ran and hid' is Limbaughian bullshit, Atrios. Do you honestly think it would have been better for Bush to jet back to the White House while planes were falling into buildings??
While Bush probably is a coward at heart, spiriting the Prezident away into hiding is pure SOP.
Aside from that, an excellent post.
Let's not be so mystified about why people believe Bush handled the aftermath of 9/11 so well. It was all psychology and appearances, but psychology and appearances matter. Americans were troubled and scared and worried. They wanted to be able to place their confidence in a leader. They wanted to be led and to be reassured. And Bush read an eloquent and well-written speech (that he himself had no role whatsover in draftng) and he delivered those words with the kind of confident authority that put people at ease and convinced them precisely of what they wanted and needed to be convinced of-- that someone had a firm hand on the tiller. Mission accomplished. This is what Bush is a master at.
If after that he went on to screw everything up, it didn't matter, because he had connected with America during that early moment of doubt and psychological need.
Kerry needs, I think, to recognize this and give Bush credit for it, and then go on to say that it takes a helluva lot more than one good speech to make America safe and to chart a successful foreign policy in a dangerous world. Like, for example, a little bit of knowledge about the rest of the world tends to be an asset. Alienating all your allies while uniting your enemies tends to be an ineffective strategy. Stuff like that.
you guys are frikin idiots
YES, YOU ARE RIGHT ATRIOS, I TOTALLY AGREE
YES, YOU ARE RIGHT ATRIOS, I TOTALLY AGREE
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
