Never. Forget.
By: Lisa On: Sep/11/04 - 65 Comments
RobertWell this news certainly calls for huge bonuses for the management! Afer all, they are politically-connected...
Fred Dawesthis is what happens when you have a PC Army how sad but will become normal place in the coming years of...
Fred DawesLooks like the real civil war is about to start 12 to 20 killed at ft.hood and the FBI Said its not mulsims...
Former Army OfficerGee let’s use some common sense here (A rarity in DC I’m sure.) If you’re a top...
Former Army OfficerSince San Fran Nan closed the press conference, who did someone from the opposition get in with a...
Former Army OfficerThere won’t be any working poor to live off of if this and the crap and tax bill passes. The...
Former Army OfficerBush may have pushed for laws to allow them to come here, BUT this guy came during the CLINTON...
Former Army OfficerNow if the fact that the voters in Maine are actually somewhat conservative would soak in to their...
RobertHa ha ha! WHAT a pathetic douchebag! He just makes up his own criteria, which by definition then makes his...
PamDid you say spin Robert? Look for my Next post..he can spin!
RobertWell maybe Olbermann is cloistered away preparing a magnificent way to spin all of this into a crowning victory...
PamIn order to soak the rich properly and by properly, I mean soak them so everything is paid for, the tax rate would...
PamI believe the network news applied the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Policy on this story
libbie basherBeing that this filthy bag of dog sh#t is a Muslim, and not a Christian, will anyone be surprised if...
Fred DawesThe end of a nation has come the end of freedom and laws and the ideals of duty not just to a nation state...
Fred DawesIf you go back to 2004 bush helped to get laws that would allow millions of muslims to come here. Thank you...
Fred DawesOne word, Yes!
RobertIf this is so wonderful and necessary, and Pelosi and other demagogues want so much to tax the rich, I hereby...
StoutcatThanks for linking. The commenter raises a very good question here. Patrick at The Moderate Voice puts it a...
Fred Dawes(who can possibly read a 1,990 page law) the lawyers who work for the big boys who will make billions on...
September 11, 2004 - 06:56 PM on September 11th, 2004
I wish all the names had pictures with them. I am surprised that Barbara Olson’s picture is missing. She was such a regular on Maher’s show and on Fox.
One other name, Daniel W. Song. A Korean immigrant who grew up in Appleton, WI. Dan’s picture should e there, too.
September 12, 2004 - 09:28 AM on September 12th, 2004
Lets never forget what happened on that day in 2001 when our country was attack by a bunch of cowards who are always wearing hoods and masks to hide their cowardly faces and always also remember that FREEDOM IS NEVER FREE:cool::cool::smile:
September 12, 2004 - 11:26 AM on September 12th, 2004
I’ll never forget:
Bush was asleep at the wheel. He never beefed up security at airports despite the 8 months of warnings he recieved from his own agencies, the Clinton Admin., foreign governments, his own staff.
Then when the families of victims of 9/11 wanted Congress to investigate Bush dragged his feet, again! Because he knew what would be uncovered..
…he was aloof!!!!
http://www.9-11commission.gov/
September 12, 2004 - 10:26 PM on September 12th, 2004
Ted Olson pleaded Bush’s case before the Supreme Court and convinced them to appoint Bush.
Bush was more pre-occupied with stealing the election, and going on vacation than he was fighting terrorism.
Now, Olsen’s wife is dead.
September 12, 2004 - 11:46 PM on September 12th, 2004
DG- how can you have such disrespect toward the 9/11 victims and their families by posting such crap? Bush didn’t steal the election- I bet if California would have counted the 1.5 million military ballots (which they never do- isn’t that disenfranchising) there would have never been a doubt that Bush won. Gore tried to steal the election by suing and using the courts. That is totally disgusting. Right on Snowy Egret!!!!
September 13, 2004 - 09:19 AM on September 13th, 2004
Da union Goon is mentally ill. Maybe it is time tu start putting the mentally ill in institutions, not letting them become cases for the ACLU to sue the local government about.
September 15, 2004 - 06:01 PM on September 15th, 2004
You buddy Rush Limbaugh likes the ACLU…
…now that they tried to help him hide his drug problem.
BTW…
…Bush is the one disrespecting the victims of 9/11.
Can you name one relative of the victims that did NOT want an independent investigation into 9/11?
Bush didn’t want one and tried to stop it for 14 months!!!
September 15, 2004 - 07:38 PM on September 15th, 2004
Da union Goon, what successful company is there owned and run by the unions using the union tenets you espouse? NONE, ya creep.
September 16, 2004 - 02:56 AM on September 16th, 2004
DG- read the 9/11 Commission hearing report so you can be better informed. Rush Limbaugh deserves the help of the ACLU- if they wouldn’t have stepped up and helped him, you might as well kiss your med record privacy good bye. He was also a man, stood up and took full responsibilty. What happened to the traffickers that were trying to blackmail him? He got treatment, like Tipper Gore, and is fine now. I’m sure it isn’t easy for him but at least he is doing it.
I’m glad they held hearings concerning 9/11- it shows the weak spots we had, in the CLinton years and yes, the Bush years.The families needed the closure, especially those that their relatives bodies weren’t found. There is no need to try to name any “ONE” relative of the victims- they’ve been through enough. He was careful on what to release because of the threat to our nation. He’s not covering anything up.
September 16, 2004 - 10:37 AM on September 16th, 2004
U.S. Intelligence Shows Pessimism on Iraq’s Future
thank goodness it’s U.S. Intelligence – i guess that means things are going good. or is Bush still standing by his pre Iraq war statement :i think thing the intelligence i get is darn good intelligence”.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/16/politics/16intel.html?hp=&pagewanted=print&position=
September 16, 2004 - 11:55 AM on September 16th, 2004
in that there is a war going on, i am somewhat disappointed there isn’t more discussion about it.
there’s a classified National Intelligence Estimate prepared for President Bush in July that is fairly important; at least i think so.
this is our future we’re talking about. imporant stuff, this.
best
September 16, 2004 - 12:03 PM on September 16th, 2004
Here’s some good stuff to ponder, Shiloh:
September 16, 2004 - 12:19 PM on September 16th, 2004
Access denied.
K this is what i get following your lunk – the software barring me from my favorite porn sites also does religion, politics etc…i tried
Access to URL: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/kirsanow200409150623.asp.
Has been blocked due to a URL Category violation.
Category: [General News; Politics, Opinion, and Religion]
September 16, 2004 - 12:28 PM on September 16th, 2004
Here’s the post – sorry for the length, Lisa.
Where No Reporter Has Gone Before…
Twenty more questions for any Kerry interviewer.
By Peter Kirsanow
Here’s a second set of questions the media should pose to John Kerry (for the first, click here). The same premises apply as in the first set: only policy-related questions; nothing to do with the Swifties (who’ve since posed their own set of questions); no “gotcha” questions; several softballs; and, all posed in a respectful manner:
1. You’ve repeatedly demanded Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation over Abu Ghraib prison abuse. In light of such demand, please respond to the following:
a. Given your confession that you committed atrocities in Vietnam, including burning villages and using 50-caliber machine guns on people, shouldn’t you, then, withdraw from presidential consideration?
b. If your answer is “no,” please explain why a secretary of Defense should be held to a higher standard than an aspiring president who personally committed atrocities objectively more horrific than the abuses for which you hold Rumsfeld accountable.
2. You now state that Iraq was “the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time,” yet just a few weeks ago you stated that knowing what you know now you’d still authorize the war. Why would you still vote for a war that is wrong?
a. If the war was wrong, do you maintain Saddam should still be in power? If not, how would you remove him?
b. Which of the following is your primary objection to the Iraq war:
(1) that it shouldn’t have been fought?
(2) that it was in the wrong location?
(3) that the timing was bad?
c. If your answer’s either (2) or (3) above, where should the war have been fought and when?
3. During your eight-year tenure on the Senate Intelligence Committee, you missed more than three-fourths of its public meetings. You refuse to release your attendance reports for the committee’s closed classified briefings. Why shouldn’t voters infer that disclosure of these attendance reports would reveal that you neglected to attend numerous classified briefings?
a. If you did miss any classified briefings, what duties were you tending to that were more important than attending the briefings?
4. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the president lied about the reasons for going into Iraq. Presumably, this means that the intelligence data didn’t support the reasons given by the president. You had the same intelligence data on Iraq as the president, yet you voted to authorize the war. Why, then, did you knowingly vote for a lie?
a. By doing so, didn’t you also lie to the American people?
b. If so, will you, therefore, urge your supporters to stop running ads declaring that “Bush Lied”?
c. If you maintain that you didn’t lie, is it because you neglected to read the intelligence reports prior to the vote?
5. Assuming your definition of a lie is the same as Webster’s, i.e., a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive, please specifically identify which of the following statements in President Bush’s 2003 State of the Union Address are lies:
a. Saddam aids and protects terrorists;
b. Saddam has used weapons of mass destruction;
c. Saddam deceived weapons inspectors;
d. Saddam sought uranium from Africa;
e. Saddam has pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.
6. What do you consider to be your most important accomplishment as lt. governor to Michael Dukakis?
7. You’ve criticized the president for acting “unilaterally.” As president, would you have gone into Afghanistan without France’s approval?
a. Would you have gone into Afghanistan without the approval of France, Germany, and Russia?
b. Please describe your criteria for going to war.
8. You’ve stated you would appoint only pro-choice judges to the federal bench. Would you agree that, even if it’s not your intent, such a litmus test could disproportionately disqualify Catholic nominees?
a. What would you do to ensure that your abortion litmus test wouldn’t have a disparate impact against Catholics?
9. Do you think there’s waste in the federal government? If so, could you kindly identify ten wasteful government programs that you’d eliminate and why?
10. What do you consider to be your most important accomplishment during your nearly 20 years as a senator?
11. You once entertained supporting charter schools but backed off after teachers’ unions objected. You were once critical of affirmative action but backed off after some civil-rights organizations protested. In June you stated you might appoint some pro-life judges but backed off the next day after abortion-rights groups expressed alarm. Could you please take this opportunity to assure voters that you’ll be able to handle North Korea, al Qaeda, and Iran more successfully than you’re able to handle the NEA, NARAL, and other interest groups?
12. Newsweek Editor Evan Thomas has stated that the media wants you to win and that the media’s help is worth 15 points in the polls. Do you agree or disagree with Thomas’s statement?
a. If you disagree, is it because you maintain that the media doesn’t want you to win or because the advantage is other than 15 points?
13. During a Labor Day rally in West Virginia one of the principal speakers, in your presence, called President Bush and Vice President Cheney draft dodgers. Do you agree that Bush and Cheney are draft dodgers? If not, why didn’t you correct your supporter?
14. You maintain that public schools aren’t adequately funded. The D.C. public schools spend approximately $13,000 per pupil — one of the highest levels in the nation — yet its students’ academic performance is among the worst in the nation. Could you please explain why you oppose parental choice in education?
a. Given that pursuant to court order the Kansas City public schools spent one billion dollars with no discernable improvement in academic performance, what is your definition of “adequately funded”?
15. In your convention speech, you stated that every terrorist attack would be met with an immediate response and you’ve also stated that you would emphasize a law-enforcement approach to the fight against terrorism. This is identical to the pre-9/11 U.S. approach to terrorism. Could you please explain how a pre-9/11 approach to terrorism will prevent another 9/11?
a. Please describe the lessons you’ve learned from 9/11.
16. You’ve repeatedly criticized President Bush for “rushing to war.” Since you’ve conceded that knowing what you know now you’d still authorize the war, precisely when would you have begun the Iraq war?
17. You also criticize the president for going to war “without having a plan to win the peace.” You’ve stated that “winning the peace” would require more troops — but you voted against the $87 Billion bill to fund the troops who are already there. Could you please explain how you would’ve deployed more troops had your vote against funding prevailed?
a. “Knowing what you know now,” would you have voted in favor of the $87 billion in funding?
b. In other words, do you now regret voting against the funding bill after voting for it?
18. During the Democratic primary debate in Greenville, South Carolina, in January, you claimed that the administration had exaggerated the terror threat.
a. Who exaggerated the threat? When? Please supply specific examples of the exaggerations.
b. If the threat has been exaggerated, does this mean that as president you’d reduce intelligence funding and defense spending in proportion to the “actual” threat? If not, why would you overspend?
19. The guards at Abu Ghraib prison forced prisoners to, among other things, disrobe and wear women’s underwear in order to humiliate and demoralize them. Former American POWs claim that their North Vietnamese captors forced them to listen to your 1971 Senate testimony recounting alleged U.S. war crimes in order to humiliate and demoralize them. Could you please distinguish your actions from those of the Abu Ghraib guards?
a. If you assert that the difference between your actions and those of the Abu Ghraib prison guards was that you didn’t intend your testimony to humiliate and demoralize American POWs, do you at least concede that your actions were reckless and irresponsible?
20. It was well known by the time of your 1971 Senate testimony that North Vietnam used statements by Jane Fonda and other antiwar protesters as propaganda. At the time of your testimony did you consider that it was highly likely that the statements of a naval lieutenant alleging war crimes would also be used?
Journalists are still welcome to use any of the above. You’ll have several opportunities in the next two months. Indeed, it would be journalistic malpractice if Kerry weren’t at least asked, at a forum likely to be seen by a large segment of the electorate, why, in light of his admitted war atrocities, he should be commander-in-chief.
September 16, 2004 - 12:51 PM on September 16th, 2004
sophistry
September 16, 2004 - 01:02 PM on September 16th, 2004
no, shi, issues that Kerry is running away from.
September 16, 2004 - 06:03 PM on September 16th, 2004
PCD
I support the ACLU. I’m glad to hear YOU support the ACLU.
Talk about Fli-flops. You Repubs. kill me with your hypocracy.
Unions don’t own companies. In very rare cases do the members aquire a struggling company in an attempt to keep jobs for it’s members (i.e., TWA).
You obviously have no concept of unions. So until you learn something about them, don’t comment. You sound ridiculous.
Common folk
You read the 9/11 Commission Report. I’ve posted both the official congressional html, and the official commission family steering committee html that got the 9/11 commission started — and clueless Bush tried to stop it for 14 months.
Read what 9/11 victim family members are asking?
http://www.911independentcommission.org/
“Please explain your 14 month opposition to the creation of an independent commission to investigate 9/11 and your request to Senator Daschle to quash such an investigation.”
http://www.rense.com/general25/ggg.htm
“Please explain the reasoning which prompted the Executive Order governing the release of Presidential Records, including those of previous administrations, which could conceivably include historically important documents pertinent to the September 11th investigation.” http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs/pdf_inves/pdf_admin_records_let.pdf
September 16, 2004 - 06:21 PM on September 16th, 2004
Had anyone counted the number of times DG has put the 9/11 commission report links up??? I’m guessing about 23, but that may be on the low side.
September 16, 2004 - 06:47 PM on September 16th, 2004
K well there is a question as to why Bush didn’t want an idependent commission, but rather in a Republican dominated legislature where damage control is much easier.
“President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11. Mr. Bush said the matter should be dealt with by congressional intelligence committees.
THEN FLIP-FLOPPED TO
W A S H I N G T O N, Sept. 20 — Reversing course, President Bush said today he now supports establishing an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/15/attack/main509096.shtml
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/homefront020920.html
September 16, 2004 - 06:47 PM on September 16th, 2004
No response as to what the families are asking Bush?
“Who approved the flight of the bin Laden family out of the United States when all commercial flights were grounded, when there was time for only minimal questioning by the FBI, and especially, when two of those same individuals had links to WAMY, a charity suspected of funding terrorism? Why were bin Laden family members granted that special privilege—a privilege not available to American families whose loved ones were killed on 9/11?”
“Please explain why no one in any level of our government has yet been held accountable for the countless failures leading up to and on 9/11?”
You know Bush. What do you think he’d say?
September 16, 2004 - 07:15 PM on September 16th, 2004
Is this a topic that talks specifically about Bush?
Then why fall into the trap of Michael Moore-esque distractions here? And why must anyone do that by answering any of these questions that have little if any relevance to the topic at hand when you guys can’t focus on significant questions about Kerry when the shoe is on the other foot?
September 16, 2004 - 07:49 PM on September 16th, 2004
“…questions that have little if any relevance to the topic at hand…”
Are you for real? First of all, go to:
http://www.911independentcommission.org/
These are the families that pushed for an investigation into 9/11 (hence; “Never Forget”). An investigation Bush did not want. Why?
This isn’t Michael Moore. This is historical fact!
You CAN’T respond to these questions because you know the answers implicate Bush as FAILING us on 9/11. So you respond with some trite rambling about how I shouldn’t be taken seriously.
Don’t take me seriously… It does not change the fact that Bush failed on 9/11.
September 16, 2004 - 08:58 PM on September 16th, 2004
Shiloh – sure, there are questions and there will always be. I lived in NYC on 9/11, and trying to get through to friends and family was terrifying. I was lucky not to lose anyone super close to me, but did lose co-workers. The days following the attacks were so sad, scary and surreal I thought life would never get better. It’s gotten better, but “normal” has changed.
I didn’t question Bush’s integrity or leadership then, and I don’t now. He’s not a perfect man. None of us are. But he is the RIGHT man for the situations we are facing in the upcoming years.
September 16, 2004 - 09:40 PM on September 16th, 2004
Da union Goon, Richard Clarke approved the Bin Ladens leaving the country. He even said so, you moron.
I know all about unions. There was a bearing company owned by a union because the union made the cost of doing business so high that the company folded and gave it’s assets to the union. Dan Rather actually had them on 60 Minutes before the company completely folded.
Unions, bad for the worker, good for the goons and slackers.
September 16, 2004 - 09:45 PM on September 16th, 2004
I say we ignore Da union Goon until his union respects and implements the Beck decision.
September 17, 2004 - 09:31 AM on September 17th, 2004
pcd – good morning – did you ever answer me regarding the budget critique i posted and why you dismissed it because they were lefties?
once again, there are no politicians on the board of directors – so i was wondering if you have some other info that would make me dismiss it out of hand, too.
best
September 17, 2004 - 10:57 AM on September 17th, 2004
That’s funny. I asked myself that about you several months when you first appeared, and am asking myself the same question now.
History according to whom? Bill or Hillary?
History has been unwritten and rewritten so many times that, frankly, I have very strong doubts as to what you would so easily declare “historical fact.”
Don’t worry. I won’t.
BTW, how would it make you feel if I informed you that I was seriously contemplating voting for someone other than Bush…or Kerry? For folks who insist they don’t care about Kerry one way or another, but they just want Bush out of there, this should be a very interesting response.
If I trusted the anti-Bushites out there not to gloat over this revelation, or to take advantage of this, I would elaborate a bit more. But I don’t think you’ve earned the right to know more than that.
All I’m going to say is that my personal decision doesn’t have a thing to do with your conflicting claims of Bush mastermining 9/11. And Kerry hasn’t really given any evidence that he would have done much better under the circumstances, admitting that he didn’t move for 45 minutes. Make all the excuses for Kerry you wish, but that doesn’t change his lack of action…or the possibility that a lack of action on his part could have even more dire consequences in the future.
September 17, 2004 - 11:02 AM on September 17th, 2004
American Girl, good morning. what ‘action’ would you have liked Kerry to do on 9/11?
i doubt he was staring into the middle distance with spittle drooling from a catatonic state.
perhaps thinking of the implications & reponse scenarios? your conjecture is as good as mine i grant you, but let’s not travel too deeply into the fantasy-land of speculation and judge character based on the view you find there.
best
September 17, 2004 - 11:16 AM on September 17th, 2004
Well, what action would you have liked Bush to perform? Since you like to change the subject so many times from Kerry to Bush, I should be able to do the same.
Getting back to your question, however, I would have liked for Kerry to put his money where his mouth is. In the same speech, Kerry castigated Bush for his inaction, insisting that he would do this thing, that thing, and the other thing…then turned around and admitted that he was “stunned” or whatever for forty-five minutes.
I would have liked to see that he could perform the great games he can speak. So far, I have had little if any assurance of that, and I doubt that I will get any of satisfaction.
September 17, 2004 - 11:24 AM on September 17th, 2004
American Girl, you criticized Mr Kerry for inaction. once again, what action would you have liked him to perform?
September 17, 2004 - 11:30 AM on September 17th, 2004
AG did not criticize him for inaction. She is well aware that he was not Commander in Chief at the time. What she said was, that he showed NO EVIDENCE that he would have done anything different. He claims to, but then flips and admits he was paralyzed for 45 minutes.
September 17, 2004 - 11:36 AM on September 17th, 2004
hello k, as matter of a phrase, i doubt he was ‘paralyzed’ literally. the President could be said to have been in the same state for those several minutes =, or indeed, until we saw him on tv. who knows what he did? we now what hey say, period.
this is a silly subject.
2 marines died in Iraq yesterday.
& we’re stuck there. for what?
September 17, 2004 - 02:06 PM on September 17th, 2004
Shiloh, if you want an answer to your question, I will get an answer to mine first. Either that or accept the answer I have already given you, addressing Kerry’s typical double-speak regarding what, according to his pious vocal cords, he would have done, versus what he did do, and read my answer more closely so you can get the point this time. Otherwise, this topic will be at an end as far as I am concerned, because I am not going to repeat myself any more than necessary, and you are not going to manipulate me into doing so.
In the meantime, I have another question for you.
I seem to recall that you informed this board that you didn’t give a darn about Kerry, but you simply didn’t want Bush in whatever expletive you used at the time. I have now stated the possibility that I may not even vote for Bush. Seeing as this is apparently your goal, to discourage people from voting for Bush, and if you really don’t care what anyone thinks of Kerry, why should it bother you that it will be a cold day in Hades before I vote for him?
September 17, 2004 - 02:07 PM on September 17th, 2004
By George, K, you’ve got it!
September 17, 2004 - 02:09 PM on September 17th, 2004
You’re right, Shiloh — it is a silly subject.
I don’t see where that gives you the right to change it, though, even if the direction you have attempted to steer it does seem to have backfired on you a bit, to say nothing of revealing certain contradictions in statements you’ve made in the past where Kerry is concerned.
September 17, 2004 - 10:19 PM on September 17th, 2004
AG
why do you always refuse questions about Bush.
Fact: Bush tried to stop 9/11 Commission investigation.
http://www.rense.com/general25/ggg.htm
I never said Bush masterminded 9/11. The evidence is abundant that he was simply clueless.
(btw; Cheney masterminded 9/11)
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jul2004/comm-j24.shtml
PCD
If it were not for labor unions, there would be no worker pensions, no healthcare, no sick leave, no workplace safety, and no rules governing overtime, just to name a few of the workplace benefits you enjoy.
You know, there is a warning on Preperation H that says “do not administer oraly.” That means at one time, some dumbass tried to eat it.
The unions were formed because corporations take advantage of workers. Like the warning label, the unions help prevent people like you from being taken advantage of by big corporations — or eating hemorrhoid creme…
To further show you don’t know squat about a union, Union leaders are elected and their salaries voted on by the members.
The corporations practice no democracy. Leave the constitution at the door!
As union membership declines, so does the median standard of living.
September 18, 2004 - 12:00 AM on September 18th, 2004
Would you like the fact that you always seem to refute questions about Kerry? Or the fact that you have a rather frustrating habit of using Bush questioning to interrupt questioning of other issues being discussed in said topic, like, say, Kerry? Or how about the fact that your “Bush-questions” are decidedly lacking in originality by this point, and thus prove not to be worth the time it would take to read it, especially since I’m quite sure you’re not reading what I have to say about Kerry?
I find it ironic that the Democratic Committee has used a creaky phonograph to illustrate Bush’s speeches. That’s exactly what your “Bush is an evil entity that must be destroyed”-speeches are beginning to sound like to me.
If Kerry is the one being questioned, and you insist that we must question everything, then why not try to stay on topic and adhere to the subject of Kerry (or whomever) being questioned before delving into the usual Bush-bashing? Especially since I’ve indicated that I’m not voting for either one.
Which means that, while I am definitely not voting for Kerry, I’m quite possibly not voting for Bush either. So don’t you feel just a little silly, and doesn’t it seem like a bit of overkill on your part, especially since I’ve made it quite clear that I’ve heard it twenty times over?
Besides, I’m sure your sources are the usually “reliable” likes of Peter Jennings, Dan Rather, and the New York Times, and to be perfectly honest, I don’t give a darn about your opinions. Once you realize this, and stop giving a darn about mine, I’m sure life will be much easier for you.
September 18, 2004 - 09:43 AM on September 18th, 2004
You simply ignore the facts presented to you, change the subject and write a bunch a paragraphs that say nothing except how you’re not going to respond.
Bush, to the dismay of the 9/11 victims family, tried to stop the 9/11 commission and it’s investigation.
Why do you think Bush did not want an investigation?
Simple question. Let’s see if any of you Repugs can elaborate on that…
September 18, 2004 - 10:15 AM on September 18th, 2004
Here’s a fact you tend to ignore, DG.
You’ll notice that I keep mentioning that I’m seriously considering not voting for Bush. Meaning that I’m in something of a precarious position here, choosing to vote for another candidate (NOT KERRY!!!) rather than Bush.
However, the more you delve into “broken record”-syndrome, posting so-called “historical facts” dished out by a questionable media, the more it makes me want to vote for Bush out of spite. And the more you post these stories, the more apparent it becomes to me that you want to make me angry enough to vote for Bush.
So go ahead, DG. Go ahead and continue to post your “stories,” on the off-chance that what I don’t ignore will elicit enough anger to contribute to the Bush-party. I’m sure Bush would be as grateful to you as I imagine he’ll be to the likes of Michael Moore for the focus he has put on him, in the grand tradition of the old saying “The only bad publicity is none at all.”
September 18, 2004 - 10:34 AM on September 18th, 2004
Let me make this as plain and as simple as I possibly can:
Do you believe Bush tried to stop the 9/11 investigation? Yes or No.
The answer should help you decide rather to vote for Bush or not.
September 18, 2004 - 10:43 AM on September 18th, 2004
DG, I am not going to answer that question.
Do you know why? Because my answer would consist of a question I already know I won’t receive an answer to, namely whether or not you feel that the 9/11 investigation was a fair, legitimate investigation rather than a trumping by the Clintonites.
And if I’m not getting an answer to that question any time soon, I see no reason to answer any of your aidings of the Bush campaign. When he is re-elected, these questions of yours, among others, will be largely responsible, mark my words…
September 18, 2004 - 10:44 AM on September 18th, 2004
There are a lot of elements that make me want to vote for Bush or not. What I do know is there is not a chance in hell that I would vote for Kerry. AG says she’s not sure if she will vote for Bush (I KNOW she won’t vote for Kerry). I really hope you reconsider AG, b/c we need you.
Look, DG, I will take the time to look at the links you have posted. I know you feel very strongly about the issue. If indeed Bush did not want an investigation, I would want a valid reason for it. But are you really saying you think he and Cheney masterminded the deaths of 3000 of our citizens? I mean, c’mon. Give me a good reason for THAT.
September 18, 2004 - 11:00 AM on September 18th, 2004
Careful, K — it’s very dangerous to feed an ego. Look at Michael Moore!
I respect your decision, but hope you’re not crossing a fine line here.
I’m very flattered and honored, K, regarding my stance on Bush. However, there are certain things about him that I have considered on my own time that make me nervous, not the least of which are his stance on issues such as immigration and stem-cell research. I want to like and support him, and do hope that he beats Kerry, but he’s not quite as Reagan-esque as I would have hoped for my liking.
I’d elaborate more, but 1) I’m far enough OT as it is, and 2) I’d hate for those who haven’t earned the right to learn too much about my position, thereby taking advantage of it.
September 18, 2004 - 11:10 AM on September 18th, 2004
AG – I’m willing to look at what he posts. Not trying to feed his ego, more trying to pacify him. Just kidding – sort of.
There will never be a man like Reagan. I cried that whole dang week when he died! His funeral was such an AMAZING event. Bush is no Reagan, for sure. I think I have said that here before. I agree he’s too liberal on immigration. Re: Stem cell research – did you see his interview with Larry King about 3-4 weeks ago? I think he’s misunderstood on the issue, something he is tasked with clarifying.
You are clearly very intelligent and thoughtful.
September 18, 2004 - 11:27 AM on September 18th, 2004
Hey, don’t worry about my ego. I don’t ever have to know if you look at the posts. But you will know.
In addition, I’ve already made it clear that I am not a fan of John Kerry. Regardless of what you think, none of us are voting for the man, but for the party. And that means you.
In all honesty the only people voting for “the Man” are the people voting for Nader. But he don’t have an ice cubes chance in hell.
The Democrats have historically benefitted the working class and even the playing field with the big corporations. But campaign finance has made candidates dependent on those who can afford to give (i.e., the rich, big corporations), and the lines between Dems and Reps. is getting blurred.
Although, the I am voting for the Democrats, I know they are only slightly better than the corporate Repubs I oppose.
Look into Dick Cheney’s involvment in negotiations with the Taliban prior to 9/11 about an oil pipeline going through Agahnistan.
September 18, 2004 - 12:36 PM on September 18th, 2004
One other, question AG:
have you seen Moore’s 9/11 movie?
There is another, even more in depth documentary coming on DVD Oct. 15 called:
Uncovered: The War On Iraq.
I have not seen either one of them. I don’t need to, although I will. The facts presented thus far are enough to convince me there is a lot more to 9/11 and Bush’s Iraq war than meets the eye, and what the government is telling us — or hiding from us.
Don’t worry. You don’t have to tell anyone you saw the movies. But YOU will know…
September 18, 2004 - 12:44 PM on September 18th, 2004
I know you are not addressing me, but no, there is no way I would see that Fat Fuck’s movie. Not because I am in “denial” or whatever you may think, but because I refuse to give a blatant Hollywood hater of America any money.
September 18, 2004 - 12:48 PM on September 18th, 2004
K,
September 18, 2004 - 01:04 PM on September 18th, 2004
DTB – I’m getting fired up
One more thing:
http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=4673
Hateful of me to go the the RNC site – but all sources are listed.
September 18, 2004 - 02:27 PM on September 18th, 2004
I am proud to say that I have exercised my American freedom of choice NOT to see this film and fall for Moore’s Nazi-esque brainwashing tendancies. Others may choose differently, but that choice and their decision to fall victim to his ego is theirs and theirs alone, and I would very much appreciate it if those who do would keep it that way.
‘Nuff said?
Good. I’m not telling you to go out and read Unfit for Command or anything by Ann Coulter and take it as your own personal gospel, you know. However, I’d lie if I said the latter didn’t have an impact on me, and yes, I would recommend it. But there’s a difference between a simple recommendation and jamming something down a person’s throat in the manner in which you do on a regular basis.
September 18, 2004 - 02:29 PM on September 18th, 2004
Then that means that you have no more need to force me to read your “historical forces,” now, doesn’t it?
September 18, 2004 - 02:31 PM on September 18th, 2004
“Historical forces” = “Historical sources”
ops:
Guess that’s an official “Freudian slip!”
September 18, 2004 - 02:45 PM on September 18th, 2004
Actually, you could say I AM voting for the man. If your party, DG, had a credible candidate, I would consider him/her. While I am conservative, I reserve the right to NOT vote along party lines.
September 18, 2004 - 09:57 PM on September 18th, 2004
I see Da union Goon can’t face facts again. Hey Goon, what about forging documents to prove false statements? My how desperate Democraps are, and TEXAS DEMOCRAPS are abject liars.
September 18, 2004 - 11:00 PM on September 18th, 2004
Liars?
Why are Americans dying in Iraq even though there is NO WMD’s, contradicting what Bush said?
Bush is a liar!
How can any of you comment on Moore’s movie if you haven’t even seen it?
How narrow minded is that?
As far as party lines, how many Dems is Bush stumping for?
Ronald Dickhead Reagan claimed the 11th Commandment is “Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican.”
Fact #1: Bush failed to protect the US on 9/11 despite ample warnings of such an attack.
Fact #2: Bush invaded Iraq on dubious terms, despite the warnings of them damn French to be patient.
Fact #3: Bush tried to stop the 9/11 Commission and it’s investigation to the dismay fo victims family.
You’re not voting for the man. You are voting for big corporations, wearing a blue suit occupying the oval office.
But believe what you want.
BTW, AG
You have again typed a multi-paragrahed post explaining your refusal to answer. It was a simple point. None of you can respond:
Why did Bush try to stop the 9/11 investigation?
I know why you won’t answer…
…yer skeert!
September 19, 2004 - 12:22 AM on September 19th, 2004
Bush is a liar!
not knowing something is false and then repeating it does not make you a liar.
How can any of you comment on Moore’s movie if you haven’t even seen it?
well i saw it, nt legally but i was not going to put money in his pocket and he did tell peopel to see it by any means..even illegal means.
Fact #1: Bush failed to protect the US on 9/11 despite ample warnings of such an attack.
what warnings? you mean the the report with historic data that might sound scary “bin laden plans attack in america!” but if you bother to check it out..it does not help?
Fact #2: Bush invaded Iraq on dubious terms, despite the warnings of them damn French to be patient.
bush invaded iraq on intel from russia, CIA, MI6 and 8 years of democrats maoning saddam should be taken out and had WMDs and ties to terrorists.
Fact #3: Bush tried to stop the 9/11 Commission and it’s investigation to the dismay for victims family.
i was against the panel as well, the chance of an attack on bush was very high, the left would love nothing better, and given the early questions by the panel..they tried their best, look at Rice and how they tried to twist her words, too bad for them she would not back down and kept on with the truth.
September 19, 2004 - 08:47 AM on September 19th, 2004
Seriously, I would have tried to stop the “independent” 9/11 commission as well. thanks, dg – you just made me realize why bush would do that.
And fuck u, dg – i am voting for the man. don’t tell me what i am voting for. big corporations stimulate the economy, you dumbass. i worked for 2 of the big 4 (yes, there are only 4 now, thanks to the enron/aa shit) consulting firms so i am insulted by your accusations.
saddam husseim was a WMD in and of himself! you don’t think the serin gas they found was a weapon? go hide your head in the sand a little more.
September 19, 2004 - 09:18 AM on September 19th, 2004
i’m crabby today, if no one can tell. this packers game at 10 should help me out.
September 19, 2004 - 06:49 PM on September 19th, 2004
Hey wally,
The family of the victims of 9/11 disagree with you, and Bush. BTW, Bush supports the 9/11 commission NOW, and acts like he supported it all along. Another Lie.
“The 9/11 Commission’s Final Report plainly lays out the facts and circumstances that surround 9/11 and clearly illustrates that 9/11 was both an institutional and individual failure.
The “Enrons” support Bush, dumbass. Big Corporations pay little if any tax, while you pay out the ass.
In 2000, the average CEO compensations was 282 times a workers salary. In 2003 it went up to 301 times a workers pay. If the minimum wage had risen at the same rate since 1990, it would be $15.76 today.
The less taxes corporations pay and the less they pay their workers, the more they raise prices and gouge consumers.
Keep suckin on ‘em, Wally. They love suckers like you.
Bush was warned to be patient, but he thinks he’s a cowboy. Reckless cowboys are dangerous.
Saddam was a WMD himself? It is far more dangerous in Iraq now. Go here for a little history lesson:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/index.htm
September 19, 2004 - 07:02 PM on September 19th, 2004
Dg,
So now YOU speak for ALL the victom-families of 9-11?
Say what you want, but PLEASE don’t pretend that you know what ALL the familiies think…
September 19, 2004 - 07:20 PM on September 19th, 2004
I’m just repeating what they are saying:
“The Family Steering Committee (FSC) is an independent, nonpartisan group of individuals who lost loved ones on September 11, 2001. The FSC is not affiliated with any other group, nor does it receive financial or other support from any organization or individual.”
http://www.911independentcommission.org/
My guess is, you won’t find any family member who did NOT want an investigation as to why our defenses failed on 9/11.
Can you name one? Let me know.
September 19, 2004 - 08:10 PM on September 19th, 2004
Hey wally,
The family of the victims of 9/11 disagree with you, and Bush.
so? really i feel sorry for all the family’s of 9/11 but they don’t become experts in every field, you should hear them out of course but you can’t go and say “they sai this so it’s 100% correct thign to do!”, and plenty of family’s support bush and agree with him.
Keep suckin on ‘em, Wally. They love suckers like you.
and i love being a sucker, everyone loves a tootsie roll pop…
Bush was warned to be patient, but he thinks he’s a cowboy. Reckless cowboys are dangerous.
you know what is a greater danger? playboys who sit around doing nothing but finding new places to put cigars while letting terrorists run free.
Saddam was a WMD himself? It is far more dangerous in Iraq now. Go here for a little history lesson:
one of these days the sane people should take and study the lefty wing nuts, we really need to figure out what makes them tick, maybe coem up with a medicine ot control it…
September 19, 2004 - 08:59 PM on September 19th, 2004
What benefit are there by not investigating why our defenses failed on 9/11?
At least when Clinton lied, the only dead Americans were on Monicas blue dress.
Are you saying it’s safer now then when Bush said “Mission Accomplished”?
Did you check out the site? Get a little history:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/index.htm
September 19, 2004 - 09:15 PM on September 19th, 2004
“the only dead Americans were on Monicas blue dress.”
Ha. That’s a good one.
I’ll have to remember it in conversation. (We’ll just ignore the 3? dead at the WTC in ‘93?, the Embasys in Africa (only Africans Died (39?), the USS Cole, the Federal building in OK. City, Waco TX, etc.)
September 19, 2004 - 09:29 PM on September 19th, 2004
3 + 39 + How many on the Cole + the Federal building + at Waco = Less than the 3000+ killed on 9/11, the 1000+ killed in Iraq and what’s the number in Afgahnistan?
At this rate, Bush’s second term will have killed more people than have been killed during his first term. (Presidential terms x 2 = 8000+?)
Keep juggling those numbers…