Democrats & Liberals: Archives

The election is about Terror and 9-11. If Bush loses Bin Laden wins. Fundamentalist muslims and Arab nationalists hate Georgie The Tyrant Killer. He has destroyed the “great Arab hope” Bin Laden, destroyed the Taliban, destroyed Saddam pretty much without a fight, told the other Arab rulers democratize or disappear and exposed Arafat and the Palestinians as the nihilistic bloodthirsty murderers they are. America’s enemies, the Jihadis and the Arab fascists and dictators will see a defeat of Bush as a victory. Even a pass to attack just like the good old days under Clinton when terror wasn’t punished. I know my view is right. Just ask your Arab friends, if you have any. If you vote for Kerry, you vote for the enemy. It’s as simple as that.

Ricky:

Where are the terrorist who attacked the World Trade Center while Clinton was president?

Henry:

9/11 is an important topic. It defines our era in a way that the Kennedy assasination and the Vietnam war defined the 60’s. It certainly is the most important event of the Bush presidency. Certainly it should be part of how Bush was judged.

As for your thoughts on what Bush was doing shortly after the towers went down, he did exactly the right thing by preserving the presidency. At that moment Congress and the Whitehouse could have been taken out just as easily as the twin towers and the pentagon. Everything he needed to lead the freeworld in crisis was aboard air force one.

Your article is very inaccurate. Bush “out of touch” on Air Force One???

Craig

Ricky:

Where are the terrorist who attacked the World Trade Center while Clinton was president?
Posted by Lovecraft at March 4, 2004 04:53 PM

Ricky let me take this one. Thanks.
Lovecraft,
They were busy in preparations.
Sincerely,
Blue

Ricky
The presentation of your views is articulate and clear. They do not coincide with mine obviously. Your equation “if Bush loses Bin Laden wins” is one of the kind of statements often used when people are trying to convince one another black is white.

I am interested in a real set of issues which I am sure you also care about. Among them is how we arrive at the outcomes we achieve. The end has never seemed to me to justify the means in a civil Democratic society. Our purpose in the world is not to force others to democratize their societies but to keep our own democracy strong and healthy. The truth about the example of democracy created in Iraq is not yet clear. Unfortunately it seems likely to be troubled with civil war as part of its growing pains.

Again at the end your equation “if you vote for Kerry you vote for the enemy” is another dramatized simplification of our choices. I am certain that if we had Hitler at the helm here the Arabs would tremble but so would a lot of us. Our choices are not constrained by any set of conflicts that may be created in the minds of observers outside of this nation. I might disagree with you about Bush’s effectiveness in the outside world. I would never think that you should not vote for him if you were so disposed simply because other nations people might hate to have him back. That would be a better argument than the insubstantial one you pose about Jihadi’s who have gained in membership since we began the war in Iraq.

As for your view of the Palestinians if someone stole your land and destroyed your home what would you do? I recommend a publication called “Washington Report on Middle East Affairs” published ten times yearly. The people publishing that journal have spent many years in the Middle East and neither denegrate the Jews nor the Palestinians. They are retired foreign service officers and understand the complexity of the issues there.

Thanks for your comments
Henri

Craig,
Again I ask what was being done during those eighty minutes. Preserving the Presidency was not something that took him away from information flows. He is the man with his finger on the button at all times. How do we get from one confirmed hijacked plane at 8:20 A.M. to the crash into the Pentagon at 9:40 A.M. without so much as a word from the President? Simple orders to the Air Force about protecting the Washington area would have sufficed at least to protect the Pentagon. If this had been a nuclear attack by Saddam’s WMD we would have been toast with Bush at the switch.
Henri

It is unreasonable not to expect Pres. Bush to use 9/11 in his ads. But graphic video of human remains being removed from Ground Zero is not just distasteful, but disrespectful to the victims and their families.

Relatives of the victims have already come out against these ads, as they rightly should.

Um, we have emergency defense procedures in this country that don’t have to be micro-managed by the President. Why didn’t FDR head out to Hawaii and stop those Japanese attackers! Why didn’t Lincoln man the guns at Fredricksburg!

While we’re actually under attack, it’s the military that makes the minute-to-minute decisions. What a ridiculous and underhanded smear—typical of what the Bush-hating see-nothing-but evil will undoubtedly continue to stoop to throughtout the coming election.

Bush needs to answer the following:

(taken from www.fromthewilderness.com / The Family Steering Committee http://www.911independentcommission.org )

1. As Commander-in-Chief on the morning of 9/11, why didn’t you return immediately to Washington, D.C. or the National Military Command Center once you became aware that America was under attack? At specifically what time did you become aware that America was under attack? Who informed you of this fact?

2. On the morning of 9/11, who was in charge of our country while you were away from the National Military Command Center? Were you informed or consulted about all decisions made in your absence?

3. What defensive action did you personally order to protect our nation during the crisis on September 11th? What time were these orders given, and to whom? What orders were carried out? What was the result of such orders? Were any such orders not carried out?

4. In your opinion, why was our nation so utterly unprepared for an attack on our own soil?

5. U.S. Navy Captain Deborah Loewer, the Director of the White House Situation Room, informed you of the first airliner hitting Tower One of the World Trade Center before you entered the Emma E. Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Florida. Please explain the reason why you decided to continue with the scheduled classroom visit, fifteen minutes after learning the first hijacked airliner had hit the World Trade Center.

6. Is it normal procedure for the Director of the White House Situation Room to travel with you? If so, please cite any prior examples of when this occurred. If not normal procedure, please explain the circumstances that led to the Director of the White House Situation Room being asked to accompany you to Florida during the week of September 11th.

7. What plan of action caused you to remain seated after Andrew Card informed you that a second airliner had hit the second tower of the World Trade Center and America was clearly under attack? Approximately how long did you remain in the classroom after Card’s message?

8. At what time were you made aware that other planes were hijacked in addition to Flight 11 and Flight 175? Who notified you? What was your course of action as Commander-in-Chief of the United States?

9. Beginning with the transition period between the Clinton administration and your own, and ending on 9/11/01, specifically what information (either verbal or written) about terrorists, possible attacks and targets, did you receive from any source?

This would include briefings or communications from

• Out-going Clinton officials

• CIA, FBI, NSA, DoD and other intelligence agencies

• Foreign intelligence, governments, dignitaries or envoys

• National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice

• Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism czar

10. Specifically, what did you learn from the August 6, 2001, PDB about the terrorist threat that was facing our nation? Did you request any follow-up action to take place? Did you request any further report be developed and/or prepared?

11. As Commander-in-Chief, from May 1, 2001 until September 11, 2001, did you receive any information from any intelligence agency official or agent that UBL was planning to attack this nation on its own soil using airplanes as weapons, targeting New York City landmarks during the week of September 11, 2001 or on the actual day of September 11, 2001?

12. What defensive measures did you take in response to pre-9/11 warnings from eleven nations about a terrorist attack, many of which cited an attack in the continental United States? Did you prepare any directives in response to these actions? If so, with what results?

13. As Commander-in-Chief from May 1, 2001 until September 11, 2001, did you or any agent of the United States government carry out any negotiations or talks with UBL, an agent of UBL, or al-Qaeda? During that same period, did you or any agent of the United States government carry out any negotiations or talks with any foreign government, its agents, or officials regarding UBL? If so, what resulted?

14. Your schedule for September 11, 2001 was in the public domain since September 7, 2001. The Emma E. Booker School is only five miles from the Bradenton Airport, so you, and therefore the children in the classroom, might have been a target for the terrorists on 9/11. What was the intention of the Secret Service in allowing you to remain in the Emma E. Booker Elementary School, even though they were aware America was under attack?

15. Please explain why you remained at the Sarasota, Florida, Elementary School for a press conference after you had finished listening to the children read, when as a terrorist target, your presence potentially jeopardized the lives of the children?

16. What was the purpose of the several stops of Air Force One on September 11th? Was Air Force One at any time during the day of September 11th a target of the terrorists? Was Air Force One’s code ever breached on September 11th?

17. Was there a reason for Air Force One lifting off without a military escort, even after ample time had elapsed to allow military jets to arrive?

18. What prompted your refusal to release the information regarding foreign sponsorship of the terrorists, as illustrated in the inaccessible 28 redacted pages in the Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry Report? What actions have you personally taken since 9/11 to thwart foreign sponsorship of terrorism?

19. 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?

20. 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?

21. Please comment on the fact that UBL’s profile on the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted Fugitives poster does not include the 9/11 attacks. To your knowledge, when was the last time any agent of our government had contact with UBL? If prior to 9/11, specifically what was the date of that contact and what was the context of said meeting.

22. Do you continue to maintain that Saddam Hussein was linked to al Qaeda? What proof do you have of any connection between al-Qaeda and the Hussein regime?

23. Which individuals, governments, agencies, institutions, or groups may have benefited from the attacks of 9/11? Please state specifically how you think they have benefited.

You’ll never win Henri, debating Bush’s terrorism failures with the Right, who are too busy diverting baseless blame at Bill Clinton.

Al Franken’s ‘Lying Liars…’, had a great chapter detailing the priority given to terrorism by Clinton; his success from co-ordinating with allies both European and Arab; a sharing of intelligence and offering/receiving expert assistence and actually caring and listening to those countries familiar with this threat.

We also hear about an indifferent, nodding Condi Rice in transitional Intelligence briefings.

And you wonder why the 9/11 commission has not seen all of Bush’s Daily Intelligence Briefings leading up to 9/11?

Geez Mark… you sound like you think Bush hired some of his West Texas Cronies to fund the 9/11 operation, and then sat idly by, reading to a room full of grades schoolers, while terrorists played smash up-derby with a four-of-a-kind of fine US manufactured aircraft and some of our most symbolic and stategic buildings in America!

I am guessing that Mark doesn’t understand that Bush wanted to go back to Washington on the morning of 9/11. His military and civilian advisors recommended that he not do so until the situation was secure.

The information about what was known and by whom will be known to us all soon enough. The fact that it isn’t at the present time could be that there certainly is a tremendous amount of information to sort through, and I am sure that all threats, not just the al quada threats, had to be considered equally. Questions about confidentiality, security, and to a probably greater extent(and hopefully fixed), security breeches, will most certainly be exposed to the public. Are you willing to accept the consequences of letting all of this information out of the bag, not knowing that we may have not secured all of the loose ends, or sandbagged all of the breeches that may be exposed? Or worse yet, breeches that can’t be sandbagged because of our open borders and free society that the rest of the world envies?

Rest assured, I for one am certain that on any given day, the threat information that the President receives would probably overwhelm the average citizen. But what is a good commander in chief to do about all of the threats? Close the borders? Arrest all Middle East looking fellows that enter the airports? To further complicate matters, do you think that declaring his own version of “Marshall Law” without a reasonable expectation of any terrorist group being successful in a peacetime environment would be practical, much less well received by the public?

As for the rest of your thesis, can you quote any sources for your information about the travel arrangements of the bin Laden family? That morsel of information would certainly enlighten all of us, since your post was the first bit of information that I had seen on this topic.

I have a few questions that I would like to ask the President when the opportunity arises. But then again, I would like to ask Bill Clinton a couple about our intelligence agencies demise during his stay in office, as well as substantiated reports that he had been offered bin Laden by Sudan, but Clinton didn’t want him.

We can point fingers and find out that Joe Smith was asleep at the radar screen at Andrews on 9/11, or that a handful of security guards let a bunch of Arabs on airplanes with box cutters, or that a few greedy flight instructors taught these same Arab men how to fly planes, but never got around to teaching them how to land them.

Yes, we can ask a lot of questions, but we can’t blur the facts. The fact that 9/11 happened cannot be changed. The only thing that can be changed is that we take preparations to be prepared for the next time or next situation, whenever and whatever it may be… regardless of the the C-in-C is!

Wonder why there hasn’t been any more attacks on US soil since 9/11. Dumb luck? Domestic prevention? Elimination of terrorist funding? Or, by some ironic twist of fate (read: interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq), have the terrorists lost their will to take American lives on American soil? Or maybe… the War on Terror is being successful after all!

With Bush & Rice & others refusing to appear in front of the 9/11 commission to answer questions such as the above one can only think the worst… (type “Bush Knew” into any search engine and you will find plenty of well researched documentation which shows he did!)

…. Bush and Co were aware that an attack was being planned … may be not the scale … but certainly something …. They turned a blind eye and let it happen in order to initiate the bogus war on terror which is the excuse being used to secure strategic overseas oil fields and pipeline routes. Without a direct attack on America there was no way in which the wars against Afganistan and Iraq could have been initiated. These wars were in the planning long before 9/11. In fact Dick Chenys Energy Task Force (heavily influenced by Enron, and which Cheny continues to defy court orders and keep secret) produced a Document which was little more than a strategy for securing foriegn oil supplies by what ever means … Why bother yourself with trying to reduce domestic consumption of oil when you can simply go take it from someone else? Unfortunately this strategy continues the long US tradition of meddling in the affairs of other countries regardles of the cost to those countries …. Yet it is this very behaviour going back decades which sowed the seeds for 9/11 !! Where todays actions will lead is any ones guess. It will certainly not make the world a safer place!

….. and going back to the topic ….. hopefully Bush will be judged on his record of 9/11!

Henri, I’m afraid I’ll have to find fault with your reasoning. You forget to factor in distance and the speed of both planes. The aircraft were being scrambled, but there really wasn’t a chance to catch up to them. Even an aircraft charging out at 1200 mph still takes at least 10 minutes to go 200 miles If one has to take off, that time goes up. If it takes longer for the jetfighter to catch up than it does for the passenger jet to reach it’s target, that’s the end of the story.

I do not blame Bush for that part of the sequence of events. But I do think putting the wreckage in his videos is a very tacky thing to do.

He’s still not caught the man who ultimately holds responsibility. Bin Laden has been sitting pretty somewhere on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border for years now, and Bush has neither captured him dead, or alive. Whether or not Bush actually cares about the thousands of people who died on 9/11, he has been very careless about his approach to fighting terror.

He shouldn’t have dropped Afghanistan until he had found Osama Bin Laden. He shouldn’t have gone into Iraq in the first place after that, unless he was sure the terrorists were actually there. Immediate, proven threats should outweigh speculative paranoia, because being wrong is a terrible waste of irreplaceable resources and opportunities.

He shouldn’t present himself as the man who defeated the terrorists until the deed has been done. Bush has not protected us from terrorists, and so doesn’t deserve to reap political benefits from it.

Henri:

The President was doing what he should have been doing during that time. He was letting his military commanders access the situation. They had authority to defend the country. The last thing the country needed as events were unfolding was a president micro managing.

Craig

Besides that there was ample time between the first plane being hijacked and the second plane striking the WTC to scramble fighters and protect Manhattan from further attack.

…Was at least the same speed of response not to be expected from our President who is the only party authorized to use military planes to shoot down civilian aircraft?

You’re going to honestly tell me that if G.W. had ordered a civilian airplane shot down on domestic soil that you and every democrat in America wouldn’t be calling him a murderer right now as well? You neo-dems are already accusing him of knowing 9/11 was going to happen. Some out there even saying that there were no terrorists at all. If we had actually shot down flight 93 democrats would be calling for a murder trial.

Admit it, nothing this President does or could do would please you. If he never invaded Iraq, sought only to extradite Osama from Afghanistan, pursued terrorism as only a law enforcement excercise, passed only democratic legislation, nominated liberal judges, voided the 2nd amendment, in short completely betrayed any conservative principle you’d still want him out. I know it and you know it.

I hear democrats talking about how G.W. is the worst most partisan President ever. Yet, he’s not at all that conservative. At least he bends over backwards to pass un-conservative legislation. If democrats hate him, what would they think of a really conservative president? If I were President I shudder to think…

I have never seen such partisan divisive attacks on a man who is doing his best. On the one hand he’s stupid and a ‘shrub’, on the other he’s a diabolical genius. If you don’t agree with his policies, fine. But the vitriol has got to stop. This TV commercial is one of the most innocous softball political ads I have ever seen. For it to generate such viscious and slanderous attacks belies some other haunting phychological need on the part of democrats.

You may not think that the President did the right thing but I do. Are you calling me immoral? Am I unreasonable? Unthinkably dense or under the spell of the neo-con devil?

There is a plank in thine own eye, O terrible dems! What have we been entertained to for the last 6 months? Blatant political use of 9/11? If Bush cannot mention 9/11 then why should you be able to? Democrats have done nothing but politicize 9/11. “Bush has failed to use 9/11 to bring the world together. Bush has used 9/11 to spill blood for oil.” What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If your arguments using 9/11 are ok because you are stating your case and arguing your cause of the President’s failure then shouldn’t the President be able to argue his cause as well?

Bush did what had to be done. Yes, Osama got away. Or did he? Where is the S.O.B.? Where was Saddam for 9 months? Hiding in a hole. Perhaps the diabolical shrub has Osama hidden away with his CIA handlers just waiting the right time before the election.

Stephen,
“Henri, I’m afraid I’ll have to find fault with your reasoning. You forget to factor in distance and the speed of both planes. The aircraft were being scrambled, but there really wasn’t a chance to catch up to them. Even an aircraft charging out at 1200 mph still takes at least 10 minutes to go 200 miles If one has to take off, that time goes up. If it takes longer for the jetfighter to catch up than it does for the passenger jet to reach it’s target, that’s the end of the story.”

In response the issue is not answerable by Zeno’s Paradox. The pursuing aircraft should be taking off somewhere closer to the target than the point of origin of the hijacked plane. Otherwise the number of cases since 9/11 where planes were followed by military aircraft would be impossible. We knew where those planes were and how to intercept them effectively, we have been able to do that for thirty years at least.

Even if I granted that intercepting the plane that struck the second tower was impossible which I do not. The issue then still remains about the plane that struck the Pentagon. We should easily have scrambled aircraft to intercept it and clearly could have done so. The question of what the President and his advisors were doing thus still remains to be answered.
Henri

Eric,
Quote
“You’re going to honestly tell me that if G.W. had ordered a civilian airplane shot down on domestic soil that you and every democrat in America wouldn’t be calling him a murderer right now as well? You neo-dems are already accusing him of knowing 9/11 was going to happen. Some out there even saying that there were no terrorists at all. If we had actually shot down flight 93 democrats would be calling for a murder trial.”

I think the contention made by these ads is that Bush Responded appropriately and well to the attacks of 9/11. The contention made by all of the Republicans responding to this piece thus far is either Bush was acting appropriately based on his advisors advice or we Democrats would be attacking him no matter what he had done. You can try to have it both ways but it is still a question about Bush’s decisiveness that I raised. If you are right and the President could not have won by shooting down civilian aircraft, and you could be, his duty was still clear if he had the means to do so. That is what the job of Commander In Chief entails, making the difficult decisions quickly and with a willingness to take the flack if you are wrong.

The deaths of those who died inside the Pentagon could have been prevented. No matter how you try to obscure that fact it remains an issue of this campaign opened by the blatant use of a national tragedy as a campaign tactic. Neither I nor the rest of the Democrats writing about these events attacked Bush for his response during the aftermath of the attacks. We left the issues alone because the Country needed to recover. Now we find the claims of decisiveness and strength in leadership a little hard to swallow as the Republicans try to claim the heroism of common Americans for their own. Try running for President on the merits of your candidate, not some perversion of the images of his greatest failure, on which he was given a pass in the name of national unity.

Quote
“I have never seen such partisan divisive attacks on a man who is doing his best. On the one hand he’s stupid and a ‘shrub’, on the other he’s a diabolical genius. If you don’t agree with his policies, fine. But the vitriol has got to stop. This TV commercial is one of the most innocous softball political ads I have ever seen. For it to generate such viscious and slanderous attacks belies some other haunting phychological need on the part of democrats.”

Eric, did you sleep through the whole Clinton Administration? I am not calling for his impeachment, simply trying to get an answer to a question raised by his use of the images of 9/11 in his campaign. I neither slandered the President nor did I use vitrol in my approach to his failure as CIC to respond to the attacks of 9/11. I simply asked an unanswered question about his real lack of response on that fateful day. By the way your response to that question shows that you do not know the answer either. He surely could not have made a decision not to use our military response system as you suggest. That would be treason, rather than merely waffling in the face of an unexpected attack.
Henri

“Admit it, nothing this President does or could do would please you. If he never invaded Iraq, sought only to extradite Osama from Afghanistan, pursued terrorism as only a law enforcement excercise, passed only democratic legislation, nominated liberal judges, voided the 2nd amendment, in short completely betrayed any conservative principle you’d still want him out.”

Frankly if he did any of that, I’d be campaigning for his re-election on the streets right now.
I don’t believe that what he did was right, you do.Obviously I can’t change your views, because you seem to think that launching pre-emptive wars on countries that were not a threat to America ( read: Iraq) at the time fine. You seem to think that ‘no blood for oil’ is some sort of political gimmick.Frankly I believe there should be no blood for oil, no blood for blood, no blood for anything dammit,I don’t believe that it’s perfectly within human decency to slaughter, pillage and destroy other countries, cripple societies and then declare that it’s all part of a global good versus evil struggle.
What is so evil about a 13 yr old Iraqi sleeping in his home, only to wake up and discover he has no arms, and that his entire family is dead?
There was nothing good about Sept 11 either,
but revenge is not an answer.
News Flash: America is not the only victim of terrorist attacks in the world,and it is laughable to think of it as even on the list of the top 10 countries affected.
But you don’t see India declaring war on Pakistan,( all the 3 wars fought between the country were initiated by the Pakistani millitary), you don’t see the South Korea cluster bombing the hell out of North Korea, do you?
Bottom line, I believe George Bush was wrong, you believe he was right.I can’t change your mind, but i can pray that he doesn’t get re-elected, and I will.

Democrats have been using the war and 9/11 as a political issue for at least two years. To be fair, that’s your right to do so. But do not try to silence all response to your blatant political attacks by trying to accuse Republicans of doing exactly what you are doing.

I say this because your own response is accusing the President of treason and murder by ‘raising the question’.

The deaths of those who died inside the Pentagon could have been prevented.

…I simply asked an unanswered question about his real lack of response on that fateful day.

…He surely could not have made a decision not to use our military response system as you suggest. That would be treason, rather than merely waffling in the face of an unexpected attack.

Deomcrats have had this exact tact planned for some time. The entire 9/11 commission has been looked at as a method to begin asking these questions. The Sen. Rockeffeller memo blatantly admits this.

1) Pull the majority along as far as we can on issues that may lead to major new disclosures regarding improper or questionable conduct by administration officials. We are having some success in that regard.

…We don’t know what we will find but our prospects for getting the access we seek is far greater when we have the backing of the majority. [We can verbally mention some of the intriguing leads we are pursuing.]

2) Assiduously prepare Democratic ‘additional views’ to attach to any interim or final reports the committee may release. Committee rules provide this opportunity and we intend to take full advantage of it.

…B) Once we identify solid leads the majority does not want to pursue, we would attract more coverage and have greater credibility in that context than one in which we simply launch an independent investigation based on principled but vague notions regarding the use of intelligence. -HillNews.com, November 6, 2003

What did the President know and when did he know it?

“We learn today something we might have learned at least eight months ago: that President Bush had been informed last year, before September 11, of a possible Al-Qaeda plot to hijack a US airliner. -Hillary Clinton, May 16, 2002

“…why won’t the Bush administration and the Republicans investigate 911? Do they have something to hide?”-Democrats.com

Dean responded, “The most interesting theory that I’ve heard so far – which is nothing more than a theory, it can’t be proved – is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis.”

The top Democrat continued: “Now, who knows what the real situation is? But the trouble is, by suppressing that kind of information, you lead to those kinds of theories, whether they have any truth to them or not.” -NewsMax.com

It will be interesting to see where (how far) the democrats go with this. From early on we’ve seen a definite leaning to start with these first accusations as ‘questions’, or ‘Principled but vague notions’, which then start being echoed by all democrats, then turn into full indictments and at some point begin to sound like pure conspiracy theories. You may not be advocating to impeach Bush, yet, but others already are. Another here. And another here.

Here’s a story suggesting that flight 93 was shot down. I really don’t think that all of this is so complicated. Bush did in fact give the order to shoot down any planes that were highjacked. Perhaps because I don’t have an axe to grind I haven’t been reading all kinds of conspiratorial information into the events of 9/11.

“The president did give the order to shoot down a civilian plane if it was not responding properly,” National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said. “And it was authority requested through channels by [Defense] Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. The vice president passed the request. The president said ‘yes.’”

“This was a very difficult, difficult proposition,” Cheney said. “If we’d had been able to intercept the planes before they hit the World Trade Center, would we? And the answer was absolutely yes.”

…The closest fighters were two F-16 jets flown by pilots on a training mission from Selfridge Air National Guard Base near Detroit.

But there was a problem.

“The real scary part is that those guys are up there on a training mission [so] they don’t have any weapons on board they can use,” Marr said. “The first question that came from my mission crew commander — the individual that is in charge of the operations force — [was] ‘Well, sir, what are they going to do?’ I said, ‘We’re going to put them as close to that airplane as we could in view of the cockpit and convince that guy in the airplane that he needs to land.’”

If that didn’t work, Marr suggested, the pilots might have to take the commercial plane down by crashing into it.

“As a military man, there are times that you have to make sacrifices that you have to make,” Marr said.

At first, the outcome seemed unclear.

“At some point, the closure time came and went, and nothing happened, so you can imagine everything was very tense at the NMCC,” Winfield said of the National Military Command Center. “We had basically lost … situational awareness of where this airplane was.”

Actually, Flight 93 was about 175 miles northwest of Washington, over Somerset County, Pa.

‘The Ground Just Shook’

On the ground in Shanksville, Pa., Assistant Volunteer Fire Chief Rick King, the proprietor of Ida’s Country Store, was talking by phone with his sister Jody about the New York and Washington attacks.

He recalled: “She said to me, ‘Rick, I hear a plane,’ and I said, ‘Yeah,’ and she said, ‘It’s really loud.’”

Just outside Shanksville, Valencia McClatchey was startled by the noise and looked out her window to catch a glimpse of “a reflection of the sun hitting on something.”

“I could hear the engines screaming,” King said. “Seconds later it hit, and I remember, the ground just shook. Everything underneath my feet just rumbled.”

“It almost jolted me to the point of losing my balance,” McClatchey said.

She grabbed her camera and snapped a photo of what she saw.

“It was very startling against the clear blue sky to see that, a huge ball of smoke coming up,” McClatchey said. -ABCnews.com

I understand that you’re desparate and don’t want G.W. to win, but can’t you do it without resorting to this kind of dishonest and underhanded attack? I remember where I was on 9/11, I was in the shower when my wife tried to tell me what was happening. I frankly didn’t understand the scope of what was happening until I saw it on TV for myself.

If this is going to be the entire democratic playbook for the next few months till the election, I think I’m going to be sick. If anyone needs to be ashamed for using tragic events for their own political purpose it is democrats.

My favorite quote was from John Kerry to Don Imus when Kerry said he absalutly did not have botox to his forhead. In asking my wife if she would vote for a man who had botox she said sure. But if he lied about and it’s plain obvious, my wife said he could not be trusted. Has anyone figured out what the definition of “is” is yet?
Compound that with the left leaning media, alot of the sheeple actually thought GWB was awol when actually it was to deflect Kerry’s bimbo eruption. Now that Kerry’s under the microscope and cant have any sex outside of marriage, and with teressa knowing he messes around, he is never going to have sex. Do we want to elect someone like this? He will end up doing the Clinton in the back washroom.

Henri, it’s not zenos paradox, It’s simple mathematics. If the jet can’t cover the distance between the base and the passenger jet in less than the same time that it took that jet to travel to the buildings, it might be close, but it will miss the opportunity. The plane was closer to New York than the jet, and so the catch up time would be a factor.

As I recall there wasn’t a base close enough to do that sort of intercept. As I recall, jets were scrambled. We in fact saw them flying over New York after the incident.

Did you see the first reports on 9/11? My first thought was that whoever was piloting that plane (the first one) was a real idiot for flying into a huge building like that. There was so much confusion in what was going on for the first 80 minutes that the only thing that the President could do was keep himself safe.

The three other planes in the air that were hijacked fit in perfectly with all the other traffic in the air, and no one could have expected what happended. There was a different mindset back then.

Bush did what the plan was for the U.S. to do in case of a major attack, he protected the presidency and secured a working government. He did the right thing.

Not that it would influence anybody’s unshakeable hatred of the president, but please recall that nobody was quite sure what was going on after the first jet hit that morning (the first news report I heard was of an accidental crash). To suggest that Bush should have not only known but acted on what nobody else in the world knew until it was to late is a simple smear. As we all know, only Democrats have such super-human mental and physical strength. As president, Gore would have darted into the nearest telephone booth, changed into his Superhero costume and shot death rays at the terrorists out of his eyes. This is the level of reality you Dems live on.

Eric,
Lets begin at the end of your diatribe.

Quote
“I understand that you’re desparate and don’t want G.W. to win, but can’t you do it without resorting to this kind of dishonest and underhanded attack? I remember where I was on 9/11, I was in the shower when my wife tried to tell me what was happening. I frankly didn’t understand the scope of what was happening until I saw it on TV for myself.”

I remember where I was on that day too and I watched as the planes attacked building after building. I wondered then where our quick response systems were and how this could be going on and on without any military response. I waited for words from the President and a message about our effort to control the air corridors over our major cities. I was in the Army air defense system in 1965. Our primitive antiaircraft weapons then would never have been able to do anything under such circumstances. Since then we have spent several trillion dollars on weapons systems and on maintaining rapid response air force squadrons. Do you mean to tell me that the best we could do was a couple of men on a training mission with eighty minutes warning before the Pentagon was hit? That is pathetic in a nation with hundreds of pilots and planes capable of stopping such an attack.

An accusation is not done by raising the question of what his response was during the events of 9/11. If I believed Bush was guilty I would say so out loud and in public and I would have evidence backing me up. Accusing anyone who raises questions about his conduct of being a conspiracy theorist is gratuitous and false. There is plenty of room for questioning his capabilities as CIC in a crisis without accusing him of a conspiracy of any kind. That is any conspiracy other than covering up his ineptitude. In that case it is not the conspiracy I am concerned with but the problem with his competence as CIC. That is where I find Bush most lacking is his ability to grasp real events as they occur and respond appropriately.
Henri

Henri, this tactic of “raising a question” while supposedly not doing so “out loud and in public” because there’s no “evidence to back it up” does seem familiar. It’s the favorite ploy these days of those who want to perpetuate a smear without taking responsibility for it. Thus we have Dean’s “interesting theories,” the whole National Guard flap and Kerry’s almost daily insinuations about the president’s “lying.” It’s a shame that this is what political discourse has come to these days—it’s taking all of us straight into the gutter. I sure don’t want to say that Kerry is a pedophile because here’s certainly no evidence to back it up, but boy, is that an interesting theory.

BUSH EXPLOITS PHOTO OF DEAD BODIES, DESPITE BAN

As the nation headed for war last year, President Bush “clamped down” on the
media, extending and expanding a controversial policy that banned reporters
from photographing flag-draped caskets of soldiers killed in combat (1). The
White House said the policy was enforced to “spare the feelings of military
families.” (2) Yet, in the very first television advertisement of his 2004
campaign, the president has blanketed the nation’s airwaves with an image of
“firefighters carrying a flag-draped body” from the 9/11 wreckage at Ground
Zero (3).

The hypocrisy of preventing Americans from receiving a “reminder of the toll
of war” at the very same time the president exploits an image of a dead body
for his own political gain has caused an outrage among victims’ families
(4). Chris Burke, whose brother Tom died in the attacks, said, “Using my
dead friends and my dead brother for political expediency is dead wrong.
It’s wrong, it’s bad taste and an insult to the 3,000 people who died on
Sept. 11.” (5)

The president’s actions have also raised new credibility questions because
he previously promised not to exploit the 9/11 attacks. Speaking of 9/11 in
January 2003, President Bush told the Associated Press that he had “no
ambition whatsoever to use this as a political issue.” (6)

Sources:
1. “Return of U.S. war dead kept solemn, secret”, USA Today, 12/30/2003,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1234133&l=20588.
2. “Pentagon avoids the ‘Dover test’”, The News Journal, 11/26/2003,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1234133&l=20589
ml.
3. “Relatives of those slain on 9-11 fault Bush ads”, Star-Telegram,
03/05/2004, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1234133&l=20590.
4. “Return of U.S. war dead kept solemn, secret”, USA Today, 12/30/2003,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1234133&l=20588.
5. “Ads’ use of 9/11 upsets families”, Miami Herald, 03/05/2004,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1234133&l=20591.
6. “Sept. 11 and Nov. 2”, The New York Times, 03/05/2004,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1234133&l=20592.

Visit Misleader.org for more about Bush Administration distortion. —>

Martin
Quote
“Henri, this tactic of “raising a question” while supposedly not doing so “out loud and in public” because there’s no “evidence to back it up” does seem familiar. It’s the favorite ploy these days of those who want to perpetuate a smear without taking responsibility for it. Thus we have Dean’s “interesting theories,” the whole National Guard flap and Kerry’s almost daily insinuations about the president’s “lying.” It’s a shame that this is what political discourse has come to these days—it’s taking all of us straight into the gutter. I sure don’t want to say that Kerry is a pedophile because here’s certainly no evidence to back it up, but boy, is that an interesting theory.”

I am always interested in seeing how different my statements are than your interpretations of them turn out to be. I did not smear Mr. Bush, but I did pose a question about his response on 9/11. that question is only related to his use of the images of that day to create the impression that he is a decisive President.

I haven’t examined Bush’s penchant for sexual deviance but that is because I consider it irrelavant to his conduct as CIC. I doubt that Kerry is a pedophile but I am willing to hear his answer to any valid question posed about that subject. As far as I know no one has accused him of that deviance. However Bush has been accused of failing to act on 9/11. It is in his interest to answer those accusations in detail. He has stonewalled the commission dedicated to investigating that event. Why would he not release data so important to his credibility as CIC? Note, this is not an innuendo or a formal charge of ineffectiveness. It is a question asked in the expectation that he has an answer that could help him win in November. I am not calling on him to explain his behavior before he was President but during the crisis that has defined this decade for all of us.
Henri

I doubt that Kerry is a pedophile but I am willing to hear his answer to any valid question posed about that subject. As far as I know no one has accused him of that deviance. However Bush has been accused of failing to act on 9/11. It is in his interest to answer those accusations in detail.

Now that someone has raised the question of Kerry’s sexual deviance, why won’t he stand up and answer these charges? Why isn’t he saying anything about this? Does he have something to hide? Why would he not release data so important to his credibility as a normal sexual being? Note that this is not a formal charge. It is a question asked in the expectation that he has an answer that could help him avoid losing in November. I am calling on him to explain his behavior that could define the democratic party for ever.

See how easy it is?

I doubt if my sentiment is shared by other democrats or even republicans, but it seems to me that people get too caught up in the politics of it all.
Sure Sept 11 is a deeply political issue among other things, but if I ever smear Bush, it wouldn’t be because he was a Republican, honestly I think Dems and Reps have more in common than they know.If I have a problem with Bush it’s purely because of his policies, as an individual, and as a president.
To equate rallies for peace and an end to bloodshed as some sort of politically motivated agenda is to miss the point entirely. War is not a joke, it is a very, very serious issue , and people who oppose the war don’t do it because its a “neocon” war, they do it because regardless of who started it, people are dying, and thats not something that should ever be mixed with politics, not to detract from or to support anyone’s political agenda.

Eric has it right. If the media were then to give Kerry the same treatment they’ve given Bush over the National Guard flap and these ads, we’d see AP and Reuters headlines like “Kerry Fails to Produce Evidence to Disprove Pedophilia Allegations,” and “Alarming Sex-Crime Allegations Mount Against Kerry.” A few relatives of pedophilia-victims (who also happen to be Republicans—but let’s not mention that) could be trotted out to express their disgust at Kerry’s unsatisfactory answers.The New York Times could dispatch a reporter to point out that “No records exist of Kerry’s whereabouts from 1 to 3 pm on May 2 of 1978, and Kerry’s claim (for which there is no proof), that he wasn’t hanging around a playground then has failed to satisfy critics.” Paul Krugman could then write an editorial alleging that this all part of a disturbing pattern of evasion on the part of Kerry, and that Kerry has also failed to prove that he’s not a murderer, arsonist or kidnapper