Democrats & Liberals Archives

Republicans Blame Democrats First

Whenever a Democrat disagrees with the Bush Administration about the Iraq War, Republicans always shout, “Democrats Blame America First,” implying that Democrats are not true Americans. Republicans are wrong: Dissidence is a sign of love; we Democrats love America so much that we want to make it better. Republicans, however, blame Democrats for all America’s problems, especially those related to the “war on terror” - and not for reasons of love.

Republicans and Republicans alone prepared the movie "Path to 911," that is being aired on ABC yesterday and today. The filmmakers asked Republican Tom Kean of the 911 commission to act as a consultant. No Democrat on or off the commission, was consulted. It's fair to call the film a Republican movie.

For the past week or so, Democrats - former President Clinton and Sandy Berger among them - have been complaining that the movie is filled with lies. So the filmmakers have stopped calling it a documentary (in the U.S.) and are calling it a docudrama. They said that to get the true spirit of the situation they needed to insert some fiction.

Fiction in a film portraying such a horrible event? Why?

It is obvious that the purpose of this so-called docudrama is to blame Democrats for 911. If it is necessary to tell a few fibs in order to put the blame on Bill Clinton, Sandy Berger and Madeleine Albright, why not? By blaming Democrats for the 911 massacre Republicans take the spotlight off Republican chicanery, incompetence and malfeasance in the fight against terrorism. By focusing on what supposedly happened before 911, they drag the American public away from the Republicans' insanely-incompetent execution of the "war on terror."

Evidently, to Republicans, Democrats don't count. President George W. Bush and his wife Laura visited Ground Zero. According to the N.Y Post, they were accompanied by N.Y. Governor George E. Pataki, N.Y. Mayor Michael Bloomberg and former Mayor Rudolph M Jiuliani - all Republicans. Don't you think that New York Senators Chuck Schumer and Hillary Rodham Clinton should have been part of the group? I guess not; they are Democrats.

Yes, indeed, September 11 is a day of mourning. But Republicans do not think that they should share the spotlight with Democrats. Winning in the fall elections is more important to them than building unity in the fight against Al Qaeda.

So now you know the big difference between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats criticize the administration for not focusing on the fight against Al Qaeda. They deplore how Bush and his cohorts present docudramas and other smokescreens to shift blame to Democrats when Republicans should be capturing and killing Osama bin Laden. Republicans, however, stick to blaming Democrats for everything Republicans have screwed up.

It's time for a new strategy. It's time to redeploy our troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. It's time to fight Al Qaeda with all necessary resources, not only military. It's time to find and kill Osama bin Laden. The only way to succeed in our fight with terrorists is to kick Republicans out of office and replace them with non-Republicans.

Posted by Paul Siegel at September 11, 2006 6:16 PM
Comments
Comment #180526

“Whenever a Democrat disagrees with the Bush Administration about the Iraq War, Republicans always shout, “Democrats Blame America First,” implying that Democrats are not true Americans.”

This also implies that Bush embodies America. Neither implication is true.

Posted by: Tim Crow at September 11, 2006 6:26 PM
Comment #180532

I feel it is obvious that the release of this “Docudrama ” is clearly Republican grandstanding. The timeing of the the release is ,well, too timely what with the elections right around the corner. I agree Paul. They want to point the finger at Democrats and spin the entire fiasco to show themselves as the good guys.

Posted by: fuzzwart at September 11, 2006 6:42 PM
Comment #180534

Anyone notice the CNN poll released today? (1/3 more people blame Bush for 9/11 than 4 years ago.) I know this obviously had no impact from the “path to 9/11” … and judging from the ratings, not too many people found the time to watch it. This could injure Republicans much more than help them. If no one watches the show, but many people know about it and assume it is a REP revision of history… just one more example of putting politics ahead of the truth.

Posted by: tony at September 11, 2006 6:53 PM
Comment #180535

My question is… why didn’t the walt disney movie “Path to 9/11 begin with Reagans failed policies or Bush Sr.’s failures? Why was it so important to show the clip of Bill Clinton stating ‘… I did not have sex with that woman… Miss Lewinski?

Talk about six hours of Propaganda.

Another thing that erks me is that in the first 30 minutes of the movie ABC had the FBI agent tell the islamic informant “…there are too many laws that prohibit domestic spying that’s why we couldn’t stop the bombing of the World Trade Center” (referring to the 1993 attack on the world trade center). Are the Republicans and is this administration so desperate that they are using this movie to justify all of their illegal actions?

Are all the scenes about Bush going to be filmed at his ranch in Crawford? For equal air-time is ABC going to broadcast the 2 hour movie Fahrenheit 9/11 by Micheal Moore 3 times?

Posted by: Pat at September 11, 2006 7:02 PM
Comment #180539

Democrats point at republicans, Republicans point at Democrats. The real blame should go to all 250+million people here in the U.S. who sat in front of their big screen TV’s and went around in their Big SUV’s thinking that no one would attack us on U.S. soil. Remember Republicans and Democrats and liberals when you point a finger there are always 3 pointing right back at you. Both parties are at fault for the security lapses in this country.

Posted by: KAP at September 11, 2006 7:28 PM
Comment #180546

KAP,
I totally agree! We as a country are all at fault. If you look at our weak responses to Islamic radicals attacking us in various places all over the world beginning with Iran in during the Carter administration, it is no wonder we were hit right here at home and will be again. Iran…we did nothing besides a failed rescue attempt, Beruit..pulled out with our tails between our legs after Marines were hit, Somalia…left with our tails between our legs again, various embassy bombings…minimal missle strike doing no harm whatsoever to the enemy, USS Cole…nothing, World trade center, yet to be determined..will we see this through or leave with our tail between our legs again. Now I realize the first response I will get is “Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11!” That is correct…so what? We are there now, cannot leave, and we must focus on the stability of the region. Like it or not, it does effect us very much and our future. All political parties must stop pointing fingers and figure out how we will defeat this determined enemy. At the present, they seem musch more determined and resolut than us. When the Civil War began, Abe Lincoln said he would need 3 months and 75,000 troops to put down the Southern rebellion….5 years later and 600,000 casualties later, the war ended. Are we underestimating this Islamic extremist enemy? Do we think it is just going to go away if we play nice and let them have their way in the Middle East? Do we accept the fact that we cannot protect our country no matter how hard we try?

Posted by: Joe at September 11, 2006 7:47 PM
Comment #180549

I continue to find it interesting that many on this blog keep referring to our inability, so far, to capture or kill OBL as a Bush administration failure.
We failed to kill or capture Adolph Hitler also. His last days were spent underground in a bunker in Berlin and his last act was to hold a poison pill in one hand and a pistol in the other. In many ways I find this death of Hitler much more severe than anything Nuremburg judges could have handed out.
In similar fashion we have OBL in a hole in the ground and, if he is still alive, will the day come when he follows Hitler’s final humiliation? One can hope. Death by his own hand suits me just fine and much preferred to a highly publicized trial with the ACLU possibly defending him.
In both cases, these maniacal killers lost and we won. What say you?

Posted by: JIm at September 11, 2006 7:57 PM
Comment #180550

Joe:

How does our staying in Iraq help the stability of the region, or our long term goals against terror, when the person we have brought into power, the current Iraqi Prime Minister, has more direct ties to islamic terorrism than Saddam ever had?

Posted by: Jarin at September 11, 2006 7:57 PM
Comment #180553

Damn well written article Paul.

Actually all good comments too.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at September 11, 2006 8:01 PM
Comment #180556

KansasDem, you are wrong. It is not a well written article, nor are the comments all that great. What they are is partisan. Democrats have been trying to blame Saddam and 9/11 on GW Bush from about 4 weeks after 9/11 and the Iraqi invasion.

Democrats are as divisive of our nation as the Republicans. It is preposterous to imply, as Paul does, that Republicans are NOT like Democrats in wanting to improve and make America better. Republicans in Iowa, Wyoming, and Montana are Americans who love this country everybit as much as Democrats in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and California.

Fact is both of your parties have ritualized tearing AMerica apart and dividing her people every two years as a political sport, using the emotions and morals and good conscience of regular hard working Americans as your weapons against each other.

Think maturely for Buddha’s sake, and recognize what our sage founding fathers continue to whisper to us in our founding documents: United we stand, divided we fall.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 11, 2006 8:09 PM
Comment #180557

Jim

I find it interesting that people keep saying that 9/11 changed everything. How many terrorist attacks occured in other countries before 9/11, and suddenly when we are attacked it changes everything?

BTW Hitler was the commander in chief of a sovereign nation, and had an entire country protecting him. You can’t compare him to OBL and GW’s inability to find him.

Posted by: Loren at September 11, 2006 8:11 PM
Comment #180570

I honestly think that this article is right on target. Anyone with any common sense could see that clearly OBL and Al Qaeda were responsible for the tragedy of 9/11. To this day, why are we still in Iraq? It hasn’t stopped the spread of terrorism; in fact it has only helped train more terrorists to attack us in the future. I am in total agreement that obviously the GOP are just as guilty of trying to make the 9/11 tragedy a partisan grandstand as they accuse the Democrats of doing, not to mention that any criticism of this skewered policy that our present adminstration is doing is seen as either unpatriotic or akin to Neville Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement for Great Britian before the British were plunged into WWII. It is very sad; whatever happened in this country where different opinions got equal airing? For fear of being called “liberal” our press, which has always told the truth to the American public has become the avenue through with the Right Wing and spinmeisters like Rush Limbaugh and Matt Drudge can just spout off half-truths and distortions. Someone can call me another liberal as much as they want to, but IMHO, I just call a spade a spade!

Posted by: Tracy at September 11, 2006 8:42 PM
Comment #180571

Interesting conversation. It is useful to add to Loren’s comment that Hitler killed himself because the Allies were closing in and he was as good as caught. He knew he would be tried for his crimes.

Posted by: mental wimp at September 11, 2006 8:45 PM
Comment #180572

mental wimp:

“…Hitler killed himself because the Allies were closing in…. “

Not just allies—the Russians. In about two months, they were no longer allies. Too bad he wasn’t caught alive—it would have been interesting to see how much physical abuse he would have taken before he died.

Posted by: Tim Crow at September 11, 2006 8:58 PM
Comment #180583

/A few ideas to ponder:

Why was there no massive media campaign for this program? Is ABC not a for-profit company? The first I heard of it was when progressive talkshow hosts were complaining about the show in response to rightwing talkshow hosts using this propaganda to shore up their past lies and rants against Clinton when it looked like Bush was going to take the serious heat for 9/11.

Why were promotional copies of the show released to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, but not President Clinton’s staff or left wing talk show hosts? Is that the marketing plan? Sell it to the ‘majority’ of Americans since the ‘majority’ must be Limbaugh, Hannity, and Fox News fans? What kind of self deluded plan would that be? Some taliban thinking Right Winger thinking that most of the American people believe as he does? The silent majority… indeed. Wake up and smell the coffee. The right has pooped on the lawn too many times and the people were bound to notice the mess. Give ‘em enough rope…

Why are there no advertisements sold during this program? Again, isn’t ABC a for profit business? Is this a ‘public’ service expense for ABC… or is someone else footing the bill for this piece of fiction?

Who is behind this film? I mean, really behind it, not some conservative director or producer, but who is the big money guy behind this film?

I think this information will eventually come out and the sooner the better. This ploy won’t work for the NeoCons, but if by chance the American people are stupid enough to buy this as FACT, then they deserve the leadership that they currently have.

God have mercy on us all.

Posted by: LibRick at September 11, 2006 9:55 PM
Comment #180584

Just caught Bushes 9/11 speach. Kudos to his writers and handlers. They must have really made him practice for this one. It was actually well delivered. He almost admitted mistakes in Iraq and did not,like usual ,lie about the reasons for invasion. Of course I almost choked when he said we were committed to removing despots from the middle-east. When are we going to invade Saudi Arabia or the U.A. E.?

Posted by: BillS at September 11, 2006 9:58 PM
Comment #180589

Tracy

We try ot learn from history and make analogies. These analogies are never perfect nor are they w/o contraversy. I see many parallels between pacifist attitudes of the 1930s and those of today. Not all Dems are infected by this thinking, but I believe the pacifist wing, people such as Pelosi or now Lamont are.

I do not say this as a partisan attack, but as my interpretation of history compared to current events. Naturally, others disagree. I do not hold to this interpretation to support Bush. I support Bush because I hold to this interpretation. If I saw the world the way the pacifist do, I probably would be a liberal Democrat.

Both of us are calling a spade a spade.

Posted by: Jack at September 11, 2006 10:07 PM
Comment #180591

Very good post Joe,
And very good question.

We can not win this war on terror, any more than we can win the war on drugs. It is unwinable. But the Republicians still need it, to win votes. That is the bottom line here. Every time there is a glare upon this Administration, Osama is trotted out to scare the pants off us, and re-direct our thinking.

I talked to a recent retired SFC from the Army last week, just back from Iraq. He said, “I have heard you guys talking about this war being
“just like Viet Nam”. You are wrong. It is much worse than Viet Nam, ever was!

Posted by: PlayNice at September 11, 2006 10:09 PM
Comment #180593

Jim,

You should not be so suprised that many on this blog are dissapointed in our lack of success at capturing OBL or killing him. Clinton never claimed that he would, Bush promised in Sept of 2001 that he would. I know that you think that we Dems do not hold our President to telling the truth and sticking to it. But, dispite Clinton, we do. Bush promised, he lied, and now you guys want to say, “so what, neither did clinton”. Well, the “so what” is that Clinton is no longer our President, (big news), Bush on the other hand, IS!

Posted by: PlayNice at September 11, 2006 10:15 PM
Comment #180598

PlayNice, dragging the “Bush lied” slogan into such a matter is, well, not only failing to play nice but failing to be reasonable.

Do you really think that the inability of our military and intelligences services to locate Bin Laden is the result of a lie? That Bin Laden’s unquestioned ability to hide out in caves or wherever he is means that Bush is a liar? It doesn’t even make sense, not the least because OBL may yet be found.

At this point, I don’t care in the least anymore what Clinton did or didn’t do. Clinton is yesterday’s news. We can all play the blame game and Monday morning quarterback forever. That’s politics, but I for one am tired of it.

Posted by: Pilsner at September 11, 2006 10:32 PM
Comment #180601

….Bush promised in Sept of 2001 that he would [capture OBL].

Well, playnice, he has a little more than two years to come through.

If this administration gets that son-of-a-bitch , I will be the first in line to congratulate them and pat them on the back.

And NOONE on this blog has been harder on this administration than I.

In short, this is one thing that I hope the administration is stunningly successful on.

Posted by: Tim Crow at September 11, 2006 10:33 PM
Comment #180603

Isn’t it ironic that hawks blame pacifists for the tragedies of war?

Posted by: Loren at September 11, 2006 10:37 PM
Comment #180609

Loren

That is because too much agression and too much weakness both lead to war. Maintaining peace takes a lot of work and a fair amount of strength.

If they held a war and nobody came, we would just leave the world in the hands of the most ruthless people. In times of long peace, we forget that. The generation of the 1930s was probably the most pacfifist in W. European history. They gave peace a chance about five years longer than it deserved and got the biggest war in the history of the world.

Posted by: Jack at September 11, 2006 10:46 PM
Comment #180611

Lib Rick,

” Why was there no massive media campaign for this program? Is ABC not a for-profit company? “

There was no “massive” advertisements, no. But, this program was not made to make money off of advertisements. This program was made to stop the blood bath to the Republician party, and to keep as many of them “on the hill”, as possiable next year. This movie says a lot, to help campaign for them, as many are distancing themselves from a Republician President that is starting to stink like 3 day old fish to many Americans.

” Why were promotional copies of the show released to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, but not President Clinton’s staff or left wing talk show hosts? “

Because they didnt want to happen, what did happen. As it was when the Democrats got wind of the stink from this, fortunately they made enough noise to have 15 min. of unbelievable crud removed. I say “unbelievable crud” because of what was left in was bad enough! But, probably not bad enough to get sued over. (Drat)

” Is that the marketing plan? “

They know as most politicians know, that there are a lot of people out there that believe a lot of things on face value, and do not take the time to research the “truth” for themselves. There are a lot of lemmings out there, but not nearly enough time, and the time is running out.

” The right has pooped on the lawn too many times and the people were bound to notice the mess. “

Thanks for noticing. Some people do not. It is a shame that a lot of people will see this and just shut their brains off even farther from the truth. I guess their old, “Blame Bush, Un-American” montra, works better than we would like it to, and that is bad for the real America, and real Americans. It is never “bad” to question your government, a true American should always be questioning their country, especially “in a time of war”.

” … or is someone else footing the bill for this piece of fiction? “

Well, I cannot say, but I would be very curious. (Would be very interesting if we could see what ABC/Disney deal, with Bush Co, had going on together.) But, one thing is for sure, business is all about the money, and ABC/Disney….is very, VERY…Big Business.

” Who is behind this film? I mean, really behind it, not some conservative director or producer, but who is the big money guy behind this film? I think this information will eventually come out and the sooner the better. This ploy won’t work for the NeoCons, but if by chance the American people are stupid enough to buy this as FACT, then they deserve the leadership that they currently have.

God have mercy on us all. “

LibRick,

Very very good post. And I do not think that, if there is something shady about this deal that it will pass the smell test. After all this Administrtion is not the brightest bulb in the bunch, and they havent kept Hallaburton a very big secret now, have they?

Posted by: PlayNice at September 11, 2006 10:49 PM
Comment #180612

Do you Dems actually believe that if we get Osama that the war is over???. I honestly believe that Osama is a fasil in tora bora. When was the last time you saw Osama on a tape?? Its been years, if he is alive I would like to see him on a recent tape. The thing that bothers me is that Clinton had 8 years to get Osama and no Dems complaining. How long will we keep our troops in Cosovo?? What was Clintons exit stragey.

Posted by: Thomas at September 11, 2006 10:49 PM
Comment #180616

“KansasDem, you are wrong.”

David R. Remer,

Ah, we disagree. Why? Do we disagree on principle or simply politics? I’m thinking the Democratic Party is truly the party of diversity.

This sham TV show we’re all preoccupied with points out a shift in party propaganda. Think back to Clinton’s decision to take action in Bosnia/Kosovo. Was Clinton trying to win votes? Was he wagging the dog? I’d say no.

He was being the President of the USA! Criticism be damned! He took a stand and he stood his ground. He also managed to involve a national ground force.

Everytime Clinton initiated military force his balls were held to the fire by the Republican’t Congress. Nine months into the new Republican’t Presidents term we saw just what the Repubs “Can’t” do.

You’ll not find me retreating or apologizing for my comments on Paul’s article. I think Paul is dead on.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at September 11, 2006 10:52 PM
Comment #180618

Pilsner:

How about the fact that on September 12th, Bush knew bin Laden’s whereabouts? He’d just gone into the hospital in Pakistan for surgery on September 10th. On September 12th, Colin Powell initiated negotiations with Pakistan with a view towards arresting and extraditing bin Laden.

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO311A.html

Posted by: Jarin at September 11, 2006 10:54 PM
Comment #180620

Correction, dialysis treatment, not surgery.

Posted by: Jarin at September 11, 2006 10:57 PM
Comment #180621

What’s a fasil?

Posted by: Loren at September 11, 2006 10:58 PM
Comment #180623

What’s a fasil?

Posted by: Loren at September 11, 2006 10:59 PM
Comment #180624

Pilsner,

” PlayNice, dragging the Bush lied slogan into such a matter is, well, not only failing to play nice but failing to be reasonable. “

Were you around during that speech in Sept 2001? I was. And, I was in tears. The whole world was behind us. We had the whole world on our side against “terror”. Where is the world now? Where is the world now and the pride that we had and the determination that we had and the support that we had to meet terror head on, and kick it in the ass?

Where are we 5 years later when most of the Arab world now sees us as occupiers and war mongers instead of fighters for “justice”?

PLEEZE!

Bush has squandered what support we had, and what National Pride and resolve we had, and what chance we had to rise above the “terrorists”, in the past 5 years.

Bush lied. He lied about catching Osama, he lied about Iraq, there has not been one thing of truth that has come out of that mans mouth.

With a few small exceptions. One being, “I dont know when we will be out of Iraq, the next President will have to decide that”.

Now that, I do believe.

Posted by: PlayNice at September 11, 2006 11:00 PM
Comment #180632

Jarin, I can’t help but chuckle that you link to an article the first sentence of which is “If the CBS report by Dan Rather is accurate…”

But in any case, if Bin Laden really was in a Pakistani Military Hospital on 9-12, what could we have done about it except exactly what the article insinuates was done, try to negotiate for his extradition? Or should the US have bombed a military hospital of a nuclear power and ally on the basis of a totally uncomfirmed suspicion?

In all probablity, though, this whole story is a load of bull since the only site reporting it, “Globalresearch.ca,” is a site that is primarily devoted to making wild and unsubstantiated accusations of Israeli war crimes.

Posted by: Pilsner at September 11, 2006 11:32 PM
Comment #180636

Paul, you are right. Path to 9/11 is a film made by Neocons to attack Democrats (and not just Bill Clinton and the people in his administration). I also agree that the Neocons have and continue to demonize Liberals and leave us totally out of the loop when it comes to all public appearances. That is clearly a Neocon tactic — to divide and conquer. (A few others are: Always attempt to control the message, and, Say one thing when they actually mean the exact opposite.)
Not all of the Republicans are like this, but those who don’t go along with these Neocon tactics currently hold no power or influence with the Republican party. I hope that will change sometime very soon.

David:
“It is not a well written article, nor are the comments all that great. What they are is partisan.”

This is unnecessarily harsh, IMO.
David, please consider this for a moment: aren’t your own comments in this blog also directed toward your own personal opinions, too? You attack both Democrats and Republicans in favor of promoting your Anti-Incumbent stance. Isn’t it true that you are as equally partial to promoting your political ideas as Paul is to his?

“Democrats have been trying to blame Saddam and 9/11 on GW Bush from about 4 weeks after 9/11 and the Iraqi invasion.”

Well, I’m a Democrat, and after I read the 9/11 report, I came to the conclusion that both Clinton and Bush can share blame for what happened on 9/11. Yes, I do think Bush is clearly more directly at fault — because he completely neglected his duties regarding terrorism, and didn’t heed either Clinton or Richard Clarke’s warnings about how vigilant America needed to be regarding Al Qaeda and Bin Laden.
As for the Iraqi invasion — yeah, that’s all Bushco, in my view. They lied and cherry-picked intell and got some of the Dems to go along with them. Do I think those Dems should have known better? Yes, I do. But I still know that Iraq is definitely a Bushco disaster, and nothing else but.

“Democrats are as divisive of our nation as the Republicans.”

But VOID heals no ideological divisions either, David, at least as far as I can tell. Nor do Independents, or Greens, or Libertarians, etc. All these groups have their own political bones to pick — and all will heap abuse on everybody else to promote their personal beliefs.

“It is preposterous to imply, as Paul does, that Republicans are NOT like Democrats in wanting to improve and make America better.”

Let me just say this: how can Republicans think they are making America better when they are calling one half (if not more) of the population “traitors” to our country because we do not agree with this president and the men in his administration?
America has visited this kind of extremist territory before with McCarthyism — and it was as harmful then as it is now. Don’t you agree?

“Republicans in Iowa, Wyoming, and Montana are Americans who love this country everybit as much as Democrats in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and California.”

I can agree with that in a general sense. Most people love their country — yet when it comes to their fellow citizens who may not share their political party (or sometimes, their religion), personally I’m not so sure. In my opinion, extremism from the far right or left is a real killer when it comes to promoting respect and basic human decency.

“Fact is both of your parties have ritualized tearing AMerica apart and dividing her people every two years as a political sport, using the emotions and morals and good conscience of regular hard working Americans as your weapons against each other.”

No. Only recently are Liberals beginning to learn from the Neocons how to fight as low down and dirty as they do. This became a necessary evil in the face of us having become their favorite punching bag after so many years.
I’m fairly certain you KNOW this is true.

“Think maturely for Buddha’s sake, and recognize what our sage founding fathers continue to whisper to us in our founding documents: United we stand, divided we fall.”

I personally have no inclination to be united with the people who show not an ounce of respect for those founding documents, but are instead in the process of systematically attacking them, and rendering them obsolete. Those people are Neocons, and I intend to continue fighting them with everything I’ve got until they are defeated and only bad memory in America’s past.
On the other hand, I don’t have too big of a problem with old school conservatives and Republicans, other than a difference of political opinions. I definitely don’t think of those people as trying to destroy everything that America was (is) meant to stand for.

Librick:
“Why are there no advertisements sold during this program? Again, isn’t ABC a for profit business? Is this a ‘public’ service expense for ABC… or is someone else footing the bill for this piece of fiction?”

Lynne put up a Max Blumenthal article covering who bankrolled this movie the other day in the red column. I reposted that link and added to it in a reply to tomh — located at the bottom of the “9/11 Truth or Fiction” thread.
Basically you’ll see that David Horowitz’s think tank is behind this movie, and that nut gets most of his money from Richard Mellon Scaife, and a bunch of other extremely wealthy, corporatist, ideologically-hardcore Neocons.

That’s the biggest challenge for the Left when it comes to fighting the Neocons. These people are rich enough to totally buy out the media (the press also to a large degree) and control it completely. We’re already seeing this. Reading the foreign press, and reading and participating in blogs has now become the way that people on the Left combat the Neocon misinformation machine and communicate with each other. With the way they’ve been gaining control of everything else, I believe we should be very worried about whether blogs on the internet will also suffer the same fate as the MSM, and a very large portion of America’s other news-gathering outlets, in the future.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 11, 2006 11:41 PM
Comment #180643

PlayNice, you need to get over that myth about the “world being behind us” after 9-11. It never happened. It’s bull. It’s a figment of revisionist liberal imagination.

If you look behind the handful of over-quoted headlines such as Le Monde’s “We Are all Americans now,” you’ll see that the same people who are attacking us now were in fact celebrating, or if not celebrating, finding reasons to blame the US for 9-11 from day one.

It’s amazing how something that never happened—this idea of the world being behind us after 9-11—has taken root. The entire world was NOT behind us after 9-11, just as they weren’t behind us during the Cold War.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the world is NOT a nice place filled with gentle souls.

It’s a place filled with and governed by dictators, murderers, decayed and resentful European states who having lost their power over the third world seek to undermine the last remaining superpower. Even as they demand that we solve all their problems for them and that we live up to standards that never in their hundreds of years of recorded history did they ever live up to for even a second themselves.

Posted by: Pilsner at September 11, 2006 11:51 PM
Comment #180649

It seems to also be filled with conservative cynics who are faith not fact-based as well.

Posted by: Loren at September 12, 2006 12:04 AM
Comment #180654

Loren:

You hit the nail on the head!

Posted by: Dr. Poshek at September 12, 2006 12:10 AM
Comment #180660

Pilsner takes conspiracy theory to a whole new level.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 12, 2006 12:19 AM
Comment #180663

Adrienne, the difference is the polls show a majority of Americans believe as I do, no confidence in either party, no confidence in Congress, no confidence in the White House, and no confidence in the future direction of our country. That is a reflection of the American people evidenced by the polls. A very different thing than saying my political beliefs are patriotic and everyone else is a ____ (fill in your appropriate derogatory word, failing the country, unpatriotic, whatever.)

The majority of the American people have it right. Both parties are about dividing America, not uniting them. VOID is about uniting Americans around their own self-confessed lack of confidence in Republocrats and government, to take the action necessary to reform it, make it better, and fulfill the American promise of peace, prosperity, and liberty. That is what 90+ percent of Americans want for our country. But Republocrat leadership want division and political warfare every 2 years, they want ever more tax dollars and indebtedness to prove themselves right, and they want the freedom to take money in any amounts from any special interest to preserve their campaign war chest.

The leadership of the DNC and RNC are all about war. While the American people desperately seek peace and unity, Republocrats seek division and war for votes. That’s just the straight truth of it. It is also why both parties are losing supporters big time to that new political phenomenon called the “independent”.

So, no, there is a qualitative difference. Uniting voters to force responsible government in the face of overwhelming corruption, fraud, and abuse by both party’s politicians, is qualtitatively different from the divisiveness and war between the Republocrats for rights to the corruption, fraud, and abuse of office.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 12, 2006 12:34 AM
Comment #180667

David
I agree that many leaders of our political parties exploit partisanship for political gain every 2 years. But some don’t. And that begs the question, “which ones should stay?” And there your going to get tons of disagreement. Should Hillary stay? Dems say shes almost moderate. Reps generally loath her. Or John McCain or the other Gang of 14. How do we decide which of our representatives should stay and which should go? I don’t see any golden line in the stand determining good leaders from corrupt ones. So who decides and how? The People? The People disagree. Alot, hence our dilemma. Some will say a representative is good, others will call him/her corrupt. Do we through them all out just to make sure we don’t miss any? I hope not. In the end the People must choose who represents them best then hold him or her accountable. If the People fail the courts will take up the slack, and will be accused of being “activist.”

Who decides which politicians to VOID?

Posted by: Silima at September 12, 2006 1:04 AM
Comment #180672

David, you have given everyone the VOID spiel, but you have talked over me in that process.
d.a.n. frequently does this too, when often I’d prefer it if he tried to reply to the things that I actually wrote.

Of course, you don’t have to reply to what I wrote, just because that’s what I was hoping for…
:^)

I must say, I’m rather amazed when people use the term “Republicrat”, and in doing so, include the Neocons in that sweeping definition of America’s two major political parties.
I think it’s clear that those clowns must be differentiated into a class wholly unto themselves (even if they do currently control the right side of the isle with an iron fist). Indeed, if I was a Republican, I’d consider it an insult to be lumped in with a bunch of reckless, war-mongering, authoritarian control-freaks, who have no respect whatsoever for the constitution.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 12, 2006 1:36 AM
Comment #180673

Whichever way you look at the movie, ther are a few reminders in there of what our problems are. The government beaurocracy is the biggest problem. Also, political squabbling. Watching all the 9-11 documentaries leading up to the movie, reminds me of a great tragedy. People jumping out of buildings, buildings collapsing, and people running for their lives.
I think many people have forgotten what happened that day. I, once again, feel violated and angry, and it will probably be another five years before I can watch 9-11 footage again. Politicians are playing with our national and personal security. Our quickest solution is in the House fo Representatives. Lets boot out politicians every two years until we get a good group in there, party affiliation be damned. Senate turnover is slower, but lets go there, too. These people are supposed to do our bidding, but they are just looking out for themselves.

Posted by: JoeRWC at September 12, 2006 1:41 AM
Comment #180675

Pilsner,

” PlayNice, you need to get over that myth about the “world being behind us” after 9-11. It never happened. It’s bull. It’s a figment of revisionist liberal imagination. “

What a load. You are saying that we are just as hated in the world, as we were on Sept 12th 2001. Yea, right. And, that the world in general never liked us anyway. Yea, right.

You are not talking about “the world”, you are talking about the “terrorists”. Well, got news for you, they will never like us, and they will always be there. The war on “terror” is unwinable, especially with Bushs tactics.

Got more news for you. “They” are not all “Muslim”. Remember Timmathy Mc Vay? Remember that nut in Jones Town? Remember WACO or Ruby Ridge? And, what about that nut and his kid that always was with him back east that killed all those people at gas stations? What about those two? These were all terrorist acts against the “Governemnt”, against the American people, and they were all “home-grown”.

You are talking about an exception, a small number of “terrorists” that hate us. These are exceptions, not the rule. My fact based statement still stands. We had support after 9/11. And, by our Presidents actions in the past 5 years, how he has handled himself and how he has directed this country, we have lost that patriotism ourselves, we have become devided, and we have fallen pretty low in the eyes of the rest of the “world”.

Now, you can white-wash it, all you want to. And, you can try to shift the blame that this fact, is because of the Libs or the Dems or dredge up ol Monicas dress, all you want to. It just simply will not change the facts.

We were looked upon with sympathy by most of the free world. Many countries and peoples knew that this at any time, “could happen to them too”. We were once the victim. We are now the victimizers.

Posted by: PlayNice at September 12, 2006 1:49 AM
Comment #180678

I have been around longer than five years. And, I know that the US has been hated for longer than five years. Alot of countries have always been jealous of what we have. Just look at the olympics. We dominate in most events and other countries have always hated that. Terrorists look at us like lazy, rich guys and cant stand it. The world was glad we took such a big blow.
“Not so big and bad, huh, USA?”
At the end of the day, no other country can deal with it like we can. Now everybody join me…
U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A…

Posted by: JoeRWC at September 12, 2006 2:05 AM
Comment #180679

Adrienne,

I hear you about different kinds of Republicians and not lumping them into one bag. I was talking to a man freshly retired SFC from the Army and spent the last 4 years in Iraq. He taught me somethings that I was completely unaware of. He told me a couple of things.

1) Not all republicians are alike. There is a big difference between a conservative republician and a “neocon”. He called them the Nixsonian Republicians. He gave me a Magazine called the “Conservative” started by Pat Buccanon and it is amazing the articals in there “bashing Bush”, and his military agenda. Ive read some of the articals, and my gosh, who knew that Pat Buccannon was a Lib :-)
So, see not all Repub. are alike.

2) When I asked him about Iraq and what it was really like over there. He said, “Well, a lot of you people (meaning us Democrats), say that it is like Viet Nam. But, I can tell you that, ITS NOTHING LIKE VIET NAM! Its much WORSE. Its a mess!

3) Then we talked about our men over there and how the death tolls are fudged. I can not remember the word you use to discribe it, but I had just heard it on Air America so I looked really smart, (but, believe me, dont know squat about military or military terms.) He was suprised that I knew the term and he said “yes”, “not only are the seriously evac d to Germany and if they dye there or in route, they are not counted but also if you are in a 3 person convoy and the first is hit by an (iud, god, I dont know, like I say, not really up on military terms), that only the injuries in the 1st vehicle get the metals or the “war victim” status. If the next two are hit from schrapnel then they are just training accidents or friendly fire or some such second rate death or injury and they do not count either. And the head injuries, the helmets are so bad at protecting the brain that those injuries are even worse in some ways as they have problems the rest of their lives if they live. And, with benifits cut for the VA every day by this Administration, most will go home to be cared for by their family. (thoughts of Katrina flooded my brain then - you know, “everyone has to take care of themselves, its not the governments job to care for you”, not under this Administration, God Forbid.

Well, it is too depressing to go on, sorry I didnt mean to get carried away. Sorry for the long winded tyrade. But all this is from a Republician in the Military in Iraq. So if you can not believe him, who you gonna believe? Bush?

Posted by: PlayNice at September 12, 2006 2:12 AM
Comment #180681

Joe,

The first time in current history that I can remember that we were not joined in a war or a “peace keeping” mission by Canada. Id say that was a drop, Huh?

What about Italy? Got a beef with them, do you? And, Austrailia, especially after that bomb in Bali opened their eyes and showed them that “they could be a victim too”. (We suddenly got to be 10 feet tall).

But our actions in Iraq, has lost us all kinds of support and credibility all around the world.

And, our continued occupation has been a vertual recrutement boon for all the terrorist camps in the world!

China is not even talking to us, for grips sake, about Korea, and we own THEM, 3 trillion dollars!

Can you say, “BURY YOUR HEAD, BURY YOUR HEAD, BURY YOUR HEAD”?

Posted by: PlayNice at September 12, 2006 2:21 AM
Comment #180683

Just to refresh everyones memory so that the lies in that crock-u-drama don’t take too firm a hold over the imagination, rather than the truth: This is how Clinton was focusing on terrorism during his years in office. Obviously not perfect, but properly well focused, yes?
Bush and the men in his administration didn’t take seriously any of what Clinton or Clarke were justly apprehensive of prior to 9/11 — even when that “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US” memo was put right under their noses.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 12, 2006 2:22 AM
Comment #180686

“Do you Dems actually believe that if we get Osama that the war is over???.”
thomas, do you actually believe that if we get the person who murdered JonBenet Ramsey that the murder of children will be over? Of course not.

Count me among those who are mad as hell that Usama bin Laden will die of old age before WE get our hands on him.

Immediately after 9/11 that piece of shit in the white house made a strong case for pursuing UBL to the ends of the earth and bringing him to justice dead or alive. HE HAD MY COMPLETE SUPPORT… and the support of the rest of the world as well. At that time, the population of Malaysia, the largest national Muslim population in the world, supported bush and his war against terror to the tune of 80%. Had our cock-in-chief followed through with his promise and used every resource available as relentlessly as he pursues campaign dollars, we’d have had UBL within two years. And THAT would have sent a very impressive message to would be terrorists… “You will not die a martyr flying a jetliner into a skyscraper, you will die like a mad dog, shot in the head while cowering in a cave.” Would that have ended the war against terrorism? Hell no. But it sure would have put a chink in their armor.

I’m as liberal as anyone you’ll find, but when it comes to UBL, I believe we should have taken the Kaiser Sozay solution… kill him, kill his brothers and sisters, kill his parents, kill his parents’ friends, kill people that owe them money, and burn down their all their houses.

Posted by: Thom Houts at September 12, 2006 3:24 AM
Comment #180687

PlayNice,

You brought up a good subject! Timothy McVeigh! His so-called “primary” co-conspirator, Terry Nichols, lived 25 miles from me in Herrington, Kansas. Hells bells, my second wife is married to Nichol’s brother!

I’d met them all and had no idea what was going on. I was shocked when they found explosives still stored under the last home Nichol’s rented in Herrington only about 2 years ago.

To this day I find it hard to believe that Nichols was involved. OTOH I know he was, but I’d never have suspected him of anything. I guess Martin Marietta should know where all of there explosives are at.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at September 12, 2006 3:31 AM
Comment #180689

Paul - Grrrrr!!!!!

You know what? I’m finding the discourse disgusting. Gross generalizations inhibit communication in almost every blue and red thread. Many brilliant ideas have been derived from the the Red and Blue, but niether has the will to understand.

Passion?

Logic?

How will the two ultimately meld?

“That”…and only “THAT” is the question.

Posted by: DOC at September 12, 2006 4:15 AM
Comment #180693

Jack,

The generation of the 1930s was probably the most pacfifist in W. European history. They gave peace a chance about five years longer than it deserved and got the biggest war in the history of the world.

Deadlyness progress in weaponery has more to do with it than the fact 1930s’s west europeans were pacifists. Air strike, bombers, rockets etc didn’t exists in the previous centuries.
Plus in long european history there are several previous “pacifist” times as well between two wars.

Pacifism was not invented in the 20th century.
WMDs were.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 12, 2006 6:01 AM
Comment #180695

—— Looks like every one forgot The Huge outcry
when Fahrenheit 9/11 the movie came out!
I believe the Democrats need to demand ABC
play that movie in the same time slot with the
same conditions. REMBER the hate, bashing that went on, where are those people now? Some are
right here promoting this docudrama which was written an supported by a bunch of biggoted low
class of people. I hope they are all infested
with a million fleas from a camels back.

Posted by: DAVID at September 12, 2006 6:18 AM
Comment #180699

Thomas,

When was the last time you saw Osama on a tape?? Its been years, if he is alive I would like to see him on a recent tape.

Last officially timestamped was released in January 2006, recorded around one month before:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/19/international/middleeast/19cnd-tape.html?ex=1158206400&en=7f8b2e41939f9e09&ei=5070

You could also check this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videos_of_Osama_bin_Laden#September_7.2C_2006

The thing that bothers me is that Clinton had 8 years to get Osama and no Dems complaining. How long will we keep our troops in Cosovo?? What was Clintons exit stragey.

First, Clinton himself have said many times his top regret was his failure to stop Osama Ben Laden. If you can’t see a democrat complaining on his own failure during his presidency in such declaration, you should open your eyes and ears wider. Really.

Second, you mean how long *Bush* will keep your troops in Kosovo, right? Because, you know, Clinton has lost the power to bring these soldiers home in Iraq. While Bush had them all. Ask Bush why US soldiers are still in Kosovo (protecting muslims minorities, BTW) when you clearly think they should join the party in Iraq… Bush could give that order since 5.5 years already. So far, he did not. Ask him why.

Last, “what was Clinton exit strategy in Kosovo?”: who cares today!? He’s no more in charge. Neither democrats party is. Who is, already???
Who could at his will bring an exit strategy for Kosovo, Iraq, and/or Afghanistan TODAY? Bush or Clinton/democrats?

Yeah, stay focus on blaming the past. Unfortunatly, the present will be past too soon.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 12, 2006 6:43 AM
Comment #180700

—— On the serious side of the issue of ABC an
Disney, I am selling all my stock in both
companies, an will not view any movies made
made by either, nor will I watch ABC TV !! You never know, maybe a lot more people might
boycott these reprobates!

Posted by: DAVID at September 12, 2006 6:45 AM
Comment #180704

KAP and Joe, what does me driving my SUV and watching my large sceen tv, have to do with 9/11?

Do you think I just sat on my ass and lived the good life, and didn’t worry about what is going on in the world, and the US?

Well fyi I spent 21 yrs in the Army, making poverty wages, and being away from my family for half the time I was in. To say that the 250 million people are the cause of 911 is BS.

Iraq is not the front of the war on terrorism. Bush should have spent the time/money and gone after Osama, and not worried about Saddam who was contained.

Posted by: KT at September 12, 2006 7:53 AM
Comment #180706

OBL has been goat food for some time now. What, no video or audio since 2002—too long for such a narcissisist. He’s a goner.

How did that censorship thing turn out for this movie?

When is Rove to be frog-marched?

Those are a couple of reasons why the dems will not make many gains in November. You heard it here first.

Posted by: nikkolai at September 12, 2006 8:25 AM
Comment #180709

Elect a Democrat - Save a terrorrist!


Terrorists for Democrats

Posted by: mike at September 12, 2006 8:40 AM
Comment #180712

regarding CLinton and OSama - oh come on !!

For 8 years Clinton gutted the military and the CIA and spent most of his time on vital issues like” if you dont show me yours i wont show you mine” while the rest of the world plotted to destroy us. 9/11 was the result . If you wnat to help terrorism just elect another Democrat!

Posted by: m at September 12, 2006 8:43 AM
Comment #180714

nikkolai,

OBL has been goat food for some time now. What, no video or audio since 2002—too long for such a narcissisist. He’s a goner.

Then US officials are liars, because they authenticated genuine and dated around december 2005/January 2006 an OBL audio tape. Check the link I’ve provided in my previous post, just 4 entries above.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 12, 2006 8:44 AM
Comment #180716

“just 4 entries above.”

Well, at post writting time.
Turn out it’s 6 entries above.
I guess everyone could figure it, though.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 12, 2006 8:48 AM
Comment #180717

Woa, is it me or I could smell Kool-Aid?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 12, 2006 8:49 AM
Comment #180720

Why would such a narcissist like bin Laden stay hiden for such a long time? Why does he trot out that ugly knot-headed guy (Zahiry or something like that)? He is a goner, my friends. Busy eating bacon sandwiches with his good pal Satan.

Posted by: nikkolai at September 12, 2006 8:53 AM
Comment #180724

nikkolai,

Because he’s not as stupid as GW.

Posted by: gergle at September 12, 2006 9:12 AM
Comment #180726

Ah, I see, Democrats don’t responsibility for the war (duh, we gave away our vote) and they want no responsibility for 911. One question, why didn’t you guys catch OBL from 1993-2000? The evidence is documented you had numerous chances Mr. Clinton. We know polls and what people thought of you is what drove your admistration but now your people are talking and it is all bad. I would have a little more respect if the Clintons admiitted to their mistakes. Until then, he headed up the sleaziest administration in my lifetime and maybe before. Um, as well, we don’t believe 911 was planned over a period of nine months. It was planned over a period of years, maybe as many as eight.

Sandy “pants” burger, exactly what were those documents stuffed in your pants from the National Archives? What is it with that administration and keeping their pants up?

Posted by: Curmudgeon-at-large at September 12, 2006 9:14 AM
Comment #180729

Curmudgeon-at-large,

Still locked on “Clinton did it [not] before Bush” mode?! Time to wake up, it’s 2006, not 2000 anymore.
You guys could blame as you want former presidents, but the current one didn’t do better regarding capturing/killing OBL so far. And it’s not even debatable he did far worser regarding public debt.

So far.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 12, 2006 9:36 AM
Comment #180734

Jack,
you’ve got the right idea that too much aggression or too little both can lead to war.

Where you seem to miss the boat is that this is OBL not Hitler. OBL is not ammassing tanks and ships. OBL is fomenting terror, through pointing out and exaggerating the negative consequences of US policies and presence in the Middle East.

This is a CIA type war and propoganda war, not a boots and troops war. Bush confused Iraq with Afghanistan, you shouldn’t make the same mistake.
An article today read that torture is occurring again in Abu Ghraib because the iraqi regime has taken over. We are supporting that regime. We are the reason that 100’s of shiites are dying daily. When we leave 100’d of Sunni’s will die.

More pragmatic approaches toward Middle East policies is indicated. America’s greatness is in her Goodness.

Fighting terror groups is not like fighting WWII in Europe.

The pacifism of today is mostly against the Iraq adventure, not seeking out and killing OBL and his splinters.

Just a note, the phrase, ” What if they threw a war and nobody came” refers to the soldiers and grunts not showing up. The Generals, Brass and Politicians are free to blow each others brains out. It’s sarcasm, not strategy.

Posted by: gergle at September 12, 2006 9:45 AM
Comment #180737

Adrienne,
Thanks for the info on the 911 movie. Someone should look into this as a campaign contribution. It should be a contribution of a few million, since speech = money. I guess Sean Hannity can quit complaining about MoveOn.org. since they’ve bought ABC.

David Remer is right that many Americans have come to believe neither party is listening to us average Joe’s, but is a slave of rich special interests. Count me among them.

In this and the next election, I believe, however, that providing a divided administration and Congress is the most practicle solution to the mess GW has steered us into.

Posted by: gergle at September 12, 2006 10:08 AM
Comment #180747

I hate to continnue to drone on about anti-incumbent sentiments… but there are so many idiots in DC, and I don’t see a way out of this mess with the crew we have now. They’ve become entrenched, including so with the media outlets…

This Nov. we each have 2 choices: vote out the idiots or accept the lable of idiot.

Posted by: tony at September 12, 2006 11:01 AM
Comment #180753

This blog has to be the worst one I’ve read in my life. It seems to be filled with Democrats crying “Poor Me”, it’s almost comical. I haven’t had a chance to watch the 9/11 movie (It’s Tivo’ed), so I will take everything you say as the truth for now. If that’s the case then what were you guys saying after Farenheit 911? Is that a 100% correct depiction of those events? Or is it more of a Left-Wing film that only shows interviews or images that cater to your kind?
I know it sucks when something comes out in the media that isn’t quite 100% true, but that the masses will take for gospel. We Republicans have been living with that on a daily basis while watching the news at night.

Posted by: Matt at September 12, 2006 11:26 AM
Comment #180756

Matt -

Was Fahrenheit 9/11 broadcast for free by a major public channel within 60 days prior to the election?

I have no issue with people producing material to be consumed or ignored by others - but the broadcasters using the public airwaves to promote a political agenda (for free) within 60 days prior to a major election seems to be at least questionable, if not downright illegal.

Posted by: tony at September 12, 2006 11:34 AM
Comment #180762

Matt

In addition to the points that Tony just made Fahrenheit 9/11 was not a dramatic recreation of an event. It never claimed to be based on a government report.

Posted by: mark at September 12, 2006 12:02 PM
Comment #180773

I’d like to add a comment which is obvious to me from everything Dems post and which will fuel the fire but I just can’t hold my tongue on this -

Democrats display much more courage in the face of terrorism than Republicans.

Knowing the truth about terrorism and telling it is much more courageous:

-that we will experience terrorism again within our borders;
-that we cannot destroy everyone who hates us;
-that trying to do so will destroy our values and the ideal that is our country;
-that fighting terrorism is about policing and counter-intelligence and vigilance;
-that fighting terrorism is not easy.

Republicans will point to Bush’s disclaimers but I disagree. They constantly sell that the so called “war on terror” can be won by force.

-if only they had more power;
-if only they had more freedom to do as they see fit;
-if only we would shut up and get out of their way.

It’s cowardice.

Abandoning restrictions on the power of the executive by the constitution is a crisis greater than terrorism itself. It is turning on ourselves. It is abandoning our ideals under pressure.

We must find a better way - because Republicans have failed their way.

And they can’t be trusted to execute the next phase - they’ve lied and misled too many times.

We need to elect people who will fight these lunatics while defending the constitution.

Enough is enough.

Posted by: CPAdams at September 12, 2006 12:28 PM
Comment #180778

dEMOCRATAS won’t be happy till they controll the free world or handcuff the US till it is wiped off the map, way to go ingrates.

Posted by: jOE at September 12, 2006 12:45 PM
Comment #180782

Do not feed the trolls.

If you do, they willl always hang around looking for food, then you have to start feeding them all the time… pretty soon you have to take them to vet… It’s best for everyone (even the trolls) is we simply ignore them and let then just move on.

Posted by: tony at September 12, 2006 12:54 PM
Comment #180786

Good point—everyone ignore tony!

Posted by: nikkolai at September 12, 2006 1:06 PM
Comment #180818

CPAdams:

“Abandoning restrictions on the power of the executive by the constitution is a crisis greater than terrorism itself. It is turning on ourselves. It is abandoning our ideals under pressure.”

An excellent, succinct post, but this comment in particular is worthy of praise and agreement. Thanks.

Posted by: Tim Crow at September 12, 2006 2:44 PM
Comment #180820

Silma asked: “Who decides which politicians to VOID?”

Great question, Silma, one I get asked very often. The answer is simple. The voters who who no longer have confidence in the direction this country is heading. It really is that simple, because that includes a majority of all voters today according to the polls.

The trick and costly effort is to inform voters of the choice which Republocrats don’t want them to be aware of. The choice the Constitution grants Americans to control their elected representatives and process of government by voting those in charge of it, out.

Really, this is the heart of the issue. For most voter’s mind set is choosing the lesser of the two evils, and are not even aware they can reject both by voting out incumbents, election after election, until the voters and their demands for responsible, accountable and transparent government are seen as the top priority by politicians.

There are 3 classes of politicians in office. Those who put the people last and the wealthy campaign donors first on their priority list. Those who use government for their personal ends instead of nation’s or the people’s. And the last is those who want to make it right, but, are ineffective in doing so.

That latter category is the debatable. Some voters will rightly argue that if the 1st 2 categories are removed, the last can become effective. Others will argue that ineffective is ineffective - they don’t have what it takes to make change from within. Each voter must decide for themselves on the ‘ineffective’ politicians.

But, let’s be very clear, Congress is not solving the problems America, her people, and their children’s future need to have solved. And the voters must do something other than voting 90+ % of them back in if that is to change.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 12, 2006 2:52 PM
Comment #180824

David Remer:

You sound just as Ralph Nader sounded when he was running for president. There is no difference between Democrats and Republicans. So he made sure that a Republican won.

The result, as you have many times stated, is a mess.

Now that Republicans are in power and Bush is tearing our society apart with every move he makes, you are still painting Democrats and Republicans with the same brush.

They are not the same and you know it. Tearing the Democrats apart has been the essence of the Republican Party for years. Democrats find fault with this, of course. But our goal is to help all Americans. We believe in building community.

What is so special about anti-incumbents? Some are good, some are bad. If you want an end to divisiveness, you must get rid of the Republicans that are producing the divisiveness.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at September 12, 2006 3:02 PM
Comment #180828

“If you want an end to divisiveness, you must get rid of the Republicans that are producing the divisiveness”

And keep the “Democrats” who are producing the divisiveness?
You want to “get rid” of divisiveness by promoting divisiveness?
Sure sounds like a workable plan to me. Too bad the Republicans have the same one though.
No wonder our country is in this mess.

Replacing the (R) with a (D) won’t fix anything. Just more of the same.
Replacing the (R)’s and (D)’s with people who actually care just might.

Posted by: kctim at September 12, 2006 3:14 PM
Comment #180831

I know you are but what am I? I know you are but what am I?

I bet OBL reads or has these blogs read to him and laughs his butt off. Will you children grow up and start working together as Americans. Neither side is perfect or correct 100% of the time.

Clinton did what he could about OBL if he had done more he would have been condemmed for wagging the dog. If it weren’t for 9/11 Bush would not have done anything differently either.

For Pete’s sake people if we spent less time calling each other names, we might actually figure out some way out of this mess.

Posted by: Art at September 12, 2006 3:26 PM
Comment #180836

Thank you David.

I have a grandchild and a very speical nephew. Just finished buying a lot of Disney Books, DVDs etc. for Christmas. I could kick myself silly. But, it will be the last money or time ABC/Disney ever gets from me, also. Went to ABC to complain but would not let me post without my address, name, phone, and web address. With Bushcos warrentless spying….I DONT THINK SO !!! So they dont need to hear from me, to tell them that, they wont be hearing from me.

Posted by: PlayNice at September 12, 2006 3:52 PM
Comment #180848

Paul, and you sound just like a Republocrat denying responsibility for how bad things have gotten, and pleading with voters to give your party just one more chance, exactly the same message Republicans are spewing out.

Your party still elevates money over the people. Your party still gerrymanders districts instead of allowing the people’s vote to count. Your party still works closely with Republicans on the FEC and committee for presidential debates which preclude any other parties or independents to have a voice for their constituents on how politics in America should be structured, and permit ALL Americans to be heard and have their candidates on the ballots. Your party still puts opposition to the Republican Party as your primary reason for living instead of the voters, our nation, and her future. Your party still opposes publicly financed campaigns which would level the playing field for elections permitting the democratic choice of the people to determine who shall represent them.

No, your party is different from Republicans, yours is a minority party. But, on so many vitally important issues to our democracy, to our republic, to our future, your party is indistinguishable from the Republicans. Your party can change and become the people’s party. But, that won’t happen until the voters cancel your incumbents and your party’s leadership is made up of people who will put the people first instead of this damaging war with the Republicans first which utterly and completely fails to solve our nation’s problems and the peoples needs and demand for accountable, responsible, and transparent government which serves the people first, and the party 3rd, 4th or 5th.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 12, 2006 4:24 PM
Comment #180854

Elect a Democrat - Save a terrorrist!

Terrorists for Democrats

Posted by: mike at September 12, 2006 08:40 AM

Oh, that is very cute mike. Did you make that up, all by yourself?

I think that the following are much more appropriate and accurate though, and yes, I did make them all up all by myself. (done in the style of a David Lettermen “top 10” list)

10)Terrorists - need the press
vote republician

9) Put a republician back in office
we havent been scared enough yet.

8) Vote for the party of hate & division
Put a republician back in office

7) AMERICA, the best dang terrorist recrutment
program in the whole dang world!
(If you dont hate us now? (See Yoda)(YOUuuu, WILLlll!)

6) The only good Terrorist is a dead Terrorist
Join the party for “peace” - vote republician.

5) Vote republician, because A good terrorist,
is a terriable thing to waste

4) Keep terrorism alive
They makes great spin

3) The all terrorist channel
coming in November

2) The Twin Towers Capture Score Board
Clinton 3
Bush 0

And the #1 best Terrorist/Bush/Republician remark from a liberal is……………..

1) Wanted: New recruts for terrorist activities.
Established Saudi Training Schools are looking for a few good men for terrorist activities throughout the world. For class times and school locations near you, please forward your appliction today. (Advertisemet circa 1980)

But the best one of all: (JUST A LITTLE BONUS)

OSAMA - BUSHs MONICA

Posted by: PlayNice at September 12, 2006 4:58 PM
Comment #180857

KT
We got lazy. So you spent 21 years in the army. I spent 14 years in the navy making the same pitiful wages you did. We GOT LAZY WE LET ARE GUARD DOWN. WE GOT TO INTERRESTED IN THE GOOD LIFE.

Posted by: KAP at September 12, 2006 5:11 PM
Comment #180862

KAP you are right I got interested in the good life, and still work and am in Law Enforcement, almost as dangerous as the military, no actually safer at least I have good body armor.

I want the good life for my kids and grandkids.

We let our guard down, I have to agree with that, was it pure Democrat no, was it pure Republican no, it was the different administrations going way back pass Clinton, to Bush Sr (who should have taken out Saddam to begin with), even Reagan with the cut and run after the Marine Barracks was bombed. Both major parties are to blame,they both played with those they thought would be in their best(not necessarily United States)interest. Rumsfield shaking hands with Saddam, supplying him arms during Iraq/Iran war. Ollie North selling arms to Iran (Irancontra), Clinton and Mogodushu.

Republicans were to worried about the blue dress, and clinton was to worried about is it sex or not. bush was to worried about saddam, who was all mouth(as still is). We worry about a dicator 5 thousand miles away, and disregard one 90 miles away who sends us the worse out of his prison.

We need go after who did 9/11. Spend the money and resources there.

Posted by: KT at September 12, 2006 5:31 PM
Comment #180864

Oh, and since the issue for most “Clinton Bashers” here, is that Clinton didnt do anything to stop Osama and keep Americans safe? Lets look at the real #s in the two twin tower attacks, shall we?

1993 Twin Towers deaths (around 5) - CLINTON
2001 Twin Towers deaths (around 3,000) - BUSH

And Reagans record?
Wasnt that Old Osama too? and wasnt the death toll over 200?

So, why wasnt he caught in the 12 Bush/Reagan years, HUH?????

(I mean this could go back, clear to Carter, but please, is Carter President now? And didnt the Bush/Reagan Admin. support him (Osama) against Russia anyway, after Carter?? —- PLEEZE…!)

Posted by: PlayNice at September 12, 2006 5:36 PM
Comment #180868

KT
I AGREE

Posted by: KAP at September 12, 2006 5:54 PM
Comment #180874

Playnice
In 2001 the explosives used were much more powerful. This time they didn’t miscalculate.

Posted by: KAP at September 12, 2006 6:18 PM
Comment #180886

“Democrats are as divisive of our nation as the Republicans. It is preposterous to imply, as Paul does, that Republicans are NOT like Democrats in wanting to improve and make America better.”

My observations of this, and many other political forums, is that, in GENERAL (ie:percentages) when liberals attack the right, they attack elected officials and pundits specifically. And, in turn, when the right attacks liberals, they are much more likely to attack liberals in general, meaning liberal leaning regular people in blanket condemnations.
Yes, you can find examples both ways, but mostly this is what I see.
I, for one, try to never make generalized statements claiming conservatives are stupid, lazy, treasonous, hate america, etc. I try to only go after specific elected officials, their actions, and sometimes self appointed pundits like rush,oreilly,etc.
Exceptions being someone I’m specifically debating with.
Now, it’s all well and good to say “we need to stop the blame game and work on the safety and future of America”. But how? Letting up on bushco will NOT make them listen to us, cooperate with us, include us in decision making processes. Not opposing things like illegal wiretapping, unecessary wars, etc, won’t make the rights reps reconsider those policies.
So, sorry, I see this point in time as important NOT to let up on the “right” (meaning those in power). Funny how calls for cooperation come right when their power monopoly is threatened.
I’ll vote for cooperation when the power is shared again.

Posted by: Observer at September 12, 2006 7:23 PM
Comment #180898

“in GENERAL (ie:percentages) when liberals attack the right, they attack elected officials and pundits specifically. And, in turn, when the right attacks liberals, they are much more likely to attack liberals in general, meaning liberal leaning regular people in blanket condemnations.”

That’s because liberals are rarely in positions of great authority. We could name folks like Dean, Kennedy and Kerry but they are implied in the term liberal. Liberals just attack the Bush Administration. As evidenced by this blog, a dissenting opinion is a troll and explains why their party rarely obtains the presidency. Dissenting opinions must be extinguished which has been a blessing for the Independents. Thanks, we need other choices.

Posted by: curmudgeon-at-large at September 12, 2006 8:15 PM
Comment #180911

“As evidenced by this blog, a dissenting opinion is a troll and explains why their party rarely obtains the presidency”

Your logic is as specious as your grasp of history.

Posted by: Tim Crow at September 12, 2006 9:10 PM
Comment #180938

“That’s because liberals are rarely in positions of great authority.”

Really? Based on what do you say this?
Kinda funny too since we’ve been blamed for every problem by the right for the last 20 years.

“Liberals just attack the Bush Administration.”

No, we voice our dissent over specific policies and actions. bush’s record of failure isn’t our fault.

“As evidenced by this blog, a dissenting opinion is a troll”

No, a troll is defined specifically as one who:
1. makes extreme, unprovable, vaugue attacks
2. Doesn’t respond to counterarguments
3. Types in all caps, uses insults instead of reason, repeats ad nauseum the same silly stereotypes.
I don’t consider YOU a troll, but I do feel your posts are weak on content, and generally not very coherent or persuasive.


“and explains why their party rarely obtains the presidency”

Really? Again, I’m suprised by your statements. Lets see, going back to WWII, we got FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton.
You guys had Ike, Nixon(ford), Reagan, bush1, and bush2. Hmmm, 6 to 5. Gee, I guess your right…???..???

Posted by: Observer at September 12, 2006 10:39 PM
Comment #180940

You know what is really sad, these countries we are trying to “save and make into a democracy” hate us. As a matter of fact more countries than ever before hate us and what we stand for. But the real kick in the ass is these same countries that hate us are the first ones to hold out their hands when a disaster strikes, saying how much we owe them for every bad thing that has ever happened to them. It’s about time that the money train to these countries stops running and the bank calls in the loans.

Posted by: Sherri at September 12, 2006 10:46 PM
Comment #180976

—-Not unlike you Republican counter parts, you
folks come to this site to attempt reversing,
an disrupting these threads just as fox news,
Rush an Hannity and the rest of the Republicans.
Most of us are quiet aware of your not, quiet
so subtle illogical approach. Then you tell Foul!!!
If you receive what you give, please don’t
complain, an stop with the spinning and try
debating instead of trolling.

Posted by: DAVID at September 13, 2006 1:27 AM
Comment #180989

Sherri

Really enjoyed your post:

” You know what is really sad, these countries we are trying to “save and make into a democracy” hate us. As a matter of fact more countries than ever before hate us and what we stand for. But the real kick in the ass is these same countries that hate us are the first ones to hold out their hands when a disaster strikes…”

I couldnt agree more. But I would finish that with this:

You know what really irratates me more, is that our governemnt can give milions, billions to other countries when they are caught in a disaster, but let victims of one of our disasters depend upon the charity of others. I have never been so fried in my life, as when Bush went on National T.V 4 days after the levys broke and asked…US TO GIVE TO THE RED CROSS!

I knew then, that the people in New Orleans were on their own. And, listen to the talk of the people on the other side? The hate that they have for fellow Americans….is just sickening!

Posted by: PlayNice at September 13, 2006 5:42 AM
Comment #181007

Observer,

I was born during the kennedy administration and from then you have had three. One was Carter, do you want to count him? When you go back to FDR, that is not the democrats of today. For that matter, FDR and JFK would be Republicans or hopefully Indepedent. I won’t do the math, it is greatly skewed to the Republicans. Maybe we should go back to Lincoln?, he was the first Republican and the greatest president.

BTW, Like how you combined Nixon and Ford, considering Ford practically served the entire second term and Raegan and Bush have had two terms.

Why do democrats keep putting up these far left Liberals for president? I think their solution is simple.

Posted by: Curmudgeon-at-large at September 13, 2006 9:22 AM
Comment #181041

large curmudgeon,

Far left liberals???!!!???

I suppose you mean Clinto who actually managed to BALANCE the budget and yield us a surplus?

Maybe you mean Gore because of his environmental initiatives? Do you really think they should be ignored? Would ignoring them be ‘conservative’ of anything? …or just destructive?

Perhaps you mean Kerry because he had the gall to want us to abide by our agreement with the U.N. and go into Iraq in accordence with both domestic and internaional law? …when it became clear that Bush actually never intended to honor law, Kerry was steadfast on his position of going in according to law. Bush flip-flopped, not Kerry.

What the **** do you mean, “Far left liberals?”

Posted by: RGF at September 13, 2006 12:26 PM
Comment #181246

Playnice:

Oh, and since the issue for most “Clinton Bashers” here, is that Clinton didnt do anything to stop Osama and keep Americans safe? Lets look at the real #s in the two twin tower attacks, shall we?

1993 Twin Towers deaths (around 5) - CLINTON
2001 Twin Towers deaths (around 3,000) - BUSH

I don’t consider myself a Clinton basher, but I’ll point out that its not logically accurate to compare the death toll in the two WTC attacks, and then conclude that Clinton did a better job avoiding the attack. Neither president or administration foiled the respective attack during their tenure—both attacks went off as planned. The difference was that the second attack was planned better, and had more horrific results. The terrorists learned from their earlier attack, and adjusted their tactics accordingly.

In neither case did law enforcement, government, or intelligence agencies foil the plot. We just got lucky on the first one that the results were not worse.

Clinton did not do enough to curb terrorism. Maybe Bush41 and Reagan did not either. Nor did Bush 43. That having been said, America’s past policies of appeasement, capitulation and negotiation allowed terrorists to think that we were weak. That happened during Viet Nam as well, when the NVM negotiation strategy was to wait us out, knowing that Americans typically have not had strong stomachs for war.

Its also possible that there simply cant be enough done to stop terrorism. We have been hit because of specific policies and we have been hit just because terrorists wanted to. Our actions or inactions don’t seem to have much to do with whether we get hit or not.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 14, 2006 11:51 AM
Comment #181344

Sherr,

It’s about time that the money train to these countries stops running and the bank calls in the loans.

And people still deny that american charity seems to come with strings attached…

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 14, 2006 8:20 PM
Comment #181800

Joe,

“The difference was that the second attack was planned better, and had more horrific results. The terrorists learned from their earlier attack, and adjusted their tactics accordingly.”

Also Joe, the difference is that Bush had all the previous as well as the current intel, that Clinton did not have.

“In neither case did law enforcement, government, or intelligence agencies foil the plot. “

That is true, however Law enforcement did catch the criminals involved in the first attack, in the second attack not law enforcement nor the Military nor the intel agencies have had any results in catching those involved in the second attack.

“Clinton did not do enough to curb terrorism.”

And Bush has? And you say that this is because we have not been attacked since? Well we were not attacked from 1993 until 2001 on our shores either, so what is your point? And, Clinton never did what we have done in this Administration, which is to create more and more muslims that hate us and want to kill us. You do not want to face this fact, but it is true. Bush has done much more to create terrorism than he have ever done to decompress it.

” …to wait us out, knowing that Americans typically have not had strong stomachs for war.”

America has a “stomach for war”, just not a war against Iraq who never has done anything to us. There is no problem here with war, as long as it is against the right people. You caught the wrong person (Iraq) to procecute in a crime, and now you are belly aching over going after the right person for the crime. THAT IS NONSCENCE! Why dont we just forget the law and send anyone to prison for any old crime? Because an unjust society….reeps what it sows.

” Its also possible that there simply cant be enough done to stop terrorism. We have been hit because of specific policies and we have been hit just because terrorists wanted to. Our actions or inactions don’t seem to have much to do with whether we get hit or not. “

Yes, you can not appease terrorists. However, You certainly can adapt certain principals that will not willy nilly create more terrorists to deal with. Part of that is to be fair and honest and to be open about your policies, your dealing with your own people and with other countries. Something that is not part of this current Administration.

Bushs croneys are claming that this is wwIII. Well it isnt yet, but they are sure working on makeing that so.!

Posted by: PlayNice at September 16, 2006 10:16 AM
Post a comment