Obama: You Wanna Talk About 9/11? Well, Let's Talk About 9/11!

[Hissyspit]

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/obama_lets_talk_about_911.php

Obama: You Wanna Talk About 9/11? Well, Let's Talk About 9/11!

By Greg Sargent - June 18, 2008, 6:03PM

Barack Obama continues hitting back hard today at the false McCain/GOP assaults on him for allegedly seeing terrorism as only a law-enforcement problem...

"I refuse to be lectured on national security by people who are responsible for the most disastrous set of foreign policy decisions in the recent history of the United States. The other side likes to use 9/11 as a political bludgeon. Well, let's talk about 9/11.

"The people who were responsible for murdering 3,000 Americans on 9/11 have not been brought to justice. They are Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda and their sponsors -- the Taliban. They were in Afghanistan. And yet George Bush and John McCain decided in 2002 that we should take our eye off of Afghanistan so that we could invade and occupy a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. The case for war in Iraq was so thin that George Bush and John McCain had to hype the threat of Saddam Hussein, and make false promises that we'd be greeted as liberators. They misled the American people, and took us into a misguided war.

"Here are the results of their policy. Osama bin Laden and his top leadership -- the people who murdered 3000 Americans -- have a safe-haven in northwest Pakistan, where they operate with such freedom of action that they can still put out hate-filled audiotapes to the outside world. That's the result of the Bush-McCain approach to the war on terrorism."

The key line there is "let's talk about 9/11." Keep in mind that this latest GOP assault is not so much about the substance of the argument as it is about trying to project a sense that the McCain campaign is the one on offense. Obama isn't playing along.

Only two years ago, some Dems were still saying, "please, please, PLEASE, let's NOT talk about 9/11." Now Obama is inviting an argument about it -- and more important, he's saying it's an argument he will win. That's the key here.

[greyl]

1. Hell yeah. nt

[madeline_con]

2. Bring it!

:bounce:

[rufus dog]

56. Exactly

He saying "Bring it on" Not debating on their terms, but his terms.

[PoliticalAmazon]

70. ITA. He has to let them know at the beginning that...

if they reach out to smack him, they will draw back a bloody stump.

The biggest mistakes Gore and Kerry made were that they were far too passive and let the GOP walk all over them.

I think, if Gore was running for president now, he would be more like Obama is, but when he ran in 2000, he did not aggressively confront the GOP horseshit attacks.

I am SOOOO damned glad that we won't have to go through another GE fuming in frustration as we watch what should have been a slam-dunk turn into a rout just because our candidate has not observed the GOP in action enough to know that, if not confronted, it only emboldens them to do more of the same.

[Cha]

3. However it came about..bush let 9/11

happen so, hell yeah, we finally get to talk about 9freakin'11!

I love it when our Dems let the facts take them where they want to go.

[rosesaylavee]

4. Git em.

Go Barack Go!

[MadMaddie]

5. This is the only way to show what Cowardly cowards they are

for the last 12 years the Republicans have steamrolled over the Democratic party and all Americans. This is the way to defeat them.

[cliffordu]

6. RUMBLE, YOUNG MAN, RUMBLE!!

The fucking Republicans DESERVE every ass kicking Obama gives them. This is going to get better, and funnier...

[NatBurner]

30. !

[Voice for Peace]

7. no.. the key line is

"I refuse to be lectured"

yay yay yay

no more mealymouth

[ailsagirl]

129. God, what a breath of FRESH AIR!!!

He's so articulate I can hardly believe it.
And actually wanting to tackle THE issues...
it's too much!!

:kick:

[petgoat]

8. Tell Barack: ask Cynthia McKinney and Dennis Kucinich and Sen. Mark Dayton to brief him on 9/11. nt

[biermeister]

37. kick

[Kaleko]

60. Arrgh, now I have hope again for the truth to eventually come out

:hurts:

[keepCAblue]

110. I second that ... If you're going to talk truth, talk the WHOLE truth. n/t

[TheWraith]

9. I've said it before and I'll say it again...

... What makes Obama a great politician is that he doesn't try to pivot away from things: he grabs them and swings them back in the face of the attacker. Hard.

[CoffeeCat]

11. and that is always what frustrated me about...

...the Dems in Congress and other high-profile Dems.

The Republicans spew nonsense about 9/11, and Obama hits them back hard--practically daring
them to comment again--so he can hit them between the eyes.

In the past, Dems have backed down. They've allowed the Republicans to lie and make their
talking points. Any of us could have retorted back and made the Republicans look like the
criminal-thug-cowards that they are. Our Dems just took it. And if they ever had the balls
to fight back--they apologized within 24 hours.

Enough.

I'm glad that Obama is hitting back hard. He must be one of the few that isn't being
blackmailed by the neocons.

[NotThisTime]

32. Ditto - Hit 'em freaking hard!

[martymar64]

146. I guess Obama's decided to use the powder Dems have been keeping dry

for so long.

Get 'em!

[sendero]

127. Exactly...

... I've been waiting for a Dem that can take it to them, turn their bullshit back on them, for many years.

At last, we have someone that can do it. Isn't it sweet!

[FrenchieCat]

10. In the video I watched of this speech, Obama called McCain "Weak"

on National Security.

I was like....Ye-Ah!


Loved it.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

23. McCain is weak

[SeattleGirl]

12. YES!!!

Smack them in the face with it, Barack!!!

[Fleshdancer]

13. FINALLY. The conversation that should have taken place in 2004

Better late than never I suppose.

Obama does a good smack-down. In a few sentences, he managed to tie McBush with Bush (again), explain why McBush isn't competent enough for the WH, and utterly destroy the nonsense that 9/11 somehow belongs to republicans. I'm going to love love LOVE the debates! :bounce:

[Rosa Luxemburg]

25. 9/11 is all the GOP have

until now

[Politicalboi]

90. Tear down the wall!

Tear down the wall!

[santamargarita]

120. Tear Down the Goddamn Bush Administration!

-

[blm]

97. From Jan2002 and throughout the 2003-4 campaign, Kerry hit Bush on this exact point constantly

and did so with no backup from any of the wellknown Dem faces that showed up on Sunday shows.

It was a main issue in almost every speech Kerry made and especially in the first presidential debate.

That you were unaware of it is proof that the corpmedia did a great job editing those speeches or ignoring them outright. Still, the debates were very clear. But again the media decided it wasn't a debate issue worth discussing or furthering.

Obama is fortunate to have Dem lawmakers standing WITH him on this issue for 2008, while from 2001-2007 most Dem lawmakers and especially the most wellknown Dems were siding with Bush's decisions on terrorism and Iraq war and were unwilling to side with Kerry or further his attacks on Bush - especially when the last Dem president made his summer2004 booktour and repeatedly used that platform to defend Bush's decisions on terrorism and Iraq war that Kerry was criticizing at the time.

Obama is fortunate to be running now when the Dem PARTY and more Dem lawmakers are much less fearful of Bush and Rove and willing to provide Obama with backup they would never give to those Dems sticking their necks out to oppose Bush in 2002 and 2004.

[99th_Monkey]

14. Obama's learned from '00 and '04: no more tepid milktoast pandering to RW agenda ..

... especially around 9/11 & national security issues. How about just telling it like it is? ... and Obama's just the
guy who's proving himself up to the task.

GObama!!!!

[blm]

83. Obama sounds EXACTLY like Kerry in every statement he made about 9-11 and terrorism and

how Bush let terrorists grow stronger as he made a stupid decision to invade Iraq when weapon inspections were proving force was not needed.

You must have bought into the heavily edited version of Kerry's speeches and statements - but didn't you at least see the unfiltered moments like the debates?

Kerry's been dogging Bush's decisions consistently on Afghanistan since Tora Bora in Jan 2002, and was doing it long before any other Dem went there - and did it with no back up from other Dem lawmakers. In fact, the Sunday morning Dems were siding almost entirely with Bush on terrorism and Iraq war decisions, and the last Dem president was Bush's biggest defender on TV throughout his summer 2004 book tour.

What you are seeing now is Obama WITH backup from a Dem party and its lawmakers who are not nearly as cowed by Bush and Rove as they were from 2001-2006.

[99th_Monkey]

140. I disagree; in that I feel Obama's making a stronger stance against Bush's FUBAR policies.

which may just be a sign of the times, but Barack's positions just seem more pronounced in their
departure from BushCo/McSame talking points.

[blm]

141. No - what you are hearing is a newsmedia ALLOWING Obama to BE HEARD and Dems backing him up

unlike what Kerry had in 2002-2004.

Even David Axelrod, as a Dem strategist to Dems running for elections in in 2002 and 2004 criticized Kerry for attacking Bush on national security and advised his clients to stick to domestic issues for those races.

I think if YOU and other Dems thought that issue was not front and center then you weren't paying the attention you think and the corporate media duped....you.


There wasn't a more fierce candidate hammering Bush comprehensively on national security than John Kerry.

Even his environmental speeches were centered on fully funding alternative fuel research as a NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE and his port security speech was the FIRST that dealt with that reality and he was the first to attack Bush for ToraBora and did so with no back up from fellow Dems - but then FIRSTS rarely get the notice, do they? The newsmedia even went so far to claim that no Dem complained about port security until the Dubai ports deal popped up in 2005 - and that was as blatant a lie as could be told about the issue.

Try this on from Conason in summer2002, btw, Axelrod was managing Edwards in that primary race....

Let's see what Joe Conason had to say in August 2002

Kerry Shows Courage In Challenging Bush
Thursday, August 8, 2002 By: Joe Conason

New York Observer

New York -- The most rousing speech at the Democratic Leadership Council's New York conference--according to both journalistic consensus and the applause meter--was given by Hillary Clinton, who definitely isn't running for President. Her poise and passion on the stump have grown exponentially since her Senate campaign, and she blew the doors off the Hilton ballroom.

But it was John Kerry who delivered the most interesting, substantive and challenging message. His subject was George W. Bush's shortcomings as a world leader.

The New York Times reported that Mr. Kerry "offered a long attack on Mr. Bush's foreign policy," although the paper gave short shrift to the details in the Senator''s speech. What he began to articulate was a Democratic critique of this administration''s blunt and myopic unilateralism, and a vision that restores international alliances to the center of American diplomacy.

He agrees with the objective of removing Saddam Hussein, but objected to the vague plans for what will replace the Iraqi dictatorship. He called the latest arms treaty with Russia a "cosmetic" one that inadequately safeguards decommissioned weapons. He denounced the "Cold War" approach to North Korea that has undone the progress achieved by the Clinton administration. He expressed scorn for the administration''s disengagement from the Middle East crisis before Sept. 11.


He demanded an increase in foreign assistance as the best guarantee against suicidal terror. "If we fail to reach the children and families wrecked by the violence of poverty and seclusion, the growing population of unemployed and unemployable kids will find in fanaticism an answer to their problems," he said.

He is, however, no naïïve internationalist who abhors military force. As he has done before, Mr. Kerry wondered aloud why the President didn't muster sufficient firepower in Afghanistan to destroy Al Qaeda''s army when the chance arose at Tora Bora.

And he sought to connect the trouble America encounters abroad to the oil-dominated energy policy of this oilmen's government. "We must search for clean, renewable resources," he said, "not just because it is in the interests of our environment, but because it is a demand of national security." Liberating the nation from oil "can liberate our foreign policy and empower the United States to tell the truth throughout the Middle East."

Mr. Kerry is staking out a politically perilous position at a time when conventional wisdom declares foreign and military issues to be the exclusive province of the President. As a Senator from Massachusetts--whose last Presidential nominee suffered humiliating defeat by a candidate named Bush--he risks highlighting negative assumptions about his own viability on a national ticket.

According to the scientific measurements made by political consultants, Mr. Kerry''s chosen path is marked "dead end." The safer domestic route is crowded with competitors who talk only about corporate responsibility, prescription drugs and Social Security. The boldest among them now criticize the lopsided tax cut that shouldn't have passed last year.


The leading example of this kind of politician is John Edwards, a personable man and decent Senator who spoke in banal terms about "responsibility." The North Carolina Senator wanted his centrist audience to understand that he has a strong position on the Pledge of Allegiance: He's for it, particularly the controversial phrase that refers to God. He only acknowledged a bigger world beyond our borders to reiterate his support for the "war on terrorism."

No doubt the party''s consultants are advising Mr. Edwards, and other Democratic contenders, that such subjects bring only pain and no gain. Every poll indicates that defense and foreign policy are advantageous to Republicans. Every expert knows voters tune out topics like foreign aid and international treaties.

There is, however, at least one benefit for Mr. Kerry in speaking out on those faraway places and problems. While his rivals sound as if they''re campaigning for the offices they already occupy, he sounds as if he is running for President.

In a sense, Mr. Kerry enjoys an unfair advantage that mitigates the burden of his home state. He''s a decorated Vietnam veteran whose Navy service may help shield him from attacks on his patriotism. Throughout his years in the Senate, that credential has allowed him to investigate and criticize disturbing excesses of American policy abroad, as he did when he probed U.S. aid to the contra gangsters in Nicaragua. (That rather lonely crusade made him a target of the notorious Arkansas Project, funded by Republican billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife to bring down President Clinton.)

Whether Mr. Kerry can engage the electorate in a discussion of America''s global responsibilities is far from certain. His own dispassionate style may hinder him. Yet he deserves great credit for reclaiming international leadership for his party when others cannot or will not.

[Mooney]

15. Thank god.

[Lindsey]

16. Let's face it.....Obama is an incredibly brilliant man and I think the tone of

the country now is they'd rather have a really smart guy as President than some guy they'd want to have a beer with. I hope to God I'm right.

[flor de jasmim]

17. I'm not a beer drinker, but I'd rather have a beer with Obama than McCain, so ...

it's a TWOFER---BEER and INTELLIGENCE.

[Submariner]

67. Yeah....but he can't BOWL

So prepare for Hannity and company to turn that into something unpatriotic and demonizing.

[ElboRuum]

101. Anyone good bowlers here want to step up...

...and give Obama some pointers in case they try to make hay out of this?

I can see it now, it'll be priceless:

MSM: But Obama can't bowl like a good, honest, God-fearing, hard-working American! He's not like you!

OBAMA: Oh, yeah?! Rumblerumblerumblerumblerumblerumblerumblerumblerumble Crash! That's a four-bagger for me, folks.

MSM: Shit.

[LiberalFighter]

116. If Hannity and co do then they should be asked why bowling alleys are closing.

Oh... when was the last time Hannity has bowled?

[WorseBeforeBetter]

132. Isn't he up 12 points in PA over McCain?

I guess The Bowling Contingent has forgiven him.

[Mooney]

26. From your keyboard to god's ears.

Thank god we have a nominee who isn't going to take any of their shit. You can tell that this has caught them completely off guard and they have no strategy for dealing with it. I would especially enjoy seeing Rudy Giuliani's reaction to getting his status as Miss 9/11 thrown back in his face. That blinking, lisping fuck has gotten a free ride for seven years because of it, and it's time that he was called on the carpet for it.

[onetwo]

47. A "Rudy" does deserve credit for 9/11. But not the Rudy you're thinking of...

...that honor goes to Rudy Washington, NYC Deputy Mayor and Giuliani right hand man. While Giuliani was conducting press conferences, Rudy Washington was actually on the ground quarterbacking the massive Ground Zero rescue/recovery/cleanup effort. He now suffers from various ailments due to the extensive amount of time he spent breathing in the harmful air that hovered over the site in those first few days and hours.

He's an extremely humble man who gets not even one-tenth of the credit he deserves. Every time Giuliani pulls the "9/11!" card, I roll my eyes.

[Mooney]

57. Your eyes must have been very tired watching the Republican debates.

It was like he had massive brain trauma and could only repeat the term "9/11" over and over again.

[AML]

44. God has nothing to do with this...

Thank Obama!

[Imagevision]

18. As the saying goes, when the Japs bombed pearl harbor, we should have bombed Mexico...

[ieoeja]

64. A better analogy would have been bombing Moscow.

1941 Soviet Union - unfriendly to the US
2001 Iraq - unfriendly to the US

1941 Soviet Union - fighting allies of those who attacked us
2001 Iraq - fighting allies of those who attacked us

[HamdenRice]

19. Let's hope there's a coded message: We might REALLY talk about 9/11

Part of Obama's appeal to the netroots is his signalling that he is running on Constitutional restoration -- no more Gitmo, no more wiretapping, detention, etc.

Hopefully, part of that is finding out what really brought about 9/11, which could mean treason prosecutions.

[Imagevision]

20. For historical reasons it would be proper for Obama to have a legit investiagtion into 9-11

[Rosa Luxemburg]

24. that's what they are frightened of

[phrigndumass]

21. Maybe it's time to borrow Senator Clinton's theme song: "I Won't Back Down"

K/R

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

22. They're doing it again with Pakistan, diverting our attention to Iran!!

The Wingnuts and sadly even some Democrats laughed at Obama for suggesting that we go after Pakistan and stop falsely believing that Musharif is our ally. At the very least, Pakistan has been harboring members of the Taliban, at the most, Musharif knows where bin Laden is. And yet, Bush and his evil cabal continues to coddle Musharif as if he is our "friend." The real problem is in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Joe Biden is right, and he has been the ONLY Democratic presidential candidate who has said anything about Pakistan before Obama. But we're so preoccupied with Iran and it is yet another diversion from where the real terrorists are.

[lark]

61. Pakistan doesn't have oil for their cronies to steal

Why would they be interested in that country?

[TBF]

27. Give'em hell Obama - let's talk more about Iraq too! Let's talk about

torture, and contractors, and wire-tapping, the list goes on and on.

[Amonester]

50. X-actly, and also, let's talk about the Real reasons why in this way:

The people who R responsible for murdering 4,101 Americans in Iraq have not been brought to justice. They are George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and their sponsors -- the Bush Family Evil Empire. They were actively planning to invade and occupy a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. The case for war in Iraq was so thin that George Bush and John McCain had to hype the threat of Saddam Hussein, and make false promises that we'd be greeted as liberators. They ... lied to the American people, and took us into a misguided war ... to line the pockets of their war profiteers and Big Oil base.

K & R


Edited to Change... "misled" into: "lied to"

[DearAbby]

28. Yep, it's time....let's talk. n/t

[Sick_of_Rethuggery]

29. Here is a link to the video:

It is a beaut, you gotta see it!

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2008/6/18/191326/696/14#c14

[JBShakes]

38. Thanks for the link!

I'm definitely looking forward to two or three of these fact-based smackdowns on McSame per week, EVERY week, between now and November.

[gblady]

39. thanks for the link....

now that's some straight talk!

[npincus]

31. Oh man, please Obama, REPEAT this until November!!!!

[Bolo Boffin]

33. Now that's what I'm talking about. n/t

[DinahMoeHum]

34. Can you S-M-M-M-M-M-M-E-L-L-L-L-L-L. . .

what Barack - is - cooking !!

:kick::kick:

[Yukari Yakumo]

80. The Barack to RePukes: "Just Bring It!" {nt}

uguu

[Time for change]

35. Great comeback by Obama

He's right on top of these things. They're not going to have an easy time trying to bring him down.

[yardwork]

36. Thank you, Barack Obama!

I'm proud to support Obama for president. This is what we need!

[Ian_rd]

40. How rude of Obama to ignore those DLC memos!

Doesn't he know he's supposed to play the But-I'm-tough-on-terror-too-sniffle tactic?

[redqueen]

54. ...

:rofl:

[barack the house]

41. WTG Obama keep knocking it out of the park.

[blm]

42. Kerry always brought up 9-11 in 2004 - the problem was too few Dems backed him up on that point

and the party's best known Dems were on TV throughout that time supporting and defending Bush's decisions on terrorism and Iraq war strategy - defending Bush publicly against the the very criticisms Kerry was leveling at him, especially that he took his eye off Bin Laden and Afghanistan and Al Qaeda in oirder to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9-11 and terrorism.

Obama is fortunate that he has Dems like Kerry and Clarke and now Biden willing to provide back up, hitting back hard on these matters.

Fer chrissakes, Kerry had Bill Clinton leading the very public defense of Bush on Iraq throughout his June/July book tour in 2004.

[speedoo]

52. Exactly right.

John Kerry deserved mech better. Especially from the Clintons. And that is something John Kerry will never forget.

[blm]

73. And to Obama's benefit, and the benefit of the Democratic party overall. Thankyou JK.

.

[quaker bill]

96. Yes,

but at the bottom line, Kerry could not escape the "saw the same intelligence and voted for the war" trap. While other factors, to include a general lingering public support for the war effort contributed to his problems, the vote left him unable to chart a truly clear course.

Obama is not so constrained and this along with a clear public decision against the war, will make him a far more effective messenger.

[blm]

102. Kerry sided with weapon inspectors and their case that force was not needed.

That was clear to anyone who listened to him and didn't depend on corpmedia for their spin.

And you are welcome to explain how the same corpmedia climate of 2004 would have treated any other Dem candidate and allowed them to be heard unfiltered.

Please factor in Dan Rather's admission that corporate media needed to protect Bush for the favorable FCC rulings they expected in a Bush second term, and validated by McClellan's book noting the corporate media's docile behavior towards Bush WH throughout that time period.

And don't forget to explain how any Dem nominee would have suddenly had a different DNC in 2004 that had worked for its entire four years securing the election process so their votes wouldn't be stolen or suppressed the way Kerry's were.

Kerry didn't lose. The RNC stole that election for Bush and McAuliffe's DNC sat on their hands for four years and let them do it. Some of us believe he did it deliberately.

[quaker bill]

145. I worked for Kerry

I listened to him directly and in person. My spouse helped run his local office.

He lost here because the rightwing turned out the pews in church busses to vote against him (and in "defense of marriage" in 13 states). I watched the polls and saw the busses arrive. I know the numbers, I worked for Al Gore in 2000. Kerry did not manage to make the same margins we got with Al Gore even in the places both of them won. There was no funny stuff, and no miscounting, at least where I worked, we just came up a few thousand short of Al Gore's margin, which also was not enough in 2000. Had we kicked it up the expected 20,000 and others had done the same, the race would have been won.

I don't have any argument with your notions of McAuliffe's potentially purposeful ineffectiveness. The campaign was poorly run and organized and simply did not have the resources it needed. Similar to 2000, we did not know where our voters were on election day. This would seem a DNC sort of job, given they had cared to try it. My feeling at the time was that the best effort was being held back for Hillary in 2008.

At least now, thanks to Dean, we have had permanent full time staff to pull this sort of info together and keep it up to date.

Bottom line though, Kerry never got clear of the "he was for it before he was against it" trap, and the republicans drove their base with "defense of marriage" propositions in the battlegrounds.

[Hekate]

43. Make my day... Woo! Obama just made mine!

:bounce: :loveya:

Hekate

:donut:

[DeepBlueC]

45. how sweet it is ...

as Jackie Gleason used to say.

[suffragette]

46. Every time they try to put Obama into defensive mode,

he comes back swinging and landing punches on offense.

And they have no clue how to counter it.

Love it!

[me b zola]

89. Rope-a-dope

No wonder so many compare Obama to Ali. :thumbsup:

[suffragette]

144. Rope-a-dope is right!

And Obama is using this strategy effectively.

[jberryhill]

48. It's about time a major D candidate says - "This Was the Crew In Charge When We Were Attacked"

If 9/11 had happened during a D administration, you KNOW what the R line on that would be.

How the Bush administration manages to spin the most monumentally reckless failure in national security ever, as one of their "strong points", is an utter mystery to me.

[Kaleko]

65. The tactic is "attack your opponents on their strengths!"

It's called a Rovian tactic but it's as old as psychological warfare within families and tribes.

Women are continuously attacked on their strengths, known as sexism.

[Indenturedebtor]

49. I'm going to mail McBush a kleenex

He can use it to wipe away his tears and the sweat from the palm that just openhand smacked him.

Pwned! Pwned says I!

[Dystopian]

51. Obama rocks! k&r

Thank you for posting this...awesome!

peace~

[HowHasItComeToThis]

53. just call him ROCK OBAMA

[redqueen]

55. "Error: You've already recommended that thread."

:D

[live love laugh]

75. LMAO. Obama RAWwwwkkkks!!!! n/t

[Norwood]

58. That is freaking awesome! Go Obama!!

He's showing the GOP that he's not gonna be taking any of their weak on national defense crap! You wanna talk about 9/11? Well lets talk about 9/11! I fucking love it!

K & R

[beac]

59. Obama just makes me prouder and prouder every day!

FINALLY, someone that will talk to and treat the American public like adults and not pander to us like we are whiney 5-year-olds who want a lollipop.


GOBAMA!!!

[diane in sf]

62. Thank you Obama--off to send you some money!!! I'm so refreshed by his hurling their garbage back in

their teeth. All that mealy-mouthed pandering to the Repug talking points is hopefully now at an end. Obama's energy and brains open up so many better possibilities.

[damonm]

63. ZOMG, I am SO looking forward to the debates...

when Obama mops the floor with Grampy McSame...:party:

[ThoughtCriminal]

66. And while we're at it

Let's talk about disregarded warnings in the summer of 2001.
Let's talk about how the White House pressured the FBI into not investigating Saudi nationals suspected of being or helping terrorists.
Let's talk about a President who had no idea how to react when told an attack on our country was IN PROGRESS.
.
.
.

[Submariner]

68. The "PUTS"

invested in American Airlines and United Airlines, 80% higher than normal volume, that reaped millions for those investors who KNEW something was going to happen to AA and UAL stock that 9/11 week. The SEC has computer track records of where the brokerage is/are and who bought the "puts."

Off with their f*cking heads I say.

[crickets]

111. YES, let's talk about all of that. Absolutely.

a President who had no idea how to react when told an attack on our country was IN PROGRESS.

For all the bloviating about WMDs later on, at the time he didn't even bother to ask what type of attack, and whether the attack was nuclear. He just sat there, waiting for the photo op at the end.

[earth mom]

69. Yeah but is Obama gonna tell the MIHOP/LIHOP TRUTH about 911? nt

[Zynx]

71. I think the truth is quite similar to Katrina: rampant incompetence.

That's what has plagued this whole adminsitration at every step. The only thing they were decent at was fear baiting to win elections.

[wildbilln864]

76. well I don't know about that....

I remember Rummy stating that the pentagon couldn't account for $2,300,000,000.00 just the day before 911. They competently got away with that.
$9,000,000,000.00 lost in Iraq reportd on 60 Minutes. They've competently gotten away with that.
Torture! Getting away with it.
Illegal spying! Getting away wth it quite comptently.
Telling Congress and us all pretty competently to basically go fuck ourselves.
Just sayin...

[Zynx]

84. Much of that has to do with more rank incompetence from our esteemed representatives.

Congress has shirked their responsibilities.

[Politicalboi]

100. That is what I think

Stealing 2.3 Trillion Dollars is a good reason to look for a distraction and 9/11 was their plan to do it. And now they launder money for war and oil all in the name of National Security. They are stealing us blind everyday and most Americans have no idea or simply don't care.

[petgoat]

115. 9/11 was also a distraction from the stolen election story.

NORC had been counting the Florida ballots all summer, they'd found
that Gore got more legal votes, and they were just about to release
the report in early September. The Nat'l Lawyers Guild was preparing
a campaign to impeach the felonious five Supremes that handed the
election to Bush.

It was decided to delay release of the report, and when the news
came out 11/12/01 we were at war and there was anthrax in the mail,
and nobody cared about hanging chads any more. A heavy spin was
put on the story to make the fact that Gore got more votes seem
irrelevant.

[defendandprotect]

133. ...and the ANTHRAX shut down the Congress for three months . . .

I think that was it --- and they're still radiating their mail which means they get snail mail
in 6 weeks!

Right after 9/11, it seems that a lot of people were sending info into Congress - --
Anthrax fixed that !

[TBF]

95. OK, I am relatively new to DU - what is MIHOP/LIHOP?

[Hekate]

99. Made it happen on purpose / Let it happen on purpose

There's a glossary somewhere around here.... :hi:

Hekate

[ThoughtCriminal]

104. Made It Happen On Purpose/Let It Happen On Purpose

While neither would surprise me, I lean more to the theory that it was a case of neglect, incompetance and enabling. The Bush Administration was simply not interested in anything that could not be used to justify war with Iraq, and were especially disinterested in anything that linked terrorism to thier pals in Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have tremendous influence and power of the Bush family and there was active interferance from the Administration that hindered the FBI's counter terrorism. 9-11 was the the inevitable result.

So, while I hold the Bush Administration responsible, I do not beleive that they were a direct particiapant. Otherwise, I think they would have set up a direct smoking gun from the 9-11 attack to Iraq (instead of the Saudis). Also, I don't think they would have left little George sitting on his thumb. Instead they would have put him in position to be the big hero of the day.

[mantis49]

109. Relatively new with 1000+ posts?

WOW!

Made It Happen On Purpose versus Let It Happen On Purpose.

A subject of much debate here. I'm in the LIHOP crowd.

And oh yeah........GObama!!!

[TBF]

119. Yeah, I found DU in January. I'm talking too much, aren't I? ;)

But yes, I heard rumors about MIHOP when I was still living in Washington. I was still in grad school in 2001. There were a few people who thought it was definitely a "they knew" situation. When you see all the things Bush/Cheney have done it really makes you wonder. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they knew ahead of time.

[Amonester]

137. The PNAC "dreamed about" "hoped for" "called" or "provoked" a new...

"Pearl Harbor" so they could line up their own pockets, and those of their corporate "associates" (Bush's have-mores) like never before.


~snip~

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) is a Washington-based think tank that was formed in 1997. Its goal is to establish the United States as "the new global leader" over all nations through military might if necessary, aggressively promoting the interests of the United States abroad, and dominating other countries socially, economically, and militarily.

The plan, as outlined in the PNAC document "Rebuilding America's Defenses", is to start with the invasion of Iraq, removal of Saddam Hussein as the first of several planned wars which would include attacks on Syria and Iran. The purpose of these wars is to demonstrate military might to intimidate other nations, at the same time permanently installing US military bases around the world to act as the global police, imposing and enforcing a law and order beneficial to the United States' interests.

PNAC was founded in part by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, Richard Perle, Lewis Libby and Paul Wolfowitz. Many other PNAC members were installed into the Bush Administration immediately following George W. Bush's inauguration, and were behind the aggressive push to war with Iraq - a war that many of us still don't understand why Bush started, and a war that many Americans are misinformed about.

"Rebuilding America's Defenses" (a PNAC project paper) also described the need for a catastrophic event, such as a new "Pearl Harbor," in order for the described plans in the document to unfold at anything other than an undesirably slow pace.

~~~~
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x223

The PNAC website no longer exists... (but the war criminals who created it do...)

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/

[Eurobabe]

72. Damn, I love this guy, he's on FIRE!!

[tomp]

74. obama does not impress me.

we know bin laden and his cronies did it? how do we know? we have not yet had a thorough independent investigation of 9/11. there are hundreds if not thousands of important unanswered questions about what happened. if he's as intelligent as everyone is claiming, obama MUST know this. yet he spouts the official line. that, my friends, is what we call COMPLICITY. that's called "reaching across the aisle" to protect u.s. imperialist foreign policy. the repubs and the dems seem to be of one mind on 9/11. they differ slightly on foreign policy tactics, not at all on strategy. obama's all for attacking afghanistan BEFORE a real investigation takes place.

u.s. out of iraq AND afghanistan! investigate 9/11! repeal the patriot act!

[wildbilln864]

77. I completely agree!

I'm hoping however, that he's just waiting to become President before he exposes his intent to get to the bottom of 911. Hey, I can dream can't I? :shrug:

[Kaleko]

79. Hi wildbill, same thoughts posted at the same time

:thumbsup: :hi:

[wildbilln864]

92. Hey! Cool.

I hadn't seen that til now. I was only 4 when JFK was murdered. Obama just seems to be so much like him to me. I'm keeping my fingers crossed. :hi:

[Politicalboi]

103. That's my

Dream too. They would put him in the nut case file like us truthers about 9/11 and make a laughing stock out of him if he did it now. My other dream is that he legalizes pot too.

[Kaleko]

78. The hope some of us have is that Obama

is playing masterful chess and turns out to be a Trojan horse. Once elected, he can let criminal investigations into 9/11 etc. go forward with all his forces amassed behind him instead of facing potential allies in an uphill battle.

Of course, it is just a hope, as I've said above.


edited for clarification

[tomp]

134. i caution anyone with such hopes...

...not to hold their breath.

[Kaleko]

139. there is wisdom in that

:-)

[Amonester]

138. He has no choice but to wait until Jan-Feb '09...

Otherwise... you know... the "tinfoil hat" accusations will flood all the wingnuts talk-radio waves...

Come on... You KNOW that, alright?

[tomp]

148. frankly, i don't know what you're talking about.

choice? there's always a choice. but what are you talking about?

[ashrob123]

81. I am excited about the stance that the Democratic Party

is taking on National security. Who would have thought that the Democrats would be the bad asses in this election cycle?

[ooglymoogly]

82. No fool Obama kr nt

[TrogL]

85. We could use a bit of help in Afghanistan

Canada's having to beg to other countries for helicopters to move their troops around. IIRC Poland is sending two, France three.

[drm604]

86. YES!

That's the way to do it. Don't take any of their bullshit. :applause:

[Politicalboi]

87. I hope he has an

Open mind about 9/11. I don't like to hear him talk about Osama being responosible for 9/11. I know if he had said Bush/Cheney they would think he was nuts.

[whistle]

88. Obama is showing his cahoonas!!!

[samsingh]

91. yes, let's talk about 911

why did condi lie about aircraft never being considered to be used as weapons?

why did bush go on vacation despite the threat memos?

why did bush sit there like a useful turd when the first aircraft hit?

.
.
.
.

[wildbilln864]

93. yes and...

why haven't the caught the anthrax murderers?
why haven't they caught UBL?

[crickets]

113. "why haven't they caught the anthrax murderers?"

Aside from September 11 itself, that one bugs me like no other. So, somebody can send military grade anthrax to members of Congress, and years later there's no one in jail for that? WTF?

[samsingh]

143. i had forgotten about the anthrax shit - another fuck up on the repug part

[tigereye]

94. good for him! I can't wait to see him take them to task

[jimshoes]

98. Oh I just have to kick and rec this. Awesome!

Double Awesome!!

[McCamy Taylor]

105. K&R

[knixphan]

106. K&R

[Seabiscuit]

107. You're right. It IS an argument he (and we Dems) WILL win.

[Vinca]

108. Obama is a pitbull. He responds, latches onto them and

takes a great big bite out of their talking point.

[Lasher]

112. Woah.

This man is definitely different. Like a breath of fresh air. What a wonderful president he will make!

[crickets]

114. WTG, Obama! K&R

:dem:

[debbierlus]

117. Oh no he didn't - Oh YES he did!

LOL!

[yurbud]

118. tricky territory--if he scares the wealthy, they could turn the media on him and make him

look like a nut.

[Fly by night]

121. The way to prevent another 9-11 is to (finally) learn all we can about what caused the first 9-11.

To start with, see ignorance, laziness, gullibility, complicity and/or corruption under "White House".

[defendandprotect]

136. Let's not forget there was a previous attack on the WTC . . . '93?

also rather suspicious ---

And the neo-cons/PNAC'ers were trying to get Clinton to attack Iraq at that time!

[NewEnglandGirl]

122. He is Letting it be known

that if they bring it up he will wipe up the floor with them, that it will be their demise, not his and that he will not back away from the subject. He is telling them they will be making a major mistake bringing it up. :9

[yellowcanine]

123. It looks as if Obama is making good on his promise to bring a gun to match the pubbie knife.

[Bobcat]

124. 9/11

Right out of the Nazi/Neocon playbook.....

Nazi Playbook...a per Goering

Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

Neocon playbook.....as per Kristol

"While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein ...
"the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor ...


Too convenient....in my playbook......

[bunkerbuster1]

125. Hit 'em with the chair, Barack!

Yeeeeahhhh!

[Mad_Dem_X]

126. YES!

Obama's kickin' ass and takin' names! :bounce:

[David Zephyr]

128. Be still my heart. Obama is simply a grand candidate.

Nothing to say here, but "Wow".

[JustAnotherGen]

130. It's beautiful

I think I have tears in my eyes it's so beautiful.

[defendandprotect]

131. Certainly Obama also knows that the US/CIA created the Taliban/"Al Qaeda" . . .

and that our at least TWO of the alleged hijackers were on the FBI's 24 hour watch list ---

[windoe]

135. I'm surprised he is even allowed to mention 911

he sure knows how to play the mainstream game, certain subject matters must be tread very carefully, because if you slip up and say too much, you can't play anymore.
We have freedom of....some speech.

[CJCRANE]

142. I think it works because he

frames it in terms of patriotism and simple logic: i.e. if Bin Laden and al-Qaeda did in fact attack America then they should be the main foreign policy priority.

The Bush-McCain policy of attacking an innocent country (i.e. not connected to 9/11) while the alleged attackers are still on the loose doesn't make any logical sense.

[Imagevision]

147. Obama would make McCain how wrong he is about Obama's experience...