Dems were absolute losers for letting Bush "own" 9/11

[BeyondGeography]

Of all the missteps in the campaign, none were more fatal IMO than the Democratic Party's decision not to put the spotlight on the Bush Administration's failures to take Al Qaeda and terrorism seriously before the 9/11 attacks.

That the president of the United States could receive a briefing paper on Aug. 6, stating that bin Laden was determined to strike inside this country, and hold no follow-up meetings (vacation was more important) was a scandal in and of itself. From counterterrorism expert Richard Clarke and others, we also know that the Administration was told Al Qaeda would be its biggest security headache, and that such warnings were all but openly ridiculed by the wing-nuts, who were more concerned with getting missile defense off the ground, ditching the ABM treaty and finding a pretext to attack Iraq. And, of course, AG Ashcroft also cut counterterrorism funding in 2001.

In the primary season, only Wesley Clark openly and consistently criticized the Administration's shoddy performance, which was ultimately documented by the 9/11 Commission (whose very right to investigate was fought by Bush). The rest of our candidates stood there like statues on the issue of 9/11.

We all know what would have happened had the situation been reversed: If 9/11 had happened on Al Gore's watch, if Al Gore had stayed on vacation for a month after the Aug. 6 pdb, if Al Gore had fought the Commission's right to investigate, and if Al Gore had cut counterterrorism funding, guess what this campaign would have been about? Are we congenitally incapable of throwing the first punch? We know the other side isn't.

Now we find out that women went for Bush by 55-45, and their top issue was terrorism. The impact of gay marriage was weak in comparison; those fundies were going to vote Bush anyway. We needed the women's vote in order to win and we lost it on terrorism and homeland security. Was there a more costly and incompetent judgment by the Democrats than letting Bush masquerade as the Great Protector without putting a spotlight on his failure to protect us? That's was the foundation of his campaign and we did nothing to weaken it.

We held a convention where speeches were "scrubbed" of anti-Bush references. They held a convention where John Kerry was defined as a threat to homeland security. What was the Democratic party thinking? And, how, given the scale of this blunder, can we trust their judgment going forward?

[ClassWarrior]

1. Done crying in your beer?? Then chug it down and let's fight!

NGU.

[Slit Skirt]

4. I am with you...but NO COORS beer...

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jack_Dawson]

2. Uhhh...Dems WON the election?

www.gregpalast.com

[Slit Skirt]

3. there you go.....

I have said it all along....why didn't we go after bush for allowing 9/11 to happen on his watch...

there was a plan between two candidates to not enter into certain areas....

and that Bush would win regardless....

they had 4 yrs to steal this election..there is a thread somewhere that talks about who owns the electoral machines...all bush connections

[JohnyCanuck]

7. He did own it in a way because It was done on his behalf.

Notice I didn't say Shrub did it. It's obvious he's such a clueless nitwit they would keep him out of the loop.

From M. Ruppert's speech to the Commonwealth Club of California Aug 21, 2004.

To date, the case that 9/11 was perpetrated solely by Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda has never been proved, even to the most rudimentary standards. In fact, some 35 months after the attacks there has not been a single successful 9/11 prosecution anywhere in the world. The only conviction that had been secured, a German prosecution against Mounir el Motassadeq, charged with aiding the so-called Hamburg cell of Mohammed Atta, was overturned in 2004 because the US government refused to produce key witnesses such as Khalid Shaikh Muhammad or Ramzi bin Al Shibh and other evidence relevant to the charges. Every defendant in a western criminal case has the right to examine the evidence used against him and to cross-examine witnesses.

To the general public as well as to the 9/11 research community, the mysterious and inexplicable failure of the nation's air defenses that day remains the most glaring and gaping hole in the Kean Commission's account and in the government's version of events. Scrambling fighter aircraft was a routine occurrence for years before 9/11. The Associated Press has told us that fighter aircraft were scrambled and flying beside errant commercial and private air traffic within minutes of the slightest deviation some 67 times in the calendar year preceding June 1, 2001. This is one of many areas where the Kean Commission not only failed to look but actually altered evidence in the preparation of its final report.

For me, the pivotal evidence absolutely demonstrating direct government complicity in, and management of, the attacks was found in a number of undisputed, yet virtually unaddressed wargames that I will show were being conducted, coordinated and/or controlled by Vice President Dick Cheney or his immediate staff on the morning of September 11th. The names of those wargames are known to include: Vigilant Guardian, Vigilant Warrior, Northern Guardian, Northern Vigilance, and Tripod II. All have been reported on by major press organizations relying on undisputed quotes from participating military personnel. They have also been confirmed by NORAD press releases. All, except for Northern Vigilance and Tripod II, had to do with hijacked airliners inside the continental United States, specifically within the Northeast Air Defense Sector where all four 9/11 hijackings occurred.

According to a clear record, some of these exercises involved commercial airline hijackings. In some cases, false blips were deliberately inserted onto FAA and military radar screens and they were present during (at least) the first attacks. This effectively paralyzed fighter response because, with only eight fighters available in the region, there were as many as 22 possible hijackings taking place. Other exercises, specifically Northern Vigilance, had pulled significant fighter resources away from the northeast U.S. – just before 9/11 – into northern Canada and Alaska. In addition, a close reading of key news stories published in the spring of 2004 revealed for the first time that some of these drills were "live-fly" exercises where actual aircraft, likely flown by remote control – were simulating the behavior of hijacked airliners in real life. All of this as the real attacks began. The fact that these exercises had never been systematically and thoroughly explored in the mainstream press, or publicly by Congress, or at least publicly in any detail by the so-called independent 9/11 Commission, made me think that they might be the holy grail of 9/11.

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/PDF/CWspeech.doc (MW Word Doc)

[creeksneakers2]

8. Its not just that

Bush ignored terrorism completely. He even let Zarqawi go. Unbelieveable how this issue was conceded.

Some numbskull bought into the media framing that this election would be decided by who would be the commander in chief that is least reluctant to kill. Kerry went on and on with the "I was in Vietnam" line. "I will kill the terrorists!"

Kerry barely mentioned that Bush ignored terrorism. Bush even chose to let the biggest terrorist go because Bush wanted the best case for his war in Iraq.

[tngledwebb]

10. One thing Commander Bumpback Earpiece did not do

is ignore Terrorism. He and his PNAC puppetmasters ARE terrorism incarnate, in every sense you might care to think of. That's why stealing elections is a piece of cake.

[tngledwebb]

9. The 3 most important and unsolved mysteries of the 21st century :

1. Who stole election 2000 ?
(And why did the Dems stand by and let it happen?)

2. Who was behind 9/11?
(And why did the Dems not ask more questions before passing the Patriot Act and approving two illegal wars?)

3. What happened last Tuesday ?
(And why did the Dems roll over so fast?)

[nolabels]

12. I think most of them were solved last Tuesday if you hadn't noticed

If we take up the responsibility for holding the truth up to be foremost, we will always get where we need to go.

[The Flaming Red Head]

11. Gore wouldn't have needed 9-11 to stay in power

there would have been no 9-11 without W.

[paulk]

13. Bush "owning" 9/11 had a lot more

to do with the media than the Democrats. It's hard to get out any kind of message when the other guy owns the bullhorn.

[BeyondGeography]

17. What exactly was our message about Bush and al Qaeda pre 9/11?

It's hard to get a message out when you have no message.

[paulk]

18. that we should all just fucking give up

and piss and moan and whine about how awful the Democrats are.

[BeyondGeography]

19. We can begin to fix the Democrats easier than we can the media

But I guess it's more fun to blame others for your problems.

Great approach ya got there, paulk.

[paulk]

20. we can fix the Democrats

by posting on an internet message board

we can tell everybody how fucked up the Democrats are !

That'll do it!





as for your psychoanalysis -

:)

have a nice day!

[BeyondGeography]

22. Put words in somebody else's mouth

The point of the original post isn't that the Democrats are, what did you call it, oh yeah, "fucked." It's that we play nicey nice and blow the most obvious opportunities. In this case, it was Bush's botching of 9/11, which he magically transformed into a strength while our candidate(s) failed to speak the truth of what happened. The media didn't beat us; we defeated ourselves by declaring unilateral disarmament.

But that's an interesting conversation that I'll evidently have to have with someone else.

[paulk]

23. Bush didn't magically transform his fuck up on 9/11

into his greatest strength; the media did. And the Democrats are scared to death of the media. With good reason - if they could transform Bush's greastest failure into his greatest triumph, think what they could do to any Democrat who trashed a president, one obviously unfit for office, who now had the job of leading a shaken nation. The media propped him up because the country needed it at the time. And the Democrats shut up for two reasons - the country needed it and the reason mentioned above: fear of the media.

It wasn't Bush who got those 90% approval ratings - it was a gift from the media.
They would have done the same for Gore. What Bush chose to do with that gift is something else.

Kerry never attacked Bush's failures pre-9/11 because he didn't want to be accused of using the tragedy of 9/11 for his own political gain.
Never mind that it's what Bush did - once the media put the laurel wreath on his head they couldn't very well take it off without looking foolish. And they don't like to be made to look foolish.

You are way underestimating the power of the media and it's ability to control the political dialogue of this country.

[BeyondGeography]

25. Fair points. But you neglect the 9/11 hearings

which were given a full airing by "the media," in particular Richard Clarke's testimony, aired live on all the cable networks. And there was Clarke's book, which was #1 on the NYT best-seller list for a week or two, helped in no small part by the media attention it received.

Not to mention Fahrenheit 9/11, which also qualifies as "media." Just ask the right-wing.

Were Clarke and Moore smeared by the right-wing and their media lackeys? Obviously. Did John Kerry or any other candidate ever say a single critical thing about the Bush Administration's conduct before 9/11? No. A SINGLE comment about Bush not taking time from his precious vacation to hold a meeting after the Aug. 6 PDB? No. The media didn't prevent them from doing this. We self-censored ourselves.

It's bad enough that we're up against a machine. We consistently compound this problem by not advancing the most robust and effective arguments possible in our favor.

[progressivebydesign]

14. THEY OWN THE MEDIA. THEY OWN THE MEDIA.

THEY OWN THE MEDIA.

I'm tiring of the threads about how Kerry/Democrats/Clinton/Voters "blew it". THEY OWN THE fucking AIRWAVES! I could write the most amazing novel, it could rival anything that any of the world's greatest novelists have written, if I can't get it published... it's worthless.

[smirkymonkey]

15. Thank you! The coup is now complete.

[BeyondGeography]

16. Kerry never once criticized Bush on 9/11

Your point would have some validity if you could point to one criticism of Bush by Kerry on his conduct before 9/11. But you can't.

[autorank]

21. Thank you. You speak the truth clearly. Great, great post!

Corporate America controls the media and we get manufactured news.
Corporate America now controls the voting machines and we get manufactured elections.

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/

[krkaufman]

24. Yep. Major gains were made back in April...

... during the 9/11 Commission hearings, and when Richard Clarke's and Ron Suskind's books came out, but the Democrats pretty much dropped criticism of Bush's pre-9/11 negligence/ineptitude as soon as the Democratic Primaries were over.

Major mistake.

Though I'm not sure it would have mattered much -- given the media spin and potential election fraud.