9/11 victims angered by bush ads

[0roo0roo]

Its pretty fvcking simple why it happened. In the 7+ years from the WTC attack to 2000. Clinton did nothing. We had 5 attacks on american soil. Clinton did nothing, except gut and handcuff the CIA, lob a few missles at Saddam, and blow up a couple Asprin factories.

Anyone trying to blame Bush for 9/11 SHOULD BE CONDEMING Clinton.

your a funny sob. bush takes office after all this supposed blundering and what does he do? ah yes, take a long string of vacations on his ranch.

you might say clinton was negligent for just shooting at tents, well ATLEAST HE TRIED!! he wasn't on vacation playing cowboy on the ranch.

what do you call a president who ran on the idea that clinton had ruined everything, all the military etc, yet takes ranch vacations once he takes office? either he's negligent or a liar, choose one or both.

and your wrong anyways, ramzi yousef, abdul hakim murad, and wali kham amin shah ring a bell? how quickly you forget, it must be the limbaugh effect. these were all terrorists responsible for the first attack on the towers,AND THEY ARE BEHIND BARS. oh, blame clinton!! oh yes.. please do!

attacks planned on the YN headquarters, fbi building, israeli embassy in washington, la and boston airports, the lincoln and holland tunnels, and the george washington bridge, thwarted.... blame Clinton!!


he tripled the counterterrirusn bydget for the FBI, doubled counterterrorism funding overall. his crime bills contained antiterrorism legislation, he sponsored simulations to see how well different institutions would react to attacks, he created the national stockpile of drugs and vaccines, 40 million doses of smallpox vacine.... blame clinton...

he was the first president to undertake a systematic anti terrorist effort. and bush was the president to go on massive sprees of vacations his first months in office after running on the idea that everything was desperatly broken...


negligence of the highest order...

 

[TheGameIs21]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21
You know what is really getting old? All of the people who thing that the US made up the fact that IRAQ had WMD's.

They cherry picked at what was best Dodgy Intel and then presented as unrefutable fact (which is the lie) to fool the American Public in to supporting the Dub's excellent and ill advised adventure in Iraq

What do you say about the rest of what I said? You are great at taking ONE line and making a blanket statement. You make the Democrats proud.

 

[TheGameIs21]

Giuliani defends Bush's use of 9/11 images

Yes he's also a republican but he also admits that GWB wasn't just a wall flower. I am also not going to respond to those that were upset that our nations leaders were in a safe place during these attacks. That is just a stupid argument and holds absolutely no water.

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who won worldwide acclaim for his handling of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks that devastated his city, said Thursday that using images from that day in campaign ads for President Bush is both "appropriate" and "relevant."

"The reality is that President Bush played a very, very big role in bringing our country through the worst attack in our history," he said. "So it's an appropriate thing for him to point out as part of his record, just like Democrats are going to attack parts of his record and say, 'We think it should have been done differently.' "

Giuliani is a Republican and a supporter of Bush's re-election.

The ads, which began airing Thursday, outline a series of challenges that the United States has faced since Bush became president, including the 9/11 attacks. The tag line is that Bush presents "strong leadership in times of change."

Some family members of people killed in the terrorist attacks object to the use of images from the tragedy in montages in the ads, including a brief shot of a firefighter carrying away a flag-draped victim.

"We can't help but look at the failures of that day," said Patty Casazza, whose husband died in the World Trade Center. "We lost loved ones, and anyone in our shoes would have to have a more critical view of the president."

But other victims' families said they see nothing wrong with the ads.

"It shows you firefighters carrying a brother out, and it shows you the American flag waving over the Trade Center," said Joe Esposito, a firefighter who lost both a brother and a cousin in the attacks. "I have no problem with that."

A local firefighters union, which has endorsed presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry, also charged that the ad goes too far.

"I don't think the death of any citizen, particularly firefighters, should be used in anyone's campaign," said Capt. Peter Gorman of the Uniformed Fire Officers Association.

But Giuliani told CNN "It would almost be false to list the challenges that President Bush had to face and not list as one of those challenges the worst attack in this country."

Asked if he would use similar images if he ran for office again, Giuliani said "that would be hypothetical" -- but he added that his record in handling the tragedy would be a legitimate matter for voters to consider.

"September 11th is part of my record," he said. "It would be unrealistic, if I was ever evaluated, for someone not to look at that."

White House spokesman Scott McClellan also defended the ads Thursday.

"It is vital to our future that we learn what September 11th taught us," he said. "September 11th changed the equation in our public policy. It forever changed our world, and the president's steady leadership is vital to how we wage the war on terrorism."

David Gergen, a former adviser to presidents of both parties, said using September 11 in campaign ads is acceptable within limits.

"They have to be careful not to exploit the emotions of the families," Gergen said. "But how can you tell the story of the Bush administration and leave out 9/11? That's the core of what happened. If he's re-elected, the single reason why is because of the days and weeks following 9/11."

 

[EcoLogic]

Bush has every right to use 9/11 in his campaign ads. The idea that he shouldn't is misguided and illogical.

 

[DoubleL]

They are 3 women that are upset and every news is carrying them,The ones that think it should be showed, Well screw them, Funny thing is they sound like the same person, Saying the same things, Now would the Dem. be so low as to go out and find the women and tell them what to say?, No didn't think so , Well in the last poll of over 1000 people 15% thinks it is a bad Ideal and 85% thinks it is a good Ideal or doesn't see anything wrong with it

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21
You know what is really getting old? All of the people who thing that the US made up the fact that IRAQ had WMD's.

They cherry picked at what was best Dodgy Intel and then presented as unrefutable fact (which is the lie) to fool the American Public in to supporting the Dub's excellent and ill advised adventure in Iraq

What do you say about the rest of what I said? You are great at taking ONE line and making a blanket statement. You make the Democrats proud.

Well since I'm not a Democrat I will take that as an attempt by you to insult me. I would be more insulted if you were to say I sounded like a Bush Republican.

Regarding the rest of your post, it comes down to this. If you are going to invade and occupy a country and you sell that military action based an so called solid evidence, you better be 100% sure that you are right because if you are wrong, no amount of BS excuses and reasoning is going to matter. It's one thing to establish no Fly zones and have an embargo until the terms by the UN are met, it's totally another to invade and occupy another country and then say "Oops" when the reason given for the invasion is shown to be false.

Hussien and his minions no doubt were bad guys but getting rid of him if he didn't pose a legitimate threat to us at the cost of billions of dollars, hundreds of American Servimans lives lost and thousands of American Servicemen maimed along with unstablilty in that region which has led to a much, much greater presence of Al Qaeda and the loss of American credibility is too high of a price to pay.

 

[TheGameIs21]

You remind me of a 12 year old with his fingers in his ears humming so he can't hear what people are saying. That's ok though, you go on with your denial and think what you want. If you refuse to understand a simple fact then there is no reason talking to you.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21
You remind me of a 12 year old with his fingers in his ears humming so he can't hear what people are saying. That's ok though, you go on with your denial and think what you want. If you refuse to understand a simple fact then there is no reason talking to you.

You remind me of the 12 year olds little sister who throws a hissy fit when she doesn't get her way! The simple fact is that the Dub and his Neocon minions were wrong about the WMDs and they sold the Dubs excellent adventure in Iraq to the American based on wrong intel. There is no excuse even though Dub apologist like you are holding your breath until you turn blue insisting there is!

 

[TheGameIs21]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21
You remind me of a 12 year old with his fingers in his ears humming so he can't hear what people are saying. That's ok though, you go on with your denial and think what you want. If you refuse to understand a simple fact then there is no reason talking to you.

You remind me of the 12 year olds little sister who throws a hissy fit when she doesn't get her way! The simple fact is that the Dub and his Neocon minions were wrong about the WMDs and they sold the Dubs excellent adventure in Iraq to the American based on wrong intel. There is no excuse even though Dub apologist like you are holding your breath until you turn blue insisting there is!

I could care less if I am the sister or the damn dog. I am not blinded by politics in this. I am useing common sense. What part of IT WAS IRAQ'S RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE PROOF OF DESTRUCTION do you not understand? We didn't get that proof so PRIOR to the invasion, we sent teams and those teams were not given the access demanded. So we finished what was started 10 years prior. Democrats bitched and moaned when SR didn't go all the way. Now that Jr did, you all jump a "why did you go all the way?" and then only pay attention to certain points of what is going on.

Wake up and get out of your political view and use a realistic eye when looking at this event. Trying to talk logic to a Democrat is a wasted effort, they refuse to use standard logic.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21
You remind me of a 12 year old with his fingers in his ears humming so he can't hear what people are saying. That's ok though, you go on with your denial and think what you want. If you refuse to understand a simple fact then there is no reason talking to you.

You remind me of the 12 year olds little sister who throws a hissy fit when she doesn't get her way! The simple fact is that the Dub and his Neocon minions were wrong about the WMDs and they sold the Dubs excellent adventure in Iraq to the American based on wrong intel. There is no excuse even though Dub apologist like you are holding your breath until you turn blue insisting there is!

You are as in denial as the other 12 year old.... I could care less if I am the sister or the damn dog. I am not blinded by politics in this. I am useing common sense. What part of IT WAS IRAQ'S RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE PROOF OF DESTRUCTION do you not understand? We didn't get that proof so PRIOR to the invasion, we sent teams and those teams were not given the access demanded. So we finished what was started 10 years prior. Democrats bitched and moaned when SR didn't go all the way. Now that Jr did, you all jump a "why did you go all the way?" and then only pay attention to certain points of what is going on.

Wake up and get out of your political view and use a realistic eye when looking at this event. Trying to talk logic to a Democrat is a wasted effort, they refuse to use standard logic.

It wasn't our responsibility to invade Iraq, it was the UN's and they weren't convinced that it was necessary at the time and it seems they were right! So it was 12 years, big deal. Meanwhile we effectively nuetered Hussien with an Embargo and No Fly Zones. During that time he was no threat to his neighbors and didn't commit any genocide against his own people (well after the few months following the first Gulf War when we went back on our promise to support the Kurds and Shiites if they revolted against Hussien)

Face it, we fscked up and no amount of convoluted reasoning is going to change it!

 

[Gaard]

What part of IT WAS IRAQ'S RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE PROOF OF DESTRUCTION do you not understand?

What part of "THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT IRAQ HAS WMDs" do you not understand?

 

[TheGameIs21]

It was our responsibility since the UN wanted to sit back and not do anything about it. Being the strongest nation in the world has some responsibilities that don't make all people happy. We had proof from Iraq that they had WMD's and we didn't have proof that they were destroyed. If they lied about having them then they are dumber than I thought.

Like it or not, the US did what it did with support from over 40 nations. We didn't act alone, we just didn't have the UN backing us up. Truth is, we didn't need them. They haven't kicked us out so apparently we didn't piss them off too bad.

 

[TheGameIs21]

Originally posted by: Gaard

What part of IT WAS IRAQ'S RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE PROOF OF DESTRUCTION do you not understand?

What part of "THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT IRAQ HAS WMDs" do you not understand?

Would you like to provide an adult reply?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21
It was our responsibility since the UN wanted to sit back and not do anything about it. We had proof from Iraq that they had WMD's and we didn't have proof that they were destroyed. If they lied about having them then they are dumber than I thought.

Like it or not, the US did what it did with support from over 40 nations. We didn't act alone, we just didn't have the UN backing us up. Truth is, we didn't need them. They haven't kicked us out so apparently we didn't piss them off too bad.

Yeah a 40 Nation Coalition. The best Coalition that Money can buy. Of course we didn't need them as we vastly out gunned Iraq. Of course now that it has been shown that nare actions were based on faulty Intel those responsible should be held accountable by the American Public. The buch doesn't stop at the Director of the CIA's desk, it stops at the Dub's desk!

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: Gaard

What part of IT WAS IRAQ'S RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE PROOF OF DESTRUCTION do you not understand?

What part of "THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT IRAQ HAS WMDs" do you not understand?

Would you like to provide an adult reply?

Why don't you? Our responces were in direct reply to your insults! Stop being a hypocrite

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21
It was our responsibility since the UN wanted to sit back and not do anything about it. Being the strongest nation in the world has some responsibilities that don't make all people happy. We had proof from Iraq that they had WMD's and we didn't have proof that they were destroyed. If they lied about having them then they are dumber than I thought.

Like it or not, the US did what it did with support from over 40 nations. We didn't act alone, we just didn't have the UN backing us up. Truth is, we didn't need them. They haven't kicked us out so apparently we didn't piss them off too bad.

So where does the 'no doubt' part fit in?

It was our responsibility since the UN wanted to sit back and not do anything about it.

What was our responsibility?

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: Gaard

What part of IT WAS IRAQ'S RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE PROOF OF DESTRUCTION do you not understand?

What part of "THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT IRAQ HAS WMDs" do you not understand?

Would you like to provide an adult reply?

Sure.

"You remind me of a 12 year old."

How's that?

 

[nutxo]

I heard something interesting today about wartime politics.

A slogan " I remember pearl Harbor". No one cried about insensitivity or any other crap back then.

 

[Drphibes]

Remember pearl harbor wasnt roosevelts campaign slogan though.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: nutxo
I heard something interesting today about wartime politics.

A slogan " I remember pearl Harbor". No one cried about insensitivity or any other crap back then.

You mean THIS?

Drphilbes - it may not have been his slogan but he definately used it.

CkG

 

[DoubleL]

Remember pearl harbor wasnt roosevelts campaign slogan though.

It wasn't, There was a sign right behind him that said remember pearl harbor as it should have been

 

[nutxo]

It's like dealing with a pregnant woman, one wrong word and the crying starts. People need to grow some balls and quit falling apart over the little sh*t.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: DoubleL
Remember pearl harbor wasnt roosevelts campaign slogan though.

It wasn't, There was a sign right behind him that said remember pearl harbor as it should have been

No, But FDR campaigned in 1944 that he need to be elected to a fourth term to ensure allied victory:

FDR, as most observers could see from his weight loss and haggard appearance, was a tired man in 1944. But upon entering the campaign in earnest in late September, 1944, Roosevelt displayed enough passion and fight to allay most concerns and to deflect Republican attacks. With the war still raging, he urged voters not to ?change horses in mid-stream.?

From Source

 

[sxr7171]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Its pretty fvcking simple why it happened. In the 7+ years from the WTC attack to 2000. Clinton did nothing. We had 5 attacks on american soil. Clinton did nothing, except gut and handcuff the CIA, lob a few missles at Saddam, and blow up a couple Asprin factories.

Anyone trying to blame Bush for 9/11 SHOULD BE CONDEMING Clinton.

your a funny sob. bush takes office after all this supposed blundering and what does he do? ah yes, take a long string of vacations on his ranch.

you might say clinton was negligent for just shooting at tents, well ATLEAST HE TRIED!! he wasn't on vacation playing cowboy on the ranch.

what do you call a president who ran on the idea that clinton had ruined everything, all the military etc, yet takes ranch vacations once he takes office? either he's negligent or a liar, choose one or both.

and your wrong anyways, ramzi yousef, abdul hakim murad, and wali kham amin shah ring a bell? how quickly you forget, it must be the limbaugh effect. these were all terrorists responsible for the first attack on the towers,AND THEY ARE BEHIND BARS. oh, blame clinton!! oh yes.. please do!

attacks planned on the YN headquarters, fbi building, israeli embassy in washington, la and boston airports, the lincoln and holland tunnels, and the george washington bridge, thwarted.... blame Clinton!!


he tripled the counterterrirusn bydget for the FBI, doubled counterterrorism funding overall. his crime bills contained antiterrorism legislation, he sponsored simulations to see how well different institutions would react to attacks, he created the national stockpile of drugs and vaccines, 40 million doses of smallpox vacine.... blame clinton...

he was the first president to undertake a systematic anti terrorist effort. and bush was the president to go on massive sprees of vacations his first months in office after running on the idea that everything was desperatly broken...


negligence of the highest order...

You know, I'll bet that no one responds to your post as people here don't like to respond to well worded factual posts, they prefer to ignore well worded factual posts and continue arguing with their stupid opinions.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: sxr7171

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Its pretty fvcking simple why it happened. In the 7+ years from the WTC attack to 2000. Clinton did nothing. We had 5 attacks on american soil. Clinton did nothing, except gut and handcuff the CIA, lob a few missles at Saddam, and blow up a couple Asprin factories.

Anyone trying to blame Bush for 9/11 SHOULD BE CONDEMING Clinton.

your a funny sob. bush takes office after all this supposed blundering and what does he do? ah yes, take a long string of vacations on his ranch.

you might say clinton was negligent for just shooting at tents, well ATLEAST HE TRIED!! he wasn't on vacation playing cowboy on the ranch.

what do you call a president who ran on the idea that clinton had ruined everything, all the military etc, yet takes ranch vacations once he takes office? either he's negligent or a liar, choose one or both.

and your wrong anyways, ramzi yousef, abdul hakim murad, and wali kham amin shah ring a bell? how quickly you forget, it must be the limbaugh effect. these were all terrorists responsible for the first attack on the towers,AND THEY ARE BEHIND BARS. oh, blame clinton!! oh yes.. please do!

attacks planned on the YN headquarters, fbi building, israeli embassy in washington, la and boston airports, the lincoln and holland tunnels, and the george washington bridge, thwarted.... blame Clinton!!


he tripled the counterterrirusn bydget for the FBI, doubled counterterrorism funding overall. his crime bills contained antiterrorism legislation, he sponsored simulations to see how well different institutions would react to attacks, he created the national stockpile of drugs and vaccines, 40 million doses of smallpox vacine.... blame clinton...

he was the first president to undertake a systematic anti terrorist effort. and bush was the president to go on massive sprees of vacations his first months in office after running on the idea that everything was desperatly broken...


negligence of the highest order...

You know, I'll bet that no one responds to your post as people here don't like to respond to well worded factual posts, they prefer to ignore well worded factual posts and continue arguing with their stupid opinions.

The cleric buddy of Bin Laden who was a planner of the first WTC attack mostly likely helped plan 9/11 from prison. His lawyer was found to be passing information back and forth.



Linky