We can do without "crowning GW @ ground zero" comments

Why do some DU'ers keep mentioning "crowned at ground zero" the past few days? If this is a forum about Democratic issues, why are we highlighting the aftermath of 9/11 and how our President (good, incompetent, as he may be) made a public appearence with those brave, selfless firefighters & law enforcement folks? President Gore would have done the same thing, and so it's moot--and tasteless!

Beating GW goes way beyond terrorism. That debate won't work. On at least 1 occasion, Pres. Clinton passed up a deal to bring in Bin Laden. We screwed up big time, and thousands tragically paid with their lives. If the events of 9/11 become a hard topic of debate, we have all lost. We need to debate about moving foward, building back up our economy, creating jobs, and renewing confidence in our government. This,alone, will be enough to win back the White House.

By the way, I believe John Edwards is the person to take on THIS debate.

Focusing on Bush's hypocrisy is a win-win for the democrats.

and I could be miserably wrong, but Clinton passed up the opportunity to capture bin Laden because the avenue through which this would have been possible was in violation of international law. Secondly, as far as the visit to 'ground zero' is concerned, I agree that Mr. Gore would have done the same, BUT, he would have done it a heckofalot sooner, and would not have run like a scared rabbit like * did. Even Mr. Clinton made it to New York before * did, so I don't really think that it is a dea issue or dangerous to our eventual candidate. Think of it this way, if * visited Vietnam in 1980, would we argue that he had been in Vietnam and thus served his country?

believe Bush shares some blame for 9/11, therefore we are annoyed at his shameless efforts to exploit the tragedy. How does Bush share this blame?

He took a month long vacation when terror reports indicated an attack was imminent. The day of the attack he read to school children when he should have been ordering planes shot out of the sky. For 28 minutes he did nothing. The whole day on 9/11 it felt like we had no President as he rode around in his plane going off to Idaho or god-knows-where.

At the very most many feel that Bush was complicit in 9/11 due to his family's long time business connections with the Bin Laden family, as well as the fact that all of Bin Laden's family were safely ushered out of the country two days after the attack.

I'm sorry but I find that "Clinton let bin Laden get away" meme extremely offensive.

..over-politicize the horror of 9/11 on the airlines, Pentagon & WTC. I am scared shitless, at times, that our current President is running our nation's security through the ground with his "personal vendetta" foreign policy. I would just hate to see us get away from what makes us democrats-Creating jobs, building a prosperous public education system, and ending the big-business strong-hold on DC, via the repug's.

But I do find it extremely offensive if one party, or both, politicize the images of 9/11. I will absolutely cringe if they make into ANYONE's campaign commercials!

P.S. John Edwards, close enough to the middle, and as ridiculous as it sounds, more similar "fan base" to GW (conservative, pro-military). he can win swing votes, and avoid the kind of miltary policy v. miltary policy debates that will consume a Kerry-Bush stage.

Also, I watched that bullhorn speech. Firefighters were shouting that they couldn't hear the freak monkey. He yelled back (in that smirk way of his)"I can hear you!"
That bit, taken completely out of context has been on permanent play ever since.

And how long did it take the chickenshit to get his ass back to the east coast after 911?

I say we keep the repukes from politicizing the tragedy by calling them on their bullshit every time they mention it!

...I would just hate to see our Party take the pole position on sucha debate. We must set OUR agenda, not play to the GOP's.

what don't you see? * ignored all the warnings about 9-11 (i.e. on Aug. 6th, he and Condi were warned that terrorists may try to use planes as weapons to attack buildings, Ashcroft wouldn't fly on commercial airlines in the months leading up to 9-11 b/c of credible threats, Bush was on vacation <read: AWOL FROM HIS DUTY AGAIN> for a month before 9-11, etc..., I could go on for hours). Look, I can't put it any more simply: If you call it "playing politics" when Democrats raise the issue that * and his administration did not do all they could (and were essentially criminally negligent) to stop 3,000 people from dying (not counting subsequent "war on terra" casualties), then you'll get little sympathy on this board, because it IS a pertinent issue.

when he was actually dealing with the terrorism threat, RETARDICANS were in the middle of a coupe d' etat impeachment that absolutely NOTHING to do with CRIMES AGAINST THE STATE, but a marriage no-no.

I would suggest doing some research and addressing the real issue.

...yep...my 1st little league coach was killed in Tower #2. Please don't politicize these events. That is an honest request. I;m sure many Democrats, like me, share the same sentiments.

Get it?

always insist on collective courses of action.

For example, instead of something like "I don't agree with the Democrats' approach on Bush's behavior regarding 9/11"

we get

"All of us LIBS should go against everything our intuition and common sense tells us and give George W Bush a break in this area or in that area", etc.

When I have an opinion, popular or not, I'll state it as my own and not try to recommend it as the course of action for all Democrats and progressives to take.

Golly, if I didn't know better, I'd start to think that some people start threads because......no, that couldn't be it. Nevermind.

--honest--

I simply take offense, as a New Yorker, not as a democrat; to politicizing images of 9/11 (the actual images--including when G-hole was with the firemen). I hope you understand the true meaning of my post.

First, there wouldn't have been such an attack without the active participation of PNAC looking for the "new Pearl (Perle) Harbor" required to begin the implementation of their fascist agenda. The only thing up for debate is the degree to which they actively participated as opposed to just sitting back and letting it happen (MIHOP vs LIHOP) but either way, only a complete idiot would believe that an operation this complex and well timed could have been coordinated from a fucking cave in Afghanistan.

Second, President Gore would not have exploited any such tragedy of this magnitude for his own political gain. Even with a shameless self promoting propagandist like McAuliffe at the head of the DNC, I doubt you would have ever seen a photo of Al Gore on the phone to Joe Lieberman from Air Force One (while the entire country was in shock) used as a fundraising gimmick. Of course Gore wouldn't have been playing chickenshit all over the country in the first place.

You're right about one thing though. Edwards would be better to debate the issue than a fellow Bonesman bound by oath to put his "brothers" above all else. Although Howard Dean would have been the best one to debate the Idiot in Thief.

We're not talking about his post-9/11 appearance at ground zero, we're talking about how the Republican convention was moved to New York (the "crowning" of their candidate) and was moved so close to the anniversary of 9/11 as to actually miss the deadline for Bush* to get on some states' ballots. They're trying to capitalize on 9/11.

It's taken 3 years to get a commission together to find out how/why it happened. Not one mention in the media of the bush*/bin laden business connections, not one mention about the taliban meeting bush* in Texas. These things need to be investigated and I for one refuse to give him a pass.

As much as I dislike george bush, he is not responsible for the World Trade Center and Pentagon bombings. That was the handiwork of twenty angry, bloodthirsty terrorists (19 of whom were from Saudi Arabia but that's another story). I do think that there is some revisionist history going on though both on the part of some Democrats and many Republicans.

Benzir Bhutto the former President of Pakistan asked the first President Bush in the early 1990s for help to toss out the pro-Al Queda faction in Pakistan's Parliment. I guess this branch of Al Queda had real problems with a woman being the head of a Girl Scout troop let alone being president. A delegation of these guys accepted a bribe (I've heard sums of over $5 million apiece) from Bin Laden to betray Bhutto and have a no confidence vote in their Parliament. Bush I denied her help. Bhutto was forced out of office by the current Pakistan president who is now our ally. Bin Laden used Pakistan as a staging ground to take over Afghanistan and install the Taliban regime in the early 1990's. No one seems to remember this sideshow. This story was featured in "Vanity Fair" about a year ago.

While I'm on the subject of Bin Laden, have you ever noticed that we don't hear much about him until george bush takes a dip in some poll? Maybe he should be george bush's running mate??

I do not believe that President Clinton passed up the opportunity to capture Osama Bin Laden. What do you base this idea on? This is like saying that President Franklin Roosevelt is responsible for Pearl Harbor.

I live in Orlando, Florida where several episodes of the WTC story took place--here and near here. A travel agent near where I live sold the tickets to some of the hijackers--the poor man's life is now down the toilet. Atta and another quasi hijacker (he did not participate and is now in custody for other crimes), were to meet up at Orlando International Airport (2 miles from my home) just a short time before 9/11. Several of the hijackers took flying lessons both in South Florida and at Embry Riddle University. I bring this up because the WTC and Pentagon attacks were not just against New York or Washington but against the entire country. I fault george bush for some of his misteps after the disaster. I think it was gauche for him to sell photos of his talking on the phone on 9/11 for instance. I think he should have gone to New York earlier also.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

As though it were fact. :eyes:

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm

"If the events of 9/11 become a hard topic of debate, we have all lost. We need to debate about moving foward..."

Nothing about your post passes the smell test. Except insofar as it stinks.

.....stinks......

Democrats are bigger than that. Let's win this election on our platform. It's the only real way of bringing over some independenst & undecided voters in this "polarized" electorate, make-up.