Did george bush protect us from 9/11????

So how can anyone say he is the man to keep us safe?


A powerful question to ask. When they talk about Kerry (and the repukes will) tell them he kept his swift boat crew safe under combat, with aggressive and intelligent leadership.

his biggest asset???

:wtf:

(Or there must be; one hopes)

Why do people buy that stuff when they know they will be disappointed after they open the package?

Marketing.

Modern PR techniques stray perilously close to psyops nowdays (as a matter of fact, conceptually, they are almost one and the same).

I don't think there is an ultimate limit to the power of marketing, but there's obviously a functional limit to what people will accept at any given time. BushCo screwed up on that account.

(Do they still do that?)

Vote for the Sea Monkeys now!

he launched absolutely NO anti-terror measures in his first 9 months in office, and in fact, scrapped everything that was handed to him by the outgoing Clinton administration and put The Dick in charge of a new anti-terror commission which hadn't even had a meeting before 9/11.

Incredible marketing AND media complicity. That's how it's done.

If we all work to get that message out to the public.

cf. Toxic Sludge is Good For You, and it's exploration of short 'News Features' produced by corporate PR flacks masquerading as independent reporters.

For example, when you see a short feature bit on the local news about 'An Exciting New Treatment for Acid Reflux', your local news channel is assisting Eli Lilly's marketing campaign (since Eli Lilly probably produced the clip).

What Rove does with the news networks is ultimately the same technique, writ large.

ps. It's been happening in print media since before television. It's known as 'Buying Editorial' and it happens all the time, no matter what the editors tell you (purchase some ads, get a nice complimentary 'news feature' written about you -- or prevent an uncomplimentary story from seeing the light of day).

...the events that happened on 9-11-2001. This is a very scary administration with a sinister agenda of dominionistic New World Order. He has to be removed by the voters on November 2 and then investigated and prosecuted for high crimes and treason.

...to think lihop or mihop.

How about dntsifh?

Did nothing to stop it from happening

...is saying the same thing. Making it happen on purpose I would agree is insane. But then any of those scenarios, DNTSIFH, LIHOP or MIHOP for a sitting president of the United States of America to implement as his agenda would be insane for the security and well being of the nation. Bush has to be stopped on November 2 and not allowed to exercise any of the dictatorial powers congress awarded him following 9-11 during his lame-duck period in office.

is that he knew about the terrorsits plans and let it happen for his benefit.

DNTSIFH to me means he didn't know about the plan, but wasn't trying to hard to know what was coming down. Make sense?

...issued starting back with the transitional meeting with Clinton, the meetings with Richard Clark, the CIA report, etc., for Bush and his cabinet to claim total ignorance about a terrorist threat is just not credible. Bush knew, so did others, they just may not have believed the terrorists would try for the WTC, the Pentagon or the White House, let alone all three, even though the attempt on the WH was foiled.

So, I'm sticking with LIHOP or MIHOP and if it was really DNTSIFH, this president and his staff are much dumber than anyone should be to be in the highest public office of the land. Besides I have trouble remembering the order of the letters in DNTSIFH.:kick:

Please, don't you know that 9/11 was completely and 100% the fault of Bill Clinton? Bush was only in office for 8 months, how could he have done anything to stop it? The PDB of August 6 was only historical info for the first time ever. I mean, the WH fax was down when Osama faxed Bush the names, flights & seat numbers of all the hijackers. How could he have stopped it?

I mean, if you listened to the media, this is what you would think... never mind that Clinton was blamed for the 1st WTC bombing only like 8 weeks into his first term.

Only four weeks into his first term. And yes, he got the blame, despite all the culprits being caught and in jail now.

That hypocrisy really bugs me.

I remember that day vividly the hijacked planes flew over my house at less than 500 Ft. I was preparing captions for a publication, when the noise made me look out to see the shadows of the aircraft go over my back yard. In fact two of them almost collided over my town. To think nothing was done, they just followed the Hudson River to their targets.

that little iceberg incident"

Simply fucking amazing that he uses 9/11 as his 'greatest moment'

Simply fucking amazing.

I like it.

How do we know he want do the same thing the next time. It wasn't an "accident".

the terrorists would be on and which seats they'd be in. C'mon, it's hard work protecting the country!

Seriously. This should be the killer for him, especially if you've read the chapter "Operation Ignore" in Al Franken's book Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them. I don't believe he LIHOP, but he sure did a lot less than he could have to try to prevent it.

when I hear them recite "we haven't been attacked since 9/11" as though that EXONERATES him for his miserable failure, for sitting around with his thumbs up his butt when he had warnings. How do you reward someone like that? If he were a security guard at Wal-Mart he'd have been fired long ago!!!!:grr: