Join 3,496 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


A Matter of Taste
March 5, 2004 6:09 AM   Subscribe

Bush's campaign commercials feature footage from 9/11, but anger firefighters and families of victims. Is it disingenuous to defend the ads when you claimed just nineteen weeks after the tragedy that you would not use the disaster for politcal gain? If anyone should be able to use the event for political purposes, it would be Giuliani, who defends Bush's actions.
posted by archimago (177 comments total)

 
Forgot to include this link, from 2002, when Bush stated that the war on terror was not going to be a political point for him.
posted by archimago at 6:14 AM on March 5, 2004


Here are the ads if you want to see them yourself.
posted by mathowie at 6:15 AM on March 5, 2004


"His leadership on that day is central to his record and his continued leadership is critical to our ultimate success against world terrorism," Giuliani said.
posted by madamjujujive at 6:18 AM on March 5, 2004


See, what we need now is for some rich person to take out ads in the right-wing papers slamming these ads as opportunistic, featuring quotes from all the families against them and Bush's own quote in large letters at the bottom.

It goes without saying these days, but the man is a monster.
posted by bwerdmuller at 6:18 AM on March 5, 2004


I've never seen the ads until now, quick, first impression review:

"Lead" - a cavalcade of stock footage with a hopeful message. I do like that it's informal, with GW talking as if he's in your living room, not behind the desk in the oval office. Doesn't mention 9/11 and is probably what he should run with.

"Tested" - the 9/11 mention is just a flash and the core message mentioning "faith" was more distressing to me.

"Safer, Stronger" - wow, this one's weak. kinda seems like the message is "it was broken when we got here". The 9/11 mention is more significant here, but this is a really poor ad that doesn't help GW much.

(the "I approved this message" thing required by law sounds dumb)
posted by mathowie at 6:22 AM on March 5, 2004


It is dishonest but part of what Giuliani says is true. His leadership on 9/11 is central to his record. To put it into perspective just about everybody I know will vote for Bush. I've talked to a lot of them or they've volunteered their reasons and the main reason is this: his perceived leadership on September 11th 2001. Other things, such as his stance on gay marriage and abortion, are just icing on the cake.

If you look at his actual track record it's abysmal but they don't care about it. His performance around that one event destroys any objectivity on their part. In their eyes anybody else, especially a liberal, would've just locked themselves in the closet and cried.
posted by substrate at 6:35 AM on March 5, 2004


That's what you call "footage from 9/11"?

I was expecting something completely different after hearing about the "uproar" or whatever. Anything less about 9/11 and he'd be denying it happened...
posted by techgnollogic at 6:37 AM on March 5, 2004


One other thing. He's more than just the president to a large percentage of the population. He's become their spiritual leader. He's not willing to let small things, such as the constitution, get in the way of spiritual righteousness. To those who've drank the koolaid this is good and just.
posted by substrate at 6:39 AM on March 5, 2004


The linked article from 2002 doesn't say he would never use the fact of the attacks for political gain. It quite specifically referred to a spending proposal related to the attacks. And he really wasn't promising to not politicize the proposal, just observing that there was no need to, as there was no disagreement on the issue between him and Congress.

That said, I don't think it's prima facie wrong to refer to the attacks in ads. (in general) It's the elephant in the living room. You almost can't NOT mention it. 9/11 survivors would obviously feel differently. I guess it's a question of taste and degree. Tread carefully, admakers.

And mathowie, the "approval" tag might sound dumb, but it also might tone down the mindless vitriol in some of these ads, and that's a good objective. I say, let's give it a chance...
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 6:43 AM on March 5, 2004


Yes, but how about images of just Bush during the tragedy, instead of firefighters and the like? He's the one who's record is up for inspection, not anyone else involved with 9/11.
posted by agregoli at 6:47 AM on March 5, 2004


I think Dems would do well not to focus too hard on this issue. There are much more egregious things this administration is doing than invoking 9/11 scenes in a political ad.
posted by vito90 at 6:50 AM on March 5, 2004


The ads so angered the 265,000-member International Association of Fire Fighters that the group approved a resolution Thursday calling on the Bush campaign to withdraw them and apologize to victims' families. The union was the first to endorse Kerry last year

Also, if Bush using this tiny little bit of footage from 9/11 causes hurt to the families of the 3,000 killed... What does John Kerry's uses of footage from Vietnam, where nearly 60,000 where killed, say?

Jobs aside, 9/11 and the War on Terrorism are the issue of this campaign, if John Kerry likes it or not. Using what happened that Tuesday morning is not "off the table."
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 6:51 AM on March 5, 2004


Actually, it's not democrats that are focusing on this per se, but relatives of 911 victims. And I think, especially given Bush's stonewalling of the 911 comission and his reluctance to have one in the first place, they're perfectly entitled to cause an uproar.

I think these ads would be better if it showed what Bush was doing on 9/11. You know, running like hell.
posted by lumpenprole at 7:09 AM on March 5, 2004


Also, if Bush using this tiny little bit of footage from 9/11 causes hurt to the families of the 3,000 killed... What does John Kerry's uses of footage from Vietnam, where nearly 60,000 where killed, say?

Christ, Steve.

This is an apple:

This is an orange:

Learn the difference.
posted by jpoulos at 7:10 AM on March 5, 2004


James Lileks:

The text of the ad doesn’t mention 9/11. The visuals – which I haven’t seen – apparently show a body being removed from the wreckage. And this is beyond the pale, I guess. It is now unacceptable for a president to remind people he was president during an attack on American soil.

Hmm. Well. It’s called running on one’s record. They get to do that. But now people who were secretly relieved that Bush was in the White House after 9/11 are complaining that Bush is reminding us . . . that he was in the White House after 9/11.

Politicizing 9/11! Wrapping himself in the flag! Implying his opponents are unpatriotic! Plastic turkey! Aircraft carrier landing! Mission accomplished! AWOL! French goodwill squandered!

By this logic, FDR should have run his 44 campaign on his domestic agenda.

The theme of the Democratic primaries was clear: Bush is the problem, not the war. Clarification: the “war.” The “alleged” war. The “war” is a smokescreen to keep us in fear while a few top-hatted plutocrats convene in Texas to complete their grand strategy: "we’ll invade Iraq for reasons we know will fall apart, and then we’ll turn the oil revenue over to the people under UN supervision, and the publicity will cause Halliburton stock to fall so we can buy it back at artificially depressed prices. Let’s all do the secret Mason handshake!" Right. Paging Oliver Stone: you’re needed to script-doctor the third act, where Karl Rove’s shocktroops put Bill Maher and Howard Stern in a trunk so they don’t blow the whistle on the secret code in the electronic voting machines that returns a 99.9% mandate in the 2004 election.
posted by pardonyou? at 7:12 AM on March 5, 2004


These ads are nothing. All the complaints I've heard are coming from anti-Bush, pro-Democrat people--including those who are also families of September 11 victims--who will quibble with everything he does. I am not a Bush supporter in any way, ever, but these ads are hardly a manipulation of 9/11. Whether Bush did any of the right things after the attacks, and could be considered a "good leader" on terrorism, is another question altogether.

What the anti-Bush folks should be holding their anger for is the "October surprise." When the Chimp is down in the polls to Lurch, all the stops will be pulled and that damned organ will play a horrific tune...

Also, the families of the September 11th victims can shut up now. They remind me of the kid in school who tried to tell me about how girls work, and claimed expertise because his mother was a nurse. Knowledge is not conferred by heredity; death of a loved one does not make the survivors authorities, experts, leaders, or truth-bearers.

One more thing: Lileks can STFU now, too.
posted by Mo Nickels at 7:15 AM on March 5, 2004


Politicizing 9/11! Wrapping himself in the flag! Implying his opponents are unpatriotic! Plastic turkey! Aircraft carrier landing! Mission accomplished! AWOL! French goodwill squandered!

True, true, true, true, true, false, true, true.
posted by vito90 at 7:17 AM on March 5, 2004


Actually, it's not democrats that are focusing on this per se, but relatives of 911 victims...

Well, actually, a subset thereof. And, on deeper examination, an interesting subset indeed. (And before you criticize the source -- which I found only because it was linked elsewhere -- pay attention to the facts, which are not in dispute).
posted by pardonyou? at 7:17 AM on March 5, 2004


jpoulos: Learn that there is no difference.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 7:19 AM on March 5, 2004


Vito90, you are right....there are bigger fish to fry. For example, the Plame thing looks like it is getting pretty hot - Airforce One phone records subpoenaed - yikes, this story has some pretty explosive revelations:

" The subpoena with the second production deadline sought all documents from July 6 to July 30 of the White House Iraq Group. In August, the Washington Post published the only account of the group's existence.

It met weekly in the Situation Room, the Post said, and its regular participants included senior political adviser Karl Rove; communication strategists Karen Hughes, Mary Matalin and James R. Wilkinson; legislative liaison Nicholas E. Calio; policy advisers led by National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and her deputy Stephen J. Hadley; and I. Lewis Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney.

posted by madamjujujive at 7:20 AM on March 5, 2004


Learn that there is no difference.

It's like you're some sort of philosopher or something. Got any more juicy koans for us?
posted by bshort at 7:22 AM on March 5, 2004


I'm George Bush, and I know exactly what I want to do with this country...

Stay at war, as it is great for the economy
posted by catchmurray at 7:26 AM on March 5, 2004


I duno, bshort... why don't you ask jpoulos... maybe he/she has some more cute pictures that fail to make a point.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 7:28 AM on March 5, 2004


Well, considering that Mr Kerry actually fought in said war and his beliefs came from that experience, vs George Bush who never fought for anything in this country except maybe the designated hitter rule.... I'd say those are apples and oranges, 2 different things.
posted by Eekacat at 7:30 AM on March 5, 2004


Bush/Cheney 2004: Jobs aside.

Who knew MeFi could produce such accurate campaign slogans?
posted by adampsyche at 7:30 AM on March 5, 2004


jpoulos: Learn that there is no difference.

- Perhaps apples are oranges, like little children we needed the veil to be removed from our eyes before we could truly believe.
posted by johnnyboy at 7:31 AM on March 5, 2004


The ads so angered the 265,000-member International Association of Fire Fighters that the group approved a resolution Thursday calling on the Bush campaign to withdraw them and apologize to victims' families. The union was the first to endorse Kerry last year, but its president Harold Schaitberger, said the reaction would have been the same had the Kerry campaign done something similar. "We find this absolutely disgraceful and disgusting." Schaitberger, who noted that 343 fire fighters perished on Sept. 11."

The part Steve_at_Linnwood elected to leave out is the part I have added in bold.
posted by terrapin at 7:33 AM on March 5, 2004


Bill Clinton continually used tragedy (i.e. Oklahoma City, Ron Brown, Columbine) during his term to enhance his own political standing. Remember, he was dubbed "the nation's mourner in chief" by the fawning media? Isn't it just a little disingenous for the Bush haters to express dismay that the president is "politicizing" 9/11?
posted by Durwood at 7:37 AM on March 5, 2004


Hrm, politics as usual. If the Dems came out with a similar add, you can bet your bottom dollar that the Republicans would be all over it. In other words for most people this has less to do with respect, than with scoring points in an election year.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 7:38 AM on March 5, 2004


Ah, yes... Your clever use of photographs of fruit prove you are correct again! I can never match wits with you!


tarrapin, I left them out, because they are partisan lie. Plain and simple. OUTRAGE, OUTRAGE from a Kerry Union Supporter! I'm just shocked!

This is yet more manufactured outrage that outlets like CNN & Co. are more than happy to run with over and over again, conveniently leaving out that the firefighters who are outraged are partisan Kerry supporters. Over all a lame attempt by Dems to take this issue off the table, because they know that they are incredibly weak on it.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 7:40 AM on March 5, 2004


Hi. My name's Mao L. Donald. I have larping ding shaps within a whole assortment of ling lunds.

If you would like to see me match wits with a walrus, press one now.

....

I'm waiting.
posted by angry modem at 7:42 AM on March 5, 2004


Steve, the point:

Kerry was in Vietnam. He fought bravely. He was a decorated war hero. This is indicative of who he is as a person and as a leader.

Bush was not in New York during the 9/11 attacks. The images in the ad say nothing about who he is as a person or as a leader. If the footage had been of him speaking at the WTC in the days following the attacks (a speech which, I think was the real turning point in the public perception of his presidency) I might give him a pass. But as it is, the footage is nothing more than emotional propoganda. It's pandering. And it fits well with Bush's modus operandi: play on people's fear.

Hence, the Kerry ad is an apple. The Bush ad is an orange.
posted by jpoulos at 7:44 AM on March 5, 2004


You're right, Durwood. I, for one, won't vote for Clinton in this election. Hell, I pledge to never vote for him for President ever.
posted by MrMoonPie at 7:44 AM on March 5, 2004


His leadership on that day is central to his record

True, true...

:::fades back to memories of Bush continuing to read to schoolchildren after being apprised of the situation, then of flitting about the country in Airforce 1 like a rabbit desperately seeking a hole...:::
posted by rushmc at 7:45 AM on March 5, 2004


Hence, the Kerry ad is an apple. The Bush ad is an orange.

I contend the Bush ad is a prune.
posted by terrapin at 7:46 AM on March 5, 2004


Yes, we should see Bush ads from his leadership on 9/11/01. But I doubt his handlers want an ad of him cowering in a corner, sucking his thumb, shitting his pants, and mumbling "mommy" over and over.
posted by terrapin at 7:47 AM on March 5, 2004


partisan lie.

Hello, Detroit! We are Partisan Lie! Are you ready to rock?!?
posted by grabbingsand at 7:48 AM on March 5, 2004


OK, so 'splain to me why when talking about Bush and Kerry people bring up Clinton?
posted by Eekacat at 7:53 AM on March 5, 2004


Bush's not being in New York during the attack does not have anything to do with how he lead the country afterwards. Both events were profound experiences that changed both men (9/11 for Bush, and Vietnam for Kerry)

And both are perfectly valid issues to raise with voters.

Furthermore, the only person's fear involved in using September 11th, is Kerry's. His campaign is going try to do everything in it's power to make this election not about National Security/Terrorism/September 11/etc.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 7:54 AM on March 5, 2004


:::fades back to memories of Bush continuing to read to schoolchildren after being apprised of the situation, then of flitting about the country in Airforce 1 like a rabbit desperately seeking a hole...:::

- In fairness I think the situation would not have been handled any differently by gore, clinton or whoever you might care to mention. In that type of on-going situation where it was far from clear what else could have happened then the president zipping aroung in airforce one was making the best of a bad hand.
posted by johnnyboy at 7:56 AM on March 5, 2004


Are you ready to rock?!?

Give us five more minutes.
posted by jennak at 7:57 AM on March 5, 2004


In fairness I think the situation would not have been handled any differently by gore, clinton or whoever you might care to mention.

Ah, but if those presidental administrations had lied and said that there was credible intelligence (ha!) that Air Force One was a target -- would they have gotten away with it?

The media is lazy. I actually agree with Steve on this point.
posted by jennak at 7:59 AM on March 5, 2004


Also, if Bush using this tiny little bit of footage from 9/11 causes hurt to the families of the 3,000 killed... What does John Kerry's uses of footage from Vietnam, where nearly 60,000 where killed, say?

What footage is this, exactly?
posted by mkultra at 8:01 AM on March 5, 2004


Steve is partially right on this issue in that talking up Kerry's war record isn't a different beast than Bush trying to score points with Sept. 11 footage. The difference is that the people likely to be offended by Kerry's usage of Viet Nam footage mostly don't vote in US elections.

But more broadly, why exactly is it that Bush is proud of his "leadership" on that day and in the time immediately thereafter? I don't necessarily think that he pooped his pants as has been suggested, but what did he do? The people that think he exhibited some enormous, almost indefinable aura of "leadership" during those days are seeing things. I don't know of anything he did that wouldn't have been done by anyone else who has held that office.

On preview, what rush said.
posted by deadcowdan at 8:02 AM on March 5, 2004


Furthermore, the only person's fear involved in using September 11th, is Kerry's. His campaign is going try to do everything in it's power to make this election not about National Security/Terrorism/September 11/etc.

Why would Kerry cower when he's actually been in a war, has (sensible) foreign policy experience...and can actually say "nuclear"?
posted by jennak at 8:03 AM on March 5, 2004


Sorry, what johnnyboy said.
posted by deadcowdan at 8:04 AM on March 5, 2004


it's no wonder that Bush is trying to milk 9-11 for all its worth -- he barely has anything else to offer to undecided voters other than the "Freedom was attacked today" War President routine.

and even on 9-11, as pointed out already by others, Bush's lackluster deer-caught-in-headlights performance was dwarfed by Giuliani's.

he's right to milk the WTC attack. what else should he talk about?

Iraq? Saddam's in jail and that's really cool, but the insurgency has thrown the country into chaos -- 72 hours ago 181 Iraqis were killed and 573 wounded, almost an Iraqi 9-11 if you compare the Iraqi and US popolation. a chronology of attacks is here
Not to mention those pesky WMD's, still unwilling to appear.

the economy?
the budget?
ahem

so it's OK for Bush to do that, he and his handlers know that if Osama isn't caged somewhere waiting to be paraded in front of the cameras in case of electoral emergency, well unless he has that card up his sleeve Bush knows all bets are off. so let him milk 9-11. I actually expected much more crass ads. but there's still time for that, I guess

the most appalling part of the campaign will be in the negative ads, not in the run-of-the-mill firefighters-and-flags ads anyway.

and by the way, Giuliani himself appeared in a NYSE "every morning a bell rings" ad that wasn't much more tasteful than Bush's. and had "9-11! 9-11!" written all over itself as well.
posted by matteo at 8:07 AM on March 5, 2004


If the Dems came out with a similar add, you can bet your bottom dollar that the Republicans would be all over it.

Spelling aside, this is a lame argument. They haven't, and that's the big issue, isn't it?

As a New Yorker, I find the add with the rescue workers and firemen pretty apalling. Those were brave folks who did what they did for their city, not Bush's political vision. To them, it was cleaning up a local disaster, not sticking it to "the enemy". Furthermore, this city came together without any help from Bush, thank you very much. The GOP's subsequent ignoring of rebuilding issues (capped off by the EPA's cover-up of air quality downtown) makes the ad nothing but shameful exploitation.

I can't wait for the GOP convention. I predict a most unwelcome welcome for them here.
posted by mkultra at 8:08 AM on March 5, 2004


Bush's not being in New York during the attack does not have anything to do with how he lead the country afterwards.

Then show him leading the country afterwards!
posted by jpoulos at 8:12 AM on March 5, 2004


If you guys think this is bad, just wait until they hold the Republican Convention in New York on the anniversary of 9/11. That'll be the time for outrage, boys.
posted by crunchland at 8:14 AM on March 5, 2004


We're winning the war.
posted by techgnollogic at 8:15 AM on March 5, 2004


Which war is that?
posted by deadcowdan at 8:16 AM on March 5, 2004


To them, it was cleaning up a local disaster, not sticking it to "the enemy".

not to mention, the government covered up the very possible risks of poisoning from the WTC vapors. so they have already gotten sick because of their sacrifice to work there, and more will get sick in the future.

(the "I approved this message" thing required by law sounds dumb)

They all say exactly the same thing (except Kucinich who says "Did I approve this message? You bet I did."
posted by matteo at 8:17 AM on March 5, 2004



U.S. misled New Yorkers after Sept. 11


posted by matteo at 8:19 AM on March 5, 2004


... puts in the Violent Femmes CD "The Blind Leading the Naked"
posted by Eekacat at 8:19 AM on March 5, 2004


Furthermore, the only person's fear involved in using September 11th, is Kerry's. His campaign is going try to do everything in it's power to make this election not about National Security/Terrorism/September 11/etc.

Hilarious, Steve. As if the only people not desperate to make the campaign about 9/11 alone aren't the same people desperate to make everyone so terrified of the evil foreign people that they'd believe the only thing protecting us from them is a semi-intelligent ex-cokehead who clearly lost millions of jobs and stripped the nation of resources, credibility, and dignity only because he was so very, very hard at work hunting down Islamofascists with his bare hands, when he wasn't on vacation an average of half the year. But man, that union. They're so blinded by ignorant partisanship, aren't they Steve.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:24 AM on March 5, 2004


Good thing for the administration that the situation in Iraq is going so swimmingly:

Signing of Iraqi Charter Is Delayed by Shiite Objections

The scheduled signing of a previously approved interim constitution for Iraq was delayed indefinitely today after five Shiite members of the Iraqi Governing Council rejected wording that dealt with the Kurds and the proposed setup of the presidency.

The council unanimously agreed to the accord on Monday. But an official on the council said today that the changes being called for were necessary if they were to gain the acceptance of Iraq's leading Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.

It was unclear when the signing would take place, with officials standing around for several hours.

But it is clear that the Shiites want a charter that will reflect their position as the majority group in Iraq.

The Shiites are concerned that the Kurds are seeking to ensure that the permanent constitution, which will be put to a national referendum next year, does not encroach on their self-rule zone in the north.

The clauses say that if two-thirds of the voters in any three provinces reject the permanent charter, it will not got into effect. The Kurds' self-rule region includes three provinces in the north.

The Shiites want any rejection to be based on a simple majority...

Another cause of dispute was the makeup of the presidency. The draft agreed to by the Governing Council — including the Shiite parties — set up a single president with two deputies...

The Shiites want either a five-person presidency setup, on which they would have either two or three representatives, or they want a president who has a great deal of the power.

The council members who refused to sign were Ahmad Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress, Abdel-Aziz al-Hakim of the Supreme Council, Ibrahim al-Jaafari of the Dawa party and the current council president Shiite cleric Muhammad Bahr al-Ulloom.

posted by y2karl at 8:36 AM on March 5, 2004


This is yet more manufactured outrage that outlets like CNN & Co. are more than happy to run with over and over again

Manufactured? CNN manufactured my outrage? Is that how it got there? I thought I was pissed because a Bush-Cheney ad showed a bunch of images of a destroyed WTC and bodies being pulled from the wreckage. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
posted by eyeballkid at 8:37 AM on March 5, 2004


Previously from the Times:

Sept. 11 and Nov. 2

It is inevitable that such a pivotal event as the 9/11 attacks should surface in the presidential campaign. The fact that President Bush did not hesitate to underline the tragedy in his new wave of campaign commercials puts voters on early notice that they must bring their considered judgment to the bounds of the debate. The mix of painful, familiar graphics and pared-down electioneering slogans will be a test of a candidate's good taste as much as the electorate's political leanings. We hope the media strategists of the president and Senator John Kerry will avoid descending into low-road treacle and claims of primacy on a subject that we all recall as a dark cause of fierce national unity.

The first Bush commercial, with its stark glimpse back at the smoking shell of the World Trade Center, speaks to people's natural fear of changing leaders in perilous times. But it is also a reminder that the great sense of unity and national purpose of those days was lost. How to weigh those two factors is only one of the issues relating to 9/11 that are bound to surface. To choose the next president, Americans will have to judge whether the country is safer now than when the tragedy occurred, whether the proper response to the attacks was the invasion of Iraq and whether the president has been fully cooperative with the independent commission investigating 9/11.

When we think of 9/11, we think of loss, and of the heroism of average people who reached out in ways great and small to help their fellow men and women. Any political candidate who attempts to piggyback onto those emotions deserves to be shunned by the electorate. Speaking of 9/11 in January 2003, President Bush told The Associated Press that he had "no ambition whatsoever to use this as a political issue." We applaud that sentiment.

posted by y2karl at 8:40 AM on March 5, 2004


His campaign is going try to do everything in it's power to make this election not about National Security/Terrorism/September 11/etc.

Jesus Christ, Steve. The very ad we're talking about is Bush's attempt to make this election about National Security/Terrorism/September 11/etc. How can you say "the only person's fear involved in using September 11th, is Kerry's" with a straight face?
posted by jpoulos at 8:41 AM on March 5, 2004


bush and the rest of his people - suck.

answer the families questions - then you can run ads featuring the terrorist attack on 9-11 you were warned about on august 6, 2001 and didn't do a damn thing about . and then you can run your ads karen and george.
posted by specialk420 at 8:42 AM on March 5, 2004


Jobs aside, 9/11 and the War on Terrorism are the issue of this campaign, if John Kerry likes it or not. Using what happened that Tuesday morning is not "off the table."

As the links provided by archimago and madamejujujive remind us, what happened that Tuesday morning has yet to be put on the the table. Imagine the mainstream press finally going there...
posted by y2karl at 8:48 AM on March 5, 2004


I don't mind referencing 9-11 as much as I do footage of someone's dead body being carried from the wreckage being used as a prop to promote Bush's political agenda. That's just shamelessly crass.
posted by MegoSteve at 8:50 AM on March 5, 2004


there was no speculation about the use of an airplane itself as a bomb or a weapon, and no specific, credible information about the possibility of a hijacking of any sort.

OH Yeah, good one, specialk420 - you're so right on top of being full of shit.
posted by techgnollogic at 8:51 AM on March 5, 2004


admittedly, these ads weren't as bad as I was expecting. it's still some of the slimy same old same old (terror terror terror, iraq, 9/11 terror terror goodnight).

what I'm not happy about are the cheezy photos and letters I keep getting in the mail from local republican parties. I got one yesterday that started out with Dear Friend, but then a very pixellated blue line was marked through the "friend" and just above that was the word "Robert" printed in a pixellated script style font.

at the bottom of the note, it says "Paid for by Bush-Cheney '04, Inc." which is one of the reasons why I won't be voting for Bush Inc. this year.
posted by mcsweetie at 8:51 AM on March 5, 2004


Just a thought - how much outrage would there be from the other side if the Kerry team tried to make capital from 9-11.

Suppose they insinuated that since 9-11 happened on Bush's watch, far from being the hero for what he did after it he should be the villain because it happened in the first place....

I'm not sure 9-11 is a very clever place for either side to try and win votes, it'll be seen by some cynical and opportunistic either way it's played, by either side. Politics already leaves a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths, this kind of thing won't help.
posted by brettski at 8:53 AM on March 5, 2004


The images are being used because some marting person said that images of the Towers and firefighters spark deep emotions within people, and they want to coopt those emotions of pain and suffering and associate them egtting better with Bush.

It's pure prostitution of the attack. As someone who was almost killed, I'm repulsed by it.

He can use September 11th.. I have no problem there.. but do so through some other method. A black screen, for example. If you want a comparison, imagine underwater cameras at The Arizona filming the destruction and the President voicing over "Hey - I helped the nation heal from this."

Clinton may have used Oklahoma City and every other tragedy, but he didn't do it graphically displaying the destruction to wrench people's heart strings.

It is base and disrespectful.
posted by rich at 8:54 AM on March 5, 2004


Actually, it's not democrats that are focusing on this per se, but relatives of 911 victims...

Well, actually, a subset thereof. And, on deeper examination, an interesting subset indeed. (And before you criticize the source -- which I found only because it was linked elsewhere -- pay attention to the facts, which are not in dispute).


Good catch, pardonYou, but I'd still dispute their point. The first one is somebody who joined an anti-war group after losing somebody in 9-11. You know, like those Vietnam veterans who marched against the war after coming back. I think they're characterization as somebody who was left-wing anyway remains unproven. We have no information on what Ms. Kelly was like before the tragedy. Same with David Portori.

The fourth one is somebody who joined a group criticizing Bush for refusing to investigate 9-11. Exactly the hypocrisy she is criticising now. Again, no evidence of politcal leanings either way before or after the event.

I'd agree that it's quite possible that these are all Dems with lefty-liberal leanings, but there's no evidence for that. Furthermore, I don't think it matters. It's not like they're using 9-11 as a pretext to attack somebody they don't like. These are very real problems that the President has completely failed to address. I don't mean that everything they say is true, I mean that the president has treated the accusations like they weren't there instead of explaining his post 9/11 actions.

Anybody can cry 'liberal bias' but there's really not much evidence for it. Show me where the accusations are unfounded. This is a perfect chance for relatives on 9/11 victims who think the President did a great job to step forward. I'm not being snarky, I'd really like to see that debate.
posted by lumpenprole at 8:54 AM on March 5, 2004


you're so right on top of being full of shit.



techgnollogic - dont make me bust out my long list of documented warnings the bush team had about the impending attack.

just answer me this:

a. why was ashcroft warned about possible highjackings so he got to fly around pre-9/11 in his own private jet? but the american public wasn't?

b. why won't your man bush answer the questions of the families of those who died on 9-11? and only after 3 years of arm twisting give 1 hour of his precious time to the 9-11 commission (only two members by the way).

bush sucks - there is no getting around the fact - bigguy.
posted by specialk420 at 9:09 AM on March 5, 2004


Sheesh, someone should keelhaul the ad campaign person that even suggested this. How could you not see repercussion coming from this?

that you would not use the disaster for politcal gain?
The wrong here, that one man's administration would point to themselves. The Presidential candidates whom held public office during the disaster and it's recovery made a contribution role too. Think Bush & Co. pancake themselves while pointing "look at us", because We as a nation recovered.
posted by thomcatspike at 9:16 AM on March 5, 2004


You know this has to be bullshit when even MeFi has people calling this Bush criticism misplaced.



who clearly lost millions of jobs and stripped the nation of resources
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:24 AM PST on March


For the sake of fact-based analysis, can you tell me XQ what Bush *did* that lost millions of jobs?

Might it be possible that the economy started a recession prior to his inaguration including the tech bubble bursting which caused some jobs to be lost? And then an unprecendented terrorist attack on top of that? Can you explain what Bush did that cost those jobs or what resources he stripped?


he was so very, very hard at work hunting down Islamofascists with his bare hands, when he wasn't on vacation an average of half the year.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:24 AM PST on March


So is your critique that he shouldn't have been singularly focused on fighting Islamofascism? Or that he should have been fighting it harder?
Or is your critique that a Kerry or Gore would have been more dedicated to it?
Moreover is there evidence that Bush wasn't planning things in Crawford? Has any even-minded analyst argued that he was ignoring things whilst at his ranch?


a bunch of images of a destroyed WTC and bodies being pulled from the wreckage.
posted by eyeballkid at 8:37 AM PST on March 5


A bunch???

Did you even watch the commercial???

It was two seconds of images that most people would have missed if they weren't looking for it.

Obviously your outrage is completely manufactured because no sentient being would watch those commercials and then believe that Bush was showing a "a bunch of images of a destroyed WTC and bodies being pulled from the wreckage."
posted by Seth at 9:19 AM on March 5, 2004


Bush has refused, citing "executive privilege" to produce specific documents that might tell us what intelligence he actually had. You have to wonder about that all by itself. More detail on this from John Dean at findlaw. (Also linked at the end of technologic's link.) Cue ad hominem attacks on John Dean in 5....4...3...
posted by George_Spiggott at 9:19 AM on March 5, 2004


Of course Bush used the imagery. He's the Imagery President, the star of an action movie called "Mission Accomplished" scripted by Karl Rove and spookwritten by Cheney, Perle, et. al. It's not like Bush could possibly run on his record. He has bankrupted the nation, increased the chance of future attacks, and recently taken the moral high ground of inscribing the notion that gay people are subhuman into the US Constitution. Where's the Republican outrage that he has stolen the Grand Old Party, the traditional defender of state's rights, individual rights, and fiscal prudency, and handed it to his golf buddies?

And if you want a good hour's reading about everything that was rotten in Denmark the day all those thousands of people died, the 9/11 timeline is a must-read. If you haven't seen this yet, give yourself some time to scroll down the page and put it all together for yourself.

The worst thing about Bush using the imagery is that something very disturbing happened that day, and we don't know what yet. We'll have to read the Times in 2020, apparently.
posted by digaman at 9:22 AM on March 5, 2004


"It goes without saying these days, but the man is a monster."

Hmmmmm....... He's getting 50% in the polls where he's matched against Kerry. Something which "goes without saying" seems to be missing half of the voters in this country. Take the maniac for granted at your peril.

"He's not willing to let small things, such as the constitution, get in the way of spiritual righteousness."

To hear that something so antithetical to freedom and liberty is considered a good thing fills me with dread. That such a thing could be true just fills me with panic. How can I stop this? I feel like space aliens have taken over the country or something. This should not be possible.

The ads? Who gives a rat's ass. Political ads suck. And distort. And pander. And use cheap emotional ploys. Are we going to call for reform of advertising? No one can pander or distort? [giggle]

"Spelling aside, [...] I find the add with the rescue workers........"

[more giggling]
posted by y6y6y6 at 9:26 AM on March 5, 2004


So it's about apples and oranges....

Cue predictable new Bush political ad....

"Bush advertisement, take #1: Right before our footage of Bush landing on the aircraft carrier, we'll get Bush visiting 9/11 victims in the hospital (note: be sure to edit out Rove's whispered directions off stage: 'no smirking, GW, no smirking!"). Show closeups of wounds, add special effects as needed. Instead of a flight suit, Bush dons surgical scrubs and gloves to probe a victim's horrific wounds. He deftly sutures the wound with one hand while comforting a frightened mewing kitten with the other, singing "Star Spangled Banner" under his breath. Bush unfurls premade 'Mission Accomplished' banner (which we'll claim that nurses, overcome with patriotic fervor, made out of iodine and gauze) behind bed." ~Sousa marches~

Cue predictable and justified outrage over Bush's exploitation of suffering for his own political gain....

Cue predictable Republicans defending the ad: "Kerry's resume lists his Purple Hearts, and, uh....those are 'wounds', too."


Obviously your outrage is completely manufactured because no sentient being would watch those commercials and then believe that Bush was showing a "a bunch of images of a destroyed WTC and bodies being pulled from the wreckage."
posted by Seth at 9:19 AM PST


And no sentient being believes Bush is doing anything but shamelessly exploiting the suffering of others to try to hold on to his job.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 9:26 AM on March 5, 2004


I've talked to a lot of them or they've volunteered their reasons and the main reason is this: his [Bush's] perceived leadership on September 11th 2001.

Say what? I distinctly remember Bush did sweet fuck all on the 11th.

Guiliani was the hero of the hour. Bush was a bust.

And what the hell is it with people who bring up Clinton all the time? That ass is out of office and won't be returning. Why on earth would anything Clinton did justify anything Bush does? Man, if that sort of thinking is indicative of the quality of political thought in America, the country is doomed.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:26 AM on March 5, 2004


For the most part....Christ, what a bunch of whiners.

Would the primary complainers about the ads be some of the same people who got paid hundreds of thousands and millions each in compensation?

I, for one, am looking forward to election time. I can't wait for Kerry to be exposed. The media has given him a free pass for far too long on far too many issues. Oh, and by the way, Kerry asked for a deferrment of military service to study abroad in France. When it was refused, he joined the Navy. Conveniently neglected in many reports.
posted by insulglass at 9:31 AM on March 5, 2004


I don't necessarily think that he pooped his pants as has been suggested, but what did he do?

He told us to go shopping.
posted by rocketman at 9:31 AM on March 5, 2004


Seth;

Bush contributed to the economic decline by warmongering against Iraq and introducing over 9 months of uncertainty into the marketplace, which hurt currency exchnage and the stock market in the face of good economic news from top companies.

The economy also was not bouyed by the war, which is in contrast to what war usually does to an economy, because the people in charge of th money all knew that America was going to end up footing the bill, costing the economy billions in military and infrastructure rebuilding to Iraq, instead of being pumped back into the flagging US economy, further weakening the dollar and delaying the meager recovery.

Because of cuts made to education and social services, job prospects and hiring were additonal curtailed.

Finally, buyig power through his 'tax rebate' program did nothing but give a taxable benefit to everyone who received it - if you filed your taxes this year, any money you expected to get back was reduced by what you go in your rebate.. so if you got $600 in September '03, and should have gotten $500 back after filing your '03 taxes, you eneded up paying $100 in taxes instead.
posted by rich at 9:32 AM on March 5, 2004


And no sentient being believes Bush is doing anything but shamelessly exploiting the suffering of others to try to hold on to his job.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 9:26 AM PST on March 5


Please explain how on earth could this NOT be discussed?


With the exception of a few people who are single-issue advocates, 9/11 and the reaction to it was the most important event of recent memory.

How on earth could this campaign NOT address the issue?

You are being extremely disingenuous if you are suggesting that Bush can avoid the topic.

After all, isn't a first term relection a referendum on the president?

Of course the most important thing must be discussed.


Foldy, I know you think that everything Bush does is, ipse dixit, EVIL.

But you shouldn't sacrafice intellectual integrity to impress your belief by trying to suggest that Bush could avoid this topic.
posted by Seth at 9:34 AM on March 5, 2004


I agree at least in part with insulglass: Bush-Cheney, Inc are a bunch of whiners.

Oh and Seth, that whole 'recession started early' meme comes from where exactly? Your potent grasp of economics, or did you just open up and swallow the party line in which they cooked the numbers? You might be interested in knowing that the National Bureau of Economic Research disagrees, more than a little.
posted by hank_14 at 9:38 AM on March 5, 2004


Rich,

Interesting analysis.

It's a shame that it has no factual basis.

The recession began prior to Bush's inaguration. The tech bubble busting and its devastating effects had nothing to do with Bush's policies. 9/11 happened, and specialk420 notwithstanding, no one suggests that Bush caused that.

However, the recession was short lived and the economy started growing well before Iraq was being talked about.

So your argument is a bit flawed because Iraq did not cause economic decline... the economy was growing well before that.


There is plenty of fertile ground to criticize Bush about the long term effects of tax cuts and massive spending.

So why attempt to criticize him for something that occurred prior to his tenure? Why attempt to say that Iraq caused economic decline when the numbers don't indicate that?
posted by Seth at 9:39 AM on March 5, 2004


I can't wait for Kerry to be exposed.

hahaha... kerry isn't the one with a long list of pending investigations. bush has 100 million plus and a lot of zealots who don't give a shit about: the environment, the poor, the elderly, children, the budget deficit, social security, the rest of the world ... for starters ... on his side, which will keep him competitive. on the other hand - the polls aren't looking good for the fearless leader.
posted by specialk420 at 9:41 AM on March 5, 2004


Hopefully this will help to remind us all that the biggest terrorist incident in American history occurred on his watch, while he was mobilizing armed resources against this civil war called the "war on (some) drugs" and doing nothing to protect the US against the very real terrorism about to strike, despite some (admittedly vague) warnings that such a thing was coming.

"Tested"? Yes. Tested, and failed.
posted by clevershark at 9:42 AM on March 5, 2004


It was two seconds of images that most people would have missed if they weren't looking for it.
Which left me with the impression, our Fire Departments are to sacrifice their lives defending our nation. I appreciate the risks they take, but 911 was murder as it was planned.
posted by thomcatspike at 9:45 AM on March 5, 2004


the only reason i can imagine that anyone would vote for the man (bush) or support his use of 9-11 imagery is:

they are still afraid.

and they think george bush is going to protect them from the terrorist bogeyman ... come out from under your bed people, take a breath of fresh air, quit being consumed by your fear and realize that george bush is making you less safe, not more ... and move on.
posted by specialk420 at 9:48 AM on March 5, 2004


I usually ignore trolls, but the lies about when the recession started are getting old. From today's Washington Post, in an article titled "Experts Date it to Bush; Bush says it was Clinton's" (emphasis mine):

"A new Bush campaign ad released this week proclaims: 'January 2001. The challenge: an economy in recession.' This backs up the claim often made by Bush and top aides that they "inherited" an economic recession.

The only trouble with this assertion is the nonpartisan National Bureau of Economic Research, which does the official dating of recessions, says the downturn began in March 2001 -- early in Bush's presidency. NBER is examining revised economic statistics to see if the official date should be moved earlier, but spokeswoman Donna Zerwitz said there is 'nothing imminent.'"

[snip]

"The NBER may, someday, endorse the Bush view, but Zerwitz said it will not be pressured. 'For us, this is an academic exercise, not a political one,' she said."

So STFU about how every damn thing is Clinton's fault. If there is one thing this Administration does well is pin blame on others... whether they deserve it or not.
posted by terrapin at 9:49 AM on March 5, 2004


Forgot the link to the WaPo article.
posted by terrapin at 9:50 AM on March 5, 2004


on the other hand - the polls aren't looking good for the fearless leader.
posted by specialk420


Are ye daft, Man?

We are in the top half of the first inning - the Democrats have been riding a surge of media attention where the only publicity for them are primarys (for which Bush doesn't even have any competition).

The Republicans haven't even brought out the bats yet. Kerry is about to learn what a whompin' is as Bush starts focusing on Kerry's senate voting record. Yeah, I think Bush has some performance issues he needs to improve upon. But Kerry as a replacement? I'm laughing over here.
posted by insulglass at 9:52 AM on March 5, 2004


So STFU about how every damn thing is Clinton's fault. posted by terrapin

Yeah, like refusing being handed Osama Bin Laden. Let's forget that and 3000 lives on 9/11 that could have been prevented. Let's totally ignore that.

(*%$(^%#(*ing Clinton.
posted by insulglass at 9:55 AM on March 5, 2004


I'm laughing over here as well, but it's because of that whole "-ies" rule when pluralizing words like primaries.

You're not whining about media attention, are ye, insulglass?
posted by hank_14 at 9:56 AM on March 5, 2004


But I do agree with you. I am definitely not voting for Clinton this time.

[How that affects the Kerry-Bush race is still unexplained...]
posted by hank_14 at 9:57 AM on March 5, 2004


It was two seconds of images that most people would have missed if they weren't looking for it.

And Ms. Jackson's nipple was exposed for less than a second...and look at the outrage about that. Apparently, microseconds are enough to be destroyed by a boob...so why should the Executive Boob need more than a few seconds to rape the corpses coming out of the towers?

(And for the record, I'm not one of the 911 families, but I did lose a friend, and I think this administration's handling of the attack is beyond negligent and bordering on criminal.)
posted by dejah420 at 10:03 AM on March 5, 2004


I for one am disgusted. I disagree with Steve_at_Linnwood:

Jobs aside, 9/11 and the War on Terrorism are the issue of this campaign

I think that Bush is trying to make this the issue of this campaign. I think he's doing this because right now it's seen as the only this his administration can identify with as having handled well. This is sad because this was a group effort. Our country rallied together to help everyone regardless of politics get through a very terrible event. He was not the only one who was affected by 9/11 at a political or personal level. I also think this is sad because every other measure of his tenure to date comes up way short. Economy, Jobs, Environment, Energy, War, and Intrusion into our personal lives he has yet to come close to meeting expectations much less his promises on the matters.

Personally I think he's taking a big gamble. He is hitching his campaign to 9/11 as his sole accomplishment. This may prove to be a baseless claim if by November we still don't have Bin Laden or Mohammed Omar.

Furthermore, the only person's fear involved in using September 11th, is Kerry's. His campaign is going try to do everything in it's power to make this election not about National Security/Terrorism/September 11/etc.

I don't think so at all. The whole point of Kerry's Vietnam ads is that he would be a superb leader in wartime that he has seen combat and has had to make real life or death combat decisions. By the traditional presidential measuring stick this is how you define a candidate who is fit to lead during war time.
posted by aaronscool at 10:08 AM on March 5, 2004


Yeah, like refusing being handed Osama Bin Laden. Let's forget that and 3000 lives on 9/11 that could have been prevented. Let's totally ignore that.

Sorry, but that dog don't hunt. The Bush Administration ignored the warnings of the Clinton Administration and instead jumped right into their plans to invade Iraq (before 9/11/01!), as well as negotiating with the Taliban so they could get more oil for their campaign contributors.

Well, as soon as they were done lying about the Clinton WH staff removing W's from their keyboards and photocopying pr0n.
posted by terrapin at 10:09 AM on March 5, 2004


You're not whining about media attention, are ye, insulglass?
posted by hank_14


Yes and no. I'd like to consider myself (even if other MeFites do not) intelligent enough to look at the issues with a grain of salt and make an informed decision on my own.

But I do believe that the media is biased and that it's not exactly fair and balanced. It doesn't take a genius to realize that, and I have a lot of liberal friends that agree. Wasn't there a study performed somewhere that determined that a significantly higher percent of college journalism majors classified themselves as Democrats than Republicans? Seems like I remember such a study.

For example, the media has been reporting a lot recently about Bush's National Guard work, but they have been silent on Kerry's activities during roughly the same period. Kerry himself - when discussing Clinton - said that issues of 30 years ago were old history. But now he brings up Bush's record and touts his on Vietnam experience while not mentioning his post-war activites and affiliations. The press, IMHO, has given him a free pass on this issue.

Once again, I think Bush has plenty of domestic issues to deal with that he needs to address. But as bad as I feel about some issues under Bush, I firmly believe that Kerry would be an even worse disaster for the future of this country.
posted by insulglass at 10:09 AM on March 5, 2004


Yeah, like refusing being handed Osama Bin Laden. Let's forget that and 3000 lives on 9/11 that could have been prevented. Let's totally ignore that.

Now if it wasn't for that being compelte bullshit you might have a point. I suppose Bush completely restructured the army in nine months in time to invade Afghanistan after Clinton's "failures" too.

Not to shine Clinton here as if he didn't often employ stupid military policy- keep in mind that as of today Bill Clinton ordered twice as many countries bombed as Dubya- but the collective picking-and-choosing, and of course as noted above lying, about how it was Clinton's fault is just asinine.

Of course, if you're adamant about bitching over a president refusing something that could have saved 3,000 lives.....
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 10:12 AM on March 5, 2004


Seth;

I did not argue the economy was in recession well before Bush, or that he was the one who caused the recession.

As for my factual basis.. I am in the finance world and have a little bit of knowledge about global markets and the economy.

"the recession was short lived"

This is a statement with no factual basis. You can say all you want that we are no longer in a recession, but the majority of economics professionals will agree that a recovery with no job gains, and in fact job losses, is not a recovery.

Additionally, key indexes either show meager gains, or none at all. there are no economic factors you can point to that will support saying that the economy is in a positive upswing, and has the ability to fuel continued growth unaided.

If you bother to read what I said about Iraq is that the uncertainty Bush caused through his policies towards Iraq during a critical recovery period negated any positive items that would have normally fueled a more spirited economic revival.

Key companies that had lost money for two years running posted better pofit and revenue figures than expected (and indeed, some showed 10-20% increases over revenue from their last profitable quarters). However, stock prices moved down* instead of up. Every top financial analyst specifically pointed to the uncertainty around Iraq that Bush had fostered as the single key reason.

This, of course, reduced cash availablity and borrowing power, forcing companies to continue to shelve growth projects, limit or curtail hiring, as well as continue layoff policies.

Bush is directly responsible for this, and the economic woes his policies directly caused.

As for campaigning about this issue of September 11th.. again, I think you are missing the point. No one is saying that Bush should not use September 11th as a campaign piece. However, prostituting the images of the Towers (not to mention an ad about firefighters when he has gone and cut their federal funding) is improper. It is gross pandering to invoke high emotional response from the images themselves, not anything he has contributed. A more fitting way could be to have a black screen instead, or just the flag, with the same voice over. The use of the images is the issue, not his use of his services during the crisis.
posted by rich at 10:12 AM on March 5, 2004


"can you tell me XQ what Bush *did* that lost millions of jobs?"

- Fueled fear of continuing terrorist attacks, thus increasing costs for business, and chilling an already conservative outlook for new hiring, infrastructure improvements, and investment in new businesses.

- Increasing debt, which led to a weaker dollar, which led to poor trade, which led to more layoffs.

- Reduced consumer confidence which led to more conservative buying patterns. This was a direct result of his fiscal irresponsibility, funneling hundreds of billions into a foreign country, protests against America from allies, and the hyping of the terrorist threat.

- Failure to use creative bail-outs, tax relief, etc to head off runaway layoffs. Tax cuts for upper income individuals could have gone towards tax incentives for companies who were laying off millions of tax payers.
posted by y6y6y6 at 10:15 AM on March 5, 2004


NY Daily News:

"It's a slap in the face of the murders of 3,000 people," said Monica Gabrielle, whose husband died in the twin tower attacks. "It is unconscionable."

Gabrielle and several other family members said the injury was compounded by Bush's refusal to testify in open session before the 9/11 commission.

"I would be less offended if he showed a picture of himself in front of the Statue of Liberty," said Tom Roger, whose daughter was a flight attendant on doomed American Airlines Flight 11. "But to show the horror of 9/11 in the background, that's just some advertising agency's attempt to grab people by the throat."

Mindy Kleinberg said she was offended because the White House has not cooperated fully with the commission and because of the sight of remains being lifted out of Ground Zero in one of the spots.

"How heinous is that?" Kleinberg asked. "That's somebody's [loved one]."

Firefighter Tommy Fee in Rescue Squad 270 in Queens was appalled.

"It's as sick as people who stole things out of the place. The image of firefighters at Ground Zero should not be used for this stuff, for politics," Fee said.


These people obviously hate America.

Why would anyone be so upset about AWOL presiding over the worst attack in United States history, and flat-out lying about not using 9/11 for political purposes?

Can't they just get with the program? Don't they know that if Republicans have to spend all their time backpedaling over 9/11, they're not going to have any time to bask in the glow of their fabulous jobs program:


Back when the last round of tax cuts were passed, they were sold as a jobs program. The Bush administration claimed that if their tax program passed the economy would add an average of 306,000 jobs per month. By now, we should have had an additional 2,448,000 jobs. There are actually only 294,000 net new jobs, and so we're 2,154,000 behind what the Bush administration had promised.

They said magic tax cuts would create jobs. They didn't. (via Eschaton)

posted by fold_and_mutilate at 10:27 AM on March 5, 2004


Also, the families of the September 11th victims can shut up now.

Yeah. Them and the blacks. I mean hey, that Jim Crowe thing was like 200 years ago, and I never owned any slaves.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 10:28 AM on March 5, 2004


so back to the subject insulglass ...

aside from still being scared of the "evildoers" and thinking AWOL is going to protect you ... can you tell any of us why you intend to vote for george bush?
posted by specialk420 at 10:35 AM on March 5, 2004


specialk,

Why would any sane person attempt to justify their vote to you?

You are so bitterly partisan that you think Bush is so evil and nothing good could ever come of such a devil.

Knowing what a completely irrationally partisan person you are, why would someone try to explain their politics to you?
posted by Seth at 10:42 AM on March 5, 2004


All this whining and griping -- well, it's practically treasonous. See you in Guantanamo, you Commies. I know we're a safer, stronger country now. I saw it on TV!

Bush Backs New Terrorism TV Series

In what would be a highly unusual action for a president, George W.
Bush is apparently giving the White House seal of approval to a
television series, D.H.S.--The Series, a drama about the Department of
Home Security being introduced Thursday night to prospective networks
at an industry gathering...

...it is virtually unprecedented for the White House to endorse such a
fictional representation....When asked to elaborate on Bush and
Ridge's involvement, show representatives told E! Online, "They love
it. They think it is fantastic"... The show is billed as a realistic
action series following the exploits of Special DHS Agents Andrea
Bacall and Jack Callahan, portrayed by actors Alison Heruth Waterbury
and Timothy Patrick Cavanaugh. The characters venture from the halls of
Washington, D.C., to war-torn locales as they fight fanatical
terrorism.
posted by digaman at 10:43 AM on March 5, 2004


Knowing what a completely irrationally partisan person you are, why would someone try to explain their politics to you?

"Hello kettle? It's Seth. You're black!"
posted by terrapin at 10:52 AM on March 5, 2004


We wish that order of things where all the low and cruel passions are enchained, all the beneficent and generous passions awakened by the laws; where ambition subsists in a desire to deserve glory and serve the country: where distinctions grow out of the system of equality, where the citizen submits to the authority of the magistrate, the magistrate obeys that of the people, and the people are governed by a love of justice; where the country secures the comfort of each individual, and where each individual prides himself on the prosperity and glory of his country; where every soul expands by a free communication of republican sentiments, and by the necessity of deserving the esteem of a great people: where the arts serve to embellish that liberty which gives them value and support, and commerce is a source of public wealth and not merely of immense riches to a few individuals....The protection of government is only due to peaceable citizens; and all citizens in the republic are republicans. The royalists, the conspirators, are strangers, or rather enemies. Is not this dreadful contest, which liberty maintains against tyranny, indivisible? Are not the internal enemies the allies of those in the exterior? The assassins who lay waste the interior; the intriguers who purchase the consciences of the delegates of the people: the traitors who sell them; the mercenary libellists paid to dishonor the cause of the people, to smother public virtue, to fan the flame of civil discord, and bring about a political counter revolution by means of a moral one; all these men, are they less culpable or less dangerous than the tyrants whom they serve? . . .

-Robespierre
posted by clavdivs at 10:54 AM on March 5, 2004


terrapin,

How am I hypocritcal?
I am not really partisan. If you looked at my voting history over my life, you wouldn't be able to pigeon hole me at all. I never have come here and posted my beliefs; I have only questioned others' claims.

I post here at times for the sake of balance in order to keep place from becoming something other than an echo chamber lefty version of the LGF---to keep it from becoming a blue version of the DU.

I don't know how questioning people who are being ridiculously partisan makes me a partisan.


specialk is hyper-partisan. He calls the other side evil (which I never have done because I don't believe it and I don't see things as two-sided). Then he asks someone to explain themselves.

I can think of no greater excercise of futility than trying to explain a contrary viewpoint to specialk, foldy, or the ilk.
posted by Seth at 11:01 AM on March 5, 2004


"I never have come here and posted my beliefs."

BINGO!
posted by divrsional at 11:07 AM on March 5, 2004


Is it disingenuous to defend the ads when you claimed just nineteen weeks after the tragedy that you would not use the disaster for politcal gain?

No, it's a lie. But what else is new?

I'm not surprised that Bush is using 9/11 in his ads, but I am surprised at how clumsily they're using it. Why not show footage of his "the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon" speech? That was a great moment for him and pretty much the only "presidential" thing about his response.
posted by kirkaracha at 11:14 AM on March 5, 2004


I don't know why 9/11 is relevant - Afghanistan and Iraq are the things Bush's record is based on. I'm pretty sure that the 9/11 families should "shut up" although it might be put more politely. victims are, if anything, less qualified to dispense justice and evaluate outcomes.

The main thing these kind of adds illustrate is that there are people that want to watch these kinds of adds, who think that Bush has done a good job, that he's honest, and that he's been good for this country.

And we aren't talkin' Haliburton, baby...
posted by ewkpates at 11:15 AM on March 5, 2004


I think he's doing this because right now it's seen as the only this his administration can identify with as having handled well. This is sad because this was a group effort. Our country rallied together to help everyone regardless of politics get through a very terrible event.

As the link and quote above from the NYT editorial page notes as well, aaronscool--a reminder that the great sense of unity and national purpose of those days was lost. Except it was not lost but squandered.
posted by y2karl at 11:16 AM on March 5, 2004


I am not really partisan. If you looked at my voting history over my life, you wouldn't be able to pigeon hole me at all. I never have come here and posted my beliefs; I have only questioned others' claims.

Any yet you see no irony (or hypocracy) in claiming to know someone else is a partisan right? Because you know their voting record? I call bullshit. What I know is your posting history on MeFi, and that is enough to tell me that you are as partisan as ANYONE, so quite pointing fingers.
posted by terrapin at 11:17 AM on March 5, 2004


Why would any sane person attempt to justify their vote to you?

seth - let insulglass answer his own questions.

i asked the same question (why do you support bush? give me examples of how his presidency has been a success) of a very smart friend of mine (in most areas), who is also a wavering bush supporter. he was only able to come up with a kind of tortured answer that bush was tough on terrorism, and does what he says he's going to ... on all other fronts the fellow in question conceeded bush is a failure (especially the environment).

i'm open to some rational justification for why anyone would support bush - i just have'nt seen it.

ps. answering questions with questions and calling me "hyper-partisan" doesn't do much for your position ...
posted by specialk420 at 11:21 AM on March 5, 2004


Well here's a question for everyone:

Will this election's most important issue to you be how we handle the events of 9/11? If so compare and contrast the differences and/or similarities of the two candidates positions on this topic.


Sorry if this is book report format but everyone here seems to want to make political hay of 9/11 and my question is quite simple: How would Bush or Kerry differ on this? I have yet to see from either candidate a stated difference on the matter. What we have seen from both sides is a fair amount of fearmongering i.e. these 9/11 ads but no real substantive policy or position statements.
posted by aaronscool at 11:24 AM on March 5, 2004


than trying to explain a contrary viewpoint to specialk,


it's not what you do. it simply isn't.

you just provide shaky talking points that get regularly destroyed by a hurricane of links other users here are more than happy to provide
if you really think of yourself as MetaFilter's fair and balanced savior, first learn some manners (even the wise languagehat lost his cool because of your usual venom and cruel bullshit). then try to come up with links to effectively prop up your comments.
posted by matteo at 11:31 AM on March 5, 2004


... it sure got quiet in here all of a sudden ...
almost too quiet.

posted by milovoo at 12:03 PM on March 5, 2004


OK, Seth. I'm apparently not on your hit list. Explain it to me. I honestly want to know.
posted by mkultra at 12:05 PM on March 5, 2004


Sorry if this is book report format but everyone here seems to want to make political hay of 9/11 and my question is quite simple: How would Bush or Kerry differ on this? I have yet to see from either candidate a stated difference on the matter.

This is all conjecture, but the general consensus is that we wouldn't have gone to war with Iraq. If nothing else, it would have enabled more resources to go toward capturing bin Laden and rebuilding Afghanistan. We also would not have had the draconian Patriot Act rammed down our throats, nor would we have pissed off the entire international community through unilateral aggression.
posted by mkultra at 12:09 PM on March 5, 2004


Will this election's most important issue to you be how we handle the events of 9/11?

What is there left to handle?
posted by archimago at 12:13 PM on March 5, 2004


At least Lt. Smash and Ted Rall can finally agree about something.
posted by homunculus at 12:28 PM on March 5, 2004


Apparently, "What makes an otherwise sane person vote republican?" is a bit of a conversation killer.

Unfortunate, because I've been wondering that for a while also.
posted by milovoo at 12:30 PM on March 5, 2004


The September 11th Commission's Administration Awards
posted by homunculus at 12:35 PM on March 5, 2004


Many people vote republican because they don't want government to expand and spending to increase. There are good arguments why these things shouldn't take place. These people don't care about a lack of personal liberties, because theirs aren't really ever threatened. They have worked hard for their huge pile of money, they really have, and they want to keep as much of it as possible, which is fair. If you work 80 hours a week, you deserve to hold onto the cash...

These people aren't bad, and their perspective is an important one. I worry about the people who can't give good reasons...
posted by ewkpates at 12:52 PM on March 5, 2004


a semi-intelligent ex-cokehead who clearly lost millions of jobs and stripped the nation of resources, credibility, and dignity only because he was so very, very hard at work hunting down Islamofascists with his bare hands, when he wasn't on vacation an average of half the year

I'll take a bumper sticker, a baseball cap and 3 T-Shirts, please.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 12:56 PM on March 5, 2004


The Bush ads are politically manipulative.

The response is politically manipulative.

Neither is the act of anyone's "desperation" to save a doomed campaign, just business as usual.

As one of the few members of MetaFilter who has actually been an "intended terrorist victim" (Wendell's anecdote #73: 1989, an attempt to blow up an IRS office that, if it had gone off as intended, would've destroyed the office I was in nextdoor), I have a strangely different perspective than most everybody here.

When I saw the buildings that usually held 100,000 workers fall, I was actually relieved that the earliest "casualty estimates" were under 20,000. And as they steadily dropped to about 3000, I stood up and cheered. New York's rescue workers had shown what I could ony call "mass heoism" (after all, more than 10 percent of the casualties were rescuers who entered the buildings after the first attack). And the "evil genius terrorists" of Al Queda had fallen so far short of a true bloodbath (they should've known nobody in NY is ath their desk at 9AM... the pentagon was a horrible target, and the fourth plane never got close to where it was going). When the Afghan strongholds of Bin Laden & Company were cleaned out, I considered the "mission accomplished" and everything Bush & Co. has done militarily since than has accomplished nothing to make us safer, just a sad, sick effort to promote perpetual warfare against terrorist boogeymen in order to take and hold power. Game plan taken from "1984". Not even Bush's "toughest critics" will dare say what I believe: there are several hundred issues our government has to deal with that are more important and a greater threat to our way of life than these straw-man terrorists. Period. Exclamation mark.

(and one of those greater threats is the MeFi world's reaction to this comment)
posted by wendell at 12:58 PM on March 5, 2004


Many people vote republican because they don't want government to expand and spending to increase.

This is a fair and valid concern. In many ways I share this sentiment however when you look at the fact that Bush has increased the size of government and spending to unprecedented levels (and was planning to do so well before 9/11 happened) I don't understand how people can support him for these reasons any longer...

I don't have any historical figures in front of me but it sure seems that Bush's tax cut and spend policies are the most fiscally irresponsible from an American President.
posted by aaronscool at 1:03 PM on March 5, 2004


What makes an otherwise sane person vote republican?

I'll bite:

Democrats are hypocrites.
Democrats are untruthful.
Democrats are in favor of social welfare.
Democrats are in favor of murdering children, er um ... a woman's right to choose.
Democrats are in favor of more governmental programs, which equate to more wasted tax dollars.
Democrats villify any objecting opinion.
Democrats suck up to unions
Democrats want to limit the rights of citizens

These people don't care about a lack of personal liberties, because theirs aren't really ever threatened

It's funny you think Republicans are trying to take away personal liberties [see gun control], becaue I see it just the opposite.

Frankly, I wish there was a third party that I could connect with. I don't agree 100% with either party, but my beliefs are more in line with republicans.
posted by jlachapell at 1:04 PM on March 5, 2004


If repubican = not expanding government, how is it that you've ended up with the DEA and DHS and etc? I'm pretty damn sure those are all republican creations.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:07 PM on March 5, 2004


"What makes an otherwise sane person vote republican?"

i can honestly understand some of the old main street republicanism of yesteryor ... and if there was ever a beast that needed to be starved through reduced taxes(income) it's the pentagon ...

but to answer my own question

why anyone would support bush?

i neglected the caveats - unless you are in the top 1% tax brackets, the owner of company that profits from war, the owner of an energy company, the owner of a major polluter, the owner of a timber company, or a right wing religous zealot that wants to push your religious views of the world on the rest of america/the world ...

now where did insulglass and his sidekick from west texas run off to?
posted by specialk420 at 1:07 PM on March 5, 2004


Democrats are hypocrites.

Democrats are untruthful.

are you going start building your house with those two glass blocks? talk about fish in a barrel.
posted by specialk420 at 1:17 PM on March 5, 2004


jlachapell, you're kidding, right?

Democrats are hypocrites.

This is, effectively, an unanswerable charge that could just as easily be brought against Republicans.

Democrats are untruthful.

Ditto, but there are really severe Bush Administration lies that bear pointing out- the Saddam/al Qaeda link, and pretty much any other justification for invading Iraq.

Democrats are in favor of social welfare.

The GOP is in favor of corporate welfare.

Democrats are in favor of murdering children, er um ... a woman's right to choose.

An opinion you're perfectly entitled to have, as long as you don't phrase it so obnoxiously.

Democrats are in favor of more governmental programs, which equate to more wasted tax dollars.

Spending under the Bush Administration is higher than any in recent memory. The Pentagon is a hotbed of waste.

Democrats villify any objecting opinion.

"You're either with us or against us." I'd even call attention here to your comments on the issue.

Democrats suck up to unions

I wouldn't call this a bad thing, better than sucking up to CEO's. But, it's opinion in the end. Fine.

Democrats want to limit the rights of citizens

See abortion comment, above, as well as the proposed Gay Marriage Amendment, and the Patriot Act.
posted by mkultra at 1:19 PM on March 5, 2004


Oh, and

Democrats are untruthful.

Hello, White House economic forecasts?
posted by mkultra at 1:20 PM on March 5, 2004


specialk420,

I'm not saying republicans are any different ... I think our political system sucks.

One could just as easily ask, "Why would any sane person vote Democrat"
posted by jlachapell at 1:20 PM on March 5, 2004


specialk420,

I'm not saying republicans are any different ... I think our political parties suck.

One could just as easily ask, "Why would any sane person vote Democrat"
posted by jlachapell at 1:21 PM on March 5, 2004


An opinion you're perfectly entitled to have, as long as you don't phrase it so obnoxiously

Sorry, I just thought the question was obnoxious.

"You're either with us or against us." I'd even call attention here to your comments on the issue.

Not sure what you're trying to call attention to.

See abortion comment, above, as well as the proposed Gay Marriage Amendment, and the Patriot Act

You see abortion as a right?
I won't comment on gay marriage.
I am not in favor ot the Patriot Act, but Dems and Repubs alike voted for it, so I don't see it as a Repub thing. "The USA Patriot Act was passed nearly unanimously by the Senate 98-1, and 357–66 in the House, with the support of members from across the political spectrum."
posted by jlachapell at 1:29 PM on March 5, 2004


Unfortunate, because I've been wondering that for a while also

do you wonder much? what do you specifically wonder about. is this wonder more of a question or a preconceived idea of seeing your words "wonder", despite this wondering is a 'conversation killer'.

as to the candidates little 'approved by bugs bunny for president in 04', you people need to open a book because your as...o.k. restraint.

here are some reasons

I saw the ad, found little wrong with it other then promises that most likely will not happen, also some home spun everything is on track...with no data or even examples. But it is early and we in the G.O.P. have many months to destroy the bush-lite kerry.

and why would someone want to exchange one S&B from Yale for another?

the first lady is the prezs secret weapon. I would love to see her debate Ms. ketchup pack.

and i wonder whom may be behind this little smut
(via previous mefi thread posted by troutfishing)

As one of the few members of MetaFilter who has actually been an "intended terrorist victim"
the pentagon was a horrible target, and the fourth plane never got close to where it was going).

ms. clavs brother was having a nice squirrel feeding at the capitol building on September 11.
i need not say more, oh, the pentagon is not a good target? Hmmm, wendell, i think your mad. reverse the mindset and you will see that the pentagon is a 'good" target for terrorists, what better way to "get your message out"

Game plan taken from "1984". Not even Bush's "toughest critics" will dare say what I believe: there are several hundred issues our government has to deal with that are more important and a greater threat to our way of life than these straw-man terrorists

1984?, what about Mein Kampf, you like that one?

oh your sooooo brave for what you believe. straw man terrorists huh.
hmmm, these same people who kill hundreds and on a holy day at a holy site in order to cause civil war?

the term is called agent provocateur

(and one of those greater threats is the MeFi world's reaction to this comment)


you a sick person IMO.

how about some research material for your conspiracy theory. the WTC was destroyed because of a secret report that said the towers will fall in a few years because of the 93 WTC bombing....see you reichstag)

{this scenario is not true and is intended to show how Wendell delusion is just that delusion}

so wendell, you think you are brave, cutting edge, puff up your ego because the bushes may latch onto your ideas and "do something" about this?

you want horror stories that are real, i give them to you all day long

here is a test. was there a plan to have a russian bomber (flown by americans) go over Mecca and drop live pigs on the sacred sight in order to inflame opinion against the russians by the arab people.
true or false.

If repubican = not expanding government, how is it that you've ended up with the DEA and DHS and etc? I'm pretty damn sure those are all republican creations.

In 1968, with the introduction into Congress of Reorganization Plan No. 1, President Johnson proposed combining two agencies into a third new drug enforcement agency

dam sure are we?
posted by clavdivs at 1:29 PM on March 5, 2004


Why would any sane person vote Democrat?

while not perfect ... the dems are:

1. By and large, much much stronger on protecting the enviroment (than the republicons), we all share, for this and future generations.

2. Strong on education for the middle and lower income brackets which in the end benefits the entire economy and society.


3. Generally embrace science rather than reject it. (also good for the economy)


... for starters.
posted by specialk420 at 1:38 PM on March 5, 2004


specialk420,

I'm not questioning why YOU specifically wish to vote Democrat, I just said one could ask the same question. The initial question is kind of silly and I was trying to point that out.

But since you answered ... ;)

1. By and large, much much stronger on protecting the enviroment (than the republicons), we all share, for this and future generations.


I agree.

2. Strong on education for the middle and lower income brackets which in the end benefits the entire economy and society.

hmmm. I'm not sure I agree ... strong, no ... StrongER, yes. But, ok.

This is why I wish there was a third party involved here. A party that included "good" (good is subjective) points from each party. I'd be surprised if you agreed with 100% of the Democrats views.
posted by jlachapell at 1:49 PM on March 5, 2004


Bush's leadership begins after a short delay. That's the footage mkultra.

Democrats suck up to unions
jlachapell,

I am not in favor of the corruption of government or unions, but I am glad that the latter fought for things like 8 hour days, overtime pay, and worker's compensation.

I hate that politics has gotten so nasty. It makes the difference between Americans so much greater. It makes it harder for folks to look at the administration's record objectively.
posted by john at 1:50 PM on March 5, 2004


A party that included "good" (good is subjective) points from each party.

hey. im actually with you on this one. i voted for jesse ventura. :) ( ... skeleton falls out of specialk420's closet)
posted by specialk420 at 1:58 PM on March 5, 2004


John,

but I am glad that the latter fought for things like 8 hour days, overtime pay, and worker's compensation.

Me too! Please don't get me wrong, I supported unions at one time, too. The problem is that they lost focus of what they are for. Too many times now unions are for protecting the weak at the expense of the strong/successful/majority.
posted by jlachapell at 2:02 PM on March 5, 2004


i voted for jesse ventura. :)

Sweet!
posted by jlachapell at 2:04 PM on March 5, 2004


I have to say I hate the way you write, Seth.
posted by Slimemonster at 2:19 PM on March 5, 2004


Interesting effect due to the recording levels of the ad video on that site: "What sees us through tough times? Freedom. Faith. Families. And Facrifice."
posted by abcde at 2:34 PM on March 5, 2004


marshall asks some good questions about the bush/terrorism policy and his renewed interest in bin laden ...
posted by specialk420 at 2:35 PM on March 5, 2004


and at the height of poor taste: it looks like #2 bush campaign contributor and predatory lender: MBNA - got spooked by the bush ad debacle.

time for bushies to go sit in the corner for a while.
posted by specialk420 at 2:42 PM on March 5, 2004


Unfortunate, because I've been wondering that for a while also.

do you wonder much? what do you specifically wonder about. is
this wonder more of a question or a preconceived idea of seeing
your words "wonder", despite this wondering is a 'conversation killer'.


Huh? Are you questioning my curiosity? Yes. I really do wonder. I would like to know. I am interested.

I have nothing against "republican" as a concept and I agree with them on gun issues, and I would like to see a smaller and more efficient government, but that does not seem to be where they are headed. They seem to be spending tax money like there is no tomorrow and funneling a disturbing amount of it to their friends and contributors, while cutting programs they claim to support. All this while allowing as little public oversight and accountability as they can get away with. And yet, they seem quite popular with some folks. Are these people seeing something I am not, does it require that one hate gays or wish to see everyone become an evangelical christian?

Yes, I wonder.
posted by milovoo at 2:46 PM on March 5, 2004


The problem is that they lost focus of what they are for. Too many times now unions are for protecting the weak at the expense of the strong/successful/majority.

I see Bush in the same light. He's strayed from being a conservative. While he has kept the "reduce taxes" party line, it is at the expense of future generations due to deficit spending. They will pay for the taxes we didn't. His un-conservative environmental record also leaves the burden on future generations. The un-funded mandate to leave no child behind is focused on creating tests rather than any real strategy to improve students' ability to take those tests. On defense, I prefer a military that acts on real data and therefore does not waste our resources on occupations that have a huge potential for the long-term detriment to our country. I fear an administration unable to admit a mistake or change course even when staring down an iceberg.
posted by john at 4:39 PM on March 5, 2004


The problem is that they lost focus of what they are for. Too many times now unions are for protecting the weak at the expense of the strong/successful/majority.

I see Bush in the same light. He has strayed from being a conservative. I fear an administration unable to admit a mistake or change course even when staring down an iceberg.
posted by john at 4:44 PM on March 5, 2004


Heheh. I guess I was too late to stop my mini-rant.
posted by john at 4:50 PM on March 5, 2004


why should the Executive Boob need more than a few seconds to rape the corpses coming out of the towers?

Bush-Cheney 2004 - Corpse raping! In God's Name!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:01 PM on March 5, 2004


Democrats are in favor of more governmental programs, which equate to more wasted tax dollars.


you know, I guess you kind of missed the memo -- these last few (say, 20 years) the Big Government party is by and large the Republican Party -- huge, HUGE budget deficits in the Reagan/BushI/Bush II era. hence, the budget-busting party is by all means the GOP. and demonstrably so

personal liberties? just check out Ashcroft's Justice Dept. actions and you'll see how no self-respecting Libertarian can, in 2004, possibily vote Republican

I won't even start on the separation of Church and State thing -- here the GOP's platform is particularly appalling to any self-respecting Tory

the DLC Democrats are, basically, today's Eisenhower Republicans -- fiscal conservatives with a (very) light sprinkling of social liberalism (hence the Left dissatisfaction with the DLC candidates, the Nader candidacy, etc)

Clinton has been the most successful Republican President of the 20th Century. deal with it.
go for the Bush thing, vote for him even twice or 3 times (if you live in a Diebold district, I guess thet'll be pretty easy to do). but don't lie to yourself: you're voting for a budget-busting, pro-Christian-theocracy, gay-discriminating, inherently big-spending party.

but I agree that they're really pro-gun. that's one the very few actual Republican ideas they still support.
bang-bang

the first lady is the prezs secret weapon


a weapon indeed. but let's not talk about mortal car crashes, possible drunk driving and fishy police investigations, OK?
;)

let's stick to her bookishness (a quality one cannot avoid to admire):

So you are the first Iraqi children I've met and you look real sweet in your PJs. And I'm sorry you're dead, but all children love books. All children can learn to love books if you read to them. That's why I've come--to read to you, to share one of my favorite books with you, because when a parent reads to a child, or any adult reads to a child, even if that child is dead, the child will learn to love books, and that is so, so important. (To one of the children:) How did you die, darling?

posted by matteo at 5:14 PM on March 5, 2004



so, let's consider out a possible punch-line in the debate:



THE KETCHUP LADY

(in pitch-perfect Portuguese-MiguelCardosian accent)

But at least I didn't kill anybody!


*audience gasps, Elizabeth Bumiller faints. stunned silence in the tv studio*


posted by matteo at 5:17 PM on March 5, 2004


ms. clavs brother was having a nice squirrel feeding at the capitol building on September 11.
i need not say more,


Yes you do. Are you saying that being anywhere in D.C. on Sept. 11th qualifies a person as a "terror victim", or did a piece of the plane bounce off the pentagon and land within a hundred feet of your in-law?

oh, the pentagon is not a good target? Hmmm, wendell, i think your mad. reverse the mindset and you will see that the pentagon is a 'good" target for terrorists, what better way to "get your message out"

Unlike the World Trade Center, the borderline-structurallly-unsound structure where the capacity of two football stadiums went to work daily, the Pentagon is a low, wide, spread-out and heavily secured complex that would've required terrorists to hijack the entire American commercial airline fleet to similarly destroy. Yeah, it "got their message out", because Al Queda and all the other unrelated terrorists in the world aren't capable of actually killing or enslaving all of us, not now, not ever. That's why they use "terrorism"... the goal is to scare us enough to make us screw up something awful. And while the 9-11 attacks were actually relatively UN-successful compared to their potential for mass murder (and there is no other target in America as "good" for terrorists as the Twin Towers were), Bush's reaction was exactly what they wanted: declaring a top-priority "war on terrorism" that he said right off the top would not be over for a long-long-time. That sure sounds like the "we have always been at war with x, we will always be at war with x" approach from "1984".

1984?, what about Mein Kampf, you like that one?
oh your sooooo brave for what you believe. straw man terrorists huh.
hmmm, these same people who kill hundreds and on a holy day at a holy site in order to cause civil war?


I'm too busy to research the multiple debating rules you've broken in that short passage, but (1) what does Mein Kampf or Hitler have to with anything we're talking about, you Godwinator (2) I don't claim to be brave. I just have too many other things to be afraid of to let "the terrorists" scare me, and can totally disregard any direct effect they may have on my life as long as I am not in Israel, Iraq or the rebuilt WTC (3) the people trying to cause civil war in IRAQ (not California) are not the same people who attacked the WTC; they are the people who used to run Iraq until we kicked them out and they became brand new terrorists. But none of them have much chance of ever getting into the U.S. to kill hundreds of us. If there is a terrorist bombing at St. Patrick's Cathedral on Easter, I will admit I'm wrong.

the term is called agent provocateur
Sorry, I'm one of the few people in L.A. who doesn't have an agent.

you a sick person IMO.
I'll concede that; the doctors called it clinical depression, or maybe it's just the long term effects from living in a sick society.

how about some research material for your conspiracy theory....see you reichstag)
{this scenario is not true and is intended to show how Wendell delusion is just that delusion}


If you read any kind of "conspiracy theory" into what I wrote before, I'm pretty sure my doctors would diagnose YOU as delusional. And STOP GODWINNING! No Nazis, just a below-average opportunistic American politicians in power who decided it served their interests better to have a perpetual "war against terrorism" rather than to just squash the vermin responsible and celebrate our victory, demoralizing the scattered and mostly impotent remains of the 'movement' (still capable of attacking tourists in Bali but never Maui).

so wendell, you think you are brave, cutting edge, puff up your ego because the bushes may latch onto your ideas and "do something" about this?

I said it before, I am not brave. I'm usually quite intimidated just by the irrationality of what passes for debate here on MeFi. Cutting edge? Nope, but 40-some years of living has taught me that "common sense" is an oxymoron, and a very cynical one at that. No ego puffing, no hope of successfully selling my 'delusional ideas' to anybody, but a habitual contrarian who tries to compare the common assumptions to the best information I can find (with all its contradictions), waiting for someone to challenge me with something rational and wondering why I bother to say anything at all here.

you want horror stories that are real, i give them to you all day long
I never asked for or offered any horror stories. You're not just missing the point, you're running the ball to the wrong goal line.

The hundreds of things that I said need more of our attention and efforts than the "War on Terror" include cancer, poverty, gun crime and drug abuse (all of which we declared neverending war on before - instead of handling in any kind of a sensible manner). Also, in no particular order, antibiotic-resistant infections, medical malpractice, securities fraud, identity theft, schoolyard bullies, drunk drivers, AIDS, altzheimers, wildfires, defective products, heterosexual marriage, and 30 years of bad nutrition, all of which have been a more direct threat to me personally than Boogeyman Bin Laden ever will be. But I will admit that I am more interested in what happens to Bin Laden than Martha Stewart, Howard Stern or whatsisname Peterson.
posted by wendell at 6:15 PM on March 5, 2004


matteo brings out the big guns. nice. we like you europeans - if you want to send me dollars... ill match each and everyone of them with one of mine in contributions to the kerry campaign.
posted by specialk420 at 6:22 PM on March 5, 2004


specialk,

1) I'm not sure it'd be perfectly legal, wouldn't it
2) I'm afraid it's really not my job, as a noncitizen, to interfere in another country's election
3) Do you accept PayPal?

;)


Also, in no particular order,


wendell, yours is a good list. made me think of this one:

Fear of seeing a police car pull into the drive.
Fear of falling asleep at night.
Fear of not falling asleep.
Fear of the past rising up.
Fear of the present taking flight.
Fear of the telephone that rings in the dead of night.
Fear of electrical storms.
Fear of the cleaning woman who has a spot on her cheek!
Fear of dogs I've been told won't bite.
Fear of anxiety!
Fear of having to identify the body of a dead friend.
Fear of running out of money.
Fear of having too much, though people will not believe this.
Fear of psychological profiles.
Fear of being late and fear of arriving before anyone else.
Fear of my children's handwriting on envelopes.
Fear they'll die before I do, and I'll feel guilty.
Fear of having to live with my mother in her old age, and mine.
Fear of confusion.
Fear this day will end on an unhappy note.
Fear of waking up to find you gone.
Fear of not loving and fear of not loving enough.
Fear that what I love will prove lethal to those I love.
Fear of death.
Fear of living too long.
Fear of death.

I've said that.

Raymond Carver







the term is called agent provocateur
Sorry, I'm one of the few people in L.A. who doesn't have an agent.

quote of the day
posted by matteo at 6:29 PM on March 5, 2004


lets just say - you can buy me and my pretty squeeze dinner tonight and ill do whatever i please tomorrow con mi dinero extra - ¿Cachai? paypal. si. :)
posted by specialk420 at 6:34 PM on March 5, 2004


Why is everyone using so much empty blue space?
Is it national double-spacing day?
I'm going to burn out my scroll wheel just getting through some of these.

I would still like to hear someone complete this sentence,
"I'm proud to be a republican and here's why..."
posted by milovoo at 6:41 PM on March 5, 2004


personal liberties? just check out Ashcroft's Justice Dept. actions and you'll see how no self-respecting Libertarian can, in 2004, possibly vote Republican

john boy is in hospital, wanna bet, he will resign from the AG in 3 months. (let us hope)

She plowed right through that stop sign and slammed hard into the 1962 Corvair

someone call nader.

i see no drunken driving perhapsmaybehwhoknows in that linked article?

Clinton has been the most successful Republican President of the 20th Century. deal with it.

er, he was a democrat and not successful at all IMO. now FDR, thats a dem. waffling at best on terrorism, big tech transfers to china, did nothing about the wraith of KHAN. allowed big corps to continue to inflate the books, though this always happens. he was almost impeached and assassinated about 20 times.

bookishness? hmmm.
she was a librarian, far care from a bookish person in general.

"going back to cally, cally..i don't think so"
After John Heinz died in a airplane accident in 1991, the then-Teresa Heinz inherited his vast fortune.

Teresa Heinz Kerry has financed the secretive Tides Foundation to the tune of more than $4 million over the years. The Tides Foundation, a “charity” established in 1976 by antiwar leftist activist Drummond Pike, distributes millions of dollars in grants every year to political organizations advocating far-Left causes. The Tides Foundation and its closely allied Tides Center, which was spun off from the Foundation in 1996 but run by Drummond Pike, distributed nearly $66 million in grants in 2002 alone. In all, Tides has distributed more than $300 million for the Left. These funds went to rabid antiwar demonstrators, anti-trade demonstrators, domestic Islamic organizations, pro-terrorists legal groups, environmentalists, abortion partisans, extremist homosexual activists and open borders advocates.

The Tides Foundation has funded a number of the pillars of the radical legal establishment. Chief among these is the National Lawyers Guild, which began as a communist front organization and is proud of its lineage. At its recent convention last October, the concluding speaker was Lynne Stewart, an indicted terrorist NLG lawyer arrested for helping her client – convicted 1993 World Trade Center bombing mastermind Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman – communicate with his terrorist cells in Egypt. In her speech, Stewart said she and her NLG comrades were carrying on a proud tradition of their forebears, past and present:

And modern heroes, dare I mention? Ho and Mao and Lenin, Fidel and Nelson Mandela and John Brown, Che Guevara who reminds us, “At the risk of seeming ridiculous, let me say that the true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love.” Our quests like theirs are to shake the very foundations of the continents.

More recently, the NLG has endorsed the March 20 call to End Colonial Occupation from Iraq to Palestine & Everywhere” organized by International ANSWER, and has posted a petition for “Post-Conviction Relief” for convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal.


The Tides Foundation has funded the Ruckus Society, a group of anarchist Greens who rioted and looted Seattle during the 1999 World Trade Organization riots. The Tides Center of Western Pennsylvania, established in Pittsburgh with Heinz Family funds, advocates for environmentalist measures that have helped put holes in the Rust Belt’s economy.

Moreover, they will have a close ally in the East Wing of the White House, an ally more intimately tied to them than she is to her (second) husband. (She only adopted his last name and political party registration less than 18 months ago. “Politically, it's going to be Heinz Kerry,” she recently said. “But I don't give a sh-t, you know?”) Teresa Heinz Kerry will play a potent role in saving her second husband’s presidential campaign now – as Hillary Clinton did in 1992, and again during her husband’s impeachment. Like Hillary, in return for her service, Heinz may demand a place at the table for her pet causes. Caveat emptor. (from same source as above)

I am sorry to hear of your depression.
That sure sounds like the "we have always been at war with x, we will always be at war with x" approach from "1984".

and 1984 relates to this how? because we have always been at war with extremists? "My Struggle" example would offer a far better blue print on the elimination of rights in this country.

most agree the us capitol was the intended target of the highjacked plane that crashed in Pennsylvania. so....

That's why they use "terrorism"... the goal is to scare us enough to make us screw up something awful.

really, i thought they just wanted to kill us all, so this is just a political tool?

the people trying to cause civil war in IRAQ (not California) are not the same people who attacked the WTC; they are the people who used to run Iraq until we kicked them out and they became brand new terrorists

Now Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has emerged as the leading target for U.S. forces fighting the insurgency in Iraq. He is blamed for a spate of deadly bombings against Shiite Muslims aimed at fomenting civil war.

Zarqawi, who once led an al-Qaida training camp in Afghanistan, has been a convenient villain for U.S. interests for at least a year. Secretary of State Colin Powell cited his residency in Iraq as proof that President Saddam Hussein was harboring al-Qaida terrorists tied to Osama bin Laden.


the term is called agent provocateur
Sorry, I'm one of the few people in L.A. who doesn't have an agent


that is funny and sign of a healthy sense of humor.

done for now, back tomorrow?
posted by clavdivs at 6:52 PM on March 5, 2004


That's why they use "terrorism"... the goal is to scare us enough to make us screw up something awful.

really, i thought they just wanted to kill us all, so this is just a political tool?


YES! YOU GOT IT! ON THE NOSEY!
It's an stupid, irrational, often-desperate-because-everything-else-has-failed political tool, but, as much as they may really really want to, they can never kill us all, and the reason everything-else-has-failed is usually because there is no way they will ever succeed using less stupid and irrational political tools either!

Now Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has emerged as the leading target for U.S. forces fighting the insurgency in Iraq. Secretary of State Colin Powell cited his residency in Iraq as proof that President Saddam Hussein was harboring al-Qaida terrorists tied to Osama bin Laden.
Unlike most of the population here, I do occasionally admit when I'm wrong. I could be wrong. The people making these declarations have been wrong before, and too damn often, but that doesn't mean they can't be right now. Abu's role certainly isn't going to turn my opinion around 180 degrees, but it helps to remind me that the situation in Iraq is VERY complicated and VERY bad.
posted by wendell at 7:56 PM on March 5, 2004


Abu "Booga Booga" Musab al-Zarqawi seems the latest in the long line of extremely credible administration assertions ala yellow cake uranium, akuninum centrifuge tubes, mobile bio-weapons labs, chemical warfare UAVs, WMDs WMDs WMDs blah blah woof woof. Here Juan Cole quotes Bernard Haykel concerning the purported al-Zarqawi letter:

" . . . on Abu Mus`ab al-Zarqawi's alleged letter to UBL which was found in Iraq and has now been translated on the CPA's website[:] I first read it in Arabic on two Jihadi websites (Abd al-Mun`im Halima's (aka Abu Basiir) and Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi's Minbar al-Tawhid wa-l-Jihad). Both sites did not claim the letter as an authentic piece, but rather stated explicitly that the US authorities were claiming it to be Abu Mus`ab al-Zarqawi's. I will return to this last point in a moment.

I believe the letter to be either a forgery or one that was written by a radical Sunni neophyte, perhaps even a sympathizer of al-Qaeda's, but not someone associated directly with the movement. When I first read it, the
letter's language struck me as odd and not entirely in line with Jihadi Salafi rhetoric and ideology...

The relationship between the Brotherhood and al-Qaeda is complex and often very negative (al-Qaeda, for example, vilifies all Brothers who agree to participate in the political processes of states ruled by the "Hypocrites" (i.e., lapsed Muslim rulers), but in the letter we get language that is not in keeping with anything I've encountered before in Jihadi Salafi writings. Finally, the fact that the Jihadi Salafis have not claimed the letter to be written by one of their own, and the fact that today al-Qaeda has allegedly disassociated itself from the `Ashura attacks (all the while still excoriating Shii beliefs), lead me to think that someone else's hand is at work in "Zarqawi's letter". The argument that the language in this letter is too difficult to forge, is not a compelling since any well-educated graduate of any Shari`a college could have written it, and there arethousands if not tens of thousands of such people floating around these days.


And from Warren P. Strobel, Jonathan S. Landay and John Walcott at Knight comes Doubts cast on efforts to link Saddam, al-Qaida

President Bush's claim that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had ties to al-Qaida - one of his administration's central arguments for a pre-emptive war - appears to have been based on even less solid intelligence than the administration's claims that Iraq had hidden stocks of chemical and biological weapons.

Nearly a year after U.S. and British troops invaded Iraq, no evidence has turned up to verify allegations of Saddam's links with al-Qaida, and several key parts of the Bush administration's case have either proved false or seem increasingly doubtful.

Senior U.S. officials now say there never was any evidence that Saddam's secular police state and Osama bin Laden's Islamic terrorism network were in league. At most, there were occasional meetings.

Moreover, the U.S. intelligence community never concluded that those meetings produced an operational relationship, American officials said. That verdict was in a secret report by the CIA's Directorate of Intelligence that was updated in January 2003, on the eve of the war.

"We could find no provable connection between Saddam and al-Qaida," a senior U.S. official acknowledged. He and others spoke on condition of anonymity because the information involved is classified and could prove embarrassing to the White House.

The administration's allegations that Saddam still had weapons of mass destruction have been the subject of much greater public and political controversy. They were based on the Iraqi leader's long history of duplicity regarding WMD, which appeared to be confirmed by spy satellite photographs, defectors and electronic eavesdropping.

But the evidence of Iraq's ties to al-Qaida was always sketchy, based largely on testimony of Iraqi defectors and prisoners, supplemented with reports from foreign agents and eavesdropping.

Much of the evidence that's now available indicates that Iraq and al-Qaida had no close ties, despite repeated contacts between the two; that the terrorists who administration officials claimed were links between the two had no direct connection to either Saddam or bin Laden; and that a key meeting between an Iraqi intelligence officer and one of the leaders of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks probably never happened.

A Knight Ridder review of the Bush administration statements on Iraq's ties to terrorism and what's now known about the classified intelligence has found that administration advocates of a pre-emptive invasion frequently hyped sketchy and sometimes false information to help make their case. On two occasions, they neglected to report information that painted a less sinister picture.


And from Juan Cole's analysis of the above piece:

1. Although it is true that Abdul Rahman Yasin, a suspect in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, was attempting to hide out in Iraq, Saddam offered to turn him over to the FBI in 1998 in return for US acknowledgment that Iraq was not involved in that incident. The Clinton administration declined the deal. Cheney cited the continued "harboring" by Iraq of Yasin as one "proof" of an Iraq-al-Qaeda connection. Yeah, Saddam and Yasin were obviously really tight.

2. Bin Laden is said to have refused an offer in 1998 to go to Iraq, made by Iraqi intelligence officer Farouk Hijazi. A report made available to the CIA, however, said that Bin Laden declined the offer because he did not want to have Saddam's agenda dictated to him. The Knight-Ridder team does not point this out, but if you read this item in conjunction with # 1 above, it seems entirely possible that Saddam thought the US wouldn't deal for Yasin because he wasn't a big enough fish, and went looking for a more important terrorist to trade them for the US favors he wanted.


Considering that if Saddam offered us one Al Qaeda operative and was refused, the concept of Saddam wanting to bring us the head of Osama is as likely if not likelier a scenario as those debunked above.
posted by y2karl at 8:38 PM on March 5, 2004


now where did insulglass and his sidekick from west texas run off to?
posted by specialk420


It's called work, my friend. I spent a glorius ten hours of my time today (in the GASP! nuclear industry) trying to provide for my family. My pressing job duties decreed that I be temporarily unavailable to be the target of your acerbic commentary.

You ask why I would vote for Bush - very simple. I am far more aligned with the Republican Party than the Democratic party.

I'm not gay. I don't appreciate abortion. I'd like to keep more of my hard earned money in the form of less taxes. I am for giving less handouts and rather teaching people to fend for themselves. I am for votors presenting a valid ID when they vote. I think that if you are too stupid to work a simple voting machine, you shouldn't be allowed to vote. I believe that English is the primary language in this country and if you live here, you ought to be able to write, read, and speak English well. I believe that wealthy people spend and invest more, and create far more jobs than they cost our country. I believe that I'd like to be wealthy myself someday, and thus have a problem when the top 5% of taxpayers pay 50% of the taxes. For the most part, I believe that most liberals label themselves as tolerant and accepting of other viewpoints, but do not practice these philosophies in actuality. I believe that I'd like to invest my own retirement dollars for myself instead of earning a negative rate of return with Social Security.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I have issues with Bush's performance and he certainly has room to improve. But neither Kerry or Nader come remotely close to meeting a fraction of my personal political leanings as outlined above.

Any more questions - preferably ones with thought and devoid of personal attack?
posted by insulglass at 9:27 PM on March 5, 2004


But more broadly, why exactly is it that Bush is proud of his "leadership" on that day and in the time immediately thereafter? I don't necessarily think that he pooped his pants as has been suggested, but what did he do?

Apparently image manufacturing and macho posturing is everything. Or so Bush is hoping.
posted by rushmc at 9:28 PM on March 5, 2004


wow karl, ever heard of plausible deniability?

Much of the evidence that's now available indicates that Iraq and al-Qaida had no close ties, despite repeated contacts between the two; that the terrorists who administration officials claimed were links between the two had no direct connection to either Saddam or bin Laden

you mean they just talked and exchanged pita bread recipes?

Saddam offered to turn him over to the FBI in 1998 in return for US acknowledgment that Iraq was not involved in that incident. The Clinton administration declined the deal.
"Booga Booga" is that some sort of A.K.A. like "Hubba-Bubba"

saddam would sell out momma to save his skin. Even his buddy Nidal.

oh, you forgot that Sudan offered OBL to Clinton.

so, would you want to have connections to al-qada if you where saddam? no, you would not and one would do their best to hide this fact.

We could find no provable connection between Saddam and al-Qaida," a senior U.S. official acknowledged. He and others spoke on condition of anonymity because the information involved is classified and could prove embarrassing to the White House.

ah the source game. The same material that purports the link between iraq and OBL are described in the citations as 'an interview with an intelligence source'

hmmm
posted by clavdivs at 10:44 PM on March 5, 2004


clavdivs--you and Agent Mulder have the same poster: I Want To Believe.
posted by y2karl at 12:04 AM on March 6, 2004


saddam would sell out momma to save his skin. Even his buddy Nidal.

OK, but we all know Saddam's been a very useful (and faithful) CIA asset for most of his life.
was he still one after the summer of 1990? all bets are off. neither karl and I nor you know that for sure (unless you can call Tenet -- or better yet Poppy Bush -- on a secure line and ask him -- if you can do that, by all means report to us)
but what we know for a fact is that Saddam never really hurt Israel or US troops when he was cornered, in 1991 and 2003. no "Let me die with the Philistines" scenario, so to speak. that makes you think -- a faithful employee to the bitter end? bah.
oh, and funnily enough, the Philistines were the ancient inhabitants of Gaza, weren't they?

posted by matteo at 1:59 AM on March 6, 2004


but what we know for a fact is that Saddam never really hurt Israel or US troops when he was cornered, in 1991 and 2003. posted by matteo

May I give another "Are ye daft, Man?" ?

Maybe your history book is different than mine, but I seem to recall a few Scud missiles lobbed at Tel Aviv and US bases in Saudi Arabia. Saddam sure tried to hurt Israel and draw them into the first Gulf War. Maybe his budding missile program can be labeled as ineffective at best, but that didn't stop him from trying.
posted by insulglass at 3:08 AM on March 6, 2004


This is yet more manufactured outrage that outlets like CNN & Co. are more than happy to run with over and over again, conveniently leaving out that the firefighters who are outraged are partisan Kerry supporters. Over all a lame attempt by Dems to take this issue off the table, because they know that they are incredibly weak on it.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 9:40 AM CST on March 5


So opinions of people you disagree with do not matter?
posted by the fire you left me at 6:57 AM on March 6, 2004


I am for giving less handouts and rather teaching people to fend for themselves.

does this include ahmed chalabi? and bush's cronies in the enegry, and military industries? (dont make me make a list)


trying to provide for my family.

does this family include children that are going to have to grow up with the legacy of this administration?

one which includes or may include:

denuded forests in this and other countries

massive budget deficits, with a myriad of consequences for the next generation

more lead, methyl bromide, and mercury in their environment

more asthma and respiratory illness

should one of them be gay - they won't have the same rights as straight folks

should they ever want to visit yellowstone national park, it will be one polluted with the noise and fumes of snowmobiles

one where you your daughter won't have the choice to make decisions about whether to keep a pregnancy (unintended, forced etc.)

one where they are forced to support your old ass because social security is bankrupt

a world where the US citizens are generally hated by all other countries - making them explain that they don't really support the countries pasti mistakes or leadership when the travel

a country that teach pseudo-science based on religion in their schools

a county that lags behind in science and healthcare because religious zealots politicized the use of stem cell research

a radically altered climate, again with untold consequences


decreased funding for schools universities and colleges

... just for starters.

feel free to think whatever you want - if you honestly think george bush is making a cleaner, safer, more friendly world for your kids to grow up in - i guess there's not much i can say to change your mind. you didn't do anything to change mine whatsoever.
posted by specialk420 at 9:08 AM on March 6, 2004


Maybe your history book is different than mine, but I seem to recall a few Scud missiles lobbed at Tel Aviv and US bases in Saudi Arabia. Saddam sure tried to hurt Israel and draw them into the first Gulf War.

check out again the (American) body count of Gulf War I, please. Saddam's reaction wasn't the most aggressive possible, not in the least, given the (American) weapons he had then (pre-UNSCOM, of course). not to mention the still-open question of the content of Saddam's conversation with the US ambassador right before the Kuwait invasion.

and if you want to question Saddam's extensive CIA ties, please don't -- you'd get hurt
(free copies of NYTimes in-depth stories here and here
etc. there's stuff all over the Internet, actually
Remember, he was the secular, Soviet-wary shield against every kind of enemy in the region: first the commies, then the ayatollahs
posted by matteo at 10:03 AM on March 6, 2004


thanks for the input karl, no doubt your comment has me reeling. (love ya karl) though i will soon announce a new clav policy shift about bush and co. like in shifting away. Ya, ive had it. Teddy Roosevelt would bitch slap bush at this point, then the guard who would protect him. I'm tired of this shit, I'm tired of his father-like waffling about the economy. He has done fair considering the economic damage done by terrorism.
but not Kerry, edwards, i would go for. look, bush gets re-elected and he don't help this economy and put away his diplomatic saddlebags and buckskin trousers, he will be impeached. popular dissent shows me that.
matteo please, don't play body count. i do not wish to insult you nor the brave italian solders. The reason saddam did not go full tilt in thr 90's is that Bushy made it be known, you play with nasty shit, your country is a parking lot.

and if you want to question Saddam's extensive CIA ties, please don't -- you'd get hurt
is that a warning or a threat. sure he was out joe, then not, then so, then not. then, well he is our joe again

"hey joe want a smoke before the iraqi people lop off our head"
not to mention the still-open question of the content of Saddam's conversation with the US ambassador right before the Kuwait invasion.

If this was the case, IF...
matteo, a billion $ is at the bottom of that bridge, now if you jump, perhaps no one may see....
posted by clavdivs at 10:38 AM on March 6, 2004


He molests the dead
posted by homunculus at 12:54 PM on March 6, 2004


I say,
homounculus for tag line link overlord.

but that is plain inflammatory man.

put up the styrofoam barricades Major laughtrack

I envision a world with only paper-mache barricades.


ps. wendell, the sick part...i just cannot see the overall context, the pulp so to say of your arguments if this is what it was. Admitting wrong is the correct direction.

confession though I find a fascinating subject, though this usually does not take place in this forumn.

Clav blessings for your library hammering. and Matteo again is dead on about carver and the poeple who had the courage to sweat the work and the passion. (writing) This i too have no courage in and what asounds me as that music seems either banal to me or i weep (maybe on the inside)

and poetry does not help.


posted by clavdivs at 2:01 PM on March 6, 2004


Teddy Roosevelt would bitch slap bush at this point, the

I was actually discussing this with a friend the other day -- warrior presidents, ie TR vs GWB.
now I'm not very starry-eyed -- TR was prone to macho bullshit as well, going swimming among the sharks in Cuba, the hunting stuff. but still, one cennot avoid to imagine a conversation between those two patrician northeastern Republicans divided by 100 years of bad policy.
interesting stuff.

i do not wish to insult you nor the brave italian solders.

I won't care, and you know it (you also know I don't hold grudges). nor will the dead care (who, being dead, are above suffering for your insults). so please, make your point. go ahead.
the "parking lot" thing is macho swagger and you know it. as much as the idea of nuking other people may trigger your patriotic libido, you know America cannot use nukes in the Middle East now, and She couldn't then. Armageddon is supposed to take place there, isn't it? also, after Poppy nuqes Iraq, you know what's going to blow up in Manhattan a coupla years? or three or four? Middle Easterns can hold grudges very well and for a long time, unlike the japanese.

and Poppy certainly wasn't dumb.
so, it was an empty threat. Saddam's army was the 4th in the world in 1991, and Russia was with him. he was untouchable, as Poppy demonstrated. but he decided to leave Kuwait not with a bang but with a whimper. and he was a CIA asset since the Fifties. semel abbas semper abbas, you know that better than anyone here. and there's no such thing as an ex-CIA agent, too

before the iraqi people lop off our head"

the "Iraqi people" as in "Ahmed Chalabi"?
;)

and clav, re jumping off a bridge:
Ambassador Glaspie was still alive and healthy last time I checked. this is not ancient history, it's 1990. documents should be still around. witnesses certainly are.
too bad she ain't talking, huh? but suppose you're Director of Central Intelligence, circa spring 1990. what are you going to do about that "Iraq-Kuwaiti dispute" that hangs heavily in the air? it's not a rhetorical question, I'm interested
posted by matteo at 2:53 PM on March 6, 2004


nice catch homunculus. that bush he's a real card.
posted by specialk420 at 3:22 PM on March 6, 2004


if you do not care that is fine, though i do.
umm, matteo you do not live in America, at least as far as i know (you could be y2karl for all i know) noone drops nasty shit on us and lives. if you need a definition of this then you are really dense and conversation with you is pointless and a waste of time. you are a waste of time.

America cannot use nukes in the Middle East

we can nuke whom ever the fuck we need too.

in the fifties huh, but you do not trust Coughlin matteo, he's a Perlite remember.

right, talk to agee and Baer about being ex-cia, if you could, which you couldn't so what is your point, you really have none.
I don't recall saddam going to camp perry, or perhaps you have his old office number in Langley as evidence.
an asset is not a agent in company terms
he was a joe
can. you. understand. that.

and do not get cute about the japanese bombing, we all know the military prowness of Italy in WW I.I.
Italy: hey, we didn't turn over our jews.
shit matteo, the mob ran your country after the war, maybe they still do.

shit. back then you guys couldn't even ferry gas the germans.

everyone can hold a grudge matteo, are you implying japanese and Arabic people hold grudges longer say then your average Italian?

see how racist you are
RACIST!

I doubt you know the first thing about TR. I doubt you really could sustain a debate without insulting someone, or some country.
posted by clavdivs at 9:37 AM on March 7, 2004


;)
posted by clavdivs at 9:52 AM on March 7, 2004


« Older Survey of design salaries 2003 - how do you compar...  |  Goodbye Gojira... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments