A surprise from Al Gore: I came here today because I believe that American democracy is in grave danger. It is no longer possible to ignore the strangeness of our public discourse . I know that I am not the only one who feels that something has gone basically and badly wrong in the way America's fabled "marketplace of ideas" now functions.
How many of you, I wonder, have heard a friend or a family member in the last few years remark that it's almost as if America has entered "an alternate universe"?
I thought maybe it was an aberration when three-quarters of Americans said they believed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for attacking us on September 11, 2001. But more than four years later, between a third and a half still believe Saddam was personally responsible for planning and supporting the attack.
posted by Shanachie
on Oct 6, 2005 -
80 comments
Terror warnings boost Bush's approval ratings. Cornell sociologist Robb Willard has used a time-series regression analysis to show that a terror alert by the US government predicts an increase in Bush's approval ratings, even on topics unrelated to security.
It's often been
claimed that the Bush administration manipulates terror alerts for political gain — does this finding make those claims more plausible?
posted by myeviltwin
on Oct 7, 2004 -
9 comments
Factfilter: Sen. Bob Graham's new book shows coverup.on Saudi's behalf Bush had concluded that ''a nation-state that had aided the terrorists should not be held publicly to account,'' Graham wrote. "It was as if the president's loyalty lay more with Saudi Arabia than with America's safety.'' And there's stuff about Iraq, too. After wearing 9/11 like a tiara during the convention, will the facts finally be aired?
posted by amberglow
on Sep 6, 2004 -
29 comments
Bush Was Warned of Possible Attack in U.S., Official Says "President Bush was told more than a month before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, that supporters of Osama bin Laden planned an attack within the United States with explosives and wanted to hijack airplanes, a government official said Friday.
The warning came in a secret briefing that Mr. Bush received at his ranch in Crawford, Tex., on Aug. 6, 2001. A report by a joint Congressional committee last year alluded to a "closely held intelligence report" that month about the threat of an attack by Al Qaeda, and the official confirmed an account by The Associated Press on Friday saying that the report was in fact part of the president's briefing in Crawford." Then again, he had
more important things to deal with that Summer.
posted by owillis
on Apr 10, 2004 -
62 comments
Michael Moore is making a deal with Mel Gibson's Icon Prods. to finance
"Fahrenheit 911," a documentary that will trace why the U.S. has become a target for hatred and terrorism. It will also depict alleged dealings between two generations of the Bush and bin Laden clans that led to George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden becoming mortal enemies.
posted by archimago
on Mar 31, 2003 -
37 comments
“President Bush’s case against Saddam Hussein ... relied on a
slanted and sometimes entirely false reading of the available US intelligence, government officials and analysts claimed yesterday.” Another article on the same subject says, “Rumsfeld’s recent remark that the United States has ‘bulletproof’ evidence of links between Al Qaeda and Hussein struck many in the intelligence community as an
exaggerated assessment of the available evidence.” One paper explains the differences this way, “The C.I.A. has to maintain its
credibility for objective estimates. The White House is mobilizing the public and preparing foreign nations for a potential American invasion of Iraq.”
posted by raaka
on Oct 12, 2002 -
44 comments
Does invading Iraq require more than declaring Saddam Hussein "evil"? The New York Times reports public opposition from people not easily labeled Brie-sucking scared-of-war libyerals -- people like Henry "Bombs Away" Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft. Meanwhile, hawks argue that
not attacking after all Bush's rhetoric would "produce such a collapse of confidence in the president that it would set back the war on terrorism."
[registration required]
posted by sacre_bleu
on Aug 15, 2002 -
62 comments
We can all breathe a little easier now, but it comes at a hefty price - $428 million. That's a boatload of money for a security blanket we may not even need. It's times like this, though, that make me happy (not necessarily proud) to be an American. What do you think?
posted by catatonic
on Nov 28, 2001 -
11 comments
Blacklist! Bush is expected to issue an executive order labeling certain people as "terrorists", which will lock up their assets and generally make life miserable. Who needs checks and balances or due process?
posted by jgilliam
on Sep 23, 2001 -
21 comments
From many voices, onevapproach via NY Times (reg req'd). Facts now coming out indcate that there are many cells, worldwide, that have been set in place over the years and are (or were) to be activated in a continupous terror assault. What our leaders are saying, then, about the length of time requried may in fact be in recognition of the huge job ahead in rooting these cells out.
posted by Postroad
on Sep 23, 2001 -
5 comments
Okay, so I am a little biased against the Democratic Underground. Occasionally I may even laugh at some of their insults of dubya. I am sure this page was placed on their website early in the day of the attack without thinking. Maybe I am being just a little too sensitive about the tragedy, but I really think they should at LEAST change the date of this letter to santa.
posted by Oxydude
on Sep 17, 2001 -
5 comments
