Personally, I consider this not just despicable but un-American as well.

If Bush gets votes because of this, it sends a clear message to future politicians: terrorism pays in the end.

Posted by: Lonewacko at October 29, 2004 08:02 PM

Yes, and no one mentioned Pearl Harbor afterwards, either.

I think we’ve all lost a little bit of our focus as a country. If it were up to me, I’d show the damn tapes every day. It’s real, it’s out there and it’s coming for us. I don’t think a lot of us believe that anymore.

Well, too bad, because we’re up against an enemy that doesn’t rest on its laurels. You’re either in their face every day, making their life miserable, or they’re working to dismantle a US city. We can’t afford a reactive Presidency that treats every attack like an act of vandalism. We’re in a war, a war much different than the last 6 we’ve fought. There is no ‘country’ we’re up against, there are no ‘conditions for surrender’, no front lines and no rear echelon. Sorry this doesn’t fit your preconceived notions of what qualifies as a concern - because if you wait for it to come to you - it’s too late.

Terrorism pays if you can get the victim to crawl under the bed and shiver and quake. Then it pays. Talking about something that happened in this country 3 years ago is not some sacriledge. No one owns the memory of that day. It’s not someone’s personal property. It’s belongs to all of us - all Americans - because when they hit NYC and the Pentagon, when that plane augered into a field in Pennsylvania, they hit ALL OF US.

Never forget - Never again.

Posted by: torpedo_eight at October 29, 2004 09:28 PM

..my only hope this gets played by all the networks from now till Tuesday..
http://members.cox.net/classicweb/Heroes/heroes.htm
..and after obl`s little stunt today..all bets are off..might want to go hide this ride is going to get intense..!!

Posted by: Rob_NC at October 29, 2004 09:33 PM

Rob, that was was painful and moving to watch…those families, that day…I will never forget, certainly. There’s no doubt that was a callous act of war against this country and our people. I will be very proud when Kerry is elected and the brunt of our force is directed righteously against Bin Laden and his ilk, the bastards that attacked us that day. Very proud and very hungry for his head.

Posted by: Jatsby at October 29, 2004 10:40 PM

Lonewacko,

I’m confused. How is it that you continue to slam Bush for Southern Border Immigration policy wrapped in the fear that terrorists will infiltrate the US through Mexico, but you then turn to slam Bush for reminding Americans of the lax student visa ala immigration policy that allowed the terrorists into our country in the first place. It seems to me that you are a partisan opportunist for the Democratic Party candidate.

Posted by: RL at October 29, 2004 10:59 PM

Bush said it all when he said”YOU CAN RUN BUT YOU CANT HIDE”..wish we had more like him..it`s his leadership and commitment this nation truly needs..Just hope Jeb runs in 08..Prescot..?

Posted by: Rob_NC at October 29, 2004 11:04 PM

Torpedo’s comment doesn’t address the propriety of a politician seeking to profit off of terrorism.

Talking about 9/11 and seeking to profit off 9/11 are two quite different issues.

Posted by: Lonewacko at October 29, 2004 11:05 PM

As you see in Internal DHS/LA County memos on gangs and terror revealed I’m not the only one concerned.

As for the rest, see [Rep. Tom] Tancredo [R-CO] Stunned by White House Maneuver to Exclude Key Immigration Component of Intelligence Bill

Posted by: Lonewacko at October 29, 2004 11:09 PM

Lonewacko - So what’s Bush supposed to do? Pretend it didn’t happen? Then the same group can hammer him for being out-of-the-loop. No, my guess is FDR might have reminded a couple of people about Pearl Harbor (he ‘profitted’ from it, as you would say), the way that JFK profitted from running his PT boat in front of a Japanese destroyer, the way Kerry profitted from gunning down some guy from behind 35 years ago (aka - the Silver Star).

The attack that took place in 2001 is a legitimate issue and to pretend it’s some sacrosant moment in time that dare not speak its name is utterly ridiculous. The issue is security, the issue is - are you safer with Kerry or Bush?

In that sense, Kerry seeks to ‘profit’ as well, but I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for you to acknowledge the fact. Obviously, only Bush can do wrong, what was I thinking?

Posted by: torpedo_eight at October 30, 2004 01:41 AM

Seems that this is a major part of this election. For many, it is a referendum on whether the administration is taking the right approach in it’s response to 9/11. Wacked obviously thinks not, and sputters about being UnAmerican. Amazing how some individuals talk about liberty, until something shows up they don’t like, then its namecalling, and incoherent calls for censorship. Pitiful.

Posted by: mlbspike at October 30, 2004 01:50 AM

..anybody catching the info-mercial for Kerry this morning on msnbc ‘Headliners and Ledgends”;its running 7-8 on the east right now..call the FCC,get a petition..right..remember Sinclair..yeh right thats cable vs public airways..McCAIN-Fingold..what a crock..

Posted by: Rob_NC at October 30, 2004 07:34 AM

Lonewacko Are you a Barrio Warrior?

Having spent a good deal of my youth walking back and forth across our Northern border, I ain’t as concerned about ‘illegals’ as you appear to be. HOWEVER, giving four states back to Mexico doesn’t appear to be much of an alternative that makes a fat lot of sense, and UBL would just love to hook up with some of these Socialist movements.

Hey, Jatsby! Refute any of those SwiftVet FACTS yet? Just curious. You seem to have run kinda dry in the ‘Liars’ comments…

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at October 30, 2004 07:56 AM

Nobody expects Bush not to talk about 9/11, but using images of the burning towers in campaign literature is a little over the top, if you ask me.

Posted by: rdelephant at October 30, 2004 09:07 AM

Never forget.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at October 30, 2004 09:12 AM

Or was that too ‘over the top’?

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at October 30, 2004 09:12 AM

DOC, They hate what they can’t refute. If Bush has an advantage here, they want it off the table. Obviously 9/11 didn’t happen, and it if it did, it’s immaterial to this election. Pay no attention to that terrorist on the TV screen, I the great and powerful Kerry have spoken!!

WHO ARE YOU!! WHO ARE YOU!!

DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM??? (Kerry’s favorite remark when he’d cut in front of somebody in line)

Posted by: torpedo_eight at October 30, 2004 10:39 AM

This situation seems well intended, but poorly executed. We The People always carry on, fight, build, live. That very strength sometimes works against us. Our strive to hope leaves us with a short memory if not brutally reminded. Hope is wonderful, apathy is dangerous. A better way to communicate the same thing are the reminders like Ashley’s Story http://www.ashleysstory.com/. We can still remember the destruction through the efforts we all make to overcome it.

Posted by: snappy at October 30, 2004 07:25 PM

GEORGE BUSH’S WAR IS NOT BASED ON PRINCIPLES

Mr. Bush made his war in Iraq a centerpiece of his bid for re-election. He boasted how strong and steadfast he was in the war against terror, and how the war in Iraq made America and the world safer. But nothing is further from the truth. Let’s analyze his erroneous arguments.

Saddam Hussein’s “weapons of mass destruction” (WMD) was an immediate threat to the US and the world. —- In 2003, Mr. Bush got the backing of the Congress and a portion of American people primarily on the perceived immediate threat of WMD. Though this turned out to be completely untrue, he still insists that he would do exactly the same thing, knowing what is known today”. But without this pretax of WMD, he would not have gotten any support to start with.

United Nations need to back up it words by actions. —- When he went against the United Nations to go alone (Anyone can tell the difference between his “coalition of the willing” and the true coalition the United States enjoyed in the first Gulf War), his pretax was that the UN had to “mean what it says”. Does that mean he is going to enforce every UN resolution that US has ever voted for (including those against Israel) with a war? How could Iraq prove a negative (although by now it is widely accepted that there was no WMD)? On one hand, Iraq was attacked with overwhelming military force, regardless its accommodation of many of UN’s demands. On the other, North Korea flagrantly boasted its acquisition of nuclear weapons (probably the most dangerous WMD), yet Mr. Bush insisted on “diplomatic solutions”. What kind of logic is that?

The Iraqis are better off without Saddam. —- While everyone agrees that Saddam was a ruthless dictator and a bad guy, does that mean the US is going to be the police of the world and wage a war to take out every dictator (that would include some of US’s closest allies)? For ordinary Iraqis, is life necessarily better now, after thousands of civilian deaths, and a total breakdown of order and security?

The world is safer without Saddam. —- Not necessarily so. While Saddam was no friend of the US or the world, he had no material link to al-Queda and posed no immediate threat. Today Iraq is quickly becoming a hotbed for terrorists, with daily attacks on US troops, as well as innocent Iraqi and foreign citizens. The war against terror is NOT going to be won just by capturing or killing or current al-Queda members (although it is of course an essential part of the war against terror). The ultimate victory in the war against terror will be attained when there is no more breeding ground for new terrorists. Unfortunately today, the anti-American sentiment in Middle East (and the rest of the world), fueled by Bush ministration’s arrogant unilateralism and mismanagement of the war, is on the rise. Stupid actions such as the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal became one of the worst al-Queda’s “recruiting posters”. Bush’s war on Iraq not only has not made us any safer, it actually has made Americans and all peace-loving people around the world much more vulnerable to new terrorist attacks for generations to come.

Based on these, it is one of the reasons (probably the most important one) we Americans should vote Mr. Bush out of the White House on November 2 to stop his reckless foreign policies and keep America safe in the long run.

Posted by: ConcernedAboutFuture at October 31, 2004 01:57 AM