| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/15/2004 07:46:43 AM · #1 |
|
|
|
09/15/2004 08:48:27 AM · #2 |
If anything, the Bush administration has created more terrorists by diverting attention and resources to the war in Iraq and letting the Bin Laden supported al Qaeda cells get stronger after they had them on the run in Afghanistan. I wonder why, when Bin Laden is the figurehead, and one of the leading funders of terrorism thoughout the world, he is off the radar screen of the Bush (so called) war on terrorism. Could it be that the Bush family ties and friendships with the Bin Laden and Saudi Royal family have something to do with that? I would bet that's part of the story.
Amazing to me that there is not more of an investigation of who was financially behind 9/11. Families of victims of the 9/11 attacks are suing the Saudi Royal family for trillions! of dollars because they say the Saudis gave 300 million of dollars to Bin Laden in protection money.
(See article here)
What's even more curious is that James Baker and his law firm, Baker Botts is defending the Saudi Royal family against the 9/11 families. This is the former secretary of state and Bush family friend. Either the Bush administration cares more for the Saudi Royal family or they fear what may come out in this case and want to help spin it legally.
Imo, what could come out that would be so damaging to the Bush administration is that they had foreknowledge of the attacks and also how they were being financed, yet continued business as usualwith the Saudis.
Imo, we are at greater risk of another terrorist attack within the US than before 9/11.
Message edited by author 2004-09-15 08:50:59. |
|
|
|
09/15/2004 08:51:19 AM · #3 |
Just as a bit of background, I believe The Guardian has a slightly left-wing slant.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2004 08:58:56 AM · #4 |
| Also, why did the Bush administration allow the ban on assault rifles in the US to expire? Doesn't this make it easier of terrorists of all sorts to get their hands on dangerous weaponry, as well as, make it more difficult for law enforcement officials to fight terrorism and crime? |
|
|
|
09/15/2004 09:09:09 AM · #5 |
I agree with you - they do have a left-wing slant.
I think that is why the Guardian is such a valuable resource. They can speak truth to power because they are not part of the huge corporate-aligned media which has a right-wing bias and protects the Bush administration from much-needed criticism.
The Bush record on terrorism is appalling - yet that is not an issue, nor the way Bush is presented in the U.S. press.
However, EVERYWHERE else in the world, a very different vision is presented. If one reads international media, it does not take long to realize that the U.S. media is a wasteland, a vast propaganda machine.
And most Americans are completely blind to this sad fact. Thank god for the internet! |
|
|
|
09/15/2004 09:33:46 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Also, why did the Bush administration allow the ban on assault rifles in the US to expire? Doesn't this make it easier of terrorists of all sorts to get their hands on dangerous weaponry, as well as, make it more difficult for law enforcement officials to fight terrorism and crime? |
No.... Not even a little bit... Thats media fed bull shit. I heard that same line from CNN, MSNBC & CBS all day. It's nothing but fear mongering and lies.
Edit:
An "Assult Weapons" is no more dangerous than any other gun, some guns were made illegal, simply because they LOOKED like military style weapons. The laws were brought about by the same kind of ignorance pushing by the media (actualy much worse) than what you saw the other day.
Message edited by author 2004-09-15 09:36:41. |
|
|
|
09/15/2004 09:38:03 AM · #7 |
| gingerbaker, I honestly can't tell if your being serious or extremly sarcastic... I hope for the later... |
|
|
|
09/15/2004 09:59:57 AM · #8 |
Quite serious, Russell.
I take it that you believe America has an uncensored press?
If your answer is "yes", then I urge you to spend some time investigating this subject, because of the extreme importance of the Freedom of the Press, which we all hold dear.
I did not come to the above stated conclusion blithely. But this is not the sort of situation that you will EVER see or believe, until you spend the time to watch what gets written ( and what has already been written) in countries outside the U.S. and compare it to what gets reported IN the U.S.
There are MAJOR news events which do not see the light of day at all here. It is mind boggling. Other items, which are significant, and are front page scandals in other countries, get one paragraph on page twenty, or even get factually distorted beyond recognition.
If you believe in Liberty, as I do, this is the scariest thing one can imagine. But I assure you, it is true. But, as I say, something as hairy as this, is something you will never believe unless you see it for yourself.
Message edited by author 2004-09-15 10:00:45. |
|
|
|
09/15/2004 10:28:17 AM · #9 |
I disagree with you above statements, but aggree with your last one in response to mine much more.
However I don't believe that the news media is used anywhere in the world to actualy tell us the news.
EVERY SINGLE news group has and end goal. What that end goal is changes between organizations. But I think it's foolish to think that one group is more trust worthy than another, They are all scum in my mind, I just find it easier to watch or read some over others because they aggree more with me. Which is why I tend to watch news I disagree with more, instead of say, fox news.
I do have a small inside to the paper based media as I've been writing software geared twords making them more money for about 3 years...
Message edited by author 2004-09-15 10:30:09. |
|
|
|
09/15/2004 10:30:17 AM · #10 |
| Yet another example of how the Bush administration has weakened the security of the US has been to make our borders more porous by fulfilling its NAFTA obligations and permitting Mexican truckers into the US and access to ALL it's roads. This not only hurts US truckers economically and puts many out of work, as well as pollutes our air, but can't these trucks also be used to smuggle in terrorists, WMDs, drugs and illegal aliens? Why is their greater commitment to NAFTA than to US security by the Bush administration? |
|
|
|
09/15/2004 10:52:23 AM · #11 |
I'm with you Gingerbaker. I also agree with the fact that every news source has an aim. I read a lot of Reuters news which i find to be pretty un bias with "mostly" pure facts.
I have access to a Reuters program that scours news sources from around the world (note: these are not written or edited by reuters) and i think most people would be astounded by how much the same story can vary around the world. I find myself reading 5 or 6 versions of top news in order to try to form an opinion which in my mind is the only way you can have a "relatively" fair understanding of what is actually happening. Generally western countries do not obviously lie about solid facts (but you would be surprised) but certain other news sources may completely reverse facts to suit their cause.
A good example of some amazingly different storie regarding the same issue is Israeli\Palestinian news.
Once you see things like this it really makes you question what your country is telling you.... and rightly so. |
|
|
|
09/16/2004 11:15:38 AM · #12 |
Let's just see how well our self-described war president keeps his post:
[ Bush by numbers: Four years of double standards ]
|
|
|
|
09/16/2004 11:23:17 AM · #13 |
By your reckoning, a traveling salesman is almost NEVER "doing his job". The way I, and the way most intelligent people would look at it, the President of the U.S. is on-the-job 24 hours a day / 7 days a week. It doesn't matter WHERE he is.
Message edited by author 2004-09-24 11:49:24. |
|
|
|
09/16/2004 11:41:46 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by RonB:
...the President of the U.S. is on-the-job 24 hours a day / 7 days a week. It doesn't matter WHERE he is. |
Yes, one expects the president of the U.S. to be at the ready 24/7. And that's why this president, Mr. Bush, is such a disappointment and unlike any president we've had before. At the precise time when Mr. Bush was supposed to have been "strong," "resolute," and a man of "action," he sat in a kid's chair and read "My Pet Goat":
Note that as he sat there, in the kid's chair reading "My Pet Goat," Mr. Bush was told that a SECOND plane had hit the World Trade Center Towers. So, Mr. Bush knew that America was under attack when he went into the classroom, and yet our self-described war president chose to keep a photo-op, in stead of doing his job.
You can watch the all too painful video clip of Mr. Bush reading "My Pet Goat" here, courtesy of the MemoryHole.org.
|
|
|
|
09/16/2004 11:49:06 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
Originally posted by RonB:
...the President of the U.S. is on-the-job 24 hours a day / 7 days a week. It doesn't matter WHERE he is. |
Yes, one expects the president of the U.S. to be at the ready 24/7. And that's why this president, Mr. Bush, is such a disappointment and unlike any president we've had before. At the precise time when Mr. Bush was supposed to have been "strong," "resolute," and a man of "action," he sat in a kid's chair and read "My Pet Goat":
Note that as he sat there, in the kid's chair reading "My Pet Goat," Mr. Bush was told that a SECOND plane had hit the World Trade Center Towers. So, Mr. Bush knew that America was under attack when he went into the classroom, and yet our self-described war president chose to keep a photo-op, in stead of doing his job. |
"John Kerry is not the type of leader who will sit and read 'My Pet Goat' to a group of second-graders while America is under attack," said Kerry campaign spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter, a reference to the book Mr. Bush continued reading with children for several minutes after his chief of staff informed him of the second World Trade Center plane attack.
But. . .
The line of attack about the children's book could prove risky for the Kerry campaign. . .
In a July interview on "Larry King Live," Mr. Kerry recalled walking into the office of Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, South Dakota Democrat, and watching the second plane hit the South Tower of the World Trade Center.
"And we shortly thereafter sat down at the table, and then we just realized nobody could think," Mr. Kerry recalled, "And then 'Boom!' Right behind us, we saw the cloud of explosion at the Pentagon."
That was a span of roughly 35 minutes, according to precise timelines of the day.
By that time, Mr. Bush already had addressed the nation, vowed to capture those responsible and begun discussions with Vice President Dick Cheney and other top aides about whether to shoot down any civilian aircraft violating the administration's order that all planes be grounded.
Now, really, which type of person would most Americans rather have for President? One that doesn't jump out of their skin when someone says "BOO!", or one who can't even THINK for 30 minutes?
I know MY preference.
Message edited by author 2004-09-16 11:51:23. |
|
|
|
09/16/2004 12:09:30 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by RonB:
By your reckoning, a traveling salesman is almost NEVER "doing his job". The way I, and the way most intelligent people would look at it, the President of the U.S. is on-the-job 24 hours a day / 7 days a week. It doesn't matter WHERE he is. |
***Ron, I like your analogy very much. Comparing George W. Bush to a traveling salesman is very appropo, and he's certainly sold us a bill of goods! |
|
|
|
09/16/2004 12:46:37 PM · #17 |
| Are there any investigations by the government into the funding and financing networks of al Qaeda, or is this yet another example of where George W. Bush is soft on terror? So far, I haven't heard much on this crucial aspect of terrorism. |
|
|
|
09/16/2004 01:01:56 PM · #18 |
How does this compare to Kerry doing his job the last 2 years?
|
|
|
|
09/16/2004 01:36:25 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Now, really, which type of person would most Americans rather have for President? One that doesn't jump out of their skin when someone says "BOO!", or one who can't even THINK for 30 minutes?
I know MY preference. |
People can watch Mr. Bush's "My Pet Goat" video, where he read a children's book as the SECOND plane flew into the towers; people -- I'm sure -- will also take into consideration Mr. Bush's admitted "miscalculations" in Iraq and the "catastrophic success" it represents; and people, in good conscious, will decide, on their own, whom to vote for come November 2nd.
As you concluded, your preference is clear.
|
|
|
|
09/16/2004 02:42:07 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
Originally posted by RonB:
Now, really, which type of person would most Americans rather have for President? One that doesn't jump out of their skin when someone says "BOO!", or one who can't even THINK for 30 minutes?
I know MY preference. |
People can watch Mr. Bush's "My Pet Goat" video, where he read a children's book as the SECOND plane flew into the towers; people -- I'm sure -- will also take into consideration Mr. Bush's admitted "miscalculations" in Iraq and the "catastrophic success" it represents; and people, in good conscious, will decide, on their own, whom to vote for come November 2nd.
As you concluded, your preference is clear. |
People can read Kerry's admission that he and top Democrats couldn't even THINK for over 30 minutes after the second plane hit, while the President, not only finished reading a book to the children, but also undertook action to discuss the situation with his advisors; and people, in good conscious, will decide, on their own, whom to vote for come November 2nd. |
|
|
|
09/16/2004 03:07:03 PM · #21 |
Drip, drip, drip. The Liberal Drivel Machine just keeps up its annoying drone. |
|
|
|
09/16/2004 03:15:13 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
So, Mr. Bush knew that America was under attack when he went into the classroom, and yet our self-described war president chose to keep a photo-op, in stead of doing his job.
|
Our president decided to remain calm, not frighten anyone or spread panic to a room full of children, and excercised a controlled response to a confused and fluid situation.
A proven leader, is our president. |
|
|
|
09/16/2004 03:27:43 PM · #23 |
Do I hear the distant sound of cognitive dissonance?
|
|
|
|
09/16/2004 03:40:53 PM · #24 |
And, btw, thanks for the link to the video. It actually revealed a falacy (incredibly minor though it may be) in the liberal noise machine's incesant droning on this issue: The president was not reading this book to the children (as I've always understooding from the repeated Bush-bashing), they were reading to him. You might argue, then, well he was reading along with them (after all, its such an entralling story). While I didn't "study" the footage, I did let it play through. It seemed to me that during most of the reading (at least that which shows the president, which isn't a lot), he's not reading at all. He seemed to hardly be looking at the book. He, in fact, looks like a man with something serious on his mind, waiting for the appropriate point at which to graciously break away.
You may argue it should have been sooner than later, but its such a mind-boglingly trivial point. Move on. |
|
|
|
09/16/2004 04:01:52 PM · #25 |
A note to the reader, please be advised of the following.
In his reply Ron cited the Washington Times as his source; however, the reader should know the following about the Washington Times and its owner:
1. The Washington Times is owned by Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church.
Picture of Sun Myung Moon:
(For more on Sun Myung Moon please see here and here.)
2. The ties between Sun Myung Moon and the conservative right are well documented (here's just one article), as are the ties between Sun Myung Moon and the Bush Family:
3. Of course, our friends on the true "traditional/conservative" right don't even know how thoroughly the Republican party, their party, has been hijacked.
.......................................
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by bdobe:
Originally posted by RonB:
Now, really, which type of person would most Americans rather have for President? One that doesn't jump out of their skin when someone says "BOO!", or one who can't even THINK for 30 minutes?
I know MY preference. |
People can watch Mr. Bush's "My Pet Goat" video, where he read a children's book as the SECOND plane flew into the towers; people -- I'm sure -- will also take into consideration Mr. Bush's admitted "miscalculations" in Iraq and the "catastrophic success" it represents; and people, in good conscious, will decide, on their own, whom to vote for come November 2nd.
As you concluded, your preference is clear. |
People can read Kerry's admission that he and top Democrats couldn't even THINK for over 30 minutes after the second plane hit, while the President, not only finished reading a book to the children, but also undertook action to discuss the situation with his advisors; and people, in good conscious, will decide, on their own, whom to vote for come November 2nd. |
|
|
