Posting Towards Gomorrah

[SlaveNoMore]

Shape Shifter
Election results.

Remember the Gore-amo!!!!!!

[SlaveNoMore]

Hank Chinaski
2. calling Fla. early in 2000 cost Bush an estimated 15000 vote margin in the panhandle.

But Hank, millions of people of color were "disenfranchised" by GOP dirty tricks, remember?

[SlaveNoMore]

Spanky
The "division" in the country is caused by the fact that Bush doesn't need the Democrats to implement polcy. At first he tried to work with them ....

You mean like when the Dems all saw the same intel as the White House and then voted with the President and pushed ahead with the Iraq War?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
And Bush? Within a few months of 9/11 Karl Rove was telling party members what a great issue terrorism would be for Republicans.

Cite?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Andy Card was busily working on the marketing campaign for Iraq, timed for maximum impact on the midterm elections in 2002.

Cite?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Joe Lieberman's DHS bill was hijacked and deliberately loaded with anti-union features in order to draw Democratic complaints and hand Bush a campaign issue.

Did Lieberman say this? Cite? Why was the Union stuff in there in the first place? What was more important; pleasing the unions or defending the homeland? Why did the bill need to have set asides for unions?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop Democrats who supported Bush on the war were treated to the same scorched-earth campaigning as everyone else. Bipartisanship bought them nothing.

Example? Did Lieberman say this?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
What else? Bush never engaged with Democrats in any way. Bill Clinton and Al Gore were both hawkish Dems who could have been co-opted early if Bush had had any intention of treating the war seriously. He didn't even try.

What does this mean? If he had kissed their collective asses they may have wanted to help the nation? But if he didn't they didn't want to help the nation?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop He continued pushing divisive domestic issues like tax cuts and culture war amendments. ("Dr. Tax Cuts has been replaced by Dr. Win the War" would have been more appropriate.)

He kept pushing his domestic agenda that he felt was good for the country. What is wrong with that? He was supposed to give up on stuff he thought was good for the country just because the Dems didn't like it. That is ridiculous.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
He showed little interest in funding anti-proliferation efforts or working with serious Democratic proposals to improve domestic security at ports and chemical plants.

Cite. It is my understanding that none of the Democrat proposals were serious, just chances to take pot shots at the administration.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The national security rhetoric from Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest of the administration was relentlessly inflammatory and divisive.

Cite

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think this is a complaint that most conservatives don't accept — even conservatives who have soured on Bush over the past couple of years. But believe me: on the Democratic side of the aisle, Bush's intensely and gratuitously partisan approach to 9/11 and the war on terror is keenly felt. Sunday's Republican Party photo-op at Ground Zero was just more of the same.[/list]

Sounds like a bunch of crying from four year olds that didn't get their way? What they are really saying is that even though we don't control congress, we don't want the Republicans to pass stuff we don't like because we are at war.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
the only clinton fabrication was to put detail on the "pass on killing Osama." the actual details are murky, the movie pinned the decision on someone, and that was the fabrication. But the decision to pass did occur.

I didn't see this part. did they change it? to what?

I heard about a fabrication involving some American Airlines ticket person seeing Mohammed Atta's name on a "don't let him on a plane" list but letting him on the plane anyway.

Nothing like that happened. Though one American Airlines person who checked in the terrorists did later commit suicide.

I don't see how that's pro or anti Bush or pro or anti Clinton, but I can see why American Airlines is pissed.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm posting the following not because I think I'm likely to persuade you or anyone else of what the author (Kevin Drum) says, but because I think there's some small chance that you will read it and hear a little better where Democrats are coming from on this one:

[

roosevelt didnt have the benefit of the ubiquitous mainstream media and pollsters critiquing his war strategy on a minute by minute basis. that helped.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Recently, ABC had a TV show that pretty much did the same thing. Yet Clinton and all of his apologists and sychophants went nutso.

Go figger.

You don't believe everything you see on tv do you?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Dissent. With rare exception, none of my posts are personally directed to people here, unless there are prominent elected officials and/or the DNC leadership here. I take the high road and have respect and love for all here, despite their hate, and additionally, unlike many, I do not seek to squelch speech here. I welcome the marketplace of ideas.

And everyone here who has read your screeds believes this.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I heard about a fabrication involving some American Airlines ticket person seeing Mohammed Atta's name on a "don't let him on a plane" list but letting him on the plane anyway.

Nothing like that happened. Though one American Airlines person who checked in the terrorists did later commit suicide.

I don't see how that's pro or anti Bush or pro or anti Clinton, but I can see why American Airlines is pissed.

actually, I think something like that did happen, but it was United (or some other)

Stern replayed his show from 9/11 yesterday. I had forgotten all the wild reports floating. At first a news station was reporting a huge fire on the Mall and a bombing at the State Department.

Also, there were reports of a plane with a bomb stuck on the ground in cleveland and another highjacked plane circling a DC airport.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
That's an interesting debate. There are some people who say that, but there are others who say that if you look at the attrition in the Battle of Britain, the Luftwaffe was going to be gone long before the RAF.

It is my understanding that, although the British planes were superior, they were vastly outnumbered. The Germans were concentrating their bombings at first on RAF bases, taking out planes on the ground, killing pilots and forcing the RAF to launch their planes from farther away making their tactical position more difficult. Eventhough the Germans were not winning in the air, the RAF was hanging by a thread and the destruction of their airbases was giving the Germans the advantage. In addition, the Germans had started targeting the radar stations. All that stopped and turned to civilian targets after the bombing of Berlin, pulling the pressure off that RAF and leaving the only chance for the Germans to take them out was in the air, where the Brits were superior.

However, I don't really remember where I got that so I am really shooting out of my derriere. In any case, if true, it does ad a lot of drama to the story.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Nothing like that happened. Though one American Airlines person who checked in the terrorists did later commit suicide.

Ouch. I didn't know that. That sucks. There hadn't been a hijacking of a domestic plane in at least ten years. How they hell were they supposed to know? Talk about being at the wrong place at the wrong time.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
"My biggest disappointment of the past five years — the biggest by a very long way — has been the way that George Bush transformed 9/11 from an opportunity to bring the country together into a cynical and partisan cudgel useful primarily for winning a few more votes in national elections.

Is Kevin trying to say that the pre 9/11 2000 election wasn't a vicious, partisan squabble? Is he trying to tell me that the left wasn't calling for Bush's head the day after Election Day? Rubbish.

And Bush? Within a few months of 9/11 Karl Rove was telling party members what a great issue terrorism would be for Republicans.

Why wouldn't it be great issue? Look at what happened - whether their fault or not - during 8 years under the Democrats' watch:

• January 25, 1993: Mir Aimal Kansi, a Pakistani, fired an AK-47 into cars waiting at a stoplight in front of the Central Intelligence Agency headquarters in Virginia, killing two CIA employees.
  
  February 26, 1993: Islamic terrorists try to bring down the World Trade Center with car bombs. They failed to destroy the buildings, but killed 6 and injured over 1000 people.
  
  March 12, 1993: Car bombings in Mumbai, India leave 257 dead and 1,400 others injured.
  
  July 18, 1994: Bombing of Jewish Center in Buenos Aires, Argentina, kills 86 and wounds 300. The bombing is generally attributed to Hezbollah acting on behalf of Iran.
  
  July 19, 1994: Alas Chiricanas Flight 00901 is bombed, killing 21. Generally attributed to Hezbollah.
  
  July 26, 1994: The Israeli Embassy is attacked in London, and a Jewish charity is also car-bombed, wounding 20. The attacks are attributed to Hezbollah.
  
  December 11, 1994: A bomb explodes on board Philippine Airlines Flight 434, killing a Japanese businessman. It develops that Ramzi Yousef planted the bomb to test it for the larger terrorist attack he is planning.
  
  December 24, 1994: In a preview of September 11, Air France Flight 8969 is hijacked by Islamic terrorists who planned to crash the plane in Paris.
  
  January 6, 1995: Operation Bojinka, an Islamist plot to bomb 11 U.S. airliners over the Pacific Ocean, is discovered on a laptop computer in a Manila, Philippines apartment by authorities after a fire occurred in the apartment. Noted terrorists including Ramzi Yousef and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed are involved in the plot.
  
  June 14—June 19, 1995: The Budyonnovsk hospital hostage crisis, in which 105 civilians and 25 Russian troops were killed following an attack by Chechan Islamists.
  
  July—October, 1995: Bombings in France by Islamic terrorists led by Khaled Kelkal kill eight and injure more than 100.
  
  November 13, 1995: Bombing of OPM-SANG building in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia kills 7
  
  November 19, 1995: Bombing of Egyptian Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan kills 19.
  
  January 1996: In Kizlyar, 350 Chechen Islamists took 3,000 hostages in a hospital. The attempt to free them killed 65 civilians and soldiers.
  
  February 25 - March 4, 1996: A series of four suicide bombings in Israel leave 60 dead and 284 wounded within 10 days.
  
  June 11, 1996: A bomb explodes on a train traveling on the Serpukhovsko-Timiryazevskaya Line of the Moscow Metro, killing four and unjuring at least 12.
  
  June 25, 1996: The Khobar Towers bombing, carried out by Hezbollah with Iranian support. Nineteen U.S. servicemen were killed and 372 wounded.
  
  February 24, 1997: An armed man opens fire on tourists at an observation deck atop the Empire State Building in New York City, United States, killing a Danish national and wounding visitors from several countries. A handwritten note carried by the gunman claims this was a punishment attack against the "enemies of Palestine".
  
  November 17, 1997: Massacre in Luxor, Egypt, in which Islamist gunmen attack tourists, killing 62 people.
  
  January 1998: Wandhama Massacre - 24 Kashmiri Pandits are massacred by Pakistan-backed Islamists in the city of Wandhama in Indian-controlled Kashmir.
  
  February 14, 1998: Bombings by Islamic Jihadi groups at an election rally in the Indian city of Coimbatore kill about 60 people.
  
  August 7, 1998: Al Qaeda bombs U.S. embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya, killing 225 people and injuring more than 4,000.
  
  August 31 – September 22, 1998: Russian apartment bombings kill about 300 people, leading Russia into Second Chechen War.
  
  December 14, 1998: Ahmed Ressam is arrested on the United States–Canada border in Port Angeles, Washington; he confessed to planning to bomb the Los Angeles International Airport as part of the 2000 millennium attack plots.
  
  December 24, 1998: Indian Airlines Flight 814 from Kathmandu, Nepal to Delhi, India is hijacked by Islamic terrorists. One passenger is killed and some hostages are released. After negotiations between the Taliban and the Indian government, the last of the remaining hostages on board Flight 814 are released in exchange for release of 4 terrorists.
  
  August 8, 2000: A bomb exploded at an underpass in Pushkin Square in Moscow, killing 11 people and wounding more than 90.
  
  August 17, 2000: Two bombs exploded in a shopping center in Riga, Latvia, injuring 35 people.
  
  October 12, 2000: AL Qaeda bombs USS Cole with explosive-laden speedboat, killing 17 US sailors and wounding 40, off the port coast of Aden, Yemen.

The Dems talking points memo is how the Bush Administration made the world "less safe". Tell me how the world was safe from 1993-2001?

He continued pushing divisive domestic issues like tax cuts and culture war amendments. ("Dr. Tax Cuts has been replaced by Dr. Win the War" would have been more appropriate.)

Divisive for whom? As you are well aware, the reason most of us vote for the GOP in the first place is for tax cuts. Bush was supposed to just pick up the other party's platform (and this antithesis of our own) for the sake of unity? Kumbayah, Kevin, Kumbayah.

I think this is a complaint that most conservatives don't accept — even conservatives who have soured on Bush over the past couple of years. But believe me: on the Democratic side of the aisle, Bush's intensely and gratuitously partisan approach to 9/11 and the war on terror is keenly felt. Sunday's Republican Party photo-op at Ground Zero was just more of the same.[/list]

When Democrats like Rockefeller now step forward and say the world was a better place with Saddam Hussein, and when Harry Reid and Kerry refer to terrorism as a little more than a nuisance, is their any question why they arent taken seriously?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk
And everyone here who has read your screeds believes this.

Coming from someone who has been labeled as one of the two most "militantly partisan left wing ideologues" here (and not by me, but certainly a charge that went without third party rebuttal or defence), and who never misses an opportunity to either personally disparage me or Hank with hateful vitriol, your response rings hollow.

I'm looking to reach across the divide, why you slap my hand away?

[SlaveNoMore]

taxwonk
You don't believe everything you see on tv do you?

I did, until I watched a few episodes of a hawkish Martin Sheen playing a Democrat POTUS.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Cite?

Cite?

Did Lieberman say this? Cite? Why was the Union stuff in there in the first place? What was more important; pleasing the unions or defending the homeland? Why did the bill need to have set asides for unions?

Example? Did Lieberman say this?

What does this mean? If he had kissed their collective asses they may have wanted to help the nation? But if he didn't they didn't want to help the nation?

He kept pushing his domestic agenda that he felt was good for the country. What is wrong with that? He was supposed to give up on stuff he thought was good for the country just because the Dems didn't like it. That is ridiculous.

Cite. It is my understanding that none of the Democrat proposals were serious, just chances to take pot shots at the administration.

Cite

Sounds like a bunch of crying from four year olds that didn't get their way? What they are really saying is that even though we don't control congress, we don't want the Republicans to pass stuff we don't like because we are at war.

I thought I made this clear, but evidently not. I'm not going to argue about what's in that post. I agree with it, but I don't think the argument would be productive. That said, if you're asking for cites because you're trying to better understand where Drum is coming from, rather than because you disagree and aim to refute, I'm happy to discuss.

eta:

[Slave posting stuff too]

Apparently I wasn't clear. Sorry.