Nutjobs Ranting About Politics. - Page 85

Hank Chinaski · 08-05-2004, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
What was Bush thinking? That he could serve the country best in that moment by continuing to read a book to a bunch of kindergarten students? That's not relevant, but lies about Kerry's service in Vietnam are? Okey dokey.

Wasn't there some press that the Secret service was planning the route to get out, and had to reset given the time change?

Do you really think 7 minutes meant anything? There were no jets that could have intercepted the planes. Wasn't it prudent to let info be confirmed etc. Or do you want a cowboy that would shoot first then ask questions?

Anyone confirm 2 "news rumors" I remember from the week after:

1 On 9/11 a jet held at jet in NY or NJ, then eventually scrubbed (pre-attack). several Arabic men insisting the flight take off, getting real abusive and a Man hunt for the men.

2 2 Arabic men caught on train headed to Mexico with $$$ and box cutters. I think an implication was made they were part of #1.

Anyone hear anything about either of these?

Replaced_Texan · 08-05-2004, 05:36 PM

Scott McClellan, who presumably had a straight face, explained Bush's earlier gaffe:

Quote:

"But the American people know this president speaks with clarity and conviction, and the terrorists know by his actions he means it," McClellan said.

I'll give on the conviction, but clarity? That has never been a trait that could be assigned to this particular president's speaking style sans teleprompter. Hell, even with the teleprompter.

ltl/fb · 08-05-2004, 05:37 PM

Oh forget it, I don't want to get involved today.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 08-05-2004, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski

Do you really think 7 minutes meant anything? There were no jets that could have intercepted the planes. Wasn't it prudent to let info be confirmed etc. Or do you want a cowboy that would shoot first then ask questions?

I've never really understood the beef about this, other than MM's ability to play it for shock value.

Bush is at a children's event. Card tells him what they know. The job of his aides is to figure out WTF is going on, which no one really knew. Until they have a better idea, what's teh point in interrupting the event. 7 minutes is a pretty minimal amount of time to come up with a plan, let alone a reaction to a serious plan.

I seriously doubt Kerry or Clinton would have done anything materially different. IF they had, it would have been to go stand somewhere off camera and say "WTF is going on" for 7 minutes, and then go get into a motorcade and drive somewhere as well.

Not Me · 08-05-2004, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I hope that you anti-Kerry types spend more and more time talking about his record in Vietnam, because it's only going to help Kerry.

No it won't. Negative ads won't cause Bush supporters to vote for Kerry and negative ads do work on the undecideds whether any of us like it or not. Everyone always claims that they hate negative ads, but time and time again the more negative ads you run against someone, the more they drop in the polls.

Not Me · 08-05-2004, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I seriously doubt Kerry or Clinton would have done anything materially different. IF they had, it would have been to go stand somewhere off camera and say "WTF is going on" for 7 minutes, and then go get into a motorcade and drive somewhere as well.

2.

Tyrone Slothrop · 08-05-2004, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I've never really understood the beef about this, other than MM's ability to play it for shock value.

Bush is at a children's event. Card tells him what they know. The job of his aides is to figure out WTF is going on, which no one really knew. Until they have a better idea, what's teh point in interrupting the event. 7 minutes is a pretty minimal amount of time to come up with a plan, let alone a reaction to a serious plan.

I seriously doubt Kerry or Clinton would have done anything materially different. IF they had, it would have been to go stand somewhere off camera and say "WTF is going on" for 7 minutes, and then go get into a motorcade and drive somewhere as well.

It has shock value because when the President learns that the nation is being attacked by terrorists, his first reaction shouldn't be to continue to read a children's book. He should be out of his seat and finding out what's going on. To the extent that it means something it belies the myth about Bush's leadership in the wake of 9/11. His instinct, apparently, was to sit still in a kindergarten classroom and wait for his aides to come up with something.

It would be a mistake to make too much of this, but then I'm not the one here calling Kerry a "psychopath" for using the incident to attack Bush. When you stop and recall that Cheney apparently issued an order to shoot down Flight 93, and only later checked with Bush, and that Bush spent the day flying from Air Force base to Air Force base before returning to Washington, what you get is a picture of less-than-decisive leadership under fire. Since Bush wants to be re-elected on the basis of his handling of 9/11, all of this is fair play, to say the least.

Secret_Agent_Man · 08-05-2004, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
He also said that he has been told that the WH played no part in this.

Frankly, I think this kind of information is very relevant.

I'm sure that's true.

This "information" is about as relevant as most of what's in Farenheit 911.

S_A_M

Hank Chinaski · 08-05-2004, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It has shock value because when the President learns that the nation is being attacked by terrorists, his first reaction shouldn't be to continue to read a children's book. He should be out of his seat and finding out what's going on. To the extent that it means something it belies the myth about Bush's leadership in the wake of 9/11. His instinct, apparently, was to sit still in a kindergarten classroom and wait for his aides to come up with something.

Do you think the aides were trying to fact gather during the 10 minutes, or were they out back smoking? The President is generally told information, do you expect him to be working the radio? This is an absurd point.

Secret_Agent_Man · 08-05-2004, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5612546/

What a fucking asshole.

I agree. This is an example of his political tin ear. Still, it won't hurt him any if he just lets it go at that.

But, who can say what might resonate with various jackasses in the electorate?

S_A_M

Secret_Agent_Man · 08-05-2004, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Sure it's poor form, but there's a difference between leaking information and removing information from the national archives as part of a cover-up (or is at least perceived as such).

It's more than "poor form" Burger, its a federal crime (I think).

S_A_M

sgtclub · 08-05-2004, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It's not McCain's job to fisk the statements of every yahoo who comes down the pike. He said the ad was "dishonest," but if you don't want to believe it, that's your right as an American. I hope that you anti-Kerry types spend more and more time talking about his record in Vietnam, because it's only going to help Kerry.

Well why does he then believe the comments are dishonest? These are a group of guys that served with Kerry in VN, and he used their pic in order to bolster his case for CiC. How is this NOT relevant?

Secret_Agent_Man · 08-05-2004, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Anyone confirm 2 "news rumors" I remember from the week after:

1 On 9/11 a jet held at jet in NY or NJ, then eventually scrubbed (pre-attack). several Arabic men insisting the flight take off, getting real abusive and a Man hunt for the men.

2 2 Arabic men caught on train headed to Mexico with $$$ and box cutters. I think an implication was made they were part of #1.

Anyone hear anything about either of these?

I heard about No. 2. There were those arrests -- believe it was later clarified that those guys were Hispanic transients headed home with their earnings.

S_A_M

Tyrone Slothrop · 08-05-2004, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
Well why does he then believe the comments are dishonest?

This is from one of articles out there on this, by Ron Fournier of the AP:

The Kerry campaign has denounced the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, saying none of the men in the ad served on the boat that Kerry commanded. The leader of the group, retired Adm. Roy Hoffmann, said none of the 13 veterans in the commercial served on Kerry's boat but rather were in other swiftboats within 50 yards of Kerry's.

Jim Rassmann, an Army veteran who was saved by Kerry, said there were only six crewmates who served with Kerry on his boat. Five support his candidacy and one is deceased.

sgtclub · 08-05-2004, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I'm sure that's true.

This "information" is about as relevant as most of what's in Farenheit 911.

S_A_M

Play along with me for a minute. Assuming the allegations are true, do you not think it is relevant?

I think Kerry's war service is relevant to establish character. I commend and admire that he volunteered to serve. But I think his service is not relevant to whether he is qualified to be CiC. He has made that argument, so if there are competing views on his service, I think they are relevant.