Sept. 11 Families Outraged by Bush Campaign Ad

Ro

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=?type=politicsNews&storyID=4503010

I think Guiliani is starting to suffer from delusions of grandeur, he's becoming a mouthpiece for the Republican party at the moment. Guilani's performance before and after Sept 11th was very good, but his constant gripes at the Democrats and his apparent love for George Bush are getting old at this stage. He obviously has greater political ambitions.

Statement from Mayor Rudolph Giuliani:
http://www.georgewbush.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=2294

You can watch the Ads here:
http://www.georgewbush.com/tvads/

uberwolf

It was the major event of his tenure, and he probably is entitled to reflect on the nations reaction to it as a reflection of his leadership. I can see however why the affected families would be upset, it's politicising the event. That may not be appropriate and personally I believe it to be distasteful.

Ro

I've read Guilianis book and he did a great job for NY well before 2001. For example if you go to NY now it's a much safer place than it was a few years ago. NY is undoubtedly a better place than before he was mayor.

However his recent comments have all been politically motivated and as he is no longer mayor he seems to be looking out for his own best interests. Guiliani is a Republican and he's obviously taking the party line.

dahamsta

Is Cheney definitely signed up for a second term as VP? It was rumoured that Guiliani was up for VP, which would explain the sycophancy.

Thoughts of Bush jetting around the country like a headless chicken while the buildings were burning recur. Their fearless leader.

adam

shotamoose

I think if I was a 9/11 relative I might be even more outraged when I learned that the only person ever convicted of involvement in the attack is to get a retrial in part because the US government withheld evidence:

KARLSRUHE, Germany, March 4 — A German appeals court ordered a retrial on Thursday for Mounir el-Motassadeq, the only person successfully prosecuted for involvement in the Sept. 11 attacks.

Complaining that crucial evidence had been withheld by the German and American authorities, a five-judge panel threw out the year-old conviction of Mr. Motassadeq and sent the case back to the lower court in Hamburg, which had sentenced him to 15 years in prison on more than 3,000 counts of accessory to murder.

The presiding judge, Klaus Tolksdorf, said Mr. Motassadeq, a Moroccan, was denied a fair trial because the United States refused to allow testimony by Ramzi bin al-Shibh, a suspect in American captivity who is believed to have played a central role in the Sept. 11 plot.

The decision is the second setback in recent weeks for German prosecutors, whose case against Abdelghani Mzoudi, a friend of Mr. Motassadeq tried on similar charges, collapsed last month over the same issue.

It suggests that it will be impossible to convict either Mr. Motassadeq or Mr. Mzoudi unless the United States makes Mr. bin al-Shibh or transcripts of his testimony available to the German courts.

Similar issues are threatening to derail the prosecution in the United States of Zacarias Moussaoui, a French citizen who is the only person facing trial in an American court in connection with the Sept. 11 attacks.

A federal appeals judge in Virginia threw out much of the case against Mr. Moussaoui last year and barred the use of the death penalty after the Bush administration refused to provide the defendant with access to captured Qaeda prisoners who might have bolstered his defense. Once again it was Mr. bin al-Shibh, the crucial witness in Mr. Motassadeq's case, who figured most prominently.

From the New York Times (registration required)

Back on topic: I can see how 9/11 relatives who already dislike Bush would be outraged by the use of such footage in a campaign ad, and I can see how people who support Bush for his war and terrorism policies wouldn't mind all that much. So maybe the extent of the negative reaction is a measure of just how sentiment has turned against the guy in the last year or so.

mike65

Bush or his campaign advisiers are playing a dangerous
game, Sept 11 2001 is not in the ownership of any one individual, party or indeed country given the number of foreigners killed. Also given the increasing wearines of the US public about the aftermath Bush may yet wish he'd left well alone.

Mike.

TomF

Well, would you believe it? It seems that the original news release of "9-11 Families Outraged" was not made after consultation with other 9-11 Families, and there may actually have been some political hay-making involved in the "Outraged" families news release.

9-11 Victims' Families Release Letter Supporting Bush as He Faces Criticism Over Campaign Ads
The Associated Press
Published: Mar 6, 2004

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAKWBL4IRD.html

NEW YORK (AP) - More than a dozen families who lost relatives in the Sept. 11 attacks released a letter Saturday declaring their support for President Bush and his use of images of the destroyed World Trade Center in campaign ads.

"There is no better testament to the leadership of President Bush than Sept. 11," the letter states. "In choosing our next leader we must not forget that day if we are to have a meaningful conversation."

The "Open Letter to America," signed by 22 people who lost loved ones in the trade center, comes as other victims' families asked that the ads be pulled from the airwaves. The spots also show firefighters carrying a flag-draped stretcher.

In the November election we will have a clear choice laid before the American people," the letter reads. "President Bush is rightly offering us that choice and the images of Sept. 11, although painful, are fundamental to that choice. The images in President Bush's campaign television ads are respectful of the memories of Sept. 11."

Jimmy Boyle, former president of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, said he came up with the letter after hearing that the president was being criticized for the ads.

"I don't think he's taking advantage of Sept. 11 and I feel that he's given us the leadership that we need," said Boyle, who said he will be voting for a Republican president for the first time in November.

BigO

Originally posted by Ro


Guilani's performance before and after Sept 11th was very good,

yes yes he and all bent over patriotic americans should win an oscar for being melodramatic and hypocritical!

bonkey

Originally posted by TomF
Well, would you believe it? It seems that the original news release of "9-11 Families Outraged" was not made after consultation with other 9-11 Families, and there may actually have been some political hay-making involved in the "Outraged" families news release.

What? You mean that not all people belonging to a single group are of the same mindset? Good gracious!!!

And what, if not political hay-making is the 9/11 ad-campaign in the first place, as well as this reponse?

I mean, what exactly is being said here? That because its not all suffering families who are outraged, therefore the outrage is unimportant or staged?

That if you are a member of a family for whom the events of that date are still highly traumatic, its just "tough crap on you buddy, because those 22 signatures that Bush has produced means your anguish is irrelevant and your suffering doesn't count any more"????

I'm amazed you didn't go the whole hog and just decry these peoples' obviously affected outrage as a cynical Democratic ploy to cripple Mr. Bush's noble and honest ad campaign.....

jc

Ro

Good cartoon in the Village Voice:

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0410/sutton.php

TomF

Went to the site, looked at the cartoon, thought it was as typically heavy-handed as one of Martyn Turner's lumbering attempts at political cartooning.

sovtek

http://www.bushrecall.org/DailyRealityCheck.asp?ID=87

"Bush campaign adviser Karen Hughes waded into the debate with arrogance to spare. On CBS's "The Early Show," she opined, "With all due respect, I just completely disagree [with the families], and I believe the vast majority of the American people will as well."

Ro

The Anti-Bush'ites have started up their ad campaign now too:

http://www.bushin30seconds.org/view/04_small.shtml

BattleBoar

Much and all as I want to see Kerry defeat Bush, it's a little unrealistic of the dems to ask Bush to ignore the central, defining moment of his presidency as he goes about trying to get reelected, is it not?

ixoy

The problem is that Bush is using the central moment of his presidency as practically the only reason for his presidency. The relatively poor financial state of the US means he can't combat the election on an economic ground, so he is pretty much forced to play his cards on vague areas like ethics and "the war on terror". Trouble is he, as usual, is using very hard divisionary emotive tactics - principally, September the 11th. The insinuation is that Bush saved the country that day (he's done no such thing) and that anyone who believes in the principles of the US (which Bush doesn't, it would seem to me) must vote to keep him in power lest the outside forces take over. However, he's now showing someone's dead lover/sibling/friend and saying - on one level - that if you don't vote for him, this corpse could be somone you know. It's disgusting and underhand, appealing to mixed feelings of fear and patriotism, whilst completely ignoring some of the very pressing issues the country faces (every response to the Bush administration's failures seems to try and go on about the war on terror....).

Zombrex

He is playing on the US fear of terrorism, which is what he has always done. Hell he managed to get 2 wars fought over it ... it was distasteful 2 years ago and it is distasteful now, but honestly did we expect anything better?

TomF

When someone recommended "follow the money" he was certainly correct. This (excerpted) newspaper column shows where the money came from for the recent heavily-publicized protests against using images of the aftermath of the destruction of New York City's skyscrapers in the U.S. presidential election campaign.

"The families of those who died that day say the Bush campaign ads are offensive," MSNBC duly reported. But that and other reports left out the name of the sponsoring group, September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, and the political group that called the press conference.
Deep in a Saturday New York Times story, the organizer was named as the Democratic-friendly political group Moveon.org. If the victims' families really had a problem with using September 11 events for political purposes, they shouldn't have handed the press conference over to a group planning to air millions of dollars' worth of ads against President Bush.
...
When Moveon.org called and offered to help the small grass-roots group, it allowed the larger, well-funded (if partisan) group to put together a quick press conference. The two groups had "partnered" on events before.
Despite news stories that presented the families as apolitical people hurt by political rough-and-tumble, Peaceful Tomorrows isn't so much a group representing the families of the 3,000 September 11 victims as one representing the some 100 antiwar activists among the victims' families.
...
The media, however, have a duty to accurately represent who is criticizing the ads and why. If there are antiwar activists among Peaceful Tomorrows' family members, news stories should not represent them as nonpolitical victims who just want to take the politics out of September 11 remembrances.
The fact is, Peaceful Tomorrows is as political as Mr. Bush. Its members bash Mr. Bush for using force to fight al Qaeda. They hit him for sending troops to topple Saddam Hussein. Now, in protesting the ads, they even criticize him for using history to make his political point.
Why not? It works. The Bushies don't dare protest. And after the activists have drawn blood, Sen. John Kerry can woefully intone that the Bush ads were "inappropriate." (Like there are appropriate campaign ads.)
...
The Peaceful Tomorrows families are claiming the "images" as their own. By holding the first press conference — thanks to the partisan Moveon.org — they seek to relegate the large number of voters and victims' families who support Mr. Bush in his war on terrorism as afterthoughts.

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20040310-084643-1286r.htm

Hobbes

Originally posted by Ro
The Anti-Bush'ites have started up their ad campaign now too:

http://www.bushin30seconds.org/view/04_small.shtml

Those adverts were out long before bush started and they were not allowed show them during superbowl.

But he wants to point out 9/11.
- Where is OBL?
- Where are all the people who made serious money from the stock exchange from it?
- Prehaps he can explain how he could piss away the whole worlds standing together with the US disappeared only a few months later.

Zombrex

Originally posted by TomF

If there are antiwar activists among Peaceful Tomorrows' family members, news stories should not represent them as nonpolitical victims who just want to take the politics out of September 11 remembrances.

The fact is, Peaceful Tomorrows is as political as Mr. Bush. Its members bash Mr. Bush for using force to fight al Qaeda. They hit him for sending troops to topple Saddam Hussein.

Now, in protesting the ads, they even criticize him for using history to make his political point.
Why not? It works. The Bushies don't dare protest.

News flash - People who hate Bush get upset that he is demeaning 9-11 by using the images of the attacks to help get him elected. In response people who love Bush point out that the protestors hate Bush in the first place, and therefore should be ignored because they are totally bias. The issue of whether Bush (or anyone) should actually use the images of 9-11 in ads is quietly ignored as the two sides marched down to the local bowling alley to fight it out in the traditional American way.

Don't you just love US politics. :rolleyes: Where is Janet Jacksons boob when you need it.

bonkey

Originally posted by Hobbes
- Where is OBL?

Dunno...but apparently he's due to be captured about two weeks before the election

jc

sovtek

Originally posted by TomF
When someone recommended "follow the money" he was certainly correct. This (excerpted) newspaper column shows where the money came from for the recent heavily-publicized protests against using images of the aftermath of the destruction of New York City's skyscrapers in the U.S. presidential election campaign.

"The families of those who died that day say the Bush campaign ads are offensive," MSNBC duly reported. But that and other reports left out the name of the sponsoring group, September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, and the political group that called the press conference.
Deep in a Saturday New York Times story, the organizer was named as the Democratic-friendly political group Moveon.org. If the victims' families really had a problem with using September 11 events for political purposes, they shouldn't have handed the press conference over to a group planning to air millions of dollars' worth of ads against President Bush.
...
When Moveon.org called and offered to help the small grass-roots group, it allowed the larger, well-funded (if partisan) group to put together a quick press conference. The two groups had "partnered" on events before.
Despite news stories that presented the families as apolitical people hurt by political rough-and-tumble, Peaceful Tomorrows isn't so much a group representing the families of the 3,000 September 11 victims as one representing the some 100 antiwar activists among the victims' families.
...
The media, however, have a duty to accurately represent who is criticizing the ads and why. If there are antiwar activists among Peaceful Tomorrows' family members, news stories should not represent them as nonpolitical victims who just want to take the politics out of September 11 remembrances.
The fact is, Peaceful Tomorrows is as political as Mr. Bush. Its members bash Mr. Bush for using force to fight al Qaeda. They hit him for sending troops to topple Saddam Hussein. Now, in protesting the ads, they even criticize him for using history to make his political point.
Why not? It works. The Bushies don't dare protest. And after the activists have drawn blood, Sen. John Kerry can woefully intone that the Bush ads were "inappropriate." (Like there are appropriate campaign ads.)
...
The Peaceful Tomorrows families are claiming the "images" as their own. By holding the first press conference — thanks to the partisan Moveon.org — they seek to relegate the large number of voters and victims' families who support Mr. Bush in his war on terrorism as afterthoughts.

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20040310-084643-1286r.htm

Sept 11th families ACTUALLY had the nerve to gather together and form a group. How dare they!!!! And then they went and talked to other groups that have similiar interests. What cynical political hacks they are indeed.
He he I remember when the Bush regime called a certain 9/11 survivor "unpatriotic" when he denounced the invasion of Afghanistan. Arrogance seems to have no bounds.

Lear

Originally posted by sovtek
Sept 11th families ACTUALLY had the nerve to gather together and form a group. How dare they!!!! ...

Actually, the group at issue represents less than 1% of the victims' families and they were organized by Kerry operatives.

Lear

Originally posted by Ro
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=?type=politicsNews&storyID=4503010

I think Guiliani is starting to suffer from delusions of grandeur, he's becoming a mouthpiece for the Republican party at the moment.

Get a grip. Guilani is a Republican and well regarded by most New Yorkers. Also, whether you like it or not, the leadership shown by both Guiliani and Bush after 9-11 is still highly regarded in NYC.

And before you attempt to flame me, my wife was in the North Tower (20th floor) on 9-11, and I personally watched the Pentagon burning minutes after it was hit. I lost several friends in the WTC.

That being said, god bless and keep Spain and the victims of this heinous act. This doesn't reek of ETA as it does of Arab terrorists. I hope that the US can be of some aide to Spain.

Lear

Originally posted by Hobbes
Those adverts were out long before bush started and they were not allowed show them during superbowl.

Pulled by the network, which wanted to keep the superbowl free of partisan politics.

But he wants to point out 9/11.
- Where is OBL?

Probably in a hole deeper than Saddam's hole was. What, you want him free to act w/o restraint?

- Where are all the people who made serious money from the stock exchange from it?

Can you name a few?

- Prehaps he can explain how he could piss away the whole worlds standing together with the US disappeared only a few months later.

[/B][/QUOTE]

I guess that you consider France, Germany and Russia "the whole world", but I suspect most people do not. Besides, what did you want the US to do regarding al Qaeda? Issue some very serious demands? We did that. Demand that bin Laden be turned over to the US? We did that. Demand that all al Qaeda terrorists training camps be shut down? We did that.<P>
now, gee, we didn't get every al Qaeda operative yet, and while some people are obviously willing to condemn the US for letting OBL and others slip through while simultaneously condemning the US for actually doing something, others are willing to actually do something about the problem while the naysayers complain.

Hobbes

Pulled by the network, which wanted to keep the superbowl free of partisan politics.


They still let political broadcasts through the superbowl through.


Probably in a hole deeper than Saddam's hole was. What, you want him free to act w/o restraint?

The point is he is free to act without restraint. Although the fax (ref: Madrid) looks like PSYOP job, it appears AQ are free to act without restraint (my money is on ETA, AQ doing it makes no sense).

But the point was OBL the mastermind of 9/11 and he's still free. In that time Bush has managed to.

- Won a questionable election where a large number of people were denied the right to vote by a company that was funding Bush to win. Voting machines which were obviously flawed (one gave gore -16,000 votes) and voted in by people put into power by his dad.

- Sat on his ass doing nothing while the planes were falling (he was even told of them before he entered the school). Bush being the only person who could order the grounding of flights. Even after being told "We are under attack" he stayed in the school after telling the story and telling the press to (sic) 'stfu' when even they knew the US was under attack.

- Invaded Afganistan under a false pretense.

- put an ex UNOCAL employee as president (who incidently said that they wanted to put a pipe through Afganistan but couldn't until the taliban were gone).

- Replacing the Taliban for the Northern Alliance who are worse then the taliban for atrocities.

- Leaving Afganistan the same as it was except for the capital.

- Increasing cocaine production in Afganistan.

- Implemented draconian laws that make old communist Russia a great place to live in.

- *tried* to implement an American version of the Stasi.

- Tried to implement Homeland Security secret police force, got canned and then passed under a different name.

- Detained and tourtured people without rights.

- Outsourced prisoners who need some *special* tourture to countries that allow it.

- Jailed 1000's in GitBay and said "These are evil men" yet it's been shown a whole load of them imprisoned for years were in fact innocent or who were in the wrong place at the wrong time and handed over by the Northern Alliance for $5000 reward feed.

- Tax cut rewarded all his rich buddies.

- Pretty much destroyed the US currency.

- Largest deficit in known history.

- Cut 200 million from educational programs for lower income children and removing professional training for more than 20,000 teachers.

- 3.3 million jobs lost. Most to offshoring which aren't coming back.

- Destroyed a lot of goodwill between other countries.

- Invaded Iraq under a false pretense against the UNs wishes.

Add to that getting his hands caught in failed venezuelan coup and now caribbean nations claiming that the US orcastrated the coup in haiti (as well as kidnapped Aristide.

Yes he has done great things for us. :rolleyes:

But I'm willing to listen to all the good things he has done. Can you tell me them?


Can you name a few?

Sure. You have read up on that on the site of your choice. Notice how some of the people who are linked to the shares are ex-CIA. Notice how it is never mentioned in the US as news anymore.

Same goes for the Anthrax letters. The second the Feds found out it was some white American whack job from the military doing it the news in the US canned it from being reported.

I guess that you consider France, Germany and Russia "the whole world",

No, I am talking about pretty much the whole world was willing to help the US, which started to vanish with his famous "You are with us or against us" speech.

Btw I have much higher regard for Guilani then I do for Bush.

TomF

Well now I guess we know where the Vermonster's Internet campaign staff went after yer man melted.

bonkey

Originally posted by Lear
Actually, the group at issue represents less than 1% of the victims' families and they were organized by Kerry operatives.

Whats your point? Are you saying that they are not outraged? Are you saying that they have no right to be outraged?

Or are you saying that it is an incredibly cynical move by Kerry to use the tragedy of 9/11 to try and make some political gains by using these people to object to the perfectly reasonable move by Bush in using the tragedy of 9/11 to try and make some political gains?

jc

Hobbes

Originally posted by TomF
Well now I guess we know where the Vermonster's Internet campaign staff went after yer man melted.

I have no idea who your comment is directed at, but how about counter arguments instead of personal attacks?

bonkey

Originally posted by Hobbes
I have no idea who your comment is directed at, but how about counter arguments instead of personal attacks?

That would apparently be unRepublican

jc

Ro

Originally posted by Lear
I lost several friends in the WTC.

Sorry for your loss.

Lear

Originally posted by Hobbes
Pulled by the network, which wanted to keep the superbowl free of partisan politics.


They still let political broadcasts through the superbowl through.

I'll abstain from calling you a liar, but I watched the whole thing and didn't see one political commercial. I even did a search on a few of the left-wing sites and no one mentions any political commercials that were allowed.

Can you cite an example of a political commercial?

Lear

Originally posted by Hobbes

Lear : Can you name a few?[/b]

Hobbes : Sure. You have read up on that on the site of your choice. Notice how some of the people who are linked to the shares are ex-CIA. Notice how it is never mentioned in the US as news anymore.
[/B]

Excuse me, but all your "sources" are vanity sites. Anything by a recognizeable news source, as opposed to the tinfoil hat speculations on vanity sites? BTW, most those sites are flagrant IHATEBUSH rantfests -- just check the homepages.

I guess that you consider France, Germany and Russia "the whole world",

No, I am talking about pretty much the whole world was willing to help the US, which started to vanish with his famous "You are with us or against us" speech.

Really? I traveled extensively throughout the Pacific Rim and Northern Europe and didn't see or hear criticism (except from the crackpot left) about the US attack on the Taliban. Further, a quick review of REAL NEWS SITES reveals that there was consent at the UN for kicking the bejesus out of the Taliban. HEY, among the supporters of the Afghani invasion include: The UK, Canada, France, Germany, Russia, Italy, The Netherlands, Australia, Denmark, Norway, Bahrain, Jordan, Japan, Romania, Pakistan, Uzebekistan and, of course, a butt-loat of Afghanis. (http://www.phatnav.com/wiki/wiki.phtml?title=U.S._invasion_of_Afghanistan)

So who objected? North Korea? Sorry, dude, but your statements don't stand up to even mild scruitiny.

Unfortunately, too many people see what the US did as bad and grieve for the Taliban. Some people just prefer oppressive mass murders in power, and the morons that think that the US "just had 9-11 coming" are pure trash.

As of yesterday, I suspect that the Spanish people will become less tolerant of terrorist and murderous tyrants. Perhaps the Spanish will launch a little unilateral raid into Syria, if necessary, to capture a few of the pukes who murdered hundreds of their countrymen. Perhaps there will be some Irish who will say that the Spanish "had it coming" while the French make grandious statements against unilateral military action (but only for non-French military actions).

I don't know, but God keep the Spanish and I pray that they do what's best for them regardless of what the French, Germans and Russians think.


[/B][/QUOTE]
Btw I have much higher regard for Guilani then I do for Bush. [/B][/QUOTE]

Whatever. Historically, he's had near record approval in the US. For some reason some people cannot stand the fact that Bush actually did something about a sleazy bunch of mass murderers. The US should NEVER put its defense in the hands of the UN or make it subject to the whims of France or Russia.

Zombrex

Originally posted by Lear
Unfortunately, too many people see what the US did as bad and grieve for the Taliban. Some people just prefer oppressive mass murders in power, and the morons that think that the US "just had 9-11 coming" are pure trash.

No one grieves for the Taliban. I think it is more that people are very uneasy by the fact that the US has started two wars in the last 3 years. 2 wars to deal with the mess previous administrations made in the first place. 2 wars with no clear long term plan for either Afganistan or Iraq, which have plunged both regions into long term unstableness.

It is all very well to think that the Bush administration is fighting the good fight. But I always think it is kinda like stopping the spread of AIDS by killing everyone who has it.

sovtek

Originally posted by Lear

I guess that you consider France, Germany and Russia "the whole world", but I suspect most people do not.

As well as almost the entire population of the UK, Spain and many of the countries that did "support" the war. Otherwise most of the countries in the UN also expressed their opposition to the war.

Demand that bin Laden be turned over to the US? We did that.

And the Taliban did the most horrible act (which incidentally is the normal procedure when considering extradition by another country) of actually asking for some evidence before doing so.
What was the child president's response? Bombs?
How civilized!

now, gee, we didn't get every al Qaeda operative yet, and while some people are obviously willing to condemn the US for letting OBL and others slip through while simultaneously condemning the US for actually doing something, others are willing to actually do something about the problem while the naysayers complain.

It's not that "you" did something, it's that you did something very stupid, killed alot of people and very likely increased the likelyhood of more terrorist attacks...meanwhile "your" objective remains elusive. All the while claiming to be the great defenders of civilization (and afterwards locked up 600 people for a couple of years of which, at least, 5 were completely innocent.

sovtek

Originally posted by Lear
I'll abstain from calling you a liar, but I watched the whole thing and didn't see one political commercial. I even did a search on a few of the left-wing sites and no one mentions any political commercials that were allowed.

Can you cite an example of a political commercial?

What about the add about marijuana? But I guess there isn't any huge political debate on the issue of marijuana?

Lear

Originally posted by sovtek
What about the add about marijuana? But I guess there isn't any huge political debate on the issue of marijuana?

The fact that you would try to make such a lame stretch just proves my point. Last I heard neither the Republicans or Democrats were FOR marijuana use. :rolleyes: Condemning casual marijuana use by adolescents is about as non-partisan an issue one can find in the US.

Lear

Originally posted by sovtek
As well as almost the entire population of the UK, Spain and many of the countries that did "support" the war. Otherwise most of the countries in the UN also expressed their opposition to the war.

Get a grip. The UK, Spain and "many others" actively supported the war. Just because the anti-American contingents manage to scrape up a few thousand unemployed derilicts to protest doesn't mean "almost the entire population" objected to the US kicking the Taliban's butt.

Lear

Originally posted by bonkey
That would apparently be unRepublican

jc

*Yawn*

sovtek

Originally posted by Lear
The fact that you would try to make such a lame stretch just proves my point. Last I heard neither the Republicans or Democrats were FOR marijuana use. :rolleyes: Condemning casual marijuana use by adolescents is about as non-partisan an issue one can find in the US.

The Democrats and Republicans supported the war on Iraq to...does that mean that all Americans agreed with that...ummmm politically?
Nevermind that there are Republicans, Democrats and many other political persuasions that are for legalizing or at least decriminalizing the use of it.
K then ask yourself what government agency sponsored that add and then ask yourself how uncontroversial their policies are.

Lear

Originally posted by sovtek

It's not that "you" did something, it's that you did something very stupid, killed alot of people and very likely increased the likelyhood of more terrorist attacks...meanwhile "your" objective remains elusive. All the while claiming to be the great defenders of civilization (and afterwards locked up 600 people for a couple of years of which, at least, 5 were completely innocent.

Oh, please, "we" did nothing about bin Laden and al Qaeda for almost 8 years previous (think about the first WTC attack in 1993). They bombed our embassies, attacked our ships and still we did nothing. Apparently, doing nothing got us more terrorist attacks.

You Irish are obviously content to suck up to terrorists on the off-chance they won't hurt you any longer, but historically that tact doesn't work. Since 9-11, the majority of al Qaeda has been captured or killed and their terrorists camps shut down. The remaining ones are keeping their heads low as we pick them off a few at a time.

And regarding locking up 5 innocent people for a couple of years -- BIG DEAL. War is not a perfect art and the day you can figure out how to target only the guilty people in a foolproof manner, your objection is inane.

sovtek

Originally posted by Lear
Get a grip. The UK, Spain and "many others" actively supported the war.

I assumed you were talking about Iraq was because as I remember France, Germany nor Russia opposed action in Afghanistan.

sovtek

Originally posted by Lear
Oh, please, "we" did nothing about bin Laden and al Qaeda for almost 8 years previous (think about the first WTC attack in 1993). They bombed our embassies, attacked our ships and still we did nothing. Apparently, doing nothing got us more terrorist attacks.

I do remember a another wreckless attack on abandoned camps in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, another "war on terror" and susequent legislation in aid of that.
What possibly got more terrorist attacks was continued military aid to Israel, sanctions that decimated people in Iraq as well as 12 years of almost weekly bombing.
But no I guess it was actually that they "hate our freedom" like Bush said....one Bin Laden has actually stated and the other he hasn't. I'll leave ya to figure it out.

You Irish are obviously content to suck up to terrorists on the off-chance they won't hurt you any longer, but historically that tact doesn't work.

I'm not Irish and I would suggest that you should probably listen a bit because they know a hell of alot more about it.

Since 9-11, the majority of al Qaeda has been captured or killed and their terrorists camps shut down.

What comfort that is considering yesterdays bombing (as you suppose they carried it out). Nevermind that every trial (US or not) against collaborators in 911 haven't been convicted because of the US withholding evidence.
Also consider that reports in Afghanistan are that the Taliban are regaining strength and able to carry out attacks against American forces there. The same forces that can't secure most of the country.

The remaining ones are keeping their heads low as we pick them off a few at a time.

...and more heads spring up to do things like yesterday in Madrid.

And regarding locking up 5 innocent people for a couple of years -- BIG DEAL. War is not a perfect art and the day you can figure out how to target only the guilty people in a foolproof manner, your objection is inane.

Carrying out attacks to acheive a political end, persecuting the innocent, igoring the rule of law...sounds like something we've heard before.

Lear

Originally posted by sovtek
I assumed you were talking about Iraq was because as I remember France, Germany nor Russia opposed action in Afghanistan.

Admittedly, I did jumble the two issue, and while I do apologize for any misunderstanding I do wish to explain it from this perspective: The war on Iraq has been repeatedly called a "Unilateral" action bespite the fact that the majority of Western nations either participated or endorsed US action.

Apparently, the definition of "unilateral" has morphed from the US acting alone to the US along with 37 other countries but without the permission of France, Germany or Russia. This is highly strange given France doesn't bother asking for UN permission to invade an African nation -- and who in God's name at the UN approved the occupation of Haiti? Is Haiti a unilateral action and, if not, then explain it to me -- Please.

Anyway, that being said, the US attack on the Taliban was pretty much supported by the international community -- the exceptions being North Korea, China and a few others.

sovtek

Originally posted by Lear
Admittedly, I did jumble the two issue, and while I do apologize for any misunderstanding I do wish to explain it from this perspective:

No problem.

The war on Iraq has been repeatedly called a "Unilateral" action bespite the fact that the majority of Western nations either participated or endorsed US action.

While nations did offer support, most of it was a hand up and not involvement. The only troops in Iraq that were involved in combat were American, British and Australian. The latter being very minimal. The rest were for mostly logistical support and also minimal at that.
The majority of British and Spanish people did not support the war. I'd hardly call 1 million in London and 2 million in Spain "unemployed derilicts".
Secondly the other nations that said "yea we don't have a problem with it" were either bribed (Azerbijan, a very democratic government at that) or threatened (South Africa).
I remember Bush stated 40 countries "supported" the war. Some on the list even expressed surprise that they were included and then asked to be taken off.
Even if you count those countries that leaves 146 that didn't.

Apparently, the definition of "unilateral" has morphed from the US acting alone to the US along with 37 other countries but without the permission of France, Germany or Russia.

You forgot China and the other 140 some odd ones.

-- and who in God's name at the UN approved the occupation of Haiti?

No one and it should be condemned. Iraq is a rare exception where at least one of the permanent 5 don't get their way.

Is Haiti a unilateral action and, if not, then explain it to me -- Please.

No it's America, France and Canada "improving" relations by aiding each other in ousting a democratically elected leader.

Anyway, that being said, the US attack on the Taliban was pretty much supported by the international community -- the exceptions being North Korea, China and a few others.

As far as the governments...yes it was supported by many countries. How it was carried out is a different matter and the broken promises in the aftermath. I personally thought it was a bad idea and accomplished next to nothing, especially considering the loss of life....but hey UNOCAL did get that pipeline they wanted.
I'm not here trying to say that Europe in general or specifically France, Germany or even Ireland always does the "right" thing...or even that America always does the wrong thing.

TomF

This follow-up on 9-11 and Irish lawyers and law firms really tugs at the heartstrings.

A lawyer for the charity created by the three firefighters in the iconic flag-raising photograph at Ground Zero has reaped more than $500,000 in legal fees while the charity has given just $73,000 to the needy, the [New York] Daily News has learned.

Despite taking in more than $1 million, the Bravest Fund has disbursed only $73,000, according to William Kelly, the charity's attorney.
...
From that, his law firm, McCarthy & Kelly, has deducted $553,000 - a legal bill split by the Bravest Fund and The Record's charity.

"It costs what it costs," Kelly said.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/story/173737p-151375c.html

bonkey

Originally posted by Lear
Since 9-11, the majority of al Qaeda has been captured or killed and their terrorists camps shut down. The remaining ones are keeping their heads low as we pick them off a few at a time.

It always amazes me that supporters of the US Administration trot out propaganda like this, completely ignoring the fact that the administration they support has said that it lacks the ability to determine if it is creating more terrorists than it destroys (as pointed out in Rumsfeld's infamous internal memo amongst other places). It completely ignores the fact that since September 11, 2001, terrorist activity worldwide has statistically been on the increase as well (no links - something I've heard referenced several times on US news channels though).

All that really matters to the US is the simple mantra : "we will fight them abroad so that we do not have to fight them at home".

And regarding locking up 5 innocent people for a couple of years -- BIG DEAL. War is not a perfect art and the day you can figure out how to target only the guilty people in a foolproof manner, your objection is inane.

Far more than 5 people have been released from Gitmo - this 5 were just the latest releasees. By October 2003, over 80 people had been released.

Lets do a quick comparison - how many people sentenced to Gitmo have been found guilty? Whats that number? A bit louder please? None???? NONE????? You can't be serious? Surely you're joking. Surely after 2 years, they'd at least have managed to try one of them? No?????

So, we have somewhere around 100 released without charge after being held various periods of time. 0 tried, and consequently, 0 found guilty.

Whats completely inane to you, apparently is to suggest that these people be entitled to the Human Rights that their captors have ratified as being due to them in international treaties.

Only today, I got the following on that (unlinked) news feed I reference quite a bit. Its to do with the current UN Human Rights Comission meeting

"Mexico plans to seek the appointment of a U.N. expert to look into whether nations' anti-terrorism measures breach international human rights standards. But that is being opposed by the United States and its allies, who stress that their first duty is to protect their citizens"

So we're now at a point where the major powers in teh world are actually making a case to the UN to say Human Rights are not necessarily important at all times to all people.

Lest you disagree, let me just quote some of the preamble of the declaration that these nations have ratified. I'll highlight the more important bits too...

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world

Unalienable? All members? Not according to the US et al today. So, clearly, they no longer agree that these things are the foundation of a free, just and peaceful world - unless thats not what they are trying to bring us.

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law

Paraphrase - if you don't respect these rights, you will end up with rebellion against tyranny and oppression....which funnily enough is exactly the major justification of the terrorists....and which funnily enough is exactly what the US and its allies are saying they should not be bound to. What a great step forward....

And before we wrap this up, lets just have a quick glance at Article 2, shall we :

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status......

The rights of those 5 people...as well as teh 80+ before them who were released without charge, as well as every single member held inside the Guantanamo Bay detention facility are being trod upon by nations who are arguing that these people are not important enough to merit these Rights. Guilty, innocent - it doesn't matter. The so-called War on Terror is more important than one of the cornerstones that our free society should be built on.

<sarcasm>
It fills me with hope when I not only see these events happening, but when I see people literally queueing up to blindly support them as "good things" to oppose tyranny with.
</sarcasm>

jc

bonkey

Just to add a small correction to yesterdays post...

Today, another 26 inmates were released without charge from Gitmo. From

:

The U.S. military said yesterday that it released 23 Afghan and three Pakistani citizens from the U.S. Navy prison for terrorism suspects in Cuba, leaving about 610 still in detention.
...
The Pentagon says it has released a total of 119 prisoners from Guantanamo Bay, and 12 others have been transferred for continued detention elsewhere.

So, 119 released, and 610 retained (of which 0 have tried, let alone convicted).....and Lear would have us believe that these numbers are no big deal, because we're only talking about 5 Britons???????

jc