Bush pisses off 9/11 victims trying to get re-elected...

[bungrider]

House approves extension for 9/11 commission
More access to Bush, Cheney sought

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/04/911.commission/index.html

 

[bungrider]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

...While 9/11 technically happened on Bush's watch, he had been in office all of 9 months. The groundwork for it had been laid during the previous administration, an administration that conducted its own terrorism, eg Waco, but did nothing after the first WTC attack or any of the many successive attacks on Americans around the globe, such as Khobar Towers, US Cole, etc...

We've been over this 1,000x here on ET. The foundations were actually laid during daddy's watch, shown clearly during the 1992 WTC bombing part I.

And to go back further, I'd argue that the foundations were laid by Cheney, Rumsfeld, and daddy bush by supporting bin laden in the first place in the early 80's (not to mention Saddam).

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

...I think it is fair to say that Kerry would be reluctant to take preemptive action, for example against North Korea, but would instead try to buy them off like Clinton did...

Maybe so maybe not, but frankly, the north korean civilians are not our enemies any more than the Iraqi civilians are. Why not buy them off with capitalism and see which they prefer? It seems to be working pretty well with China and the former USSR. The N Koreans may like stinky food, but otherwise they're good people. "Real people," to parrot a parrot parroting what cheney told him to say.

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

BTW, the othe issue is taxes. Kerry will clearly try to raise them substantially. If Bush will issue a "no new taxes" pledge, I think he will win, and if he fails to do so, I think he faces a real battle.

That's a great point. But, the numbers don't lie, and fortunately for this country, the majority of Americans didn't see shit from Bush's tax cut. In fact, 88% got less than $100. Thus there is little motivation to vote for him.

The tax cut thing is the apex of cunning politics. Cut taxes, run up the deficit with uncontrolled spending, then get kicked out of office for it, turn around, watch the new administration try and fix what you've done (unfortunately the only way for the federal govt to generate $1trillion is thru taxation) and blame them for raising taxes.

Brilliant. That dick cheney really thought the whole thing out. Lucky for our armed forces, hell is right around the corner for him anyway with his weak heart (proof that there is a god??)

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

ART,

Re the Krugman column, have revenues actually gone down? I know we can play these silly games that IF the tax rates had stayed the same, and IF we assume that doesn't affect economic activity, then rev's would have been higher. But he says that revenues have declined. I find that hard to believe.

Also, you're right LBJ did not lose. He was more or less chased out of ofice however and didn't run for reelection, which I believe he could have done since he assumed office upon the JFK assasination. His VP Humphrey ran and lost.

 

[BloodTrader]

Quote from bungrider:

Bush ads anger some 9/11 families

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/04/elec04.prez.bush.ads.ap/index.html



It makes no sense to me that Cheney would want the voters to be reminded that he let all of this happen on his watch...?


Anyone else scared of a more severe terorrist attack should Cheney get re-elected? Politics, jobs, and freedom aside here, I'm scared for my own neck! Maybe it's worth staying alive to move to Canada for 4 more years should Cheney get re-elected in November...

This administration will NEED more terrorist attacks to maintain their control. So...

m

 

[BloodTrader]

Quote from ARogueTrader:

When you listen to Bush, do you get a hopeful, expansive feeling, or a contracted fearful feeling?

I get the feeling I am listening to a not very bright guy who has no business playing with the big boys. He ought to just pack up his game machines and go home.

m

 

[TM_Direct]

Im just curious......Now everyone is upset wiht Bush for using 9-11 for hsi political gain.....yet for three years I have been hearing prominent democrats from Hillary to Dean saying " we are no safer now then before".....say what you want but you know and I know that they keep saying this with the knowledge ( hope?) that if another attack occurs before the election it will be a windfall...BTW...for all you traders who hate the Bush Tax cut....feel free to give it back..it was a dasterdly thing...I'd rather let the government hold more of my money and decide what is best for me

 

[ARogueTrader]

If we mean revenues via money collected by the IRS, let me ask you....

During the Bush administration (through no fault of his own perhaps) did we see a lot of layoffs in the high tech and other sectors?

Did we see the unemployment rolls increase or decrease?

Do people typically make as much money on unemployment that is taxable?

You still think the revenues did not decline during the adminstration?

Were corporations making as much money to be taxed?

Were guardsmen and reservists who were called up make as much money in their service as they would have in the private sector to pay taxes on?

Were people taking profits from stock to generate capital gains to pay taxes on?

Just do the math on this one....

It was the wrong time to cut taxes for the WEALTHY!!!! They should have been the ones who took up the slack to support the crunch...they can afford it.

Why do people forget that we are all in this together?

Re: LBJ,

We will never know if he would have won or lost.

He might have beaten Nixon....

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

ART,

Re the Krugman column, have revenues actually gone down? I know we can play these silly games that IF the tax rates had stayed the same, and IF we assume that doesn't affect economic activity, then rev's would have been higher. But he says that revenues have declined. I find that hard to believe.

Also, you're right LBJ did not lose. He was more or less chased out of ofice however and didn't run for reelection, which I believe he could have done since he assumed office upon the JFK assasination. His VP Humphrey ran and lost.

 

[oasis]

While 9/11 technically happened on Bush's watch, he had been in office all of 9 months. The groundwork for it had been laid during the previous administration, an administration that conducted its own terrorism, eg Waco, but did nothing after the first WTC attack or any of the many successive attacks on Americans around the globe, such as Khobar Towers, US Cole, etc.

As a country we face two starkly different aprroaches to our security, approaches that are embodied in the two candidates. Bush stands for a strong domestic security apparatus, one that will not agonize over marginal civil rights issues. He represents an aggressive interantional defense policy that will not hesitate to strike preemptorily at nations that threaten us or that pose an unacceptable risk to our way of life.--------------------------------------------------

The previous administration handed over much intelligence , which was ignored . Hence the top FBI terrorism expert resigned in protest of Bushes non engagement with what they were given . He became the head of security at the towers , where he perished . Waco started during Bush one . Clinton also terrorized Yugoslavia , bombing over 200 churches , bridges , schools , hospitals and apartments . Then there was the bombing of the pharmaceitical ( sp ) factory . Bush has outdone him though with a death toll of over 10,000 civilians so far . The Clinton administration has , unlike Bush , been fully cooperating with the 911 commission .

Stark is right , police state would be a better description . Wouldn't want our leaders to agonize over the constitution . Bush will strike offensively not defensively just like they did in Iraq , while creating more terrorists and increasing the danger to us . However he can justify to people like you while shoveling our taxes to Haliburton et al .

 

[waggie945]

But can you please show me where President George Bush and his administration have done more than just run off at the mouth regarding being, as you say, "strong on domestic security"?

Last time I checked, our Port Security was a joke.

Our Ports are so vulnerable, it isn't even funny and the Bush Administration still has yet to fund anything close to realistic in order to help our Nation's Ports get their security up to a sufficient level of security. Thus far, all we have gotten out of the Bush Administration and Homeland Defense is a lot of "tough" talk, and that is all that it has been . . . TALK!

We have 361 Ports to protect, 95,000 miles of navigable waterways to defend and 20,000 oceangoing vessels to keep an eye on. The Coast Guard is focusing on what it considers the nation's 11,700 most likely maritime targets of a terrorist attack.

About 3,200 of these targets are on shore: Oil refineries, nuclear power plants, liquid natural gas facilities and hundreds of other hazmat type sites.

The 8,500 others are on the water: Public ferries from Seattle to New York, barges and cargo ships that crisscross U.S. harbors and inland waterways, oceangoing tankers and freighters, etc.

Nevertheless, the federal government has been spending about seven to 10 times more on aviation security than maritime security. For 2004, Congress has authorized the federal Transportation Security Administration to spend $3.8 billion on airport security and less than a half-billion for port security.

The disparity is obviously because cargo containers on a ship do not vote, but this difference just doesn't seem to equate the risk. Besides, a nuclear device is not going to get into this country via an airplane. It's gonna come in via ship.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...BUGMD4R6M91.DTL

 

[bungrider]

Quote from TM_Direct:

Im just curious......Now everyone is upset wiht Bush for using 9-11 for hsi political gain.....yet for three years I have been hearing prominent democrats from Hillary to Dean saying " we are no safer now then before".....say what you want but you know and I know that they keep saying this with the knowledge ( hope?) that if another attack occurs before the election it will be a windfall...BTW...for all you traders who hate the Bush Tax cut....feel free to give it back..it was a dasterdly thing...I'd rather let the government hold more of my money and decide what is best for me

TM good to see you out here, bro.

i'll tell you what it is - it's the growing tide of dissatisfaction with the outcome of the iraq war. remember, we were sold "fear and awe."

the bush road to security has been paved with a weak dollar, large deficits, economic uncertainty, and american lives.

frankly, i am not sure that another attack would help bush at this point. i was talking to a woman earlier this afternoon who i know has supported bush all along, and i asked her if she thought she would be safe if bush got re-elected. to my surprise, she said no. just playing devil's advocate here, but it was interesting that she said no.

this whole thing got way out of control when people started protesting in the united states - in manhattan, for pete's sake (censoring out the c word for you here, buddy)!