9/11 Bush Knew !

[kentuck]

Is this the slogan for the Democrats in the next election? How effective would it be? Is it "below the belt" and a loser for the Democrats? Or is it the issue that should be foremost in the minds of voters...especially since they do not wish to be forthcoming with the information that is needed by the 9/11 commission?

If not that issue, then what issue would you use against this bunch of criminals? Should we go "positive" and talk about our "vision" for the country? Would that be more effective? Or would you be trampled like a piss ant at Daytona Beach?

[HFishbine]

1. It would be extremely effective

with some proof.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

49. plenty to back it up, and he did know

We should never hide from the truth.

[SCantiGOP]

2. No to "Bush knew"

It would sound like a desperate paranoid concept to 80% of the population. My thrust would be "It's still the economy, stupid" and point out the dire consequences of Bush's tax cuts on the economy and the impact it will have on future generations.

[Hippo_Tron]

13. Agreed n/t

[political virginian]

14. Dire Consequences

You mean the dire consequences that brought us the largest quarter of growth in 19 years. The consequences that have 2004 projected to be the nest economic year for us in 20 years. Those two are even larger than anything that was made during Clinton's time in office.A consequence that allows me to keep more of my money, no way, who needs a consequence like that.

[Bridget Burke]

24. Have fun with your money.

Hope you've got a job, too. (Or did you just inherit it?)

Too bad about all those dead people. Not your problem, though.

[kentuck]

25. How predictable?

Three years of negative growth and you lose your ass....then a couple of quarters of growth trying to recover what you already lost, and it is some kind of economic miracle? Keep looking in that horseshit...there's a pony down there somewhere.

[spotbird]

28. I don't know why I bother, but the stock market is about where

it was exactly one year ago. Considering that it will cost the country our economic security the sorry tax cut I recieved is cynical at best. What about unemployment? We are hated internationally, there isn't much security in that.

And that is just the tip of the iceburg. Enjoy your prosperty, it is at the cost of my childrens future.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spychoactive]

38. oh brother...

ummm, nothing personal, but....

ahh nevermind, see the post below re: ponies

:)

EIB=everthing is bullshit

yeah the shrub is an economic genius thank god!

*rolls eyes*

one love
spike

[Cocoa]

42. Bush's projected success

why does Bush always get credit for success that hasn't happened yet, and gets no blame for the failures that are realities right now?

Sounds like the soft bigotry of low expectations.

[kentuck]

64. It's like a boxer that gets pounded for 9 rounds...

then he wins a round and raises his arms in victory and preens around the ring..

[caledesi]

21. Agree. It's over the top. Too many people are not even willing

to grasp the idea that * knew and will just think we are whackos.

[Sparkle]

3. While I'm here, does anyone know what date that Bush

gave the press conference whee he was caught off guard when the reporter asked about 9/11? I'm having problems viewing the clip that is circulating on DU but I see that C-Span has archived Bush's press conferences (what little there is).

[HFishbine]

22. Try here

rtsp://video.c-span.org/archive/iraq/iraq121503_bush.rm

@ 32 minutes.

(Copy and paste the link into your browser)

[Sparkle]

69. Thanks!

[cthrumatrix]

4. I think "we can't trust Bush" would be an idea that people would

resonate with on several levels: wmds, govt spending, medicare reform etc....

on any subject: "You can't trust Bush"


Calling him a "liar" is true...but you lose people with the message. People want somebody they can "trust".

His terra issue...when John Glenn says he doens't feel safer...shrub has lost the "protection of america vote"...we can't trust him. He says one thing and does another.

[wryter2000]

20. Ooooh, I like that

"We can't trust Bush," and "borrow-and-spend corpocrats."

[Cocoa]

47. Gep had a good line about that

he said, whenever you see those backdrops behind him, like "Improving the economy" or whatever, just assume what he is really doing is exactly the opposite.

And Clark has been saying "bait and switch" about Iraq.

[montanacowboy]

5. If the Dems only had the courage

to use 9/11 Bush Knew, but they won't - no one will - no one will EVER find these fiends responsible for anything - the oppression just goes on and on, day in day out, outrage after outrage and nothing ever happens - if this maniac somehow manages to get selected again, God will have to help us,because no one else will or can.

[SpiralHawk]

6. The truth has a sting to it

it seems this particular combination packs a wallop

9/11 Bush Knew
Did Nothing

[PFaithful]

7. 9/11 only plays into

the hands of the Bush admin. We should NOT place our hopes of victory on pining 9/11 on him or his admin. It is a weak and flawed argument.

Furthermore, you don't sound very sincere in asking the question. I think I should let the site admin know about your post and have them watch you like a hawk. ;-)

[kentuck]

8. Explain yourself:

"It is a weak and flawed argument."

[cthrumatrix]

9. let's stick to the subject...do you have any ideas that you would like

to contribute?

[arcane1]

16. weak and flawed

how so? :shrug:

[Wapsie B]

10. To try to paint a conspiracy theory

in the mind's of Joe & Mary Six-pack would be impossible IMHO. It could be easily dismissed as another crackpot fringe idea grasping to discredit the President. It would be too much for this country to take.

More digestible however is planting the seeds of doubt. Don't claim that chimpy is the spawn of Satan. It just needs to be shouted from the rooftops:

I can't trust him. I can't trust him. I can't trust him. I can't trust him.


Pass it on.

[TexasPatriot]

17. this is a non-starter

but i'm sure Hannity et al will be glad to read the posts on their news programs to make us all look fringe

you cant just say 'bush knew'
prove it
or focus on something real (or do we not have enough real issues to deal with these days...)

:tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat:

[mojo2004]

11. It would....

strengthen the base, at the same time it would motivate the opposition. It would turn off the swing voters unless there was definite proof. Expecting to regain the White House with inuendos probably would not work.

[kentuck]

12. Is it really just "innuendo"?

Or are there facts that are being covered up?

[arcane1]

18. who needs innuendo's? Republicans, it's all they have!

like "Gore invented the Internet"?

There are plenty of facts and documents out there to convince the sacred swing voters that Bush dropped the ball, and hid in Crawford like a chicken-shit little child

[spotbird]

43. Oh my, we wouldn't want to alienate anyone with the truth.

I see the problem.

[YNGW]

15. Go Positive

>Promote "Bush Knew"

It would be a death blow for our party.

>Should we go "positive" and talk about our "vision" for the country? Would that be more effective?

Yes, that's the best chance

[spotbird]

45. That could work.....

Igonre the harm Bush has done and leave him unaccountable. Meanwhile letting them attack us with "unproven" plans.

The reason the Republicans use all the negitive ads is because they work, and for no other reason.

[wryter2000]

19. A combination of negative and positive, imho

I think the issue we own is the deficit. Remind people of when they called us tax-and-spend. Only now, we have borrow-and-spend. Then, contrast that with Clinton's handling of the economy.

Also, when they try using 9/11 and terra, blast them with both barrels on their failures. If we can't credibly claim that Bush knew by then, ask "what is Bush covering up?" Because we know he's not going to come clean with all the information the commission wants. Hit him with the missing intelligence briefings.

[kentuck]

27. We need to tell them that borrow and spend is worse than tax and spend

Because you have to pay the interest when you borrow and spend. They are not the Party of fiscal conservatism.

[laruemtt]

23. i like

"bush knew and did nothing"

"where was bush on 9/11? where was our defense?"

[rucky]

26. Hell yeah!

read ProudPatriot's bumper sticker post

We have to stir the pot. Heads may explode.

[Petrodollar Warfare]

29. BIG banners all over NY at the GOP convention that says....

.."NY Does Not Trust Bush!" (I'm talking BIG banners in view of the GOP convetion center and perhaps a bill board or too...)

You don''t need to bring up 9/11, just the trust issue.
I think this could resonate at many levels...

[terrisel]

31. He Knew-I don't think it is a weak statement at all

I think a lot of people suspect. The mail problem is the relative lack of infomation on the "news" allows people to not examine what they already suspect.

Trust is a good way to express it.

[rucky]

66. You're right

n/t

[Bushknew]

30. Bush knew and did nothing.

After being informed by Chief of Staff Andrew Card about the hijackings, Bush knew and did nothing to inform and protect America and Americans. Instead, he sat in a childrenÕs class room for thirty minutes.

After the first plane hit the WTC, the third and final plane hit the Pentagon roughly 45 minutes LATER.!!!!!!

Republicans say vote for them because they will keep America safe, they are strong on defense.

Really, just remember how well this Republican administration handled 911.

Under this Republican administration, they couldnÕt even defend the Pentagon much less the American people.

Folks, this is the best way to attack Bush, and IÕve been saying this ever since IÕve been here.

Don't be afraid to tell the truth.

Bush is running on how safe he can keep America and Americans. This forces them to face 911
Which they have been stonewalling.

[YNGW]

35. I'll go along under one condition.

I must be provided with "Indesputible Documented Evidence" that he knew and did nothing.

I don't think that's too much to ask.

Without that level of proof, I have no reason to believe "Bush Knew".

[Bushknew]

39. I gave you proof already É

<<After being informed by Chief of Staff Andrew Card about the hijackings, Bush knew and did nothing to inform and protect America and Americans. Instead, he sat in a childrenÕs class room for thirty minutes.>>

What kind of leadership is that?

This Republican administration couldnÕt even defend the Pentagon much less the America people
on 911.

What kind of leadership is that?

What did Bush know? Why have they stonewalled so much?

[YNGW]

41. That's not...

...Indisputible Documented Evidence.

I need documents that says that Bushit knew that 4 planes were going to be hijacked, two from Boston, two from NY, and that they were going to be flown by hijackers into the WTC's,

or documented evidence that the Mossad did it in conjunction with the Bushit Administration,

or documentation that explosive charges were set off in the WTC's and the plane were flown by remote control and the Bush Administration approved of such,

That kind of proof.

You got it??

[Bushknew]

46. Come on É

If I had documents that said that Bush knew 4 planes were going to be hijacked, I
have the feeling you would ask for video proof next.

Face it, your boy barely broke a smirk when he was told of the hijackings. He KNEW
of the hijackings and sat on his ass for thirty minutes while America and Americans were in danger.

[YNGW]

53. Reply

He ain't my boy, son. Grow up.

The documented evidence I asked for would certainly convince me and everyone of this "Bush Knew" conspiracy. But, all I've gotten so far is a bunch of connect-the-unrelated-dots BS. There isn't one of you who can provide indisputible documented evidence in order to prove what you claim, the type of proof you better have if you're going to indict a president, any president. And in the process of floating this foolishness as if it had any credibility, you're getting the whole party painted as a bunch of kooks.

If we lose in 2004, the reason for it will lie squarly at the feet of you and people like you who are making the whole party look like Lu-Lu Land, and rest asured I'll be glad to bring it to your attention.

[spotbird]

59. How do you explain simply what they admit happened?

What they said with their own words! The reason you don't answer is because your attacks divert from the fact that you have nothing to support your position. It is all hat and no cattle, much like the Chimp.

You clearly think that * shouldn't be held accountable for any failure on his part. How pretending he is anything but what he is helps the Democrats is highly questionable.

Since you don't engage in real dialog your chances of convincing anyone are pretty low, but your worry for the Democrats is touching.

[YNGW]

63. Tell you what...

>The reason you don't answer is because your attacks divert from the fact that you have nothing to support your position.

I'm the one asking you for indisputable documented evidence. You're the one bringing up the accusations. I assure you, if you're going to accuse the president, any president, of either allowing or planning the death of 3000 US citizens, you better have documented evidence, which you don't have.

I can't hold people accountable without documented evidence.

Encourage your candidate of choice to run on the platform of "Bush Knew". I want to see it happen. When people start asking for the evidence, and they will, what are you going to give them? What can you put in their hands that says, "Without a doubt, Bush knew and (a) allowed it to happen, (b) made it happen, and here's the documented evidence in black and white"?

I assure you, without the documentation, you'll be painted as a kook. In the meanwhile, you're causing our party to be seen in that light, and I don't appreciate it.

[spotbird]

65. Once again, there is documented evidence.

The National Security Advisor admitted after the attacks that there was intelligence that hijackings were imminent. That threat was taken so seriously that the Attorney General stopped flying commercial airliners. These simple facts are undisputed, well the AG changed his story after the attacks, but he admitted the increased risk at the time he stopped flying commercial.

How when you have senior government officials publicly admitting they knew of the strong possibility of an attack do you not also conclude that the President had the same information? And if you think they didn’t share this with him, why didn’t he fire them?

You will not address this simple point, as you haven’t the last many times I brought it up because you have no reply. You will certainly repeat the same line that you have over and over, which does not address this direct documented evidence. You don't want documentation, you want the issue of *'s failures ignored.

on edit:
I assure you, without the documentation, you'll be painted as a kook. In the meanwhile, you're causing our party to be seen in that light, and I don't appreciate it.

I assure you that since there is documented evidence you have no worries about how the Democratic Party will be viewed. You concern regarding this issue for the Democrats, my party, is very much misplaced.

[YNGW]

67. OK

Let me address this "simple fact" so you can "simply" get back to believing whatever you want to believe anyway.

>The National Security Advisor admitted after the attacks that there was intelligence that hijackings were imminent. That threat was taken so seriously that the Attorney General stopped flying commercial airliners.

What that says is that they had some "intelligence that hijackings were imminent." There is no evidence they had any idea that planes would be hi-jacked and flown into buildings. An AG *not* taking commercial flights would make sense given they had intelligence hi-jackingings could take place, because if a plane with the AG on board were hi-jacked, the hi-jackers would have quite a little prize to negotiate with, wouldn't they? I'm not going to sit here and paint the 100,000 different secenrios that could take place given those conditions. Use your imigination.

>How when you have senior government officials publicly admitting they knew of the strong possibility of an attack do you not also conclude that the President had the same information? And if you think they didn’t share this with him, why didn’t he fire them?

You need to document that these warnings prior to 9/11 were regarded as holding more weight than any more of the thousands and thousands of other data the FBI, etc... have to trudge through everyday and determine which one's deserve their immediate attention and which one's don't, and that they were categorically dismissed. And I do mean this particular attack. To say "They knew an attack was a strong possibility" is not enough, because that just says that intelligence said they thought something was in the works but didn't know when or where. You've got to have something that says they knew planes were going to be hi-jacked and flown into buildings, but they did nothing to stop it. Otherwise, you can't expect the President prior to 9/11 to be briefed on every little possiblity the FBI turns up. And remember, we're looking at this in hindsight. It's real easy to say "Don't you think that would have been important?" now that it's after the fact.

Now, I'm done with conspiracy theorists for the moment, because I generally find it to be unproductive, but fun. Those who believe in conspiracy theories can never believe anything other than what the conspiracy tells them to believe. To the conspiracy theorist, any evidences presented which disprove the conspiracy theory is just further evidence that the conspiracy theory itself is true, otherwise why would there be others trying to prove it is not true.

For now, I've got better things to do.


On edit: If the Democratic Party is "your party", as you imply it is not mine, I certainly hope you'll move elsewhere... and soon. Take your friends with you. You're going to lose my party the election by having my party associated with tin-foil hatters.

:tinfoilhat:

[spotbird]

70. It is interesting that the public record firmly supports the view

that there our leaders were concerned about their own safety but not their citizens, but you think the best position for the Democrats is to blindly follow the leader, without question. That isn’t even the duty of a loyal Republican much less the worthy opposition.

Regardless of what you believe, there is a reason that the Republicans have a national majority, and it is negative campaigning. They don’t have better ideas or policies they do have better performers of their lies. I support the truth, screaming it loud and clear, and the truth is negative about the Republicans. That is the message that the Democrats must get out.

Please don’t you worry about the Democrats who value the publication of facts, the truth is easy to stick to since you don’t have to have a good memory.

As far as your resentment of what you took as an implication on my part of you political views, you are very sensitive on that subject apparently, your feelings don't concern me in the slightest. And I'm not going anywhere. Maybe you should take your blind faith in the Chimp and move on, and take your kind with you. You aren't going to help defeat him with adoration of his lies.

[SpiralHawk]

51. Dear YNGW, I get it

You want to see the original copy of "The Secret 9/11 Plan to Scare the Shit Out of America and Install as Fascist Plutocarcy."

Alas, that was checked out of the library last week, and is not due back till January, 2004.

In the meantime, you might care to peruse the PNAC documents, and also the Constitution of the United States of America. You might find them both to be highly revealing.

[YNGW]

55. Reply

If you're going to indict a president, any president, you better have documented evidence. You don't.

[arcane1]

58. Bush does, in the form of his PDB's

which he REFUSES to release

if you ask me, showing the Booker Elem. video as a campaign commercial would do wonders, with a voice-over of Bush talking about how he SAW the first plane hit, then went into the classroom anyway. Then Andy comes in, tells him about the 2nd plane, and the chimp SITS THERE and says not ONE WORD, goes back to his goat story as if Andy had merely told him a football score...

[spotbird]

61. Good point again Y N GW!

We need to believe whatever preposterous story they present us since without investigative authority we will not be able to prove any contrary facts. Without proof of lies we must be accept the official version as Gospel.

If they say so it must be true. Man that simplifies everything.

[spotbird]

Bush is NEVER truthful, so I don't understand why you believe him.

That said, look at the public record.

The National Security Advisor admitted that prior to the attack intelligence existed that “traditional” hijackings were being planned by terrrorists. The threat was serious enough for the Attorney General to stop flying commercial.

But based on that admitted information no one thought that an attack was happening when the first tower was hit? You may wait for a confession; I’ll let common sense dictate my view. If the public knew these facts their common sense might also lead them to question the official story. There is only one way to find out, tell it over and over.

Please give an example of a time that Bush has bee truthful causing you to trust him. You won't give an answer to that question, because there is none.

[SpiralHawk]

54. Dear YNGW, I get it.

You want to see the original copy of "The Secret 9/11 Plan to Scare the Shit Out of America and Install a Fascist Plutocarcy."

Alas, that was checked out of the library last week, and is not due back till January, 2004.

In the meantime, you might care to peruse the PNAC documents, and also the Constitution of the United States of America. You might find them both to be highly revealing.

[JailBush]

33. It's not below the belt, but anyone who wants to beat Bush should have

more than one issue! Conventional wisdom says the voters are too stupid to grasp more than one simple slogan. Although Americans are undeniably stupid, are they really so dense they don't realize there's more than one important issue in the world? Between Iraq, Afghanistan, tactical nukes, broken treaties, the economy, abortion, the Constitution, public education and global warming, I think most people realize we live in a complex world. I certainly wouldn't want vote for a one-dimensional candidate who campaign on a "Bush Knew" platform alone.

If I was going to create a single slogan for a political campaign, I'd draft a statement that embraces all the issues, something like "We can solve no issues with Bush in the way."

During debates and interviews, the candidates should talk about a variety of issues, which should be discussed IN DETAIL on their websites. They can certainly condense everything on the home page, but any voters who are looking for more information should be able to follow links to pages that offer detailed discussions.

I don't want to vote for a dummy, nor do I want to vote for anyone who's too lazy to research the issues or too timid to tell the world what he thinks.

The candidates ought to have hundreds and thousands of supporters. They should get their acts together and commission websites with literally hundreds of pages, filled with discussions of issues and provocative facts and questions designed to impeach George W. Bush.

Knowledge is power - and it's a game a moron like Bush can't win.

[proud patriot]

34. IMHO

Activists should be hammering this home .

The candidates however should ask the questions
why has the president Stonewalled the 911 comission?

why haven't the people who failed America that day
been fired or reprimanded for failing to do their job?

[Minstrel Boy]

56. right!

This is one for the activists, who can do a better job on it. BUSH KNEW is too big for a sound bite. It's best taken on one-on-one or in small groups, where you have the opportunity to actually make the case. I see it as a subterranean, grassroots campaign. (Because you can bet you won't be aided by the US corporate media.)

The candidates have plenty of other questions. The stonewalling of the commission is huge, as is the unaccountability.

[Triana]

36. 9-11 Bush Failed .... might be better

He certainly failed to protect the country he was sworn to protect. He seemed more interested in passing tax cuts for the rich, instead.

[Cocoa]

50. absolutely right

it can't be argued with, it's a certainty that the worst terrorist attack in history happened on his watch.

From there, there are other certainties that don't depend on the Kean commission, about the absence of any atttention at all to terrorism in the months preceding the attack, and the certainty that Bush was on vacation for a month right before the attack.

Ask Bush to show what he did about terrorism before the attack, ask him to cite public statements or speeches about it.

[ThomC]

37. We need the DNC to plaster this on every web page...

Dean and others should do the same.

[spychoactive]

40. how about this!!!!!!!

"read my lips"...

then pan to the shrubs notoriously blank and confused stare...

dead silence...

fade to black...

works for me!
one love
spike

[Bushknew]

48. LOL

[spychoactive]

57. that would be SO perfect, yes?

the more i script the idea out, the funnier it becomes...

i have seen that eyes a-dartin' around deer in the headlights look too many times, it's about time we use it to our advantage

maybe add him shrugging after the long blank confused stare!

we may have something here

who should i approach??

[RBHam]

44. Seeing as how it's the truth...

The only downside I see is the criminal actions the Bush Crime Syndicate would undertake to silence the opposition.

Lots of terror attacks, Dems going down in airplanes, anthrax mailings...

When will you wake up - you may not even make ot to the next elections as a Democratic state.

That is, if Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Myers and Tommy Franks have any say.

[ElementaryPenguin]

52. I think it's brilliant, Kentuck!

:toast:

[Kazak]

60. What ever happened to ?!!

The Question Bush movement?

[Individualist]

62. Excellent idea, kentuck

"Bush Knew" should be shouted out loud until even the most ignorant know the facts.

[laruemtt]

68. bush knew

and if not, why the hell didn't he? we're not paying him to play golf in crawford!