All this just because President Obama is too afraid to simply state that the 9/11 attack

[Greyhound]

happened because his predecessor was an incompetent fool that refused to do his job.

We knew who.

We knew when.

We knew how.

And they did nothing.

[Richardo]

1. "All this" what...?

:shrug:

[Greyhound]

5. Sorry, I had just hidden the 5000th TSA post and was reading about the so-called security

measures that we must endure because somebody might object to the things we do in their countries enough to fight back.

They're not afraid, so we must be.

[obxhead]

42. After reading this addition to the OP

I'll have to give you a big K&R.

[Swamp Rat]

2. k&r

[Greyhound]

23. Thanks Swamp Rat.

I always appreciate your work, and I'm glad to have it on this thread.

I hope you are doing well, or at least alright.

[orleans]

38. omg--great picture!

and so fucking true.

[midnight]

51. Bulls eye.......

[HughBeaumont]

58. In all their horrific glory.

Never forget what these fuckos did to this nation . . . forever.

[Motown_Johnny]

3. Because if something similar were to happen then Obama labeled himself a fool

it isn't a politically viable alternative

[Greyhound]

6. Thus the fear. Because being elected or reelected is more important than

doing what is right for the people and the nation.

We're way past the point where this crap can continue. Change requires taking a stand and living with the consequences.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

32. change requires a lucky break in Washington

as long as Washington is influenced by the 'big boys' no one will ever elicit change.

People need to rise up for the right reasons. The amount of apathy is amazing.

[Greyhound]

33. I don't think so, and yes, I agree.

Neither FDR nor Raygun needed a lucky break, they both made an end-fun around the "big boys" by going directly to the people. I see the main difference as being that they had specific goals, articulated them very well, and forced their opponents to either go along and have a chance at reelection or go on the record in their opposition and look for another job.

President Obama had exactly the same opportunity, widespread unrest, and skills to martial the people behind him. He chose to punt.

The level of apathy is amazing, almost unbelievable, I'm not that sure it is real, though. I talk to people every day and even when I don't bring it up, political events almost always comes up, so I think people may be paying more attention than we are lead to believe.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

34. possibly

unlike Reagan and FDR Obama's hands have been firmly tied.

[Greyhound]

37. What do you mean? Really, I don't think I understand what you're saying. n/t

[DonCoquixote]

36. In all fairness

FDR had world war 2, and Raygun had the cold war. And NEITHER of them had the full out Media saturation we have today.

[russspeakeasy]

44. Oh so true...

[reggie the dog]

50. yes, like if obama ignored a document entitled

"bin laden determined to strike in the usa" then went on vacation

[SpiralHawk]

4. "Smirk." - xCommander AWOL (R)

[CrispyQ]

8. ...

[PearliePoo2]

10. but of course!

;)
:thumbsup:

[LiberalLovinLug]

48. good one, also...

Condoleezza Rice: But I don’t remember the al‐Qaida cells as being something that we were told we needed to do something about.

Richard Ben-Veniste: Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6 PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB?

Condoleezza Rice: I believe the title was, Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.

[PearliePoo2]

7. August 6th 2001

PDB: "W" to CIA Briefer: "All right. You've covered your ass, now ...
war criminal revisionist fucker

[Ichingcarpenter]

9. Who was the guy Obama hired and then fired because

he didn't buy the official 911 story?

[Greyhound]

24. I remember the event but not the person.

I suppose that's the biggest difference between people here and the public at large, the mental capacity to (eventually) see what is right in front of them.

[Michigan-Arizona]

25. Are you thinking of Van Jones who signed a 911 petition? n/t

[librechik]

27. Van Jones--read a site which has questions about the official story/ TRAITOR!

how dare he think the 9/11 investigation was bungled and there are still questions?? Off with his head and all his commie conspiracy buddies too.

:sarcasm: just in case

[Rosa Luxemburg]

11. anybody who questions '9/11' is basically run out of town

it would be politically damaging for this administration to be labelled 'truthers'

however, truth does surface

[Greyhound]

13. More politically damaging than pissing off everybody so that the enemy is revitalized

and wins?

Just as we have seen before (FDR and Raygun for two examples), the person that bypasses the DC cesspool and goes directly to the people will get his agenda through.

Obama seems to be determined to give the opportunity to (most likely) Romney.

[Individualist]

12. He isn't afraid

DLC/NDC values political expedience above justice.

:mad:

[Greyhound]

17. Yes, but I really do want to give him the benefit of the doubt.

It's kind of funny that, while I do constantly hope for him to do something for the people, I'm (and those with similar views) viewed here as the enemy.

[Phlem]

20. Amen that brotha

It gets scary when people attack for being critical of this president.

Yea I know he's got everything working against him but there is just some dumb ass things he's done that he didn't have to do.

Really makes one wonder.

-p

[Duval]

52. Greyhound, I don't agree. I feel the same hope as

you do, because without it I would surely be in despair (more than I am). We The People have been so dummied down since Reagan, there are too few critical thinkers, my son for one. And, you know, there appears to be no better time to seperate the right from the left than during Holidays. We were not invited to eat for Thanksgiving, although he lives an hour away and I correspond almost every day via email with one of his 17 year old twins. :hurts: :hug: :pals:

[Goldstein1984]

14. We also knew why

U.S. foreign policy inspires terrorism.

Maybe if we had better people skills, 5% of the world's population wouldn't find it necessary to do 50% of the world's military spending.

[Greyhound]

15. Very good point. Providing the force for corporations to steal other people's stuff

does tend to piss them off, although I can't understand why...
:rofl:

[BeFree]

16. They did Nothing? BS

They arrested one guy.

But they didn't even check his computer.
Probably because there was no porn on the drive.

So, that is all they did.

[Greyhound]

19. OK, you got me on that, but you forgot to add that they tortured him, too.

:hi:

[BeFree]

22. That's right, I forgot

And when they put him on trial all kinds of background came out.
Like the trial records showing the CIA and FBI thwarted investigations of known enemies who were in this country. The PDB of Aug 6 was based upon that knowledge of the known enemies being in the country.

[BeFree]

45. I remembered this though

A DUer is who informed me of the CIA - FBI waywardness. His Journal link is here:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/rschop

Enjoy!!

[TheWraith]

18. It's not something people are willing to hear.

And it would hand massive propaganda material to the Republicans.

[ldf]

49. such truthiness!

americans should never be told what they are unwilling to hear.

problem solved.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[Swede]

26. Same color and everything.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[Number23]

41. Do you know what that acronym means? What does that have to do with Sammy Davis Jr.?

Is there are particular reason that you typed that??

[Greyhound]

28. Wow, I guess I should be proud.

I got 27 unrecs for this.

70 points -26 posts -17 recs leaves 27.

Thanks to those of you that agreed, to those anonymous unreccers, "I welcome their hatred".
:rofl:

Edit; Oops I forgot to split the difference, well 13/14 ain't too bad either.

[JohnyCanuck]

29. John le Carre on 9/11

Excerpt from "The United States of America Has Gone
Mad" by John le Carre': "America has entered one of its periods
of historical madness, but this is the worst I can remember. Worse than
McCarthyism, worse than the Bay of Pigs, and in the long term potentially
more disastrous than the Vietnam War.

The reaction to 911 has been beyond anything that Osama
Bin Laden could have hoped for in his nastiest dreams. As in McCarthy times,
the freedoms that have madeAmerica the envy of the world are being systematically
eroded. The combination of compliant US media and vested corporate interests
is once more insuring that the debate that should be ringing out in every
town square is confined to the loftier columns of the East-coast press.
The immanent war was planned years before Bin Laden 'struck' ­ but
it was "he" that made it possible. Without Bin Laden the Bush
junta would still be trying to explain such tricky matters as 'how it came
to be elected in the first place.' (my emphasis /JC)

Enron it's shameless favoring of the already too rich,
it's reckless disregard for the world's poor, ecology and a raft of the
unilateral abrogated International treaties. They might also have to have
been telling us why they support Israel, in its continuing disregard for
UN Resolutions. But 'Bin Laden' conveniently swept all that under the carpet.
The Bush's' are riding high. Now 88% of Americans want the war we are told.
The US Defense Budget has been raised by another sixty billion to around
three-hundred and sixty billion. A splendid new generation of nuclear weapons
is in the pipeline so we can all 'breathe easy:' Quite ­ What war the
88% of Americans think they are supporting is a lot less clear. A war 'for
how long please' at what cost inn American lives, at what cost to the American
taxpayer's pocket: At what cost because most of those 88% are decent and
humane people ­ in Iraqi lives? How Bush and his Junta succeeded in
deflecting America's anger from Bin Laden to Saddam Hussein is one of the
great public relations conjuring tricks of history, but this won it. A
recent poll tells us that one in two Americans now believe that Saddam
was responsible for the attack on the World Trade Center. That the American
public is not merely being misled, it is being browbeaten and kept in a
state of ignorance and fear. The carefully orchestrated neurosis should
carry Bush and his fellow conspirators nicely into the next (s)election. (my emphasis /JC)

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/surpassing-orwells-1984-in-2010/question-1356271/

[Rosa Luxemburg]

31. without the Right Wing media pushing this propaganda

Bush would have been booted out of office

[HCE SuiGeneris]

39. +1000

[russspeakeasy]

46. You nailed it....thanks...

[Politicalboi]

47. Bush only fooled the fools

Without Bin Laden the Bush
junta would still be trying to explain such tricky matters as 'how it came
to be elected in the first place.

Or where 2.3 Trillion dollars went from the Pentagon. Yes the Pentagon, where no blame is to be made, and waiting 40 minutes to do nothing on 9/11, or having the Secretary of DEFENSE helping victims on 9/11. Yes we don't want to blame anyone. There are SO many things Bush got because of 9/11, and it still happens today. Don't let them call you a fool for asking questions. Had more questions been asked instead of snickered at, we might be in a better place today.

Say like watching The Dick squirming because he is asked under oath what he meant by "Stand Down" on 9/11.
Or how Bush says he saw the first plane hit that morning when no video was available at that time. Or just ask Bush why didn't he DO anything? Questions Obama would be asked had he said stupid things like Bush did. Hell we've gone back to debating "57 states" again. LOL!

But we all just suck it up and bend over.

[Desertrose]

53. Plus another 1000

"That the American public is not merely being misled, it is being browbeaten and kept in a
state of ignorance and fear. The carefully orchestrated neurosis should
carry Bush and his fellow conspirators nicely into the next (s)election."


Yup...it sure worked and is still working.

[Michigan-Arizona]

30. K&R n/t

[jimlup]

40. I agree but Obama isn't the only one...

Why don't democrats fight sometimes? I mean we've taken their shit for years and years. The whole Clinton impeachment thing while Clinton was actually trying to deal with Al Qaida. And NOBODY CALLS THEM OUT!

THEN THEY ARE ASLEEP AT THE SWITCH LEADING UP TO AND BEFORE AND AFTER AN ATTACK ON OUR COUNTRY. WHAT THE HELL????

Sorry for the CAPS yelling. But I'm getting pissed at those dems who have helped set up the culture of not standing up. Whatever the political reasons it has gone way way too far. We know what works - backbone. Why don't we do it????? What gives? Does Obama actually want to be a one term president and hand the reigns back to the lunatics????

[Martin Eden]

43. Please explain to me ...

... how we wouldn't have "All this" if Obama had made a point of hammering GW Bush for being an incompetent fool that could have but did not prevent 9/11.

Keep in mind that this much-deserved criticism would have taken place AFTER Obama had become a national figure (after 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq, etc).

Are you saying that Obama's criticism of his predecessor would have caused terrorist organizations to ease up on their attempts to plant explosives on airliners?

[Greyhound]

54. Placing the blame where it belongs and telling the truth about what has been done since would set th...

foundation for some of that change stuff. Open the door to a real dialog of who we are and what we've done and the reasons behind it. It would have demonstrated an honesty this nation at least claims to want. But most importantly, something like this would bypass the DC shuffle by going to the people that took a chance on him in the hope of doing it better.

[Martin Eden]

55. That's all well and good, but it still doesn't explain your OP

If candidate and later President Obama had relentlessly hammered away at GW's negligence in failing to prevent 9/11 and demanded the truth come out about that and the lies that got us into Iraq (with indictments for the war criminals) it might have had some impact on domestic US policy but very little IMO on the extrenal threats pertaining to airport security.

Truth and justice are necessary for the kind of changes that are necessary both at home and in our foreign policy, but your OP is way off base in claiming that "All this" is the result of President Obama being "too afraid" to state the truth. As I explained in my previous post, "All this" was hitting the fan before Obama was elected, and I'd wager his decision not to harp on GW's negligence before 9/11 is, more than anything, a political calculation as to what can and can't be gained by focusing on actions/inactions more than 7 years before he took office.

[Martin Eden]

56. duplicate post, n/t

[Greyhound]

57. The other reply didn't show on My DU. It's a symptom of the posting bug.

You should delete the original in future.

I didn't say anything about candidate Obama. I also don't think that the "threat is nearly as great as you imply nor as difficult to prevent. You seem inordinately preoccupied with the imagined threat of the Bogey men. It's true that there are a quite a few people that don't like us very much but the same was just as true before 9/11. They try, we prevent, they try, we fail, and so it goes just as before. You are much more likely to die in your bathroom or your car than by the hand of a terrorist. Let your irrational fear go.

"a political calculation as to what can and can't be gained by focusing on actions/inactions more than 7 years before he took office" is the point. Putting political calculations (which are about as valid as predicting tomorrows lottery numbers) ahead of the people and principles is the problem.

The very creation of the DHS and all the crap that goes with it is a far greater threat than a bunch of guys hiding in third-world slums imagining their conquering the "Great Satan" with 20 lbs. of C-4.

[Martin Eden]

59. You're not telling me anything I don't already know.

Now let me tell you something that you don't know: I am not "inordinately preoccupied with the imagined threat of the Bogey men."

I used the phrase "external threats pertaining to airport security" to identify the issue at hand because in post #5 in this thread you explained to Richardo that by "All this" you were referring to "measures that we must endure because somebody might object to the things we do in their countries enough to fight back." I assume by that you meant airport security measures like the latest TSA pat-down controversy. If that's not what you meant, please clarify.

I made no comment on how real or pervasive I think those "threats' are, so I don't know where you got the notion about my supposed preoccupation with the "Bogey men." However, I think a few points of fact are pertinent to the discussion you and I are having about your original post in this thread:

There have indeed been attempts by terrorists to sneak explosives in their clothing onto passenger jets. These have been few and far between, but it is reasonable to assume they will continue to try. Personally I think TSA could probably find effective preventive measures that are not as invasive as full body scans & pat-downs, but I am not an expert on airport security.

Politics is something I know more about. If President Obama ordered the TSA to scale back their preventive measures and a terrorist subsequently succeeded at bringing down a passenger jet, you had better believe he would be excoriated on multiple fronts for failing to "keep us safe." The critics would scream that the threat and modus operandi were known, and yet he did "nothing" to prevent it -- they would use some of the same language you used in the OP to excoriate GW Bush. I'm not saying such criticism of Obama would be accurate or fair, but in terms of political consequences fairness & accuracy wouldn't matter.

Another point:
I wrote "a political calculation as to what can and can't be gained by focusing on actions/inactions more than 7 years before he took office" ...
You wrote "... is the point. Putting political calculations (which are about as valid as predicting tomorrows lottery numbers) ahead of the people and principles is the problem."

I agree with your point about "political calculation" -- but if the point is that Obama made a political calculation to not hammer GW Bush about his pre-9/11 negligence, then it contradicts your assertion that "All this" was because President Obama "is too afraid" to keep hammering Bush.

Our little discussion has branched out somewhat but I'm still trying to focus on your OP, and to tell you the truth I don't think it makes much sense at all. I doubt very much that President Obama is "afraid" at this point to hammer Bush for his pre-9/11 negligence; more likely he sees nothing to be gained by it in terms of political currency or positive change. And like I said in my first response, Obama criticizing Bush for 9/11 really wouldn't have an effect on "All this."

[Greyhound]

61. OK fine, whatever. It's late and I don't feel like playing this game with you.

Over a hundred people got what I wrote, you didn't.

Goodnight.

[Martin Eden]

62. Well then, get some rest and try again.

The "game" you're referring to is logical debate. I'm simply asking you to explain your argument with facts and logic. You made a pretty bold assertion about President Obama being "too afraid" to criticise Bush about his pre-9/11 negligence, and made a sweeping accusation that "All this" was a consequence.

There may be a fundamental misunderstanding about who you're blaming for "All this" -- the subject title of your OP seems to pin the blame on Obama, but it makes more sense to pin it on Bush (which you do in the text of your OP). It was pretty unclear, and the first reply in this thread was to ask what you were talking about.

There's very little (if any) disagreement between us about GW Bush but I've called into serious question your assertion about Obama; pointed out a contradiction; and so far you haven't backed up your assertion with anything resembling a coherent argument.

[Poboy]

60. kick