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

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...

 

I lost a couple of friends on 911.
One was a broker and great family man at Cantor Fitzgerald at the top of #2 WTC, the other was a United flight attendant on board the UAL flight that went down outside of Pittsburgh.

In any event, I cannot understand for the life of me how the Bush Administration can "stonewall" the 911 Commission and former New Jersey Republican Governor Keane, while on the other hand use images from the 911 terrorist attacks for political commercials that seek his re-election.

This hypocrasy has got to stop!

 

This entire administration is based on fear. This isn't about republican vs. democrats. This is about an administration that wants you to live in fear so that they can pass just about any agenda they wish.

It is simply pathetic.

 

"This entire administration is based on fear. This isn't about republican vs. democrats. This is about an administration that wants you to live in fear so that they can pass just about any agenda they wish."

Sad, but True.

 

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

 

great irony is they are aligning him with horrific, graphic television images of smoldering human remains and tragic violence, while simultaneously censoring the media to prevent the display of such "harmful" things as naked women and 4-letter words....

 

It is a sad commentary of the present if Bush has to show pictures of 911 to inspire people to vote for his "vision" of the future.

Using the event of 911 happening again to get votes is pornographic.

Oh, and on a side note, the administration is now going to focus on finding Osama Bin Laden.

That little diversionary thingy in Iraq....we don't need to think about that any more.

Our goal is to get Osama.

 

"This entire administration is based on fear. This isn't about republican vs. democrats. This is about an administration that wants you to live in fear so that they can pass just about any agenda they wish."

Ain't that the truth but it ain't just the States its everywhere.....

All the bullshit happening in Iraq they should just put Saddam back in plane and give him back and see how much jumping up and down the Iraqeeees do then...

Bush has a vision i hate to see what that really is at the end of the day....

 

I have criticized Bush plenty here, so no one jump in and say I am just a do or die Republican fanatic. Having said that, I can't think of a more important symbol for this election than 9/11. What could be more important?

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.

Kerry on the other hand represents more of a law enforcement approach to domestic terrorism. While he has not laid out his plans, on this or anything lese, it is reasonable to expect him to follow the Clinton approach, which was to treat domestic attacks as basically law enforcement issues. A liberal democrat Department of Justice can be expected to elevate issues of civil rights, profiling, right to counsel and other legalisms much more that the current administration.

On foreign policy, Kerry has made nosecret of his fervent desire to have any action we take be blessed by the UN and joined in by our European "allies." Of course, he took a contrary position when Clinton wanted to engage in nationbuilding in Haiti and Kosovo, but we are getting used to seeing Kerry on all sides of any difficult issue. 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.

I think it is obvious this is one of two major policy issues for the campaign. The voters have a pretty clear choice between comteting philosophies.

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.

 

Maestro of Chutzpah
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: March 2, 2004


The traditional definition of chutzpah says it's when you murder your parents, then plead for clemency because you're an orphan. Alan Greenspan has chutzpah.

Last week Mr. Greenspan warned of the dangers posed by budget deficits. But even though the main cause of deficits is plunging revenue — the federal government's tax take is now at its lowest level as a share of the economy since 1950 — he opposes any effort to restore recent revenue losses. Instead, he supports the Bush administration's plan to make its tax cuts permanent, and calls for cuts in Social Security benefits.

Yet three years ago Mr. Greenspan urged Congress to cut taxes, warning that otherwise the federal government would run excessive surpluses. He assured Congress that those tax cuts would not endanger future Social Security benefits. And last year he declined to stand in the way of another round of deficit-creating tax cuts.

But wait — it gets worse.

You see, although the rest of the government is running huge deficits — and never did run much of a surplus — the Social Security system is currently taking in much more money than it spends. Thanks to those surpluses, the program is fully financed at least through 2042. The cost of securing the program's future for many decades after that would be modest — a small fraction of the revenue that will be lost if the Bush tax cuts are made permanent.

And the reason Social Security is in fairly good shape is that during the 1980's the Greenspan commission persuaded Congress to increase the payroll tax, which supports the program.

The payroll tax is regressive: it falls much more heavily on middle- and lower-income families than it does on the rich. In fact, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, families near the middle of the income distribution pay almost twice as much in payroll taxes as in income taxes. Yet people were willing to accept a regressive tax increase to sustain Social Security.

Now the joke's on them. Mr. Greenspan pushed through an increase in taxes on working Americans, generating a Social Security surplus. Then he used that surplus to argue for tax cuts that deliver very little relief to most people, but are worth a lot to those making more than $300,000 a year. And now that those tax cuts have contributed to a soaring deficit, he wants to cut Social Security benefits.

The point, of course, is that if anyone had tried to sell this package honestly — "Let's raise taxes and cut benefits for working families so we can give big tax cuts to the rich!" — voters would have been outraged. So the class warriors of the right engaged in bait-and-switch.

There are three lessons in this tale.

First, "starving the beast" is no longer a hypothetical scenario — it's happening as we speak. For decades, conservatives have sought tax cuts, not because they're affordable, but because they aren't. Tax cuts lead to budget deficits, and deficits offer an excuse to squeeze government spending.

Second, squeezing spending doesn't mean cutting back on wasteful programs nobody wants. Social Security and Medicare are the targets because that's where the money is. We might add that ideologues on the right have never given up on their hope of doing away with Social Security altogether. If Mr. Bush wins in November, we can be sure that they will move forward on privatization — the creation of personal retirement accounts. These will be sold as a way to "save" Social Security (from a nonexistent crisis), but will, in fact, undermine its finances. And that, of course, is the point.

Finally, the right-wing corruption of our government system — the partisan takeover of institutions that are supposed to be nonpolitical — continues, and even extends to the Federal Reserve.

The Bush White House has made it clear that it will destroy the careers of scientists, budget experts, intelligence operatives and even military officers who don't toe the line. But Mr. Greenspan should have been immune to such pressures, and he should have understood that the peculiarity of his position — as an unelected official who wields immense power — carries with it an obligation to stand above the fray. By using his office to promote a partisan agenda, he has betrayed his institution, and the nation.