this is preaching to the choir but friend Byron writes so well I can't help but forward it to you

[Michael Eisenstadt]

===================================================
                A  RISKY  STRATEGY
===================================================

Employing nine eleven is a risky strategy for an
Administration which was negligent in 2001.

===================================================


--- Aram wrote:

> Somehow Bush is
> being represented as a thoughtful, decent person.

[LOL]

> After all that's in his
> record over the last 3 years, they run a TV ad
> showing him waving a flag and
> the crowd goes nuts. 
> Peggy Noonan, a typist at the
> Washington Times, says,
> "Powerful, very powerful." 


Peggy Noonan is a Republican speechwriter.

--Byron


              

===================================================
~ : ~ : ~ : ~ : ~ : ~ : ~ : ~ : ~ : ~ : ~ : ~ : ~ : 
===================================================

               A  RISKY  STRATEGY

===================================================

The nine eleven ad is very interesting.

But is it wise?

The ludicrous image of portraying Bush as the "man who
defended us against terrorist attack" is perhaps not a
wise idea on their part.

The Bush team (Bush is just a guy who eats pretzels
and does warmups in his rumpus room) did not defend
us. 

Bush was as AWOL on the security of this country as he
was AWOL in the National Guard. 

His understanding of national security in 2001 was as
phony as his flight jacket video op on the aircraft
carrier. 

His incompetence of the same order as the lack of
planning for the consequences of invading Iraq.


                  ~ : ~ : ~ :


The simple fact is that Bush did *not* defend us
against terrorist attack. 

Of course, this is prima facie obvious. 

Nine-eleven happened and it happened on his watch. 


                  ~ : ~ : ~ :


The refusal to face up to this is avoidance of the
most unjustified sort. 

This avoidance was encouraged because immediately
after nine eleven, few of the general public knew of
the level of warnings. As a result, few even thought
to ask why there wasn't an enhanced air defense.
(There was a feeble air defense of a very confused
kind; this has been downplayed, perhaps to avoid
raising questions.)

Perhaps it was thought that without warnings an
enhanced air defense wasn't called for. 

To the public, the attack seemed to come out of
nowhere -- although we had been heavily involved in
the Middle East for many years. Bombardment abroad was
good entertainment, but we were innocents abroad. The
implication of earlier terrorist attacks was also
ignored. 

And then of course the white powder showed up, and we
were under further international attack for a month or
more. 

Thus the media and the public was distracted.

But as has since then turned out to be very clear,
there were warnings, and plenty of them, lots of them.

Why did the Bush crowd ignore the warnings? History
will eventually explain why. Incompetence, their plans
to invade Afghanistan, the usual pop-off nuttiness
that we have seen again and again since then. The
point is, they simply let the warnings stand, and did
nothing.

A bunch of doofusses like this is not what you want in
charge of your country in perilous times.


                  ~ : ~ : ~ :


In the absence of full knowledge, the nine-eleven
issue was shaped in terms of Bush planning "endless
war" abroad.

Aggression abroad appealed to the far right, a bloc
which had played an important role in the campaign (it
was one of Rush Limbaugh's roles to herd this bloc)
and of course, so did Bush's own lameness and jerk-off
remarks.

Furthermore (as I mentioned recently) the "politics of
umbrage" utilized by Rowe right through to the stolen
election in Florida was also well-suited to shape
"nine eleven" in terms of bluster and military
aggression. 

In short, the pre-existing Bush style and political
strategy was ideal for turning attention away from
their dereliction in 2001.

                  ~ : ~ : ~ :


As a result it has taken a while for it to become
clear just how incompetent they were, how unconcerned
with elementary issues of American security. 

And in fact their reckless agression in the Middle
East, their cavalier lying to promote it, their
attacks on civil liberties, are all one of the same
with their irresponsibility in 2001. 

Tragically, it is in their political interest for them
to continue to carry out aggression (something the
neocons intend to do in any case) and decrease civil
liberties.

                    ~ : ~


Therefore, there are three very substantial reasons to
reject the Bush team and vote them out of office.

The first is that it is not in the interests of any
country to have incompetent jerk-offs running it,
plunging it into military quagmires abroad.

The second is that it is not in the interests of any
country to have in office a group of doofusses with a
sad record of *not* having defended the country.

The third is that their political fortunes benefit
from expanding war and decreasing liberties -- posing
an extremely serious risk. 


                  ~ : ~ : ~ :


Poltics as usual allowed the war party to make its
first major move since Vietnam. Politics as usual has
to be laid aside to get them out.

Bush and his team of incompetents need to be thrown
out on their ear.

Their use of "nine eleven" in their first campaign ads
is an affront to the victims of nine eleven and to the
families of the victims -- families repeatedly dissed
by this administration.

But their use of "nine eleven" in their ads is a risky
strategy on their part. 

The more they mis-use "nine eleven", the more they are
setting up their negligence to be an issue.


                   ~  ::  ~

Bush did *not* defend us against terrorist attack in
nine-eleven. Through incompetence and negligence,
Bush's crowd and Junior himself did exactly the
opposite.


=====================================================
--Byron
=====================================================