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

[Jon Ford]

Michael-- Byron has his point, although as an ad,  Bush's self-promotion  is 
powerful and can't be totally refuted: He was there, he made some decisions; 
at least he is experienced in making these judgments under pressure (even if 
his were wrong,as we would  say).What would Kerry have done that was better? 
He needs to come up with an answer to this. Just saying Bush's ads shouldn't 
have been aired sounds like an appeal to notions of censorship.

Jon



>From: Michael Eisenstadt <michaele@ando.pair.com>
>Reply-To: austin-ghetto-list@pairlist.net
>To: austin-ghetto-list@pairlist.net
>Subject: this is preaching to the choir but friend Byron writes so well I 
>can't help but forward it to you
>Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2004 13:31:57 -0600
>
>===================================================
>                 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
>=====================================================
>

_________________________________________________________________
Create a Job Alert on MSN Careers and enter for a chance to win $1000! 
http://msn.careerbuilder.com/promo/kaday.htm?siteid=CBMSN_1K&sc_extcmp=JS_JASweep_MSNHotm2