Apparently, Keith is going to do a scathing special commentary on the politicization of 9/11 tonight.

Apparently, Keith is going to do a scathing special commentary on the politicization of 9/11 tonight.

I know you feel that way too Glenn, but to a lot of peeps showing a documentary/film thing at the Republican convention is not politicizing 911.

But if he does, that is Olby wan esque. F all U's, I'll do what I want.

They could have done a tribute to 9/11 and it not be political. However they did it totally wrong and made it political. It's a real shame because I think McCain had done a nice job of promoting his service and experience and national security credentials without fear mongering. And then he did that.

And that seems to be way some peeps take that...for some reason. I took it as a tribute to 911.

I didn't watch ALL of the Dems Convention but did they do a tribute to 911? If not, why not?

I never saw a tribute for the Dems. And I don't understand why the repubs did. If the convention fell on that day, I could totally understand. Or if it was a milestone (ie 5th anniversary, etc coming up). But why did they choose to do that? Why not a tribute to the Katrina Victims? Why not the Oklahoma City bombing? There are plenty of victims that need to be kept in our minds. They chose to do the 9/11 thing because they wanted to plant a seed in your mind for tomorrow so when you watch any coverage of it you think about how McCain will keep you safe and Obama will not. It was totally political.

I know you feel that way too Glenn, but to a lot of peeps showing a documentary/film thing at the Republican convention is not politicizing 911.

But if he does, that is Olby wan esque. F all U's, I'll do what I want.
For me, it wasn't as much about the images/footage that they used (although that seems to be what upset Olbermann the most) it was the script/narration that bothered me.

Masquerading that video as a "tribute" is a farce. They used the imagery of the dead as a platform for political gain, plain and simple. Do you disagree?

The fear mongering really pisses me off.


Video transcript:

The first attack occurred in Iran – 444 days, America held hostage.

Then again, and again, at our embassies, our Navy.

They grew ever more bold. There call was: On those who believe in God and hopes for reward, to obey God's command to kill Americans.

And kill us they did, this time on American soil. The date was September 11th – 9/11.

This enemy sworn to our destruction has been at war with us for decades. This we now know. Jihadists are still intent on attacking civilization, freedom, the very soul of America.

It is a war we never chose to fight, and for too long we've looked the other way. But the enemy is wrong. This is a war America will win. We'll have a president who knows how.

We remember where we were that day, what happened, what we were doing, how our lives changed. We remember buildings burning, bodies falling, so many stories of bravery.

We remember.

We will carry memories of your beautiful faces and those loving voices now gone forever. And we will never let it happen again.

The parts in bold are really what piss me off.

The inference is, vote for McCain or thousands more will die.



p.s. I copy and pasted that transcript from some right wing site, and they obviously didn't take the time to spell things correctly.

The ONE line that seems political to me is "We'll have a prez that knows how"

That line just doesn't even seem to fit the overall narration, imo.

point given. But I still think its fine to do a tribute to 911.

Obama had a great response about the use of that video, IMO.

He said that, "it's not something that we would have done". He said that "9/11 is something that should pull us all together, it's not something to be used to divide us". (paraphrase)

And that is exactly how they tried to use that video.

Obama had a great response about the use of that video, IMO.

He said that, "it's not something that we would have done". He said that "9/11 is something that should pull us all together, it's not something to be used to divide us". (paraphrase)

And that is exactly how they tried to use that video.

And I couldn't disagree more.

Its not a dem or repub thing, its an America thing. "WE" were attacked, not Repubs, all of America. Repubs want to remember an attack on our homeland and there is nothing wrong with that.

We just see things differently.

Read that transcript again and tell me that there is nothing divisive in there.

It's full of it.

Its not a dem or repub thing, its an America thing. "WE" were attacked, not Repubs, all of America. Repubs want to remember an attack on our homeland and there is nothing wrong with that.


^But how can you say that given this:


The ONE line that seems political to me is "We'll have a prez that knows how"

That line just doesn't even seem to fit the overall narration, imo.


That line was clearly meant to divide. It was meant to divide people into those who care enough about our security to vote for McCain and those who don't have national security high enough on their list.

It a fraction of the overall tribute.

It a fraction of the overall tribute.
Which makes it even more sinister, IMO.

It's almost subliminal. It's propaganda. It's demagoguery.

Which makes it even more sinister, IMO.

It's almost subliminal. It's propaganda. It's demagoguery.

Sinister? wow

You bolded "This is a war America will win"

How is that devisive?

Yeah, sinister.

I told you I was pissed and wanted to fight somebody.

It's covert bullshit.

Yeah, sinister.

I told you I was pissed and wanted to fight somebody.

It's covert bullshit.

See, theres a lil Republican in all of us. :)

You bolded "This is a war America will win"

How is that devisive?

When taken together with "We'll have a president who knows how", it's a shot at Obama.

TRANSLATION:

If you vote for McCain, we will win.

If not, then...

There's also a bunch of cheap shots at Clinton in there, too.

It's a very divisive and partisan message.

Also, here's a request that won't be granted... :)

Can I get a couple ??? after 'The Politicization of 911'

Also, here's a request that won't be granted... :)

Can I get a couple ??? after 'The Politicization of 911'

You get one, them bitches are expensive.

Also, here's a request that won't be granted... :)

Can I get a couple ??? after 'The Politicization of 911'
I say no. Because the politicization of 911 does happen. The debate in here is not whether it exists, but whether the convention tribute contained it.

The title did not say "republicans politicize 911"

You get one, them bitches are expensive.

Invoice me, I'll forward it to SDB for payment.

I think new title is a nice compromise.

Although it is my opinion that the question mark is unnecessary, I'll concede that not everyone shares that opinion, so there it is.

WTF where "Fair and Balanced" happens!

9/11 politicization just depresses me. The 9/11 footage at the RNC was tasteless and phony.

But, what I'm curious about are the legislative plans are in place for the next major disaster. Remember, the PATRIOT Act was largely written long before 9/11. Remember that people were eyeballing Iraq before 9/11. I'm fully expecting a cyber-PATRIOT act in the can, waiting for some major online disaster. The next disaster will be used to justify invading Iran even if Iran had nada to do with it.

The next disaster will be used to justify invading Iran even if Iran had nada to do with it.

That video is phony bullshit. Why did they include iranian hostage crisis, which was totally unrelated to 9/11. In fact, al qaeda just released an anti-iran video? If they are picking random 'jihadist' attacks, why not start with munich (because carter wasn't president?).

Where was the coverage of the 1980s hi-jackings and the bombing in scotland or the beirut bombing (all of which during reagan's presidency). why did they systematically choose attacks that occurred during dem presidents but ignore attacks during republican administrations?

Where was the footage of clinton's cruise missle strikes in retaliation for the embassy attacks? I certainly remember a lot of republican criticism for that.

Where was the footage of the arms for hostages deals with iran during iran-contra.

Since the republifucks include the embassy and cole attacks, what about these incidencts that happened after 9/11?
2002
June 14, Karachi, Pakistan: bomb exploded outside American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12. Linked to al-Qaeda.

2003
May 12, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: suicide bombers killed 34, including eight Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners. Al-Qaeda suspected.

2004
May 29–31, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists attack the offices of a Saudi oil company in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, take foreign oil workers hostage in a nearby residential compound, leaving 22 people dead including one American.
June 11–19, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists kidnap and execute Paul Johnson Jr., an American, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Dec. 6, Jiddah, Saudi Arabia: terrorists storm the U.S. consulate killing 5 before being subdued by Saudi security who killed five of the militants.


fuck partisan "tributes" to 9/11

And I couldn't disagree more.

Its not a dem or repub thing, its an America thing. "WE" were attacked, not Repubs, all of America. Repubs want to remember an attack on our homeland and there is nothing wrong with that.

We just see things differently.
Or you're blind...

There's also a bunch of cheap shots at Clinton in there, too.

It's a very divisive and partisan message.
This shouldn't be an argument. It's obviously partisan. The real question is it ok to do that? My feelings is no.

Since the republifucks include the embassy and cole attacks, what about these incidencts that happened after 9/11?


May as well throw this one in too...

2003-Present. Jihadists flock from all parts of the globe to Iraq to kill americans. Death toll in the thousands. Hundreds, if not thousands, of "graduates" from the american university of terrorist training in Iraq return home far better equipped to carry out bombings and insurgency than they ever could've been in the pre-9/11 afghan training camps. Some continue on to Afghanistan for their post-graduate work.


We're training them over there so we can fight them everywhere.

Or you're blind...

Or you...

Or you...
Cool, to what am I blind?

Cool, to what am I blind?

That Repubs simply want a tribute to the victims of 911.

NO U

I think I've run Dray out of here. :( Prolly along with others.

That Repubs simply want a tribute to the victims of 911.
at the RNC convention? LOL....So when all signs of the scenario's timing, location, and content points to ratings ploy and politics, it must be good hearted coincidence? Blind you say?

Coincidence? No, it was planned at an event where the Repub all come together in one place at their convnetion.

I think I've run Dray out of here. :( Prolly along with others.
Oh, I'm still reading. But I don't bother replying anymore.

You did run me out of here through pure disrespect that can't be respected.

I say many times "tell me where I said that" and you respond by saying I don't know much of anything. Classy move.

Coincidence? No, it was planned at an event where the Repub all come together in one place at their convnetion.
so are you dumb or playing dumb to avoid a legit response?

Oh, I'm still reading. But I don't bother replying anymore.

You did run me out of here through pure disrespect that can't be respected.

I say many times "tell me where I said that" and you respond by saying I don't know much of anything. Classy move.
Tahoe is well versed in his far right ways. Keep screaming the same point w/o really proving it, quote foxnews if you do try to prove it, derail the topic into " its the liberals fault" or "liberals are worse", and when arguing keep going until the other person gets annoyed by your obnoxious element(because your own mind it gives you a way to declare yourself smarter and right about everything).

That Repubs simply want a tribute to the victims of 911.

I am waiting to find out why the republicans included all of the attacks that occurred during democratic administrations and ommitted all of the attacks during republican administrations. (with exception for the attack they shamelessly blame on clinton).

I'll accept LOL to mean that you agree with me entirely and that you think it was republican propaganda.

Oh, I'm still reading. But I don't bother replying anymore.

You did run me out of here through pure disrespect that can't be respected.

I say many times "tell me where I said that" and you respond by saying I don't know much of anything. Classy move.

I'd say theres enough disrespect to go around.

Sorry to ya for my disrespect.

so are you dumb or playing dumb to avoid a legit response?

I thought I gave you a legitimate response, but you seem to want to ignore it.

Tahoe is well versed in his far right ways. Keep screaming the same point w/o really proving it, quote foxnews if you do try to prove it, derail the topic into " its the liberals fault" or "liberals are worse", and when arguing keep going until the other person gets annoyed by your obnoxious element(because your own mind it gives you a way to declare yourself smarter and right about everything).

LOL I'm seriously not followin all of that.

I'll try again tomorrow.

YOWZA

A little over 8 minutes long, btw

VAMqYh2E_wA

A comment on the youtube vid.

McCain: It's simple... kill Bin Laden...
America: Why haven't you done it already?
McCain: If you're good at something, never do it for free.


http://bp3.blogger.com/_M_BoahnYmV0/SDcxZv-EYCI/AAAAAAAAAKc/Mp2lukMl4m4/s320/McCainJoker.JPG

I'm still waiting on a response to this Tahoe (the only reason I am asking you is because you are the only defender of them in this thread):


I never saw a tribute for the Dems. And I don't understand why the repubs did. If the convention fell on that day, I could totally understand. Or if it was a milestone (ie 5th anniversary, etc coming up). But why did they choose to do that? Why not a tribute to the Katrina Victims? Why not the Oklahoma City bombing? There are plenty of victims that need to be kept in our minds. They chose to do the 9/11 thing because they wanted to plant a seed in your mind for tomorrow so when you watch any coverage of it you think about how McCain will keep you safe and Obama will not. It was totally political.

it's too hard to argue with that logic stuff you're using, Chris

I'm still waiting on a response to this Tahoe (the only reason I am asking you is because you are the only defender of them in this thread):

Does that surprise you?

I've said it a couple times already.

We were attacked on our homeland by terrorists. They succeeded. It war. I don't know what else to say, if we don't beat them, they are going to beat us. They want to end democracy as we know it.

We are still fighting that war today. Why not remember the begining of it and remember the victims of that attack?

Maybe I should answer your question with a question, Why not do a tribute? Why criticize someone who wants to do a tribute?

YOWZA

A little over 8 minutes long, btw

VAMqYh2E_wA

I watched the first 30 secs and couldn't listen anymore. lol. I was hoping for something I could watch.

I believe 100% that he believes 100% what he says there. I just hope he knows he's talking to a small number of peeps, who feels in their heart of hearts like he does. Doesn't make him/them wrong and doesn't make him/them right.

Maybe I should answer your question with a question, Why not do a tribute? Why criticize someone who wants to do a tribute?
Because it was not 9/11. Why not do a tribute today? Why do it during the convention? Because they wanted to make a political statement from 9/11. Period.

They could not do a tribute today, because it wouldn't have reached all the people they did on national tv at the convention and their propaganda would have been for naught.

They chose to do the tribute then because they felt they could get away with their propaganda (when it never would have flied with the average person if they pulled that crap today).

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/10/seventh-anniversary-white-house/

Because it was not 9/11. Why not do a tribute today? Why do it during the convention? Because they wanted to make a political statement from 9/11. Period.

They could not do a tribute today, because it wouldn't have reached all the people they did on national tv at the convention and their propaganda would have been for naught.

They chose to do the tribute then because they felt they could get away with their propaganda (when it never would have flied with the average person if they pulled that crap today).

Bolded: In your opinion.

On the rest of it, Chris, this is America, you are entitled to your opinion. We are entitled to feel the way we feel.

But, imo, you are basically calling anyone who liked the tribute a sheep, stupid for following, etc. I wish some on the left would at least give some of us on the right the respect to say that we have thought things through. I prolly do the same thing though. I'll watch myself better in the days ahead.

I'm saying anyone that liked the tribute doesn't have a problem with 9/11 being politicized. Whether or not that makes them a sheep or stupid is your call I guess.

And I did say they thought it through. It was a premeditated propaganda effort for sure.

I'm saying anyone that liked the tribute doesn't have a problem with 9/11 being politicized. Whether or not that makes them a sheep or stupid is your call I guess.

And I did say they thought it through. It was a premeditated propaganda effort for sure.

And I'm saying you are flat out wrong. It wasn't politicized (cept for maybe 1 line) to me and I liked it. So for that, I can say you are definately wrong.

And as far as thinking it through, I was talking about the peeps, not the peeps who did the convention.

1 line constitutes politicizing.

1 punch is still assaulting your wife.

1 surge in a country is still an invasion.

The fact that it is one line doesn't absolve it. It only takes one line to make that connection.

I didn't even hear that line till I read it.

Anyway, its nothing like, I should say NOTHING compared to what the Dems did at Wellstone's funeral. Now that was a despicable display of politicization, this was not, imo.

I don't know anything about that. You'll have to show me what you are talking about or I cannot concede that point.

You don't remember Wellstone's funeral? The candidates said they would take the day off from politics, much like yesterday, and then at the funeral it turned into a rallying cry for ??? the old Minni politician that ran for Prez (can't think of his name right now) and Dems and Repubs ended up walking out of the funeral. It was a disgrace.

Anyway, no one is changing any minds in this thread. You have your feelings on it, I have mine.

No, I never saw any coverage of it (doesn't mean it didn't happen, I may have been busy, out of town, etc).

If you have a video, article or something I would be happy to see it and comment though.

I just read an article about it that was highly critical of the Dems. I don't think it really compares to the 9/11 "tribute" though.

1) they certainly had a reason for their tribute (since he just died), and I'm still waiting for a reason the 911 tribute weeks before 9/11 (and 7 years later).

2) I obviously didn't see the exact comments, but I don't have a problem with them asking for people to vote for him to carry on the legacy he started. Again, I'd have to see the specific comments to judge whether they crossed the line.

3) Wellstone was a democrat in the middle of a race, so the whole thing was already partisan. 9/11 was made partisan by the republicans.

So, I don't think this was even close to the 9/11 issue. They may have crossed the line but I can't say without a transcript or video. Either way, it's apples and oranges IMO.

I hope this is my last post in this thread, but the peeps that orchestrated 911 are still alive. We are still fighting that war. They STILL want to do us harm.

I haven't thought this through yet, and I might be stepping into a pile of dung, but its like fighting WW2, we'd still remember the victims of Pearl Harbor during that war.

Its in our present, not in our past, quite yet, as you say.

I doubt that helps much, but there it is.

You don't remember Wellstone's funeral? The candidates said they would take the day off from politics, much like yesterday, and then at the funeral it turned into a rallying cry for ??? the old Minni politician that ran for Prez (can't think of his name right now) and Dems and Repubs ended up walking out of the funeral. It was a disgrace.

Anyway, no one is changing any minds in this thread. You have your feelings on it, I have mine.


You know what they say about two wrongs...

And Tahoe has obviously studied well at the "Academy of Neocon Thought". See him steering the subject away from the original topic?

Valid point. So do the tribute on 9/11.

Why do it at the convention? TO MAKE IT PARTISAN.

Valid point. So do the tribute on 9/11.

Why do it at the convention? TO MAKE IT PARTISAN.

Its called America

Its called America
Oh, so that was an American convention? That's wierd, I didn't see any Democrats there.

I also didn't hear them say lets make sure John McCain AND Barack Obama fight to keep us safe.

Americans were at the convention, you are trying to divide it up.

So you are trying to tell me that the tribute was done in front of a non partisan American audience and there was a non partisan call for Americans to remember the victims and make sure that whatever American president is elected this winter needs to keep us safe?

If some Americans want to have a tribute to 911 they can.

Is that a no to my question?

Is that a no to my question?

I'm saying see post #69

Post #69 does not address my question:


So you are trying to tell me that the tribute was done in front of a non partisan American audience and there was a non partisan call for Americans to remember the victims and make sure that whatever American president is elected this winter needs to keep us safe?

I need you to answer the bolded parts. Don't pull another Palin side step please.

Post #69 does not address my question:



I need you to answer the bolded parts. Don't pull another Palin side step please.

Sorry but thats exactly what I'm going to do.

You start your question with "You're telling me"

Not going there.

refer to 69

Can you two stop 69-ing each other?

I'm saying see post #69

That's what she said.
But Uncle Mxy beat me with a better post.

I'm hoping 74 and 75 go a long way to ending this thread.

I was done with this thread yesterday. Since you don't want to answer any questions, I'm not asking anymore. Consider this thread locked for me (barring any cheap shots to myself I would have to respond to).

Chris is a pansy.

I'm hoping 74 and 75 go a long way to ending this thread.
Thus the true motive of playing dumb to the point of people leaving is revealed.