posted on September 13, 2001 11:39:21 AM newThat's fascist.
Yes it is. I'm appalled that posters here would advocate a mindless groupthink and attempt to shut down the honest opinions of others. Everyone here will support this country in any meaningful action that it takes to seek retribution. But if we are supposed to suspend freedom of thought and expression then what in the hell are we fighting for -- that is the very basis of every other freedom that we possess. To advocate it be forfeited for the sake of political correctness and expediency is absolutely absurd.
posted on September 13, 2001 11:45:29 AM new
What seems to be lacking in some of the comments is a sense of responsibility for our words. If you're going to take a position against our President during a time of national crisis I would hope that you would state facts to back up your positions -... To merely speculate about what he may or may not or should or should not have done at this early juncture doesn't seem responsible. The fact that he hasn't been on t.v. 24/7 doesn't make him weak. IMO, it shows me that he's working as diligently as I would expect.
As to the question whether this administration is trying to blame Clinton... The truth is that there is much, much more that could have been said if the Bush administration had any interest whatsoever in trying to take political advantage of this tragedy. Clinton wasn't to blame but it would be fairly easy to build a case against him if anyone were inclined to do so. What little bit has been spouted by irresponsible politicians are nothing more than the typical political posturing and they should be ashamed of themselves. I can only hope that it'll backfire on them.
posted on September 13, 2001 11:46:41 AM newMaybe what Im trying to say is, express it, but stand united. Dont let the enemy see our doubts. Thats what they will rely on in future. A house divided WILL fall.
Bush has been on TV three times (by my count) since the attack. Each time he has said nothing. He laid down one empty cliche after another, which I suppose some people thought sounded patriotic but to me sounded like a whole lot of air.
There are thousands upon thousands of real people dead, crushed, dismembered, buried, burned alive, blown to bits, laying in bloody pieces around the World Financial Center ... there are hundreds of lost souls wandering the streets with photos of their loved ones pasted to their chests and chanting a mantra of "Have you seen ...
There are mothers who can't tell their children whether their fathers are alive ... there are people who will be forever haunted by the final words of their loved ones, heard through the static of a cell phone connection ...
The whole world is holding its breath as we wait to see what kind of armed conflict will come of this action ...
And our President lays a bunch of shopworn cliches on us ... oh, and a "God bless." All mouthed straight off a teleprompter.
Look at that video footage of the planes striking the towers again -- that was real. Then consider our President's responses so far. I'm sorry, but the "God bless" and all the rest doesn't cut it. It doesn't even come close.
posted on September 13, 2001 11:50:48 AM new
> By LEONARD PITTS JR. Miami Herald
They pay me to tease shades of meaning from social and cultural issues, to provide words that help make sense of that which troubles the American soul. But in this moment of airless
shock when hot tears sting disbelieving eyes, the only thing I can find to say, the only words that seem to fit, must be addressed to the unknown author of this suffering.
> You monster. You beast. You unspeakable bastard.
> What lesson did you hope to teach us by your coward's attack on our World Trade Center, our Pentagon, us? What was it you hoped we would learn?
Whatever it was, know that you failed. Did you want us to respect your cause? You just damned it.Did you want to make us fear? You just steeled our resolve.
Did you want to tear us apart? You just brought us together.
Let me tell you about my people. We are a vast and quarrelsome family, a family rent by racial, cultural, political and class division, but a family nonetheless. We're frivolous, yes,
capable of expending tremendous emotional energy on pop cultural minutiae -- a singer's revealing dress, a ball team's misfortune, a cartoon mouse.
> We're wealthy, too, spoiled by the ready availability of trinkets and material goods, and maybe because of that, we walk through life with a certain sense of blithe entitlement. We are fundamentally decent,
though -- peace-loving and compassionate. We struggle to know the right thing and to do it. And we are, the overwhelming majority of us, people of faith,
believers in a just and loving God.
>Some people -- you, perhaps -- think that any or all of this makes us weak. You're mistaken. We are not weak. Indeed, we are strong in ways that cannot be measured by
arsenals.
>Yes, we're in pain now. We are in mourning, and we are in shock. We're still grappling with the unreality of the awful thing you did, still working to
make ourselves understand that this isn't a special effect from some Hollywood blockbuster, isn't the plot from a Tom Clancy novel.
> Both in terms of the awful scope of its ambition and the probable final death toll, your attacks are likely to go down as the worst acts of terrorism in the history of the
United States and, indeed, the history of the world. You've bloodied us as we have never been bloodied before. But there's a gulf of difference between
making us bloody and making us fall. This is the lesson Japan was taught to its bitter sorrow the last time anyone hit us this hard, the last time anyone
brought us such abrupt and monumental pain. When roused, we are righteous in our outrage, terrible in our force. When provoked by this level of barbarism, we
will bear any suffering, pay any cost, go to any length, in the pursuit of justice.
>I tell you this without fear of contradiction. I know my people, as you do not. What I know reassures me. It also causes me to tremble with dread of the
future.
>In days to come, there will be recrimination and accusation, fingers pointing to determine whose failure allowed this to happen and what can be done to
prevent it from happening again. There will be heightened security, misguided talk of revoking basic freedoms. We'll go forward from this moment sobered,
chastened, sad. But determined, too. Unimaginably determined.
>There is steel beneath this velvet. That aspect of our character is seldom understood by those who don't know us well. On this day, the family's
bickering is put on hold. As Americans we will weep, as Americans we will mourn, and as Americans we will rise in defense of all that we cherish.
>Still, I keep wondering what it was you hoped to teach us. It occurs to me that maybe you just wanted us to know the depths of your hatred. If that's the
case, consider the message received. And take this message in exchange: You don't know my people. You don't know what we're about.
You don't know what you just started.
>But you're about to learn.
Why does this come from a newspaperman in Florida, and not from the President of the United States of america?
posted on September 13, 2001 11:51:41 AM new
I guess I'm just not sure what you're looking for Spaz. If he didn't express sympathy and understanding that would most certainly be an issue, imo. I've seen him speak at least a half dozen times since the tragedy. Actually, I think he needs to shut up and get on with it... I don't need to know every move and it's really starting to grind my nerves that he's taking entirely too much time making appearances. Just shows how differently we can see the same thing, I guess.
posted on September 13, 2001 11:53:00 AM newKRS I believe that he has... as I just said - Bush needs to shut up with all the hand holding and get on with his job.
Not paranoid anywhere else but here!
[ edited by mybiddness on Sep 13, 2001 11:53 AM ]
posted on September 13, 2001 11:53:45 AM new
LindaK, maybe you're right. I do try and see what's written between the lines of what somebody posts and might come up with a totally different assumption than others. So what? If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I have seen Shosh, krs, spaz, hjw and other posters slammed for their comments being taken out of context and have almost lost my cool over it, but realize we are all entitled to read what we want out of other posts.
If Shosh was angry, hurt, whatever, then perhaps that should have been a clue to you that her words were spoken under duress. Hopefully, if you've read any of her other posts you will realize where Shosh really stands.
And as far as being "United", we ALL are for heaven's sake. Remember the Republicans and the Democrats never agreeing? Because they are separate does that mean they are not United? Geez! We just have our individual thoughts and ideas....nothing more.
posted on September 13, 2001 11:59:48 AM newI guess I'm just not sure what you're looking for Spaz.
See the commentary krs quoted, mybiddness. Bush has said nothing remotely human, reassuring, impassioned, or inspirational since this whole thing began. Sh*t, in his first speech he referred to the terrorists as "folks"!!!
posted on September 13, 2001 12:02:20 PM new
A powerful editorial.
On this day, the family's bickering is put on hold. As Americans we will weep, as Americans we will mourn, and as Americans we will rise in defense of all that we cherish.
I believe that was what some of the posters here were hoping for. Congress seems to be able to manage it, thank goodness.
posted on September 13, 2001 12:07:25 PM new
Could it possibly be that whoever committed this crime thought of Bush as being weak and a perfect time to do such a thing?
posted on September 13, 2001 12:07:43 PM new
Historically, the First Amendment has been the first thing to go in a crisis.
Let me give you all a little to ponder as this "act of war" continues to unfold and what the leadership, no matter who is in office is going to be impacted.
You will duely note and I continue to stand by my previous statements concerning military actions we MUST consider taking.
Imagine that the Cold War was still going. Now think about the Mafia in the US, except that it actually committs all illegal activities outside the US, and those acts are directed towards the interests of the USSR.
The US publicly condemns the Mafia and its activities, but puts no resources towards stopping or deporting any of its members. The Mafia is also allowed to travel freely among the US's allies. They can travel to Canada, France, the UK, with impunity.
The people of the US and its allied countries openly cheer on the Mafia and offer any support they can from the church pulpits, in the schools, offering the service of their sons and daughters, their wealth. The US govt also supplies intellegence and money indirectly to the Mafia.
Should the USSR take military action against any of these western countries after Mafia members enter the USSR and blow up the Kremlin ?
Would the USSR accept the "plausible deniability" of the western allied countries that they have no control or association with these awful people ?
The terrorists attacks that we just suffered will not cease until the Islamic ifrastructure that supports it is destroyed - this ifrastructure operates in several Islamic countries, and as I stated earlier and has since been reported in the News, that it operates right here in the US. Afghanistan has just threatened more attacks on the US if military action is taken in Afghanistan. A military "extraction" of Bin Laden is wrought with possibilities of failure. My best wishes and hopes are with the men and women that may go in for any military action against Bin Laden. Our past record for these types or operations are dismal. But even catching him will not stop terrorist activities.
Our president, REGARDLESS of who he/she may be, is faced with this dilemma of exactly what to do.
If we change our foreign policy to meet the demands of the Islamic contingent, we will get bombed again whenever we don't bow to their wishes.
The president is also hindered by the fact that at present we can not act militarily because we do not know if the threats by Afghanistan can be carried out. The American people will erupt in anger against its political leadership as never seen before if another attack were to occur.
So we have a "get ready and wait" situation at present.
Unfortunately, whoever is in the Whitehouse for this tragedy, will be seen as another Jimmy Carter. An economy in distress, our world power status challenged without being answered.
When our leadership uses the term "war", I hope they consider exactly what it means to meet this challenge of an enemy that includes at least 5 countries.
Unless and until we take this war to these countries, it will continue to be fought right here in the US.
But I don't think the US can stand much more of it here. The "talk" about the innocent being killed in these Islamic countries should we go to war will end when the next attack hits the US, and some will feel quite foolish.
I am also amazed that many people do not see that we must now enter upon the same security levels that Israel observes, and they still get bombed.
posted on September 13, 2001 12:07:50 PM new
If I'm not mistaken I've seen Leonard Pitts articles before. I believe that writing is his job... could be wrong but I'm pretty sure he's a columnist.
That's not what I want Bush doing right now. His speeches are not going to satisfy everyone... They've reassured me - but obviously not others. So, what's to argue? We could pick anything apart - that's easy enough to do - but why would we want to? And, especially right now. I just don't get it.
posted on September 13, 2001 12:09:41 PM newKraftdinner This has obviously been an ongoing plan far prior to Bush's Presidency... I think you're stretching with that one.
posted on September 13, 2001 12:17:11 PM new
Mybiddness - How Bush reacts to this situation is of little importance here. If his decisions are passive he's weak. If they are aggressive then he's a warmonger. The effectiveness of his actions are meaningless where this board is concerned. And yes, Shosh did advocate firing upon the White House to remove Bush. Oh, I forgot, she didn't MEAN it. Please, don't pi$$ on my leg and tell me it's raining!
posted on September 13, 2001 12:17:55 PM new
I did see that KRS. My point was just that I think this is what he does for a living... as opposed to the President's responsibilities at this time. I seem to have read his work before and if he's who I think he is he's a dynamite writer.
posted on September 13, 2001 12:19:04 PM new
I said that mybidd because I wonder why now? Could the election and the overall dissatisfaction with the new President be what prompted this to happen now? Yes, I've heard this has been planned for years but am wondering what the catalyst was.
posted on September 13, 2001 12:19:10 PM new
As I'm posting this, there is a detailed White House press conference on TV news. Of course, posters here would prefer a song and dance by the president to further fuel their frenzy.
I am a Democrat and I don't like Bush, but now is the time for us to support our president. To continue the childish Bush-bashing is, at this point, unpatriotic and demoralizing.
The very government that you ridicule is the one that makes possible the never-ending childish comments in this forum. It's time to assume responsibility and look at the bigger picture.
posted on September 13, 2001 12:32:10 PM newkrafty...Just forget it, my friend. Some people have an insatiable need to always be right...So be it...It is their right...I refuse to play their game, and to the best of my knowledge, I am not on trial here..
********
Gosh Shosh! My "About Me" Page
[ edited by shoshanah on Sep 13, 2001 12:36 PM ]
posted on September 13, 2001 12:38:17 PM new
Kraftdinner - Let's assume that even though it was posted with a very serious tone that she was joking. Would you have allowed the same latitude to a poster who made that comment about President Clinton while he was in office? Would you have dimissed it as "she was joking" or "oh, she must have just been upset"?
This topic is 12 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new7new8new9new10new11new12new
